The terrible thing that's happened in america

[luckyBatistuta]

Some cities choose to remove, others do not. I fail to see the hypocrisy. I see democracy-based decision making.

Do the Native Americans actually have a voice since they rounded them all up. They can always just stay on their reservations and not look at the offensive statues and monuments built after the war.

[Governor Tarkin]

Especially with the American history of supporting Irish Republicanism/ terrorism,

which Scotland is still suffering all these years later

Americans do not have monopoly on race politics

We still have our little marches, bands and songs

and is been a trifling 400 years for us to all stop the nonsense

I don't want to widen the debate to be honest, and I have no beef with Justin Z, but 'pandering to white supremacists' isn't an accusation that should be chucked around lightly.

I doubt very much whether anybody on this thread wants to pander to those types.

[Peebo]

Do the Native Americans actually have a voice since they rounded them all up. They can always just stay on their reservations and not look at the offensive statues and monuments built after the war.

Probably one for another thread.

[luckyBatistuta]

Probably one for another thread.

Off uptown with the kids anyway bud, have a good day

[Justin Z]

Nobody's pandering to whte supremacists so you can withdraw that horrific accusation aye.

 

You're an American, most folk on this thread are not, of course you are going to be viewing this issue through different lenses. Our points of departure are miles apart. Peebo nails it when he talks about context. This is obviously an issue you feel strongly about, but bear that in mind before you start branding people as facist sympathisers.

 

You know what, that's eminently fair.  I apologise.  Thanks for setting me straight.

[Justin Z]

Getting back to the topic.  Boris is correct about the reasons people want these things removed.  It's not that they're a monument to Lee, or Stonewall Jackson, or whoever it may be.  It's that without exception as far as I've seen, these statues and remembrances were put up in the midst of the Civil Rights movement as an explicit public statement by the overtly racist public institutions of the times that Black people are inferior and that they ought to continue to prostrate themselves to their white masters.

 

That's not to say that some people don't want to take down statues of Jefferson or Lincoln, too.  Likewise, it's laughable that Teddy Roosevelt put himself up on Mount Rushmore.  But none of these things were hastily thrown up to try to suppress and intimidate a minority group noising for their rights.  They are in fact, truly historical.  So they deserve an actual historical treatment in deciding whether they should be taken down.

 

Running through all of this is also the underlying issue of the South's continued refusal to move into the 20th, much less the 21st, century.  Large swaths of it have been stuck in the mid-1800s, refusing to let go of its bigoted, ruinous past, and this has held the entire region back economically and socially.  The South is full of the kind of people who would call Colin Kaepernick a traitor for kneeling during the playing of the national anthem at NFL games, yet they would fly a Confederate flag, an actual traitorous symbol, without a second thought.

 

On the subject of "heritage" or "culture".  The Confederate flag, these monuments, and other bits and bobs of "heritage", have parallels in Scotland too.  But in the American situation, the people who agitate for equal treatment, who want to eliminate these overt symbols of racism and division, they are not equivalently bad--there are not two sides that are equally awful on this issue.  White people have always held the power in the South, where the rot of white supremacy remains.  The seekers of justice can rightly point out that arseholes in hoods should be free under the First Amendment to build monuments to whomever they want to espouse their outdated ideals . . . on private land.  But the government shouldn't be maintaining symbols the purpose of which was to attack a minority group who just wanted to be treated equally (and still fight for such equality to this day).

 

In both sets of cases, in Scotland and the U.S., the underlying heritage is lost in the noise of bigotry--the noise of actions whose only intent is to foment division.  True southern heritage is a beautiful thing--worthy of pride--deep and rich and with much to learn about.  But most importantly, southern heritage is inclusive--it's not just white.  Racism does run through that heritage, and it should be solemnly remembered in classrooms, museums, and genuine tributes to the Civil War, not celebrated by monuments constructed for the explicit purpose of furthering that racism.

[Adam Murray]

Channel 4 reporting that a statue of a Confederate soldier has been pulled down in North Carolina, spat on and kicked afterwards by the perpetrators, to great cheers.

Equality for all, unless you disagree of course.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Channel 4 reporting that a statue of a Confederate soldier has been pulled down in North Carolina, spat on and kicked afterwards by the perpetrators, to great cheers.

Equality for all, unless you disagree of course.

 

Spitting on a statue! Feckwittery to the max!

