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.
Because after the Civil War their priority was to kill/displace native Americans off the land to make it safe for white, Christian settlers. Seems pretty offensive to me.
There's a statue of Custer in his boyhood home in Michigan so it doesn't honor the Battle of Little Big Horn. It's specifically designed to honor his victories in the Civil War.
I wonder what the ruling on that one would be by the Left.
I have a painting of Custer a Little Big Horn in my office. He made a stupid decision, disobeyed orders, and got his men killed.
It reminds me not to make stupid decisions.
If the relevant constituents of the districts that own them vote to do so... sure.
I mean, let's go down this silly logical path that actually no one is going down (literally no one is calling for this)...but sure, if they vote to take them down, I see nothing wrong there.
Well, if they do so illegally, then that would be illegal, and they will be prosecuted like the last people who tore down a monument illegally. Duh.
If the relevant districts vote to remove memorials on their property I don't see how that is anyone else's business.
I don't see anyone getting a vote. Baltimore took them down in the middle of the night. Anyone here from Baltimore vote on that?
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.