On Thursday, one liberal commentator veered off script and lent credibility to President Donald Trump’s warning that the anti-Confederate movement will not stop with southern Civil War generals like Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.
“I don’t care if it’s a George Washington statue or a Thomas Jefferson statue, or a Robert E. Lee statue,” commentator Angela Rye said on CNN. “They all need to come down.”
Daily Beast columnist John Avalon moved quickly to challenge Rye — not so much because she was wrong but because it might help Trump.
"We've got to be real careful about what we're doing here," he said on the same program. "Because we're polarizing the conversation exactly in the direction that Donald Trump wants, Angela."
Avalon added that Rye was buying into "exactly the slippery-slope argument that Donald Trump is presenting that Founding Fathers are the moral equal of Confederate generals."
But Rye, former executive director and general counsel of the Congressional Black Caucus, doubled down.
"We have to get to the heart of the problem here, and the heart of the problem is the way in which many of us were taught American history. American history is not all glorious," she said. "And even though I love John to death, I couldn't disagree more about George Washington. George Washington was a slave owner. And we need to call slave owners out for what they are, whether we think they were protecting American freedom or not. He wasn't protecting my freedom. I wasn't someone who — my ancestors weren't deemed human to him."
Rye said she was calling out white supremacy for what it is.
"This country was founded on a very violent past that resulted in the raping and the killing of my ancestors," she said. "I'm not going to allow us to say that it's okay for a Robert E. Lee [statue to be removed] but not a George Washington. We need to call it what it is."
Avalon had argued that Trump and his lawyer, John Dowd, have tried to "elevate the South and put it on an equal patriotic footing" by drawing a false equivalency between the commander of the Confederate army and the nation's first president.
"But it falls apart on the fundamental level that George Washington devoted his life to trying to unite our nation, and Confederate generals made a fateful decision to try to tear apart our nation, and six million people [sic] died," he said.
Washington Post Reporter Equates Confederates with Terrorists Journalist suggests to CNN there are not two sides to debate over Southern Civil War statues But Rye made clear that she does not see a moral difference.
"We definitely need to learn about it so we don't repeat it," she said. "Because we're very close to repeating it right now. But I'm not giving any deference to George Washington or Robert E. Lee."
Black author and journalist Farai Chideya said she considers Washington a "complicated man who was a hero." She drew a distinction to Lee, whom many historians also consider a complex figure, who held contradictory views on slavery.
This all began with removing Confederate flags. We all know not to make conssesions to radical elements. I originally couldn't care less about Confederate statues & monuments but as soon as it was evident who was pushing this agenda we all should stand together and say no you don't. American history is NOT a story of oppression. It is a glorious story of the common man overcoming adversity and doing great things. Let us protect our history from those who want to erase it. If The statues of the writers of the Constitution come down it wont be long before the Constitution comes under attack.
American history is NOT a story of oppression. It is a glorious story of the common man overcoming adversity and doing great things.
It is both. Irrefutably both. I am surprised an intelligent fellow like yourself would contend otherwise.
Back in those days, having slaves was an everyday way of life, and now it is being attacked as evil. So Washington owned slaves - does that make him evil? How does one feel about underpaid, underfed migrant workers, fruit and vegetable pickers. How far removed are they from the slaves of yesteryear? Today, we tolerate certain customs and practices, so if in the future they are declared to have been evil, then should anything representting those customs and practices be demolished?
Buzz, I may end up having to say this a thousand times. Any monuments to CONFEDERATE heroes are monuments to the Confederacy. The Confederate States Of America was OFFICIALLY a white supremacist entity. The CSA constitution was copied more or less from the US constitution with the notable exception that in the CSA constitution every state is required to be a slave state ( legalized slavery) and cannot end slavery without a constitutional amendment.
And the confederates lost. Why should there be racially motivated tributes to them ? And these statues are not "history" . That claim borders on the ridiculous.
