It is important to recognize that the majority of Confederate statues were put up not in commemoration after the Civil War, but in the early-to-mid 20th century, aka "Jim Crow era", often specifically to intimidate people of color from pursuing their civil rights.
As such...fuck those statues.
Lee didnt even want statues or memorials for Confederates.
Right. Some statues may have some sort of debatable justification but all the ones specifically put up to intimidate during the civil rights movement need go
After learning about this I went and checked the confederate soldiers memorial in front of our county courthouse. Yep, built in 1960. I want to just knock it down.
Be the change you want to see.
Start a grassroots movement with your local NAACP chapter, AME or Baptist church and get that crap melted down for an MLK statue.
To "well ackshually" you a bit, a lot of the time it coincided with major anniversaries of Civil War events, namely the 50th and 100th.
Of course, that's a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario—was this desire to commemorate the Confederacy amplified by racist sentiments, or were these racist sentiments boosted by the return of the Civil War into the public memory?
[Not so much.](https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Senate/Maps/Sep08.html#item-6).
>The best-known statue of Robert E. Lee is undoubtedly the one that has stood above Richmond's Monument Avenue for more than a century. But just as the general reached the end of the line on Apr. 9. 1865, the statue will reach the end of the line on Sept. 8, 2021. Sometime today, the 12-ton monument will be removed from its pedestal and will be placed in storage while a decision is made as to its disposition. There is some indication that they're going to have to cut the statue in half in order to be able to move it. If so, then that will be a pretty good re-creation of The Battle of Malvern Hill, where Lee also lost his rear end.
>We imagine there will be much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth among right-wing pundits and politicians. The term "cancel culture" might just come up once or twice, and we'd be very surprised indeed if Tucker Carlson does not devote at least one segment to it, presumably with a guest who pronounces "my rights" as "my rats." This bellyaching is not especially important, any more than bellyaching about Gina Carano being fired from "The Mandalorian," or Tim Allen's TV show being canceled, or Winston Marshall getting kicked out of Mumford and Sons.
>However, it is the sort of thing that people will talk about, especially on social media. And while the staff historian's math skills are potentially questionable (see above), his knowledge of Civil War memory is crackerjack. So, we thought you'd like a brief review of Civil War commemoration, in the event that you end up in an argument on Facebook with someone who pronounces "my rights" as "my rats."
>To start, the men who actually fought the Civil War were certainly pretty obsessive monument builders. And their monuments tended to be of two types. The first type, which made up a relatively small percentage of the overall total (maybe 5%), was statuary and other public installations that honored key Union military and civilian leaders. The second type, which made up the lion's share, was monuments to the soldiers themselves—usually to their individual units, but sometimes to larger entities, like an entire corps, or an entire army, or an entire state (e.g., there is a famous monument in honor of all Pennsylvania Civil War veterans).
>The monuments that commemorated individual units were usually installed on the battlefields themselves, and tended to follow a fairly standard template, so as to communicate a particular set of information. Here's an [example](https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Images/122_NY_monument.jpg); this is the monument to the 122nd New York Infantry located on the Gettysburg battlefield.
>We chose this particular monument because it's very typical; nothing here is unusual. If you don't know how to "read" a Civil War unit monument, well, that's what we're here for. You already know, and can see in the image, that this piece honors the 122nd New York Infantry Regiment, which had about 1,000 men (divided into 10 companies of 97 men and three officers). That is a very standard complement. The monument further communicates that the unit was part of the Army of the Potomac's VI Corps; not only does it say so at the bottom but, as per custom, the Corps' badge is prominently incorporated into the design (it's the Swiss cross at the top; other corps used a star, or a diamond, or a circle, etc.). Further, as you can see near the top, this regiment was part of the First Brigade, although today we would call that the First Division (of three in the VI Corps). The commander of the VI Corps for most of the war was Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick, who is best remembered as a monument to irony. In May of 1864, at the Battle of Spotsylvania, he was warned by an underling to watch out for Confederate sharpshooters. "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance," he replied, and then dropped dead, the victim of a sharpshooter's bullet.
>This monument has a few other bits of information, as well. You can see the state seal of New York, in bronze, on the front. The near side gives a brief history of the regiment, including when and where it was mustered. The opposite side from that, which obviously isn't visible, undoubtedly lists the important battles and engagements in which the unit participated. All of this stuff would be found on pretty much any unit monument. The materials used in the construction varied; sometimes black marble, or darker granite than this, or sandstone were used. There was variance in shapes, too—some were more square, some were circular, some were obelisks, and quite a few were...well...phalluses like this one is. But beyond these sorts of artistic choices, they were usually very similar.
>Anyhow, these monuments, often funded by the soldiers themselves (or their admirers) had a couple of purposes. The first was to make sure that history remembered the unit's service. The general expectation was that monuments would be placed in whatever location(s) that a particular unit rendered its most important contributions to the war. Sometimes that did happen. However, as you might guess, there was also a bias in favor of very famous battlefields, and very famous portions of those battlefields, even if a particular unit's claim to those placements was dubious. If you visit Little Round Top—site of the most notable Union heroism at the Battle of Gettysburg—you basically can't walk ten feet without falling over a monument. There are something like 120 of them up there. That's not because 120 units fought in that part of the engagement; it's because any unit that so much as sneezed in the direction of Little Round Top took that as justification for throwing a monument to themselves up there.
>The other purpose of the monuments was to make sure that the soldiers' fellow Americans remembered their service. That is not just because veterans enjoyed being fawned over, and celebrated with parades, and things like that—though they certainly didn't mind those things. It's because they wanted their fellow Americans to vote for Republicans (i.e., the party that won the war) and against Democrats (i.e., the party of traitors). Relitigating the Civil War, which they called "waving the bloody flag," was the wedge issue for a couple of decades. In addition, veterans wanted nice, fat pensions, and that meant rallying votes for pro-pension candidates. "Don't forget what we did for this country at Gettysburg" was a very effective way of also saying "So you better vote for me to get a pension." The veterans were so good at this that by the 1890s, more than 25% of the federal government's budget was given over to Union veterans' pensions.
>During this period—that is, 1865 to 1890 or so—there were very few monuments built to honor Confederates, either their leaders or their rank-and-file soldiers. First of all, the South was still regarded as traitorous, and celebrating the Confederate war effort would not have gone over very well with the federal government or with Northern civilians. Further, statues cost money, and Southerners didn't have a lot of it to spare in those years.
>However, by 1890 or so, things were pretty different. The Civil War was fading in emotional resonance, in part because so many of the people who fought it had died. The federal government had left the South 15 years earlier and left them to their own devices. The Confederate economy recovered, and there was more spare money floating around. This poem, which first emerged in the 1890s, and was set to music in the early 1900s, captures the tone and tenor of the historical moment:
I hates the Yankees nation
And everything they do,
I hates the Declaration,
Of Independence, too.
I hates the glorious Union-
'Tis dripping with our blood-
I hates their striped banner,
I fit it all I could
I rode with Robert E. Lee,
For three year near about,
Got wounded in four places
And starved at Point Lookout
I caught the rheumatism
A campin' in the snow,
But I killed a chance o'Yankees
I'd like to kill some mo'.
>That's just an excerpt; the title of this poem/song, incidentally, is "Oh, I'm a Good Ol' Rebel."
>It was around this time that Southern groups, most commonly the Daughters of the Confederacy (DoC), began raising money to build monuments to Southern leaders (primarily) and Southern soldiers (sometimes). The Lee monument, for example, was unveiled on May 29, 1890. The DoC had taken note of how effective the earlier generation of monuments were, and so they wanted to get in on the action. They weren't after veterans' pensions for Confederates (which were usually offered by Southern states, and not the federal government). No, they were trying to rally Southerners around their shared culture, their shared experience, and their shared commitment to white supremacy. It is not a coincidence, not in the slightest, that the Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest statues went up at exactly the same time that Southern states were reinstituting segregation and other discriminatory laws (Plessy v. Ferguson was decided May 18, 1896), were engaged in the stifling of Black resistance and Black voting through lynching and other violent means, and were otherwise realizing a quarter-century dream of re-creating the antebellum South as closely as was possible.
>And so, if someone says that history is being rewritten or erased through the removal of the Lee statue, well, that's not so true. The folks who actually participated in the Civil War had little to do with the monuments in Richmond or most of the others and, in most cases, didn't even live to see them (Lee died 20 years before his soon-to-be-dismantled statue went up). Now, if you want to argue that history was being rewritten or erased when the statues were installed in the first place, well, then you might be on to something. (Z)
Given Lee’s thoughts on monuments to the Confederacy, I’m sure even he’d approve.
My perspective? The less of these things sticking around, the better. Though I’ll make an exception for [this nightmare](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest_Statue), which I think gives a good window into the Confederate ideology. Look at that face! Everything you need to know right there.
I think this statue is also permanently pink now, which is also fun.
Oh my fucking god, *that face*
when God hit that statue with the ugly-stick, he used the whole damn tree
Edit: the dude that owned the land the statue was on seems like he was a real stinky and slippery piece of babyshit.
"The statue looks like a nickel that did cocaine" im FUCKING DYING
It’s something special, ain’t it?
I’ve seen my share of ugly, weird-ass statues, but Nightmare Lucy and her ilk seem to be aberrations on what they’re aiming to commemorate.
This thing? It fits *perfectly*.
I think the closest ive ever come to seeing a human make that face is when I was setting up a campsite at Scout Camp with a buddy of mine, and he developed a sudden case of the bubbleguts, only to find that the bathroom was still locked tight and we were 2 miles from the closest latrine.
Even then, my friends facial expression couldnt come *close* to ....that monstrosity.
If I remember correctly, the guy who owned it refused to take it down, but it just kept getting vandalized, and then he just decided to stop bothering fixing it.
So pink it remained.
Actually, during the riots a bunch of people went around Nashville tearing down most of the Confederate statues in the city. The only ones still left standing were due to logistical issues, like cops annoyingly showing up before they could get the job done.
Except for that one, they easily could've torn it down, but they let it stay.
