Politicspoliticsconfederatealtrightmonuments

Sat Aug 12, 2017, 02:44 PM

One libertarian reason for taking down the CSA monuments

Staunch supporters of the Lost Cause had little fondness for the United States. The Stars and Stripes was the banner of their enemy. When Union troops occupied Richmond in April 1865, the first thing they did was hoist the American flag over the capitol.

The die-hards recognized what some Southerners miss: the deep contradiction between loving America and revering the Confederacy. The struggle over what to do with monuments to rebel leaders is a conflict between those who think what they did was admirable or heroic and those who think it was disgraceful.

snip

It's not a symptom of modern political correctness. Days after the Declaration of Independence was signed, a New York mob destroyed a statue of King George III.

If the men and women of the Revolution were eager to be rid of the images of those who had oppressed them and made war on America, why should African-Americans in the South feel differently about statues of leaders who fought to keep their race in chains?



http://reason.com/archives/2017/07/02/confederate-monuments-deserve-to-go

10 replies, 135 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 10 replies Author Time Post
Reply One libertarian reason for taking down the CSA monuments (Original post)
357blackhawk Saturday OP
myohmy Saturday #1
kevlar Saturday #2
rampartb Saturday #3
357blackhawk Saturday #4
rampartb Saturday #5
Valishin Sunday #7
rampartb Sunday #8
Valishin Sunday #9
TM999 Sunday #6
smoke check Sunday #10

Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Sat Aug 12, 2017, 02:55 PM

1. wow...

" The Confederate monuments belong not in places of honor but in museums, as artifacts of past error. They were put up to enshrine an interpretation of the past that has been discredited. Taking them down and putting up different statues is a reminder that in understanding the past, we shape the future.

If there's a statue of my relative Leonidas Polk honoring his Confederate leadership, I'm willing to see it pulled down. In fact, I'd like to be there to help. "

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Sat Aug 12, 2017, 02:56 PM

2. I disagree.

The author uses flawed logic and their own bias to reach their conclusion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Sat Aug 12, 2017, 05:12 PM

3. i think the author gets it

what is libertarian about a supposed right of either individuals, or states, to hold others in bondage?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #3)

Sat Aug 12, 2017, 05:25 PM

4. it isn't, since it obviously violates the nonaggression principle, and

the CSA was a police state, to begin with.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Reply #4)

Sat Aug 12, 2017, 05:50 PM

5. +1 on nonagression principle

was the csa a police state? hmmm, the csa existed only in a milieu of civil war, so we may never really know their intentions in case of eventual victory. it does seem obvious that the confederacy was a de facto oligarchy with a stratified class hierarchy approaching caste.

new orleans was liberated very early in the war and our history is not kind to the union military governor (gen benjamin butler was known to have comandeered our silverware for shipment north, earning him the nickname "spoons")

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #3)

Sun Aug 13, 2017, 04:41 AM

7. The problem there is

that the flag doesn't represent slavery it represents states rights to self determination. In the minds of many the south was fighting the right fight for the wrong reason. Or at least the wrong focus. It was incursion of the federal government that they were fighting, on that part they were in the right. Where they were wrong by modern standards was that the dominate underlying issue of contention was an amoral stain on society. That stain though is not why the confederacy is viewed with reverence, it is because the confederacy was fighting the same fight that the colonist fought only against a different source of tyranny. We can fault them for doing so by focusing on slavery because that institution so offends our sensibilities, but it is revisionist history to assume that was the sole purpose of their efforts. Even if an agreement had been made that convinced the south that the institution of slavery was not at risk the fight was still going to happen because the north was using political leverage to force the south to be subservient to northern industry and the southerns weren't standing for it. That difference in viewpoint on the "reason" for the war is why there is so much disagreement about removing the flag and other memorabilia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Valishin (Reply #7)

Sun Aug 13, 2017, 05:35 AM

8. from a libertarian standpoint

slavery , and a state's right to institute slavery, is shakey, at best, depending in the definition of humans as property or the definition of slaves as non human. it is, in my opinion, a mistake to allow states to define basic terms like "human" and "property" even within their own borders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rampartb (Reply #8)

