Confederate Statues

[jbrown_9999 1,020]

Are those memorials located in Northern Vietnam, North Korea and Canada/Great Britain?

 

Is the building of Confederate memorials in Southern states pretty much the same as building equivalent memorials for Vietnam, Korean War, and War of 1812 in states throughout the USA?

 

Sort of OT but there was an argument for "reparations" a few years ago for which I as a third generation white citizen of the USA whose ancestors had no involvement in slavery was expected to help foot the bill for six figure payments to people of color even if their ancestors had never been enslaved.

 

To me, the same type of broad brush is being used to argue for the removal of any and all memorials tied to the Confederacy.

[Pregame 291]

Is the building of Confederate memorials in Southern states pretty much the same as building equivalent memorials for Vietnam, Korean War, and War of 1812 in states throughout the USA?

 

To me, the same type of broad brush is being used to argue for the removal of any and all memorials tied to the Confederacy.

First of all, Vietnam and Korea were proxy battles between US and Russia during the Cold War. Easily could argue they were stalemates (esp. Vietnam) and/or victories (esp. Korea) for US with the collapse of USSR. War of 1812, Canada win because they repelled US, US won for repelling Britain, and Britain won for defeating Napoleon (War of 1812 was proxy battle between French and British; North America was an afterthought for both). But there's valid arguments for saying we lost, so whatever.

 

Point remains, confederate soldiers were US born men who fought against the US at the behest of their traitorous nation, the Confederate States of America. Honoring traitors and enemy combatants on US soil seems foolish to me. Statues memorializing 1812, Vietnam and Korean combatants are US monuments for US soldiers. Statues honoring Confederate combatants are US monuments for traitorous insurrectionists. Do you not understand the difference?

 

Also, these monuments I take issue with personally are generals, Jefferson Davis, and Confederate politicians. A memorial honoring the fallen of the Civil War are one thing. Lionizing General Lee is something different.

 

How is this a broad brush? I've been very clear about my reasons. Also, somewhat of an ironic side note, civil war history is far and away my favorite area of US history. I'd be devastated if people no longer studied the era or we tried to "cover up" what happened.

[gasher 6]

 

Point remains, confederate soldiers were US born men who fought against the US at the behest of their traitorous nation, the Confederate States of America. Honoring traitors and enemy combatants on US soil seems foolish to me. Statues memorializing 1812, Vietnam and Korean combatants are US monuments for US soldiers.

 

One note, the men who fought for the south were hardly volunteers. Many yes, not all. They had no choice. Most lost everything if they were able to return home. Where else would their memorials be other than US soil? Maybe people from the south needed a Vietnam War style wall to honor the fallen and not the Generals. War sucks, living in the war zone sucks even more and losing the war sucks, but we weren't fighting the Germans or Japanese, we were fighting brothers and cousins. And the worst thing, one side was supporting the wrong cause. It was a tough period in our history and people, northern and southern, did the best they could to cope with these facts and the wars outcome.

 

I also think that flag needs to go away.

[jessemoore97 1,280]

Is the building of Confederate memorials in Southern states pretty much the same as building equivalent memorials for Vietnam, Korean War, and War of 1812 in states throughout the USA?

 

Sort of OT but there was an argument for "reparations" a few years ago for which I as a third generation white citizen of the USA whose ancestors had no involvement in slavery was expected to help foot the bill for six figure payments to people of color even if their ancestors had never been enslaved.

 

To me, the same type of broad brush is being used to argue for the removal of any and all memorials tied to the Confederacy.

 

I've had that same OT discussion before too. My mother's side came over post war. My father's side has been here since Plymouth Rock, however there are zero descendants who owned slaves. Only a wealthy very minority group of people owned slaves, much like most of the Southerners who fought in the war. If nothing else most of the small plot owning Southerners couldn't compete with the large slave owning plantations to make any type of living. And how those people are portrayed by academia and the general populace as fighting to keep slavery is intellectually dishonest. But when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.

[echo88 74]

One note, the men who fought for the south were hardly volunteers. Many yes, not all. They had no choice. Most lost everything if they were able to return home. Where else would their memorials be other than US soil? Maybe people from the south needed a Vietnam War style wall to honor the fallen and not the Generals. War sucks, living in the war zone sucks even more and losing the war sucks, but we weren't fighting the Germans or Japanese, we were fighting brothers and cousins. And the worst thing, one side was supporting the wrong cause. It was a tough period in our history and people, northern and southern, did the best they could to cope with these facts and the wars outcome.

