Or not

Confederate and BY statues are a part of our history. You can try to erase the memories, out of sight-out of mind, but it won't change reality.

IMHO, leave them up, show how much we've learned and how far we've advanced as a society.

Sure, there are things that happened, things that are part of history, people who played prominent roles, but that doesn't mean those things/people should be honored.

Exactly.

I think most people are in agreement that important history must be preserved and not covered or re-written. I think these types of monuments should be in a museum or designated location with information telling the whole story.

I do not think they should honored as monuments around the cities.

I have a friend (black) who told me about how she feels when she has to go into a public building to (for example) get her driver's license or take her children to a park when it has a confederate monument in front of it. It was hard to hear because I mostly see them as a curiosity.

I think there is a lot of pain associated with the confederate statues being made worse by the people who are hell bent putting them in everyone's face.

I don't think BY, although he was a complete slime ball, is as bad as monuments that invoke thoughts of slavery. It is a monument to polygamy-by-brainwashing which is pretty bad though.

Yes!

I even had mixed feelings when the peoples of Eastern Europe destroyed all the Lenin statues. It isn't that I thought those should stay up, just that they should be preserved as evidence of history. So in museums.

In the US, those confederate statues stand in city parks and civic centers where children of all races walk by. Many of those children (and adults) see hatred of them ensconced as public monuments.

That should not be. Public places should be racially neutral so that the public experiences of children may likewise be neutral. So preserve those monuments by all means, but put them in places where they do not enjoy implicit governmental sanction.

I also agree with Dagny. History should be remembered as it truly occurred rather than be erased.

I also favor a designated place for statues of fallen heroes with plaques that explain how they once were seen as heroes but have since been proven to be despots, dictators, liars, or whatever they were.

History needs to teach us lessons and not be destroyed because it disappointed us.

In that same mindset, should we as the...(pick-whatever-disadvantaged-group-to-identify-with-this-week..), demand that they close the newly opened lynching museum??

I feel horrible about that, especially since some of my ancestors may have been some of the perpetrators.

This DEFINITELY is not celebratory and uplifting.

I am a history nut, and one thing I think we do as a country (or did prior to recent revisionism), is explore our history, the good, the bad, the VERY ugly, as a means to learn from and grow.

People say that the US suffers from "US Exceptionalism", but we are exceptional, because of how we COMPLETELY explore our history and what people can make of themselves here. Just look at all the focus put on our southern border right now.

Now if someone can declare a national emergency and build a fence around Utah.

You don't know much about the National Museum for Peace and Justice.

Including its name.

https://museumandmemorial.eji.org/memorial

call it whatever. still doesn't change the fact of what they are showing and talking about.

If it shows, displays, talks about something bad that makes "some" people feel bad, should we not show it, not have, and act like it never happened?

Me personally, I say no. If I am ever in the area, I will definitely check that out that museum...BUT, that argument also fits for those who want to get rid of all the Confederate statues

If you can't distinguish between Lee and lynching are represented, you've got a problem.

I can distinguish between the 2 just fine. Trying to "erase" one does us no favors.

Let's try this:

A statue of Hitler in the main square.

A visit to Buchenwald.

Compare and contrast.

tumwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Confederate and BY statues are a part of our
> history. You can try to erase the memories, out of
> sight-out of mind, but it won't change reality.
>
> IMHO, leave them up, show how much we've learned
> and how far we've advanced as a society.

No, we should not try to forget them. But do not leave them in places of honor either. Put them in the "evil people of the past" wing of a museum.

"IMHO, leave them up, show how much we've learned and how far we've advanced as a society."

Yes..exactly...Show where were and where we are now.

At least the confederate flag issue can be determined by those in those states?

How about the statues of Albert Pike and Brigham Young in Washington D.C,? I think Young's is in the Capitol building and Pikes is along a median strip downtown. The leader of the KKK and Freemasonry and the leader of the Mormons are in full honor in DC.

If I remember correctly, Freemasons revere Pike and his achievements, as do Klansmen. While in Utah, I don't have enough information to know how Young is viewed by modern Masons. That's a tough connection to have right now: Being a Mormon, Mason, and racist organization member. There is no proof that I am aware of BY being a member of the KKK. However,in modern terms, there is more than enough evidence to pin him as a true racist. A belief that may counter how BY's boss thought of African-Americans. Smith is known to have ordained a black man to the priesthood.

As to the statues: Leave'em up. Let them stand as a reminder of the follies of men. Men who pretend to lead and guide to the truth but, are in fact, misguided iconic misfits. Iconoclasts who need to be discarded to the trash-heaps of history.

Cake, please?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/28/2019 01:58AM by cakeordeath.

Someone should donate $2,000,000 to keep the Brigham Young statues in Salt Lake City?

False equivalence. BY statues were not put up to show the world in general and black people in particular that "white people are in charge here." BY is famous as a Mormon leader, and as a polygamist. That he was also a racist is pretty far down the list.

A closer equivalence to Civil War statues would be Utah liquor laws, which are designed to send the message that Mormons call the shots here, and consider yourself lucky that we let you drink at all.

There are signs of Mormon dominance in Utah, and signs of white dominance in the South. Mormon dominance in Utah is not considered as large a blot on society as white racism in the South, especially during Jim Crow, which was both when and why those statues were erected.

Wikipedia says: “In a December 2018 special report, Smithsonian Magazine stated, "over the past ten years, taxpayers have directed at least $40 million to Confederate monuments—statues, homes, parks, museums, libraries and cemeteries—and to Confederate heritage organizations."”

I thought BY was also famous for wiping out the indigenous population. http://www.timpanogostribe.com/

What the BY statue at BYU really needs is a pink tutu.

And then you remove them from the history books, too. Which would be the next step.

Well, if folks don't want them seen, they certainly won't want them to be read about.

Actually, that would not be the next step.

