Is it possible to destroy everything of Confederate origin?

[kentuck]

Is it a matter of how much we are willing to tolerate?

We should all agree that the Confederate flag should not be flown in or around public buildings. Simply because public buildings are for all our citizens.

However, we are still a country about free speech and free expression, as far as I know? As much as we may despise the idea, it would be anti-American to tell people what they cannot say or do on their own private property?

Certain things have to be tolerated in a democracy.

[randys1]

1. Tons of intolerable crap we will have to tolerate. Yep...I dont know of anyone

who wants to do away with private use of conf crap.

But I do want to eliminate every remnant of it on any public grounds.

[kentuck]

3. It hurts...

but that is the way it is, in my opinion.

[randys1]

6. Right now on this board is a link about a Black Woman killed in custody

well they say suicide but bullshit to that.

What she did wrong to be arrested?

Nothing, driving while Black

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026980786

[guillaumeb]

76. In museums also?

Perhaps a better way of dealing with the flag, and its attendant baggage, is to actually explain the history of your Civil War to schoolchildren. But that would require that Texas NOT be allowed to decide what history books are used in the entire country.

[chalmers]

2. Confederate monuments at courthouses

should be dismantled. There is one for every single county in the South.

[kentuck]

7. If there is disagreement about dismantling statues, then....

...perhaps it should be put to vote by the citizens of the county?

However, they are a part of our history, however much we may dislike it. The citizens of each county should be able to vote on such matters and decide whether they can no longer tolerate such statues on display in public areas?

However, why should it be "dismantled" instead of moved to a more appropriate area??

[chalmers]

10. Why? That's just ridiculous

The statues werent voted on when they were installed, the local governments just gave land within the courthouse grounds to the Daughters of the Confederate States of America. Many of the monuments are in southern counties that were majority Unionist.

[kentuck]

11. Obviously, you are someone...

...that cannot tolerate anything of Confederate origin? Is that correct?

[Kalidurga]

13. I don't think we should put civil rights to a vote.

Sometimes we are forced to because that is the way the majority keeps it's strangle hold on civil rights. The monuments on public land any that are tax payer supported or areas that are public for what ever other reason, the monuments in those places should be moved. And if the monument is carved into a mountain it should be sandblasted, but only if it's on state property or was funded by tax dollars.

[kentuck]

33. Are you talking about free speech??

What other "civil right" are you talking about?

[stevenleser]

74. Here

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_and_political_rights

[Kalidurga]

75. No the civil right to not have to look at symbols of oppression in public spaces.

[kentuck]

77. I think most folks agree with you on that point...

But how much further should it be taken?

[Kalidurga]

85. As far as what is public property.

If its a symbol of oppression on public property and by that I mean public by taxes paid for it. Even if the monument itself wasn't paid for with tax money. If it's on tax paid land it's got to go. Even if it's a semi permanent fixture.

[Budgies Revenge]

81. No, I can't agree with this

Absolutely take the battle flag off of statehouses, city halls, etc. Although, I would argue that battlefield parks and national cemeteries are the exact places where they would be appropriate. As for the monuments, in most cases, these monuments are historic in their own right. Right or wrong, these monuments are a part of how the south--specifically the sons, daughters, widows, etc of the soldiers themselves, came to terms with the war and what it meant to them. They are time capsules of the period that produced them, and as such, should be preserved for future generations. Just my personal opinion.

[chalmers]

122. That is not correct

You are forming your opinion using bad information. The monuments arent historic, they were created during the Jim Crow era by segregationist groups like th Daughters of the Confederacy.

[kentuck]

123. When was the Civil War over?

1865 or 1965?

I suppose it might depend on our perspective?

We can choose to heal or we can choose to break the sore open. It is our choice.

Racism has not disappeared, as some of us may have hoped. It is alive and well and has only been in hiding for a while.

Freedom is a strange thing. As someone once said, you give one person a little bit of freedom, and the next thing you know, the whole world wants it...

It takes longer for some people to heal.

We need to work together to keep the pot from boiling over, in my opinion.

No one can be asked to tolerate more than humanly possible.

Peace.

[Budgies Revenge]

124. Not to sound snarky here,

but history did not end when the shooting stopped. Items, monuments, and buildings from the Jim Crow era can be appropriately considered historic.

[chalmers]

132. The history defense is being used as a dodge

These people dont give a fuck about history, are they out protesting when a historic farmhouse is bulldozed for a new Wal-Mart? Hell no. And for these new found amateur "historians" I'll bet 99% of them couldn't tell you the date of the Gettysburg address.

[Budgies Revenge]

134. I can't speak

for anyone but myself on this matter. Be it "good" or "bad" history, it is still our history and should be preserved so that we can all learn from it.

[chalmers]

135. It's absurd to think that you can preserve history

You may think that you are keeping the past alive but the universe is simply laughing its ass off at you.

[Budgies Revenge]

136. Hey, if I can make the universe's day a little brighter

through laughter, I'm happy to oblige.

[RobinA]

91. This Is a Sure

way of creating more extremists.

[Erose999]

92. All those monuments contain the names of people who died in a horrible war. Whether you agree with

the courthouse monuments, consider the effect loss of all those young men has upon a community. I have ancestors who fought for both sides. Many southerners had no choice but to fight for the Confederacy. The Confederacy had a conscription policy, after all. One of my ancestors refused to join the Confederacy until he was drafted at gunpoint. Others had no stake in the slavery issue but fought to keep the war away from their homes.

I agree with removing some of the worst monuments, but context is important. Monuments and cemeteries dedicated to the soldiers are OK, but stuff like the Benjamin Tillman monument in South Carolina, or the relief on Stone Mountain in Georgia (which was originally dedicated to the KKK and tied closely to the racist propaganda film Birth of a Nation) those have to go. Same with flags at state houses and government buildings.

