(September 11, 2017 at 9:29 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 8:13 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I'm gonna need a second opinion here.  Where's Mrs Minimalist?

Kept far away from message boards.

(September 11, 2017 at 7:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 7:08 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: We accept the paradox of Thomas Jefferson, still usually considered a great man, even though he owned slaves and helped, in his way, petpetuate a brutal system in spite of himself, and yet, for whatever reason the paradox of Robert E. Lee is too much for many people. I mean, I can understand ignoring Nathan Bedford Forrest's change of heart about race near the end of his life, but Lee?

The reason why they're regarded differently is because Jefferson did not take up arms against his country and his oath in order to defend slavery.

All men have flaws. The difference is that with some of them their flaws, egregious though they might be, aren't defended to the death.

Remember: he did not see it that way. He specifically stated that his reason for declining the command of the Army of the Potomac was because he could not bear to take up arms against his country. That country, however, was not the US, but Virginia. In his own words: "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?"

He lived in a time where Americans were more likely to consider themselves, for instance, an Illinoisan than American, or at least, consider themselves an American in the same way a German would consider themselves European; this was widespread enough that the whole "States Rights" explanation for the South's secession actually seemed plausible (in fact, the South was strongly pro-state's rights except, ironically, on one issue, and it's the exact one you're thinking of). And for better or for worse, that became less and less common after the Civil War.

I live in Chicago (well, technically, in the suburbs). I cannot remember meeting a single person who stated he considered himself an Illinoisan first and foremost and an American second. Well, maybe some might have said they preferred to think of themselves as Chicagoans first, but only because someone like Dubya or Trump was dropping the ball so bad that we became embarrassed by our own country, not because we seriously consider ourselves more loyal to the Chicago political machine than the U.S. Government.

I don't think any of that justifies maintaining statues of him on public grounds. Wherever his loyalties lay, we may be sure that his loyalty to his home state led him to taking up arms in service to an odious cause ... unlike Jefferson.

Put the statues in a museum.

(September 10, 2017 at 6:01 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:So maybe we should remove all statues and all monuments of every kind from all public funded properties, then? Is that what you're suggesting?

Good idea.  Start with all those fucking crosses littering the landscape.

I would support that one. On state/government land anyway.

(September 11, 2017 at 10:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I don't think any of that justifies maintaining statues of him on public grounds. Wherever his loyalties lay, we may be sure that his loyalty to his home state led him to taking up arms in service to an odious cause ... unlike Jefferson.

Put the statues in a museum.

Davis' cause was not exactly Lee's cause. Though no abolitionist, he did not seem to have any particular investment in the perpetuation of slavery, and even hoped that some day it would be abolished (although he expected that God would take his sweet-ass time on that). He even had his own slaves freed in 1862 (admittedly as part of his father-in-law's will), something even Thomas Jefferson failed to do. In the last days of the war, he even lobbied to allow the Confederate Army to allow black soldiers in combat. The war ended before they saw action. Useful idiot, perhaps, but I think "taking up arms in service of an odious cause" might be over-stretching it a bit, since it implies a sort of unanimity of purpose that simply isn't in the historical record.

(September 11, 2017 at 10:30 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

---

(September 11, 2017 at 7:30 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: The reason why they're regarded differently is because Jefferson did not take up arms against his country and his oath in order to defend slavery.

All men have flaws. The difference is that with some of them their flaws, egregious though they might be, aren't defended to the death.

---

Quote:Remember: he did not see it that way. He specifically stated that his reason for declining the command of the Army of the Potomac was because he could not bear to take up arms against his country. That country, however, was not the US, but Virginia. In his own words: "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?"

He lived in a time where Americans were more likely to consider themselves, for instance, an Illinoisan than American, or at least, consider themselves an American in the same way a German would consider themselves European; this was widespread enough that the whole "States Rights" explanation for the South's secession actually seemed plausible (in fact, the South was strongly pro-state's rights except, ironically, on one issue, and it's the exact one you're thinking of). And for better or for worse, that became less and less common after the Civil War.

I live in Chicago (well, technically, in the suburbs). I cannot remember meeting a single person who stated he considered himself an Illinoisan first and foremost and an American second. Well, maybe some might have said they preferred to think of themselves as Chicagoans first, but only because someone like Dubya or Trump was dropping the ball so bad that we became embarrassed by our own country, not because we seriously consider ourselves more loyal to the Chicago political machine than the U.S. Government.

The Civil War was the best thing that ever happened to America because it made it into an unified nation.

