Union soldier's statues!

Evidently, the South did:

"*In late 1860 and early 1861, state-appointed commissioners traveled the length and breadth of the slave South carrying a fervent message in pursuit of a clear goal: to persuade the political leadership and the citizenry of the uncommitted slave states to join in the effort to destroy the Union and forge a new Southern nation.

Directly refuting the neo-Confederate contention that slavery was neither the reason for secession nor the catalyst for the resulting onset of hostilities in 1861, Charles B. Dew finds in the commissioners’ brutally candid rhetoric a stark white supremacist ideology that proves the contrary. The commissioners included in their speeches a constitutional justification for secession, to be sure, and they pointed to a number of political “outrages” committed by the North in the decades prior to Lincoln’s election. But the core of their argument―the reason the right of secession had to be invoked and invoked immediately―did not turn on matters of constitutional interpretation or political principle. Over and over again, the commissioners returned to the same point: that Lincoln’s election signaled an unequivocal commitment on the part of the North to destroy slavery and that emancipation would plunge the South into a racial nightmare.*"

The Union’s plan was to cordon off the Slave States, to grow the Western frontier as free-states, and to force the South to abandon slavery overtime. It only became an outright war when the South saw Lincoln’s election as President, and refused to go along with that result without the Union Government making concessions. Concessions Lincoln refused to make.

Incidentally, the cordon-off plan was precisely what Lincoln was planning on with the Loyal states; instead of forcing the abolition of slavery, he would allow them to get there overtime.

But, this is neither here nor there. Any talk on the Union, is just a distraction from where this discussion started.

Once again I remind, it was what the Confederacy was fighting for that people don’t want to be associated with. As that cause was, by the Confederates own words, by their own arguments to convince other states to join their cause, **for slavery. **Any monument dedicated to them, is thus a monument linked to the Racial Determinism they championed, and claimed as “superior” to the society of Free Men in the North (they state this). Superior to the system, and the Constitution, that the Founders gave us (they state this).

People today thus have a right to not see their money support that. At worst you are forcing people to commemorate a great evil, at best, you are coercing involvement on a difficult issue people are better left to decide for themselves. Either way, building and maintaining these monuments should be voluntary. Not compulsory. You have not put forth a single argument that disproves this. Bringing up evils of the Union does not make that argument. At best, it just tables if there’s another category of monuments we should reconsider.

The objection to paying for monuments to the Confederates would stand regardless. It’s rather dim to call people “whiners” if you want to be a “whiner” yourself for the opposite side.

I’ve added AS to my ignore list. Long time since I’ve done that with anyone. If y’all see him step out of line, please report it. I won’t be reading his posts.

Anyhow, once again, the argument also fails because private funds were used to erect these monuments. Not funds from the city/state/national budgets.

New Orleans is where this started, to the best of my recollection. It was started by people involved with the BLM movement who don’t live here. They went to Landrieu. Landrieu demanded the statues be torn down, and used city funds to do it. That’s right, he used city resources to tear down privately funded monuments.
He even had police officers, and fire fighters there to assist. This is government over reach if there ever was.

Because you’re blaming me, for pointing out the cognitive dissonance at work here.

> Anyhow, once again, the argument also fails because private funds were used to erect these monuments. Not funds from the city/state/national budgets.

It is unjustified to force people to either build the monuments, or pay for their upkeep. Either one of these things is unjust, and you know it.

You should have the piece of mind to admit that people have a point, and the monuments should only be supported with the resources of volunteers.

None of that controversial, it’s simply a refusal to admit the contradiction at the heart of why these monuments still receive public funds.

> New Orleans is where this started, to the best of my recollection.

No, this started years before BLM ever existed:

>
> CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR - June 23, 1995
>
> Old Totems Tumble in New South,* Some states reject racist songs, policies, and Confederate flags
> *
> FOR decades, Confederate symbols and emblems have been as much a part of Southern life as grits, collard greens, and black-eyed peas.The Confederate battle flag flew unabashedly over statehouses across the region. Students whistled “Dixie” at public schools. And monuments honoring Confederate heroes went unchallenged.But the “New South” is now reexamining its Civil War roots, racial practices, and some of its most cherished icons. Both black and white Southerners are questioning…

Again, deflection to something else, doesn’t change the facts.

The practice of public support of the monuments needs to end, and doing so voluntarily could probably mean you could save more of them.