[Governor Tarkin]

You know what, that's eminently fair. I apologise. Thanks for setting me straight.

[Justin Z]

Channel 4 reporting that a statue of a Confederate soldier has been pulled down in North Carolina, spat on and kicked afterwards by the perpetrators, to great cheers.

Equality for all, unless you disagree of course.

 

I for one am outraged at the wilful and wanton violation of this statue's human rights.

[Adam Murray]

I for one am outraged at the wilful and wanton violation of this statue's human rights.

Not really the point though, is it?

[Justin Z]

Not really the point though, is it?

 

No.  But since "equality for all, unless you disagree of course" in no way followed on from the rest of your post, I just ran with it.

 

Mob situations are never good, on that we can probably all agree.  But nobody--sans the statue--has had their equality or civil rights transgressed by the actions of this mob.

[doctor jambo]

No.  But since "equality for all, unless you disagree of course" in no way followed on from the rest of your post, I just ran with it.

 

Mob situations are never good, on that we can probably all agree.  But nobody--sans the statue--has had their equality or civil rights transgressed by the actions of this mob.

 

"Statues Lives Matter"

[doctor jambo]

No.  But since "equality for all, unless you disagree of course" in no way followed on from the rest of your post, I just ran with it.

 

Mob situations are never good, on that we can probably all agree.  But nobody--sans the statue--has had their equality or civil rights transgressed by the actions of this mob.

The sad thing is that they are doing it just to noise up the other side.

NO good will come of this

The groups need calm leadership

[Peebo]

Channel 4 reporting that a statue of a Confederate soldier has been pulled down in North Carolina, spat on and kicked afterwards by the perpetrators, to great cheers.

Equality for all, unless you disagree of course.

Wanton vandalism. No excuses, and entirely different from a council vote to remove a statue from a public park.

 

Regardless of how angry I was about something, I don't think I'd ever decide to kick a statue.

[Justin Z]

The sad thing is that they are doing it just to noise up the other side.

NO good will come of this

The groups need calm leadership

 

Absolutely correct, and it unfortunately gives denialists fodder to keep denying with.  It's not good.  I liken it to the celebration of the photos and videos out there of Nazis getting punched.  Sure, maybe viscerally it feels great.  It's not the right response though!

[Boris]

 

Spitting on a statue! Feckwittery to the max!

 

I'll raise you shoes...

 

[niblick1874]

Would it give anyone pause for thought if it came out that the police were ordered to stand down?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGGGUhjoLpM

[doctor jambo]

Would it give anyone pause for thought if it came out that the police were ordered to stand down?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EGGGUhjoLpM

No,

 

It makes sense

I can just imagine the scenes if white cops were deployed against black people to defend a statue of a confederate soldier.

Last thing anyone needs is more race riots- and that is what we would get in that scenario

[redm]

Wanton vandalism. No excuses, and entirely different from a council vote to remove a statue from a public park.

 

Regardless of how angry I was about something, I don't think I'd ever decide to kick a statue.

Either would I, it's going to hurt for starters.

 

Was just reading that someone tried to protect it in advance by spraying it with oil but the protesters just brought a ladder, climbed up, looped a rope around it and that was that. I was surprised to see how easily it crumpled.

 

Feels like this stuff might run a while [emoji51]

[niblick1874]

No,

 

It makes sense

I can just imagine the scenes if white cops were deployed against black people to defend a statue of a confederate soldier.

Last thing anyone needs is more race riots- and that is what we would get in that scenario

 

 

 

As apposed to lawless anarchy? Who will decide when and where to enact such measures? You are looking at a politically motivated decision with no checks or balances while throwing the Constitution out the window. 

[doctor jambo]

As apposed to lawless anarchy? Who will decide when and where to enact such measures? You are looking at a politically motivated decision with no checks or balances while throwing the Constitution out the window. 

Its not lawless anarchy- the situation needs managed- de-escalation.

same as the police do not wade in to football crowds .

Yes some folks will evade justice for some minor crimes, but there will be no riots, no loss of life and no innocents harmed.

Just wait for the protesters to move on, and put yer statue back up

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Getting back to the topic.  Boris is correct about the reasons people want these things removed.  It's not that they're a monument to Lee, or Stonewall Jackson, or whoever it may be.  It's that without exception as far as I've seen, these statues and remembrances were put up in the midst of the Civil Rights movement as an explicit public statement by the overtly racist public institutions of the times that Black people are inferior and that they ought to continue to prostrate themselves to their white masters.