 

I also think that flag needs to go away.

 

The fight for the removal of the flag made sense to me, for the record. Didn't seem right to fly it on govt property.

 

That being said, the argument to make it illegal or immoral to sell (talking to you, amazon) seems childish and pointless. Putting it on par with a Nazi flag is laughable.

[coltssb 1,044]

Good civil conversation fellas. Unlike what seems to be happening lately.

 

To go with Pregame's thought...and I don't know he answer to this-do the French have memorials or statues of side that lost their civil war? Russia? Or any country for that matter?

[Irish_Convert 1]

All I'll say is, they're inanimate objects portraying people who have long since gone. They can only offend you or hurt you allow them to. Well, unless you trip and fall into one. They're spending money that could be put to better use by actually helping people.

[echo88 74]

All I'll say is, they're inanimate objects portraying people who have long since gone. They can only offend you or hurt you allow them to. Well, unless you trip and fall into one. They're spending money that could be put to better use by actually helping people.

 

Using that logic, wouldn't tearing them down be ensuring that money used to create them was wasted?

[EddieAngel 508]

Using that logic, wouldn't tearing them down be ensuring that money used to create them was wasted?

 

The entire basis of the argument of whether or not to tear down the statues boils down to whose feelings are more important, it has nothing to do with anything else.

 

There is a ton of ignorance involved. Confederate soldiers were soldiers of our country and they deserve the same recognition and honor as all of the soldiers before and since who have sacrificed for our freedoms. It is easy to say they were fighting for slavery because it is the simple narrative, but it is also inaccurate.

 

Confederate soldiers were fighting against encroachment of government on their rights. They were fighting against what they feared would be anarchy. Lincoln himself said, as you pointed out, that the total abolition of slavery would conceivably result in absolute chaos. Economic disaster on top of a sudden influx of unemployed destitute individuals.

 

That said, nothing is gained by taking away. People who crusade to have statues torn down do so because they are unwilling to do anything to actually create value. If you want to improve something you create, improve, or defend. These people are doing none of those things, they are just working on feelings.

 

Slavery happened, the Civil War happened, ripping down statues changes nothing. This isn't like a picture of your wife's lover by the bedside, this is something in the past that can be looked out completely objectively without getting hurt by it. Tearing down statues won't fix racial inequality, or socioeconomic inequality, it is just an excuse for people to take out their anger about the current state of the world on... something.

 

If we tear down these statues are we also going to rename everything named Washington or Jefferson? They owned slaves. As did 16 other presidents who have all kinds of stuff named after them. The idea of any of this is absolutely inane. Reminders of our past should be preserved and honored for better or worse.

 

The funny thing about monuments is that the winner typically annihilates all of the trappings of the loser. It is like clockwork throughout history. How much historical antiquity is lost because the winner tore down the idols of the loser? How many monuments were melted down for precious metals or outright destroyed?

 

People today take liberties they don't deserve. What we obtain too easily we esteem too lightly and all. The US is so "me"-centric that my feelings and my people are always more important than the next person. My feelings are more important than your rights. If your rights hurt my feelings they should be taken away. Blah blah blah. What kind of daily things that we do right now will be considered barbaric or wrong in 100 years?

 

Slavery is wrong, that is not a subject of debate. Racism is wrong, though that is an entirely separate conversation. Ripping things apart so we can pretend that something never happened or because it offends someone's delicate sensibilities is counterproductive. Not just silly, but downright harmful. The world is a dark place, history is full of atrocity, we can't just pretend it didn't happen, plant a garden over a graveyard and all go on our merry way.

[echo88 74]

The entire basis of the argument of whether or not to tear down the statues boils down to whose feelings are more important, it has nothing to do with anything else.

 

There is a ton of ignorance involved. Confederate soldiers were soldiers of our country and they deserve the same recognition and honor as all of the soldiers before and since who have sacrificed for our freedoms. It is easy to say they were fighting for slavery because it is the simple narrative, but it is also inaccurate.

 

Confederate soldiers were fighting against encroachment of government on their rights. They were fighting against what they feared would be anarchy. Lincoln himself said, as you pointed out, that the total abolition of slavery would conceivably result in absolute chaos. Economic disaster on top of a sudden influx of unemployed destitute individuals.

 

That said, nothing is gained by taking away. People who crusade to have statues torn down do so because they are unwilling to do anything to actually create value. If you want to improve something you create, improve, or defend. These people are doing none of those things, they are just working on feelings.

