On Removing Confederate Statues

[Vort]

4 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Good point, and one worth thinking about. I think its a crucial difference when the killing was done at the behest of a legitimately organised, constitutional, democratically elected government. 

Those who formed the CSA would have insisted that their government was exactly those things, and that it was the hegemony of the US federal government, to which they (the Southern states) had never agreed either personally or historically, that violated those specifications. I think this is a good example of history being written by the winners.

[estradling75]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

 

In my middle age, I am beginning to recognize that subtlety is almost always lost in public discourse. Rather than bemoan this fact, I'm considering the idea that maybe we should just accept it and cater to it. Some people are historic Good Guys® and some are historic Bad Guys®. Whether they actually were "good" or "bad" is irrelevant; their symbolic status is all that matters. Let God decide how "good" they really were (or weren't); but for public purposes, we will exalt the Good Guys® and hang the Bad Guys® in effigy forevermore.

 

Indeed..  For example the Civil War is defined by many as being "about slavery."  While that is true it is also incomplete.  It also was about less government interference in living the life you choose to live..  Many people (including myself) love the idea of less government..  Thus the idea of southern pride is that they were historically willing to stand up to" the man".

Thus we have one side accuse the other to being supporters of slavery and the other side saying they support freedom and individual rights... and both are right or wrong depending on what bits of fact you are willing to accept and what bits of facts you are willing to ignore. Aka subtlety

[anatess2]

20 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Good point, and one worth thinking about. I think its a crucial difference when the killing was done at the behest of a legitimately organised, constitutional, democratically elected government. 

And herein is, once again, the difference between the USA and other countries.  The 50 State governments are ALSO legitimately organized, constitutional, and democratically elected governments.  Yes, each state has their own state constitution.  Yes, these state constitutions cede authority to the US Constitution by consent.  And thus the Civil War was about the Confederacy believing that the Federal Government usurped authority from the southern states that were not voluntarily and constitutionally ceded to them.

Who was right?  Well, one can debate that for ages.  The matter got settled when the Union won the war.

 

[Mike]

50 minutes ago, Vort said:

Those who formed the CSA would have insisted that their government was exactly those things, and that it was the hegemony of the US federal government, to which they (the Southern states) had never agreed either personally or historically, that violated those specifications. I think this is a good example of history being written by the winners.

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean history was written by the North?

[Vort]

1 minute ago, Mike said:

Not sure what you mean. Do you mean history was written by the North?

Absolutely. Jefferson Davis was a scoundrel. Abraham Lincoln stands as one of our greatest presidents and one of the noble figures of the nineteenth century, the man who freed the slaves. Had the South written our history, doubtless it would have claimed that slavery had little to do with the "War of Northern Aggression".

[Mike]

I'm interested in narrowing the scope and applying the positive remark made by @Just_A_Guy about taking each statue one at a time. I've only just started reading on the history of the statue and the park where it was originally erected. But the issue is the same., i.e. is it appropriate to remove the statue?

[prisonchaplain]

Just now, prisonchaplain said:

Our founding documents--particularly the Declaration of Independence--allow for rebellion against tyranny. Southerners believed that the political system was rigged against them, and that the federal government was making a wide variety of decisions--concerning tariffs, urban vs. rural, industry vs. agriculture, etc.--to constantly favor the Northern states, at the expense of the Southern ones. Ultimately, they believed America was already two countries, and that the upper half was siphoning from the Southern, under the cover of the "legitimately organised, constitutional, democratically elected government." So, they rebelled against tyranny. The canard that the Civil War was the righteous abolitionist North against the vile slavery of the South is gross over-simplification. The tearing down of Confederate statues is historic revisionism at its worst.

BTW:  It may help to know that my review of history has me favoring the North. Nevertheless, I hate to have people agree with me because of blatant caricature and total lack of nuance.

 

[Mike]

13 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

...The tearing down of Confederate statues is historic revisionism at its worst.

How is it historic revisionism? Some proponents of removal seem to perceive that the history of the statue in Charlottesville long after the Civil War is one of displacement of blacks so that "proud Southerners ... preserve their heritage." (The part I put in quotes was from a post by a supporter for retaining the statue. I read it on the Facebook page "Save the Robert E. Lee Statue".) I'm thinking there's a salient contrast between history and heritage.

