Restricted Georgia house bill would protect Confederate, Revolutionary War monuments

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
No I did not duck the question, I gave a what I felt was / is a solution to "fairness" issue that you posed. I quess the idea of a legislator offering an admindment to include other types/classes of monuments is out of the realm of political possibilities. What do you think??

CSA Expat, I was hoping you would tell me something I don't already know, which is your opinion on the questions I raised.

Your response indicates to me that you get it: you seem to understand that this discussion, in part, is about preferential treatment borne of special interest politics. But I've been saying that all along. So I well understand that in the end, this will come down to which groups have the most power to influence the most politicians to take a certain course of action.

What I don't know is your answer to the following questions:

1) Don't you feel that people whose monuments are not protected have a right to be outraged that a certain set of monuments is given preferential treatment? When looked at objectively, ignoring your preference, wouldn't you agree that this is a clear case of unfair favoritism? This is a yes or no question.
2) Why do you think the government would allow there to be no protection for those other monuments? What purpose is served by this government policy? Put yourself in the mind of the government or the legislators in question - why would they feel it reasonable and appropriate that so many classes of monuments not have protection?

This forum is about sharing information and opinions. In the context of the discussion we're having, I think these are fair questions to ask. If you have no comment or no opinion on them, that's OK. I'm just saying, the response you gave ducks doesn't answer the questions.

My guess is that
(a) You do think the treatment given this particular class of memorials is unfair;
(b) Beyond the emotional reaction to the call that "we must save our Confederate monuments from impending total obliteration!", you - as with most people, to be fair about it - haven't given much thought as to why the default position of the state of Georgia is to not provide protection to monuments, except for that group given preferential treatment.

- Alan
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
As Mr. Winkler said and I shall repeat; counties and cities are creatures that owe their exisitance to their respective State Legislatures/Assemblies. The way I understand the proposed legislation it would require the continued display of any monument. This can be decribed as historic preservation for historic monuments. The removal of historic monuments is in effect the erasure of history. We as a society have the moral obigation to preserve the articles that are a part of OUR COLECTIVE history so that younger generations are aware of THEIR HISTORY; that is what the intent of the proposed law would do. If this legislation required the preservation of battlefields and structures, everyone on this forum would be 100% for it.
What about countes and cities that existed before their states?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
This is still an attempt by a minority to side-step a local communities right to decide this issue.

It shows no concern for the majority, no worry about trampling on the rights of others to decide what goes on in their local communities because the minority shows it is afraid to permit an actual vote on the matter.

Instead, it wishes to dictate that a certain memory be preserved, one that supports a political and historical agenda that favors a minority.

It sure isn't about states rights or democracy or in letting the people decide. It is an attempt to dictate what the majority must do for the views of a minority.

The bill should be defeated.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Someone is going to have to carefully explain to HOW you separate the Confederate soldier from the cause of the Confederacy.
It can't be done!
Put up all the monuments and flags you want, but the cause was what it was.

Kevin Dally

Why in the world would Southerners, proud of their heritage, want to separate the Confederate soldier from the cause he fought and died for? I’m not aware of any precedent where there has been an attempt to separate the American soldier and the cause fought for at any time in US history.

“To the Confederate soldiers of Scotland County, the record of whose sublime self-sacrifice and undying devotion to duty in the service of their country is a fond heritage of a loyal posterity”.
Inscribed on the front of the Confederate soldier’s monument in Laurinburg, North Carolina.

“No country ever had truer sons, No people-bolder defenders, No principle – purer victims”
Inscribed on the Confederate Monument in front of the Marlboro County Court House in Bennettsville, South Carolina
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
CMWinkler,

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to the post you have made below, but I wish to do so that we may continue on this part of the discussion.

CMWinkler, Union, I see it completely differently.

I have been aware of this fact for some time now. :smile:

The intent of the bill is not as you described.

