Restricted Poll on removal of Confederate Monuments,Memorials, and Statues

Should all Confederate Monuments, Memorials, and Statues be removed?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 2.4%
  • No

    Votes: 81 97.6%

  • Total voters
    83
  • Poll closed .
Joined
Apr 21, 2013
Location
Eastern NC
Remove the cb flag, the monuments of Lee, Davis, Forrest, and maybe Jackson. Fly the First National flag. The rest of the flags and monuments will be safe because "they" have no clue as to they are or what they represent. They will be safe.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Location
Texas
I'm curious as to those who see fit not to participate, what other options are you interested in seeing addressed. I'm curious as to where this middle ground is. I might be able to get their if I knew what we were discussing as compromise. As it is now the politics of the current frenzy are removal, New Orleans, Memphis, Birmingham etc. Where is the compromise of which you speak?
Leave them up and add interpretive waysides.
 

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
I've posted this article on another thread, but don't think it would be out of place on this one.

The Confederate Flag Debate is Revising Our Revisionist History, by Frank Scaturro.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/t...ising-our-revisionist-history/article/2568139

Sincerely,
Unionblue


Great article and in large enough print I could read without squinting........lol


1st National Confederate Flag   1.jpg

Respectfully,
William
 
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Location
Pacific Northwest
I just don't see why anything has to be moved. Why? because it hurts someone's PC attitude? Get over it! It was there before you, didn't bother anyone...move along now. I gotta stop, lol, everytime i go further I have to delete because it doesn't sound PC! LOL
Tex, that's pretty much what the "PC" crowd is telling you...Get over it!

We as a nation have split a complex question into binaries- it stays/it goes. No middle ground. Ironically, the people now questioning tolerance and compromise are the same ones who refused to do so over the last 50 years or so when the minority view questioned such displays; now they have the power, they're wielding it, and they're saying "get over it", "who cares what you think?" and so forth. It's not a particularly helpful tactic, but the hyper-partisans on both sides have turned this into a scorched-earth campaign.

I've tried for years to call for a dialogue over the best way to reconcile views on Confederate artifacts, seeing the demographic and political shifts looming on an ever-closer horizon. We are close to a tipping point where sheer numbers will allow the rabidly opposed to carry the day, not needing to be conciliatory or cooperative. Most people aren't interested in anything beyond sound bites, and it's really hard to find persuasive arguments for preserving Confederate legacies in 140 characters or less. "Get over it" and "Stop being PC" are honest, but not effective messaging.

Bottom line: can pro-Confederates mass enough to offset the anti-Confederates without moderating their message to reach the undecided in the middle?
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
I just don't see why anything has to be moved. Why? because it hurts someone's PC attitude? Get over it! It was there before you, didn't bother anyone...move along now. I gotta stop, lol, everytime i go further I have to delete because it doesn't sound PC! LOL

This business about PC is a load of BS. You say they didnt bother anyone before, but that wasnt the case. These things have bothered people for a long long time. People moan about how this discussion divides -- we have been divided a long long time. I say to you, if the monument/flag whatever is to be moved, get over it.
 

Jamieva

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Location
Midlothian, VA
I just don't see why anything has to be moved. Why? because it hurts someone's PC attitude? Get over it! It was there before you, didn't bother anyone...move along now. I gotta stop, lol, everytime i go further I have to delete because it doesn't sound PC! LOL


if you don't think they bothered people when you went up i hate to inform you that you are incorrect.
 

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
Tex, that's pretty much what the "PC" crowd is telling you...Get over it!

We as a nation have split a complex question into binaries- it stays/it goes. No middle ground. Ironically, the people now questioning tolerance and compromise are the same ones who refused to do so over the last 50 years or so when the minority view questioned such displays; now they have the power, they're wielding it, and they're saying "get over it", "who cares what you think?" and so forth. It's not a particularly helpful tactic, but the hyper-partisans on both sides have turned this into a scorched-earth campaign.

I've tried for years to call for a dialogue over the best way to reconcile views on Confederate artifacts, seeing the demographic and political shifts looming on an ever-closer horizon. We are close to a tipping point where sheer numbers will allow the rabidly opposed to carry the day, not needing to be conciliatory or cooperative. Most people aren't interested in anything beyond sound bites, and it's really hard to find persuasive arguments for preserving Confederate legacies in 140 characters or less. "Get over it" and "Stop being PC" are honest, but not effective messaging.

Bottom line: can pro-Confederates mass enough to offset the anti-Confederates without moderating their message to reach the undecided in the middle?

Very well stated. Thank you.

Unfortunately, if such things are just put to a vote then it's entirely possible that 51% might tell 49% what's going to happen 100% of the time. If that happens we'll be just as divided - if not more so - than when we started out. As you've suggested, some type of reasoned compromise would be the best approach (in my opinion) but somehow I don't see that happening, at least not everywhere. There's always going to fringe groups that aren't interested in compromise and there'll always be politicians who pander to them.

That said, I also don't think there's much of a middle. Most people have no idea who those memorialized were or the history behind the memorials or the Civil War and they don't care. So it's likely to be a battle of words between the fringes.

That said, I really am out of discussion of this topic. Just wanted to say I thought your post was one of the more reasonable I've seen.
 

Youngblood

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
When i see something i dont like, or are offended by if you prefer, I do 'get over it'. I dont protest, make a scene, file a lawsuit, or ask my rep to make a law.

