Why Do People Defend The Confederacy?
I would like to hear actual arguments and not so much about "wokeness" .
Why do people defend ,or propose the continuation of monuments, to Robert E Lee and other Confederate heroes ?
It is remarkably easy to prove that the Civil War was fought to protect and continue slavery , and also to prove that Lee was a slaveowner whose basic thought on slavery was that it should continue until Almighty God decided otherwise.
Given these facts, what is the rationale for defending either the Confederacy or Robert E Lee?
There have been quite a few comments on this forum in the past couple days that seem to be suggesting that taking down the Lee monument on Wednesday was "going too far".
How do you go too far in the direction of correcting misconceptions about history?
Tags
Who is online
101 visitors
Comments deriding black lives matter could be subject to removal as off topic.
There is no good reason to defend the Confederacy, but we can be certain that the same people who do also defend, support or downplay the January 6th insurrection.
I saw a very interesting video this morning, about a study done of the first 400 people who had been tracked down and arrested for Jan 6th. I was going to seed the story, but decided against it since it is 4-5 months old.
The video was an interview with a man named Robert Pape who led an academic study of the motivations of the people who were arrested in connection to the Jan 6th riot at the capitol.
Pape and his study at the Univ of Chicago found data indicating that "fear of white replacement" was the number one motivating factor for Jan 6th rioters.
He also discovered that there was a correlation between being a riot attendee and red state counties where the non white population was growing.
Bottom line, this study , done by experienced political scientists, concluded that racial grievance by whites was a major factor in the Jan 6th rally goers and rioters.
Whodathunk it? lol.
I'd like to hear a rational argument as to why Confederate statues should remain standing. I am not opposed to relocating them to history museums or such. But statues are usually erected to honor someone. So why should we honor individuals who, for a intents and purposes, were traitors to the US and fought against the Union as citizens of a then separate nation?
I'd like to know why people fly the hakenkreuz (swastika) and/or the confederate battle flag (stars and bars) and not the hinamaru (the raising sun). They all represent losers.
Maybe they're racist against certain flags. Flagcist?
At least the picture got the perspective of the "broken cross" correct. Arms down and to the right.
a cross with feet so it can run away...
What's the answer? Destroy every statue? Burn every book?
In my opinion, the memory needs to be kept alive so that we may never, ever forget the horrors associated with it. History has a habit of repeating itself, especially when there are no reminders.
Feel free to hate the person being memorialized for whatever shitty reason. But instead of tearing it down, spank up a counter memorial next to it. A statue of Mary Richards Bowser would have looked nice looming over Lee and his horse.
Gotta disagree with you this time Sister. Any continuation of the statue is to continue to honor Lee. IMO
I get what you're saying. But by that logic, we should have statues of Hitler so that we don't forget WWII or the Holocaust.
We don’t need statues of Hitler. If you want to honor Hitler all you need to do is sport his mustache. Both the name Adolph and the stupid mustache were socially drilled out of existence. If anyone sees either at this point it will inevitably stir a vision of Hitler.
The issue with that is the funding that it would require. Imagine the cost of your proposal.
Add that to the fact that each 'addition' would be opposed costing a ton in litigation.
Removing memorials to traitors costs far less. Being traitors is a perfectly appropriate reason to 'hate on the person being memorialized'.
I'm hoping that I didn't come across as supporting Lee or his atrocities in any way. It's just that I can't stop thinking about the voting restrictions that are currently being placed on people, most of which are of color and living in rural areas. That pushes this country back to such a terrible time. It's like one step forward, 10 steps back. I can't understand how it's being allowed and why more of a fight hasn't been forthcoming. Have white people forgotten what people of color had to go through to be able to vote? In any event, please forgive me for not expressing myself better.
And Dulay - I didn't mean that the reason for tearing down the statue was shitty. I meant to convey that Lee's contributions to history were shitty.
Personally, I don't care about them one way or the other.
I do care about living in a free society, which means we don't allow people to have a tantrum and just go tear shit up.
If the good citizens of Whatevertown, USA want to take down their Confederate Whoever statue, I don't care at all. But just like everything else, there are processes that need to be followed.