But people should be free to fly the flag on their own property and identify themselves as idiots if they want. free speech exists to protect speech we don't like, after all.

[LiberalElite]

4. If it's all destroyed couldn't that paradoxically be considered

a kind of whitewashing of history? (pun unintended)

[seveneyes]

5. As easy as taking the bad juju out of holy religious books

Religions have edicts to kill rape and injure others scattered throughout the pages of their holy books ... and it always ends up the same ...

[kentuck]

8. Great sound !

What's the history?

[tularetom]

9. Allowing individuals to fly the confederate flag is a good idea and very practical

It enables the rest of us to quickly and accurately identify the dumbasses and racists among us without having to actually interact with them.

[kentuck]

12. Unfortunately true.

Even now, most probably are only flying it out of open rebellion, because someone told them they could not do it?

[merrily]

17. Not buying that one, at all.

Overall, it seems as though you are trying to make a point without coming right out and saying what you mean.

[kentuck]

23. It seems that way to me...

Sometimes when you tell someone they cannot do something or that it is wrong or evil, they will do it just for spite. The Confederate flag has not been this popular in a long time, in my opinion. Just look at Oklahoma today...

[merrily]

29. Yes, sometimes people act like 2 year olds. However, confederate flags have been on private and

public property and displayed in a variety of forms, including clothing, for a long, long time. I very much doubt all that was because someone had told each of those people not to do it.

[kentuck]

36. Sometimes perception is reality.

Some people perceive differently from you or I, perhaps?

[merrily]

67. It's only your perception that we are dealing with, though.

[kentuck]

70. From what I have read....

It's not just my perception.

[HooptieWagon]

45. Only since the late 50s.

The battle flag became common during the civil rights battle as a blatant display of opposition. And yes, some people merely display it out of spite, though all who display it are racists (unless it's a museum or reenactment).

[merrily]

14. You have to separate the strands of spaghetti.

Government action is one thing. Private action is another. And, whether it's government action or private action, everyone has a right to express an opinion about it.

[Igel]

57. What about private action on government ground?

Could somebody go to a Mexican-American war cemetery, find a Mexican American ancestor, and put a Mexican flag on his grave?

It's not condemnation and discussion of the actions that's at issue--it's whether to allow them at all.

[merrily]

64. What about it? Is any government forbidding it?

It's not condemnation and discussion of the actions that's at issue--it's whether to allow them at all.

The point of my saying that one has to separate the strands of spaghetti is that I was not clear what the OP was saying or why. When you say "to allow" who do you mean? Government allowing or disallowing? If so, I come back to, is any government forbidding it? If not, what is the OP about?

I don't think the OP is reacting to government action or to thread, but to comments by private individuals. I could be mistaken, but, again, that is my point. It's not clear, at least not to me.

If the OP was motivated by private commentary, then stating that nothing stops that, or should stop, that is relevant, IMO.

[gratuitous]

15. Like any religion

Adherents of Confederacyism are entitled to their beliefs, no matter how insane their fellow citizens perceive those beliefs to be. They are not, however, entitled to government sanction by providing public space for their monuments or public dollars for the upkeep. A church can put a new steeple on its building, but it can't expect public dollars to pay for it. Oh, and the steeple will still have to abide by local zoning and inspection regulations (can't exceed height limits or be structurally unsafe).

[kentuck]

24. I agree.

Although I would not agree to destruction of these monuments, as some have suggested. But if they cannot be tolerated, then they should be moved to a more appropriate area, not on public grounds.

[gratuitous]

46. Sell 'em off to the cement heads?

Put some money in the public coffers, remove the monuments to private grounds where those who believe the noble cause can take care of them, and use the space for something more amenable to all citizens instead of just the knuckleheads.

Hey, maybe an auction? Buy it, then let people take three swings with a sledge hammer for $10. I'm liking that idea better, maybe.

[kentuck]

50. I think there is a law against inciting to riot?

[840high]

129. Good post.

[janlyn]

16. On Facebook today

I shared a video of young people going to peoples houses and pulling down the Confederate flag. I shared it because I didn't think it was funny or cute. I personally LOATHE that flag, but I will be the first to speak up about people having the right to fly it on their property! There was a quote in a book can't remember which one but it immediately came to mind when I saw what they were doing, it was "Come on we are supposed to be the good guys"

[merrily]

19. Tearing it down when it's on private property is wrong. It's also trespassing, which is against the

law. However, I would not be the first to defend anyone's right to fly it on private property.

[janlyn]

21. I would, but my great-grandmother was jewish.

I am not but,I have really strong feelings about rights being taken away. Because it doesn't happen all at once, its a slow process over time. Until its to late to speak up. So, yeah I would be the first to speak up

[merrily]

22. Different issue, but it would take me too long to explain the distinction I was making.

[LanternWaste]

18. Is there some collective voice in the country demanding this...?

Is there some efficient and collective voice in the country demanding any and all things, including private property dealing with the failed, four-year state be destroyed?

Or is this simply directed at random and ineffective individuals who are screaming about the falling of the sky?

[kentuck]

30. I'm sure your comments have equal standing...

...at least with those that say statues and monuments, like Stone Mountain, should be "dismantled" or destroyed?

Did someone say the "sky was falling"??

[Leontius]

20. In Richmond Va on Monument Ave there are six statues five of these honor Confederate leaders

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

one honoring Arthur Ashe who here supports the vandalizing of any of those monuments?

[merrily]

25. Are those statues on private property? The OP is about private property.

[hlthe2b]

35. Actually, the OP is more comprehensive than only questioning private property. In fact it states as

Last edited Thu Jul 16, 2015, 07:01 PM - Edit history (1)

beginning thesis that the confederate flag should not be on public spaces and then goes on to ask for opinions on how far that belief should extend to other relics and to private property.

