Avoid Memphis - Confederate statues coming down

CharminTide

Hall of Fame
Oct 23, 2005
7,319
2,032
187
I agree with everything you said except for this line. I think it's possible to forgive someone like Forrest but also not put him in a place of honor and prestige and immortalize him in that way. I think there is a stark difference between forgiving someone and exalting their personhood by giving them a statue. That's always been my quibble with these statues. Other than that we are in complete agreement.
Fair distinction. I certainly agree that American slave traders should not be honored in our society, no matter their regret later in life. They should be remembered and their mistakes learned from, but they should not be exalted.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
I would have a lot easier time accepting the removal if the premises under which they were removed was different.
Lots of people today are saying that these monuments were erected as monuments to racism and slavery.
If political leaders doing the removing would say to the removeniks, "Well, your premise ("these are monuments to racism and slavery") is demonstrably not true, but, out of an abundance of desire not to give offense, we are going to give into you irrationality and agree to remove the statue, not because you are correct as to their intended meaning, but just to be good neighbors." If accompanied by a statement along those lines, it would be easier to take.
As I have said before, I have viewed hundreds of these monuments and read scores of the speeches given at their dedications, and never, not once, have those who erected the monuments said, "This monument is dedicated to racism and slavery." Not one.
So, to surrender judgment on the matter to people just because they look like the people who actually did suffer under slavery, and to tell others simply because of the color of their skin that they have no say in the matter, strikes me as the very definition of racism. It also established the principle that what someone actually says is not relevant; how people [mis]interpret what was said is all that matters. Free speech is incompatible with such an arrangement.
 

92tide

TideFans Legend
May 9, 2000
58,154
44,875
287
54
East Point, Ga, USA
I would have a lot easier time accepting the removal if the premises under which they were removed was different.
Lots of people today are saying that these monuments were erected as monuments to racism and slavery.
If political leaders doing the removing would say to the removeniks, "Well, your premise ("these are monuments to racism and slavery") is demonstrably not true, but, out of an abundance of desire not to give offense, we are going to give into you irrationality and agree to remove the statue, not because you are correct as to their intended meaning, but just to be good neighbors." If accompanied by a statement along those lines, it would be easier to take.
As I have said before, I have viewed hundreds of these monuments and read scores of the speeches given at their dedications, and never, not once, have those who erected the monuments said, "This monument is dedicated to racism and slavery." Not one.
So, to surrender judgment on the matter to people just because they look like the people who actually did suffer under slavery, and to tell others simply because of the color of their skin that they have no say in the matter, strikes me as the very definition of racism. It also established the principle that what someone actually says is not relevant; how people [mis]interpret what was said is all that matters. Free speech is incompatible with such an arrangement.
well, the good thing for the people of memphis and other locales is these decisions don't really hinge on your acceptance ;)

and the whole point of the lost cause movement was to try to pretend that the civil war was not about slavery and racism and to promote the confederacy as some inherently honorable and noble victim of government tyranny and overreach. why would they turn around and tell folks it was about slavery and racism.
 
Last edited:

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,414
67,193
462
crimsonaudio.net
So, to surrender judgment on the matter to people just because they look like the people who actually did suffer under slavery, and to tell others simply because of the color of their skin that they have no say in the matter, strikes me as the very definition of racism. It also established the principle that what someone actually says is not relevant; how people [mis]interpret what was said is all that matters. Free speech is incompatible with such an arrangement.
No one said people other than blacks had no say in the matter, but you have to remember that nearly 2/3rds of the population in Memphis is indeed black.

Reading what you wrote it's almost as if all forms of segregation and second class citizenship ended in 1865. It didn't, at least not in Memphis, which is why there are people alive today who still vividly recall having to use separate water fountains and bathrooms and being told they cannot eat in certain restaurants. To act as if there's no connection to the civil rights violations that continued long after the the CW was decided seems a bit odd - there's zero question that black people in Memphis didn't have the same rights and opportunities their white counterparts had until just a few decades ago.

