The debate "Robert E. Lee Statue shouldn't be taken down" was started by
May 19, 2019, 1:27 am.
43 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 11 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
killer posted 19 arguments, Hellow posted 4 arguments to the agreers part.
Nemiroff posted 14 arguments, historybuff posted 6 arguments to the disagreers part.
amir_alhakim07, Likemike2288, iqrakhan9121, imjustheretommorow, wtann6979, Damian, Hellow, sssk, bernie, mtbtheboss, marky, charles and 31 visitors agree.
historybuff, JDAWG9693, justincase, mwest0097 and 7 visitors disagree.
That source doesn't really seem to back up your argument. Most of it's arguments are either for things that Lincoln wasn't involved it, or things that didn't kill anyone. For example it says he arrested the Baltimore police chief. It doesn't say why he did that. It doesn't explain why that is a bad thing. It throws out random information like that is somehow proof of war crimes. I agree he did some stuff that was bad. But most countries have some suspension of rights during times of extreme strife. I can think of no more desperate time than a civil war. It seems to be trying to blame Lincoln for all the deaths in the war, when the war was caused by the south illegally succeeding to protect slavery.
Also, despite using quotes, they provide no sources. Also, it is written by an economics professor at a Jesuit school I have never heard of. Hardly an expert on war crimes.
Mainly, I was just saying I've never seen any evidence that either side intentionally targeted civilians during the civil war. If you want to tell me that isn't true and you have a reliable source that says they did, I am certainly willing to re-evaluate my knowledge on the subject.
But frankly it wouldn't change my opinion of the subject. The critical points, in my opinion are these
1) Most of, if not all of, the southern states explicitly said this was about slavery. They wanted the right to force people to work for free against their will so they could profit from it.
2) The south illegally succeeded from the union. There was no way the north could let half their country succeed. The south started the war.
3) if they succeeded to protect slavery, then the men fighting for the south were fighting for slavery.
4) Those statues were almost entirely put up during the Jim Crowe period. Therefore they are more a monument to white supremecy over blacks than about Civil war soldiers specifically.
Based on these facts I see no reason why these statues should exist. The men the statues are of, in my opinion, are not worthy such commemoration. And even if they were, these statues were put in a period where white people were trying to suppress and show their dominance over black people. So they aren't really about Robert E. Lee, they are monuments to white power.
You are right, it is illegal to secede at least in some states, as far as Google goes. The supreme Texas v ruled it unconstitutional.
I agree with that statement
your point one. Listen killer sometimes you got to do research. Do as much as you can. HistoryBuff, I sited for you. https://southernsentinel.wordpress.com/lincolnwas-a-war-criminal/
You said it was a positive fact, you were making it sound bias, that may not have been your goal, it may have sounded bias on his part. Like I said, he might be a canible, you never know. You don't need a book to come to that conclusion.
As for Two, I let you know on that later. Nothing I've seen in the U.S has said you can secede illegally. I will get to you on that. As for a illegal binding contract. From what I know, if you sign a contract, you have just agreed to it. You can't retract it. A contract is a contract, legally, you have to abide by it. No exceptions.
If you want me to provide more sources, I will. It may take time though. Like I said though, every source is different from another. What kind of source says Lincoln didn't murder Civilians?
Would you not agree that he just said. "Your right." I would believe that he is a bit young still. Intellectual honest does go along way. Killer, when you make an argument, be sure to think about what you are saying. And killer, did you question the book when you were reading it? HistoryBuff, Do you you think its intellectual honesty that people just say. "The south just wanted their slaves, that's why they were seceding."
I will pull up as much sources as possible for you. that's all I got from you guys when you were saying search evidence. That may be my fault on that part. Blind faith may be what we all saw from Killer, but as long as you tell him. "Dude, calm down, it's not set in stone." witch you guys were doing right? You guys were just telling him it's just a book. Yeah it is, you are absolutely right, that one book isn't of all be all. Like I said though, every source is different from another.
