Is there such a thing? Or is it a thing like, “I just commuted treason to my cat?”
Yes. John Brown was convicted of it.
nm
nm
Would a Union soldier from, say, Ohio, taken prisoner by the Confederates in Virginia have been subject to prosecution under that law?
Why didn’t you ask Chronos who brought up the idea first in the thread? You care or just want to crack a joke?
And, of course, the Constitution being fought for permitted slavery at the time of the war.
Note that Wilson looks quite bad under this criterion, as he was sharply racist even for his time, reversing previous efforts to integrate federal employment and screening Birth of a Nation at the White House.
As it happens, Lord Feldon gave a very good answer to my question.
Thank you, Lord Feldon, for upholding the goal of this message board in dispelling my ignorance.
Many, sure. And many Southerners fought for the Union, either right up front or after being disillusioned or captured. But the monuments under discussion now are mostly of the rebel leaders, who did know what they were fighting for. Please see CSA VP Stephens’ “Cornerstone Speech”, or indeed any of the state secession declarations, for further education.
I didn’t say it was. Please reread what I said the false history these memorials stand for really is - that will help you understand what purpose they served, and continue to serve, and how little relation that really has to the war.
As a participant on a message board, you should be even more extremely wary of thinking you understand a point being made.
If you didn’t care about slavery but chose to fight anyways–and not through manipulation–then you’re even less worthy of any sort of statue. You just wanted to out killing people.
I see no reason to ever draw a line anywhere. It would be pointless. People change. If liberals change more than conservatives, then they’re going to change what they want, which may include wanting other statues taken down.
Whatever line you try to draw won’t matter, because the ideas of the people who drew them will be different from those who no longer agree with that line.
The idea of committing yourself to an idea and not allowing any changes is foolhardy. It just means that, in the future, when there are good reasons to change, you can’t, because you’re held up by those people in the past who didn’t know about those good reasons.
We’ve been removing statues and things when we no longer support them throughout history. And it will continue to happen. Saying we’re going to stop at Confederate stuff would be a lie–on both sides.
Interesting, still why didn’t you ask Chronos about treason to a cat? That’s the ignorance I want dispelled.
Now that we know how easy it is to topple a statue, I would expect to see more destroyed.
I agree with BigT.
I am not, as an American, obliged to honor Lee, Jackson, Forrest, Beauregard, and the like. I am not obliged to honor Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Madison; I may reasonably believe that they were in the wrong. I am not even obliged to honor US Grant, Frederick Douglass, and John Brown! Nor am I obliged to honor the Roosevelts and the heroes of Social Liberalism!
I don’t care that much of whom you have statues, but if you want to hold them up as national heroes, or make idols of them, well, then we can tear them all down for all I care. Whatever the good points of Beauregard, Forrest, and Lee (and I grant that they all had good points), no one just deserves an idol, or a statue, just because someone gave it to them in 1890-something.
Now, I do personally believe in honoring Grant for his attempt to make Reconstruction work, and John Brown of course. But I have no right to force anyone to keep up an image of either of those men.
Now, should the South see itself as “really the CSA,” see the unpleasantness of the 1860’s as a national birth in blood, see the Lost Cause as a dream deferred, and see Beauregard and Lee as founding fathers? No, that’s silly.
Should the South see itself as “Dixie,” and see those men as heroic scions? No, probably not that either. Too many Southerners saw the CSA for what it was: a ploy by the upper economic class to maintain a brutal caste system. Now that black Americans have a say, they are getting rid of these monuments. Good enough, then! Let all that CSA stuff fall away, and build a new era for America.
Statues and monuments exist as reminders of the past, of where we came from, what we did wrong, and what we should not do again. Washington, Lincoln, Grant, and Roosevelt, though imperfect men, earned statues because of what they did to help birth, protect, and preserve this country. Men like John Brown earned their statues because they remind us of darker days. The Civil War and its heavy cost deserves a statue - but not for the leaders who fought to keep men enslaved. But, a monument erected explaining at its base what America is, and isn’t, and what the Civil War was actually about is needed.
These statues dedicated to the better men of our history such as Washington and Lincoln are not there to idolize THEM as flawed men, but rather, there to show us what they represented, and what we should aspire to. They’re monuments to moments in our history that we can feel proud of.
A monument is a visual reminder of where we’ve been, where we might go, and how we did wrong and should do better.
Get rid of the CSA statues, but there is no reason to tear any of the “Father of our Country” down.
There is a need, however, for a statue of a lynching somewhere, with the inscription, “What hate can, and did do; What was once, and should never be again.”
I hope we don’t stop removing monuments. Because let’s be realistic: we don’t have an unlimited amount of space for these things and people don’t intend to stop making history any time soon. Why should a monument to someone like Chief Taney stick around for hundreds of years, while Supreme Court justices who didn’t make embarrassing rulings go unhonored? At a certain point, it should be okay for us to look at a staue and say “you’re done” without sentimentality getting in the way.
The make-up of this country is nothing like it was 200 years ago, and its make-up 200 years from now will be different from how it is today. Why should we expect our predecessors to care about our heros just as much as we do? Shouldn’t they get to honor the native son or daughter who develops the cure for cancer or takes the first step on Mars without worrying about the butthurt of someone still grieving over the Civil War?
It’s amazing how one murderous lunatic has now created a Jacobin fire to destroy it all. Even the good guys of history now are going to be demolished. Fuck. This country is lost. History means no longer means anything.
Pat Buchanan thinks the wrong side won the civil war.
God Almighty what an ass.
Pat Buchanan’s always been an asshole.
Let me put it this way: Washington was a British citizen. You honour him because he won. He’s not seen as a “traitor” for betraying his (then) country, because he was fighting for something you now regard as good and right. I’m sure if the US had lost the war of independence he might be viewed in a different light.
The same is true of the Confederacy - slavery is abhorrent but you can bet if they’d won (I know, I know) then even now the whole “State’s Rights” and “Southern Heritage” thing would be front and centre of any memorialisation efforts, with all that unpleasant “owning people like property” business shoved off to the side somewhere awkwardly.
Also, I’m not actually calling Washington a traitor or disparaging him or his achievements - just pointing out that A) History is written by the winners and B) It’s often a matter of perspective anyway.
Is this some kind of Turing test?
With Washington at least the answer is rather complex.