Removing Confederate Monuments and Renaming Confederate-Named Military Bases

[Jokodo]

*SPROING!!!*

I never initiate it. Nor did I this time or the other times Worldtaveller chose to engage with ad Homs. His attitude is provocative, yet if I dish it back it becomes a holier than though moment.

But you are right, I should not have responded in kind, in future I'll refer such posts to the moderators.

You deserve another sproing for ascribing a holier-than-though [sic!] attitude to others.

 

[Horatio Parker]

There are at Gettysburg National Military Park.

Show

View attachment 28230

There are all sorts of memorials dedicated to the soldiers who fought there, usually situated right where they fought. So if, for example, you wanted to honor the men of the 20th Maine Volunteer Infantry Regiment, you can find a monument to them at the place where they fought their most famous battle.

I mentioned earlier in this thread that I don't mind the statue of Stonewall Jackson at the site of the Battle of Manassas (Bull Run) even though I believe he fought for a terrible cause. It's an appropriate setting. But I don't think the statue of him at the West Virginia Statehouse should be there. And I would definitely be in favor of removing the one the KKK installed in the 1920s as part of their campaign of terror and intimidation.

Who sponsored those statues? I thought CSA monuments were installed by private CSA veteran associations.

I don't have a problem with rebel statues on battlefields, but it seems inappropriate for the USA to sponsor them.

List of monuments of the Gettysburg Battlefield

Some were sponsored by state governments using taxpayer money, others were sponsored by private organizations through donations.

Initially the battlefield was preserved by a citizen's group called the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association. They transferred the land to the federal government in 1895.

The US government didn't put up any memorials to Confederate soldiers, but it allowed them to be placed at the battleground and maintains them.

IIRC Gettysburg was pretty much an all Union affair until sometime in the 20th century. Now the battle is its main industry.

Point taken wrt state govts and federal maintenance. Still not the same as erecting them. Not that they haven’t been complicit in Lost Cause mythology...

 

[DBT]

*SPROING!!!*

I never initiate it. Nor did I this time or the other times Worldtaveller chose to engage with ad Homs. His attitude is provocative, yet if I dish it back it becomes a holier than though moment.

But you are right, I should not have responded in kind, in future I'll refer such posts to the moderators.

You deserve another sproing for ascribing a holier-than-though [sic!] attitude to others.

Assault is not the same as defence. Injury inflicted in the course of an assault is not the same as injury inflicted in the course of defence. Everyone has a right to defend themselves. My mistake lies in choosing personal defence rather than reporting the offence, ie, calling the police/moderators.

My holier than thou comment was made in relation to the distinction between offence and defence, not aimed at anyone in particular.

 

[Patooka]

You know, if 50% + 1 vote of people wanted a statue of Josef Fritzl, I would still say it is a bad thing and that it should not go ahead. I guess I'm a fascist then because it fucking baffles me that I would have to explain why it would be a bad thing. Fuck your semantics, these statues are equivalent to candy striping Auschwitz and claiming it's still historically accurate.

We'll discuss Captain fucking Cook and other strawman examples once we get on the same page that it is bad idolizing the founder of the fucking Klan, thank you kindly.

So you are against democracy? That's literally what you are saying. So then why should anyone respect your opinion?

We're starting to forget how democracy works and why it is important. Hitler wasn't even a hundred years ago. Yet we forget. This world is fucked.

I'm against the philosophy that anything is justifiable with a simple majority vote. I didn't realise this was such a radical view, but I can cite some historical examples where such an attitude lead to some horrific shit being carried out, if you like. You obliquely mentioned one yourself. In the context of the thread, slavery, promoting slavery and encouraging racism is reprehensible regardless of how many upvotes one gets on it.

 

[DBT]

Public debate should determine right and wrong in terms of our standard of ethics, so a decision democratically made should reflect the moral standards of society. If it's determined that statues of confederate figures hurts people and harm society, a decision of their fate should reflect that.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Public debate should determine right and wrong in terms of our standard of ethics, so a decision democratically made should reflect the moral standards of society. If it's determined that statues of confederate figures hurts people and harm society, a decision of their fate should reflect that.

