Ed Dueling protests spark state of emergency in Virginia.

[paulhutch]

I'm in agreement with this. As I understand it, the vast majority of Confederate statues are in limited or no danger of being removed at any point in the near future. This particular statue which "sparked" the rally (and I use the term loosely at best, since from the advertisement it's fairly clear that these guys were looking for any flimsy excuse) was voted to be moved (note: not destroyed, MOVED) out of the park well before the events of last weekend. A majority voted to do this. That is how our democracy is supposed to work. It's not going to change history to move a damned statue, for pete's sake; Robert E. Lee will still be taught about in schools nationwide and we're not going to forget him. The largest cemetery in our nation for soldiers (including, if I'm not mistaken, multiple Confederate soldiers) is on land which belonged to his estate in Arlington, and that fact is not going to change, nor is his participation in the nation overall, both before and after Virginia seceded. I say, leave it up to the local governments; if a majority vote to move the statues to other locations, move 'em; if they don't, don't. It's as simple as that.

Excellent post

I would add one restriction on the will of the electorate, memorials in cemeteries for those buried within the cemetery and memorials in historic parks. No matter how many Massachusetts citizens want the Confederate memorial to the 13 officers who died while imprisoned at Fort Warren to ever be removed. I feel the same about the memorial in Arlington National Cemetery.

 

[sunmaster14]

The Confederate soldiers in the statues weren't fighting for their states, they were fighting for slavery. The States Rights argument was an unsuccessful ruse to try and get European recognition. The Articles of Secession were about slavery. They were about Southern fear that Lincoln was an abolitionist and Northern refusal to expand slavery (and slave state representation in Congress) and the various methods used to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

The people depicted in the statues are being honored because they fought for slavery and engaged in treason which is defined only as waging war against the US or providing aid and comfort to an enemy. There's a huge difference between honoring someone in spite of their flaws and honoring someone because of their crimes.

The Civil War started out as a battle by the South to protect the institution of slavery, but, as with all wars, motivations became more complicated rather quickly. When a Union army is threatening to rape and pillage its way through your home, protecting the institution of slavery is probably not foremost in your mind, even if you're a fervent supporter of slavery. And even if you're an abolitionist (few and far between in the South I'll admit), the fact that your side is nominally defending the institution of slavery is also not going to be much of a factor in your decision to defend your home or avenge your friends and relatives.

Bottom line is war is a mess. I certainly don't expect descendants of white Georgians during the civil war to respect Sherman's "March to the Sea" just because he was on the side with the nobler cause.

 

[Craig4]

You absolutely cannot know that.

At most you could point to individual letters sent by individual soldiers confirming that they were ready to die to defend slavery. Until I see such letters in numbers I don't buy the fact that that was their cause.

What else could they have been fighting for but slavery? Virginia sites oppression of Southern slave holding states as the reason to succeed. Are you suggesting that Lee didn't know his state succeeded because of slavery?

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States.

 

[The Big Dog]

Other than a potential economic impact on the business, you would have no moral or personal objection to employing a member of the Nazi party? I'm not sure that's what you meant but you seem to have avoided stating that.

It was good enough for the JPL and NASA....

 

[sunmaster14]

Have you never been exposed to the arguments on why he was a great general or do you dispute them?

Lee's impressive military record included service before the Civil War too. Also, he distinguished himself after he left the military. Washington and Lee University is, after all, named for him in part.

There is even strong evidence that Lee opposed slavery, long before the war and during it.

 

[sunmaster14]

It was good enough for the JPL and NASA....

Yup.

 

[Craig4]

The Civil War started out as a battle by the South to protect the institution of slavery, but, as with all wars, motivations became more complicated rather quickly. When a Union army is threatening to rape and pillage its way through your home, protecting the institution of slavery is probably not foremost in your mind, even if you're a fervent supporter of slavery. And even if you're an abolitionist (few and far between in the South I'll admit), the fact that your side is nominally defending the institution of slavery is also not going to be much of a factor in your decision to defend your home or avenge your friends and relatives.

Bottom line is war is a mess. I certainly don't expect descendants of white Georgians during the civil war to respect Sherman's "March to the Sea" just because he was on the side with the nobler cause.

So they deserve a statue honoring them? They provoked a war and ended up fighting for their homes because they adhered to slavery. Doesn't sound like it rates a bronze statue in the park.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

What else could they have been fighting for but slavery?

You'd have to ask them.

Fortunately, we do have written records.

 

[paulhutch]

Other than a potential economic impact on the business, you would have no moral or personal objection to employing a member of the Nazi party? I'm not sure that's what you meant but you seem to have avoided stating that.

I was only addressing the idea of not allowing the firing of employees.

However now that you bring it up, as long as an employee can do their job well enough to benefit the company and does not demonstrate their objectionable personal beliefs at work, I have no problem with them in the business setting. So the answer is yes I would have no moral or personal objection because I believe in an absolute right to freedom of conscience. Now if any employee actually harms others rather than just holding a belief, I am not OK with that.

 

[sunmaster14]

So they deserve a statue honoring them? They provoked a war and ended up fighting for their homes because they adhered to slavery. Doesn't sound like it rates a bronze statue in the park.

