United States Confederate Statues, symbols, and memorials debate thread

Big Steve

For the Republic!
Founder
What also shouldn't be understated was the sentiment of the Union, while not being entirely sovereign, still being something to feel loyalty to. The Union commanded a strong sentiment in both sections, the feeling of a common destiny for all of the English-speaking ex-colonies that successfully revolted from Great Britain in the late 18th Century, whatever their individual differences. That for said Union to be divided would result not in greater freedom for the states, but the horrors of warfare and of European meddling in North American affairs. Indeed, that the failure of the Union would bring a cry of triumph and vindication from the courts of Europe, of confirmation of their biases against popular government by and for the people.

What eventually overpowered this was the loyalty of so many Southerners to their social system, built on slavery and the perceptions baked into it. Loyalty to slavery had to be professed and failure to do so adequately led to damaging charges of disloyalty to family, friends, neighbors, and homes by political adversaries. You had to stump for slavery, push for it, you could never let yourself be found wanting, and if accused the best defense was a good offense: your foe is the true softheart!

This led to the woeful pattern of Southern pushes for "protections" of slavery, even if it undermined the Union's institutions, as Southerners would goad each other into demanding more and more. The Gag Rule, the way that the annexation of Texas was accomplished (Texas was seen as vital to the defense of slavery due to concerns that Houston might bring Texas into English orbit and attract loads of free labor English immigrants by beginning to abolitionize), then the Fugitive Slave Act and the demolishing of the Missouri Compromise with the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Each step furthered Northern discontent with the South and the feeling that in the defense of slavery Southerners would fasten shackles to the political and civil liberties of the North as well. This ultimately led to the rise of the Republican Party and the desperate straits of Northern Democrats, who often were maneuvered into voting for pro-slavery actions by the vocal Southern influence of their party.
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
No, of course not—had we disposed of the Planters after the war we would have had a far superior system that would no longer suffer from the pollution that was the planter class’ influence, which in turn would have meant that far fewer people in the rest of the country would have been tempted by left-wing political thought in largely part due to aversion to the planters’ repulsive nature. Tell me, were there no planters, do you really believe that so many African-Americans would have been drawn to the left wing, attracted as they were (not unjustifiably) by the fact that the socialists would stand up for them against the planter elites while the rest of us Americans so abandoned them in the name of “national reconciliation”? Would so many upper middle class Americans turn to the liberals out of disgust the backwards savagery of the planter class’ depredations? That America has chosen to embrace the planters back with open arms is the root of so many of our present political ills, and it has lost so many moral, principled people to the arms of the left as they turn in disgust at our alliance with this group that is the scum of the earth. Had we enacted retribution on the south’s elites and seized the property of the planters to hand to their slaves, we would have had none of these troubles.

That might be all well and good in theory, even if I doubt it, but the question would then be begged: How do you keep the whole of the South from becoming a flaming ulcer from which we are ultimately forced to withdraw? The kind of ruthless tactics you propose have arguably backfired far more often than conciliation. There was no indication of the Planters being successfully separated from the rural white poor.

Furthermore, the Readjusters' mere existence demonstrates quite clearly that indigenous southern Pan-racial coalitions were possible, which calls into question some of the sheer vehemence of the condemnation you present of their culture (additionally to the matter of their relations with the Five Civilised Tribes).
 

Big Steve

For the Republic!
Founder
While in some areas grumbling against rich white folk was heard among the poor whites, poor whites were far more conscious of their status in relation to blacks: that is, they were always going to demand they be held on a higher plane, just as in the days of slavery being white and free immediately made them superior to even the best-educated house slave, or even an ex-slave. If you seize the land of planters - and not all were the uber-rich ones either - and give it to their slaves, indeed any action to raise the slaves to equality, it is going to enrage large sections of the poor white populace who see themselves as better and will view such conduct as reducing them to the level of slaves themselves. This will bind them to rebellious planters all the more strongly. And in many areas of the south, the wide links of family connections in the local communities means those planters are seen as family to the poor whites, are indeed cousins or even siblings or uncles or aunts. Bribing them with a share of their relatives' stolen land - the rest to go to hated blacks who are now not just economic competitors but also imposed social equals - is not going to work as well as you think.

