Virginia's history is being erased right before our eyes (Richmond: condo, brokers)

[VA Outdoorsman]

The tombstone of Traveller, Robert E. Lee's famed horse, has been removed by woke historian curators/administrators at Washington and Lee University, in Lexington, Va. After receiving alumni backlash, the university rushed to replace the tombstone with another one, however it is completely devoid of all historical context and simply reads "Traveller". It begs the question, is the name of the university next on the list of things to erase...?


https://www.wluspectator.com/home/20...ases-statement

This is just the latest example of Virginia history being erased by cultural Marxists -- often from outside of Virginia -- installed at all institutions of higher learning, in museums, mayoral offices, etc. Nothing is off limits to these barbarians, not even final burial sites, as we saw with Confederate General A.P. Hill when his remains were exhumed and re-interred late last year.

[NOVA_guy]

Oh no! What can we do to fix this!? We can’t let them erase our history!

[tgbwc]

How is history being erased? From the article:

The June 16 Columns post says that the two Traveller plaques as well as two other removed plaques will be featured in a permanent, upcoming exhibit titled “The Power of Memory: Remembering Robert E. Lee[,]” which will be located in Lee Chapel, National Historic Landmark.

[16 Acres]

Originally Posted by VA Outdoorsman

The tombstone of Traveller, Robert E. Lee's famed horse, has been removed by woke historian curators/administrators at Washington and Lee University, in Lexington, Va. After receiving alumni backlash, the university rushed to replace the tombstone with another one, however it is completely devoid of all historical context and simply reads "Traveller". It begs the question, is the name of the university next on the list of things to erase...?


https://www.wluspectator.com/home/20...ases-statement

This is just the latest example of Virginia history being erased by cultural Marxists -- often from outside of Virginia -- installed at all institutions of higher learning, in museums, mayoral offices, etc. Nothing is off limits to these barbarians, not even final burial sites, as we saw with Confederate General A.P. Hill when his remains were exhumed and re-interred late last year.

Totally agree. Most who are against this really do not know the real history of Virginia, just what some call hate.

It's not hate, it's what happened years ago. The average person does not even know what really happened back then. Lincoln invaded Virginia with guns aimed to kill and kill they did. And it wasn't because Virginia had slaves. Virginia fought back in defense.

It was a complicated war, one reason why most don't understand it.

The North did it's best to destroy Virginia. Lincoln also broke his word and inflicted destruction and devastation to innocent Virginians by the likes of Sheridan and Hunter, burning houses, barns, stealing what they needed and destroying crops.

[Babe_Ruth]

Originally Posted by tgbwc

How is history being erased?.

I'd say removing someone's grave facilitates erasing their memory. And what the city of Richmond did with Hill was (ghoulish) grave desecration.

If you're ok with digging up Confederate graves & destroying historical statues.. fair enough.
But it's gaslighting when u pretend like removing memorials and statues isn't erasing history. Removing historical markers and statues fits the literal definition of erasing. (peace)

[jetgraphics]

Anyone who is offended by history wants to hide the truth from being remembered.
- - - - - - -
Honoring one's defeated enemies and especially their dead is a long standing practice. We see examples of this in Roman history, where fallen enemies are not reviled nor their cause ridiculed, nor their memories tarnished. Perhaps this is to appease the spirits or to not agitate the descendants into seeking revenge.
Whatever the reason, it is an accepted practice.

To attack them and their memory is considered uncivilized, uncultured, contemptible and / or ignoble.

MAGNANIMITY IN VICTORY MARKED THE CIVIL WAR’S END

Upon news of General Lee’s surrender, General Grant admonished Union soldiers who were firing salutes to mark their victory. “Stop that firing,” he said sternly, “The Rebels are our countrymen again.”

Lincoln and Grant knew the Confederates were once more part of the union. To be harsh or spiteful, or punish them, or throw the Union's win in their face, was not going to do anybody any good. To disfigure, remove and eradicate memorials of the Confederacy is an insult to their memories as well as the magnanimity and generosity of the victors. It is a shame if we allow history to fall out of the minds of our people because of an ignorant, vindictive, and spiteful attitude of a few.
. . . .
In the spirit of 1865, all Confederate symbols represent the REUNION of all Americans. Anyone who attacks them, attacks the UNION that they represent.
How in the world do you expect people to unite in the common defense of all rights, when you tear down their memorials to their ancestors and spew hate at their memory?

P.S. - Lincoln did not "attack" the Confederacy.

