Baltimore removes 4 statues over night

[BmorePat87]

The city quietly removed four statues last night. One was a Lee and Jackson on horseback statue paid for by a Lee sympathizer in the 1940's. one was a memorial to the women who served the confederacy, paid for by the daughters of confederate soldiers in the early 1900's. The third was a statue dedicated to the soldiers and sailors of the confederacy, paid for by confederate veterans in the early 1900's. The final one was a surprise to me, but I understand why it was removed. It was a statue of Roger Taney, Marylander and Chief Justice who decided against the Missouri Compromise and Dred Scott. As a coworker pointed out to me, they had already renamed an elementary school in a predominantly black neighborhood from Roger Taney ES to Thurgood Marshall ES.

[Vlad]

I'm against sanitizing American history, but this seems to be the better route vs. giving a bunch of leftist thugs another opportunity to put on a display of civil disobedience like they did in Durham the other day.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/15/criminal-charges-sought-for-protesters-who-toppled-confederate-statue-in-north-carolina.html

[Belsnickel]

I have mixed feelings on these statues. My background, where I grew up, what I've experienced, I just don't know how to feel. I mean, you can't turn around in my city without hitting something related to the Civil War, and it is true for a lot of this area. North of me, in New Market, is the Virginia Museum of the Civil War, which is maintained by VMI. A battle was fought where I am sitting, and not far from me is a memorial to a Confederate general that died here. My area council for the BSA is the Stonewall Jackson Area Council. At the same time, I do see them as giant participation trophies that were often erected only in the Jim Crow era to glorify racist ideals. I have to say that I am someone much more in favor of removing them than my wife, who is much more entrenched in southern culture than I am. Growing up where I did, our southern roots are different than those east of us. Our area didn't vote for secession from the US and only reluctantly went to war.

Anyway, it makes no sense for Maryland to have monuments to the confederacy. I could have just said that in the beginning, but I got to rambling.

In the middle of typing this, I just have to add, I got a phone call into our departmental line and was just asked "Are you all going to change the name of the university since James Madison was a slave owner and came up with the three-fifth's?" So we have that to look forward to.

[Vlad]

And while we're at it lets tear down the Jefferson Memorial as suggested by one of your heros Al Sharpton.

Gee, I can't imagine what group defaced the Lincoln Memorial the other day.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/15/lincoln-memorial-defaced-with-explicit-graffiti.html

[CKwi88]

Any word on what was or will be done with the statues?

I'm not personally against having them taken down, but I can agree with the worry of sanitizing history. These sorts of statues belong in museums dedicated to the Civil War. I think that is a good compromise in this case.

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2017, 10:42 AM)CKwi88 Wrote: Any word on what was or will be done with the statues?

I'm not personally against having them taken down, but I can agree with the worry of sanitizing history. These sorts of statues belong in museums dedicated to the Civil War. I think that is a good compromise in this case.

As someone put it, can't remember who, maybe it is a better idea to have these memories in museums than on pedestals.

This is especially true for a log of them, which are fantastic works of art. For example, the ones in Charlottesville are well known examples of the particular artist that did them.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(08-16-2017, 10:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: Gee, I can't imagine what group defaced the Lincoln Memorial the other day.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/15/lincoln-memorial-defaced-with-explicit-graffiti.html

Maybe the same ones who vandalized the Holocaust Memorial overnight?

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/us/holocaust-memorial-boston.html

[GMDino]

(08-16-2017, 10:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: And while we're at it lets tear down the Jefferson Memorial as suggested by one of your heros Al Sharpton.

Gee, I can't imagine what group defaced the Lincoln Memorial the other day.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/15/lincoln-memorial-defaced-with-explicit-graffiti.html

Who would deface the Lincoln Memorial?

People who are upset the north won and slavery was abolished?

http://time.com/4737751/larry-pittman-north-carolina-abraham-lincoln-adolf-hitler/

http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/dc/anti-hate-and-alt-right-free-speech-rallies-today-on-the-steps-on-lincoln-memorial/451986853

 

Quote:It was a day of dueling rallies at the Lincoln Memorial Sunday, with an anti-hate rally on one side of the steps and an alt-right free speech rally on the other.

“We’re going to start history all over again,” said controversial white nationalist and alt-right voice, Richard Spencer.  “The most radical thing you can say is, 'I am white, my life has meaning.'”

Spencer said he didn’t choose the Lincoln Memorial for Sunday's rally, but told reporters it was appropriate.