And that is why a statue of a man who bought and sold people like them, possibly even some of their direct lineage, needs to come down and not be celebrated.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
No one said people other than blacks had no say in the matter, but you have to remember that nearly 2/3rds of the population in Memphis is indeed black.

Reading what you wrote it's almost as if all forms of segregation and second class citizenship ended in 1865. It didn't, at least not in Memphis, which is why there are people alive today who still vividly recall having to use separate water fountains and bathrooms and being told they cannot eat in certain restaurants. To act as if there's no connection to the civil rights violations that continued long after the the CW was decided seems a bit odd - there's zero question that black people in Memphis didn't have the same rights and opportunities their white counterparts had until just a few decades ago.

And that is why a statue of a man who bought and sold people like them, possibly even some of their direct lineage, needs to come down and not be celebrated.
In post 24 I related the purpose of the statue as stated at its dedication in 1905.
the masterful prowess and martial genius of Tennessee's, if not America's, greatest, most original and dazzling soldier, Lieut. Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest.
Forrest rose from private to Lieutenant General in defense of Memphis. No one mentioned that they intended to erect a statue because Forrest was a slave trader.
As for the other items, they all happened in the U.S. If Memphians want to hate something, get hate the U.S. All I would ask is that they be honest when they do it.
It just seems that all the hatred and anger for every bad thing that happened in Memphis or the South gets poured into this one scapegoat, which then it gets banished.
I'll go on record that this will not satisfy the removeniks, and the same logic they used here, egged on by despicable demagogues like the mayor of New Orleans, will get repeated again later: "Well, when we misinterpreted this bit of history in Memphis, you went along. Now we want to hate on ___ (insert the next object of ire here), so you have to surrender to judgment on this new issue, as well."
 

UAH

All-American
Nov 27, 2017
3,595
4,130
187
well, the good thing for the people of memphis and other locales is these decisions don't really hinge on your acceptance ;)
and the whole point of the lost cause movement was to try to pretend that the civil war was not about slavery and racism and to promote the confederacy as some inherently honorable and noble victim of government tyranny and overreach. why would they turn around and tell folks it was about slavery and racism.
As I look back on my attitude growing up poor in the rural south, I realized we were continuing to prosecute the Civil War by romanticizing the gallant struggle of the outnumbered confederate army against the North. Of necessity the aura of a gallant struggle of the Confederate states against oppression, coupled with the innate fear of black slaves, were the means by which the landed southern aristocracy were able to induce poor whites into dying by the thousands for their privileged way of life. Although they were terribly misled I continue to feel that the rank and file fought for what they believed was an honorable cause.

Over the years I have come to recognize the great wealth that is most visible in the antebellum mansions that remain standing, and the large land holdings, were built on the backs of slaves and the white underclass. I have grown very resentful of this ostentatious display of wealth.

I attempt to look at these statues by standing in the shoes of a descendant of slaves and say at long last take them down. It is time to put the Civil War and its politics in the distant rear view mirror.
 

Intl.Aperture

All-American
Aug 12, 2015
3,681
23
57
Chesapeake, Virginia
I think a lot of people are still talking past each other here. In modern discourse we still can not accept that 2 things about a singular issue can be true at once.
1: The Civil War DID have a lot to do with government overreach and a gross encroachment by the Feds on the rights and livelihood (slavery withstanding) of profitable Southern States.
2: The Civil War also determined whether or not we continued to hold other human beings as slaves. One side was decidedly in FAVOR of that - even if the other wasn't always outright opposed and all the political incantation I see that goes into trying to prove all of America was racist at that time. Ok. Sure. All of America was racist but, whatever the reasons may be, one side ended up holding onto it harder than the other.

Also, outside of hysterical Leftists wackadoos or equally racist black people, I've not seen anyone proclaim that the statues themselves PROMOTE racism. The common, and I feel, logical, comment has been that the statues glorify men whose fame is derived solely from a conflict in which one of the main and lasting pressure points was slavery. This is exacerbated by the fact that many (not all) of the statues depict the men wearing their Confederate uniforms - not just sitting with a quill or hugging a little black kid or something else endearing or innocuous.

