Lets see if I can do this without getting booted off the island.

In reply to stuart in mn:

I've been to a lot of these monuments. Aside from places like Gettysburg, most were built later as the veterans started to die.

stuart in mn wrote: Here's a thought - maybe rather than tearing down a statue they instead could add a plaque on the base that explains the history of the person and the era they lived in. It then changes from a commemoration of that person to an education about them. This may or may not be a good solution but it seems like it would be worth a discussion. edited to add: per the link, I didn't realize how those statues were put up in the 20th century, I figured they had been around since the war. In that case their installation was kind of revisionist history in itself. So, I don't know the answer - personally, I pretty much walk by statues without paying much attention to them one way or the other so I'm not the person to be making decisions anyway.

This is absolutely the best solution. Keeps history, doesn't pretend these people didn't exist, but shows how we think about those things now.

The same is true with drawing revisions at work. You can always go back and see what was there, even if it was stupid and wrong.

In reply to stuart in mn:

To some extent, this already exists at Gettysburg. While there are more Union monuments, there are still quite a few Confederate ones as well.

I was wondering when a thread like this would pop up.

There's no terminology in the constitution or any legislation that says you have the right to not be offended.

The right to free speech (which includes symbolism) is a federally protected one. No one can choose which speech is ok and which is not. It is all ok, or it all is not.

There are legal and civic channels which make it possible for things like statues to be removed from public places. Those channels fly in the face of "I want it now" and "Its only ok (or not ok) because I say so" mentalities that many have today.

Vandalism is against the law.

4cylndrfury said: No one can choose which speech is ok and which is not. It is all ok, or it all is not.

Nope, that's not what free speech means at all. The right is simply not to be censored or jailed by the government for political speech.

Public service announcement: https://xkcd.com/1357/

If a german community in the US wanted to erect statues of german ww2 officers on public property they would promptly be told to piss off. This should be treated the same way. Beyond the slavery they were traitors that rebelled against our country. End of story. If a person thinks the staues should stay on public property all i can say is "You lost. Get over it."

914Driver wrote: I don't know where this started, but lets say someone now accused Ben Franklin of being a pedophile, would we revamp our bills?

Side note, I think if solid evidence turned up that he was a pedophile, he would probably be removed from the currency. But he was actually a (G)MILF hunter.

Putting up a statue of someone is glorifying them. There's no way around that. A plaque at the base, explaining nuance? Seriously? What if someone literally murdered your grandparents, and someone else that publicly espouses an affinity for that murderer put up a statue of them in town. Would you then be happy with a plaque at the base talking about how they were responsible for the death of someone? How do you think you would feel if that person was responsible for the death of and enslavement of generations of your ancestors? A plaque is not the answer. Razing the statues and putting up statues of Lincoln and JFK Jr would be a good start.

@SVreX: I respect your opinions and that you have a lot more exposure on this issue than I do. But the lack of statues of confederate generals is not what has created or even worsened Albany's race relations problems.

A quote from the bigoted, slaver Robert E Lee.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."

So yeah... people don't know history. What they do know are soundbites that have been force fed to them by a biased media and ignorance.

To also say that the civil war and the Confederate States were only about slavery is not only ignorance, but willful ignorance. WE the People lost a lot of civil liberties because of this war.

WilD wrote:

4cylndrfury said: No one can choose which speech is ok and which is not. It is all ok, or it all is not.

Nope, that's not what free speech means at all. The right is simply not to be censored or jailed by the government for political speech. Public service announcement: https://xkcd.com/1357/

arguing semantics? really? Because thats exactly what Im saying?!?

In reply to dculberson:

The lack of recognition of a significant event that happened and the failures related to it has.

I'm not advocating statues, but I've seen the damage of forgetting the past so that we can feel "comfortable".

Oh boy. This thread is in better shape than I thought it would be after reading the first post. I'm staying out of the discussion except to pat everyone on the back who's posted so far for keeping it civil.

In reply to 4cylndrfury:

I went back and re-read your post and I still don't see the joke I missed. There is a lot of confusion over this issue and I'm tired of free speech being trotted out all the time when it isn't relevant. So, I guess I'm sorry for spoiling your post. shrug

Edit: Upon further inspection, I think I see where you were trying to go with this, but I think you needed more context to really sell it.

I am less concerned about the statues (though I don't like them) then the forces that drive the discussions.

I have been in Columbia SC for several months. The internet claims that the Confederate flag still flies over the state capital. And I've heard people on this forum argue the same.

It doesn't. And it doesn't fly anywhere over the capital grounds. I've walked them in their entirety looking for it.

There is, however, a tremendous statue to the history of African Americans at the site. It is the largest statue on the capital grounds, and very well done showing the roots of slavery, and the accomplishments of many black leaders throughout history.

It's too bad we never hear that stuff. Don't believe everything you read on the internet.

Bobzilla wrote: A quote from the bigoted, slaver Robert E Lee. "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained." So yeah... people don't know history. What they do know are soundbites that have been force fed to them by a biased media and ignorance. To also say that the civil war and the Confederate States were only about slavery is not only ignorance, but willful ignorance. WE the People lost a lot of civil liberties because of this war.