I simply would like the other side to, as you say, 'get over it'.

But they dont.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee

Jamieva

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Location
Midlothian, VA
When i see something i dont like, or are offended by if you prefer, I do 'get over it'. I dont protest, make a scene, file a lawsuit, or ask my rep to make a law.

I simply would like the other side to, as you say, 'get over it'.

But they dont.

Just because you don't, does not preclude them from doing so. They made their choice, you made yours. You don't like their way because you dont like their message.
 

Youngblood

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 26, 2015
I made that post because i was called on to get over it. Simply pointing out, i am.

I would rather we had thick skin and not go crying to the powers that be over every little thing we dont like.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lee
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Location
Pacific Northwest
But aren't you kinda doing the same thing in a way? Maybe you're not running to the "powers that be", whoever that is, but you're still using your freedom of speech to criticize their freedom of speech. The language is judgmental- "thick skin", "crying"- this indicates you don't consider their complaints legitimate- which isn't really your place to decide, any more than it's my place to decide if you are right or wrong. We all have a right to express how we feel about something, and we all have a right to decide on our own reactions. Where the rubber meets the road in all this is when you're trying to convince others- and this is the point which really seems to have a problem resonating. When you label someone as "whining" or "crying" or having "thin skin" or being "PC" or "offended" (which is required to have quotes for some reason, as though to say no reasonable person would have a problem with this), then your message becomes one of contemptuous dismissal. Strange as it may seem, some people tend to get their back up over this, and even if they had no dog in the fight will get involved just on principle.

The one thing that anti-CSA types have is an effective message, which stays on point and doesn't stray into personal attacks (generalizing of course, just as I'm generalizing that the pro-CSA types don't have this capability)...when the news displays two clips, in the interest of point/counterpoint, there's a reasonable guy talking about hate groups and opposition to integration and a violation of the law, etc. Then they bring up some guy in a CBF hat with a "Cold Dead Fingers" shirt/belt buckle, who runs on about people needing to "Get over it", "we were here first", how it's just "PC loonies", and so forth. Which message do you- do any of you- think will make the biggest impact? Which person will win over the most people to their viewpoint?

Right now, despite dire predictions of the pending apocalypse, this is really a battle between two fringes; as it drags on, and the lines harden, more and more people will be drawn into it. "With us or against us" doesn't go over well, no matter how cool it sounds. This fight for public space cannot be won through bellicose rhetoric and empty soundbites of bravado- it has to be one by reasoned discourse. But honestly, I'm starting to share @John Winn's battle fatigue. If it's that important, then maybe someone will take up the challenge. If not, enjoy the spotlight while it lasts.
 

distantinlaw

Private
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Confederate soldiers, sailors, and Marines who fought in the Civil war were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in in 1957, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Sec 410, which was approved 23 May, 1958. This made all Confederate Veterans equal to U.S. Veterans.

Before that, under U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by the 17th Congress on 26 Feb 1929 the War Department was directed to erect headstones and recognize Confederate grave sites as U.S. War dead grave sites. Just for the record the last Confederate veteran died in 1958. So, in essence, when you remove a Confederate statue, monument or headstone, you are in fact, removing a statue, monument or head stone of a U.S. VETERAN.” (a felony)
will we be one day faced with the question , do we tear down the wall in Washington ????
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Confederate soldiers, sailors, and Marines who fought in the Civil war were made U.S. Veterans by an act of Congress in in 1957, U.S. Public Law 85-425, Sec 410, which was approved 23 May, 1958. This made all Confederate Veterans equal to U.S. Veterans.

Before that, under U.S. Public Law 810, Approved by the 17th Congress on 26 Feb 1929 the War Department was directed to erect headstones and recognize Confederate grave sites as U.S. War dead grave sites. Just for the record the last Confederate veteran died in 1958. So, in essence, when you remove a Confederate statue, monument or headstone, you are in fact, removing a statue, monument or head stone of a U.S. VETERAN.” (a felony)
will we be one day faced with the question , do we tear down the wall in Washington ????

distantinlaw,

No, we are really NOT removing a monument of a U.S. VETERAN, unless you can point out that veteran's name on that monument, and when we think about it, if it is a Confederate statue, then shouldn't we consider the statue was placed in the name of a failed rebellion concerning the Confederacy?

I get the idea about their status, but I think, upon closer reading of the US Public Law, this would be more about their headstones in the cemeteries they are buried in, don't you think?

I did a little research and found most of your post above comes from an SCV website and then I began searching for the Public Law you said confers this status to Confederate monuments. The law doesn't say that at all.

Check out the following article over at the Crossroads blog.

Are Confederate Veterans American Veterans?

http://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/are-confederate-veterans-american-veterans/

When you get to this article, scroll down to the 14th post in the comments section and you will our own Andy Hall answer this question with a full meaning of the law.

It's an eye-opener.

As for The Wall in Washington, anyone calling for its removal or destruction of late?

Unionblue
 
Last edited:

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Is that Southron for "false dichotomy"?
Well iI had to look this up for a difinative answer.

di·chot·o·my
dīˈkädəmē/
noun
  1. a division or contrast between two things that are or are represented as being opposed or entirely different.
    "a rigid dichotomy between science and mysticism"
    synonyms: contrast, difference, polarity, conflict; More

    • BOTANY
      repeated branching into two equal parts.

You can use any word for any purpose but I use it as quickly getting to the point and I think you knew that! :smile:
 
Top