Robert E Lee Statue

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

Just saying.....

[Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933]

FYI, one of the first things Biden did was remove Churchill's bust from the White House.

[watab kid]

"...Communists, the Taliban, and some elements in the U.S. understand it's easier to revise history to their benefit when competing narratives are suppressed, and when digging into the background or veracity of the revised narratives can be made unacceptable as being sacrilegious, racist, or ideologically 'wrong'...."

 

they can try , but there will always be some of us that recall , and maybe some that will stand up , there are a lot of them that wont much like what they get when they achieve their goals either 

[Marshal Mo Hare, SASS #45984]

Why stop with statues?

 

Ukraine has been removing reminders of being dominated by its larger neighbor to the north, Russia. Statues of commie leaders have come down, cities have been renamed, streets have been renamed. I’m sure there are more examples.

 

I think in Russia, Putin would like to reinstall some statues of Stalin.

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

Just wondering.............

[Trailrider #896]

On 7/11/2021 at 9:33 AM, Larsen E. Pettifogger, SASS #32933 said:

Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson and this morning Charlottesville tore down a statue of Lewis & Clark.

I suppose the theory there is that Wm. Clark owned (a) slave that accompanied the expedition out West.  Or maybe because they opened the country to settlement to the detriment of the Native Americans!  Stupid!

[watab kid]

13 hours ago, Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474 said:

Just wondering.............

thats a great question , im sure there will be a coverup or something that cleans his slate 

[Loophole LaRue, SASS #51438]

On 7/11/2021 at 12:39 PM, J-BAR #18287 said:

Gonna be tough to pull down the Jefferson Memorial Gateway Arch in St. Louis:
 

 

 

Tearing that down would be just plain wasteful.....

 

Paint it yellow and open a hamburger stand underneath it......

 

LL

[Hendo]

I tell people, "Keep erasing the past, you'll be surprised by the future you get".

 

Then, there's always the quote in my signature line....

[DocWard]

I've thought about it since I first declined to post, and decided what the heck, it's better to regret something you have done than something you haven't done. My opinion probably isn't going to be popular, but I do believe it is well reasoned.

For starters, I will say that ultimately, the people of Charlottesville are the only ones who have opinions that matter regarding these two statues. Just like the people of whatever town that chooses to erect, maintain or take down a statue. Having said that, here is my take on things.

The statues of Lee and Jackson were commissioned somewhere around 1917, and were erected in the 1920s. There is evidence to support the claim that statues like these and others erected through the South during this time, were done so at a time when African-Americans were beginning to make strides forward. A subtle, or not so subtle, reminder of their place in Southern society.

Think of the facts. The States that seceded did so in very large part because of slavery, to maintain that institution. For those who would argue otherwise, read the documents. The articles of secession for most of the seceding states specifically mention the hostility toward the institution of slavery as among the causes of secession. The Confederate Constitution specifically protected slavery and forbade "impairing the right of property in negro slaves."

When the statues were erected, invitations to Confederate groups were sent out. The statues were meant to honor these men not as slave holders, per se, but as leaders of the Confederacy, honoring men who led the fight to end the nation as a union. Now, we can go off on tangents as to whether the South had the right to secede, (I believe they did, despite the fact I find their reasons for doing so repugnant), but doing so misses the point. Those statues were intended to honor leaders in the fight to maintain slavery. Honoring them honors their cause, and their cause was not just.

It is up to each of us to determine within ourselves whether we find honoring men who fought to keep other people in servitude appropriate and worthwhile. At the end of the day, I see no other way of looking at it.

Removing the statues does not change history. It does not change their motives. Nor does it eliminate our ability to recall history. Those who wish to maintain the statues don't do so in order for them to act as reminders of the horrors of slavery. They wish to maintain the romance of the "Lost Cause" myth surrounding them, and their fight against the "Northern Aggression." Never mind the first shots throughout the South were fired by Confederates. But, it can't be had both ways. The lost cause was the Confederacy, hence, the lost cause was maintaining slavery.

 

On a further note, I do agree that we should not judge people of the past by the benchmark of the present. However, even during their time, they were fighting to maintain something they knew others found repulsive. Even Jefferson acknowledged slavery as an evil, yet with all of his intelligence, he couldn't find a way around it. And harkening back to my discussion above, not judging them is not the same as honoring them.

If the people of Charlottesville choose not to honor those men any longer for their fight to maintain slavery, that is their right, and I am fine with it.

[Pat Riot]

It’s obvious to me that people aren’t pizzed off enough to do anything about this socialist, revisionist, communist crap so it will continue. 