Which was.
The process will vary based on where the statue is.
Here in Dallas, the City Council is responsible for maintaining city parks, and they voted to rename Lee Park and remove the RE Lee statue. There were discussions and arguments back and forth, and at the end of the day the governing body voted to do what they thought the majority of their constituents wanted.
It's nothing spectacular. It's just the basics of how civilized, free societies work.
The removal of the R.E. Lee statue in Richmond went through 'the process' up to and including a ruling from the Virginia Supreme Court.
That's fine. We are a nation of laws.
It isn't always as expeditious as we'd like, and we don't always agree, but that's how we avoid tyranny and mob rule.
Who defends the confederacy?
I consider defending confederate monuments to be defending the confederacy. You dont?
confederate monuments to be defending the confederacy. You dont?
. I would think most supporters see them as monuments to their ancestors.
Only if your ancestors were American traitors!
What part of the 60% of Richmond that is non white does Lee represent?
This is a man who said that slavery would be ended in God's good time.
Confederate monuments are nothing more than ''participation trophies for losers''.
Like that monument to Crazy Horse they've been working on forever?
Now that was just nasty and personal, Sean.
You do know that the ''Crazy Horse'' monument is being built by white folks don't you, Sean. Many Indians were/are not in favor of it.
But I know facts are a bridge too far for you.
You're even piss poor at trying to insult but very good at showing your ignorance.
Of course, it was, but don't expect anything else from a terminal whiner.
I'm just trying to figure out which losers it's okay to put up statues to. Why is is "nasty" to see if people are consistent? apparently, anyone who fought in a losing a war is a "loser" so let's apply the standard evenly.
know that the ''Crazy Horse'' monument is being built by white folks don't you, Sea
Who cares? Why does that matter?
What matters is that Crazy Horse was a " loser" and any monument to him is a participation trophy to a loser, right?
Lol. Get nasty and personal Kavika. Knock yourself out.
Because you are comparing apples to pears Sean and because you made it personal fully knowing that Kavika (and I) are both Indians.
The Confederates were traitors to the US. They were trying to break away. Who erects statues to traitors? I'm sorry but I don't recall hundreds of statues being erected to Benedict Arnold. Do you know why? Because he was a traitor to this country.
Crazy Horse was never part of this country. He was fighting to preserve his own. There is dignity to that.
And if Germany could figure this out after WWII, we should be able to.
Just following your lead, Sean.
It matters since Indians never asked that it be built and a white family took it on themselves to built it.
There is a huge difference between Confederates and Crazy Horse. The Confederates were traitors and Crazy Horse and many others were fighting a war brought on by the invasion of their land.
Sadly, you're not able to see the difference.
Sean is comparing a monument that doesnt exist to a monument that has been up for 130 years.
Almost all of the Confederate statues were a product of the "Lost Cause" effort , over a span of decades, to instill in American minds a belief that the South did not secede over slavery (false) and that the Confederacy was created to try and preserve a noble and chivalric way of southern life (false).
No fair minded person who understands the history of these monuments would argue for keeping them up.
ecause you are comparing apples to pears Sean
Nonsense. You have to ignore what he actually wrote to make your argument. He called them losers, not traitors.
If he wants to mock people for losing a war, that's fine. Just don't whine when your ox is gored.
People dont want the Lee statues removed because he lost the war. They want them removed because of what he was fighting for.
Come on Sean. You knew what he meant. You went right to Crazy Horse, to try and make it personal. It's not like we have hundreds of statues to Crazy Horse and not like he was ever part of this country.
Not whining at all, just pointing out facts that you chose to ignore, but no worries, carry on.
For starters, how about to those who fought for our country, not against it!
Who won the war?
They were both.
We need to also remember that George Floyd, in life, was a loser.
They should agree that the statue of him in Minnesota needs to come down.
If not, it is simply hypocrisy at its finest.
sorry, precedent has already been set. statues of losers get to stand for 100 years before removal.
Washington, Adams and Jefferson were also traitors. That's what we call people living in a country who organize or participate in armed rebellion against it.