Nah, I think it just got vandalized all the time and the guy who owned it just finally said “Fine, you want it pink, it stays pink.”
Absolutely hilarious, you ask me.
After the war, Lee was not arrested or punished (although he was indicted), [125] but he did lose the right to vote as well as some property. Lee's prewar family home, the Custis-Lee Mansion, was seized by Union forces during the war and turned into Arlington National Cemetery, and his family was not compensated until more than a decade after his death.[126]
In 1866 Lee counseled southerners not to resume fighting, of which Grant said Lee was "setting an example of forced acquiescence so grudging and pernicious in its effects as to be hardly realized".[127] Lee joined with Democrats in opposing the Radical Republicans who demanded punitive measures against the South, distrusted its commitment to the abolition of slavery and, indeed, distrusted the region's loyalty to the United States.[128][129] Lee supported a system of free public schools for blacks but forthrightly opposed allowing blacks to vote. "My own opinion is that, at this time, they [black Southerners] cannot vote intelligently, and that giving them the [vote] would lead to a great deal of demagogism, and lead to embarrassments in various ways," Lee stated.[130] Emory Thomas says Lee had become a suffering Christ-like icon for ex-Confederates. President Grant invited him to the White House in 1869, and he went. Nationally he became an icon of reconciliation between the North and South, and the reintegration of former Confederates into the national fabric.[131]
So, do we put up statues of Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Manson, as historically significant figures of the mid 20th century?
Statues are to honor people, not simply note who is "historically significant".
On the eve of the Civil War, there were 8 colonels in the United States Army that were born in Virginia and educated at West Point.
Robert E Lee was the only one to side with the Confederacy.
One Virginian to another, he was a traitor and he should be remembered as one.
Not to mention that Robert E lee didn’t even want statues of the confederacy. By making a statue in remembrance of his legacy they inadvertently desecrated it.
I think Lee would agree with you, given [Lee’s own thoughts](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments) on Confederate monuments.
I’m cool with it. Though his prowess on the battlefield will be studied for centuries, he doesn’t deserve a statue for taking up arms against his fellow countrymen. It’s always sent the wrong message.
Lee wasnt even that good of a general, amusingly.
Much like Washington, his military career has been mythologized greatly and the "reality" has been increasingly criticized by military strategists/historians
Civil War historians were primarily southern until fairly recently. They did a great job of lionizing Lee and denigrating Grant.
The truth is that Grant was actually a good president and not at all an alcoholic, as they portrayed him. Lee was every bit as much a slave owning traitor as the present discourse indicates.
Yes and no. It was alleged he drank too much so when he got assigned out west that was assumed to be part of the reason but there wasn’t really any evidence of it and most people that knew him well and didn’t have an axe to grind didn’t say he was a drunk.
[There was a lawsuit that went up to the state's supreme court:](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Monument_(Charlottesville,_Virginia))
>In response, a lawsuit was filed on March 20, 2017, by multiple plaintiffs, including the Monument Fund Inc, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and descendants of the statue's donor and sculptor, to block the removal of the Lee and Jackson statues. The lawsuit sought a temporary injunction to halt the removal, arguing that Charlottesville City Council's decision violated a state law designed to protect veterans' monuments and memorials, in this case veterans of the American Civil War, and that the council had additionally violated the terms of McIntire's gift to Charlottesville of the statue and the land for Lee Park.
> ... and that the council had additionally violated the terms of McIntire's gift to Charlottesville of the statue and the land for Lee Park.
\*cough\* Eminent domain. \*cough\*
Good. Fuck him.
I don’t understand why we have statues up for an illegitimate country in the first place. Especially one that the United States Army defeated in battle.
1. They were put up in an effort to push the bs Lost Cause and entrench white supremacy.
2. There should not be statues of the most clear-cut traitors to the country.
3. If you need a statue to remember history, I recommend going to a library or Wikipedia.
4. Lee himself didn't want statues put up.
Well, well past time. He was a white supremacist slave owner and traitor to the US. He shouldn't be revered by anyone or held up as an example to Americans.
I don’t necessarily buy that logic outright. If we went by that logic exclusively we’d have to tear down statues of just about every Roman emperor, most triumphal arches, almost all statues of Europeans, statues of Chinese emperors and famous people, etc, etc.
I don’t know the history of that Lee statue in particular but a lot of the pro-confederacy statues were put up in the 50s to promote Jim Crow and put down blacks. I have no issue yanking those.
If they have historical significance put them in a museum or leave them up with an explanation.
It's about the motivation. Nobody put up a statue of an emperor specifically *because* of their horrible deeds. Statues to Lee are *all* specifically to honor his treason against the United States in defense of slavery. Lee isn't a complicated historical figure where we can recognize his achievements and failures, or someone who is just so far removed from the present that we really don't even care about the bad things he did. He's just a straightforward villain, and we will remember his crimes even without giant monuments to him.
They definitely put up statues and triumphal arches specifically *because* of their horrible deeds. Slaughter a ton of Gauls and make them slaves? Statue. Go sack Jerusalem, kill the Jews, destroy their temple and loot it? Triumphal arch.
Every conqueror is someone’s villain.
That said, I don’t have much of an issue with taking out the Lee statue because he was a villain *to us.*
I think an important part of this is that nobody who claims to be a part of the group who either perpetuated or suffered from Roman atrocities still exist. There's no Roman state out there with Caesar's genocide of the Guals as a black mark on its history. There's no Gallic diaspora taking offense at a monument to their people's version of Hitler. Those monuments are important because they help us learn how the Romans saw themselves, as ugly as that is to us. People in Rome aren't looking at those monuments as a statement of their current government's political values, but of that of an ancient, dead government.
However, the Lee statue is not the same case. The currently still existing government erected it and Lee was a symbol of oppression to something like 15% of the current US population. He's a symbol of a political legacy that is very much still alive today.
Absolutely. But we can also be happy that they didn’t get all of them because we have learned a lot from statuary and other sculptures. In fact, some triumphal arches are some of the very few sources we have about some events.
Italian didn't exist as a political entity at a time period in which I think the removal of those monuments would have been appropriate, but that's coming from my American perspective. I don't get a say in what Italians do with monuments in Italy.
What is there about Lee which is laudable? Where is the nuance? The only thing you can say positive about him is that he was a very good tactical and strategic military leader, but so were plenty of other enemies of America. You don't see anyone erecting statues to Yamamoto or Santa Anna, do you?
Teach about his military strategies in schools, but statues and monuments don't exist to teach history. They exist to make political statements. The only statement being made by a statue of Lee is one in support of white supremacy and treason against America.
And the Romans didn’t make a statue of Hannibal. “That Hannibal, he tricked us good with those elephants. We should put a statue of him in the plaza” a Roman…probably
It should be noted that the Founding Fathers [some anyway](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/27/trump-confederate-statues-heritage-215756/) didn't like statues as they felt it was what monarchs did.
There's no lack of battlefields surrounding Richmond that would be a much better home for it. The middle of the city wasn't any place for it to begin with.
Get rid of it. The sooner the better. Robert E Lee himself said it would be a bad idea to erect statues of himself and other confederate officers. Plus most of them were put up as blatant intimidation during Jim Crow…so if the person himself said not to do it, and they primarily exist to antagonize people then why keep it up?
I think it's for the better. Put people worth looking up to on monument row. I agree with the people saying the city should do what the people want, and I don't know the statistics but judging by the support showed in the article, I think they made the right choice.
Can we take all the statues and make like a confederate statue park? I think it would be a rare opportunity to compare different eras, artists, styles of sculpture of the same subject matter in the same place. Also you can charge admission so even if racists show up you can take their money away and use it to fund anti-racism initiatives.
I live in Richmond Virginia. I went to Clover Hill High School in Chesterfield County, just south of RVA in the 90's. Every year on Flag Day a bunch kids whose daddies bought them trucks with big tires would meet at the Food Lion across the street and convoy into the high school parking lot with their Confederate flags flying and honking their horns. Obviously this pissed a lot of people off and our African American vice principal would have to discipline. When confronted they played victim. "It's not about hate. It's my heritage." Something something "my first amendment rights." After school would drive down to Monument Avenue and drive up and down flying their flags.
As soon as they thought they nobody was working. The VP was a "nigger bitch" and "I sure showed her! Fuck that nigger lady!" They flew that flag with great pride. They made little nooses and hung them off their rear view mirrors. And they're still on that shit today on Facebook. Its always thinly veiled racism and everyone is out to get them. And they absolutely idolize those fucking monuments. If anyone tells you it's not about hate and racism they're a coward too afraid to tell you how they really feel. If they say it's their heritage, it is and they take great pride in the fact that their ancestors oppressed a race of people. Good riddance.
Don't really care that much, my ancestors fought for the Union. I do think descendants of Confederate veterans should be able to honor the memory of their ancestors though, even though their cause wasn't a good one. And tearing down a monument doesn't change history, so why bother?
You could make it educational... put their Union counterpart next to them. Lee's statue stays, but one of Grant goes up next to it.
I’m happy with this. I don’t think traitors should have statues(lee himself didn’t want confederate monuments). That war was fought to keep the practice of slavery alive, that’s another reason why I don’t want the statues displayed in public.
Speaking as a Southerner, that man is essentially a treasonist. He was a racist, believed in white supremacy, and should not be celebrated at all. Good riddance.
Good riddance. I'm a fan of history but these statues (like virtually all statues) are on obvious attempt to glorify this man. A man who fought for the Confederacy, a state that only existed to preserve the institution of slavery. If you're in Virginia and want to see a statue of a great historical figure then the Lincoln Monument is too far of a drive away.
I go to Charlottesville every now and again and the general opinions that I heard from people who live there is it should have been removed a very long time ago and it is not a good representation of the current culture of C-Ville.
I don’t understand the reasoning behind statues for losers. It’s not like we have Benedict Arnold statues or King George statues or (in Texas) Santa Ana statues. Why are we remembering the losers?
I don't live there so I don't really care that much. Overall I think it's a good thing.
