U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 05-27-2017, 05:38 PM
 
1,400 posts, read 626,837 times
Reputation: 811

Advertisements

As far as I could tell in the video provided by the OP, the purpose of the memorial site was not to honor the Confederate cause, but to provide a place where people could honor the Confederate soldiers that died in the war. That is an important distinction.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-27-2017, 07:21 PM
 
3,676 posts, read 2,492,755 times
Reputation: 2895
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthCitySam View Post
You're simply wrong. The civil war was fought over economic, power, and control issues built up over the years between the federal government and the southern states. If the south was successful in its bid to separate and form its own independent country, the economy of the remaining states would have suffered, western expansion would have severely faltered, and the viability of the central government authority going forward would be in jeopardy. The war wasn't fought over the moral question of the slavery of Africans. The president himself stated clearly his ambivalence toward slavery.
No, the war started because a bunch of southern states formed a rebellion specifically to protect slavery, because the US elected a president from a party founded by abolitionists. Source: the public declarations of the aforementioned southern states. The states rights/economic issues angle is a white supremacist fable whipped up after the war as ex post facto justification. The war was about states rights and economic issues insofar as southern states wanted the right to have slaves for economic purposes (and also they didn't believe negros were people).

If you want to argue that we should tear down Lincoln statues because he was a white supremacist, that's a different argument that does nothing to lessen the fact that confederate monuments are explicitly racist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2017, 08:42 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,240 posts, read 5,612,853 times
Reputation: 4236
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
No, the war started because a bunch of southern states formed a rebellion specifically to protect slavery, because the US elected a president from a party founded by abolitionists. Source: the public declarations of the aforementioned southern states. The states rights/economic issues angle is a white supremacist fable whipped up after the war as ex post facto justification. The war was about states rights and economic issues insofar as southern states wanted the right to have slaves for economic purposes (and also they didn't believe negros were people).

If you want to argue that we should tear down Lincoln statues because he was a white supremacist, that's a different argument that does nothing to lessen the fact that confederate monuments are explicitly racist.
Are you saying the civil war was fought by two sides who were both explicitly racist? Then why should any civil war monuments stand?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2017, 08:54 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,240 posts, read 5,612,853 times
Reputation: 4236
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
The war started over slavery, specifically the Confederate states forming and starting a war to preserve slavery, which is the topic of the thread. The Union fighting for abolition vs preservation of unity has nothing to do with the topic. That's like defending a murderer with "the victim was ugly"; it's basically a non sequitur.
It's strange to me that you are still angry over a war fought 150 plus years ago between Americans when the people most directly involved in that war were willing to accept peace with dignity and move on. And that has been the USA's approach since, whether it was our treatment of Japan after their surrender, our treatment of Germany, our rebuilding of Japan and Europe etc.

Very strange to suddenly be offended by Civil War monuments. Politically I suppose it's easier to direct anger at 100 plus year old monuments than dealing with current issues of crime, failing schools, rampant homelessness, declining population, etc.

Last edited by MUTGR; 05-27-2017 at 09:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2017, 09:33 PM
 
1,400 posts, read 626,837 times
Reputation: 811
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
It's strange to me that you are still angry over a war fought 150 plus years ago between Americans when the people most directly involved in that war were willing to accept peace with dignity and move on. And that has been the USA's approach since, whether it was our treatment of Japan after their surrender, our treatment of Germany, our rebuilding of Japan and Europe etc.

Very strange to suddenly be offended by Civil War monuments. Politically I suppose it's easier to direct anger at 100 plus year old monuments than dealing with current issues of crime, failing schools, rampant homelessness, declining population, etc.
Bingo! That is exactly what this is about.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2017, 09:42 PM
 
Location: SW Missouri
694 posts, read 1,143,417 times
Reputation: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by Floorist View Post
The war started over the North, which controlled congress, pushing through a huge tariff on southern goods. The South then tried to negotiate to sell goods directly to other countries and the North stopped that too. The war started as an economic war. And Lincoln, if you bother to read his early writing, had no interest in eliminating slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation, only effected the 7 states that had seceded to that point, which means it would have been unconstitutional. Lincoln was willing to let the rest of the states keep their slaves. And slavery did not start In the South. The first slaves in the colonies were in Massachusetts.
It is sad. Regardless of what our resident attorney states, nearly all of this is irrelevant to the plight of the statues (why are they here and why should they go or stay), he brings up one of the most important problems with this whole situation, that no one from the 'tear them down' side wants to address. I find most of the history the ''statue defenders' use to be laughable at best, and brain shaming reality the worst.