From the Timpanogos Nation that the mormons nearly wiped out entirely:

“It was the summer of 1847 our lives would be changed, a new people would come, not like the “big hats” of old. These people would build fences, claim lands and disrupt our culture and way of life. Bringing confusion as they spoke of their God and peace while sharing sacks of flour laced with broken glass. Brigham Young said “You can get rid of more Indians with a sack of flour than a keg of powder.” Destroying us with what appeared to be acts of kindness."

Interesting that the Native American's picked right up on the Mormon M.O. of comforting you while they twist the knife in your back.

I am sickened when I see the Statue of Brigham Young on Main Street but the Native American sitting at his side is beyond unacceptable. Tear it down and leave the Native American and the Trapper. Or at least paint blood dripping from it.

Well I think the old monuments are reminders of things from the past. General Lee, StoneWall Jackson, Jefferson, these men made America, they weren't racist.

I was just down in St. George and what troubles me is that there are all kinds of Statues and monuments to BY, a museum to Jacob Hamblin (who is a questionable figure), the silly town is named after Apostle Potato Smith. And not one word for the founder of the place. John D Lee.

I don't think he (and the whole Lee clan) did something that is so terrible that he has to be erased from everyone's memory? I don't think he did anything bad at all, in fact. The city is set to double in the next 10 years (by a bunch of ignoramuses) and no one remembers or cares about the ones before who made it all possible.

John D. Lee was not the founder of St. George. He was the head of one of several hundred families who were sent there in 1861 under the direction of Erasmus Snow and George Albert Smith.

And I don't know how you can conclude that he didn't do anything "bad at all." Surely Mountain Meadows Massacre was "bad," and he was one of the organizers of that debacle.

Does Lee deserve to be erased from history? No. He is noteworthy for his role in the massacre, his subsequent refusal to play the willing scapegoat, and his "settlement" of Lee's Ferry and Lonely Dell. But his place should be in a museum to Utah's past, not in the public square.

On a different topic, where do you get the notion that Lee and Jackson were not racists? That is a sincere question.

ETA: I also question your statement that Lee and Jackson helped "make America." It was their avowed aim to DESTROY the United States.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/01/2019 09:32PM by Lot's Wife.

“It was their avowed aim to DESTROY the United States“

As it was, the North destroyed the Confederate States. For money, as it always is with wars. They couldn’t have a southern customs house collecting import duties, undercutting the one in New York. Military doctrine is like a religion. You can always find enough culty rubes to do your dirty work.

FWIW, I’ve lived in the North and the South. Cities are much better integrated in the South. Racism seems to be a Northern problem.

"Racism seems to be a Northern problem."

Actually, I think it is a _human_ problem, the potential for which seems to be encoded in our genes and preserved by evolution.

So much for a benevolent creator ...

I'm not sure where you are getting some of these ideas, babylon. The US started building a customs house in 1848, and it was uncontroversial at the time; it would benefit the south. So what you are describing was a later effort by the South to take resources away from the United States. Is there any country that would allow that? Would the United States allow that today? How about if I stopped paying my taxes, effectively seceding personally from the union? No way.

Would such secession be legitimate? Would a customs house controlled by the confederacy (that was the goal, after all) have been a good thing? Were national defense and the continental development of public transportation, for instance, and the other things for which the United States had been using the tariffs illegitimate?

As for the notion that racism "seems to be a Northern problem," that strikes me as a statement uninformed by recent developments, in Alabama, Charlottesville, Virginia as a whole, and North Carolina. I agree with you that in some ways southern cities are better integrated than northern ones, but cities aren't society and there is no way one could say southern "society" is better integrated than in the north.

"I was just down in St. George and what troubles me is… not one word for the founder of the place. John D Lee. …I don't think he did anything bad at all"

This reminds me very much of an older post:

https://www.exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,1910649,1910875#msg-1910875

Wow. I'm impressed you remembered that.

The picture of John D. Lee as a happy-go-lucky, avuncular member of the Three Nephites is somewhat discordant. And "friendly with the Indians?" That's a gem.

We are way past history here, having ventured deep into the land of folklore.

macaRomney Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I think the old monuments are reminders of
> things from the past. General Lee, StoneWall
> Jackson, Jefferson, these men made America, they
> weren't racist.

No they did not help build America. They wanted to destroy America and have their own racist country.

Read a book for hell sakes.

They are history. Removing them is the equivalent of the Taliban demolishing the centuries old cliff carving sculptures in Afghanistan because they don't believe in "graven images".

You learn from history, not destroy what you don't like this year.

OneWayJay Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are history. Removing them is the equivalent
> of the Taliban demolishing the centuries old cliff
> carving sculptures in Afghanistan because they
> don't believe in "graven images".

Except that "removing them" is not "the equivalent of demolishing them."



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2019 03:16PM by Lot's Wife.

Robert E. Lee or Jefferson Davis were not the Buddha.

Jeez.

They were the Bubbas.

There is a lot I could say on this subject (NPR's "On the Media," has done at least two hours' worth of shows dealing with the racial part of this topic), but it would be a very lengthy post indeed. I will, however, raise a question and point out a few factual errors.

Question: Why were these statues erected in the first place. Were they erected to preserve history (as many of their defenders argue) or were they erected as a means of hero worship and as a means to let certain people (African-americans) know who was boss.

Answer: The vast majority of the racial statues were erected in the deep South by supporters of the Confederacy and their offspring who wanted to hero worship the losing slaveholder generals of the Civil War. Most were erected during the Jim Crow era when the South was trying desperately to segregate blacks and whites, and the statues were used as a means for trying to keep black people in their place. For these reasons, I'm all for tearing these statues down; for while it is true that they represent historical figures, they represent slaveholding generals on the losing side of the U.S. Civil War. Keeping them up would be like erecting statues to Adolf Hitler and Josef Gerbles in today's Germany (an act that is, in fact, illegal in that country).

While I have no knowledge of who, when, and why the BY statues came up, I expect that the motives were the same: 1) to hero worship a polygamist who willfully, and with malice, murdered those who sought to cross him; and 2) to remind non-Mormons in Utah of what church actually ran the state.

