Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Univ. Texas rethinks Confederate statues

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
deadparrot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 04:41 AM
Original message
Univ. Texas rethinks Confederate statues
AUSTIN, Texas - The new president of the University of Texas says he will appoint a panel to decide what to do with four bronze statues on the Austin campus that honor confederate leaders and have drawn complaints for several years.

William Powers Jr., who took over as president this month, said the advisory committee would look into concerns about the statues, which include likenesses of Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederate States, and Gen. Robert E. Lee.

"A lot of students, and especially minority students, have raised concerns. And those are understandable and legitimate concerns. On the other hand, the statues have been here for a long time, and that's something we have to take into account as well," Powers said in Wednesday's Austin American-Statesman.

The university's previous president, Larry Faulkner, wrote an open letter to the campus more than two years ago saying the statues convey "institutional nostalgia" for the Confederacy and its values.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061228/ap_on_re_us/ut_confederate_statues
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 06:43 AM
Response to Original message
1.  "institutional nostalgia" Here's a student at this fine institution at frat party
Pierce Bush ---- Nephew of the CHIMPANZEE









THESE PHOTOS WERE TAKEN AT 3 DIFFERENT PARTIES PIERCE ATTENDED

He is wearing 3 different shirts

He drinks Coors Light, Bud Light and Miller Lite

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:30 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. Is that Kinky Friedman in the last photo? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. It's Pierce's lover
;-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Show_Me _The_Truth Donating Member (687 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 11:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
14. What does this have to do with the OP?
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 11:27 AM by Show_Me _The_Truth
Just some photos to smear a college kid that does the same thing that most every other college kid has done?

Gasp, I was in a fraternity at the University of Texas and did the same types of things. Who cares?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #14
37. Its "Turds in training" like this "Bowel Movement" who are running the country
LOL

His ilk love to mock the underclass.

Every see the You Tube rant of this AssClown defending the "Dubai Ports Deal"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JVS Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. OMG He's had a few good times! Oh the injustice of it all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
calimary Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #1
19. Oh great. Another bush "president" in training.
Oh, brother. Spare us, Dear God!

Looking at these photos, I am SO ardently hoping that all that speculation about dubya having fucked the "family franchise" is true.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16115397/site/newsweek/

How I LOVE this Eleanor Clift commentary!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Auntie Bush Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 11:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
31. Who's the guy with the hairy butt? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 11:11 PM
Response to Reply #31
41. Leslie Alicia Cochran
Leslie Alicia Cochran (born as Al Leslie Cochran on June 24, 1951) is a vagrant cross-dresser and arguably the most locally famous street person in Austin, Texas. He is an outspoken critic of police treatment of the homeless in the downtown Austin area. Many consider him to be the epitome of the Keep Austin Weird campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leslie_Cochran





Leslie hangs out around 6th Street, usually around 6th and Congress during business hours. He is most frequently seen wearing women's clothing; his most popular attire is a leopard thong and high-heeled shoes. Leslie prefers to be addressed as a "he", but accepts "she" for a more comedic effect that adds to the overall absurdity of Leslie's persona.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 04:18 PM
Response to Reply #1
36. Peirce choose his uncle Dubya as his role model.
Don't even think about a career in politics,Pierce, just drown yourself in booze and enjoy the family fortune.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogfacedboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 07:07 AM
Response to Original message
2. People seem to forget that the Confederacy was an enemy of the USA
Edited on Sat Dec-30-06 07:08 AM by dogfacedboy
The many years that have rolled by since the Civil War seem to have washed away a very simple, yet important, fact. The Confederate States of America was a terrorist insurgency in the Civil War. The United States of America put the CSA in it's place, and won that war. I have never understood why it's even legal to have displays honoring the CSA anywhere on US soil. I understand that it's a matter of history and heritage in parts of the South, but it's certainly not a positive piece of history.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. There are also parts of "History and Heritage" that are selectively ignored
As a matter of fact, hundreds of thousands of men from the south and border states (including Texas) served in the Union Army, not to mention the 150,000 ex-slaves and ex-slaves or freemen from border states who fought in the USCT (United States Colored Troops). Where are their memorials, honoring their loyalty and sacrifice to this nation? My own ancestors from SE Kentucky and SW West Virginia (Virginia at the time), to a man fought for the Union. Are they not part of Southern heritage? The "history and heritage" argument is a sham because it is so deliberately selective -- or exclusive, as may be more appropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:40 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. I knew without even looking you lived up North.
When I was young (I'm now in my mid fifties) old people, those in their eighties or so would say "Damn Yankess" and they really meant it. "Put it in it's place"-Christ, man-you need to grow up and get a some sort of grasp of human history. Read up on the reconstruction sometime.

