GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   Chit Chat (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=185)
-   -   Civil War Statues? (http://www.greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=233746)

Tom Earp 08-21-2017 02:17 PM

Civil War Statues?
 
There is a lot of vandalism going on along with march's, protest with violence!

Has P CNess come amok of something that happened years ago? I am becoming very sad about all of this and do not know what to say?? Early Americans became terrorists against England to found America that we live in today.
Removing statues and names of Southern Soldiers is erasing our history that happened and can never be changed.

If anyone has visited any of the Civil War Battle fields know how somber the feeling is being there and I have been to many. It was a hard decision to make for the South to leave the Union but it was for many reasons.

So, what are your thoughts?

AZTheta 08-21-2017 02:57 PM

Tom, usually I scroll past your posts. This one I cannot let go without commenting: please, for the love of Mike, do more extensive reading and research before hitting the keyboard.

The statues were erected during the Jim Crow era, for starters. This has NOTHING to do with "PCNess" as you simplify it. Good grief. As for Early Americans becoming terrorists, are you talking about the Native Americans whose land our forefathers stole? Oh you forgot that, right?

Yes, I have visited battlefields. Heartbreaking. For future reference: please avoid false equivalencies. To wit: here's a question for you: should we erect a statue to Bin Laden? Or McVeigh? That's part of our history, too.

Popcorn and soda, settling in on the sofa.

luv n tpa 08-21-2017 03:22 PM

How much I hate the phrase "erasing history." History cannot be erased.

Also, +1 AZTheta.

naraht 08-21-2017 06:06 PM

Just to set it as a marker, I did find the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan to be heartbreaking.

However so many of the Robert E. Lee statues are identical (and ordered from *Northern* foundaries!), I'd be *quite* happy with agreeing to keep 10 of each of the identical statues and offering the remainder up for auction to be placed anywhere on private land that the winners wanted.

For the most part, OTOH, I'm better with statues on battlefield national parks. The fact that there is a status of Lee at Gettysburg where the Confederate Troops were camped/are buried seems considerably less of a problem.

Yes, I agree that Stone Mountain is going to be problematic, but I'm quite willing to put that one off if other things are being dealt with...

TLLK 08-21-2017 06:33 PM

If a governing body takes the time to thoroughly discuss the future of the statues in public places and ultimately believes that it is better to see them removed from said space, then I do believe that is the right thing to do. They could be returned to the original sponsors ie: Daughters of the Confederacy, gifted to a museum or donated to another private organization.

Now like naharat I do believe that there is value in retaining the monuments at Civil War battlefields and I'll add in cemeteries as well.

However I am concerned at the vandalism and toppling of the statues/monuments that has taken place recently. Some of were to recognize the peace made after the end of the war ie: Peace Monument in Piedmont Park, Atlanta. Also a monument to those who perished at the site of a former Union Army POW camp was also vandalized recently.

ASTalumna06 08-21-2017 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by luv n tpa (Post 2439138)
How much I hate the phrase "erasing history." History cannot be erased.

Thank you! I've said this to so many people as of late. Unless someone has a time machine that I'm unaware of, there's no "erasing" history.

Benzgirl 08-21-2017 08:37 PM

A lot of the monuments are being placed in museums. That is not erasing history, but putting them where they belong to preserve history to those who wish to see it and away from public eyes.

AGDee 08-21-2017 11:18 PM

Someone I know said it this way on Facebook:
If someone kidnapped your child and sold them, where would you want us to put the statue of that person?

Kevin 08-22-2017 12:52 AM

This is probably not the best place to air those views next to your letters, Tom.

Robert E. Lee didn't want the monuments. Building monuments to the protectors of the institution of slavery was never a good idea. Taking those monuments down is a great idea.

Tom Earp 08-22-2017 02:29 PM

I posted this to discuss the situations going on today. yes this is a hot button, but thinking we are all adults here, some good input. Just looking at all of the goings on with riots from marches.

If anyone is embarresed about it, then let the discussion die.

Yes, it was a very dark time in American History where more men were killed than any war ever.

Remember, not all USCA were not all slave holders or forced to fight for their beliefs. Brothers battled Brothers for what they thought of their right to govern themselves than be subject to Northern over rule. So, maybe enough is enough!

Kevin 08-22-2017 03:28 PM

The statues were built mostly during the 1900-1930 era when the KKK was at full power in the South. If these statues were to honor great men, where are the statues of Ulysses Grant and Lincoln on the Ole Miss campus? At least they won their wars.

JonInKC 08-22-2017 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2439262)
The statues were built mostly during the 1900-1930 era when the KKK was at full power in the South. If these statues were to honor great men, where are the statues of Ulysses Grant and Lincoln on the Ole Miss campus? At least they won their wars.

Apparently many people with my last name (which is not an extremely common one like Jones or Smith) fought in the Civil War, more for the South, but many for the North as well. And all of them are considered veterans by the United States government.

Kevin 08-22-2017 10:03 PM

The fact that Congress recognized them in 1958 IN 1958 as veterans for the sole purpose of awarding pensions to veterans and their widows does not change history. It was done not only nearly a century after the surrender, but was only done for the limited purpose of awarding pensions by conferring status for that purpose. There is not a whisper of the word "pardon" in the statute and it certainly doesn't make them the same as veterans of the United States (for anything but a limited purpose).

Further, these statues were almost all built well before the 1958 statute was passed. Federal law does not protect Confederate monuments or the graves of Confederate soldiers.

These men were traitors to their country and they lost the war. It is pretty typical for winners of wars to tear down the monuments of their enemies the moment they are able to do so.

For example...

http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-con...dam_Statue.jpg

I think a good argument can be made that these things need to be preserved and kept somewhere for historical purposes. But they don't belong in the public square. There's no good argument for that.

Hell.. there are a few of these things in my State and Oklahoma wasn't even a state in the Civil War although the last Confederate General to surrender was Stand Watie, who not coincidentally owned hundreds of slaves.

JonInKC 08-22-2017 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2439305)
The fact that Congress recognized them in 1958 IN 1958 as veterans for the sole purpose of awarding pensions to veterans and their widows does not change history. It was done not only nearly a century after the surrender, but was only done for the limited purpose of awarding pensions by conferring status for that purpose. There is not a whisper of the word "pardon" in the statute and it certainly doesn't make them the same as veterans of the United States (for anything but a limited purpose).

Further, these statues were almost all built well before the 1958 statute was passed. Federal law does not protect Confederate monuments or the graves of Confederate soldiers.

These men were traitors to their country and they lost the war. It is pretty typical for winners of wars to tear down the monuments of their enemies the moment they are able to do so.

For example...

http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-con...dam_Statue.jpg

I think a good argument can be made that these things need to be preserved and kept somewhere for historical purposes. But they don't belong in the public square. There's no good argument for that.

Hell.. there are a few of these things in my State and Oklahoma wasn't even a state in the Civil War although the last Confederate General to surrender was Stand Watie, who not coincidentally owned hundreds of slaves.

Interesting. So how do you feel about traitors like George Washington?

naraht 08-22-2017 11:06 PM

Would people rather see a statue of a Union Soldier who owned slaves or Confederate Soldier who didn't. (Both situations did occur, mostly in the border states, but I'm not sure the highest rank held by soldiers in these situations.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:52 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.