Robert E. Lee Statue In Virginia Will Be Removed

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I guess it would depend on how you define "honorable."

Sure. How do you define "honourable?"

Some would say that the fact that he remained loyal to his state and kept his army together for years while being outnumbered and undersupplied would at least be worth some recognition. Even the Union leaders respected Lee and didn't appear to mind that statues were being erected for him.

Exerting great effort or even skill while defending a dishonourable cause isn't honourable in and of itself.

It took a lot of logistics skill to coordinate the 9/11 attacks. Does this make the 9/11 attackers worth honouring?

And plenty of those Union leaders were racist themselves. Why should we take their opinion as Gospel?

Some might opine that Lee was gracious and magnanimous in defeat, which was an important factor in reunifying the nation and healing the nation's wounds.

"The nation's wounds" weren't healed. The fact that there are monuments of Confederate generals all over the South is testament to that.

Or are you only counting white people as "the nation?"

Imagine what would have happened if the South remained permanently hostile up through the World Wars. The U.S. would have been severely hobbled if they had to maintain a permanent occupation force in the South.

The South did remain hostile up through the World Wars and beyond. The US just capitulated during the Reconstruction.

 

[Stevicus]

Sure. How do you define "honourable?"

Definition of HONORABLE

Definition of honorable


1: deserving of respect or high regard : deserving of honor an honorable profession
2a: of great renown : ILLUSTRIOUS the college's long and honorable history
b: entitled to honor or respect —used as a title for the children of certain British noblemen and for various government officials the Honorable Judge Smith the Honorable Senator from California
3: performed or accompanied with marks of honor or respect
4a: attesting to creditable conduct honorable wounds
b: consistent with a reputation that is not tarnished or sullied an honorable withdrawal received an honorable discharge from the army
5: characterized by integrity : guided by a keen sense of duty and ethical conduct Brutus is an honorable man— William Shakespeare
assured her that his intentions were honorable

Exerting great effort or even skill while defending a dishonourable cause isn't honourable in and of itself.

It depends on what you think the cause actually was and whether it accurately reflects each and every individual who fought for that cause.

It took a lot of logistics skill to coordinate the 9/11 attacks. Does this make the 9/11 attackers worth honouring?

I'm not sure if I like the premise of this question. 9/11 is not the same thing as the Civil War.

And plenty of those Union leaders were racist themselves. Why should we take their opinion as Gospel?

So, you're saying we should tear down the statues of the Union leaders as well? Don't the opinions of those who actually fought the war and defeated all those traitors from the South actually count for anything? Is the entire US government totally morally bankrupt? (Not that I would disagree with that, but at least we're starting to get to the truth of the matter here.)

"The nation's wounds" weren't healed. The fact that there are monuments of Confederate generals all over the South is testament to that.

Or are you only counting white people as "the nation?"

Again, you're trying to bait me, but I'm not biting. In the eyes of the Union leadership, the same people who won the war, ended slavery, and preserved the Union, the primary goal in the Postbellum period was to promote unity, national patriotism, and healing the nation's wounds.

And yes, both sides were very racist, which is why it's disingenuous to single out Confederate monuments as "racist monuments" when the whole country was racist.

The South did remain hostile up through the World Wars and beyond. The US just capitulated during the Reconstruction.

The US didn't capitulate. The Union clearly won the war, and no one has ever disputed that basic historical fact. They just didn't care as much about the well-being of black people as much as today's historical revisionists would have us believe. Too many people have this perception (and I've seen it played out in this thread) that racism in the U.S. is/was strictly a Southern thing, all wrapped in a Confederate flag and battle monuments.

Then they wonder why, even as late as 2020, the problem still persists. It's because they don't know what the cause, nor do they particularly care about solving the problem.

 

[fantome profane]

Maybe we shouldn’t be putting up any statues to venerate people. Maybe as a species we don’t deserve that honour. Maybe we should only put up monuments to honour ideas.

 

[Secret Chief]

Here's some more on the statue of the slave trader in Bristol:

Torn down slave trader statue 'was an affront'

 

[Secret Chief]

Another one bites the dust...

London slavery statue removed from outside museum

"Milligan's monument was removed to "recognise the wishes of the community" said the Canal and River Trust."

 

[esmith]

Seems we have some on this forum that thinks that only the Southern Democrats supported slavery.
Maybe they should at least try reading a little history.
After the Battle of the Crater, July 30, 1864, General Grant was chastised for the sever loss of Union lives.
The North was beginning to become war weary due the horrendous cost of lives.
The Democrats selected General McClellan to run against President Lincoln on the platform of peace at any price.
Basically elect the Democratic candidate, end the war even if it meant giving concessions to the South and perhaps a permanently divided nation with slavery still intact.
It may not have been they supported slavery, but they were willing to accept it as long as the war ended.
Seem's like they may have started thinking that policy again....peace at any price.

 

[tytlyf]

Seems we have some on this forum that thinks that only the Southern Democrats supported slavery.
Maybe they should at least try reading a little history.
After the Battle of the Crater, July 30, 1864, General Grant was chastised for the sever loss of Union lives.
The North was beginning to become war weary due the horrendous cost of lives.
The Democrats selected General McClellan to run against President Lincoln on the platform of peace at any price.
Basically elect the Democratic candidate, end the war even if it meant giving concessions to the South and perhaps a permanently divided nation with slavery still intact.
It may not have been they supported slavery, but they were willing to accept it as long as the war ended.
Seem's like they may have started thinking that policy again....peace at any price.

