Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
pepperonikkid

Robert E Lee statue: Virginia governor announces removal of monument

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

JerryL
7 hours ago, zurg said:

Timothy: Trump shoots his yap over twitter and talks trash to CNN all day long, but when it comes to actions, he’s helped black Americans in a concrete way more than any leftist in recent history at least. Why doesn’t he deserve credit for that? 

Good luck getting an honest answer to that.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

Northam should remove himself from office. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
14 hours ago, Timothy said:

This thread isn't about Biden or Obama.

A person is a combination of many different traits and acts.  A trait, or something someone did, can be unquestionably bad, but their other traits and acts can make them add up to being a good person and/or having a good legacy overall.

The fact that Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners is unquestionably hypocritical and bad.  The fact that the American Revolution maintained slavery is unquestionably a blemish on that history.  But the presence of slavery doesn't erase the fact that the revolution did much to advance the cause of freedom and improve the world.  It doesn't negate the positive contributions that Jefferson and Washington made.

That's the difference between someone like George Washington and someone like Robert E Lee.

:yawn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
15 hours ago, Timothy said:

1) This is a minor part of Biden's record.  Lee's role fighting for the confederacy is by far his greatest contribution to history.

2) Restoring citizenship is not the same as erecting a statue to someone.  Restoring Lee's citizenship was an act of reconciliation.  A statue is a celebration. 

3) The statues of men who are primarily known for their role in the Confederacy like Lee and Davis aren't in many cases weren't just mean to celebrate them as men, but to celebrate the Confederate cause.  There was a major effort made after the civil war to whitewash the Confederacy.  Building up Lee to almost god like status was a part of that effort.

4) Very few people are all good or all bad.  Lee has some admiral qualities and he was a brilliant tactician.  I'm not one of those people that thinks we can't celebrate anyone who was a slave owner, for example.  I care about what someone is most known for.  Lee's primary contribution to history was to fight for an evil cause.

:yawn:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy

FB_IMG_1591855633867.jpg

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confessor
On 6/9/2020 at 2:05 PM, Timothy said:

This thread isn't about Biden or Obama.

A person is a combination of many different traits and acts.  A trait, or something someone did, can be unquestionably bad, but their other traits and acts can make them add up to being a good person and/or having a good legacy overall.

The fact that Washington and Jefferson were slaveowners is unquestionably hypocritical and bad.  The fact that the American Revolution maintained slavery is unquestionably a blemish on that history.  But the presence of slavery doesn't erase the fact that the revolution did much to advance the cause of freedom and improve the world.  It doesn't negate the positive contributions that Jefferson and Washington made.

That's the difference between someone like George Washington and someone like Robert E Lee.

Both men, Washington and Lee, were products of their time, and should be viewed through that lens. Slavery was a “normal” part of society, and that either had misgivings about it at all speaks volumes about their courage and morals. You can’t view people from that time with the standards of today (although 99 percent of them still had more morals and standards than 100 percent of the left). 
 

That being said, Biden supporting people that were racist today (Bird, etc) CAN be viewed through today’s lens. Because it is sure that he knows better.  Societal norms for the last 150 years have been that slavery, and more recently, racism are WRONG.   So to say Lee was a horrible person and then give “the enlightened” Biden a pass, is ass backwards. But, we expect no less from revisionist leftists who want to destroy history rather than learn from it. 
 

Good day sir. 

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
9 hours ago, Timothy said:

FB_IMG_1591855633867.jpg

99.999% of NASCAR did not surrender. That decision was made by a handful of corporate weenies concerned about TV ad revenue. I can assure you that NASCAR is not concerned about rioters damaging NASCAR property. That would not end well for the rioters.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian

Hell, I never surrendered either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
10 hours ago, Timothy said:

FB_IMG_1591855633867.jpg

Aka "WokeCAR"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Confessor said:

Both men, Washington and Lee, were products of their time, and should be viewed through that lens. Slavery was a “normal” part of society, and that either had misgivings about it at all speaks volumes about their courage and morals. You can’t view people from that time with the standards of today (although 99 percent of them still had more morals and standards than 100 percent of the left). 
 

