Pelosi wants Confederate statues removed from Capitol

[ThorOdinson13]

Let's not forget that every single "Union" state had abolished slavery long before the Civil War, save one.*

It's hilarious when they refuse to call Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland "Union" states when they fought for the Union. It's almost like they don't want to admit those union states had slavery until the 13th.

"The emancipation proclamation freed the slaves" they say. They don't even provide an asterisk to point out that it only applied to the confederacy and not their own slave holding states within the Union because they are "border" states.

 

[windriverrange]

Lets also not forget the EP was not much of a thought until after September of 1862, because of the losses the Union army suffered at Antietam. Abe knew that to win the war he would have to have freed men and escaped slaves in the Union Army and thus the EP was announced on January 1, 1863. I will note here that it didn't happen the moment Ft Sumter was fired on and states started to succeed.

Also note it says "within the rebellious states" and not the whole United States.

President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on January 1, 1863, as the nation approached its third year of bloody civil war. The proclamation declared "that all persons held as slaves" within the rebellious states "are, and henceforward shall be free."
​

 

[GL97]

When was this big shift where old democrats are now today's republicans?

The shift among the political parties transpired over a number of years. One can trace the beginnings of the shift to the Democrats nominating William Jennings Bryan in 1896. Bryan's supporters wrestled control away from the Bourbon Democrats (conservative Democrats). The Bryan faction would lead to FDR and the advent of the New Deal in 1932, which began to shift each party's approach to federal involvement and aid. Democrats began pushing New Deal policies while Republicans opposed them.

Then there was the speech by Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic National Convention. He said it was time for the Democrats to "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." A civil rights plank was adopted, which resulted in southern Democrats walking out of the convention and forming the Dixiecrats (States' Rights Democratic Party). The Dixiecrats nominated Strom Thurmond.

Then of course there was the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. After the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, Democratic President Lyndon Johnson famously said, "We have lost the South for a generation." This led to Nixon's southern strategy. And it also led to former Dixiecrat nominee Strom Thurmond and other southern Democrats becoming Republicans.

With the nomination of Goldwater at the 1964 Republican Convention and McGovern at the 1972 Democratic Convention, the shifts in the party were essentially complete.

 

[GL97]

What party was JFK (voted against the 1957 civil rights act)

JFK was essentially a moderate. A case can even be made that JFK was more conservative than liberal. LBJ was much more liberal than JFK. Many wonder if the 1964 Civil Rights Bill and the 1965 Voting Rights Act ever would have been passed had JFK lived. JFK never really showed that much commitment to civil rights, unless he was essentially backed into a corner.

Lest we forget, the Kennedys at one time were big supporters of Joseph McCarthy. That was until McCarthy became politically radioactive.

 

[Bitter Creek]

It's hilarious when they refuse to call Missouri, Kentucky, and Maryland "Union" states when they fought for the Union. It's almost like they don't want to admit those union states had slavery until the 13th.

"The emancipation proclamation freed the slaves" they say. They don't even provide an asterisk to point out that it only applied to the confederacy and not their own slave holding states within the Union because they are "border" states.

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." - Ol' Abe

 

[GL97]

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." - Ol' Abe

There is no doubt that Abraham Lincoln's position on slavery and what to do after slavery was abolished progressed throughout his political career. While Lincoln always saw the institution of slavery as bad, he was a politician who wrestled with the issues surrounding the question of slavery.

However, Lincoln didn't lead or join an insurrection that sought to destroy the Union over protecting slavery. And when the time came, he did the right thing in terms of slavery and protecting the Union.

No man is perfect, especially a politician. But when the trial of fire came, Lincoln rose to the occasion and led this country forward (while saving it). That is why he is and should be honored.

 

[Bitter Creek]

However, Lincoln didn't lead or join an insurrection that sought to destroy the Union over protecting slavery. And when the time came, he did the right thing in terms of slavery and protecting the Union.
.

And the fighting men of the CSA, the people that carried the guns, 95% of which never owned another man, were they fighting to make the rich guys that did own others even more wealthy or were they fighting because there was an invading army advancing their way?