[Hendo]

15 hours ago, DocWard said:

I've thought about it since I first declined to post, and decided what the heck, it's better to regret something you have done than something you haven't done. My opinion probably isn't going to be popular, but I do believe it is well reasoned.

For starters, I will say that ultimately, the people of Charlottesville are the only ones who have opinions that matter regarding these two statues. Just like the people of whatever town that chooses to erect, maintain or take down a statue. Having said that, here is my take on things.

The statues of Lee and Jackson were commissioned somewhere around 1917, and were erected in the 1920s. There is evidence to support the claim that statues like these and others erected through the South during this time, were done so at a time when African-Americans were beginning to make strides forward. A subtle, or not so subtle, reminder of their place in Southern society.

Think of the facts. The States that seceded did so in very large part because of slavery, to maintain that institution. For those who would argue otherwise, read the documents. The articles of secession for most of the seceding states specifically mention the hostility toward the institution of slavery as among the causes of secession. The Confederate Constitution specifically protected slavery and forbade "impairing the right of property in negro slaves."

When the statues were erected, invitations to Confederate groups were sent out. The statues were meant to honor these men not as slave holders, per se, but as leaders of the Confederacy, honoring men who led the fight to end the nation as a union. Now, we can go off on tangents as to whether the South had the right to secede, (I believe they did, despite the fact I find their reasons for doing so repugnant), but doing so misses the point. Those statues were intended to honor leaders in the fight to maintain slavery. Honoring them honors their cause, and their cause was not just.

It is up to each of us to determine within ourselves whether we find honoring men who fought to keep other people in servitude appropriate and worthwhile. At the end of the day, I see no other way of looking at it.

Removing the statues does not change history. It does not change their motives. Nor does it eliminate our ability to recall history. Those who wish to maintain the statues don't do so in order for them to act as reminders of the horrors of slavery. They wish to maintain the romance of the "Lost Cause" myth surrounding them, and their fight against the "Northern Aggression." Never mind the first shots throughout the South were fired by Confederates. But, it can't be had both ways. The lost cause was the Confederacy, hence, the lost cause was maintaining slavery.

 

On a further note, I do agree that we should not judge people of the past by the benchmark of the present. However, even during their time, they were fighting to maintain something they knew others found repulsive. Even Jefferson acknowledged slavery as an evil, yet with all of his intelligence, he couldn't find a way around it. And harkening back to my discussion above, not judging them is not the same as honoring them.

If the people of Charlottesville choose not to honor those men any longer for their fight to maintain slavery, that is their right, and I am fine with it.

Doc, I ain't disagreeing with any of your points as far as the erection of CSA related statues goes, but is the wholesale desecration and removal of statues, memorials and such of all sorts these days done out of virtue and justice?

[DocWard]

1 hour ago, Hendo said:

Doc, I ain't disagreeing with any of your points as far as the erection of CSA related statues goes, but is the wholesale desecration and removal of statues, memorials and such of all sorts these days done out of virtue and justice?

 

That's a much bigger question, and one I would have to contemplate in order to give what I consider a reasoned answer.

 

In regard to statues meant to honor Confederate leaders, I think my opinion is clear. A statue erected to the rank and file soldier, who did his duty as he saw fit, and many of whom were drafted into service, I would have far greater problems with removing.

 

I will say that if someone were to wish to tear down a statue of Lee at Washington and Lee University, which exists wholly apart from his role as a Confederate leader, I would be opposed to it.

 

In regard to the statue of Lewis and Clark that Charlottesville removed, I have to defer to the City again. While my understanding of the intent was to show Sacajawea in a "tracking" pose, I can see how some would see it as her in a servile, even cowering position, while Lewis and Clark stand tall and undaunted.

 

It may seem I am trying to dodge the question by saying the following, but for me it is easier to speak on a case by case basis. Questions such as why was the statue put in place, where the statue sits, the subject matter of the statue all come into play. I will never be agreeable to mobs desecrating and pulling down statues out of anger and in protest. It is up to the citizens of any given locale to make the decision.

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

The statues are already up. It doesn't matter why they were put up. The reasons they were put up were decisions made in that day, and age, and mindset.

They may have been put up to honor the men, perhaps to honor the cause. They may have been put up just to intimidate someone(s). They may have been put up to honor an ancestor, that fought in that conflict. They may have been put up just for the heck of it, but the people that put them up, are, like as not, long dead and gone, along with the original reasons they put them up.  

But, it doesn't matter why they were put up...bottom line is now, they are up.

