# Were Confederates mainly fighting to maintain slavery?

#### fromderinside

##### Mazzie Daius
Trump ‘Sad’ Over Removal of ‘Our Beautiful Statues’ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-confederate-statues.html

Most of the statues were erected in the 1890s, as Jim Crow laws were being established, and in the 1950s, during a period of Southern resistance to the civil rights movement.

So there it is. Are they beautiful statues glorifying heroism of those fighting on the Confederate side as Alt-POTUS claims, or, are the statues signs of racial hatred.

More broadly do we need a middle ground of museums with these statues for history's sake? Or, should we, like Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union, rip the disgusting things out and carry them to a dump heap?

#### LordKiran

##### Veteran Member
Trump ‘Sad’ Over Removal of ‘Our Beautiful Statues’ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-confederate-statues.html

Most of the statues were erected in the 1890s, as Jim Crow laws were being established, and in the 1950s, during a period of Southern resistance to the civil rights movement.

So there it is. Are they beautiful statues glorifying heroism of those fighting on the Confederate side as Alt-POTUS claims, or, are the statues signs of racial hatred.

More broadly do we need a middle ground of museums with these statues for history's sake? Or, should we, like Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union, rip the disgusting things out and carry them to a dump heap?

Depends on your view of statues in general. Statues are three things:

Expressive works of art

Historic objects

Symbols

Your answer to the question you ask depends on which order you would put these in. For my part, it looks like this:

Symbols

Historic objects

Expressive works of art

Save some of them, but not all of them. Leave the ones from the actual war era. Any such statues located next to a government building should be removed immediately, ESPECIALLY courthouses...

#### T.G.G. Moogly

Confederate states were fighting primarily to maintain their slaves as property, and there was mucho money tied up in those slaves.

#### LordKiran

##### Veteran Member
Confederate states were fighting primarily to maintain their slaves as property, and there was mucho money tied up in those slaves.
Slavery wasn't just an economic institution, it was a social institution, the confederates COULD NOT TOLERATE the idea of blacks becoming equal to whites.

#### Mumbles

##### Veteran Member
Wait, are you asking about the Confederacy (which was very clearly fighting to maintain and expand chattel slavery), or are you discussing the statues (which were primarily placed in the 1920s at the height of the second KKK and the nadir of US race relations)?

#### LordKiran

##### Veteran Member
There is some evidence that the Revolutionary War was partially fought to prevent the 1772 British ruling that outlawed slavery to be put in place in the Colonies.

If so, then Washington and Jefferson have great similarity to Robert E Lee.

Also I wanna see the shitshow that dummy Angela Rye would bring about by having their statues removed.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2011/05/23/was-the-american-revolution-fought-to-save-slavery/

Oh I'm sure that slavery had something to do with it, but then to be fair, the founding fathers don't strike me as men particularly keen on erecting statues that glorify political figures. But I wasn't there so /shrug

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
Trump ‘Sad’ Over Removal of ‘Our Beautiful Statues’ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-confederate-statues.html

So there it is. Are they beautiful statues glorifying heroism of those fighting on the Confederate side as Alt-POTUS claims, or, are the statues signs of racial hatred.

More broadly do we need a middle ground of museums with these statues for history's sake? Or, should we, like Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union, rip the disgusting things out and carry them to a dump heap?

Depends on your view of statues in general. Statues are three things:

Expressive works of art

Historic objects

Symbols

Your answer to the question you ask depends on which order you would put these in. For my part, it looks like this:

Symbols

Historic objects

Expressive works of art

Save some of them, but not all of them. Leave the ones from the actual war era. Any such statues located next to a government building should be removed immediately, ESPECIALLY courthouses...

The perception of these statues I would agree are different from person to person. Moving them from any government buildings does sound a good idea.

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
Wait, are you asking about the Confederacy (which was very clearly fighting to maintain and expand chattel slavery), or are you discussing the statues (which were primarily placed in the 1920s at the height of the second KKK and the nadir of US race relations)?

This seems to be a good case to consider their removal if the local governments wish to debate this. The only question is why all of a sudden there is concern 97 years later. Also it would be erroneous to destroy them rather than move them.

