Confederate Statue Toppled in North Carolina

[Kash Island]

The civil war was far more complex than that, it was nearly just about "muh slaves"

the south was extremely reliant on slave labor which was a large driving factor in their ideology, but it was mostly economics. Slavery was an issue but it's not like the north and south slugged it out to free the black man.

The Confederates started the war because they hated the idea of blacks ever being equal to whites, they said so themselves. Whereas the Union just defended itself, and this incidentally lead to emancipation. So you're wrong in that the war was over slavery, but you're right in that the Union wasn't fighting to free slaves.

meh yeah i can see it.

[San Lumen]

The civil war was far more complex than that, it was nearly just about "muh slaves"

the south was extremely reliant on slave labor which was a large driving factor in their ideology, but it was mostly economics. Slavery was an issue but it's not like the north and south slugged it out to free the black man.

The Confederates started the war because they hated the idea of blacks ever being equal to whites, they said so themselves. Whereas the Union just defended itself, and this incidentally lead to emancipation. So you're wrong in that the war was over slavery, but you're right in that the Union wasn't fighting to free slaves.

Slavery was major factor. The south succeeded when Lincoln was elected. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery.

[Washington Resistance Army]

The Confederates started the war because they hated the idea of blacks ever being equal to whites, they said so themselves. Whereas the Union just defended itself, and this incidentally lead to emancipation. So you're wrong in that the war was over slavery, but you're right in that the Union wasn't fighting to free slaves.

Slavery was major factor. The south succeeded when Lincoln was elected. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery.

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist actually, contrary to popular belief.

[San Lumen]

Slavery was major factor. The south succeeded when Lincoln was elected. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery.

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist actually, contrary to popular belief.

Then what was he? He wanted to abolish slavery and passed the 13th amendment in 1864.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist actually, contrary to popular belief.

Then what was he? He wanted to abolish slavery and passed the 13th amendment in 1864.

Before the war he wasn't a fan of slavery but recognized it was legal as upheld by the Supreme Court and openly admitted he didn't know what to do about it. Emancipation was solely done on military grounds.

[Aclion]

Lincoln wasn't an abolitionist actually, contrary to popular belief.

Then what was he? He wanted to abolish slavery and passed the 13th amendment in 1864.

A unionist, Lincoln's primary goal was to preserve the union of the US.

[Swith Witherward]

For clarification, the statue which is the topic of debate in this thread was a memorial dedicated to Confederate soldiers lost during The American Civil War. Even though I'm guilty of just skimming through this thread out of curiosity, I feel like a lot of people have the misconception that the nature of this statue is triumphant or prideful in nature. It's supposed to be somber in remembrance of a turbulent crisis in the US' history. Whether or not you think that's a good thing to have or a bad thing is entirely up to you.

So why should the US memorialse people who committed treason in order to retain the right to keep black people as property?

Because the Civil War was not just about slavery. Also, because the monuments are not a shrine glorifying the wrong things. These are soldiers, not politicians. They served, and they died, for their homeland. Do we see monuments dedicated to dead WWII soldiers in Germany torn down "because Nazis suck"? No. People realize that the monuments for the dead do not glorify the Nazi party, and they understand that not all German soldiers were Nazis. Here, a monument in a German city dedicated to the people from that city that fought in the war.

I have a hard time trying to reason with people ignorant of the time period and American culture. No, this isn't all about slavery... this is about states breaking from a federation because the federation is imposing things on them (not just the moral issue of slavery) that do not jive with them. State's rights were a issue, as well as their limitations regarding the territorial expansion. Republicans, a newly formed party, were pushing their agenda very hard (in many areas, not just slavery). Lincoln's election is proof positive that the South had issues with that party... he didn't gain a single Southern electoral vote. The South felt cut off, and not represented at all. They succeeded. Their soldiers died fighting for their independence, and because the Republican party was crafting laws that were detrimental to the South (not just anti-slavery).

Yes, slavery was at the crux of it, particularly as it applies to territorial expansion. However, we would be remiss if we tried to frame it as "the Confederation wanted slaves and that's why there was a war, and all Confederate soldiers supported slavery!!"

For a moment, imagine that your state seceded because of Trump's policies. His treatment of immigrants, his desire to take away health care from the poor and middle class, and his stance on the environment don't fly with your state leadership, nor with her people. Now imagine the rest of the US marches in to retake your state, to unseat your governors, and to impose Trump's will on you. If you don't make a stand, they will burn your home and shoot you for treason. You die fighting to protect all you hold dear. Did you die"just for immigrants"? No. You died for a myriad of reasons... mainly because Trump and the US wanted to force its will on you. Likewise, Southern soldiers did not die "just to keep slaves".

