Pelosi, Biden say there is a difference between removing Confederate leaders, past presidents

[T'Chenka]

What should my city do with the WW1 WW2 soldier memorial statues if it turns out one of the soldiers was in favour of slavery? Take the statue down? Because he isn't known for that, he's known for being a patriotic soldier. What do people think?

EDIT - Let's say for example WW1 was fought 75 years prior in the 1840s, and not when it was actually fought.

[Mr. Reactionary]

I'm going to have disagree with Pelosi and Biden here. If you were a slaveowner you should be unpersoned from society.

Does this include noted slave owner Muhammad, Prophet of the Muslim faith? Can we tear down the Dome of the Rock now?

As much as I'd like to say yes...I'd like to focus on American society before cleaning up the Middle East.

There is a sculpture of the Prophet Muhammad literally in the Supreme Court Chamber.

And I can tell you no Muslim was involved in putting that carving up.

We can probably edit that section of the Supreme Court Chamber to remove that depiction of Muhammad.

What about Hammurabi and Justinian? They are slavers and are also depicted in the Supreme Court chamber.

[Storebought]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

[NewYorkExpress]

I'm going to have disagree with Pelosi and Biden here. If you were a slaveowner you should be unpersoned from society.

Does this include noted slave owner Muhammad, Prophet of the Muslim faith? Can we tear down the Dome of the Rock now?

As much as I'd like to say yes...I'd like to focus on American society before cleaning up the Middle East.

There is a sculpture of the Prophet Muhammad literally in the Supreme Court Chamber.

And I can tell you no Muslim was involved in putting that carving up.

We can probably edit that section of the Supreme Court Chamber to remove that depiction of Muhammad.

What about Hammurabi and Justinian? They are slavers and are also depicted in the Supreme Court chamber.

Take them down too.

Replace them with say, Earl Warren and Thurgood Marshall depictions.

[AtorBoltox]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

[Tartarus Sauce]

To be honest, I'm surprised that the fact that Muhammad's likeness displayed in an official U.S. government building isn't a bigger topic of conversation in the Muslim community.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Bullschit. Columbus wasn't a US Citizen. St. Louis IX wasn't a US Citizen. Their statues have absolutely been targets of this lunacy.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

[ProudModerate2]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

[Storebought]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Bullschit. Columbus wasn't a US Citizen. St. Louis IX wasn't a US Citizen. Their statues have absolutely been targets of this lunacy.

The Discovery of America, a statue depicting Columbus as a Spanish general near a stupefied Indian maiden, was removed from the US Capitol steps way back in the 1950s. No one decried its removal as cultural Marxism.

It had an even worse companion piece called The Rescue that was removed with it. For good measure it was "accidentally" dropped in storage.

Does anyone even note their absence?

I contend that Columbus was always a problematic figure for the US. His reputation had to be vigorously whitewashed of the Spanish Black Legend before he could be depicted in public places, and even then, only after intense lobbying by Italian immigrants and Catholics in general. The female personification Columbia was more popular than imagery of Columbus himself.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

[Storr]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

[S019]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

Tyler is also responsible for the Texas Annexation, among other things. He was a Southern Democrat to his core, just look at him pushing for the Texas Annexation or his choice to veto the rechartering of the national bank. He was every bit as bad as the rest of his southern ilk. If you really want to honor a president elevated, the first good choice is Chester Arthur, given Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson were all horrible.

[jimrtex]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Were these persons a citizen of the United States (singular) or a citizen of the one of the United States (plural). That is any allegiance to collective was derivative of their allegiance to their State.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine of deliberate use of plural.

[T'Chenka]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Were these persons a citizen of the United States (singular) or a citizen of the one of the United States (plural). That is any allegiance to collective was derivative of their allegiance to their State.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine of deliberate use of plural.

LOL! Ok Guliani.

This isn't a court case Jim, it's about right and wrong. You might win the semantics argument on a technicity, but that's doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

Tyler is also responsible for the Texas Annexation, among other things. He was a Southern Democrat to his core, just look at him pushing for the Texas Annexation or his choice to veto the rechartering of the national bank. He was every bit as bad as the rest of his southern ilk. If you really want to honor a president elevated, the first good choice is Chester Arthur, given Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson were all horrible.

Tyler was referred to "His Accidency" when he ascended to the Presidency.  He had to work through that, every step of the way.  He was probably the 2nd best President (behind Polk) after Jackson, with the possible exception of Van Buren.  Can you imagine what would happen if Andrew Johnson, an alcoholic with alcoholic sons whose nickname was "Andy The Sot" was the first VP to succeed a President?  Without Tyler's example, it would have been a Constitutional Crisis right on the heels of the Civil War's conclusion.

That shouldn't be forgotten.  Tyler should be remembered, and even Honored, for that particular example.  He wasn't a great President, but he succeeded in establishing the acceptance of Vice Presidential succession.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

Tyler is also responsible for the Texas Annexation, among other things. He was a Southern Democrat to his core, just look at him pushing for the Texas Annexation or his choice to veto the rechartering of the national bank. He was every bit as bad as the rest of his southern ilk. If you really want to honor a president elevated, the first good choice is Chester Arthur, given Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson were all horrible.