#### Mumbles

##### Veteran Member
Wait, are you asking about the Confederacy (which was very clearly fighting to maintain and expand chattel slavery), or are you discussing the statues (which were primarily placed in the 1920s at the height of the second KKK and the nadir of US race relations)?

This seems to be a good case to consider their removal if the local governments wish to debate this. The only question is why all of a sudden there is concern 97 years later. Also it would be erroneous to destroy them rather than move them.

Who said it was sudden? There have been proposals to remove these things for years, particularly since one would have to be dense not to realize the meaning of a Confederate soldier, or a General, sitting directly outside of a courthouse or town hall (which is where many of these were located). Even in Bmore, whee they're mostly located nowhere near either, it had been hotly debated for years, passed a while back - and then sat on. These pseudo-nazis in Virginia managed to speed things up, and eventually...well, as I said, the city was given a choice to lose the Jackson-Lee statue one way, or the other, and so they chose the one way.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
Who said it was sudden? There have been proposals to remove these things for years, particularly since one would have to be dense not to realize the meaning of a Confederate soldier, or a General, sitting directly outside of a courthouse or town hall (which is where many of these were located). Even in Bmore, whee they're mostly located nowhere near either, it had been hotly debated for years, passed a while back - and then sat on.
Yes, but WP heard about the Civil War, and JUST heard about debate over the statues... So it's a 97-years-after sort of thing.

#### T.G.G. Moogly

Are there public statues in Germany commemorating Nazis?

#### Sarpedon

##### Veteran Member
Again, just look at the public statements that were made at the time of the secession. Several states made clear allusions to slavery and white supremacy in their ordinances of secession. Vice President and chief demagogue Alexander Stephens also explicitly cited it in his remarks at the time. He was also the first to change his tune and pretend that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery after they lost.

#### Underseer

##### Contributor
Trump ‘Sad’ Over Removal of ‘Our Beautiful Statues’ https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/17/us/politics/trump-charlottesville-confederate-statues.html

Most of the statues were erected in the 1890s, as Jim Crow laws were being established, and in the 1950s, during a period of Southern resistance to the civil rights movement.

So there it is. Are they beautiful statues glorifying heroism of those fighting on the Confederate side as Alt-POTUS claims, or, are the statues signs of racial hatred.

More broadly do we need a middle ground of museums with these statues for history's sake? Or, should we, like Russians after the fall of the Soviet Union, rip the disgusting things out and carry them to a dump heap?

That depends.

Do you believe the leaders of the rebellion, or do you believe modern ideologues who will tell any lie to excuse evil?

If you believe the leaders of the rebellion, it wasn't about slavery. It was about slavery and white supremacy. They started the bloodiest war in American history and committed treason in order to preserve slavery and promote white supremacism.

If you believe the latter, then the war happened because a sinister conspiracy in the North, run by alien lizard people, deliberately persecuted the South, forcing them to commit treason as part of a nefarious plot to steal everyone's left socks and to stop Southern cotton plantations from showing the world a better way to live.

#### Angry Floof

##### Tricksy Leftits
Staff member
I'd like to see them marked for what they really are and surrounded by statues of slaves breaking chains and people who fought for equality and humane values.

I view demolishing statues as just more cultural destruction, even if it is a made-up culture of losers with inhumane, stunted views. However, if they end up being removed completely, it won't hurt my feelings in the least. It'll be a case of removing statues that represent the worst and stupidest of humanity, nothing more. No one will forget the Civil War or what the confederacy fought for. We have books, film, memories. Those statues were put there to misinform.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Again, just look at the public statements that were made at the time of the secession. Several states made clear allusions to slavery and white supremacy in their ordinances of secession. Vice President and chief demagogue Alexander Stephens also explicitly cited it in his remarks at the time. He was also the first to change his tune and pretend that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery after they lost.

Actually, when you call yourselves the slave holding states and mention multiple times that you're seceding because of the issue of slavery, you're not alluding to slavery being a cause, you're clearly stating it.

##### Member
The war was about State rights, specifically the right for new territories to be slave states. So yes, the Confederates were pro-slavery. So were many in the Union. Mr. Lincoln was no abolitionist and he had to fight hard to get support for his Emancipation Declaration, which for him was mainly a means to undermine the Confederacy in his fight to preserve the Union. Ending slavery was by no means meant to create equality between whites and blacks. Pretty much everybody in those times was white supremacist, including Mr. Lincoln himself. He proposed to send the ex-slaves back to Africa because he didn't want a mixed society.

