This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Traitors and figures primarily known for lending their efforts to the greatest stain on our claim to be a nation founded on the principles of Liberty. They should have been gone yesterday. That this is not only a tough question but one that goes the other way for some is incredibly telling about the sad moral and intellectual derangement of many still over this tragic episode in our history.
 

You do realize that this isn't really going to protect you when the new Red Guard come after you, right?
 

Predictably one of our Birchers comes to prove the point about moral and intellectual derangement. Bircher Brett really can't think of any reason why someone would think that having statues of persons who were traitors and who are primarily known for working to advance mass chattel slavery and white supremacy in the very seat of where our democratic government is carried out as appalling other than as a placatory move to 'the New Red Guard.' All the lack of morality, all the conspiratorial hyperbole, all the intellectual incoherence on display. It's pathetic. And let's remember it's endemic in conservatism today.
 

The very presence of these statues there is one of best proofs that we do have a problem re Black Lives Matter. The biggest claim to fame of these three men is that they worked tirelessly to promote the mass slavery of black persons qua black persons, with all the mass torture, rape and murder that entailed (again, not to mention the actual slavery or highest deprivation of liberty possible, note this moves not our ostensible 'libertarians'). Each state is asked to send statuary of *two* persons in their long, storied histories to represent the state. And one of these three is the best, most appropriate persons in those long, storied history, that the states could offer? Consider that had, for example, a Marcus Garvey or Elijah Muhammad or Nat Turner (or heck, John Brown for that matter) been there there would be no lack of wailing and gnashing of teeth. Yet there stand men of far worse consequence and racism. It's bad enough these states (who, btw, all have significant numbers of African-Americans in them, incredible) offered and continued these monuments to their worst moral failings, but the fact that people today cannot call them what they are is telling of sad, depraved volumes. No, the only reason these statues were offered, continued, and not called out for what they are today is because to many people Black Lives simply don't 'matter' in significant ways. Their existence and maintenance is a continued almost incredible slap in the face to our black co-citizens.


 

Let's remember too how things like this show what the essence of modern conservatism is. You can think lower taxes helps the general welfare by stimulating economic growth in general or that it is warranted by the respect owed to individual's rights to property. You can think a huge national defense budget is warranted as deterrence of threats and as character building. You can think that strong protection of gun ownership rights reduces crime or is owed by respect to individual autonomy or to keep our own government honest.

None of that entails carrying water for historical figures whose primary accomplishments were fighting to maintain and extend the mass slavery (and torture, rape and murder) of millions of persons based solely on the color of their skin. No, the sad fact is that this issue demonstrates that it's not that modern US conservatism is a political system with philosophical views about the size and use of government that happens to be attractive to or for historical reasons has some attachments to a very ugly racial obtuseness and chauvinism (at best), rather modern US conservatism is apparently to an increasing degree a very ugly racial obtuseness and chauvinism with philosophical views about the size and use of government *peripherally* and *non-essentially* associated with it.
 

To (sort of) answer the question in the OP, my recollection from visiting Congress is that each state got to choose who to honor with a statue there. It's not clear that any action short of by Congress entirely could change that.
 

Important issue. By the way, and speaking of the statue of Robert E. Lee, I have just learned, that the circuit court for the city of Richmond, has issued a temporary injunction, enjoying the removal or selling of the statue. Here to the ruling:

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Lee-order.pdf

Also, it is by law, the sovereign discretion of each state, to offer statue to the National statuary hall collection, I quote from the link posted ( sec.1814 of the Revised statutes):


...the President is hereby authorized to invite each and all the States to provide and furnish statues, in marble or bronze, not exceeding two in number for each State, of deceased persons who have been citizens thereof, and illustrious for their historic renown or for distinguished civic or military services such as each State may deem to be worthy of this national commemoration; and when so furnished the same shall be placed in the Old Hall of the House of Representatives, in the Capitol of the United States, which is set apart, or so much thereof as may be necessary, as a national statuary hall for the purpose herein indicated.

End of quotation:

So,it is up to each state, as prescribed: " as each state may deem to be worthy of this national commemoration".

But, the author writes or defines some of them as disgrace, without explaining why and how. There are very complex arguments here. For example, the argument, that history per se, is either bad or wrong. But, history, as registered objectively, for, pure academic purposes. You can't delete history. That is a disgrace some argue. History per se. At least, for drawing lessons even, for future generations. So, statues, are integral part of it one may argue.

Thanks

 

I'm not addressing the merits of the people the states chose to represent themselves, I'd undoubtedly have picked somebody else myself, and if any of those states decided to swap them out, I'd have no complaint. Gerard's proposal, of course, is to have Congress over-ride the states' choices where ever they offend him.

So the statuary would no longer represent the states in the same sense.

I'm just pointing out to Gerard that this post isn't going to provide him with any protection, that he'd better expect the mob to come howling for his blood anyway. It's not humanly possible to suck up to the mob enough to buy protection, it doesn't work that way.
 

A last point: this, again, should be an easy thing for an actual conservative or libertarian. Their reply could easily be:

Yes, of course, these statues should be removed. The Confederacy and the institution of slavery it was dedicated to maintaining and advancing was the biggest stain on our great nation's history and rightly cherished, historically exceptional, founding principles of liberty and equality for all. It's an insult to the thousands of persons, many of them white and many from the South, who bravely gave their lives in the service of our nation to end that unjust regime. That regime was no respecter of free markets, small government, individual liberty or even state's rights, in fact their hollow invocation of those concepts tarnishes them to this day. There is a moral order to this world, though conventions of the day may make it more difficult for many in different times to recognize that order it does not change with the winds of history, slavery was wrong then and now. Many both white and black, Northerner and Southerner, knew this at the time those figures lived. It is from this pool those who are chosen to represent our states should be chosen from to memorialize in the symbolic heart of our nation's democracy devoted to liberty and justice for all.


Again, this should be easy for an ostensible libertarian or conservative to say.

Yet note how commonly *they do not.* I submit that is because white identity-related obtuseness/chauvinism is the *actual* animating heart of more modern conservatives than it may at first seem.
 