 

 

Instead of removing the statue or statues why don't the authorities use the statue as a tool against the racists?

 

Take the school kids on a field trip to the statue and teach them why it's there, teach them the reasons why it was put up in the 50's or 60's and that it has nothing to do with honouring Confederate General's, Presidents or war hero's, teach them how it was used by narrow-minded bigoted racists as a symbol to remind the Black people of their place in that particular society at that particular time.

I just think you've missed a golden opportunity to turn the whole thing on it's head, sure you could teach the kids about it in the classroom, but it's not the same as standing there in front of the actual statue, something which you can't do if it's been removed.

 

Here in the UK the schools teach our kids about the First World War, they learn about the Somme, Ypres, Flanders Fields etc etc, but it's no substitute for actually standing there at the Somme and seeing all those little white crosses and headstones stretching in every direction for as far as the eye can see, or listening to the last post at the Menin Gate or standing at the edge of the crater that one of massive mines created.

Children learn much more if they can see, feel, touch what they are being taught and this is one of the reasons why the schools have the Battlefield trip to France & Belgium, so as the children can see these things for themselves, believe me it has a much more lasting impression on them than just reading about it in a book.

 

History is history and in the past, but it's the children who will shape the future of your Country, as George Santayana said "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Teach the children why the statues are there, not pull them down.

[Justin Z]

As apposed to lawless anarchy? Who will decide when and where to enact such measures? You are looking at a politically motivated decision with no checks or balances while throwing the Constitution out the window. 

 

Unless you are willing to back up claims like "no checks or balances" and "throwing the Constitution out" with an actual legal argument that either is the case, please do not even go there.

[Justin Z]

Instead of removing the statue or statues why don't the authorities use the statue as a tool against the racists?

 

Take the school kids on a field trip to the statue and teach them why it's there, teach them the reasons why it was put up in the 50's or 60's and that it has nothing to do with honouring Confederate General's, Presidents or war hero's, teach them how it was used by narrow-minded bigoted racists as a symbol to remind the Black people of their place in that particular society at that particular time.

I just think you've missed a golden opportunity to turn the whole thing on it's head, sure you could teach the kids about it in the classroom, but it's not the same as standing there in front of the actual statue, something which you can't do if it's been removed.

 

Here in the UK the schools teach our kids about the First World War, they learn about the Somme, Ypres, Flanders Fields etc etc, but it's no substitute for actually standing there at the Somme and seeing all those little white crosses and headstones stretching in every direction for as far as the eye can see, or listening to the last post at the Menin Gate or standing at the edge of the crater that one of massive mines created.

Children learn much more if they can see, feel, touch what they are being taught and this is one of the reasons why the schools have the Battlefield trip to France & Belgium, so as the children can see these things for themselves, believe me it has a much more lasting impression on them than just reading about it in a book.

 

History is history and in the past, but it's the children who will shape the future of your Country, as George Santayana said "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Teach the children why the statues are there, not pull them down.

 

There are literally hundreds of Civil War sites all over the United States, which millions of schoolchildren have visited.  Same goes for the War of Independence and others. So while I appreciate your examples, it still seems like you are continuing to wilfully miss the point that the only reason these particular monuments exist is because racists in government constructed them as symbols of oppression in the 1950s and 60s as backlash against the Black movement for equal rights--and importantly, they continue to stand as symbols of that oppression today.  There are plenty of opportunities to talk about the racism and inequalities of the past and present without allowing blatant representations of white supremacy ideology to remain, especially since a government upkeeping them is rightly seen to be endorsing them.  Similarly, there are no monuments to Hitler, Nazism, antisemitism, or anything of the sort in Germany; there are all kinds of historical monuments, museums, sites, remembrances--opportunities for learning and understanding--there and throughout Europe, without them.  It's pretty easily understood there that there is no value in giving backward adherents to these ideologies points to rally around, or in harming those people attacked by those ideologies by allowing them to remain.  Indeed, Austria has already moved to destroyed Hitler's birth house for just that reason.

 

You're not comparing like for like and I'm running out of excuses, at least in my mind, for why you might be continuing to confuse the issue.

[Peebo]

Instead of removing the statue or statues why don't the authorities use the statue as a tool against the racists?

