There was actually a conversation about them even being erected. Check out this article written by Christopher Gwinn the current Supervisory Park Ranger for the division of Interpretation and Education at Gettysburg (I say that because the website is just a wordpress blog. The article is about the controversy of erecting a Robert E. Lee statue there in 1903. There was heavy opposition from Union veterans (though not all opposed the idea). Here are a couple choice quotes:
This was an issue in SC during my adolescence: the confederate flag flew in the statehouse. It has since been removed and placed in a museum, where it belongs. I can't buy the "heritage" argument much these days. I think it's short-sighted to say "They owned slaves, so fuck them". Again, this would apply to Washington and Jefferson, and I think their contribution outweighs this. I also think there are statues placed in times to discourage black migrants, in places that had no relevance to the war (Montana?) or the people that fought it (did Robert E. Lee ever go to Indiana?). Those can go, and I think some of the statues in Baltimore fit that description. That said, I think it's cowardly to remove statues for fear of vandalism (in Baltimore, asking the beleaguered police to guard a statue would be political suicide) and I think the people advocating tearing down a statue need to re-set their priorities. If you think a statue is the low-hanging fruit on the racism in America tree, you need to spend some time working with actual people and not targets for pigeon shit.
So watching these demonstrations and listening to the opinions regarding the statues of the Confederacy, is this basically saying that they should be torn down due to slavery? Or is this that they lost the War of Aggression/Civil War and are undeserving of statues? I know the big issue with the stars and bars was that it reminded people of slavery and was menacing to black people. In this case, I know this issue is not 100% one or the other but there must be a majority one or the other (I'm guessing it is the connection to slavery)? If it is based on mostly the slavery aspect, then where is this all going? After we tear down all of the Confederate statues what next? Seriously, look at the history of this country and who founded the country, look at every monument, every big building in every town, street names and every face on every piece of currency. What next?
Everything the extreme left doesn't like. In Atlanta they tried to tear down, but only ended up damaging, a peace monument. And it does appear the new media darlings, antifa, or at least antifa wanna-be's, were at the fore front:
They should be taken down because they were erected in the 20th century to glorify a completely inaccurate view of history, and to chill the progress made by black Americans. They are neither historical nor cultural; they are propaganda pieces aimed at oppressing black Americans through law and violence.
"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated, my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt ... would have the effect of ... continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour...... I think it wiser 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." - Robert E. Lee.
The difference between confederate statutes and statues of historical figures that were also slaveowners is that one group is only known because they were fighting to uphold the very institution of slavery, and were so passionate about being able to continue to own people that they were willing to literally destroy the country over it. Even if you remove all issues of slavery and race surrounding them, they are people who fought to destroy the country. The only good thing they did that deserves to be celebrated was fail. I like the people who are turning the monuments into participation trophies.
I am not defending keeping statues of Robert E Lee, for example, one way or the other, and Juice submitted a nice quote from the man himself. But that statement is false, just FYI. Robert E Lee was 54 years old when the Civil War started. He served in the US Army and graduated second in his class from West Point. He defended the United States with honor in other conflicts before he resigned to join the Confederate Army. So, if in your opinion, he chose poorly when he made that move, that's fine, but to say the only thing good he did was fail is wrong. Many of the people who fought for the South were conflicted, and everyone didn't think they were only fighting for the right to own slaves.
I guess the question then is: If he had never commanded the Army of Northern Virginia, would his career have been deemed worthy of a statue? If yes to 1, why do statues of Lee depict him in his uniform of a General of the Confederate Army, instead of Colonel of the US Army?
Pivoting slightly to the ever popular topic of White Privilege and college SJWs, I found the following development interesting. On the USC campus, there's a famous statue called "Tommy Trojan" which depicts a Trojan Soldier with sword and shield and the inscription extolls the five chief virtues of a Trojan. USC just completed a large addition to the campus, turning a series of old stores and buildings into a large residency/shopping/workspace plaza. In the middle they installed a counterpart statue to Tommy Trojan, of Hecuba, Queen of Troy. The inscription they placed was from Euripides 'Hecuba': “Those who have power ought not exercise it wrongfully, nor when they are fortunate should they imagine that they will be so forever.” For all the gnashing of teeth, I think this quote really sums up the concept of privilege in a straightforward and accessible way. It's about acknowledging what fortune has given you, using it justly, and not becoming attached to the idea that it is a permanent or intrinsic quality of your own.
I might be reading too much into some of these posts, but there still seems to be some confusion over why the Civil War was fought and what it was about. This is certainly the case for the country at large when people on twitter say things like this. There is a great history over the fight over the meaning of the Civil War and people disagreeing with why it was fought. It's by James McPherson. He won a Pulitzer for his book The Battle Cry of Freedom: The Civil War Era. "Southern Comfort" He dispels a lot of myths that citizens of this country still believe.
You wouldn't believe the lengths people go to defend it. It's loopy and insane the reasoning Ive seen.
I still try to figure why people up HERE sport Confederate flags. They were often born here too, it doesn't make sense to me at all.
I know why, I don't understand the point to being both fake and idiotic while advertising. They're saying they're "Dialed in with the True South" or some shit if you ask them. But they're fake schmucks. There's a guy in the east end of town in my old neighbourhood who for years has flown one on a towering flagpole in his backyard that everyone on the highway can see. A strange breed of poseur. They just need a few less sleeves and a case of Keystone and they'll complete the "image".
As I figured, it didn't stop with Confederate statues. Last night Baltimore tore down the statue of Justice Taney (Because he's a racist), New Orleans is fresh out of Confederate statues so tomorrow they're going to protest the Andrew Jackson (Who was dead before the Civil War, but he was a racist) statue, and Pittsburgh is talking about taking down the statue of Stephen Foster (Because the statue is racist.) We're well on our way. “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” ― George Orwell 1984