I know it will come as no surprise to you that I see it completely differently. :wink:

No one is telling anyone what to think, or even for that matter, what to feel.

And I submit this is exactly is what is happening. Local communities are being told they have no right to a view on this issue, as the SCV via this bill will take that right away from them. They are being told no matter what their views and feelings on the topic of Confederate monuments, those views and feelings will not matter in the slightest.

What is being done is to preserve a sense of the history that preceeded them.

Really? It sort of reminds me of the big push for a flag-burning amendment in the Congress some years back. My question then was, was there a lot of flag-burning going on at the time? I have a very similiar question here. Are there a lot of Confederate monuments under some sort of 'movement' attack? Has then been much in the way of Confederate monuments being destroyed or hauled off into an empty field far from the viewing public? And more importantly, what sense of history concerning these monuments is not being preserved?

It's saying you can't erase us or our history because you now find us distasteful.

But what if the local community does find a monument distasteful? What if the majority of the community comes to regard a monument as being out-of-step with actual history or finds it offensive to the present day community? Should the SCV have the power to roughshod over those feelings, those points-of-view in a local community with a legislative trump card over that community?

With your way of thinking we should never bother to remember because it will make no difference anyway.

I don't believe I have said that at all.

We shouldn't preserve battlefields, cemeteries or anything else as they are simply reminders of things we prefer not to remember.

Again, I have not said that at anytime in anyone of my posts here. Please show me where I have said such. What I have instead repeated throughout my posts is that a minority should not dictate to a majority, no matter what the issue, that the right of the people to decide what they want should not be infringed by that minority.

People who refuse to remember their history whether that be good, bad or indifferent are, quite frankly, soulless.

I agree, but trying to legislate their memory makes as much sense as it did to legislate their morality toward alcohol with Prohibition legislation. To force people to think well of Confederate monuments, to give them no say in their placement or protection is simply a form of tyranny of the minority. It will be resented, but most likely, ignored.

I think most of us here agree that the men who fought ought to be remembered for their courage and sacrifice.

And more importantly what they fought for, the right to choose in what they wanted to believe and the right to decide for themselves. This bill does not honor that.

Tear down their monuments and they pass from memory.

Force people to accept a minority's view concerning these monuments and their memory is already lost in a modern-day push for a modern-day political agenda.

You may think that's OK, but I do not.

This has never been my point-of-view since replying to this bill's slight-of-hand.

Orwell was right.

And a minority forcing its agenda through back-door legislative acts to deprive the majority of its right to choose is far more orwellian in its attempts to do such than opposing such a move.

Until our next post,
Unionblue
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Why in the world would Southerners, proud of their heritage, want to separate the Confederate soldier from the cause he fought and died for? I’m not aware of any precedent where there has been an attempt to separate the American soldier and the cause fought for at any time in US history.

Vietnam?
Banana Wars?
Indian Wars?
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Vietnam?
Banana Wars?
Indian Wars?

I would add to your list the Mexican War, The Spanish American War and the US government’s brutal suppression of Philippine right of self-determination (1899-1902).

Colonel Jacob Smith informed reporters in the Philippines that, because the natives were "worse than fighting Indians," he had already adopted appropriate tactics that he had learned fighting "savages" in the American west,

“I want no prisoners, I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the more it will please me. I want all person killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.”” Smith quailified his remarks by stating: “persons ten year and older as those disignated as being caple of bearing arms.”

Jacob H. Smith (The Philippine War of Independence (1899-1902)”
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
CMWinkler,

Sorry it has taken me so long to respond to the post you have made below, but I wish to do so that we may continue on this part of the discussion.

No problem. It is always good to talk, even when we cannot agree.

Let me reiterate: "No one is telling anyone what to think, or even for that matter, what to feel."

And I submit this is exactly is what is happening. Local communities are being told they have no right to a view on this issue, as the SCV via this bill will take that right away from them. They are being told no matter what their views and feelings on the topic of Confederate monuments, those views and feelings will not matter in the slightest.

