Actscelerate.com Forum Index Actscelerate.com
Open Any Time -- Day or Night
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
@actscelerate Twitter  @actscelerate Facebook 

Why We Shouldn't Remove Confederate Flags, Monuments, Statues, Etc.

 
   Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Message Author
Post Why We Shouldn't Remove Confederate Flags, Monuments, Statues, Etc. Aaron Scott
I cannot easily explain my affinity for the Confederate South. After all, I consider slavery utterly reprehensible. I understand that some of these things make our Black brothers and sisters quite uncomfortable. And while I would not want to offend, neither can I help that these things are precious to me.

In a moment, I will ask that you do a thought experiment that will, I think, explain things better. But first, WHY do I feel this way? I think it is because, before the Civil War, we were the states that were in the southern part of our nation. Or we were the states that lay southward of more northern states. In other words, we were more a direction than anything else.

But the Civil War changed things. We were no longer just the southern states. We were THE SOUTH. A unified group. No one can argue that slavery had no role in the Civil War. It did. We might argue to what extent it brought about the war, but we cannot argue that it played no role at all in the decisions that were made.

We are told that the Southerners were fighting to preserve slavery. While this notion was articulated in certain official secession proceedings, and while rich planters may indeed have went to war for that reason, do we suppose that tens of thousands of poor, white boys and men--who had never owned a slave--went to the great and terrible risk of war in order to protect slavery? Or do we suppose that these same poor folks did it in the hopes that, one day, after all the unpleasantness was settled, they, too, would have the opportunity to own slaves? I don't buy it.

Rather, I believe that, as with many wars, whatever the true reasons for the war, it is often sold to those who will bleed and die as some sort of "fight against tyranny" or some desperate combat to save their states, their homes, their families. Some say we went to war with Iraq for "oil." I don't think that is true, but even if it is/were, the boys who signed up to fight weren't doing it for that reason. In their minds, they were doing it to avenge 9/11. They were doing it to protect America. They were doing it to stop terrorism.

Further, while the immorality of slavery is today a settled matter, in those days it was still being debated. That it, lots of otherwise good and intelligent folks disagreed about whether slavery was morally evil. Unable to settle it by debate, we settled the question by war. And today we all accept that it was and is wrong.

So while the deep reason for the war might have been to protect southern slavery, I cannot imagine that being the motivation that drove most Southern men to hazard their lives and futures.

Thus, I do not accept the liberal claim that the South was fighting expressly for slavery. Nor do I accept the claim that the North was fighting expressly against slavery. As in all such human endeavors, there is usually more nuance than the news will allow.

All of that to say this: I treasure the South. NOT because I even remotely agree with slavery. NOT because I think we were right to secede. But because, while we all treasure our status as Americans, us Southerners have that little special something extra--being Southern. There is a bumper sticker that aptly expresses this notion very well: "American by birth; Southern by the grace of God."

There is also the notion that the South was "traitorous." No, we weren't. Or, if we were, we were traitorous in precisely the same way that the Thirteen Colonies were traitorous to Britain. In other words, we felt fully justified in separating from the rest of the Union. That doesn't mean we were right to do so, but as it was, we were not opening fire on the Union from within the Union, but as a separate union (confederation).

"But...but...you went to war with the United States." Yes. But we had declared ourselves no longer a part of the United States. In our minds, we had seceded. Further, we were not attempting to overthrow the Union, but were attempting to separate from it--even though I believe this was wrong-- to keep them from overthrowing us.

General Lee did the honorable thing and stepped down from his high command in the American army to assume leadership in the South. If he had led the North, passing intelligence to the South while doing so, THAT would have been treasonous. As it was, he left the Union. Thus, he fought, lived, and died with honor.


OK, ready for a thought experiment?

Let's imagine that we happen to still be around 100 years in the future. By 2120, the tide of moral thought regarding abortion has changed dramatically. Just as we all commonly accept that slavery is immoral, it is the case that everyone commonly accepts that abortion is wrong. This may have come about through, say, scientific evidence or just education about the matter, etc.