There are moves to remove statues in some areas and on public universities that presumably are at least partially federally funded. Likewise there are discussions about renaming public roads. And nowhere are there more confederate monuments on public roads than in Richmond with its Monument Avenue sector. So asking the question is appropriate.

My post below makes clear that I find little value in the confederate flag outside a narrow historical context in museums and the like. However, I am not ready to "clear-cut" all historical relics and in every context as a few posters on this and other threads seem to indicate a willingness to do.

[1939]

43. I would submit that Monument Avenue is a "museum". NT

[hlthe2b]

53. I agree...

[nadinbrzezinski]

26. That be errasing history

not a good thing

[merrily]

31. How is it erasing history? We do away with all kinds of things all the time. No one pretends they

never existed. Besides, are there no photos? No videos?

[nadinbrzezinski]

34. If you get rid of all things confederate you are errasing history

look at what Germany is doing. They are not erasing it, they are keeping it in museums.

You destroy all things that are from the confederacy, it will be easier to forget. You need the artifacts. That includes the statues. And no, not flying it in public governments is fine with me. But if joe shmoe wants to fly it, by all means. There is this pesky 1st amendment Also it tells me to keep a wide berth from that person.

[merrily]

37. The confederate flag is in museums. The First Amendment certainly

does not stop you from criticizing Joe Schmoe. To the contrary. So far, I haven't heard of government requiring Joe to remove the flag from his porch.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. You can critize Joe all you want, that is also 1 ammendment

but he or she is legally able to fly that flag. That person is also legally able to engage in hate speech... as long as there is no incitement. Pesky little thing that amendment is. This is something a lot of people do not understand.

You have a right to be critical, and they have that right to engage in that speech. It is a two way street.

And I will defend their right to engage in that speech, even if I do not condone it.

[merrily]

41. Which goverment is threatening to fine or imprison anyone over confederate items on private property

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Carefully read the OP

What he wants to do is indeed erase history.

Those statues and monuments to the confederacy will likely stay, and they will not be up for a vote. They are historic artifacts. And people, kids in particular, should be taught what they mean. If they are ever moved, are you including cemeteries?

Somehow I think the OP is. There is something strange and radical going on now, and not precisely good. But then Americans are not very good about history. Problematic sections are regularly white washed, this is a more extreme version of it.

[cwydro]

49. Good luck with this nadin. As you can see in my replies to the same poster,

I gave up on it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

52. I know...

[merrily]

54. I did read the OP and I don't think he wants to erase history.

Nor do I think what the OP posts has anything to do with First Amendment protection of private possession of things association with the confederacy.

The OP says:

However, we are still a country about free speech and free expression, as far as I know? As much as we may despise the idea, it would be anti-American to tell people what they cannot say or do on their own private property?

Certain things have to be tolerated in a democracy.

When I ask about which government demanding destruction of all things confedrate, I am in part responding to your comment that the First Amendment protects things confederate and in part reacting to the hyperbole of the OP'S hypothetical.

[nadinbrzezinski]

56. And I think several posters here

have gotten the exact conclusion that the OP wants to erase history and you have been told this by several of us already. So good luck there. Either the OP did not mean it and did not communicate it well. Or he did, and we understood perfectly well.

[kentuck]

59. No. I do not think any of our history should be erased.

However, I do believe the people have a right to move it if they think it should not be tolerated? I don't know how we would move Stone Mountain? That's a big rock!

[nadinbrzezinski]

60. You won't, and it will remain where it is

a historic artifact. Teach about it. Don't move it.

[merrily]

66. I didn't think you would call it un-American if you were advocating for it. But, what do you mean by

the people moving it? Do you mean the people voting to have the government remove something on government property?

[kentuck]

69. Yes. On gov't property.

I would assume most statues and monuments are on government property. I do not think it would be wise to do so but I think the people of any jurisdiction have a right to say they would like it moved. Under no circumstances do I think they should be destroyed.

[merrily]

72. So, things on govt property moved by govt upon a vote of a majority, but not destroyed.

I don't see much controversial in that.

I don't really see government asking the people to vote on this, though.

[kentuck]

78. In the real world...

I think most communities would choose not to move any monuments.

[hlthe2b]

27. The flag is a very special case: was re-introduced specifically as racist element by segregatists

in the 50s & 60s. It has no place outside of museums and perhaps designated historical battlefields. Nor do KKK member statues and other most extreme & offensive relics on governmental properties, including public universities, IMO...

That said, I'm a big proponent of history and I shudder at a very few who seemingly are not willing to let the historical record remain--My sigline has long said it all for me (Those who fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it).

For those who want to wipe out even historical remnants of the confederacy, would that include the following in Richmond, VA?

Monument Avenue
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Monument Avenue Historic District
U.S. National Register of Historic Places
U.S. National Historic Landmark District
Virginia Landmarks Register


Monument Avenue, in Richmond, Virginia, is a premier example of the Grand American Avenue city planning style. A tree-lined grassy mall divides the east- and westbound sides of the street and is punctuated by statues memorializing Virginian Confederate participants of the Civil War Robert E. Lee, J.E.B. Stuart, Jefferson Davis, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, and Matthew Fontaine Maury, as well as Arthur Ashe, a Richmond native and international tennis star. The first monument, a statue of Robert E. Lee, was erected in 1890. Between 1900 and 1925, Monument Avenue exploded with architecturally significant houses, churches and apartment buildings.

Monument Avenue is the site of several annual events, particularly in the spring, including an annual Monument Avenue 10K race.[4] At various times (such as Robert E. Lee's birthday and Confederate History Month) the Sons of Confederate Veterans gather along Monument Avenue in period military costumes. Monument Avenue is also the site of "Easter on Parade," [5] another spring tradition during which many Richmonders stroll the avenue wearing Easter bonnets and other finery.