But right now, look at Congress. Public debate only shows who is in control of the debate.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Washington owned slaves. He also ran the Continental Army to victory for independence and stepped down from power on his own after serving 2 terms. His ledger is on the plus side.

By what measure? Did we all agree, at some point, that winning wars is more laudable than liberating the enslaved? In one very important respect, he was a hero. In another very important respect, he was an utter coward to the detriment of many, forsaking his own oft-stated principles out of fear of reprisal. People don't come the two types of "hero" and "villain", and it's not your place nor the place of anyone now living to absolve Washington of his crimes. You'd feel very differently if it were your own daughter being ripped from your arms to be raped by friends of your owner. You would not be like, "Ah, fair's fair, yeah, my girl got raped to death so he could resolve a business deal, but he was a good soldier, so, square's square I guess".

Because in stepping down he proved that a democratic republic, not really a thing yet, was possible. And ushering that level of democracy in the last 1800s, especially after the first try didn’t work gets someone a get out of slave ownership card.

 

[Politesse]

Washington owned slaves. He also ran the Continental Army to victory for independence and stepped down from power on his own after serving 2 terms. His ledger is on the plus side.

By what measure? Did we all agree, at some point, that winning wars is more laudable than liberating the enslaved? In one very important respect, he was a hero. In another very important respect, he was an utter coward to the detriment of many, forsaking his own oft-stated principles out of fear of reprisal. People don't come the two types of "hero" and "villain", and it's not your place nor the place of anyone now living to absolve Washington of his crimes. You'd feel very differently if it were your own daughter being ripped from your arms to be raped by friends of your owner. You would not be like, "Ah, fair's fair, yeah, my girl got raped to death so he could resolve a business deal, but he was a good soldier, so, square's square I guess".

Because in stepping down he proved that a democratic republic, not really a thing yet, was possible. And ushering that level of democracy in the last 1800s, especially after the first try didn’t work gets someone a get out of slave ownership card.

Maybe to you, it does. Says more about you than it does about Washington, if you ask me.

 

[Arctish]

Washington owned slaves. He also ran the Continental Army to victory for independence and stepped down from power on his own after serving 2 terms. His ledger is on the plus side.

By what measure? Did we all agree, at some point, that winning wars is more laudable than liberating the enslaved? In one very important respect, he was a hero. In another very important respect, he was an utter coward to the detriment of many, forsaking his own oft-stated principles out of fear of reprisal. People don't come the two types of "hero" and "villain", and it's not your place nor the place of anyone now living to absolve Washington of his crimes. You'd feel very differently if it were your own daughter being ripped from your arms to be raped by friends of your owner. You would not be like, "Ah, fair's fair, yeah, my girl got raped to death so he could resolve a business deal, but he was a good soldier, so, square's square I guess".

Because in stepping down he proved that a democratic republic, not really a thing yet, was possible. And ushering that level of democracy in the last 1800s, especially after the first try didn’t work gets someone a get out of slave ownership card.

Washington made it a condition of his will that the slaves he owned would not be inherited by his heir but would instead be freed after Martha died. She figured that was incentive for one of them to do her in, so she freed them at the end of the following year. Neither George nor Martha could by law free the 'dower' slaves she received through her first marriage to a member of the Custis family, so those people became the property of other Custis family members after Martha died.

It was also a stipulation of Washington's will that the former slaves too old or too ill to work would be supported by the Mount Vernon estate in perpetuity.

Not even close to what we nowadays think of as being dedicated to the principle that that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. But, credit where it's due: Washington at least took a step or two in that direction.

His crypt and the Mount Vernon estate are in private hands, his portrait is in the National Gallery, and his place in American history is assured. If people want to remove statues of him from public spaces because he was a slave owner, so be it. IMO that part of his life shouldn't be swept under the rug and it certainly shouldn't be glorified.

But I do agree with Jimmy Higgins. Washington set an example for every President that followed him. He showed the world how the peaceful transfer of power is done. He should be remembered with respect for that part of his legacy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You know, if 50% + 1 vote of people wanted a statue of Josef Fritzl, I would still say it is a bad thing and that it should not go ahead. I guess I'm a fascist then because it fucking baffles me that I would have to explain why it would be a bad thing. Fuck your semantics, these statues are equivalent to candy striping Auschwitz and claiming it's still historically accurate.