Those were very different times.

#### Elixir

##### Made in America
Pretty much everybody in those times was white supremacist

Uh... only if they were white.

#### Jimmy Higgins

##### Contributor
Are there public statues in Germany commemorating Nazis?
Or the US?

#### Horatio Parker

##### Veteran Member
The war was about State rights, specifically the right for new territories to be slave states. So yes, the Confederates were pro-slavery. So were many in the Union. Mr. Lincoln was no abolitionist and he had to fight hard to get support for his Emancipation Declaration, which for him was mainly a means to undermine the Confederacy in his fight to preserve the Union. Ending slavery was by no means meant to create equality between whites and blacks. Pretty much everybody in those times was white supremacist, including Mr. Lincoln himself. He proposed to send the ex-slaves back to Africa because he didn't want a mixed society.

Those were very different times.

Frederick Douglass helped change Lincolns mind on repatriation. The thing was, no one considered what AAs themselves wanted, and what they wanted was to live in the US as Americans with full rights. Once Lincoln understood this, he accepted it.

But it's true that Lincoln and many others, up to a point, would've gladly accepted a Confederate return to the Union with slavery intact. McClellan was considered a traitor by many for a seeming reluctance to push for a military solution. But the Confederacy didn't propose reunification until early 1865, and by then it was too late.

#### Horatio Parker

##### Veteran Member
At their 1919 reunion the United Confederate Veterans “resolved to inaugurate a movement to disseminate the truths of Confederate history.” To carry out this aim, they comissioned Miss Rutherford, Historian for the United Daughters of the Confederacy to prepare “A Measuring Rod to Test Text Books and Reference Books in Schools, Colleges and Libraries” to be used by textbook committees of boards of education, private schools and libraries to ensure “absolute fairness” “truth in history” and “full justice to the South.”

The "truths"?

I. The Constitution of the United States, 1787, Was a Compact between Sovereign States and Was not Perpetual nor National 6

II. Secession Was not Rebellion 7

III. The North Was Responsible for the War between the States 8

IV. The War between the States Was not Fought to Hold the Slaves 9

V. The Slaves Were Not Ill-Treated in the South and the North Was largely Responsible for their Presence in the South 10

VI. Coercion Was not Constitutional 11

VII. The Federal Government Was Responsible for the Andersonville Horrors 12

VIII. The Republican Party that Elected Abraham Lincoln Was not Friendly to the South 13

IX. The South Desired Peace and Made every Effort to Obtain it 14, 15, 16

X. The Policy of the Northern Army Was to Destroy Property—the Southern Army to Protect it 18-21

XI. The South Has never Had its Rightful Place in Literature 22-23

http://angrybearblog.com/2017/08/slavery-heritage-and-southern-fried-free-speech.html

The complete measuring rod is here

https://archive.org/details/measuringrodtot00ruth

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
Read an account of someone who used the Underground Railroad to smuggle Slaves and Union Prisoners over the border during the war.
Soldiers stationed near her house telling her that 'Lincoln wants to come down here and free our niggers, ma'am, but we won't let him.'
Thus the term The States-Rights States for the confederacy.

I read in a few places that Lincoln was against slavery as an institution, but it was in the Constitution, so he just couldn't figure out HOW to go about it.

#### AthenaAwakened

##### Contributor
Actual confederates had no problem with saying they were fighting the war to keep slavery and to protect white supremacy.

If they didn't have a problem then, why so do many people have a problem now?

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
Actual confederates had no problem with saying they were fighting the war to keep slavery and to protect white supremacy.

If they didn't have a problem then, why so do many people have a problem now?
It's them there P'litical C'rectness PO-leece.
You get in trouble if you say you want to preserve or bring back the slavery, so the war hadda be a more noble war. For good, noble reasons, like state's rights and an untaintified unnerstanding of the Const'ution, and all that there.

#### Bronzeage

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Okay, just for the record, the Civil War was about slavery. It was also about a State's right to have slaves. It was also about tariffs which would make owning slaves an unprofitable venture. It was also about the buying and selling of slaves, which was a very profitable business for the states which had the greatest interest in succeeding. Everything else is horseshit.

