tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

---

No... that honor goes to the Hebrew Israelites...

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

It would have not been allowed. I never understood these monuments...other than an affront to Afrcan-Americans. I mean, the South lost so why celebrate losers (and no, they are not martyrs). I do wonder though what the average souther thought...I mean most didn't own slaves, so I wonder what they knew or did not know about the war.

In fact, I think that there should be very few statue-worthy people from the civil war...maybe just Lincoln.

I've also been distrubed that we have a lost of "Jeff Davis" and "Robert E Lee" high schools but very few "Lincoln."

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

It would have not been allowed. I never understood these monuments...other than an affront to Afrcan-Americans. I mean, the South lost so why celebrate losers (and no, they are not martyrs). I do wonder though what the average souther thought...I mean most didn't own slaves, so I wonder what they knew or did not know about the war.

In fact, I think that there should be very few statue-worthy people from the civil war...maybe just Lincoln.

I've also been distrubed that we have a lost of "Jeff Davis" and "Robert E Lee" high schools but very few "Lincoln."

---

The statues were but up by the Veterans and their families. Every small town lost at least 33% of their fighting age men during that war.

They raised them to honor and remember them.

Same as if you go to northern small towns.

---

I can see honoring your lost for a war but erecting statues of the losers? I think that's why I would like to know what they knew...we're they just told that the North attacked? I mean we don't really know what the common man - especially in Texas, knew.

I have seen monuments in small towns dedicated to those who fought in the civil war from their community with names of the people but to top it off with a statue of Jeff Davis makes no sense to me.

However, I draw the line at the hate towards statues of people who happened to own slaves. Yes slavery was bad but some of these people did some good things which is why their statues were erected. It wasn't done so to celebrate slavery.

I mean should we have statues to MLK because of the work he did? Absolutely. But he did have several extra-martial affaits but the purpose isn't to celebrate that.

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

It would have not been allowed. I never understood these monuments...other than an affront to Afrcan-Americans. I mean, the South lost so why celebrate losers (and no, they are not martyrs). I do wonder though what the average souther thought...I mean most didn't own slaves, so I wonder what they knew or did not know about the war.

In fact, I think that there should be very few statue-worthy people from the civil war...maybe just Lincoln.

I've also been distrubed that we have a lost of "Jeff Davis" and "Robert E Lee" high schools but very few "Lincoln."

---

The statues were but up by the Veterans and their families. Every small town lost at least 33% of their fighting age men during that war.

They raised them to honor and remember them.

Same as if you go to northern small towns.

---

I can see honoring your lost for a war but erecting statues of the losers? I think that's why I would like to know what they knew...we're they just told that the North attacked? I mean we don't really know what the common man - especially in Texas, knew.

I have seen monuments in small towns dedicated to those who fought in the civil war from their community with names of the people but to top it off with a statue of Jeff Davis makes no sense to me.

However, I draw the line at the hate towards statues of people who happened to own slaves. Yes slavery was bad but some of these people did some good things which is why their statues were erected. It wasn't done so to celebrate slavery.

I mean should we have statues to MLK because of the work he did? Absolutely. But he did have several extra-martial affaits but the purpose isn't to celebrate that.

---

So no statues of Native American leaders like Geronimo or Crazy horse? They were all losers right? All of them fought the Federal blue coats and lost.

You lack any understanding of ancestral piety or honor.

Many times the losers of great military struggles are actually the most worthy of such remembrance.

---

I don't think Geronimo or Crazy Horse are in the same category as the south. Indians were trying to defeat a conquering force. REL and JD were rebelling against our country.

Yes, I am a life-long Texan and some of my family came from Alabama but the civil war was a rebellion....

The_barBEARian said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

It would have not been allowed. I never understood these monuments...other than an affront to Afrcan-Americans. I mean, the South lost so why celebrate losers (and no, they are not martyrs). I do wonder though what the average souther thought...I mean most didn't own slaves, so I wonder what they knew or did not know about the war.

In fact, I think that there should be very few statue-worthy people from the civil war...maybe just Lincoln.

I've also been distrubed that we have a lost of "Jeff Davis" and "Robert E Lee" high schools but very few "Lincoln."

---

The statues were but up by the Veterans and their families. Every small town lost at least 33% of their fighting age men during that war.

They raised them to honor and remember them.

Same as if you go to northern small towns.

---

I can see honoring your lost for a war but erecting statues of the losers? I think that's why I would like to know what they knew...we're they just told that the North attacked? I mean we don't really know what the common man - especially in Texas, knew.

I have seen monuments in small towns dedicated to those who fought in the civil war from their community with names of the people but to top it off with a statue of Jeff Davis makes no sense to me.

However, I draw the line at the hate towards statues of people who happened to own slaves. Yes slavery was bad but some of these people did some good things which is why their statues were erected. It wasn't done so to celebrate slavery.

I mean should we have statues to MLK because of the work he did? Absolutely. But he did have several extra-martial affaits but the purpose isn't to celebrate that.

---

So no statues of Native American leaders like Geronimo or Crazy horse? They were all losers right? All of them fought the Federal blue coats and lost.

