Jeh Johnson: Removal of Confederate Statues a Matter of ‘Homeland Security’

[CaliCat 3,957]

6 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The bolded part has been stated a few times now and we still get the reply below.

 

Reading comprehension goes a long way on a discussion board.

I think the message hasn't been clear. We can always try again.

 

[Teddy B 17,252]

1 minute ago, CaliCat said:

I think the message hasn't been clear. We can always try again.

 

The forecast in this thread calls for heavy snow!!

 

[IAMX 3,055]

8 minutes ago, bcking said:

Lee wasn't in the wrong side because the South lost.

 

He was on the wrong side because the South was wrong. Win or lose, they were wrong. They seceded and went to war because they didn't want to give up treating people as property. I don't care who won. Their cause was morally wrong and unjust. 

The south didn't merely go to war for slavery. They went to war because the north was invading them. The people who had slaves were an extreme minority, to say the least. So the idea that this guy represents racism or even slavery is ridiculous -- it's clear he represented the south, not slave owners. But that's just taking the leftist argument for face value rather than merely making fun of it for its palpable one-sided embellished stupidity. Southern culture never ceased or even died down with the abolition of slavery, that alone is a clear indication that its "ties" to it were a dubious claim. So the tantrums that use this argument by those who put actual effort into taking these monuments and statues down are just as dumb, albeit hardly surprising.

Edited August 22, 2017 by IAMX

[CaliCat 3,957]

7 minutes ago, Teddy B said:

The forecast in this thread calls for heavy snow!!

 

 

 

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, IAMX said:

The south didn't merely go to war for slavery. They went to war because the north was invading them. The people who had slaves were an extreme minority, to say the least. So the idea that this guy represents racism or even slavery is ridiculous -- it's clear he represented the south, not slave owners. But that's just taking the leftist argument for face value rather than merely making fun of it for its palpable one-sided embellished stupidity. Southern culture never ceased or even died down with the abolition of slavery, that alone is a clear indication that its "ties" to it were a dubious claim. So the tantrums that use this argument by those who put actual effort into taking these monuments and statues down are just as dumb, albeit hardly surprising.

You are the only person here talking about southern culture. I don't care about southern culture. The only "southern culture" that was at risk in the 1850's was slavery. The North wasn't trying to take away people's barbecue and crawfish.

 

I also never said Lee represented slavery. He represented exactly what he was. He was a General of significant renown who had a choice of who to serve. He sided with "his people" in the South, which seceded from the union over their right to own slaves. By siding with, and supporting them, he was tacitly agreeing with their position. You can't fight for someone but say "but hey I didn't actually agree with them!". Even if you do try that, it just doesn't wrong. You will still be lumped with them. They only excuse can be made potentially when you aren't "aware" of what was happening. No one could argue that General Lee didn't know that the South had slaves and wanted to keep them. 

 

Political tension was created over the issue of slavery. The south was concerned that by removing it you would ruin their economy. They prioritized their capital investment in their "property" over the value of human lives. From that issue, stemmed the other issues like a state's right to secede. They only took that as an issue because they wanted to use it in order to keep their slaves and stop the progress that was being made. While there were many issues at play, they all stemmed from the political tension around slavery. Without that, the south would have had no reason to try to secede.

 

Like it or not, and you clearly don't like it, the fact of the matter is that the South fought for the wrong side. The morally wrong side. Had they won and we had two countries right now it STILL would have been the wrong side. Those who supported that ruined their reputation, in my eyes.

Edited August 22, 2017 by bcking

[Teddy B 17,252]

2 minutes ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

You are the only person here talking about southern culture. I don't care about southern culture.

Thank you for finally being honest. That's what I was waiting for.

[Teddy B 17,252]

[bcking 3,157]

8 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Thank you for finally being honest. That's what I was waiting for.

Ya that's fine. I will be honest. I don't give a rat's booty about southern culture. I care equally for northern culture in the 1850's.

 

The war was fought beacuse the South used seccession as their means to try to keep slaves. The North was trying to phase out the system, the South was worried it would ruin them economically and didnt' want to change so they instead tried to secede. Culture doesn't matter. It was an evil practice and the South was trying to continue it.

They were wrong. Their leaders were wrong to support it, and their Generals were wrong to defend it. Had they won they still would have been wrong.

 

I see no reason to commerorate people who led our country to civil war over their right to keep human property. General Lee could have been the most upstanding heroic individual before the 1850's. He made the wrong decision supporting the South and it quite appropriately ruined his reputation. Unfortunately for him, he deserves it. 

 

This is why I don't see the connection between the Confederates and our Founding Fathers. People are trying to make people "afraid" that statues of Washington or Jefferson will be next. That is bull poo. They were slave owners, and yes that was wrong. But they were never put in a situation where they had to choose between keeping their slaves and going to war with other Americans, or giving up their slaves. Maybe they would have chosen war, maybe not but they were never in that situation. The Southerners in the 1850's who encouraged, supported and led their states to seccession were doing so with the full knowledge that their decision making was driven by the desire to maintain human property.

 

They asked themselves "How far do I want to take this?" and their answer was "War". They went too far.

Edited August 22, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

Ya that's fine. I will be honest. I don't give a rat's booty about southern culture. I care equally for northern culture in the 1850's.