The problem we face to day is a simple one. Through the ages, many people from philosophers to Biblical writers have expressed the idea, "No man is evil in his own eyes." Even the sociopath serial killer believes his victims have infringed upon him in some way, if only for representing the women who shunned him. So, the problem becomes, what to do when good men do evil things. This is especially difficult when the evil is not generally recognized, or even widely approved. We may remember a passage from Huckleberry Finn, where Huck ponders the evil of helping a slave escape from his legal master. If you don't recall, Huck decides he will not betray the runaway Jim, and if he faces eternal damnation in Hell for his sin, that's just the way it has to be.

Times change and shit happens. Some of the shit that happens is good people try to bring consistency and constancy to their lives. If you go around saying, "All men are created equal," sooner of later, it occurs that you can't exclude some men(or women) from the equality club. That's an awkward situation. Here we are, being all free and equal, and then we have to sit down beside someone who used to work for nothing more than room and board, and suffered corporal punishment for any infraction, because the one thing you couldn't do to him was fire him.

The true course of a good man or woman, who knows that a particular evil was once common, but is now strictly out of limits, is to acknowledge that it happened, and it was bad. Claiming it was something in the past and therefore no one alive today is responsible, is the coward's path. We are all constituents of the whole, and while we may not be called to atone for for the sins of our ancestors, we must own up to them.

The statues in question were not erected to honor dead heroes. They were erected to attempt to perpetuate the old system. That's the plain simple truth. Since no man or woman is evil in their own eyes, we have to the maintain this farce of honor and heritage, in order to not appear hypocritical in our own eyes. The time has come for the statues to come down. They no longer serve the purpose for which they were intended.

#### BH

##### Super Moderator
Staff member

The above is a thread I started about how I have to fight these irrational ideas that pop up in my head about the Confederacy and living in the South. I had ancestors fight in the Confederate Army and could not understand why I get aggravated a little when people attack it. There is no rational reason why I should---I admit what the Confederacy stood for was wrong, and lots of people scientifically educated knew that the claim of white supremacy was wrong even back in those days. The war was primarily over slavery and slavery related issues and white supremacy. I do not want to beat a dead horse but if you look at all the secession declarations from each southern legislature they state it loud and clear.

There were good reasons offered for why I had such feelings that seemed to make sense. Maybe these reason apply to many of the pro-Confederate monument people today.

#### T.G.G. Moogly

The above is a thread I started about how I have to fight these irrational ideas that pop up in my head about the Confederacy and living in the South. I had ancestors fight in the Confederate Army and could not understand why I get aggravated a little when people attack it. There is no rational reason why I should---I admit what the Confederacy stood for was wrong, and lots of people scientifically educated knew that the claim of white supremacy was wrong even back in those days. The war was primarily over slavery and slavery related issues and white supremacy. I do not want to beat a dead horse but if you look at all the secession declarations from each southern legislature they state it loud and clear.

There were good reasons offered for why I had such feelings that seemed to make sense. Maybe these reason apply to many of the pro-Confederate monument people today.

Even before those legislatures met if you go back to more municipal gatherings you discover that slavery was the main issue. And it was not just slavery but fear of freeing the slaves.

#### BH

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Sometimes I honestly think the United States was a mistake from the very beginning.

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
This seems to be a good case to consider their removal if the local governments wish to debate this. The only question is why all of a sudden there is concern 97 years later. Also it would be erroneous to destroy them rather than move them.

Who said it was sudden? There have been proposals to remove these things for years, particularly since one would have to be dense not to realize the meaning of a Confederate soldier, or a General, sitting directly outside of a courthouse or town hall (which is where many of these were located). Even in Bmore, whee they're mostly located nowhere near either, it had been hotly debated for years, passed a while back - and then sat on. These pseudo-nazis in Virginia managed to speed things up, and eventually...well, as I said, the city was given a choice to lose the Jackson-Lee statue one way, or the other, and so they chose the one way.

There's nothing wrong with people campaigning to remove these over the years but why all of a sudden is there commotion. It's something to be resolved in the US. These also represent history but there is a stronger argument to remove those which I understand were erected in the 1920's but that's still a long time ago.