 

Slavery happened, the Civil War happened, ripping down statues changes nothing. This isn't like a picture of your wife's lover by the bedside, this is something in the past that can be looked out completely objectively without getting hurt by it. Tearing down statues won't fix racial inequality, or socioeconomic inequality, it is just an excuse for people to take out their anger about the current state of the world on... something.

 

If we tear down these statues are we also going to rename everything named Washington or Jefferson? They owned slaves. As did 16 other presidents who have all kinds of stuff named after them. The idea of any of this is absolutely inane. Reminders of our past should be preserved and honored for better or worse.

 

The funny thing about monuments is that the winner typically annihilates all of the trappings of the loser. It is like clockwork throughout history. How much historical antiquity is lost because the winner tore down the idols of the loser? How many monuments were melted down for precious metals or outright destroyed?

 

People today take liberties they don't deserve. What we obtain too easily we esteem too lightly and all. The US is so "me"-centric that my feelings and my people are always more important than the next person. My feelings are more important than your rights. If your rights hurt my feelings they should be taken away. Blah blah blah. What kind of daily things that we do right now will be considered barbaric or wrong in 100 years?

 

Slavery is wrong, that is not a subject of debate. Racism is wrong, though that is an entirely separate conversation. Ripping things apart so we can pretend that something never happened or because it offends someone's delicate sensibilities is counterproductive. Not just silly, but downright harmful. The world is a dark place, history is full of atrocity, we can't just pretend it didn't happen, plant a garden over a graveyard and all go on our merry way.

 

Well captured my friend..

[Pregame 291]

The entire basis of the argument of whether or not to tear down the statues boils down to whose feelings are more important, it has nothing to do with anything else.

 

There is a ton of ignorance involved. Confederate soldiers were soldiers of our country and they deserve the same recognition and honor as all of the soldiers before and since who have sacrificed for our freedoms. It is easy to say they were fighting for slavery because it is the simple narrative, but it is also inaccurate.

 

Confederate soldiers were fighting against encroachment of government on their rights. They were fighting against what they feared would be anarchy. Lincoln himself said, as you pointed out, that the total abolition of slavery would conceivably result in absolute chaos. Economic disaster on top of a sudden influx of unemployed destitute individuals.

 

That said, nothing is gained by taking away. People who crusade to have statues torn down do so because they are unwilling to do anything to actually create value. If you want to improve something you create, improve, or defend. These people are doing none of those things, they are just working on feelings.

 

Slavery happened, the Civil War happened, ripping down statues changes nothing. This isn't like a picture of your wife's lover by the bedside, this is something in the past that can be looked out completely objectively without getting hurt by it. Tearing down statues won't fix racial inequality, or socioeconomic inequality, it is just an excuse for people to take out their anger about the current state of the world on... something.

 

If we tear down these statues are we also going to rename everything named Washington or Jefferson? They owned slaves. As did 16 other presidents who have all kinds of stuff named after them. The idea of any of this is absolutely inane. Reminders of our past should be preserved and honored for better or worse.

 

The funny thing about monuments is that the winner typically annihilates all of the trappings of the loser. It is like clockwork throughout history. How much historical antiquity is lost because the winner tore down the idols of the loser? How many monuments were melted down for precious metals or outright destroyed?

 

People today take liberties they don't deserve. What we obtain too easily we esteem too lightly and all. The US is so "me"-centric that my feelings and my people are always more important than the next person. My feelings are more important than your rights. If your rights hurt my feelings they should be taken away. Blah blah blah. What kind of daily things that we do right now will be considered barbaric or wrong in 100 years?

 

Slavery is wrong, that is not a subject of debate. Racism is wrong, though that is an entirely separate conversation. Ripping things apart so we can pretend that something never happened or because it offends someone's delicate sensibilities is counterproductive. Not just silly, but downright harmful. The world is a dark place, history is full of atrocity, we can't just pretend it didn't happen, plant a garden over a graveyard and all go on our merry way.

The claim that the south wasn't fighting for slavery is a faux intellectual narrative that is entirely false. The Civil War is/was/always has been about a disagreement over the spread of slavery and the introduction of new slave owning states. Southern states realized they would lose slavery if America continued to grow but slavery did not (through legislative means as nonslave states would vastly outnumber slave states in Congress). The founders of the Confederacy were not stupid and did not want to lose their free labor, not "their states rights" as often cited by contemporary arguments defending open rebellion in the name of owning human beings.