I looked it up:

Proceedings for the donation of a statue usually begin in the state legislature with the enactment of a resolution that names the citizen to be commemorated and cites his or her qualifications, specifies a committee or commission to represent the state in selecting the sculptor, and provides for a method of obtaining the necessary funds to carry the resolution into effect. When the donated statue arrives at the Capitol, it is placed in a location specified by the Joint Committee on the Library.

So I wonder how the majority of the citizens of these states feel about these choices? I'm guessing at one time they probably felt fine, but that may have changed. This is emblematic of "default racism" -- the self-perpetuating elevation of one race over others. This cannot be demolished and negated in one fell swoop, as it's endemic in society.

But one thing at a time ... In which case the states may certainly ask to have a different statue or pair of statues in the hall.

Perhaps someone should contact the civil rights organizations in the states.
 

el roam

It's absurd to argue this is a matter of 'deleting' or on the flip side recognizing history. This is about choices of who a state wants to represent them, to honor and monumentalize. Lots of Virginians, to take one example, distinguished themselves fighting for the Union. Other Virginia contemporaries of Lee distinguished themselves tirelessly fighting for abolition (I recently read a good article on the Virginian who wrote their post-Civil War constitution). If this were about some neutral recognition of history there'd be George Thomas statues throughout Virginia (unless this has changed since my most recent visit there, there are of course not).
 

"I'm just pointing out to Gerard that this post isn't going to provide him with any protection, that he'd better expect the mob to come howling for his blood anyway. It's not humanly possible to suck up to the mob enough to buy protection, it doesn't work that way."

Again, the idea that someone like Gerard may make his stand because he simply finds the idea of traitors and defenders of white supremacist based slavery being honored in the symbolic heart of our nation's democratic seat to be appalling never occurs to him. It must be because he's trying to placate Antifa or something.

Hyper-partisanship atrophies the moral faculties as much, if not more than, the intellectual ones.
 

Those statues have been there for this long, and it only occurs to him now, and I'm supposed to believe it has nothing to do with the howling mobs?

Yeah, right. Again, this is not going to buy him any protection.
 

Mista Whiskas,

I wasn't writing about states or their respective choices(in connection with potential argument about history raised by me and others). But rather, that monuments of such(generally speaking) are integral part of history. So, if you want to learn history (which is by nature, interdisciplinary discipline, that includes archaeology for example) you need also to observe statues, and draw objective, academic conclusions based on it. That's all. So, eliminating statues some argue, is to eliminate history per se.

If you want to raise counterargument, you should prove that, either:

History doesn't include statues. Or, eliminating bad statues, outweighs academic benefit. Would you do that ? We shall grant you fair chance, and hear your arguments.

Thanks
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"Howling mobs"

There has been mostly peaceful protests nation-wide including in small towns that usually are not inclined to do such things.

It is a national response to a wrong involving abuses of the government. Especially after the Civil War, and the 13-15A amendments, there is a general understanding that all governments, both state and federal, have some limits, limits that ultimately the national government and people as a whole agreed should be placed. This is the so-called "blood" (in response to multiple people killed; note that many of the reforms are supported by some conservatives/libertarians to protect overreaching when their interests are harmed) sought here.

The suggestion does not involve some national legislation that "comes after" anyone. It is a matter of what they have in their own building. If someone is concerned about federal power invading local discretion, bending to the so called "mob" in that limited fashion would seem to be a good idea even by that mindset. Since the so-called mob is going to from time to time going to need to be reassured realistically. I would say the people of the nation, but for the sake of argument, I'll use that word.

It looks like each state gets to pick the representation. I can understand some rule, e.g., that doesn't you know allow them to put a statue portraying a Sambo figure being compliant to a racist. A "no traitors" rule also seems sensible. In the long run though it is something for each state delegation ideally to address. Virginia, e.g., has gone blue. Robert E. Lee might not be what the people of the state wants there.
 

I think Gerard has long been against the Confederacy and its symbols being given honored positions. In fact, Iirc he's wrote about that before now. Undoubtedly he writes about this particular instance now because we're having a national discussion about what can done to improve race relations, and he's not morally and intellectually deranged such that he thinks that offering up a past due action thought to help in that discussion can only be motivated by an attempt to placate 'howling mobs.'
 

"bad statues, outweighs academic benefit"

What 'academic benefit' is there to the statues in question displayed where they are?

Monuments are designed to honor something or one. Honoring terrible people and things misleads, insults and is simply wrong in itself (in the same way that giving someone a certificate or accomplishment or recognition of some sort for doing something terrible would simply be wrong in itself).
 

Another thing that comes to mind is that I think there is a fairly strong argument that Confederate flags and other such representations of racism are "badges of slavery" that as a constitutional matter should not be given official sanction. A blatant case would be a state flag flown in a courtroom.

A few such arguments were rejected in court, but the government including Congress has wider discretion as a matter of policy. The second section of the Thirteenth Amendment also provides such discretion. This is especially the case when the limit here does not target private individuals or make something a crime.

===

I think various representations provide historical context and there are a place for such things. Civil War battlefields, e.g., can portray both sides. Robert E. Lee can be represented in some fashion in his home town. But, as a general (ha) representation of a state as a whole, it is curious to have such a person stand in. VA has a four hundred year history and a major rebel general in a four year war is chosen?

So, history is not being erased here. If anything, it is merely a sort of time, place or manner issue.
 

"There has been mostly peaceful protests nation-wide including in small towns that usually are not inclined to do such things."

There have also been howling mobs, and it's pointless to pretend otherwise.

Well, if the state governments want to swap statues, I'm cool with that. I'm not so cool with a proposal to have Congress decide the matter for them.
 

Mista Whiskas, So, that is the historical lesson:

That, at the time, or even up to that day, some were glorifying horrific things. Isn't is part of history ? Would you avoid, a documentary film, where Hitler, is giving speech, and the crowd goes crazy ? There is no substantial difference.The fact that the crowd or the audience goes crazy, is extremely important( for learning Technics of propaganda for example).Academic lessons drawn, and notwithstanding, each one, may subjectively, honor, appreciate, or despise the statue.

