Heroes are good - let's make statues of them

[Cooper]

Because a staunch abolitionist wasn't elected president until that point. Lincoln vocally opposed the expansion of slavery into western territories, and many southerners believed that he wanted to eliminate it throughout the country. The states began to secede almost immediately after Lincoln was sworn into office.

John Adams, the second president of the United States, was a staunch abolitionist.

[Rhamses]

John Adams, the second president of the United States, was a staunch abolitionist.

Actually Adams wasn't an abolitionist. He opposed slavery, but he felt that abolitionists were too radical. He never made campaign speeches talking about how evil slavery was, and how it needed to be purged from the country. Lincoln did that constantly. Adams wanted a gradual end to slavery, Lincoln (like many abolitionists) wanted a fairly swift end to the institution.

[Cooper]

Actually Adams wasn't an abolitionist. He opposed slavery, but he felt that abolitionists were too radical. He never made campaign speeches talking about how evil slavery was, and how it needed to be purged from the country. Lincoln did that constantly. Adams wanted a gradual end to slavery, Lincoln (like many abolitionists) wanted a fairly swift end to the institution.

Point is, Lincoln wasn't the first president who wanted to end slavery. Southern feelings of alienation from the Union did not spring into being upon Lincoln's election, but over the course of the preceding 80 years of conflict over various issues (including slavery, but not limited only to it), and Lincoln's election was the final straw - not the first, and not the only.

[Torgent]

That would require you doing something other than shitposting on this forum mate.

The irony.

[Barnabas]

Actually Adams wasn't an abolitionist. He opposed slavery, but he felt that abolitionists were too radical. He never made campaign speeches talking about how evil slavery was, and how it needed to be purged from the country. Lincoln did that constantly. Adams wanted a gradual end to slavery, Lincoln (like many abolitionists) wanted a fairly swift end to the institution.

Nice reflection of the change of american values and attitudes between the presidents over time. You see these people monuments in remembrance that this is what we once were.

[Rhamses]

Point is, Lincoln wasn't the first president who wanted to end slavery.

That wasn't my argument. *I* said that Lincoln was the first president who was a staunch abolitionist. There's a difference between a president who dislikes slavery, but takes a passive approach to its elimination, and a president who dislikes slavery and takes an active approach to its elimination. Lincoln was the latter, and that's why the south feared his election to the presidency.

Southern feelings of alienation from the Union did not spring into being upon Lincoln's election, but over the course of the preceding 80 years of conflict over various issues (including slavery, but not limited only to it), and Lincoln's election was the final straw - not the first, and not the only.

I never made that argument either. I said that slavery was the issue that caused the conflict and Lincoln was the final straw that broke the union in two. It wasn't JUST the election of Lincoln, it was decades of division and strife to the point where by the late 1850s, the South feared that the more powerful North was going to end their peculiar institution. By the 1860 election, the Slave-holding states had already lost influence in congress, and it was clear that the political winds were shifting towards the government limiting the spread of slavery into new territories and states. Into this climate the country then elects a president who has openly called slavery an evil institution that must be abolished, and leads a party who's stated goal is to contain the power of the slave states. For the slave-owning Southern elites whose entire fortunes rested on slavery the writing was on the wall.

The secession of the major slave-holding states was an effort to protect their slave-holding interests AND to spread the practice of slavery into new territories. The vice-president of the Confederacy made that crystal clear in his "Corner Stone" speech about their new nation:

"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."

-Alexander Stevens
Vice President of the Confederate States of America, Corner Stone Speech, March 21st, 1861

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...rstone-speech/

No matter how much confederate apologists wish to deflect, it all comes back to the issue of slavery.

[Deleted]

That's just empty jargon in the wind. in the same vein as "it's tradition because it's traditon". The context is important. Like I said nothing prevents you from learning history from other sources, it doesn't need to be out in public. Esp. if the content is "controversial".

You know History is not Black and White right? Not all Confederate soldiers and Generals were evil Slavemasters and literal Proto-Nazis right? We can value the good of people as well as revile the evil.

You tell people that Statues are evil and if they want History they should open a book; What happens when we get rid of all the statues? You start book burning.

[elaina]

Thats what makes me a hero here.

/20th shitpost of the thread

*hero of the stoooorm*

[Rhamses]

You know History is not Black and White right? Not all Confederate soldiers and Generals were evil Slavemasters and literal Proto-Nazis right? We can value the good of people as well as revile the evil.

It isn't just the Civil War itself, it was the century of racial discrimination and brutal domestic terrorism that followed it. In some cases, that terror was led by ex- confederate soldiers and their leaders. The KKK for example was started by a former Confederate general and his ex-soldiers. When blacks started trying to assert their basic rights as American citizens, the descendants of confederate soldiers and generals proudly flew confederate flags and symbols in direct opposition to their attempt to gain equal rights.

Please tell me, where's the good in that Confederate history? Which aspect should those people be proud of and celebrate? Fighting for a war to continue slavery, or actively (or complicity) denying the rights of black Americans by supporting terrorist groups or voting to enact unjust (and undemocratic) laws?