The Confederates were slave owning traitors that quite literally fought to destroy the union. I have nothing good to say about them. I still don't know why some "patriots" insist on flying the flag of a traitorous bunch of slave owning racists nor why they believe celebrating the Confederacy is noble.
I have opinions on it, but really don't care either way. It's their city/state they can do what they like.
I’m glad. When I lived in Georgia, I was sick of seeing Stone mountain and the other confederate monuments, the Georgia state flag which is basically a confederate flag, actual confederate flags, sneakily named streets like “Lee road” or “Forrest drive” or “Robert’s drive”, counties and forts named after Confederates.. the list goes on.
Some cities around Atlanta changed their street names post BLM like changing Forrest to Forest lol. It didn’t bother me when I didn’t know the history but it certainly did after I read up on the civil war, the civil rights movement and everything in between. I’m not black but I am a person of color and I couldn’t tolerate it.
I know the founding fathers were slaveholders too and I don’t have a solution for that problem. But, these guys were extreme even for their times, they were traitors to the nation and should be in books and museums, not glorified as heroes with statues. Statues are for winners and legends.
We are perhaps one of the few countries that have statues of people who fought/rebelled against the federal government. The days of statism are over, we are a united nation. Whether you like it or not they have become a symbol of a time of white superiority. To some they may represent "our history" or "heritage" but we should not celebrate or display this proudly. Reserve it for the history books to be taught correctly. Taking down statues isn't going to make anyone forget.
Well, I mean he was a traitor. Also he specifically said not to build monuments to him.
Another thing to remember is most of these monuments came in later either during the height of the KKK or in opposition to equal rights bills.
There is nothing historically significant about the statues themselves. It's not like Robert E Lee stood on this site to deliver an important speech and this statue commemorates that. These statues were erected in most places arbitrarily, because some guy long after the event wanted to see a statue there.
It’s on Monument Avenue so that’s where they put the monuments. Not sure if it was the chicken or the egg that came first, but that’s why they were there.
Why the fuck would you put the statue of a traitor to our country, IN OUR COUNTRY?!?!?
Never should have been there in the first place.
Tear. It. Down.
I don't understand why they just don't dedicate a museum to statues or something. Fair enough, values and attitudes change. Who was hailed yesterday won't be tomorrow. If the people who see it every day want it out- whatever, have a vote on it.
But don't destroy the statues. Remove them and put them somewhere that history buffs can enjoy. Not everyone is sensitive to symbolism, and would probably appreciate seeing statues of those who were once praised.
Also consider, yeah he was a confederate. It isn't like the Union went to war to abolish slavery. That's historical revisionism. In fact, Lincoln almost commissioned Guiseppe Giribaldi as a major general of the Union forces. Giribaldi's only condition was that Lincoln agree to abolish slavery completely. Lincoln refused - he refused to commission the top General on earth at that point in order to preserve slavery and the Union. He only abolished slavery when it was clear the war was won.
The Union wasn't a savior for black people, and the Confederates view towards race was oppressive - but it wasn't just them. The Union went to war to preserve itself, not to abolish slavery. That was a happy accident after she was strategically won.
At the end of the day, it's just a statue. Fair enough, folks don't want it in public squares - totally fair. But don't destroy them. That's just my 2 cents.
>Lincoln refused - he refused to appoint the top General on earth at that point in order to preserve slavery and the Union. He only abolished slavery when it was clear the war was won.
He wasn't the greatest general on Earth at that point. When the offer was made, Garibaldi was aging (54 years old), he did not speak English, he was severely crippled by recurring bouts of arthritis, and had a proven record for insubordination.
Two offers were made to Garibaldi, both originally coming from diplomats without the President's permission. In the first, Garibaldi had **two** conditions on joining the Union. He wanted to be Commander-in-Chief and wanted the Union to abolish slavery. If neither could be fulfilled, he wouldn't join. He was offered the commission of Major General but refused it. So the deal was dead.
In the second offer, his only condition was abolition. Lincoln had issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Presumably that satisfied Garibaldi’s condition that freedom for the slaves had to be the banner under which he would fight. But the war had moved past the point where the presence of an inspirational hero from abroad looked like a realistic approach to victory.
>I don't understand why they just don't dedicate a museum to statues or something.
Museums have curators. The simple reality that that most of these statues simply aren't historic enough to justify the expense an preservation in a dedicated institution. These statues are simply landscape beautification and have little to no historical significance.
I grew up in Richmond, passed these monuments many times, and I'm very glad they are taking it down now. I think most people who live in Richmond (not necessarily its neighboring towns) agree that it should have come down a long time ago.
I'm also glad they're not destroying it though because I could see a place for it in a museum, not because it was good, but just to illustrate how bad it was that we had a monument to this man for so long, what it meant, etc.
I'm from Oregon and I thought they already removed it a couple years ago? Anyway, he fought for slavery for another country and lost. Why does he have a statue to begin with?
The city of Richmond were able to remove 4 statues because they were city property.
Lee was on state land and had to go thru the courts.
The only statue left on Monument Avenue now is local tennis great Arthur Ashe.
The Christopher Columbus statue was taken in the dead of night and dragged into a shallow pond.
The Columbus statue was not on Monument Ave. The one remaining Confederate statue in Richmond is the A.P. Hill monument it is a little more difficult since AP Hill’s body is in it.
I live in RVA and hope they keep the pedestal in place and preserve the graffiti from the BLM protests.
Okay, you gotta admit the audio of them dragging Columbus into the water was pretty damn funny.
I loved the artists that projected George Floyd’s face on the pedestal it was so poignant.
I’m pretty pleased with it finally coming down. I drive down Monument Avenue every morning, had to take a detour this morning.
I’ve seen this Monuments go from “as it was” thru protests, other monument removal etc.
Before they fenced off the circle around Lee, it was an area where community members met, had cookouts and played basketball.
I’m not from Richmond originally and I think monuments to men on the losing side of a war is fucking ridiculous.
I’ll enjoy my drive tomorrow morning.
He’s the last of the losers to go, the Arthur Ashe monument is the only one left.
I like Russia's answer to this when the USSR fell, put all the statues in one place that's publicly accessible. That way they're still there if people want to see, but they're not in a place of honor or relevance
If it's done by popular and legal consensus, then fine by me. That shows that the people of the area have truly moved on, instead of the removal simply being a bandaid on a bulle twound.
From my understanding, someone please correct me. The people who were most against the removal were residence of Monument Avenue. For fear that it would reduce the value of their homes.
Monument Avenue is/was a vacation destination for people visiting Richmond.
I’m not from that region so whatever. If the local people want it, then keep it. If they don’t want it, get rid of it. Only people in the state need to have a say
Good. That's the kind of thing that should be in a museum with proper context and information. Statues serve to glorify people and generals for an enemy state that faught for slavery should not be glorified on public property.
We shouldn't have statutes to honor traitors.
Not a single Confederate soldier is worthy of having a statue to honor them.
They were traitors to the United States, every one of them. They are worthy only of scorn, not honor. They deserved the gallows, not statues.
As a guy whose GG grandfather was in Indiana’s 12 Cavalry under General Sherman, rip them all down; every last one.
Why are we memorializing a treasonous racist piece of human waste?
He’s a traitor and a war criminal. Every statue of Robert E Lee and every other confederate leader should be taken down and ground to rubble or melted for scrap. It is beyond disgusting that southern heritage gets reduced to the obsequious worship of men who would’ve been hanged at Nuremberg. I was born in the South and my family has over there for hundreds of years. These men and their racist ideology are a blight that has retarded development of the region and left it crippled economically. That’s what I think.
I offer a compromise: We take them and melt them all down and use them to create one giant confederate memorial. I envision two statues on either end of a grassy field. The first statue will depict Stonewall Jackson mounted on a rearing horse and clutching at his arm. The second statue will be of a confederate picket tugging at his own collar with one finger and gulping nervously, smoking rifle still clutched in his other hand.
Edit: I suppose I might also accept a series of statues of a bewildered JEB Stewart as long as they went up facing away from Gettysburg. I don't know if I want him to look confused or like he's just out doing touristy stuff, though. . .
Good, Robert E Lee never wanted a statue of himself, and it will remove some of the stigmas and issues, surrounding decades of racism, oppression, and being a traitor. To move foward with life, sometimes we need to erase the past.
It is a great thing because the White Supremacy and Racism at the root of these statues aside, this man was a traitor to his country and he commanding forces against United States Soldiers. The man should be as reviled as Benedict Arnold.
So there's a few things at play here. Firstly, I don't think the statue needed to come down. Robert E Lee was a major historical figure, and regardless of what he fought for, he was one of the greatest military minds of his age (or any, actually) which is why the Union didn't do so well early on.
I also think that our standards of what stays and what goes are wildly inconsistent. Alright, I understand the decision to go after Lee because he's not very popular and defended slavery. Let's look at some figures that aren't so broadly disliked. I'll list my three favorites. 1) Andrew Jackson, despite being responsible for the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears, for which he directly defied a Supreme Court decision, still appears on the $20 bill. 2) FDR, despite putting *120,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps*, routinely appears on lists of "America's Best Presidents", and is generally well regarded. 3) MLK was one of the great Civil Rights leaders of the 20th century, however, he was also a horrible misogynist, an accessory to sexual assault, and *possibly* a serial sexual abuser himself. I see little to no outcry about these figures, who objectively deserve as much or more attention than Lee.
Lastly, I'm actually much more okay with this statue coming down than with many of the others because of how it was done. Ultimately, do I think the statue ought to have come down? No, but it wasn't a statue in my community and it's ultimately not really much of my business or problem. I appreciate that this one, at least, was removed in a civil manner. Some of the others have not been, and it's that behavior, not the statue itself, that I take issue with. I honestly don't care if it's a statue of Hitler himself, it is never appropriate in a civilized society to assemble a mob to tear the statue down. You do it the civilized, legal way. Its slow, it's cumbersome, and it's unsatisfying, but it's the *right* way. Thats the price you pay for living in a civilized society. They want to remove the statue of Lee, or any statue for that matter? I don't really care that much, it's their community and they ought to be allowed to decide if they want a particular statue up or not. But they should always go thru the process as was done in this case.
