You talking about secession? That wasn’t a settled question was it? Regardless, aside from that one statue that was pulled onto some dude’s head recently, monuments typically aren’t an imminent threat.
And I don’t think it’s ironic to follow the law even if dealing with those who violate the law or of historic depictions of those who violated the law or moral standards of today for that matter. It’s far worse to continuously capitulate to an increasingly unhinged mob.
Whaddya mean, “wasn’t a settled question”? From the point of view of the United States, yes, secession was illegal. Sure, the Confederates themselves preferred not to regard it that way, but every lawbreaker would prefer not to regard it that way.
Never said it was. In fact, I explicitly affirmed (more than once in this thread alone, I believe) my own unyielding agreement with the principle of acting legally when it comes to removal of unwanted monuments.
But that doesn’t mean it isn’t a bit :dubious: to be invoking the principle of respecting the law specifically in defense of monuments commemorating the notoriously law-disrespecting Confederate States of America.
It wasn’t settled til Sherman vs Atlanta. That finally settled the question, though even today there are many secessionist movements and I think they are all dangerous. Personally, I’m very pro union. Once territory is seized might as well never concede it. It makes zero sense.
Anyhow, I’m not seeing anything dubious about expecting the law to be followed. I expect the law to be followed when a murderer or a rapist is caught. I don’t see any hypocrisy with the advocation of due process and a properly conducted trial. Why should a criminal be protected by the law the criminal broke? Because we live in a civilized society. Supposedly.
:dubious: Gee, by that logic, the “question” of whether shoplifting is illegal isn’t “settled” until the perpetrator is caught and convicted. Saying “hey, it wasn’t technically illegal as long as they had a chance of getting away with it” is ISTM not the most persuasive defense of the principle of obeying the law.
Well, in some municipalities it’s no biggie. Got to keep those votes. But are you seriously suggesting that the legality of secession was settled before the civil war? It’s off topic and ultimately irrelevant to capitulation to mob rule and that’s what the spineless ‘leaders’ of these municipalities are doing. And they are making a very dangerous mistake.
The legality of secession is something of an open question even now. Precedent from the Revolutionary War may favor it and it’s difficult to ignore that many public figures on the Union side had to acknowledge that fact even at the time of the Civil War itself. However, what was definitely not going to be legally tolerable was waging weapon-waving war on the United States before the question was answered. In the sense of legal realism and as a matter of public opinion, it would have been difficult, if not impossible, to stop a state or group of states from seceding if they resolutely resolved to do so without resorting to violence.
I’m sorry that Columbus is getting the treatment. Yeah, he was bad…but he did less harm, overall, than, say, Andrew Jackson. Of the two, I’d rather expunge the latter from history than the former, if I was driven to make a choice.
Do we rename the city? Do we stop referring to the US as “Columbia?” Sigh…
I posted something similar in the other Columbus thread, but, as a related matter:
I have deep reservations about the Awful Columbus narrative. For one, it’s exceedingly pat and convenient, and for another, I’m very unclear as to the sources of a lot of the horrible things he supposedly did - and in several cases, people are conflating evens or blaming him for things he had nothing to do with.
So is the litmus test being racist, or just owning slaves? Because nearly every white person was racist by today’s standards even 100 years ago.
Hell I was watching St. Elsewhere the other day and was shocked at what they were saying, and that wasn’t even 50 years ago.
The latest ridiculous news from the UK:
Penny Lane signs in Liverpool, the street made famous in the Beatles’ song, are being defaced because Penny Lane may have been named after James Penny, a slave trader.
Are protestors going to call for the Beatles’ song to be banned as well?
Or, another thought. How relevant to today’s population is Sidney Lanier? Does anyone know who he is or why he was given the honor of a school named after him? If Houston has a desire to name a school after Hakeem Olajuwon, this might be a good replacement - not because Lanier once served as a Confederate officer, but because his other accomplishments are forgotten. I couldn’t tell you who my local grade school was named after, and wouldn’t object in the least if it were to be re-named for a person of renown from the area (not that there are any persons of renown from our area…).
No, not everything that the Confederacy touched should be removed. Sounds like Mr. Lanier was not a linchpin of the Lost Cause and that his fame came from accomplishments after the war that had NOTHING to do with slavery, racism, etc. Don’t rename the school just to remove any hint of the Confederacy. However, if he’s no longer remembered, don’t NOT rename the school because you’re afraid of looking like you’re caving to special interests.
Sounds to me like Mr. Ross also had some significant contributions after the war. The statue is commemorating his saving the school, not his Civil War service. Now, if the guy was a complete bastard who only got the post because of his Klan membership and the events that saved the school were’t his doing, then take the statue down. Don’t destroy the statue - put it in a museum with some historical context.