Well, in 2120, there is a movement that seeks to remove the statues, memorials, and monuments to any 21st century leaders that supported abortion. It doesn't matter what good things these leaders might have otherwise done--if they supported abortion, people want such public displays of honor removed.

But I would disagree. Why? Because I know that that is but a single aspect of a life that may otherwise have been an advocate for the poor, a supporter of the needy, a loving parent, a kind-hearted person, on and on. Further, I would recall that back in 2020, while I was certain that abortion was wrong, the moral question was still in the process of being settled at that time. Had the matter by then been a settled moral principle, then, yes, I could see clearly why someone would want all honors and public remembrance removed. But as it was, the matter was still be debated, still be wrestled over, still being worked out. There were plenty of folks on both sides of the issue.

Some might ask whether my example wouldn't make it such that even Nazis could be honored. The difference is that the killing of millions of people due to something over which the victims had no control (i.e., being a Jew) was a morally settled question. If nothing else, the American Civil War had settled that question nearly a century earlier by making the point that it was morally wrong to enslave someone (let alone kill them) due to matters over which they had no control (i.e., being born with black skin).

John Lewis was a Democrat. He was a great and noble warrior for civil rights. Yet he belonged to and supported a party that led the fight for abortion rights. Would it be fair to define him by that one issue--as weighty as it is--and especially when it was not at that time a settled issue?

If you still can't make up your mind on this, let's switch things up. Let's just assume (as hard as it would be to do this) that abortion is fully morally acceptable in 2120. Would we want Ronald Reagan's memorials and the such removed from public places because he was against abortion? No. We'd hold that it was an unsettled issue at the time. We'd claim that that he had proceeded according to the light he had. And we'd ask that the good things that he did be balanced against any resistance he had to abortion.


Last edited by Aaron Scott on 8/3/20 10:48 am; edited 4 times in total
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
7/29/20 12:33 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post Cojak
No matter how hard you try you cannot bring back yesterday. In the same vein you cannot change history. We live with the fact we in the USA allowed slavery. The Germans live with the leadership of Hitler, it happened.

We just cannot change history, as some seem to want to try. Sad
_________________
Some facts but mostly just my opinion!
jacsher@aol.com
http://shipslog-jack.blogspot.com/
01000001 01100011 01110100 01110011
Posts: 23401
7/29/20 8:27 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Re: Why We Shouldn't Remove Confederate Flags, Monuments, Statues, Etc. skinnybishop
Aaron Scott wrote:
I cannot easily explain my affinity for the Confederate South. After all, I consider slavery utterly reprehensible. I understand that some of these things make our Black brothers and sisters quite uncomfortable. And while I would not want to offend, neither can I help that these things are precious to me.

In a moment, I will ask that you do a thought experiment that will, I think, explain things better. But first, WHY do I feel this way? I think it is because, before the Civil War, we were the states that were in the southern part of our nation. Or we were the states that lay southward of more northern states. In other words, we were more a direction than anything else.

But the Civil War changed things. We were no longer just the southern states. We were THE SOUTH. A unified group. No one can argue that slavery had no role in the Civil War. It did. We might argue to what extent it brought about the war, but we cannot argue that it played no role at all in the decisions that were made.

We are told that the Southerners were fighting to preserve slavery. While this notion was articulated in certain official secession proceedings, and while rich planters may indeed have went to war for that reason, do we suppose that tens of thousands of poor, white boys and men--who had never owned a slave--went to the great and terrible risk of war in order to protect slavery? Or do we suppose that these same poor folks did it in the hopes that, one day, after all the unpleasantness was settled, they, too, would have the opportunity to own slaves? I don't buy it.

Rather, I believe that, as with many wars, whatever the true reasons for the war, it is often sold to those who will bleed and die as some sort of "fight against tyranny" or some desperate combat to save their states, their homes, their families. Some say we went to war with Iraq for "oil." I don't think that is true, but even if it is/were, the boys who signed up to fight weren't doing it for that reason. In their minds, they were doing it to avenge 9/11. They were doing it to protect America. They were doing it to stop terrorism.

