Confederate Statue Toppled in North Carolina

[Alvecia]

You don't have to be in the armed forces to commit treason.

Regardless of that, he is a man that we as a nation must come to study and understand. After all as bad as he can be percieved he can also be idolized as what it means to be a leader... Assuming one can look past the narrow scope of view of him being a traitor.

I don't know that I'd want my leaders to be slavers tbh.

[Germanic Templars]

Regardless of that, he is a man that we as a nation must come to study and understand. After all as bad as he can be percieved he can also be idolized as what it means to be a leader... Assuming one can look past the narrow scope of view of him being a traitor.

And how does not having statues stop that happening?

Easy, educate. We have seen by removing them it is only going to cause more resentment. Educate both sides.

[Ifreann]

And how does not having statues stop that happening?

Easy, educate. We have seen by removing them it is only going to cause more resentment.

Neo-Nazis and white supremacists will resent losing statues to the negro enslavers they adore. Few others will care. Let them resent, I say.

Educate both sides.

Does education in the US not tend to happen in schools, or possibly in museums or at actual historical sites?

[Neutraligon]

And how does not having statues stop that happening?

Easy, educate. We have seen by removing them it is only going to cause more resentment. Educate both sides.

Which makes the statue entirely worthless since one can educate without the statue. In fact the statue fails to educate anyone at all.

[Alvecia]

Easy, educate. We have seen by removing them it is only going to cause more resentment. Educate both sides.

Which makes the statue entirely worthless since one can educate without the statue. In fact the statue fails to educate anyone at all.

"Yep, that sure was a person alright".

[Vassenor]

Let me put it like this: There are no monuments glorifying the Nazis in Germany. Has that erased the Nazis from history?

[San Lumen]

Let me put it like this: There are no monuments glorifying the Nazis in Germany. Has that erased the Nazis from history?

no

[Herskerstad]

Reminds me rather of the Satsuma rebellion and Japan, which did indeed hold some of their rebels in the highest of honours precisely because they wanted to reintegrate them into a greater fold in the nation which both Lincoln and the early Meiji government were successful in doing. The reasons being fairly complex, but entirely pragmatic as compared to the outline of a traitors war with a traitors people covering almost half of the political landscape.

On the other hand, if I was an African American I'd not exactly want my tax dollars going to the upkeep of confederate monuments. Then again I am not. Still, this Itumblrclasm is even worse than the status quo.

[Neutraligon]

Reminds me rather of the Satsuma rebellion and Japan, which did indeed hold some of their rebels in the highest of honours precisely because they wanted to reintegrate them into a greater fold in the nation which both Lincoln and the early Meiji government were successful in doing. The reasons being fairly complex, but entirely pragmatic as compared to the outline of a traitors war with a traitors people covering almost half of the political landscape.

On the other hand, if I was an African American I'd not exactly want my tax dollars going to the upkeep of confederate monuments. Then again I am not. Still, this Itumblrclasm is even worse than the status quo.

If they wanted integration then there would not be statues of those who fought against the US.

[Herskerstad]

Reminds me rather of the Satsuma rebellion and Japan, which did indeed hold some of their rebels in the highest of honours precisely because they wanted to reintegrate them into a greater fold in the nation which both Lincoln and the early Meiji government were successful in doing. The reasons being fairly complex, but entirely pragmatic as compared to the outline of a traitors war with a traitors people covering almost half of the political landscape.

On the other hand, if I was an African American I'd not exactly want my tax dollars going to the upkeep of confederate monuments. Then again I am not. Still, this Itumblrclasm is even worse than the status quo.

If they wanted integration then there would not be statues of those who fought against the US.

Much of them came later, it did not take long for the South to field a candidate that would regain political power as it was not a hard case to make to the voters. It's not as if Lincoln himself funded gardens of these things and the radical reconstruction was taken to be somewhat punitive, even though much of that falls on his successor.

[Neutraligon]

If they wanted integration then there would not be statues of those who fought against the US.

Much of them came later, it did not take long for the South to field a candidate that would regain political power as it was not a hard case to make to the voters. It's not as if Lincoln himself funded gardens of these things and the radical reconstruction was taken to be somewhat punitive, even though much of that falls on his successor.

I understand that came later, I was just pointing out that had the reintegration been truly successful (long term successful) this would not be an issue.

[Herskerstad]

Much of them came later, it did not take long for the South to field a candidate that would regain political power as it was not a hard case to make to the voters. It's not as if Lincoln himself funded gardens of these things and the radical reconstruction was taken to be somewhat punitive, even though much of that falls on his successor.

I understand that came later, I was just pointing out that had the reintegration been truly successful (long term successful) this would not be an issue.

It's a bit complicated because Dixie culture both preceded and survived the civil war, and has always survived on sort of a status quo post reconstruction because poking that hornet's nest would polarise both people and more importantly voter bases.

[Neutraligon]

I understand that came later, I was just pointing out that had the reintegration been truly successful (long term successful) this would not be an issue.

It's a bit complicated because Dixie culture both preceded and survived the civil war, and has always survived on sort of a status quo post reconstruction because poking that hornet's nest would polarise both people and more importantly voter bases.

Which is why I disagree that there was successful reintegration.

[Hyggemata]

Just fine the the lowest possible amount for damage to public property to satisfy the laws of the land. Do not rebuild; do not publicize.

[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.

Edit: The first bit of information about this is incorrect. As pointed out by another user, this statue memorialized all Confederate soldiers as opposed to those who just died.

[Vassenor]

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?

[Ifreann]

Just fine the the lowest possible amount for damage to public property to satisfy the laws of the land. Do not rebuild; do not publicize.

The state will probably make the county repair the monument, and the state will probably push for the maximum punishment.

---

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.

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.

[Kash Island]

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?

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.

[Vassenor]

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.

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

[...]

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens would disagree with you there.

[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 new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

[...]

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone 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. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science.

Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens would disagree with you there.

yes they cared a lot about slaves but it was ECONOMICS that drove it to say otherwise is to completely ignore the history of the south.

[Neutraligon]

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.

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.

[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.

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.

[Neutraligon]

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.

Which means...this was about slavery. Did they have any evidence that Lincoln was actually going to outlaw slavery or where they just fear mongering?

[Kash Island]

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

Which means...this was about slavery. Did they have any evidence that Lincoln was actually going to outlaw slavery or where they just fear mongering?

fuck idk lol

[Ifreann]

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.

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.