What should be done about Gettysburg?

[nachtmusick]

@Miller

That’s an extremely broad answer. Can you point out some specific concerns that were motivating the fighting for the average soldier? Something like, “If we don’t go to war with the North, they’re going to take away/impose X.”

The North invaded the South, after all.

Quote from Shelby Foote:

The answer a Southerner would give you as to “why are you are fighting?” if you were a Northerner, he would say: “I’m fighting because you’re down here.” He was being invaded and he thought … to defend his home.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

How does each generation decide?

By whatever criteria they deem relevant.

[nachtmusick]

@iiandyiiii

Only one of those qualifies (and it was at least partially joking).

My broader point is that statues and monuments have always been changed, removed, or destroyed, and always will be, for reasons of politics, convenience, or ideology. And every generation will decide on their own which monuments and statues they want to keep or remove, no matter what we do. I think monuments and statues that were specifically raised in order to oppose civil rights and integration for black people, as many or perhaps even most confederate monuments and statues in America were, never should have been raised in the first place, and should come down at the earliest opportunity. The only accurate historical lesson they teach, IMO, is the prevalence and continued relevance of white supremacism - and taking them down is a small but still significant part of the long term effort to dismantle that remaining white supremacism in our society.

Stark revisionism.

[Bricker]

@iiandyiiii

By whatever criteria they deem relevant.

And are each of these sets of criteria equally valid and legitimate?

[Miller]

@nachtmusick

The North invaded the South, after all.

In the context of this particular thread, note that it was the South who were the invaders, not the North. Unless Pennsylvania was a Confederate state all along and nobody told me?

But I’m being deliberately cute there. I apologize for that. Obviously, a country suffering unprovoked aggression from a neighbor is justified in mounting offensive actions in their attacker’s territory.

Of course, in the American Civil War, it was the Confederate states that started the conflict. The North invaded the South, sure - because the South was a belligerent power that was openly attacking American troops and stealing American property. So, again, when the Southern states were firing on American soldiers, and stealing millions of dollars of American property - what was the average Southern citizen’s justification for going along with all of that?

Other than protecting slavery, I mean?

[nachtmusick]

@Miller

In the context of this particular thread, note that it was the South who were the invaders, not the North. Unless Pennsylvania was a Confederate state all along and nobody told me?

But I’m being deliberately cute there. I apologize for that. Obviously, a country suffering unprovoked aggression from a neighbor is justified in mounting offensive actions in their attacker’s territory.

Of course, in the American Civil War, it was the Confederate states that started the conflict. The North invaded the South, sure - because the South was a belligerent power that was openly attacking American troops and stealing American property. So, again, when the Southern states were firing on American soldiers, and stealing millions of dollars of American property - what was the average Southern citizen’s justification for going along with all of that?

Other than protecting slavery, I mean?

The South wanted California

[madmonk28]

@Bricker

I disagree:

Please point out where I called for their removal. I have consistently argued that there shoud be additional information to put the statues in better historical context. You have consistently just ignored those posts. Which proves the point that you have not argued in good faith in this thread.

[Bryan_Ekers]

@Bricker

And are each of these sets of criteria equally valid and legitimate?

They are if deemed so, I gather, if the deemers deem that it matters.

[Bricker]

@madmonk28

Please point out where I called for their removal. I have consistently argued that there shoud be additional information to put the statues in better historical context. You have consistently just ignored those posts. Which proves the point that you have not argued in good faith in this thread.

Quote the post where you made this clear. I may have missed it. Did I reply to it or acknowledge it in some way?

[madmonk28]

@Bricker

Quote the post where you made this clear. I may have missed it. Did I reply to it or acknowledge it in some way?

Here you go.

Post 12:

Missed the edit, but I don’t think they necessarily come down, but I do think that we should put them in their proper context. I think plaques could be erected that explain how these statues were part of a campaign to enforce white supremacy and rewrite the history of the civil war. Also, I think it is important that any historical marker about the confederate army at Gettysburg would have to in good conscience note that Lee’s army abducted any black people it came across and carried them back to Virginia as slaves, these weren’t just escaped slave (not that that should matter), but also black people who had been born free.

It seems to me, that any marker that is placed to set the historical record straight about the confederacy would have to mention slavery and the atrocities committed by the confederate army under Lee. To do otherwise would be to embrace historical revisionism, wouldn’t it?

Post 17

I would argue that a great place to contextualize would be right at the base of a big fancy statue. Robert E. Lee’s historical significance is that he led an army in rebellion intent on preserving slavery. The only reason there is a statue of him at Gettysburg is because his army intent on preserving slavery was defeated by the United States there.

Post 19

…Plus, look at this gaudy statue of Lee at Gettysburg! There is ample room on this racist hood ornament to put an asterisk and a note that says “by the way, he slaughtered captured black troops and refused to punish university students for raping black girls, oh and the war was about slavery.” You could do it in 50 Pt font and still have room for a mural honoring John Brown.

