I’m going to keep doing both, because they’re both valid, relevant, and important considerations to me.
Actually, no. I don’t have to do any such thing when considering whether someone should be honored and celebrated with a public memorial.
Lee did not have a choice between betraying the US or betraying Virginia. He had a choice of betraying both, or betraying neither. He chose to betray both: According to the supreme law of the state of Virginia, as enacted by Virginia, he committed treason.
I don’t believe that now or in the 19th century you could just say ‘whoa, changed my mind’ on your oath to the army. And it’s especially silly when the whole legend of Lee is that he’s a man of honor torn between two axes of loyalty; if he can just go ‘whoops, takeback!’ on his oath as an officer and fight against the US, his honor doesn’t mean jack.
That’s because you’re using modern sensibilities to defend the past. You don’t get to arbitrarily say ‘a 51% vote is democratic, and in the modern time we say that’s good, so it counts then’. They either need to be democratic in the modern sense (which means slaves and women and other ‘lesser’ people get to vote) to use the modern term, or be something legitimate at the time - but the US and Confederacy explicitly rejected the notion of simple ‘51%’ democracy, that’s why they had things like a senate and constitution to reign in purely popular impulses.
By modern standards (and the modern shift in the meaning of the word), they simply weren’t democratic. By standards at the time, pure democracy was considered abhorrent and scary, so you can’t use it as justification for treason.
His home state made a vote to take illegal actions, but voting to break the law of the land and attack united states forces is not actually legal. Lee’s ‘understanding’ is irrelevant; his actions were treasonous under the law at the time AND under modern understanding.
The J.E.B Stuart monument that’s just down the street from me has HERO engraved on it.
If it’s wrong for us to judge the past by standards of today, why is it right for us to be subjected to judgments issued by people who lived in the past? Why do they get their opinions permanently engraved in stone? When does it become okay for our opinions to outweigh theirs?
We must take down ALL statues. That’s the only way to avoid offending somebody.
Down with statues!
You can resign your commission and you become no different than an ordinary citizen. This isn’t strictly true any more with contracts and what not, but I don’t think Lee had anything like that.
They didn’t reject the democratic process entirely and there’s no reason to consider the referendum invalid by the standards of the times. Clearly the government and people of Virginia didn’t.
The point of the Civil war was to settle if those actions were illegal or not. Before that, it was a hotly debated topic with supporters on both sides. And it’s not clear that his actions are treasonous under the constitution:
Note that the words are “them” and “their” and not “it” and “its”.
Eh, that’s quibbling, isn’t it?. Most “democracies” throughout history have disenfranchised people. We call Athens “the first democracy”, for instance, and it was a slave state too. I mean, we call ourselves democratic, but we don’t let children, foreigners, or criminals vote.
For the purposes of deciding whether to keep a monument in a person’s honor, I don’t care about their values in the past. I certainly don’t care about their grammar.
The question of legality is a red herring, isn’t it? Secession, especially violent secession is a revolutionary act. If you succeed, it’s legitimate, and if you fail it isn’t. And the people who were crying loudest for secession…your Rhetts and your Yanceys and all that, weren’t making a legal argument, they were making a moral one. They were saying, “Beyond all the legal questions, there’s morality, and we’re morally right to secede.” The argument wasn’t “This article of the Constitution says we can secede.” The argument is, “We’re a free people, and we have natural rights, and the government wants to take away our rights. Lincoln’s been elected and he and the Republicans are self avowed tyrants who want to take away our property and want to encourage violent slave insurrection, and say that the white man has no more rights than a slave. Therefore, to defend ourselves from tyranny, we’re declaring independence.” So, it’s not a question of legality or illegality. Either you have a right to hold slaves or you don’t. Either black people are equal to white people and it’s wrong to single them out as slaves or they’re not and it’s not. None of the Civil War was about legality. It was about contrasting world views.
Taking down all statues sounds like giving in to those who feel that statues constitute a form of idolatry.
Oh, for a little bit of perspective prompted by the Shelley Poem earlier.
President Eisenhower had an interesting view point about this.
http://www.historicleadershiptraining.com/uploads/1/7/9/7/17973413/eisenhower_defends_lee.pdf
But what would Gen. Eisenhower know about the Constitution, war, reconciliation, or history? Probably not 1/2 as much as the sages here.
Not if the argument is that the people of the South, as a whole, wanted to secede, which was what I was responding to.
Maybe, but the whole reason you have slaves in the first place is so that you don’t have to care about what they want, isn’t it?
And let’s remember why most of these statutes were erected in the first place.
They mostly came during three major stages—the end of Reconstruction when white southerners successfully disenfranchised the black populations through murder and intimidation and set up the Jim Crow system, during the rebirth of the KKK in the early 20th century, and during the Civil Rights movement to rally opposition against civil rights and desegregration.
So the values these memorials represent were tainted from the moment they were created. There’s nothing admirable about them.
These memorials represent a range of the most shameful and despicable things from our history, and they were intended to represent the exactly those things from the start. And now they additionally represent a newly resurgent white nationalist movement.
Of course we shouldn’t forget that part of our history. We need to remember it every time we think that merely being American means that everything we do is good. But we certainly shouldn’t give them public places of honor.
Yes – but if someone makes the argument now that the South, as a whole, wanted to secede, then it’s entirely fair to point out that this is a bullshit assertion.
We must continuously alter and change history as the Party deems it necessary, Comrade.
Show me where someone who wants to take the statues down is trying to change history. The fact is that the people who put the statues up were doing it with the intent of lying about history.
We both know it’s not going to stop at Confederate Statues. It’s not about Confederate Statues at this point. I can guarantee you statues of Washington and other Founders will be destroyed, and there will be attempts to get rid of Mt. Rushmore. This is a cultural, Marxist revolution at this point. If it was just about Confederate Statues I wouldn’t care.
Oh, we “know” this do we? And how do we know this?
There have been many people who have wanted to get rid of Confederate symbols being given a place of honor by the government. What about this is “Marxist” at all? What exactly is Marxist about wanting not to honor Confederates?
And it very well might be a cultural movement, the same cultural movement that has striven to increase fairness and equality for all Americans from the very beginning of the founding of the country. It’s also a social and political movement. What’s “Marxist” about that? What’s Marxist about expanding the franchise to non-property owners? To women? To non-white people? What’s Marxist about abolishing slavery? About abolishing institutionalized racism and segregation?
There very well might be people who want to remove statues of Washington or Jefferson from places of public honor. They’ll have to make a convincing argument. There’s nothing wrong about that public discussion taking place. But I doubt they’ll win that argument, because there are reasons to honor Washington and Jefferson that are legitimate, and that are separate from their faults.
On the other hand, there is no question that there’s no good reason to keep monuments to people like Lee and Jackson and Stuart and Davis in places of honor. The only things of significance they did in their lives were things that we as a country have no business honoring.
And you still haven’t justified your use of the phrase “change history.” Who’s trying to change history?
Cultural Marxism cannot thrive without a continuing, ever critiquing, ever changing narrative. And that’s what the move to destroy symbols of the past is about.
I never made an argument for the Confederacy statues. I’ve stated in other threads they shouldn’t have been put up. But I’m talking about the next steps.
I know that the statues are only the first step for them. Next it will be the banning of any “problematic” (their favorite word) older media, or altering it so it fits the narrative. I personally don’t care much for statues, but eventually they will come for things I do care about. I can easily see, give it ten, twenty years, older films being banned for “problematic” content. I can easily see things of that nature being outlawed.