Charlottesville Confederate statue removal blocked by judge

[Twilight Hue]

Claiming that people are trying to "erase history" is an embarrassingly stupid straw man. It's not necessary to commemorate or celebrate something in order to remember it's historical significance. After all, while its important to remember what happened during the U.S. invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan, do we need statues of Mujahideen triumphantly holding high the heads of decapitated U.S. troops in front of courthouses and such?

Why? Is Robert E Lee holding a decapitated head?

 

[MikeDwight]

Ulysses S Grant on Horseback in front of the Capitol Building. See if I wanted to see some sort of high horse, intimidation tactic, from My Government, then, I mean he's invading people's home all over the place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Slavery was of course an issue. But not like the PC North was making it to be. And certainly not like the PC North during and after the war made it to be.

The North was concerned over slavery because it fueled the Southern economy, which was doing well. Not because they wanted all the blacks free. Only a few fringe idiots called abolitionists wanted that. The South was for slavery, not because they believed the black man needed to be enslaved, but because that was a major part of their economy. And slavery was a legitimate institution in that day. Protected by the Constitution.

KKK and Neo-Nazis in Charlotte came to protest the removement because blacks and minorities use this as a legal way to come against white people, especially Southern white people. The North has made blacks the enemy of the South. Blacks have bought into it and truly are now enemies of the Southern white people. But it is because they, the blacks, believe the smoke that has been blown up their backside all these years, by the North, or Federal government.

Thus the conflict.

Good-Oe-Rebel

I've avoided engaging with you so far for a reason. Don't reply to my posts unless you want to hear exactly where I think you should shove the flag of racism, treason, and cowardice in your avatar.

(Hint: it's the same place that I think neo-Nazis should shove their swastikas)

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I've avoided engaging with you so far for a reason. Don't reply to my posts unless you want to hear exactly where I think you should shove the flag of racism, treason, and cowardice in your avatar.

(Hint: it's the same place that I think neo-Nazis should shove their swastikas)

Bold statements. You think you are going to say something I haven't heard before?

Go ahead, let her fly. Impress me.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[MikeDwight]

You guys like hearing about the stars and stripes? George Washington had just bolstered the courage of his men despite the freezing cold and lack of pay, by thinking of their wives. That's how we'll achieve the Rights of Englishman. Betsy Ross was widow of an American Revolutionary.

years after Betsy Ross's death. In his account, the original flag was made in June 1776, when a small committee – including George Washington, Robert Morris and relative George Ross – visited Betsy and discussed the need for a new American flag. Betsy accepted the job to manufacture the flag.

 

[Twilight Hue]

So, how come nobody's arguing over the removal of racist and anti-Semitic Malcolm X statues and memorials that are across the nation in various schools and public buildings?

Or is the sheer hypocrisy just way too much for some people?

If you're going to proactively remove icons of hatred from public funded places, then go all the way with it. Don't just stop at Confederate monuments.

 

[MikeDwight]

I totally support recognizing the 2nd flag in its very narrow representation of 5 years of contested government? That's what your government is whatsoever interested in. Abraham Lincoln's position considers any of that government illegal, a rebellion. I would support the 2nd flag as a narrow representation that they chose for their government. It has no explicit racial attack. Now people have given me very often that behind close doors, in senate chambers, slavery must be 'so obviously apparent'. Did the word Slave appear? In Jefferson Davis' inauguration? In the more positive and common aspects of that government? That'd be uncomfortable, that'd be varied viewpoints of americans.

Thomas Jackson is promoted to a Position. He's an independent Religious Government arm traditional in Europe. I hear that when said the 'political leadership' not being himself, not referring to military leadership. He's a Presbyterian Elder. In battle he typically led as a figurine with a hand in the air, no quirk, and wasn't a combatant. He starts clearly with a battleflag that envisions the states in Presbyterianism. Its very simple. Its directly from the national/religious flag of Scotland, in comparison to the Royal standard or other flags of Scotland. Its a direct evolution from the national anthem written in tandum with the Confederate Constitution, the "Bonnie Blue Flag" was written in the capitol chamber. The term Bonnie stereotypes a scotsman's viewpoint on the war.

The government officially honors the widow pictured Anna Jackson. Also everyone deemed him a 'saint' when he died according to the Virginia Enquirer. We can see the first official government use in this fanciful picture, there's his widow, there's his coffin with his battleflag. The Confederate Government is not responsible for your popular uses of it, obviously. The End. Fine' and Adieu as Jefferson Davis would say.

 

[Cooky]

Since I joined the Ku Klux Klan a few years ago, we never have talked much about black folks. Most of our conversations are about us Southern folk.

...American by birth, Southern by the grace of God.

