Potential for Violence

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.”

Good point, but impact is relevant as well. Those statues broadcast values that are abhorrent.

Again assumes facts not ecidence: That people passing by these statues notice or care.

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.

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)

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.”

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)

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.

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.

They had a purpose at one point when people cared. Now they're just something gathering dust.

Tear it down to make way for new development or whatever, fine. But thinking that statue is some sort of source of inspiration and influence is nuts. If you're going to destroy, have a good reason.

Like, it is just about the singularly most illogical and ineffective thing you could do to stop racism and people are spending tremendous energy on it.

Again assumes facts not ecidence: That people passing by these statues notice or care.

The fact that so many are protesting them and signing petitions supporting their removal show that people both notice and care.

Objection overruled.

That you are defending them shows that you care.

Case dismissed.

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.

Noticed how you didn't give numbers.

I think we've already done that and tearing down statues won't materially affect that.

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. 

Putting up the statues had a purpose, right?  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. 

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.

That's not the purpose.  And is a statement beyond ridiculous.  Proving just how morally bereft your argument is.

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 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.  (There was also a surge of statuary in the late 50s and 60s, as the Civil Rights Movement was going.  Coincidence?  Remember too the Rebel flag was only flown on the SC Capitol starting in 1961.  Coincidence?)

Secondly, these reunions as reconciliation has a lot of wishful thinking. 

"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."

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.

For example:
Former enemies mostly were cordial with each other, although a number of Union men groused about Confederate veterans who wore lapel pins adorned with a Rebel flag. “That was the flag of treason and rebellion in 1861,” Union veteran John Gobin said in an impromptu speech at a morning campfire gathering on the battlefield, “and it is the flag of treason and rebellion in 1888... I want it distinctly understood now and for all time,” the 51-year-old veteran continued, “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.”
His audience hollered its approval.
“The General said that the Grand Army of the Republic and the men who wore the blue were disposed to display all kindly feeling and extend the hand of friendship and of assistance to their late antagonists,” the Reading (Pa.) Times wrote of the reunion, “but this ‘gush’ and glorification of a rebel was not elevating in its effects on the youths of the country.”
Concluded the newspaper about Gobin’s speech: “Right, every time, General. Brave words fitly spoken.”
--https://www.historynet.com/heros-welcome-at-gettysburg.htm

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.

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. 

This would be the same Deep South that has gotten progressively bluer and has voted repeatedly for Republican minority candidates? I think you're assuming that your caricature of who your political opponents are is actually the truth. Are there plenty of racists? Sure. But the South has a bunch of different people living there and you are painting with way too broad of a brush.

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.

No, I said that there were a variety of reasons for the statues and you have to look at each. There was certainly an attempt to promote a spirit of national unity  and recognizing bravery on both sides was one to do it. That doesn't exclude the fact that other statues were put up for racist reasons at worst and to push dumb, inaccurate "Lost Cause" mythology at best. But the reasons they were put up and to various degrees tolerated was complicated and encompassed a variety of reasons. Opinion was not monolithic, but overall, the country wanted to move forward, together.

Finally, while it may have had a purpose THEN, when people were alive. That doesn't grant purpose to something being torn down NOW.

That's not the purpose.  And is a statement beyond ridiculous.  Proving just how morally bereft your argument is.

I'm sorry, but if you're attempting to go after inanimate objects of historical figures that 90% of Americans are ignorant of, yes you are scapegoating and not behaving rationally.

I cant think of about 10,000 different ways to improve race relations and make actual substantive changes that would be better and more effective than tearing down statues.

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. 

No one said that they were fine with what the Confederacy did, Moving on and reconciling is not the same as accepting the other's argument as valid.

Was there any mass campaign to tear down those statues? If there were Confederates alive when those were erected, then surely there were Union soldiers alive as well. And since the Union had a greater manpower pool, there would be MORE Union veterans alive to object.

Furthermore the fact that people were interested in moving on and reconciliation is evidenced by what happened afterwards. The complete lack of mass trials, hangings, seizure of land, etc. America at the time was, as she is now, a representative democracy. Politicians were voted in or out and responded to public sentiment.

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.

800? Okay Not 8000. Dude, I have read A LOT on the subject. Half my home library is Civil War works.

If she knows 8,000 times more than me, then I know 8,000 times more than you. You were carrying on at one point about civilian political leaders and military leaders being wholly different, whereas anyone who knows anything about the Civil War know they overlap. You should also have known about Lincoln and Grant's desire for generous terms and for reunion. Finally, you'd acknowledge that a decent chunk of the Union army were conscripts and substitutes, particularly as the war dragged on. Yes, volunteers were much more likely to have bitter views and be more passionate about the cause, but plenty of other soldiers were there because they were forced to be or simply to collect a bounty. The soldiers they faced were similarly all conscripts, who would be shot if they tried to desert. They understood that.

Would you have hatred and loathing towards some 18 year old boy from Georgia who was conscripted?

“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.”

Mr. Gobin certainly represented one view, and as he actually fought, I won't begrudge him his view. Others who fought had different views.

