House to vote to remove Confederate statues from the Capitol
Category: News & Politics
Via: drakkonis • 4 years ago • 88 commentsBy: Rebecca Shabad and Haley Talbot (MSN)
Personally, I'm not a fan of statues of anyone. I don't think anyone is perfect enough to be put on a pedestal, no pun intended. That said, I can understand why some would have a problem with some of the statues in Statuary Hall. Even so, I think removing them would be a mistake. To understand why you need to understand the way I think statues should be viewed.
While I understand that people make statues of those who they think are great people or made great contributions, that is not the way I view them. I simply see them as someone who did some thing that someone else thought was worthy of a statue. While honor may have been intended by the statue's creator, I don't attach honor to statues. For me, they are simply a reminder of someone who did something in the past.
Because of that, I am free to see the individual as they really were and not with some narrow view that highlights some things but ignores others. I can look at the individual in total, warts an all. I don't need to stand in some special spot and, if I squint just right, see some great person. I can simply stand anywhere and see the person for who they were in totality.
If we all looked at statues in this manner, then, perhaps it can be understood why removing these statues is probably a mistake. The "good" and the "bad" should both be displayed. They are the history of this country and we should not forget how we came to be where we are. Jefferson Davis should be in Statuary Hall as a reminder of not simply who he was but also what impact he had on the shaping of this country. In other words, Statuary Hall shouldn't be about honoring anyone. It should simply be a history lesson. Removing those some deem offensive feels more like whitewashing our past and giving the impression that only "good" people were responsible for where we are now.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
WASHINGTON — The House is set to vote Tuesday on legislation to remove Confederate statues from public display in the Capitol as well as a bust of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney who wrote the 1857 Dred Scott decision that said Black people couldn't be citizens.
© Provided by NBC News
The measure passed the House in the last Congress but stalled in the GOP-controlled Senate. Last year, 72 Republicans voted with Democrats to take the statues down.
Democrats hold a razor thin majority in the Senate and would need 60 votes to advance the bill.
When the measure was reintroduced in the House earlier this year, House Majority Whip James Clyburn, D-S.C., cited the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, in which some Trump supporters paraded Confederate flags and other symbols of hate, as a reason to do away with the statues.
"On January 6th, we experienced the divisiveness of Confederate battle flags being flown inside the U.S. Capitol," Clyburn said in a statement. "Yet there are still vestiges that remain in this sacred building that glorify people and a movement that embraced that flag and sought to divide and destroy our great country. This legislation will remove these commemorations from places of honor and demonstrate that as Americans we do not celebrate those who seek to divide us."
Under the measure, Taney's bust would be replaced with one of Thurgood Marshall, the first Black Supreme Court justice. It would also remove statues of those who served in the Confederacy — one of its president, Jefferson Davis, is prominently displayed in Statuary Hall — as well as those of Vice President John C. Calhoun, North Carolina Gov. Charles Brantley Aycock, and Arkansas Sen. James Paul Clarke, all of whom defended slavery, segregation and white supremacy.
The architect of the Capitol will be asked to identify any other statues of those who served in the Confederacy. Removed statues would be returned to states that sent them to the Capitol.
Democrats have tried to remove the memorials to Confederate leaders for years, and their efforts intensified last year as the country wrestled with police brutality and racial intolerance in the wake of George Floyd's death last year.
Tags
Who is online
52 visitors
So, anyway, that's my take. What do you think?
Key sentences right here..............
"The "good" and the "bad" should both be displayed. They are the history of this country and we should not forget how we came to be where we are."
There are history books , encyclopedias, and museums that can remind us how we came to be where we are. We dont need statues in the US Congress to remind us.
That's what museums and history books are for. But public displays of statues are generally meant to recognize or honor heroes. Not traitors.
I've read more than one back in my school days. And it was laid out quite clearly.
How does one whitewash actual history written in said books? What would be gained? The books I read and the teachers I had whitewashed nothing. That you and others want to dramatize and over embellish the things we did wrong to prove some point, I would just as soon get the facts and form my own opinion.
Lost Causer are ya ?
CHARGE !
The next step for those re-writers of history will likely be banning those history books, encyclopedias, and closing museums. Book burnings will be followed by protest marches
Seriously?
C'mon, Greg... "burning" is for Black churches...
I think that when a government tries to hide not so good parts of its history that it doesn't like, it causes it to be hypocritical if it criticizes other governments for trying to hide things that may not be so good.