 

[Revoltingest]

Although most of these liberal protesters see the statues as a memorial to slavery, they are wrong. We see these statues as a testament to standing up for a belief, not as a call to arms. We here in the South realize that the institution of slavery was and is abhorrent; it can never be tolerated anywhere again. However, these statues do not mean we long for the old ways, they remind us that even though our courage can not be questioned, our judgement must always be.

Wars mean different things to different people. But some
people think that only their personal meaning is true.
Can't convince'm otherwise cuz...you know....they have
The Truth. No other views will be entertained.

If statues are to memorialize the worst what the war stood for,
then we should perhaps tear down Vietnam War memorials.

 

[MikeDwight]

 

[BSM1]

If statues are to memorialize the worst what the war stood for,
then we should perhaps tear down Vietnam War memorials.

Unfortunately, and sadly, I understand what you mean....

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

I've avoided engaging with you so far for a reason. Don't reply to my posts unless you want to hear exactly where I think you should shove the flag of racism, treason, and cowardice in your avatar.

(Hint: it's the same place that I think neo-Nazis should shove their swastikas)

Well, I thought you were going to really let me have it. But I guess not. Getting late for me. Here is some encouragement to respond back.

I am not all that computer savy or I would post the song here. Maybe some others can and will. It is where I get my avatar name. Just google 'Good Ol Rebel' by Bobby Horton. You'll enyoy it I'm sure.

Later

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[Stevicus]

I agree with his decision. We can't erase history, we can only learn from it.

However if people want to try to erase history by removing anything that has to do with slavery, IMO we should start with the president's that owned slaves that we honor with statues, birthday holidays, put them on money, etc. And if we are going to do it, do it all the way. Let's do away with everything else that is a reminder of slavery which would include many afro-american things as well.

Again we can't erase history, we can only learn from it.

Circuit Court Judge Richard Moore ruled that any attempts to remove the Robert E. Lee statue violate a state law protecting war memorials, the Daily Progress reported. The decision last week ends a lawsuit filed in March 2017 opposing the Charlottesville City Council vote to remove statue on the grounds that it sends a racist message.

Charlottesville Confederate statue removal blocked by judge

I don't think anyone is erasing the history simply by removing a statue. We still have books, after all - and people are free to write/read whichever version of history they wish. Even if it wasn't written by the victors.

I suppose all of this could have been avoided if the Charlottesville City Council practiced due diligence and checked to see if it was legal for them to remove the statue, which apparently it wasn't.

I don't have a problem with removing the statue, if that's what ultimately ends up happening. After all, it's just a statue.

Overall, I think Civil War Battlefield memorials should be preserved. I recall a number of years ago there was some criticism over a casino which marred the Gettysburg monument, and there was some talk about building condos on the Manassas Battlefield Park. This ground is commemorating the US Civil War. I don't think it should ever be defiled in any way.

But statues in city parks or other areas which are not protected battlefields, those are different - and it's up to the states and local jurisdictions to determine their fate.

As to the larger question regarding how we should perceive our history, particularly that of the Civil War, I think we should try to look at it as honestly as possible. It's often been said that "history is written by the victors," but in the case of the Civil War, the losers' version also got a lot of play.

It's kind of a tricky subject to approach, even today, since (whether anyone likes it or not) "The South" is still a part of America - and the issues surrounding the Civil War, both what led up to it and how it's been treated in the aftermath, are still very much American issues.

That's what seems to get missed in this mad rush to tear down all these statues. It's like they're saying is that all we have to do is get rid of Confederate imagery and tear down all the statues of Confederate war figures - and that will somehow wash away all of America's sins. That's been an ongoing problem in trying to reconcile some of the darker pages in our history, while still trying to maintain an overall positive, patriotic, feel-good attitude about America in general. It's a tricky balance of historical truth mixed with some sort of patriotic message along with it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think anyone is erasing the history simply by removing a statue. We still have books, after all - and people are free to write/read whichever version of history they wish.

We use "erasing history" not in such an extreme sense,
ie, removing all info about what happened. Instead, it's
about making history less noticeable & present.

 

[MikeDwight]

Black people tend to be genuinely as curious as everyone. There's confusion in the issue from the time that 50% of a state is poor black and 50% poor white and there's an occupation And Southern Poverty Law Center.

There is totally historical censorship Online. is this anyone else's internet? Harry McCarthy is 'irish'... stonewall Jackson's a … irish… The flag meant … irish… X marks the spot man.

 

[dianaiad]

Claiming that people are trying to "erase history" is an embarrassingly stupid straw man. It's not necessary to commemorate or celebrate something in order to remember it's historical significance. After all, while its important to remember what happened during the U.S. invasions of Iraq/Afghanistan, do we need statues of Mujahideen triumphantly holding high the heads of decapitated U.S. troops in front of courthouses and such?

