Lets see if I can do this without getting booted off the island.

mad_machine wrote: I think you only need look to General Lee himself. He worked hard to reconcile the South to the North after his defeat. At his funeral, there were no flags, he was not buried in his old Confederate Uniform, nor did any of his surviving troops wear theirs. As his Daughter wrote "His Confederate uniform would have been ‘treason’ perhaps!"

So he fought for the wrong side, then.

It took him a lost war, many of his soldiers as well as opposition soldiers killed for him to come to the realization that he fought for the wrong side?

Forgive me for not buying that statement. Seems like he was making up for something.

In reply to alfadriver:

As we've been trying to say - he was a conflicted man. Torn between his love for Virginia and his general distaste for the cause he was fighting for.

This is a good discussion, thanks for that. I just want to chime in as an immigrant to the south. There are things about "southern culture" that I appreciate, and things that I find abhorrent. There are deep swaths of the south that are populated with people like me. There have always been migrations that have affected culture, and I think part of what we're seeing is cultural change associated with the incredible mobility of the modern world.

Ian F wrote: In reply to alfadriver: As we've been trying to say - he was a conflicted man. Torn between his love for Virginia and his general distaste for the cause he was fighting for.

He had a hand in killing a lot of people for that internal conflict.

If he was that great of a general, had he took the side of the north, it's possible that the war would have been a lot shorter, many fewer people would have died, and the angst between the north and the south would a lot less.

In other words, his actions defined what decision he took for his conflicts. I can't see a person like that as a hero or gentleman.

I am wondering if 8 pages in 1 day is record

If this really has to with racism, then why is Margaret Sanger's bust still in the National Portrait Gallery? It is still there even after a group of African Americans called for the removal two years ago. One of the most racist women I've ever heard. I believe many of you probably know the answer. Please be open minded on this one, it should be easy. I will predict you will hear the calling of the national anthem to NOT be played at games anymore in the very near future. I will also give a shout out to Curtis73 as well. Even though we are on polar opposites in beliefs, that was a good post and its refreshing to see someone use their own mind and discernment without falling in line with whatever MSM you follow....thanks.

In reply to alfadriver:

Sending men to their death is always fraught with conflict. The only difference between a hero and a traitor is which side you are on and/or which side is the victor.

I doubt the British hold Washington with the same reverence we do.

Ian F wrote: In reply to alfadriver: Sending men to their death is always fraught with conflict. The only difference between a hero and a traitor is which side you are on and/or which side is the victor. I doubt the British hold Washington with the same reverence we do.

I agree. And totally agree that Britain looked at Washington as a terrorist and traitor.

Lee fought for the south, who were in the war to defend their use of slaves. He chose the wrong side, from a moral basis. Lots of people died. And they lost. Therefore, he is not a hero. No matter how he tried to make it up after the war.

His post war actions means that he can be forgiven. No question about that.

But not looked up as some kind of hero.

In reply to alfadriver:

That doesn't sound like a legitimate question. It sounds like you are baiting for an arguement.

Who is this "The minorities" guy?? I think we all know the variations on the needs of various people groups are endless.

I could give you lots of examples where I live, and they'd be completely irrelevant to where you live and your life experiences.

And we'd just argue.

alfadriver wrote:

mad_machine wrote: I think you only need look to General Lee himself. He worked hard to reconcile the South to the North after his defeat. At his funeral, there were no flags, he was not buried in his old Confederate Uniform, nor did any of his surviving troops wear theirs. As his Daughter wrote "His Confederate uniform would have been ‘treason’ perhaps!"

So he fought for the wrong side, then. It took him a lost war, many of his soldiers as well as opposition soldiers killed for him to come to the realization that he fought for the wrong side? Forgive me for not buying that statement. Seems like he was making up for something.

There is a simpler way to look at it...

Robert E Lee owned slaves and is well documented as having a heavy hand and breaking up/selling families. He chose to fight for the Confederacy. He was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in that role.

It's deeds, not words that make the man.

Fletch1 wrote: I will also give a shout out to Curtis73 as well. Even though we are on polar opposites in beliefs, that was a good post and its refreshing to see someone use their own mind and discernment without falling in line with whatever MSM you follow....thanks.

Thank you Fletch. Much respect to you.

Refreshingly well reasoned and amazingly civil. Thanks GRM for being the best group I occasionally disagree with. Love this site...

I am very impressed with this discussion. As an outsider I hesitated to comment but there is one thing that I have noticed many times in this discussion and I wanted to bring it out.