I will challenge two other comments I read on this thread. First, the U.S. Civil War was, in fact, fought over whether or not the South could continue using African-americans as slaves. While it is true that Abraham Lincoln refused to officially recognize slavery for being the cause of the U.S. Civil War until 1864, nevertheless that war was fought from its beginning over the practice. It was the question of slavery that caused South Carolina, then the rest of the southern states, to leave the union and start the Confederacy. And while the northern states disliked black people almost as much as the South did, its leaders did not support owning slaves--the northern economy didn't need slaves to operate as much as the southern economy did.

The other notion I would challenge is the belief that this racial conflict had been going on since the beginning of human existance. While the Old Testament of the Bible (see Levitticus) endorsed and the New Testament was noncommittal about (see Paul's first letter to the Corinthians) towards the concept of slavery, none of the Bible's books endorse racial slavery.

It turns out that that came about around the 1400s. The names escape me now, but a very high-ranking official in a European government (Portugal, if memory serves) suggested using blacks as slaves because it would be easier to spot the runaways (because of their skin color). We have been demonizing people of African ancestry ever since.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/02/2019 04:24PM by blindguy.

This is good history.

Slavery was an economic issue, so it does not make sense to say that the Civil War was fought over economics and not slavery. Lincoln was from the 1850s fully committed to emancipation. He soft-pedaled that during the first several years of the war to keep the border states on side but then, when opportunity arose to end the war quickly if slavery remained in place, he chose to keep fighting. Lincoln expended tens of thousands of lives for no other reason than to ensure the Civil War ended slavery.

Regarding racism over history, there have definitely been times and civilizations that were not blighted by that curse. Rome embraced various nationalities in military and other roles, including Africans; and the same was true of Islam for many centuries. Across history there were often--perhaps usually--various forms of discrimination, but modern racism really intensified when nationalism rose after the Napoleonic Wars; and chattels slavery, which is the kind we are talking about over the last 3-5 centuries, differed significantly from the "slaveries" of previous eras.

Racism is not, nor ever has been, binary. Humans have come up with all sorts of arrangements and will continue to do so.

Maybe you're trying to say that there's not a racism problem in Islam? If so, that would be incorrect. Islam has long had a racist view toward those with the black skin. I've studied Islam in depth, and have read plenty that shows a belief and behavior that puts those with the darkest skins at a disadvantage within Islam.

What I'm trying to say is what I did say. The acceptance of black Moslems in positions of military and political power was "true of Islam for many centuries." That is not a blanket statement about all Islam or about any particular version of Islam for all time.

People forget or don't realize the Confederates committed treason. That alone should be cause to take the statues down. I'm a southerner and I have great great grandfathers and uncles who served in the Confederate Army. I was raised to be proud of them and our southern culture. It was in college as a history major, that I realized the full impact of what my ancestors did. They were traitors to our country. Traitors were usually hanged back then. It was General Grant and Lincoln generosity that granted the confederate leaders clemency. Jefferson Davis served time in jail.

Thank you! This always comes into my head as well when the subject comes up.

"People forget or don't realize the Confederates committed treason."

So did everyone who fought for American independence against the crown, in a place where their ancestors had only been a few generations (or which they'd moved to as adults). George Washington today would be considered variously a separatist, violent insurgent, terrorist, traitor and rebel leader... Or at least that's the way such people would be portrayed by today's western media. At that point in time all Americans were British subjects some of whom rebelled against their legal government. Many of these rebels were slave owners. As Dr Johnson said of the American separatists -

"How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?"

Many of the founding fathers still kept slaves after rebelling against their lawful king.

You see history all depends on who writes it. The US Civil War was fought on the basis of state vs federal power, not slavery as often claimed. Slavery was the moralization of the war for the north.

By that logic, the British committed treason with the Magna Carta, the French committed treason in 1789 and twice more in the 19th century, the Indians and Burmese and Canadians and Australians committed treason, the Mexicans were traitors to Austria, Eastern Europe was all treasonous for rebelling against the puppet states imposed by the Soviet Union, the Taiwanese, Chinese and Koreans were traitors to Japan, and Vietnam was traitorous for overthrowing Chinese overlordship a thousand years ago and then again for rebelling against first the French and then a string of governments imposed by the US. In fact every country that rebelled against its masters was guilty of treason regardless of their motivations.

The point is that unless you believe every government that ever exercised authority over any people or territory was legitimate--the most reactionary possible stance--your statement is nonsensical. Once one acknowledges that there are moral and ethical standards that inform the principle of legitimacy, in other words that people can expect something from their governments, the term "treason" becomes conditional.

You seriously see no difference between the rebellion of unrepresented colonials in North America (or India or any other old British or French or Belgian or Russian or Roman colony) and the insurrection of the Confederacy against the US government?

"You seriously see no difference between the rebellion of unrepresented colonials in North America... and the insurrection of the Confederacy against the US government?"

There is a lot less difference between these than mainstream American opinion would have you believe. Essentially the US government tried to prevent the southern states from doing what the 13 Colonies had done in the century before, i.e. mount a violent separatist rebellion led by the local upper class against a central power.

The American colonists were not "unrepresented". They had local governments in the colonies themselves and contact with London. As for the taxation issue, taxation back then was far lower than taxation is in the USA today! In some western parts of the 13 Colonies, taxation was unenforceable, because they were so remote.

I deleted the bit about India, that's another thing again.

The US War of independence was less clear cut than the American education system would have you believe. About a third of the population supported independence and a third opposed it (many of those loyalists, including blacks and some native Americans, fled to Canada after being attacked by separatists). Another third were indifferent. The rebels were often slave owners, and would later violate treaties made between the British and native Americans. The majority of Americans (2/3) were not initially pro-separatist, despite what you were taught in school.

It's all pretty ironic considering that in the 20th century the USA has been very vocal against certain independence movementz.

Panther Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> There is a lot less difference between these than
> mainstream American opinion would have you
> believe. Essentially the US government tried to
> prevent the southern states from doing what the 13
> Colonies had done in the century before, i.e.
> mount a violent separatist rebellion led by the
> local upper class against a central power.

