Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues in Charlottesville removed

[ProudModerate2]

Onlookers Cheer as Crews Remove Robert E Lee Statue in Charlottesville.


https://twitter.com/Phil_Lewis_/status/1413849337629708288


Additional video here ...
https://www.news.com.au/national/onlookers-cheer-as-crews-remove-robert-e-lee-statue-in-charlottesville/video/b7c5bee8864d508ce52a20cbf7ffd45e

[OSR stands with Israel]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

[ProudModerate2]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .

Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

Even OSR gets it.
Fuzzy, on the other hand, lives on Mars (but then, what else is new).

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

This is an end of an Era, Bush W and Trump ran off the Southern Strategy, both Bush W and Trump got in based on third party votes
  Bush W 50/3/47 Gore OH that's the Election right there, and Trump got in with Spoiler Johnson

It's gonna be very hard for Rs to win without these Statues, Trump was already a 46.9% Prez and the Rs aren't assumed the H, yet, despite reappointment they haven't lead in a single Senate poll except in NH and that was 4 mnths old already


Because winning ELECTIONS isn't about Gerrymandering it's about NPVI which Rs haven't won since 2016

[TDAS04]

Good.  They were Americans, but they fought against the country.  Honoring Lee and Jackson makes no more sense than honoring John Walker Lindh.

[KaiserDave]

Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jackson were enthusiastic leaders in the army of the slavers that ripped the country apart and plunged the nation into catastrophic war over a democratic election and a threat to the profit margins of the aristocratic planter class.

That is profoundly dishonorable and un-American. They should not have statues in such a position of reverence and honor.

Also Lee is overrated as a military commander. Jackson was quite an interesting figure. Not as bad an individual Lee I'd say, but still bad.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

The Civil War was different, and Americans' view of Federalism in 1860 was different.  We take it for granted that we are "One Nation, Indivisible" from the Pledge of Allegiance.  (I'm old enough to hear a recording of the Pledge before "Under God" was added when I was in preschool.)  The idea that a State could leave the Union was NOT a settled question in 1860, and it was hardly considered "treason" for a state to wish to leave the Union.  

If we were not going to, as a nation, take a certain course of action in, say, foreign affairs, we would nowadays say something like, "The United States IS opposed to this measure."  In the first 60 years of the 19th Century, however, we would say this as "The United States ARE opposed to this measure."  This language reflects a very different idea of Union than what we have today.  Indeed, there were some people (albeit very, very few) alive in the 1850s and even in the time of the Civil War that were alive during the time of the Articles of Confederation.  We did NOT have the strong centralized Federal Government we do now.

One reason that neither Jefferson Davis, nor any other Confederate leader, was tried for treason (even though the government contemplated it) was (A) because a conviction was by no means a given and (B) because a conviction would beg the Constitutional issue of whether or not a state had a right to secede.  The latter is the reason that there were no treason charges in the end against Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, John Regan, Judah Benjamin, or any other Confederate leaders.  The other concern was that such trials would impede reconciliation and reconstruction.  Whether Davis and Company deserved to be tried for treason is another matter.  The issue here is that they weren't so tried, and the reason to not do so was a sound one.  Our National Reconstruction, while imperfect, was successful in that it has lasted, and lasted stably.  

People around here seem unwilling to refrain from ripping open old wounds for the greater good when they can hurt someone they don't like.  That's the way of Failed States; it's not the way of stable countries, and it should not be the way of a country that presents itself as a serous nation.  We did not call Confederates "traitors" at the time of the Union's victory in the Civil War, and for the reason that we did not wish to tempt an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling on the Secession Issue.  We are better off as a nation in sticking to this.  

[OSR stands with Israel]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

The Civil War was different, and Americans' view of Federalism in 1860 was different.  We take it for granted that we are "One Nation, Indivisible" from the Pledge of Allegiance.  (I'm old enough to hear a recording of the Pledge before "Under God" was added when I was in preschool.)  The idea that a State could leave the Union was NOT a settled question in 1860, and it was hardly considered "treason" for a state to wish to leave the Union.  

If we were not going to, as a nation, take a certain course of action in, say, foreign affairs, we would nowadays say something like, "The United States IS opposed to this measure."  In the first 60 years of the 19th Century, however, we would say this as "The United States ARE opposed to this measure."  This language reflects a very different idea of Union than what we have today.  Indeed, there were some people (albeit very, very few) alive in the 1850s and even in the time of the Civil War that were alive during the time of the Articles of Confederation.  We did NOT have the strong centralized Federal Government we do now.

