Union soldier's statues!

I have to wonder the same thing.

You accused me of “distracting”, then you spend two posts nittling on a detail about Stone mountain of mine you didn’t think was right.

Because you evidently seem to think that this is what the topic was really about, how long it takes granite to degrade. (?)

Not, say, whether if forcing people to pay for the monuments is something they have a right to complain about. Which, let’s be clear, you’ve said nothing on.

By all means, if you want to nitpick, nitpick, I’ll admit that’s fair game here, but if that’s all you’re doing… how are you then not being a distraction yourself?

Uh, no, you can put the statues in museums, and not force people to pay for their upkeep. Your objection is pretty reasonably dealt with.

Let me understand this. Leaving these statues alone is somehow costing the taxpayers??? Sez who?

“In addition to headstones, the NCA (part of the Veterans Administration) is now responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of a total of 33 monuments and memorials that honor Confederate soldiers and causes, according to NCA Senior Historian Sara Amy Leach. The monuments were often erected by private groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy. Looking through a list of them gives a sense of the various waves of Confederate nostalgia in America: Nine were built in the years 1910 to 1912, four were built in the 1920s and '30s, and the most recent wave saw four more built between 2003 and 2006, with other key periods of concentration in the century and a half since the Civil War.”

Taxpayers now pay more to maintain rebel graves and monuments than those honoring Union soldiers – The Atlantic

OK, just for heck of it I’ll say something, but you will not like it. When I was in school I was taught that there are 3 reasons the Civil War was fought. They are:

  1. To enforce the emancipation proclamation.
  2. Economic reasons.
  3. To prevent the break-up of the union. (Or combinations of #1 and #3.)

With passage of time I have arrived at the opinion all 3 are probably contributory reasons/causes and it depends upon who you are talking to. As I said, this is my opinion which any and all can challenge and scream about but it still remains that it is just an opinion, as are most of what I see being bantered about on this thread. The fact remains that at one time the US was a slave nation, unfortunately.

We must see to it that we do not make this mistake again. Bearing that in mind we should not eliminate/destroy all records of such a blunder because doing so would cause the nation to repeat the past. Yet that seems to me to be what you Alaska Slim want to do but at least you do say put some in a museum.
> Uh, no, you can put the statues in museums, and not force people to pay for their upkeep. Your objection is pretty reasonably dealt with.
I have a news flash for you Alaska Slim - putting the statues in a museum requires maintenance of the facility and care of the artifacts which someone is going to have to pay for. Not to mention the capital cost of the facility in the first place and the consumption of utilities on a daily basis.

Now back to your comments in Post #25
> Incidentally, I’ve lived in Georgia, and I’ve seen Stone mountain.
>
> It can either be wiped away, left to wither away on its own (this would take between 20-30 years) or be cut out of the mountain, likely a piece at a time, and be put somewhere else.
As I see it you brought this up trying to authenticate your opinion, or as a diversion, or both. I merely pointed out for the lurker that you were doing so. I even went so far as to post obsolete information to test your knowledge and sure enough you failed to pick up the error and challenge it. (see post #30 and #38) Dang it is fun to discuss things with someone making posts like #25. Have a nice day. BTW-granite does not wither away in 20-30 years.

Yeah, the people who visit it, or the foundation that runs it. It does not have to be a taxpayer.

And heck, even if it is the taxpayer, it is far better that you see the monuments there, in a museum, rather than in a place of honor. The former impresses upon the observer that these are lessons we needed to move past; the latter suggests that the ideas these men stood for are still something we should value.

Anyone calmly reading these men’s own statements for what their values were, would know that the latter case is something we should not do. Do not hold them up, and do not give the impression that we are holding them up.

> Now back to your comments in Post #25

Nope, still a distraction.

I was asked what could be done about Stone Mountain, so I answered. You can destroy it, you can remove it, or you can wait for it to degrade from natural causes. That’s all that’s relevant. It may take longer than 30 years for the faces to become unrecognizable, but I was never resting anything about my argument upon that detail.

You’ve also now twice floated the idea that I’m “distracting” with my mention of having visited Stone Mountain, but you never once mentioned what it is I could possibly be distracting from.

The truth is, I started with a talking point, and I’ve continued on that same talking point. I’ve never had to deflect, but you, and Devilneck and qixlqatl have all tried to deflect to some other issue, all to get away from the original disagreement: Calling people who want these monuments taken down “whiners”.