Incorrect. The American colonies were never asked for allegiance by the English crown, nor was it offered. Americans were allowed to send the odd envoy, cap in hand, to plead for things from England but such were not even guaranteed a hearing. By contrast, the Southern States voluntarily acceded to the Union, engaged in national government precisely like the Northern states, and participated equally in the election of presidents--some of whom were Southerners. Did the American colonies ever produce a head of state for England? Did an American ever serve as King? As Prime Minister? Did an ever enjoy voting rights in Parliament? If not, then there is no parallel to the Southern states in the Union.


-----------------

> The American colonists were not "unrepresented".
> They had local governments in the colonies
> themselves and contact with London.

The question is not whether the American colonists were "represented" in their villages or cities: it is whether they had full representative rights in London, which they did not.


------------------

> As for the
> taxation issue, taxation back then was far lower
> than taxation is in the USA today!

I hope you realize that is irrelevant.


-------------

> In some western
> parts of the 13 Colonies, taxation was
> unenforceable, because they were so remote.

I hope you realize that is irrelevant.


--------------

> I deleted the bit about India, that's another
> thing again.

No, it is not. The question is whether rebellion against a foreign power that acquired its suzerainty through force and proffers no central political representation is legitimate. India could not be more germane.


--------------
> The US War of independence was less clear cut than
> the American education system would have you
> believe.

Most educated people fully understand what you are saying they do not. I mean, can you indicate a serious history of the Revolution that does not address the class-based differences and their effect on national politics? Didn't Barrington Moore, for instance, say that the reason the American Revolution succeeded was because it was not really a revolution? How about de Toqueville--what did he miss?


---------------
> . . . Another third were indifferent. The
> rebels were often slave owners, and would later
> violate treaties made between the British and
> native Americans.

I'm not sure what you mean by "native Americans" since they were not much involved in what we are discussing. But let's assume you mean the colonial elite. If so, then yes the Southern elite did rebel against the British and their treaties. That is, once again, indication of the difference between the South's relations with the Union and the colonies' relations with England. The South joined the North in rebelling against the imperial power and then voluntarily acceded to the Union and enjoyed equal status therein. So your allusion to the Southern elite demonstrates that their rebellion against the Union was fundamentally different from the colonial revolution against the English overlords.


-------------

> The majority of Americans (2/3)
> were not initially pro-separatist, despite what
> you were taught in school.

Again, I'm not sure where you went to school. But my high school most definitely did teach the class differences involved in the Revolutionary War. And I can't imagine a college course on the subject that would omit such an obviously important element of the history.

If you are aware of books that fail to convey the socio-economic reality, please name them.


------------

> It's all pretty ironic considering that in the
> 20th century the USA has been very vocal against
> certain independence movementz.

It's only ironic if you think that all independence movements are alike, a notion that depends on a cavalier assertion that the Civil War and the Revolutionary War were morally equivalent. There are in fact substantial differences between independence movements--and no responsible government would ever treat them all alike.

The American separatists led a violent rebellion that led to the deaths of not only British troops but a number of the other colonists of all political colors. Other colonists had to flee northward to Canada or went elsewhere to get away from the violence. The African Canadian community arose as a result of this. The armed rebels largely won because an enemy of Britain stepped in - France - and if that hadn't happened that the USA may have remained like Canada or Australia and evolved towards constitutional monarchy within the Commonwealth. (The Southern Separatists also relied on some foreign aid from France and Britain but didn't get enough to win.)

Americans are so used to seeing romanticized portrayals of their War of Independence that they forget there are other accounts or understandings of it. It was noted at the time by Samuel Johnson and others that the USA was a slave owning society so its ideas of liberty did not apply to everyone.

You say taxation was irrelevant. You brought it up. I maintain it was one of the things used as an excuse for violence snd even the destruction of opponents' property like the "Tea Party"

India as I say, was quite a different case. For one, it never had many European colonists (100,000 or so at its height) and they suffered far far worse than anything the 13 Colonies had. Not comparable at all.

"Did the American colonies ever produce a head of state for England? Did an American ever serve as King? As Prime Minister?"

That's not how monarchy works. Not that the presidency has been a proportionate representation of American demographics since at least the mid-19th century. The presidency is exclusivist not the supposed open field it pretends.

As for PM. Most English couldn't become PM. The Americans were a remote colony whose early settlement was paid for by British tax payers going back to Jamestown. Given time it may well have happened - Churchill was eligible for American citizenship... Americans have married into the British royal family as well since independence. The USA would have been more like Canada.

"Didn't Barrington Moore, for instance, say that the reason the American Revolution succeeded was because it was not really a revolution? "

Violent overthrow of the government, popular uprising (although not as popular as now claimed), left wing rebellion (by their standards), and deliberate restructuring of the society. That's a revolution... However as the name implies, revolutions often turn round to something resembling the old state. The new America got a new upper class, new taxation, new centralization, new colonial efforts to the west and south etc etc.

"The South joined the North in rebelling against the imperial power and then voluntarily acceded to the Union and enjoyed equal status therein."

Not all parts of the south existed at independence. Like the 13 Colonies, Washington helped expand into new lands, settle them with new Anglos and expand towns and cities there. Most of the area beyond the Appalachians for example.

Both wars took place because a group believed that power was held too far away and that it worked against their interests.

"It's only ironic if you think that all independence movements are alike, a notion that depends on a cavalier assertion that the Civil War and the Revolutionary War were morally equivalent. There are in fact substantial differences between independence movements--and no responsible government would ever treat them all alike."

If the present US government encountered a situation similar to the 13 Colonies in an allied country, they would not support it, unless it was of economic benefit.

They would not tolerate destruction of US exports. Nor shootings. Or anything else. They would at best call for UN peace keepers or go in and invade. Imagine if Scotland, or Quebec, or Catalonia in Spain did the same kind of thing. They'd be all over it. Probably try and blame the Russians. Yet all of these have greater support for independence than the pre-war 13 Colonies did.

