Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson statues in Charlottesville removed

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I think at a certain point a monument should not be removed regardless of what it represents. I would have supported removing it in the 1920's and 30's but at a certain point it becomes part of history. To give an example, I feel the same way with Auschwitz, it should have been burned to ashes immediately in 1945 to wipe out the evils of Nazism from Oswiecim once and for all. However, at this point its best to leave it up as its now a historic monument even though it represents something terrifying.

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

I think at a certain point a monument should not be removed regardless of what it represents. I would have supported removing it in the 1920's and 30's but at a certain point it becomes part of history. To give an example, I feel the same way with Auschwitz, it should have been burned to ashes immediately in 1945 to wipe out the evils of Nazism from Oswiecim once and for all. However, at this point its best to leave it up as its now a historic monument even though it represents something terrifying.

Most of the statues were put up in the 20s

[Arizona Iced Tea]

I think at a certain point a monument should not be removed regardless of what it represents. I would have supported removing it in the 1920's and 30's but at a certain point it becomes part of history. To give an example, I feel the same way with Auschwitz, it should have been burned to ashes immediately in 1945 to wipe out the evils of Nazism from Oswiecim once and for all. However, at this point its best to leave it up as its now a historic monument even though it represents something terrifying.

Most of the statues were put up in the 20s

1920's is still quite old, 100 years is a long time in history. The 50% mark in US history was around 1899-1900.

[LBJer]

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're traitors. They're traitors. They're traitors. They will always be viewed as traitors going forward. If you don't like the english dictionary definition of that word, that's a "you" problem.

As for your whataboutism about Malcolm X... I think a reasonable way to assess the status of historical statues is "let's remove the statues of traitors first, and after that, maybe we can talk about which statues of non-traitors we should keep and which we should remove".

The problem with the traitor argument is not that it's downright false, but that it's problematic from the point of view of objective history (no, no history is 100% objective, but historians are supposed to try to be as close to that as possible).  The Confederates were "traitors" in the sense that participants in all insurrections against their government are.  No government will ever say: "If you have a strong enough grievance against us, you can overthrow (or violently pursue independence from) us."  This is why even though I'm very glad the Union won the war, and agree that slavery was a horrible injustice, I find the current use of the term against the Confederates irritating.  Those who use it act like they've made some sort of brilliant new discovery and are pulling it out of their hat.  In reality, when someone uses the term "traitor" to refer to participants in an insurrection, all it really tells us is that the person doesn't support the insurrection in question.  From the standpoint of someone seeking to understand and explain the history involved, it's basically useless. 

[Yellowhammer]

I hope to see the day that statues of Martin Luther King Jr are melted down.
These people will reap what they sow!

[KaiserDave]

I hope to see the day that statues of Martin Luther King Jr are melted down.
These people will reap what they sow!

- Adolf Hitler

[LBJer]

I think at a certain point a monument should not be removed regardless of what it represents. I would have supported removing it in the 1920's and 30's but at a certain point it becomes part of history. To give an example, I feel the same way with Auschwitz, it should have been burned to ashes immediately in 1945 to wipe out the evils of Nazism from Oswiecim once and for all. However, at this point its best to leave it up as its now a historic monument even though it represents something terrifying.

Most of the statues were put up in the 20s

1920's is still quite old, 100 years is a long time in history. The 50% mark in US history was around 1899-1900.

Whether 100 years is a "long time in history" is very subjective.  Certainly the Chinese, Iranians, etc. wouldn't say that it is.  

[Yellowhammer]

I hope to see the day that statues of Martin Luther King Jr are melted down.
These people will reap what they sow!

- Adolf Hitler

Wow, insightful

[Horus]

I hope to see the day that statues of Martin Luther King Jr are melted down.
These people will reap what they sow!

Stupid comparison.

[Mopsus]

My ancestors fought for the Union and I don’t care if there are statues of Confederate generals.

Many of the people complaining about them didn’t even have ancestors in this country in 1865.

Jao.