If I ask the run-of-the-mill conservative about the DemoKKKrat party, they'll say they were progressives. Which is false. The confederacy and south have voted DemoKKKrat most of their lives and generations. It was only until the Republican party changed from it's progressive ideals to play the "Southern Strategy" to get those racist DemoKKKrats over to their party.
The party doesn't make the rules of the ideology, the people who support the ideologies being proposed at the time do.

But one thing is obvious, it's clear the Klan went from generations of voting for racist democrat policies of the south to voting for the new racist policies of the Republican party.

RW gossip queens don't want you to know the DemoKKKrat party were conservatives in the south. The propagandists avoid that history as it goes against the agenda.

 

[esmith]

If I ask the run-of-the-mill conservative about the DemoKKKrat party, they'll say they were progressives. Which is false. The confederacy and south have voted DemoKKKrat most of their lives and generations. It was only until the Republican party changed from it's progressive ideals to play the "Southern Strategy" to get those racist DemoKKKrats over to their party.
The party doesn't make the rules of the ideology, the people who support the ideologies being proposed at the time do.

But one thing is obvious, it's clear the Klan went from generations of voting for racist democrat policies of the south to voting for the new racist policies of the Republican party.

RW gossip queens don't want you to know the DemoKKKrat party were conservatives in the south. The propagandists avoid that history as it goes against the agenda.

What does the above blabbering have to do with the post you responded to?????

 

[tytlyf]

What does the above blabbering have to do with the post you responded to?????

It means the only people re-writing history are the republican elitists. They can't even tell you the truth about who created the DemoKKKrat party. Hint: It wasn't liberals.

So the next time you hear a conservative say the DemoKKKrat party is the "Party of slavery." Let them know they are correct and they were conservatives.

 

[esmith]

It means the only people re-writing history are the republican elitists. They can't even tell you the truth about who created the DemoKKKrat party. Hint: It wasn't liberals.

So the next time you hear a conservative say the DemoKKKrat party is the "Party of slavery." Let them know they are correct and they were conservatives.

So just answer me one question.
Were the Northern Democrats willing to accept slavery in 1864?

 

[tytlyf]

So just answer me one question.
Were the Northern Democrats willing to accept slavery in 1864?

I'd say yes. At the time, blacks supported republicans because they were against slavery and the confederacy. The republican party when it used to have progressive ideals.

Answer me this one question.

Wasn't it conservatives, the Klan, and the confederacy that supported the Democratic party in the south?

 

[esmith]

I'd say yes.

Thank you must have finally picked up a history book and read it.

Answer me this one question.
Wasn't it conservatives, the Klan, and the confederacy that supported the Democratic party in the south?

It wasn't a political party that supported leaving the Union, it was those that advocated for slavery within the States, the right for slavery to exist in the territories, and their right to secede.
However, you can place whatever political label you want to put on them

 

[tytlyf]

Thank you must have finally picked up a history book and read it.

Well, I didn't really have to read anything to understand people of the time supporting racial policies would be democrats. Whether they lived in the south or north.

It wasn't a political party that supported leaving the Union, it was those that advocated for slavery within the States, the right for slavery to exist in the territories, and their right to secede.
However, you can place whatever political label you want to put on them

They were conservatives. Same ideology we have today. Waving their confederate flags, acting racist, etc.
Conservatives voted DemoKKKrat a lot longer than they've voted republican. It only took the republican elitists to exploit their racist feelings to win their support in the 50's and 60's

 

[SkepticThinker]

Here's another story about vandalizing a statue: Kissing statue vandalized with '#MeToo' after passing of veteran known as 'kissing sailor'

I recently read that the woman in that photograph being kissed was actually kissed spontaneously, on-the-spot, without her consent. As in, the guy just grabbed her and put his mouth on hers. And then it was memorialized in a photo for all these years as some great symbol of the war being over, when in actuality it's kinda gross.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I recently read that the woman in that photograph being kissed was actually kissed spontaneously, on-the-spot, without her consent. As in, the guy just grabbed her and put his mouth on hers. And then it was memorialized in a photo for all these years as some great symbol of the war being over, when in actuality it's kinda gross.

Yeah. That's why his arm behind her head was in that weird pose: she tried to push back, but he was holding her there by force.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Yeah. That's why his arm behind her head was in that weird pose: she tried to push back, but he was holding her there by force.

Once you really look at it, it seems so obviously forced on her.

Stupid old me used to think that photo was so cute. Ugh.

 

[Stevicus]

Once you really look at it, it seems so obviously forced on her.

Stupid old me used to think that photo was so cute. Ugh.

I found this video which goes a bit more into the postwar celebrations, right after the news of the Japanese surrender was announced. Granted, everyone was really happy and ecstatic that the war had ended.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A statue doesn't change history and change people's behaviors. It's just treating one symptom rather than the cause assuming that if "there are no statues" racism would just disappear. I notice that's in a lot of our politics: cover this up or take this out or whatever, the problem would be solved.

Im glad it's not just me being pessimistic amd cynical when I look at the current state of affairs.