Crazy Horse was living in US territory, and he organized an armed rebellion. He's only different from Washington because GW won and CH lost.
Us, apparently.
He betrayed his country when he joined the revolt against them. He was British, after all.
We don't see statues of him because he lost.
[deleted]
[Deleted]
You are the one who made it nasty and personal.
To the British Crown, sure.
The key to armed rebellions is to win them.
Yes, apparently we do, oddly enough.
So why do we see statues of Confederate figures, since they lost?
Which was their country, officially speaking.
Absolutely.
It's a great question, and I think there are possibly dozens of valid answers.
During reconstruction and the years that followed, there was a concerted effort to heal the wounds. Honoring Confederate soldiers (who fought for their "country" every bit as much as Washington fought for his) was seen as a way to help bring a divided country back together and reduce the chance of another war. For some people, that's undoubtedly a driver for why they want the monuments preserved.
There is also undoubtedly the group for whom the primary driver is racism. There's also the "historical value" group, along with a host of others.
We're not totally alone in this. The English still "remember remember the 5th of November" to this day.
Utter bullshit.
The R.E. Lee statue in Richmond was erected 25 YEARS after the civil war. There was NO chance of another civil war then.
Didn't read the comment again, did you?
Give it another try. Look for the words "dozens" and "host". And then try to post something intelligent.
Wrong again.
I block quoted part of your comment and addressed the absurdity of it's posit Jack. Were you to post 'dozens' or a 'host' of other posits, there is little evidence that any of them would be more cogent.
Yes, which is why the colonists were technically traitors to the crown.
Statues honor specific individuals. Many of which were erected years after the Civil War. And their "country" no longer existed.
I have no doubt about that.
Putting the statues in museums is fine to preserve "historical value."
As I stated quite clearly, there were many different reasons that those monuments were built.
Do you just not understand what the word "dozens" means? Does the phrase "host of options" overload your intellect? Are you somehow befuddled by the concept of one example among many alternatives?
I agree with pretty much everything you're saying. Personally, I never notice statues, so I don't particularly care whose they are.
I do, however, believe strongly that changing them must be done through legal processes. We can't allow people to just have a tantrum and tear shit down.
After the end of Reconstruction whites in the South wanted to rewrite perceptions of the Confederacy and thus created the so called Lost Cause myth. The monuments in question were mainly an expression of that Lost Cause myth. This is heavily researched and a google will help you.
None of the above.
I note that you are desperate to avoid addressing my critique of the 'one example' that you did cite. Any and all uncited examples are moot.
Present evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
You don't have anything valid to argue over, so you're trying to create a shitstorm out of thin air, and you don't care that you're not making any sense. Again.
If I cared, it would be sad.
Then WHY pose your allegations as questions Jack? It couldn't be that you have no intent or ability to support them, could it?
I'm not arguing Jack. I called your statement bullshit and critiqued it with a factual statement which you didn't even try to refute.
I hope that means that the whining will stop now.
That's hilarious.
Which is not arguing at all. *eyeroll*
I guess we'll add that to the list of befuddling words.
You are agreeing with me. Again. You're just so consumed with batshit identity politics you don't realize it. Again.
I clearly allowed for the possibility of "dozens" or even "hosts" of other options in my original statement. I even said, "There is also undoubtedly the group for whom the primary driver is racism." You have identified one example of something I described. Why would I refute you agreeing with me?
The massive lunacy here is that you somehow believe that giving an example of something I clearly said could exist somehow disproves anything.
Actually, it's merely calling a spade a spade Jack.
I called out the one example that you described as bullshit Jack. Again, you haven't and obviously can't refute that fact.
That's utterly obtuse pretzel logic.
More bullshit Jack.
You're back peddling. You posted an affirmative assertion, NOT something that 'could exist'.
Take that childishness to someone who will play that game.
I don't equate defending a statue with defending the Confederacy so I think the title of the article here oversteps. You can store the statue in a museum or hide it wherever, but if it comes to trying to hide the Confederacy you are hiding part of the history of the USA, the equivalent of book-burning. There are members here who criticize other nations for attempts to hide ugly events of their history, but it's okay if Americans do it. One should not forget that those who forget history are bound to repeat it, as George Santayana said, and it's easy to forget it if you hide it.