When that situation happens with an enemy e.g. the USSR, or Yugoslavia, they will help that movement along.

Panther Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The American separatists led a violent rebellion
> that led to the deaths of not only British troops
> but a number of the other colonists of all
> political colors. Other colonists had to flee
> northward to Canada or went elsewhere to get away
> from the violence. The African Canadian community
> arose as a result of this.

That Americans moved to Canada or elsewhere is irrelevant.


----------------
> The armed rebels
> largely won because an enemy of Britain stepped in
> - France - and if that hadn't happened that the
> USA may have remained like Canada or Australia and
> evolved towards constitutional monarchy within the
> Commonwealth.

True. On the other hand, America may have gone the way of other British colonies like India, Malaya, Ireland, Egypt, the Sudan, Israel, and other countries that used violence to achieve control over their own destinies. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of British colonies overthrew British power. Whether scantly populated places like Australia and Canada decided to stay in the UK is hardly applicable.


------------
> Americans are so used to seeing romanticized
> portrayals of their War of Independence that they
> forget there are other accounts or understandings
> of it.

You keep acting like Americans fit your stereotype of ignorant rubes. That may make you feel superior, but it is false.


------------
> It was noted at the time by Samuel Johnson
> and others that the USA was a slave owning society
> so its ideas of liberty did not apply to
> everyone.

Doctor Johnson's denunciation of American slavery is ironic given that English slavery continued until well after his death. And British traders played perhaps the dominant role in the trans-Atlantic slave trade until after 1807. So I'm not sure what relevance his comments have to our conversation.


--------------

> You say taxation was irrelevant. You brought it
> up. I maintain it was one of the things used as an
> excuse for violence snd even the destruction of
> opponents' property like the "Tea Party"

Actually, you brought it up--and you added that current taxes are more onerous than then. That comparison of tax burdens is what I described as irrelevant.


----------------

> India as I say, was quite a different case. For
> one, it never had many European colonists (100,000
> or so at its height) and they suffered far far
> worse than anything the 13 Colonies had. Not
> comparable at all.

Really? It isn't significant that both were countries dominated by a distant English power that treated them as resources to be exploited? That both decided to employ violence to get the British out? What about Israel and the use of terrorism to expel the British, or the Malayan insurrection? What about Egypt. Those are all peoples/countries that wanted to control their own affairs and did something about it. Hence immediately comparable--and a solid refutation of your insinuation that the US acted extremely.


-------------

> "Did the American colonies ever produce a head of
> state for England? Did an American ever serve as
> King? As Prime Minister?"
>
> That's not how monarchy works.

Actually, it is precisely how monarchies work. They have prime ministers, and those prime ministers arise from their citizenries. So my question stands: if the Americans were equal subjects, why did they not have parliamentary representation and why were none ever admitted to any ministry or prime ministry?


----------------

> As for PM. Most English couldn't become PM.

Irrelevant. If Americans and English had comparable political rights, Americans would have served in cabinets just as English did.


--------------

> Given time it may well
> have happened - Churchill was eligible for
> American citizenship... Americans have married
> into the British royal family as well since
> independence. The USA would have been more like
> Canada.

That Churchill was eligible for US citizenship and hence for almost every office in the United States proves my point. The Americans never had similar opportunity in England. As for the US becoming like Canada, do you not realize that the decision to open up British parliamentary participation to Australia, Canada, and Northern Ireland was a reaction to the abject failure of a policy of exclusion? It was because of the US and other revolutions that Canada and Australia achieved their status within the commonwealth.


-------------

> "Didn't Barrington Moore, for instance, say that
> the reason the American Revolution succeeded was
> because it was not really a revolution? "
>
> Violent overthrow of the government, popular
> uprising (although not as popular as now claimed),
> left wing rebellion (by their standards), and
> deliberate restructuring of the society. That's a
> revolution...

Your are laboring under a misconception. The Moore argument, and those of Charles Beard and Samuel Huntington and de Toqueville, was that the American Revolution was a marginal affair. The Americans severed their political ties to the English throne but the social structure and the economic system were virtually untouched. There was no "deliberate restructuring of" American society--and you can't demonstrate that there was.


-----------------
> The new America got a
> new upper class, new taxation, new centralization,
> new colonial efforts to the west and south etc
> etc.

A curious statement. America kept the same ruling class. It got not "new taxation" but the right to keep the taxes it paid. The "new centralization" was the only thing that changed: the political system. And no, the effort to colonize the west and south was not new. Like the socioeconomic system, it continued as it had during the colonial period.


------------

> Not all parts of the south existed at
> independence. Like the 13 Colonies, Washington
> helped expand into new lands, settle them with new
> Anglos and expand towns and cities there. Most of
> the area beyond the Appalachians for example.

The North American colonies were spreading already. The Revolution did not change that pattern. As for Washington accelerating the expansion, I'm not sure what you mean. He was only in office till 1784, and under the articles of confederation that were the de facto constitution until 1789 he had virtually no power. Other than getting the English in 1783 to sign a treaty recognizing that the old English lands had passed into American hands in 1776, Washington did nothing. Colonization continued apace until 1803, 1818, 1819, when the major accretions occurred. But by then Washington was long gone. Right?


--------------

> If the present US government encountered a
> situation similar to the 13 Colonies in an allied
> country, they would not support it, unless it was
> of economic benefit.

Surely no government is obligated to support an insurrection unless it considers it advantageous to do so. Or is it your contention that the US should support all uprisings regardless of location, nature and consequences?


-----------
> They would not tolerate destruction of US exports.

Really? Did the US "not tolerate" the Russian revolution and the loss of trade it entailed? How about the Chinese revolution? The Nazi imposition of a European trade block? What are we to make of the OPEC nationalization of US oil resources in 1969-1973, which went uncontested, and of the even bigger disruption brought by the equally uncontested Iranian Revolution? All of these things angered the US government and elicited some sort of response, but ultimately the US tolerated "the destruction of US exports" on many occasions. Once again you are asserting a generalization that breaks down quickly as soon as one starts looking at actual evidence.


