Why Is There Controversy Over Confederate Monuments?

[wjmacguffin]

One final point. only one construction company bid on this work. They covered their logos on their trucks and equipment, put plain shirts on their workers and are working at 2 am.

If this is such a popular project, why do that?

the city council did not appropriate any money to put them in a museum or any place else as some have claimed. Lee Circle will be Circle and Jackson square will be Square. Idiocy and PC taken to its ultimate stupidity.

I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

The city did not want to confront angry armed unreconstructed confederates AND angry armed modern Americans.

Because all it takes is one dumbass armed guy/gal to kill over this. This ain't a popularity contest. It's doing what's right.

I agree that calling these places Square and Circle are dumb. But I'll take dumb over glorifying a traitor any day.

Takes a real moron to get worked up over a hundred year old statue, congrats.

So the age of a monument determines it's validity and morality? Cool, thanks. Didn't know that. Also, thanks for not addressing the violence and treason issues. Good to see you're giving up by changing the subject. That's a real common sight in this thread.

You are free to advocate making American history more PC, but I disagree.

The US Capitol building, the White House, Mt. Vernon, Monticello, Montpelier and most railroads east of the Mississippi and south of the Mason-Dixon line were all built with slave labor. By your PC-driven standards, shouldn't they all be torn down in order to avoid offending those opposed to slavery?

Le sigh. One. Last. Time.

Those buildings did not kill US soldiers, did they? They don't fit the legal definition of treason, do they?

I forget the term, but you're taking one argument to an illogical extreme so you can have a better chance of being correct. That's a fallacy. What's next, complaining that I don't hate cotton because slaves had to pick it? Hating boats because some were slave ships?

My original point is this: I don't get why people are upset over removing monuments to Confederate leaders because they committed treason against the US gov't that paid for those monuments.

 

[SeaGal]

Sorry, but none of that is an opinion.

...and neither is this...

Proclamation 179—Granting Full Pardon and Amnesty for the Offense of Treason Against the United States During the Late Civil War
December 25, 1868

...Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

 

[hunarcy]

using your logic the Washington and Jefferson monuments in DC should be removed. Both were slave owners. By today's standards, they were terrible human beings.

See, that's the problem. We are trying to judge historical characters using today's beliefs of right and wrong.

When we do that we become no better than the muslims who are destroying buddhas in Afghanistan.

I already addressed this above, so lemme keep it short here.

No person is 100% good or evil. Every person has faults. Owning slaves is bad, but Washington and Jefferson also did a lot of good for this nation. Lee and Davis led an uprising against this nation that killed hundred of thousands of people. You cannot compare the two.

And pul-lease stop comparing Jefferson Davis to the Buddha.

you are missing the point. Lee and Jackson also did many good things for their people and the country. But they are denigrated on one issue only. Whereas you ignore the fact that Washington and Jefferson held slaves.

I was not comparing Davis to Buddha, I was comparing intolerant American liberals to the Taliban.

Sorry, but sometimes one issue is so severe that it dominates. I'm sure Lee and Davis were good people, but dedicating a memorial to their leadership of an armed treasonous revolt is sad. Mind you, *you* are welcome to do that on your own property. I would even defend your right to do so, I promise! My issue is with public monuments by the US gov't for people who fought against the US gov't.

I'm not ignoring the slave owning past, I'm just saying their good far outweighs their bad.

And taking down statues to traitors is not the same as destroying religious statues. Therefore, your claim is sad and untrue.

ok, those are your opinions, and you are free to state them as opinions, the problem comes when you claim them as facts that all must agree with. do you understand that?

18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason
"Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason ...."

US law since before the Civil War. Fact.
Confederates owed allegiance to the US as US citizens. Fact.
Confederates levied war against the US. Fact.
Ergo, confederates committed treason. Fact.

Sorry, but none of that is an opinion.

Those were the opinions in conflict. A Southerner would say they owed their allegiance to their State as a citizen of their state, which is why Davis and Lee ended up on the Southern side.

 

[wjmacguffin]

Right, thanks to everyone for posting and debating. Except those of you who's "debate" amounted to name-calling, of course. Gotta get some lunch in me and get some work done. Have fun twisting into a pretzel to defend treason against the US!

 

[Redfish]

You ask why people are offended by Confederate Statutes...and then you list things that offend you.