Sometimes, just the position of the head, or,the hands of one figure/statue, can teach us a lot, about history, let alone, the context or geographical location where it is positioned.

Thanks

 

"names the citizen to be commemorated "

My googled definition of 'commemorate' is
'com·mem·o·rate
/kəˈmeməˌrāt/
Learn to pronounce
verb
verb: commemorate; 3rd person present: commemorates; past tense: commemorated; past participle: commemorated; gerund or present participle: commemorating

recall and show respect for (someone or something).
"a wreath-laying ceremony to commemorate the war dead"
celebrate (an event, a person, or a situation) by doing or building something.

As the language indicates, these statues are not made and displayed for some academic reason (indeed, all we can learn from their display there is...that the states wanted them displayed there), but to show respect for or celebrate the persons. Showing respect for or celebrating persons whose chief claim to fame was working for the maintenance and extension of the enslavement of black persons and white supremacy is a bad thing which misleads people regarding the terrible consequences of their efforts, insults black persons and is simply wrong in itself (one should not celebrate morally terrible things).
 

"Another thing that comes to mind is that I think there is a fairly strong argument that Confederate flags and other such representations of racism are "badges of slavery" that as a constitutional matter should not be given official sanction."

Yeah, I'd reject that unless you were talking about people being required to carry them around with them at all times. "Badges of slavery" are something like the yellow stars Jews were required to wear in Nazi Germany. A statue sitting in a building isn't any "badge".
 

el roam,

An academic can learn a lot by watching a crime occur, but that doesn't mean they should let one occur if they can prevent it.

The continued *commemoration* of Confederate or, since you bring it up, Nazi, statuary would cause continuing harms (misleading, insulting, etc.,). This is to be weighed against the only possible 'academic benefit,' which is in understanding ways that Confederates or Nazis have or are being commemorated in this way. This benefit becomes even less weighty considering the statue can simply be moved from a place of honor and is still fully susceptible to academic study (or photographs of the statue in its location can be studied).

To put it another way, I think an education in American film would be lacking if Birth of a Nation were not covered and carefully studied. On the other hand, if the US government were to choose, say, ten American films to be commemorated and shown continuously one after the other on the National Mall it would be appalling for Birth of a Nation to be shown. If such an appalling choice were made, to argue we should not stop the showing because now it is a part of history and there's much 'academic benefit' to be made from studying the showing is...well, with all due respect, absurd.


 

"Yeah, I'd reject that unless you were talking about people being required to carry them around with them at all times. "Badges of slavery" are something like the yellow stars Jews were required to wear in Nazi Germany."

My goodness, this might be the epitome of Bircher Brett's literalistic thinking, and that's saying something.

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

There have also been howling mobs, and it's pointless to pretend otherwise.

Spinning here. The general idea was that GM was responding to "howling mobs" when the actual matter at hand is a wide non-howling mob demand for justice and change.

Well, if the state governments want to swap statues, I'm cool with that. I'm not so cool with a proposal to have Congress decide the matter for them.

Since it is "their" (Congress) building, it would seem logical for them (Congress) to set certain guidelines. The suggestion is not to tell South Carolina what to do in their Capitol. I wonder how Mark feels about Reagan being there.

reject that unless you were talking about people being required to carry them around with them at all times. "Badges of slavery" are something like the yellow stars Jews were required to wear in Nazi Germany. A statue sitting in a building isn't any "badge".

The constitutional term here is not used in such a narrow fashion and again the second section of the Thirteenth Amendment provides Congress specific discretion here especially in setting rules for its own building.

At the very least, they can include some blatantly racist symbol on state property, such flag saying "blacks are inferior." Merely looking at the meaning ("a distinctive emblem worn as a mark of office, membership, achievement, licensed employment, etc."), a symbol honoring a rebellion that, e.g., the vice president of its putative government said was fought to uphold slavery, can at least reasonably be deemed to apply even if it not broad enough for a court to so hold on its own.

The idea that "worn" there means that states can blatantly officially support racist symbols as long as they don't force individual people to permanently wear them as Mr. W. notes is dubiously literal. Even literally, a "badge" can be merely attached to a courtroom wall or something. It need not be worn by a person all the time to be a badge. Anyway, the term is a traditional metaphor in this context.
 

Mista Whiskas, if you write, that, I quote:

" This benefit becomes even less weighty considering the statue can simply be moved from a place of honor and is still fully susceptible to academic study (or photographs of the statue in its location can be studied)."

Then you got the point(at least partly). That is quite a progress from your initial stance. That is why we need to learn and analyse arguments. That is the whole point of free speech. Free market of ideas. So, finally, not that much absurd with all due respect. We have made some progress here. And based on it, you have suggested, certain potential compromise, benefiting somehow, all angles and views or perspectives. Congratulation!

And just to correct my above comment:

Should be rather:

" ...that history per se, is neither bad nor wrong. Over:

"that history per se, is either bad or wrong"

Thanks
 

"that monuments of such(generally speaking) are integral part of history"

As MW has pointed out, this is not true. Statues are, except on rare occasions, not a part of history, but a commemoration of someone or something. In these cases, commemoration is offensive.

"Spinning here. The general idea was that GM was responding to "howling mobs" when the actual matter at hand is a wide non-howling mob demand for justice and change."'

The only howling mobs I saw were the cops. I guess Brett was referring to them.

I'm disgusted that there's a statue of Reagan there.