Further, while the immorality of slavery is today a settled matter, in those days it was still being debated. That it, lots of otherwise good and intelligent folks disagreed about whether slavery was morally evil. Unable to settle it by debate, we settled the question by war. And today we all accept that it was and is wrong.

So while the deep reason for the war might have been to protect southern slavery, I cannot imagine that being the motivation that drove most Southern men to hazard their lives and futures.

Thus, I do not accept the liberal claim that the South was fighting expressly for slavery. Nor do I accept the claim that the North was fighting expressly against slavery. As in all such human endeavors, there is usually more nuance than the news will allow.

All of that to say this: I treasure the South. NOT because I even remotely agree with slavery. NOT because I think we were right to secede. But because, while we all treasure our status as Americans, us Southerners have that little special something extra--being Southern. There is a bumper sticker that aptly expresses this notion very well: "American by birth; Southern by the grace of God."

There is also the notion that the South was "traitorous." No, we weren't. Or, if we were, we were traitorous in precisely the same way that the Thirteen Colonies were traitorous to Britain. In other words, we felt fully justified in separating from the rest of the Union. That doesn't mean we were right to do so, but as it was, we were not opening fire on the Union from within the Union, but as a separate union (confederation).

"But...but...you went to war with the United States." Yes. But we had declared ourselves no longer a part of the United States. In our minds, we had seceded. Further, we were not attempting to overthrow the Union, but were attempting to separate from it--even though I believe this was wrong-- to keep them from overthrowing us.

General Lee did the honorable thing and stepped down from his high command in the American army to assume leadership in the South. If he had led the North, passing intelligence to the South while doing so, THAT would have been treasonous. As it was, he left the Union. Thus, he fought, lived, and died with honor.


OK, ready for a thought experiment?

Let's imagine that we happen to still be around 100 years in the future. By 2120, the tide of moral thought regarding abortion has changed dramatically. Just as we all commonly accept that slavery is immoral, it is the case that everyone commonly accepts that abortion is wrong. This may have come about through, say, scientific evidence or just education about the matter, etc.

Well, in 2120, there is a movement that seeks to remove the statues, memorials, and monuments to any 21st century leaders that supported abortion. It doesn't matter what good things these leaders might have otherwise done--if they supported abortion, people want such public displays of honor removed.

But I would disagree. Why? Because I know that that is but a single aspect of a life that may otherwise have been an advocate for the poor, a supporter of the needy, a loving parent, a kind-hearted person, on and on. Further, I would recall that back in 2020, while I was certain that abortion was wrong, the moral question was still in the process of being settled at that time. Had the matter by then been a settled moral principle, then, yes, I could see clearly why someone would want all honors and public remembrance removed. But as it was, the matter was still be debated, still be wrestled over, still being worked out. There were plenty of folks on both sides of the issue.

Some might ask whether my example wouldn't make it such that even Nazis could be honored. The difference is that the killing of millions of people due to something over which the victims had no control (i.e., being a Jew) was a morally settled question. If nothing else, the American Civil War had settled that question nearly a century earlier by making the point that it was morally wrong to enslave someone (let alone kill them) due to matters over which they had no control (i.e., being born with black skin).

John Lewis was a Democrat. He was a great and noble warrior for civil rights. Yet he belonged to and supported a party that led the fight for abortion rights. Would it be fair to define him by that one issue--as weighty as it is--and especially when it was not at that time a settled issue?

Let me go a bit further. Would it be right to define Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., by his multitude of adulteries--something that is clearly morally wrong--or should we place that in the balance against his efforts to do good things for African Americans?

If you still can't make up your mind on this, let's switch things up. Let's just assume (as hard as it would be to do this) that abortion is fully morally acceptable in 2120. Would we want Ronald Reagan's memorials and the such removed from public places because he was against abortion? No. We'd hold that it was an unsettled issue at the time. We'd claim that that he had proceeded according to the light he had. And we'd ask that the good things that he did be balanced against any resistance he had to abortion.


The Civil War is one of my favorite subjects. You said some things that needed to be said. There is so much misunderstanding and misinformation about the South and I appreciate your points.