Well, thing is that Columbus just did not just enslave the people he encountered, he also massacred many of them, Columbus also was a big proponent of the enslavement of the people of the Americas before the kings of Spain, and there are historians that point out that his mode of operation came early on.
Being a Genoese and in his early years before sailing to America, he was aware of the slave trade and worked for it or benefited from it, in any case he liked what he saw about the trading or moving of slaves from Africa in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic coasts.
The Christopher Columbus Encyclopedia
Thief, Slave Trader, Murderer: Christopher Columbus and Caribbean Population Decline
Of all targets of violence, monuments are probably the one I’m least likely to get wound up about, I mean, who’s actually harmed? ‘The people’, who are, apparently, someone different to the people actually living locally?
Half these statues have just been places for pigeons and humorous traffic cones that most of the people who are now, apparently, horrified at their removal haven’t seriously thought about in years. And yes, some of them really have no place in the society of today, neat little ‘interpretation’ plaque or not. The statue in Bristol, for example, was of someone only notable for having a lot of money made largely from involvement in an organisation which directly killed tens of thousands of people, selling many times more into brutal slavery, largely in the Caribbean, literally 5 minutes walk from a suburb which is heavily of Caribbean descent. What the hell kind of a message does that give the local citizens? Well, he may have helped run the company which sold your great-great-grandma into a horrendous life of being worked to death, but some of the profit from selling her may have helped pay for white kids to go to school! Yaay!
If this movement means people actually learn about the reality of their own country or region’s history and the actual complicated nature of the people they think of in simplistic, glorified terms, then great. That’s well worth the damage to something intended as a symbol that now symbolises the unacceptable.
Did American soldiers stick little interpretation plaques on statues of Saddam Hussein?
Well, just to set some records straight, the toppling of Saddam’s statue almost did not happen when the US soldiers that helped secure the plaza and helped set up the cables hanged an American flag over the face of the statue, no matter how many American tanks where present the jeering of the crowd made the soldiers realize what an error that was and then let the Iraqis topple the statue with an Iraqi flag instead.
There is also the issue that I saw other pictures of the crowds around the statue when it was toppled, suffice to say there were other pictures and video that showed the very bad context that there were no huge crowds around the statue then. Trump and henchmen would be proud of the creative editing that made the crowds to be larger, it was one of the bits of propaganda that caused the Bush administration to think that indeed Iraqis would welcome us with cheers and flowers, it did not turn out to be that way.
Ha! I suppose one could offer up such monuments for sale to anyone willing to pay for their removal to private display. Just tearing them down seems like a wasted opportunity to make a few bucks.
If you want an example of the really odd, the middle school is STILL “Lanier Middle School”, but is now “Bob Lanier Middle School”, named after a somewhat beloved mayor of Houston for most of the 1990s.
I don’t know… there’s a class of monuments and things named after people that should definitely be removed or torn down.
But there are a whole lot of others who are known for their post-slavery accomplishments, and whose civil war service wasn’t necessarily their defining moment, or could even possibly be considered something unfortunate in someone’s youth.
I mean, we don’t see Germans or anyone else denouncing Gunter Grass- the 1999 Nobel Prize Winner in Literature, AND a Waffen SS soldier during WWII. We don’t see the French or anyone else pitching a fit about Francois Mitterand having been a Vichy French official before joining the Resistance.
I’m not seeing how Gunter Grass and Sidney Lanier differ so greatly really.
There’s actually been a good deal of commotion about that; in particular since apparently he minimized his involvement for quite a long time. His later writings can arguably be praised as a repudiation of his earlier behavior; but to say that nobody denounced him isn’t accurate.
Two cites from the first page of Google for “Gunter Grass controversy”:
Isn’t the key distinction supposed to be “why” is the person is being honored by a statue and when the statue was put up? If they are known mostly for deliberately doing shitty things, then down the statue goes.
Re-dedication of this sort has been done elsewhere - King County in Washington state (12th most populous county in the US, includes Seattle) used to be named for Franklin Pierce’s VP, William R. King, but was rededicated to be named for Dr. Martin Luther King.
You would think, but apparently just having done something sketchy in your distant past, or having been associated with it is enough for some people.
I mean, Gunter Grass was drafted into the Waffen SS during the last year of the war. Did he have a lot of choice in that? Does that make him a hardcore Nazi? The answer is almost certainly no to both of those. Same goes for people like Sidney Lanier- he was a teenager/young adult when he was a Confederate enlisted man. Both men were about as low in the hierarchy as it was possible to be, and neither AFAIK had much choice in whether they served or not.
Even Lawrence Sullivan Ross was only 26 at the end of the Civil War, and is far better known for his governorship 20 years later and university presidency after that.