 

Folks now view them, not as a symbol, or to honor the reasons of the Confederate cause, and to advocate slavery, but as objects of art, and of education, and of history. That's the mindset in the here, and now. 

 

Does anyone seriously think a State, that was part of the Confederacy, would put up a statue to Grant, or Sherman, or a union solider? Perhaps they would nowadays, but back in those days, they probably would not have considered such a thing. 

Can you see the folks living in the Atlanta area, in post-war times, ever considering putting up a statue to Sherman?   

No...obviously they would put up a statue representing the side most of the men, from that area, went off down the road, and fought on.

 

Now, the question may become...do they need to come down...and if so, what are the reasons, or excuses, why they need to come down. 

 

Should it not be up to the local city/county citizens to have some open discussions, and then take a vote?

 

Also, you have to consider the costs involved in taking down a statue, that may weigh several tons. I don't see any companies out there that are willing to take them down, and haul them off, for free. The city of Dallas removed a statue, and it cost them $450,000.00. Yes, they ended up selling it for more than that, but not every statue was as large, and as finely made, as that one, and not all statues may sell for more than it costs to remove. If one is voted on to be removed, then take donations to get the funds together to remove it. It would tick me off, greatly, to have my hard earned tax dollars used to remove a statue that has been there for perhaps a hundred years, or more. Use the tax money to feed the hungry, not remove art, and history.    

 

If a statue is within the city limits, then only the folks in that city, and county, should be voting on it...not someone from another location, or another State. Decisions need to be made at the local level. The rest can, and should, butt out. But...how many have been removed on the decisions of a few folks in political authority, and how many have been removed by taking a vote, of the people, and counting up the results?  

There may have been some taken down by popular local vote, but I haven't read of any. Seems like it has been mostly local mayors, city counsel-men, or presidents of colleges/universities...or they have been illegally removed by a mob, while the city/university officials stood by, looking for their spines. 

 

I would think most of the citizens had rather put things like this to some discussion, and then a vote, instead of allowing one person, or one group, make the decision for everyone. 

 

 

 

 

 

[DeaconKC]

This has made me look at this from another angle. Remember when Saddam Hussein was ousted and a new government put in place. The people of Iraq tore his statues down with farm tractors. Yet many of us, cheered for the Iraqi people doing this. Erase history? We cannot blind ourselves to the wrongs that were done in the past or we will just repeat those mistakes if we do not learn from them. To blindly remove monuments without looking at the reason it is there is vandalism. Should we remove ones placed because they were there to intimidate? Or should they remain to be used to learn from hopefully?

[DocWard]

16 minutes ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

The statues are already up. It doesn't matter why they were put up. The reasons they were put up were decisions made in that day, and age, and mindset.

They may have been put up to honor the men, perhaps to honor the cause. They may have been put up just to intimidate someone(s). They may have been put up to honor an ancestor, that fought in that conflict. They may have been put up just for the heck of it, but the people that put them up, are, like as not, long dead and gone, along with the original reasons they put them up.  

But, it doesn't matter why they were put up...bottom line is now, they are up.

 

Folks now view them, not as a symbol, or to honor the reasons of the Confederate cause, and to advocate slavery, but as objects of art, and of education, and of history. That's the mindset in the here, and now.[/quote]

 

I will disagree, and vehemently. The reason they were put up matters, and it matters a great deal. If not, nobody would care a wit if they came down or not. It is also without question that many of those who wish to see them remain, do so for ideological reasons. Yes, just like those who would have them removed. Clearly then, people today still see them as a symbol of the times from which they came. Otherwise we wouldn't have people feeling the need to have them removed, and others proclaiming such things as "heritage, not hate," while seeking to have them remain. To see them as tools of education and history, one has to see them... See them on their lofty perches, looking, well, statuesque, no pun intended, and looking honorable. The people who would see them and point to them as tools of history and education aren't going to be the ones saying "That's Stonewall Jackson, he was one of the military leaders in the fight to maintain slavery." They will, instead, be saying "That's Stonewall Jackson, one of the great generals in the War of Northern Aggression," or something close to that effect.

 

16 minutes ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

 

Does anyone seriously think a State, that was part of the Confederacy, would put up a statue to Grant, or Sherman, or a union solider? Perhaps they would nowadays, but back in those days, they probably would not have considered such a thing. 

Can you see the folks living in the Atlanta area, in post-war times, ever considering putting up a statue to Sherman?   