[Birdish]

My ancestors fought for the Union and I don’t care if there are statues of Confederate generals.

Many of the people complaining about them didn’t even have ancestors in this country in 1865.

Jao.

A lot of the people complaining about these statues don't want to look at memorials dedicated to men who fought to keep their ancestors enslaved. Quite frankly, I don't blame them.

[T'Chenka]

The problem with the traitor argument is not that it's downright false, but that it's problematic from the point of view of objective history (no, no history is 100% objective, but historians are supposed to try to be as close to that as possible).  The Confederates were "traitors" in the sense that participants in all insurrections against their government are.  No government will ever say: "If you have a strong enough grievance against us, you can overthrow (or violently pursue independence from) us."  This is why even though I'm very glad the Union won the war, and agree that slavery was a horrible injustice, I find the current use of the term against the Confederates irritating.  Those who use it act like they've made some sort of brilliant new discovery and are pulling it out of their hat.  In reality, when someone uses the term "traitor" to refer to participants in an insurrection, all it really tells us is that the person doesn't support the insurrection in question.  From the standpoint of someone seeking to understand and explain the history involved, it's basically useless.  

I don't want statues of traitors to be erected in the community I live in. Put them in a museum and get them away from public squares and city halls. Maybe if they had a morally justifiable reason for treason, I would re-evaluate my position on it. Slavery is not morally justifiable.

[Hindsight was 2020]

I hope to see the day that statues of Martin Luther King Jr are melted down.
These people will reap what they sow!

Cope and seethe loser lol

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

I hope to see the day that statues of Martin Luther King Jr are melted down.
These people will reap what they sow!

The Klan just called. They want their idiot back.

[Fuzzy Bear]

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're traitors. They're traitors. They're traitors. They will always be viewed as traitors going forward. If you don't like the english dictionary definition of that word, that's a "you" problem.

As for your whataboutism about Malcolm X... I think a reasonable way to assess the status of historical statues is "let's remove the statues of traitors first, and after that, maybe we can talk about which statues of non-traitors we should keep and which we should remove".

I stand by what I said.

The US Government had the opportunity to label Jefferson Davis as a traitor.  They could have tried him for treason.  Atty Gen Edwin Stanton explicitly refused to put Davis on trial.

Stanton's reasoning was that if Davis were acquitted, it would explicitly, and in law, justify the Confederate cause.  To quote writer James Swanson: "A Federal Court verdict declaring secession not treasonable would overturj the whole purpose and result of the war."   If he were convicted, he believe that it would have created a martyr.  Davis, himself, was willing to be martyred, and he believed (probably rightly) that his conviction (which was by no means considered a certainty at the time) and execution would have brought about mercy for the South.  Indeed, there was the fear that a Davis martyrdom would lead the south to rise again.  John Reagan, former Postmaster General for the Confederacy who was restored to citizenship, signed a loyalty oath, and later served as a Senator from Texas, stated: "I urged that the welfare of the whole country would be subserved by setting him free without a trial; for the South it would be a signal that harsh and vindictive measures were to be relaxed; and for the North it would be that they were willing to let the decision of the right of secession rest where 2t was and no try to secure a judicial verdict . . . the war had passed judgment and that [u]hereafter[/u] (emphasis added) secession would mean rebellion."[/i]

The decision made on this issue is very much a "Going Forward" decision.  This has, in fact, been decided long ago.  People who wish to undo this decision are people who conceal their hatred for White Southerners, believing that it's OK to hate them, and completely disregard the labeling of them as traitors in light of the fact that our Nation, itself, opted specifically NOT to press that finding.  As with many such findings after horrible wars (e. g. the soft-pedaling of the role of the Japanese Emperor in World War II and the restoration and continuation of the monarchy as a Constitutional Monarchy), this has, in fact, worked out well for America, and for the World (as the reunification of America allowed it to be in a position to bail out Europe in two (2) World Wars).  To call Lee and Jackson (who died in battle) "traitors" when the US Government explicitly refused to attempt to find them so, is wrong; it's a wrong on the character of men long dead, but it's still wrong.