One reason that neither Jefferson Davis, nor any other Confederate leader, was tried for treason (even though the government contemplated it) was (A) because a conviction was by no means a given and (B) because a conviction would beg the Constitutional issue of whether or not a state had a right to secede.  The latter is the reason that there were no treason charges in the end against Jefferson Davis, Alexander Stephens, John Regan, Judah Benjamin, or any other Confederate leaders.  The other concern was that such trials would impede reconciliation and reconstruction.  Whether Davis and Company deserved to be tried for treason is another matter.  The issue here is that they weren't so tried, and the reason to not do so was a sound one.  Our National Reconstruction, while imperfect, was successful in that it has lasted, and lasted stably.  

People around here seem unwilling to refrain from ripping open old wounds for the greater good when they can hurt someone they don't like.  That's the way of Failed States; it's not the way of stable countries, and it should not be the way of a country that presents itself as a serous nation.  We did not call Confederates "traitors" at the time of the Union's victory in the Civil War, and for the reason that we did not wish to tempt an unfavorable SCOTUS ruling on the Secession Issue.  We are better off as a nation in sticking to this.  

Even if secession was viewed to be potentially legal back in 1860 doesn’t change the fact they were our enemies at war , and also remember back in those days it was common practice for one nation to invade another for land too so if what the confederacy did was potentially legal so was an invasion by the union .


We for example do not have many statues celebrating Mexican troops in Texas fighting against us during the Mexican American war and we shouldn’t . So the same should apply to the confederacy even in this case that you don’t view them as traitors cause at the end of the day they were American enemies  during war .



Lastly deciding not to charge someone for a crime is far different than having a state created to celebrate them . A statue celebrating you is not a freedom people are entitled too

[darklordoftech]

If you complained about the “patriotism” (or lack thereof) of those who opposed the Vietnam and/or Iraq Wars yet you think the Confederacy was wonderful, you are a hypocrite.

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

Confederate soldiers were (in their own views) defending their homes, communities, and states.  They did not invade the North until Gettysburg.  And there was not a consensus in the North at the time of secession that a State could not secede.  During the Secession crisis the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison penned a front page editorial on the subject saying "Let The Erring Sisters Go!".  Slavery was wrong, to be sure, but from the vantage point of Confederate soldiers, the was was about defending their homes, their communities, and their families.

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If you complained about the “patriotism” (or lack thereof) of those who opposed the Vietnam and/or Iraq Wars yet you think the Confederacy was wonderful, you are a hypocrite.

I was a McGovernite peacenik in 1972, and I don't think the Confederacy was wonderful.  It's utter defeat on the battlefield was a good thing, albeit a good thing purchased at a terrible price.

To call those who fought for the Confederacy as "traitors" is highly unfair.

Now if you want to talk about "treason", we can talk about Jefferson Davis's actions as Buchanan's Secretary of War.  Davis's actions in that regard made it possible for the South to be adequately armed for a War of Secession.  THAT is something Davis did while serving in James Buchanan's Cabinet.  That Buchanan likely knew about this and gave his tacit approval to it makes him the worst President of all.  The Civil War was "The FIrst Modern War" with modern weaponry that brought unprecedented horror to Americans, and it was as Secretary of War that Jefferson Davis made that possible. 

But the issue of a state having the right to secede was an open question even after the Civil War ended.  This should not be forgotten.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

Confederate soldiers were (in their own views) defending their homes, communities, and states.  They did not invade the North until Gettysburg.  And there was not a consensus in the North at the time of secession that a State could not secede.  During the Secession crisis the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison penned a front page editorial on the subject saying "Let The Erring Sisters Go!".  Slavery was wrong, to be sure, but from the vantage point of Confederate soldiers, the was was about defending their homes, their communities, and their families.

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

They were still an Enemy of the United States of America and fought a war against us . We shouldn’t celebrate our enemies no matter what .


Would you be fine with this compromise: Keep their statues up but on their plaques make it clear they killed more Americans troops than any enemy in our history or at the very least take down all the statues that were put up in the 20th century as a meaning of resistance to civil rights

[ProudModerate2]

The top, super-large definition displayed, when you enter "definition traitor" in Google search ...

trai·tor    /ˈtrādər/
noun
a person who betrays a friend, country, principle, etc.