If you just let the public discourse sort it out, it will likely result in them being done away with, just as you’re seeing now. **Be pragmatic. **

Again, who cares? The north blockaded and then invaded the south. They were the aggressor. Those are not-to-be-denied historical facts. There is no constitutional justification for compelling states to remain against their will, and the 10th amendment is very explicit that anything not covered elsewhere is left to the states or the people. I have yet to see anything which suggests that the union army was raised for the purpose of freeing the slaves, and Abraham Lincoln’s own words tell us that he had no such purpose. So there was no legal justification and no moral justification for his actions.

Show me the evidence that revenue raised from the south was being used to ameliorate slavery and not build bridges, canals and railroads.
Show me the declaration of war that mentions freeing the slaves.
Tell us when the emancipation proclamation was issued and to whom it applied, and how that is inconsistent with Lincoln’s own words.
Explain how a preeminent officer (Sherman) of the union army whose concern was the humanitarian relief of Negroes in bondage allowed his men to routinely rape unresisting slaves.

The evidence is that the north fought an aggressive war to exert it’s dominance over the south, and as a political/military entity, didn’t give a crap about the slaves.

1 Like

Again, this doesn’t answer why you’re asking people to pay for the ideology of the South, which is unjust. Nothing you’ve said denies that you are in fact doing this.

If you want to cut support of Union monuments, then go protest for that then. It doesn’t change what the Confederate cause was, and why people are right to not want to build monuments to it, or support their upkeep.

“Pay for the ideology of the south”…? I think that price was paid in the blood of courageous and honorable men whose lives were wasted over northern politicians’ pride and greed. “which **is **unjust”. Do you consider the ideology of the Confederacy to be current? That’s exactly the northeast liberal mindset I was talking about.

I have no strong feelings about those monuments either way, but then I have bothered to learn something of the history. I do have strong feelings about reducing the CW to “saints and angels of the north vs. sinners and demons of the south”, which is what you are proposing. That does a grave disservice to a history we dare not forget lest we repeat it and waste another 2 or 3 million courageous and honorable lives.

3 Likes

Yes, no one owes them monuments. Pay for them with the support people who want those monuments, and keep the rest of us out of it.

That’s the just thing to do here. That was always the just thing to do.

Truth is, if you’re proactive in doing this, you can save some of these monuments. But if you simply wait for the outrage to overtake them, they will more likely be destroyed.

> Do you consider the ideology of the Confederacy to be current?

Are we referencing history or not? Are we building the monuments to historical figures or not?

I don’t care what reductive frame the Neo-Confederate cause may be, that isn’t relevant.

There’s no reason why we shouldn’t take the Confederates at their word, and their words, were lip service to an evil ideology. Thus, when you build monuments to them, you’re building monuments to that ideology. You can’t avoid that association. Those men themselves ensured it.

If you want to build or upkeep monuments to them, do it with your own money. It’s that simple. You know that is both the right thing to do, and the only way you can save them.

Lincoln trashed the constitution and completely destroyed federalism, and Sherman was a war criminal. So if you want monuments to Lincoln and Sherman and so forth, do it with your own money. The politicians pushing the war from the north were a bunch of evil, profiteering (expletives), and all the men who fought for them are tainted by their evil. There weren’t any good guys, and the union soldiers and politicians are no more deserving of statues than their southern counterparts.

And yet, you, AS, have NO PROBLEM with using tax funds to tear down monuments erected AND MAINTAINED with private funds.

2 Likes

Dear me,but I did not think a little comment could get everyone so riled up!
Which brings up an interesting question: I have noticed that leftist protestors, especially in California, wear MASKS when they desecrate this and that, including statues of the North or the South.
**Is that legal? **
Last I heard, public screening of the face for reasons of hooliganism was illegal, immoral and just not right.
My brother is an Assistant Police Chief, and I keep meaning to ask him, but he seems rather busy these days.
One would think this would allow our Boys and Girls in Blue to know WHO to snatch out of the crowd…But, the latest trend is to allow wrecking ,even in front of the police (see Berkley ) as long as life or injury is not threatened. La-de-da.
I do not want to hijack the thread ,even though I started it, so I ask just for information.

The Senator

Yes, I am trying to toss in the Olive Branch here…infighting amongst even wayward conservatives is not good.:embarrese

1 Like
  1. Not even the New Orleans statues were completely divorced from public support.

  2. There’s still an issue of it being on public land.

If the volunteers don’t want it destroyed, they should be proactive and put it somewhere else. With the New Orleans statues, the city appears to be allowing this to happen:

> In announcing the removal, the city also provided new details about what will happen to the statues and the sites on which they have sat for generations. The city said it will seek proposals from nonprofits or governments outside of New Orleans to display the displaced statues in what it considers to be their proper context.