-----------------
> Imagine if Scotland, or Quebec, or
> Catalonia in Spain did the same kind of thing.
> They'd be all over it. Probably try and blame the
> Russians.

We can actually test that hypothesis. Did the US get "all over it" when terrorism almost separated Quebec from Canada or the Basque region from Spain? No. Will the United States intervene now that Scottish secession is a real possibility? No. So your generalization is untenable.


--------------
> Yet all of these have greater support
> for independence than the pre-war 13 Colonies
> did.

You cannot possibly know that for the reason you adduced above: the vast majority of Americans in 1776 were powerless and not subject to opinion research. Can you cite a single poll in support of your position?


----------------
> When that situation happens with an enemy e.g. the
> USSR, or Yugoslavia, they will help that movement
> along.

Again, an incorrect statement. When the USSR collapsed, the United States chose not to accelerate that effort lest it trigger a world war. The brilliance of US policy particularly under Bush was that Washington sought to ease the transition and minimize the adverse consequences.


------------

Back to the original question.

The American revolutionaries were an elite that simply wanted to decide its own fate, so it pushed the English elite aside while maintaining its own social status and perpetuating the existing economic system. The revolution succeeded, and did not produce a devastating reaction, because it was literally superficial. Life went on very much like before.

The Confederacy was an insurrection against a state to which the southern states had willingly acceded. It threatened to rip apart trade patterns, necessitate a permanent military establishment (that would not come otherwise for many decades) and involve foreign countries in an unstable geostrategic balance. There was no reason that the Union should ever have tolerated that.

States aren't play things that people rip up at will. They are entities that survive if they are reasonably compatible with the underlying societies. If they are not--as King George's America was not--then they break. If they are compatible with the underlying realities, as was Lincoln's US, then they tend to survive. And in many cases they should survive.

Stop saying that things you don't like are "irrelevant".

It is not irrelevant that many Americans left to go to Canada. They fled. They feared persecution or even death from the new American state that modern Americans believe was set up in a very different fashion.

"On the other hand, America may have gone the way of other British colonies like India, Malaya, Ireland, Egypt, the Sudan, Israel, and other countries that used violence to achieve control over their own destinies"

Unlikely, since it was a mainly white colony with many British derived colonists. Australia, Canada, New Zealand or even South Africa are better examples.

Ireland did not achieve total independence, a large part of it remains in the UK today, and the Republic underwent a long civil war straight after independence. So if another attempt was made at independence by the 13 Colonies, it may well have only been a partial success.

"Doctor Johnson's denunciation of American slavery is ironic given that English slavery continued until well after his death"

No it's not. Dr Johnson opposed and campaigned against slavery *everywhere* including the other parts of the British Empire. He was pointing out the hypocrisy of the American founding fathers on the Rights of Man. Dr Johnson was consistent unlike them. The UK outlawed slavery long before the US would anyway.

"Did the US "not tolerate" the Russian revolution and the loss of trade it entailed?"

No it didn't. It even mounted a mini-invasion few people remember, and gave money to the people on the other side. But since this was during and just after WWI, there was little appetite for a larger effort. It also shut down trade (much like it did with Venezuela recently.)

"How about the Chinese revolution?"

It didn't for decades and propped up Taiwan, which was run by the other Chinese government.

"Did the US get "all over it" when terrorism almost separated Quebec from Canada or the Basque region from Spain? No. Will the United States intervene now that Scottish secession is a real possibility? No. So your generalization is untenable."

Terrorism was a minor part in the Quebec campaign. Most campaigning was civic and there have been several referenda. The Basque Country on the other hand... was heavily violent and the US did help, but that info remains classified.

The US has intervened more than once in the Scottish situation non-militarily. For one Obama and Trump have both condemned it.

"When the USSR collapsed, the United States chose not to accelerate that effort lest it trigger a world war. "

Actually it helped collapse the Russian economy (with "advisors") and even mounted color revolutions to remove pro-Russian figures in ex-Soviet states like Shevardnaze in Georgia. And that's why the Russians aren't very keen on the US right now - recent history.

The one thing that the US did do right was helping ensure most Soviet nukes did not get into other hands and propping up the space industry.

"
The Confederacy was an insurrection against a state to which the southern states had willingly acceded"

Sections of the 13 Colonies were quite loyalist. New York particularly, hence the nickname "Empire State". East coast ports relied heavily on British imperial trade. Much of the population had come from Britain within a few generations or even within their lifetime. It was a place where junior lines of the English aristocracy (such as Washington's ancestors) went.

The independence movement was not led by non-British elements like Dutch knickerbockers, African Americans or native Americans in the main but by people with mainly English surnames. (And some Irish, Welsh and Scottish ones to be fair). The very people that were part of the British colonial structures.

So the idea that the 13 Colonies were unwilling parties is not quite true. They were a direct product of the hand they would later bite.