Again, I completely disagree. The SCV is doing nothing more than to exercise its right in a democracy to use the political system to address a problem it perceives to exist. If they fail to garner the necessary political support the bill will fail. Though, succeed or fail, they are NOT doing what you describe. Seeking to preserve monuments does not tell people what to think or feel. They seek to preserve something. How that something is interpreted is very much up to the local people. Let's take an example, shall we? You have say a monument to Confederate troops sitting on the courthouse lawn. The local community now feels the monument celebrates all that is evil in the world. Nothing in this proposed bill would prevent the community from putting up interpretive signage with their point of view or to have someone who tells anyone who comes to see the monument how very evil each and every Confederate was. In short, simply preserving the monument and requiring its display, does not tell folks what they should think or feel.


Really? It sort of reminds me of the big push for a flag-burning amendment in the Congress some years back. My question then was, was there a lot of flag-burning going on at the time? I have a very similiar question here. Are there a lot of Confederate monuments under some sort of 'movement' attack? Has then been much in the way of Confederate monuments being destroyed or hauled off into an empty field far from the viewing public? And more importantly, what sense of history concerning these monuments is not being preserved?

There is a movement to remove Confederate rememberage from the scene, yes. As to how extensive it is, I really can't say. Clearly, bills don't get introduced in the legislature absent some perceived need.


But what if the local community does find a monument distasteful? What if the majority of the community comes to regard a monument as being out-of-step with actual history or finds it offensive to the present day community? Should the SCV have the power to roughshod over those feelings, those points-of-view in a local community with a legislative trump card over that community?

Again, Union, if this bill passes it is NOT the SCV running roughshod or any other way over anyone. It is the state legislature. One would think if community feeling was so strong, it would transform itself into political action. As to the rest, as I said, the bill simply preserves the monument, as to how the community wishes to interpret it is up to them.

I said "With your way of thinking we should never bother to remember because it will make no difference anyway."

I don't believe I have said that at all.

I never said you said it. I said if monuments can be removed at a whim of public opinion, there is no point in puttiong up monuments to anyone or anything. I stand by that statement.

I said "We shouldn't preserve battlefields, cemeteries or anything else as they are simply reminders of things we prefer not to remember."

Again, I have not said that at anytime in anyone of my posts here. Please show me where I have said such. What I have instead repeated throughout my posts is that a minority should not dictate to a majority, no matter what the issue, that the right of the people to decide what they want should not be infringed by that minority.

Again, Union, I never said you said it. I said it. It seems to be the logical extension of what you said. As to minority dictating, sometimes, under our system we can and must. If the majority doesn't like what I say they cannot, under our system, silence me. It is dictated that I, as a minority, cannot be silenced by the majority. Welcome to a constitutional republic.

I agree, but trying to legislate their memory makes as much sense as it did to legislate their morality toward alcohol with Prohibition legislation. To force people to think well of Confederate monuments, to give them no say in their placement or protection is simply a form of tyranny of the minority. It will be resented, but most likely, ignored.

Again, despite your attempt to do so, no one is legislating thought. If you see a Confederate monument you are perfectly free to despise it and everything for which you think it stands. What the bill seeks to do is to tell you that simply because you despise something doesn't mean you can remove it. Tyranny? Really? You seem to have a heightened sense of tyranny. Based upon your definition, I expect that you see tyranny all around you.

And more importantly what they fought for, the right to choose in what they wanted to believe and the right to decide for themselves. This bill does not honor that.

Nothing about this bill tells you what to think. Your attempt to suggest otherwise, notwithstanding.


Force people to accept a minority's view concerning these monuments and their memory is already lost in a modern-day push for a modern-day political agenda.

Nonsense.


This has never been my point-of-view since replying to this bill's slight-of-hand.

Well, I think your view of this bill is askew from its realitity.


And a minority forcing its agenda through back-door legislative acts to deprive the majority of its right to choose is far more orwellian in its attempts to do such than opposing such a move.