Ignorance of the republican form may suggest such nonsense. However, the beneficiaries of the republican form are NOT the citizens, but the sovereign people. And since THEY aren't part of the democratic governments instituted to secure endowed rights, they did not condone nor ratify the secession of the southern states.

SECESSION - NOT AN OPTION
...
The united States of America were instituted to secure the rights of the people - not the privileges of the citizens - who had surrendered rights and powers in exchange for political liberty.
...
Servant governments and their subject citizens have no authority to secede from the perpetual union that benefits the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.

PRESERVING SLAVERY WAS THEIR GOAL
Under the republican form, where people are sovereigns without subjects, no one can own another as a slave. All slavery was a taxable privilege under the democratic ("constitutional") governments.

Frankly, the southern states could not have accomplished their goal by their governments resigning en masse and their people withdrawing from subject citizenship. Their slaves would automatically become free.

So they didn’t "withdraw consent" and Abraham Lincoln was correct in preserving the perpetual Union at all cost. For if the Confederacy succeeded in leaving the Union, both would have been weaker. And such weakness only benefits the predators. Just like disarmament only benefits the criminals, not the harmless people.

(FYI - the perpetual union was spelled out in the Articles of Confederation 1777)

[16 Acres]

Originally Posted by Babe_Ruth

I'd say removing someone's grave facilitates erasing their memory. And what the city of Richmond did with Hill was (ghoulish) grave desecration.

If you're ok with digging up Confederate graves & destroying historical statues.. fair enough.
But it's gaslighting when u pretend like removing memorials and statues isn't erasing history. Removing historical markers and statues fits the literal definition of erasing. (peace)

And on top of that, it was Law. The Code of Virginia stated that no monument were to be destroyed, altered or removed, Union or Confederate.

I witnessed, by computer and TV, Democratic Leaders and Law Enforcement clearly ignoring that Law and let protestors run wild with vandalism. What a message to send to the great citizens of Virginia.

[16 Acres]

Originally Posted by jetgraphics

P.S. - Lincoln did not "attack" the Confederacy.

Ignorance of the republican form may suggest such nonsense. However, the beneficiaries of the republican form are NOT the citizens, but the sovereign people. And since THEY aren't part of the democratic governments instituted to secure endowed rights, they did not condone nor ratify the secession of the southern states.

SECESSION - NOT AN OPTION
...
The united States of America were instituted to secure the rights of the people - not the privileges of the citizens - who had surrendered rights and powers in exchange for political liberty.
...
Servant governments and their subject citizens have no authority to secede from the perpetual union that benefits the SOVEREIGN PEOPLE.

PRESERVING SLAVERY WAS THEIR GOAL
Under the republican form, where people are sovereigns without subjects, no one can own another as a slave. All slavery was a taxable privilege under the democratic ("constitutional") governments.

Frankly, the southern states could not have accomplished their goal by their governments resigning en masse and their people withdrawing from subject citizenship. Their slaves would automatically become free.

So they didn’t "withdraw consent" and Abraham Lincoln was correct in preserving the perpetual Union at all cost. For if the Confederacy succeeded in leaving the Union, both would have been weaker. And such weakness only benefits the predators. Just like disarmament only benefits the criminals, not the harmless people.

(FYI - the perpetual union was spelled out in the Articles of Confederation 1777)

I told y'all it was a complicated war.

Secession was talked about and considered more than once even way before the Civil War and even amongst Northern states. Technically it was not ruled by the Supreme Count till 1869, 4 years after the war ended. By a questionable panel of justices yet. A 5 to 3 decision made up of many victors of the war and one was who known to be "a bump on the log" who generally just went along with the majority. One person (1) would had made it not pass.

[VA Outdoorsman]

It is true that all Confederate memorials and statues that were erected or placed in the decades after the war between the states was to ensure a successful RE-UNIONIFICATION of the country. This was especially the case in the South, in Virginia.

Could this re-unionification be something the power brokers of our country today want to destroy? All evidence seems to point to our leaders' desires for more division and hatred.

No single monument should have been removed in Virginia and instead we could have added to them. Monuments are not only for glorification, they serve practical purposes too (such as easing tensions).

It doesn't matter if you consider Confederate generals traitors or not, they were patriotic to their state first and many fought in the Mexican American war for America.

[spencgr]

Originally Posted by VA Outdoorsman

It is true that all Confederate memorials and statues that were erected or placed in the decades after the war between the states was to ensure a successful RE-UNIONIFICATION of the country. This was especially the case in the South, in Virginia.

Is this true? Do you have evidence to back this up?