Sun Aug 13, 2017, 05:46 AM

9. Shakey isn't even

in the ball park from a libertarian standpoint. Libertarianism simply doesn't allow for slavery. However, libertarianism is very keen on self determination, thus my point. Because the reverence has nothing to do with slavery nor do they justify the war based on slavery but instead on self determination of the states that is what aligns many libertarians with supporting the confederacy at least in part. It comes down to this, for these people they support the fight to maintain the authority of the state to define its own actions not support for the specific actions taken. They don't have a problem saying the southern states were doing the wrong thing while at the same time agree that the states should maintain that level of control for themselves. Which is why it isn't hypocrisy for them because they aren't making the argument that is counter to their values, they are focusing on the argument that aligns with their values. Which of course is confusing for those those who focus on the something different.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Sun Aug 13, 2017, 02:28 AM

6. Reason tends to be anything but.

Face it, the civil rights movement of which my parents were actually a part of were more concerned with the actualities of racism than historical monuments perceived to be 'symbols' from a racist time in our American history. MLK was not calling for the dismantling of Confederate monuments. He understood like few today seem capable of, that history is important. Whites fought whites. Blacks fought blacks. Brothers fought brothers. All of this was the reality of the Civil War. Healing a nation from within is entirely different than declaring independence from a king or dismantling the war time Nazi symbols after a much needed defeat from without. And remember that EVERY one of the major concentration/death camps has been preserved and left open to remember history.

Robert E. Lee was a man of honor, decency, and respect from both sides of the conflict. I studied and lauded the man as a boy because of things that went far beyond the war and slavery. I learned real history which is what few today care to study.

These children today are stupid as fuck and disconnected from even their most recent history. None of the black or bi-racial kids today had to suffer beatings, arrests, or denial of service because of the color of their skin. They are raging for completely internal reasons. They are doing the bidding of their Marxist teachers whose goals are the destruction of history so that a new Utopia can be created.

And yet again the asshole penning this piece is a white guy. Hey numbnuts, AA in the South didn't start feeling this way until the last few years allowed for the most extremist POS BLM nationalists to pretend that it is an issue when it never was. I ABHOR seeing the history I grew up around in the South being dismantled to placate whining infants who wouldn't know racism if it smacked them on their black asses sitting in those nice chairs in air conditioned offices at cushy campuses claiming all whites have privilege.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 357blackhawk (Original post)

Sun Aug 13, 2017, 06:21 AM

10. Reason is often out to lunch, Big "L" libertarians with no sense applied.

The real reason that BLM, antifa, and other assorted leftist filth wants the statues removed is the same reason that progressives have always torn down the statues. It's a simple need to erase history and disassociate a people from their past. This is what progressives always do. They usually wait until they attain an unshakeable hold on power, which they thought they had in the US beginning with Obama. Now, they have grown impatient, and their mask has slipped for all to see.

I am sure that the modern progressives would have preferred Lincoln's mercenaries to wage full scale genocide across the South, but that didn't happen. The descendants of the soldiers of the CSA live on. People have always erected monuments to their ancestors, whether they were right or wrong doesn't really mattter. The "winners" write the history. The "losers" write the songs. In time, both sides put up monuments in their area. It doesn't matter if it's the English and the Irish or the Union and the CSA or Poland and the muslims or the soviets.

As for Robert E Lee, the man had his faults. He also fully belongs in the pantheon of American heroes, both as an action hero and an educator. First, his actions during the Vera Cruz-Mexico City campaign greatly contributed to it's success. Second, his reforms to the education system at the USMA at West Point. Third, the fact that he kept his officers from waging a guerilla war across the south. Fourth, for his education system he implemented after the war that was adopted across the world in various forms and is still in use today. If your going to tear down his statues, then I suppose you should tear down the rest, too. Then again, that is what the left has in mind, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Politicspoliticsconfederatealtrightmonuments