That being said, Biden supporting people that were racist today (Bird, etc) CAN be viewed through today’s lens. Because it is sure that he knows better.  Societal norms for the last 150 years have been that slavery, and more recently, racism are WRONG.   So to say Lee was a horrible person and then give “the enlightened” Biden a pass, is ass backwards. But, we expect no less from revisionist leftists who want to destroy history rather than learn from it. 
 

Good day sir. 

1) I agree that Washington and Lee were products of their time and should be viewed through that lens.

2) At the time of the civil war, slavery was incredibly controversial.  It was the political fighting over slavery, especially whether slavery would be allowed to expand into the territories, that led to the civil war in the first place.  In the context of the time, Lee was in the middle.  As I posted earlier, he didn't like slavery but considered it "necessary for their instruction as a race".

3) I have never said that Lee was a "horrible person".  The problem is that the reason he is celebrated is for his role in leading the military for a horrible, reactionary cause.  It would be like Germany putting up a statue of Erwin Rommel.

4) Ending the celebration of a horrible cause is not "destroying history".  Remembrance does not require celebration.

5) To illustrate my position: I'll give an example of where I would not oppose a statue of Lee: Washington and Lee University, where Lee played a huge role as President of the university after the civil war.  Or even West Point, where he was superintendent.  In both cases there are good reasons to celebrate him independent of his civil war service.

Edited by Timothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
2 hours ago, RedSoloCup said:

Aka "WokeCAR"

Or "NasWoke"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tikk
On 6/6/2020 at 12:42 PM, Squirrel said:

As of today DFW airport is removing the Texas ranger statue. Because someone is offended. The left needs to grow up

It wasn't in DFW Airport.  It was in Love Field. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MTP Reggie

Our-Racist-Past.png

  • Best Post (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
1 hour ago, MTP Reggie said:

Our-Racist-Past.png

:clap: :clap: :clap:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeansToTheRight
On 6/11/2020 at 12:01 PM, Timothy said:



5) To illustrate my position: I'll give an example of where I would not oppose a statue of Lee: Washington and Lee University, where Lee played a huge role as President of the university after the civil war.  Or even West Point, where he was superintendent.  In both cases there are good reasons to celebrate him independent of his civil war service.

So a statue at a University where he played a huge role, but not a statue anywhere else that could also be representative of his contributions to the University and to West Point???  Who gets to decide that and why?

 

How do you feel about statues of Lenin in this country?  We should keep those or not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, LeansToTheRight said:

So a statue at a University where he played a huge role, but not a statue anywhere else that could also be representative of his contributions to the University and to West Point???  

By far Lee's greatest contribution to history and what he is most known for is his leadership of the Army of Northern Virginia.

It is only at those specific places where his contributions to those places are important enough to not be completely overshadowed by his role in the Confederacy.

Quote

Who gets to decide that and why?

I'm just offering my opinion.  In public places it's generally up to whichever government entity owns or runs that particular piece of public property.

Quote

How do you feel about statues of Lenin in this country?  We should keep those or not?

It was news to me that those even existed.  No, I don't think we should keep those.

Edited by Timothy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
13 hours ago, LeansToTheRight said:

How do you feel about statues of Lenin in this country?  We should keep those or not?

 

3 hours ago, Timothy said:

It was news to me that those even existed.  No, I don't think we should keep those.

 

There's one in the Fremont District in Seattle:

 

Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeansToTheRight
22 hours ago, Timothy said:

By far Lee's greatest contribution to history and what he is most known for is his leadership of the Army of Northern Virginia.

It is only at those specific places where his contributions to those places are important enough to not be completely overshadowed by his role in the Confederacy.

I'm just offering my opinion.  In public places it's generally up to whichever government entity owns or runs that particular piece of public property.

It was news to me that those even existed.  No, I don't think we should keep those.

So we’ll keep or destroy on a whim of emotion, instead of teaching history (the good and the bad) with statues of all sorts of American figures?  I guess that’s the easy way to keep an ignorant voting block.

