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

[8bit_Theatre 64]

Just some history on the Sculpture itself. It was completed by Architect Henry Shrady who was also known for the Ulysses S Grant Memorial in Washington DC

[Boiler 45,402]

16 minutes ago, 8bit_Theatre said:

 

When looking at history you have to use the context of the time. There are alot of statements about Union this, South that. If you asked people of the mid 19th century who they were, they would say things like "I'm an Virginian, or I'm Ohioan". In many ways the Civil War is responsible for our current national identity of America first, State second.

 

I agree that slavery was THE wedge issue but we can in someways understand the broader concepts of the fear that most southerners had if we look at government representation. The north's population was growing faster than the souths, the industrial revolution was beginning to drive the north's economy. There was a fear that the south would not have a voice in the federal government as its percentage of that government began to slip in to a minority. You can see similar elements at the state levels today. In California the counties around San Francisco and Las Angeles drown the voices of the rest of the state because of the population divide.

 

Also, just an interesting note. War was never declared. Lincoln never declared war because it would give a degree of validity to the Confederate Government.

 

In many ways too the Civil War mirrored the American revolution. Confederate forces were never fighting to win. Their goal was to outlast the will of Union forces to fight and hopefully attract UK or French intervention....which almost occurred.

I am not going to quote all your posts and of course you make very salient points. We have a similar situation in Colorado where the Front Range, a relatively small area with Denver as its hub essentially controls the State.

 

I agree with your comments about Slavery, already on decline and purely from a financial perspective on its way out as there were cheaper alternatives. 

 

One of those victors write history issues, well pulp history anyway. It was certainly an issue that was used later as justification. But that is a bit like saying WW2 was about the Death Camps. Or Iraq about 911.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

5 hours ago, IDWAF said:

 

As to the concept of statues and flags... if they have been allowed to remain until today, why remove them now?  What does a statue of Lee, Grant, or anyone else hurt today?  They were erected in much different times, but serve as a reminder as to the history of our country.  A reminder of where we came from, what we did, and what (hopefully) we should never do again.  If we remove our history from sight (as many have done when they remove facts about the Holocaust from school books), then it will become an old folks tale, and may not serve as the reminder needed to prevent it from happening one day in the future.

 

 

 

   IMO, the fact that statues have largely stood to this day would seem to indicate that remembering the history itself is not the central issue.

 

   What I see is that municipalities don't want these monuments becoming a symbol for the new right wing extremist groups that are trying to appropriate them. Average citizens don't want these groups in their cities. Businesses don't want violent protests going on around them. Cities, especially ones that rely on tourism, don't want the stigma that goes with these kind of events and groups. 

 

  For people who are primarily concerned with preserving history, it's unfortunate that we have allowed these groups to link themselves with this. I do think there is a reason supremacist groups chose these symbols, and there is a reason people are resisting it. 

[8bit_Theatre 64]

20 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   IMO, the fact that statues have largely stood to this day would seem to indicate that remembering the history itself is not the central issue.

 

   What I see is that municipalities don't want these monuments becoming a symbol for the new right wing extremist groups that are trying to appropriate them. Average citizens don't want these groups in their cities. Businesses don't want violent protests going on around them. Cities, especially ones that rely on tourism, don't want the stigma that goes with these kind of events and groups. 

 

  For people who are primarily concerned with preserving history, it's unfortunate that we have allowed these groups to link themselves with this. I do think there is a reason supremacist groups chose these symbols, and there is a reason people are resisting it. 

I think one solution would be to hand these monuments over to the civil war trust. That Trust has been buying up and preserving land where battles were fought. I could see many of these monuments sitting on the battlefields 

Edited August 22, 2017 by 8bit_Theatre

[Steeleballz 7,550]

8 hours ago, bcking said:

Please answer my direct question to you, if you want to carry on a conversation with me and ask me a question.

 

I'll answer your question once you answer mine. 

 

What specific issue, if not slavery, did the southern states want the "right" to choose for themselves over?

 

"States Rights" on its own is rather meaningless. Why did they want to fight for "States rights"? What issue were they fighting over specifically, other than slavery?

 

   At the time, secceeding states had no issue saying it was about slavery. The opposition of northern states toward the institution of slavery was given as one of the reasons for seccession, so it's revisionist history if anyone says that wasn't a factor. What is true is that northern states did not go to war to end slavery, they went to war to stop the south from leaving the union. By the second year of the war, ending slavery was an integral issue.

 

  The part JG gave about 2% of southerners owning slaves is contradicted by the United States census of 1860. That data can be accessed online today. Just prior to the war, 30% of families in succeeding states owned slaves on average, some states higher and some lower. 