 

[SMemmett]

And the fighting men of the CSA, the people that carried the guns, 95% of which never owned another man, were they fighting to make the rich guys that did own others even more wealthy or were they fighting because there was an invading army advancing their way?

A lot of poor whites wanted to protect the institution of slavery, it was the only thing protecting them from being at the bottom of the social ladder.

 

[GL97]

And the fighting men of the CSA, the people that carried the guns, 95% of which never owned another man, were they fighting to make the rich guys that did own others even more wealthy or were they fighting because there was an invading army advancing their way?

I can't speak to why every confederate soldier fought. Just like I can't speak to why every man or woman is serving in the U.S. military today, what led to their decision to join, or what they believe about the United States' foreign and military policies.

We do know though why so many southern aristocrats supported succession and what the leaders of the rebellion were trying to protect. And of course there were laws such as the "Twenty Negro Law" that sure were not popular among poor white southerners.

A rich man's war but a poor man's fight.

 

[Bitter Creek]

I can't speak to why every confederate soldier fought. Just like I can't speak to why every man or woman is serving in the U.S. military today, what led to their decision to join, or what they believe about the United States' foreign and military policies.

We do know though why so many southern aristocrats supported succession and what the leaders of the rebellion were trying to protect. And of course there were laws such as the "Twenty Negro Law" that sure were not popular among poor white southerners.

A rich man's war but a poor man's fight.

The South wanted to do their thing, even if it was wrong, and decided to get out of the union that they voluntarily joined. The used a show of force to shut down a Union fort and evict the Union soldiers.

The North would not let the South leave the union but they would let them keep their "peculiar institution"

The North invaded the South to force them back into the Union

The South fought to keep from being forced back in

 

[GL97]

The South wanted to do their thing, even if it was wrong, and decided to get out of the union that they voluntarily joined.

Yes, they started a civil war. Southern leaders led an insurrection within the United States. Let's be real, they committed treason.

The North invaded the South to force them back into the Union.

Goodness, here comes the Lost Cause nonsense.

The Union didn't invade anything. The southern states were part of the United States of America. Aristocratic leaders in the southern states staged an insurrection so they could protect their "human property." And their attempt at rebellion failed miserably while resulting in the death of over a million Americans.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

Yes, they started a civil war. Southern leaders led an insurrection within the United States. Let's be real, they committed treason.



Goodness, here comes the Lost Cause nonsense.

The Union didn't invade anything. The southern states were part of the United States of America. Aristocratic leaders in the southern states staged an insurrection so they could protect their "human property." And their attempt at rebellion failed miserably while resulting in the death of over a million Americans.

Abraham Lincoln wrote that if keeping the union together meant the South keeping each and every one of its slaves he would do it.

 

[GL97]

Abraham Lincoln wrote that if keeping the union together meant the South keeping each and every one of its slaves he would do it.

This has already been responded to. See above.

 

[GunsOfFrankEaton]

This has already been responded to. See above.

Not really. Lincoln's writing proves keeping the union together was really the only thing that really mattered to him.

 

[GL97]

Lincoln's writing proves keeping the union together was really the only thing that really mattered to him.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Yes, Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together, as would any President. The confederate leaders who led an insurrection didn't though, because the institution of human slavery was more important to them.

 

[Bitter Creek]

Yes, they started a civil war. Southern leaders led an insurrection within the United States. Let's be real, they committed treason.



Goodness, here comes the Lost Cause nonsense.

The Union didn't invade anything. The southern states were part of the United States of America. Aristocratic leaders in the southern states staged an insurrection so they could protect their "human property." And their attempt at rebellion failed miserably while resulting in the death of over a million Americans.

You really don't get it that it that the war was about keeping the union together more than anything else?

 

[CowboyJD]

You really don't get it that it that the war was about keeping the union together more than anything else?

While I agree that the fundamental purpose of the war was keeping the union together vs. two separate nations, what was the primary underlying cause for that threat of it breaking up?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

You really don't get it that it that the war was about keeping the union together more than anything else?

It seems that some posters view it as an "either/or" proposition: Either Lincoln's motivation was to keep the Union intact, or slavery was the driving force behind the war. Why not both?

I hesitate to ask. Thor, why all the Abe-hate?

 

[GL97]

You really don't get it that it that the war was about keeping the union together more than anything else?