Boy, you're really hung up on this sense of tyranny by a minority. My experience with the political system is that if unpopular bills are passed then the people rise up and they are repealed. My guess is that if this passes, and I hope that does, I expect that it well be met by a groundswell of indifference. You though are, of course, free to gather your like minded folks and protest, agitate and do whatever you'd like to change the law so that no monument, no remembrance is safe from the whims of the moment.

Until our next post,
Unionblue

Always a pleasure.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I would add to your list the Mexican War, The Spanish American War and the US government’s brutal suppression of Philippine right of self-determination (1899-1902).

Colonel Jacob Smith informed reporters in the Philippines that, because the natives were "worse than fighting Indians," he had already adopted appropriate tactics that he had learned fighting "savages" in the American west,

“I want no prisoners, I wish you to kill and burn, the more you kill and burn the more it will please me. I want all person killed who are capable of bearing arms in actual hostilities against the United States.”” Smith quailified his remarks by stating: “persons ten year and older as those disignated as being caple of bearing arms.”

Jacob H. Smith (The Philippine War of Independence (1899-1902)”

Most wars are initiated for crass political reasons and then made to sound noble. The Brits fought for God and Country, not so some merchant class well connected to the King or Parliament could make a few extra bucks.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
No problem. It is always good to talk, even when we cannot agree.

Let me reiterate: "No one is telling anyone what to think, or even for that matter, what to feel."



Again, I completely disagree. The SCV is doing nothing more than to exercise its right in a democracy to use the political system to address a problem it perceives to exist. If they fail to garner the necessary political support the bill will fail. Though, succeed or fail, they are NOT doing what you describe. Seeking to preserve monuments does not tell people what to think or feel. They seek to preserve something. How that something is interpreted is very much up to the local people. Let's take an example, shall we? You have say a monument to Confederate troops sitting on the courthouse lawn. The local community now feels the monument celebrates all that is evil in the world. Nothing in this proposed bill would prevent the community from putting up interpretive signage with their point of view or to have someone who tells anyone who comes to see the monument how very evil each and every Confederate was. In short, simply preserving the monument and requiring its display, does not tell folks what they should think or feel.




There is a movement to remove Confederate rememberage from the scene, yes. As to how extensive it is, I really can't say. Clearly, bills don't get introduced in the legislature absent some perceived need.




Again, Union, if this bill passes it is NOT the SCV running roughshod or any other way over anyone. It is the state legislature. One would think if community feeling was so strong, it would transform itself into political action. As to the rest, as I said, the bill simply preserves the monument, as to how the community wishes to interpret it is up to them.

I said "With your way of thinking we should never bother to remember because it will make no difference anyway."



I never said you said it. I said if monuments can be removed at a whim of public opinion, there is no point in puttiong up monuments to anyone or anything. I stand by that statement.

I said "We shouldn't preserve battlefields, cemeteries or anything else as they are simply reminders of things we prefer not to remember."



Again, Union, I never said you said it. I said it. It seems to be the logical extension of what you said. As to minority dictating, sometimes, under our system we can and must. If the majority doesn't like what I say they cannot, under our system, silence me. It is dictated that I, as a minority, cannot be silenced by the majority. Welcome to a constitutional republic.



Again, despite your attempt to do so, no one is legislating thought. If you see a Confederate monument you are perfectly free to despise it and everything for which you think it stands. What the bill seeks to do is to tell you that simply because you despise something doesn't mean you can remove it. Tyranny? Really? You seem to have a heightened sense of tyranny. Based upon your definition, I expect that you see tyranny all around you.



Nothing about this bill tells you what to think. Your attempt to suggest otherwise, notwithstanding.




Nonsense.




Well, I think your view of this bill is askew from its realitity.