To the chagrin of many historians the Civil War is primarily painted with a broad brush and billed as a fight between racists and heroes. I think we are all adult enough and have experienced enough of life's vagaries to understand that this is not true.

However, I'd say that attempting to change that narrative here, at the removal of statues, is not the right time or place to do it. There are too many pitfalls and too little historical precedence to dig in here (that I know about at least.)

I think that statues should come down. Not because I think ALL the men pictured are the filthiest racists that Satan could have ever possibly breathed into existence but because the cause for which they are famed was, more so than the other, in favor of maintaining an institution that subjugated other human being to the lowly station of property. Guilt can go round, but the connection between the Confederacy and racism will NEVER be eradicated and will ALWAYS be intrinsically attached to those who supported the Confederacy.

As a tag-on I always just find it weird that we have statues to dudes who's fame comes almost entirely from losing. Monuments to losers, traitors, and treasonists. Some of them very reasonable, intelligent, industrious losers, traitors, and treasonsists - but losers, traitors, and treasonists all the same.
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
As I look back on my attitude growing up poor in the rural south, I realized we were continuing to prosecute the Civil War by romanticizing the gallant struggle of the outnumbered confederate army against the North. Of necessity the aura of a gallant struggle of the Confederate states against oppression, coupled with the innate fear of black slaves, were the means by which the landed southern aristocracy were able to induce poor whites into dying by the thousands for their privileged way of life. Although they were terribly misled I continue to feel that the rank and file fought for what they believed was an honorable cause.

Over the years I have come to recognize the great wealth that is most visible in the antebellum mansions that remain standing, and the large land holdings, were built on the backs of slaves and the white underclass. I have grown very resentful of this ostentatious display of wealth.

I attempt to look at these statues by standing in the shoes of a descendant of slaves and say at long last take them down. It is time to put the Civil War and its politics in the distant rear view mirror.
The majority of southern voters (the vast majority of whom did not own slaves and did not come from slave-owning families) felt that their safety (not the safety of the institution of slavery, but they personal safety) relied on leaving the Union. So they democratically voted to leave the Union.

As for the politics of the 1860s, there are two positions.

1. Slavery is gone and good riddance to it.

The flip side of the 1860 coin, however, is that:

1. The people of the states who delegated political powers to an agency (the federal government) had a dispute with the agency itself over the extent of the delegated powers. The agency killed 260,000 people for daring to dispute the extent of the agency's powers. If you gave me a special power of attorney, would you ever argue with me over the extent of the delegated powers? If I threatened to employ violence against you in such a dispute, would you not simply fire me as your attorney? What sane person argues with their attorney of the powers delegated in a power of attorney? If there is any dispute, you fire the attorney, and draft a new agreement that clarifies the question. This is what the people of the southern states attempted to do in 1860. And the agency murdered 260,000 of them for daring to question the agency's authority.

2. The people exist to be exploited through taxes for the benefit of politically-connected elites. Lincoln made this abundantly clear that southerners escaping from northern rapacity was unacceptable. When the people ("the eel that is being flayed" in John Randolph's words) objected to this arrangement, the federal government killed 260,000 of them. That is a morally repugnant position, but a position staked out by Republicans in 1861.

3. Many people of the North treated black people badly (for example, it was illegal to be black in Illinois in 1860), but, they said, some of you southerners treat black people worse, so we assert the right to kill 260,000 people, the vast majority of whom did not even own slaves, to right that wrong. The lack of discrimination in applying that violence brings into question the moral superiority of the North. Do I have the right to kill people who live in a society that tolerates abortion on demand as a means of birth control? I think not, but the Republican logic of the 1860s suggests that if I hold a moral position superior to pro-abortionists, I have the right to kill people, not just pro-abortionists, but those who merely live in proximity to those who defend abortion. I think that position is morally obtuse, but that is the very position staked out by Republicans in 1860.

