Confederate Soldier Statues...

Sunshine

Established
Joined
Apr 11, 2017
Messages
252
Bullshit. Yes, it was over "states' rights". It was over "states' rights to own slaves".

I don't know the South from reading a novel, I know it from being born and raised there.
The primary reasons for the Civil War had more to do with economics than granting liberty to anyone. The Southern economy was agricultural, a continuation of the system that was in use since before and during the Revolutionary War. The Northern economy had shifted into a manufacturing economy as part of the Industrial Revolution. They may have not called them "slaves," but there was definitely a socioeconomic class of forced laborers in those factories, farms, mines and other industries. And let's not forget about indentured servants--people whose journeys from the Old World to the New were paid by sponsors, for whom the immigrants were legally required to work for a set number of years to pay off this debt. Such arrangements were easy to rig in the employers' favor, and the laborers had little or no legal recourse.

Southern plantations were the source of many of the crops that the Northerners used for food, and most of the raw materials, like cotton, used in the Northern factories. Both the raw materials and the finished products were most lucrative as exports, to England and the rest of Europe. Without those raw materials the Northern economy would have utterly failed, so when the Southern States decided to become their own nation, the Northern industrialists and politicians panicked, since they would no longer have access and/or control over the crops or the funds they generated.

The question of slavery WAS being debated in the national dialogue, and there were abolitionists in both the North and South working to end the practice. I believe that slavery would have died a natural death eventually, if the South had been given the time to adapt their economy. Looking at it from a political science point of view, the Northern Aggression, as many Southerners call it, was, in fact, an invasion onto their sovereign soil. Especially after they had succeeded.

States' rights versus the federal govt. was definitely a core issue of contention in the Civil War, and has been to this day. The Founders certainly never foresaw the size and scope of our current govt., or the extent of legal and financial control over the states, much less individuals. If they saw what we are dealing with today, they would rail against it.

And although they hijacked the abolitionists' argument to sell the war to the general populace, even Lincoln himself saw the vast multitude of newly freed slaves as a problem. He had plans to literally ship them back to Africa. That is why the nation of Liberia exists.

So, in trying to rid our nation of reminders of the war, such as a statue of Robert E. Lee, who, by all accounts was an exemplary soldier and leader in the US Army before the War, we are not only disrespecting and erasing his accomplishments, but those of all the men who fought, on both sides. By conquering such a formidable foe on the battlefield, the North's own soldiers and generals were earning their places in history, their right to be remembered.

And if we as a people choose to forget our past, our inheritance, and the reasons why, then not only are we doomed to repeat those mistakes, but we lose our perspective and our ability to help other nations or societies to overcome similar circumstances.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
And if we as a people choose to forget our past, our inheritance, and the reasons why, then not only are we doomed to repeat those mistakes, but we lose our perspective and our ability to help other nations or societies to overcome similar circumstances.
 
Joined
Aug 14, 2017
Messages
6
Okay. I am not sure where to begin. How is removing a monument rewriting history when the historical record stands? We know what happened. It is taught in schools.
Would you argue this hard against removing religious monuments? Or is it primarily the ones steeped in a history of racial subjugation and violence?
 

mecca

Superstar
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
7,122
And if we as a people choose to forget our past
Removing a statue is not forgetting the past... statues are not for learning history, they are for commemorating certain people. History is still taught and everyone will still learn the same things without the statue being there. Removing the statue just means that people don't want to commemorate or idolize this person for their actions.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
Okay. I am not sure where to begin. How is removing a monument rewriting history when the historical record stands? We know what happened. It is taught in schools.
Would you argue this hard against removing religious monuments? Or is it primarily the ones steeped in a history of racial subjugation and violence?
i was disgusted far more with the destruction of ancient buddhist temples by the taliban.

On 6 March 2001 The Times quoted Mullah Mohammed Omar as stating, "Muslims should be proud of smashing idols. It has given praise to Allah that we have destroyed them."[45] During a 13 March interview for Japan's Mainichi Shimbun, Afghan Foreign Minister Wakil Ahmad Mutawakel stated that the destruction was anything but a retaliation against the international community for economic sanctions: "We are destroying the statues in accordance with Islamic law and it is purely a religious issue."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan

as for your other questions, go and reread the thread. obviously, you missed it.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
Removing a statue is not forgetting the past... statues are not for learning history, they are for commemorating certain people. History is still taught and everyone will still learn the same things without the statue being there. Removing the statue just means that people don't want to commemorate or idolize this person for their actions.
start at page one and reread everything that has been said.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
I have not asked you a question.
not directly. but either you are repeating the same thing youve said throughout the post, or you are asking for a response to your comment which has been discussed already in 4 pages: Removing a statue is not forgetting the past... statues are not for learning history, they are for commemorating certain people. History is still taught and everyone will still learn the same things without the statue being there. Removing the statue just means that people don't want to commemorate or idolize this person for their actions.
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
I have read and reread and I still am not sure how removing a monument is erasing/rewriting history.
then tell me the converse-- how knocking down statues are going to remedy the mistakes of the past. from your POV, wouldnt leaving a statue up be a reminder of our past errors and to tear it down would have that erased from existence so we are doomed to repeat it?
the "its in history books" is total nonsense. history is being rewritten all the time. did you see james corbetts fantastic doc on standard oil on YT? he hired educators and teachers and formed his own "rockefeller foundation" so he could influence the education system and twist it so it suits his agenda. christopher dodd says, "they created their own stable of historians".

knock down the statues, rewrite history, let the millenials grow up to be totally ignorant of what really took place and why the statues were erected in the first place, leave no record left behind, and we are left with orwells words.

