Adam Serwer 🍝인증된 계정

The counter movement to this is not about the actions of Robert E Lee but rather the protection of history. The protection of history is very important to understand who the people are both good and bad. The showing of the statue it self helps the visual side of understanding.

a museum would be a great place for it.

In a museum, such a statue would include a large plaque explaining how and why the post-segregation South came to build commemorative statues portraying the leaders of the secession in heroic poses. Without that plaque, it's teaching something completely different...

I can see that point of view

Most of those statues are relatively new, why put them in a museum? They aren't teaching us anything, and they have no historical significance past an artist wanting to honor the confederacy. Melt it down.

The Problem I see w/ that is that removing the statues doesn't remove the mindset, but looses the teaching opportunity that visible statue w/ Plaque has. Don't hide the sins of the past: explain them to not repeat them.

The artist's intent wasn't to teach that the confederacy was bad, the people who funded it didn't want to teach that the confederacy was bad, casual observers don't walk over to a statue commemorating this general and walk away thinking the confederacy was bad. That's nonsense.

You're talking about a different time. In that era States wanted a small federal Government and States to run themselves. Though slavery was an issue, this war has more to do with States Rights than anything else. Grant's own wife had slave servants, during the war.

Nope. The southern states were all about Federal overreach when it came to violating other states' sovereignty by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or the Dred Scott decision. It was never about states' rights. What you're saying is a lie.

I was taught that it was about “States rights“ in college 30 years ago. And I live in MA! I knew better at the time, but I couldn’t believe the professor was saying that. So some people are just mistaken because that’s what they were taught. And they never looked into it further.

It drives me up the wall when people say the war was about states’ rights and neglect to mention *which* states rights in particular were so important to the southern states that they were willing to fight a war over them. (It was slavery.)

I don't get it either. We're not talking about speculation here. It's not oral or anecdotal history. They literally wrote it down - in official documents. And more than once.

Yes, the overwhelming reason for the secession was the impending spectre of abolition, but the union absolutely was NOT fighting about slavery, so saying the war was about slavery is an outright lie. The war was about denying the ability to secede.

OK. I wouldn't call it a lie, though. The reason they went to war was because they were not allowed to secede from the Union. Which still leaves slavery as the cause for wanting to secede in the first place.

But slavery was exactly zero percent of the reason the Union was fighting. So saying the war was about slavery is either a deliberate lie, or foundational ignorance.

I can’t describe what it was like to see confederate statutes when I first moved to Richmond, VA. It makes zero sense to me to celebrate these people. The only purpose i can think of is to remind everyone who’s really still in charge.

Statues*

They were mostly erected alongside the rise of the klan and first challenges to segregation, so your assumption is right. These men weren't "heroes" in the south until the mid-20th century and their presence is to remind the black population "who is in charge" despite "progress."