The war started as an economic war. - nice try. Even the most popular Southern apologists us the term 'states rights' to disguise slavery being the primary cause. Please link to all of the state declaration of secession with the quotes that they were seceding from the Union because of a tariff that the Senate, controlled 50% by slave holding states and 50% by non slave holding states had passed. And while you are researching each of the state secession proclamations - underline every time they mentioned slavery or peculiar institutions as the reason. And I can save you some time. By the time Louisiana and Texas seceded pretty much everything about slavery had been recorded by the other states so their declarations were pretty short, sweet and to the point. More like 'we are outta here". But here is the representative that Louisiana sent to Texas to report to their convention on why Louisiana had voted to secede. I am going to take a few short statements but have linked to the record so you can see whether I took it out of context or not.
Address of George Williamson, Commissioner from Louisiana to the Texas Secession Convention
"Mr. President and Gentlemen of the people of Texas.
I have the honor to address you as the commissioner of the people of Louisiana, accredited to your honorable body. With this communication, by the favor of your presiding officer, will be laid before you my credentials, the ordinance of secession, a resolution in regard to the Mississippi river and the ordinance to provide for the appointment of delegates to a convention to form a Southern Confederacy. These ordinances and the resolution were adopted at their respective dates by the people of Louisiana in convention assembled, after serious debate and calm reflection. ..... Insulted by the denial of her constitutional equality by the non-slaveholding States, outraged by their contemptuous rejection of proffered compromises, and convinced that she was illustrating the capacity of her people for self-government by withdrawing from a union that had failed, without fault of hers, to accomplish its purposes, she declared herself a free and independent State on the 26th day of January last. History affords no example of a people who changed their government for more just or substantial reasons. Louisiana looks to the formation of a Southern confederacy to preserve the blessings of African slavery, and of the free institutions of the founders of the Federal Union, bequeathed to their posterity. "

And Lincoln, if you bother to read his early writing, had no interest in eliminating slavery. - That is why South Carolina seceded from the Union 6 weeks after his election. Here is what Lincoln said - before the South seceded when he was running for President - "I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am what they call, as I understand it, a `Black Republican.'' (Applause and laughter.) I think Slavery is wrong, morally, and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread in these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually terminate in the whole Union. (Applause.) While I say this for myself, I say to you, Kentuckians, that I understand you differ radically with me (Page 441) upon this proposition; that you believe Slavery is a good thing; that Slavery is right; that it ought to be extended and perpetuated in this Union. Now, there being this broad difference between us, I do not pretend in addressing myself to you, Kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you; that would be a vain effort. I do not enter upon it. I only propose to try to show you that you ought to nominate for the next Presidency, at Charleston, my distinguished friend Judge Douglas. " - The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, "Speech at Cincinnati, Ohio" (September 17, 1859), p. 440. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 3.

After he became President and as a representative to all of the country, albeit divided one at best - and right before he issued Emancipation Declaration
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause." The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume V, "Letter to Horace Greeley" (August 22, 1862), p. 388. Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. Volume 5.

The Emancipation Proclamation, only effected the 7 states that had seceded to that point, which means it would have been unconstitutional. - 11 states actually and at this point the Congress WAS controlled by the north since the South had checked out. They started an unconstitutional war, so even if you were right, it would be spilt milk, don't you think? Besides, the Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority, we call them Executive Orders today, as commander in chief of the armed forces; it was not a law passed by Congress. Congress made it all official and part of the Constitution with the 13th Amendment.

