Washington & Jefferson Statue Get Pulled Down

[Greater Miami Shores]

The same can be said about the Nazis, that they were product of their time. This does not mean that they desirve a statue in Germany.

Should Ulysses S. Grant, a one-time slaveowner who later contributed much to ending the Confederacy's bid to keep slavery alive, have his statues taken down? Should he be forgotten in history? Why or why not?

I say not because of the reasons you posted and he should be honored with a statue.

[Salus Maior]

A very biased reading of the lives of the Founding Fathers.

As opposed to every other reading that concludes their shit didn't stink? I'll take Professor Zinn's any day.

Because it panders to your worldview, and interprets history in a Marxist lens, not because it's the full truth.

The truth is, there was a lot of real grappling among the Founding Fathers about the issue of slavery, and how it very obviously did not mesh well with the principles they were writing into the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc (and this would be proven by the later Confederates themselves, who considered language declaring equality and equal rights to be at odds with reality, which is why they both condemned the U.S Constitution as being at odds with nature, and wrote their own constitution which explicitly excluded African Americans). However, the big reason for their lack of real anti-slavery action were two things:

1. The South would not stay in the Union if slavery were banned, which would have basically made the Civil War happen sooner, except the North would be in no position to do anything about it. However, this did not stop the Northern states from banning slavery, which they did pretty quickly after independence.

2. The consensus among many people in the U.S was that slavery was on the way out. Because the primary slave-crop at the time was tobacco, and that was losing its profitability; and the ideas of the Revolution were hyping up many people on the idea that slavery was wrong, basically. However, rightfully or wrongfully, there was also a fear that immediately freeing the slaves would lead to social instability and possibly a race war, with African Americans seeking vengeance on their former enslavers. This idea would be summed up by Jefferson's own views; he believed truly that slavery was intrinsically bad for the country and contrary to its stated principles, but he believed also that immediate emancipation was dangerous. As he would put it in his own words, slavery in America was like "having a wolf by the ears", dangerous to let go of, but also dangerous to hold on to. Now obviously there's racist ideas tied up in there, but at the same time there is clear evidence that the Founding Fathers were concerned about the contradiction of ideas between a country conceived in Liberty, as they believed it was, which also holds people in slavery. Which of course is contrary to the very first paragraph in your source, while certainly not glorifying them which is not my intent.

So, many people were content with the idea that slavery, which seemingly wasn't very efficient and was losing its appeal, would naturally sort itself out and ultimately peter out. But then the Cotton Gin was invented, which shot up the profitability of cotton, which made slavery that much more profitable for the states that still had it.

[Diarcesia]

As opposed to every other reading that concludes their shit didn't stink? I'll take Professor Zinn's any day.

Because it panders to your worldview, and interprets history in a Marxist lens, not because it's the full truth.

The truth is, there was a lot of real grappling among the Founding Fathers about the issue of slavery, and how it very obviously did not mesh well with the principles they were writing into the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc (and this would be proven by the later Confederates themselves, who considered language declaring equality and equal rights to be at odds with reality, which is why they both condemned the U.S Constitution as being at odds with nature, and wrote their own constitution which explicitly excluded African Americans). However, the big reason for their lack of real anti-slavery action were two things:

1. The South would not stay in the Union if slavery were banned, which would have basically made the Civil War happen sooner, except the North would be in no position to do anything about it. However, this did not stop the Northern states from banning slavery, which they did pretty quickly after independence.

2. The consensus among many people in the U.S was that slavery was on the way out. Because the primary slave-crop at the time was tobacco, and that was losing its profitability; and the ideas of the Revolution were hyping up many people on the idea that slavery was wrong, basically. However, rightfully or wrongfully, there was also a fear that immediately freeing the slaves would lead to social instability and possibly a race war, with African Americans seeking vengeance on their former enslavers. This idea would be summed up by Jefferson's own views; he believed truly that slavery was intrinsically bad for the country and contrary to its stated principles, but he believed also that immediate emancipation was dangerous. As he would put it in his own words, slavery in America was like "having a wolf by the ears", dangerous to let go of, but also dangerous to hold on to. Now obviously there's racist ideas tied up in there, but at the same time there is clear evidence that the Founding Fathers were concerned about the contradiction of ideas between a country conceived in Liberty, as they believed it was, which also holds people in slavery. Which of course is contrary to the very first paragraph in your source, while certainly not glorifying them which is not my intent.

So, many people were content with the idea that slavery, which seemingly wasn't very efficient and was losing its appeal, would naturally sort itself out and ultimately peter out. But then the Cotton Gin was invented, which shot up the profitability of cotton, which made slavery that much more profitable for the states that still had it.

My guess based on US-SSR's positions is that he would prefer Jefferson to screw realpolitik and do immediate emancipation, consequences be damned.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

This is an example of why people, even historical figures, should not be placed on pedestals.

