Even Robert E Lee didn't like Confederate monuments!

[Threegoofs]

Yep. Lee advised we just forget the whole thing and move on.

He knew that losers shouldn't be memorialized.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/robert-e-lee-opposed-confederate-monuments/

--------------
“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, “The Man Who Would Not Be Washington.”

In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.

 

[Chillfolks]

Sounds like the kinda man who should have a statue raised to honour his wisdom

 

[Geoist]

Sounds like the kinda man who should have a statue raised to honour his wisdom

You would dishonor the wishes of a man you respect?

 

[Jredbaron96]

Confederate monuments have never done anything besides glorify a defeated army, a nation that existed for just four years and was recognized by no one, and in the end was so utterly destroyed and undone that only the city of Carthage can hold a candle to it.

 

[azgreg]

Sounds like the kinda man who should have a statue raised to honour his wisdom

That was actually funny. Wrong, but funny.

 

[beerftw]

Yep. Lee advised we just forget the whole thing and move on.

He knew that losers shouldn't be memorialized.

Robert E. Lee opposed Confederate monuments | PBS NewsHour

--------------
“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, “The Man Who Would Not Be Washington.”

In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.

Many confederates opposed monuments directly after the war. The revival of confederate pride came under reconstruction by grant, Lincoln knew the south relied on slave labor, he knew the hate that would occur if he tried to be authoritarian on the south and he wanted the union to reunited as quickly as efficiently as possible as one nation again rather than a north and south.

Johnson agreed with lincoln on everything except restoring rights to blacks, johnson wanted partial rights while lincoln wanted full rights. Lincolns plan was not to abruptly end slavery in the south but to do forced buybacks over time to prevent a southern depression and allow their ecponomy to transition.

However lincoln got assassinated before this happenned, johnson who could not control the republicans ended up being over rided at every turn, and impeached for not being radical enough with reconstruction.

Now follow in grant, under him the south became a police state, previous rules had prevented southernors from electing their own govt, soldiers at every corner in a police state, the southern economy in shreds and further hurt by grants policies, as well as a push to remove any instance of identity of the south.

This led the south to become bitter, this led to racism on epic levels where before most southernors viewed blacks as commodities for their economy, it led to extreme resentment of the north and in the end even grant admitted before his death the southern reconstruction caused more harm than good. Lee did not live much to see those days while other southernors did, lincoln knew what would happen if reconstruction became radical like the other members of his parties wanted, and when he died and johnson could not stall the other republicans, those republicans got their wish and later regretted not heading lincolns advice.

 

[Linc]

Many confederates opposed monuments directly after the war. The revival of confederate pride came under reconstruction by grant, Lincoln knew the south relied on slave labor, he knew the hate that would occur if he tried to be authoritarian on the south and he wanted the union to reunited as quickly as efficiently as possible as one nation again rather than a north and south.

Johnson agreed with lincoln on everything except restoring rights to blacks, johnson wanted partial rights while lincoln wanted full rights. Lincolns plan was not to abruptly end slavery in the south but to do forced buybacks over time to prevent a southern depression and allow their ecponomy to transition.

However lincoln got assassinated before this happenned, johnson who could not control the republicans ended up being over rided at every turn, and impeached for not being radical enough with reconstruction.

Now follow in grant, under him the south became a police state, previous rules had prevented southernors from electing their own govt, soldiers at every corner in a police state, the southern economy in shreds and further hurt by grants policies, as well as a push to remove any instance of identity of the south.

This led the south to become bitter, this led to racism on epic levels where before most southernors viewed blacks as commodities for their economy, it led to extreme resentment of the north and in the end even grant admitted before his death the southern reconstruction caused more harm than good. Lee did not live much to see those days while other southernors did, lincoln knew what would happen if reconstruction became radical like the other members of his parties wanted, and when he died and johnson could not stall the other republicans, those republicans got their wish and later regretted not heading lincolns advice.

Your post sums up the reasons why I'll always believe the 'Radical Republicans' were complicit in Lincoln's assassination.

Lincoln's assassination also eventually led to the dirty deed of Hayes being given the presidency on the basis of the North removing their troops, leading to the mess that followed ...

 

[apdst]

Confederate monuments have never done anything besides glorify a defeated army, a nation that existed for just four years and was recognized by no one, and in the end was so utterly destroyed and undone that only the city of Carthage can hold a candle to it.

They show respect to the sacrifice of fellow Americans and fellow warriors.

 

[countryboy]

Yep. Lee advised we just forget the whole thing and move on.

He knew that losers shouldn't be memorialized.

Robert E. Lee opposed Confederate monuments | PBS NewsHour

--------------
“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” said Jonathan Horn, the author of the Lee biography, “The Man Who Would Not Be Washington.”

In his writings, Lee cited multiple reasons for opposing such monuments, questioning the cost of a potential Stonewall Jackson monument, for example. But underlying it all was one rationale: That the war had ended, and the South needed to move on and avoid more upheaval.

I see. Soooo, is this the reason cited by leftist loons when calling for the removal of his statues?

 

[Threegoofs]

I see. Soooo, is this the reason cited by leftist loons when calling for the removal of his statues?

Not surprisingly, you don't see.

 

[Jredbaron96]

They show respect to the sacrifice of fellow Americans and fellow warriors.

They betrayed the United States, took up arms against her, disgraced her Constitution, destroyed it's property and killed citizens of the United States. They are not heroes, they are traitors.