Lincoln was willing to let the rest of the states keep their slaves. - Yes if you mean the three border states of Missouri, Kentucky and Maryland - they were not included in the presidential proclamation. These were freed by separate state proclamations.

And slavery did not start In the South. The first slaves in the colonies were in Massachusetts. - the first 'slaves' entered the US at Jamestown, and brought in by the British. BUT - while I believe your point is irrelevant, any more than the earlier Marxist claim makes itself relevant to this topic, I would agree with you that slavery was common throughout the early days of our history. And Massachusetts outlawed slavery in 1781.

While I agree with Frank's facts, especially because he is brave enough to back up his points with links to actual history and not just say wild things he heard once on a radical website, I do not agree with him that the statues should be removed - at least those actually related to the Civil War.

It is a part of our history and hundreds of thousands of men died in this national struggle. The statues were built by mostly veterans groups and communities to pay tribute to those who served and died, and not as a big finger to the black community as some would have us believe. And the slippery slope MUTGR referred too is something worth talking about honestly, but the neo-Conservatives, with their 'in-your-face-I-will-fly-this-flag-and-protect-my-white-heritage-but-don't-call-me-racist attitude' would hijack the question to push their agenda and thus turn an honest discussion into an argument over a long lost cause. Now you see why many in the middle just throw up their arms and 'say screw it take them down'. Not worth fighting for and being lumped with the white supremeacist's and alt-right.

I honestly ask those who want the statues to come down, where does it stop? Here are some links - please take a moment and read them and then ask yourself, when does it stop? Do I start cashing in my dollar bills because the photo of a slave holder is featured on it? That would mean the $100 bill is doomed as well. And the $20 bill. That would eliminate the penny, nickel and quarter too.

Do I need to visit the World War Two Memorial before its torn down, because our military was not segregated then.

Teacher criticized for hanging of black people analogy placed on admnistrative leave for bringing Confederate flag to class | The Sacramento Bee

Take 'Em Down NOLA says Andrew Jackson's statue must go | NOLA.com

Take ‘Em Down NOLA Leader Targets George Washington Statue – Occidental Dissent

Veterans Affairs quietly bans the Confederate flag at cemeteries it runs - Washington Times

Flag rally held at Nash Farm Battlefield Saturday | News | henryherald.com

And Frank - While I may come to a different conclusion than you, I do respect your opinion and appreciate the civility, and patience, you have used on this thread. I regret many of those who also want to protect these monuments feel making up history or throwing out irrelevant nonsense is the right way to win an argument.

The Civil War isn't like football. The South may have lost to the Yankees in the Super Bowl this year, but they get a shot at payback next year. Hopefully the Chiefs will make that irrelevant as well.

Last edited by SW Missouri Dave; 05-27-2017 at 09:50 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2017, 09:43 PM
NCN
 
Location: NC/SC Border Patrol
21,132 posts, read 22,316,043 times
Reputation: 23239
This is Memorial Day weekend. What a way to celebrate it! Do you think the people behind this movement even know what Memorial Day is?

My husband went out today to put flags on the graves of fallen soldiers. I told him Obama had made it against the law to put confederate flags on the civil war soldier's graves as they had always done. He said, "No, that is only on government graves. Our flags are being placed on private graves." He went on to say that even if they were not allowed to put confederate flags on the graves they could put USA flags on the confederate soldier's graves because congress had ruled that they could do that. All soldiers in the civil war are to be honored the same no matter which side they fought for. Considering this, I believe these statue destroying people are destroying public property probably bought with taxpayer funds and should be arrested.

The actions of the women both north and south on Memorial Day was supposed to be a healing action to bring the country back together after the Civil War. Now we have these troublemakers trying to separate us again and cause trouble. I am glad I am not a part of such dishonoring vile actions. Shame on this disgusting bunch.

It is really sad what some of our cities have become. They have much bigger problems than statues.