(September 11, 2017 at 10:51 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote:

(September 11, 2017 at 10:38 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: I don't think any of that justifies maintaining statues of him on public grounds. Wherever his loyalties lay, we may be sure that his loyalty to his home state led him to taking up arms in service to an odious cause ... unlike Jefferson.

Put the statues in a museum.

Davis' cause was not exactly Lee's cause. Though no abolitionist, he did not seem to have any particular investment in the perpetuation of slavery, and even hoped that some day it would be abolished (although he expected that God would take his sweet-ass time on that). He even had his own slaves freed in 1862 (admittedly as part of his father-in-law's will), something even Thomas Jefferson failed to do. In the last days of the war, he even lobbied to allow the Confederate Army to allow black soldiers in combat. The war ended before they saw action. Useful idiot, perhaps, but I think "taking up arms in service of an odious cause" might be over-stretching it a bit, since it implies a sort of unanimity of purpose that simply isn't in the historical record.

It is no overstretch; it is exactly what he did. Whether he was a pawn or not is not germane. Whether he compromised his own values is not germane. He could presumably read, and it's no "overstretch" to think that he knew why the Confederate states seceded.

I understand he was no slavering monster with blood dripping literally from his hands. But the facts are the facts. And the fact is he led armies in defense of a regime whose raison d'etre was the furtherance of slavery. All your apologetics can't change that fact.

Well, excuse me for pointing out that there are, in fact, shades of grey in the issue.

Honestly, I think it might be best to leave the whole issue up to the historians who study the war (I'd personally nominate James McPherson [author of The Battle Cry of Freedom, the definitive book on the war, and Barbara Fields [the black historian from the Ken Burns miniseries, even does a good smackdown of Lincoln when discussing his desire to repatriate freed slaves]) to see if the shades of grey in any given Confederate leader are sufficient to consider keeping any statues of them worth it.

(September 12, 2017 at 9:42 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Well, excuse me for pointing out that there are, in fact, shades of grey in the issue.

Honestly, I think it might be best to leave the whole issue up to the historians who study the war (I'd personally nominate James McPherson [author of The Battle Cry of Freedom, the definitive book on the war, and Barbara Fields [the black historian from the Ken Burns miniseries, even does a good smackdown of Lincoln when discussing his desire to repatriate freed slaves]) to see if the shades of grey in any given Confederate leader are sufficient to consider keeping any statues of them worth it.

They aren't. Lee might have been a competent general for much of the war (not Gettysburg), but being good at what you do as a traitor to the country isn't really relevant to whether or not you deserve to be memorialized by said country. And while one might try and paint Lee's views on slavery as "grey" or even more generically as not black and white, it still doesn't take away from the fact that people like Lee (and Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest and etc) have become symbols for various hate groups. Be they the KKK, Neo-Nazis, or Sons of the Confederacy. It also still doesn't account for the fact that memorials to these people went up (largely) in response to the Civil Rights Movement. Statues/monuments of Lee were clearly intended to be reminders to the "uppity blacks" who were advocating for equality in the 50's and 60's. Lee doesn't need a monument to be remembered for his military strategy nor for his conflicting opinions on slavery and serving the traitors of the confederacy (I was born and raised in TN, so don't presume this is just some yankee bashing southerners.)

Rev. Rye Wrote:

Thumpalumpacus Wrote:I don't think any of that justifies maintaining statues of him on public grounds. Wherever his loyalties lay, we may be sure that his loyalty to his home state led him to taking up arms in service to an odious cause ... unlike Jefferson.

Put the statues in a museum.

Davis' cause was not exactly Lee's cause. Though no abolitionist, he did not seem to have any particular investment in the perpetuation of slavery, and even hoped that some day it would be abolished (although he expected that God would take his sweet-ass time on that). He even had his own slaves freed in 1862 (admittedly as part of his father-in-law's will), something even Thomas Jefferson failed to do. In the last days of the war, he even lobbied to allow the Confederate Army to allow black soldiers in combat. The war ended before they saw action. Useful idiot, perhaps, but I think "taking up arms in service of an odious cause" might be over-stretching it a bit, since it implies a sort of unanimity of purpose that simply isn't in the historical record.

I'm pretty sure Jefferson would have freed his slaves had he been legally permitted to do so. He tried to get the law of his state changed to allow it. Lee, on the other hand, seems to have delayed freeing his slaves according to his father-in-law's wishes as long as he was legally able.

---

Rev. Rye Wrote:Well, excuse me for pointing out that there are, in fact, shades of grey in the issue.

The issue is whether confederate war heroes ought to continue to be maintained in the public square rather than in museums or on confederate graveyards. Your vote seems to be yes.