 

Take the school kids on a field trip to the statue and teach them why it's there, teach them the reasons why it was put up in the 50's or 60's and that it has nothing to do with honouring Confederate General's, Presidents or war hero's, teach them how it was used by narrow-minded bigoted racists as a symbol to remind the Black people of their place in that particular society at that particular time.

I just think you've missed a golden opportunity to turn the whole thing on it's head, sure you could teach the kids about it in the classroom, but it's not the same as standing there in front of the actual statue, something which you can't do if it's been removed.

 

Here in the UK the schools teach our kids about the First World War, they learn about the Somme, Ypres, Flanders Fields etc etc, but it's no substitute for actually standing there at the Somme and seeing all those little white crosses and headstones stretching in every direction for as far as the eye can see, or listening to the last post at the Menin Gate or standing at the edge of the crater that one of massive mines created.

Children learn much more if they can see, feel, touch what they are being taught and this is one of the reasons why the schools have the Battlefield trip to France & Belgium, so as the children can see these things for themselves, believe me it has a much more lasting impression on them than just reading about it in a book.

 

History is history and in the past, but it's the children who will shape the future of your Country, as George Santayana said "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Teach the children why the statues are there, not pull them down.

To clarify, do you think that all such statues and symbols should remain, even if the locals don't want them?

 

Not sure if you aware, but these things are all over the place. Do they all need to remain?

 

And do you genuinely think that keeping them up is the only thing educating people about the related issues? From certain perspectives, the historical issues are not actually in the past...

[deesidejambo]

To clarify, do you think that all such statues and symbols should remain, even if the locals don't want them?

 

Not sure if you aware, but these things are all over the place. Do they all need to remain?

 

And do you genuinely think that keeping them up is the only thing educating people about the related issues? From certain perspectives, the historical issues are not actually in the past...

I agree that the locals, as you call them, have a right to determine whether things like statues remain or are moved or renamed.  That makes sense.

 

However this is where a problem lies - lets say 51% of locals want a change, thats fine but it will piss-off the other 49% so the mandate is less than robust.

 

Democracy is often confused with "majority rule".    Sometimes it is better to try and get consensus-based solutions as opposed to steamrollering things using "democracy" as the reason.

 

The more you steamroller, the more the likelihood of a negative response.

 

In this case though I am not sure if a consensus view would be obtainable but I wonder if there was an attempt to achieve one?

[niblick1874]

Unless you are willing to back up claims like "no checks or balances" and "throwing the Constitution out" with an actual legal argument that either is the case, please do not even go there.

 

How far do you have to read into the Constitution before you get to the bit about free speech. Should America thrown the first amendment out the window?

[Justin Z]

How far do you have to read into the Constitution before you get to the bit about free speech. Should America thrown the first amendment out the window?

 

I'm going to just throw this out there for full disclosure--I spent three years in law school and took every class on Constitutional Law I could.  I wrote a 50+ page paper on Scientology and the First Amendment.  Since graduating I have litigated criminal cases that had Consitutional implications.

 

With that fully understood, what are you even trying to ask by your questions?  Regardless, to answer the first one, you have to read through the entire original constitution, which comprises a preamble and seven articles, you have to read about halfway through the first amendment of the so-called Bill of Rights.

 

How/where do you feel the bit in the Constitution about free speech has been violated by anything a private actor or actors has/have done?  The Amendment reads, in relevant part, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".  By definition, there is no First Amendment conflict when we're talking about the actions private citizens have taken in their capacities as private citizens holding no office or position with the government.  It's literally impossible to be a violation of the Constitution in such a context.

[Governor Tarkin]

There are literally hundreds of Civil War sites all over the United States, which millions of schoolchildren have visited. Same goes for the War of Independence and others. So while I appreciate your examples, it still seems like you are continuing to wilfully miss the point that the only reason these particular monuments exist is because racists in government constructed them as symbols of oppression in the 1950s and 60s as backlash against the Black movement for equal rights--and importantly, they continue to stand as symbols of that oppression today. There are plenty of opportunities to talk about the racism and inequalities of the past and present without allowing blatant representations of white supremacy ideology to remain, especially since a government upkeeping them is rightly seen to be endorsing them. Similarly, there are no monuments to Hitler, Nazism, antisemitism, or anything of the sort in Germany; there are all kinds of historical monuments, museums, sites, remembrances--opportunities for learning and understanding--there and throughout Europe, without them. It's pretty easily understood there that there is no value in giving backward adherents to these ideologies points to rally around, or in harming those people attacked by those ideologies by allowing them to remain. Indeed, Austria has already moved to destroyed Hitler's birth house for just that reason.

