While I generally agree with the intent of your post, I don't agree with the accuracy of your statement. Lee served the US military for 32 years before secession. He was a celebrated officer during the Mexican-American War and he served as Superintendent of West Point. He served the US for 32 years and the Confederacy for 4 years. He followed Virginia into the war, but he himself had nothing to do with it secession. Lee actually lobbied against secession and he was offered a senior command for the US. It could be argued that his service to the US should be celebrated, but his service to the Confederacy should not. To most people, one nullifies the other and I won't argue that point. I just think Lee isn't seen in the most accurate light and it should be pointed out.carnivorous chicken said:Robert E. Lee is celebrated solely (or almost entirely) for leading a pro-slavery revolt against the central government of the United States. Despite what some people may want to argue -- and I'd be happy to engage on this topic -- the Civil War was fought over slavery. Robert E. Lee is celebrated because he wanted to separate from the US and create a nation based on the enslavement of others. He and his side lost, the Union won, and yet there is a debate over whether these traitors should be celebrated in public places and in front of government buildings?
J-Rod10 said:And, we're off and running.
Al Sharpton isn't just any idiot. He's like king idiot. He's influential. He goes after something, as he did the Jefferson monument, it's going to gain traction with his followers.irk miller said:What's happening is any idiot can post on YouTube, send a tweet, or share dumb shit on Facebook. The comments on those videos are priceless.
J-Rod10 said:That didn't take a week from the first mention of it, to people hopping on the bandwagon.
irk miller said:While I generally agree with the intent of your post, I don't agree with the accuracy of your statement. Lee served the US military for 32 years before secession. He was a celebrated officer during the Mexican-American War and he served as Superintendent of West Point. He served the US for 32 years and the Confederacy for 4 years. He followed Virginia into the war, but he himself had nothing to do with it secession. Lee actually lobbied against secession and he was offered a senior command for the US. It could be argued that his service to the US should be celebrated, but his service to the Confederacy should not. To most people, one nullifies the other and I won't argue that point. I just think Lee isn't seen in the most accurate light and it should be pointed out.
I covered all that in a previous post. Your previous statement about Lee just needed more information. Like I said, I hold the same opinion, but I also prefer to have all the details on the table. There's the position of being anti-American and pro-Slavery being discussed as they relate to these monuments. Also, your position about Lee highlights a justification to remove all monuments of former slave owners, including those in the Union.carnivorous chicken said:Although the New Orleans monument was put up in 1880, most monuments to the Confederacy were put up in the early 20th century (to reinforce Jim Crow) or in the 1960s (as a reaction to the Civil Rights Movement), and many (most?) were paid for by the Daughters of the Confederacy.
irk miller said:I covered all that in a previous post. Your previous statement about Lee just needed more information. Like I said, I hold the same opinion, but I also prefer to have all the details on the table. There's the position of being anti-American and pro-Slavery being discussed as they relate to these monuments. Also, your position about Lee highlights a justification to remove all monuments of former slave owners, including those in the Union.
J-Rod10 said:I think we can all agree that slavery is/was abhorrent.
However, I have a hard time condemning people of that past who lived within the social constructs of their time.
We think the way we do now, because we were taught to do so. Just as those men were taught in their lifetimes.
Monday morning quarterbacking doesn't offer anything than division amongst the people.
I meant more of the Washington/Jefferson rumblings that are now going on, 100 years prior to the Civil War.carnivorous chicken said:True -- although the social construct of the time, the 1860s, was broad and included people vehemently opposed to slavery, including many in the South. And including those of African descent in the South, it should go without saying. And abolitionist movements in (what became) the US date to the 17th century. People made choices as to whether they supported slavery, influenced by the situation around them ("how will I get my cotton picked without slavery?" e.g.). People chose to support slavery, people chose to go to war over slavery (not everyone, of course). It's not meant to be divisive Monday morning QBing, but partly it's a continuing attempt to address historical wrongs. Shouldn't be anything wrong with that in a mature society, which is why the defensiveness on one side invites questions as to motive (reinforced by idiots who march with Nazi symbols).