No...obviously they would put up a statue representing the side most of the men, from that area, went off down the road, and fought on.[/quote]

 

That is a Red Herring, from a logical point of view. It matters not what would not have been put up. We are dealing with what was put up, and why.

 

16 minutes ago, Waxahachie Kid #17017 L said:

 

Now, the question may become...do they need to come down...and if so, what are the reasons, or excuses, why they need to come down. 

 

Should it not be up to the local city/county citizens to have some open discussions, and then take a vote?

 

Also, you have to consider the costs involved in taking down a statue, that may weigh several tons. I don't see any companies out there that are willing to take them down, and haul them off, for free. The city of Dallas removed a statue, and it cost them $450,000.00. Yes, they ended up selling it for more than that, but not every statue was as large, and as finely made, as that one, and not all statues may sell for more than it costs to remove. If one is voted on to be removed, then take donations to get the funds together to remove it. It would tick me off, greatly, to have my hard earned tax dollars used to remove a statue that has been there for perhaps a hundred years, or more. Use the tax money to feed the hungry, not remove art, and history.    

 

If a statue is within the city limits, then only the folks in that city, and county, should be voting on it...not someone from another location, or another State. Decisions need to be made at the local level. The rest can, and should, butt out. But...how many have been removed on the decisions of a few folks in political authority, and how many have been removed by taking a vote, of the people, and counting up the results?  

There may have been some taken down by popular local vote, but I haven't read of any. Seems like it has been mostly local mayors, city counsel-men, or presidents of colleges/universities...or they have been illegally removed by a mob, while the city/university officials stood by, looking for their spines. 

 

I would think most of the citizens had rather put things like this to some discussion, and then a vote, instead of allowing one person, or one group, make the decision for everyone. 

 

I'm speaking only about the statues of Lee and Jackson. As I previously mentioned, I will never agree to mobs destroying or desecrating monuments. Could the matter be done by ballot initiative? Sure, why not? If someone feels strongly enough, they should do that. And yes, to my way of thinking would be a preferable way to do take care of the issue. Direct democracy in action. Above, I went so far as to say it is the local citizens who have the only say that matters. However, such things do tend to be why people elect city councils and county commissioners. The people can act through them, and if the people don't like what they have done, they can be elected out of offices. To my knowledge, the statues aren't being destroyed, only stored. The people can elect representatives to have the statues restored to what they see as their rightful place.

[Cold Lake Kid, SASS # 51474]

[watab kid]

On 7/17/2021 at 12:47 AM, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

It’s obvious to me that people aren’t pizzed off enough to do anything about this socialist, revisionist, communist crap so it will continue. 

"....Doc, I ain't disagreeing with any of your points as far as the erection of CSA related statues goes, but is the wholesale desecration and removal of statues, memorials and such of all sorts these days done out of virtue and justice?..."

 

i see it as pat does , i think its the reasons that were questioned , i believe we all have a right to our opinions and i dont intend to disagree with some of the logic doc applied , i cannot accept that those doing this have given it that much thought , just my humble opinion 

[Waxahachie Kid #17017 L]

There is more than one reason the statues were put up, back in the day. Some were put up to honor the cause, as misguided as we, today, think that is. Some were put up to honor an ancestor, not really to address/honor the slavery issue. Some were put up to honor the men who simply went and fought, because the mindset back then was States rights, over Federal authority. Lee himself was offered the command of the Union Army, but declined, because his home state of Virginia went the opposite direction. Back then, the States did not like to be told what to do, and what to think, by other States, or the Federal government. Pride? Ego? A rebellious nature? Probably, that, and more reasons. Not all that much unlike today, in many regards.   

I am sure there were other reasons why the statues went up, perhaps as many reasons as to why the men fought on a particular side. 

Some seem to think slavery was the only issue that started the war. Yep, it was a major issue, perhaps THE major issue, but not the only issue. But many want them removed because it seems to them to glamorize slavery, and honor it, and they can't, or won't see it, any other way. The major issue, to them, is slavery, and the commemorating, and honoring of it, and the folks that fought on the side of maintaining slavery. Slavery was the cause of the war, and slavery was the reason the memorials, and statues, were put up.  

I get that.  

It seems it is of paramount importance, to some, that the reasons they went up, back in the day, are the, or are one of the, basic causes of this controversy. 

One should ask themselves, do the people that want these memorials, and statues, removed, care about the original reasons they were erected? Would someone, that wanted them removed, change their minds about the removal, if it had been put up to just, say, honor, or remember, someone's ancestor? 