Yes, I understand the war was about keeping the Union together. I also understand that it was confederate leaders who wished to break up the Union over the institution of slavery. That is why they led an insurrection and committed treason. I assume you can admit this, correct?

As sy noted, this isn't an either/or proposition.

 

[Bitter Creek]

While I agree that the fundamental purpose of the war was keeping the union together vs. two separate nations, what was the primary underlying cause for that threat of it breaking up?

I get that the South's move to secede was based upon keeping slavery legal. I think I even (kind of) stated that when I said that the South was wrong a few posts above. The war, wasn't to correct this wrong though, the war was to keep the union together.

I'm just saying that the union army wasn't some righteous army of God swooping in to save good men from evil men. It was a war to keep the country together and the South was defending what they believed was their right to break up from the union that they voluntarily joined.

 

[GL97]

I get that the South's move to secede was based upon keeping slavery legal. I think I even (kind of) stated that when I said that the South was wrong a few posts above.

Thank you.

And this is why we shouldn't be honoring confederate leaders and what they stood for. They sought to destroy our Union because they wanted to continue to keep a race of humans in chains.

 

[CowboyJD]

I get that the South's move to secede was based upon keeping slavery legal. I think I even (kind of) stated that when I said that the South was wrong a few posts above. The war, wasn't to correct this wrong though, the war was to keep the union together.

I'm just saying that the union army wasn't some righteous army of God swooping in to save good men from evil men. It was a war to keep the country together and the South was defending what they believed was their right to break up from the union that they voluntarily joined.

Okay.

I'm just saying all these statues aren't really honoring some righteous individuals just defending their right to remove themselves from the union. Especially when you consider when many of these statues were put up.

 

[CBradSmith]

A lot of poor whites wanted to protect the institution of slavery, it was the only thing protecting them from being at the bottom of the social ladder.

That's an odd statement. Can you defend it?

In what quantities did the 95% non-slaveholders fight to "protect the institution of slavery" so that they wouldn't be at the bottom of the social ladder?

On the surface, your statement comes across completely absurd and made-up. No grounded logic in it.

Much more plausible is that since you are asserting on behalf of poors, that it was a paycheck or the promise of one.

 

[Bitter Creek]

Okay.

I'm just saying all these statues aren't really honoring some righteous individuals just defending their right to remove themselves from the union. Especially when you consider when many of these statues were put up.

This is the ambiguous part that we will just have to disagree on.

I am biased towards the South and I may be wrong for doing so. I have a very multi-racial family (biracial kid that is married to a Native American, a white kid married to an African American and another white kid about to get married to a Mexico born, Mexican American) and I don't judge people on skin pigmentation or where they were born.

However, I do look at those statues with great respect as men who I believe fought to save their homeland. Again, maybe I am looking through an inaccurate lens of history, but it sure doesn't feel that way.

I don't think that human nature has changed all that much and I can say, without a doubt that I would not fight to keep a rich fatass rich but I would fight to save my state against an advancing army.

 

[GL97]

However, I do look at those statues with great respect as men who I believe fought to save their homeland.

You posted this above...

I get that the South's move to secede was based upon keeping slavery legal. I think I even (kind of) stated that when I said that the South was wrong a few posts above.

So was what the South did wrong or deserving of great respect? Was seeking to destroy the Union based on slavery wrong or honorable?

 

[Bitter Creek]

You posted this above...



So was what the South did wrong or deserving of great respect? Was seeking to destroy the Union based on slavery wrong or honorable?

The wrong part = slavery. THis is a ill that was an ill that in the states was born under an older version of the union flag. It just lasted four more years under the Stars and Bars.

Yes, I respect the fighting men. I haven't seen any statues erected to fat slave owners.

 

[GL97]

The wrong part = slavery.

Ok, so if it was wrong and that is the reason why the confederacy sought to destroy the Union, why do you think there is any reason to keep statues that were built to honor and celebrate confederate leaders (i.e. Davis, Lee, Stonewall, etc.)? Leaders who knew good and well what they were doing and what they were fighting for.

Or do you separate these men from the rank and file soldiers?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

That's an odd statement. Can you defend it?