You lack any understanding of ancestral piety or honor.

Many times the losers of great military struggles are actually the most worthy of such remembrance.

---

I don't think Geronimo or Crazy Horse are in the same category as the south. Indians were trying to defeat a conquering force. REL and JD were rebelling against our country.

Yes, I am a life-long Texan and some of my family came from Alabama but the civil war was a rebellion....

---

Year zero. All historical documents and antiquities must be destroyed similarly to what ISIS was doing in the Syria and Iraq. The past must be eradicated before people like you can reshape it to brainwash future generations. You are one of the villains and you dont even realize it.

---

I'm not advocating deatroying anything. Where did I do that?

Also, where am I revising history?

PS- My Bachelor's degree from Baylor was in ...History

OsoCoreyell said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Booray said:

---

One can be against removing statutes (particularly those on private grounds) and for giving full context to those memorialized. I am guessing that is what the result will be here. Y'all can keep perpetuating sanitized fairy tales and calling it history.

---

Why is it necessary to point out a person's flaws on a statue? Why not explain the reason he/she deserved the statute and leave it at that?

Maybe we should start doing this at funerals as well. Pepper in the individual's personal failings with his or her good qualities just for "context." Let's open the closet and let people see all of the skeletons. Right?

Nein is right - this isn't about correcting white supremacy but Western culture.

In our somewhat liberal neighborhood in Austin, the HOA has a big debate raging about whether it's a good idea for people to be flying American flags. There is a movement to permit them only on memorial day and July 4th that is gaining serious traction because the flag represents colonialism, white supremacy, etc., and it's mostly led by the younger generation moving into our neighborhood. We have a generation that has been taught that our country is evil in our colleges. It really does make one fear for our country in the coming decades.

---

Your HOA will be handed its own ass in court if it tries to restrict a person from flying the US flag on their home fro what is obviously a content-based judgment.

We've come a LONG way since Lenny Bruce intentionally cursed in his performances to prove a First Amendment point.

Screw all of you book-banning, speech coding, safe-space jerkoffs. We need to use our rights to protect them.

---

Awoman Brother!!!!

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

It would have not been allowed. I never understood these monuments...other than an affront to Afrcan-Americans. I mean, the South lost so why celebrate losers (and no, they are not martyrs). I do wonder though what the average souther thought...I mean most didn't own slaves, so I wonder what they knew or did not know about the war.

In fact, I think that there should be very few statue-worthy people from the civil war...maybe just Lincoln.

I've also been distrubed that we have a lost of "Jeff Davis" and "Robert E Lee" high schools but very few "Lincoln."

---

The statues were but up by the Veterans and their families. Every small town lost at least 33% of their fighting age men during that war.

They raised them to honor and remember them.

Same as if you go to northern small towns.

---

I can see honoring your lost for a war but erecting statues of the losers? I think that's why I would like to know what they knew...we're they just told that the North attacked? I mean we don't really know what the common man - especially in Texas, knew.

I have seen monuments in small towns dedicated to those who fought in the civil war from their community with names of the people but to top it off with a statue of Jeff Davis makes no sense to me.

However, I draw the line at the hate towards statues of people who happened to own slaves. Yes slavery was bad but some of these people did some good things which is why their statues were erected. It wasn't done so to celebrate slavery.

I mean should we have statues to MLK because of the work he did? Absolutely. But he did have several extra-martial affaits but the purpose isn't to celebrate that.

---

So no statues of Native American leaders like Geronimo or Crazy horse? They were all losers right? All of them fought the Federal blue coats and lost.

You lack any understanding of ancestral piety or honor.

Many times the losers of great military struggles are actually the most worthy of such remembrance.

---

I don't think Geronimo or Crazy Horse are in the same category as the south. Indians were trying to defeat a conquering force. REL and JD were rebelling against our country.

Yes, I am a life-long Texan and some of my family came from Alabama but the civil war was a rebellion....

---

So was the American war for Independence in 1776 and the Texas war of Independence in 1835.

"The Southerners who fought and died to repel the invasion of their homeland by Federal armies must be denigrated as 'fighting to preserve slavery'otherwise that invasion stands revealed as the unjustifiable and criminal mass killing that it was. Lee and Davis must be reviled as 'traitors'even though secession was protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. George Washington must be carefully distinguished from the Confederate soldiers and statemen, even though he betrayed the King he had sworn to honor and serve, because that King was a 'tyrant' who dared to impose taxes that were so small as to be hardly noticeable to any average American."

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

It would have not been allowed. I never understood these monuments...other than an affront to Afrcan-Americans. I mean, the South lost so why celebrate losers (and no, they are not martyrs). I do wonder though what the average souther thought...I mean most didn't own slaves, so I wonder what they knew or did not know about the war.

In fact, I think that there should be very few statue-worthy people from the civil war...maybe just Lincoln.

I've also been distrubed that we have a lost of "Jeff Davis" and "Robert E Lee" high schools but very few "Lincoln."

---

The statues were but up by the Veterans and their families. Every small town lost at least 33% of their fighting age men during that war.