However if they were debated in Baltimore but nothing was done, then than that is a stronger argument for these be removed.

Personally I don't have a view because this is something that should be dealt with internally in the USA. They do represent history and as fine pieces of work could be in some cases sent to Museums. This is something to finalize locally.

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
Actual confederates had no problem with saying they were fighting the war to keep slavery and to protect white supremacy.

If they didn't have a problem then, why so do many people have a problem now?

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
This seems to be a good case to consider their removal if the local governments wish to debate this. The only question is why all of a sudden there is concern 97 years later. Also it would be erroneous to destroy them rather than move them.

Who said it was sudden? There have been proposals to remove these things for years, particularly since one would have to be dense not to realize the meaning of a Confederate soldier, or a General, sitting directly outside of a courthouse or town hall (which is where many of these were located). Even in Bmore, whee they're mostly located nowhere near either, it had been hotly debated for years, passed a while back - and then sat on. These pseudo-nazis in Virginia managed to speed things up, and eventually...well, as I said, the city was given a choice to lose the Jackson-Lee statue one way, or the other, and so they chose the one way.

This is up to USA local governments of course. Both sides sustained high casualties. Whether this should be of historic interest or something else would be up to the legislatures of local US States unless federal laws override them.

Should these be destroyed or moved to a historic setting. What is your view?

- - - Updated - - -

Sometimes I honestly think the United States was a mistake from the very beginning.

I'm sure many American Indians will agree with you. There's a lot of good about it as well.

#### DBT

##### Contributor
Statues from that period should have been put into Museums long ago.

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
Are there public statues in Germany commemorating Nazis?

There are for fallen German soldiers but not to suggest they commemorate the Nazis. However they could be viewed somewhat extremely that they do. A Marxist or a Zionist would possibly think anything relating to war would. Another person could perceive this reflects on a senseless war.

#### Horatio Parker

##### Veteran Member
The Confederates won with the pen (and the noose) what they could not win on the battlefield: the cause of white supremacy and the dominant understanding of what the war was all about. We are still digging ourselves out from under the misinformation they spread, which has manifested in our public monuments and our history books.

Take Kentucky, where the legislature voted not to secede. Early in the war, Confederate Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston ventured through the western part of the state and found “no enthusiasm, as we imagined and hoped, but hostility.” Eventually, 90,000 Kentuckians would fight for the United States, while 35,000 fought for the Confederate States. Nevertheless, according to historian Thomas Clark, the state now has 72 Confederate monuments and only two Union ones.

Maryland, which did not secede, sent 24,000 men to the Confederate armed forces, but it also sent 63,000 to the U.S. Army and Navy. Still, the UDC’s monument tells visitors to take the other side: “To our heroes of Montgomery Co. Maryland: That we through life may not forget to love the thin gray line.”

In fact, the thin gray line came through Montgomery and adjoining Frederick counties at least three times, en route to Antietam, Gettysburg, and Washington. Robert E. Lee’s army expected to find recruits and help with food, clothing, and information. It didn’t. Instead, Maryland residents greeted Union soldiers as liberators when they came through on the way to Antietam. Recognizing the residents of Frederick as hostile, Confederate cavalry leader Jubal Early ransomed $200,000 from them lest he burn their town, a sum equal to about$3 million today. But Frederick now boasts a Confederate memorial, and the manager of the town’s cemetery—filled with Union and Confederate dead—told me, “Very little is done on the Union side” around Memorial Day. “It’s mostly Confederate.”

Perhaps most perniciously, neo-Confederates now claim that the South seceded over states’ rights. Yet when each state left the Union, its leaders made clear that they were seceding because they were for slavery and against states’ rights. In its “Declaration of the Causes Which Impel the State of Texas to Secede From the Federal Union,” for example, the secession convention of Texas listed the states that had offended the delegates: “Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Iowa.” Governments there had exercised states’ rights by passing laws that interfered with the federal government’s attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Some no longer let slave owners “transit” across their territory with slaves. “States’ rights” were what Texas was seceding against. Texas also made clear what it was seceding for—white supremacy:

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

#### BH

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
No matter how much you point it out the pro-confederate sympathizers will not listen. It is like the creationists, no matter how many observed instances of evolution scientists have cited as observed and no matter how you show that animals changed gradually over time through the fossil record they will not listen. And when you cite how the dating methods all agree using different elements and that if these are wrong then you are basically saying the laws of chemistry have to be wrong it is still to no avail.