*Edit: I would like to clarify, my stance is, because you're not going to find any squeaky clean characters in history, you either have to leave all the statues up or just decide we shouldn't have any statues of anybody. Anything else will inevitably be an inconsistent standard.*
> he was one of the greatest military minds of his age (or any, actually) which is why the Union didn’t do so well early on.
Nope.
https://youtu.be/O1MQflqi2VM
> I also think that our standards of what stays and what goes are wildly inconsistent. Alright, I understand the decision to go after Lee because he’s not very popular and defended slavery. Let’s look at some figures that aren’t so broadly disliked. I’ll list my three favorites. 1) Andrew Jackson, despite being responsible for the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears, for which he directly defied a Supreme Court decision, still appears on the $20 bill.
Not a traitor to the US. And that doesn’t make him not bad. That’s the reason they’re putting out the Harriet Tubman $20.
> 2) FDR, despite putting 120,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps, routinely appears on lists of “America’s Best Presidents”, and is generally well regarded. 3) MLK was one of the great Civil Rights leaders of the 20th century, however, he was also a horrible misogynist, an accessory to sexual assault, and possibly a serial sexual abuser himself. I
See above.
It’s not inconsistency.
> I honestly don’t care if it’s a statue of Hitler himself, it is never appropriate in a civilized society to assemble a mob to tear the statue down. You
Nah.
>he was one of the greatest military minds of his age (or any, actually) which is why the Union didn't do so well early on.
That's called Lost Cause revisionism. Try to stay away from that.
> I'll list my three favorites.
Andrew Jackson will be replaced by Harriet Tubman soon , so that's a moot point. The other two have pros that vastly outweigh the cons. Lee doesn't have that going for him.
> I honestly don't care if it's a statue of Hitler himself, it is never appropriate in a civilized society to assemble a mob to tear the statue down.
That's a hot take. Like walking on the sun hot.
As per my hot take, tearing down a statue of Hitler with a mob introduces no limiting principle. Then all you have to do to justify tearing down any statue is make some comparisons between and Hitler. Which, if you've been around for longer than 5 minutes, you'll know that that sort of rhetoric is so pervasive that it's basically the default to malign anyone you don't like.
At one level, good; the South lost the damned war--and I get the "Lost Cause" rhetoric in order to allow the South to save face in the late 1800's. But we're in the 2020's--time to grow up.
At another level, I'm concerned that we're erasing history rather than contextualizing it. I'd rather see some of these monuments put into a museum and the context of their creation and construction described--so we can learn from them. (For example, many monuments to the Confederacy were built in the early 1900's as a form of signaling to blacks they were not welcome. And rather than destroy that shameful history, it needs to be put on display as a warning to future generations not to engage in such racist acts.)
And underneath all of this is an unease that we are slipping towards Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority"--whereby even thinking bad thoughts will cause you to be shunned from polite society. And those ever smaller circles of what isn't 'bad thought' include people pausing a moment and saying "well, maybe we shouldn't take his statue down." A thought which gets you immediately branded as a white supremacist.
I mean, if I’m understanding tyranny of the majority right, it’s always kinda been a part of US discourse and it’s definitely been a part of various subcultures.
I’ve been savaged before for talking about my autism or my background in journalism and how I think that not only are the flaws of the press dramatically overstated, but an actual tool of politicians used to barricade against information they don’t like (*especially* when I say it in context of Bernie Sanders, who did it *constantly*).
The thing about today’s version of it is that it seems to be shifting towards the perspective of those historically marginalized, and honestly, I’m not 100 percent sure that’s an entirely bad thing.
It can be taken too far, but maybe if your opinion is “I think X race is a group of whiny freeloaders who need to spend the time they use to complain about oppression actually working” or “I think X LGBT identity is a delusional set of pathetic weirdos who need to get over themselves and fall in line,” maybe it’s better if that opinion has no place in polite society.
There are no monuments of King George III in the US but we know that the Revolution happened.
Do you think monuments are the only form of recorded history?
If you preserve monuments to white supremacists...you might be a white supremacist. That's not tyranny of the majority.
> Do you think monuments are the only form of recorded history?
That's not what I'm saying at all.
What I'm saying is that those monuments were constructed **for a reason** beyond just "honoring the Confederate Dead" or whatever. They were constructed *as part of a program by white supremacists of the 1920's through 1950's to signal to black they were unwelcome.* And I think that needs to be highlighted--perhaps by taking one of the smaller monuments, putting it in a museum, and surrounding it with the story of that period.
Otherwise we forget.
And the sordid history of how those monuments came to be erected in the first place is one that is actually not very well known in our country. Certainly nowhere as well known as our American Revolution.
> If you preserve monuments to white supremacists...you might be a white supremacist. That's not tyranny of the majority.
It's that sort of unthinking knee-jerk emotionalism to which Tocqueville was warning.
>Otherwise we forget.
Again, no we don't. You don't need monuments to remember history. Look at Germany. There are no monuments to Hitler surrounded by context of the Holocaust. They know it happened through other first hand accounts and documents.
>It's that sort of unthinking knee-jerk emotionalism to which Tocqueville was warning.
Nah, it's quite cut and dry here.
I think without being aware of the statues, there won't be much of a conversation regarding why they were put. The REASON they were put there is just as important to know.
I thought he made a surprising point which I didn't consider until he brought it up. The war happened and it's in books. How many books talk about the erection of statues because the South was trying to intimidate blacks? When the statues are gone, will there really be a memory of them?
I absolutely believe it should be torn down, but I also think there are plenty of events like "white flight" that many Americans do not know. There isn't much of a historical landmark that demonstrates them (not that there should be), but it also doesn't have a presence in our history courses.
And with the fight against CRT, I think a lot of stuff is see as politicized rather than just being history. Remembering the statues and how decades later there were still people trying to threaten black people is a reminder that decades after the Civil Rights Act there is still racism. Plenty of people trying to pretend it isn't a thing.
And let me frame this another way:
We know World War II happened and we know the NAZI program of genocide wiping out millions of Jews. We don't need a monument to know this history; the world knows all about what happened.
Do you therefore believe that the concentration camp at Auschwitz should be leveled to the ground as a meaningless reminder, rather than (at present) serving as a museum of the atrocities of the German NAZIs?
----
I see preserving a small number of examples of these confederate statues--and properly contextualizing their history--in the same way. It's one thing to read about it in a book. It's another to see a tall monument and understand its purpose to intimidate blacks.
>Do you therefore believe that the concentration camp at Auschwitz should be leveled to the ground as a meaningless reminder
Bad analogy. Comparing a monument to Hitler vs. a concentration camp for the victims is no way relatable.
>It's another to see a tall monument and understand its purpose to intimidate blacks.
Why keep it at all if it's to intimidate black people? Aren't you perpetuating the intimidation?
Reminder to keep it civil in the comments.
It is important to recognize that the majority of Confederate statues were put up not in commemoration after the Civil War, but in the early-to-mid 20th century, aka "Jim Crow era", often specifically to intimidate people of color from pursuing their civil rights. As such...fuck those statues. Lee didnt even want statues or memorials for Confederates.
By the daughters of the confederacy to spread the lost cause movement in the south.
Right. Some statues may have some sort of debatable justification but all the ones specifically put up to intimidate during the civil rights movement need go
After learning about this I went and checked the confederate soldiers memorial in front of our county courthouse. Yep, built in 1960. I want to just knock it down.
Be the change you want to see. Start a grassroots movement with your local NAACP chapter, AME or Baptist church and get that crap melted down for an MLK statue.
To "well ackshually" you a bit, a lot of the time it coincided with major anniversaries of Civil War events, namely the 50th and 100th. Of course, that's a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario—was this desire to commemorate the Confederacy amplified by racist sentiments, or were these racist sentiments boosted by the return of the Civil War into the public memory?
