Discussion in 'Campfire Chat - General Discussions' started by kepi, Mar 17, 2017.
I applaud you sir. And I could not agree with you more thank you for the thread and the honesty they do say the truth shall set you free may be it's beginning to. Some people may take a little time but in the end I believe we all believe in treating each other equally and that starts with the removal of some monuments.
Yeah, fighting for your country and your state, no honor there.
This opinion seems like a stab at revisionist history to me. Sure, the south was defeated. Sure, the south's anchor point of slavery can never be justified. But this conflict is part of our history. If we "sanitize" our cities by removing monuments, we are not serving history. In my opinion, it's far better to have our monuments...along with an accurate history which accurately shows why the monuments were erected, and why we have moved beyond that now.
I don't mind them taking down monuments that specifically glorify the government of the Confederacy. There's nothing honorable about that. I just have a problem with them possibly taking down monuments honoring the fallen soldiers in the future. It's a slippery slope. If it was up to me I'd say leave the Beauregard statue since he was from Louisiana but ditch the others as they have no relevance to that state or city. Just my 2 cents.
I'm glad to see the letter writer acknowledge "that these monuments should be preserved. They do have a place in our history." As to whether they stay where they are or get moved somewhere else, that's entirely up to the people of New Orleans, IMO.
The writer says the following:
Somehow in the South we have allowed the truth about the Confederacy to be minimized and skewed toward something honorable.
A lot of what the Confederates did, such as fighting for home and the freedom they felt had been handed down to them was honorable. Some of what they did was not. Kind of like the rest of American history. Ask the Indians how they feel about the United States flag, or ask the slaves what flag flew over the ships that brought them here. The Confederates are singled out because they were on the losing side, not because they were any better or worse than the rest of America.
Thankfully many of the seceding states made their reason for secession crystal clear themselves in documents known as Declarations of Causes of Seceding States. Each state identified the same reason -- slavery.
This is the lazy man's approach to studying the cause. In the first place, the secessionists wrote a lot more about their reasons and beliefs than just the declarations of causes, so why confine yourself to those? And second, all the causes don't consist of just the word "slavery". There's a lot more there, particularly in SC's declaration.
The writer says that it wasn't about economics, but then he goes on to quote Mississippi "the greatest material interest of the world." Translation: slavery is worth more money than anything else. Sure looks like economics factors into it to me.
There's nothing new or original in this letter to the editor. It's the standard shallow cookie cutter "the Confederacy wuz bad" reasoning.
Specifically the freedom to deny freedom to others. Something to be proud of.
They seem to feel it's fine.
No, they're singled out because they committed treason against the United States in order to protect slavery and white supremacy from what they perceived to be a threat.
Hmm. If over 90% of the document says slavery, why do we choose to focus on the 1-9% that is peripheral to, and still related to, slavery?
Most people would understand that by "economics" he's referring to the red herrings of tariffs and internal improvements.
Yeah, committing treason against the United States because you think slavery and white supremacy might be in danger is such a good thing.
There is no honor in treason - yes treason. Every confederate was in all respects a traitor. Our Constitution states that treason consists of making war on the United States; adhering to those who make war on the United States; or giving aid and comfort to those who make war on the United States. Every former confederate fits one or more of those categories. Honor?
Maybe there is a compromise we all agree on. If the majority of voters in a given muncipaly, county or state want to get rid of their publicly funded Civil War monuments on either side that's their choice. If a given municipality wants to build or allow Civil War monuments then who ever so desires can boycott said municipality.
One thing is for certain U.S. demographics are changing fast. So if Confederate monuments are going to stay pro Confederate folks need to have a conversation with those that don't look like them. Sorry about the underlining darn phone!
Well said. Who was first to say that we can disagree without being disagreeablr? Even in 21st century divided America.
The General Amnesty of December 25, 1868, pardoned all Confederates. Those who were pardoned are not traitors....stop the juvenile "traitor" argument.
They were pardoned but still traitors. A pardon means they were forgiven, not that they magically didn't commit the crime. Learn what a pardon does and doesn't do.
Congress shall make no ex post facto laws. You don't get to say after the fact that means they weren't traitors at the time that they were making war on the United States. The fact that someone had to pardon them does not excuse or mitigate treason.
Do you gentleman agree with the proposition that it's up to the local voters of a given entity to determine what if any Civil War monuments should or should not be placed on public land and or publicly funded?
My treason accusation is neither juvenile nor an argument. I stated a fact. I did not moot an argument. Hell, Jefferson Davis defiantly declared that he was proud of his treason. Many southerners who participated in the war expressed their opinions that their own actions were treasonous. Many people have received pardons for criminal offenses. Their pardons did not erase their crimes they were merely forgiven.
Absolutely I agree it's up to the local people. And if we notice, the letter writer in the OP is a local.
Yes. But the original question was do the leaders of the confederacy deserve monuments.
"The fact that someone had to pardon them does not excuse or mitigate treason."
Respectfully, it did excuse it. I know of no private soldier to be imprisoned or executed after the war for treason.
At this point, I will politely bow out of further discussion, as I do not expect to change your mind anymore than I expect you'll change mine. I do appreciate and respect your opinion, however.
Separate names with a comma.