Post 111

These black troops wore the American uniform. They marched under the American flag and they stormed the battlements of America’s enemies and yet the man who is responsible for their murder and enslavement gets a statue at Gettysburg, but the idea that that statue put Lee in some kind of historical context is dismissed as historical revisionism.

And the fact that you ignored these posts is my point.

[Bricker]

@madmonk28

Here you go.

Post 12:
Post 17

Post 19

Post 111
And the fact that you ignored these posts is my point.

OK, fair criticism. I admit I missed post 12’s reasonably clear disavowal. The others don’t make the point unambiguously clear that you’re opposed to removal, although when you add #12 to the overall message I agree it’s very clear.

Still, I’m in the thread and am responsible for reading the posts. My error.

[Kimstu]

@nachtmusick

Stark revisionism.

How do you figure that taking down early 20th-century statues purporting to commemorate a mid-19th-century war is more “revisionist” than putting up such statues some 50+ years after the fact in the first place?

I certainly don’t recall American conservatives being all miffed about “historical revisionism” like this when folks were taking down statues of Lenin and Stalin and Saddam Hussein. If statues of historical oppressors erected as a gesture of political dominance ought to be protected from removal in the name of historical awareness, then you guys are awfully late to the game with your concern over this issue.

[madmonk28]

@Bricker

OK, fair criticism. I admit I missed post 12’s reasonably clear disavowal. The others don’t make the point unambiguously clear that you’re opposed to removal, although when you add #12 to the overall message I agree it’s very clear.

Still, I’m in the thread and am responsible for reading the posts. My error.

Fair enough.

[iiandyiiii]

@Bricker

And are each of these sets of criteria equally valid and legitimate?

Not necessarily, but what’s your point?

You don’t appear to be saying that statues should never be removed for reasons of politics or ideology. If so, then the disagreement is about what circumstances in which it’s okay to remove a statue.

That seems like a pretty mundane disagreement about details, not one of fundamental values or philosophy.

[Stanislaus]

Bricker, I don’t think you’ve fairly characterised etasyde’s position either.

Etasyde did say this, as you quote.

@etasyde

Thermite is fairly easy to make with the right know-how. C4 is a bit more dangerous, but the kids sure love the fireworks!

Or… I suppose we could do the boring thing and stick them in a museum. But if not in a museum, I really see only one other solution. The fun kind!

You then asked a clarifying question:

@Bricker

So to be clear, you say that the entire Gettysburg National Military Park should be stripped of statues and memorials that refer to the Confederates and that those should be destroyed or placed in some as yet unidentified museum?

In the interim, Whack-a-Mole posted this:

@Whack-a-Mole

Seems to me statues for educational purposes are fine.

Gettysburg happened. Statues denoting who was where to give an impression of the battle at the actual site of the battle are no problem. They are not revering the participants. Just noting they were there.

That is a far cry from placing a statue of Jefferson Davis in front of a court house (or whatever) as a means to honor him.

etasyde answered your question by referring to Whack-a-Mole’s answer:

@etasyde

Whack-a-Mole offers an excellent answer that I agree with.

etasyde went on to say:

It really depends on the specifics, namely what the intent of the of the thing is and what the message it sends is.

“Never forget the consequence of a breakdown of civil discourse” showing a confederate fighting a union soldier? That’s a fine message worth protecting. “Fighting for slavery is good?” Thermite.

I have no interest in pretending something didn’t happen, or whitewashing history. I refuse, however, to ignore the cause for which the confederates fought and murdered loyal American citizens for.

Should there be a statue of, say, a Confederate medic who famously objected to the wholesale slaughter and at great personal risk saved the lives of both Union and Confederate soldiers ala Desmond Doss of Hacksaw Ridge/WW2 fame, then by all means praise the heroic act. But fighting for slavery is not heroism, it’s in the same historical garbage heap as Hitler and Nazism.

It seems to me etasyde is pro-removing statues from Gettysburg if they send the message that fighting for slavery is good and heroic - but not in favour removing any and all statues and memorials that refer to the Confederates.

[k9bfriender]

@Bricker

I invite you both to refresh your recollection as to the title of the thread.

I fail to see how the thread title justifies using a website about gettysburg to refute the racism of a statue in new orleans.

If your complaint is thread drift, then that cat’s already out of the bag, we’ve talked about cuba, germany, japan, and russia at this point as well.

The point was being made that some statues are there for the purpose of intimidation, like the lee statue in lee’s circle.

Your website about gettysburg did not address or refute in any way the claim that was made about this particular statue, which is what one would expect from the way you said “No,” and then gave the website as if that justified your simple “No.”

@Sherrerd

And the Confederate statues should be moved from town squares and parks to museums (open air or traditional).

What matters about Confederate statues is not their existence, but their placement.

Placement in a town or city square says ‘this is what we value; this is what we revere.’ Placement in a museum says ‘this is part of our past, and we consider it important to remember that past.’

I see statues of confederate leaders, outside of historical contexts like gettysburg or in a museum, as a community’s way of saying that they do not accept that they lost the civil war. That there is still fighting to be done.