We'll discuss Captain fucking Cook and other strawman examples once we get on the same page that it is bad idolizing the founder of the fucking Klan, thank you kindly.

So you are against democracy? That's literally what you are saying. So then why should anyone respect your opinion?

We're starting to forget how democracy works and why it is important. Hitler wasn't even a hundred years ago. Yet we forget. This world is fucked.

You may be going a tad overboard on the hyperbole, unless I'm just missing the sarcasm.

If we don't care about the democratic process and think there are higher values that override it, that's just another name for dictatorship. It's a slippery slope. Whoever is, in charge to decide which democratic choices should be respected, will inevitably abuse it to expand their power. Step-by-step. It seems to be like a natural law or something.

 

[laughing dog]

Except it is against state law in many of those states to do just that. A law passed and signed into law by duly elected representatives.

Laws can be repealed. If people feel strongly about an issue they can take the issue up with their representative.

You are right, that is way it ought to be done. No one in this disagrees. Since no one in this thread has advocated mob rule, one wonders what exactly your points have been.

 

[DBT]

Public debate should determine right and wrong in terms of our standard of ethics, so a decision democratically made should reflect the moral standards of society. If it's determined that statues of confederate figures hurts people and harm society, a decision of their fate should reflect that.

But right now, look at Congress. Public debate only shows who is in control of the debate.

That's true. And that's probably the first thing to address on the list of improving society.

 

[DBT]

Except it is against state law in many of those states to do just that. A law passed and signed into law by duly elected representatives.

Laws can be repealed. If people feel strongly about an issue they can take the issue up with their representative.

You are right, that is way it ought to be done. No one in this disagrees. Since no one in this thread has advocated mob rule, one wonders what exactly your points have been.

To a degree, mob rule is being supported implicitly rather than explicitly. Hence the debate between several posters, not just me. You can see what is being said in the way of justifying the actions of some protestors.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So [MENTION=65]DrZoidberg[/MENTION] ...

Assume that in the 2021 municipal elections in Denmark, some obscure right-wing party positions itself as the heir to Denmark's Nazi collaborators won in some obscure small town, and started erecting statues to Danish collaborators, to Hitler, obscure 19h century radical antisemites, maybe even to some more mainstream figures but contextualising them as forerunners to Nazism.

Assume they lose the elections in as much of a landslide in 2025 as they won it in 2021.

According to your logic, removing some of those statues would be authoritarian and intolerant, right?

Yes. Cities tend to have plenty of space for statues. There's rarely a need to remove them.

 

[laughing dog]

You are right, that is way it ought to be done. No one in this disagrees. Since no one in this thread has advocated mob rule, one wonders what exactly your points have been.

To a degree, mob rule is being supported implicitly rather than explicitly. Hence the debate between several posters, not just me. You can see what is being said in the way of justifying the actions of some protestors.

The protestors do have morality on their side on this one. Doesn't mean it their actions are the preferred way to go. Can you quote any participant who claims that their actions are the preferred way to go?

 

[Politesse]

Because in stepping down he proved that a democratic republic, not really a thing yet, was possible. And ushering that level of democracy in the last 1800s, especially after the first try didn’t work gets someone a get out of slave ownership card.

Washington made it a condition of his will that the slaves he owned would not be inherited by his heir but would instead be freed after Martha died. She figured that was incentive for one of them to do her in, so she freed them at the end of the following year. Neither George nor Martha could by law free the 'dower' slaves she received through her first marriage to a member of the Custis family, so those people became the property of other Custis family members after Martha died.

It was also a stipulation of Washington's will that the former slaves too old or too ill to work would be supported by the Mount Vernon estate in perpetuity.

Not even close to what we nowadays think of as being dedicated to the principle that that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. But, credit where it's due: Washington at least took a step or two in that direction.

His crypt and the Mount Vernon estate are in private hands, his portrait is in the National Gallery, and his place in American history is assured. If people want to remove statues of him from public spaces because he was a slave owner, so be it. IMO that part of his life shouldn't be swept under the rug and it certainly shouldn't be glorified.