Maybe better yet, wrap your head around how the poor routinely die for the rich men's wars. I suppose you think the Civil War is a positive piece of history for the North?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
saigon68 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:47 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes there were a few "Northern Draft Riots"


New York City Draft Riots
(July 11-13, 1863)


http://www.civilwarhome.com/draftriots.htm



By the time the names of the first draftees were drawn in New York City on July 11, reports about the carnage of Gettysburg had been published in city papers. Lincoln's call for 300,000 more young men to fight a seemingly endless war frightened even those who supported the Union cause. Moreover, the Enrollment Act contained several exemptions, including the payment of a "commutation fee" that allowed wealthier and more influential citizens to buy their way out of service.

Perhaps no group was more resentful of these inequities than the Irish immigrants populating the slums of northeastern cities. Poor and more than a little prejudiced against blacks-with whom they were both unfamiliar and forced to compete for the lowest-paying jobs-the Irish in New York objected to fighting on their behalf.

On Sunday, June 12, the names of the draftees drawn the day before by the Provost Marshall were published in newspapers. Within hours, groups of irate citizens, many of them Irish immigrants, banded together across the city. Eventually numbering some 50,000 people, the mob terrorized neighborhoods on the East Side of New York for three days looting scores of stores. Blacks were the targets of most attacks on citizens; several lynchings and beatings occurred. In addition, a black church and orphanage were burned to the ground.

All in all, the mob caused more than $1.5 million of damage. The number killed or wounded during the riot is unknown, but estimates range from two dozen to nearly 100. Eventually, Lincoln deployed combat troops from the Federal Army of the Potomac to restore order; they remained encamped around the city for several weeks. In the end, the draft raised only about 150,000 troops throughout the North, about three-quarters of them substitutes, amounting to just one-fifth of the total Union force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. Okay, let's talk romantically about the pre-reconstruction period
Here's some history for you:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html



A Declaration of the Causes which Impel the State of Texas to Secede from the Federal Union.

The government of the United States, by certain joint resolutions, bearing date the 1st day of March, in the year A.D. 1845, proposed to the Republic of Texas, then *a free, sovereign and independent nation* , the annexation of the latter to the former, as one of the co-equal states thereof,

The people of Texas, by deputies in convention assembled, on the fourth day of July of the same year, assented to and accepted said proposals and formed a constitution for the proposed State, upon which on the 29th day of December in the same year, said State was formally admitted into the Confederated Union.

Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time. Her institutions and geographical position established the strongest ties between her and other slave-holding States of the confederacy. Those ties have been strengthened by association. But what has been the course of the government of the United States, and of the people and authorities of the non-slave-holding States, since our connection with them?

The controlling majority of the Federal Government, under various pretences and disguises, has so administered the same as to exclude the citizens of the Southern States, unless under odious and unconstitutional restrictions, from all the immense territory owned in common by all the States on the Pacific Ocean, for the avowed purpose of acquiring sufficient power in the common government to use it as a means of destroying the institutions of Texas and her sister slaveholding States.

By the disloyalty of the Northern States and their citizens and the imbecility of the Federal Government, infamous combinations of incendiaries and outlaws have been permitted in those States and the common territory of Kansas to trample upon the federal laws, to war upon the lives and property of Southern citizens in that territory, and finally, by violence and mob law, to usurp the possession of the same as exclusively the property of the Northern States.

The Federal Government, while but partially under the control of these our unnatural and sectional enemies, has for years almost entirely failed to protect the lives and property of the people of Texas against the Indian savages on our border, and more recently against the murderous forays of banditti from the neighboring territory of Mexico; and when our State government has expended large amounts for such purpose, the Federal Government has refuse reimbursement therefor, thus rendering our condition more insecure and harassing than it was during the existence of the Republic of Texas.

These and other wrongs we have patiently borne in the vain hope that a returning sense of justice and humanity would induce a different course of administration.

When we advert to the course of individual non-slave-holding States, and that a majority of their citizens, our grievances assume far greater magnitude.