 

Edit: I actually agree with much of what you have to say re: observing history and not seeing atrocity under the rug for the sake of feeling. Historical glory and atrocity are equally important imo and both must be preserved. Again my disagreement more stems from these monuments being a vehicle to advance white supremacy during Jim Crow than anything else.

Edited August 30, 2017 by Pregame

[EddieAngel 508]

The claim that the south wasn't fighting for slavery is a faux intellectual narrative that is entirely false. The Civil War is/was/always has been about a disagreement over the spread of slavery and the introduction of new slave owning states. Southern states realized they would lose slavery if America continued to grow but slavery did not (through legislative means as nonslave states would vastly outnumber slave states in Congress). The founders of the Confederacy were not stupid and did not want to lose their free labor, not "their states rights" as often cited by contemporary arguments defending open rebellion in the name of owning human beings.

 

Edit: I actually agree with much of what you have to say re: observing history and not seeing atrocity under the rug for the sake of feeling. Historical glory and atrocity are equally important imo and both must be preserved. Again my disagreement more stems from these monuments being a vehicle to advance white supremacy during Jim Crow than anything else.

 

Slavery is a component of the issue, but my point really wasn't about the driving factors of the Civil War, it was more about the average boots on the ground soldiers. Wars are always starting by ambitious politicians, but they are fought by men and women of courage and conviction.

 

The idea behind the faux intellectual narrative is that people paint slavery as a white people black people issue when it really boiled down to an economic issue. As you said, cheap labor force, profits, etc... but the people who fought the war were seldom the people who benefited from slavery or abolition. These people are worthy of remembrance.

 

The bigger overarching issue of this matter is when you try to be considerate of feelings. Most people are pretty much a category 5 tropical storm in a bottle, all chaos inside and just as prone to knock over a house as taper off into a gentle breeze. Trying to build laws and make decisions based on feelings is like roping the wind. When you are making a decision on whether or not to tear down a piece of history it shouldn't be decided by people who have given nothing for the freedom of having that statue erected whose only motivation is feelings.

 

Honestly, if I had to take a whack at the percentage of African-American people who think about slavery on a day to day basis, I would bet that number is damn near 0. Most people, at least average people like myself I suspect, are only concerned about slavery if it has an impact on how they keep the lights on. Is ripping these monuments down going to put food on the table? Keep gas in my car? Get my kid a cake for his birthday? Nope.

 

Ripping down these monuments is about the same as when my daughter kicks over her little brother's Lego castle when she is mad about something totally unrelated.

 

That said, if someone comes forward with a real sound argument to take the monuments down that doesn't involve making the world appear safe and warm and fuzzy, I would be excited to hear about it.

[EddieAngel 508]

Edit: I actually agree with much of what you have to say re: observing history and not seeing atrocity under the rug for the sake of feeling. Historical glory and atrocity are equally important imo and both must be preserved. Again my disagreement more stems from these monuments being a vehicle to advance white supremacy during Jim Crow than anything else.

 

Because people would rather tear stuff down and commit some huge stupid sweeping public action than sit down and realize "Hey, we all have the same problems. We are mad about the same stuff. White Supremacist guy is worried about providing for his family, being accepted socially, having friends to rely on, having something to crusade for, etc... etc..." It is a bad world, people need to hate each other because no one can deal with the fact that there really isn't enough for everyone. Everyone can't just do whatever the hell they want. No one wants to pay the check anymore. Everyone wants unlimited personal freedom, less government, less war, more money, less work, less pollution, more kids, certain inalienable rights, blah blah blah. No one wants to fight for it. I am not even just talking about serving in the military, which I believe should be compulsory to all able bodied citizens, but about actually giving something up in order to get the things you want.

 

Thanks to the advent of personal liberty the American Dream has become a quest to have more than the next person. It is absolutely insane that the majority of people think that anything can be fixed using the tried and true methods of electing politicians to sit and argue about whether to fund planned parenthood or social security while they eat a 2000 dollar dinner. People of actual principal and conviction are few and far between. The country is a dying animal and instead of trying to nurse it back to health most people just want to be there to cut off the biggest steak.

 

Times like this are when I smdh.

[gasher 6]

Good civil conversation fellas. Unlike what seems to be happening lately.

 

To go with Pregame's thought...and I don't know he answer to this-do the French have memorials or statues of side that lost their civil war? Russia? Or any country for that matter?