"Monument Avenue Historic District" includes the part of Monument Avenue from Birch Street in the east to Roseneath Avenue in the west, and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as a National Historic Landmark District. In 2007, the American Planning Association named Monument Avenue one of the 10 Great Streets in the country.[6] The APA said Monument Avenue was selected for its historic architecture, urban form, quality residential and religious architecture, diversity of land uses, public art and integration of multiple modes of transportation.[7]

[cwydro]

28. You can't erase history.

No matter how much some might want to do so.

[merrily]

32. If you don't fly a flag anymore, that means you erased history? Poor Betsy Ross.

[cwydro]

38. The OP was in reference to destroying "everything of confederate origin."

The OP was not in reference to the flag, and that is not what I was referring to either.

There are monuments, graveyards, etc. in many parts of this country.

Not sure how Betsy Ross is getting dragged into this, lol, but that's DU.

[merrily]

39. A confederate flag is not part of the discussion?

We don't fly a thirteen star flag anymore. Does that mean we erased history?

The drama is a bit gratuitous for me, is all.

[cwydro]

47. I told you once that I was not discussing the flag, nor did it seem to me that the OP

was discussing the flag.

There are plenty of flag discussions going on at this very moment on this very board. I'm sure others will be happy to discuss it with you.

You have chosen to ignore what I said (twice now), so I'll say see ya.

Still, thanks for the chuckle. Betsy Ross!

[merrily]

51. Actually, you did not exclude the flag, even once. And I did not previously ignore what you said

once, let alone twice.

Glad you got to chuckle, though. The idea that one can erase history sure has me chuckling, so it's only fair.

[Ilsa]

55. Actually, I think she did exclude the flag:

The OP was not in reference to the flag, and that is not what I was referring to either. 

There are monuments, graveyards, etc. in many parts of this country. 

Talking about other symbols, artifacts, monuments, memorials, and artwork -- should it all be blasted into atoms so there is no evidence of this era of history?

[merrily]

58. Disagree with your interpretation.

The Op asks: "Is it possible to destroy everything of Confederate origin?"

Surely, the Confederate flag is included in the term "everyone of of confederate origin." The OP also made reference to private property. Surely, there are not many monuments and graveyards on private property.

If the poster was referring to the OP, the flag had to be part of it.

Talking about other symbols, artifacts, monuments, memorials, and artwork -- should it all be blasted into atoms so there is no evidence of this era of history?

I am not sure what any of that has to do with me. I never suggested such a thing. I do wonder, though, why there is so much drama and hyperbole on this thread. Is anyone suggesting that we destroy every atom of every thing of confederate origin on both public and private property? More to the point, is anyone forcing us to?

[840high]

130. This op is not about the flag.

[cherokeeprogressive]

42. No matter how hard they try...

The Germans can't eradicate the swastika. It might not be displayed in public, but it's there.

[NCjack]

63. In Germany, i saw stone sculptures and bronzes that honored the German

soldiers that died and were wounded. Some had the pre-Nazi german cross, but none had the swastika. One bronze I saw was of a group of german soldiers helping their wounded, apparently after a battle. The message I got was: "We lost the war, it caused us great pain, and we have no heroes. This war was a mistake." In the South, we need to recognize that we really have no Confederate heroes from our Civil War. I think the Germans got their "remembrances" correct. Our Southern monuments need to emphasize defeat, pain, no heroes, and regret. We made a mistake, we apologize, and most of us have spent the last 150 years growing as good American citizens.

[TeddyR]

48. Visited Manassas Battlefield National Park

This past weekend, and there is a large statue of Stonewall Jackson in the park near the location in which he received his nickname. There is also a headstone type marker where the first Confederate officer was killer in the war, as well as markers (all smaller) recognizing other Union and Confederate soldiers. That's the only Civil War battlefield I've visited, but the Stonewall Jackson memorial does stand out and certainly dominates the landscape. I suspect if put to a popular vote the citizens of Virginia would vote to keep the Jackson statue but certainly could be mistaken.

[Igel]

61. Even the most die-hard enemies of all things Confederate would object.

They don't want everything erased. Just what they don't find convenient. If it's offensive, it has to go.

There are many sites to commemorate aspects of the South and of the Civil War. Those that honor anything Confederate are what they want disposed of. Remember it only as a horrible place? That's good. Museums to slavery on federal land are a fine thing, plantation houses in which it's not the stunning house that's really on display but the slave quarters, so it's obvious that the white masters only had their life style because of black slaves. Now, some people find that offensive, but they're not part of "the people." In fact, we like it if they're offended. But if you stop and think about it, we've defined some of the population as having rights; the others, I'm not sure we let them count at all.

I mean, even the original Constitution didn't go that far.

[kentuck]

62. But we should be clear on the meaning of "rights"

No one has a "right" to destroy anything, regardless of its role in our history. There is no such "right".

[XRubicon]

65. Yes we can!

General Sherman sure didn't put up with treasonous confederate flags flying when he tore through Atlanta and Columbia and rightly burned everything in sight. He is a hero in the North, but Southerners don't seem to see their treason even though they claim to love murica...

You should give this a rest... maybe put some real thought into what you are saying.

[kentuck]

71. I would suggest...

....you follow your own advice.

[XRubicon]

73. Too bad Uncle Billy isnt around today

To learn the South again...

[kentuck]

79. Too bad everything is not so black and white..

Sometimes there are gray areas.

[XRubicon]

80. There is no gray area in treason

You should choose whether you are an American or a traitor. I'll wait for your answer.

[Yupster]

84. The Confederates chose

to leave the Union and create a new country. At that point they were no longer Americans so therefore could hardly be traitors to America.