-------------------------------------------

Cambridge Dictionary.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/traitor

traitor
noun
a person who is not loyal or stops being loyal to their own country, social class, beliefs, etc.:
-- The leaders of the rebellion were hanged as traitors.

[ProudModerate2]

Need I say more?

[Fuzzy Bear]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

Confederate soldiers were (in their own views) defending their homes, communities, and states.  They did not invade the North until Gettysburg.  And there was not a consensus in the North at the time of secession that a State could not secede.  During the Secession crisis the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison penned a front page editorial on the subject saying "Let The Erring Sisters Go!".  Slavery was wrong, to be sure, but from the vantage point of Confederate soldiers, the was was about defending their homes, their communities, and their families.

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

They were still an Enemy of the United States of America and fought a war against us . We shouldn’t celebrate our enemies no matter what .


Would you be fine with this compromise: Keep their statues up but on their plaques make it clear they killed more Americans troops than any enemy in our history or at the very least take down all the statues that were put up in the 20th century as a meaning of resistance to civil rights

I'd be OK with that.  I wouldn't object to a goodly number of monuments being removed as well, but on a case-by-case basis.

I certainly don't have a problem with yanking up any monuments that were erected during the period of resistance to Civil Rights Legislation.

[OSR stands with Israel]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

Confederate soldiers were (in their own views) defending their homes, communities, and states.  They did not invade the North until Gettysburg.  And there was not a consensus in the North at the time of secession that a State could not secede.  During the Secession crisis the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison penned a front page editorial on the subject saying "Let The Erring Sisters Go!".  Slavery was wrong, to be sure, but from the vantage point of Confederate soldiers, the was was about defending their homes, their communities, and their families.

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

They were still an Enemy of the United States of America and fought a war against us . We shouldn’t celebrate our enemies no matter what .


Would you be fine with this compromise: Keep their statues up but on their plaques make it clear they killed more Americans troops than any enemy in our history or at the very least take down all the statues that were put up in the 20th century as a meaning of resistance to civil rights

I'd be OK with that.  I wouldn't object to a goodly number of monuments being removed as well, but on a case-by-case basis.

I certainly don't have a problem with yanking up any monuments that were erected during the period of resistance to Civil Rights Legislation.

This statue in case was erected in 1924 : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Monument_(Charlottesville,_Virginia)

[Ferguson97]

Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson are traitors to their country. Screw them. Good that these statues are being removed.

[KaiserDave]

If the City of Charlottesville, VA wished to remove a monument, they are free to do so.

These statues are not about "History".  They are about "Honor".   Apart from the question of "Does the community hosting a statue of so-and-so no longer wish to honor so-and-so?" is the question of whether or not the person depicted in the statue is worthy of the Honor of a statue in a public square?

Part of the answer to those question goes to the issue of Secession and the Lost Cause as well.  Was the Confederate Cause morally justifiable?  I would certainly vote "No".  It is NOT true that the Civil War was all about slavery, but it IS almost certainly true that without slavery there would have been no Civil War.  Apart from slavery, the differences between the Northern and Southern states were not so great as to cause any of the Southern states to secede from the Union.  So, no, the Lost Cause was not defensible.  

But to refer to Confederates as the equivilant of Nazis is preposterous.  To view them is traitors is historically inaccurate.  The right of a State to secede from the Union was a very real question in 1860, and a question that was not decided until after the Civil War.  Furthermore, the conclusion of the Civil War was conducted in a way where the Confederates were most decidedly NOT considered traitors.  
This is clear, and to label them otherwise 156 years later is to engage in one's own vengeance.  

The City of Charlottesville has changed.  It's a liberal college town; they can honor who they want, and they can revoke honor as they will.  I just want Danville, VA to have the same rights as Charlottesville.

Why the hell should we honor troops who fought a war against us . If removing their  statues is dishonoring them , that is fantastic in every way as there is no way in hell we should honor an enemy who murdered hundreds of thousands of our troops .


Whether they were traitors or not does not matter one bit , cause at the end of the day they were an enemy of the US at war and they should be dishonored for that . At the very least they were a  far worse enemy than the Vietcong and should we honor Vietcong troops

Confederate soldiers were (in their own views) defending their homes, communities, and states.  They did not invade the North until Gettysburg.  And there was not a consensus in the North at the time of secession that a State could not secede.  During the Secession crisis the Abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison penned a front page editorial on the subject saying "Let The Erring Sisters Go!". Slavery was wrong, to be sure, but from the vantage point of Confederate soldiers, the was was about defending their homes, their communities, and their families.