In what quantities did the 95% non-slaveholders fight to "protect the institution of slavery" so that they wouldn't be at the bottom of the social ladder?

On the surface, your statement comes across completely absurd and made-up. No grounded logic in it.

Much more plausible is that since you are asserting on behalf of poors, that it was a paycheck or the promise of one.

Relax, it's not absurd. It's what I was taught in college when studying the antebellum south.

 

[CowboyJD]

This is the ambiguous part that we will just have to disagree on.

I am biased towards the South and I may be wrong for doing so. I have a very multi-racial family (biracial kid that is married to a Native American, a white kid married to an African American and another white kid about to get married to a Mexico born, Mexican American) and I don't judge people on skin pigmentation or where they were born.

However, I do look at those statues with great respect as men who I believe fought to save their homeland. Again, maybe I am looking through an inaccurate lens of history, but it sure doesn't feel that way.

I don't think that human nature has changed all that much and I can say, without a doubt that I would not fight to keep a rich fatass rich but I would fight to save my state against an advancing army.

I don't think it is all that ambiguous.

"We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection."

I also think you aren't taking into account when the majority of these statues were erected. There are notable spikes during the rise of Jim Crow/Lynching era and during the Civil Rights/segregation era. IMO, the erection of the statues during those eras were to send a clear message that nothing had changed in the South, that African Americans were still second class citizens in the South.

 

[Bitter Creek]

Ok, so if it was wrong and that is the reason why the confederacy sought to destroy the Union, why do you think there is any reason to keep statues that were built to honor and celebrate confederate leaders (i.e. Davis, Lee, Stonewall, etc.)? Leaders who knew good and well what they were doing and what they were fighting for.

Or do you separate these men from the rank and file soldiers?

I'm being completely honest here, let me say that up front.

I don't know the motives of the individuals who fought anymore than anyone else alive today does. However, when I try to put myself in their place and decide, what kind of things I would be willing to fight a life or death struggle for against very bad odds, fighting for a rich guy to own other humans and get even more wealthy doesn't make the list.

So, to me, their motives have to have been something better, something like defending their states, their homes and those they cared for.

I look at those statues as honoring the men that fought and did so knowing they would likely lose.

 

[CowboyJD]

On the bigger overarching issue of statue removal...

-I think the question of removal should be decided at the lowest level of government/administration possible (i.e. If it is on a college campus it should be school administration, on city property then the city council, etc.)
-I do not favor mandated removal or mandated keeping by a higher level of government (state over municipal, federal over states) when it comes to the issue
-If I was in control of the decision (scary, I know), I would probably favor rededicating those that were erected during Jim Crow or segregation/civil rights eras with an additional plaque to reflect the era in which they were erected and provide context for possible motivations for why it was done beyond the claimed ones to provide more context.
-I definitely believe Democratic National leadership is latching on to the issue for political gain. At the same time, there has been a longstanding grass roots movement on this issue for a decent amount of time.

 

[GL97]

I'm being completely honest here, let me say that up front.

Thank you. I appreciate honesty and civility Creek, even if we don't agree.

So, to me, their motives have to have been something better, something like defending their states, their homes and those they cared for.

When you say "their," who are you speaking of? Are you speaking of just the rank and file confederate soldier or are you including the military and political leaders as well?

 

[GL97]

I think the question of removal should be decided at the lowest level of government/administration possible (i.e. If it is on a college campus it should be school administration, on city property then the city council, etc.)

Why do you think this?

 

[Bitter Creek]

Thank you. I appreciate honesty and civility Creek, even if we don't agree.



When you say "their," who are you speaking of? Are you speaking of just the rank and file confederate soldier or are you including the military and political leaders as well?

For the most part, politicians can kiss my ass. I struggle to have much respect for most of today's political elite and again, if I put myself in the role of the regular guy that lived in the 1860s (both in the North and the South), I have to think that they probably had similar feelings for their ruling class.

The military leaders, the ones that are being canonized with the statues, they probably were closer to being politicians than rank and file military, and maybe I should change my view on them. It just tugs at my heart strings, which can sometimes be incorrectly tied to things.