That is the key sentence in the article.
I have recently been listening to the audiobook
Probably what will happen, yet I think it is a mistake. I would prefer no statues of anyone, but since that is unlikely to happen then I would prefer that people not see statues as honoring people. Rather, just something to think of while you consider who the person was. From what I understand, and it may be incorrect, MLK had issues as well. If I saw a statue of him, I would recognize what he accomplished but I wouldn't "idolize" the man, since he had his warts as well.
If ever I get the chance to go to Statuary Hall, what will be in my mind as I peruse them is the recognition that, good or bad, these are the men who helped make the country what it is today. I won't think of them as great and good men, since I don't think anyone is those things in totality. To me, they're just icons through which to consider the past and understand it so as to hopefully make a better tomorrow.
so long traitors, go collect pigeon shit on some white supremacist's property in the south somewhere.
Libs are in trouble; time to stir the pot. Let's ignore that there weren't Confederates in Congress. Congressmen representing states in rebellion weren't allowed to be seated.
It's also interesting to note that Jefferson Davis, John C. Calhoun, Charles Brantley Aycock, and James Paul Clarke, whose statues are to be removed, are all Democrats. Aycock never served in Congress. And Clarke wasn't elected to the Senate until 1903. The calls to remove those statues are about sweeping the history of the Democratic Party under the rug.
The statues in the National Statuary Hall collection were commissioned and donated by states. And not all the statues are of politicians; Ohio's choice was Thomas Edison.
This is just another political effort to stir up controversy and create a political distraction.
funny how those are the only democrats revered by the right, isn't it?
California is represented by a statue of Ronald Reagan. Who does Democrats revere?
shouldn't his statue should be moved in front of that DC pizza parlor that trumpsters say is the headquarters for the hollywood pedophile cabal?
Wouldn't it be better to simply remove California's Reagan statue? Democrats can't sweep that bit of history under the rug by moving the statue.
Meh, Reagan never did anything particularly awful or shameful. I don’t think he was that great as president, but he wasn’t awful.
he needed a drool cup strapped to his head the last 3 years of his term.
Like the one Biden has been seen with?
let's see your proof.
Greg and proof.....
So what?
My position is if there are statues of confederates they should be taken down, period. The others, well IMO that is up the states. If that person is who they feel represents their bets then so be it.
But not all of them were Confederates. I suspect that all the statues causing heartburn were donated by southern states when Democrats dominated the south. These statues are a visible reminder of the history of the Democratic Party.
The stars-and-bars Confederate flag is a visible reminder that the Democratic Party divided the country with autocratic demands. The Democratic Party has always attracted rebels.
The Democratic Party then is not even remotely the same as it is now and the people in question certainly don’t represent the modern day Democratic Party. The 1960s and the 50 years since did happen.
I don’t see where any of this is a problem for Democrats.
Personally, I don't have a problem with removing the statues. The problem is that Democrats are using the removal of the statues to sweep their party's history under the rug instead of confronting that history.
Even Germany maintains reminders of the Nazi holocaust to confront their past. Why are Democrats avoiding their past?
Yeah no. That history is incredibly easy to find on the web, and in thousands of books. Unless a statue of Jefferson Davis has a plaque detailing the history of the Democratic Party on it then it isn’t doing a damn thing to educate anyone about anything nor force anyone to confront anything.
You are just trying to find some way to fault the Democrats no matter how stupid it is.
Yeah, they are called museums and historical sites, they don’t have statues of Hitler or Himmler in their government buildings as a reminder. And no one is avoiding the past of the Democratic Party. You are arguing against an imaginary foe.
Does Germany have statues of Hitler standing? I doubt anyone is trying to forget or erase history. More like not honor those who do not deserve it.
Did the Nazi Party survive the holocaust? Is the Nazi Party still in a position to control the German government? Are we to believe that Germany would be what it is today if the Nazi Party had been allowed to sweep its past under the rug? Can you imagine the reaction if someone claimed the Nazi Party had changed?
Perhaps these statues are displayed because the Democratic Party was allowed to continue to seek political power following the Civil War. Shouldn't we follow Germany's example and put the Democratic Party into a museum of atrocities?
Strawman argument. Germany has its history museums, as we do. That's where statues of "questionable" individuals of a nation's history belong. It's not a difficult concept.
Tell you what Nerm, go build yourself a time machine and go back 160 years and make the changes. Fact of the matter is different decisions were made in different situations and trying to apply the decisions of one to the other is idiotic. The situations were not similar, and neither were the solutions.