They raised them to honor and remember them.

Same as if you go to northern small towns.

---

I can see honoring your lost for a war but erecting statues of the losers? I think that's why I would like to know what they knew...we're they just told that the North attacked? I mean we don't really know what the common man - especially in Texas, knew.

I have seen monuments in small towns dedicated to those who fought in the civil war from their community with names of the people but to top it off with a statue of Jeff Davis makes no sense to me.

However, I draw the line at the hate towards statues of people who happened to own slaves. Yes slavery was bad but some of these people did some good things which is why their statues were erected. It wasn't done so to celebrate slavery.

I mean should we have statues to MLK because of the work he did? Absolutely. But he did have several extra-martial affaits but the purpose isn't to celebrate that.

---

So no statues of Native American leaders like Geronimo or Crazy horse? They were all losers right? All of them fought the Federal blue coats and lost.

You lack any understanding of ancestral piety or honor.

Many times the losers of great military struggles are actually the most worthy of such remembrance.

---

I don't think Geronimo or Crazy Horse are in the same category as the south. Indians were trying to defeat a conquering force. REL and JD were rebelling against our country.

Yes, I am a life-long Texan and some of my family came from Alabama but the civil war was a rebellion....

---

So was the American war for Independence in 1776 and the Texas war of Independence in 1835.

"The Southerners who fought and died to repel the invasion of their homeland by Federal armies must be denigrated as 'fighting to preserve slavery'otherwise that invasion stands revealed as the unjustifiable and criminal mass killing that it was. Lee and Davis must be reviled as 'traitors'even though secession was protected by the 10th Amendment to the United States Constitution. George Washington must be carefully distinguished from the Confederate soldiers and statemen, even though he betrayed the King he had sworn to honor and serve, because that King was a 'tyrant' who dared to impose taxes that were so small as to be hardly noticeable to any average American."

---

Yes, they were all rebellions. The colonies rebelled against unjuect actions they disliked from the "mother country." Yes, Texas rebelled against Mexico.

The south wanted to secede from the US. The south viewed the rebellion as a states rights issue...which it was, but to say that slavery was not one of the rights the states wanted to protect, just isn't true.

We have to recognize that whether the states had a right to their own decsions is a different argument than slavery...unless you want to combine them. You have to pick.

All rebellions are not wrong...all rebellions are not right.

I guess it comes down to your personal beliefs:

• the south had a right to secede, regardless of the issue
• the south had a right to secede, but it was wrong because they were trying to preserve slavery
• the south had no right to secede

I fall somewhere between the second bullet and the third.

Regardless, I do not think it appropriate that statues be erected for these figures UNLESS there is some other perspective that makes the person a reason to celebrate OTHER than slaves....Jeff Davis was president of the confederacy....what benefits did he provide that would provide a reason to erect a statue of him in a town square? Do we preserve Beauvoir? Of course, it is history and we tell the entire history. Put a statue there.

I've been to Mount Vernon and have seen the slave quarters. Do we erect statues because Washington was a slave owner? No, we erect statues because he did much more.

The_barBEARian said:

---

tommie said:

---

Thee University said:

---

You knew it was coming.

https://www.baylor.edu/mediacommunications/news.php?action=story&story=222031

---

Isn't the idea that the Confederacy wasn't about slavery the biggest rewrite of history in the of our nation?

---

No... that honor goes to the Hebrew Israelites...

---

One lie doesn't make the other lie true. It just means we have two lies.

Redbrickbear said:

---

"The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states. They came out as subjects. What they thus lost, they have never gotten back." -H.L. Mencken

"Slavery is no more the cause of this current war that Mr. Lincoln has chosen to wage than gold is the cause of robbery." Governor Joel Parker of New Jersey, 1863

"The contest is really for empire on the side of the North, and for independence on that of the South, and in this respect we recognize an exact analogy between the North and the Government of King George III, and the South and the Thirteen Revolted Colonies. These opinionsare the general opinions of the English nation." -London Times, November 7, 1861

"The Northern onslaught upon the South while here in Europe using the issue of slavery to justify their war was no more than a piece of specious humbug designed to conceal its desire for economic and political control of these Southern states."-Charles Dickens, 1862

Why doesn't the Confederacy just fade away? Is it because we are irresistibly fascinated by catastrophic loss? Or is it something else? The Confederacy is to this day the greatest conservative resistance to federal centralized power and authority in American history." --Professor David Blight

---

Opinions are like butholes...every one has one and they all stink.

If I fight for decentralized power, I'm not falling on "this human is my property" hill. I'll find another.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

Damn right I am!

Did they even try? They could out up monuments anywhere in the hoods nationwide so it gets maximum exposure where black folks work, play and do business.

What were they doing? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Today there are thousands of black millionaires across this nation fully capable of erecting these monuments. The BLM group is flush with WHITE cash. What is holding them back? Are they waiting for white guilt to kick in and let whitey pay for it.

