(05-28-2019 11:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 10:56 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 10:45 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 10:42 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-28-2019 10:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There is no place for statues memorializing and honoring generals and leaders of the Confederates - remember, those people led an open rebellion against the country.
Museums and historical markers are places for those sorts of remeberances. Memorials honoring the dead and the atrocities of that bloody war make perfect sense and should not be removed (I haven't seen any issues being brought up with those).
But many statues were not erected to honor and memorialize those lost in senseless violence. Many were erected to celebrate the Confederacy, such as the Jefferson Davis monument in New Orleans, which was dedicated in 1911 (during a "whites only" ceremony, no less) on the 50th anniversary of his inauguration. A far cry from laying flowers on graves of soldiers.
We should follow Germany's lead in memorializing our Civil War - focusing only on those who lost in the war or historically important events, and not on the leaders of the side fighting for a great injustice.
Why should we honor and memorialize the leaders of an open rebellion against our country?

So you, 150 years later, know more about what should and should not be done than did contemporaries on both sides who lived through it?
I must say that I am impressed with your ominipotence. Or is it your arrogance?

No clue what you're getting at there or where you're getting 150 years later.

Math. 2019-1866 = 153, 2019-1868 = 151. Those are the dates in OO's posts, and the people acting in those cases were contemporaries.

(05-28-2019 10:48 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  A lot of those statues (as Lad alluded to) were erected in the early 1900's as an open FU to black people working towards equal rights. So probably neither omnipotence nor arrogance.

I don't believe either OO or I were referring to things done in the early 1900s.

So leave up the statues that were placed during a certain time period and take the rest out? Or evaluate each statue on a case-by-case basis?

I would say case-by-case basis. I don't think any statue that was erected primarily for the purpose of intimidation should be retained in its current position. I think the more appropriate place for statues of confederate soldiers should be on the battlefields where they fought.

I would suggest that a statue like Robert E. Lee in New Orleans would be more appropriately moved to somewhere that Lee actually fought, and could be replaced by someone like Andrew Jackson (who clearly has a strong connection to New Orleans, although I think there are already statues of him) or maybe Claire Chennault (who led the Flying Tigers in China and who died in New Orleans).

I am totally opposed to any attempts to destroy history. But I think some things that are done to remember history could be done in more appropriate places.

I still remember when Memorial Day was known as Decoration Day in the south, and we were taught the story of Columbus in elementary school.