Besides, you go back and ban the Democratic party then all you have done is make the modern left leaning party have a different name.
Strawman? Statuary Hall at the Capitol is a museum displaying statues of prominent people (predominately politicians) donated by each of the 50 states. Would statues of prominent Democrats be displayed in Statuary Hall if the Democratic Party had not been allowed to continue to be politically active following the Civil War?
Germany did not allow the Nazi Party to be a part of the reconstructed country. Following the war, the political party responsible for the atrocities wasn't allowed to continue being politically active. That's not a strawman; that's a contrast.
Isn't that what things like the 1619 Project is attempting to do? Reparations? CRT? We're expected to confront the past. Yet we're told the Democratic Party has changed so that revisiting its history is an affront that cannot be allowed.
The Democratic Party has a sordid past. And the state of today's race relations today can be directly attributed to nearly 200 years of Democratic politics. The current state of policing isn't something new; it's a continuation of what Democrats put in place over the centuries. The Democratic Party is a direct link to that past; the Democratic Party was there.
We can't confront the past and gloss over the role of the Democratic Party in shaping that past.
Whatabout?
Whatabout?
Whatabout?
Gotta hand it to you, you are sticking to the stupid guns ip until the end. Bravo.
Who has said revisiting the Dems history is an affront? No one. Revisit it all you want, he’ll write an article about it. The Democrats (southern Democrats in particular) did a lot of fucked up things, no doubt about it. But the last 60 years did happen, and the current incarnation of the Democratic Party looks nothing like the old. Obviously you are not going to acknowledge that, but really that is just a you problem.
All anyone is saying is that statues of traitors do not belong in a place on honor on government grounds. I am not sure why you are so hellbent on standing up for the confederates.
Yep. But their policies, politics, and support base have changed significantly since the 1960s and much of their current platform is aimed at correcting the mistakes and offenses of the past. Well, as much as they can be corrected. Are you suggesting they should not try to correct their errors?
Agreed. So why does that have to do with removing statues honoring traitors at the US Capitol? Wouldn’t removing them be reconciling with the past? An acknowledgement that they do not deserve the honor?
The people in the statutes werent racist and traitors because they were Democrats, they were those things because they were southerners who supported racism and slavery.
Democrats dont wave the confederate flag today, conservative southerners do, and if they have a political party they are mainly Republican. That is all anyone needs to know.
John!
You are absolutely incorrigible!
Using facts again!
Have you no shame?
It's all they have. Instead of confronting the racists in their own party, look squirrel at history...
You don’t have to tell me any of that.
I have noticed that too. I am strongly suspecting that of Nerm isn’t outright racist he definitely sympathizes with those who are. The discussions about slavery certainly pushed the needle pretty far in that direction, and now his incessant defense of the confederates is moving it further still.
The calls to remove those statues are about removing statues of white racists, mostly conservatives, mostly defenders of slavery
from a place of honor in our Capital.
The nonsense that Democrats invented Jim Crow is just partisan swill in place of any real thought processes.
The Federalists, the Democratic Republicans, the Whigs and the Jackson Democrats were all conservative parties.
Blaming the present day Dems for being conservative mostly white assholes who condoned and thrived on slavery
is just another political effort to stir up controversy and create an alternative political distraction.
And Democrats. Democrats were white racists. The Democratic Party was established to defend slavery. The Democratic Party was not conservative; Democrats wanted to weaken the Constitution and dissolve the union because they were white racists that defended slavery. Those statues of prominent Democrats were given a place of honor because the Democratic Party regained political power and swept its own history under the rug.
Yet Democrats did invent the KKK and Jim Crow so that the southern Black population would not vote Republican. That's how Democrats regained political power following the Civil War. That's why the Solid South was controlled by Democrats for 100 years after the Civil War.
The present day white population is being told to take responsibility for the past. What we're not being told is that the Democratic Party (and Democratic politics) bears a large portion of responsibility for that past.
Today's Democratic Party wants to weaken the Constitution and use government for populist purposes just as the Democratic Party did when it was founded nearly 200 years ago by Andrew Jackson. The Democratic Party was founded as a liberal political party. The Democratic Party has remained true to its original history. The Democratic Party has not changed as much as we are expected to believe.
BS. Jackson was a conservative who wanted less government and no corrupt central bank.
Racists were not and are not defined by their partisan affiliations.