---

In the 1920's, when the Confederate statues went up, African Americans were busy trying not to get lynched by the KKK. Suggesting they could have just erected statues of black heroes in public spaces is beyond stupid. The franchise was largely denied to them until the 1960's and even once they got the vote, the idea that they could get approval for what you are suggesting is also beyond stupid.

Every time I think that the some of the conservative posters on Sic'em make valid points about too much reliance on the race card, I can count on you to demonstrate how much work needs to be done.

---

For the record these statues were built at the exact same time Union statues were.

Starting in the 1880s and continuing all the way until the civil war's centennial in 1960.

The big building spree was in the 1920s because that was right around the time union and confederate veterans were passing away. Same reason that around the 1990s-2010s there was a huge increase in WWII memorials being built around the country as the veterans of that war started to pass on.

This attempt to link war memorials to disrespect towards african americans is spurious.

Unless you want to try and link Grand Army of the Union building statues to african americans in the North somehow.

This lie started when the Southern Poverty (scam) Law Center tried to make a connection and thus further their cause in deconstructing history and vilifying southerners. Started around 2015 when they started putting these claims on their website....vice, huffpost, and then the mainstream media picked up on the trend and used it as a excuse to tear them down.

---

Again, I don't think people are referring to memorials for veterans but rather a statue of Robert E Lee or Jeff Davis in say a town square in Louisiana.

Just for reference, there is a town in west Texas names Robert Lee. It is named after the conferedate general however, it was named because he camed near there and not because of the civil war.

But let's say that the city of Houston has a statue pf Robert E Lee....my question would be why? What is his connection to Houston?

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

Damn right I am!

Did they even try? They could out up monuments anywhere in the hoods nationwide so it gets maximum exposure where black folks work, play and do business.

What were they doing? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Today there are thousands of black millionaires across this nation fully capable of erecting these monuments. The BLM group is flush with WHITE cash. What is holding them back? Are they waiting for white guilt to kick in and let whitey pay for it.

---

In the 1920's, when the Confederate statues went up, African Americans were busy trying not to get lynched by the KKK. Suggesting they could have just erected statues of black heroes in public spaces is beyond stupid. The franchise was largely denied to them until the 1960's and even once they got the vote, the idea that they could get approval for what you are suggesting is also beyond stupid.

Every time I think that the some of the conservative posters on Sic'em make valid points about too much reliance on the race card, I can count on you to demonstrate how much work needs to be done.

---

For the record these statues were built at the exact same time Union statues were.

Starting in the 1880s and continuing all the way until the civil war's centennial in 1960.

The big building spree was in the 1920s because that was right around the time union and confederate veterans were passing away. Same reason that around the 1990s-2010s there was a huge increase in WWII memorials being built around the country as the veterans of that war started to pass on.

This attempt to link war memorials to disrespect towards african americans is spurious.

Unless you want to try and link Grand Army of the Union building statues to african americans in the North somehow.

This lie started when the Southern Poverty (scam) Law Center tried to make a connection and thus further their cause in deconstructing history and vilifying southerners. Started around 2015 when they started putting these claims on their website....vice, huffpost, and then the mainstream media picked up on the trend and used it as a excuse to tear them down.

---

First, you misread what I said. I said the fact that the KKK was allowed to run rampant when the statutes were being erected was a pretty good indication that African Americans would not be allowed to put up statutes of their heroes. Is that something you disagree with? Are you going to join Thee's stupidity train and assert "gee..I don't understand why Southern courthouses don't have statutes of black heroes...must be the black people's fault?"

Second, your belief that the statues had nothing to do with reminding African Americans of their proper place in the world ignores a pretty obvious rise in overt intimidation that happened simultaneously. While correlation is not causation, smoke often indicates fire.

Third, I don't have mind reading ability that stretches a century back like you so I will say that regardless of the intent of the people erecting the statues, honoring people who fought for the right to enslave other people is going to be hurtful to those who were enslaved and their descendants.

The fact that you and others cannot admit that last point proves the Baylor commission on racial justice was and is absolutely necessary.

Booray said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

Damn right I am!

Did they even try? They could out up monuments anywhere in the hoods nationwide so it gets maximum exposure where black folks work, play and do business.

What were they doing? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Today there are thousands of black millionaires across this nation fully capable of erecting these monuments. The BLM group is flush with WHITE cash. What is holding them back? Are they waiting for white guilt to kick in and let whitey pay for it.

---

In the 1920's, when the Confederate statues went up, African Americans were busy trying not to get lynched by the KKK. Suggesting they could have just erected statues of black heroes in public spaces is beyond stupid. The franchise was largely denied to them until the 1960's and even once they got the vote, the idea that they could get approval for what you are suggesting is also beyond stupid.

Every time I think that the some of the conservative posters on Sic'em make valid points about too much reliance on the race card, I can count on you to demonstrate how much work needs to be done.

---

For the record these statues were built at the exact same time Union statues were.

Starting in the 1880s and continuing all the way until the civil war's centennial in 1960.

The big building spree was in the 1920s because that was right around the time union and confederate veterans were passing away. Same reason that around the 1990s-2010s there was a huge increase in WWII memorials being built around the country as the veterans of that war started to pass on.