I think a lot of people are just filled with shame and their narcissisism will not let them acknowledge that fact.

There is a qoute I read once that goes like this "Learn from the past to live a more righteous life in the future". All peoples and nations have things in the past that they would be ashamed of now. The European kings had their right of the first night, religious wars, and other things. You do not see it today. The Europeans for the most part aknowledge such took place, it was wrong, and never again. No more Holocausts either.

We should do the same in the US South. The Confederacy stood for things that were wrong. That was our ancestors bad. We do not have to be like our ancestors.

#### Horatio Parker

##### Veteran Member
No matter how much you point it out the pro-confederate sympathizers will not listen. It is like the creationists, no matter how many observed instances of evolution scientists have cited as observed and no matter how you show that animals changed gradually over time through the fossil record they will not listen. And when you cite how the dating methods all agree using different elements and that if these are wrong then you are basically saying the laws of chemistry have to be wrong it is still to no avail.

I think a lot of people are just filled with shame and their narcissisism will not let them acknowledge that fact.

There is a qoute I read once that goes like this "Learn from the past to live a more righteous life in the future". All peoples and nations have things in the past that they would be ashamed of now. The European kings had their right of the first night, religious wars, and other things. You do not see it today. The Europeans for the most part aknowledge such took place, it was wrong, and never again. No more Holocausts either.

We should do the same in the US South. The Confederacy stood for things that were wrong. That was our ancestors bad. We do not have to be like our ancestors.

It's not much fun being on the wrong side of history. It's understandable that people resist.

But it'll be easier for the generation coming up.

#### Loren Pechtel

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
Statues from that period should have been put into Museums long ago.

Yup, that's what we should do with them, put them in a Jim Crow museum.

#### Bomb#20

##### Contributor
Sometimes I honestly think the United States was a mistake from the very beginning.
Of course it was a mistake. It was a mistake they went right on making in spite of having it thoroughly explained to them. Here's an MP's 1775 speech to Parliament:

The proposition is peace. Not peace through the medium of war; not peace to be hunted through the labyrinth of intricate and endless negotiations; not peace to arise out of universal discord, fomented from principle, in all parts of the empire; not peace to depend on the juridical determination of perplexing questions, or the precise marking the shadowy boundaries of a complex government. It is simple peace, sought in its natural course and in its ordinary haunts. It is peace sought in the spirit of peace, and laid in principles purely pacific. I propose, by removing the ground of the difference, and by restoring the former unsuspecting confidence of the colonies in the mother country, to give permanent satisfaction to your people,—and (far from a scheme of ruling by discord) to reconcile them to each other in the same act and by the bond of the very same interest which reconciles them to British government. ...

America, gentlemen say, is a noble object,—it is an object well worth fighting for. Certainly it is, if fighting a people be the best way of gaining them. ...my opinion is much more in favor of prudent management than of force,—considering force not as an odious, but a feeble instrument, for preserving a people so numerous, so active, so growing, so spirited as this, in a profitable and subordinate connection with us. ...

In this situation, let us seriously and coolly ponder. What is it we have got by all our menaces, which have been many and ferocious? What advantage have we derived from the penal laws we have passed, and which, for the time, have been severe and numerous? What advances have we made towards our object, by the sending of a force, which, by land and sea, is no contemptible strength? Has the disorder abated? Nothing less.—When I see things in this situation, after such confident hopes, bold promises, and active exertions, I cannot, for my life, avoid a suspicion that the plan itself is not correctly right.

If, then, the removal of the causes of this spirit of American liberty be, for the greater part, or rather entirely, impracticable,—if the ideas of criminal process be inapplicable, or, if applicable, are in the highest degree inexpedient, what way yet remains? No way is open, but the third and last,—to comply with the American spirit as necessary, or, if you please, to submit, to it as a necessary evil.

If we adopt this mode, if we mean to conciliate and concede, let us see of what nature the concession ought to be. To ascertain the nature of our concession, we must look at their complaint. The colonies complain that they have not the characteristic mark and seal of British freedom. They complain that they are taxed in a Parliament in which they are not represented. If you mean to satisfy them at all, you must satisfy them with regard to this complaint. ...