The South absolutely seceded over slavery. There is no debating it and no denying it. However......the idea that SOME HAVE, that Abe Lincoln and the Northern states were on some righteous crusade, to free the slaves is historically inaccurate. That myth can be debunked with 5 minutes of research.

Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union period. If it took abolishing slavery, launching a war, burning Georgia, or arresting half of the state of Maryland....he wasn't going to let the south go.


It is interesting to speculate what would have happened, if Lincoln would have said, "You want to leave? Go ahead, but don't expect any help from us. Good luck". In my opinion the CSA wouldn't have lasted 10 years. The states would be begging for readmission.

I wonder if we could have gotten to the same place, without the war.
_________________
Eddie Wiggins
Acts Enthusiast
Posts: 1008
7/30/20 9:39 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie Robbins
A four year period of time in which we were traitors. We left the USA because we wanted to hold slaves. I love the South. I hate what the Confederacy stood for. There is no justification for any statue or memorial honoring this. Acts-pert Poster
Posts: 16459
7/30/20 3:55 pm


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Post Eddie...please read what I wrote. The South was NOT traitorous. Aaron Scott
Eddie Robbins wrote:
A four year period of time in which we were traitors. We left the USA because we wanted to hold slaves. I love the South. I hate what the Confederacy stood for. There is no justification for any statue or memorial honoring this.


Let me ask you a simple question, Eddie: Were the 13 Colonies traitors to Britain?

If so, then you will agree we were in the wrong.

If not, why not?

Again, read what I wrote to put this notion to rest. I do hear you, but we were never traitorous. Never.
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 5527
7/30/20 7:09 pm


View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Reply with quote
Post sheepdogandy
Confederates were not traitors!

They were secessionists, there is a great difference.

Some just can't get it.
_________________
Charles A. Hutchins
Senior Pastor SPWC
Congregational Church of God

www.spwc.church
Hon. Dr. in Acts-celeratology
Posts: 7176
7/31/20 11:27 am


View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Reply with quote
Post Just a thought... Bowtat
I understand you have reverence for the south and southern ideals. It is perfectly acceptable to be proud of your homeland. There are people from all over the world that live in countries, that most of us would not want to be in a plane that flew over it, and they are proud of their home. Be proud of your music, people, culture, and even your history. No state's history is perfect because people live there. George Washington was a great man, but he did own slaves. If you go to Mount Vernon now it is something we that is expressed. If we do not teach the whole history of America, then we don't learn to form the lessons that we have already learned. King David killed giants, was a great king, and had a man killed to attempt to cover up an adulterous act.

As we accept our history and celebrate it, it seems weird to me that most Confederate statues were built in the 1920s and the 1960s. The daughters of the confederacy were daughters of men who had lost their lives in the civil war. Of course, they wanted their fathers to be memorialized, as do all of us. Every child wants their fathers to be celebrated. So in 1920 they started building statues. To men who faught for slavery. Did they fight for other things, yes, but the big issue was the economic system of the south. Though they were doing this for family reason, they erected statues in city parks to men who had fought to keep people enslaved.

The statues built in the 1960s seem even more strange to me. Three years after MLK jr. was shot in Memphis they a statue was built to a confederate general who had never had a statue built to him before. It seems strange that during the rise of the civil rights movement we were building statues to confederate soldiers.

Thought Experiment:

Who will we have trouble celebrating in the future? I have an easier one for you. I wonder how future Americans will feel about how we allowed products we use every day to be made in nations that used slave labor. We are watching as Wayfair is being dismantled because of human trafficking charges.

Final Thought:

Be proud. I am proud of being an American, but I know it is not perfect. We made mistakes like slavery, internment camps for Asian Americans during the world war, distributing porn around the world, and many more things. I think we can celebrate our American heritage without a certain status.
Friendly Face
Posts: 302
8/3/20 11:09 am


View user's profile Send private message
Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:   
Actscelerate.com Forum Index -> Acts-Celerate Post new topic   Reply to topic
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Acts-celerate Terms of Use | Acts-celerate Policy
World News Network | Acts-celerate Chat
Contact the Administrator.


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group :: Spelling by SpellingCow.