The sad fact is that it takes time to change such social perceptions. Slow, grinding time, which sucks for the people who have to endure abuse and oppression of course.

The only other alternative might be something like, say, focusing black populations into the "Black belts" where they were already a majority or near-majority, and encouraging poor whites to emigrate elsewhere. Then seeing about property redistribution. But you're still going to have problems. And perhaps a loss of will among Northerners who saw the war as saving loyal Unionist whites in the South from the slaveholders that seized control of their states, people who didn't give a single damn about helping the freedmen.
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
My understanding was that the original idea of the KKK was much closer to being a "Confederate Veterans association with silly hats and titles" than what it later morphed into... That KKK was eventually quashed too, from my understanding, and the Second KKK from the early and mid 20th century was an entirely different beast that was just using the same name, looks, and titles specifically as a reference to the first... again until they were destroyed in the late 20th century and fractured into numerous little local KKK chapters without any real central organization and no real political power.

That's broadly correct, with the caveat that "what it later morphed into" is still within the time of the original KKK and not just the second and third incarnations. The first KKK was extensively involved in "night rider" violence against blacks and any whites whites percieved as carpetbaggers or otherwise hostile to white Southern interests.

That scene in Django Unchained is actually pretty accurate, except they didn't actually wear the hoods or other regalia during the night raids.

Look, you seem to be insinuating that I support slavery or that I'm secretly a neonazi or something just because I don't think destroying our history is acceptable. What's your real problem here?

The anti-Confederate viewpoint is that many of these statues have never been legitimately part of "our history"; rather, they were created long after the fact specifically as racist propaganda. This is reinforced by the fact that the statues that are actually being targeted have no objective value as monumental statuary; they are mass produced low quality generic pieces.
 
Last edited:

Greengrass

Well-known member
to this I say, Alex Jones.

oh, so you HAVEN'T been hearing about how following Alex Jones getting banned from basically everywhere a bunch of other people have been having similar experiences? interesting.
If you're going to drop a contentless one-liner, at least include a link to something where people can read what you're referring to. Also, what does Alex Jones have to do with Confederate monuments?
 

ShadowsOfParadox

Well-known member
Alex Jones and what followed is literally
This is reinforced by the fact that the statues that are actually being targeted have no objective value as monumental statuary; they are mass produced low quality generic pieces.
As far as most people are concerned Alex Jones was a noisy conspiracy theorist with far more appeal than most conspiracy theorists. So basically no one besides REALLY hardcore Free Speech Absolutists actually gave much of a damn about him getting banned from everywhere. At least initially. There were a few early people going "uhhhhh, one person being banned that comprehensively is kind of weird" but most people didn't care at all and nearly no one cared beyond that.

Similarly, that the statues CURRENTLY being targeted are as quoted fulfills the same purpose of making the take downs as uncontroversial as possible. Even the video I've seen about how it's bad that they are being targeted wasn't about them being targeted, it was about one that got pulled down by mob action instead of via legislation pressured by mob action.

Now, you are going to say "slippery slope".

But Freedom Toons has an interesting video about the "slippery slope fallacy"
 
D

Deleted member 1

Guest
Yes, the statues of the humble soldiers are mass-produced, usually in the North. In small New England towns we have lots of ones identified only by their USA belt buckles and often a different hat to stand out from the ones in the South. But that turns them into an entire cultural phenomenon of how towns were memorialising their war dead in the United States after the war was over, from both sides. It's a documentation of our similiarities in a rather poignant form: At the end, the widows and orphans of both Armies sent their pennies and fundraiser drives to the same company for statues with the same expression on the face.
 