I wish that the politics of the 1860s was dead and gone, but the North won the war so we are stuck with these positions from the 1860s.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
The majority of southern voters (the vast majority of whom did not own slaves and did not come from slave-owning families) felt that their safety (not the safety of the institution of slavery, but they personal safety) relied on leaving the Union. So they democratically voted to leave the Union.

As for the politics of the 1860s, there are two positions.

1. Slavery is gone and good riddance to it.

The flip side of the 1860 coin, however, is that:

1. The people of the states who delegated political powers to an agency (the federal government) had a dispute with the agency itself over the extent of the delegated powers. The agency killed 260,000 people for daring to dispute the extent of the agency's powers. If you gave me a special power of attorney, would you ever argue with me over the extent of the delegated powers? If I threatened to employ violence against you in such a dispute, would you not simply fire me as your attorney? What sane person argues with their attorney of the powers delegated in a power of attorney? If there is any dispute, you fire the attorney, and draft a new agreement that clarifies the question. This is what the people of the southern states attempted to do in 1860. And the agency murdered 260,000 of them for daring to question the agency's authority.

2. The people exist to be exploited through taxes for the benefit of politically-connected elites. Lincoln made this abundantly clear that southerners escaping from northern rapacity was unacceptable. When the people ("the eel that is being flayed" in John Randolph's words) objected to this arrangement, the federal government killed 260,000 of them. That is a morally repugnant position, but a position staked out by Republicans in 1861.

3. Many people of the North treated black people badly (for example, it was illegal to be black in Illinois in 1860), but, they said, some of you southerners treat black people worse, so we assert the right to kill 260,000 people, the vast majority of whom did not even own slaves, to right that wrong. The lack of discrimination in applying that violence brings into question the moral superiority of the North. Do I have the right to kill people who live in a society that tolerates abortion on demand as a means of birth control? I think not, but the Republican logic of the 1860s suggests that if I hold a moral position superior to pro-abortionists, I have the right to kill people, not just pro-abortionists, but those who merely live in proximity to those who defend abortion. I think that position is morally obtuse, but that is the very position staked out by Republicans in 1860.

I wish that the politics of the 1860s was dead and gone, but the North won the war so we are stuck with these positions from the 1860s.
and we should all be thankful for that
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
How's that:conf3:
In response to the fact that 260,000 Americans were killed, you responded that we should all be glad for that. I find that a bit cavalier. I hope you never encounter someone who treats your life that cavalierly. Your life, and those of your family members are precious.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
In response to the fact that 260,000 Americans were killed, you responded that we should all be glad for that. I find that a bit cavalier. I hope you never encounter someone who treats your life that cavalierly. Your life, and those of your family members are precious.
No, I bolded 'but the North won the war' so my response was to those words. Its ludicrous to think that I am glad 260,000 Americans were killed.:rolleyes:
 

Tidewater

Hall of Fame
Mar 15, 2003
22,401
13,177
287
Hooterville, Vir.
No, I bolded 'but the North won the war' so my response was to those words. Its ludicrous to think that I am glad 260,000 Americans were killed.:rolleyes:
I guess you can't make an omelette without cracking some eggs. Which is fine, as long as you're not one of those eggs.
The "North won the war" was a result achieved on some very real sacrifice by folks North and South, white and black.
There was a better way.
 

Bamaro

TideFans Legend
Oct 19, 2001
26,558
10,620
287
Jacksonville, Md USA
Texas votes to remove Confederate plaque that says Civil War wasn’t over slavery

Following more than a year of complaints from elected officials of all political stripes, a state board that oversees the Texas Capitol grounds voted unanimously Friday to remove a controversial Confederate plaque that falsely asserts that the Civil War was “not a rebellion, nor was its underlying cause to sustain slavery.”
https://www.texastribune.org/2019/01/11/texas-confederate-plaque-vote-greg-abbott-dan-patrick/
:iagree:
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.