Ignorance must be bliss for you?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
20 hours ago, MontyPython said:

 

 

There's one in the Fremont District in Seattle:

 

Lenin-statue-in-Fremont.jpg

I think most on the right don’t care that Lenin is there. Add Mao if you want and Castro to boot. We don’t care because they’re reminders that they lost. The race obsessed could use that argument and not be bothered but they just have to remain insecure forever. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Confessor
On 6/11/2020 at 2:01 PM, Timothy said:

1) I agree that Washington and Lee were products of their time and should be viewed through that lens.

2) At the time of the civil war, slavery was incredibly controversial.  It was the political fighting over slavery, especially whether slavery would be allowed to expand into the territories, that led to the civil war in the first place.  In the context of the time, Lee was in the middle.  As I posted earlier, he didn't like slavery but considered it "necessary for their instruction as a race".

3) I have never said that Lee was a "horrible person".  The problem is that the reason he is celebrated is for his role in leading the military for a horrible, reactionary cause.  It would be like Germany putting up a statue of Erwin Rommel.

4) Ending the celebration of a horrible cause is not "destroying history".  Remembrance does not require celebration.

5) To illustrate my position: I'll give an example of where I would not oppose a statue of Lee: Washington and Lee University, where Lee played a huge role as President of the university after the civil war.  Or even West Point, where he was superintendent.  In both cases there are good reasons to celebrate him independent of his civil war service.

2.  More revisionist history. Slavery was the spark, but States rights were the biggest issue. If the North was so pure, and Lincoln so honorable, why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free the slaves in the territories in rebellion?  The slaves in the North weren’t.  The North abused the south at every turn, and the Civil War was a culmination of a lot of issues. Slavery would have died on its own some few years later, by the turn of the century art the latest. It was a doomed endeavor that could not survive due to its evil. And there would have been a lot less dead Americans. 
 

3.  Well, hate to tell you this, but there were a lot of good men that fought for Germany because it was their country, and they didn’t know everything that was going on.  Franz Stiegler was a good man, I am sure the crew of “Ye Olde Pub” thought so. I wouldn’t see a problem with statues of either of those men. You are trying to make Lee into Hitler and the South into Nazi Germany.  That dog won’t hunt. 
 

4. Statues of Lee and others are celebrations of their lives. They were men, just like other men, warts and all. So by your logic, we should take down statues of Martin Luther King, Jr. a known philanderer. That outshines the good he did in life, right? 
 

5. Given your last point, I expect to see you down here at Texas A&M defending the Sully statue.  I’ll bet you won’t. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Timothy
13 hours ago, LeansToTheRight said:

So we’ll keep or destroy on a whim of emotion, instead of teaching history (the good and the bad) with statues of all sorts of American figures?  I guess that’s the easy way to keep an ignorant voting block.

Ignorance must be bliss for you?

Statues are meant to celebrate history, not just represent it.

Would you be OK with Germany having a statue of Hitler?

"Ignorance being bliss" is actually a good description of the Confederate revisionism behind many of the Confederate statues from people that wan't to pretend that the Confederacy was anything other than a reactionary effort to defend slavery.  

9 hours ago, Confessor said:

2.  More revisionist history. Slavery was the spark, but States rights were the biggest issue. If the North was so pure, and Lincoln so honorable, why did the Emancipation Proclamation only free the slaves in the territories in rebellion?  The slaves in the North weren’t.  The North abused the south at every turn, and the Civil War was a culmination of a lot of issues. Slavery would have died on its own some few years later, by the turn of the century art the latest. It was a doomed endeavor that could not survive due to its evil. And there would have been a lot less dead Americans. 
 

3.  Well, hate to tell you this, but there were a lot of good men that fought for Germany because it was their country, and they didn’t know everything that was going on.  Franz Stiegler was a good man, I am sure the crew of “Ye Olde Pub” thought so. I wouldn’t see a problem with statues of either of those men. You are trying to make Lee into Hitler and the South into Nazi Germany.  That dog won’t hunt. 
 

4. Statues of Lee and others are celebrations of their lives. They were men, just like other men, warts and all. So by your logic, we should take down statues of Martin Luther King, Jr. a known philanderer. That outshines the good he did in life, right? 
 