Have the folks, that want them removed, lumped all the memorials, and statues, into just one category, that of honoring slavery?  Have the people, that want them removed, made the decision that the reason each memorial, and statue, was put up, was to honor, and glamorize slavery?

Do they take into account/consideration the original reasons (plural) they were put up...or do they even bother to research it, to find out? Do they even care? Are they more concerned about what they represent, than why they were put up? Some do, perhaps, and some don't. Frankly, I do not know for sure. I have not interviewed, or talked to enough people, around here, to get any kind of consensus. 

In today's mindset, and what we have witnessed in the last year, or so, with the unrest, and riots, and disrespect, makes one wonder, perhaps, if anyone is aware, or educated enough, to have studied anything, and asked any legitimate questions. The passion to remove the confederate statues, and memorials, did spill over into including other figures of history...like Columbus, or Lewis and Clark, etc. Amazing, or pathetic, depending on how you look at it.  

We hear a lot of rhetoric, and general statements, and opinions, about why they need to be removed, and why they need to stay. The statements are fairly interesting, most of the time. Opinions are like armpits...most everyone has at least two. That includes you, and me, as well. 

What is interesting, is...a lot of things that are said, and opinions given, and advice offered, are from folks that don't even live in the States that have these memorials, and statues. That may mean they are getting their information from the media, internet, books, magazines, social networks, facebook, twitter, the t.v. news, cnn (clinton news network), the classroom, etc. Would/could those sources be trusted to tell the truth, the whole truth? Maybe...maybe not so much. Obviously, it is difficult to get with folks, face-to-face, in the locations that are affected, from a distance, or another State. 

Bottom line, the memorials, and the statues, represent slavery, and seem to honor it...to those that want them removed. They do not, and will not, see it any other way, so these things have to go. Today's political correctness climate seems to indicate they will have their way. 

I have no solution (no cheap solution) to a problem that seems has two sides that are intractable, and unmoving, in their way of thinking about this issue. 

Whichever side prevails (and I think we know which side will), there will be unhappiness, and hard feelings...and a further division among us. It seems to be a part, of the ideological conflict, that we have going on today, on a lot of issues, and fronts.

Like as not, that is why this post has lasted this long. Lots of ideas, and opinions, and feelings, and points-of-view, on this issue. 

 

 

 

  

 

[Forty Rod SASS 3935]

When do we start fighting back and pulling down the statues and monuments to all the criminals, misfits, and socialists that have been erected in our country?

 

If we were caught defacing them we'd be charged with hate crimes and spend more time in jail than the average murderer. and our families would be subjected to domestic terrorist acts.

[Red Gauntlet , SASS 60619]

I don't think the problem is so much that the CSA statues are the legacy of slavery. It's more likely because they are the legacy of Jim Crow.

 

Slavery ended 155 years ago. Jim Crow ended what, 50 years ago? And then, incrementally. The system was defended by the local and state public authorities to the end. There are still millions that lived under it.

 

One could imagine a country where even the decendants of former slaves might to some degree admire the symbols of CSA military bravery and history, or at least be very accepting of them. The Jim Crow system with all of its terrors and injustices made that impossible.

 

I've always thought that the real problem with African slavery was not so much that it occurred: this was the result of huge historical forces. But when it ended, the slaves were cheated of their freedom, and for generations. That could have been avoided.

 

It's similar to the situation with the American Indians. That they would lose their lands, and the continent, was historically inevitable. But then, when it happened, they were repeatedly cheated and betrayed by the victors, who violated their solemn agreements. That didn't have to happen, either.

[Hendo]

I was going to leave this dog lay, but...

We now have a country that erects statues, renames schools, public buildings and roads to a lifelong felon who at one time had held a gun to a pregnant woman's unborn child while his accomplices robbed her of everything. He didn't deserve to die, but he was no saint, yet they claim he was redeemable.

 

These same "leaders" are tearing down statues and references to men who fought for their States (regardless of real or perceived reasons and values).

Men who, after the war, in the later years of their lives had redeemed themselves. For instance, take the twice exhumed Nathan Bedford Forrest, who in 1877 addressed the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association (the predecessor to the NAACP).

 

 "Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. ( Immense applause and laughter.) I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand. "

 

It's worth noting that Forrest always had thought of himself as a soldier that led soldiers. The tactics that he developed are still being taught worldwide today. He made his money in the slave trade before the war. He was a fierce commander during the war. He was the head of the Klan for their first year but tried do disband them because of their violence. He also failed at being a railroad baron. Yet he redeemed himself in his final years and had died 2 years after making the above speech.

 

If you erase these men, this history, what will we and future generations learn?