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

My issue with the removal of the statue in Durham NC isn't whether or not the statue should be removed, it was a group of people (mob of people honestly) taking it upon themselves to pull it down (and then kick the fallen statue) all on their own. That simply isn't how we, as a society, should function and reminds me of ISIS destroying the statues and temples that they found "offensive".

Wanton destruction by mobs bothers me quite a bit. You want change in this country? Do it through channels. Get voted down? Take it to court. But mob rule isn't acceptable.

In reply to curtis73:

In reply to curtis73:

Bravo sir. I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

SVreX wrote: Would a statue fix it? No. But an education might, and the existence of a statue (along with its appropriate contextualization) can be part of an education.

If statues are such a pivotal part of our historical preservation and education, then we need to have more historically and contextually appropriate statues in our public spaces.

In reply to Driven5:

I agree. Like they have done on the grounds of the SC capital.

Sometimes I see threads like this and think:

"Golly we're all doing pretty well, and Margie is probably watching and checking into see if we're still handling this like adults"

and then reality sets in and I realize:

"Yeah it pretty much doesn't matter what we say here, she's closing this as soon as she sees it and probably won't even read any of the posts"

In reply to curtis73:

I couldn't agree more.

In reply to curtis73:

Well said sir! You've nailed it perfectly.

SVreX wrote: I am a Northerner. I would have an easier time fully supporting the North's "position" on slavery if documents like the Emancipation Proclamation treated slavery evenly across all states. It doesn't- it provided opportunity for advancement for Southern slaves, but no freedoms at all for Northern slaves.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Slavery was abolished in all northern states by 1804 (well, some didn't take effect right away). The emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863. Why would you address something in 1863 that had been illegal for 59 years?

@both: I'll let the Declarations of the Causes of Secession speak for itself:

But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.

I don't think there's much ambiguity there, guys. Yes there were more causes but the primary motivator was slavery. The south wanted to continue to own human beings and treat them as property and was unwilling to give up that "right."

Right. And we entered the Vietnam war because we were trying to stop the spread of communism.

Not being combative, but there is a huge difference between what a piece of paper says versus the REAL reason behind something. You might want to quit your job because your primary motivation is that the boss is a dick who got your daughter pregnant and called your wife a whore at the Christmas party, but your letter of resignation says "it is with regret... was offered advanced employment with..."

KyAllroad wrote: My issue with the removal of the statue in Durham NC isn't whether or not the statue should be removed, it was a group of people (mob of people honestly) taking it upon themselves to pull it down (and then kick the fallen statue) all on their own. That simply isn't how we, as a society, should function and reminds me of ISIS destroying the statues and temples that they found "offensive". Wanton destruction by mobs bothers me quite a bit. You want change in this country? Do it through channels. Get voted down? Take it to court. But mob rule isn't acceptable.

It's funny how you relate it to ISIS and not US Soldiers tearing down the Saddam statue during the Iraq invasion.

in reply to Nealsmo

yeah...it's always dangerous to cite things like that. There isn't a group anywhere that hasn't berkeleyed it up on occasion....

In reply to curtis73:

To run with your example, that would mean the south thought slavery was the best possible reason, of all their reasons. You put the stuff you think makes you look good in your letter of resignation, and the south thought slavery and white supremacy was the best looking stuff of all possible reasons?

I... That... That's worse than just seceding over slavery.

By act of Congress all soldiers who fought for the confederate states are considered veterans exactly the same as their northern brothers. Calling a particular soldier who was following orders a villain because of the motivation behind the orders demonstrates both a lack of empathy and a completely ignorant view of how the military works and worked back then.

If California tries to succeed are all Californians traitors? What about a Californian who leaves for Nevada when they succeed, isn't he a traitor to his state for leaving? Dammed if you do, damned if you don't. Who are we to judge?

king george statue in NY

In reply to KyAllroad:

I'm sure the folks in Baghdad that pulled Saddam's statue down may not see it your way.

Or the folks in Italy that drug Mussolini and his wife through the streets before hanging them from the square.

On the flip side, the American soldiers that have been through similar treatment in Mogadishu, Iraq and Afghanistan, etc. is truly hard to understand or agree with.

Its pretty obvious that things rarely change (for better or worse) without a large group of people getting angry and gathering to air their grievances, or worse, damage property or people (which I rarely agree with).