The soldiers' monuments in the South, like those in Germany, are for the local soldiers that fought in the war. It's a personal issue, and the monument is a shrine to their valor and not to the entire South itself. Tear down figureheads like Lee, but don't spit on the names of the common man.

I don't support Confederates, nor slavery, nor discrimination, and I don't live in the South. I'm part of an ethnic group still discriminated against the world over. But I'm able to divorce myself from wanton bitterness in order to see the need to protect local history, especially when it is a soldiers' memorial.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Dr. Martin Luther King.

[Ifreann]

https://twitter.com/CelesteHeadlee/stat ... 8321544192
A line has formed outside Durham County Detention Facility. People are turning themselves in for pulling down this statue.

Or, you know, a line did form several hours ago when that was Tweeted. You know what I mean.

[Torsiedelle]

So why should the US memorialse people who committed treason in order to retain the right to keep black people as property?

The civil war was far more complex than that, it was nearly just about "muh slaves"

the south was extremely reliant on slave labor which was a large driving factor in their ideology, but it was mostly economics. Slavery was an issue but it's not like the north and south slugged it out to free the black man.

Wasn't there also controversy some time before the war concerning trade between Southern states and Europe? And that new laws imposed prior to the war were met with a lot of backlash because several southern states thought that it was harmful to their international trade? I forget just how long before the war it was, but it was between the 1840's and 1860's.

Also, side note from previous comments, it's Secede, but succeed. This triggers me.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

So why should the US memorialse people who committed treason in order to retain the right to keep black people as property?

Because the Civil War was not just about slavery. Also, because the monuments are not a shrine glorifying the wrong things. These are soldiers, not politicians. They served, and they died, for their homeland. Do we see monuments dedicated to dead WWII soldiers in Germany torn down "because Nazis suck"? No. People realize that the monuments for the dead do not glorify the Nazi party, and they understand that not all German soldiers were Nazis. Here, a monument in a German city dedicated to the people from that city that fought in the war.

I have a hard time trying to reason with people ignorant of the time period and American culture. No, this isn't all about slavery... this is about states breaking from a federation because the federation is imposing things on them (not just the moral issue of slavery) that do not jive with them. State's rights were a issue, as well as their limitations regarding the territorial expansion. Republicans, a newly formed party, were pushing their agenda very hard (in many areas, not just slavery). Lincoln's election is proof positive that the South had issues with that party... he didn't gain a single Southern electoral vote. The South felt cut off, and not represented at all. They succeeded. Their soldiers died fighting for their independence, and because the Republican party was crafting laws that were detrimental to the South (not just anti-slavery).

Yes, slavery was at the crux of it, particularly as it applies to territorial expansion. However, we would be remiss if we tried to frame it as "the Confederation wanted slaves and that's why there was a war, and all Confederate soldiers supported slavery!!"

For a moment, imagine that your state seceded because of Trump's policies. His treatment of immigrants, his desire to take away health care from the poor and middle class, and his stance on the environment don't fly with your state leadership, nor with her people. Now imagine the rest of the US marches in to retake your state, to unseat your governors, and to impose Trump's will on you. If you don't make a stand, they will burn your home and shoot you for treason. You die fighting to protect all you hold dear. Did you die"just for immigrants"? No. You died for a myriad of reasons... mainly because Trump and the US wanted to force its will on you. Likewise, Southern soldiers did not die "just to keep slaves".

The soldiers' monuments in the South, like those in Germany, are for the local soldiers that fought in the war. It's a personal issue, and the monument is a shrine to their valor and not to the entire South itself. Tear down figureheads like Lee, but don't spit on the names of the common man.

I don't support Confederates, nor slavery, nor discrimination, and I don't live in the South. I'm part of an ethnic group still discriminated against the world over. But I'm able to divorce myself from wanton bitterness in order to see the need to protect local history, especially when it is a soldiers' memorial.

"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Dr. Martin Luther King.

See, I don't think I agree with this whole "these memorials are for soldiers" bit.

I see where you are coming from, but this is ignoring a vast part of the history behind these statues. They were made to celebrate their heroes in the Confederacy, yes, but most of these statues were built decades after the Civil War was over, not through the Reconstruction era. The motive of these statues was not to honor soldiers, most of these statues' motives were to put a foot on the ground that, even though they had lost the war, the Confederacy lived on.