But I do agree with Jimmy Higgins. Washington set an example for every President that followed him. He showed the world how the peaceful transfer of power is done. He should be remembered with respect for that part of his legacy.

So do you agree that a "get out of slave ownership free" card is something that should exist? That a "gesture" towards goodness should erase all the acts of cruelty one committed elsewise in one's life?

I have no problem with Washingotn's positive deeds being remembered. But statues are about worship, not education. Statues do not speak; no one ever learned anything from one. They lie, in fact, scooping away the blemishes and presenting people as heroes. The same man who (according to his hagiographers) nobly eschewed power when offered, also felt that using his unearned power over others to permanently separate a mother from her child for her husband's "disobedience" to him was a fair and reasonable punishment. People aren't statues, and making them into statues is dangerous.

 

[Arctish]

Because in stepping down he proved that a democratic republic, not really a thing yet, was possible. And ushering that level of democracy in the last 1800s, especially after the first try didn’t work gets someone a get out of slave ownership card.

Washington made it a condition of his will that the slaves he owned would not be inherited by his heir but would instead be freed after Martha died. She figured that was incentive for one of them to do her in, so she freed them at the end of the following year. Neither George nor Martha could by law free the 'dower' slaves she received through her first marriage to a member of the Custis family, so those people became the property of other Custis family members after Martha died.

It was also a stipulation of Washington's will that the former slaves too old or too ill to work would be supported by the Mount Vernon estate in perpetuity.

Not even close to what we nowadays think of as being dedicated to the principle that that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. But, credit where it's due: Washington at least took a step or two in that direction.

His crypt and the Mount Vernon estate are in private hands, his portrait is in the National Gallery, and his place in American history is assured. If people want to remove statues of him from public spaces because he was a slave owner, so be it. IMO that part of his life shouldn't be swept under the rug and it certainly shouldn't be glorified.

But I do agree with Jimmy Higgins. Washington set an example for every President that followed him. He showed the world how the peaceful transfer of power is done. He should be remembered with respect for that part of his legacy.

So do you agree that a "get out of slave ownership free" card is something that should exist? That a "gesture" towards goodness should erase all the acts of cruelty one committed elsewise in one's life?

I'm sorry if I wasn't being clear.

If people want to remove statues of him from public spaces because he was a slave owner, so be it. IMO that part of his life shouldn't be swept under the rug and it certainly shouldn't be glorified.

I give him credit for doing more to live up to the ideals expressed in the Declaration of Independence than any of the other slave owners among the Founding Fathers. I don't give him a pass on owning slaves or profiting from their labor.

 

[Politesse]

It's only the idea of excusing or denying the evils of slavery that I have a problem with. We are not ever going to be able to rid this country of slavery, if we're willing to say that noble goals will always excuse heartless actions.

 

[Arctish]

It's only the idea of excusing or denying the evils of slavery that I have a problem with.

I've been to Washington's estate, Mount Vernon. The historians and docents there are pretty frank about how many slaves Washington had, the kind of work they did, how many ran away (or tried to), etc. One of the historical reenacters was a black man portraying a particular slave that historians know some things about. I didn't get a chance to do that part of the tour, but it was advertised as Mount Vernon from that person's perspective.

I don't know how accurate the portrayals are. They might still be whitewashing things but my impression was they are making a good faith effort to be honest about that aspect of Washington's life, and I heartily approve.

 

[Jokodo]

So [MENTION=65]DrZoidberg[/MENTION] ...

Assume that in the 2021 municipal elections in Denmark, some obscure right-wing party positions itself as the heir to Denmark's Nazi collaborators won in some obscure small town, and started erecting statues to Danish collaborators, to Hitler, obscure 19h century radical antisemites, maybe even to some more mainstream figures but contextualising them as forerunners to Nazism.

Assume they lose the elections in as much of a landslide in 2025 as they won it in 2021.

According to your logic, removing some of those statues would be authoritarian and intolerant, right?

Yes. Cities tend to have plenty of space for statues. There's rarely a need to remove them.

Your logic is beyond repair.

Storage available doesn't even make it onto the list of top 3 most relevant considerations when debating whether a statue should stay or go.