The whole question was whether secession was Constitutional or not.

Davis wanted his treason trial to settle that point. He never got his trial.

[XRubicon]

97. Um... that's treason

The question was answered 150 years ago, try to keep up.

[ibegurpard]

68. I wish

But no.

[brush]

82. It's a flag of traitors

Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2015, 12:06 AM - Edit history (3)

Why was it tolerated AT ALL after the Civil War?

I know this may not be popular around here but when you get down to it, letting those traitors off without hanging them (Gen. Lee included) was the biggest example of white privilege ever. Taking up arms against your country is treason, which is punishable by death.

"In 1790, the Congress of the United States enacted that:

"If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH . . ."

If those traitors had been any color but white they would all have been shot with no hesitation, AND THE FLYING OF THAT FLAG BANNED FOREVER.

[Yupster]

83. Lee and Davis were indicted for treason

Davis went to prison. Lee was part of Grant's parole so he just went home.

Lee ended up taking the job of President of Washington University where he was quite influential getting rid of classical courses like Greek and Latin and replacing them with Agriculture and Engineering. He lived a quiet few years before having a stroke after coming home in the rain from a church finance committee meeting.

Davis on the other hand hired a high powered group of northern lawyers to fight his treason charge. His defense was pretty straight-forward. Secession was Constitutional, therefore the south was a conquered foreign country. If the union army would leave, he would start the heavy task of rebuilding his unhappy nation.

He spent the rest of his long life demanding his "open and speedy" trial.

A long time political enemy of Davis, President Johnson decided not to ever try Davis. The case would end up in the Supreme Court and the thought was there was a very real possibility Davis could win. Then what? Oops?

Better to just leave Davis indicted for treason the rest of his life and never give him his trial.

I have trouble calling a person guilty of something when he demands a trial and the government won't ever try him. Just calls him guilty without a trial.

[brush]

88. Sorry, what?

You have trouble with calling a person guilty without giving him a trial?

There never should've have been any talk about a trial. He should have been shot. There was no doubt he was a traitor. What did you not understand about the following:

"In 1790, the Congress of the United States enacted that:

"If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH . . ."

That is why I called Him, Lee and the rest of them not being executed as the most egregious example of white privilege ever.

They were undeniably traitors, they took up arms against their own country. They should have been shot. End of story.

[Yupster]

89. It all comes down to whether secession was legal or not

If it was legal, then Davis and Lee resigned their offices in the US, became citizens of a foreign country and therefore could hardly be traitors to the US.

That was up to the Supreme Court to decide.

The Constitution was silent on secession. The Tenth Amendment says any powers not granted to the federal government belongs to the states. His argument was that the states had the right to secede, they had exercised that right and therefore he was an imprisoned head of a foreign state which had been conquered and was being occupied illegally by the US Army.

Yes, I do protest at calling anyone guilty who claims his innocence and demands a trial where he can make his argument.

Or you can just shoot defendants that you are sure are guilty anyway. That would typically be an argument heard more on other sites than ours though.

[brush]

90. You're actually serious with this. Amazing!

And I guess you also contend that the Civil War was not about slavery and white supremacy as well.

[Yupster]

93. The right to a speedy and public trial is an important right

You know just because you really hate someone doesn't make him guilty of a crime. Also, just because you really, really, really think he's guilty doesn't make him guilty either.

Sometimes the accused is not guilty. Regardless whether they are or not, they are entitled to make their case in a speedy and open trial.

The right to a trial before you are executed should not be controversial on our site. Leave execution before trial to the other side. We can stand for a trial by jury before execution.

Yes, I'm serious about that.

[brush]

96. The issue of whether secession was legal or not became moot . . .

Last edited Fri Jul 17, 2015, 05:15 PM - Edit history (1)

when they took up arms against their own country.

It was treason whether you want to admit it or not.

[Yupster]

99. Read what you wrote

"whether secession was legal or not became moot when they took up arms against their own country."

Do you see the problem there?

If secession was legal, then obviously they wouldn't be taking arms against their own country.

They'd be taking arms against a neighboring foreign country, you might even say their former country, but you couldn't say their country.

[brush]

100. You're the one that contended it was a legal issue that needed to be settled in court . . .

quite a bit after the fact — considering the CIVIL WAR AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CASUALTIES HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE.

They were traitors. They took up arms against their country.

And I noticed you avoided talking about the traitors' white supremacy pronouncements.

Nothing to say on that?

[Yupster]

105. I used to be a college history instructor

and history textbook author.

I assure you I could talk for hours about the causes of the Civil War and the racial views of many of the leaders involved. I had a lecture I used to give in one of my classes titled the "Sin of Presentism (neologism) and Other Mistakes History Students Make". Perhaps you'd find it interesting, but maybe not.

Anyway, the thing that got me interested in this thread was that there were people on a Progressive message board who were advocating executing arrested people without trial and their reason was that they were really, really, really sure that the person was guilty.

That floored me. I've been out of the classroom for 25 years. Have things fallen so far that there are now educated progressive people that would advocate executing people without trial while the defendant was insisting they were innocent and demanding their right to a trial?

Have we fallen that far?

Anyway, that's why I posted on this thread. I don't really want to be distracted from that point by re-examining the world situation 150 years ago.

[brush]

107. I still don't get your argument

Last edited Sat Jul 18, 2015, 07:10 PM - Edit history (1)

After Davis betrayed his country by fighting a war against it then he wants a trial to contend he wasn't guilty of treason?

Ahhh, no. It was much too late for that. The fact that the president then skirted the issue by not letting it go to trial while letting him and Lee and all the rest live goes back to my contention that that was a most glaring example of white privilege, which is why that flag and the whole southern pride BS survived (WTF gives with that — they were losers and traitors yet got to "glorify and be proud" of their struggle against their own country while keeping blacks in the "new slavery" — share cropping, which continued for decades under that flag).

