not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Apr 6, 2019 5:58:38 GMT -8
...First of all, these statues are not really historical monuments. They were erected for the sole purpose of sending a message to our black citizens that the laws in that state or locality favored white supremacy. It was a way of ensuring the black folks knew their place. It was unmistakable the reason they were erected and the timeframe they were erected in. Removing them isn't removing a piece of history. It's sending a message that those days are over and all men really are created equal. Why do we even try and honor leaders of the south when they were fighting for something that our country fought against and won? ... There is too much in that paragraph to not address: - Even if that statue was as you claim, only there to send a message, that message is a historical one. It involves events that took place in history (slavery, the Civil War) as opposed to some type of modern art. It is by essence a historical monument.
- Claiming that the reason the statues were erected was to send a message to black people involves you reading minds and the assumption that every single person involved in the creation & erection of the statue all thought exactly the same way. Neither of those things are possible.
- Removing the statue sends a message because it is removing a piece of history. Removing a shrub from my front lawn does not send a message, other than that I don't like the shrub or lawncare in general (messages most folks couldn't care less about).
- We honor leaders of the South (and the confederate soldiers as well) because they were American military. You can't be on the side declaring that succession was illegal, that the Southern states could not leave the United States and then claim that the Confederate soldiers weren't American military.
Many people take the view you do because their perception of the Civil War was that it was a war to free the slaves. They completely dismiss the perception of the Southern states, that this was a War of Northern aggression, that the reason for the war wasn't to end slavery but to force the Southern states to act in a manner they did not want to willingly do. An accurate description would be that when abolishing slavery was finally gaining momentum in the country, the South did the right thing (succeeding from the union) for a bad reason (to preserve slavery). The North did the wrong thing (initiating war to force the south to stay in the union) for a good reason (to end slavery).
To be clear, I am not reading minds. I am reading history. You may not like the Southern Poverty Law Center, but the research they conducted on this topic is fact based and all available for the historical record. You can choose to draw a different conclusion if you wish, but the conclusion I draw is that most of these statues were erected to teach a certain set of values, which included that the white race is the superior race. www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monumentsI am quite content with honoring the leaders of the South and honoring those who fought for what they believed to be right and just. The biggest reason for the fight was, in fact, slavery. Although there are many revisionist history accounts that suggest there were more altruistic motives. These non-slave motives were largely perpetuated at the conclusion of the war as a path to reunification of the States and their representation in the national government. I get that and I'm sure I would have done the same had I been alive at the time. The civil war was particularly messy and many countries never recover from such an event. Ours did and recasting the purpose of the war in a different light is what did. Make no mistake though, the reason for the conflict was slavery. The money that funded the conflict was from Plantation owners that felt they had a lot to lose by abolishing slavery. With respect to removing a piece of history. I understand and appreciate that perspective. I agree, it is removing a piece of history. I just happen to disagree what part of history we are removing. You likely already know the many laws that were in place, even in Southern California, well into the 1940s. (http://hometown-pasadena.com/history/when-south-pasadena-was-for-whites-only/88641). A quote from the above linked article states: "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center’s research, the biggest spike was between 1900 and the 1920s.". We should not forget the context of the times. These were times that while the NAACP was getting its legs, MLK was not assassinated until 1968. The history of the statues tells really two different stories. One, of the bravery of the civil war and two, of the oppression of blacks. One is worth of celebrating, both are worth remembering. On another note, who would you feel is more worthy of remembrance, Lee or Lincoln? There are roughly 30 memorials to Lincoln. How many for Lee? Here is a statistic (unverified). Of the more than 1503 public monuments and memorials to the Confederacy, more than 718 are monuments and statues. Nearly 300 monuments and statues are in Georgia, Virginia, or North Carolina. 1503 public monuments to the Confederacy with nearly half being monuments and statues. How many of these do we really need in order to remember the civil war and its heroes? |
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 6, 2019 8:01:44 GMT -8