It's the concept of black and white... not the in the race sense but in the vision sense. A lot of Americans seem to have the belief that there are only two sides to an argument. It's something you see in a lot of facets. As far as I know, (correct me if I am wrong) but the US is the only democratic country to only have two parties. You are either democrat or a republican. And this confrontational view seems to be spreading to all mathers of public discourse. You either want to destroy the statues or keep them in place. I am glad to see people in this thread show that there are a lot of other solutions between those opposites. But it seems to be out of character with what I usually see from the US.

Is it a cultural thing? I have travelled quite a bit and have friends all over the place and I have never seen this way of thinking as much as in the US.

So, family lore has it that Lee was in our family history. One of my great great grandmas or something's maiden name was Lee. My dad and uncles remember one of the old aunts talking about it. Anyway, if that's true, that I do have a dog in this fight, so to speak. IF that's true, no certainty on that point. I say remove his statue. I'm ok with that, and would encourage it. Don't erase him from history, as he is an important figure, but tax paying people should not have to see his likeness put in their face on public property that they pay for. Regardless of what he stood for, then, it matters what it symbolizes, now.

In reply to fanfoy:

I don't believe the two-party system is inherently cultural, but simply a side effect of the way our Constitution was written. The resulting system of government is "winner-take-all" which does not favor more than two main players. Changing that would require some fairly significant changes to the Constitution. Since that generally has to be made by the parties in power - and the result would be those parties having a reduction in power - it is not likely to happen.

Anyone who can come up with a workable solution would likely win a Nobel prize...

But otherwise, I agree. Much of the discourse in the US is born from the extreme polarization of issues and a general unwillingness to see things from both sides and to find a solution in the middle.

Fletch1 wrote: If this really has to with racism, then why is Margaret Sanger's bust still in the National Portrait Gallery? It is still there even after a group of African Americans called for the removal two years ago. One of the most racist women I've ever heard. I believe many of you probably know the answer. Please be open minded on this one, it should be easy.

It is easy. She didn't go to war to defend the institution of slavery, and it's just one bust in a gallery rather than hundreds of statues spread all over the place, so it's a vastly smaller target. Probably won't get much attention for decades to come.

Looks like the risk of violence from upcoming white nationalist rallies has kicked the removal of confederate monuments into high gear:

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/baltimore-confederate-monuments-removal/index.html

GameboyRMH wrote: Looks like the risk of violence from upcoming white nationalist rallies has kicked the removal of confederate monuments into high gear: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/baltimore-confederate-monuments-removal/index.html

It's definitely a concern here with our City Council set to vote Thursday on trying to move the two Confederate statues by our old statehouse (they have to get approval from a state historical commission before relocating them) and the police chief has weighed in that they'll be ready for any potential protests or backlash, and I've seen lots of posts on Facebook on the news stories about the effort here with people lamenting that the Mayor is just asking for Lexington to be the next Charlottesville by this move.

Sorry- but that's a really forking stupid argument. "We shouldn't do this good thing because people may come and be mean to us because they don't agree with it," is probably one of the least American things I've ever heard, and thankfully the Mayor & council aren't being swayed by any threats of protest. I know it's not going to deter us- SWMBO and I plan to be at the council meeting to show and voice our support for moving the statues someplace more appropriate.

fanfoy wrote: I am very impressed with this discussion. As an outsider I hesitated to comment but there is one thing that I have noticed many times in this discussion and I wanted to bring it out. It's the concept of black and white... not the in the race sense but in the vision sense. A lot of Americans seem to have the belief that there are only two sides to an argument. It's something you see in a lot of facets. As far as I know, (correct me if I am wrong) but the US is the only democratic country to only have two parties. You are either democrat or a republican. And this confrontational view seems to be spreading to all mathers of public discourse. You either want to destroy the statues or keep them in place. I am glad to see people in this thread show that there are a lot of other solutions between those opposites. But it seems to be out of character with what I usually see from the US. Is it a cultural thing? I have travelled quite a bit and have friends all over the place and I have never seen this way of thinking as much as in the US.

I think part of it is cultural (e.g. treating politics like a sport), part of it is out electoral system. Two majority parties is more or less guaranteed with "first past the post" voting.

In the mist of all the over reaction and MSM manufactured outrage, there are those everyday civil people like us getting along just fine...see:

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2017/08/14/dallas-group-forms-to-protect-confederate-monuments/

Don't let the media put us in two separate boxes. It's like they want another civil war. It's a good time to turn off the TV.

Ashyukun wrote: Sorry- but that's a really forking stupid argument. "We shouldn't do this good thing because people may come and be mean to us because they don't agree with it," is probably one of the least American things I've ever heard, and thankfully the Mayor & council aren't being swayed by any threats of protest.