Edited August 22, 2017 by Mike

[Midwest LDS]

Generally speaking I agree with @Vort. History always has and always will be written by the winners. But revisionist history can be written by the losing side as well. Take the myth of the "Lost Cause" by Southern historians after the war. It was by and large successful as many today still teach the the South's cause was noble but they were doomed to fail. What's lost is the actual history of the war in the process. Read the Articles of Secession from any of the Confederate States. What State right are they afraid the almighty federal government will trample on? Slavery. South Carolina's, which is similar to them all, specifically points out the refusal to enforce the fugitive slave act and working to abolish slavery as the reason for secession. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, does the same. There was no state right threatened other than slavery, at least in the minds of Southerners. They also fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. The only reason there was a war is because of actions thet took. I point this all out to Illustrate a point. A. The South is not the noble victim it tries to proclaim itself to be. B. Despite that, I reject the authority of mobs to make policy decisions. I don't like the Confederacy. But the current mobocracy sickens me so I'm starting to fall on the side of keeping the statues since we can't remove them civilly.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

Generally speaking I agree with @Vort. History always has and always will be written by the winners. But revisionist history can be written by the losing side as well. Take the myth of the "Lost Cause" by Southern historians after the war. It was by and large successful as many today still teach the the South's cause was noble but they were doomed to fail. What's lost is the actual history of the war in the process. Read the Articles of Secession from any of the Confederate States. What State right are they afraid the almighty federal government will trample on? Slavery. South Carolina's, which is similar to them all, specifically points out the refusal to enforce the fugitive slave act and working to abolish slavery as the reason for secession. Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederacy, does the same. There was no state right threatened other than slavery, at least in the minds of Southerners. They also fired the first shot at Fort Sumter. The only reason there was a war is because of actions thet took. I point this all out to Illustrate a point. A. The South is not the noble victim it tries to proclaim itself to be. B. Despite that, I reject the authority of mobs to make policy decisions. I don't like the Confederacy. But the current mobocracy sickens me so I'm starting to fall on the side of keeping the statues since we can't remove them civilly.

I agree. But I'm not ready to say I'm on the side of keeping the statue in Charlottesville. I don't see that mobocracy is involved in the move to remove it, nor the decisions made by the city council to do so.  

[prisonchaplain]

1 hour ago, Mike said:

How is it historic revisionism?

Remove the statues, declare any southern or Confederate perspective racist, and the Civil War gets taught as evil Southern slavers against righteous Northern abolitionists. With any nuance disallowed, and any homage to the losers expunged, the facts gets lost, and the headlines become tomorrow's factual details. I'm not interested in defending the Confederacy. However, if we do not understand their justifications, explanations, and even who they saw as heroes, history will repeat itself, and we won't know what hit us.

[AnthonyB2]

17 hours ago, askandanswer said:

Here in Australia, we take a dim view of people who kill Australians. Speaking as an outsider, I'm surprised that some Americans erected statues to honour those Americans who killed other Americans and I'm surprised that today, there are many Americans who continue to defend such statues. I don't think the context in which the killings took place - a civil war - makes the wholesale slaughter any less bad, and those who oversaw it any less culpable. 

As a fellow Aussie, I'm not sure we have a similar issue to the US civil war. We do have statues of Ned Kelly, who clearly killed police officers. Large monuments to Eureka, which was a rebellion against the government of the its day.

[Midwest LDS]

@Mike I agree with you. In principal, I find George Thomas much more laudable to Robert E. Lee as he stayed loyal to the United States. I just don't like recent mob actions destroying statues which I think sets a bad precedent. Remove it according to law or don't is kind of how I feel

[AnthonyB2]

2 hours ago, anatess2 said:

And herein is, once again, the difference between the USA and other countries.  The 50 State governments are ALSO legitimately organized, constitutional, and democratically elected governments.  Yes, each state has their own state constitution.  Yes, these state constitutions cede authority to the US Constitution by consent.  And thus the Civil War was about the Confederacy believing that the Federal Government usurped authority from the southern states that were not voluntarily and constitutionally ceded to them.

Who was right?  Well, one can debate that for ages.  The matter got settled when the Union won the war.

 

Anatess2,

Australia is constitutionally very  similar to the US. Our states are each constitutional monarchies with legitimately organized, constitutional, and democratically elected governments that ceded only 20 enumerated rights to the Australian Commonwealth and as states retained all non ceded rights. The Australian colonies voted themselves into statehood. However we learnt from the US and ensured that our constitution made it clear the Commonwealth once joined,was "indissoluble" and we forbade states from having their own militaries.