[Salus Maior]

This is an example of why people, even historical figures, should not be placed on pedestals.

I think it's more of an example why mobs are barbaric.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Should Ulysses S. Grant, a one-time slaveowner who later contributed much to ending the Confederacy's bid to keep slavery alive, have his statues taken down? Should he be forgotten in history? Why or why not?

1. Taking down a statue = / = forgetting history or any historical figure. In the specific case of statues of Confederates erected decades after the Civil War as symbols of white supremacy, defending them is at best forgetting and at worst denying history.

2. The people are deciding which statues stay up and which come down. If the processes of government do not move fast enough the people are taking the task of removing offensive statues on themselves.

3. How nice it must be to make smug, pointless comparisons and analogies from positions of privilege rather than openly dealing with the oppression and dehumanization inflicted and felt by erecting statues to honor enslavers, colonizers, white supremacists, racists, etc., etc.

People who are offended at our founding fathers having statues should leave the country.

People who are offended at people tearing down statues of our founding fathers should leave the country.

Go to Venezuela commie.

[Aexodian]

This was a bad move, for me. Like, I know they owned slaves but a lot of people back then did. We can't purely focus on their bad deeds and should also focus on the good they have done. This is gonna escalate things a lot now.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Because it panders to your worldview, and interprets history in a Marxist lens, not because it's the full truth.

The truth is, there was a lot of real grappling among the Founding Fathers about the issue of slavery, and how it very obviously did not mesh well with the principles they were writing into the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, etc (and this would be proven by the later Confederates themselves, who considered language declaring equality and equal rights to be at odds with reality, which is why they both condemned the U.S Constitution as being at odds with nature, and wrote their own constitution which explicitly excluded African Americans). However, the big reason for their lack of real anti-slavery action were two things:

1. The South would not stay in the Union if slavery were banned, which would have basically made the Civil War happen sooner, except the North would be in no position to do anything about it. However, this did not stop the Northern states from banning slavery, which they did pretty quickly after independence.

2. The consensus among many people in the U.S was that slavery was on the way out. Because the primary slave-crop at the time was tobacco, and that was losing its profitability; and the ideas of the Revolution were hyping up many people on the idea that slavery was wrong, basically. However, rightfully or wrongfully, there was also a fear that immediately freeing the slaves would lead to social instability and possibly a race war, with African Americans seeking vengeance on their former enslavers. This idea would be summed up by Jefferson's own views; he believed truly that slavery was intrinsically bad for the country and contrary to its stated principles, but he believed also that immediate emancipation was dangerous. As he would put it in his own words, slavery in America was like "having a wolf by the ears", dangerous to let go of, but also dangerous to hold on to. Now obviously there's racist ideas tied up in there, but at the same time there is clear evidence that the Founding Fathers were concerned about the contradiction of ideas between a country conceived in Liberty, as they believed it was, which also holds people in slavery. Which of course is contrary to the very first paragraph in your source, while certainly not glorifying them which is not my intent.

So, many people were content with the idea that slavery, which seemingly wasn't very efficient and was losing its appeal, would naturally sort itself out and ultimately peter out. But then the Cotton Gin was invented, which shot up the profitability of cotton, which made slavery that much more profitable for the states that still had it.

My guess based on US-SSR's positions is that he would prefer Jefferson to screw realpolitik and do immediate emancipation, consequences be damned.

He would then find another reason to hate him, such as him owning property and not advocating what is now Marxism.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

This is an example of why people, even historical figures, should not be placed on pedestals.

I think it's more of an example why mobs are barbaric.

My first two posts here highlighted that as well.

[Giovenith]

1. Taking down a statue = / = forgetting history or any historical figure. In the specific case of statues of Confederates erected decades after the Civil War as symbols of white supremacy, defending them is at best forgetting and at worst denying history.

2. The people are deciding which statues stay up and which come down. If the processes of government do not move fast enough the people are taking the task of removing offensive statues on themselves.

3. How nice it must be to make smug, pointless comparisons and analogies from positions of privilege rather than openly dealing with the oppression and dehumanization inflicted and felt by erecting statues to honor enslavers, colonizers, white supremacists, racists, etc., etc.



People who are offended at people tearing down statues of our founding fathers should leave the country.

Go to Venezuela commie.

*** Warned for Flamebaiting ***

[Mandicoria]

based

Submitting to modernist morality is the opposite of based. It is proof of one having no convictions at all.

ok

[Northern Davincia]

This is an example of why people, even historical figures, should not be placed on pedestals.

It's not an example of that at all.

[Kanadorika]

The American left would probably be better off trying to re-appropriate American national figures and ideas as socialist than outright trying to erase them. Tearing down the statue of traitors like Lee or P.G.T. Beauregard is one thing, tearing down the statues of the folks who are so deeply intertwined with American national identity is another thing.