I think the point I was trying to make is that I do not agree that the Washington Monument or Jefferson Memoriall should be demolished. I made it clear already on another article that having read Robert E Lee's writings about Confederate statues and memorials, and even flags, I believe they should be removed. I agreed with you for Christ's sake - give me a break.
"Any monuments to CONFEDERATE heroes are monuments to the Confederacy."
Now keep in mind that 1958, it was declared that veterans of the Confederate Military are US Veterans. They received the same benefits as Soldiers from the Union Military.
Many of these monuments are to remember those veterans - US VETERANS. You want to start dismantling Arlington National Cemetery?
There is a vast difference between recognizing the service of individual soldiers by calling them veterans , and paying tribute to the confederacy by building statues to confederate generals. The Confederacy was a white supremacist entity. Is there something about that you dont understand?
"The Confederacy was a white supremacist entity."
In your mind maybe. In others, that's not the case.
Reading the link I provided, and many others I've found, they received the same benefits that are extended to Union veterans.
Skirting the CoC [ph] The white supremacy is written into the Confederate constitution. They are not only a white supremacist enitity because others say so, they said it themselves.
In the CSA, every state had to have legalized negro slavery
they had no choice if they wanted to be in the CSA. Individual states could not ever end slavery (as they could in the Union) , the only way a state in the CSA could end slavery was if there was to be a constitutional amendment that effected all of them.
Any new CSA territories were required to have legalized negro slavery.
You do not know what you are talking about.
US constitution - No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
CSA Constitution - No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
===========================================
" As far as slave-owning rights go, however, the document is much more effective. Four different clauses entrench the legality of slavery in a number of different ways, and together they virtually guarantee that any sort of anti-slave law or policy would be unconstitutional.
People can claim the Civil War was "not about slavery" as much as they want, but the fact remains that anyone who fought for the Confederacy was fighting for a country in which a universal right to own slaves was one of the most entrenched laws of the land."
Now keep in mind that 1958, it was declared that veterans of the Confederate Military are US Veterans.
That lie has had a long and durable life. That law says nothing about making rebel soldier "US veterans." Here's the only pertinent part of that legislation from the link YOU provided:
CONFEDERATE FORCES VETERANS
"SEC. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served
in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America
during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and
subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such
person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service
m such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the
United States."
Nothing in there about "declaring" them US veterans. It did grant VA benefits to them but since the person claiming to be last surviving confed soldier died in 1959 (disputed--probably was much earlier, well before this law was passed) no such veteran actually received these benefits. It was mainly for the small number of widows of those veterans.
[apologies for the font size; once I copied and pasted from the .pdf, I couldn't enlarge anything.]
Now keep in mind that 1958, it was declared that veterans of the Confederate Military are US Veterans.
That lie has had a long and durable life. That law says nothing about making rebel soldier "US veterans." Here's the only pertinent part of that legislation from the link YOU provided:
CONFEDERATE FORCES VETERANS
"SEC. 410. The Administrator shall pay to each person who served
in the military or naval forces of the Confederate States of America
during the Civil War a monthly pension in the same amounts and
subject to the same conditions as would have been applicable to such
person under the laws in effect on December 31, 1957, if his service
m such forces had been service in the military or naval service of the
United States."
Nothing in there about "declaring" them US veterans. It did grant VA benefits to them but since the person claiming to be last surviving confed soldier died in 1959 (disputed--probably was much earlier, well before this law was passed) no such veteran actually received these benefits. It was mainly for the small number of widows of those veterans.
Anyone else feel like we are seeing the modern day equivalent of Brown Shirts slowly emerging? Yes, their targets (white supremacists) are deserving of scorn but, they are using this premise to paint with a VERY broad brush to eradicate anything they disagree with. They are also painting so broadly that anyone who simply does not agree with them or in many cases you can agree with them but if you do not actively support them you are also a racist, bigot, etc. The do do this while ignoring or sweeping under the rug the racisim and bigoty on their own part.
Civil and reasoned discussion apparently is no longer accetable. I think I will be dead and gone before the full effect of this comes to fruition but, I fear for my granddaughter.