To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.  Now I grant you that use of the Southern Cross flag is unfair and disunifying.  I would prefer that any number of monuments to Confederates and Segregationists be reassessed.  (I, personally, would start by renaming the Edmond Pettus Bridge, as Pettus was a vicious scumbag.)   But if we're going to rip them all down and call them traitors, then let's also rip down the monument to Malcolm X at Columbia University.  After all, why should such a university honor a documented anti-Semite?

While it is true that many average Confederate soldiers went to war based on lofty ideals of defending their local communities and their homes and families, we cannot divorce ourselves from the fact that the Confederacy fought for the expansion and preservation of slavery, and this was true for both the aristocratic elite and the common soldiery. In the writings and diaries of soldiers during and after the war strong belief in white supremacy and slavery as the proper order of things is evident. Soldiers believed that with the abolition of slavery, there would be servile insurrection, Haitian style revolution and reprisal, race-mixing, and typically insane beliefs on black men mass raping white women. Soldiers taking their loyalty oaths after the war felt that they lost their whiteness by swearing loyalty to a country that had introduced black suffrage and equal rights. During the war average Confederate soldiers slaughtered black prisoners by the thousands, and kidnapped free blacks to be sold down south. The protection of slavery was a core belief of the common soldierly of the Confederate States, and it is reflected in their writings and actions.

While most soldiers weren't slaveholders themselves, slavery was considered proper and part of their traditional way of life, and many had connections to the industry in some way or another. What's also interesting is that soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia were far more likely to own slaves than the average southerner.

However you slice it, protecting slavery was part of the motivation for southern soldiers, it was something that they deeply cared about.

[KaiserDave]

Also, to pushback a bit on Ferguson97 and OSR, while Lee and Jackson (and Davis and Benjamin and so on) were traitors, I find the nefarious forces and belief behind secession to be far more important than that.

And Fuzzy is right about not trying the leading Confederates after the war because of legitimate fears of SCOTUS giving legal protection to secession.

[GP270watch]

However you slice it, protecting slavery was part of the motivation for southern soldiers, it was something that they deeply cared about.

 It was about slavery and white supremacy, this is so obvious, just look at how white southerners treated black Americans post reconstruction.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

You know how Nazi leaders were tried for their crimes in WW2 in the Nuremburg trials? We should have done something like that for Confederate leading too.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Bush W whom have been redeemed since isn't Trump, was a Confederate as well, he campaigned against Clinton admin about the whole Lewinsky scandal and the whole S including Jeff Sessions marked Al Gore and he wasn't even part of that

Not to mention all the sex scandals among Rs since then, Vitter, Ensign, Foley, Craig, Gaetz

But, is Biden any different than Bill Clinton, no as we found out he was a sexual preditor as well that's why he was coy on Anita Hill after the primary was over

But, this is not the time to be divided when DC Statehood, by keeping the H can give us control for a Generation that we should of did in 2009 but Lieberman stopped us at every turn from nuking Filibuster

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Good.

I think Fuzzy makes some interesting points, but I don't agree that it is anachronistic to call the Confederate leaders "traitors." Certainly many would have made that argument in 1861, including some Confederates who believed that secession was probably illegal but the Confederacy's cause was important enough to justify breaking the law. But I also agree with KaiserDave that that is not really the point: whether or not secession was illegal, it was certainly wrong, both because the motive for dissolving the Union (the preservation of slavery) was evil and because the dissolution of a representative democracy by the minority defeats the whole republican experiment.

One point I think Fuzzy gets absolutely right: these statues are put up to honor the individuals they represent, and when those individuals no longer reflect the values of the community, they should come down.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

Calling Confederates traitors was the main thrust of the Union cause until the Emancipation Proclamation. Look at the lyrics of Battle Cry of Freedom.

[ProudModerate2]

... To call Confederate troops "traitors" over a century after we explicitly decided not to do so is patently unfair to both the memories of people who, if nothing else, fought gallantly, is unfair and disunifying.
...

LOL.
As if calling Confederates "traitors," is something new.
Are you kidding us with your "fake outrage."
You make it sound like the "sky is falling," and the Earth will turn to lava.
Good God.