Honestly, I stopped reading at that point, at this post and last. Rational historical perspective looks at both sides, not one. Also, we're not talking about General Lee statues in NYC. It was clear from the start you refused to recognize the other side.

[bcking 3,157]

5 minutes ago, IAMX said:

Honestly, I stopped reading at that point, at this post and last. Rational historical perspective looks at both sides, not one. Also, we're not talking about General Lee statues in NYC. It was clear from the start you refused to recognize the other side.

I said I care equally for nothern culture. Meaning I don't care at all.

 

This isn't a discussion of Southern Culture. The civil war wasn't a war over Southern Culture, unless you define Southern Culture as slave owning (which you seem to claim it isn't, which is fine).

 

Trying to make it about "culture" instead of what it really was about is just a way to deflect the blame.

 

As I have already said:

 

Would you support local communities voting for the fate of their statue? Charlottesville residents being able to vote whether the statue is taken down or not? I'm not sure if they had the opportunity. As i said when I started this discussion I don't really care what happens to the statues. Statue or no statue I don't really care. I would support local votes to keep memorials in their place. If the people vote to remove it, sobeit. 

 

(I realise for most "left-leaning" people leaving it up to a popular vote is not a great idea since minority populations will be prone to losing out...this may be where I differ since I just don't personally care enough about statues. If a majority of people who live/work around the statue want it around sobeit, if they want it gone, that's fine to. That is just my opinion though)

Edited August 22, 2017 by bcking

[IAMX 3,055]

3 minutes ago, bcking said:

I said I care equally for nothern culture. Meaning I don't care at all.

 

This isn't a discussion of Southern Culture. The civil war wasn't a war over Southern Culture, unless you define Southern Culture as slave owning (which you seem to claim it isn't, which is fine).

 

Trying to make it about "culture" instead of what it really was about is just a way to deflect the blame.

 

As I have already said:

 

Would you support local communities voting for the fate of their statue? Charlottesville residents being able to vote whether the statue is taken down or not? I'm not sure if they had the opportunity. As i said when I started this discussion I don't really care what happens to the statues. Statue or no statue I don't really care. I would support local votes to keep memorials in their place. If the people vote to remove it, sobeit. 

 

(I realise for the "left" people may not like leaving it up to a popular vote since minority populations will be prone to losing out...this may be where I differ since I just don't personally care enough about statues. If a majority of people who live/work around the statue want it around sobeit, if they want it gone, that's fine to. That is just my opinion though)

Not a discussion of southern culture..  then why are the monuments and statues up in the first place pray tell? 

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

Not a discussion of southern culture..  then why are the monuments and statues up in the first place pray tell? 

They were put up to commemororate people who were seen by some as important historical figures worth commemorating. The Lee statue in Charlotesville, it is my understanding, was funded by a single person so essentially that statue was placed just because one rich guy thought it was worth having. I'd hope we would both agree that Southern Culture is rooted far deeper in the ground than the base of these statues.

 

Confederate Generals and Leaders are not worth commemorating, except in the sense that they should be studied in history books and museums in the context of the mistakes they made. They shouldn't be celebrated. You should celebrate people who stood for good things, who did the right thing. Win or lose, people who made the morally right decision should be celebrated. The other people can be remembered, but not celebrated. A statue is implying more than just remembering them, which is wrong.

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

14 minutes ago, bcking said:

They were put up to commemororate people who were seen by some as important historical figures worth commemorating. The Lee statue in Charlotesville, it is my understanding, was funded by a single person so essentially that statue was placed just because one rich guy thought it was worth having. I'd hope we would both agree that Southern Culture is rooted far deeper in the ground than the base of these statues.

 

Confederate Generals and Leaders are not worth commemorating, except in the sense that they should be studied in history books and museums in the context of the mistakes they made. They shouldn't be celebrated. You should celebrate people who stood for good things, who did the right thing. Win or lose, people who made the morally right decision should be celebrated. The other people can be remembered, but not celebrated. A statue is implying more than just remembering them, which is wrong.

 

 

That's not illogical but what culture of one area to another is, is ambiguous. If it was a situation where southerners were trying to force monuments and statues on public land in a place that had no positive historical meaning to them I'd be on the same side. 

 

And about private money..  what does that mean? What was covered publicly then is infinitesimal to what public money covers today. 

Edited August 22, 2017 by IAMX

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, IAMX said:

That's not illogical but what culture of one area to another is, is ambiguous. If it was a situation where southerners were trying to force monuments and statues on public land in a place that had no positive historical meaning to them I'd be on the same side. 

Would you support local votes of population to decide the fate of monuments? I've asked this several times now. If the people who live in Charlottesville voted and the majority wanted it gone, would you support it?

 

Unfortunately I disagree with you about these people having "positive historical meaning". While it is possible that General Lee performed good morally just feats in his life that outweighs his involvement in the Civil War, to me the bar is pretty darn high. Fighting to defend slavery is a pretty big negative that you would have to counterbalance with a whole lot of good. Did he save boat loads of babies? Did he cure the sick?

 

What amazing morally just feat did he perform that outweighs his choice to fight for those who went to war in order to keep slaves?

 

I'll gladly continue to argue whether or not General Lee deserves to be celebrated, but bottom line for me is still that the statues dont' matter much. If the local people voted and wanted to keep it (Not all Southerners, but just the local people who live in Charlottesville) then I don't really care. I don't think it should be kept, but I won't fight to knock it down.