 

Well they weren't fighting for or against slavery. So it's different. Russia did fight against religion and the religious lost. They have statues still. No matter how it's turned this is not gonna be easy. Education and learning about our history in a very truthful manner will save us.

[Grace Flanner 0]

I have a couple questions tangentially related to the statues issue.

 

-Do most US citizens believe there is more racism in the US today than in 1969? There was a lot of crazy stuff going on in 1969. If so, I would like to hear the thoughts about that. If not, it seems to me that there is more hatred and ill-will being spread on multiple sides and perpetuated by ease of access to 'news' than is probably justified.

 

-Does racism exist in people of backgrounds other than white European backgrounds? It seems to me that large segments of the population don't believe it does, or perhaps it's just not acknowledged or talked about (?).

[EddieAngel 508]

I have a couple questions tangentially related to the statues issue.

 

-Do most US citizens believe there is more racism in the US today than in 1969? There was a lot of crazy stuff going on in 1969. If so, I would like to hear the thoughts about that. If not, it seems to me that there is more hatred and ill-will being spread on multiple sides and perpetuated by ease of access to 'news' than is probably justified.

 

-Does racism exist in people of backgrounds other than white European backgrounds? It seems to me that large segments of the population don't believe it does, or perhaps it's just not acknowledged or talked about (?).

 

1. I am not sure you can derive anything useful from comparing racism then to now. Segregation was the cultural norm. If you were to transport all of the people from 1969 to now where it is no longer the cultural norm I think you would have the same percentage of racists, that is people who just don't like someone because they are different. More people were racist back then because it was normal, not because of the character of the individual. IMO.

 

2. Racism has existed for better than 5000 years, long before Europe had enough travel to become racist. Look at the Egyptians and the Israelite people for a crash course in slavery and racism. Japanese people are traditionally racist against Chinese and Koreans. I have heard a lot of south east Asians refer to Filipino people as the "Mexicans of south east Asia". Tons of Africans hate people from other African nations. It isn't racist necessarily, but largely tribal. But the principal is the same, hate them because of where they come from. You could argue that the Rwandan genocide may have had European influence since it is fairly recent, but tribes were already divided and warring when the Dutch landed in Africa, that is what made them an easy target for slavery, which is an age old business. Also, there is plenty of racism in the Middle East, Africa, South and Central America, so forth and so on.

[PJacksonsDred15 110]

Sadly, this will eventually happen at this rate. I could easily see this erupting into a 2nd civil war someday soon.

 

These people lived during a time of cultural ignorance. It wasn't just the U.S.--it was worldwide.

 

We live in a different world now, but that doesn't mean that contributions and occurrences should be wiped from the history books. The Confederate Army, at the time, believed they were fighting for a meaningful cause in an effort to preserve our culture out of fear of the unknown. They were still Americans who died for their country for what they believed was right.

 

It's easy to look back and judge, just like it's easy now to look back and judge George W. on his stance on Iraq and Obama's refusal to acknowledge radical Islam. That wasn't long ago, but the reactions of the left are out of control. They are using the current state of affairs in this nation to apply 20/20 hindsight and wag fingers. Our leaders do what they believe to be right at the time. Questioning those decisions after the fact is easy for us because we werent the ones who had to make the decisions that altered the course of history.

 

It's like what happens when you give toddlers some leeway---they will push the envelope to figure out their boundaries. Right now the social justice warriors are seeing just how much they can get away with. Hopefully it's not much more because I am fearful of the implications behind protecting our youth from the facts of history. They cannot learn from the mistakes of those who came before them if the left continues this campaign of earmuffs.

 

They were not Americans. They disavowed their American citizenship and started their own state. They attacked the United States and eventually assasinated President Lincoln. They also attempted to assasinate the Sec of State and VP. All because they lost their battle in Congress. Stop trying to spin these guys as being anything but what they really were. Domestic terrorists. If a city or town wants to honor these creeps thats up to them. But personally Id like to see them come down and be replaced by real American heroes...not people who tried to take down America.

 

 

And the comparison to George Washington is a false comparison. Did GW have slaves? Sure, but it was 100 years before when slavery was legal and more globally accepted. He also fought FOR America. Not against it. We honor GW because of the great things he did for his country. What great things did the Confederates do?

There is no comparison.

Edited August 31, 2017 by PJackson'sDred15

[jessemoore97 1,280]

I have a couple questions tangentially related to the statues issue.