Boy, you're really hung up on this sense of tyranny by a minority. My experience with the political system is that if unpopular bills are passed then the people rise up and they are repealed. My guess is that if this passes, and I hope that does, I expect that it well be met by a groundswell of indifference. You though are, of course, free to gather your like minded folks and protest, agitate and do whatever you'd like to change the law so that no monument, no remembrance is safe from the whims of the moment.



Always a pleasure.


1. The majority will do what it wants to do and the majority changes.
2, When a monument is put up, there is no future impact statements filled out figuring out what the future generations will do with the monuments and if so they would be wildly inaccurate. Most monuments fulfill a moment's passion, a politicians ambition or someone's ego. It is a rare monument that is revered past a generation or two. Few folks will even stop and read their heroic prose. Most become depositories of pigeon droppings and auto exhaust-moved when inconvenient to out of the way humbler locations.
3. The law in question can be circumvented by a savvy attorney. I'd think a monument could be moved from the middle of a square to say put in a fountain and placed in a prominent place on the edge. The Jefferson, Ga monument ended up in the border between a sidewalk and a parking lot in a business district with great celebration and fanfare.
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
1. The majority will do what it wants to do and the majority changes.

Usually, yes.

2, When a monument is put up, there is no future impact statements filled out figuring out what the future generations will do with the monuments and if so they would be wildly inaccurate. Most monuments fulfill a moment's passion, a politicians ambition or someone's ego. It is a rare monument that is revered past a generation or two. Few folks will even stop and read their heroic prose. Most become depositories of pigeon droppings and auto exhaust-moved when inconvenient to out of the way humbler locations.

Maybe its because I visit a number of courthouses, but I always stop for a moment and admire the monuments. I did it in Indiana and I continue to do so in Tennessee.

3. The law in question can be circumvented by a savvy attorney. I'd think a monument could be moved from the middle of a square to say put in a fountain and placed in a prominent place on the edge. The Jefferson, Ga monument ended up in the border between a sidewalk and a parking lot in a business district with great celebration and fanfare.

Well,I don't think monument advocate would mind moving a monument to a position of equal prominence. Let me give a personal example. There used to be a historical marker commemorating Morgan's August 22, 1862 raid of Gallatin at the corner of Highway 25 and East Main. It was knocked down a few years ago and the city decided that they didn't want to put it back up because it was a traffic hazard. It supposedly went to the city warehouse where it since has been lost. Our SCV camp is now trying to replace the marker, have moved a bit so it isn't a traffic hazard, but that the military action can be commemorated. If things are moved willy-nilly, markers or monuments can get "lost." This bill seems to be designed to prevent that. That's the reason I support it.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Usually, yes.



Maybe its because I visit a number of courthouses, but I always stop for a moment and admire the monuments. I did it in Indiana and I continue to do so in Tennessee.



Well,I don't think monument advocate would mind moving a monument to a position of equal prominence. Let me give a personal example. There used to be a historical marker commemorating Morgan's August 22, 1862 raid of Gallatin at the corner of Highway 25 and East Main. It was knocked down a few years ago and the city decided that they didn't want to put it back up because it was a traffic hazard. It supposedly went to the city warehouse where it since has been lost. Our SCV camp is now trying to replace the marker, have moved a bit so it isn't a traffic hazard, but that the military action can be commemorated. If things are moved willy-nilly, markers or monuments can get "lost." This bill seems to be designed to prevent that. That's the reason I support it.

Because you are commenting here, your level of interest is greater than the average citizen.

The court houses I visit, just have parking lots.
courthouse.jpg



I doubt the bill will help much. Equal prominence is the eye of a court. The penalty could be $1000 or 1$, a year less a day in jail or a suspended sentence. Damaged monuments get moved to storage pending restoration and still get lost.
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
Because you are commenting here, your level of interest is greater than the average citizen.

The court houses I visit, just have parking lots. View attachment 10830


I doubt the bill will help much. Equal prominence is the eye of a court. The penalty could be $1000 or 1$, a year less a day in jail or a suspended sentence. Damaged monuments get moved to storage pending restoration and still get lost.