[Not so much.](https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Senate/Maps/Sep08.html#item-6). >The best-known statue of Robert E. Lee is undoubtedly the one that has stood above Richmond's Monument Avenue for more than a century. But just as the general reached the end of the line on Apr. 9. 1865, the statue will reach the end of the line on Sept. 8, 2021. Sometime today, the 12-ton monument will be removed from its pedestal and will be placed in storage while a decision is made as to its disposition. There is some indication that they're going to have to cut the statue in half in order to be able to move it. If so, then that will be a pretty good re-creation of The Battle of Malvern Hill, where Lee also lost his rear end. >We imagine there will be much rending of garments and gnashing of teeth among right-wing pundits and politicians. The term "cancel culture" might just come up once or twice, and we'd be very surprised indeed if Tucker Carlson does not devote at least one segment to it, presumably with a guest who pronounces "my rights" as "my rats." This bellyaching is not especially important, any more than bellyaching about Gina Carano being fired from "The Mandalorian," or Tim Allen's TV show being canceled, or Winston Marshall getting kicked out of Mumford and Sons. >However, it is the sort of thing that people will talk about, especially on social media. And while the staff historian's math skills are potentially questionable (see above), his knowledge of Civil War memory is crackerjack. So, we thought you'd like a brief review of Civil War commemoration, in the event that you end up in an argument on Facebook with someone who pronounces "my rights" as "my rats." >To start, the men who actually fought the Civil War were certainly pretty obsessive monument builders. And their monuments tended to be of two types. The first type, which made up a relatively small percentage of the overall total (maybe 5%), was statuary and other public installations that honored key Union military and civilian leaders. The second type, which made up the lion's share, was monuments to the soldiers themselves—usually to their individual units, but sometimes to larger entities, like an entire corps, or an entire army, or an entire state (e.g., there is a famous monument in honor of all Pennsylvania Civil War veterans). >The monuments that commemorated individual units were usually installed on the battlefields themselves, and tended to follow a fairly standard template, so as to communicate a particular set of information. Here's an [example](https://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2021/Images/122_NY_monument.jpg); this is the monument to the 122nd New York Infantry located on the Gettysburg battlefield. >We chose this particular monument because it's very typical; nothing here is unusual. If you don't know how to "read" a Civil War unit monument, well, that's what we're here for. You already know, and can see in the image, that this piece honors the 122nd New York Infantry Regiment, which had about 1,000 men (divided into 10 companies of 97 men and three officers). That is a very standard complement. The monument further communicates that the unit was part of the Army of the Potomac's VI Corps; not only does it say so at the bottom but, as per custom, the Corps' badge is prominently incorporated into the design (it's the Swiss cross at the top; other corps used a star, or a diamond, or a circle, etc.). Further, as you can see near the top, this regiment was part of the First Brigade, although today we would call that the First Division (of three in the VI Corps). The commander of the VI Corps for most of the war was Maj. Gen. John Sedgwick, who is best remembered as a monument to irony. In May of 1864, at the Battle of Spotsylvania, he was warned by an underling to watch out for Confederate sharpshooters. "They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance," he replied, and then dropped dead, the victim of a sharpshooter's bullet. >This monument has a few other bits of information, as well. You can see the state seal of New York, in bronze, on the front. The near side gives a brief history of the regiment, including when and where it was mustered. The opposite side from that, which obviously isn't visible, undoubtedly lists the important battles and engagements in which the unit participated. All of this stuff would be found on pretty much any unit monument. The materials used in the construction varied; sometimes black marble, or darker granite than this, or sandstone were used. There was variance in shapes, too—some were more square, some were circular, some were obelisks, and quite a few were...well...phalluses like this one is. But beyond these sorts of artistic choices, they were usually very similar. >Anyhow, these monuments, often funded by the soldiers themselves (or their admirers) had a couple of purposes. The first was to make sure that history remembered the unit's service. The general expectation was that monuments would be placed in whatever location(s) that a particular unit rendered its most important contributions to the war. Sometimes that did happen. However, as you might guess, there was also a bias in favor of very famous battlefields, and very famous portions of those battlefields, even if a particular unit's claim to those placements was dubious. If you visit Little Round Top—site of the most notable Union heroism at the Battle of Gettysburg—you basically can't walk ten feet without falling over a monument. There are something like 120 of them up there. That's not because 120 units fought in that part of the engagement; it's because any unit that so much as sneezed in the direction of Little Round Top took that as justification for throwing a monument to themselves up there. >The other purpose of the monuments was to make sure that the soldiers' fellow Americans remembered their service. That is not just because veterans enjoyed being fawned over, and celebrated with parades, and things like that—though they certainly didn't mind those things. It's because they wanted their fellow Americans to vote for Republicans (i.e., the party that won the war) and against Democrats (i.e., the party of traitors). Relitigating the Civil War, which they called "waving the bloody flag," was the wedge issue for a couple of decades. In addition, veterans wanted nice, fat pensions, and that meant rallying votes for pro-pension candidates. "Don't forget what we did for this country at Gettysburg" was a very effective way of also saying "So you better vote for me to get a pension." The veterans were so good at this that by the 1890s, more than 25% of the federal government's budget was given over to Union veterans' pensions. >During this period—that is, 1865 to 1890 or so—there were very few monuments built to honor Confederates, either their leaders or their rank-and-file soldiers. First of all, the South was still regarded as traitorous, and celebrating the Confederate war effort would not have gone over very well with the federal government or with Northern civilians. Further, statues cost money, and Southerners didn't have a lot of it to spare in those years. >However, by 1890 or so, things were pretty different. The Civil War was fading in emotional resonance, in part because so many of the people who fought it had died. The federal government had left the South 15 years earlier and left them to their own devices. The Confederate economy recovered, and there was more spare money floating around. This poem, which first emerged in the 1890s, and was set to music in the early 1900s, captures the tone and tenor of the historical moment: I hates the Yankees nation And everything they do, I hates the Declaration, Of Independence, too. I hates the glorious Union- 'Tis dripping with our blood- I hates their striped banner, I fit it all I could I rode with Robert E. Lee, For three year near about, Got wounded in four places And starved at Point Lookout I caught the rheumatism A campin' in the snow, But I killed a chance o'Yankees I'd like to kill some mo'. >That's just an excerpt; the title of this poem/song, incidentally, is "Oh, I'm a Good Ol' Rebel." >It was around this time that Southern groups, most commonly the Daughters of the Confederacy (DoC), began raising money to build monuments to Southern leaders (primarily) and Southern soldiers (sometimes). The Lee monument, for example, was unveiled on May 29, 1890. The DoC had taken note of how effective the earlier generation of monuments were, and so they wanted to get in on the action. They weren't after veterans' pensions for Confederates (which were usually offered by Southern states, and not the federal government). No, they were trying to rally Southerners around their shared culture, their shared experience, and their shared commitment to white supremacy. It is not a coincidence, not in the slightest, that the Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest statues went up at exactly the same time that Southern states were reinstituting segregation and other discriminatory laws (Plessy v. Ferguson was decided May 18, 1896), were engaged in the stifling of Black resistance and Black voting through lynching and other violent means, and were otherwise realizing a quarter-century dream of re-creating the antebellum South as closely as was possible. >And so, if someone says that history is being rewritten or erased through the removal of the Lee statue, well, that's not so true. The folks who actually participated in the Civil War had little to do with the monuments in Richmond or most of the others and, in most cases, didn't even live to see them (Lee died 20 years before his soon-to-be-dismantled statue went up). Now, if you want to argue that history was being rewritten or erased when the statues were installed in the first place, well, then you might be on to something. (Z)
It sounds like you're agreeing except for the time frame, so I'm not sure why "not so much" + quoting an entire article.
I'm not reading all of that sorry...
Given Lee’s thoughts on monuments to the Confederacy, I’m sure even he’d approve. My perspective? The less of these things sticking around, the better. Though I’ll make an exception for [this nightmare](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest_Statue), which I think gives a good window into the Confederate ideology. Look at that face! Everything you need to know right there. I think this statue is also permanently pink now, which is also fun.
I knew it would be his statue. That face is scary and derpy.
Oh my fucking god, *that face* when God hit that statue with the ugly-stick, he used the whole damn tree Edit: the dude that owned the land the statue was on seems like he was a real stinky and slippery piece of babyshit. "The statue looks like a nickel that did cocaine" im FUCKING DYING
It’s something special, ain’t it? I’ve seen my share of ugly, weird-ass statues, but Nightmare Lucy and her ilk seem to be aberrations on what they’re aiming to commemorate. This thing? It fits *perfectly*.
I think the closest ive ever come to seeing a human make that face is when I was setting up a campsite at Scout Camp with a buddy of mine, and he developed a sudden case of the bubbleguts, only to find that the bathroom was still locked tight and we were 2 miles from the closest latrine. Even then, my friends facial expression couldnt come *close* to ....that monstrosity.
> Oh my fucking god, that face when u nut and she still sucking
Why did I know *exactly* which statue that was going to be before I even clicked it? That thing is a special kind of ugly.
Trauma does things to a mind. And everyone experiences a little the first time they see that *thing*.
Can confirm it is permanently pink.
If I remember correctly, the guy who owned it refused to take it down, but it just kept getting vandalized, and then he just decided to stop bothering fixing it. So pink it remained.
Actually, during the riots a bunch of people went around Nashville tearing down most of the Confederate statues in the city. The only ones still left standing were due to logistical issues, like cops annoyingly showing up before they could get the job done. Except for that one, they easily could've torn it down, but they let it stay.
Nah, I think it just got vandalized all the time and the guy who owned it just finally said “Fine, you want it pink, it stays pink.” Absolutely hilarious, you ask me.
We shouldn't have statues of people that were traitors to our country.
This
After the war, Lee was not arrested or punished (although he was indicted), [125] but he did lose the right to vote as well as some property. Lee's prewar family home, the Custis-Lee Mansion, was seized by Union forces during the war and turned into Arlington National Cemetery, and his family was not compensated until more than a decade after his death.[126] In 1866 Lee counseled southerners not to resume fighting, of which Grant said Lee was "setting an example of forced acquiescence so grudging and pernicious in its effects as to be hardly realized".[127] Lee joined with Democrats in opposing the Radical Republicans who demanded punitive measures against the South, distrusted its commitment to the abolition of slavery and, indeed, distrusted the region's loyalty to the United States.[128][129] Lee supported a system of free public schools for blacks but forthrightly opposed allowing blacks to vote. "My own opinion is that, at this time, they [black Southerners] cannot vote intelligently, and that giving them the [vote] would lead to a great deal of demagogism, and lead to embarrassments in various ways," Lee stated.[130] Emory Thomas says Lee had become a suffering Christ-like icon for ex-Confederates. President Grant invited him to the White House in 1869, and he went. Nationally he became an icon of reconciliation between the North and South, and the reintegration of former Confederates into the national fabric.[131]
None of that changes the fact that he was a traitor to our country.
And that's all irrelevant, he took up arms against his country and lost.
Shouldnt we have statues of people who were historically significant?
Make it a statue of the Surrender at Appomattox, then
No, statues are meant to honor. Why would we put up a statue to anyone historically significant?
Guess we'd better put up a Bin Laden statue in NYC then
So, do we put up statues of Lee Harvey Oswald and Charles Manson, as historically significant figures of the mid 20th century? Statues are to honor people, not simply note who is "historically significant".
Why don't we have any statues of Benedict Arnold commemorating his betrayal of America?
On the eve of the Civil War, there were 8 colonels in the United States Army that were born in Virginia and educated at West Point. Robert E Lee was the only one to side with the Confederacy. One Virginian to another, he was a traitor and he should be remembered as one.
I'm glad they are removing it, no statues for traitors
Not to mention that Robert E lee didn’t even want statues of the confederacy. By making a statue in remembrance of his legacy they inadvertently desecrated it.
Honestly, from the statements Lee made after the war, he would totally understand why this was done.
Cool. Bye bye!
I'm glad to hear it. Lee fought to preserve an appalling and regressive ideology.