Tyler was referred to "His Accidency" when he ascended to the Presidency.  He had to work through that, every step of the way.  He was probably the 2nd best President (behind Polk) after Jackson, with the possible exception of Van Buren.  Can you imagine what would happen if Andrew Johnson, an alcoholic with alcoholic sons whose nickname was "Andy The Sot" was the first VP to succeed a President?  Without Tyler's example, it would have been a Constitutional Crisis right on the heels of the Civil War's conclusion.

That shouldn't be forgotten.  Tyler should be remembered, and even Honored, for that particular example.  He wasn't a great President, but he succeeded in establishing the acceptance of Vice Presidential succession.

I have a bust of John Tyler in my famous Virginians display in my apartment. Underrated President by far.

[jimrtex]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Were these persons a citizen of the United States (singular) or a citizen of the one of the United States (plural). That is any allegiance to collective was derivative of their allegiance to their State.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine of deliberate use of plural.

LOL! Ok Guliani.

This isn't a court case Jim, it's about right and wrong. You might win the semantics argument on a technicity, but that's doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

The question is what was right and wrong at the time the decision was made. By that standard, Robert E Lee was not treacherous. He was loyal to Virginia.

[GeneralMacArthur]

My position on this continues to be the same that it has been for years.

Every person is flawed in some way.  That includes great historical heroes.  And similarly, great historical villains often have redeeming qualities.

When we remember these people, we are celebrating their legacy, and the main things they are known for.  We are not venerating them as saints.  We are not declaring them as perfect.  We are not celebrating the entirety of their life and personality and saying that every single aspect was good and worth celebrating.

Hitler was probably very nice to his dog.  When we condemn Hitler, are we condemning his relationship with his dog, and saying that was evil?  No.  We are condemning the part of his legacy that actually matters.

Similarly, when we celebrate Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc. are we celebrating the more questionable parts of their legacies?  No.  We are celebrating their tremendous accomplishments.  These were all great men who accomplished incredible things.  Things that are worthy of celebration.
 We are not celebrating Washington's ownership of slaves.  It's not a religious cult where we have to pretend everything they did was good.  Nor is it a religious cult where only the pure and perfect are permitted to be celebrated.

When people celebrate confederates, it is different.  The legacy of Robert E. Lee is explicitly tied to his support of treason and slavery.  His battlefield accomplishments were in the name of a treasonous cause that existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery.  The same goes for other confederate leaders and generals.  We should no more celebrate them and their accomplishments than we should celebrate men like Rommel, Yamamoto, Benedict Arnold, Ho Chi Minh, or other exceptional military leaders who fought against the United States in the name of deplorable causes.

[Calthrina950]

My position on this continues to be the same that it has been for years.

Every person is flawed in some way.  That includes great historical heroes.  And similarly, great historical villains often have redeeming qualities.

When we remember these people, we are celebrating their legacy, and the main things they are known for.  We are not venerating them as saints.  We are not declaring them as perfect.  We are not celebrating the entirety of their life and personality and saying that every single aspect was good and worth celebrating.

Hitler was probably very nice to his dog.  When we condemn Hitler, are we condemning his relationship with his dog, and saying that was evil?  No.  We are condemning the part of his legacy that actually matters.

Similarly, when we celebrate Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, etc. are we celebrating the more questionable parts of their legacies?  No.  We are celebrating their tremendous accomplishments.  These were all great men who accomplished incredible things.  Things that are worthy of celebration.
 We are not celebrating Washington's ownership of slaves.  It's not a religious cult where we have to pretend everything they did was good.  Nor is it a religious cult where only the pure and perfect are permitted to be celebrated.

When people celebrate confederates, it is different.  The legacy of Robert E. Lee is explicitly tied to his support of treason and slavery.  His battlefield accomplishments were in the name of a treasonous cause that existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery.  The same goes for other confederate leaders and generals.  We should no more celebrate them and their accomplishments than we should celebrate men like Rommel, Yamamoto, Benedict Arnold, Ho Chi Minh, or other exceptional military leaders who fought against the United States in the name of deplorable causes.

I agree with what you say here (and this is perhaps the first time I've ever agreed with you something). I think this is a very articulate explanation of the position which I was taking earlier.

[LBJer]

We should no more celebrate them and their accomplishments than we should celebrate men like Rommel, Yamamoto, Benedict Arnold, Ho Chi Minh, or other exceptional military leaders who fought against the United States in the name of deplorable causes.

My views on Confederates and the issue of honoring them are extremely complex and nuanced, so much so that it would take a lengthy discussion to do justice to them.  But right now I'd like to address the last part of your post.  