As for "badges and incidents", Bruce Fein makes the argument that Confederate flags are "badges and incidents of slavery" here: https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-badge-and-incident-of-s_b_7646096?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20vc2VhcmNoP3E9YmFkZ2VzK2FuZCtpbmNpZGVudHMmZm9ybT1FRE5USFQmcmVmaWc9ZWU0ODUwYWY1OGU0NDE2Mjg4NjhmNTY0OGYwYzJjNDUmbWt0PWVuLXVzJm1zbmV3cz0xJlBDPURDVFMmc3A9LTEmcHE9YmFkZ2VzK2FuZCtpbmNpZGVudHMmc2M9My0yMCZxcz1uJnNrPSZjdmlkPWVlNDg1MGFmNThlNDQxNjI4ODY4ZjU2NDhmMGMyYzQ1&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGgAIyRyFB8luANuJCZT1wODtZNp_G_hDhzp6agfpuDuvw08D6ReFWSA6iLiDKG1l3DAsgFJSqdi-bGbuWZnFvk-UghtSSCJYAIuOYwrkSCpOPqBTBD4xe07jh5YnXfgxyE-HPXqZhxjzeHvxGO98VjSmah4fuHK1MGGtBFxipBw

It takes a real effort of imagination to see them as anything else.
 

"The only howling mobs I saw were the cops. I guess Brett was referring to them."

There are none so blind. What, you think cops were doing the looting, and setting buildings on fire?

"I'm disgusted that there's a statue of Reagan there."

I'm not surprised. What we're looking at is a kind of moral arms race, where the winner is whoever expresses the most outrage and disgust, and advocates the most over the top proposal to deal with it. You start by being outraged by people who actually owned slaves, and end by... well, no, it doesn't end, that's the problem. No matter who you put beyond the pale, there's always a new worst person on this side of it who needs to be exiled.

So there's no stopping point, it just keeps escalating. That's why I think it's better to just not start.

I don't accept that your outrage wins you any points. All it does is demonstrate your intolerance.
 

I know context is a quaint concept during a cultural revolution enforcing ideological purity by erasing history, but here goes...

(1) The Confederates were not traitors, which means giving aid and comfort to an enemy. They were secessionists who wished to leave the Union, an option which is discussed openly in these environs among this generation of Democrats for another set of blue states.

(2) If slaveholding merits erasure, when that "peculiar institution" was quite legal and widely accepted, then we will have to tear down Founder statutes and paintings next; then rename the capitol, a state and Heaven knows how many streets and schools.

(3) If being a racist merits erasure, then the Dems will have to eliminate half their pantheon, including progressive champions Wilson, Roosevelt and LBJ, and find another POTUS nominee for the fall. (Please do not pretend the Senator who palled around with Dem segregationists and divides school kids into "poor" and "white" is BLM material).

(4) Finally, the movement to erase history is now moving into military history and base names. The reality is the cream of the antebellum U.S. Army officer corps were from the South and ended up as Confederate generals when the nation split. A victorious Union, which had every reason to hold a blood grudge against the South, saw no need to erase their enemies from history. Indeed, the officer corps on both sides often considered their opponents old friends.

BTW, Gerard, R.E. Lee would never have burned Washington D.C.. The man invaded the North twice and never sought to make Maryland and Pennsylvania howl like Sherman did when he burned and raped his way across Georgia and the Carolinas. Indeed, Lee ordered his soldiers to leave the locals unmolested and to pay for any supplies they took.
 

"What, you think cops were doing the looting, and setting buildings on fire?"

Nah, they were too busy shoving old men to the ground, kicking girls in the face, slashing tires, attacking reporters, and tear-gassing peaceful demonstrators.

God forbid there should be a moral arms race such as the race to the bottom that leads to a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest.
 

To add to mine and Mark's links, Sandy Levinson and Jack Balkin wrote an article once entitled "The Dangerous Thirteenth Amendment," regarding its wider meaning.

Levinson also wrote "Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies."


 

Bircher Brett's logic is incoherent: "I won't buy into outrage against those who sexually attack children because the next thing you know people will be outraged against those who sexually attack adults, where does it end?"
 

"The Confederates were not traitors, which means giving aid and comfort to an enemy."

lol, this is why Benedict Arnold is not a traitor, after all he only made war against US forces!

"slaveholding merits erasure,"

Notice the eliding of 'not commemorating' with 'erasure' and 'slaveholding' with 'primarily known for fighting to protect and expand slaveholding.'

"then the Dems will have to eliminate half their pantheon"

Poor Bircher Bart, he just doesn't get it. The left are happy to condemn racist Democrats of the past, interestingly its the Right who will cross party lines to defend white supremacists.

4. Of course our military bases should not be named after those traitors who took US military lives.

The absurdity of the arguments shows you how crucial Confederate worship is to modern U.S. conservatives. It's not a strange historically ancillary feature, it's an essential. They must defend and worship the Confederacy regardless of how silly what they have to say in doing so is.


 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Also, if you want to talk about *erasures* the closest thing is how the South whitewashed the many Southerners who did the right thing and fought against the Confederacy. Monuments to them are plenty scarce. Because it's not and never was about history or respecting Southerners, it was and is about commemorating the moral abomination that was the Confederacy.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

"I wont fall into the trap of being outraged by Hitler and the Nazis. The next thing you know we'll be asked to be outraged by Mussolini and his fascists, where does it end? So there's no stopping point, it just keeps escalating. That's why I think it's better to just not start.

I don't accept that your outrage wins you any points. All it does is demonstrate your intolerance."

Such moral and intectual derangement is inevitable when you feel defending Confederate commemoration is essential to your political side.
 

Mark Field,

You write that, I quote:

" Statues are, except on rare occasions, not a part of history, but a commemoration of someone or something. In these cases, commemoration is offensive "

Well, this is really baseless with all due respect. For, by the way idea or one person has been commemorated, one can learn history. And what is offensive ? History can't offend no one. History deals with reconstruction of : events,cultures, process etc.... But, it is done, with every possible mean: sociology, economy, archaeology, theology etc.... but, just to reconstruct the past, and understand it.

