White Lives Matter

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Saying the military champion of the Confederacy and all it stood for should not be honored and glorified with statues in the public square is not remotely the same as writing off Virginians.

---

Too late, he's already there.

Quote:

---

Cromwell's history within the larger British history is obviously only very loosely analogous to Lee within the larger history of the United States. It isn't so clear as with Lee, which is why you chose it to try and bolster your argument. But it doesn't.

---

The leader of the Civil War is only very loosely analogous to the leader of the Civil War?

Quote:

---

Saying the military champion of the Confederacy and all it stood for should not be honored and glorified with statues in the public square is not remotely the same as ignoring the history of the civil war.

---

That's fine, don't commission any new statues then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer

That is privilege. You are absolutely correct. The fact that you used it in such a manner in this thread under the existing context, and you see no problem with doing so, actually explains a good bit for why you've shown yourself to be such an awful person in the BLM and it's sister thread.

---

You explain why it is a problem to be well traveled and educated please because I'm struggling to. You sound like a silly and childish SJW-stereotype in saying "your privilege is showing".

You chose to use those words not me so no you'll have to explain why there is a problem in doing so or how I'm an awful person.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Too late, he's already there.

---

LOL, doesn't change that the statue shouldn't have been placed there and should not remain there.

Quote:

---

The leader of the Civil War is only very loosely analogous to the leader of the Civil War?

---

Because every civil war, within every nation's political and historical context, and every leadership role in those wars, are the same and so what is true for one is true for all. :rolleyes: Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Quote:

---

That's fine, don't commission any new statues then.

---

I never have and I doubt I ever will. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

LOL, doesn't change that the statue shouldn't have been placed there and should not remain there.

---

It's been there for nearly a century. The people who put it their are dead now. Their children are probably dead now. It is historical now.

Quote:

---

Because every civil war, within every nation's political and historical context, and every leadership role in those wars, are the same and so what is true for one is true for all. :rolleyes: Just stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

---

I never said they were same, I suggested they were analogous. How is that embarrassing?

Quote:

---

I never have and I doubt I ever will. :|

---

Problem solved.

Twitter Link

:o

It's lucky America has no problems so it can put its history to bed behind it.

Now the statue is down and everything is awesome. Who needs history anyway when everything is awesome?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

You may think that, but it is the reason why that statue exists at all.

---

1960s segregationists are why a statue commissioned decades earlier exists? When did they discover time-travel and why is this the first I'm hearing about it?

It's No Longer About Southern Heritage. In Fact, It Never Was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Since we're talking about a person who spilled blood to defend the right to enslave black people in a time when an increasing number of his contemporaries were beginning to realize that was a shitty thing to do, I think we can safely dismiss the argument about revisionism and unfair standards.

---

He didn't spill blood to defend the right to enslave black people. He spilled blood to defend his native state (at a time when you did still identify with the state first rather than the country) from attack by those contesting its legal secession (and technically Virginia itself only seceded because of the use of force against other states trying to secede, it was one of the second-wave states). Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. But while you might understandably generalize from there to specific individuals if information is lacking on their intent, when you actually do have undisputed information showing the generalization would be inaccurate you need to heed it. Lee's reasons for participating were not the defense of slavery. Now I know you don't care. Because hey, his cause was inescapably linked with another cause by other people. That's an incredibly unreasonable and unfair standard and you'd scream bloody murder if it were applied to you in any number of areas where it can be but then you insist that hypocrisy is your universe-given right and that objection to hypocrisy is just sophisty by people who dare to expect you to think things through rather than just running on straight emotion all the time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

Come on Fuzzy, huge straw man with Jefferson. Want to line up all the historical figures you can think of and ask me to say boo about them, just to get me on record, and STILL not make an effective argument against my disdain for glorifying General Lee? Try lining up all the figures who led a war against the United States, ask me if I think they should be on Mount Rushmore, that might actually be relevant. Please, when did you get so lazy?

And all the hair splitting aside - resign his commission, the 10th Amendment, whatever the fuck apologist bullshit you want to trot out - Lee was a key figure in a war against the United States and for the perpetuation of slavery and he should NOT be glorified for it anywhere in this country. And fuck you on your high I'm-an-expert-so-I'm-right horse, you arrogant prick.

---

I'm not asking you to glorify anyone. I'm telling you that you're a pig-ignorant moron lashing out at people you have zero knowledge of because they took an understandable position in history with reasonable justification. What you're spouting now is nationalist crap, something you have no truck with normally but you've turned to because realized you can't get him on other grounds because you're so pig-ignorant that I might as well be a genuine expert. Yes, he was a key figure in a war against the United States? So? Yes, he fought in defense of his home when it was attacked even though he thought the reasons for the conflict were excessive and unreasonable. If he'd been defending your home you'd be lauding him for taking such a stance. I can empathize with objections to statuary of him elsewhere, in Texas and New Orleans and other places in the South. But in Virginia? He was a native son, one who was universally respected there and by those with any familiarity with the US Army before the war and he earned those statues. I wouldn't object to statues in Georgia of those who struggled (and failed) to fend off Sherman's "March to the Sea" either, a type of campaign which Lee prevented the Union from ever employing in Virginia.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeKhan

LOL, doesn't change that the statue shouldn't have been placed there and should not remain there.