It never ceases to amaze me how people here can go on about this, yet honor anti-Semites if they're from the left.  I challenge you to read "The Autobiography Of Malcolm X" edited by Alex Haley.  I read it as a young liberal and the anti-Jewish sentiment of Malcolm X is plain as day.  It's not whataboutism to ask people who are bent out of shape about Lee's statue and Jackson's statue what they think about the Jew Hater (yes, he was that, plain as day) Malcolm X on the campus of Columbia U, a supposed "enlightened" place.  Integrity involves consistency.  On this issue, you certainly have no consistency.

And before the Forum Scumbags (including at least one party that "recommended" your post") resort to their personal attacks, let me make it clear that I am not pro-Confederate, neo-Confederate, or a sympathizer of the Southern point of view on slavery prior to the Civil War.  I would have been an abolitionist had I been alive back then.  But even abolitionists did not consider secession to be "treason".  When Southern states began to secede, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in his newspaper on a Front-Page Editorial:  "Let the Erring Sisters Go!".  I don't particularly agree with that, either, and I certainly concur in the result of the Civil War in terms of ending slavery.  But to refer to ordinary Southerners and Confederate soldiers as "traitors" is historically inaccurate and helpful to no one.

[OSR stands with Israel]

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're traitors. They're traitors. They're traitors. They will always be viewed as traitors going forward. If you don't like the english dictionary definition of that word, that's a "you" problem.

As for your whataboutism about Malcolm X... I think a reasonable way to assess the status of historical statues is "let's remove the statues of traitors first, and after that, maybe we can talk about which statues of non-traitors we should keep and which we should remove".

I stand by what I said.

The US Government had the opportunity to label Jefferson Davis as a traitor.  They could have tried him for treason.  Atty Gen Edwin Stanton explicitly refused to put Davis on trial.

Stanton's reasoning was that if Davis were acquitted, it would explicitly, and in law, justify the Confederate cause.  To quote writer James Swanson: "A Federal Court verdict declaring secession not treasonable would overturj the whole purpose and result of the war."   If he were convicted, he believe that it would have created a martyr.  Davis, himself, was willing to be martyred, and he believed (probably rightly) that his conviction (which was by no means considered a certainty at the time) and execution would have brought about mercy for the South.  Indeed, there was the fear that a Davis martyrdom would lead the south to rise again.  John Reagan, former Postmaster General for the Confederacy who was restored to citizenship, signed a loyalty oath, and later served as a Senator from Texas, stated: "I urged that the welfare of the whole country would be subserved by setting him free without a trial; for the South it would be a signal that harsh and vindictive measures were to be relaxed; and for the North it would be that they were willing to let the decision of the right of secession rest where 2t was and no try to secure a judicial verdict . . . the war had passed judgment and that [u]hereafter[/u] (emphasis added) secession would mean rebellion."[/i]

The decision made on this issue is very much a "Going Forward" decision.  This has, in fact, been decided long ago.  People who wish to undo this decision are people who conceal their hatred for White Southerners, believing that it's OK to hate them, and completely disregard the labeling of them as traitors in light of the fact that our Nation, itself, opted specifically NOT to press that finding.  As with many such findings after horrible wars (e. g. the soft-pedaling of the role of the Japanese Emperor in World War II and the restoration and continuation of the monarchy as a Constitutional Monarchy), this has, in fact, worked out well for America, and for the World (as the reunification of America allowed it to be in a position to bail out Europe in two (2) World Wars).  To call Lee and Jackson (who died in battle) "traitors" when the US Government explicitly refused to attempt to find them so, is wrong; it's a wrong on the character of men long dead, but it's still wrong.

It never ceases to amaze me how people here can go on about this, yet honor anti-Semites if they're from the left.  I challenge you to read "The Autobiography Of Malcolm X" edited by Alex Haley.  I read it as a young liberal and the anti-Jewish sentiment of Malcolm X is plain as day.  It's not whataboutism to ask people who are bent out of shape about Lee's statue and Jackson's statue what they think about the Jew Hater (yes, he was that, plain as day) Malcolm X on the campus of Columbia U, a supposed "enlightened" place.  Integrity involves consistency.  On this issue, you certainly have no consistency.