Edited August 22, 2017 by AnthonyB2

[Mike]

20 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

Remove the statues, declare any southern or Confederate perspective racist, and the Civil War gets taught as evil Southern slavers against righteous Northern abolitionists. With any nuance disallowed, and any homage to the losers expunged, the facts gets lost, and the headlines become tomorrow's factual details. I'm not interested in defending the Confederacy. However, if we do not understand their justifications, explanations, and even who they saw as heroes, history will repeat itself, and we won't know what hit us.

I think I already see history repeating itself, repeatedly. But therein lies a challenge which is to rightly determine what events in history are truly analogous or applicable to events in the present. I don't see removal of the statue in Charlottesville a disallowing nuance. Unless you mean that *any* declaration of Southern or Confederate racist perspective results in the Civil War getting taught as evil Southern slavers against righteous Northern abolitionists I don't see the equivalency you seem to suggest. As far as the single statue in question is concerned I don't see that Confederate justifications and explanations are even part of the real question--meaning its removal doesn't threaten our understanding of the Confederacy. I think the issue really involves more recent history, as I said earlier. But you think the statue was erected to promote the facts and prevent them from getting lost, is that what you're saying?

[Mike]

26 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

@Mike I agree with you. In principal, I find George Thomas much more laudable to Robert E. Lee as he stayed loyal to the United States. I just don't like recent mob actions destroying statues which I think sets a bad precedent. Remove it according to law or don't is kind of how I feel

I don't want to give the impression that I think ill of Robert E. Lee. I don't. And I don't like mobs destroying statues, either. And I'm under the impression currently that removal of *this* statue is according to law. 

[Midwest LDS]

@Mike Sorry I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. And I agree the Charlottesville one was done legally.

[Mike]

1 minute ago, Midwest LDS said:

@Mike Sorry I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. And I agree the Charlottesville one was done legally.

 No don't worry, my friend. I didn't think you'd done that. 

[Mike]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Remove the statues ... history will repeat itself, and we won't know what hit us.

I think I'm talking about a statue and you're talking about removing all statues. This could certainly be an obstacle to mutual understanding.   What history are you thinking will repeat itself?

[askandanswer]

People seemed pretty happy when this statue was taken down - Saddam Hussein in Iraq

Edited August 23, 2017 by askandanswer

[Guest MormonGator]

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-protests-poll-idUSKCN1B12EG

I'm with the 54%. Three weeks ago no one cared about this issue. In fact, a large amount of people who are now shocked and offended about these statues are only shocked and offended because they were told to be. 

[askandanswer]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

. And I'm under the impression currently that removal of *this* statue is according to law. 

If there's uncertainty about the legality, perhaps we need a statute about statues in each State so that the status of their removal will be standardised.

[prisonchaplain]

5 hours ago, Mike said:

I think I'm talking about a statue and you're talking about removing all statues. This could certainly be an obstacle to mutual understanding.   What history are you thinking will repeat itself?

You are correct. I did not realize you were speaking narrowly, of one incident. There have been illegal removals/vandalism--including one of Abraham Lincoln. There is serious discussion about removing Washington and Jefferson statues, since they owned slaves. So, I'm looking at the larger picture, and seeing an atmosphere similar to the Cultural Revolution, in China. My apologies if I dragged you into my big picture rant.

[NightSG]

On 8/20/2017 at 7:46 PM, Fether said:

1) A statue of Judas in Jerusalem, even near golgatha.

Not sure about Judas in Jerusalem, but IIRC, there is a statue of Peter at the moment of one of his three denials of Christ there, and Judas' betrayal statues in Italy and Spain.

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, AnthonyB2 said:

Anatess2,

Australia is constitutionally very  similar to the US. Our states are each constitutional monarchies with legitimately organized, constitutional, and democratically elected governments that ceded only 20 enumerated rights to the Australian Commonwealth and as states retained all non ceded rights. The Australian colonies voted themselves into statehood. However we learnt from the US and ensured that our constitution made it clear the Commonwealth once joined,was "indissoluble" and we forbade states from having their own militaries.

The Union, once joined, is also dissoluble according to the US Constitution as drafted ("one nation, indivisible" is in the Pledge of Allegiance)  - that's why secession requires a Civil War because you can't, technically, sue the US Constitution.  And the main function of the Union is a common military, therefore, each State doesn't have a military, only Law Enforcers.  But, the 2nd Amendment on the Bill of Rights, protects the rights of the people to arms so that they may form a militia.  This guarantees that the people will always have a recourse against a tyrannical government.  The Confederacy believed the Union has become tyrannical.

Edited August 23, 2017 by anatess2