Sir, I think you must perceive that I am resolved this day to have nothing at all to do with the question of the right of taxation. Some gentlemen startle,—but it is true: I put it totally out of the question. It is less than nothing in my consideration. ... The question with me is, not whether you have a right to render your people miserable, but whether it is not your interest to make them happy.​

(Source)

#### Mumbles

##### Veteran Member
Who said it was sudden? There have been proposals to remove these things for years, particularly since one would have to be dense not to realize the meaning of a Confederate soldier, or a General, sitting directly outside of a courthouse or town hall (which is where many of these were located). Even in Bmore, whee they're mostly located nowhere near either, it had been hotly debated for years, passed a while back - and then sat on. These pseudo-nazis in Virginia managed to speed things up, and eventually...well, as I said, the city was given a choice to lose the Jackson-Lee statue one way, or the other, and so they chose the one way.

This is up to USA local governments of course. Both sides sustained high casualties. Whether this should be of historic interest or something else would be up to the legislatures of local US States unless federal laws override them.

Should these be destroyed or moved to a historic setting. What is your view?

Depends on the statue Most of them are nothing more than monuments to white supremacy - threats to black people who wanted to be treated as equals - and should be melted down.

I'm perfectly happy keeping the one from Durham, as is, in a museum, along with 1-2 others.

#### RavenSky

##### The Doctor's Wife
Staff member
This is up to USA local governments of course. Both sides sustained high casualties. Whether this should be of historic interest or something else would be up to the legislatures of local US States unless federal laws override them.

Should these be destroyed or moved to a historic setting. What is your view?

Depends on the statue Most of them are nothing more than monuments to white supremacy - threats to black people who wanted to be treated as equals - and should be melted down.

I'm perfectly happy keeping the one from Durham, as is, in a museum, along with 1-2 others.

^^^ That

It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If, and only if, the statue is also of exceptional quality and/or created by a notable artist, then sure - save it in a museum.

Otherwise, melt them down and recycle the metals

#### whichphilosophy

##### Contributor
Depends on the statue Most of them are nothing more than monuments to white supremacy - threats to black people who wanted to be treated as equals - and should be melted down.

I'm perfectly happy keeping the one from Durham, as is, in a museum, along with 1-2 others.

^^^ That

It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis. If, and only if, the statue is also of exceptional quality and/or created by a notable artist, then sure - save it in a museum.

Otherwise, melt them down and recycle the metals

Sounds okay.

#### Keith&Co.

##### Contributor
It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
I don't even wanna spend that much time on them.

THe city votes not to endorse slavery/supremacy any more, resolve to get rid of them. If anyone wants to keep it, they can pay to move it, house it, maintain it on private property.

"I'LL TAKE IT!"
IF no one steps forward, or if no one has the scratch to haul it someplace, it's the city's t

#### repoman

##### Contributor
It needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis.
I don't even wanna spend that much time on them.

THe city votes not to endorse slavery/supremacy any more, resolve to get rid of them. If anyone wants to keep it, they can pay to move it, house it, maintain it on private property.

View attachment 12229"I'LL TAKE IT!"
IF no one steps forward, or if no one has the scratch to haul it someplace, it's the city's t

Would you allow a statue to be sold to David Duke?

##### Loony Running The Asylum
Staff member
Would you allow a statue to be sold to David Duke?

Why not? It's not like no one knows where his sentiments lie.

#### Bronzeage

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
I don't even wanna spend that much time on them.

THe city votes not to endorse slavery/supremacy any more, resolve to get rid of them. If anyone wants to keep it, they can pay to move it, house it, maintain it on private property.

View attachment 12229"I'LL TAKE IT!"
IF no one steps forward, or if no one has the scratch to haul it someplace, it's the city's t

Would you allow a statue to be sold to David Duke?

What difference would it make who buys it, or where they put it?

What are the alternatives? Some sort of public smashing?

We need to remember, these men were not being honored for their contributions to the Civil War. Their images were used to try and preserve the old system, in the face of political moves to strengthen racial equality through law. Pulling down a statue and smashing it to scrap does nothing to counter its original purpose, or to support the political process it was intended to oppose.