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. As I said, while you had plenty of volunteers on both sides, amongst those volunteers you had people with serious differences of opinion on race. That's before you get people who volunteered for other reasons- to impress a girl, to prove their manliness, to earn steady money, to have adventure, to loot, to protect a brother or friend, and so on. Then you had the draftees and hired substitutes whose motives varied considerably.

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.

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.

History doesn't have a right or wrong side. It simply has what happened.

Generals were soldiers, covered by Appomattox, Davis and Stephens were not.
The only person painting too broad of a brush is you who keeps claiming GAR was fine with Confederate statues without offering a shred of evidence.
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.

Politicians were voted in or out and responded to public sentiment.

True.  And the South voted in racist politicians who enacted the Jim Crow laws.  Thank you for making my point.

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.

Not the people per se.  Certainly there were conscripts, and those who fought alongside their brothers and neighbors, and those who believed the lies of the politicians. 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. 

Generals were soldiers, covered by Appomattox, Davis and Stephens were not.

Does that apply to the Cobb Brothers, Breckinridge, Kemper, etc.? In turn does that apply to Sickels, Sigel, Banks, Logan, etc.?

You said "build unity and prevent future enmity" and "heal and move on".  And that is nonsense.  It was to reassert white supremacy.

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.

You think one blue election in Georgia, due to changing demographics, not changing minds, erases my experience of thirty years?  You're a fool.

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.

True.  And the South voted in racist politicians who enacted the Jim Crow laws.  Thank you for making my point.

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.

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.

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.

However, what the South fought for was BAD and what the North fought for was GOOD.

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?

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.

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.

Does that apply to the Cobb Brothers, Breckinridge, Kemper, etc.?

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 ...

In turn does that apply to Sickels, Sigel, Banks, Logan, etc.?

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.

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.

While it's certainly true Jim Crow was a national cancer, and racism today exists north and south (I myself participated in counter-protests to Nazi marches in Skokie, Ill  c. 1980), it was far more institutional in the south.

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.

But due to demographic change, which is my point!

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.

Gosh, thanks for that.

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?

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?

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 ..

If a Confederate General had engaged in a political act enabling secession, such as being part of the legislature and casting votes for it or in drafting the Confederate Constitution or in serving the Confederate government, are they a political figure or a military figure?

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.

Actually if you knew anything about Nuremburg, you'd know that one of the reasons Karl Donitz was not sentenced for war crimes for unrestricted submarine warfare was because they established that the Allies had done the same thing.

And yes, in a just world, the rules regarding war crimes, motivations, etc. would at the very least hold the winners to some level of accountability as well and acknowledge that simply losing did not make someone immoral.

it was far more institutional in the south.

That's true. It's also 2021.

But due to demographic change, which is my point!

And attitude change. You claim that there are rampant racists and white nationalists everywhere. Sorry, but the white nationalists are an isolated fringe. The overwhelming majority of even arch-Trump supporters reject slavery and white supremacy.

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?

I think you knew where I was going with my point of statues for Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan and Custer.

Rather than address it and its very real relevance, you instead chose to do this. A clear sign of cognitive dissonance. You know that your position is horribly inconsistent and hypocritical and your "It's all because of white supremacy" argument will collapse when you address this point. But rather than gamely try your best, you do this.

Do you support statues to Lincoln, Sherman, Sheridan, and Custer? Civil War veterans of course.

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.

Oh come on you're better than this garbage.

First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

Secondly, the confederacy repeatedly stated that they seceded and declared war on the north over slavery. Bleeding Kansas and the Compromise of 1850 had been going on for years before the civil war started. Secessionists didn't make Northern tariffs an issue, instead they made Lincoln's anti-slavery victory in 1860 an issue.

Now go read a damn history book. It's a common confederate apologist tactic to try and steer the conversation away from slavery and talk about how the poor innocent South was being oppressed by the evil North. Another common tactic is to act like the South weren't the ones who started the war. Don't do that.

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.

Sounds like Southern revisionism.

First of all, the confederacy declared war on the north.

where did kyndo state or imply that the war was started by the north?

besides, he's right. pretending that the union cared about slavery primarily as a humanitarian issue rather than as a way to get one up over the south is buying into "american exceptionalism" propoganda and whatnot. even back in the days of ol' abe lincoln, we weren't that clean.

Why revisionism? The South was clearly morally wrong. Slavery was, is and always will be reprehensible. Also, it's pretty clear that the South instigated the conflict. These things aren't debatable among reasonable people.

   My point was that while the North was pretty firmly pro-abolishment, the South had strong economic reasons for being anti-abolishment. When the South seceded, they did so not because owning slaves was awesome, or because that was the natural order of things (although I'm sure a number of them thought that as well), but because they believed that without slavery, their entire economy would essentially collapse. Tariffs, and the strong pro-abolishment feeling in the North promised economic ruin, which drove the South to do what it did.


I didn't say that the South was oppressed by the North, and certainly not that the North attacked the South and I'm honestly a bit confused how that could be read into my comments.