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.
I'll start with some criteria: if you are a traitor to your nation by joining the confederacy and then lost the resulting civil war, you shouldn't get a statue. Just sayin'
So, a community shouldn't have the right to put one up?
Personally, I don't really care other than the fact that it should be a matter for the committees to decide. I really wouldn't notice one way or another.
So, a community shouldn't have the right to put one up?
Personally, I don't really care other than the fact that it should be a matter for the committees to decide. I really wouldn't notice one way or another.
IF the entire community gets a say, I suppose but the problem is that many of these confederate monuments were erected in a time when the power structure was actively suppressing the vote of a large segment of Americans. In fact, these statues were part of a campaign to intimidate people and deprive them of rights.
And I still think a community needs to be sensitive to all of citizens. If a town in Alabama that is 80% white decides to erect a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest (who started the Klan), and it passes a vote just on numbers, is it appropriate to go ahead with it? The majority should rule WITH RESPECT to the minority. It would be a crappy thing for a town to do.
The statues that are being protested right now are memorializing traitors to our nation...they have no place being memorialized. Put them in hall of shame somewhere.
IF the entire community gets a say, I suppose but the problem is that many of these confederate monuments were erected in a time when the power structure was actively suppressing the vote of a large segment of Americans. In fact, these statues were part of a campaign to intimidate people and deprive them of rights.
And I still think a community needs to be sensitive to all of citizens. If a town in Alabama that is 80% white decides to erect a monument to Nathan Bedford Forrest (who started the Klan), and it passes a vote just on numbers, is it appropriate to go ahead with it? The majority should rule WITH RESPECT to the minority. It would be a crappy thing for a town to do.
The statues that are being protested right now are memorializing traitors to our nation...they have no place being memorialized. Put them in hall of shame somewhere.
So, every vote should be unanimous or communities shouldn't have the final say on things that don't violate tge Constitution?
So, every vote should be unanimous or communities shouldn't have the final say on things that don't violate tge Constitution?
I am just talking in terms of tactfulness.
We are not talking about putting up a stop sign here, but a controversial monument. A community leader worth her salt should consider all of the citizens in matters such as these. I'm not saying it should be illegal, but no community would want to antagonize 20 or 30% of its population over something like a monument.
Fair enough, though that's more an argument about procedure. Once the statues are taken down they can't really go back up, and the problem is, with the political winds often shifting and opposing groups getting power, the desire to take down what are seen as symbols of opposing ideologies could easily become used as a club that's recklessly wielded. And if elected representatives can just take down statues at will, then when one such elected body votes to take a statue down, it'e not hard to see how an elected body of a different ideological persuasion-- whether taking power later in the same location or already in power someone else-- might just decide to retaliate by taking down a statue dear to the "opposition" at a later time or a different place. Hence the Pandora's Box side to leaving this to political whims and representatives elected to short terms and then being replaced b someone else, often the opposition, in office.
50 years from now, what will the criterion be to knock down statues? Against staunch gay rights? There goes Clinton ,Bush, half of Obama and I guess all of the previous Presidents. Separation of church and state? There goes MLK and other religious people.
Relying on politicians to decide something is scary. Look at all the lemmings now falling over themselves to rename streets, remove statues etc. Many of these folks have been in power for years/decades and it only now occurs to them that these objects are objectionable and actions need to be done immediately?
Why not take them all on Public land, paid for by donations from those that want to save them, and move them to a museum, or some other venue, so that those that wish can see them and those that do not are not forced to. Would that make the alt-right or alt-left happen .................well we already know the answer to that, it is too simple and not nearly as fun as fighting in the streets.
Not all the memorial statuary is inherently valuable. Much of it was turned out by foundries by the dozens, advertised in old club magazines, and sold to local chapters of the GAR or other veteran's groups for around $200 or less. They were sold by funeral homes, and by traveling salesmen on commission.
"Old Joe", an anonymous Confederate soldier, is one of them. A person can see many copies of the same Old Joe all over the south. The monument's base was left up to the organization that raised the money, so the bases can be very well constructed or very shoddy, and can be very handsome or very ugly.
The same Old Joe, carrying a canteen with U.S. on it and a few other minor changes, was also sold in the north. They were all strictly a business.
Once the sales of the Old Joes began to fall off, the same foundries offered new Old Joes who were commemorating the Spanish American war. The same statue also commemorated the Philippine Insurrection. Some were sold as monuments for the Indian wars. Later, the same foundries produced a different Old Joe for World War I.
The business ended after World War II, because the military began giving away everything from surplus cannons to stripped out aircraft for free for memorial use.
If a group wanted to put up a memorial, they didn't have to pay for a statue- all they had to do was apply, and pay for whatever freight charges might be applied to get an old gun of some kind instead.
Tugging on veteran's and widow's heartstrings was just another way to turn a buck and nothing more. In the south, were many cities were left impoverished, the statuary took the place of headstones and other grave markers families couldn't afford. They could afford a couple of dollars to go toward an Old Joe, though. But nowadays, we are 6 generations past those grieving survivors, so there is no more context left in the civil war statuary.
They're just there. They've always been there, gradually decaying and falling apart, another part of a city's aging remnants. The organizations that raised the money and got them erected is now ancient history, the town square that was once the city's most popular public space is now nothing but a traffic hazard, and life goes on.
Last edited by banjomike; 08-17-2017 at 01:37 AM..
The statues that are being protested right now are memorializing traitors to our nation...they have no place being memorialized. Put them in hall of shame somewhere.
Exactly. Why honor traitors? That makes no sense.
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.
