Limited Protesters push to take down Confederate monuments from Gettysburg

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
No removal, no defacing but adding additional information or context. Now, by saying no removal I am meaning without a public vote to decide. Arbitrary removal by politicians is not compromise. Battlefield monuments placed by and paid for by the citizens of individual states MUST (in my opinion) only be removed or altered by a majority vote of the populace of that state.
Compromise must be a give and take with both sides being willing to participate.

If contextual signage was to be added, I'd expect it to be as neutral and factual as possible.
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
What is your understanding of the compromise offered by those who wish the monuments removed entirely?
There are some that hold that view. But I remember reading on a news site about park service plans to add additional signage to Gettysburg confederate monuments. So it's not all one extreme or the other.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
There are some that hold that view. But I remember reading on a news site about park service plans to add additional signage to Gettysburg confederate monuments. So it's not all one extreme or the other.
That doesn't answer my question. What do YOU understand the compromise offered by those who wish them removed?

Also, I should have pointed this out as well: you wrote (I quoted you above) that Viper is saying "no compromise" and then state what you understand his "acceptable compromise " to be. You therefore contradict yourself. Which is it, no compromise or an acceptable compromise?
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
That doesn't answer my question. What do YOU understand the compromise offered by those who wish them removed?

Also, I should have pointed this out as well: you wrote (I quoted you above) that Viper is saying "no compromise" and then state what you understand his "acceptable compromise " to be. You therefore contradict yourself. Which is it, no compromise or an acceptable compromise?
No, I said Viper was saying "no compromise."

And Papa Reb was saying additional signage as an "acceptable compromise."

Regarding compromises by those who want them removed... I'm sure there are some who simply want all confederate monuments removed from public land and destroyed, never to be displayed again. And then there are some who are open to compromises, like additional signage, or modification of Lost Cause wording, or some other compromise. But changes are coming, as we've seen. And the more recalcitrant one side or the other is to compromise, then the more likely that they are not going to be happy with the changes.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
No, I said Viper was saying "no compromise."
I said no compromising in cemeteries. I said little compromising in Battlefields, with the caveat that IF they are to be altered, we should ALL have a say in it.

Honestly, the idea of touching a monument in a cemetery, is repulsive to me. To remove or reinterpret one in a National Battlefield that has stood for decades, I find pretty disturbing.

It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
It's not my view and I am of the view it is a majority view.
Polls have actually suggested that's not clear cut at all, several have shown nationally the majority against removal, and all indicate it's close either way, much less if one wants to gerrymander to individual states, counties, or municipality
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I have no issue with additional signage if applied impartially as it should be.

If someone feels an additional sign was needed added at GB to say the Confederate cause included slavery.....it would likewise be needed for any Union reference to cause as well, as it was still being protected in the Union.

But this whole route would lead to all kinds of other areas, such any WW1 or II memorial, would they need "contextual" signs for segregation?
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Polls have actually suggested that's not clear cut at all, several have shown nationally the majority against removal, and all indicate it's close either way, much less if one wants to gerrymander to individual states, counties, or municipality
I disagree.

I am of the view there are two minorities on either side of the issue, with a vast, disinterested, uninformed, majority in the middle.
 

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
I disagree.

I am of the view there are two minorities on either side of the issue, with a vast, disinterested, uninformed, majority in the middle.
I actually tend to agree with you for a change, although I do think the removal minority is a lot smaller than the leave 'em crowd as well as more aggressive. So all is not lost; we can still disagree as to the nature of the two minorities. :wink:
 
Last edited:
Top