“The past was erased, the erasure was forgotten, the lie became the truth.”

start at 48:19
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
The statue was being moved to a history museum.. a place where arguably people would be more likely to look at it in its historical context and LEARN something.

I've seen no evidence or even cited argument that this statue as it existed prior to the decision to remove it was used in any sort of educational capacity or was anything more then a tribute/honor to the man it represented. A man that the local community decided it didn't want to honor anymore - as was their right.

Your arguing for state rights but denying a community their own rights to display a statue or not as they please.
 
Last edited:

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
The statue wasn't being moved to a history museum.. a place where arguably people would be more likely to look at it in its historical context and LEARN something.
Your arguing for state rights but denying a community their own rights to display a statue or not as they please.

do you think the community wants this down or a bunch of collegiate SJWs want this down? who are these thugs and vandals to rip the statue down without it getting due process?


check out the message by one of them at 1:44. "if the cities, towns, and states wont take down these confederate monuments, then we the people will do it for them." great! advocate mob rule.

if the state/community votes to take it down, then it is what it is. ill vehemently disagree but stand by the decision. would the ultra-leftist mob do the same? betcha buck they wouldnt.
 
Joined
Apr 12, 2017
Messages
2,024
I hate to break it to you, but many of the statues themselves were an attempt at re-writing history in the first place. As a nation we obviously were not ready to face the ugly reality so we needed those statues to save face and hide embarrassment over a lost cause by pretending that confederate leaders could also somehow be venerated. I have no doubt that some of them were even intended as a not-so-subtle public reminder for people of color that they had no place in their white communities. More re-written history: That particular flag was barely known as a symbol of the south and the confederacy until the end of the Jim Crow era continuing into the civil rights era and apparently 2017 as well (who would've guessed?)
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
In Virginia it was the community who voted to remove the statue and place it in a museum. It was voted and decided. This is the statue at issue in these protests.

Baltimore just removed its statues because Baltimore also decided to. NYC also currently moving to remove them because NYC wants to.. local decisions made by the people effected by it.

The Lee statue was in a university town so yeah there will be more liberal residents there, it is still their choice to remove it, they are the ones who live there.

How can you rant about states rights and deny these communities the right to do what they want on their own land?

If the "ultraleftist mob" was as bad as you claim these statues would have been removed by force decades ago
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
In Virginia it was the community who voted to remove the statue and place it in a museum. It was voted and decided. This is the statue at issue in these protests.
Baltimore just removed its statues because Baltimore also decided to. NYC also currently moving to remove them because NYC wants to.. local decisions made by the people effected by it.
The Lee statue was in a university town so yeah there will be more liberal residents there, it is still their choice to remove it, they are the ones who live there.
How can you rant about states rights and deny these communities the right to do what they want on their own land?

If the "ultraleftist mob" was as bad as you claim these statues would have been removed by force decades ago

decades ago, cultural marxism was in its infancy. now, its full blown contamination of the american population. is baltimore and NYC removing their statues because they fear rioting and violence and mob rule, or because the locals want this?
 

polymoog

Superstar
Joined
Jun 17, 2017
Messages
8,207
I hate to break it to you, but many of the statues themselves were an attempt at re-writing history in the first place. As a nation we obviously were not ready to face the ugly reality so we needed those statues to save face and hide embarrassment over a lost cause by pretending that confederate leaders could also somehow be venerated. I have no doubt that some of them were even intended as a not-so-subtle public reminder for people of color that they had no place in their white communities. More re-written history: That particular flag was barely known as a symbol of the south and the confederacy until the end of the Jim Crow era continuing into the civil rights era and apparently 2017 as well (who would've guessed?)
rewriting history by erecting a statue of a person who was at the event? not buying that argument. was he at the event or not?
anything written serves as a testament to what the mindset was at the time. leave it there for posterity to decide whether it was or was not accurate. no need to rip it down and destroy evidence of the past.
 

justjess

Superstar
Joined
Mar 16, 2017
Messages
11,510
decades ago, cultural marxism was in its infancy. now, its full blown contamination of the american population. is baltimore and NYC removing their statues because they fear rioting and violence and mob rule, or because the locals want this?
NYC and Baltimore have large African American populations (actually whites are a minority in many parts of NYC now). They are northern cities who were not part of the confederacy and the cities decided to remove them or are currently deciding if they will as is their right to do so. People are calling for it and if they decide to do that it's their choice. Assuming it's fear of riots is an assumption - they've been standing there all this time riot proof so far.

Virginia voted to remove them. That was their choice. For someone to be about state rights and deny them their right to make that choice is odd.

liberals didn't just wake up yesterday and decide racism and monuments to slavery were bad, despite your belief in "cultural Marxism" and it's relative infancy that remains true.

Years ago NYC had a big to do about honoring Colombus. As an Italian it was a little off putting but I understood. I didn't take it as an assult on my ancestors, just a recognition that despite that he was a controversial person who caused some negative feelings in enough people and so be it. I didn't get butt hurt over it.

These statues serve the people better in museums if you are truly worried about education.
 
Top