Davis should have been executed just as Arnold and other traitors were before him so IMO, presentism has nothing to do with it.

But as we know, Reconstruction was halted, Union troops were pulled out and jim crow commenced, to the great expense of African Americans.

But they didn't matter I suppose as white supremacy reigned (you avoided talking about that again).

[Yupster]

108. You don't get the argument that a person should

be found guilty before his execution.

Fine. Different people have different levels of understanding. That's why schools give grades.

One day I had a lesson all about the first two atom bombs and how they were constructed so differently. They were called the Little Boy and the Fat Man based on how they looked. I thought I taught a very clear lesson even though the nuclear part was above my education. Anyway, proud of my lesson, I asked for questions, and the first question I got, very sincerely was "Is the Little Boy still alive today?"

So I understand that people sometimes just don't get things.

Let me at least try to tell you one thing you don't know so I can feel I did you some good. Benedict Arnold died 20 years after the Revolution ended at age 60 in London. He had a lot of health problems during his retirement which the doctors really couldn't diagnose.

[brush]

109. Found guilty before his execution?

There is nothing ambiguous about this statement:


"In 1790, the Congress of the United States enacted that:

"If any person or persons, owing allegiance to the United States of America, shall levy war against them, or shall adhere to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States, or elsewhere, and shall be thereof convicted on confession in open Court, or on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act of the treason whereof he or they shall stand indicted, such person or persons shall be adjudged guilty of treason against the United States, and SHALL SUFFER DEATH . . ."

There was no doubt that Davis was a traitor, he "levied war" against the US.

As for Arnold, thanks for the info that he escaped but there were other traitors who were executed.

[Yupster]

110. So if Hitler were captured after WWII,

would the US have prosecuted him for treason against the US?

I think you would agree that we would not.

Why not?

Because obviously, odious as he was, he owed no allegiance to the United States. He was a citizen of a foreign country, and therefore could not commit treason against the USA.

So could Jefferson Davis be tried for treason?

You say no. He should just be hanged without trial because you're really sure he's guilty.

Many people say he should have been tried. The President and his lawyers decided it was not worth the gamble.

If he was tried, what was his defense going to be? The same as Hitler's. Since he was a citizen of a foreign country, he could hardly be found guilty of treason against the US.

That brings us back to the question of whether the CSA was a foreign country.

What's a country?

Davis' lawyers were prepared to argue that the CSA was a foreign country and functioned as such. It had a
Constitution
elected governors
state legislatures
House of Representatives
Senate
Supreme Court
a lesser court system
printed its own currency
had its own post office
defended itself with its own army and navy
had its own foreign policy
levied its own taxes
had an elected President and Vice-president.

What it lacked was the strength to defend itself from a much more powerful neighbor who wanted to conquer it. That's hardly unique in history. Many countries have been conquered by larger neighbors. It doesn't mean they were never countries.

The government's lawyers would argue that the CSA was never a country. They would argue either that secession is illegal, or that if secession is legal, the southern states didn't do it the right way.

Then it would be up to the Supreme Court to decide which side had the better Constitutional argument.

If Davis were found guilty, then the question of intent would have come up. Can you be a traitor if you didn't know you were an American?

Looking at his options, President Johnson decided not to chance it. The Constitution was silent on secession, and the Tenth Amendment was taken seriously back then.

Hopefully you can now see this was not an open and shut case. There was very much ambiguity in the case and its possible results.

Or your answer may be "She's a witch. Burn her."

Either way, I've explained this the best way I can. Either you get it or you don't. I wish you well though either way.

[brush]

111. But the southern part of the US started the war

Guess they could make the argument they were another country but memories were not that short.

And weren't Johnson's motives more than not wanting to chance it?

He had to know sentiments at the time were certainly against Davis, being the loser and causing so much death and destruction.

Didn't he make a deal with the devil to get elected?

I still say it was one of the most glaring examples of white privilege and even though that phenomenon hadn't been named at the time, not hanging the losing traitors and banning that flag immediately resulted in jim crow, sharecropping, over a century and a half of cruel, unequal treatment of blacks and this still going on today:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017279894

And I'm sure you're familiar with Ta Nehesi Costes work, he puts it way better than I can.

[kentuck]

112. Johnson was from Tennessee....

as I recall? Lincoln was looking for a way to heal the nation, not looking to punish or execute those that he fought in war.

[brush]

113. That's a noble sentiment

but I'm guessing if Lincoln had lived the healing of the nation thing would have maybe included the black citizens of the nation too.

We all know that didn't happen.

[kentuck]

114. I agree with that sentiment...

We would not have had to go thru Reconstruction, carpetbaggers, Jim Crow, segregation, KKK, and racism...

[Yupster]

118. Lincoln did offer compensation for slavery, but

he offered it to the slave owners - not the slaves.

I agree that things would have been better for all involved had Lincoln lived.

And I don't think he would have tried Davis for treason either. In fact he told aides that he hoped Davis made it to Florida and took a boat to Cuba.

Interestingly the VP of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens was a close personal friend of Lincoln's from their time together as Whigs in the House of Representatives.

It was quite a surprise when Lincoln met personally with Little Alec on the River Queen in Feb. 1865 to try to negotiate an end to the war. By meeting with Stephens, Lincoln risked being seen as recognizing the Confederacy so they met in secret on a ship.

[Yupster]

116. Johnson did not make a deal to get elected

He never did get elected president. He took over Lincoln's term when Lincoln was killed. He did not run in 1868 as he was impeached (not guilty by one vote) and had no support for a run to keep his job.

Lincoln made many bad decisions, but among the worst were his picks for vice-president.