The reason for these statues memorializing Civil War Confederates is much the same as the reasons for erecting a Korean War Memorial, a Vietnam War Memorial, and a Holocaust Memorial decades before the World War II Memorial was built.
Why would Americans memorialize any of these lost causes? Why would Americans memorialize the Holocaust, of all things, before memorializing the victory of World War II? Why build a memorial on the site of the sunken USS Arizona long, long before memorializing the victory of World War II? Why would Americans build a memorial on the site of the Oklahoma City bombing or on the site of the World Trade towers? Why would Americans build a memorial in a Pennsylvania field where a hijacked aircraft was forced to crash and kill everyone on board?
Our pain, loss, and grief is very much a part of our American identity. And Americans tend to memorialize our grief and losses rather than our victories. The only holiday celebrating a victory in our country's history was July 4th. Now Juneteenth has been added to the holiday calendar which is comparable.
Americans tend to use national public art to memorialize hardship, grief, and loss rather than celebrate victories. Taking away our memorials corrupts our American identity. Transforming the United States into a culture that celebrates victories will be when the United States becomes a grave danger to the world. Our history should serve as warning that Americans will fight and die for lost causes.
That argument might have held water, except all of these were erected after the war, and to memorialize these individuals who fought against this country.
Why should we memorialize traitors?
Why erect statues and memorials to George Floyd? Who the hell was George Floyd anyway? Are those George Floyd statues defending the mob violence of burning Lake Street? Was the summer of violence fighting for or against the United States?
How does your argument hold up when compared to recent events?
I don't care if the statues are pulled down. But it's galling that such overt phony outrage and gimmickry is being used as justification. No one gave a damn about statues until they became useful for attacking Americans. And the whole purpose of the phony outrage and self righteous insincerity appears to be about erasing and rewriting the real history of the Democratic Party.
Democrats were traitors to the United States. Place the blame where it belongs.
Quite well since your comment is a utterly false equivalency.
You do realize there's a big difference between memorials to individuals who fought in a war for our country, and to an individual who fought against our country, right?
they keep forgetting that confederate traitors stopped being americans when they seceded.
Some of them even served in the Union army before secession and then actively fought against the Union after, which makes them traitors by definition. Or enemy combatants at the very least.
Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were not wars fought for our country.
They were wars our troops fought and died in. We don't honor the enemy troops/leaders who fought against us. Do you get it yet?
and some returned to the Federal army and at General Rank
Remember the Alamo.
Better question would be why many today still support the Democrat party that supported (and still fights for) what the confederacy stood for.
Why would that be a "better question" when it's total horse shit? Only a complete dumb shit moron with chronic traumatic encephalopathy would believe that the Democratic party of today supports anything the confederacy ever stood for. Modern Democratic Party ideals could not be further from the white Christian conservative confederate ideals of the past if they tried, they are at completely opposite poles. Confederates were white Christian conservatives who erected monuments to confederate Generals and would fly confederate flags celebrating their treasonous attack on American soldiers, they fought to keep humans as cattle, they fought to keep our nation segregated, they fought against equal rights, they fought against black Americans having a vote, they fought against women's rights and claimed such discrimination was protected by their religious freedom. Democrats today support civil rights and were instrumental in the passing of the civil rights act and voting rights act with a majority of Democrats voting for the bills and a Democrat President signing them into law. Democrats are determined to tear down the monuments and memorials to treasonous confederates, have tried to remove all confederate flags from any public buildings and State houses, have supported integration programs, affirmative action to make sure black Americans are able to access the same vocation training, Universities, schools and jobs, pushed for greater integration of communities and have the most diverse congress and Senate of any political party.
Here is an excerpt from the Democratic Party's platform:
"We must right the wrongs in our democracy, redress the systemic injustices that have long
plagued our society, throw open the doors of opportunity for all Americans, and reinvent our
institutions at home and our leadership abroad. We do not simply aspire to return our country to
where we were four years ago. We know we must be bolder and more ambitious.
We must once again stop another Republican recession from becoming a second Great
Depression."
"Democrats will forge a new social and economic contract with the American
people—a contract that creates millions of new jobs and promotes shared prosperity, closes
racial gaps in income and wealth, guarantees the right to join or form a union, raises wages and
ensures equal pay for women and paid family leave for all, and safeguards a secure and dignified
retirement."
Republicans, on the other hand, are mostly white Christian conservatives who protect and defend confederate monuments, often fly confederate flags at their party rally's and protests, fight against equal rights for lgtbq Americans, resist equal pay for women, attempt to disenfranchise minority voters and welcome white nationalists, KKK members and white supremacist support. Clearly anyone with more than half a brain can see that the Republican party of today closely resembles the conservative Southern Democrats of the past.
The key definer is not a party name but the difference between religious conservative ideals (Confederates/Southern Democrats of the past & Republicans of today) and liberal progressives ideals (Northern Republicans of last century, the Union that fought confederates & the Democrats of today).
It's horseshit to those who don't know history. I recommend you try some research. Google is your friend.
Perhaps you meant "It's horseshit coming from those who don't know history" because its clear that claim came from someone who has never actually studied American history. Apparently the deepest into history one would have gone to come to such a ridiculous conclusion was a person who said "Hey, the party name of those who created the KKK and supported segregation and Jim Crow laws and erected confederate monuments was 'Democrat', therefore any party with the name 'Democrat' in it must support the same things!". Of course such a person would also not be familiar with the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison.
"That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" - Romeo and Juliet
It's the substance/ideology that matters, not the name by which you call it. The only thing modern day Democrats share with the bigoted Southern Democrats of the last century is the name, that's it, which is why over 80% of black Americans are Democrats. Making such a statement as "the Democrat party that supported (and still fights for) what the confederacy stood for" is effectively calling all black Americans who register as Democrats gullible idiots and all the black Democratic congressmen and Senators are secretly white supremacists.
I meant exactly what I said. I don't play childish games.
Jeremy prove that. You keep saying it as if it is a fact, well it's time you antiup.
Dems pushing for the confederacy....
I can only shake my head anymore.
Pick one.
Google is your friend.
What's hilarious is that you somehow imagine that search to prove you right when it actually does the exact opposite.
"Dixiecrat: The States' Rights Democratic Party was a short-lived segregationist political party in the United States, active primarily in the South. It arose due to a Southern regional split in opposition to the Democratic Party."
"The Dixiecrats' presidential candidate, Strom Thurmond, became a Republican in 1964. The Dixiecrats represented the weakening of the "Solid South". (This referred to the Southern Democratic Party's control of presidential elections in the South and most seats in Congress, partly through decades of disenfranchisement of blacks since the turn of the century. Blacks had formerly been aligned with the Republican Party before being excluded from politics in the region, but during the Great Migration African Americans had found the Democratic Party in the North and West more suited to their interests."
I seriously hope your comments puts to rest this nonsense about the Democratic Party of TODAY vs the Republican Party of yesterday. I doubt it tho
I think violations should be handed out to anyone that deliberately posts that kind of nonsense
You beat me to it. The idea that the Dixiecrats prove that modern day Democrats are the real racists is totally absurd.
The reason the Dixiecrats broke away, or one of them, from the Democratic Party was because Truman was integrating the armed forces. During WW2 there were black soldiers, but it was a "separate but equal" thing, which is of course racist.
I have no idea why Jeremy NC would cite the Dixiecrats as being something that proved his point.
I guess you missed:
Odd that is that second part Democrats STILL practice to this day.
Your quotes and passages dont mean what you think they do.
Also not provable.
Shouldn't you provide a link if you're going to quote from a website?
Maybe if you live in a cave.
You didn't see it? It's with Dismayed Patriot's and all of JohnRussle's links.
Don't be lazy. Either cite that the link you used was theirs or find the link and C&P it yourself
I am trying to figure out what his argument about the Dixiecrats is. What I have seen so far makes no sense.