“The idea that he was some great emancipator is a bit of a myth- so yes, I do think he would support us,” he said.

Another speaker, Jason Kessler, who was flying a Confederate flag, felt differently about the civil president and yelled “F--- You, Abraham Lincoln” to another round of cheers.

Quote: 
About a hundred people at Free Speech rally at Lincoln Monument today. Duelling rally against hate nearby @wusa9 pic.twitter.com/RCllo8qiVY
— Sarah Konsmo (@skonsmo) June 25, 2017

The crowd consisted of about 100 people, the vast majority of whom were young men, like 20-year-old Robert Smith, dressed like a Nazi Brownshirt.

“I know I look like a Nazi," he said. "You can say a lot about the Nazis, but they look pretty good.”

Just guessing here....

[GMDino]

(08-16-2017, 10:56 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: As someone put it, can't remember who, maybe it is a better idea to have these memories in museums than on pedestals.

This is especially true for a log of them, which are fantastic works of art. For example, the ones in Charlottesville are well known examples of the particular artist that did them.

I agree.  In a museum you can study the whole story not just glorify one person.

Even Lee didn't want statues.

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

Quote:But Lee himself never wanted such monuments built.


“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

WATCH:The shifting history of Confederate monuments

Lee died in 1870, just five years after the Civil War ended, contributing to his rise as a romantic symbol of the “lost cause” for some white southerners.

But while he was alive, Lee stressed his belief that the country should move past the war. He swore allegiance to the Union and publicly decried southern separatism, whether militant or symbolic.

“It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments.”

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

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

“As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated,” Lee wrote of an 1866 proposal, “my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”

The retired Confederate leader, a West Point graduate, was influenced by his knowledge of history.

“Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn said. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive.”

[Westwood Bengal]

Good. The South doesn't deserve participation trophies.

Losers.

[BmorePat87]

Maryland has an interesting past. It was founded as a safe haven for Catholics before Protestant came, dominated the colonial law making bodies and banned Catholics from taking office. My direct forefathers, the Carrolls, worked hard to get that right back and went on to sign the DOI and the Constitution.

Prior to the Civil War, Baltimore was home to the largest free black population. Maryland overwhelmingly voted to stay in the Union but they still distrusted the presence of union troops and slave owners in the rural areas opposed the abolition of slavery. The first bloodshed of the Civil War occurred in Baltimore during the Pratt St riots. Soon after, Union forces at Ft McHenry, birthplace of the Star Spangled Banner, turned the cannons on the city. All pro secession lawmakers were jailed there to ensure Maryland didn't fall. Far more Marylanders fought for the Union.

We're not a Southern State. The Mason Dixon line was drawn to rectify an error the king made when he took land away from Maryland and gave it to Pennsylvania (originally MD's charter gave it far more to the North, including Philly, but PA argued they needed a port after the King declared the wrong coordinates that gave that land to PA).

These particular monuments were funded by private citizens representing Confederate veterans, children, and sympathizers as a way to promote the Lost Cause fable in a time when Baltimore experienced a renewed push for racial segregation and underfunding of black public services.

There is only 1 Union monument in the city. One to the three Confederate ones. There's no reason to idolize any traitors much less in this city.

[Dill]

(08-16-2017, 10:33 AM)Vlad Wrote: And while we're at it lets tear down the Jefferson Memorial as suggested by one of your heros Al Sharpton.

Gee, I can't imagine what group defaced the Lincoln Memorial the other day.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/08/15/lincoln-memorial-defaced-with-explicit-graffiti.html

Wasn't Lincoln leader of all those leftist thugs who invaded the South back in the 1860s and freed people's property?

Maybe some are still unhappy about that.

[Millhouse]

Jesus, how is tearing down statues of Confederates in Baltimore tearing down history? Ffs Maryland was a neutral state in the war, they weren't even part of the Confederacy.

They had slavery abolished in 1864 I believe. They were allowed to keep slavery as the Emancipation Proclamation only effected states in open rebellion, but abolished it on their own terms anyways.

All those statues represented was nothing more than white supremacists back then trying to remind black Americans of where they were in the grand ladder of things.

[Millhouse]

(08-16-2017, 10:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: In the middle of typing this, I just have to add, I got a phone call into our departmental line and was just asked "Are you all going to change the name of the university since James Madison was a slave owner and came up with the three-fifth's?" So we have that to look forward to.