Battlegrinder

Someday we will win, no matter what it takes.
Moderator
Staff Member
Founder
Obozny
This is reinforced by the fact that the statues that are actually being targeted have no objective value as monumental statuary; they are mass produced low quality generic pieces.

Of course they have no objective value, save for as scrap metal or something. It's art, their value is entirely subjective and based only on what people believe them to be worth.

But I strongly object to the idea that merely because they were mass produced (and, as with many things related to this issue, that's not true of all of them and that point should be made on a case by case basis), they therefor lack artistic merit or historical value. That kind of thinking has always struck me as rather snobbish. Nor do I seem them as being low quality (hell, they're still around after an hundred and some years, seems like they're pretty well made), having seen a fair number of memorial sculptures and other statues, they seem about on par with the rest.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Alex Jones and what followed is literally

As far as most people are concerned Alex Jones was a noisy conspiracy theorist with far more appeal than most conspiracy theorists. So basically no one besides REALLY hardcore Free Speech Absolutists actually gave much of a damn about him getting banned from everywhere. At least initially. There were a few early people going "uhhhhh, one person being banned that comprehensively is kind of weird" but most people didn't care at all and nearly no one cared beyond that.

Similarly, that the statues CURRENTLY being targeted are as quoted fulfills the same purpose of making the take downs as uncontroversial as possible. Even the video I've seen about how it's bad that they are being targeted wasn't about them being targeted, it was about one that got pulled down by mob action instead of via legislation pressured by mob action.

Now, you are going to say "slippery slope".

But Freedom Toons has an interesting video about the "slippery slope fallacy"

Your running behind targeting of the founders has already begun. They want to remove a "problematic" mural of Washington. The fact of the matter is that even if the folks in here are arguing in good faith. The main driver behind the statue removal is destruction of American history and culture. The only reason they went after Confederates first. Is that they are low hanging mostly safe targets.
 

Urabrask Revealed

Let them go.
Founder
Your running behind targeting of the founders has already begun. They want to remove a "problematic" mural of Washington. The fact of the matter is that even if the folks in here are arguing in good faith. The main driver behind the statue removal is destruction of American history and culture. The only reason they went after Confederates first. Is that they are low hanging mostly safe targets.
Another example how compromise is getting smeared thanks to the works of the Left. The sooner our side realizes that Compromise is poison as it stands, the sooner we can call the bluff.
 

Lanmandragon

Well-known member
Another example how compromise is getting smeared thanks to the works of the Left. The sooner our side realizes that Compromise is poison as it stands, the sooner we can call the bluff.
I mean I despise the Confederacy on a visceral level. I'm a descendent of an escaped slave turned union soldier. The thing is they aren't real shy about making thier intent known. So they can get bent in my opinion.
 

ShadowsOfParadox

Well-known member
Your running behind targeting of the founders has already begun. They want to remove a "problematic" mural of Washington. The fact of the matter is that even if the folks in here are arguing in good faith. The main driver behind the statue removal is destruction of American history and culture. The only reason they went after Confederates first. Is that they are low hanging mostly safe targets.
yes, but this thread isnt about "so that White-washing of the Founders by removing that minority made mural depicting Washington's slave plantation"
 

ShadowArxxy

Well-known member
Comrade
Your running behind targeting of the founders has already begun. They want to remove a "problematic" mural of Washington. The fact of the matter is that even if the folks in here are arguing in good faith. The main driver behind the statue removal is destruction of American history and culture. The only reason they went after Confederates first. Is that they are low hanging mostly safe targets.

Except the "problematic" mural of Washington is being targeted because it was painted by a minority artist and presents a balanced view of Washington which includes his flaws, which is the opposite political view from what you're implying.

They were organizing and acting under a very different framework of what the idea of the United States were (and again, this was a conception that was not just held by the South).