That means you completely understand why people might be offended by these things.

MLK Jr., Washington, Reagan, and Kennedy never fought against our country. Big difference.

As for the timing, it's because only recently have people felt like they could "win" in taking them down. They've been offensive for many, many years. What, would you use that same argument against the civil rights movement? "People never complained about segregation before, why did it suddenly become offensive?" (And no, I'm not saying the civil rights movement is equal to taking down Confederate statues. Just using an analogy.)

geez, do you teach at Berkley? what a pile of BS.

If you think it's bullshit, start poking holes in my response. Post links to proof or evidence showing I'm wrong. Until you can, you're just acting like an angry toddler. "Wah, I don't like what he said! He's WRONG!"

they are opinions, not facts. I don't have to disprove your opinions, nor do you have to disprove mine.

If you claim my opinion is bullshit, then you have to either back up your claim or retract it. Actually, you can be a coward and run away. That's certainly a valid third choice.

OK, let me go slow so you might understand. It is my opinion that your opinion is bullshit. I do not have to disprove your opinion to hold that view. I have stated my opinions on the matter clearly and concisely, and you have tried to do the same. We disagree.

Now, as I also said earlier, this is not about history, offence, the civil war, or who is or is not a traitor. This is about Mitch Landrieu trying to buy another term as mayor, nothing more.

 

[JakeStarkey]

MacGuffin owns the thread and the debate. Every argument against has fallen over so easily. He owns all of you nay sayers.

The fact is simple: the monuments will be moved and almost all Americans in and out of the South agree.

 

[TNHarley]

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?

You have a very cliché outlook on the civil war. Sometimes, its like you copy your posts strait from a DNC email.

Then please post links where I am incorrect. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

 

[Redfish]

Right, thanks to everyone for posting and debating. Except those of you who's "debate" amounted to name-calling, of course. Gotta get some lunch in me and get some work done. Have fun twisting into a pretzel to defend treason against the US!

a simple concession would have been more credible than a lunch break. LOL

 

[Weatherman2020]

Right, thanks to everyone for posting and debating. Except those of you who's "debate" amounted to name-calling, of course. Gotta get some lunch in me and get some work done. Have fun twisting into a pretzel to defend treason against the US!

Obama Cites 'Sacred Rule' in Defense of Bergdahl Release

 

[rightwinger]

One final point. only one construction company bid on this work. They covered their logos on their trucks and equipment, put plain shirts on their workers and are working at 2 am.

If this is such a popular project, why do that?

the city council did not appropriate any money to put them in a museum or any place else as some have claimed. Lee Circle will be Circle and Jackson square will be Square. Idiocy and PC taken to its ultimate stupidity.

I still want to know who is offended by this part of history. Are they the same people who ban free speech at Berkley? Wake up people. Your first amendment is being shit on as you sit back and watch.

The city did not want to confront angry armed unreconstructed confederates AND angry armed modern Americans.

Maybe, but conservatives don't riot and protest and destroy public and private property. Only leftists do that. The truth is that the company is scared of losing business if too many people know who they are. But its too late, everyone knows and they will probably be out of business when this is over.

The Klan, the ultimate Southern conservatives, did all that, fishyred.

glad you brought up the KKK. It was comprised mostly of democrats and existed in almost every state. Well represented by Bill KKK Byrd of WV.

Today, it is strictly Republican

 

[Weatherman2020]

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?

You have a very cliché outlook on the civil war. Sometimes, its like you copy your posts strait from a DNC email.

Then please post links where I am incorrect. Otherwise, you're just spitting into the wind.

Your entire premise was incorrect. You ignore the fact that Lincoln was a tyrant and shredded our COTUS. You ignore the fact that some states, like TN, didn't pledge to the confederates until Lincoln started abusing his powers.
You ignore the fact that not everyone fighting for the south wanted slavery. For some, they were fighting tyranny and defending their brothers that got slaughtered by the union army, or locked up for having a different opinion. Why would they want they statues of their family taken down? Would you? Some, whether you like it or not, actually defended freedom.

They go to universities to learn to be that ignorant.

 

[bendog]

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?

It was about slavery.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

 

[Redfish]

MacGuffin owns the thread and the debate. Every argument against has fallen over so easily. He owns all of you nay sayers.