Biased drivel. The Democratic party existed north of the Mason Dixon line as well and did not support slavery.
Delusional. But when I lived in SC & NC they still, to this day worship Jeff Davis, it's cultural.
Re-writing history again? The Jackson Democrats were conservatives, the Whigs were the liberals.
It is not so much making shit up as much as it is ignoring everything that doesn’t fit his crafted narrative. He refuses to change his mind no matter the facts or evidence, but such is the way of the pseudo intellectual.
Notice no matter how many times you bring up the civil rights movement to the present he won’t even acknowledge it, because then he has to delve into the territory of advocating for punishing the son for the sins of the father which is some straight up North Korea shit.
And then of course he just makes up this opponent that is denying the Democrats history, which no one here has done. He is really arguing with, and defeating himself, to make himself absolutely right in his own mind.
How do you define liberal? Andrew Jackson was a liberal, even by today's standards.
That's revisionist history. Andrew Jackson was a populist champion of the common man. Jackson promoted civil liberties, democratic representative government, universal rights, elimination of elite privilege, and opposed regressive taxation. Andrew Jackson founded the Democratic Party to advance his liberal political beliefs. The Democratic Party has always been a liberal political party.
Andrew Jackson was a liberal slave owner. That's accurate, factual history.
Skipping right past the Indian killer part huh?
That is not how most will define liberal today.
LOL.. You can always tell when a Democrat is in disfavor because they rewrite history to make them "conservative" . Jackson was a radical, intent on expanding democracy, fighting "wall street" and pushing for equal rights of the common man as opposed the moneyed interests. Radicals are, by definiton, not conservative.
The Democratic party existed north of the Mason Dixon line as well and did not support slavery
Even funnier. Hell, the Copperhead Democrats essentially supported the Confederacy during the war, and the northern democrat's platform in 1864 called for a negotiated end to the war The idea that they didn't support slavery BEFORE the war would be too much even for Big Brother.
he Jackson Democrats were conservatives, the Whigs were the liberals.
That's insane. The "whigs" called themselves "whigs" to differentiate themselves from the radical "King Andrew" who was expanding the power of the Presidency at the expense of Congress. The Whigs were essentially formed to maintain the status quo of a supreme Congress and a weak executive.
Is that history discomforting?
Today's Democratic Party claims the same political priorities and goals as did Andrew Jackson's Democratic Party. Democrats of the 1830s would recognize (and likely support) today's advocacy for the popular vote, elimination of the electoral college, and less stringent requirements to vote.
Democrats (north and south) advocated making slavery subject to the popular vote. The Democratic Party has always believed that the popular vote overrode Federal requirements, established law, and the Constitution. The Democratic Party has always believed that the courts must reflect the popular will of the people.
It seems Democrats have twisted history so much that they don't even know what it means to be a Democrat. Democrats can't even acknowledge the liberal roots of the Democratic Party.
Confederate statues don’t belong in any position of honor on government property. They tried to split the country apart to preserve race based chattle slavery, not exactly something that should be celebrated.
They belong in museums and history books, nowhere else. Definitely not in the US Capitol.
History doesn't change... but our knowledge of it, and our perspective looking at it, do change.
There were reasons (not all of them respectable) for these statues. It could be salutary for the nation to create a collection, with full explanations... The collection would be elsewhere, of course: traitors - living or dead - have no place in Congress.
no, this is an up or down thing.
As Nerm led me to find out , Charles Brantley Aycock was a white supremacist during the Lost Cause era who led the disenfranchising of blacks in North Carolina. He does not merit a statue at all, let alone in the halls of Congress. I'm sure the only way he got there was as a bow to the Lost Cause.
Lets put an end to these statues once and for all.
Historically significant people are... significant.
Charles Brantley Aycock's statue, accompanied by a complete explanation of who he was, and why a statue of such an ignoble person ever got into Congress, would be edifying.
I just completely disagree. Statues are put up to honor people and trying to repurpose them would confuse too many people and leave it all too open to interpretation.
I understand your point. We can agree to disagree.
I think you and I are in the same place on this. I draw a hard line at treason. Definite no from me. For the rest of them, well I think that is up to each state that donated it. If they want that person to represent them then okay. I may personally disagree, but it isn’t up to me.
That could work. The state would have to explain why the statue represents it. That could be funny.
A new reality tv show - The Real Traitors Of South Carolina
I would get quite a few laughs out of it I am sure.