Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They demanded the US give up one of its military establishments to them, just because they said so and declared themselves separated (which itself may not have even been constitutional despite what some will say).
There was a thread not too long ago talking about how CA always wants to secede. One CA resident was saying that the US would have to give up Camp Pendleton and other military establishments in CA. Everyone was like, uhh... no. Not how it works. It is not the state's but the military's, which is run by the federal government (included funded by Congress) and which the president is Commander in Chief.
So no SC in 1860/1, you don't get to demand the US gives your rebel a**es Fort Sumpter then fire on it and nearly 200 years later call it "the War of Northern Aggression." Insanity.
Fire on a U.S. military installation, expect to get fired on back. Apparently, some people don't understand that.
If what you say about that thread is true, then I have one word to describe such sentiments: Hypocrite. One hand saying they won't give up Camp Pendleton, but then saying the USA had to give up Ft. Sumter. I would have just a tiny bit more respect for said individuals if they would just admit what their true motive is.
Fire on a U.S. military installation, expect to get fired on back. Apparently, some people don't understand that.
If what you say about that thread is true, then I have one word to describe such sentiments: Hypocrite. One hand saying they won't give up Camp Pendleton, but then saying the USA had to give up Ft. Sumter. I would have just a tiny bit more respect for said individuals if they would just admit what their true motive is.
They felt under attack for years and knew sooner or later they would be attacked. You can feel attacked without having a cannon fired at you.
You may disagree about honoring the Confederacy but today the people who honor it are not still wishing they could have slaves... c'mon. They are honoring their ancestors and regional identity.
They felt under attack for years and knew sooner or later they would be attacked. You can feel attacked without having a cannon fired at you.
You may disagree about honoring the Confederacy but today the people who honor it are not still wishing they could have slaves... c'mon. They are honoring their ancestors and regional identity.
The South felt under attack because of the fear that the way of life in the region was under attack. It was felt that the institution of slavery was going to be taken away. Why do you think Bleeding Kansas happened? Yes, you can feel attacked without having a cannon fired at you. However, if you aren't being attacked, but you fire the first shot, what does that say about you? And what does it say that the people were willing to fire shots to insure that their slave-owning way of way would keep on going?
I disagree because of what that cause is about. It is not "honoring ancestors and regional identity". If regional identity includes honoring a cause deeply rooted in keeping slavery around and you know it, you need to find something better to represent your region.
Absolutely none of you two's little love sonnets have anything to do with the topic at hand...
Back to the real point of this thread, these statues were put up to honor the Southern heritage, not to offend anyone.
Whatever.
Those statues were put up to honor a dishonorable cause. This was 1884. The Deep South was entrenched in Jim Crow. Admiration for all things Confederate was on the rise. Why? Because in the minds of many, it represented certain values such as the racial hierarchy. Slavery was over. However, many in the South did not like the federal government coming in and saying "you have to treat Blacks as equals now" under Reconstruction. Some resented this and turned to honoring Confederates. They were erected as a middle finger to the north and the federal government. That is why it faces north.
And if it's southern heritage, explain why most African-American Southerners aren't claiming the Confederacy as part of their southern heritage. Most African-Americans are southerners. By default African-Americans should have the highest of their ethnicity claiming it as their own. And yet, the opposite is taking place. Polls have shown a majority of African-Americans find the Confederate flag to be a symbol of racism.
Those statues were put up to honor a dishonorable cause. This was 1884. The Deep South was entrenched in Jim Crow. Admiration for all things Confederate was on the rise. Why? Because in the minds of many, it represented certain values such as the racial hierarchy. Slavery was over. However, many in the South did not like the federal government coming in and saying "you have to treat Blacks as equals now" under Reconstruction. Some resented this and turned to honoring Confederates. They were erected as a middle finger to the north and the federal government. That is why it faces north.
And if it's southern heritage, explain why most African-American Southerners aren't claiming the Confederacy as part of their southern heritage. Most African-Americans are southerners. By default African-Americans should have the highest of their ethnicity claiming it as their own. And yet, the opposite is taking place. Polls have shown a majority of African-Americans find the Confederate flag to be a symbol of racism.
Taking down statues that were put up people over 100 years ago because they no longer reflect your modern day ideals or perspective is what uneducated heathens do. By your rationale, the Roman Coloseum should be torn down.
Those statues were put up to honor a dishonorable cause. This was 1884. The Deep South was entrenched in Jim Crow. Admiration for all things Confederate was on the rise. Why? Because in the minds of many, it represented certain values such as the racial hierarchy. Slavery was over. However, many in the South did not like the federal government coming in and saying "you have to treat Blacks as equals now" under Reconstruction. Some resented this and turned to honoring Confederates. They were erected as a middle finger to the north and the federal government. That is why it faces north.
And if it's southern heritage, explain why most African-American Southerners aren't claiming the Confederacy as part of their southern heritage. Most African-Americans are southerners. By default African-Americans should have the highest of their ethnicity claiming it as their own. And yet, the opposite is taking place. Polls have shown a majority of African-Americans find the Confederate flag to be a symbol of racism.
The 1880's was a time of reconciliation between northern and southern veterans. By then the north had given up on reconstruction after it worsened animosity in the south. As a result, southerners began erecting statues out of a small act of defiance.
The point isn't why the statues were erected, nor who the statues represent today, nor if you agree with their point of view. They could be statues of ancient satanic cannibals for all I care. The point is monuments to historical figures by previous generations are snapshots of historical perspectives and an evolution of the city itself. There could be a statue of MLK right next to it. It all tells a story.
Imagine if Europe tore down all Roman and pagan temples when they became Christianized, Catholic Churches during the Protestant Reformation, or Palaces and Castles after the overthrow of the monarchy. It would be a cultureless wreck. Anybody who advocates the tearing down of historical symbology becuse they don't currently agree with it deserves no respect.
Taking down statues that were put up people over 100 years ago because they no longer reflect your modern day ideals or perspective is what uneducated heathens do. By your rationale, the Roman Coloseum should be torn down.
The Roman Colosseum is an architectural monument. Honoring Robert E Lee is just stupid. Honoring a dishonorable cause.
I think people are forgetting that the Confederate statues, flags, veterans groups and the "Lost Cause" ideology are part of what helped heal the nation after the Civil War. It did not have to be that way, instead the North could have tried to completely repress the South and today we could have a major independence movement underway in the South. Also, remember some Confederates helped to heal the nation after the Civil War, including Robert E. Lee.
Having said that, I think it is reasonable to question the reasoning behind any new Confederate statues going up, unless it was on a Civil War battlefield/museum or in the general's hometown or something.
I think people are forgetting that the Confederate statues, flags, veterans groups and the "Lost Cause" ideology are part of what helped heal the nation after the Civil War. It did not have to be that way, instead the North could have tried to completely repress the South and today we could have a major independence movement underway in the South. Also, remember some Confederates helped to heal the nation after the Civil War, including Robert E. Lee.
Having said that, I think it is reasonable to question the reasoning behind any new Confederate statues going up, unless it was on a Civil War battlefield/museum or in the general's hometown or something.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