The statues are meant to inspire the people in continuing the fight.

When you see a statue of Washington, you are inspired to continue upholding the ideals that the country was founded on. When you see a statue of Einstein, you are inspired to uphold the ideals of science. When you see a statue of robert E Lee, what sort of inspiration are you supposed to take from that?

The statues stand there and remind everyone, in the (probably poorly remembered) words of Malcolm Reynolds, “We may have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong side”.

They need to be convinced it was the wrong side.

@Bricker

Of course I’ll note that once again we seem to have left Gettysburg behind and are steering the questions toward non-Gettysburg (“local government”) statuary. Why is that?

That is because you seem to feel that the actions taken to statues that exist outside of gettysburg would have an effect on the statues inside of gettysburg.

You started this thread specifically in response to statues being removed or being considered for removal in contexts outside of gettysburg, and wanted to know why the statues in gettysburg were different.

In order to show you how they are different, we have to talk about different statues. You have specifically asked the question, why these statues, and not these. In order to answer the question that you have asked, we have to leave gettysburg.

Unless you have a better method of comparing and contrasting that does not involve comparing and contrasting against something else.

If that is not the case, if the non-Gettysburg (“local government”) statutory is not relevant, then tell me what inspired you to make this thread?

[Bricker]

@k9bfriender

I fail to see how the thread title justifies using a website about gettysburg to refute the racism of a statue in new orleans.

If your complaint is thread drift, then that cat’s already out of the bag, we’ve talked about cuba, germany, japan, and russia at this point as well.

The point was being made that some statues are there for the purpose of intimidation, like the lee statue in lee’s circle.

Your website about gettysburg did not address or refute in any way the claim that was made about this particular statue, which is what one would expect from the way you said “No,” and then gave the website as if that justified your simple “No.”

No.

The point was that the “claim,” was an assertion, with what looked like a link that offered proof – but the proof was merely a matching opinion. If I used that tactic to buttress claims (“It’s the Left than are the vandals at protests: see breitbart.org”) I’m very certain of the reaction. But the Southern Poverty Law Center is a valid source?

So my point in linking to the National Parks’ Gettysburg cite was simply a general refutation of the claim: the cite discusses the site, so to speak, and does not support the claim that statues in Gettysburg are the result of efforts to intimidate.

When you see a statue of robert E Lee, what sort of inspiration are you supposed to take from that?

That I need not demonize my enemies.

That is because you seem to feel that the actions taken to statues that exist outside of gettysburg would have an effect on the statues inside of gettysburg.

You started this thread specifically in response to statues being removed or being considered for removal in contexts outside of gettysburg, and wanted to know why the statues in gettysburg were different.

Nope. I started this thread because people in the real world were proposing removal of statues in Gettysburg.

If that is not the case, if the non-Gettysburg (“local government”) statutory is not relevant, then tell me what inspired you to make this thread?

I started this thread because people in the real world were proposing removal of statues in Gettysburg.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

No.

The point was that the “claim,” was an assertion, with what looked like a link that offered proof – but the proof was merely a matching opinion. If I used that tactic to buttress claims (“It’s the Left than are the vandals at protests: see breitbart.org”) I’m very certain of the reaction. But the Southern Poverty Law Center is a valid source?

Yes.

In reality you are only showing to all that you do rely on very sorry sources of information to claim that. Indeed you did use the killing the messenger fallacy to reply to what I said.

So the main point I made stands. Outside historical locations and context monuments to the confederacy are about the denial of history. So so much about protecting them to ‘teach history’.

@Bricker

So my point in linking to the National Parks’ Gettysburg cite was simply a general refutation of the claim: the cite discusses the site, so to speak, and does not support the claim that statues in Gettysburg are the result of efforts to intimidate.

Nope, you are doubling down on the silly point that I did not made. Again, I was not talking about statues surrounded by historical context.

@Bricker

That I need not demonize my enemies.

Robert E. Lee opposed Confederate monuments

In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.

“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”

The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.

“Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn said. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.”

@Bricker

Nope. I started this thread because people in the real world were proposing removal of statues in Gettysburg.

This thread should had ended on post #4, but you on post #5 decided that it was better to incite others to reply about what is going on according to reprehensible sources of information.

I started this thread because people in the real world were proposing removal of statues in Gettysburg.
[/QUOTE]

[Richard_Parker]

A reminder that white supremacist Katie Lawhon informed us via post #4 that:

The Gettysburg National Military Park . . . has not received any complaints or requests related to the monuments.

[RTFirefly]

@Bricker

I started this thread because people in the real world were proposing removal of statues in Gettysburg.

I started this thread because people in the real world were proposing removal of statues in Gettysburg.

You sure seem to have started this thread so you could snipe at what persons to the left of you were proposing about Confederate statues in Gettysburg, without taking a position of your own that you might have to defend.

You sure seem to have started this thread so you could snipe at what persons to the left of you were proposing about Confederate statues in Gettysburg, without taking a position of your own that you might have to defend.