So, statues, like every other items or discipline, is teaching us about history. For example, let's take:


David (Michelangelo) and I quote from Wikipedia:

" The statue appears to show David after he has made the decision to fight Goliath but before the battle has actually taken place, a moment between conscious choice and action – fight and flight. His brow is drawn, his neck tense, and the veins bulge out of his lowered right hand. His left hand holds a sling that is draped over his shoulder and down to his right hand, which holds a rock.[24] The twist of his body effectively conveys to the viewer the feeling that he is in motion, an impression heightened with contrapposto. The statue is a Renaissance interpretation of a common ancient Greek theme of the standing heroic male nude. In the High Renaissance, contrapposto poses were thought of as a distinctive feature of antique sculpture. This is typified in David, as the figure stands with one leg holding its full weight and the other leg forward. This classic pose causes the figure's hips and shoulders to rest at opposing angles, giving a slight s-curve to the entire torso. The contrapposto is emphasized by the turn of the head to the left, and by the contrasting positions of the arms."

So, by analyzing the physical traits of David, we can learn, about the author or creator of the statue, his attitude, and, project it, upon the whole period. Beside it:

You write offensive. Well, you know, the Taliban (Afghanistan) found that the statues of Buddha (curved in huge rocks) are very offensive. So, have been destroyed by them. The whole world almost, felt offended and disgust by it. By the way, the Rome statute and other International provisions, forbid the destruction of cultural heritage sites. It is a war crime, and very recently, one African, has been indicted and punished for it, in Hague.

Offensive, is not an argument at all. But, the human values it serves( like: site of worshiping, academic value and so forth....).

P.S: That David, stands naked in public place (totally naked) so, some conservatives, would argue that it is offensive ? Contradicting public policy ? Let's get a grip here.

Some links:

David, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_(Michelangelo)

" 7 Cultural Sites Damaged or Destroyed by War " here:

https://www.history.com/news/cultural-sites-heritage-wars

And: " ICC Trial Chamber VIII declares Mr Al Mahdi guilty of the war crime of attacking historic and religious buildings in Timbuktu and sentences him to nine years’ imprisonment " here:

https://www.icc-cpi.int/pages/item.aspx?name=pr1242

Thanks
 

El roam,

Every cultural production can tell you something about the time and culture of the creators. The argument here is about whether certain cultural productions should remain in special positions of commemoration (honor and celebration).

When the Allies took Germany they found many monuments to Nazi symbols. Many had been made by great artists, and surely study of them could tell you something about the artist and society they lived in. But they were also 1. Inspiration for Nazis, 2. Insults to those who suffered under the Nazis and 3. Homoring of Nazism.

The Allies blew them up. People today still study them (from film, pictures, descriptions). Any 'academic benefit' lost is truly trivial, especially relative to the harms done.
 

No Mista Whiskas, the argument raised above, by Mark field, was, that statues, has nothing to do with learning history, but, in very rare occasions. And that was, really amazing and baseless with all due respect. And for the rest, I have commented already.

Thanks
 

BD: "The Confederates were not traitors, which means giving aid and comfort to an enemy."

Mr. W: "lol, this is why Benedict Arnold is not a traitor, after all he only made war against US forces!"

What part of giving aid and comfort to the enemy did you not understand? Arnold's treason was to deliver his command, West Point, to the enemy army.

BD: "then the Dems will have to eliminate half their pantheon"

Mr. W: Poor Bircher Bart, he just doesn't get it. The left are happy to condemn racist Democrats of the past...

Oh please!

Unless forced, progressives almost never mention the racism of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson - nearly half of your 20th century POTUSes. Progressive Congresses were jammed with racists and segregationists from all over the country, not just the South. Indeed, as the party of government racism, the Democrats should be outlawed and erased from history like the Germans did with the Nazis.
 

There's no lack of information about the statues which commemorate traitors, nor about the times and attitudes which led to them. It's not the statue per se which is important, but the purpose for which it was erected and the attitude of those who chose what to commemorate; that is, what *people*, not inanimate objects, did. Similarly, the destruction or removal of the inanimate object is unimportant. What will tell us something about the times in which we live is what we, as people, choose to do with them. I'm quite comfortable in the moral choice here. In my view, the other option is grotesque and profoundly immoral.
 

"The left are happy to condemn racist Democrats of the past"

As Pelosi pointed out today, unlike Republicans, we're embarrassed by them, none more so than Donald Trump.
 

Let me add that the argument against removal/destruction of statues resolves to absurdity. Can we pull down street signs? Change the names of buildings? Write books which demolish the hagiographies and tell the truth about the monsters who fought to preserve slavery?

None of this affects the actual history of the times. We have no ability to change the past. It's there -- the documents, the oral statements, the military defeats. The rest is just us.
 

The Republikkkan party appears to be determined to convince every person of color in the country to vote for Dems. Thanks to Brett and Sniffles for doing your part!
 

Antifa pulled down a statute of Christopher Columbus in St Paul today.

First, they came for the Confederates.

Now, its the Italians.
 

It really is great to see Sniffles badmouthing the United States Army and praising an army of traitors who were fighting to preserve slavery. Am I surprised that he'd do this? Not in the slightest.
 

Bart DePalma said...
Antifa pulled down a statute of Christopher Columbus in St Paul today.

First, they came for the Confederates.

Now, its the Italians.

Sniffles, the statue isn't in the lake because he was Italian. You should read up on some of the shit he did.

Also, it wasn't thrown in the lake. It tripped.


 

"Unless forced, progressives almost never mention the racism of Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Johnson"

Ah, pure stale whataboutism. As I predicted they cannot object of commemoration to the Confederscy, for the symbols, and the regime for which they stand, are key rather than ancillary features for modern day conservatives.
 

"the statue isn't in the lake because he was Italian"

Bircher DePalma can't get out of his usual identity politics mindset.
 

Vote Vets noted on Twitter: "Fort Bragg in NC, named after Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg. Bragg was a slave owner in LA, and is recognized as one of the WORST generals in the Civil War. His failure at the Battle of Chattanooga at the hands of Ulysses S. Grant ultimately helped hand victory to the North."

This is somewhat amusing. Bragg was a divisive figure in the Confederacy with multiple military failures. Hood is another dubious figure even for the promotion of rebellion crowd though you figure people given him credit for bodily sacrifice.

Maybe, they should name a fort for Patrick Cleburne, who argued for arming slaves. Nah. Just do away with naming U.S. forts for people who fought against it.
 

bb:

No matter how hard you Democratic socialists attempt to erase it, history is history.