 

-Do most US citizens believe there is more racism in the US today than in 1969? There was a lot of crazy stuff going on in 1969. If so, I would like to hear the thoughts about that. If not, it seems to me that there is more hatred and ill-will being spread on multiple sides and perpetuated by ease of access to 'news' than is probably justified.

 

-Does racism exist in people of backgrounds other than white European backgrounds? It seems to me that large segments of the population don't believe it does, or perhaps it's just not acknowledged or talked about (?).

 

No. But you hear all the time the concept of institutional racism that exists somewhere in the ether, but cannot be confirmed. I mean it's becoming a sliding scale for how racism is defined and the form it takes. It used to be outright physical acts like lynchings, cross burning, etc. then came institutional racism where every social construct ever created keeps people of color down despite laws and policies that have been in place largely since the sixties that prevent that from happening.

 

Lately the even more disturbing trend is since the first two have largely been unproven and in many cases outright untrue on any widespread basis, is unconscious/implicit bias. Your unconscious thoughts make you a racist, even if you don't realize you have the thoughts and even if you never act on them. This has been a popular seminar or training tool at many businesses and government institutions in recent years, mandatory for employees. Matter of fact my agency is just going to start the training next week and my shift is the first to receive this incredibly disturbing/scary indoctrination. A large part of the "data" behind the concept comes from the Implicit Association Test, which to be brief is neither reliable or valid.

 

In the end racism is out there because certain elements want it to be there to help further agendas and make money. It's a sexy story that the mainstream media can cover indefinitely any time a minority is killed by the police, without that actual facts of the incident coming to light, and keeps people riled up doing really stupid things as we've seen the past few years. Or when this topic about statues and history takes place. Or when the KKK or someone like them wants to hold a legal public rally. The Jesse Jackson's and Al Sharpton's of the world would lose all their wealth from race hustling. Elections are influenced by keeping this issue in front of people. It goes on and on.

 

But a lot of people are coming around to the BS and hypocrisy of the arguments, due in large part to the over exposure of the issue especially by the media. The internet has become a boon for critical thinking about these controversial subjects while the mainstream media keeps touting the same tired lines. Folks are starting to wake up and resist the false narratives. I could go on and on for hours about this. There are really great commentators about a lot of this stuff around the net and YouTube: Ben Shapiro, Dennis Prager, Dave Rubin, Steven Crowder, Thomas Sowell, and hosts of others. They aren't the alt-right either, far from it but most are conservatives, libertarians, or classical liberals who are rejecting the further move to the far left by the Democratic Party.

 

The short answer to your second question, yes absolutely any ethnicity can be racist towards another. I'd go farther and say more specifically it's the individual, regardless of their respective ethnicity, that has the capacity to be a racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobe towards another group of people. Currently the core narrative that's being put out there though is only straight, white males are the problem and all evil in the world comes from them and their ancestry.

[EddieAngel 508]

They were not Americans. They disavowed their American citizenship and started their own state. They attacked the United States and eventually assasinated President Lincoln. They also attempted to assasinate the Sec of State and VP. All because they lost their battle in Congress. Stop trying to spin these guys as being anything but what they really were. Domestic terrorists. If a city or town wants to honor these creeps thats up to them. But personally Id like to see them come down and be replaced by real American heroes...not people who tried to take down America.

 

 

And the comparison to George Washington is a false comparison. Did GW have slaves? Sure, but it was 100 years before when slavery was legal and more globally accepted. He also fought FOR America. Not against it. We honor GW because of the great things he did for his country. What great things did the Confederates do?

There is no comparison.

 

By your reasoning all of America would have been domestic terrorists at the time as they were at war with their governing body over something they considered unfair (taxation without representation). Who are these real American heroes you speak of? I get tired of people blaming the soldiers for war. It is just like Vietnam, spit on the people who are forced to fight.

 

Confederate soldiers deserve honor and dignity as much as Union soldiers or anyone who fights for the freedom of others against oppression. Either way, the reason this conversation is even a thing is because the Union won. I don't sympathize with the south, I am glad the Union won and they were right, but that doesn't mean that those people who fought on the losing side should be forgotten or vilified.

 

I think Clavell summed it up well in Shogun.

 

Toranaga: "There are no 'mitigating circumstances' when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord."

Blackthorne: "Unless you win."

 

You are welcome to your opinion, I think most of us who have served in the military will carry about the same view of these statues.

[The eND 0]

Werent the Capitol Building and White House built with slave labor?