Well, I reckon we visit different court houses.

Expired Image Removed
Trousdale County Courthouse, Hartsville, Tennessee

Expired Image Removed
Macon County Courthouse, Lafayette, Tennessee

Expired Image Removed
Robertson County Courthouse, Springfield, Tennessee
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Well, I reckon we visit different court houses.

Expired Image Removed
Trousdale County Courthouse, Hartsville, Tennessee

Macontncourthouse.jpg

Macon County Courthouse, Lafayette, Tennessee

robertson.jpg

Robertson County Courthouse, Springfield, Tennessee

Yep don't have much need to get up into Tennessee on courthouse stuff.

This is the best I can do.

Expired Image Removed
Shelby County Alabama Courthouse.

Monuments decked out for memorial day.

Expired Image Removed
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
CMWinkler, No problem. It is always good to talk, even when we cannot agree.

On this sentiment, CMWinkler, I am in total agreement. It is always a pleasure to converse with you about the various topics we discuss on this forum.

Let me reiterate: "No one is telling anyone what to think, or even for that matter, what to feel."

Of course they (the SCV) are. It is stating that Confederate monuments are far more important in value, historical or otherwise, than the local community can be trusted with. It states that it's feelings about these monuments, no matter where they are in the State of Georgia, are far more important than the local communities feelings are about them. Call it what you will, but it is an attempt to deny one segment of the population from having any opinion or thought on the matter.

Again, I completely disagree. The SCV is doing nothing more than to exercise its right in a democracy to use the political system to address a problem it perceives to exist. If they fail to garner the necessary political support the bill will fail. Though, succeed or fail, they are NOT doing what you describe.

I will concede the irony of the SCV seeking its right in a democracy to use the political system to deny others rights to present views on this topic. It is my hope that it will not get the political support and it will fail. And my view is they are trying to circumvent others will on the subject.

Seeking to preserve monuments does not tell people what to think or feel.

Of course it does. The sole purpose of monuments is to celebrate a point of view, to make a statement, to call attention to a past act or to put an ideal on a higher plain.

They seek to preserve something.

Agreed. Feelings, memory, a historical point of view, etc.

How that something is interpreted is very much up to the local people.

Not if this bill is passed.

Let's take an example, shall we?

Of course.

You have say a monument to Confederate troops sitting on the courthouse lawn. The local community now feels the monument celebrates all that is evil in the world. Nothing in this proposed bill would prevent the community from putting up interpretive signage with their point of view or to have someone who tells anyone who comes to see the monument how very evil each and every Confederate was. In short, simply preserving the monument and requiring its display, does not tell folks what they should think or feel.

But, it cannot be removed or put in another setting, so I must be constantly reminded of a monument that in their view represents all that is evil in the world every day I pass it, a constant reminder that never leaves, because a certain group has completely other feelings about it, a group that doesn't even live in my town.


There is a movement to remove Confederate rememberage from the scene, yes. As to how extensive it is, I really can't say. Clearly, bills don't get introduced in the legislature absent some perceived need.

There is, in my own view, an attempt to distance some towns, schools, etc., from association from a past that no longer reflects the attitudes and goals of the present. That to honor that past by way of old names and monuments no longer reflects modern attitudes. In most cases the people decide that issue without having to involve the legislature or a special interest group with a "perceived need."


Again, Union, if this bill passes it is NOT the SCV running roughshod or any other way over anyone.

Who pushed this legislation? Who went to the legislature to get help to introduce it as a bill? Who perceives this as a "need?" The SCV from what I have read (along with the Sons of the American Revolution organization, of which I wonder how many are also SCV members?).

It is the state legislature. One would think if community feeling was so strong, it would transform itself into political action. As to the rest, as I said, the bill simply preserves the monument, as to how the community wishes to interpret it is up to them.