Personally, I really don't care if statues stay or go (though I detest Confederate statues); it's up to the local community to decide (and contrary to the belief of many, when statues of Confederates fall, it's often at the request of grassroots campaigns than George Soros). I highly doubt the people of Portland were consulted about this.

In Beauregard's defense, he integrated into the Union well and saw the error of his ways, even becoming an advocate for black civil rights.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

This is an example of why people, even historical figures, should not be placed on pedestals.

It's not an example of that at all.

Which of the following do you disagree with:
The founders did some evil things (one or more of the following: slavery, tarring/feathering, tax evasion, violence, rape)
The violence to remove these statues is bad
If the founders were not placed on pedestals, then this would be less likely, because the statues would be less likely
?

[Greater Miami Shores]

It's not an example of that at all.

Which of the following do you disagree with:
The founders did some evil things (one or more of the following: slavery, tarring/feathering, tax evasion, violence, rape)
The violence to remove these statues is bad
If the founders were not placed on pedestals, then this would be less likely, because the statues would be less likely
?

The violence to remove these statues is bad and an illegal crime under us laws.

[Northern Davincia]

It's not an example of that at all.

Which of the following do you disagree with:
The founders did some evil things (one or more of the following: slavery, tarring/feathering, tax evasion, violence, rape)
The violence to remove these statues is bad
If the founders were not placed on pedestals, then this would be less likely, because the statues would be less likely
?

Tax evasion is good, violence is sometimes necessary, and tarring & feathering of tax collectors is a moral good in light of unlawful/unjust taxes.
The good that the Founders did outweighs their evils, in my opinion.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Which of the following do you disagree with:
The founders did some evil things (one or more of the following: slavery, tarring/feathering, tax evasion, violence, rape)
The violence to remove these statues is bad
If the founders were not placed on pedestals, then this would be less likely, because the statues would be less likely
?

Tax evasion is good, violence is sometimes necessary, and tarring & feathering of tax collectors is a moral good in light of unlawful/unjust taxes.
The good that the Founders did outweighs their evils, in my opinion.

I agree, The good that the Founders did outweighs their evils, in my opinion.

[The Reformed American Republic]

The good that the Founders did outweighs their evils, in my opinion.

I agree with this, though it is a dying sentiment.

[The Grims]

The good that the Founders did outweighs their evils, in my opinion.

I agree with this, though it is a dying sentiment.

Not exactly, the idea that one can compensate bad things by doing good however is dying.

[Northern Davincia]

The good that the Founders did outweighs their evils, in my opinion.

I agree with this, though it is a dying sentiment.

Indeed, and that is what troubles me; a nation with no respect to its beginnings is on the first step to collapse.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I agree with this, though it is a dying sentiment.

Indeed, and that is what troubles me; a nation with no respect to its beginnings is on the first step to collapse.

I think that's what many want. A new nation based on the ideals of left-wing sociologists and their interpretations of an ideal society. Standards are applied retroactively, without regard for the standards of the time.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Which of the following do you disagree with:
The founders did some evil things (one or more of the following: slavery, tarring/feathering, tax evasion, violence, rape)
The violence to remove these statues is bad
If the founders were not placed on pedestals, then this would be less likely, because the statues would be less likely
?

Tax evasion is good, violence is sometimes necessary, and tarring & feathering of tax collectors is a moral good in light of unlawful/unjust taxes.
The good that the Founders did outweighs their evils, in my opinion.

How is tax evasion good? How can the end justify the means?

[Northern Davincia]

Indeed, and that is what troubles me; a nation with no respect to its beginnings is on the first step to collapse.

I think that's what many want. A new nation based on the ideals of left-wing sociologists and their interpretations of an ideal society. Standards are applied retroactively, without regard for the standards of the time.

It would be amusing for such a replacement to decay as people realize the ingrained flaws of its leaders.
I will also take the time to spit on modernism for this.

[The Reformed American Republic]

I think that's what many want. A new nation based on the ideals of left-wing sociologists and their interpretations of an ideal society. Standards are applied retroactively, without regard for the standards of the time.

It would be amusing for such a replacement to decay as people realize the ingrained flaws of its leaders.
I will also take the time to spit on modernism for this.

Leaders would probably either be except or be purged if they don't renounce their "evils."

[Northern Davincia]

Tax evasion is good, violence is sometimes necessary, and tarring & feathering of tax collectors is a moral good in light of unlawful/unjust taxes.
The good that the Founders did outweighs their evils, in my opinion.

How is tax evasion good? How can the end justify the means?

Tax evasion is the last resort of the people to keep what they earn from a government that is evil. The end does not necessarily justify the means, but we must not ignore the power of hindsight either. Liberty is a noble end and one worth pursuing at all costs.