Panther Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Stop saying that things you don't like are
> "irrelevant".
>
> It is not irrelevant that many Americans left to
> go to Canada. They fled. They feared persecution
> or even death from the new American state that
> modern Americans believe was set up in a very
> different fashion.
>
> "On the other hand, America may have gone the way
> of other British colonies like India, Malaya,
> Ireland, Egypt, the Sudan, Israel, and other
> countries that used violence to achieve control
> over their own destinies"
>
> Unlikely, since it was a mainly white colony with
> many British derived colonists. Australia, Canada,
> New Zealand or even South Africa are better
> examples.
>
> Ireland did not achieve total independence, a
> large part of it remains in the UK today, and the
> Republic underwent a long civil war straight after
> independence. So if another attempt was made at
> independence by the 13 Colonies, it may well have
> only been a partial success.
>
> "Doctor Johnson's denunciation of American slavery
> is ironic given that English slavery continued
> until well after his death"
>
> No it's not. Dr Johnson opposed and campaigned
> against slavery *everywhere* including the other
> parts of the British Empire. He was pointing out
> the hypocrisy of the American founding fathers on
> the Rights of Man. Dr Johnson was consistent
> unlike them. The UK outlawed slavery long before
> the US would anyway.
>
> "Did the US "not tolerate" the Russian revolution
> and the loss of trade it entailed?"
>
> No it didn't. It even mounted a mini-invasion few
> people remember, and gave money to the people on
> the other side. But since this was during and just
> after WWI, there was little appetite for a larger
> effort. It also shut down trade (much like it did
> with Venezuela recently.)
>
> "How about the Chinese revolution?"
>
> It didn't for decades and propped up Taiwan, which
> was run by the other Chinese government.
>
> "Did the US get "all over it" when terrorism
> almost separated Quebec from Canada or the Basque
> region from Spain? No. Will the United States
> intervene now that Scottish secession is a real
> possibility? No. So your generalization is
> untenable."
>
> Terrorism was a minor part in the Quebec campaign.
> Most campaigning was civic and there have been
> several referenda. The Basque Country on the other
> hand... was heavily violent and the US did help,
> but that info remains classified.
>
> The US has intervened more than once in the
> Scottish situation non-militarily. For one Obama
> and Trump have both condemned it.
>
> "When the USSR collapsed, the United States chose
> not to accelerate that effort lest it trigger a
> world war. "
>
> Actually it helped collapse the Russian economy
> (with "advisors") and even mounted color
> revolutions to remove pro-Russian figures in
> ex-Soviet states like Shevardnaze in Georgia. And
> that's why the Russians aren't very keen on the US
> right now - recent history.
>
> The one thing that the US did do right was helping
> ensure most Soviet nukes did not get into other
> hands and propping up the space industry.
>
> "
> The Confederacy was an insurrection against a
> state to which the southern states had willingly
> acceded"
>
> Sections of the 13 Colonies were quite loyalist.
> New York particularly, hence the nickname "Empire
> State". East coast ports relied heavily on British
> imperial trade. Much of the population had come
> from Britain within a few generations or even
> within their lifetime. It was a place where junior
> lines of the English aristocracy (such as
> Washington's ancestors) went.
>
> The independence movement was not led by
> non-British elements like Dutch knickerbockers,
> African Americans or native Americans in the main
> but by people with mainly English surnames. (And
> some Irish, Welsh and Scottish ones to be fair).
> The very people that were part of the British
> colonial structures.
>
> So the idea that the 13 Colonies were unwilling
> parties is not quite true. They were a direct
> product of the hand they would later bite.

Soon after the Trump official (a retired general) said that Lee was a great and honorable man, the local npr station had a historian on to address the issue.

I called in and although the host hates me, I got through and said that I was about the same generation as the general, from the West, not the South, and that was certainly what I was taught in school although it was not what I thought now.

The general, having spent his life generaling and not studying history simply repeated what he had been taught.

The guest gave a most interesting and extended answer without the host interrupting.

He said we commonly say that "the victors write the history." But with the South this was not entirely so. Although he did not reference the Myth of the Lost Cause he said that with the Civil War the losers wrote a history that not only became accepted in the South but widely accepted in the North and West.

I remember when I was growing up Joan Baez would sing "The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down" and I would go what the fuck. Ok, I didn't say fuck back then but why was this radical decrying the South's defeat. Was she buying into the Myth of the Lost Cause? Later I learned that the song referred to a particular battle in which it was thought the Confederate solders had been treated particularly poorly.

But at any rate it appears that the loser's history has wide acceptance including by a goodly number here on RfM.

"I remember when I was growing up Joan Baez would sing 'The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down'"

And you still can!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nnS9M03F-fA

Perhaps it is wrong to think of the white nationalist movement in the south as having lost--or, better yet, to presume that there was only one war.

The Civil War was won by the North, and the post-war Constitutional Amendments codified their victory. But then Lincoln died, the country's interest shifted to other topics, and the South was left to wage a political guerilla against the Civil War settlement. Jim Crow represents the success of this low-intensity struggle to reassert white dominance.

To that extent the confederate monuments and revisionism is in fact a form of "victors' history." Lincoln and the Union won the first war, the white nationalists won the second war, and the 1960s reformers made some inroads themselves. The situation in the South thus represents the outcome of several different wars, none of which resulted in decisive victory.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> to presume that there was
> only one war.

Yes, yes.

> to wage a political guerilla against the
> Civil War settlement.

And this is what Grant (and even Lee) were trying to avoid by having generous terms.



> Jim Crow represents the
> success of this low-intensity struggle to reassert
> white dominance.
>
> To that extent the confederate monuments and
> revisionism is in fact a form of "victors'
> history."

Certainly for the South, for me it is just interesting (well more than interesting, it is too important) the ways in which that narrative found acceptance outside of the South.

>Lincoln and the Union won the first war,
> the white nationalists won the second war,

Yes, well said.

and the
> 1960s reformers made some inroads themselves.


I think of the way in which Jackson refused to follow the Supreme Court ruling re the Native American exclusion issue saying "the Supreme Court could enforce it itself."

And that's where things lay until Little Rock. The governor had control of the National Guard so Eisenhower sent in the Army. And I think oh my god, federal troops and Southern troops facing off again. But unlike Jackson, Eisenhower was willing to use troops to back up a Supreme Court ruling.


> The
> situation in the South thus represents the outcome
> of several different wars, none of which resulted
> in decisive victory.


Very insightful.

Or even all people such as President Wilson who kept race segregation going through the twentieth century. Or the Henry Kissingers and Al Haigs who murdered thousands of people. Or even the sex pests such as JFK and Bill Clinton?

Statues of Henry Kissinger and Al Haig?

I've no idea if there statues, specifically, of these two, but there will be commemorative plaques, honorary doctorates, medals or scholarships etc named for such people - take your picks. It's a general point - there are a lot of nasty people around in recent history.

The USA has a lot of blood on its hands. It is the most warlike nation in modern history. Both of these men caused the death of many people.