The States of Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and Iowa, by solemn legislative enactments, have deliberately, directly or indirectly violated the 3rd clause of the 2nd section of the 4th article of the federal constitution, and laws passed in pursuance thereof; thereby annulling a material provision of the compact, designed by its framers to perpetuate the amity between the members of the confederacy and to secure the rights of the slave-holding States in their domestic institutions-- a provision founded in justice and wisdom, and without the enforcement of which the compact fails to accomplish the object of its creation. Some of those States have imposed high fines and degrading penalties upon any of their citizens or officers who may carry out in good faith that provision of the compact, or the federal laws enacted in accordance therewith.

In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.

For years past this abolition organization has been actively sowing the seeds of discord through the Union, and has rendered the federal congress the arena for spreading firebrands and hatred between the slave-holding and non-slave-holding States.

By consolidating their strength, they have placed the slave-holding States in a hopeless minority in the federal congress, and rendered representation of no avail in protecting Southern rights against their exactions and encroachments.

They have proclaimed, and at the ballot box sustained, the revolutionary doctrine that there is a 'higher law' than the constitution and laws of our Federal Union, and virtually that they will disregard their oaths and trample upon our rights.

They have for years past encouraged and sustained lawless organizations to steal our slaves and prevent their recapture, and have repeatedly murdered Southern citizens while lawfully seeking their rendition.

They have invaded Southern soil and murdered unoffending citizens, and through the press their leading men and a fanatical pulpit have bestowed praise upon the actors and assassins in these crimes, while the governors of several of their States have refused to deliver parties implicated and indicted for participation in such offenses, upon the legal demands of the States aggrieved.

They have, through the mails and hired emissaries, sent seditious pamphlets and papers among us to stir up servile insurrection and bring blood and carnage to our firesides.

They have sent hired emissaries among us to burn our towns and distribute arms and poison to our slaves for the same purpose.

They have impoverished the slave-holding States by unequal and partial legislation, thereby enriching themselves by draining our substance.

They have refused to vote appropriations for protecting Texas against ruthless savages, for the sole reason that she is a slave-holding State.

And, finally, by the combined sectional vote of the seventeen non-slave-holding States, they have elected as president and vice-president of the whole confederacy two men whose chief claims to such high positions are their approval of these long continued wrongs, and their pledges to continue them to the final consummation of these schemes for the ruin of the slave-holding States.

In view of these and many other facts, it is meet that our own views should be distinctly proclaimed.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government *all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights* ; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

For these and other reasons, solemnly asserting that the federal constitution has been violated and virtually abrogated by the several States named, seeing that the federal government is now passing under the control of our enemies to be diverted from the exalted objects of its creation to those of oppression and wrong, and realizing that our own State can no longer look for protection, but to God and her own sons-- We the delegates of the people of Texas, in Convention assembled, have passed an ordinance dissolving all political connection with the government of the United States of America and the people thereof and confidently appeal to the intelligence and patriotism of the freemen of Texas to ratify the same at the ballot box, on the 23rd day of the present month.

Adopted in Convention on the 2nd day of Feby, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one and of the independence of Texas the twenty-fifth.




Oh, and by the way, many men who fought as Southern Unionists were poor men from the Appalachians who despsied the wealthy plantation owners of the lowlands.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #7
15. confederate apologists have nothing to say about this, it seems...
Yup -- there's antebellum Texas, forthrightly shrieking its little head off against "...the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color".


Kind of hard to romanticize that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
acmejack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:28 PM
Response to Reply #15
21. Oh yes I am "A Confederate apologist"
You guys can be thoroughly disgusting! I simply tire of the continuous Texas bashing here. There is a huge difference. Whatever, I'll not bother
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #21
30. seriously, I'm for leaving the statues where they are...
Especially if we can put up bronze plaques with these figures' more interesting quotes alongside. Yes, let's remember -- everything.

After all, why help the revisionists conceal evidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
theHandpuppet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. I think they should just add MORE statues
Edited on Mon Jan-01-07 12:41 PM by theHandpuppet
As memorials for these Texas men who were victims in the "Great Hanging At Gainesville" Here's a tribute to Confederate values!

http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/GG/jig1.html

GREAT HANGING AT GAINESVILLE. Forty suspected Unionists in Confederate Texas were hanged at Gainesville in October 1862. Two others were shot as they tried to escape. Although the affair reached its climax in Cooke County, men were killed in neighboring Grayson, Wise, and Denton counties. Most were accused of treason or insurrection, but evidently few had actually conspired against the Confederacy, and many were innocent of the abolitionist sentiments for which they were tried.... MORE

Well, what's hanging a few fellas suspected of being "damn Yankees" at heart?