Deserve? It's not a question of deserve. They're dead. They don't care. It's up to the people living today to decide. And of course I agree that local government should decide through the democratic process. But then again, organizing rallies and protests is also part of the democratic process. As is arguing publicly for your preferred outcome.

 

[The Big Dog]

Yup.

I've never seen that, that is hilarious.

 

[Darat]

Other than a potential economic impact on the business, you would have no moral or personal objection to employing a member of the Nazi party? I'm not sure that's what you meant but you seem to have avoided stating that.

When I seek to employ someone there are certain circumstances in which I can legally discriminate, having a political view different to my own is not one of them. I have employed many people that I later would find held opposing political views to my own. But that would never enter my head as a reason to not employ them, I want to employ people who can do the job I needed doing. And I assume the same is probably true for some people who have employed me over the years. My personal morality should have nothing to do with my hiring and firing people.

Perhaps my views on this have been coloured by the fact that most of my working life has been under the shadow of employers being able to sack me for no reason attached to my ability to do my job but I strongly believe that my right of freedom of expression should not be curtailed under threat of losing my job for legally expressing my views outside of work.

 

[newyorkguy]

...My personal morality should have nothing to do with my hiring and firing people...

I wouldn't call not wanting to employ Nazis merely a question of personal morality. To me that trivializes them in a way that is dangerous. The original Nazi party did extreme damage. They murdered millions of innocent people because of the crime of being a member of the wrong ethnic group. They invaded and conquered other nations. They changed the course of history. I don't want any part of people who embrace that. I think in a society there comes a point where people have to draw a line and just say no, not this. The Nazis appeal to people's worst instincts and draw their strength from a mob mentality. They represent a real danger to any society of which they are a part. They should be shunned not tolerated.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The Civil War started out as a battle by the South to protect the institution of slavery, but, as with all wars, motivations became more complicated rather quickly. When a Union army is threatening to rape and pillage its way through your home, protecting the institution of slavery is probably not foremost in your mind...

This might apply to the lowly soldiers fighting in the Confederate army, but it certainly wouldn't apply to the men depicted in these statues (specifically Lee). As military leaders, they were called upon to fight in support of the Confederacy's declared reason for succession.

If they disagreed strongly enough with the preservation of slavery and felt strongly enough about the protection of their homes, they should not have agreed to fight for the Confederacy, who's own refusal and escalation is what put their homes under threat.

 

[Mumbles]

Nazi chant: "Jews won't replace us!"

Why would they want to?

I figured it was a spin on the Bob Whitaker "White Gernocide" saw again. The one where Europe is being flooded with black and brown people who will destroy the white race through interracial breeding? According to the theory, the jews are the ones masterminding this.

Why them?

Because it's always the jews with these people.

 

[dudalb]

Government has no place making value statements on history with statues or memorials.

Bob,in your world government has no place, period.

 

[dudalb]

Only if they weren't when they were doing their job should an employer have any grounds for taking action.

As much as Nazis are odious and have an abhorrent ideology they should be free to express that to the extent the law allows outside work and suffer no consequences in employment in doing that. Only if they bring it into the workplace should an employer have any ability to penalise them.

I know there are some grey areas - the type of "bring into disrepute" employment clauses but I think they have to be very carefully watched to not be an overreach into people's right of expression.

I disagree. If ANY employee hurts your image...and your public image is a very important asset...you get rid of him.
Of course I am old fashioned, I think a business man should have the right to employ whom he wants, without having to go to a bureaucrat everytime he makes a personal change.

 

[dudalb]

^^^ this a thousand times over.

Agreed, but Ambrosia is wasting her time talking to a freaking Neo Nazi.

 

[Sabrina]

Lee's impressive military record included service before the Civil War too. Also, he distinguished himself after he left the military. Washington and Lee University is, after all, named for him in part.

There is even strong evidence that Lee opposed slavery, long before the war and during it.

He also allegedly opposed memorials to Confederate soldiers. Just saying.

ETA: Okay, no allegedly about it:

The widely heralded meeting of the officers, (U.S and Confederate,) who took part in the battle of Gettysburg, to mark the operations of both armies on the field, by enduring memorials of granite, has proven, as many expected a great farce. But few of the prominent Northern officers were present and only two Confederate officers of minor grades. The Hotel man did not make as much as he expected, when he got up the idea.

Gen. Lee was invited and forwarded the following reply:

Lexington, VA., August 5, 1869.

Dear Sir--Absence from Lexington has prevented my receiving until to-day your letter of the 26th ult., inclosing an invitation from the Gettysburg Battle-field Memorial Association, to attend a meeting of the officers engaged in that battle at Gettysburg, for the purpose of marking upon the ground by enduring memorials of granite the positions and movements of the armies on the field. My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, 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. Very respectfully,
Your obedient servant,
R. E. Lee.

 

[uke2se]

I figured it was a spin on the Bob Whitaker "White Gernocide" saw again. The one where Europe is being flooded with black and brown people who will destroy the white race through interracial breeding? According to the theory, the jews are the ones masterminding this.

Why them?

Because it's always the jews with these people.

It's about "replacement" which is big in alt-right circles. It's the idea that white people have lower birth rates than non-white people, and that the white race is being "replaced" over time. It's also considered by many to be a deliberate conspiracy by - you guessed it - the Jews. Alt-righters like Lauren Southern and other "not-a-racist" people often spew this BS.