Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

wjmacguffin

Proud Liberal
Mar 5, 2012
461
92
80
Illinois, USA
New Orleans has begun taking down Confederate monuments, moving them from public spaces to museums. Why is this controversial?

First, let's be honest: Taking up arms against the lawfully-elected government of the United States is treason. Sure, one man's treason is another man's freedom fighter. But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. Not because he said he would, because he didn't, but because they believed he would.

This isn't the case of a downtrodden, abused people rising up against a cruel, despotic government. IMO, that makes rebellion morally justified. But this is a case of people rising up against a democratic republic because they were worried the gov't would take away their slaves.

And I get that some folks want to change the Civil War into a noble struggle for state's rights. But let's remember two facts: 1) This is about the right to own black people as slaves, and 2) the feds hadn't trampled on that right when the South started war.

Now, I appreciate that the US Civil War is part of our history. We shouldn't ignore it or whitewash it. And there's nothing wrong with loving your state or respecting your ancestors. But why do some people want to keep statues and monuments dedicated to people who fought and killed US citizens? Would it be okay if a Muslim-American community built a statue of Nidal Hasan (the guy who killed 13 people at Fort Hood) and claim it's part of their heritage?

Seriously, why is removing these monuments to put into a museum so controversial?
 
Its controversial because its an attempt to delete or ignore a part of history that you don't like. People fought and died in the civil war for what they believed (and it was NOT about slavery).

Just because we hold a different set of beliefs today does not make those in the past evil or wrong.

What's next? The Washington monument and the Jefferson memorial in DC? Both were slave owners. Why leave those monuments and take down Robert E Lee?

What's going on in NOLA is our foolish mayor is trying to appease the far left radical base in order to get reelected. It may very well backfire on him, just like it did on his sister Mary.

We cannot learn from the past if we pretend it didn't happen or rewrite it to suit our beliefs of today.

Will removal of the statues reduce crime in the lower 9th ward and central city? Duh, no Mr Mayor. Why not spend that money on hiring more cops? Reducing crime might actually help you get another term.
 
What will Lee circle be without Lee's statue? A roundabout with grass and a mound in the middle of it.

Who exactly is offended by these historical monuments that have stood for hundreds of years? Who and why? And why all of a sudden did they become offensive?

I am offended that every city in the country has to have a MLK boulevard. I am offended that Cape Canaveral was renamed Cape Kennedy and that Washington national airport was renamed Reagan airport.

WTF are we trying to accomplish with this foolishness?
 
There is no guarantee school children will see the statues where they are now, fishyred.

There is no attempt to delete or ignore a part of history. The statues will be in museums and well cared for.
 
If it was the south trying to hang on to slavery, why was slavery not mentioned as an issue until two years into the civil war? Why was the north allowed to keep slaves for years after the civil war was over?
 
Seriously, why can't you just leave them alone?
Better question: Why are they even there? Why did we spend public money on monuments to people who killed US soldiers over a state's right to enslave people?


The civil war was a terrible time in our history. What's even more terrible is lying about who and what it was about.

Since you obviously know nothing about American history, I am not going to waste my time on you.

But if you really care, get on google and bring up the civil war, read all you can on it, not just the current BS from the left who are trying to rewrite history.

The people represented by those statues fought and died for what they believed in. Taking them down is no better than when muslims destroy Buddhas in Afghanistan.

We cannot learn from history if we destroy it or lie about it.
 
If it was the south trying to hang on to slavery, why was slavery not mentioned as an issue until two years into the civil war? Why was the north allowed to keep slaves for years after the civil war was over?
You mean besides the declarations of secession signed in 1861 *before* the Civil War started? Seriously, this took me less than five minutes on Google to find you're incorrect.
The Declaration of Causes of Seceding States
 
...But IIRC (and please post links if I'm wrong so I can admit that clearly), the South started the Civil War because they believed Lincoln would dismantle slavery. ....
The maxim that "the victors write the history books" is exemplified by the so-called "history of the Civil War".

The South didn't start the Civil War. Southern states seceded from the Union over slavery. President Lincoln attacked the South to drag them back into the Union against their will. This is shown by the fact that most battles took place in the South. If the South had started the war, wouldn't most battles have been in the North?

President Lincoln's letter to Horace Greeley is a confession to this fact.

American_Civil_War_Battles_by_Theater%2C_Year.png
 
There is no guarantee school children will see the statues where they are now, fishyred.

There is no attempt to delete or ignore a part of history. The statues will be in museums and well cared for.


There is no firm plan or city funding to make that happen. Landrieu will put them in a warehouse somewhere and they will be forgotten, as will the history of this city.
 
People fought and died in the civil war for what they believed (and it was NOT about slavery).

oh yes it was

what the hell are you talking about?
It was about a State's right to secede, not slavery per se. That said, the reason state's seceded was due to the slavery issue, but it was secession itself which caused the North to invade the South.
 

Forum List

Back
Top