Further, how about some statues for these loyal men?

http://www.celebratingtexas.com/14-5.html
(excerpt)
For the most dedicated supporters of the Union, however, secession presented serious problems. Most tried to keep quiet, but others openly condemned the states' actions and left their homes to fight for the Union. The institution of the draft in the summer of 1862 forced many more who had attempted to wait out the war in peace to flee their homes. Some wound up in the Union Army. Others lived in the back country of the state until the war was over. As might be expected, these obstinate Unionists were persecuted by the majority. Several accused Unionists were hanged at Gainesville in October 1862 (see GREAT HANGING AT GAINESVILLE). Although the majority of Germans either were neutral or supported the Confederacy, Germans in the western counties often remained loyal to the Union. A band of Germans fleeing the draft was massacred along the Nueces River in August 1862....

Oopsie!

Further, let's include statues to these men, from the Union regiments of Texas: http://www.civilwararchive.com/uniontx.htm

So I'm all for statues. Line the campus with bronze memorials, but to memorialize history is such a selective way as to romanticize the antebellum South whilst ignoring other legitimate pages of Southern history is the true insult. There were hundreds of thousands of brave Southern men, black and white and Texans, too, who fought for the preservation of the Union. Who mourns for them? Why are they not revered? Where are their statues? Yes, Virginia, not all Yankees were devils and not all Southerners were slave-owning Confederates. Amazing, isn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. and yet the neoconfederates are always screaming about Lincoln jailing enemies of the US...
They always forget to mention that the so-called "CSA" EXECUTED their own enemies -- in droves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LanternWaste Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 04:49 PM
Response to Reply #32
39. That's actually not a bad idea.
That's actually not a bad idea. A few additional statues that in one way or another, depict the negative consequences of the "War of Southern Cowardice" in addition to a token southern 'hero' or two.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
0rganism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 09:22 PM
Response to Reply #7
47. "institutional nostalgia" for the Confederacy and its values can take a hike
Edited on Wed Jan-03-07 09:23 PM by 0rganism
Thanks for posting this, HandPuppet. It's so goddammed racist, how can anyone at DU wax apologetic for this crapola? Let alone nostalgiac...

"In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color-- a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States."

"We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."

"That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding states."

People, that was some EVIL SHIT right there. I see nothing to admire, nothing to respect, and nothing worthy of proud comemoration. Sorry. No way. There are plenty of things that are all right or even excellent about Texas, but its support for slavery and membership in the Confederacy are not among them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #4
24. The War Between the States or the Civil War, whichever moniker
one prefers, is a part of US history. That can never be changed. There is much to bewail on both sides of the Mason Dixon line. For example, Sherman's March through Georgia was a totally hellacious mark on our country. Many people lost their lives and their homes, rich and poor, white and black. The Reconstruction was both good and bad because mankind is both. Some people came to the South to help, others to rape and harm. Robert E. Lee was an honorable man and deserves recognition as such. If the University of Texas does not wish a statue of him, that is its choice, but a statue of Lee or Jefferson Davis or any other Southerner is in no way a statement against anyone (unless a modern mindset so insists.) These men are historical Americans, with good and bad traits just like all of us. Can we really project how we would have acted had we been born into that world, either North or South? Being from a border state, I know how much was suffered, brother against brother, father against son, etc. It was not an easy time to live a life of certainty about right and wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:30 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. If It Was a "Terrorist Insurgency"
would you say we should have nothing honoring John Brown? No matter how noble his cause (the eradication of slavery for those of you ignorant on history) he seized a federal arsenal, took hostages with the intent of starting an armed insurrection.

Brown was charged with treason against Virginia (which was very controversial, because he wasn't even a resident of Virginia). That is another example of something I posted in another response, people identified themselves as citizens of their states more than the United States. Many of the people fighting "for the Confederacy" didn't care a fig about slavery, they were fighting for their state.