The fact is simple: the monuments will be moved and almost all Americans in and out of the South agree.

yes, they may be taken down, maybe permanently maybe not. do you have a national poll to substantiate your claim? if so, post it. Because that is certainly not the consensus in Louisiana or any Louisiana parish except Orleans.

but as usual, you are posting from ignorance and bias rather than facts.

 

[TNHarley]

Right, thanks to everyone for posting and debating. Except those of you who's "debate" amounted to name-calling, of course. Gotta get some lunch in me and get some work done. Have fun twisting into a pretzel to defend treason against the US!

 

[rightwinger]

Don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do. The civil war was not about slavery, there were slaves in the union states AFTER the war ended.

Agreed. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in Southern states, not elsewhere.

The Emancipation Proclamation
The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

How did the 13th amendment work out?

Better than the Three-Fifths Compromise. It was ratified on December 6th, 1965, eight months after the Civil War ended.

What does that have to do with the fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in secession states?

Emancipation was a major political blow to the south. Not because they were losing their slaves but because they were unable to get Europe to support their cause if it was about slavery
European countries were not going to fight in defense of slavery

Emancipation proclamation was only the first step in the process. 13th amendment freed all slaves forever and by 1870 they had the right to vote

Coincidence?

Nice glossy PC coating over history. So why didn't Lincoln emancipate all of the slaves on January 1st, 1863? If the war was about slavery, then why weren't all the slaves freed until well after the war was over?

Lincoln was a politician and had to do things one step at a time. To move from slavery to blacks having the vote in just seven years is a major move for the country. If Lincoln wanted to stop the process he had ample opportunity. Instead he used all of his political capital to get the 13th amendment passed

 

[TNHarley]

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?

It was about slavery.

Mississippi Declaration of Secession

not for all

 

[bendog]

MacGuffin owns the thread and the debate. Every argument against has fallen over so easily. He owns all of you nay sayers.

The fact is simple: the monuments will be moved and almost all Americans in and out of the South agree.

yes, they may be taken down, maybe permanently maybe not. do you have a national poll to substantiate your claim? if so, post it. Because that is certainly not the consensus in Louisiana or any Louisiana parish except Orleans.

but as usual, you are posting from ignorance and bias rather than facts.

Here in Mississippi we've voted to keep the stars and bars in our state flag, and to me that's the most offensive "memorial" there is. But most want to keep it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Don't make yourself look more stupid than you already do. The civil war was not about slavery, there were slaves in the union states AFTER the war ended.

Agreed. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in Southern states, not elsewhere.

The Emancipation Proclamation
The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."

Despite this expansive wording, the Emancipation Proclamation was limited in many ways. It applied only to states that had seceded from the Union, leaving slavery untouched in the loyal border states. It also expressly exempted parts of the Confederacy that had already come under Northern control. Most important, the freedom it promised depended upon Union military victory.

How did the 13th amendment work out?

Better than the Three-Fifths Compromise. It was ratified on December 6th, 1965, eight months after the Civil War ended.

What does that have to do with the fact the Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in secession states?

Emancipation was a major political blow to the south. Not because they were losing their slaves but because they were unable to get Europe to support their cause if it was about slavery
European countries were not going to fight in defense of slavery

Emancipation proclamation was only the first step in the process. 13th amendment freed all slaves forever and by 1870 they had the right to vote

Coincidence?

Nice glossy PC coating over history. So why didn't Lincoln emancipate all of the slaves on January 1st, 1863? If the war was about slavery, then why weren't all the slaves freed until well after the war was over?

The war, caused by secession in order to ensure Southern slavery, became a struggle to keep states in the Union. And, eventually, slavery became the weapon Lincoln used against the South. He killed the reason for them to secede. He took step by step. He succeeded, and it would have been better for the southern states to not have seceded (heh).

 

[Damaged Eagle]

If you claim my opinion is bullshit, then you have to either back up your claim or retract it. Actually, you can be a coward and run away. That's certainly a valid third choice.

I've already backed up my claim over three pages ago in post #89.

If those Confederate vets...


...under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service


m such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the

United States."

...Then by extension they are to be rendered honors as United States veterans.

*****SMILE****

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nobody cares... it's Mitch Landrieu deflecting from his failed mayoralship. He's a complete douche. FOr me, just one more reason to not spend a dime in the city if I don't have to. We don't have all that nonsense out here in Jefferson Parish.