---

I've heard this line of argument recently. . . oh yeah, we were discussing it in a thread about reparations. It was placed almost 100 years ago. You can argue it shouldn't have been done 93 years ago, I don't give a rat's ass, it's been there for more than twice as long as you've been alive. Get over it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

Twitter Link

:donkey:

---

Ok, that got a laugh out of me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

1960s segregationists are why a statue commissioned decades earlier exists? When did they discover time-travel and why is this the first I'm hearing about it?

---

That whole 'hurray for the Confederacy' movement started way earlier than the 1960s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Now the statue is down and everything is awesome. Who needs history anyway when everything is awesome?

---

The statue was revisionism, history was that he was a traitor fighting against the country he was honor bound to fight for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Lee's reasons for participating were not the defense of slavery.

---

So, you're saying it was about ethics in legally succeeding from the union?

As Fuzzy says secession should have been legal under the 10th Amendment. And if in his eyes Virginia had legally seceded in his eyes then he'd have been a traitor to his nation if he'd fought for the Union side.

If Scotland (Virginia) had voted for independence and England (the North) had declared war in reply would you expect a Scottish general to fight for Scotland or the UK (Union)?

Not if the Scots were succeeding so they could continue to slavery, no.

It is worth noting that Lee had personally opposed secession until it had already happened, said repeatedly before, during and after the war that slaves should be freed, freed slaves he inherited, said after the war that he was rejoiced that slaves were freed. He also led the surrender to the Union forces, opposed a guerrilla war that others wanted and was a leading figure in reconciliation afterwards.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South." ​

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

That whole 'hurray for the Confederacy' movement started way earlier than the 1960s.

---

Who did Loki specify in the material I replied to? He said segregationists 50 years ago. So the 1960s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

It is worth noting that Lee had personally opposed secession until it had already happened, said repeatedly before, during and after the war that slaves should be freed, freed slaves he inherited, said after the war that he was rejoiced that slaves were freed. He also led the surrender to the Union forces, opposed a guerrilla war that others wanted and was a leading figure in reconciliation afterwards.

"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South." ​

---

What does he want, a fucking medal statue?

I oppose slavery as well, and I've never participated in any kind of military action in order to preserve it, so I'm twice as good at opposing slavery as he is. Where's my statue?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazir

The statue was revisionism, history was that he was a traitor fighting against the country he was honor bound to fight for.

---

He fought for the state he was honour bound to fight for.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

He fought for the state he was honour bound to fight for.

---

There's no honour in fighting for tyranny, no matter what simpering legalistic excuses you come up with.

Incidentally for all this "he fought against the US" argument as if it is a killer argument - why did the US Federal Government commemorate him? There's a barracks named after him at West Point!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

There's no honour in fighting for tyranny, no matter what simpering legalistic excuses you come up with.

---

By today's standards there is tyranny on both sides which is why historical revisionism is stupid.

It's worth noting that the North wasn't even explicitly fighting for abolition when he chose to fight for Virginia. Lincoln rejected fighting for abolition early on and only made abolition a goal later in the war.

I may have, in the past, expressed certain opinions about "both sides" arguments, and the people who make them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

So, you're saying it was about ethics in legally succeeding from the union?

---

It was using military force against Virginia. He didn't like secession either, considered it anarchy and an act of revolution which went against the principles behind the founding. But he also didn't think the United States had much of a chance as a "Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets." Both sides approached him and offered him commands. He refused the request by the CSA (then only the original seven states) and demurred the offer to take command of the defense of DC until Lincoln started raising troops to put down the first wave of secession, prompting Virginia to secede as well. He resigned his commission the day Virginia seceded and took up command of his states' troops three days later. He was a Virginian and like it or not Virginia was at war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

He didn't spill blood to defend the right to enslave black people. e spilled blood to defend his native state (at a time when you did still identify with the state first rather than the country) from attack by those contesting its legal secession (and technically Virginia itself only seceded because of the use of force against other states trying to secede, it was one of the second-wave states). Yes, the Civil War was about slavery. But while you might understandably generalize from there to specific individuals if information is lacking on their intent, when you actually do have undisputed information showing the generalization would be inaccurate you need to heed it. Lee's reasons for participating were not the defense of slavery. Now I know you don't care. Because hey, his cause was inescapably linked with another cause by other people. That's an incredibly unreasonable and unfair standard

---

I can accept that one's loyalty to one's state may exceed one's loyalty to one's nation, but in this case we also have the matter of one's loyalty to principles of justice. If I, out of loyalty to my state, choose to defend, perpetuate and even actively participate in a deeply evil institution--whether it is slavery or genocide or whatever it is you find to be truly abhorrent--I have no legitimate claim to absolution for placing that loyalty higher than loyalty to even higher causes--as judged by the standards of a large number of my contemporaries--such as the right to freedom from enslavement and abuse.