And if we can't understand that, no wonder we're not winning in Iraq.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I made the same basic observation below
In my post about Lee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 08:51 AM
Response to Original message
6. Lots of metal. Metal is useful. You can make cutlery. Fences. Food cans.
All nobler objects than representations of people who fought to maintain slavery.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamjoy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 09:23 AM
Response to Original message
8. Let Us Look At The Men
not the Confederacy. I mean, some of the people fighting for the Confederacy thought the North had lost its American principles, betrayed the ideals of the founders. Many people then felt more identity with their state than with the country, and fought accordingly. Robert E. Lee is a classic example of this. When Virginia seceded, he knew he could not take up arms against his own state so he resigned his commission in the U.S. Army.

And about Robert E. Lee - I think he was a very honorable man. The Union Army took his home and turned it into a cemetary. Rather than being insulted, Lee took it in stride, thinking there was little better way for his land to be used than to honor men who died in service to country. At the end of the war, some people suggested the Confederate Army continue to fight as a guerilla army, Lee felt if he couldn't fight honorably, he wouldn't fight at all. Lee stayed after the surrender, knowing he might face treason charges and execution. On the other hand, I have little respect for Jefferson Davis. I think he was willing to have his army fight a guerilla war. And, after Appomattox, he made a run for Mexico.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catch22Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:07 AM
Response to Original message
10. Lee was a good man
I think he was always conflicted regarding the slavery issue. He was offered a command in the U.S. Army, but when Virginia succeeded from the Union, his loyalty was to Virginia. You have to remember, prior to reconstruction, the U.S. was referred to as "the United States are" whereas now it's "the United States is" We do not relate to this. In his time, the individual states made up a country but your loyalty was to your state. Now we have one country with some states in it. I have no particular loyalty to my state at all.

Rambling, I know. The U.S. Civil War is so very interesting on so many levels.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #10
34. You're right, he was.
He was actually offered the command of all Union forces by General Winfield Scott, but he felt that accepting the command would be an affront to his state and family.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:12 AM
Response to Original message
12. the Confederacy and its values
Those same "values" are being demonstrated by the treason we witness almost daily by the GOP and especially this Administration...Treason is a Republican "value"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 12:42 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. had the Confederacy been successful
slavery would have continued till this day.

States' Rights is a moniker for not wanting federal interference in slavery. The Union was on a path towards abolition. That's why the South did not want federal interference. They wanted the right to have slavery in their state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nevernose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
25. Davis tried to get rid of slavery
He didn't like it more than anyone else did. He introduced legislation to phase out slavery, in fact. He actually believed in state's rights, or at least the tenth amendment. Many other people felt the same way, and the Civil War is not a black and white issue.

You are totally, 100% correct, however, if you think that in the 21st century, "state's rights" is all about racism and justification for neo-conservative claptrap. I just don't think it's fair to apply modern standards to historic events.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cap Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #25
28. the agitation for leaving the union was not over states rights
it was over Lincoln's abolitionist viewpoint and the fear that Lincoln would begin actively ending slavery. Those in the South who were against slavery were a minority. There would never have been such a momentum to leave the union if the South wasnt afraid of losing its economic underpinnings.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NaturalHigh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #28
35. Actually, Lincoln did not advocate immediate abolition.
He believed that if slavery was not allowed to spread to other territories and states it would eventually die on his own. The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool he used to tighten the stranglehold on the Confederacy after secession.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 10:12 AM
Response to Reply #25
43. The north won. period. Get rid of the statues. I live in Texas.
Did you know that when the founder of UT put those statues in place, he requested that they all faces south.

So there you go. The guy was a southern sympathizer. He wasn't trying to show some sort of "respect" to these people, he was thumbing his nose at the north.

I can't believe that we as a nation still argue about this crap.

The concept of Southern "tradition" has been replaced by Civil Rights. And any sort of "longing" people still have for those days, I can say with 100% certainty, you never lived back then and frankly, having read extensively upon that era, more than likely, just like today, you wouldn't fall into the 2% of the wealthy that controlled everything, so once again, people who "long" for that era would be sadly disappointed to find out that they would be part of the rabble that todays wealthy crush under heel as they did then.

It would be more of the same, poor people fighting the richs arguments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bridget Burke Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 04:13 PM
Response to Reply #25
46. "He is as ambitious as Lucifer, cold as a snake, and what he touches will not prosper. "
That's Sam Houston describing Jefferson Davis.