That is a fair point, but I will point out that while the Southerners argued that secession was an innate right of sovereign states, they themselves immediately turned around and barred states from seceding from the CSA.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
Certainly, I admit that it’s a bold statement, but I would argue that it’s true. At the time of America’s founding state cultures were still rather separate, but even at that point I think one can clearly say that a distinct “northern” and “southern” culture already existed—there is a reason why, for instance, the founders felt compelled to move the capital from Philidelphia, the birthplace of the Revolution, to a swamp on the Potomac just to be between north and south. These two cultures were confederated by quick of geography—they happened to share a continent and thus share the oppression of the British—but I would not say that they had much more to do with eachother than any other pair of British descendants, say, the north and Britain itself.

The antebellum South—and its modern remnants—has been America’s personal national serpent for almost all of our history, whispering sweep temptations into our ear responsible for the vast majority of America’s worst moral atrocities. That we tolerated slavery at all was because the South brought to the United States in their endless search for subjugation. That we expelled the Five Civilized Tribes was because of the South. That our culture of commerce has become ruthlessly extractive and inequitable and focused on short term profit, which in turn has contributed to the rise of socialism against it, is in large part due to the influence of the South, which had little of the cultural commitment to charity that the North did as befits its founding as a cynical profitmaking venture, and which despises regulation or intervention that is good and promotes regulation or intervention that is bad. That religion has lost credibility in America has much to do with the South, whose sham religions like Southern Baptism or Pentecostalism or so forth have indelibly marked the reputation of the Christian faith throughout the rest of America. So much of what is bad about the United States, and so little of what is good about it, is directly attributable to the antebellum South or its modern day remnants, still the descendants of the repulsive planter elites. I see no reason why we should extend them any measure of charity.
Late reply, but bolded paragraph is precisely why the Confederate soldier fought.

As a southerner, I do not take kindly to your moral condemnatory ramblings from on high.

The South is...probably the most patriotic and all round most virtuous part of the country. Uninfected by Yankee "activism" and having the best grasp of human nature. That is inherent selfishess, that can only be redeemed via spiritual atonement.

The South is responsible for American expansion, its sons led the country in its first decades. It gave a lot for America and got this shit back.

The North and its moral propagandists as shown above, have always condemned the South neither understanding its peculiarities, or its history, and seeking to stamp out a different civilization.

Much like the old Puritans of New England-morally righteous and insufferable. But someone with an Oliver Cromwell avatar this sort of authoritarian and utterly wretched moralism is to be expected.
 

CarlManvers2019

Writers Blocked Douchebag
Late reply, but bolded paragraph is precisely why the Confederate soldier fought.

As a southerner, I do not take kindly to your moral condemnatory ramblings from on high.

The South is...probably the most patriotic and all round most virtuous part of the country. Uninfected by Yankee "activism" and having the best grasp of human nature. That is inherent selfishess, that can only be redeemed via spiritual atonement.

The South is responsible for American expansion, its sons led the country in its first decades. It gave a lot for America and got this shit back.

Yeah, but things like slavery & KKK are stuff you'd be most remembered for

Plus, the "Southern Accent" is something I'm pretty sure has negative attachments or is associated with a bunch of low-class, backwards and socially regressive stuff



It doesn't matter what's historical or recent fact or if you guys changed for the better. What matters is perception of those around you and things like liking things like Confederate Statues and Flags is a bludgeon to be used against you alongside your non-Northern and non-European accents
 
D

Deleted member 88

Guest
The South is villainized because it is the one thing standing in the way of Yankee hegemony.

Culturally and otherwise.

A book needs to be written on how all the goddamn social justice movements and activism and SJW shit has its origins in yankee moralizing puritanism. In God damn Ralph Waldo Emerson who also coincidentally hated the South.

Yankee values(which also influenced the west coast by the way combined with the free spirited greed of the prospectors) are the cultural hegemon of America. The South has always stood opposed to this-from the earliest days.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top