History is filled with outstanding commanders and militaries pursuing evil ends. Recognizing the former reality does not mean you approve of the latter.

History is also filled with militaries employing evil means to achieve good ends. What Sherman did to the South would be considered a war crime by today's standards.

Then, again, as I noted from the outset, cultural revolutions enforcing ideological purity by erasing history do not recognize context.
 

Sniffles, no one is erasing history, you imbecile. They're just getting rid of a statue of a pretty evil asshole.
 

Bart DePalma said...
bb:

History is filled with outstanding commanders and militaries pursuing evil ends. Recognizing the former reality does not mean you approve of the latter.

So you want to put up a statue of Hitler? That's a bold move to own the libs, but I think you should go for it. And be sure to let everyone know that you're a MAGA Moron while you're doing it.
 

Joe said...Vote Vets noted on Twitter: "Fort Bragg in NC, named after Confederate Gen. Braxton Bragg. Bragg was a slave owner in LA, and is recognized as one of the WORST generals in the Civil War. His failure at the Battle of Chattanooga at the hands of Ulysses S. Grant ultimately helped hand victory to the North."

If he was honest, whoever wrote this would have stopped at we should rename the fort because Bragg was a slave holder. The rest is crap.

North Carolina named their fort after General Braxton Bragg because he was a famous son who fought very well as a U.S. Army officer in the Mexican War.

Like many other veterans of the offensive musket era who ended up as generals during a defensive Civil War dominated by rifles and trenches, Bragg was unable to fully adapt to the changing technology. As to the cited campaign in the Cumberland Gap region, Bragg won the Battle of Chicamauga, then Grant won the Battle of Chattanooga. Both mediocre generals failed to exploit their victories and the campaign ended up a bloody draw. The only commander who displayed outstanding skill during this campaign was General George Thomas, arguably the best combat general of either side in the Civil War, and after whom nothing of significance is named.

Hood is another dubious figure even for the promotion of rebellion crowd though you figure people given him credit for bodily sacrifice.

General John Hood was a very good brigade and division commander for Lee, who was promoted beyond his competency to army commander in 1864 and had the misfortune to come up against the excellent General Thomas at the Battle of Nashville, Thomas flawlessly executed one of the only decisive offensive victories of the Civil War and Hood's previously hard won reputation suffered accordingly. However, Texas remembered one of its military sons.

 

And hopefully once Trump is gone the U.S. Army can take the opportunity to unremember these incompetent traitors.
 

"Robert E. Lee is my ancestor. Take down his statue, and let his cause be lost."

(Washington Post op-ed by Robert W. Lee IV)


 

"General George Thomas, arguably the best combat general of either side in the Civil War, and after whom nothing of significance is named."

Bircher Bart, as is often the case, unwittingly commits checkmate on himself. George Thomas was a much heralded Virginian who fought for the Union. Indeed, nothing of significance is named for him in Virginia or re: military bases. Meanwhile, much less accomplished military leaders that actually fought against and led forces in the killing of federal forces have much in their states named after them and federal military bases in the South named after them. This of course only makes sense if the naming is due to the commemoration of the Confederacy, not some abstract military prowess, which is of course what's going on.

The inability of modern conservatives to not only not denounce commemoration of Confederate leaders but to go out of their way to argue to preserve it helps clarify that all their talk about liberty, rule of law, small government, free markets, individual rights, is all empty rhetoric to them, just propaganda props to be tossed out. The Confederacy was the biggest stain on all of those values in our history and conservatives want to go on using public property and monies to celebrate it. Remember that when they speak next about any other measure or time in our polity being 'tyranny,' 'totalitarianism,' 'violation of rights,' etc.,. Our Birchers are essentially in the position of one who loudly and in hyperbolic terms condemns your wife for having lunch with male friends that all the while has a wife who is a well-known prostitute whom he thinks should have a 'wife of the year' plaque raised at the local church. Remember that.
 

"If this were about some neutral recognition of history there'd be George Thomas statues throughout Virginia (unless this has changed since my most recent visit there, there are of course not). "

I wrote this hours before Bircher Bart's comments.

This is the epitome of why he's not a serious person. It's bad enough that he makes the same arguments on whatever topic through the years though they're addressed in each discussion, but he makes the same argument in a discussion even when it's been addressed *in that same discussion.*

But that's what a person who is engaged in propaganda rather than a serious, honest discussion does. It doesn't matter to that person what has been aid in the course of the discussion, they just have certain propaganda points to make and they robot-like make them.

Not a serious person.
 

Mr, W:

George Thomas is barely mentioned in the Union histories of the Civil War. most often as the "Rock of Chicamauga." The point being, excellence ia not a qualification for having politicians name things after you as suggested by Vote Vets.

As a veteran and military history buff myself, I count both Union and Confederate generals as American generals, many of whom on both sides are worthy of note for their excellence. While know nothings are pulling down their statues, military professionals are studying the campaign of Lee, Jackson and even that evil SOB and military genius Nathanial Bedford Forrest.
 

After a mob in Portsmouth, VA pulled a confederate statute down on one of their own, @artcrimeprof from CUNY was tweeting instructions to the Red Guard on how to safely tear down works of art.

Know nothings with and without credentials.
 

I suggest we rename a certain naval base in Hawaii for Admiral Yamamoto. He was a fine and honorable naval commander and the base in question is the site of one of his boldest, most successful operations.
 

Bart DePalma said...
Mr, W:

George Thomas is barely mentioned in the Union histories of the Civil War. most often as the "Rock of Chicamauga." The point being, excellence ia not a qualification for having politicians name things after you as suggested by Vote Vets.


Mr. W already explained the reason for this, dumbass. They were honoring Confederate traitors, not competent soldiers. And you’re helping them.
 

Blogger Bart DePalma said...

While know nothings are pulling down their statues, military professionals are studying the campaign of Lee, Jackson and even that evil SOB and military genius Nathanial Bedford Forrest.

1. U.S. Army commanders are on board with renaming bases named after traitors.
2. It’s pretty funny that you’re too stupid to grasp the difference between honoring someone and studying what they did.
 