This attempt to link war memorials to disrespect towards african americans is spurious.

Unless you want to try and link Grand Army of the Union building statues to african americans in the North somehow.

This lie started when the Southern Poverty (scam) Law Center tried to make a connection and thus further their cause in deconstructing history and vilifying southerners. Started around 2015 when they started putting these claims on their website....vice, huffpost, and then the mainstream media picked up on the trend and used it as a excuse to tear them down.

---

First, you misread what I said. I said the fact that the KKK was allowed to run rampant when the statutes were being erected was a pretty good indication that African Americans would not be allowed to put up statutes of their heroes. Is that something you disagree with? Are you going to join Thee's stupidity train and assert "gee..I don't understand why Southern courthouses don't have statutes of black heroes...must be the black people's fault?"

Second, your belief that the statues had nothing to do with reminding African Americans of their proper place in the world ignores a pretty obvious rise in overt intimidation that happened simultaneously. While correlation is not causation, smoke often indicates fire.

Third, I don't have mind reading ability that stretches a century back like you so I will say that regardless of the intent of the people erecting the statues, honoring people who fought for the right to enslave other people is going to be hurtful to those who were enslaved and their descendants.

The fact that you and others cannot admit that last point proves the Baylor commission on racial justice was and is absolutely necessary.

---

I agree with you on all points. I can say that honoring the dead is one thing and has a place but regarding the civil war, it is a careful place that must be exercised with caution. I'msure there are many, escpecially in Texas who fought for Texas and not really the south...having said that...I do think that we need to explore what messages are sent by statues or names.

I have a very good friend who has lived in Tyler, TX all of his life. Recently, Tyler went through an issue with one of it's high schools being named Robert E Lee. Although Tyler Lee has changed its mascot from Rebels to Red Rainders and was predominately Hispanic now, there was still strong feelings on both sides.

My friend was a graduate of Lee HS and was very resistant to the change. However, he did some research and learned that Lee was erected in 1958 and was named Robert E Lee to discourage blacks from ever wanting to attend school there. He stated that having learned that, how could he not be for changing the name.

Sometime the changing of history is necessary once we find out why things were done the way they were...sometimes it means we don't have to change history.

I also understand the fear of today's cancel culture that because Judge Baylor owned slaves, his name must be erased from existance and all references cease...it scares me too.

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

Damn right I am!

Did they even try? They could out up monuments anywhere in the hoods nationwide so it gets maximum exposure where black folks work, play and do business.

What were they doing? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Today there are thousands of black millionaires across this nation fully capable of erecting these monuments. The BLM group is flush with WHITE cash. What is holding them back? Are they waiting for white guilt to kick in and let whitey pay for it.

---

In the 1920's, when the Confederate statues went up, African Americans were busy trying not to get lynched by the KKK. Suggesting they could have just erected statues of black heroes in public spaces is beyond stupid. The franchise was largely denied to them until the 1960's and even once they got the vote, the idea that they could get approval for what you are suggesting is also beyond stupid.

Every time I think that the some of the conservative posters on Sic'em make valid points about too much reliance on the race card, I can count on you to demonstrate how much work needs to be done.

---

For the record these statues were built at the exact same time Union statues were.

Starting in the 1880s and continuing all the way until the civil war's centennial in 1960.

The big building spree was in the 1920s because that was right around the time union and confederate veterans were passing away. Same reason that around the 1990s-2010s there was a huge increase in WWII memorials being built around the country as the veterans of that war started to pass on.

This attempt to link war memorials to disrespect towards african americans is spurious.

Unless you want to try and link Grand Army of the Union building statues to african americans in the North somehow.

This lie started when the Southern Poverty (scam) Law Center tried to make a connection and thus further their cause in deconstructing history and vilifying southerners. Started around 2015 when they started putting these claims on their website....vice, huffpost, and then the mainstream media picked up on the trend and used it as a excuse to tear them down.

---

Again, I don't think people are referring to memorials for veterans but rather a statue of Robert E Lee or Jeff Davis in say a town square in Louisiana.

Just for reference, there is a town in west Texas names Robert Lee. It is named after the conferedate general however, it was named because he camed near there and not because of the civil war.

But let's say that the city of Houston has a statue pf Robert E Lee....my question would be why? What is his connection to Houston?

---

That is a good point.

But then you would have to ask the same question of why is there a statue of Gen. Grant in San Francisco and a statue of Lincoln at the University of Wisconsin-Madison?

The Northern parts of the USA...from the West Coast to Maine are littered with Unionist statues and memorials. It would never have occurred to me to demand these be taken down....thought in hindsight maybe they should be since they do nothing to help us "heal" from the wounds of that war.

fadskier said:

---

Booray said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

Damn right I am!

Did they even try? They could out up monuments anywhere in the hoods nationwide so it gets maximum exposure where black folks work, play and do business.

What were they doing? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Today there are thousands of black millionaires across this nation fully capable of erecting these monuments. The BLM group is flush with WHITE cash. What is holding them back? Are they waiting for white guilt to kick in and let whitey pay for it.