And before the Forum Scumbags (including at least one party that "recommended" your post") resort to their personal attacks, let me make it clear that I am not pro-Confederate, neo-Confederate, or a sympathizer of the Southern point of view on slavery prior to the Civil War.  I would have been an abolitionist had I been alive back then.  But even abolitionists did not consider secession to be "treason".  When Southern states began to secede, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in his newspaper on a Front-Page Editorial:  "Let the Erring Sisters Go!".  I don't particularly agree with that, either, and I certainly concur in the result of the Civil War in terms of ending slavery.  But to refer to ordinary Southerners and Confederate soldiers as "traitors" is historically inaccurate and helpful to no one.

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson are not the regular southerner though. They actively led the Confederate Military against the US military meaning they led an enemy army against our military and we should not celebrate that. They also in doing so broke the oath they took to the US military so why should we honor them.

Anyway on this , I believe we should tear down the statue of any person who led an army against the United States of America or were our enemies. So yeah the Marx statue in Seattle should be taken down for sure and be replaced with a statue of a Cold War US president. Similarly CSA statues should be replaced by statues of Union Generals or Lincoln.

Statues are meant to celebrate people and are just not a symbol of history

[Hindsight was 2020]

It a lot of ways the statues do carry on the legacy of the Confederacy cause in that both are just objectively racist things with overwhelming evidence supporting that fact but people jump through hoops to give a deeper meaning

[Fuzzy Bear]

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're traitors. They're traitors. They're traitors. They will always be viewed as traitors going forward. If you don't like the english dictionary definition of that word, that's a "you" problem.

As for your whataboutism about Malcolm X... I think a reasonable way to assess the status of historical statues is "let's remove the statues of traitors first, and after that, maybe we can talk about which statues of non-traitors we should keep and which we should remove".

I stand by what I said.

The US Government had the opportunity to label Jefferson Davis as a traitor.  They could have tried him for treason.  Atty Gen Edwin Stanton explicitly refused to put Davis on trial.

Stanton's reasoning was that if Davis were acquitted, it would explicitly, and in law, justify the Confederate cause.  To quote writer James Swanson: "A Federal Court verdict declaring secession not treasonable would overturj the whole purpose and result of the war."   If he were convicted, he believe that it would have created a martyr.  Davis, himself, was willing to be martyred, and he believed (probably rightly) that his conviction (which was by no means considered a certainty at the time) and execution would have brought about mercy for the South.  Indeed, there was the fear that a Davis martyrdom would lead the south to rise again.  John Reagan, former Postmaster General for the Confederacy who was restored to citizenship, signed a loyalty oath, and later served as a Senator from Texas, stated: "I urged that the welfare of the whole country would be subserved by setting him free without a trial; for the South it would be a signal that harsh and vindictive measures were to be relaxed; and for the North it would be that they were willing to let the decision of the right of secession rest where 2t was and no try to secure a judicial verdict . . . the war had passed judgment and that [u]hereafter[/u] (emphasis added) secession would mean rebellion."[/i]

The decision made on this issue is very much a "Going Forward" decision.  This has, in fact, been decided long ago.  People who wish to undo this decision are people who conceal their hatred for White Southerners, believing that it's OK to hate them, and completely disregard the labeling of them as traitors in light of the fact that our Nation, itself, opted specifically NOT to press that finding.  As with many such findings after horrible wars (e. g. the soft-pedaling of the role of the Japanese Emperor in World War II and the restoration and continuation of the monarchy as a Constitutional Monarchy), this has, in fact, worked out well for America, and for the World (as the reunification of America allowed it to be in a position to bail out Europe in two (2) World Wars).  To call Lee and Jackson (who died in battle) "traitors" when the US Government explicitly refused to attempt to find them so, is wrong; it's a wrong on the character of men long dead, but it's still wrong.

