Wrote a long answer that was eaten by a storm...so this will be a bit shorter.
You haven't heard it from me either. You've heard me note a support for those who would remove monuments to an institutional evil.
That's a different animal altogether. I still like the idea of being more proactive with what they are doing. I'm not sure 'take them down' is necessarily the best. The cities, could literally come up with a 'new' idea and replace them, especially if they were thoughtful about them.
A 'deacon' Lee for instance. Or, have Grant on the other side of Lee, and Lincoln on the other side of Jackson. Your disdain for them initially is what drew the far reaction. Throwing them into the sea, perhaps for what they stand for, to you and others, is something to genuinely think about. We are so much as a country into 'tear-down' however, that too much too soon, and with no replacements, is a bad signal. SOMETHING meaningful, and attributing to historical good memory and of sufficient agreement, should be placed up immediately.
It doesn't matter who believes a thing if the thing they believe is wrong. So it depends on the quote. That the great industrialist Henry Ford was a Nazi sympathizer and avid racist doesn't really elevate the Nazi or racist nonsense, does it? Same with once national hero Lindbergh.
Again, if we go that sentiment, why isn't removing Lincoln Memorial, reasonable by the same token? We do have to be careful we aren't practicing censorship run amok or cow-towing to any offense. Do you have an idea or recommend for reasonable percentages or #'s? A list of what should be acceptable grievances? or any other commentary that might cause a bit more empathetic contemplation?
Again, I haven't set about the issue of declaring men evil, only noting the evil some served and the danger of ennobling that cause in any sense.
It is difficult because we are talking about statues
of men.
He was a man much respected by any number of people before the war, before the evil of his intent was widely known. The quality of his thinking, memory and ability to move people in speeches was renowned. But that evil (along with the stresses of war and increased reliance on drugs) eventually reduced him to a fairly ineffective leader of the Reich. I don't think some crazy guy just happened to get a hold of Germany and suddenly, miraculously transformed it into an order that nearly toppled the world.
I wonder how popular that book or movie would be :think: We don't like to see our monsters as humans. We look for 'what contributed to this man's wickedness?' rather.
The comparison you wanted in play was strained, but it wasn't how I used it, only how I responded to your impression.
Well, in my defense. "Nazi/Hitler" anything conjures more than light comparison. I think that's why it is considered fallacy more often than not.
Some of your atrocities are akin both as to slaves, war crimes against civilians, crimes against North/South, and Andersonville.
I'd say most of what you wrote plays well with the myth you don't seem to have discovered yet. Read the stuff I suggested and get back to me. As to Booker, he was reviled in some quarters of his own community, deeply troubled many who found him a good man with a bad idea, and beloved by empowered Southern whites who would celebrate anyone slowing the progress of his people.
Then you shouldn't have a problem with New Orleans. The uniform and military nature of the commemoration is of the same cloth.
:think: What if you painted them blue? (sorry, had to)
Why should my sentiment be problematic to you? I'm okay with memorials to traitors who served a slave state being set to rest in the ocean. I'm not commanding anyone to do it.
Not that, but rather the way it was sentenced, it sounded as if a private buyer was unacceptable, and perhaps I understand your sentiment, that at 'least' out of your town, would be of service. I get it now. You have to realize, when it comes to history as well as law, I look toward your comments with a bit more weight than you probably sometimes mean.
In exactly the same way books are "hidden" in a library.
Have you never gone into the back rooms with white gloves? Knowing you, I can't believe it. You surely must have held more ancient cherished books than I. I even got to hold some of the 'banned' books that a school librarian just couldn't find it in herself to toss: A prayer book and scripture alphabet book among others. Loved that lady.
Put up any nonsense that suits you in your yard (though you might want to check with your homeowners association). :think:
Er, Wild West up here.... Wild NorthWest? Something along those lines.
Well, no. There is no equal footing between men who betrayed their country in the service of a slave state and men who fought to restore that Union and eventually abolished that institution. That service rather trumps the fact they were good husbands or loved dogs, etc.
Took that one right out of my hand, like a kid told he can have something in the toy story "Except that one!"
It was one issue. The issue from which every other was generated. The South fought because the north in electing Lincoln was saying that it would not be allowed to expand into the new territories, would not, could not then keep pace with the growing political power of the non-slave holding states. The thought was that after that it would become a matter of time before its economic engine would be forced out of existence by the majority.
Being that slavery was in one part of the state, and not the other, I can see it touching every issue, but the concerns were not primarily about that but about the North dictating (somewhat like we have now with Judicial mandates). If we had a conflict, though certain people are involved, I would not say it was about them. Rather it would be about the majority need of families as well as faith, perhaps (I seldom vote for all the same reasons the rest of the country does.
In other words, the states withdrew because they read the writing on the wall regarding slavery.
And yet, from what I have read, they also no longer wanted Federal mandates over their whole lives. 11 States, even presented with your reading material, will always give me pause for thinking such is primarily about slavery.
A bit more, but it held the sentiment expressed throughout and I did invite you to read the rest and to examine all the documents states advanced in dissolving their bonds. Here's a
link to a lot of that.
Georgia went on a bit, but every paragraph was a recitation about the north intruding on their slave state.
Another?
Mississippi: "
Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world...and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. "
Some take a little longer to get to the point, but it's slavery, over and over again, that moves them to leave when you get into it.
Even clearer that quote. Thank you for the link. I will spend time there.
You think Schwarzenegger shouldn't have left Austria???
Bummer name, but his parents named him that. I wonder if they knew what it meant? :think:
How could he have lived THAT down? :idunno:
lain:
So would the free legal dictionary:
Under Article III, Section 3 of the Constitution, any person who levies war against the United States or adheres to its enemies by giving them aid and comfort has committed treason within the meaning of the Constitution.
The term "aid and comfort" refers to any act that manifests a betrayal of allegiance to the United States...if a subversive act has any tendency to weaken the power of the United States to attack or resist its enemies, aid and comfort has been given."
Further, the S. Ct. held Lincoln's act of blockading the South legal and the South in insurrection, its supporters traitors. 67 US 635,
17 L. Ed. 459, 2 Black 635, 1862 U.S. LEXIS 282
See here, as well.
Fact is the friend of truth and the enemy of myth predicated in something else. :thumb:
I never liked that quote and others like it. "Myth" is too broad for meaning. Perhaps context even in so short a quip, is sufficient, but still... I like myths and legends.
It accomplishes the good within the act. It no longer lends the stamp of social and government authority to the myth. The rest is time.
I think however, they can go about it in a better proactive way. Having a plan, however conceived, could have helped. A commemorative of state values in its place might have gone far - esteemed statesmen, John Hannah or Cornelius Bennett perhaps.
Except the baby is the evil and the water is foul.
:cheers:
I can let it go. I wasn't happy when Disneyland moved Regan and Lincoln into the background. Not my property. I skipped that hall last time.