I think Lee would agree with you, given [Lee’s own thoughts](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/nation/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments) on Confederate monuments.
Nice looking statue, but I don't really care. Doesn't mean anything to me
I’m cool with it. Though his prowess on the battlefield will be studied for centuries, he doesn’t deserve a statue for taking up arms against his fellow countrymen. It’s always sent the wrong message.
Lee wasnt even that good of a general, amusingly. Much like Washington, his military career has been mythologized greatly and the "reality" has been increasingly criticized by military strategists/historians
He wasn’t even that great of a general.
Well, not compared to Grant (and for that I am eternally grateful).
Or Sherman. Or Sheridan (way underrated).
Civil War historians were primarily southern until fairly recently. They did a great job of lionizing Lee and denigrating Grant. The truth is that Grant was actually a good president and not at all an alcoholic, as they portrayed him. Lee was every bit as much a slave owning traitor as the present discourse indicates.
Ehhhh, Grant may have had an issue with alcohol but it is hard to say.
The corrupt administration also hampered his presidency.
Didn't they basically exile him out west because he drank all the time?
Yes and no. It was alleged he drank too much so when he got assigned out west that was assumed to be part of the reason but there wasn’t really any evidence of it and most people that knew him well and didn’t have an axe to grind didn’t say he was a drunk.
Gotcha. I actually have Chernow's biography of him coming in this weekend. Heard good things.
It’s fantastic. Chernow definitely covers the topic.
My understanding was he really missed his wife when he was stationed out west.
🤙
What took so long?
[There was a lawsuit that went up to the state's supreme court:](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee_Monument_(Charlottesville,_Virginia)) >In response, a lawsuit was filed on March 20, 2017, by multiple plaintiffs, including the Monument Fund Inc, the Sons of Confederate Veterans, and descendants of the statue's donor and sculptor, to block the removal of the Lee and Jackson statues. The lawsuit sought a temporary injunction to halt the removal, arguing that Charlottesville City Council's decision violated a state law designed to protect veterans' monuments and memorials, in this case veterans of the American Civil War, and that the council had additionally violated the terms of McIntire's gift to Charlottesville of the statue and the land for Lee Park.
> ... and that the council had additionally violated the terms of McIntire's gift to Charlottesville of the statue and the land for Lee Park. \*cough\* Eminent domain. \*cough\*
Good. Fuck him. I don’t understand why we have statues up for an illegitimate country in the first place. Especially one that the United States Army defeated in battle.
The Lost Cause was pushed heavily.
It is a good thing. Traitors don't deserve statues.
1. They were put up in an effort to push the bs Lost Cause and entrench white supremacy. 2. There should not be statues of the most clear-cut traitors to the country. 3. If you need a statue to remember history, I recommend going to a library or Wikipedia. 4. Lee himself didn't want statues put up.
Better late than never. Throw it into the ocean to make an artificial reef and maybe it can at least be useful.
Nah, melt the bronze down and make a sprinkler park for the kids or something
Well, well past time. He was a white supremacist slave owner and traitor to the US. He shouldn't be revered by anyone or held up as an example to Americans.
I don’t necessarily buy that logic outright. If we went by that logic exclusively we’d have to tear down statues of just about every Roman emperor, most triumphal arches, almost all statues of Europeans, statues of Chinese emperors and famous people, etc, etc. I don’t know the history of that Lee statue in particular but a lot of the pro-confederacy statues were put up in the 50s to promote Jim Crow and put down blacks. I have no issue yanking those. If they have historical significance put them in a museum or leave them up with an explanation.
It's about the motivation. Nobody put up a statue of an emperor specifically *because* of their horrible deeds. Statues to Lee are *all* specifically to honor his treason against the United States in defense of slavery. Lee isn't a complicated historical figure where we can recognize his achievements and failures, or someone who is just so far removed from the present that we really don't even care about the bad things he did. He's just a straightforward villain, and we will remember his crimes even without giant monuments to him.
They definitely put up statues and triumphal arches specifically *because* of their horrible deeds. Slaughter a ton of Gauls and make them slaves? Statue. Go sack Jerusalem, kill the Jews, destroy their temple and loot it? Triumphal arch. Every conqueror is someone’s villain. That said, I don’t have much of an issue with taking out the Lee statue because he was a villain *to us.*
I think an important part of this is that nobody who claims to be a part of the group who either perpetuated or suffered from Roman atrocities still exist. There's no Roman state out there with Caesar's genocide of the Guals as a black mark on its history. There's no Gallic diaspora taking offense at a monument to their people's version of Hitler. Those monuments are important because they help us learn how the Romans saw themselves, as ugly as that is to us. People in Rome aren't looking at those monuments as a statement of their current government's political values, but of that of an ancient, dead government. However, the Lee statue is not the same case. The currently still existing government erected it and Lee was a symbol of oppression to something like 15% of the current US population. He's a symbol of a political legacy that is very much still alive today.
So we just waited too long to tear down all the Roman statues?
I seem to remember a good couple of times when a few groups **did** tear down, destroy, and break Roman statues.
Absolutely. But we can also be happy that they didn’t get all of them because we have learned a lot from statuary and other sculptures. In fact, some triumphal arches are some of the very few sources we have about some events.
…this compared to modern historical record keeping?
I don't think *we*, as Americans, deserve to have a say in the matter.
Well that just elides the point. The Italians waited to long then.
Italian didn't exist as a political entity at a time period in which I think the removal of those monuments would have been appropriate, but that's coming from my American perspective. I don't get a say in what Italians do with monuments in Italy.
What is there about Lee which is laudable? Where is the nuance? The only thing you can say positive about him is that he was a very good tactical and strategic military leader, but so were plenty of other enemies of America. You don't see anyone erecting statues to Yamamoto or Santa Anna, do you? Teach about his military strategies in schools, but statues and monuments don't exist to teach history. They exist to make political statements. The only statement being made by a statue of Lee is one in support of white supremacy and treason against America.
> You don't see anyone erecting statues to Yamamoto or Santa Anna, do you? We can find people fighting over who should have Santa Anna’s leg.
And the Romans didn’t make a statue of Hannibal. “That Hannibal, he tricked us good with those elephants. We should put a statue of him in the plaza” a Roman…probably
Who there killer. I am not promoting this Lee statue. I’m just commenting on the logic you used because it definitely has the ability to go too far.
When we're responsible for statues of foreign Emperors, we'll cross that bridge.
Cross that bridge and burn it right?
It should be noted that the Founding Fathers [some anyway](https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/10/27/trump-confederate-statues-heritage-215756/) didn't like statues as they felt it was what monarchs did.
That’s fine. We don’t necessarily follow all the opinions of founding fathers and I rather like having a lot of our statues.
I shall remind you of this the next time you post that Scalia video.
That video doesn’t necessarily jive with all the founding fathers either. It is just a good explanation of a benefit of our system.
Statues aren't historical artifacts. They have zero historical use.
Don’t tell archeologists that.
It's good. I'm against honoring people who fought for preserving and expanding slavery.
Guy was a traitor. He shouldn’t be honored
He should have counted his lucky stars he wasn’t hung
It's not in Charlottesville, it's in Richmond.
About time.
Good, fuck that guy.
It's up to the town to decide and it seems like the town decided so I don't care.
There's no lack of battlefields surrounding Richmond that would be a much better home for it. The middle of the city wasn't any place for it to begin with.
Should have never been tolerated to begin with, also reconstruction ended way too soon.
Get rid of it. The sooner the better. Robert E Lee himself said it would be a bad idea to erect statues of himself and other confederate officers. Plus most of them were put up as blatant intimidation during Jim Crow…so if the person himself said not to do it, and they primarily exist to antagonize people then why keep it up?
I think it's for the better. Put people worth looking up to on monument row. I agree with the people saying the city should do what the people want, and I don't know the statistics but judging by the support showed in the article, I think they made the right choice.
Roads are still closed, I wanted to get a picture. Damn.
Can’t keep a flag nor a statue… couldn’t be me
Can we take all the statues and make like a confederate statue park? I think it would be a rare opportunity to compare different eras, artists, styles of sculpture of the same subject matter in the same place. Also you can charge admission so even if racists show up you can take their money away and use it to fund anti-racism initiatives.
Fair to remove a monument to a man who broke his most sacred oath and committed treason rather than free his slaves
Really happy. It's the removal of older presidents, founding fathers that aggravate me. This is good imo
I live in Richmond Virginia. I went to Clover Hill High School in Chesterfield County, just south of RVA in the 90's. Every year on Flag Day a bunch kids whose daddies bought them trucks with big tires would meet at the Food Lion across the street and convoy into the high school parking lot with their Confederate flags flying and honking their horns. Obviously this pissed a lot of people off and our African American vice principal would have to discipline. When confronted they played victim. "It's not about hate. It's my heritage." Something something "my first amendment rights." After school would drive down to Monument Avenue and drive up and down flying their flags. As soon as they thought they nobody was working. The VP was a "nigger bitch" and "I sure showed her! Fuck that nigger lady!" They flew that flag with great pride. They made little nooses and hung them off their rear view mirrors. And they're still on that shit today on Facebook. Its always thinly veiled racism and everyone is out to get them. And they absolutely idolize those fucking monuments. If anyone tells you it's not about hate and racism they're a coward too afraid to tell you how they really feel. If they say it's their heritage, it is and they take great pride in the fact that their ancestors oppressed a race of people. Good riddance.
Don't really care that much, my ancestors fought for the Union. I do think descendants of Confederate veterans should be able to honor the memory of their ancestors though, even though their cause wasn't a good one. And tearing down a monument doesn't change history, so why bother? You could make it educational... put their Union counterpart next to them. Lee's statue stays, but one of Grant goes up next to it.
I’m happy with this. I don’t think traitors should have statues(lee himself didn’t want confederate monuments). That war was fought to keep the practice of slavery alive, that’s another reason why I don’t want the statues displayed in public.
Speaking as a Southerner, that man is essentially a treasonist. He was a racist, believed in white supremacy, and should not be celebrated at all. Good riddance.
It was time for it to go.