You probably have a good point in general, anything can become excess, which is why any removal of confederate monuments should be done in an orderly and legal fashion.
This is my Uncle Elijah's monument in Alton, IL. I can't imagine the pain we would feel if it were destroyed or harmed in any way.
The base is inscribed with several of his quotes.
But, gentlemen, as long as I am an American citizen, and as long as American blood runs in these veins, I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, to publish whatever I please on any subject--being amenable to the laws of my country for the same
If the laws of my country fail to protect me I appeal to God, and with him I cheerfully rest my cause. I can die at my post but I cannot desert it.
I have sworn eternal opposition to slavery, and by the blessing of God, I will never go back.
I have an insane urge to slap the snot out of Donald Trump right about now.
you are elijah lovejoy's niece? i am impressed sister.
Elijah Parish Lovejoy - Wikipedia
I am his great, great, great, great niece.
Have you been to the monument?
No, I have read of him though.
Very Cool Sister!
"I can't imagine the pain we would feel if it were destroyed or harmed in any way."
Unfortunately the thin skinned little fools that are tearing down these monuments only care about what THEY feel. They have no regard for others and what monuments like these mean to others.
"I have an insane urge to slap the snot out of Donald Trump right about now."
Don't know why. He has nothing to do with it. He's not the one that is tearing the monuments down. You should be looking a the shit stains that are doing it and those that support what's happening.
Again and again, jeremy, you only see this issue from the standpoint of someone whose life has never been perturbed by any racism and have to face the glorified symbols of his ancestors' past bondage and murder every day.
My Dad was born in Alton and Alton was not a place known for its fondness for blacks so I'm very pleasantly surprised that this monument to your uncle stands there. And there's nothing at all insane about that urge you feel. It's quite normal and appropriate.
But Yet in a park in the Liberal Bastion of Seattle there is a statue of Lenin.
And although 40,000 were shot during the "Years of Terror" along with millions killed under Communist Regimes just in the 20th century you won't find anyone from one the Left who will lose any sleep about this statue remaining right where it is from now on.
650,000 Americans died as a result of the treason by the South. That's still the most deadly war the US has had.
And many of the memorials, statues, etc are defended by family of said person and their friends whether the monument is to a union or confederate person. It's already been stated that confederate soldiers are now considered USA veterans. The statues on and for both sides were built to bind a divided country back together, to heal us again as one country. The goal was reunification and ending reconstruction as soon as possible with the readmittance of the CSA states back into the Union. The statue banners today are all about division and disunity in America and for the progressives to try to keep the civil war alive by trying to continue to punish the south some 152 years after the end of the civil war.
Six,
You do realize that Lenin had nothing to do with the "Years of Terror". It was Stalin. I had no idea why Seattle would have a statue to Lenin, so I looked it up.
The statue was constructed by Bulgarian sculptor Emil Venkov (1937–2017) under a 1981 commission from the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia . [1] [2] [3] While following the bounds of his commission, Venkov intended to portray Lenin as a bringer of revolution, in contrast to the traditional portrayals of Lenin as a philosopher and educator. [4]
Venkov's work was completed and installed in Poprad , Czechoslovakia (now Slovakia), in 1988 at a cost of 3340000 Kč , (equivalent to $180,000 in 2016), shortly before the fall of Czechoslovak communism during the 1989 Velvet Revolution . [1] [5] Despite popular belief, the Poprad Lenin was not toppled in the demonstrations during the fall of communism . Instead, it was quietly removed from Lenin's Square, in front of Poprad's main hospital, several months after the Velvet Revolution
Lewis E. Carpenter, an English teacher in Poprad originally from Issaquah, Washington , found the monumental statue lying in a scrapyard with a homeless man living inside the hollow statue. [5] [6] The Lenin statue was waiting to be cut up and sold for the price of the bronze. [5] Carpenter had met and befriended the sculptor, Venkov, in an earlier visit to Czechoslovakia. Carpenter's initial interest in buying the statue was to preserve it for its historic and artistic merit. [5] Later he intended to use it attract customers for an ethnic Slovak restaurant he wanted to open in Issaquah
The owners moved the statue two blocks north to the intersection of Fremont Place North, North 36th Street and Evanston Avenue North in 1996, adjacent to a Taco del Mar and a gelato shop. [11] [12] The new location is also 3 blocks west of the Fremont Troll , another Fremont art installation situated under the Aurora Bridge .
