We just can't help ourselves there. :D

https://scontent-ort2-2.xx.fbcdn.net...67&oe=5A13004C

Yes, but Southerners have the sense God gave them and know to stay home when it snows or gets icy. It's the Yankees who've moved down here who think that because they know how to drive in the never-ending snow up there, they know how to drive in the once-or-twice-a-year snow/ice storm down here.

That picture, by the way, was taken a few miles from my house. I remember that day—that's a fairly thick layer of ice, not snow, on the road. But I'm sure y'all can help us learn to drive on that—once you learn how yourselves, of course.

Bless your hearts. :p

I'd have to stay home all winter if I didn't drive when it snowed or was icy. *sigh*

I took drivers' ed. in December/January, on a stick shift car. At the time, I thought my parents were sadists, but I learned a lot about winter driving.

When I was going to school in Maryland, waiting/melting seemed to be way to deal with the snow, and we're used to salt trucks, sand trucks, plow trucks, etc. That makes a HUGE difference, and I think most northerners take those services for granted and don't realize that states with less need don't have access to all those interventions. No one can defy physics.

You're the second person who's told me they live right by the location of that NC picture. The first person is one of my chapter sisters who now lives in NC and said the same thing about the ice. I asked her about the explosion, but she didn't know. Do you know what happened, MC?

ETA: I almost forgot. I'm Sciencewoman. I CAN defy physics. :D

This, exactly this. (Sciencewoman excepted from the last statement, of course.)

Why yes, I do indeed.

It wasn't an explosion. As I recall, that storm got bad—meaning the road got covered in a layer of ice (maybe 1/2 inch?)—surprisingly quickly. The woman driving that car, as with lots of the other cars in the picture, was trying to get up the hill, but as you've noted is usually the case, physics wouldn't cooperate. She kept trying though. I think some (well-intentioned but stupid) people might even have been trying to help her out by pushing while she tried to will the car—through her foot and the accelerator—up and over the hill.

Anyway, she tried to the point that things under the hood overheated and caught fire. And that was it for the car. Someone took the picture with her phone and sent it to a local TV station. And the rest is Facebook history.

And here's my problem with this whole deal...who decides where the line is drawn? As someone pointed out, you can't erase history. It sure seems that some people want to white wash (no pun intended) history though.

I have a hard time labeling Lee as a traitor. He was American as they came, but there was no way in hell he was going to take up arms against his home state of Virginia.

Thanks for the explanation, MC. I'm just glad no one died, because I had the sense that I shouldn't have been making light of the photo.

To prove my physics-defying ability, I point to the fact that I have successfully derailed this thread. Granted, it's not quite as physics-defying as derailing a moving locomotive, ala Superman, but still.

And now I'm going to "rail" it -- given Kevin's comments about Robert E. Lee not being comfortable with war memorials, I wonder what he would think about the sculpture of himself in Lee Chapel, lying in repose on a camp bed. It reminds me of the tombs of some English monarchs. It was installed in 1975, and the sculptor Edward Valentine seems to have focused on famous southerners in his work.

I've also wondered what he would think about the "party shuttle bus" at W&L being named after his horse, Traveller. It's a clever name for a bus, but given Lee's personal focus on honor, it just seems...wrong.

ETA: Well, humph. Jon "railed" it back first.

On the other hand, I've encountered extreme panic, stores and businesses shut down, and demands to stay off the road when it's basically just wet outside. When I lived in Houston, it rained one night and dipped slightly below 32 degrees for a couple hours, and my office was closed the next day and no one was on the road. People were amazed that I chose to be out driving around. One woman asked me why I was risking my life to shop for food :rolleyes:

Well in this country, we elect officials who preside either as executive actors or in some legislative body. Those people vote on things as a group and it's usually majority rule, but not always. In some cases, you have leaders of educational institutions who can make those decisions on their own or with an appointed board of some sort. Generally speaking, that's who draws these lines.

There has been considerable effort to sanitize the record where it comes to Lee. At the end of the day, actions speak louder than words. He took up arms against the United States in a war regarding slavery and Lee himself owned slaves and there is considerable debate as to whether he interceded against his father in law who wished to release his own slaves upon his death to prevent that release.

Fredrick Douglas upon Lee's death wrote: "“We can scarcely take up a newspaper . . . that is not filled with nauseating flatteries” of Lee, from which “it would seem . . . that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven.”

and

No. I don't think he's that complicated at all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/u...s.html?mcubz=0

What Frederick Douglas thought is anecdotal. I could quote someone with a differing opinion and it would bring no more or less of anything of value to the discussion.

Here's something from snopes:

"Robert E. Lee, the commander of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia and (from 1865) the general-in-chief of Confederate forces, neither owned slaves nor inherited any, thus it is not correct to assert that he “freed his slaves” (in 1862 or at any other time).
As in the case of Ulysses S. Grant, the slaves that Lee supposedly owned actually belonged to his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, and lived and worked on the three estates owned by Custis (Arlington, White House, and Romancoke). Upon Custis’ death in 1857, Lee did not “inherit” those slaves; rather, he carried out the directions expressed in Custis’ will regarding those slaves (and other property) according to his position as executor of Custis’ estate.
Custis’ will stipulated that all of his slaves were to be freed within five years: “… upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executor in such manner as he deems expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease.” So while Lee did technically free those slaves at the end of 1862, it was not his choice to do so; he was required to emancipate them by the conditions of his father-in-law’s will."

And in those communities that handle this well, those elected or university officials and other community leaders will facilitate hard but necessary conversations in the community about the statues, the meanings that they had and the meanings that they have now.

Informed viewpoints—and I think that the viewpoint of Frederick Douglass qualifies as "informed"—always bring something valuable to the conversation. In this case, it illustrates how at least one former slave, and probably many more former slaves, viewed and experienced the canonization of Lee. It also serves as a reminder of the majority's indifference and even antagonism to that point of view.

My guess is he would be horrified by the former, which really is way over the top, and saddened by the latter.

Here's an outstanding article in the Atlantic about Lee. Worth a read if you still think he was in any sense a decent human being.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...al-lee/529038/

I tend to think that "in any sense" goes a bit too far. I won't deny at all his shortcomings or his significant moral failures, nor the consequences of them.

But like most of us, he was a mix of good and bad. There are very few people who I would deny were "in any sense a decent human being." I can't put Lee in the same category as Caligula, Hitler or Pol Pot, nor do I think history suggests that I should.

To suggest that he wasn't decent in any way is not accurate, I don't think. And I think it's the mirror image of the mistake of making him the noble hero that the Lost Cause myth does. The truth, I suspect, is somewhere in the middle.

I wonder what would have happened had he lived longer—whether any development might have been seen in his views. Who knows?

Which is what keeps you our MysticCat! Good to see you, my Jamestown cousin!

As long as I can remember, I've not been a fan of statues or the need to "worship" statues. Few, if any, mere mortals should be venerated to this extent, I don't really know how unique that feeling is, but maybe that's what has kept me out of most of these discussions.

I do question who is going to pay for the removal of these statues and the changing of millions of street/school/town/state names. We're in a time when we need public funding for such things as infrastructure, education, poverty, and massive governmental debt. I can remember all too well when a group of small, rural communities changed their street numbering system to help emergency vehicles find their destinations quickly. People's heads were exploding over having to (horrors!) buy new return address labels and house numbers!

So, I have no immediate answers, but offer these questions.

Doubting that I'll be commenting any further, but I'll keep my popcorn at the ready and will be reading.

In OKC, we are changing the names of 3 schools. That is being paid for with private donations.