[Cooper]

It isn't just the Civil War itself, it was the century of racial discrimination and brutal domestic terrorism that followed it. In some cases, that terror was led by ex- confederate soldiers and their leaders. The KKK for example was started by a former Confederate general and his ex-soldiers. When blacks started trying to assert their basic rights as American citizens, the descendants of confederate soldiers and generals proudly flew confederate flags and symbols in direct opposition to their attempt to gain equal rights.

Please tell me, where's the good in that Confederate history? Which aspect should those people be proud of and celebrate? Fighting for a war to continue slavery, or actively (or complicity) denying the rights of black Americans by supporting terrorist groups or voting to enact unjust (and undemocratic) laws?

Well, Lee, for one, wasn't one of those people. In fact he became a symbol of reconciliation between North and South after the war, and prior to the war was an American war hero of the Mexican-American War and superintendent of West Point; after the war, he was President of Washington University (after which it became Washington and Lee University). He even probably very publicly took communion with a black man after the war, and while he did own slaves his family ran a very illegal school for them (much like Stonewall Jackson did). He (also like Jackson) did not choose to fight for the Confederacy to defend slavery - he didn't even particularly like slavery, but felt it was part of God's plan and would end when God willed it - but because Virginia was his home.

So you're painting with far too broad a brush there.

[Livnthedream]

Well, Lee, for one, wasn't one of those people. In fact he became a symbol of reconciliation between North and South after the war, and prior to the war was an American war hero of the Mexican-American War and superintendent of West Point; after the war, he was President of Washington University (after which it became Washington and Lee University). He even probably very publicly took communion with a black man after the war, and while he did own slaves his family ran a very illegal school for them (much like Stonewall Jackson did). He (also like Jackson) did not choose to fight for the Confederacy to defend slavery - he didn't even particularly like slavery, but felt it was part of God's plan and would end when God willed it - but because Virginia was his home.

So you're painting with far too broad a brush there.

That can't be! The issue is black and white! Literally!

[Cooper]

I just came across a letter by Eisenhower about Robert E. Lee. First, the letter to which he was responding:

August 1, 1960
Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower
White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

At the Republication Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.

I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.

The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did, was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being held as one of our heroes.

Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?

Sincerely yours,

Leon W. Scott

and Eisenhower's response:

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower

[AeneasBK]

The civil war was the issue of slavery coming to a head.

Reading his posts legit started to make my head hurt a little.

[Venant]

That can't be! The issue is black and white! Literally!

Dude, we need to tear down the pyramids, the world's most famous monument to slavery.

[Deleted]

Would it be appropriate to build a statue in honor of Hitler at the concentration camp near you?

Man, we have concentration camps now? Since when?

I'd honestly be thrilled to see that everyone would have gotten over the 1940's enough to put up a statue of Hitler.

[Kaleredar]

Man, we have concentration camps now? Since when?

I'd honestly be thrilled to see that everyone would have gotten over the 1940's enough to put up a statue of Hitler.

...You know there are people who are still alive who were IN those concentration camps, right?

They probably aren't too keen on the notion of people casually "getting over" the fact that they and were interred and forced to watch their friends and families be worked and/or put to death around them.

Statues are built to honor people, not say "hey here's a historically important person. What they're important for isn't important, they just had a big effect on history!"

[minteK917]

It come down to, things will get replaced over time. Im not for the destruction of memorial, infact im against it, just like im against the destruction of ancient religious monument even as an atheist. It has historical value. Does it need to remain where it is 300-500-1000 years later, probably not if it can be moved. We have public museums, use them. Make ancient buildings that still exist national treasures, etc.

We have two sides right now that are brain damaged. Some want us to go back in the past, some want us to forget the past. Neither is a good or logical answer period.

[Kaleredar]

Dude, we need to tear down the pyramids, the world's most famous monument to slavery.

The pyramids weren't built by slaves. And even if they were, they were built thousands of years ago and don't stand as a reflection of any sort of system of government currently in place. No one is claiming that "the Egyptian empire is the kind of society we need to return to" or "the pharaohs are heroes that we need to honor." They're a giant pile of bricks sitting out in the desert of historical significance.


Again, you seem to be extending this sort of "historical concern" to all sorts of things to try and expose some sort of "hypocrisy." Frankly, you can stop trying, because the contention here is very specifically over the subject of confederate monuments in the United states. It's not being approached as a "well we need to think about ALL monuments, and it just so happens that we're focusing on confederate monuments first..." It's ENITRELY focused on confederate statues.

So get your slippery slope nonsense out of here.

[Deleted]

Dude, we need to tear down the pyramids, the world's most famous monument to slavery.

Technical the pyramid builder was paid artisaner or farmers who did pyramid construction work as part of there tax-duty. But ancient Egypte was a totalitarian state who did use slaves....

[Kaleredar]

It come down to, things will get replaced over time. Im not for the destruction of memorial, infact im against it, just like im against the destruction of ancient religious monument even as an atheist. It has historical value. Does it need to remain where it is 300-500-1000 years later, probably not if it can be moved. We have public museums, use them. Make ancient buildings that still exist national treasures, etc.

We have two sides right now that are brain damaged. Some want us to go back in the past, some want us to forget the past. Neither is a good or logical answer period.

Jeesum crow they're PUTTING THE DAMN STATUES IN MUSEUMS.

Sorry, but this has been said COUNTLESS times. People want them REMOVED from public land because it really looks like you endorse the person you have a statue of when it's sitting in front of your town hall.