Good point, but impact is relevant as well. Those statues broadcast values that are abhorrent.
I don't think that the issue is necessarily about impact: it's about contrition, and the admission that society has changed in such a way that the values that the statues are associated with are no longer mainstream.
Facts for those so inclined:"The U.S. government is acknowledging for the first time that right-wing extremists were responsible for the majority of fatal domestic terrorist attacks last year, according to an internal report circulated by the Department of Homeland Security last week and obtained by Yahoo News.A review of last year’s domestic terrorist incidents by a DHS fusion center — which shares threat-related information between federal, state and local partners — found that although civil unrest and antigovernment violence were associated with “non-affiliated, right-wing and left-wing actors, right-wing [domestic violent extremists] were responsible for the majority of fatal attacks in the Homeland in 2020.”
I think we've already done that and tearing down statues won't materially affect that. Seems more like a scapegoat for people's fears and a way for them to get some entertainment in their lives that lets them feel morally superior.Again- The fact that there is more objection to these than from people WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT THE CONFEDERATES, is not a sign of any kind of solid thinking or emotional stability and perspective (I'm referring to people worked up about them, not a simple 10 seconds of thought and supporting removal but not being emotionally invested in it)
Do Confederate statues that represented a war fought to keep slavery have a purpose? Please tell us why these statues should be kept in public spaces.
Again assumes facts not ecidence: That people passing by these statues notice or care.
Notice how they don't give numbers. Your chances of being killed by right-wing terrorists are about the same as death by erotic misadventure.
I think we've already done that and tearing down statues won't materially affect that.
Seems more like a scapegoat for people's fears and a way for them to get some entertainment in their lives that lets them feel morally superior.
Again- The fact that there is more objection to these than from people WHO ACTUALLY FOUGHT THE CONFEDERATES, is not a sign of any kind of solid thinking or emotional stability and perspective (I'm referring to people worked up about them, not a simple 10 seconds of thought and supporting removal but not being emotionally invested in it)
"This notion of reconciliation was really just a notion. Reconciliation was something you did on special occasions, but for decades after the war many veterans felt in their heart of hearts visceral hatred and dislike toward their former enemies."Reunion was about bringing the country back together politically as one nation, but reconciliation was harder to define, and veterans on both sides talked about it differently."Does it mean forgiving enemies for their transgressions or does it mean to be silent about differences? Reporters, writers, politicians, veterans and other leaders defined the term differently or left it vague but focused on the valor and bravery of both sides," Janney said. "But publicly, the idea of a reconciled nation was promoted, and often the war generation and their children went along with it for show."
I don't think we really have, having lived in the deep south for dozens of years. There are lots of people who dream, not necessarily that "the South shall rise again" but at least that blacks will be put back in the their place.
You laughably suggest that it was for healing and unity, but the consensus of US Civil War historians is that it was about re-assertion of white supremacy.In either case, if putting the statues up had a purpose, removing them also has a purpose.
That's not the purpose. And is a statement beyond ridiculous. Proving just how morally bereft your argument is.
This is another factual inaccuracy you keep spouting, but without providing evidence. You mentioned earlier reunions as if this proved the Union soldiers were fine with what the Confederacy did, or that they didn't mind these statues. Firstly, the time period of putting up the first round of these statues was when the CW soldiers were dying off, so a lot of them weren't around to object.
That is Caroline Janney, past president of the Society of Civil War Historians, who knows about 8,000 times more about it than you do.
“that at these reunions it should be remembered and put forth that the men who wore the blue and fought on this field were lastingly and eternally right and the men who wore the gray were lastingly and eternally wrong.”
You've often been called out for being on the wrong side of history, but we usually mean you'll be shown wrong in the future, but you also that rare gift of being on the wrong side of history that's in the past.
Politicians were voted in or out and responded to public sentiment.
If you take something as big as the Civil War and dumb it down to "All of these guys in the blue were good and all of these guys in the grey were bad" then you're an idiot.
Generals were soldiers, covered by Appomattox, Davis and Stephens were not.
You said "build unity and prevent future enmity" and "heal and move on". And that is nonsense. It was to reassert white supremacy.
You think one blue election in Georgia, due to changing demographics, not changing minds, erases my experience of thirty years? You're a fool.
True. And the South voted in racist politicians who enacted the Jim Crow laws. Thank you for making my point.
Um, as I read it you said the South were all conscripts ("The soldiers they faced were similarly all conscripts")?! Pretty sure the number comes in as about 90,000 ( https://blogs.loc.gov/law/2012/11/civil-war-conscription-laws/ ) of a total 1,000,000 CSA.
However, what the South fought for was BAD and what the North fought for was GOOD.
It should be noted that during that time people fought for a host of reasons. Not the cause of the war, that was slavery, but why individuals fought.
Does that apply to the Cobb Brothers, Breckinridge, Kemper, etc.?
In turn does that apply to Sickels, Sigel, Banks, Logan, etc.?
No, I said that was one reason among many. You are asserting one single reason- Asserting of white supremacy, which you are using in its 21st century context to discuss something that was pretty much believed by most whites, North and South back during that era.
No, but I think you might be overlooking the degree of change. It's not one blue election. It's been a change across scores of Southern suburbs over the past 20 years.
The South wasn't magically not going to be progressive and enlightened overnight. The North too still had massive amounts of racism and defacto segregation across much of it. But what they didn't vote for was for massive retribution or to reignite the conflict. There was no broad support for it.Sorry, I mistyped that. South was primarily volunteers. It should be noted though that the volunteers were impressed for the duration of the conflict after originally signing up for a certain period. Many were not happy about that and had little love for the Southern government after that.Again, there were a variety of motives that the respective nations fought for. While slavery was the cause and primary motivation, that didn't stop free access of the Mississippi or other concerns from getting tacked on and becoming the focus of some. Any war will have a mish-mash of causes and motives amongst the civilians, the private soliders, the generals, and the politicians.
As far as statues, lets take statues of Northern leaders. What are your feelings on Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, Custer, etc. How do we feel about them? What motives did people have for putting up their statues?
I don't get the significance of this list. These were CSA generals who resumed their lives and either did or did not have a political career ..
So you think the rules for the losers of a war should also apply to the winners? I guess that's why I saw Patton at Nureumberg.
it was far more institutional in the south.
But due to demographic change, which is my point!
Hmm. Lincoln has a whole monument, doesn't he? I think I might have seen it somewhere. Lincoln was the sixteenth President--don't we always put up a monument to the 16th one of something? Like, aren't there Tennessee statues everywhere, because it was the sixteenth state? And I know we have statues of Neil Armstrong all over, because he was the sixteenth American in space. Right? You know, along with David Scott, on Gemini 8. But the point is he was #16. And that's why we put up monuments. Sometimes for multiples of 16, like not too far from the Lincoln memorial in old DC, is one for the 32nd President, FDR, just because, you know, 32 is 16 times 2. The reason we put statues of horses all over the place (no matter who is riding them) is because the Denver Broncos won Superbowl 32, and a bronco (technically, I don't know if you knew this) but technically a bronco is a horse. Superbowl 32 is 2 times Superbowl 16. Did I answer your question?
From what I've read, slavery was actually only a proxy excuse for casus belli.As I understand it, the real underlying issue was tariffs. The industrialized north was trying to impose economic pressure on the south by raising tariffs on labour intensive industries (like cotton, indigo etc).Slavery became a moral issue only because it supported a transition toward automation, technology, and manufacturing, all of which greatly benefited the north. Not to say that many people weren't genuinely incensed about slavery, but I think that the Union as a political entity only really cared about slavery insofar as it could put them in a morally superior position.
First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.