---

In the 1920's, when the Confederate statues went up, African Americans were busy trying not to get lynched by the KKK. Suggesting they could have just erected statues of black heroes in public spaces is beyond stupid. The franchise was largely denied to them until the 1960's and even once they got the vote, the idea that they could get approval for what you are suggesting is also beyond stupid.

Every time I think that the some of the conservative posters on Sic'em make valid points about too much reliance on the race card, I can count on you to demonstrate how much work needs to be done.

---

For the record these statues were built at the exact same time Union statues were.

Starting in the 1880s and continuing all the way until the civil war's centennial in 1960.

The big building spree was in the 1920s because that was right around the time union and confederate veterans were passing away. Same reason that around the 1990s-2010s there was a huge increase in WWII memorials being built around the country as the veterans of that war started to pass on.

This attempt to link war memorials to disrespect towards african americans is spurious.

Unless you want to try and link Grand Army of the Union building statues to african americans in the North somehow.

This lie started when the Southern Poverty (scam) Law Center tried to make a connection and thus further their cause in deconstructing history and vilifying southerners. Started around 2015 when they started putting these claims on their website....vice, huffpost, and then the mainstream media picked up on the trend and used it as a excuse to tear them down.

---

First, you misread what I said. I said the fact that the KKK was allowed to run rampant when the statutes were being erected was a pretty good indication that African Americans would not be allowed to put up statutes of their heroes. Is that something you disagree with? Are you going to join Thee's stupidity train and assert "gee..I don't understand why Southern courthouses don't have statutes of black heroes...must be the black people's fault?"

Second, your belief that the statues had nothing to do with reminding African Americans of their proper place in the world ignores a pretty obvious rise in overt intimidation that happened simultaneously. While correlation is not causation, smoke often indicates fire.

Third, I don't have mind reading ability that stretches a century back like you so I will say that regardless of the intent of the people erecting the statues, honoring people who fought for the right to enslave other people is going to be hurtful to those who were enslaved and their descendants.

The fact that you and others cannot admit that last point proves the Baylor commission on racial justice was and is absolutely necessary.

---

I agree with you on all points. I can say that honoring the dead is one thing and has a place but regarding the civil war, it is a careful place that must be exercised with caution. I'msure there are many, escpecially in Texas who fought for Texas and not really the south...having said that...I do think that we need to explore what messages are sent by statues or names.

I have a very good friend who has lived in Tyler, TX all of his life. Recently, Tyler went through an issue with one of it's high schools being named Robert E Lee. Although Tyler Lee has changed its mascot from Rebels to Red Rainders and was predominately Hispanic now, there was still strong feelings on both sides.

My friend was a graduate of Lee HS and was very resistant to the change. However, he did some research and learned that Lee was erected in 1958 and was named Robert E Lee to discourage blacks from ever wanting to attend school there. He stated that having learned that, how could he not be for changing the name.

Sometime the changing of history is necessary once we find out why things were done the way they were...sometimes it means we don't have to change history.

I also understand the fear of today's cancel culture that because Judge Baylor owned slaves, his name must be erased from existance and all references cease...it scares me too.

---

Ditto.

I trust that Baylor will not go overboard.

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

Damn right I am!

Did they even try? They could out up monuments anywhere in the hoods nationwide so it gets maximum exposure where black folks work, play and do business.

What were they doing? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Today there are thousands of black millionaires across this nation fully capable of erecting these monuments. The BLM group is flush with WHITE cash. What is holding them back? Are they waiting for white guilt to kick in and let whitey pay for it.

---

In the 1920's, when the Confederate statues went up, African Americans were busy trying not to get lynched by the KKK. Suggesting they could have just erected statues of black heroes in public spaces is beyond stupid. The franchise was largely denied to them until the 1960's and even once they got the vote, the idea that they could get approval for what you are suggesting is also beyond stupid.

Every time I think that the some of the conservative posters on Sic'em make valid points about too much reliance on the race card, I can count on you to demonstrate how much work needs to be done.

---

For the record these statues were built at the exact same time Union statues were.

Starting in the 1880s and continuing all the way until the civil war's centennial in 1960.

The big building spree was in the 1920s because that was right around the time union and confederate veterans were passing away. Same reason that around the 1990s-2010s there was a huge increase in WWII memorials being built around the country as the veterans of that war started to pass on.

This attempt to link war memorials to disrespect towards african americans is spurious.

Unless you want to try and link Grand Army of the Union building statues to african americans in the North somehow.

This lie started when the Southern Poverty (scam) Law Center tried to make a connection and thus further their cause in deconstructing history and vilifying southerners. Started around 2015 when they started putting these claims on their website....vice, huffpost, and then the mainstream media picked up on the trend and used it as a excuse to tear them down.

---

Again, I don't think people are referring to memorials for veterans but rather a statue of Robert E Lee or Jeff Davis in say a town square in Louisiana.

Just for reference, there is a town in west Texas names Robert Lee. It is named after the conferedate general however, it was named because he camed near there and not because of the civil war.

But let's say that the city of Houston has a statue pf Robert E Lee....my question would be why? What is his connection to Houston?

