Restricted House to vote on removal of Roger B. Taney bust and other Confederate statues

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
As are many more past and current events and ideology's. Which post 1900 and politics is generally prohibited.

But would think the exception for this forum allows limited examples. But from what I have seen the call of removal of some of the monuments in this thread isn't based on that they weren't great Americans historically, or that the nation did not benefit as a whole, but from a self serving victimhood of those groups calling for removals.
For the longest time, there was only one group that had any power. Now that's changed, and other groups are making their voices heard and their influence felt. Rather than accepting a victim status, they are pushing and making changes to the country.

And that bothers the old group.
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Claiming to be related to a Confederate general has become quite popular these days - whether it's Edmund Pettus or Robert E. Lee.
I see the fake descendant of Lee is making the rounds again...

"The Rev. Rob Lee, who spoke out against Birmingham’s Confederate monument in 2018 while claiming to be a relative of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee, is not related to the general, The Washington Post has reported.
Lee, pastor of Unifour Church in Newton, N.C., is related to a Confederate soldier named Robert S. Lee, who was from Alabama, but has no ancestral ties to the Confederate general, The Post reported."
https://www.al.com/life/2021/05/pas...lee-ancestry-debunked-by-washington-post.html

fake.jpg
 
Last edited:

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
The hundreds of thousands who would come to DC to look at statuary would get several minutes of history from tour guides for each statue to fill them in on American history.

One can absolutely hate John C Calhoun and the rest on this list. But, one can't with a straight face say his story isn't vital to understanding the development and history of the nation.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
For the longest time, there was only one group that had any power. Now that's changed, and other groups are making their voices heard and their influence felt. Rather than accepting a victim status, they are pushing and making changes to the country.

And that bothers the old group.
So you are also saying it is a self serving victimhood based on the past........I agreed, however removing statues doesn't change the past at all. Nor have I seen any evidence provided of it addressing the real issues facing communities today. Would think anyone interested in history realizes that.

Again many of the figures that have been mentioned in the the thread were great Americans, their actions benefited the nation as a whole, and are and were historically significant. One can peruse the thread and easily see this is larger then ex confederates in figures who have been under fire.

Whether a figure was pro slavery or pro manifest destiny a century or centuries ago, doesn't change their relevance to our history at all. In fact would think it's rather impossible to assert we would be where we are today, without those past events.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
So you are also saying it is a self serving victimhood based on the past........I agreed, however removing statues doesn't change the past at all. Nor have I seen any evidence provided of it addressing the real issues facing communities today. Would think anyone interested in history realizes that.

Again many of the figures that have been mentioned in the the thread were great Americans, their actions benefited the nation as a whole, and are and were historically significant. One can peruse the thread and easily see this is larger then ex confederates in figures who have been under fire.

Whether a figure was pro slavery or pro manifest destiny a century or centuries ago, doesn't change their relevance to our history at all. In fact would think it's rather impossible to assert we would be where we are today, without those past events.
Their "relevance to our history" is why they're being removed from being publicly honored. Being "historically significant" is not the same as being worthy to be publicly honored.
 
Joined
Jan 28, 2021
For the longest time, there was only one group that had any power. Now that's changed, and other groups are making their voices heard and their influence felt. Rather than accepting a victim status, they are pushing and making changes to the country.

And that bothers the old group.
define 'old group'
That would be historian prior to (what year)___?
 

Paul Yancey

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Location
Kentucky
I guess the really relevant question is who exactly is making the decision on what statues to remove and what "prominent residents" will replace the current statues. What criteria will be used to determine who is worthy to have their statue in Washington? Most likely some committee appointed by the governors of the individual states will make the decision with zero input from the citizens.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Their "relevance to our history" is why they're being removed from being publicly honored. Being "historically significant" is not the same as being worthy to be publicly honored.
Seems to me your just playing word games now.

Figures that are historically significant are worthy of being marked, noted and publicly commentated for their significance. Whether you wish to impart some sense of "honor" to a statue or a person is up to the individual.

Unless one views our country today as irrelevant or insignificant, those who founded and shaped it would be quite relevant and significant still to our country today. So unless we are going to have no statues or memorials to anyone, people have to accept people are not perfect, a flaw here is separate and does not erase greatness elsewhere in their lives.
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I guess the really relevant question is who exactly is making the decision on what statues to remove and what "prominent residents" will replace the current statues. What criteria will be used to determine who is worthy to have their statue in Washington? Most likely some committee appointed by the governors of the individual states will make the decision with zero input from the citizens.
That was certainly the case in Virginia. Barbara Johns replacing Robert E Lee..?! The overwhelming majority of Virginians had to google her name.

There were plenty of historically significant Virginians worthy of the honor over her. Several Presidents: Thomas Jefferson, William Harrison, James Madison, James Monroe, Zachary Taylor, John Tyler, Woodrow Wilson. Even other Virginians known nationally as, Patrick Henry, Booker T. Washington, & Sam Houston (born in same county I live in).

Modern political ideology is what it's about. It's all a sham, & dishonest.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Seems to me your just playing word games now.

Figures that are historically significant are worthy of being marked, noted and publicly commentated for their significance. Whether you wish to impart some sense of "honor" to a statue or a person is up to the individual.

Unless one views our country today as irrelevant or insignificant, those who founded and shaped it would be quite relevant and significant still to our country today. So unless we are going to have no statues or memorials to anyone, people have to accept people are not perfect, a flaw here is separate and does not erase greatness elsewhere in their lives.
There are people who are historically significant that don't deserve public honors or public commemoration. I'm sure that almost anyone can name bad people in history that don't deserve to be publicly honored, but are considered historically significant. Think of genocidal or authoritarian or terrorist leaders. I'm not sure why you would consider that word games. It seems pretty obvious.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
There are people who are historically significant that don't deserve public honors or public commemoration. I'm sure that almost anyone can name bad people in history that don't deserve to be publicly honored, but are considered historically significant. Think of genocidal or authoritarian or terrorist leaders. I'm not sure why you would consider that word games. It seems pretty obvious.
Yes but hardly put our founders, presidents, or most named in this forum in that category. Sherman, Sheridan, Custer would come the closest from Indian wars, but still seems rather poor comparison.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
They might I guess, but in reality the number of people in US history who made genocidal statements or actions is rather limited.

Though I do agree with your earlier suggestion that genocide should be a primary disqualifier, and it is indeed hard to separate that United States manifest destiny realistically had genocidal elements and similarity. As is that without manifest destiny the United States wouldn't exist........so as I have said previously it would seem if one views the United States as a good or bad thing today, would be the primary determiner if one views what actually allowed historically the creation and development of the United States as good or bad.

Because if one believes we are indeed good, arguably the best or amongst the best nations of all time, what it would take to create and get us here would be good things in the end.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
They might I guess, but in reality the number of people in US history who made genocidal statements or actions is rather limited.

Though I do agree with your earlier suggestion that genocide should be a primary disqualifier, and it is indeed hard to separate that United States manifest destiny realistically had genocidal elements and similarity. As is that without manifest destiny the United States wouldn't exist........so as I have said previously it would seem if one views the United States as a good or bad thing today, would be the primary determiner if one views what actually allowed historically the creation and development of the United States as good or bad.

Because if one believes we are indeed good, arguably the best or amongst the best nations of all time, what it would take to create and get us here would be good things in the end.
The reasons for not publicly honoring someone aren't limited to genocide.

And it's about individuals, not the nation. There are good people in bad nations, and bad people in good nations. The topic is about publicly honoring individuals, and deciding whether they really deserve it or not.
 
Top