The Carpenter family continues to seek a buyer for the statue. As of 2015 the asking price was US$250,000 , up from a 1996 price of US$150,000 (equivalent to $230,000 in 2016)
So this is a private person, who bought it as a piece of art and has nothing to do with the city of Seattle.
Look up the red terror. Hundreds of thousands were killed under Lenin.
On private property, (not a public park) which is where all your beloved symbols of treason and slavery are welcome to be placed.
Removing Items because of one issue in someone's head, is a MAJOR issue in my book. Those that only look at a dark side of a multifaceted history, needs help.
I've walked by numerous monuments throughout this country, and not ONCE did I think: what would my neighbor say about this. NOT ONE FRIGGIN TIME !
People just have way too much time on their hands these days. Used to be we were too busy with our own lives and family to think of CRAP like this !
Eventually tributes to the white supremacist confederacy will come down. Why wait?
"Why wait?"
Why give into a generation that doesn't know what it's like to not get their way? Notice that most of the people that are "offended" are part of the same generation where even the losers got a trophy.
Insignificant to me. This is not an issue of "political correctness". It is an issue of justice. The statues were not built to "honor" southern soldiers, they were built to justify white supremacism.
"The statues were not built to "honor" southern soldiers, they were built to justify white supremacism."
And that is your opinion. Others don't agree. But under your premise, it offends you and you think it should be removed regardless of what others point of view. In a nutshell, the only thing that matters is what YOU want.
You know nothing of the history of which you speak. But we have a free country and forum so enjoy yourself.
You know nothing of the history of which you speak.
You, and the other so-called shocked folks, are just now ...... SHOCKED ?
Not one damn person is really offended by some stone and metal monument that has been up for decades and decades. It's just another one of those "IN" things that people are grasping on to, so they can get on TV or in the papers. A personal selfish claim to fame thing if you will. Kind of like Rachel Dolezal syndrome. She felt the pain in her past life too !
"Not one damn person is really offended by some stone and metal monument that has been up for decades and decades. "
I was just thinking the same thing. How can statues, some that have been standing almost a century, suddenly be offensive? It really makes me question the mindset and coping skills of a lot of people.
Gee, hmmmm ... what has happened over the last 18 months or so that would have driven such a trend? I just can't put my finger on it.
There has been a lot that's happened in the last 18 months.
You are going to have to be a little more specific. A lot of us have more important things to do then follow the whining fools who are triggered by the sight of a flag or a sign.
A lot of us have more important things to do then follow the whining fools who are triggered by the sight of a flag or a sign.
Yet you sure seem to find a lot of time to post crap here. For example:
Dems picked up 6 house and 2 senate seats in 2016. Those senate wins were just enough to make the difference in the failure of your guys to take away health care for millions of Americans. And:
You must be watching just FoxBS. Right now, it's your psycho in the WH who pretty much daily has a hysterical outburst and republicans attacking him and vice versa. But don't get me wrong. I wouldn't have you post something rational for the world. Your absurd comments are hilarious to read. Keep 'em coming.
It's just another one of those "IN" things that people are grasping on to, so they can get on TV or in the papers.
Beneath meriting a sincere response.
Beneath meriting a sincere response.
In other words, you can't come up with one !
"You know nothing of the history of which you speak."
So because I disagree with you I'm wrong. At least I know where you stand.
Have a good day.
Time for the name of our capital city to change to Federal City - we cannot have the nation's capital named after a slave owner.
Can we?