I'm likely going to have a front-row seat (on multiple levels- my office overlooks the courthouse in question, and SWMBO and I are very good friends with one of the founders of Take Back Cheapside) to the local installment of this issue: Moving Lexington's Confederate Statues

Honestly, I think our city/Mayor's planned approach to this is pretty much perfect- it's inappropriate for the statues to remain where they are now (IMO it never was appropriate for them to be there, but I obviously didn't have any say a century ago when they were put up...) but relocating them to someplace more appropriate alongside other statues (including those of Union figures) and war memorials is a better use of money and energy than simply destroying them.

Hopefully we won't have similar issues to what Charlottesville experienced...

oldopelguy wrote: By act of Congress all soldiers who fought for the confederate states are considered veterans exactly the same as their northern brothers. Calling a particular soldier who was following orders a villain because of the motivation behind the orders demonstrates both a lack of empathy and a completely ignorant view of how the military works and worked back then. If California tries to succeed are all Californians traitors? What about a Californian who leaves for Nevada when they succeed, isn't he a traitor to his state for leaving? Dammed if you do, damned if you don't. Who are we to judge?

Seems like I recall a bunch of German soldiers being held accountable for their actions even though they just followed orders. And yeah, refuse your orders and get shot or get tried and hanged if you obeyed.

tuna55 wrote: In reply to curtis73:

curtis73 for President

I know, right?

They had to unwin all that football!

Gameboy pointed it out earlier... the Germans have progressed by staring very hard at their failings. They teach them to children in unblinking, honest terms. They wear it. We are just not a people who like to remember our shameful past or look too hard into the face of a problem. Any of them. Crimes. Rapes. Enslavement. Civil War. Indian Genocide.

We take down unrelated baubles to keep us from thinking about these things. We do not like uncomfortable thoughts.

dculberson wrote:

SVreX wrote: I am a Northerner. I would have an easier time fully supporting the North's "position" on slavery if documents like the Emancipation Proclamation treated slavery evenly across all states. It doesn't- it provided opportunity for advancement for Southern slaves, but no freedoms at all for Northern slaves.

That doesn't make any sense to me. Slavery was abolished in all northern states by 1804 (well, some didn't take effect right away). The emancipation proclamation was issued in 1863. Why would you address something in 1863 that had been illegal for 59 years?

I didn't say I could explain it. I said it happened.

While it ended fairly quickly in New England, slavery in the North continued right up until the Civil War. The 1860 census showed 451,000 slaves living in (soon to be) Union states.

It would have been really simple to apply it evenly. The EP could have simply ordered the freedom of slaves. It didn't. It ordered the emancipation of slaves in the 10 rebel states. It was recognized by our Eurpoean trading partners as a political and economic maneuver, not a human rights one.

I thought we were of the opinion that participation trophies were bad?

In reply to SVreX:

It's an economic sanction in the middle of a shooting war. Seems mild and uncontroversial to me

oldtin wrote: Seems like I recall a bunch of German soldiers being held accountable for their actions even though they just followed orders. And yeah, refuse your orders and get shot or get tried and hanged if you obeyed.

I am not aware of any such trial of any German soldier who was tried for simply being a German soldier. Several were tried for war crimes, but that is something entirely different. The fact that you don't know or understand that says a lot.

gearheadmb wrote: I don't buy the freedom of speech argument here. This is about a statue on PUBLIC property. You can put any statue, flag, whatever on your personal property, public is a different matter. The town decided to take it down, it should go down.

No one is disagreeing with you here. Likewise, if the town decided it should stay up, then it should stay up.

The problem is mob mentality and the supposition of authority that the mob doesnt have. Just because a group finds the statues objectionable, they dont have the right to forcibly remove it, and vice versa. Liek I said - nowhere are you granted the right to not be offended.

The FoS part comes into play in as much as erecting it it was a display of symbolism, that was presumably (Im not going back to research it) authorized by a local governing body, through proper channels.

The constitution grants you the right to display that symbol, so long as you meed the civic requirements to display it on public land. If you want to display something there, get the proper permission, and bingo, you can say what you want.

If the people who disagree with your display follow the proper channels, and appeal to the governing body to remove it, and win, then so be it, and your symbolic display comes down.

Now, to the bigger point: if you petition your local gov't, and your petition is denied, our wonderful governance system provides you an apparatus to change the people who comprise that gov't or its legislative mechanisms (change the petitioning process or some similar measure).

But, there are those self-righteous fools out there that feel some sort of entitlement, and believe theyre empowered to do what they want, regardless of the law, which is what I find repugnant and un-American.