So half a loaf is better than deciding you want to pass on the bread altogether. Sorry, but the bill's clear intent is to ensure the monuments are never moved or emplaced elsewhere no matter how the community feels about such.


I said "With your way of thinking we should never bother to remember because it will make no difference anyway."

I don't think that is my way of thinking on the matter or rememberance.


I never said you said it. I said if monuments can be removed at a whim of public opinion, there is no point in puttiong up monuments to anyone or anything. I stand by that statement.

I said "We shouldn't preserve battlefields, cemeteries or anything else as they are simply reminders of things we prefer not to remember."

The public will remember what they want to remember. I don't know how many times I have dispaired at a presentation I have given on the American Civil War and just how lacking in historical knowledge the general public is on just the basics of that period. The need is more for education than there is for a back-door "gotcha" on Confederate monuments

Again, Union, I never said you said it. I said it. It seems to be the logical extension of what you said. As to minority dictating, sometimes, under our system we can and must. If the majority doesn't like what I say they cannot, under our system, silence me. It is dictated that I, as a minority, cannot be silenced by the majority. Welcome to a constitutional republic.

So then the flip side is somehow better? A minority dictating to a majority? This bill seems to want to head in this direction. I have no problem with the SCV shouting from the roof tops that Confederate monuments should be protected as a part of this nation's history and heritage. No one is stopping them from stating such and trying to gather support from local communities to join them in their effort. What smacks of unfairness is the attempt to silence a majority's response to the "perceived need."


Again, despite your attempt to do so, no one is legislating thought.

Again, it is exactly what it is.

If you see a Confederate monument you are perfectly free to despise it and everything for which you think it stands. What the bill seeks to do is to tell you that simply because you despise something doesn't mean you can remove it.

And why can't I if I dispise it to that point?

Tyranny?

Yes.

Really?

Really.

You seem to have a heightened sense of tyranny. Based upon your definition, I expect that you see tyranny all around you.

I have a heightened sense of resistance to a small group of outsiders telling me what to think about an issue in my own hometown without having any say in the matter.

Nothing about this bill tells you what to think.

Of course it does. It tells me no matter what I think, no matter what I know, no matter what I feel about having a Confederate monument in my town, a bunch of outsiders consider our monument too valuable, too important for me and my fellow citizens to have any say about it.

Your attempt to suggest otherwise, notwithstanding.

To me it is a simple statement of fact.

Nonsense.

Depends on if one likes having their hands tied or their voices silenced.

Well, I think your view of this bill is askew from its realitity.

It seemed pretty clear when I read it.

Boy, you're really hung up on this sense of tyranny by a minority.

I am, as a matter of fact. I've never really liked the idea of a stranger telling me what to do in my own back yard.

My experience with the political system is that if unpopular bills are passed then the people rise up and they are repealed.

Like Prohibition? One can only hope between the passage and the repeal, there is not too much damage done.

My guess is that if this passes, and I hope that does, I expect that it well be met by a groundswell of indifference.

The indifference will more than likely be due to a definate lack of history education in that groundswell.

You though are, of course, free to gather your like minded folks and protest, agitate and do whatever you'd like to change the law so that no monument, no remembrance is safe from the whims of the moment.

I had already attempted to do such here in Ohio concerning a Confederate monument, of a sort. I, and some others, did our best to preserve the Buffington Island battlefield in southern Ohio, the only Civil War battlefield in the state. The State of Ohio was going to award a contract to a gravel company to tear up the battlefield so that jobs could be created in the region. There were reports of perhaps 35 Confedrate soldiers buried on that site in unmarked graves, right where the gravel company wanted to begin operations. When my Union reenacting group heard of what was going to happen, we protested on the Ohio Statehouse grounds to save the battlefield. We marched through downtown Columbus to get to the Statehouse with other reenacting groups, and we even had a member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to come out and protest with us. Other members contacted their representatives trying to stop the legislation. We all felt that the brave men who had died so far from home for a cause they believed in, should not have their bones become part of a modern-day asphalt road.