The issue with Benedict Arnold isn't that the British/American loyalist cause was terrible--even today, I don't think you can argue it was, even if you sympathize with the Patriots.  It's that he was on the Patriot side and went over to the British.  It's not at all clear to me that Ho Chi Minh's cause was a bad one--clearly much of the Vietnamese population, North and South, supported him.  And while Rommel and Yamamoto served governments that did not have morally good causes, I don't think they should be condemned either --they were also serving their respective countries, and as someone once remarked, if you serve in your country's military you don't get to decide whether you're on the "right side."  And both men have, in fact, been widely respected even in the countries they fought.  

[jimrtex]

When people celebrate confederates, it is different.  The legacy of Robert E. Lee is explicitly tied to his support of treason and slavery.  His battlefield accomplishments were in the name of a treasonous cause that existed to perpetuate the institution of slavery.  The same goes for other confederate leaders and generals.  We should no more celebrate them and their accomplishments than we should celebrate men like Rommel, Yamamoto, Benedict Arnold, Ho Chi Minh, or other exceptional military leaders who fought against the United States in the name of deplorable causes.

Was George McClellan treasonous? Was Clement Vallandigham treasonous?

[T'Chenka]

So much stupid crap about "Muhammad!" and "Hammurabi!" that doesn't merit a response. Open attempt to muddy the waters with nonsense.

There is the issue of relevance: was the slaveholder in question was a US citizen at the time he held humans in bondage? Or, more to the point, whether he renounced his US citizenship, took up arms against the US government, or fled the custody of US law in order to retain the privilege? Sensible people who aren't Confederacy apologists recognize this.

Were these persons a citizen of the United States (singular) or a citizen of the one of the United States (plural). That is any allegiance to collective was derivative of their allegiance to their State.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Emphasis mine of deliberate use of plural.

LOL! Ok Guliani.

This isn't a court case Jim, it's about right and wrong. You might win the semantics argument on a technicity, but that's doesn't change what is right and what is wrong.

The question is what was right and wrong at the time the decision was made. By that standard, Robert E Lee was not treacherous. He was loyal to Virginia.

That's extremely debatable.

[Badger]

Why do blue avatars think bringing up Muhammad is an ultra-effective gotcha?

Once you go down the "they were slaveowners" rabbithole, it has endless logical offshoots. 

Oh look ... Fuzzybear making sure he gets his two-cents in regarding Muhammad.
Who would have thought?

And I thought you missed me!  

My broader point actually made by another poster) is that Mohammed was, indeed, a slaveholder, as are any number of World History figures who, to date, have been venerated in America.

I'm suggesting that the "They were slaveholders!" argument is rather faulty when it comes to the Cancel Culture.  We can do better than trashing George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and folks like that.

There ought to be some respect for the fact that a majority of Americans hold Washington and Jefferson in high regard, and justifiably so.  History isn't ALL about slavery, and it isn't ALL about race relations.  The establishment of our Constitutional Republic, it's maintenance, and the good that has done is part of that as well.  The majority of Americans who believe George Washington is worthy of honor, warts and all.  It's one thing to apply this to Alexander Stephens and Jefferson Davis.  It's another thing to apply it to George Washington.  

So basically you agree with what Pelosi said. "It's not about Washington or Jefferson, it's about Alexander Stephens."

I'm for removing statues of Confederates who left and become part of the CSA government.

Stephens is particularly reprehensible.  As a coincidence, one of his descendents, Rep. Robert A. Stephens (D-GA) persuaded 5 Democrats to join the GOP to block an investigation of Watergate by the House Banking Committee prior to the 1972 election. 

I would make one exception (if there's a statue for him in the Capitol) and that one exception is former President John Tyler.  Tyler served in the Confederate Congress, dying in 1862.  He was the first VP to succeed a President who died in office and he is historically significant in that role.  Tyler solidified the legitimacy of the Presidencies of Presidents elevated to office by the death or resignation of their predecessors.  That's an important feature of our Republic and that is worthy of honoring.

Tyler is also responsible for the Texas Annexation, among other things. He was a Southern Democrat to his core, just look at him pushing for the Texas Annexation or his choice to veto the rechartering of the national bank. He was every bit as bad as the rest of his southern ilk. If you really want to honor a president elevated, the first good choice is Chester Arthur, given Tyler, Fillmore, and Johnson were all horrible.

Tyler was referred to "His Accidency" when he ascended to the Presidency.  He had to work through that, every step of the way.  He was probably the 2nd best President (behind Polk) after Jackson, with the possible exception of Van Buren.  Can you imagine what would happen if Andrew Johnson, an alcoholic with alcoholic sons whose nickname was "Andy The Sot" was the first VP to succeed a President?  Without Tyler's example, it would have been a Constitutional Crisis right on the heels of the Civil War's conclusion.

That shouldn't be forgotten.  Tyler should be remembered, and even Honored, for that particular example.  He wasn't a great President, but he succeeded in establishing the acceptance of Vice Presidential succession.

I have a bust of John Tyler in my famous Virginians display in my apartment. Underrated President by far.

He was a LITERAL traitor.