Everyone I know who believes that the Civil War was truly about slavery and only slavery makes their point by simply saying it louder and louder. Thanks for bringing that up.

I dont care about statues either way. If you want to put them up, get the permits and such, and put em up. Congrats on a job well done.

Hate em, and want to take em down? Cool, go for it. The local legislature is meeting on the 2nd weds of each month. Feel free to swing by and state your case, and allow the legislature to make a ruling.

What? Thats not good enough for you? You vandalized public property? Well, that just wont do. This is America. Wanton destruction borne out of a sense of personal righteousness is unacceptable. Welcome to county jail. Dont pick up the soap...

In reply to Bobzilla:

I recently learned that Arlington National Cemetery is the grounds of Lee's old plantation, which was confiscated after he was defeated. I can think of no better use for a worthless traitor's land than to honor the men he caused to die. I amazed that the US was so kind to its traitors that we let them live.

In addition to killing an incredible number of US citizens and abducting and enslaving yet more US citizens, Lee had some other choice quotes:

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

Here's another:

"that wherever you find the negro, everything is going down around him, and wherever you find a white man, you see everything around him improving."

And another:

"You will never prosper with blacks, and it is abhorrent to a reflecting mind to be supporting and cherishing those who are plotting and working for your injury, and all of whose sympathies and associations are antagonistic to yours. I wish them no evil in the world—on the contrary, will do them every good in my power, and know that they are misled by those to whom they have given their confidence; but our material, social, and political interests are naturally with the whites."

Here's another (in testimony to congress no less):

"the negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power."

In reply to Bobzilla:

Lee really struggled with joining the confederacy. its an interesting read, but this isn't about one man. Plenty of horrible rascists fought for the union. The north was full of racism look at the riots against the draft in New York and the orphanage that was burned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Orphan_Asylum

History isn't so cut and dry.

In reply to tuna55:

Not to mention that the city council already had a vote on whether to remove the statue or not and it was voted down 3-2. Then we have the two sides of the same coin show up and make a fuss over nothing and create chaos and news that shouldn't have been created.... But we won't let reality and truth get in the way.

Our beloved media has abused the privilege to free speech and converted it into THEIR right to control the narrative. (Often for political or financial gain)

Fueled by Caffeine wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: Lee really struggled with joining the confederacy. its an interesting read, but this isn't about one man. Plenty of horrible rascists fought for the union. The north was full of racism look at the riots against the draft in New York and the orphanage that was burned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colored_Orphan_Asylum History isn't so cut and dry.

WHAT?!?!?!? It's not black and white like they tell us? Say it ain't so!

4cylnderfury said: Hate em, and want to take em down? Cool, go for it. The local legislature is meeting on the 2nd weds of each month. Feel free to swing by and state your case, and allow the legislature to make a ruling.

BUT, that's exactly what was happening, until "protesters" put a stop to it. A statue got torn down today, but that is largely because there narrative has been high jacked by these "Alt Right" dudes and people are pissed. Rightly so, in my opinion.

Folks, thank you for the clear and well backed up responses, this was more civil than expected.

Dan

In reply to tuna55:

Here's what Mississippi had to say about why they attempted to leave the union:

A Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of the State of Mississippi from the Federal Union In the momentous step, which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course. Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery - the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove.

Here's Robert Hardy Smith of Alabama, in 1861 on why Alabama attempted to leave the union:

We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel. Now, is there any man who wished to reproduce that strife among ourselves? And yet does not he, who wished the slave trade left for the action of Congress, see that he proposed to open a Pandora's box among us and to cause our political arena again to resound with this discussion. Had we left the question unsettled, we should, in my opinion, have sown broadcast the seeds of discord and death in our Constitution. I congratulate the country that the strife has been put to rest forever, and that American slavery is to stand before the world as it is, and on its own merits. We have now placed our domestic institution, and secured its rights unmistakably, in the Constitution. We have sought by no euphony to hide its name. We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property.

Here's Senator Albert Gallatin Brown:

I want Cuba, and I know that sooner or later we must have it. If the worm-eaten throne of Spain is willing to give it for a fair equivalent, well—if not, we must take it. I want Tamaulipas, Potosi, and one or two other Mexican States; and I want them all for the same reason—for the planting and spreading of slavery. And a footing in Central America will powerfully aid us in acquiring those other states. It will render them less valuable to the other powers of the earth, and thereby diminish competition with us. Yes, I want these countries for the spread of slavery. I would spread the blessings of slavery, like the religion of our Divine Master, to the uttermost ends of the earth, and rebellious and wicked as the Yankees have been, I would even extend it to them. I would not force it upon them, as I would not force religion upon them, but I would preach it to them, as I would preach the gospel. They are a stiff-necked and rebellious race, and I have little hope that they will receive the blessing, and I would therefore prepare for its spread to other more favored lands.

I'm sure I could dig up others, but the southern government sure seems to think it was fighting principally over slavery.

In reply to WilD:

In Charlotte, you had two sides of the same coin. "alt-right" and "anti-fa". They deserve each other IMO. If you ask me, send in another few dozen challengers and hep the whole country out with the likes of those two.