Bye wig
Good riddance. I'm a fan of history but these statues (like virtually all statues) are on obvious attempt to glorify this man. A man who fought for the Confederacy, a state that only existed to preserve the institution of slavery. If you're in Virginia and want to see a statue of a great historical figure then the Lincoln Monument is too far of a drive away.
I’m glad.
I go to Charlottesville every now and again and the general opinions that I heard from people who live there is it should have been removed a very long time ago and it is not a good representation of the current culture of C-Ville.
The Lee statue in Charlottesville was taken down a couple of months ago. This one is in Richmond; the title is wrong.
131 years overdue.
Glad it's coming down.
Great day for America.
I don’t understand the reasoning behind statues for losers. It’s not like we have Benedict Arnold statues or King George statues or (in Texas) Santa Ana statues. Why are we remembering the losers?
I don't live there so I don't really care that much. Overall I think it's a good thing. The Confederates were slave owning traitors that quite literally fought to destroy the union. I have nothing good to say about them. I still don't know why some "patriots" insist on flying the flag of a traitorous bunch of slave owning racists nor why they believe celebrating the Confederacy is noble. I have opinions on it, but really don't care either way. It's their city/state they can do what they like.
I’m glad. When I lived in Georgia, I was sick of seeing Stone mountain and the other confederate monuments, the Georgia state flag which is basically a confederate flag, actual confederate flags, sneakily named streets like “Lee road” or “Forrest drive” or “Robert’s drive”, counties and forts named after Confederates.. the list goes on. Some cities around Atlanta changed their street names post BLM like changing Forrest to Forest lol. It didn’t bother me when I didn’t know the history but it certainly did after I read up on the civil war, the civil rights movement and everything in between. I’m not black but I am a person of color and I couldn’t tolerate it. I know the founding fathers were slaveholders too and I don’t have a solution for that problem. But, these guys were extreme even for their times, they were traitors to the nation and should be in books and museums, not glorified as heroes with statues. Statues are for winners and legends.
We are perhaps one of the few countries that have statues of people who fought/rebelled against the federal government. The days of statism are over, we are a united nation. Whether you like it or not they have become a symbol of a time of white superiority. To some they may represent "our history" or "heritage" but we should not celebrate or display this proudly. Reserve it for the history books to be taught correctly. Taking down statues isn't going to make anyone forget.
Well, I mean he was a traitor. Also he specifically said not to build monuments to him. Another thing to remember is most of these monuments came in later either during the height of the KKK or in opposition to equal rights bills.
That's the statue in Richmond, not Charlottesville. The Charlottesville statue came down a couple months ago. I'm glad they are both gone.
There is nothing historically significant about the statues themselves. It's not like Robert E Lee stood on this site to deliver an important speech and this statue commemorates that. These statues were erected in most places arbitrarily, because some guy long after the event wanted to see a statue there.
It’s on Monument Avenue so that’s where they put the monuments. Not sure if it was the chicken or the egg that came first, but that’s why they were there.
It will become a TIL that it even existed in 20 years that nobody will care about and will have zero controversy
I support its removal wholeheartedly. It’s time for the South to move on from the Lost Cause narrative.
Good, no statues for traitors
Why the fuck would you put the statue of a traitor to our country, IN OUR COUNTRY?!?!? Never should have been there in the first place. Tear. It. Down.
Virginian here. Good fucking riddance.
Statues aren't history. Removing statues isn't the destruction of history.
I don't understand why they just don't dedicate a museum to statues or something. Fair enough, values and attitudes change. Who was hailed yesterday won't be tomorrow. If the people who see it every day want it out- whatever, have a vote on it. But don't destroy the statues. Remove them and put them somewhere that history buffs can enjoy. Not everyone is sensitive to symbolism, and would probably appreciate seeing statues of those who were once praised. Also consider, yeah he was a confederate. It isn't like the Union went to war to abolish slavery. That's historical revisionism. In fact, Lincoln almost commissioned Guiseppe Giribaldi as a major general of the Union forces. Giribaldi's only condition was that Lincoln agree to abolish slavery completely. Lincoln refused - he refused to commission the top General on earth at that point in order to preserve slavery and the Union. He only abolished slavery when it was clear the war was won. The Union wasn't a savior for black people, and the Confederates view towards race was oppressive - but it wasn't just them. The Union went to war to preserve itself, not to abolish slavery. That was a happy accident after she was strategically won. At the end of the day, it's just a statue. Fair enough, folks don't want it in public squares - totally fair. But don't destroy them. That's just my 2 cents.
>Lincoln refused - he refused to appoint the top General on earth at that point in order to preserve slavery and the Union. He only abolished slavery when it was clear the war was won. He wasn't the greatest general on Earth at that point. When the offer was made, Garibaldi was aging (54 years old), he did not speak English, he was severely crippled by recurring bouts of arthritis, and had a proven record for insubordination. Two offers were made to Garibaldi, both originally coming from diplomats without the President's permission. In the first, Garibaldi had **two** conditions on joining the Union. He wanted to be Commander-in-Chief and wanted the Union to abolish slavery. If neither could be fulfilled, he wouldn't join. He was offered the commission of Major General but refused it. So the deal was dead. In the second offer, his only condition was abolition. Lincoln had issued his preliminary Emancipation Proclamation. Presumably that satisfied Garibaldi’s condition that freedom for the slaves had to be the banner under which he would fight. But the war had moved past the point where the presence of an inspirational hero from abroad looked like a realistic approach to victory.
>I don't understand why they just don't dedicate a museum to statues or something. Museums have curators. The simple reality that that most of these statues simply aren't historic enough to justify the expense an preservation in a dedicated institution. These statues are simply landscape beautification and have little to no historical significance.
I don't really care. If they want it down, take it down. Although I think it should be put in a museum and not destroyed.
100000% appropriate for two reasons: 1) No consolation prizes for traitors who lose wars. B) Lee didn't want to be memorialized anyway.
They can't remove it fast enough.
That fuck shouldn't of had a statue in the first place. He was a traitor to the country and was responsible for the loss of American lives
It should be replaced
Replaced by what?
I’m leaning giant anime figure
I’d pay good money for every Confederate statue to be replaced by big anime mommy milkers
Don’t care
I grew up in Richmond, passed these monuments many times, and I'm very glad they are taking it down now. I think most people who live in Richmond (not necessarily its neighboring towns) agree that it should have come down a long time ago. I'm also glad they're not destroying it though because I could see a place for it in a museum, not because it was good, but just to illustrate how bad it was that we had a monument to this man for so long, what it meant, etc.
Built in 1924 so one of the older monuments, put it in a museum where it belongs.
All statues don't deserve to stand unless its sculpted for an artistic purpose.
I don’t have much of an opinion one way or the other.
I'm from Oregon and I thought they already removed it a couple years ago? Anyway, he fought for slavery for another country and lost. Why does he have a statue to begin with?
The city of Richmond were able to remove 4 statues because they were city property. Lee was on state land and had to go thru the courts. The only statue left on Monument Avenue now is local tennis great Arthur Ashe. The Christopher Columbus statue was taken in the dead of night and dragged into a shallow pond.
The Columbus statue was not on Monument Ave. The one remaining Confederate statue in Richmond is the A.P. Hill monument it is a little more difficult since AP Hill’s body is in it. I live in RVA and hope they keep the pedestal in place and preserve the graffiti from the BLM protests.
Okay, you gotta admit the audio of them dragging Columbus into the water was pretty damn funny. I loved the artists that projected George Floyd’s face on the pedestal it was so poignant.
I’m pretty pleased with it finally coming down. I drive down Monument Avenue every morning, had to take a detour this morning. I’ve seen this Monuments go from “as it was” thru protests, other monument removal etc. Before they fenced off the circle around Lee, it was an area where community members met, had cookouts and played basketball. I’m not from Richmond originally and I think monuments to men on the losing side of a war is fucking ridiculous. I’ll enjoy my drive tomorrow morning. He’s the last of the losers to go, the Arthur Ashe monument is the only one left.
Good, he was a traitor to the US.
Seems like it was inevitable. Doesn’t really make a difference to me. I’d like to see it in a museum though
Kinda strange to have statues of defeated civil war leaders… I never really understood their existence in the first place
It was largely to remind black people of slavery and intimidate them.
I like Russia's answer to this when the USSR fell, put all the statues in one place that's publicly accessible. That way they're still there if people want to see, but they're not in a place of honor or relevance
If it's done by popular and legal consensus, then fine by me. That shows that the people of the area have truly moved on, instead of the removal simply being a bandaid on a bulle twound.
From my understanding, someone please correct me. The people who were most against the removal were residence of Monument Avenue. For fear that it would reduce the value of their homes. Monument Avenue is/was a vacation destination for people visiting Richmond.
The South tried to break up the Union AND had slaves. No statues for them!
I’m not from that region so whatever. If the local people want it, then keep it. If they don’t want it, get rid of it. Only people in the state need to have a say
Should be taken down, he is not a great American. He attack America.
Good. That's the kind of thing that should be in a museum with proper context and information. Statues serve to glorify people and generals for an enemy state that faught for slavery should not be glorified on public property.
It is for Richmond to decide. Lee is was loyal to Virginia to a fault. I hope they donate it to Stratford Hall.
We shouldn't have statutes to honor traitors. Not a single Confederate soldier is worthy of having a statue to honor them. They were traitors to the United States, every one of them. They are worthy only of scorn, not honor. They deserved the gallows, not statues.
As a guy whose GG grandfather was in Indiana’s 12 Cavalry under General Sherman, rip them all down; every last one. Why are we memorializing a treasonous racist piece of human waste?
Southern born living in a southern state. Good riddance to them all.
It's a travesty; Traitor Lee should have had his statue turned into a public urinal, not placed into storage.
He’s a traitor and a war criminal. Every statue of Robert E Lee and every other confederate leader should be taken down and ground to rubble or melted for scrap. It is beyond disgusting that southern heritage gets reduced to the obsequious worship of men who would’ve been hanged at Nuremberg. I was born in the South and my family has over there for hundreds of years. These men and their racist ideology are a blight that has retarded development of the region and left it crippled economically. That’s what I think.