No, we would not be remiss to reframe it as the proposed sentence you mentioned. It is exactly what happened. Heck, plenty of us have quoted states' declarations and even the Confederate Constitution in this thread. To say that this was about States' Rights and not slavery is entirely missing the context of the civil war, and the issues which the states seceded for.

The question, when we say "the South fought for their states rights" is immediately "their state rights to what?". Clearly, they were all fighting for a common purpose, to preserve and eternalize the institution of slavery as a right of the states, and thought that a weak central government such as a confederacy, that is at the mercy of the states, would let them do that.

To ignore this fact, to ignore the main cause of the war and to chalk it to states' rights is completely whitewashing the history of the period. Sure, you come from a group of people discriminated all over the world, but, let's not pretend for a moment that your ethnic/racial group's discrimination throughout the world is right either. Let's not try to paint the confederacy as noble miscreants in this. Because this is how the problem is perpetuated generation over generation over generation. Giving a pass to confederates, softening that which their leaders stood for, is the wrong way to go about this. The statues were built with the express purpose to signal the continuation of the confederacy, and for that purpose were they erected in those towns.

You were not born in the South. I have been educated here for most of my academic career. It is attitudes like these, trying to apologize for the Confederacy, that we are at the point we are right now. Because the issue has not been met head on. The issues why the Confederacy were wrong, and those of us in modern times should think are wrong, have not been addressed properly and honestly in a proper discussion about the topic. These statues being toppled down is not the problem, the problem is that a lot of people prefer to try to wash the history of the Confederacy behind trivia facts about the Confederacy, and they treat US history as trivia night, where we can all discuss history without feeling bad about ourselves because hey, it's just trivia.

[Cartecia]

For clarification, the statue which is the topic of debate in this thread was a memorial dedicated to Confederate soldiers lost during The American Civil War. Even though I'm guilty of just skimming through this thread out of curiosity, I feel like a lot of people have the misconception that the nature of this statue is triumphant or prideful in nature. It's supposed to be somber in remembrance of a turbulent crisis in the US' history. Whether or not you think that's a good thing to have or a bad thing is entirely up to you.

So why should the US memorialse people who committed treason in order to retain the right to keep black people as property?

Well, for one, the United States was founded on an act of treason, as it once was a colony.

Secondly, only 3% of southerners actually owned slaves. There were many other issues at hand during The American Civil War, such as the autonomy of states and tariffs placed on trading ports within southern territory. I could go into more detail about how vital the cotton trade was for the south, but several people on this thread have already done it.

You have this exactly backwards. It is a celebration of "the boys who wore the gray". Not specifically those who died. It doesn't even name local men or women who fought for the Confederacy. Just in memory of Confederate soldiers in general. And no mention of the Union soldiers, the men and women who fought for their country instead of against it.

This is indeed correct. I'll edit my original post to correct my misinterpretation. However, you can't expect a Union memorial to be placed in a Confederate-aligned area (aside from major battlefields). My statement still stands that it is in no way prideful or triumphant. It was erected in remembrance to individuals on the Confederate side that participated in the war.

[Vassenor]

So why should the US memorialse people who committed treason in order to retain the right to keep black people as property?

Well, for one, the United States was founded on an act of treason, as it once was a colony.

Secondly, only 3% of southerners actually owned slaves. There were many other issues at hand during The American Civil War, such as the autonomy of states and tariffs placed on trading ports within southern territory. I could go into more detail about how vital the cotton trade was for the south, but several people on this thread have already done it.

You have this exactly backwards. It is a celebration of "the boys who wore the gray". Not specifically those who died. It doesn't even name local men or women who fought for the Confederacy. Just in memory of Confederate soldiers in general. And no mention of the Union soldiers, the men and women who fought for their country instead of against it.

This is indeed correct. I'll edit my original post to correct my misinterpretation. However, you can't expect a Union memorial to be placed in a Confederate-aligned area (aside from major battlefields). My statement still stands that it is in no way prideful or triumphant. It was erected in remembrance to individuals on the Confederate side that participated in the war.

So how does that change the fact that levying war against the United States or providing aid and comfort to its enemies are two of the definitions of treason listed in the Constitution?

[Ifreann]

So why should the US memorialse people who committed treason in order to retain the right to keep black people as property?

Well, for one, the United States was founded on an act of treason, as it once was a colony.

Secondly, only 3% of southerners actually owned slaves. There were many other issues at hand during The American Civil War, such as the autonomy of states and tariffs placed on trading ports within southern territory. I could go into more detail about how vital the cotton trade was for the south, but several people on this thread have already done it.