People are complex, as are the motives behind their decisions, but the argument you're making here is just one short step removed from defending the commission of atrocities by saying, "He was just following orders." In this case he may well just have been following the "orders" of his sense of honor, or his loyalty towards his state, or his conception of God or whatever, but the actions and their outcomes--none of which can legitimately be regarded as "incidental" and trivial--remain reprehensible nevertheless and call into question the justice of honoring him with a permanent public display such as a statue. His culpability is further increased by what we know of his feelings about slavery and what we can infer from the way he treated his own slaves, the way his men treated fugitive blacks as well as captured freeborn blacks, etc.

This is absolutely a fair standard to hold a person to. Lee could have chosen to defect, as some did. He could have chosen to fight for the other side, like others from the Confederate States, such as his own cousin. He could have given both sides a giant FU and tried to set up his own Republic, and that Republic would perhaps have fared better than some other attempts. It would no doubt have been a difficult choice, but the fact that a standard may be difficult to meet doesn't make that standard unfair.

Quote:

---

and you'd scream bloody murder if it were applied to you in any number of areas where it can be

---

Sure, if you have some concrete examples that don't rely exclusively on your fantasies of what I think or believe, then we can discuss them. I'm eager to learn more about this. I might throw a spectacular Fuzzy-fit but I might also decide you're right and that I'm failing to live up to my standards.

Quote:

---

but then you insist that hypocrisy is your universe-given right and that objection to hypocrisy is just sophisty by people who dare to expect you to think things through rather than just running on straight emotion all the time.

---

I'm sorry but you're doing that thing again, you know, that thing where you take one little thing you think you understand about someone and then extrapolate a load of horseshit from that little grain. I have no interest in participating in another one of your shadow-boxing matches. If you need to do something about your foul temper I suggest you go hit something for a while and I'll be happy to resume the discussion once you've settled down to the point of being able to hold forum members to at least the same standards you hold your conceptions of historical figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I can accept that one's loyalty to one's state may exceed one's loyalty to one's nation, but in this case we also have the matter of one's loyalty to principles of justice. If I, out of loyalty to my state, choose to defend, perpetuate and even actively participate in a deeply evil institution--whether it is slavery or genocide or whatever it is you find to be truly abhorrent--I have no legitimate claim to absolution for placing that loyalty higher than loyalty to even higher causes--as judged by the standards of a large number of my contemporaries--such as the right to freedom from enslavement and abuse.

---

Absolutely by 21st century standards but by 19th century standards the North was not even fighting for abolitionism at the time he defended his state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

Absolutely by 21st century standards but by 19th century standards the North was not even fighting for abolitionism at the time he defended his state.

---

Irrespective of what the North was fighting for at the time, afaict abolitionism had already become established in several states. If you have information saying otherwise I would be happy to see it.

In fact it is worth remembering that the Emancipation Proclamation came not due to overwhelming desire to abolish slavery but as a military tactic to deplete the CSA's manpower, coming as a result of Lincoln being concerned after multiple military victories by Lee. It is the height of irony that were it not for Lee, the abolition of slavery in the US may have come later on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

Irrespective of what the North was fighting for at the time, afaict abolitionism had already become established in several states. If you have information saying otherwise I would be happy to see it.

---

A division between free (Northern) and slaveholding (Southern) states that were at contentious loggerheads had been a major issue for decades. Lincoln rejected the idea of abolitionism early on because he didn't want to lose the border states to the CSA. Even in the emancipation proclamation slavery was only abolished in rebellious states. Lee resigned his federal commission and took up arms for his native Virginia in 1961, over a year before the Emancipation Proclamation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

In fact it is worth remembering that the Emancipation Proclamation came not due to overwhelming desire to abolish slavery but as a military tactic to deplete the CSA's manpower, coming as a result of Lincoln being concerned after multiple military victories by Lee. It is the height of irony that were it not for Lee, the abolition of slavery in the US may have come later on.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

A division between free (Northern) and slaveholding (Southern) states that were at contentious loggerheads had been a major issue for decades. Lincoln rejected the idea of abolitionism early on because he didn't want to lose the border states to the CSA. Even in the emancipation proclamation slavery was only abolished in rebellious states. Lee resigned his federal commission and took up arms for his native Virginia in 1961, over a year before the Emancipation Proclamation.

---

This does not change the fact (as I understand it) that slavery had already been abolished or set to be phased out in all Northern states.