Panther Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've no idea if there statues, specifically, of
> these two, but there will be commemorative
> plaques, honorary doctorates, medals or
> scholarships etc named for such people - take your
> picks. It's a general point - there are a lot of
> nasty people around in recent history.

Yeah, at some point facts matter. Jefferson was pretty progressive when it came to African Americans and few modern blacks see him as representing oppression. So there's that.

As for honorary doctorates, scholarships, etc., there is a distinction between those things and monuments of confederate leaders in public squares. What, you ask? When little kids walk through a park in the South and see statues to men who enslaved their ancestors, you are telling those children some pretty offensive things. If you take those statues out of government buildings, courtrooms, and public squares, you remove the official sanction from them and stop the metaphorical slaps in the face. This is of course a point that the Jim Crow crowd understood. They erected monuments in government places precisely to intimidate black people. So there is no parallel to "commemorative plaques, honorary doctorates, medals or scholarships."


--------------
> The USA has a lot of blood on its hands. It is the
> most warlike nation in modern history.

Sure. The US is more warlike than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Belgians in Africa, the Japanese in World War Two.


-------------------
> Both of
> these men caused the death of many people.

You can make that argument about Kissinger, although Lincoln did as well, which indicates that the motive and results of the deaths is a relevant consideration, one that you don't address at all. But Al Haig?? He was a two bit player who in many cases tried to undermine Kissinger's efforts. So who is the evil one: Kissinger or Haig? Or are you referring to Haig's brief and laughable stint during the Reagan administration.

But in any case Kissinger and Haig and JFK and Bill Clinton are all beside the point. The topic in this thread is statutes of confederates and advocates of slavery in public squares and buildings in the south.

"Sure. The US is more warlike than Hitler, Stalin, Mao, the Belgians in Africa, the Japanese in World War Two."

I hate to break this to you but the USA has never been at peace within living memory. The groups you mention were all blood thirsty but were at war a fraction of the time that the US has been.

The USA needs war to prop up its economy.

President Obama's government dropped tens of thousands of bombs. Dubya likewise.

Countries where the USA has bombed since WWII. (Incomplete list - does not include hiring of mercenaries another regular occurrence)

Korea and China 1950-53 (Korean War)
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-1961
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Lebanon 1983, 1984 (both Lebanese and Syrian targets)
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Iran 1987
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991
Kuwait 1991
Somalia 1993
Bosnia 1994, 1995
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999
Yemen 2002
Iraq 1991-2003 (US/UK on regular basis)
Iraq 2003-2015
Afghanistan 2001-2015
Pakistan 2007-2015
Somalia 2007-8, 2011
Yemen 2009, 2011
Libya 2011, 2015
Syria 2014-2015

A selection of a few others not mentioned on that list which the USA has had some military involvement (official or unofficial). Don't get me wrong - I'm sympathetic to some of these such as Tibet.

Tibet, Kosovo, Montenegro, Ukraine, Georgia, Israel/Palestine, the School of the Americas (training up Fascist dictators for countries such as Argentina, Chile, Brazil etc), Dominica, Mexico, Diego Garcia, Egypt, Tunisia, Indonesia, Papua New Guinea (Bougainville), various parts of Central Asia, Africa etc

That's a lot. On every continent. On a single bombing raid in Libya two hundred civilians were killed. Multiply it, and the USA has killed hundreds of thousands, if not millions directly or indirectly.

More headlines without analysis.

No, New York is not known as the Empire State because it liked England. That is a canard.

Regarding the US staying under the English monarchy, you state that it is wrong to compare the American colonies to countries like Malaya, India, Israel, and others that overthrew the crown and that the better comparison is to predominantly "white" countries like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. There are many problems with this assertion, the most conspicuous of which is the notion that race has anything to do with how countries do, or should, behave in any particular situation. I sincerely doubt you want to say that.

There is also the fact that Australia, Canada, and New Zealand were, and are, tiny little countries. The notion that the United States, with 5X the population and 7X the GDP of the UK, would remain subordinate to the crown is ludicrous. Sooner or later divorce was inevitable. But most important is the fact that we know whether the US would go the submissive way like Australia and Canada or the violent way as exemplified by the countries I mentioned. How do we know? Because the American colonies were presented with the option and chose violent revolution. Case closed.

As for your laundry list of US adventures abroad, surely some discrimination is in order. Do you really want to assert that the American bombing of Syria, which was done to stop Assad from using chemical weapons against civilians, was wrong? Do you sincerely think that defeating Saddam Hussein in the Bush 41 era was comparable to, say, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan? And the US liberation of Kuwait was an act of aggression?

How did the 1987 war with Iran make your list of countries bombed by the US? That conflict started with an Iranian attack on US ships in the Gulf, and it was conducted in the Gulf. The US did not bomb Iran. And you assert that the US bombed China during the Korean War. What is the basis for that (false) assertion? Do you sincerely believe the United States was wrong to assist Ukraine in resisting Russian annexation?

My point is that you throw history around thoughtlessly. Those episodes are radically different, some bad and some good, and just reproducing a list of incidents (some imaginary) that someone else compiled is facetious in the extreme.

Repeat: the American revolution against a foreign overlord was normatively different from the confederate uprising against the Union, a country to which the southern states had voluntarily acceded and supported for the better part of a decade.

As my ancestry is about 75% southern, this thread was an excuse to do a quick survey. In five minutes I found 3 individuals honored with statuary - one of them memorialized with multiple specimens. (These are 1'st and 2'nd cousins, the names of at least two are commonly known.) It's obvious to any casual observer that the statuary is an added burden to African Americans - so let's move the statues out of the public square. We have to move forward ...


There is a photo of myself as an infant in my father's arms, sitting on the steps of some large, but unidentifiable, monument. In my sixties I found that monument and saw that it was dedicated to "Confederate women" - I didn't see that coming, to be sure. (The monument happened to be in proximity to my parent's first apartment.) The monument has since been dismantled and stored out of the public space. That's fine by me.
==============================

The other 25% of my ancestry is from New England, and includes a prominent abolitionist. I've got the full American ancestral experience, coming and going.