We lost.

The funny thing was, the company that got the contrract was supposed to bring in jobs for the local population. It ended up sending an out-of-state company to dig for the gravel.

I have not once advocated any changes in the law so "that no monument, no remembrance is safe from the whims of the moment."

What I have advocated is letting people decide their own fate over whatever issue faces them. Right or wrong, it is their right.

Always a pleasure.

For me also.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I had already attempted to do such here in Ohio concerning a Confederate monument, of a sort. I, and some others, did our best to preserve the Buffington Island battlefield in southern Ohio, the only Civil War battlefield in the state. The State of Ohio was going to award a contract to a gravel company to tear up the battlefield so that jobs could be created in the region. There were reports of perhaps 35 Confedrate soldiers buried on that site in unmarked graves, right where the gravel company wanted to begin operations. When my Union reenacting group heard of what was going to happen, we protested on the Ohio Statehouse grounds to save the battlefield. We marched through downtown Columbus to get to the Statehouse with other reenacting groups, and we even had a member of the United Daughters of the Confederacy to come out and protest with us. Other members contacted their representatives trying to stop the legislation. We all felt that the brave men who had died so far from home for a cause they believed in, should not have their bones become part of a modern-day asphalt road.

We lost.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

The Warrior's Honor: Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience p113

bones.jpg

bones2.jpg
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Memphis renames 3 parks that honored Confederacy - Yahoo! News

Memphis, Tenn.

The City Council voted Monday to change the names of three parks that honor the Confederacy and two of its notable members.

The council passed a resolution to immediately rename Confederate Park and Jefferson Davis Park in downtowm Memphis and Nathan Bedford Forrest Park, which lies just a few miles away. The vote was 9-0 with three members sitting out the vote.

The resolution changes the name of Confederate Park to Memphis Park; Jefferson Davis Park to Mississippi River Park; and Nathan Bedford Forrest Park to Health Sciences Park.

The name changes upset those who believe the council is trying to change history by downplaying the significance of the Confederacy's struggle against Union forces. It was applauded by at least one civil rights activist.

The council already had been considering changing the name of the park honoring Forrest, a Confederate cavalryman and former slave trader who was a member of the early Ku Klux Klan. He also is accused of massacring dozens of black Union soldiers who tried to surrender at the battle at Fort Pillow in 1864. Davis was president of the Confederacy.

The idea for the resolution to change the name of all three parks emerged Monday morning, after council members learned of a state House bill that would prevent parks named after historical military figures from being renamed.

The bill was seen by the council as unnecessary interference by state lawmakers. Because a House vote is likely several days away, the council voted on a resolution to remove the military names and go with more generic ones, giving them time to decide on new park names without worrying about state action.

The Sons of Confederate Veterans and others in Memphis oppose the name changes, saying that Forrest is a misunderstood figure who was not a racist but a businessman who treated his slaves humanely and resigned from the Klan.

"We should cherish the history that we have, we shouldn't cover it up and try to bury it or hide it," said Becky Muska, who spoke against the name change.

Muska, who is white, acknowledges that Memphis is a racially divided city. So does Kennith Van Buren, a civil rights advocate who supports the name changes.

"These three parks have a racial history that should be erased," said Van Buren, who is black. "These parks are an embarrassment to our city."

Forrest Park, which is the burial place of the former Memphis resident, has long been a source of argument in Memphis. The shady, city block-sized park features a large statue of the Confederate lieutenant general, who won several key Civil War battles.

The park is located a few miles from the old Lorraine Hotel, where civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in 1968.

http://news.yahoo.com/memphis-renames-3-parks-honored-confederacy-010653790.html

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).

RobertP

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Nov 11, 2009
Location
Dallas
When your city is dysfunctional, the crime rate is soaring and the public school system is in tatters one can always play the race card to divert attention from the real problems. And that is the bottom line.
 
Top