 

You're not comparing like for like and I'm running out of excuses, at least in my mind, for why you might be continuing to confuse the issue.

 

I get Jambo-Jimbo's point, but this is a good post.

[Peebo]

I agree that the locals, as you call them, have a right to determine whether things like statues remain or are moved or renamed. That makes sense.

 

However this is where a problem lies - lets say 51% of locals want a change, thats fine but it will piss-off the other 49% so the mandate is less than robust.

 

Democracy is often confused with "majority rule". Sometimes it is better to try and get consensus-based solutions as opposed to steamrollering things using "democracy" as the reason.

 

The more you steamroller, the more the likelihood of a negative response.

 

In this case though I am not sure if a consensus view would be obtainable but I wonder if there was an attempt to achieve one?

We are talking about talking down an entirely run-of-the-mill statue from a city park, not rewriting the constitution (or, for example, pulling the rug from under the healthcare system with no proposed replacement). I'm personally comfortable with city councils being empowered to do that.

 

I suspect the locals (as I would call them, as they are the locals...) are OK with that, since about 4 out of 5 who voted last year chose Clinton. If not, they can vote in a council who puts the ****ing thing back up.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

To clarify, do you think that all such statues and symbols should remain, even if the locals don't want them?

 

Not sure if you aware, but these things are all over the place. Do they all need to remain?

 

And do you genuinely think that keeping them up is the only thing educating people about the related issues? From certain perspectives, the historical issues are not actually in the past...

 

That would depend upon the reasons why the locals don't want them, which could vary from city to city and state to state.

 

Yes I am aware that there are many hundreds of statues all over America, not just in the Southern States.

 

Not necessarily, I was referring to the more recent ones put up within the last 50 or 60 years or so during the Civil Rights Movements and depending upon location and who commissioned them, many of whom if not all where clearly put up as symbol of white supremacy, these are the ones which could be used against the racists who put them up.

[Justin Z]

I suspect the locals (as I would call them, as they are the locals...) are OK with that, since about 4 out of 5 who voted last year chose Clinton. If not, they can vote in a council who puts the ******* thing back up.

 

This is an interesting point but also dovetails nicely into why these monuments are here.  The federal government stepped in and passed the Civil Rights Act when it was clear that rights weren't going to be voluntarily extended to non-whites in the South.  It also stepped in and controlled the actions of private citizens as regards race and doing business, which was unprecedented up to then.  Deeside did rightly point out that democracy does not equate 1:1 with majority rule.

 

I don't think federal action will be taken again, and honestly although I think there's arguments to be made that these monuments violate federal and possibly constitutional law, I wouldn't want to be the one making them.

[Sharpie]

How far do you have to read into the Constitution before you get to the bit about free speech. Should America thrown the first amendment out the window?

 

 

atThere certainly is facility for Free Speech in the Constitution,  but nowhere in that section does it approve, allow or condone the use of violence while exercising that Right.

[niblick1874]

I'm going to just throw this out there for full disclosure--I spent three years in law school and took every class on Constitutional Law I could.  I wrote a 50+ page paper on Scientology and the First Amendment.  Since graduating I have litigated criminal cases that had Consitutional implications.

 

With that fully understood, what are you even trying to ask by your questions?  Regardless, to answer the first one, you have to read through the entire original constitution, which comprises a preamble and seven articles, you have to read about halfway through the first amendment of the so-called Bill of Rights.

 

How/where do you feel the bit in the Constitution about free speech has been violated by anything a private actor or actors has/have done?  The Amendment reads, in relevant part, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech".  By definition, there is no First Amendment conflict when we're talking about the actions private citizens have taken in their capacities as private citizens holding no office or position with the government.  It's literally impossible to be a violation of the Constitution in such a context.

 

The police are not private actors and nether is the chief of police or the mayor that tells him what to do.

 

More sleight of hand from you.  

[Peebo]

This is an interesting point but also dovetails nicely into why these monuments are here. The federal government stepped in and passed the Civil Rights Act when it was clear that rights weren't going to be voluntarily extended to non-whites in the South. It also stepped in and controlled the actions of private citizens as regards race and doing business, which was unprecedented up to then. Deeside did rightly point out that democracy does not equate 1:1 with majority rule.