Last edited by NCN; 05-27-2017 at 09:56 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2017, 10:14 PM
 
3,676 posts, read 2,492,755 times
Reputation: 2895
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
Very strange to suddenly be offended by Civil War monuments.
It's absurd to suggest that people are "suddenly" upset about Confederate monuments. Just because you've been ignoring people's opinions doesn't mean they didn't exist. For example, the presence of the confederate flag as part of the Georgia state flag was being protested and eventually removed almost 20 years ago as part of this same argument with Neo-Confederates. The Georgia flag, of course, was changed to include the confederate battle flag in 1956 as protest against federally-mandated desegregation and "race-mixing" post-Brown v. Board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR View Post
Politically I suppose it's easier to direct anger at 100 plus year old monuments than dealing with current issues of crime, failing schools, rampant homelessness, declining population, etc.
Being a large country, surely we can focus on multiple issues at once. Assuming we accept that crime, failing schools, homelessness and declining population are issues distinct from the symbols of white supremacy. That's an argument for many more threads, as several on both sides of the current discussion have already pointed out already that racism in America has many branches. Suffice to say that I am also against crime and homelessness, et cetera.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SW Missouri Dave View Post
And Frank - While I may come to a different conclusion than you, I do respect your opinion and appreciate the civility, and patience, you have used on this thread.
I appreciate it, and I've learned a lot from your effortful posts in this thread. Unfortunately, I can't rep you anymore until I spread some around!
Quote:
Originally Posted by NCN View Post
My husband went out today to put flags on the graves of fallen soldiers. I told him Obama had made it against the law to put confederate flags on the civil war soldier's graves as they had always done. He said, "No, that is only on government graves. Our flags are being placed on private graves." He went on to say that even if they were not allowed to put confederate flags on the graves they could put USA flags on the confederate soldier's graves because congress had ruled that they could do that. All soldiers in the civil war are to be honored the same no matter which side they fought for. Considering this, I believe these statue destroying people are destroying public property probably bought with taxpayer funds and should be arrested.

The actions of the women both north and south on Memorial Day was supposed to be a healing action to bring the country back together after the Civil War. Now we have these troublemakers trying to separate us again and cause trouble. I am glad I am not a part of such dishonoring vile actions. Shame on this disgusting bunch.
I certainly don't have a problem with privately decorating the graves of fallen soldiers; that's different from publicly memorializing their efforts. After all, a large portion of our population was targeted for continued enslavement as the explicit goal of the Confederate States' founding and war effort.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-27-2017, 10:34 PM
 
Location: St. Louis
7,240 posts, read 5,612,853 times
Reputation: 4236
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
It's absurd to suggest that people are "suddenly" upset about Confederate monuments. Just because you've been ignoring people's opinions doesn't mean they didn't exist. For example, the presence of the confederate flag as part of the Georgia state flag was being protested and eventually removed almost 20 years ago as part of this same argument with Neo-Confederates. The Georgia flag, of course, was changed to include the confederate battle flag in 1956 as protest against federally-mandated desegregation and "race-mixing" post-Brown v. Board.

Being a large country, surely we can focus on multiple issues at once. Assuming we accept that crime, failing schools, homelessness and declining population are issues distinct from the symbols of white supremacy. That's an argument for many more threads, as several on both sides of the current discussion have already pointed out already that racism in America has many branches. Suffice to say that I am also against crime and homelessness, et cetera.

I appreciate it, and I've learned a lot from your effortful posts in this thread. Unfortunately, I can't rep you anymore until I spread some around!

I certainly don't have a problem with privately decorating the graves of fallen soldiers; that's different from publicly memorializing their efforts. After all, a large portion of our population was targeted for continued enslavement as the explicit goal of the Confederate States' founding and war effort.
A flag flying over a state building is one thing, a monument to fallen soldiers is something else.

Again, I actually have no particular brief about the memorial in St. Louis, as I've never apparently lied eyes on it and my folks all fought for the North. But I don't like it and what comes next is anybody's guess. We never heard about this issue until Slay and now Krewson made it a priority, despite all of the pressing issues impacting St. Louis City. They can't even pay for removing it. That speaks of political pandering to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-28-2017, 07:54 AM
 
208 posts, read 195,866 times
Reputation: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrankMiller View Post
...and also they didn't believe negros were people
What did they think they were?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > St. Louis
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top