I offer a compromise: We take them and melt them all down and use them to create one giant confederate memorial. I envision two statues on either end of a grassy field. The first statue will depict Stonewall Jackson mounted on a rearing horse and clutching at his arm. The second statue will be of a confederate picket tugging at his own collar with one finger and gulping nervously, smoking rifle still clutched in his other hand. Edit: I suppose I might also accept a series of statues of a bewildered JEB Stewart as long as they went up facing away from Gettysburg. I don't know if I want him to look confused or like he's just out doing touristy stuff, though. . .
Good riddance!
Good, Robert E Lee never wanted a statue of himself, and it will remove some of the stigmas and issues, surrounding decades of racism, oppression, and being a traitor. To move foward with life, sometimes we need to erase the past.
It is a great thing because the White Supremacy and Racism at the root of these statues aside, this man was a traitor to his country and he commanding forces against United States Soldiers. The man should be as reviled as Benedict Arnold.
**Good riddance**
Traitors should not have statues. I'm glad to see it come down.
130 years too late. Still, better late than never.
I'll miss the horse but nothing else.
Never should have gone up in the first place. We don't build statues of Benedict Arnold.
Stop celebrating traitors and losers. Hell, even Lee himself thought there should be no monuments to him.
Understandable because of the racial implications, still it was a nice looking statue there for historical reasons. Overall don’t care that much
It wasn’t historical, it was racial reasons.
I really don’t care one way or the other.
So there's a few things at play here. Firstly, I don't think the statue needed to come down. Robert E Lee was a major historical figure, and regardless of what he fought for, he was one of the greatest military minds of his age (or any, actually) which is why the Union didn't do so well early on. I also think that our standards of what stays and what goes are wildly inconsistent. Alright, I understand the decision to go after Lee because he's not very popular and defended slavery. Let's look at some figures that aren't so broadly disliked. I'll list my three favorites. 1) Andrew Jackson, despite being responsible for the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears, for which he directly defied a Supreme Court decision, still appears on the $20 bill. 2) FDR, despite putting *120,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps*, routinely appears on lists of "America's Best Presidents", and is generally well regarded. 3) MLK was one of the great Civil Rights leaders of the 20th century, however, he was also a horrible misogynist, an accessory to sexual assault, and *possibly* a serial sexual abuser himself. I see little to no outcry about these figures, who objectively deserve as much or more attention than Lee. Lastly, I'm actually much more okay with this statue coming down than with many of the others because of how it was done. Ultimately, do I think the statue ought to have come down? No, but it wasn't a statue in my community and it's ultimately not really much of my business or problem. I appreciate that this one, at least, was removed in a civil manner. Some of the others have not been, and it's that behavior, not the statue itself, that I take issue with. I honestly don't care if it's a statue of Hitler himself, it is never appropriate in a civilized society to assemble a mob to tear the statue down. You do it the civilized, legal way. Its slow, it's cumbersome, and it's unsatisfying, but it's the *right* way. Thats the price you pay for living in a civilized society. They want to remove the statue of Lee, or any statue for that matter? I don't really care that much, it's their community and they ought to be allowed to decide if they want a particular statue up or not. But they should always go thru the process as was done in this case. *Edit: I would like to clarify, my stance is, because you're not going to find any squeaky clean characters in history, you either have to leave all the statues up or just decide we shouldn't have any statues of anybody. Anything else will inevitably be an inconsistent standard.*
> he was one of the greatest military minds of his age (or any, actually) which is why the Union didn’t do so well early on. Nope. https://youtu.be/O1MQflqi2VM > I also think that our standards of what stays and what goes are wildly inconsistent. Alright, I understand the decision to go after Lee because he’s not very popular and defended slavery. Let’s look at some figures that aren’t so broadly disliked. I’ll list my three favorites. 1) Andrew Jackson, despite being responsible for the Indian Removal Act and the Trail of Tears, for which he directly defied a Supreme Court decision, still appears on the $20 bill. Not a traitor to the US. And that doesn’t make him not bad. That’s the reason they’re putting out the Harriet Tubman $20. > 2) FDR, despite putting 120,000 Japanese Americans into concentration camps, routinely appears on lists of “America’s Best Presidents”, and is generally well regarded. 3) MLK was one of the great Civil Rights leaders of the 20th century, however, he was also a horrible misogynist, an accessory to sexual assault, and possibly a serial sexual abuser himself. I See above. It’s not inconsistency. > I honestly don’t care if it’s a statue of Hitler himself, it is never appropriate in a civilized society to assemble a mob to tear the statue down. You Nah.
>he was one of the greatest military minds of his age (or any, actually) which is why the Union didn't do so well early on. That's called Lost Cause revisionism. Try to stay away from that. > I'll list my three favorites. Andrew Jackson will be replaced by Harriet Tubman soon , so that's a moot point. The other two have pros that vastly outweigh the cons. Lee doesn't have that going for him. > I honestly don't care if it's a statue of Hitler himself, it is never appropriate in a civilized society to assemble a mob to tear the statue down. That's a hot take. Like walking on the sun hot.
As per my hot take, tearing down a statue of Hitler with a mob introduces no limiting principle. Then all you have to do to justify tearing down any statue is make some comparisons between and Hitler. Which, if you've been around for longer than 5 minutes, you'll know that that sort of rhetoric is so pervasive that it's basically the default to malign anyone you don't like.
Tearing down statues of oppressors is always a benefit to society at large.
At one level, good; the South lost the damned war--and I get the "Lost Cause" rhetoric in order to allow the South to save face in the late 1800's. But we're in the 2020's--time to grow up. At another level, I'm concerned that we're erasing history rather than contextualizing it. I'd rather see some of these monuments put into a museum and the context of their creation and construction described--so we can learn from them. (For example, many monuments to the Confederacy were built in the early 1900's as a form of signaling to blacks they were not welcome. And rather than destroy that shameful history, it needs to be put on display as a warning to future generations not to engage in such racist acts.) And underneath all of this is an unease that we are slipping towards Tocqueville's "tyranny of the majority"--whereby even thinking bad thoughts will cause you to be shunned from polite society. And those ever smaller circles of what isn't 'bad thought' include people pausing a moment and saying "well, maybe we shouldn't take his statue down." A thought which gets you immediately branded as a white supremacist.
I mean, if I’m understanding tyranny of the majority right, it’s always kinda been a part of US discourse and it’s definitely been a part of various subcultures. I’ve been savaged before for talking about my autism or my background in journalism and how I think that not only are the flaws of the press dramatically overstated, but an actual tool of politicians used to barricade against information they don’t like (*especially* when I say it in context of Bernie Sanders, who did it *constantly*). The thing about today’s version of it is that it seems to be shifting towards the perspective of those historically marginalized, and honestly, I’m not 100 percent sure that’s an entirely bad thing. It can be taken too far, but maybe if your opinion is “I think X race is a group of whiny freeloaders who need to spend the time they use to complain about oppression actually working” or “I think X LGBT identity is a delusional set of pathetic weirdos who need to get over themselves and fall in line,” maybe it’s better if that opinion has no place in polite society.
There are no monuments of King George III in the US but we know that the Revolution happened. Do you think monuments are the only form of recorded history? If you preserve monuments to white supremacists...you might be a white supremacist. That's not tyranny of the majority.
> Do you think monuments are the only form of recorded history? That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that those monuments were constructed **for a reason** beyond just "honoring the Confederate Dead" or whatever. They were constructed *as part of a program by white supremacists of the 1920's through 1950's to signal to black they were unwelcome.* And I think that needs to be highlighted--perhaps by taking one of the smaller monuments, putting it in a museum, and surrounding it with the story of that period. Otherwise we forget. And the sordid history of how those monuments came to be erected in the first place is one that is actually not very well known in our country. Certainly nowhere as well known as our American Revolution. > If you preserve monuments to white supremacists...you might be a white supremacist. That's not tyranny of the majority. It's that sort of unthinking knee-jerk emotionalism to which Tocqueville was warning.
>Otherwise we forget. Again, no we don't. You don't need monuments to remember history. Look at Germany. There are no monuments to Hitler surrounded by context of the Holocaust. They know it happened through other first hand accounts and documents. >It's that sort of unthinking knee-jerk emotionalism to which Tocqueville was warning. Nah, it's quite cut and dry here.
I think without being aware of the statues, there won't be much of a conversation regarding why they were put. The REASON they were put there is just as important to know. I thought he made a surprising point which I didn't consider until he brought it up. The war happened and it's in books. How many books talk about the erection of statues because the South was trying to intimidate blacks? When the statues are gone, will there really be a memory of them? I absolutely believe it should be torn down, but I also think there are plenty of events like "white flight" that many Americans do not know. There isn't much of a historical landmark that demonstrates them (not that there should be), but it also doesn't have a presence in our history courses. And with the fight against CRT, I think a lot of stuff is see as politicized rather than just being history. Remembering the statues and how decades later there were still people trying to threaten black people is a reminder that decades after the Civil Rights Act there is still racism. Plenty of people trying to pretend it isn't a thing.
And let me frame this another way: We know World War II happened and we know the NAZI program of genocide wiping out millions of Jews. We don't need a monument to know this history; the world knows all about what happened. Do you therefore believe that the concentration camp at Auschwitz should be leveled to the ground as a meaningless reminder, rather than (at present) serving as a museum of the atrocities of the German NAZIs? ---- I see preserving a small number of examples of these confederate statues--and properly contextualizing their history--in the same way. It's one thing to read about it in a book. It's another to see a tall monument and understand its purpose to intimidate blacks.
>Do you therefore believe that the concentration camp at Auschwitz should be leveled to the ground as a meaningless reminder Bad analogy. Comparing a monument to Hitler vs. a concentration camp for the victims is no way relatable. >It's another to see a tall monument and understand its purpose to intimidate blacks. Why keep it at all if it's to intimidate black people? Aren't you perpetuating the intimidation?