#### ronburgundy

##### Contributor
There is some evidence that the Revolutionary War was partially fought to prevent the 1772 British ruling that outlawed slavery to be put in place in the Colonies.

If so, then Washington and Jefferson have great similarity to Robert E Lee.

Nonsense. Regardless of some ancillary incentive that may or may not have had partial influence on some people's support for the US Revolution, it was, by any reasonable standard a just and moral war resulting in a Constitution that ultimately would advance the civil rights and personal liberty of all. The evidence is that that overwhelming support for the war among colonists was rooted in principles of self-governance, independence, and democracy. Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" was the most widely read publication in the US other than the Bible and was widely discussed in bars and newspapers, and is credited by historians as being central to influencing not only the general public but the key political leaders, including Washington and Jefferson who were both long time friends of Paine. Not coincidentally, Paine also published the first article for abolishing slavery in the colonies back in 1775.
IOW, modern blacks and all supporters of moral and political progress have every reason to be thankful and proud of the US Revolution and the leaders that were critical in bringing it about. In contrast, no moral person has reason to be proud of the slavery protecting traitors against the US that was the Confederacy and Lee.

Lee was an avowed enemy of the United States of America who took up arms and killed US soldiers in a war primarily to protect slavery. Lee was on the wrong moral side of a societal battle even during his own time. Although Washington and Jefferson were both flawed men, from the perspective of both modern moral decency and the interest of the United States, Lee is far more similar to Stalin than Washington or Jefferson.

Sadly, the current President is making idiotic false equivalences such as yours, and even more sad is that some leftist activists are as well, such as in Chicago were they are trying to have Washington and Jefferson statues removed and parks renamed.

RVonse said:
This guy makes a very convincing argument that the confederate soldiers modeled by their statues had nothing at all to do with slavery:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017...quished-truth/

If you find that "convincing", then there is a bridge you might be interested in buying. Incidentally, the bridge leads to the KKK headquarters.
That guy is a whackjob psuedo-historian who asserts against all fact that the Civil War "had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery. ...
[The South] was fighting, because the North had invaded."

Total bullshit. The Confederacy was formed in direct reaction to Lincoln's election, whose campaign was heavily based on explicit anti-slavery rhetoric, noting the the Union could not survive some state's where it was abolished and other's where it was legal.
The 7 states succeeded a month after Lincoln's election, entirely out of anticipation that he would seek to end slavery in all States, siding with the clear tide of history at the time. The then formed the Confederacy a month before Lincoln's inauguration, electing a West Point grad and Army officer as President, for the sole purpose of going to war against the US.

The fighting was started by the Confederacy when it attacked Fort Sumter, a Fort built and maintained since the war of 1812 by the US government and US military, not by the state of South Carolina. South Carolina threatened the US and demanded it leave the fort and the US rightly told them to fuck off. Then the Confederacy attacked.

Regardless of the personal knowledge and psychology of some Confederate soldiers that made their motive something other than slavery directly, they all fought against the US government and for government not recognized by the US constitution and created primarily to war against expected attempts by the elected President of the US to end slavery.
IOW, no matter their motive, they represent traitors against the US who fought for essentially a foreign government trying to protect slavery. They are not any kind of hero to be honored except to those who continue to think that cause a just one and who continue to wish that the US had lost and slavery continued, IOW traitorous bigots.

#### J842P

##### Veteran Member
This guy makes a very convincing argument that the confederate soldiers modeled by their statues had nothing at all to do with slavery:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/15/america-propaganda-vanquished-truth/

This is an absurd argument. A Confederate soldier has everything to do with the Confederacty, which had everything to do with slavery. The Confederacy itself reiterates this many times in many historical documents. It is a ridiculous revisionism that tries to claim the war was about anything other than slavery.

The Germans wouldn't dream of raising a statue of a Nazi-era Wehrmacht soldier. The Germans are decent people in that regard. The people who defend the Confederacy are either fools motivated by this weird pseudo-historical, rosey-eyed, ahistorical point of view of antebellum southern culture, or outright racists.

The guy outright says that chattel slavery is not oppression. Quite frankly, if you find this convincing, you are a fool.