Whatever periphery thing you think Southerners were fighting for that is still worthy of respect, whatever circumstances you think have to be considered to accurately represent them, it doesn’t change what they stated what they were fighting for. That it’s the very men who made those speeches I’ve posted here; proclaiming themselves as champions of racial determinism, who the monuments are built to emulate.

It’s not “given” that people should hold those words at arms distance while judging the Confederates, nor ignore that most of these men were unrepentant, even after the war, for supporting slavery.

If people want to decry these men, and object to their glorification (and their being forced to pay for it), that is a reasonable position. Save the insults and anger for something that is actually crossing a line, like digging up a grave.

I suggest to you that such a museum would be very large. So large in fact that admission fees would be prohibitive so the tax payer will end up paying more for the museum and it’s operating costs than the present day system costs.

You definitely view museums differently than I. Moving statues into buildings or even enclosed spaces does not indicate lessons that we need to move past. It could even mean you are moving the statue into a place of honor where it will not be catching bird droppings. Your position is a valid point either way.

> You’ve also now twice floated the idea that I’m “distracting” with my mention of having visited Stone Mountain, but you never once mentioned what it is I could possibly be distracting from.
The original question was what to do about Stone Mountain. You tossed in comments about having lived in Georgia and a ludicrous statement about the decay of granite. Neither of these items is germane to or contributes to this thread. So other than as a diversion or attempt to authenticate your statement why did you mention such distractions? I cannot answer your inquiry as what it is that you wish to distract from - that is something that only you can answer.

Why do you seem to be suggesting it would all have to be in one place? We don’t have just 1 museum dedicated to the Civil War as it stands.

There’s also nothing saying it can’t be an enclosed, open-air museum of some kind.

> The original question was what to do about Stone Mountain.

And the insinuation was that I had never heard of it; that this was something from left field that could break my argument.

But fact is (1) I’am aware of Stone Mountain, and (2) it can be dealt with.

> You tossed in comments about having lived in Georgia and a ludicrous statement about the decay of granite. Neither of these items is germane to or contributes to this thread.

Uh, that would mean the question I was asked doesn’t contribute to the thread, and that I should have refrained from answering it.

Is that what you’re saying?

No. What this is, is you are saying one group of people is entitled to something where another is not. That is not a libertarian position. There is no right to not be offended. We down here are often offended by tributes to Grant, and especially Sherman for what they did to the people who weren’t fighting. Those Confederate Leaders are veterans and deserve to be honored. Their work after the war deserves to be honored also. Those that fought for their states deserve to be honored.

At this point, I think your posting is just to be argumentative.

2 Likes

yeah, because those were a bunch of slave owning sub hoomands also.

Yes it is, because we’re not talking about a protest, or shouting something on TV or the internet, or even building something with your own time & dime.

We’re talking about statues on public land, built and upkept with public funds. A libertarian would defend messaging something, but they in no way suggest it’s required for the Government to subsidize such nonsense. That’s where you are in error.

Since it is (Union) Government funds we’re talking about, scrutinizing whom it’s used for is completely justified. The Union soldiers by default represent us all who are here today; the Confederates intentionally represented some to the exclusion of others. “Others”, to include many of the very people who pay to provide those public funds.

> There is no right to not be offended. We down here are often offended by tributes to Grant, and especially Sherman for what they did to the people who weren’t fighting. Those Confederate Leaders are veterans and deserve to be honored.

Give them graves with headstones, which is precisely what British soldiers who fought in the Revolution received. That’s sufficient. You most certainly don’t have a “right” to extract public funds to build monuments to their cause. That is the very definition of self-entitlement.

The British? Are we speaking of the same war between the states? The Union troops represent us here today? Really? That’s doggone laughable.

The statues in New Orleans were privately funded. They were not torn down due to expenditure of public funds. They were torn down to appease Mitch Landrieu.

Furthermore, still, you don’t have the right to not be offended.
There is going to be someone who is offended by all kinds of things. Should we remove all WWII monuments because they offend people of Japanese ancestry?
Or Germans? Should statues of Reagan be torn down because some communists are offended by His likeness?

Even if publicly funded, which all of the monuments in DC are, this is PC nonsense.

2 Likes

False premise. This is about the Government supporting symbols of a racial ideology, with** taxpayer** funds and public space. People have a right to be outraged about that, just as Christians were outraged by Government funding of Piss Christ.

People have the right to make Piss Christ; they don’t have the right to make all of us pay for it. You would have me believe otherwise, and it’s not working.