 

   T

[Steeleballz 7,550]

2 hours ago, 8bit_Theatre said:

I think one solution would be to hand these monuments over to the civil war trust. That Trust has been buying up and preserving land where battles were fought. I could see many of these monuments sitting on the battlefields 

  That would be one option, I guess. On private property, it's easier to keep the weirdo's from co-opting them as symbols for their cause.

[bcking 3,157]

2 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   At the time, secceeding states had no issue saying it was about slavery. The opposition of northern states toward the institution of slavery was given as one of the reasons for seccession, so it's revisionist history if anyone says that wasn't a factor. What is true is that northern states did not go to war to end slavery, they went to war to stop the south from leaving the union. By the second year of the war, ending slavery was an integral issue.

 

  The part JG gave about 2% of southerners owning slaves is contradicted by the United States census of 1860. That data can be accessed online today. Just prior to the war, 30% of families in succeeding states owned slaves on average, some states higher and some lower. 

 

   T

Agreed.

 

Not only did the Southern states themselves freely admit that abolition was one of their chief concerns, most of their other concerns (most popularly among them being the issue of states rights) was directly linked to slavery. They didn't want increased states rights just because. They wanted it specifically because they wanted the right to decide for themselves whether to end slavery (which they clearly had no intention of doing).

 

It comes down to two questions for me:

 

1) If abolition was off the table, if they Northern states agreed to allow it to continue, but denied ALL other requests from the South...would the South still wanted to secede?

2) If the Northern States had agreed to ALL of the Southern states grievances EXCEPT continuing slavery. If they had given in to everything but required abolition...would the South still have wanted to secede?

 

While it is all speculation at this point the clear answers would be No to the first, Yes to the second.. I've never seen any well reasoned argument with evidence to suggest alternative responses. Sure they had other complaints but the crux of the issue was always abolition.

 

That being the case, slavery was the prime instigator for the South's desire to secede, and the desire to secede led to war.

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, bcking said:

While it is all speculation at this point the clear answers would be No to the first, Yes to the second.. I've never seen any well reasoned argument with evidence to suggest alternative responses. Sure they had other complaints but the crux of the issue was always abolition.

 

That being the case, slavery was the prime instigator for the South's desire to secede, and the desire to secede led to war.

[Steeleballz 7,550]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

 

   If you have nothing to say, it's perfectly acceptable to say nothing. You're not adding anything with stuff like this. It only reflects poorly on you when it looks like all you are trying to do is disrupt the discussion in every thread you post in.

[IAMX 3,055]

4 hours ago, Boiler said:

One of those victors write history issues, well pulp history anyway. It was certainly an issue that was used later as justification. But that is a bit like saying WW2 was about the Death Camps. Or Iraq about 911.

Basically. Destroying ways of remembering history from one side makes sure the narrative of one side gets displayed. Justifiable by tantrum throwers.

[bcking 3,157]

10 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

   If you have nothing to say, it's perfectly acceptable to say nothing. You're not adding anything with stuff like this. It only reflects poorly on you when it looks like all you are trying to do is disrupt the discussion in every thread you post in.

Tried that before. It goes over the head and the memes continue. 

Edited August 23, 2017 by bcking

[Boiler 45,402]

[IAMX 3,055]

Just now, Boiler said:

[8bit_Theatre 64]

39 minutes ago, bcking said:

Agreed.

 

Not only did the Southern states themselves freely admit that abolition was one of their chief concerns, most of their other concerns (most popularly among them being the issue of states rights) was directly linked to slavery. They didn't want increased states rights just because. They wanted it specifically because they wanted the right to decide for themselves whether to end slavery (which they clearly had no intention of doing).

 

It comes down to two questions for me:

 

1) If abolition was off the table, if they Northern states agreed to allow it to continue, but denied ALL other requests from the South...would the South still wanted to secede?

2) If the Northern States had agreed to ALL of the Southern states grievances EXCEPT continuing slavery. If they had given in to everything but required abolition...would the South still have wanted to secede?

 

While it is all speculation at this point the clear answers would be No to the first, Yes to the second.. I've never seen any well reasoned argument with evidence to suggest alternative responses. Sure they had other complaints but the crux of the issue was always abolition.

 

That being the case, slavery was the prime instigator for the South's desire to secede, and the desire to secede led to war.

The answer to 1 is - yes probably. I can think of one Tarriff that almost started a war 30 years prior.

The answer to 2 is - yes probably.

Edited August 23, 2017 by 8bit_Theatre

[Voice of Reason 10,298]