It’s the same with warships; you can’t just place them wherever you want, either you make the effort to find a place for them, or they get scrapped. Regardless of whatever attachment people may have to them.

And the South made federalism a word so toxic, no one can defend it without dredging up accusations of racism.

As such, Switzerland is a better example today of Federalism in practice.

The South should have chosen a better reason to invoke Federalism; they themselves admitted that the U.S. Constitution was structured to eliminate Slavery. They pretended that they had a “right” to it anyway.

PUBLIC Lands, AS…and the statues’ supporters are JUST as much a part of “the public” as those who insist they be torn down. In fact, I’d wager that there are MORE of them than there are Civil War “deniers,” as Landreau is going to find out next election.

The Left is making a concerted effort to hide history. The statues being removed or destroyed are often seen as a reminder of despicable policy/values from the past.

But look folks, EVERY country on earth has shame in its history. America is largely unique in that we have moved heaven and earth to correct wrongs.

So, what’s behind the removal of our historical monuments - at least those from a period long ago and for which a civil war was fought?

Simple: Many factions on the Left don’t like America very much. They are ashamed of America. Not all of our history is admirable, but it is part of OUR NATION’S HISTORY. It is a history from which we have learned much as a people and for which decades of change has been invested.

Destroying/removing historical symbols/statues from a bygone era diminishes the effort we have expended as a people to shed the negative/polarizing values we have spent 150 years to overcome. We need to learn from history, not hide from it.

2 Likes

Put them in museums. Problem solved.

There’s no excuse to have the public pay for their construction or upkeep in any other context.

BS, AS. There isn’t really any “problem” except that invented by the political left.

2 Likes

Dave, I just proved the VA is maintaining 33 of these statues. You are now misleading people.

Why do you think it is a very bad idea to feed your dogs table scraps directly from the table?

Why do think they have signs at the zoo: “DO NOT FEED THE ANIMALS”.

The appetite of these people for power and the destruction of our history and country is insatiable. Confederate statues and memorials today, Monticello, Mount Vernon, Mount Rushmore, images on our coins and currency tomorrow.

1 Like

No old dog, you’re off point.

The public doesn’t need to pay for these statues. That’s it, that’s the point.

Even the statues in New Orleans aren’t being destroyed, just moved by voluntary societies that care about them. So the “destroying history” bit is pure rhetoric here.

End public support. Enough of the obfuscation.

There is a hell of a lot of $#!+ the public doesn’t **need ** to pay for. Confederate soldiers were not monstrous creatures they were patriotic Americans fighting for their country or their state where they were born and raised. They lost. It’s over. They are part of our history. The public doesn’t **need ** to pay for these statues but the public **should ** pay for these statues. They are an important part of who we are as a nation.

That’s not a counter-argument, that’s simply admitting that there’s more we need to cut.

People are using this same excuse about NEA and PBS, and it’s just as unconvincing.

> Confederate soldiers were not monstrous creatures they were patriotic Americans

Patriotic? Not to America. Not to the Founders. They denied everything that made America, America. They denied the Constitution, by name, they denied Natural law, by name.

They called the Founders wrong, stating that their desire to uplift men as equals was a mistake. I don’t mean this “implicitly”, I mean that they directly stated these things.

They offered an alternative vision as the “God anointed order” (their words) , an order of subordinating the “inferior” races to give poor-working class whites a way to feel empowered. They were not just a geopolitical foe; they made themselves an ideological opposite to the American Revolution. They rejected their common heritage, to shore up their economic order.

Any monument you make to them, is thus a monument to that anti-American ideology. One of uplifting racial determinism as both the natural order, and as a way to “fix” class warfare.

> fighting for their country or their state where they were born and raised. They lost. It’s over. They are part of our history. The public doesn’t **need ** to pay for these statues but the public **should ** pay for these statues.

No. We never built any monument to our enemies, not even the British, who fought for a far less controversial goal.

We also should never commemorate evil, and that’s exactly what this ideology of theirs was, evil. You can’t separate them from it, Texas even mentions it in their succession statement. It’s baked into the cake of their cause.

Stating that there were mitigating circumstances, or alternative reasons for why they fought is all well and good, but it doesn’t change that the ideology was at the center of it all. Which means holding parts of the Confederate cause at bay, is something you have to do as an individual, within the confines of your own conscience.

If people still want to build monuments commemorating the other non-controversial motives, they should do so with their own resources. That’s the right way to go about this. Recognize the inherit difficulties, and don’t force it upon anyone.