> The statues in New Orleans were privately funded.

Much more germane to bring up what I mentioned before, the 33 Statues the NCA agency within the VA actively maintains.

I’ll make this simple; cut the funding. If you want them, you pay for them, and display them on property the public doesn’t own.

> this is PC nonsense.

What’s nonsense is your relativism sir. There’s a clear difference between men who struggle with evil, and those who openly proclaim it.

If you can’t spot that difference, then be my guest, go start your campaign for the Anwar al-awlaki monument. I’m sure his American cohorts will love you for it.

Whatever, I’m done with you.

For the rest of you who actually want to know what this is about:
EXCLUSIVE: Meet The Well-Connected, Powerful Elites Who Are Destroying New Orleans

And yet, the “piss Christ” was NOT taken down, regardless of how many it offended and continued to be funded by the NEA–and would be today if the “arts” community wanted it to be.

The difference is that Confederate soldiers were AMERICANS…just like you and I…and deserve to be honored by those who admire them, just like Grant and Lincoln are by those who admire THEM. It costs the City of New Orleans NOTHING for those statues to be on public lands. I suggest that there are more people who want them left alone than who want them torn down, but the latter are simply louder.

1 Like

Ok let’s keep this short so you Alaska Slim can go pound sand.

I am not - that is you putting spin on what I said.

> There’s also nothing saying it can’t be an enclosed, open-air museum of some kind.
Reread my posts.

> And the insinuation was that I had never heard of it; that this was something from left field that could break my argument.
Personally I do not read the question from qixlqatl as being an insinuation of anything. I read it as an open question concerning what to do about something the size of the carving on Stone Mountain.

> Uh, that would mean the question I was asked doesn’t contribute to the thread, and that I should have refrained from answering it.
>
> Is that what you’re saying?
Nope, you just wish that is what I said. You tossing in about having lived in Georgia and that you had seen Stone Mountain is what I question as being germane to the discussion, especially so because you seem to think that Stone Mountain granite is on the order of low grade sandstone.

I have a legitimate grievance to want Lincoln’s Memorial torn down, but I am forced to pay for it with my tax dollars. The civil war was not fought over the moral issue of slavery: it was fought over the economic issues around slavery. That’s a pretty well settled point among CW historians. AT the time of the civil war, cotton accounted for some 80% of U.S. exports. This generated quite a bit of revenue, which the north, with it’s larger population and resulting congressional advantage, managed to keep largely above the Mason-Dixon line, starving the south for infrastructure. I don’t know of a single red cent of the revenue that was generated by the plantation system that was spent on ameliorating slavery. Maybe there was a* little*, but I’ll bet it was less than 2%. The north gladly accepted the profits generated by slavery, and gladly spent it on things that would enhance their lives, while, afaik, doing nothing with it to help the slaves. They then fought a bloody war to enforce their right to continue taking the profits of slavery while continuing not actually helping the slaves. (They thought the war would be over in six weeks, the south easily defeated, cash flow returned to normal. Oops)

> Yet, you have refused to take these men at their word about what they were fighting for.
So why does Lincoln get a pass for his own words? Even when the Emancipation Proclamation was issued it applied only to “those states now in rebellion” (in the hopes of sparking a slave revolt), conforming precisely to his own words “freeing some and leaving others alone”. He fought to save the union the way an abusive husband fights to save his marriage: by dragging his battered wife home kicking and screaming against her will. Because she was bad. And somebody has to wash his clothes and cook his meals, amIright?

> The right thing, is to treat these men as men who are responsible for their own decisions and their own words, and to judge them accordingly.

But not Lincoln! Nope, ignore his own words.

> To do anything less is dishonest, and so too btw, is telling the non-white people you’ve called “whiners”,

I did? WHere? Now you’re just putting words in my ‘mouth’.

Something I missed, from way back in post 27:

> No, that’s not how memorial status of statues work, and status bequeathed to Confederate soldiers, ** does not count towards political officials**. We didn’t even give back the latter’s citizenship until the 1970s. They enjoy no such special protections.

The politicians? Yeah, #@$& them! The confederate politicians were, by and large, worthless corruptocrats. Maybe a few state politicians did something noteworthy enough to merit a statue, but IDK who they might be. Jeff Davis is worthy of remembering only as an example of how not to run an administration, particularly one with a war to prosecute.

1 Like

Alright, that just seemed to be the implication. But if I was wrong, then I was wrong.