In the decades before the Civil War there was a tradition that if a presidential nominee was from the north, he would run with a southern VP nominee. If the presidential nominee was from the south, his VP would be from the north. This went back at least as far as 1832 for both Democratic tickets and Whig tickets. The tradition was tested in 1860 when the Democratic Party split and ran two nominees, Stephen Douglas as the Northern Democrat and John Breckinridge as the Southern Democrat. But even then, Douglas from Illinois picked Herschel Johnson of Georgia as his running mate and Breckinridge had to go all the way to Oregon to find Joseph Lane, who was willing to run on the Southern Democrat ticket.

The Republicans broke the tradition, naming Hannibal Hamlin of Maine as Lincoln's running mate. A bad mistake which made southerners distrust him even more. In his reelection, he switched to Andrew Johnson, a disastrous decision. Johnson was the only southern senator who didn't leave the Union when his state left. That made him a good unity choice, but there were problems.

Though quite intelligent, he had no formal education at all. He was uncouth, stubborn and drunk at his own swearing in. He was also a Democrat. This would all be manageable as VP doesn't do much anyway, but once Lincoln died he was in an impossible position. Northern Republicans didn't trust him because he was a southern Democrat who they just fought a war against. Southerners didn't trust him because he was the most famous scalawag (southerner who didn't support the Confederacy - also called hillbillies - Billy Yanks of the hills). Add to that a bad personality and poor people skills and you get a disaster.

When Lincoln was killed,Jefferson Davis was with Joe Johnston's Army in North Carolina. He immediately said Lincoln's death would be a disaster for the south. Davis knew Johnson and they hated each other. Davis was everything Johnson wasn't. He was accepted into Transylvania University in Kentucky at the age of 13 because he could already speak Greek and Latin. He went to West Point, came out an officer, married the daughter of Zachary Taylor. When the Mexican-American War started, Davis resigned his seat in congress and fought in the war as a colonel. As a senator, he was part of the Crittenden Committe which tried to make a last minute compromise to keep the union together. When that failed, he resigned his seat and went home to Mississippi. He didn't campaign for CSA President and thought he'd end up leading an army, but he was elected President. Every bit the stereotypical southern gentleman, Davis was all about duty and honor. When Lincoln offered him compensation for slaves freed at the Hampton Roads Conference, he felt he had no constitutional right to accept the deal as it would be violating his oath of office. This was just three months before Lee surrendered and the Confederacy clearly collapsing. He worked too many hours, micromanaged, and was often sick during his term.

If Johnson thought he could have hanged him, he would have.

[Yupster]

117. As far as white privilege is concerned, to understand history

you have to place things within an era's zeitgeist (spirit of the times).

I'm assuming you mean that if a black president and a black 5 star general were accused of treason, they'd be shot without trial.

In 1865, that would be a ridiculous statement. A pollster would leave the average 1865 man rolling on the floor laughing at the thought. Not the thought of the racial injustice. Just the thought of a black president or a black general. A black couldn't even be an officer. In Lincoln's home state of Illinois, blacks couldn't even vote.

This is not an example of white privilege. It was America in 1865. The whole society was based on racial inequality. Even in the most abolitionist Christian communities, there was general agreement that blacks were inferior and would need kindly people looking after them for them to not get themselves in trouble. And those were the best friends.

No, the question of whether to hang Jeff Davis from an old apple tree had nothing to do with his race. His race was assumed. It was impossible to believe a president or general from America could be anything but white. The government deliberated for years on what to do about Davis before letting him out on bail. I bet his race never came up once.

As far as banning the flag, I don't know for sure, but I can't think of America ever banning anything like a flag before the Civil War. Again, it just wouldn't fit the zeitgeist. Back then the federal government was incredibly tiny compared to today. Other than the post office, most people never dealt with the feds. No social security, medicare, food stamps, EPA, Dept of Education. They even got by without an income tax. I don't think they would even think they had the power to ban people's symbols. That was so far outside the limited scope government played in people's lives.

[brush]

119. Everything you describe is white privilege, as the country was founded on it.

It wasn't called that then but (but it was stated openly in the southern states articles of confederation — they called it white supremacy) that's certainly what it was, and still is in many, many areas.

[Yupster]

120. Are you arguing that blacks have been treated

unfairly in our history?

That's not a very challenging thesis?

[brush]

121. That was my original point.

That not executing the traitors (a privilege extended to other whites) and banning that flag lead to so called Southern pride instead of shame of being losers and traitors, jim crow, KKK, the end of Reconstruction, lynchings, sharecropping and all the racial brutality of keeping blacks down.

[Yupster]

125. Not executing (much less trying) Davis and not banning the flag

are not examples of white privilege.

Davis was not tried because of a political decision made by one of Davis's worst enemies, President Andrew Johnson. No one took his race into consideration. If you had one of Johnson's lawyers here today and asked him whether Davis was not tried because he was white, he would look at you strangely and say "He was white? Well what the hell else would he be?" It would be inconceivable for a leader in 1865 to think a President or Five Star General would be anything but white.

As for the banning of the Confederate battle flag, you have to force yourself to look at the world in 1865.

Who would ban the flag? The congress wouldn't see any Constitutional power to do it even if they thought they should. Lincoln took "Constitutional liberties" during the war, but Johnson didn't have that kind of support, especially during peacetime.

In 1865, the average person (who didn't die in the war) died within 30 miles of where they were born. Other than the postman, the average person in peacetime, who was a farmer never saw a federal government employee. The country had no social security, medicare, medicaid, unemployment, food stamps, WIC, Department of Education or Energy. There wasn't even an income tax.

This was a nation of very limited federal government. People lived in their farming communities and small towns and moved very little. In fact when the war started young men died in their tens of thousands of measles in boot camp because they never had resistance to the disease because they never met people outside their communities.