BB, fascinatingly at some lizard level he actually seems to both know this and not know it ("The point being, excellence ia not a qualification for having politicians name things after you"). So he's arguing that the problem with those who want to pull down the Confederate commemorations is that they are 'know nothings' that don't get the 'context' that these Confederate figures were 'outstanding commanders' but then acknowledges, (as he must since many 'outstanding commanders' are not commemorated if they fought fought for the Union) that '[military] excellence ia not a qualification for having politicians.' As is usual he's incoherent, wasting our time arguing in a circle.

But that's really to be expected from someone trying to argue that our government should continue to celebrate people who took up arms against it, shedding the blood of thousands of its troops in the name of enslaving millions of our people.
 

"military genius Nathanial Bedford Forrest."

And terrorist organization leader (in fact, the worst terrorist organization in our nation's history). Bircher Bart backs celebrating the first national leader of the KKK. That's where conservatives are at now.
 

Life is like a box of chocolates.

A bit of news: "Tennessee bill that would keep Nathan Bedford Forrest Day but eliminate the governor's requirement to sign it in a proclamation every year is now headed for the governor's desk."
 

BD: "military genius Nathanial Bedford Forrest."

Mr. W: And terrorist organization leader

Correct. NBF was a leader of the Democrat terrorist arm known as the KKK.

Woodrow Wilson screened pro-KKK movies at the White House.

As soon as you advocate condemning and erasing Wilson, I will take your umbrage over NBF seriously.
 

Again, when one argues for the indefensible one tends to make terrible arguments.

First, NBF wasn't 'a leader' of the racial terrorist group the KKK, he was the first national leader.

Second, actually being involved with and leading a racial terrorist group is significantly > 'screen[ing] pro-KKK movies at the White House.' It's a laughable comparison.

Third, Wilson has far more achievements apart from his movie choices to balance them out than Forrest has to balance out his involvement and leadership of a racial terror organization.

Fourth, no one is talking about 'erasure' of Wilson, Forrest, or anyone. That Bircher Bart continues to use this term after it was addressed so many times in this conversation is yet another demonstration that he is here for something other than honest, serious conversation.

Lastly, I'm all in support of ceasing to commemorate Wilson.

Notice how easy that last one was. Forrest is a far, far more egregious figure in our history and Bircher Bart has consistently defended commemorating him. Like his party.

Intellectual and moral derangement in the service of partisan genuflecting at the tribal identity politics at the essence of the modern conservative movement.
 

BD: As soon as you advocate condemning and erasing Wilson, I will take your umbrage over NBF seriously.

Mr. W: First, NBF wasn't 'a leader' of the racial terrorist group the KKK, he was the first national leader.

Are you proposing the Antifa Red Guard erase Grand Wizards, but not mere KKK "leaders?"

Second, actually being involved with and leading a racial terrorist group is significantly > 'screen[ing] pro-KKK movies at the White House.' It's a laughable comparison.

Are you proposing the Antifa Red Guard erase Grand Wizards, but not POTUS KKK supporters?

Third, Wilson has far more achievements apart from his movie choices to balance them out than Forrest has to balance out his involvement and leadership of a racial terror organization.

Wilson was the worst POTUS of the 20th Century - taking over and gutting the economy, arresting war critics, segregating the federal bureaucracy and telling civil rights leaders this benefited blacks by preventing "friction," presiding over a KKK lynching spree, which he later condemned, but took no action to stop. The man does not even have the redeeming quality of being a brilliant military commander.

Fourth, no one is talking about 'erasure' of Wilson, Forrest, or anyone. That Bircher Bart continues to use this term after it was addressed so many times in this conversation is yet another demonstration that he is here for something other than honest, serious conversation.

What they hell do you think removing the name and image of historical figures from public view is meant to accomplish?

You think video and books will not be next? Libraries have long been pressured to remove books with the N-word like Mark Twain. Content providers just removed Quentin Tarantino movies for the same sin and Gone with the Wind out of general principle.
 

Lee ordered his soldiers to leave the locals unmolested and to pay for any supplies they took.

Leave the locals unmolested?

His troops captured and enslaved free blacks. I guess that doesn't count.
 

Our Bircher Bart continues digging (almost to Beijing by now) in his charging up the hill of defending Confederates.

Let's note that our unserious person incapable of making basic moral distinctions gets, in the first instance, the point completely wrong:

"Mr. W: First, NBF wasn't 'a leader' of the racial terrorist group the KKK, he was the first national leader.

Are you proposing the Antifa Red Guard erase Grand Wizards, but not mere KKK "leaders?"

No, I pointed out that 'a leader' < 'first national leader.' Of course if I advocate not commemorating (note, Bircher Bart continues to use 'erase' while not addressing the distinction oft brought up here, this is not a serious person) 'mere KKK leaders' I advocate not commemorating the first national Grand Wizard.

"Are you proposing the Antifa Red Guard erase Grand Wizards, but not POTUS KKK supporters?"

Bircher Bart cowardly dodges exactly what I said which was: "Are you proposing the Antifa Red Guard erase Grand Wizards, but not POTUS KKK supporters?"

Not a serious person.

"Wilson was the worst POTUS of the 20th Century"

What follows is in large part partisan propaganda.

"What they hell do you think removing the name and image of historical figures from public view is meant to accomplish?"

Lol, he's really this pathetic folks. What's being asked is to remove *commemorations* of these white Supremacist confederates.

Let's remember every time our Bircher Bart appears here wailing and crying about 'tyranny,' 'abuses of liberty,' 'violations of due process and rule of law,' 'restrictions of markets and individual rights,', etc:

This person has gone to the mat in the defense of governments celebrating KKK leaders and other white supremacist slavers.

 

Bircher Bart's fundamental dishonesty (or derangement) is epitomized in his constant equation of 'should we commemorate X' with 'should we 'erase' X.'

Let's be clear. It's absolutely pathetically laughable to argue that not commemorating someone or thing = 'erasing' someone or thing.