5. Given your last point, I expect to see you down here at Texas A&M defending the Sully statue.  I’ll bet you won’t. 

2a) States rights were the biggest issue?  Have you read the Declarations of Secession?  They spent a whole lot of time talking about slavery and very little talking about "state's rights".  Their two biggest complaints were:

a) Northern state's passing laws protecting fugitive slaves residing in the North and making it harder for slave-owners to kidnap them to return them to slavery.  The Southerners wanted the federal government to force Northern states to cooperate in that kidnapping, including forcing Northern citizens to help kidnappers.

b) Northern states opposing the expansion of slavery in the territories.  Are you familiar with Bleeding Kansas?  Anti-slavery northerners significantly outnumbered pro-slavery Southerners in Kansas by a large margin.  Through a mixture of violence and extraordinarily brazen voter fraud, pro-slavery southerners wanted to force a pro-slavery State Constitution on the people of Kansas against the will of the majority of settlers.

Clearly, Southerner's didn't care about trampling on "state's rights" if it was in the interest of slavery.

2b) Lincoln and the North followed up the Emancipation Proclamation in 1865 with the 13th Amendment banning slavery everywhere.  

2c) Slavery would have died eventually, but that doesn't mean the South wasn't defending it.  Secession was primarily a reactionary response to the rise of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.  Southerners wanted to expand slavery into new territories.  And they certainly weren't interested in getting rid of it.  From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

"he was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

Another rather interesting quote from the same declaration:

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law."

3) I'd compare Lee to Rommel, not Hitler.  Of course there were good people who fought for Nazi Germany just like there were good people who fought for the South.  That doesn't mean Nazi Germany as a government and as a cause wasn't evil.

4) As I've said multiple times, this isn't about any individual being all good or all bad, but if their main contribution to history was generally good or generally bad.

5) I don't know enough about him to comment.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
10 hours ago, Timothy said:

Statues are meant to celebrate history, not just represent it.

Would you be OK with Germany having a statue of Hitler?

"Ignorance being bliss" is actually a good description of the Confederate revisionism behind many of the Confederate statues from people that wan't to pretend that the Confederacy was anything other than a reactionary effort to defend slavery.  

2a) States rights were the biggest issue?  Have you read the Declarations of Secession?  They spent a whole lot of time talking about slavery and very little talking about "state's rights".  Their two biggest complaints were:

a) Northern state's passing laws protecting fugitive slaves residing in the North and making it harder for slave-owners to kidnap them to return them to slavery.  The Southerners wanted the federal government to force Northern states to cooperate in that kidnapping, including forcing Northern citizens to help kidnappers.

b) Northern states opposing the expansion of slavery in the territories.  Are you familiar with Bleeding Kansas?  Anti-slavery northerners significantly outnumbered pro-slavery Southerners in Kansas by a large margin.  Through a mixture of violence and extraordinarily brazen voter fraud, pro-slavery southerners wanted to force a pro-slavery State Constitution on the people of Kansas against the will of the majority of settlers.

Clearly, Southerner's didn't care about trampling on "state's rights" if it was in the interest of slavery.

2b) Lincoln and the North followed up the Emancipation Proclamation in 1865 with the 13th Amendment banning slavery everywhere.  

2c) Slavery would have died eventually, but that doesn't mean the South wasn't defending it.  Secession was primarily a reactionary response to the rise of anti-slavery sentiment in the North.  Southerners wanted to expand slavery into new territories.  And they certainly weren't interested in getting rid of it.  From the Texas Declaration of Secession:

"he was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery--the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits--a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time."

Another rather interesting quote from the same declaration:

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon the unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of the equality of all men, irrespective of race or color--a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of the Divine Law."

3) I'd compare Lee to Rommel, not Hitler.  Of course there were good people who fought for Nazi Germany just like there were good people who fought for the South.  That doesn't mean Nazi Germany as a government and as a cause wasn't evil.

4) As I've said multiple times, this isn't about any individual being all good or all bad, but if their main contribution to history was generally good or generally bad.

5) I don't know enough about him to comment.

🥱

  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...