You have this exactly backwards. It is a celebration of "the boys who wore the gray". Not specifically those who died. It doesn't even name local men or women who fought for the Confederacy. Just in memory of Confederate soldiers in general. And no mention of the Union soldiers, the men and women who fought for their country instead of against it.

This is indeed correct. I'll edit my original post to correct my misinterpretation. However, you can't expect a Union memorial to be placed in a Confederate-aligned area (aside from major battlefields). My statement still stands that it is in no way prideful or triumphant. It was erected in remembrance to individuals on the Confederate side that participated in the war.

Why can't you expect that? If the intention is to inspire passers-by to remember a turbulent time in American history, then surely all those who fought and died should be remembered, not just the Confederates. Unless the intention is to glorify and honour the Confederacy and specifically those who fought for it.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Correct the North did not fight the war to free slaves. The south however did fight the war to maintain their slaves. Thus as far as the south was concerned the issue was slavery.

economics were the issue, slavery was just a vital part of their economic model.

In other words slavery was the issue.

[The Widening Gyre]

It was erected in remembrance to individuals on the Confederate side that participated in the war.

Which it utterly fails to do, since there are no actual individuals mentioned on the monument. That's not terribly surprising of course since the statue appears to have literally been ordered out of a catalogue, and where the only difference between the Union and Confederate statues was things like changing the 'US' on the buckle to 'CS'. And maybe changing the 'to the memory of the boys in blue' to 'grey'.

[Obamaistan]

The confederates are losers


GO USA

[Obamaistan]

So why should the US memorialse people who committed treason in order to retain the right to keep black people as property?

Well, for one, the United States was founded on an act of treason, as it once was a colony.

Secondly, only 3% of southerners actually owned slaves. There were many other issues at hand during The American Civil War, such as the autonomy of states and tariffs placed on trading ports within southern territory. I could go into more detail about how vital the cotton trade was for the south, but several people on this thread have already done it.

The difference is the us gained independence

You have this exactly backwards. It is a celebration of "the boys who wore the gray". Not specifically those who died. It doesn't even name local men or women who fought for the Confederacy. Just in memory of Confederate soldiers in general. And no mention of the Union soldiers, the men and women who fought for their country instead of against it.

This is indeed correct. I'll edit my original post to correct my misinterpretation. However, you can't expect a Union memorial to be placed in a Confederate-aligned area (aside from major battlefields). My statement still stands that it is in no way prideful or triumphant. It was erected in remembrance to individuals on the Confederate side that participated in the war.

[Tekeristan]

3% owned slaves, but remember who those 3 were, the aristocratic upper class in the South. It was literally the foundation of their prestige and wealth, it was the defining thing as a Dixie.

Civil war occurred at a moment when the political balance for the continued support of the "peculiar ubaitution" was falling away and reversing, hmmm.

Besides, slavery is and was outdated. They were to be inevitably be over taken by the industrialized North. The aristotic class was resistant to such change because mass industrialization would of and did make them pretty much unrelated, compared to what they had with slavery instituted

[Oil exporting People]

Disgusting destruction of history

It gets worse, like, by a lot.

[Greed and Death]

The Confederates started the war because they hated the idea of blacks ever being equal to whites, they said so themselves. Whereas the Union just defended itself, and this incidentally lead to emancipation. So you're wrong in that the war was over slavery, but you're right in that the Union wasn't fighting to free slaves.

Slavery was major factor. The south succeeded when Lincoln was elected. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery.

HE was not fully an abolitionist. He closer to preventing its spread into federal territories.

[Galloism]

The Confederates started the war because they hated the idea of blacks ever being equal to whites, they said so themselves. Whereas the Union just defended itself, and this incidentally lead to emancipation. So you're wrong in that the war was over slavery, but you're right in that the Union wasn't fighting to free slaves.

Slavery was major factor. The south succeeded when Lincoln was elected. Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery.

What did they succeed at?

[Salus Maior]

Disgusting destruction of history

It gets worse, like, by a lot.

*Cringes at the fact that there's a Confederate Mt.Rushmore*

[Oil exporting People]

What did they succeed at?

Very nearly won independence, repeatedly.

[Galloism]

What did they succeed at?

Very nearly won independence, repeatedly.

Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.

[The Black Forrest]

Very nearly won independence, repeatedly.

Close counts in horseshoes, hand grenades, and nuclear weapons.

She almost went out with me!