 

I don't think federal action will be taken again, and honestly although I think there's arguments to be made that these monuments violate federal and possibly constitutional law, I wouldn't want to be the one making them.

Yes, I do understand the concept of democracy.

 

This decision is a local council deciding to remove something from a municipal park. Something I think they have a mandate to do, both theoretically and practically. **** all to do with the federal government, or really people from outside the city.

[niblick1874]

atThere certainly is facility for Free Speech in the Constitution,  but nowhere in that section does it approve, allow or condone the use of violence while exercising that Right.

 

You are right. When did the violence kick off.  Was it before or when the counter demonstration turn up? 

[Sharpie]

I can well understand where the presence of a statue can cause displeasure. The Civil war was a brutal affair, and strangely enough so many of the participants were immmigrants some fairly recent to the Country. I doubt most of them barely understood what they were fighting for but done it anyway.

 

I am aware personally of one statue that was destroyed after a military episode.  At the entrance to the harbour at Port Said was a statue to Ferdinand de Lesseps the builder of the Suez Canal. After the 1956 invasion by Britain and France the statue was torn down and I don't think has ever been returned.  De Lesseps by building the Canal opened for Egypt a source of economic help, he was not to my knowledge politically motivated and certainly had nothing to do with a 1956 invasion.   I guess it proof as in Charlottesville regardless of what the statue represents, or commemorates it is an inanimate object that can offer no explanation of how it feels so can be exploited by opposing groups to justify their violence, discrimination, and totally opposite view to another person or persons.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

There are literally hundreds of Civil War sites all over the United States, which millions of schoolchildren have visited.  Same goes for the War of Independence and others. So while I appreciate your examples, it still seems like you are continuing to wilfully miss the point that the only reason these particular monuments exist is because racists in government constructed them as symbols of oppression in the 1950s and 60s as backlash against the Black movement for equal rights--and importantly, they continue to stand as symbols of that oppression today.  There are plenty of opportunities to talk about the racism and inequalities of the past and present without allowing blatant representations of white supremacy ideology to remain, especially since a government upkeeping them is rightly seen to be endorsing them.  Similarly, there are no monuments to Hitler, Nazism, antisemitism, or anything of the sort in Germany; there are all kinds of historical monuments, museums, sites, remembrances--opportunities for learning and understanding--there and throughout Europe, without them.  It's pretty easily understood there that there is no value in giving backward adherents to these ideologies points to rally around, or in harming those people attacked by those ideologies by allowing them to remain.  Indeed, Austria has already moved to destroyed Hitler's birth house for just that reason.

 

You're not comparing like for like and I'm running out of excuses, at least in my mind, for why you might be continuing to confuse the issue.

 

I don't think I am 'Continuing to wilfully miss the point', especially when I acknowledged and agreed with your point about the reasons of why the statues were erected during the 50's & 60's. 

 

I presented an alternative view point of what could be done with the said statues, and of how they could be used against the very people who erected them, and the reasons why they were erected could be used to educate future generations, quite how that can be construed as being to continually and wilfully missing the point, I fail to see.

[Adam Murray]

Swaying off topic slightly, I've always enjoyed reading and watching all things 'Civil War', and there's certainly been a lot more controversial figures from that time than Robert E Lee, so I had a quick look to see if there's been any kind of controversy surrounding any of their statues. Probably the most controversial, due to his links with the KKK, is Nathan Bedford Forrest, and it was unanimously decided by Memphis City Council to remove a bust of Forrest from the States Capitol building following the Charleston church shooting by a white supremacist in 2015, the Tennessee Historical Commission denied the removal though under the Tennessee Heritage Protection act of 2013, which protects war memorials on public property from cities or countries relocating, removing, renaming or otherwise disturbing them.

It would seem it may even be a legal and political minefield for councils just to randomly start removing some of these statues, so I would imagine that any which are removed, will have been thoroughly scrutinised and above board (apart from the ones by baying mobs, of course  )

[Seymour M Hersh]

Am I correct in thinking the American Civil War started as a war of secession and nothing to do with slavery. It was not until after two years of war did Lincoln begin to call it a war of emancipation?  

[Sharpie]

You are right. When did the violence kick off.  Was it before or when the counter demonstration turn up? 