Madison, Washington, and Jefferson were vital people in the foundation of this country. Without them, there would be no United States of America as we know it in history and today. For better or for worse, everything that has transpired since the 1770's was due to them as they laid the framework for what the future would bring. They owned slaves yes, but they only owned slaves because England allowed it to happen. Afterall, all roots of slavery and racism in America goes directly back to England and Europe, for they were the true masters of it that left those seeds of hatred here after we kicked them out. 

Anyways that is me rambling on changing Madison's name, because I wouldnt myself.

[*PhilHos*]

Personnally, I think it should be up to the citizens of that particular town/county/state to decide if certain memorials should be erected or taken down.

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2017, 03:13 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Personnally, I think it should be up to the citizens of that particular town/county/state to decide if certain memorials should be erected or taken down.

I agree. This is why I have been going on about carpetbagging bigots all weekend.

[Benton]

(08-16-2017, 10:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I have mixed feelings on these statues. My background, where I grew up, what I've experienced, I just don't know how to feel. I mean, you can't turn around in my city without hitting something related to the Civil War, and it is true for a lot of this area. North of me, in New Market, is the Virginia Museum of the Civil War, which is maintained by VMI. A battle was fought where I am sitting, and not far from me is a memorial to a Confederate general that died here. My area council for the BSA is the Stonewall Jackson Area Council. At the same time, I do see them as giant participation trophies that were often erected only in the Jim Crow era to glorify racist ideals. I have to say that I am someone much more in favor of removing them than my wife, who is much more entrenched in southern culture than I am. Growing up where I did, our southern roots are different than those east of us. Our area didn't vote for secession from the US and only reluctantly went to war.

Anyway, it makes no sense for Maryland to have monuments to the confederacy. I could have just said that in the beginning, but I got to rambling.

In the middle of typing this, I just have to add, I got a phone call into our departmental line and was just asked "Are you all going to change the name of the university since James Madison was a slave owner and came up with the three-fifth's?" So we have that to look forward to.

I've never really understood it in the South, either.

Did pro-England Americans put up statues of King George in the late 1700s? That's an honest question to you as someone more proficient in history, not an attempt at humor. Around 1776 there were some statues of the king (and I think I remember one about a general) that were pulled down in New York. The reason I remember was the park was named Bowling Green, which is th same name as a town near me. But the first time I heard the story, I thought "Why the hell did they put up a statue of King George in [what at the time in 1776 was] the middle of nowhere?"

[Belsnickel]

(08-16-2017, 03:49 PM)Benton Wrote: I've never really understood it in the South, either.

Did pro-England Americans put up statues of King George in the late 1700s? That's an honest question to you as someone more proficient in history, not an attempt at humor. Around 1776 there were some statues of the king (and I think I remember one about a general) that were pulled down in New York. The reason I remember was the park was named Bowling Green, which is th same name as a town near me. But the first time I heard the story, I thought "Why the hell did they put up a statue of King George in [what at the time in 1776 was] the middle of nowhere?"

I don't know. I've never seen any statuary of loyalist generals/leaders in the US. Not saying it doesn't exist, I've just never seen any. I also don't disagree with you on the lack of understanding in the south, as well. The only thing I can come up with as a difference that makes this comparison difficult, is that there weren't too many loyalists sticking around after the revolution. you likely had some, but nothing in comparison to the percentage of confederate sympathizers that would have existed in the south, and hell, even still do.

[BengalHawk62]

Wanna know the different between Washington, Jefferson, and Madison vs. Lee, Jackson, and Johnston?


Winners and Losers. History is written by the winners.  I personally don't think we need statues of losers sitting in some town's square.  But instead, put them in a museum someplace.  Bring 'em all down.  The South lost.  Plain and simple.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-16-2017, 09:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The final one was a surprise to me, but I understand why it was removed. It was a statue of Roger Taney, Marylander and Chief Justice who decided against the Missouri Compromise and Dred Scott. As a coworker pointed out to me, they had already renamed an elementary school in a predominantly black neighborhood from Roger Taney ES to Thurgood Marshall ES.

This right here is why this current movement really troubles me.  My views on the confederacy are well known here.  This person was not a confederate, he made a court ruling that is historically unpopular and contemptible by today's standards.  It begs the question, who's next?  George Washington owned slaves, erase him from our currency, no longer celebrate his birthday and destroy the Washington monument?  Thomas Jefferson, same problem, he's got to go.  Lincoln?  Freed the slaves but his view of black people would peg him square in the racist category, he's got to go.  Patton was well known for being antisemitic, all things Patton must be erased.  Truman nuked Japanese civilians, horrible person, he's got to go.  


I really don't like where this is heading.