On another note, who would you feel is more worthy of remembrance, Lee or Lincoln? There are roughly 30 memorials to Lincoln. How many for Lee? Here is a statistic (unverified). Of the more than 1503 public monuments and memorials to the Confederacy, more than 718 are monuments and statues. Nearly 300 monuments and statues are in Georgia, Virginia, or North Carolina. 1503 public monuments to the Confederacy with nearly half being monuments and statues. How many of these do we really need in order to remember the civil war and its heroes? We don't NEED any monument of any kind. But we also don't need small, loud groups of people deciding that because they choose to be offended, they have been conferred rights to have them removed. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 6, 2019 16:30:35 GMT -8
To be clear, I am not reading minds. I am reading history. You may not like the Southern Poverty Law Center, but the research they conducted on this topic is fact based and all available for the historical record. You can choose to draw a different conclusion if you wish, but the conclusion I draw is that most of these statues were erected to teach a certain set of values, which included that the white race is the superior race. www.history.com/news/how-the-u-s-got-so-many-confederate-monumentsI am quite content with honoring the leaders of the South and honoring those who fought for what they believed to be right and just. The biggest reason for the fight was, in fact, slavery. Although there are many revisionist history accounts that suggest there were more altruistic motives. These non-slave motives were largely perpetuated at the conclusion of the war as a path to reunification of the States and their representation in the national government. I get that and I'm sure I would have done the same had I been alive at the time. The civil war was particularly messy and many countries never recover from such an event. Ours did and recasting the purpose of the war in a different light is what did. Make no mistake though, the reason for the conflict was slavery. The money that funded the conflict was from Plantation owners that felt they had a lot to lose by abolishing slavery.[/quote] I read that piece you provided on the history.com link, and understand how there would be people who would choose to be offended by the statues, or the confederacy in general. It motivated me to continue down the path of the causes of the Civil War, which led me to this link containing the graphic below. I'm ashamed to admit, I hadn't truly considered the many causes of the Civil War, and as I believe the majority of Americans, thought the war was almost entirely about slavery. learnodo-newtonic.com/american-civil-war-causes |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 6, 2019 17:31:55 GMT -8
After reviewing that graphic of Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, I'm pretty sure I'd be wearing the gray uniform. I believe many here would as well.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Apr 6, 2019 21:25:19 GMT -8
After reviewing that graphic of Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, I'm pretty sure I'd be wearing the gray uniform. I believe many here would as well. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert in the Civil War (perhaps this needs a new thread) but I've probably read more on this than 90% of the populace. What I will say is that good people can hold both of the following opinions: 1. Thanks be to God that the war brought an end to slavery. 2. The war resulted in the triumph of the system of consolidated government that most of the founders opposed. The sovereignty of the states was irreparably weakened and the important question of secession was never adjudicated in a proper way--and still hasn't been. |
|
not4u13
Active Contributor
Posts: 74
|
Post by not4u13 on Apr 7, 2019 5:38:43 GMT -8
Civil War.
It's very clear that there were many differences of opinion about how to run the country. Healthy debate often yields better collective results. The cause of the civil war was not rooted in these disagreements. It was rooted in money. The southern states wanted more states rights for themselves BECAUSE they wanted to maintain slavery, which was because of money. Were it not for this issue, there would not have been a compelling enough reason to convince Southern plantation owners to fund the war. Without funding, no war.
As for the differences in views between Jefferson and Hamilton, I'll say this. I had the opportunity to see Hamilton the musical last week. If you haven't seen it, go. I loved every minute.
|
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
Member is Online
|
Post by Luca on Apr 7, 2019 11:46:29 GMT -8
Not4u13 (I’m never quite sure when somebody's proper name is not capitalized whether it should be capitalized when it begins a sentence, but I digress): To paraphrase, “ The undefined phrase has an infinite number of interpretations.” I’m not sure what you mean by "that bright". That bright compared to whom? Thomas Jefferson, Rene Descartes, Albert Einstein? Or compared to the President’s political competitors and Chris Matthews’ of the world? " His total wealth is questionable" is a phrase that can be applied to pretty much any billionaire. In the final analysis he has become very rich through his own efforts, and that is the point. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and would love to have been a billionaire, but I’m not nearly smart enough. Otherwise, your post seems a bit counterintuitive. You state that " he had enough money to make many different bets and many of those bets failed but enough of them succeeded that he has been able to continuously repeat the pattern”, followed by " proof that he really is not that bright is that he just continues to repeat the same patterns." Well………if that pattern has been successful, it would make sense to me that you should continue to repeat it, right? To you, the fact that he has graduated from the nation’s premier Ivy League business school, made himself a billionaire, written a best selling book, branded his name as successfully as he has, been successful in the TV industry and made himself POTUS does not indicate that he is "that smart." But the fact that he continues to repeat a successful pattern is " proof that he is not that smart." Really? I dunno, not4you. No offense, but it seems to me that a little less CNN/Rachel Maddow and a little more independent analysis would serve you well............................... That is an interesting interpretation to say that the Civil War was "rooted in money." Again, that can justifiably said about almost any war, so I’m not certain how insightful it is. When wars are fought over borders, ultimately it is about money. When they are thought about access to ports or rivers or rights of way, it is ultimately about money. They are generally not waged over mere principles, though they are often portrayed that way by the involved parties. I see your point regarding the Civil War and do not disagree entirely. Finances were a driving issue for the wealthy plantation class, but not so much the Southern yeoman. And it was at best a peripheral issue for the North. The Northern motivations were preservation of the world’s only prominent democracy, abolition, and anger over Fort Sumter. You’re right about the Hamilton musical. Everybody I know who has seen it seems to love it but I have not and detest musicals. I must be wrong, not for the first time……………………….Luca |
|
RSM789
Eminence Grise
Posts: 2,286
|
Post by RSM789 on Apr 7, 2019 13:30:47 GMT -8
...You may not like the Southern Poverty Law Center, but the research they conducted on this topic is fact based and all available for the historical record... ...On another note, who would you feel is more worthy of remembrance, Lee or Lincoln? There are roughly 30 memorials to Lincoln. How many for Lee?... The Southern Poverty law center is one of the most corrupt, racist and partisan organizations on the face of the earth. To take anything they say or post at face value is extremely disingenuous. To use them as a source opens up the possibility to use the KKK or Charles Manson as a rebuttal. I would suggest there are over 1.6 TRILLION memorials to Lincoln, and we see them every time we buy something with cash and then receive change. It is much more powerful for ones face to be something people see everyday and to be associated with wealth than for it to be on a statue in a park that pigeons crap on. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,317
Member is Online
|
Post by Luca on Apr 7, 2019 14:58:08 GMT -8
I am totally lost. How did I wind up posting the same message on 2 different threads?
At any rate, I have to side with not4u on this issue. I'm not so sure that it was understood that putting these Confederate memorials up in the late 1800s and early 1900s was widely intended as a message to black Americans, but I have no doubt that many people intended that at the time.
It's one thing to have a monument to a unifying and enobling concept or historical moment. Consider Rushmore or the monuments in Washington DC. It is another to have a monument to an individual - American or not - whose sole claim to fame was fighting valiantly in a war one of the goals of which was to maintain your ancestors in slavery.
I used to be opposed to the idea and still am to some degree but I do not object to it that much any longer because I can see how some people - who are perhaps uniquely sensitive - could take offense, and I think we all must try to be reasonable and accommodating.
I do agree, RSM, that the Southern Poverty Law Center has become just another partisan ideological mouthpiece........................Luca
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,815
|
Post by MDDad on Apr 7, 2019 16:47:51 GMT -8
For what it's worth, I was born in Linz, Austria, and spent my first five years there. It is the same town where Adolf Hitler spent much of this youth. The town still has not decided which of us deserves a statue.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 7, 2019 20:50:38 GMT -8
Not exactly Civil War stuff, but it DOES have something to do with the South.
Those country gals sitting in the audience on the ACM Awards are smokin' hot! Dressed classy, easy on the make-up...I'll take that ANY day over what you see on the Academy Awards or the Rock N Roll awards shows.
And... unless you consider "God bless" to be such, not a single political message the entire show.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 8, 2019 5:23:17 GMT -8
After reviewing that graphic of Hamilton's Federalists and Jefferson's Democratic Republicans, I'm pretty sure I'd be wearing the gray uniform. I believe many here would as well. Yes, the underlying isssue was slavery, but the reason those first states ceceded from the union was “nobody is going to tell THIS state what we can or can’t do,” in other words, they left the union over states rights... So, I assume you are correct in assuming many or most of us would have been in a gray uniform. The fact is, we still mistreated the Negro for decades after the war ended... and that included both the North and the Sout. |
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Apr 8, 2019 5:39:43 GMT -8
What seemed to push it over the edge to war was the election of Lincoln without a single electoral vote from the south.
Speaking of which, wouldn't Lincoln have been a Democrat today?
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Apr 8, 2019 5:44:03 GMT -8
What seemed to push it over the edge to war was the election of Lincoln without a single electoral vote from the south. Speaking of which, wouldn't Lincoln have been a Democrat today? Maybe not “today.” he might have supported a JFK era democrat ideology, though. |
|
SK80
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 7,377
|
Post by SK80 on Apr 8, 2019 7:14:00 GMT -8
Seriously if HONEST ABE saw the Democrat Party today he would destroy it.
|
|