My Dad grew up on a cotton and peanut farm where times were so tough that in some years, not every kid got to eat every day. I have a strong, and maybe wrong view of the CSA, but my feeling aren't founded in racism, of that you can be sure. I appreciate the debate.

 

[CowboyJD]

Why do you think this?

Because I believe the government most responsive to the concerns of the citizenry is usually at the lower levels where they are more answerable to those they govern.

Because I tend towards anti-authoritianism and away from powerful centralized governing.

Because I interpret the Constitution as limiting the federal government to the enumerated powers therein with the balance left up to the state and the people. I can't stretch any enumerated power in the Constitution to reach empowering the Feds to require these statutes be taken down.

There are many compelling issues that necessitate nationwide governance. Statues aren't one, IMO.

 

[Bitter Creek]

Because I believe the government most responsive to the concerns of the citizenry is usually at the lower levels where they are more answerable to those they govern.

Because I tend towards anti-authoritianism and away from powerful centralized governing.

Because I interpret the Constitution as limiting the federal government to the enumerated powers therein with the balance left up to the state and the people. I can't stretch any enumerated power in the Constitution to reach empowering the Feds to require these statutes be taken down.

There are many compelling issues that necessitate nationwide governance. Statues aren't one, IMO.

This should be the governing view every time, regardless of the issue. Your vote is meaningful at a school board meeting, a municipal or county election and in Oklahoma, it even matters to an extent at the state level. At the national level, none of us as individuals matter.

 

[GL97]

For the most part, politicians can kiss my ass. I struggle to have much respect for most of today's political elite and again, if I put myself in the role of the regular guy that lived in the 1860s (both in the North and the South), I have to think that they probably had similar feelings for their ruling class.

The military leaders, the ones that are being canonized with the statues, they probably were closer to being politicians than rank and file military, and maybe I should change my view on them. It just tugs at my heart strings, which can sometimes be incorrectly tied to things.

My Dad grew up on a cotton and peanut farm where times were so tough that in some years, not every kid got to eat every day. I have a strong, and maybe wrong view of the CSA, but my feeling aren't founded in racism, of that you can be sure. I appreciate the debate.

Creek, I appreciate your sincerity in this post and I understand what you are saying.

I was born and raised in the South too. My hometown has a Civil War statue on the grounds of the county courthouse. My great-great-great-grandfather fought for the 56th North Carolina Infantry during the Civil War. I was raised in an environment where it was common to hear and accept the Lost Cause view of the Civil War. So I fully understand where you are coming from and the cultural connection you feel to these men, these statues, to the confederacy, and the history. I had the same feelings at one time.

However, after listening to others who didn't share those feelings and really considering this issue, I changed my mind. I begin to see the statues for what they really were. I begin to see what they represented and the ideology they celebrated. Especially when it came to the political and military leaders of the confederacy.

It is difficult to move away from ideals and beliefs one has held all their life. Ideals and beliefs that are engrained in us before we even have time to consider them for ourselves. However, sometimes, we have to reject what we've always believed or been taught. Sometimes we have to change. I believe on this issue, a change is needed. We should never forget the history of the Civil War (or the millions who died) but we also shouldn't honor the political and cultural ideology of the confederate leaders.

Below is an article I'd recommend to you that discusses another's person change of mind on this issue. Thanks for the discussion.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politic...onfederate-monuments/537396/?utm_source=atlfb

 

[GL97]

There are many compelling issues that necessitate nationwide governance. Statues aren't one, IMO.

Fair enough.

I too would prefer to leave this decision with local communities. I'd also support though the decision being made on the state level too.

 

[CowboyJD]

Fair enough.

I too would prefer to leave this decision with local communities. I'd also support though the decision being made on the state level too.

How do you feel about state statutes prohibiting the removal of confederate statues or statutes that require approval by a state board before they are removed?

NC
Virginia
Alabama
Mississippi

All have some type of law that prohibits or restricts municipalities from removing such items...even on municipally controlled property.

 

[GL97]

How do you feel about state statutes prohibiting the removal of confederate statues or statutes that require approval by a state board before they are removed?

I would oppose such a statute and seek to overturn it if I was in the legislature of one of those states. Just as I would, in the alternative, support a statute calling for the removal of confederate statues.