It never ceases to amaze me how people here can go on about this, yet honor anti-Semites if they're from the left.  I challenge you to read "The Autobiography Of Malcolm X" edited by Alex Haley.  I read it as a young liberal and the anti-Jewish sentiment of Malcolm X is plain as day.  It's not whataboutism to ask people who are bent out of shape about Lee's statue and Jackson's statue what they think about the Jew Hater (yes, he was that, plain as day) Malcolm X on the campus of Columbia U, a supposed "enlightened" place.  Integrity involves consistency.  On this issue, you certainly have no consistency.

And before the Forum Scumbags (including at least one party that "recommended" your post") resort to their personal attacks, let me make it clear that I am not pro-Confederate, neo-Confederate, or a sympathizer of the Southern point of view on slavery prior to the Civil War.  I would have been an abolitionist had I been alive back then.  But even abolitionists did not consider secession to be "treason".  When Southern states began to secede, William Lloyd Garrison wrote in his newspaper on a Front-Page Editorial:  "Let the Erring Sisters Go!".  I don't particularly agree with that, either, and I certainly concur in the result of the Civil War in terms of ending slavery.  But to refer to ordinary Southerners and Confederate soldiers as "traitors" is historically inaccurate and helpful to no one.

Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson are not the regular southerner though. They actively led the Confederate Military against the US military meaning they led an enemy army against our military and we should not celebrate that. They also in doing so broke the oath they took to the US military so why should we honor them.

Anyway on this , I believe we should tear down the statue of any person who led an army against the United States of America or were our enemies. So yeah the Marx statue in Seattle should be taken down for sure and be replaced with a statue of a Cold War US president. Similarly CSA statues should be replaced by statues of Union Generals or Lincoln.

Statues are meant to celebrate people and are just not a symbol of history

I certainly agree with the last line.

The view of the relationship between the individual states and the Federal Government was fundamentally different in 1860 than it is now.  In 1860 it was not a consensus view in the NORTH (let alone the South) that secession was treason, or even forbidden.  That's a fact, and it's something that people here conveniently refuse to acknowledge.

[Mopsus]

My ancestors fought for the Union and I don’t care if there are statues of Confederate generals.

Many of the people complaining about them didn’t even have ancestors in this country in 1865.

Jao.

A lot of the people complaining about these statues don't want to look at memorials dedicated to men who fought to keep their ancestors enslaved. Quite frankly, I don't blame them.

I strongly suspect that a minority of statue protestors are descended from slaves. Some other factor is at work.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

A fitting end:

Controversial statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee melted down for future art project

No word yet on the fate of the equestrian statue of Gen. 'Stonewall' Jackson that was also removed. 

They should turn it into a statue of John Brown.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Anyway on this , I believe we should tear down the statue of any person who led an army against the United States of America or were our enemies. So yeah the Marx statue in Seattle should be taken down for sure and be replaced with a statue of a Cold War US president.

Karl Marx was never an enemy of the US.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Statues of Confederate generals are no more appropriate than one of Benedict Arnold would be.

At least in Benedict Arnolds case, his most important contributions to history happened while he was serving the US. By that metric, Confederate statues are worse.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Anyway on this , I believe we should tear down the statue of any person who led an army against the United States of America or were our enemies. So yeah the Marx statue in Seattle should be taken down for sure and be replaced with a statue of a Cold War US president.

Karl Marx was never an enemy of the US.

I meant to say Lenin

[Born to Slay. Forced to Work.]

My ancestors fought for the Union and I don’t care if there are statues of Confederate generals.

Many of the people complaining about them didn’t even have ancestors in this country in 1865.

Jao.

My ancestor signed the Ordinance of Succession of South Carolina. Tear em all down.

He also was murdered late in the war, which in my opinion was probably too good for him.

[7,052,770]

My great great great grandfather died at age 24 futility defending Atlanta from the American liberators. What a dupe. He doesn't deserve a statue and I would strongly support removing and destroying any that exist.