> Personally I do not read the question from qixlqatl as being an insinuation of anything.

It was honestly more how you added to it after he asked it.

> You tossing in about having lived in Georgia and that you had seen Stone Mountain is what I question as being germane to the discussion

To show that I’am aware of Stone Mountain, that it doesn’t represent an issue I haven’t considered.

It is relevant to the question since I’am the one being asked. But the way you’ve obsessed over my one line there, in a multi-page discussion, isn’t justified.

Even as you agreed to talk about the topic, your posts are dominated by you continuing to talk about that one line, which has the effect of making the discussion about me.

This tells me that you don’t have any remaining useful points about the topic, that you, despite having accused me of it, are now distracting from that topic.

If that’s the case, then I’ll end things here.

Yes it was:

AP Takes Down Infamous ‘Piss Christ’ Photo Following Deadly Charlie Hebdo Attack | HuffPost

And good riddance too. But even if it hadn’t been, you know yourself that the right thing would be to do so.

> The difference is that Confederate soldiers were AMERICANS…

So was Anwar al-Awlaki. So where others we killed along with him.

Further, there were no monuments to the Loyalists who served with the British, no monuments to Americans who served with the Germans in WWI or WWII, nor those who served with the Taliban.

You seek to maintain giving the Confederates a unique position relative to other Americans who have turned their guns on their countrymen. Considering what they said they were fighting for, I don’t see it Dave.

People are right to not want to be forced to support those monuments. It should be completely voluntary, and I imagine you know that’s correct.

Mr. Alexander Stephens, Vice-president of the Confederacy, Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861:

"*The prevailing ideas entertained by [Thomas Jefferson] and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics.*"

> AT the time of the civil war, cotton accounted for some 80% of U.S. exports.

Again, you quote circumstance. You deny people their agency, and the very beguiling nature of ideology. Ideas don’t simply form as a reaction to events, but can & do take on a life of their own.

I take the Confederates at their word; you claim that everything was simply a reaction to their situation. I judge them as humans, animated with moral agency, who are responsible for their words and actions. You’ve judged them as animals, beings who could not possibly perceive the morality behind their actions. Circumstance, in the view you’ve taken here, determined everything.

As to where Historians stand, while they do question how strong the anti-slavery sentiment within the Union was, they do not deny that defending Slavery was front and center to what the Confederates fought for. Not simply because it was an economic order, but because they, just as Alexander Stephens above, defended it as a worldview:

".*…book by Bruce Levine, demonstrates that slavery was the soul of the confederacy, but fighting the war weakened the institution and thus the country.

If there was ever a doubt about when the war was over - it was March 1865 when Jefferson Davis signed a law that would allow Confederate armies to make slaves into soldiers (with their master’s permission) in return for their freedom at the end of the war (assuming the Confederacy still existed). If you look at the debates in the Confederate Congress about that law, a lot of legislators commented that to enact it would be to drive a stake into the heart of the principles the country.*"

Who gives a crap about any of that? None of that demanded war on the part of the Union. All the union had to do was allow the South to depart in peace, but they wanted to keep the money flowing. The union did not raise an army to free slaves but to enforce the payment of tribute.

The union garrison at Fort Moultrie and Fort Sumter (which became an occupying force at secession) were offered weeks after the secession in which they could have evacuated and gone home. After 34 hours of bombardment, they were* still allowed to evacuate*, the only two casualties in the exchange two union soldiers who died when their gun exploded. When the occupying force had been expelled, the South was willing to cease hostilities, but the north wouldn’t have it. The north wanted the money the cotton trade generated, slaves be damned, and caused the violent deaths of 600,000 men to get it. (I’m sure at some point they realized that it wasn’t going to pay off, but by then, events had a life of their own) It’s really that simple.

The south fought to first expel occupiers, then to* repel invaders*, after attempting peacefully to pursue Jefferson’s last self-evident truth: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Had the union army not crossed the Potomac on May 24, 1861 at Arlington Heights? Probably the civil war wouldn’t have happened. (EDIT) I’m entirely wrong. Lincoln ordered the blockade of southern ports on April 19 (widely regarded as the union declaration of war), which is still very much *casus belli, *so the civil war still would have happened. I tend to focus on the land battles and forget about the naval component…odd for a former sailor! Still, a blockade is a hostile act, making the northern states the aggressor.

Your argument fails because of the undeniable fact the Union was the aggressor, and fought to compel obedience and tribute, not to free slaves.

1 Like