---

That is a good point.

But then on would have to ask the same question of why is there a statue of Gen. Grant in San Francisco or statues of Lincoln at the University of Wisconsin-Madison?

---

Gen Grant I cannot explain...doesn't seem right. Lincoln was a great President...who guided us through a difficult time. I definately get that BUT I'd be careful before you ERECT any statue of a person....you need to be able to deal with their demons as much as their accomoplishments...

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sometime the changing of history is necessary once we find out why things were done the way they were...sometimes it means we don't have to change history.

I also understand the fear of today's cancel culture that because Judge Baylor owned slaves, his name must be erased from existance and all references cease...it scares me too.

---

Ditto.

I trust that Baylor will not go overboard.

---

Problem with opening the door to historical revisionism and judging historical persons by our (liberal) standards is that the door can never be shut.

5 years ago Civil War veterans statues were not controversial things....now the media and political Left has pulled the national discussion toward that end.

There is no reason they won't do the same on other historical issues. Imagine a historical commission in 50 years to determine what buildings at Baylor needed to be renamed because their honorees were against gay marriage. Such a example is ridiculous today...but maybe not in a few decades.

Better to draw a line in the sand and say NO...and a private religious university is in a perfect position to do just that.

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sometime the changing of history is necessary once we find out why things were done the way they were...sometimes it means we don't have to change history.

I also understand the fear of today's cancel culture that because Judge Baylor owned slaves, his name must be erased from existance and all references cease...it scares me too.

---

Ditto.

I trust that Baylor will not go overboard.

---

Problem with opening the door to historical revisionism and judging historical persons by our (liberal) standards is that the door can never be shut.

5 years ago Civil War veterans statues were not controversial things....now the media and political Left has pulled the national discussion toward that end.

There is no reason they won't do the same on other historical issues. Imagine a historical commission in 50 years to determine what buildings at Baylor needed to be renamed because their honorees were against gay marriage. Such a example is ridiculous today...but maybe not in a few decades.

Better to draw a line in the sand and say NO!

---

I think the argument (at least the one that I am making) is not to revise history but just plainly talk about it. For example, Judge Baylor owned slaves. While that might have been considered appropriate in his day, we know now that it is a practice that today we condemn and recognize that it is a practice that should have never happened. Today Baylor employs people of all ethnicites and invites all qualified students to apply. Baylor is colorblind.

Something like that...

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Sometime the changing of history is necessary once we find out why things were done the way they were...sometimes it means we don't have to change history.

I also understand the fear of today's cancel culture that because Judge Baylor owned slaves, his name must be erased from existance and all references cease...it scares me too.

---

Ditto.

I trust that Baylor will not go overboard.

---

Problem with opening the door to historical revisionism and judging historical persons by our (liberal) standards is that the door can never be shut.

5 years ago Civil War veterans statues were not controversial things....now the media and political Left has pulled the national discussion toward that end.

There is no reason they won't do the same on other historical issues. Imagine a historical commission in 50 years to determine what buildings at Baylor needed to be renamed because their honorees were against gay marriage. Such a example is ridiculous today...but maybe not in a few decades.

Better to draw a line in the sand and say NO...and a private religious university is in a perfect position to do just that.

---

No one on this thread believes we should move the statue or rename the school. So I don't know why you make that point.

We should also understand that there is a difference between honoring someone for doing great things despite the fact that they held beliefs we now find outdated and honoring someone for fighting to uphold those outdated beliefs. Leaving up the Judge Baylor statute would honor the man for his efforts in founding a great university despite the fact he owned slaves. Leaving up a statute honoring of Robert E. Lee as a public monument honors the man because of his efforts to uphold the institution of slavery.

So 50 years from now, I would have no problem with a statute of a great doctor, athlete, humanitarian, whatever who happened to oppose gay marriage. I would have a problem with a statue honoring a lawyer because he argued against gay marriage.

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

fadskier said:

---

Redbrickbear said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

Damn right I am!

Did they even try? They could out up monuments anywhere in the hoods nationwide so it gets maximum exposure where black folks work, play and do business.

What were they doing? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Today there are thousands of black millionaires across this nation fully capable of erecting these monuments. The BLM group is flush with WHITE cash. What is holding them back? Are they waiting for white guilt to kick in and let whitey pay for it.

---

In the 1920's, when the Confederate statues went up, African Americans were busy trying not to get lynched by the KKK. Suggesting they could have just erected statues of black heroes in public spaces is beyond stupid. The franchise was largely denied to them until the 1960's and even once they got the vote, the idea that they could get approval for what you are suggesting is also beyond stupid.

Every time I think that the some of the conservative posters on Sic'em make valid points about too much reliance on the race card, I can count on you to demonstrate how much work needs to be done.

---

For the record these statues were built at the exact same time Union statues were.

Starting in the 1880s and continuing all the way until the civil war's centennial in 1960.

The big building spree was in the 1920s because that was right around the time union and confederate veterans were passing away. Same reason that around the 1990s-2010s there was a huge increase in WWII memorials being built around the country as the veterans of that war started to pass on.

This attempt to link war memorials to disrespect towards african americans is spurious.

Unless you want to try and link Grand Army of the Union building statues to african americans in the North somehow.

This lie started when the Southern Poverty (scam) Law Center tried to make a connection and thus further their cause in deconstructing history and vilifying southerners. Started around 2015 when they started putting these claims on their website....vice, huffpost, and then the mainstream media picked up on the trend and used it as a excuse to tear them down.

---

Again, I don't think people are referring to memorials for veterans but rather a statue of Robert E Lee or Jeff Davis in say a town square in Louisiana.

Just for reference, there is a town in west Texas names Robert Lee. It is named after the conferedate general however, it was named because he camed near there and not because of the civil war.

But let's say that the city of Houston has a statue pf Robert E Lee....my question would be why? What is his connection to Houston?

---

That is a good point.

But then on would have to ask the same question of why is there a statue of Gen. Grant in San Francisco or statues of Lincoln at the University of Wisconsin-Madison?

---

Gen Grant I cannot explain...doesn't seem right. Lincoln was a great President...who guided us through a difficult time. I definately get that BUT I'd be careful before you ERECT any statue of a person....you need to be able to deal with their demons as much as their accomoplishments...

---

Grant spent time stationed in San Francisco. He was a two-term president, not just a General.

Lincoln is revered, period. Understanding why we would honor a man who saved our Union should not be difficult, regardless of where in the Union the honor is given.

Lincoln is also credited with creating land grant colleges, of which Wisconsin is one.

Thee University said:

---

Booray said:

---

Thee University said:

---

bubbadog said:

---

We put up historical markers on the site of where some early school or pioneer trading post once was but won't officially mark the site of the old slave market. Every county square in my state has a monument to its Confederate veterans or war dead -- and I have no problem with that -- but there's no public monument anywhere to the 20,000 Black men from the state who joined the Union Army and fought and died for their own freedom. If taking down Confederate statues today is cancelling, you might say that much of our history got pre-cancelled generations earlier.

---

A very large number of Confederate monuments around this great, free country were bought and paid for by the widows, kids and grandkids of Confederate Veterans. They raised the $$$$ by collecting pennies, nickels, dimes and other donations. They were proud of their ancestors and 95%+ did not own or have any slaves. They did not march hundreds and thousands of mile on foot and horseback to allow slave owners to keep their labor pool. They did not risk their lives voluntarily so that Boss Hog could wallow around on his plantation and they come home maimed to a mud hut or at best a log cabin.

Nothing prevented blacks, browns and yellows from erecting monuments and roadside historical markers of ancestors they were/are proud of or sites they deem historical.

Today I'm certain Black Lives Matter would part with $100 million or so so get those monuments erected. Don't you think? All it takes is a little work and sacrifice!!!

---

Those confederate monuments are largely at courthouses and on public land throughout the South, erected in the early 20th century. You are seriously suggesting that African-Americans could have just put up Fredrick Douglas, George Washington Carver and Harriet Tubman statues at the same time?

---

Damn right I am!

Did they even try? They could out up monuments anywhere in the hoods nationwide so it gets maximum exposure where black folks work, play and do business.

What were they doing? Waiting for someone else to do it for them?

Today there are thousands of black millionaires across this nation fully capable of erecting these monuments. The BLM group is flush with WHITE cash. What is holding them back? Are they waiting for white guilt to kick in and let whitey pay for it.

---

my personal views on monuments are not far removed from yours. However, you lose all credibility with the use of "hoods". I haven't read each post in this thread so I may have missed something early when another used it so you are using their word choice to emphasize a point. If not, I don't really see how your word choice helps either side.

"She 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. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union."

quash said:

---

"She 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. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association."
DECLARATION OF CAUSES: February 2, 1861

A declaration of the causes which impel the State of Texas to secede from the Federal Union."

---

"Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live here with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life." -Abraham Lincoln

"I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality." -Abraham Lincoln

"I have no purpose or desire to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races." -Abraham Lincoln

"I tell him [Douglass] very frankly that I am not in favor of negro citizenship." - Abraham Lincoln

"I agree... he [african americans] is not my equal in many respects certainly not in color, not in moral or intellectual endowment." - Abraham Lincoln

"I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all members of the Republican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party they are in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on the subject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform is most favorable to that separation. Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected by colonization [outside the country]." --Abraham Lincoln

"Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixing blood by the white and black races: we are agreed for once---a thousand times agreed." - Abraham Lincoln

[In his personal memoirs (1891), Gen. Sherman wrote that he met with Lincoln after the March to the Sea. The president was eager to hear stories about how thousands of Southern civilians mostly women, children, the elderly and the infirm had been plundered, (sometimes raped or murdered), and rendered homeless. Crimes committed by troops against the ex-slave population were also numerous. According to Sherman, Lincoln laughed uproariously at the stories. One of Sherman's biographers (Lee Kennett, Sherman: A Soldier's Life, Harper, 2002), who otherwise writes very favorably about the general, concludes that if the Confederates had won the war then they would have been "justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against non-combatants."]