Civil War Statues?

[JonInKC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tom, the basis of your argument seems to be that if we haul away the Robert E. Lee statue, then Washington and Jefferson are next. I think you're possibly right that there'll at least be a public debate with some extreme elements vying for attention, so I guess the best thing to do is to look at any monuments to Washington or Jefferson and question why they were built.

Washington was the "father" of our country, had the opportunity to be King but turned it down, led the Continental Army. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, led the Democratic Party, fought for the Bill of Rights to be in the Constitution, truly understood that we were a secular government, secured the Louisiana Purchase and initiated the first major expedition into the West, and was something of a Philosopher-President when that was needed. Those men's great accomplishments earn them honor despite their massive shortcomings. Jefferson's writings indicate that he had great moral misgivings about slavery, but he still owned (and bedded) slaves. I'm not sure whether that makes him a better or worse human being. It's a conversation which will someday need to be had, but it's not the same conversation.

Lee's great accomplishment was as a great military leader for the Confederacy. He led an insurrection which cost the lives of a significant portion of our population in a war which was fought to protect the institution of slavery. Lee did a lot to help to heal the nation after the War, and that is certainly laudable. Lee understood and wrote about how he disapproved of these Confederate monuments. Lee was correct in that the best path forward did not include any sort of glorification of the South.

The monuments of Washington and Jefferson were not built for the purpose of allowing the white hegemony to remind blacks who was still in charge. The Washington and Jefferson monuments were not built to promote a false narrative about the Civil War. They're different things and if anyone wants to trot out the "because they owned slaves" idea, let's hear their views, but it's going to take a lot to convince me that these things are all the same. Show me how the Washington and Jefferson monuments and statutes were built specifically as instruments of oppression, but best come with evidence.

You're right, the statues didn't remind people who was in charge, Washington and Jefferson showed that by owning slaves. And the people who would tear down Washington and Jefferson's monuments won't care about any of your argument anyway. Because slavery.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonInKC

You're right, the statues didn't remind people who was in charge, Washington and Jefferson showed that by owning slaves. And the people who would tear down Washington and Jefferson's monuments won't care about any of your argument anyway. Because slavery.

Perhaps. The question is whether those people can win those debates in the relevant assemblies and then I'm all for local people deciding local issues. The only Washington or Jefferson monuments which really matter are in D.C., so there would likely have to be some action taken by Congress or the National Parks Service or both for anything to happen to those. And if those who want to tear it down get the votes to do so, elections have consequences. And if that's how you feel about Washington and Jefferson and anyone who owned slaves, I can certainly respect that. I just don't think the behavior justified by that belief is something I can support. Are we next to demand Italy and Greece tear down their ancient ruins because they were built with slave labor? Time to tear down the Pyramids? Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw the line?

[JonInKC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Perhaps. The question is whether those people can win those debates in the relevant assemblies and then I'm all for local people deciding local issues. The only Washington or Jefferson monuments which really matter are in D.C., so there would likely have to be some action taken by Congress or the National Parks Service or both for anything to happen to those. And if those who want to tear it down get the votes to do so, elections have consequences. And if that's how you feel about Washington and Jefferson and anyone who owned slaves, I can certainly respect that. I just don't think the behavior justified by that belief is something I can support. Are we next to demand Italy and Greece tear down their ancient ruins because they were built with slave labor? Time to tear down the Pyramids? Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw the line?

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonInKC

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.

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.

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.

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

...In 1866, one former slave at Arlington House, Wesley Norris, gave his testimony to the National Anti-Slavery Standard. Mr. Norris said that he and others at Arlington were indeed told by Mr. Custis they would be freed upon his death, but that Lee had told them to stay for five more years.

So Mr. Norris said he, a sister and a cousin tried to escape in 1859, but were caught. “We were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty,” he said.

And when the overseer declined to wield the lash, a constable stepped up, Mr. Norris said. He added that Lee had told the constable to “lay it on well.”

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

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