People that want commemorations of KKK leader Bedford Forrest to stop are not 'erasing' anything, they are correcting the erasure that Forrest was not involved in such terrible activities. They are saying, 'how can we celebrate a man who did X?' The 'X' is a historical fact about Forrest. Far from *erasing* they are *highlighting* a history that *has been largely erased.*


 

"His troops captured and enslaved free blacks. I guess that doesn't count."

And "paid" people in worthless Confederate scrip.
 

The fundamental dishonesty/derangement of our Birchers.

Reasonable person: "We should stop celebrating people who lent their talents to really morally awful things."

Birchers: "But how can we judge those people from that time?"

Reasonable person: "Wow, you're one of the most judgemental persons I know, when you disagree with someone they're all kinds of hyperbolic awful."

Birchers: "But these people were accomplished in some other area, have you considered that?'

Reasonable person: "Sure. That's the point, even if we accept arguendo they were celebrated for that some other area, we are taking a fuller context to look at what else they did, and it's horrible."

Birchers: "But isn't this erasure?"

Reasonable person: "Lol, of course not. We don't 'erase' Hitler when we condemn any celebration of him. In fact, we're reminding people of what Hitler was all about. The opposite of 'erasure.'
 

Should our governments stop celebrating figures most known for advancing the maintenance and expansion of human chattel slavery?

Isn't that the most 'softball' question imaginable?

Yet note our Birchers, representative of many modern conservatives, when tossed this they swing emptily three times, cuss the ref, and then throw the bat into the stands.

Modern conservatism is sick as a dog with Parvo.
 

bymtov: "His troops captured and enslaved free blacks. I guess that doesn't count."

I presume the claim to which you are referring was published in the Atlantic:

During his invasion of Pennsylvania, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia enslaved free black Americans and brought them back to the South as property. Pryor writes that “evidence links virtually every infantry and cavalry unit in Lee’s army” to the abduction of free black Americans, “with the activity under the supervision of senior officers.”

To the extent this "evidence" is true, this allegation has nothing to do with Lee's general orders during that campaign.

Mark Field said...And "paid" people in worthless Confederate scrip.

That was indeed the complaint of the local farmers and merchants his troops paid.


 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Well, the Dems have a pretext to repudiate one of their racists.

Old Joe Biden repeatedly fell into complete incoherence today literally staring at a script during a video streamed campaign roundtable.

Seriously, watch this.

Are you people actually going to vote for this dementia addled old man? Really?
 

Are you people actually going to vote for this dementia addled old man? Really?
# posted by Blogger Bart DePalma : 5:24 PM

I’ll take Biden over the dementia addled racist asshole that you’re going to vote for.
 

Should our governments stop celebrating figures most known for advancing the maintenance and expansion of human chattel slavery?

Isn't that the most 'softball' question imaginable?

Yet note our Birchers, representative of many modern conservatives, when tossed this they swing emptily three times, cuss the ref, and then throw the bat into the stands.

Modern conservatism is sick as a dog with Parvo.
 

Mr. W:

What is your dividing line(s) between acceptable and unacceptable historical figures?

What is your dividing line between acceptable history and “celebration” of unacceptable historical figures?
 

Since we are talking baseball or such ...

I was re-reading (with libraries closed, I'm doing some of that) Charles Beard's discussion of the origins of judicial review with an interesting intro to the 1962 edition [by Alan Westin, who also collected some writings of justices over the years about the nature of the institution -- purchased on Ebay for less than $5].

A couple references to judges being "umpires" were cited by the framers. John Roberts' reference to a judge as an umpire [alluded to in a Supreme Court opinion this week] is not therefore novel. The issue with his usage is the whole "balls and strikes" reference is used to suggest how limited judicial power is. Not as limited as all that.

Since Madison, Jefferson and others appealed to the courts to protect individual rights, and in such a way that other scholars have shown included vague references to natural rights, "fundamental" law and so forth, even then the courts had some degree of power. And, by 1800, this was a major political matter.

===

Also, it might have been Stephen Colbert that made a joke about slaveowners being on our money. This suggests -- like the debate over Churchill in the UK -- the breadth of the debate here. We should fully understand the nature of such people including a quote on the Jefferson Memorial which was actually in reference to his denunciation of tyranny of priests though it is quoted out of context in a fashion that confuses this.

It is dubious that our paper money is limited as compared to our coinage (such as the state quarters) or the money in other nations. The lack of a woman is but one example here. But, a conflicted figures from our history such as Jefferson is a bit different even there -- more than a bit different -- than a bunch of rebel traitors. Traitors that is to our country. "Loyalists" at least were loyal to the current power in place.
 

To the extent this "evidence" is true, this allegation has nothing to do with Lee's general orders during that campaign.

Why put evidence in quotes? Do you claim it's not accurate, or do you just prefer not to believe it?

And here you were praising Lee's orders to leave the locals unmolested. Yet when evidence emerges that these orders were ignored, even by senior officers, and not enforced, you have no response.
 

BD: To the extent this "evidence" is true, this allegation has nothing to do with Lee's general orders during that campaign.

byomtov: Why put evidence in quotes? Do you claim it's not accurate, or do you just prefer not to believe it?

Everything else in this author's book (which you can read in large part at Google Books) was based on Lee's own recently disclosed letters, except this claim. The fact the author constantly views the primary evidence (Lee's letters) in the worst possible light and then uses the squirrelly term “evidence links" to make this claim does not inspire confidence in her sourcing or interpretations of that source.

 

Note he can't hit the softball.

No one is talking about 'acceptable history.' Its about commemorations (celebrations). And wherever the dividing line is, Confederates and first national leader of the KKK should easily be located over the line. Unless your in the intellectual and moral derangement of modern conservatism.

Again, the next time Bircher Bart raises his hyperbole about violations of liberty and such, remember this person defends celebrations of Confederate KKK leaders. This is not a serious person.
 

Mr. W:

In sum, you have no standards, which you made plain with the pass you gave Dem POTUS and current Dem POTUS nominee racism.

Instead, you are playing mob guilt by association games.

Typical.