Houston was elected Governor of Texas in 1859. He was thrown out of office in 1861 for refusing to swear an oath of loyalty to the Confederacy.

I'm glad the Confederate statues are being discussed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
20. we should topple the statues, just like all those big bronze Lenins and Saddams
And generate plenty of nice footage of happy people dancing around the toppled figures.


Elsewhere in the world, those statue-toppling parties appear to be an important means of symbolizing the end of the old order and of marking the birth of democracy. Why not here?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MasonJar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #20
27. You think that the toppling of the Saddam statue was a symbol of
the birth of democracy. It was a phony Bushite ploy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-01-07 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #27
29. didn't think that sentence required...
... a sarcasm tag. Didn't think I had to spell out absolutely everything. Thought my intent was so obvious that folks couldn't miss it even at midnight while snowblind...


:argh:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jed Dilligan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:02 PM
Response to Original message
22. Ah, those statues (warning: sexual content)
One of those statues has Jeff Davis as the Lawgiver of the South--holding a scroll out the way only statues do.

From a particular angle, it looks like he's a pervert with his overcoat open--holding his big dick (the scroll).

People say "meet me at the jackoff statue"--it means they'll be waiting in the particular spot where the effect occurs in your vision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
VegasWolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. "Hook 'em horns!" nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Dec-30-06 10:38 PM
Response to Original message
26. Losers in Bronze
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BluePatriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
38. Probably just need to stash them in the on-campus museum
I went to UT. Statues are in a prominent place b/c of stipulations of a former major donor in the 20's, Littlefield, who looooved the Confederacy. Most people walk by them not knowing about them. I can't favor scrapping them (they are art after all) but it would be a good idea to move them off to the museum, maybe with an exhibit explaining their history and the entire statue conflict.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-02-07 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
40. Erase history, and judge earlier times by contemporary standards. How PC...
Because, you know, we have all the answers, unlike all those who came before us. Our time is the only time with values and judgments that will shine undimmed forever.

The Confederacy was *dead wrong* about slavery, but only someone who gets their history from internet boards would think that there were no honorable men or worthy political ideas in the Confederacy.

Peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NorthernSpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 03:44 PM
Response to Reply #40
45. "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty...
... among the drivers of negroes?"


You know who said that, and how long ago?


Slavery and the Confederacy aren't despicable only by contemporary standards: both were disreputable even by the standards of their time. We've known for quite a while that people don't want to be in chains. For about as long, we've also had a slight prejudice against being militarily attacked, especially by the kind of hypocritical aggressors who would force a fugitive slave law on the entire nation, only to throw a "states rights" snit later after becoming increasingly outnumbered.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Psephos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-04-07 02:35 AM
Response to Reply #45
48. "To imagine that every one who is not completely good is irrevocably abandoned ...
...is to suppose that all are capable of the same degree of excellence; it is indeed to exact from all that perfection which none ever can attain."

Presumably you also know who said that.

My point was not to defend the indefensible, and I am surely no fan of the Confederacy, to put it mildly. Slavery was as repellent in the 19th Century as it was during the time of Moses.

I was speaking to the foolishness of pulling down statues because of current ideological fashions. How is that any different than the Taliban pulling down the thousand-year-old Buddha statues in Afghanistan?

Yes, let's tear down these statues. What a shame it would be to have them there reminding us of what happened in the Civil War, provoking discussion, driving people to the library to see how the country was rent in two, and to learn who the architects and engineers of this great struggle were. Cuz there's no way these long-dead figures might impart some hard-won historical wisdom to us.

No, let's just pretend it never happened, and that those people never lived.

We erase our history at a peril few seem to understand these days.

Peace.




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jamesinca Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 07:04 AM
Response to Original message
42. I saw a bumper sticker the other day
It said about the Confederate flag: "it's not hate, it's heritage" I just don't get some people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
noonwitch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-03-07 11:48 AM
Response to Reply #42
44. It's a heritage of hate, but....
I think that states should avoid using the confederate flag as a symbol. Individuals are free to be as hateful and ignorant as they choose, I guess.

The statues are a little different, as they are of actual people. I'd say that as far as Lee and other confederate generals go, they are historical figures that have a part in our history. We learn about their victories and defeats in school. I don't have so much of a problem with that.

Ultimately, though, the stars and bars or the statues are reminders of the lessons we should have learned a long time ago and probably serve a purpose in that sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 07:45 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC