Robert E. Lee Statue Gives One Final Thumbs-Up As It's Melted Down
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA — In a meaningful moment that was years in the making, the bronze statue of Robert E. Lee that once stood in Charlottesville gave one final, solemn thumbs-up as it was melted down in a blazing furnace.
"It was a powerful sight," said one eyewitness to the statue's final destruction. "We all knew it was a momentous occasion, but we were not expecting to see General Lee give one last salute. As he was lowered into the blazing furnace, he reached one hand up and gave a thumbs-up before disappearing into the molten metal below. Through the smoke, I thought I heard the words: 'I know now why you cry, but it's something I can never do.' It was almost as if he was at peace with his fate."
"Truly moving."
The statue, a source of controversy in the wake of the 2017 Charlottesville rally that resulted in an explosion of racial tension, was originally torn down in 2021. "With the melting down of this statue, racism has now, thankfully, been completely eradicated," said progressive minister Jeremiah Barnes. "All people will live in peace and harmony now that this bronze sculpture isn't causing endless hate to spread around the globe. Perhaps his final thumbs-up was his own way of agreeing that he must be destroyed."
At publishing time, sources had confirmed the metal from the melted statue would be used to sculpt a new monument of Lizzo embracing Beyonce.
Tags
Who is online
64 visitors
Maybe only Americans get the point of that image, because I sure don't.
Maybe only one American that gets the point of the image?....
They look like fritters, a southern fried dish.
Correct, they're called hushpuppies.
What's the point of the hush puppies? Do they have anything to do with the story?
Crosby’s Urban Viddles has the best hush puppies in Charlottesville.
I think this is as much on topic as hushpuppies, but then we all have our specific interests, don't we.
Gone With the Wind, sort of like what some people want to happen to American history.
You may know that Gone With The Wind itself, the novel moreso than the movie, but the movie too, is now considered offensive because of its romantic,sympathetic portrayal of the South during the slavery/Civil War era. Times change. When Gone With The Wind was written and the movie made , blacks were considered to be more of the Aunt Jemima, Steppin Fetchit types , particularly in the entertainment world.
I like the movie Gone With The Wind, but it is also easy to see what is objectionable about it.
Robert E Lee was a traitor. Do they have statues of traitors standing in Canada or China?
Well, then, John, why don't you start a crusade to get the movie banned like Song of the South is, then maybe start a protest to get the Jolson Story banned as well, and the Shirley Temple movies where she dances with that, you know, that old guy on the staircase?
You are way out of line on this topic, almost comically so.
no John, it’s just Buzz appreciates art, and isn’t a snowflake that has to cancel everything that may offend other snowflakes. He is adult enough to appreciate a movie or art for what it is, and the time it was created. and turn off what offends him or what he doesn’t like.
If the pieces of crap who want to cancel everything that offends themselves would just use a little self restraint and not watch it and allow others to make those decisions for themselves maybe we wouldn’t make fun of the cancel culture pansies.
Believe it or not there were people who thought statues of Hitler were art or that swaztika banners were art.
Plus we know why statues of confederate generals were erected and it wasnt because they were artistic masterpieces.
WGAF ?
Thank you, George. You said it better than I could have.
Using a monster and his symbol as an example or comparison is a bit of overkill, IMO. Didn't George Washington own slaves? Why don't you start a movement to tear down the Washington monument, the obelisk?
There is also the Jefferson Memorial and numerous structures named after President Wilson, a twentieth century avid racist. Let start with the Woodrow Wilson Bridge connecting Maryland and Virginia.
when did jefferson or wilson take up arms against the US? false equivalency.
[deleted]
Because Washington is an important figure in our history despite him owning slaves. Lee isnt.
I was going to use the Jefferson Memorial as a further example, but I thought the comeback would be that at least Jefferson made it clear that he was opposed to slavery - but does that make him a hypocrite?
I have no idea why these guys whine about taking the statues of traitors down. Its inexplicable.
Neither did, they were just despicable, slave owning, racists.
Lee was loyal to Virginia, at the time that was most important. An Individual's state was more important than the rest of the states put together.
Robert E Lee owned slaves, and was in no hurry to get rid of them. He literally said that slavery would end whenever God wanted it to end, but not before. Convenient excuse wouldnt you say?
If the Confederacy had won the war it would make some sense to have statues of him up in the south. But they lost and those states are US territory. Honoring traitors is not good.
He was loyal to Virginia. When Virginia succeeded his loyalty went to his home state as that was the custom at the time, nowadays that is not understood.
He was a great military leader but the South did not have the industrial base to win the war
What do you call someone who was "opposed to slavery" but owned slaves , a lot of them, his entire life?
A hypocrite.
somebody who was doing what was legal at the time and what many others were doing.
make as many excuses as you want, its a free country
It is a free country and I can say what I want, just as you can.
It's only a free country if everybody, including slaves, can say and do what they want.
Well at least you got one half right, democrats were racist slave owners, [Deleted]
So then why is it that right wingers are so upset about this statue being torn down? Also, you know it's 2023 now, right?
I couldn’t care less about the statue but not being a right winger, my opinion probably doesn’t answer your question.
I don’t know any “right wingers” upset by this, I just find it funny that democrats think that anybody but those stupid enough to support them will believe this will erase their long continued history of racism.
And i absolutely know it’s 2023, the only difference between then and now is republicans took democrats slaves away, nothing else has changed with democrats.
How many minorities are in the GOP vs. Dems in congress again? Might want to look that up. [deleted]
None of the right wingers here will answer the question either. They will just deflect.
So then why is it that right wingers are so upset about this statue being torn down?
I don't know anyone actually upset. Most just ridicule the snowflakes that insist on taking statues down as a means to virtue signal. Like it makes a difference.
Were Democrats wanting to tear those monuments down before or after they lost control of southern state governance?...
funny how youtube bleeped out all the times lee atwater said the N word...
In fact, there were Republicans who were slave owners. At least 481 Republican Congressmen owned slaves.
least 481 Republican Congressmen owned slaves.
lol.
You obviously didn't read the article.
Perrie, not looking for an argument here, the Modern Republican Party didn’t start until 1854, do you honestly think the had 481 different congressmen between that time and slavery ended? His stament is 481 Republican congressmen, that means serving in Congress as a republican and owning slaves. And only 606 democrats? Does that seem feasible to you?
If you can prove that is a false statement, now is the time to do it.
I dont know if the statement is accurate or not, but it doesnt mean what you think it does.
You dont have to be a slave owner while you are in Congress. They could have owned slaves prior to becoming congressman, for that matter prior to becoming a Republican, and still be a Republican congressman who owned slaves.
Exactly it's quite clear in the article.
Of course I did. And since I have basic knowledge of American history I knew it was obviously wrong. I looked at the actual underlying source this crappy Turkish clickbait links to, and guess what?
It says no such thing.
Read the actual source article the linked Turkish news article cites.
The newspaper found 606 such cases. There were some 481 congressional Republicans who were identified as slaveowners.
Imagine having a basic understanding of American history and thinking the ratio of 606 to 481 between Democratic and Republican slaveholding Congressmen could possibly be true.
The research was done by the Washington Post per Reuters
The original article was researched and verified by the Washington Post and is available on the internet.
Try reading the actual study. I have.
It perpetuates the myth that democrats weren’t the bad guys, the party of abolishing slavery were as bad as the racist democrats who killed almost a million Americans to hold onto their slaves.
It also states that over 3,000 did not own slaves and there are 677 left to verify or there is not enough info to make a determination.
George, please explain the disparity in the number of minorities in the current congress between Dem's and Repub's. I would think that with dems being racists, per your many comments the number would be much different....80% dems and 20% repubs...shamefull for your party.
BTW, asking for a white republican friend.
Dont be too logical, it will confuse them.
also states that over 3,000 did not own slaves and there are 677 left to verify or there is not enough info to make a determination.
That doesn't really have anything to do with what I wrote. The idea that there was 6:5 ratio between Democrat and Republican slaveholders is simply ludicrous on its face. From the study:
So somehow, the ratio of slaveholders massively flipped from a 100-1 ratio of Democrats to Republicans, to a massive Republican majority of slaveholders outside of those in congress in 1860 in order to drive the ratio down to 6:5. It's absurd on its face.
They will seize on whatever pushes the narrative.
Yes, it does have something to do with what you wrote, the unverified should go either way which would change the numbers.
I did read the whole study and also underlined the same paragraph:
They were speaking of the 36th Congress and its current members at the time. The article states that ''slaveowners sometime in their life'' not currently and that seems to be the key to the article and the misunderstanding by some.
Even if every single "unverified" was a Democrat, the numbers still make no sense.
did read the whole study
Great. So quote the study claiming the ratio of 686 Democrats to 486 Republicans.
The problem is you can't because it doesn't exist. The Washington Post study makes no such claim. The honorable thing to do is admit the claim is bullshit and move on.
speaking of the 36th Congress and its current members at the time
That's understood. Again, if the ratio was that extreme at the time of the civil war (about 100 to 1) , when did it flip? Do you think the solid democratic south of the late 19th century was electing Republicans and not Democrats who formerly owned slaves? Or do you believe large numbers of former slaveholders migrated to the north, turned Republican and were elected to Congress from the north? Again, it is silly on its face.
Time to hit the sack, we can continue tomorrow or not.
You are correct, Kavika. The Washington Post study listed 481 slave owners who identified as Republicans at some point in their elected careers. It's not a mystery, although it seems to be to some. Of course, some people might feel the results of the study impedes their propagandistic efforts.
That's a lie. It doesn't.
Hello Sean, it's a great day and to continue with something that is even better than slave-owning Republicans is that:
So one of the founders of the Republican Party was a slave owner, this certain bears further discussion.
George, my white Republican Friend is very disappointed he felt that you could answer this question for him since like most Republicans he gets tongue-tied trying to make sense of the stat. Perhaps your abacas need some maintenance, that might help.
Since there are apparently 480 other Republicans who owned slaves, why the obsessive focus on Blair, whose history isn't even at issue?
Why don't you back up your claim about the 480 other slaveholding Republicans? Since you gave Gsquared a thumbs up when he claimed the Post posted a list of their names, you must have seen it, so why not post it?
I posted an article and if you feel that it's incorrect please post information that it is.
In my comment 2.3.4 I asked if you could disprove now was the time.
I did give G a thumbs up, great that you check those things, do you keep a record of who when and when they are done?
BTW, the Nazis were not socialist.
Lol. I did. I pointed out the source of the claim (the Washington Post) doesn't support it. Anyone who can read understands that. Rather than being honest and admit that, you continue to deflect. Why can't you be honest about the article and speak directly? You know, and I know, the article you posted is disinformation. What a shame you persist in pretending otherwise.
great that you check those things,
Was curious who would give a thumbs up to disinformation. Can't say I was surprised you did.
Ah Sean, childish insult but if you want to play that game it was you who keeps posting that the Nazis were socialists and everyone with a rudimentary knowledge of history knows that is BS so I guess it right back at ya. You could do the honorable thing and admit you are posting a lie.
In my comment 2.3.1 I asked that NT member why since dems are all racist the number of minorities in the current congress is 80% dem and 20% repub? He hasn't responded and since you of the same mind what to try to answer it?
This is the Washington Post database which you undoubtedly have not read. It lists the names of every slaveowner who was in Congress:
Just looking at the first 45 names out of 1800, I have already found 14 who are listed as Republicans.
You have pointed out nothing that is in any way true. Anyone who can read understands that. Rather than being honest and admit that, you continue to deflect. Your comments are total disinformation. What a shame you persist in pretending otherwise.
That's a lie.
You haven't read the Washington Post database.
Way to catch up! Did you miss the correction where the Post disavowed the partisan breakdown your clickbait article relied upon?
st looking at the first 45 names out of 1800, I have already found 14 who are listed as Republicans.
No you didn't. Feel free to list them.
Your comments are total disinformation
As you persist in defending a claim the Post itself disavowed. Shameful behavior.
Prove it.
Yes, I fucking did. You didn't and you know it. Your comments are a disgrace.
It's literally in the article. Did you not read it?
You didn't and you know i
I looked at the first 45 and your claim is bullshit. I don't know if you pulling numbers out of thin air or don't understand what you read. List the 14 and prove me wrong.
That's lie.
That's a lie.
On one condition - that you stay off Newstalkers for year.
I can't help it if you can't understand basic English. It's right there for you.
Okay. and if you can't show 14 of the first 45 (from Abbott to Arnell) represented the Republican Party than you have to stay off for a year.
This back and forth between you two has hit a dead end.
If it continues I'm going to start deleting.
Actually, there are 15 out of the first 45.
1. Joel Abbott
2. Adam Alexander
3. Evan Alexander
4. Mark Alexander
5. Nathaniel Alexander
6. Robert Allen (177-1844)
7. Lemuel Alston
8. Willis Alston
9. George Anderson
10. Lucien Anderson
11. Richard Anderson, Jr.
12. William Anderson
12. John Archer
14. Stevenson Archer (1786-1848)
15. Samuel Arnell
--
It looks like we won't be seeing you on here for a while.
Lol. I didn't even have to go past your first name. Remember what I said about having a basic understanding of American history? Your mistake was so obvious. The Republican party was founded in 1854
Joel Abbott: died on November 19, 1826, in Lexington, Ga.; interment in Rest Haven Cemetery, Washington, Ga
Here's your second mistake.
Alexander, Adam
died on November 1, 1848, in Jackson, Madison County, Tenn.; interment in Pryor Cemetery, Marshall County, Mis
See you next year. Enjoy the time off.
Start deleting what?
Joel Abbott was elected to the 15th, 16th and 17th Congresses as a member of the Republican Party.
Adam Alexander was also elected to Congress as a Republican.
If you had basic knowledge of American history you would know that the Republican Party was originally founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the early 1790s, based on the same basic principles as edpoused by later permutations of the Republican Party, including republicanism, individual liberty, decentralization, free markets and agrarianism.
It would probably benefit you during your year off to take some classes in American history.
Robert Allen on his list shows he died in 1844 strike 3.
Steven Archer died 1848. Another strike.
I think it’s a basic ignorance of history, they see democratic- republican and assume republican out of ignorance or confirmation bias, the Republican Party wasn’t even founded when they died.
What is the over under the bet is honored?
The basic ignorance of history is with those who fail to understand that the party founded by Thomas Jefferson was known as the Republican Party. It was never called the "Democratic-Republican Party" by its members. Ignorant people often assume all sorts of things that are not true. Believing that there was ever a party whose members were elected as "Democratic-Republicans" is one of those instances.
It appears you are wrong, but don’t worry nobody thinks you would honor your bet.
You are wrong. There was no such thing as the Democratic-Republican Party. Follow your own link. It was a name applied retroactively by historians and political scientists.
As usual, you bet on the loser.
[deleted3] everybody and i'm men everybody knows the democratic republican party is the democrat party and the republican party didn't start until the 1850's. [deleted]
[deleted] claiming that the Republican Party founded in 1854 is the same party as the Jeffersonian Democratic Republicans. [deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
This sidetrack has taken up half the space on this article. Enough. I think I will lock it and you guys can take up your argument elsewhere.
That's exactly what I was asking...
I hope that they did it in an environmentally friendly way.,
There are most likely many nations that would like to hide something or other from their past, but, as Bob Dylan wrote and sang: "And the history books tell it, they tell it so well..."
Left wingers pause from destroying posters of Jewish hostages and calling for genocide to fight racism by destroying art.
lol. Statues of Robert E Lee were not created for artistic purposes.
Right wingers conducted Kristallnacht and then murdered 6 million Jews. They also repressed artists they considered "degenerate".
maga rwnj's paid tribute and celebrated their antisemitism in charlottesville and now project it upon their enemies. christo-fascists believe they have exclusivity in the convert or kill ideology concerning the world's jewish communities.
t wingers conducted Kristallnacht and then murdered 6 million Jews.
Good comparison. "right wing" socialists in Germany 85 years ago are exactly the same as left wing American professors and students cheering for the same in America in 2023.
The phrase "right wing socialists in Germany 85 years ago" is well-recognized as a fraudulent reactionary trope attempting to label the Nazis as "socialists". Anyone with knowledge of historical reality knows how far that is from the truth.
The Nazis labeled themselves socialists because they were in fact socialists.
Given your post about hundreds of slave holding Republicans serving in Congress, [Deleted]
And war is peace and 2+2=5.
---
The claim that the Nazis were socialists is right wing propaganda. The Nazis imprisoned and murdered socialists.
"Hitler and the Nazis outlawed socialism, and executed socialists and communists en masse, even before they started rounding up Jews. In 1933, the Dachau concentration camp held socialists and leftists exclusively."
the vatican participated in the laundering of stolen jewish assets and helping nazis escape. deny it.
Yes and Stalin and Mao murdered communists, it’s just what they do.
The Nazi Party roots like Mussolini’s were socialist in the 20’s. The it morphed into authoritarian anti-capitalism and then fascism.
Surprisingly, they self identified as socialists.
Not surprisingly, reactionary propagandists continue to espouse that falsehood.
Falsehood? How do translate Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei into English?
North Korea is officially named the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Is it a democracy?
National Socialist German Workers Party.....Yes every one understands that but the reality of the era and leaders is quite different. Hitler and the leaders of the NAZI party;
No, it’s a socialist country as well.
There is a man named Ty Seidule . He was at one point the historian for the US Military Academy (West Point). He grew up idolizing Robert E Lee, but over the years the more he learned the more he came to the opinion that Lee and other confederate officials and generals were traitors. Why should the US honor traitors? There is no good reason.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘Confederates were traitors’: Ty Seidule on West Point, …
Web Sep 5, 2022 · Books Interview ‘Confederates were traitors’: Ty Seidule on West Point, race and American history Martin Pengelly in New York The discovery of a plaque showing a member of the Ku Klux Klan at the...
Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the…
Web Jan 26, 2021 · 4,388 ratings900 reviews. In a forceful but humane narrative, former soldier and head of the West Point history department Ty Seidule's …
We shouldn’t, Lee violated his oath which legally bound him to uphold and defend the constitution, not his state. I think that Lee was a very conflicted man. He served honorable and very well for 30 some years. Spoke against succession until Virginia succeeded, but then could see beyond his learned behavior. After the war he spoke against any monuments to him.
Lee believed that slaves should be free, but only in God's good time. He thought the Africans needed the discipline they were getting from the white man.
= after all the tobacco was harvested and cotton was picked...
Yes, he did.
No cotton in Northern Virginia.
lee disavowed the confederate lost cause after the civil war and urged all southerners to do the same.
a day late and a confederate dollar short
hey, that rebel money could be worth something, after they find that stolen yankee gold...
Yes, he did,
Better late than never.