Even from a purely pragmatic/utilitarian standpoint it doesn't make sense. The best time to do something that might draw the unwanted attention and presence of X is when the attention and presence of X is spread thin, like this coming weekend.

I tend to think the Confederate statues on public land should come down. The Confederates' ideology was wrong, and hundreds of thousands of Americans died to defeat them.

That being said...is anybody else concerned that if we take these statues down, the next step will be to attack monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and any other American who did great things, but who also owned slaves? Would you be OK with the Jefferson Memorial being destroyed, or the Washington Monument renamed "Emancipation Spire"?

I live in Columbus, OH. I am aware of Christopher Columbus' genocidal behavior toward Native Americans. But if you want to tear down his statue in front of City Hall and rename my hometown "Guevaraville" or "Chavezgrad," I'm going to have a big problem with that.

In reply to BrokenYugo:

If you look at the article you linked, about a third of the democratic countries use "first past the post" voting and the US is the only one that has a two party system. For example, Canada uses "first past the post" voting and there are currently 5 different parties represented at the parliament.

There has to be another explanation? After all, your political system is completely unique in the world. Shouldn't it be a representation of its people?

I'm with alfadriver on this. While there are certainly radical leftists out there, most of the counter-protesters simply want equal rights and a home free of hatred and and threats of violence. I have lived in MI my entire life and never realized how widespread the racism and bigotry really were until recently. Confederate flags have been sprouting up all over the state. They only mean one thing, and it is not "heritage" here. Some of them have been replaced with more overt neo-nazi flags recently. I wish I was making this up, but I'm not certain it's entirely safe for people of color in some parts of the state now. There is a town up north that has been in the news lately because the city council president has posted statements along the lines of "kill all muslims" and other comments lets simply call unfriendly to people of color. He refuses to apologize, and the town is divided over the controversy. A town populated by white people divided over racism and calls for a religious holocaust. In MI. This isn't normal, it isn't right, and it's not a handful of kooks anymore. There is no equivalent on the left. You don't see flags and signs dotting the landscape for organizations denying the personhood of white men. How many towns in america are divided over their leadership's opinion that all white Christians should die? This is about so much more than some Jim Crow era statues.

Sure, the counter protesters are behaving poorly, but there is no moral equivalency between their positions and those they are opposing. We do cherish freedom of speech in this country, but some ideas are below debate.

Ok, so let's consider the idea for a minute that Robert E Lee should not be in public places. I wish it meant we needed to take down a few statues...

Leesburg, Leesville, Lee County- there are hundreds of places named Lee. Virtually every city south of the Mason Dixon line has a Lee St (and many in the North).

If we adopt the idea that Lee should be erased, it would ultimately be pushed at a broad level, and the pressure would be put on hundreds of local municipalities to make the changes. These would be unfunded mandates, the cost and complexity of which would have to be born at the local level.

Street signs are paid for with public funds. So are every piece of stationary, truck, ID tag, city park, courtroom, etc, etc.

No, I absolutely don't think it should be defined in monetary terms. There are things more important than money.

However, it really does have the potential to grow into a rather grand witch hunt. We can't even agree in this thread whether Lee was a good guy or a bad guy. There are communities that would not be able to make the switch in a timely manner.

I live in Leesburg, GA. In Lee County, GA. If the good people of Leesburg make the decision that it would be wise to change their name, I'm all for it. I'd like to see it. In fact, I think it would bring some very positive attention to a community that needs it. But I don't think outsiders should pressure them to do it.

At the core, I'd rather not judge people. When I have an opinion that something is wrong, I voice that opinion strongly. I do not, however, force my opinions on others. I am vocal, but I am content to accept what the community has decided for itself.

I don't think the core concept embraces unity. It forces divisiveness.

bluebarchetta wrote: I tend to think the Confederate statues on public land should come down. The Confederates' ideology was wrong, and hundreds of thousands of Americans died to defeat them. That being said...is anybody else concerned that if we take these statues down, the next step will be to attack monuments to Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and any other American who did great things, but who also owned slaves? Would you be OK with the Jefferson Memorial being destroyed, or the Washington Monument renamed "Emancipation Spire"?

I don't think anyone here will live to see the villainization in the public consciousness of people who only owned slaves, rather than fighting for slavery. It's more likely that it will happen some day but it's a long way off.

You will see a move to rename things named after Andrew Jackson for a host of other reasons though, most prominently his role in the organized genocide of the Native Americans.