 

Does it matter really when it happened, when did it kick off, when groups dressed, equipped themselves with protective and offensive equipment in anticipation of mayhem, they left home with that in mind. That is when it started. It totally goes against everything I believe in, but I almost,almost agree with Trump, there were splinter groups of all the participants including the peaceful groups who were prepared for violence.  Some in my opinion were prepared to be offensive and others may have been prepared only to defend themselves, but violence is violence and as has been shown in this case when it is released it is like mad dogs, totally beyond control. There is no justifiable reason for situations as occurred in Charlottesville on the weekend.  In days gone by we used to watch the news in the cinema, and laugh and jeer at the stupid people in South American and other countries rioting and demonstrating, I may   be wrong but it seems it really became fashionable and acceptable to us during the Vietnam war days, and they sure got nasty considering they were for peace. 

[Bridge of Djoum]

I for one am outraged at the wilful and wanton violation of this statue's human rights.

Justin, I was agreeing with you all the way until your ''pandering to white supremacists'' nonsense.  That's offensive IMO.

 

Pulling down this latest statue is criminal damage. Fact. Removal by the democratically elected local authority is one thing. Foaming crowds of people, whether they be on the right or left acting in this manner is criminal. 

 

You have to condemn it. Of course in your eyes, that's me sticking up for right wing arseholes, which it isn't. 

 

The answers to problems generally lie in the center somewhere. Rarely do they come from all the way right or all the way left. You seem to be so far left that you can't find the balance here. Finding the middle ground is absolutely the starting place for resolution.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Am I correct in thinking the American Civil War started as a war of secession and nothing to do with slavery. It was not until after two years of war did Lincoln begin to call it a war of emancipation?  

 

As far as I'm aware, you are correct.

 

The war started in April 1861 and initially Lincoln went to war to save the Union not to free the slaves.

 

In August 1862, he famously wrote to the New York Tribune: ?If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.?

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-myths-about-slavery

 

It wasn't until late 1862 that Lincoln became convinced about making the war an issue of freeing the slaves and so the Emancipation Proclamation took effect in January 1863, however it only applied to some of the slaves, those who were in rebel area's, there was no such freedom for the slaves in border states because Lincoln needed them to remain loyal to the Union cause.

[Seymour M Hersh]

As far as I'm aware, you are correct.

 

The war started in April 1861 and initially Lincoln went to war to save the Union not to free the slaves.

 

In August 1862, he famously wrote to the New York Tribune: ?If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that.?

http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/5-myths-about-slavery

 

It wasn't until late 1862 that Lincoln became convinced about making the war an issue of freeing the slaves and so the Emancipation Proclamation took effect in January 1863, however it only applied to some of the slaves, those who were in rebel area's, there was no such freedom for the slaves in border states because Lincoln needed them to remain loyal to the Union cause.

 

Indeed and this whole horrible episode in Virginia is about the statue of Robert E Lee (not the car). Is that the Robert E Lee who freed all his slaves before the war started?

[Ulysses]

I'm going to just throw this out there for full disclosure--I spent three years in law school and took every class on Constitutional Law I could.  I wrote a 50+ page paper on Scientology and the First Amendment.  Since graduating I have litigated criminal cases that had Consitutional implications.

 

So what?

 

Law school, schmaw school.

 

Until you watch lots of YouTube videos, forget how to read and write properly, and develop your own range of tinfoil headgear, you know absolutely nothing.

 

Just saying.

[Ulysses]

The great thing about threads like this is the way they flush out the people with dodgy views. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

Indeed and this whole horrible episode in Virginia is about the statue of Robert E Lee (not the car). Is that the Robert E Lee who freed all his slaves before the war started?

 

To be honest I don't really know.

 

I think he inherited slaves from his mother & father but I don't know what became of them.

He did free his father-in-laws slaves in December 1862 under the terms of his father-in-laws will, but his father-in-law died 5 years beforehand in 1857, but I don't know the full story as to why there was a 5 year delay, I suspect money or the lack of it (debts) may have had something to do with why there was a delay, again I don't know the whole story with this.

[John Findlay]

The great thing about threads like this is the way they flush out the people with dodgy views.

Define dodgy views? ?:-0)

[Dinger]

i fail to see how causing trouble, pulling down a statue, breaking the law and damaging things is ok, 

 

why not just put the statue in a history museum? no matter people feelings on it its a big part of american history.