 

[beerftw]

Your post sums up the reasons why I'll always the 'Radical Republicans' were complicit in Lincoln's assassination.

Lincoln's assassination also eventually led to the dirty deed of Hayes being given the presidency on the basis of the North removing their troops, leading to the mess that followed ...

I am not sure if the republicans in the north or the democrats in the south worked to get him killed, but it definately hurt the south more than anything, had lincoln lived southern pride might have been sweet tea the american flag and fried catfish, instead of confederate monuments.

 

[Geoist]

They betrayed the United States, took up arms against her, disgraced her Constitution, destroyed it's property and killed citizens of the United States. They are not heroes, they are traitors.

The traitor part isn't even what gets me. After all, our country was founded by traitors. It is the fact they became traitors in order to preserve an abhorrent system. That is what I find so repugnant.

 

[Threegoofs]

The traitor part isn't even what gets me. After all, our country was founded by traitors. It is the fact they became traitors in order to preserve an abhorrent system. That is what I find so repugnant.

Pretty repugnant, but what's worse is people living in 2017 who pretend that that abhorrent system is something we make too big of a deal about today.

Exhibit A:

 

[Linc]

I am not sure if the republicans in the north or the democrats in the south worked to get him killed, but it definately hurt the south more than anything, had lincoln lived southern pride might have been sweet tea the american flag and fried catfish, instead of confederate monuments.

We have an incredible Veteran's Home in Quincy, IL where my Dad was first placed with his Alzheimer's; the 'city within the city' 205 acres; right on the 40th parallel; huge indoor murals show soldiers from the South and North coming together to their last home as they came of age needing help;

It's the 4th oldest in the USA; beginning in 1884; We do a great job for Veterans in IL with our VA homes; of particular interest to me right now as a Son of the American Legion is the pharmed epidemic; especially alcohol before PM meds, both psychotropic and opioidal; I'll be presenting a report next month;

Which ironically our GOP state rep wants from me; he's s good guy; we see eye-to-eye on many issues; a GOP will always represent my district and I'm glad to be working with him on the pill crisis ;;

 

[Chillfolks]

That was actually funny. Wrong, but funny.

It actually was meant as comedy. The board can get only so full of variations on a common theme before I stop taking them seriously. It seems people would rather start new threads than participate in others. So I laugh instead of getting angry and move on

 

[countryboy]

They betrayed the United States, took up arms against her, disgraced her Constitution, destroyed it's property and killed citizens of the United States. They are not heroes, they are traitors.

So it's just Confederate figures you have a problem with?

 

[Parrish]

They show respect to the sacrifice of fellow Americans and fellow warriors.

Nope. You really shouldn't post about something you have no knowledge of. Do yourself a favor and do a bit of research about why and when these monuments were erected.

 

[Jredbaron96]

So it's just Confederate figures you have a problem with?

I presume you have an alternative to offer instead of just asking random questions?

 

[azgreg]

It actually was meant as comedy. The board can get only so full of variations on a common theme before I stop taking them seriously. It seems people would rather start new threads than participate in others. So I laugh instead of getting angry and move on

And that's how I took it.

 

[apdst]

They betrayed the United States, took up arms against her, disgraced her Constitution, destroyed it's property and killed citizens of the United States. They are not heroes, they are traitors.

And by God, you will have your revenge!

 

[countryboy]

I presume you have an alternative to offer instead of just asking random questions?

I am asking a question directly related to your comment. I'm not sure you understand the concept of "random".

 

[Jredbaron96]

I am asking a question directly related to your comment. I'm not sure you understand the concept of "random".

You asked me "So it's just Confederate figures you have a problem with?"

Im not sure what context you want with that. In general? No, there are plenty of other people I have trouble with. Fascists, guys who think Bud Light tastes good, Falcons fans.

You're going to have to be more specific.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The traitor part isn't even what gets me. After all, our country was founded by traitors. It is the fact they became traitors in order to preserve an abhorrent system. That is what I find so repugnant.

That abhorrent system was what got those slave states to join the union in the first place. To change the rules (yet not by the agreed upon constitutional amendment process) in mid-game and assert that any opposition to that 'new deal' was treason was also wrong (clearly unconstitutional).

When the north needed the south they agreed to that 'abhorrent system' but later they decided to change the rules for admitting new states (assuming an extra constitutional power by simple majority vote?) to dilute (remove?) the ability for slave states to maintain their original deal.

The honorable thing to do was to let the slave (southern?) states secede and form a new nation (the CSA), amend the constitution, and then let the chips fall where they may - the remaining territories could choose which nation (if any) to join.

 

[Geoist]

That abhorrent system was what got those slave states to join the union in the first place. To change the rules (yet not by the agreed upon constitutional amendment process) in mid-game and assert that any opposition to that 'new deal' was treason was also wrong (clearly unconstitutional).

When the north needed the south they agreed to that 'abhorrent system' but later they decided to change the rules for admitting new states (assuming an extra constitutional power by simple majority vote?) to dilute (remove?) the ability for slave states to maintain their original deal.

The honorable thing to do was to let the slave (southern?) states secede and form a new nation (the CSA), amend the constitution, and then let the chips fall where they may - the remaining territories could choose which nation (if any) to join.

My post has really nothing to do with whether the secession itself was moral/legal. I am speaking strictly on the fact they seceded because they wanted to protect the 'rights' of a wealthy few to own other human beings. That in of itself disqualifies such people from being glorified in the form of a monument on public grounds.