Restricted Chicago names commission to study statues including 5 of Lincoln

RobertP

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Location
Dallas
Chicago has appointed a committee to determine the fate of certain monuments in the city. Included on the list are Lincoln, Washington, Grant and Benjamin Franklin. Edited.


“A Chicago committee has listed five statues of Abraham Lincoln among dozens of monuments that it said needed to be reviewed as part of a project to reconsider symbols that have become “a focal point for conversation, protest and activism,” the city said Wednesday.

The city created the committee in response to last summer’s protests, some of which centered on statues of historical figures, to review Chicago’s collection of monuments and “recommend solutions.”


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Personally I am against removing any monuments to our history, as our history remains our history.

However if one accepted their logic against Confederate monuments, there would be no reason that same twisted logic shouldn't then be applied to non Confederate monuments.

As the United States had slavery about 20 times as long as the Confederacy, including during the ACW. Our Indian policies, wars, and conduct certainly had racial overtones as well....even post-ACW our US military remained segregated for decades. If one wishes to remove negative racial elements from our history......there's far more then 4 years of 12 states.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I tend to agree with historian Allen Guelzo......it's a rather false yardstick.

"If an offensive racial opinion “is the only yardstick that we use to measure people today, they will have to pull down monuments to everybody from before 1950,” Guelzo said." (He was speaking about the removal to a monument to Stephen Douglas)

"Guelzo, who co-created a five-step decision-making analysis for the removal of newly scrutinized memorials, believes that if Illinois uproots Douglas, Lincoln should follow, disqualified by the Matson case and his stance during the Charleston debate."
 
Last edited:

carptrash

Private
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Location
Arizona
Personally I am against removing any monuments to our history, as our history remains our history.
Well I think one point of view is that many monuments are not really history but propaganda, myth making and other stuff. If there was a monument to Mary Todd Lincoln taking the bullet meant for her husband you would, I imagine, object. That is sort of what this monument storm is about.
However if one accepted their logic against Confederate monuments, there would be no reason that same twisted logic shouldn't then be applied to non Confederate monuments.
That's right, and it frequently is applied to non-CSA monuments.
If one wishes to remove negative racial elements from our history......there's far more then 4 years of 12 states.
I don't see this monument controversy as being a move "to remove negative racial elements from our history." Rather the statue thing arose out of our consistent refusal to acknowledge the "negative racial elements from our history."
 

carptrash

Private
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Location
Arizona
I bet most people on this "committee" have very little knowledge about Lincoln and the other monuments. I'm sure they will fall in line and vote to have them removed. Especially since this article is now published and the spotlight is on them.
I am trying to learn who was appointed to this committee, what I found was, "

The project will begin with the assembly of an advisory committee in August, which will be co-chaired by Mark Kelly, Commissioner of DCASE, Bonnie McDonald, President & CEO of Landmarks Illinois and Jennifer Scott, Director/Chief Curator of Jane Addams Hull-House Museum. In addition to the co-chairs, the committee will be comprised of artists, historians, and elected officials from all over Chicago."
Why are you "sure they will fall in line and vote to have them removed. ?" You made a prophesy a year ago, let's see, if we can, how it holds up.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Well I think one point of view is that many monuments are not really history but propaganda, myth making and other stuff. If there was a monument to Mary Todd Lincoln taking the bullet meant for her husband you would, I imagine, object. That is sort of what this monument storm is about.

That's right, and it frequently is applied to non-CSA monuments.

I don't see this monument controversy as being a move "to remove negative racial elements from our history." Rather the statue thing arose out of our consistent refusal to acknowledge the "negative racial elements from our history."
Ok remove Mary Todd monuments taking bullets to kill her husband........not aware of any

And yes removing northern history is as bad as removing southern. As its all American history.

The last is also a fallacy, as recognizing the ACW, the participants, and that both sides had slavery would actually be the opposite of "ignoring negative racial elements of our history"....
 
Last edited:

carptrash

Private
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Location
Arizona
The last is also a fallacy, as recognizing the ACW, the participants, and that both sides had slavery would actually be the opposite of "ignoring negative racial elements of our history"....
Are you suggesting that the North should acknowledge that it had slaves too?
 

carptrash

Private
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Location
Arizona
Since it historically did, not doing so would indeed be your "ignoring negative racial elements of our history"
As far as I know, no one denies that there were slaves in the North, ending at various different times, mostly done by the early 1800s. However America's real problem (opinion) in this respect was not slavery but racism, *edited*
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I sure hope not.
Nothing surprises me when it comes to Chicago's government considering what the City recently did to its "financially well-off [volunteer] docents" at the Art Institute of Chicago, many who according to some sources, have donated millions over the years to the Institute.
Chicago museum fires all of its mostly white female, financially well-off docents for lack of diversity: report

 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
As far as I know, no one denies that there were slaves in the North, ending at various different times, mostly done by the early 1800s. However America's real problem (opinion) in this respect was not slavery but racism, *edited*
Indeed northern racism existed well past ACW, becoming increasingly violent and pervasive as well.....noted by 2nd Klan and riots at turn of the century.

But as this forum is primarily ACW, that both the Confederacy and Union had slavery would be rather relevant. So Lincoln's positions prewar and wartime are attacked by some on the removal side both for slavery and Native Policy.
 
Last edited:
Top