Y'know, the ancient Egyptians used to do that. They would absolutely destroy the tombs, any references, whatever to a previous king or queen...or anybody else...that the contemporary folks didn't want to remember. Of course, they figured that doing so erased them completely, not just the memory, but still....

And it didn't work.

There was considerably more to the civil war than slavery. I hate to say so, but if it were slavery and slavery only, there would have been no civil war. I really wish that we would (the northerners) have gone to war for that cause....but no.

Slavery was important...but the complete and utter difference between the culture of the south vs. the north...'states' rights,' farming vs. manufacturing. Slavery was part of that very different culture. However, slavery had been a part of America for a very long time. Slavery comes in third or fourth in ALL the 'causes of the civil war' analyses.

For anybody to figure that slavery was the only...or even the main...reason for the war are going for an incredibly simplistic view of history. Remember; there are still people in the south who refer to the civil war as 'the war of northern aggression."

And do NOT give me the 'you are a racist and white supremacist' thing because I say this. NOBODY in my family has ever owned slaves, as far back as I can track...and I'm a Mormon. I track things back a very long time. We've been abolitionists when 'abolitionist' was a "thing,"

 

[dianaiad]

Wanting to take statues down is not an attack on white people. Get over it

No. It's an attack on history. It's....political correctness gone bananas, and really doesn't have anything at all, ultimately, to do with racism.

 

[Father Heathen]

But another view is that it's cowardly
& stupid to erase history just because SJWs are triggered by the
message they infer. Monuments erected to people for doing bad
things...that's a useful thing to be reminded of.

Again, well documented history isn't going to magically disappear if contemporary statues (i.e. participation trophies for the losers) are moved off government property. Also again, you don't need to commemorate or celebrate something in order to remember it. We certainly need to remember it, but it's certainly not worthy of being commemorated or celebrated, especially not with your or my tax dollars. So yeah, referring to it as "erasing history" is pretty damn dumb.

 

[Father Heathen]

Y'know, the ancient Egyptians used to do that. They would absolutely destroy the tombs, any references, whatever to a previous king or queen...or anybody else...that the contemporary folks didn't want to remember. Of course, they figured that doing so erased them completely, not just the memory, but still....

And it didn't work.

I had explained in the very post that you had replied to that isn't what is happening. Step off the goofy narrative. There are still museums and history books. They aren't going to magically disappear if statues that take pride in something shameful were to disappear from government/public property.

There was considerably more to the civil war than slavery. I hate to say so, but if it were slavery and slavery only, there would have been no civil war. I really wish that we would (the northerners) have gone to war for that cause....but no.

Slavery was important...but the complete and utter difference between the culture of the south vs. the north...'states' rights,' farming vs. manufacturing. Slavery was part of that very different culture. However, slavery had been a part of America for a very long time. Slavery comes in third or fourth in ALL the 'causes of the civil war' analyses.

Are you really suggesting that social norms and cultural acceptance take precedence over ethics, morality, and justice?

For anybody to figure that slavery was the only...or even the main...reason for the war are going for an incredibly simplistic view of history. Remember; there are still people in the south who refer to the civil war as 'the war of northern aggression."

And do NOT give me the 'you are a racist and white supremacist' thing because I say this. NOBODY in my family has ever owned slaves, as far back as I can track...and I'm a Mormon. I track things back a very long time. We've been abolitionists when 'abolitionist' was a "thing,"

Yes, the civil war was nuanced, but that doesn't justify government/public land and tax dollars being used for the placement and upkeep of participation trophies for the losing side.

 

[Stevicus]

We use "erasing history" not in such an extreme sense,
ie, removing all info about what happened. Instead, it's
about making history less noticeable & present.

Even then, history can still be commemorated with noticeable monuments which aren't necessarily statues of individuals. We still have the battlefield monuments and memorials, and they're not going away anytime soon.

As for state and local jurisdictions deciding which statues to put up and which ones to tear down - that's their decision. I think many people have righteous reasons for wanting to remove the statues, so I'm not dismissing them, but on the other hand, my distrust of politicians makes me think that many of them are using this for reasons of political expediency.

The sad thing is, a lot of Americans really don't even know their own history, even with statues to make it more noticeable. One might hope that even the drive to have these statues torn down - that, in and of itself, might spark greater interest in the actual history and motivate more people to study the history of the Civil War.

It's not so much about the statues, but in a public park or urban area, there's only so much space available for statues. We can still keep history noticeable and present, but it may be more a matter of which historical figures are of greater importance and relevance to the present.

Here in Tucson, we have a statue for Pancho Villa in the middle of downtown - a gift from the President of Mexico. Some people don't like it, and there have been a number of failed efforts to get rid of it. So, there it sits.