The idea of banning a flag would be considered so foreign to the congress. Who would even enforce it if it was passed, and how would it be passed when there's no Constitutional authority for it. This was a time before "hate speech", "political correctness," and "protected classes" of people. There was no internet, tv or radio for people to get information to change their views quickly like today. Back then you had a local newspaper controlled by a local family who has been in the town for generations.

Again, race wouldn't ever enter a discussion about banning the flag. A discussion like that would be unlikely to ever be held. There just wasn't the culture in the country for the government to do such things.

When you're looking at decisions people made in the past, you have to look at the world they lived in. Each of us are products of the society we grew up in. You can't expect people in the past to have social consciences far ahead of the society they lived in.

[romanic]

86. Can't be done sadly.

Its apart of US history just like Nazi Germany was apart of Germany itself. We can definitely stop idolizing the Stars and Bars, keeping the history of the Confederate South as a reminder of what NOT to be ad a nation. But eliminating it is not possible, the US has to learn from its mistakes lest history repeats itself.

[Marrah_G]

87. If someone wants to have a confederate or a nazi flag on their own property it's their right.

They need to not flown on or at our places of government. I value our free speech, even speech i find disgusting or dangerous.

[jwirr]

94. Years ago Tom Paxton had a song about trying to put an idea back in the box after it was out.

That is a paraphrase and I cannot remember the title.

What he was saying was that you cannot get rid of an idea as easy as that. And that song definitely applies to Confederate ideas. I highly approve of taking the flag off of government owned property. It does not belong there. It was removed in such a way that allowed them to save face.

However, taking everything regarding the confederacy out of sight will not change anything. The confederacy was a fact. It existed. What we are trying to do with the idea of removing the artifacts is to change hearts and minds. I do not think it is going to work. Taking the flag down after a horrible crime was accepted because some of the descendants of the CSA leaders actually asked that it be done. Many others have made the change voluntarily. This is good.

But as we continue to demand that everything confederate be destroyed we are creating a backlash that only makes the opposition dig in deeper. Given time the memory of the families of the slain forgiving the killer for his horrible actions might bring about more change. But to push this to the limits and push their backs against to wall will not bring change unless it is more resentment.

IMO what is more important than taking the many monuments etc down is asking the Texas school book manufacturers to stop publishing the new history book that downplays the effect of slavery and the Civil War. That book should teach the next generation the truth. That is how we go about changing hearts and minds.

[Zorra]

98. No, but we can give it one heck of a try. nt

[Romulox]

101. Um, when are we destroying the Washington monument, Mt. Rushmore? (Washington supported slavery.)

[XRubicon]

102. Washington never commited treason

To keep slaves.

I like your shrugging smile, it fits you.

[Romulox]

104. Support of slavery was a betrayal of everything we claim to stand for; an open wound to this day. nt

[still_one]

103. Agreed

[dembotoz]

106. Actually more offended by anything named after reagun

[struggle4progress]

115. There's no good reason to try to obliterate all memory of the Confederacy

nor to remove all traces of the Confederate heritage from the landscape

There is good reason to try to temper that memory and those traces, in way that serves accurate historical recollection rather than myths of a noble lost cause of white supremacy

Having a school named after Robert E Lee in Los Angeles CA doesn't shed much light on the history of the area, though it does tell us Confederate sympathizers were politically powerful there around 1900: renaming that school does little insult to historical memory, but it might be psychologically beneficial for the current crop of mostly minority students there

Lee Park, in Dallas TX, with its bronze sculpture of Robert E Lee on horseback, and a model of his plantation house, Arlington, was originally called Oak Lawn Park, before the statue and the model of Arlington were added in 1939. There's no prospect for taking down the model of Arlington, since it's a popular reception rental, and FDR himself allegedly participated in the dedication of the Lee statue, but perhaps the park could be renamed Oak Lawn Park

Charlotte NC has a granite confederate memorial slab that was placed in front of the old city hall in 1977. From the date, this sounds to me like a last gasp of the Dixiecrats, so I would pull up that slab and return it to those to gave it to the city in the first place

On the other hand, the 1913 Silent Sam statue on the UNC campus at least commemorates UNC students who died serving the confederacy, so has some connection to the school. UNC has indicated a willingness to put up other monuments/exhibits elsewhere on campus to tell neglected stories

There's a statue of Jefferson Davis on the University of Texas campus, since shortly after WWI. The student body asked earlier this year for removal, and I agree

[Kablooie]

126. History should never be destroyed.

They only people who eliminate history are totalitarian regimes.

History, good or bad needs to be preserved.
It's the only way we can learn and progress.

But the bad should not be revered and that's what the flag kerfuffle is all about.

[840high]

131. yep

[KoKo]

133. ....!

[Warpy]

127. No, nor should it be

Trying to do so would put us on the same footing as ISIS, trying to destroy everything that predates Islam. Destroying monuments doesn't erase the past. Destroying language doesn't erase all hard feelings.

Most of those monuments were placed by people honoring friends, neighbors, and family who died in that war. They have nothing to do with perpetuating racism, only with honoring the sacrifice of people they loved who died trying to perpetuate the past beyond reason.

Being reminded of the Civil War should always make us uncomfortable, no matter which side our families were on, which side lost, which side won, and what the idiots among us think about it. It was a terrible period that nearly destroyed us.

For that reason, all those monuments erected in the years after the war should stay.

However, the flag of treason should not fly from state buildings.

[reddread]

128. I am sorry to tell you this

but Free Speech is OVER.
they slipped that by fairly smoothly.
questioning authority turned into a thought crime.
This is hardly a country obsessed with information or truth.
More like a country oppressed from obtaining either.
becomes a sad charade to see puppets fighting over the remnants of a dream
oblivious to their strings and invested in the backdrop.