Also, I would tend to agree that republicans don't represent conservative values. But they are always saying that they do. And then conservatives vote for them. So whether or not they are actually representing your values is kind of irrelevant. As long as they keep saying they do and conservatives keep voting for them, they they literally are representing you in the government.
If you don't think they represent your values, stop voting for them.
Lets take this point by point.
1) His point was that Lincoln attacked civilians. He is making the positive claim (ie claiming something happened). He has provided no evidence. How am I supposed to prove it didn't happen? Even if I read every book in existence and found no reference to it, that wouldn't definitely prove it. You cannot prove a negative. Prove to me that lee wasn't a cannibal. I'm guessing you won't find many books on the topic. And by your logic, if you can't find evidence he wasn't a cannibal, then it must be a valid argument.
2) as a Canadian, I am not 100% familiar with your constitution. But I am certain that there is no provision in the Canadian constitution for succeeding from Canada. There were rules for how to join, there is no legal way to succeed. If there is a provision in your constitution that says states can succeed then I will happily withdraw that. However given that they triggered a civil war, I'm guessing there is not. And if it wasn't legal to leave, then it was illegal. The same way that if you enter in a legally binding contract, unless there is a mechanism in the contract for you to get out, then it would be illegal to just leave.
3) I believe his point is that the majority of sources will disagree with the assertion that Lincoln sacked towns and murdered people. If this isn't true and you have sources that can back this claim up, then by all means provide them.
4) I believe Nemiroff's point was that killer is choosing to believe 1 book over all other books. That shows a disturbing level of faith in one author over every other author. Someone who is willing to have some intellectual honesty should always be willing to question if their beliefs could be wrong. I have seen no indication that killer is willing to do so as he has not attempting to back up his argument with anything. He only says he saw it in a book once and seems to thing that is a compelling argument. If I were to make a claim and then be completely unable to back that up with any evidence, i would question whether my claim is correct.
5) no one said "no innocent live were taken". You are just making a straw man argument. What he said is no one attacked civilians. IE no one intentionally attacked civilian targets. This is what killer has been attempting to assert Lincoln did and we have yet to see any evidence that this actually happened.
No worries, I got you Bro.
FYI... Republicans don't represent Conservatives. Maybe Trump.
OK, that text book was written by a human. And every other source will say the opposite? That sounds pretty lame. Articles were written by humans too. What you think they were written by outer space Allians? I really doubt every source will say the exact opposite unless your an Elementry teacher.
The Bible? Your saying that a text book is a Bible now? So what if he gets his information from a book. You got your information from school yes? I guess their the Bible.
"Lost cause for civil war." On Google was written by Humans too. So your statement is a lost cause.
No innocent lives were taken on the civil war. OK, evidence sense you were big on that with Killer. That statement already backfires after all those things you just said. No chance in hell did a war not take innocent lives.
So your Canadian, OK. you seem educated on Lincoln no?
So your saying one book is wrong because one person read that one book? And you also saying you can't provide evidence, OK. Provide me evidence that Abraham didn't go in and pilage and kill Innocent people. It doesn't seem that far fetched to me that he did, if you look back in history of wars, innocent people wear always being killed in wars. You are not going to prove that Abraham didn't by saying. "It's one book" your right. it's a book, it's just one source, so is any other book and article, there all just one source. Sources are not going to have the same information. Your not going to find evidence from 200 years ago to find evidence that is legitimately valid. Every source is different from another.
You said the south is illegal seceding. How can you do that illegally? South didn't have much slaves, they actually didn't agree with state rights, so they tried to succeed, not for their slaves. Wouldn't make sense if it was for slaves when. they didn't have very many.
so you believe something from a single source when the vast majority of sources say the exact opposite.
this sounds like blind faith, you may as well be quoting the bible. you do realize textbooks are written by humans? if every other source disagree with your mystery textbook, it's probable that your textbook is wrong.
Google "lost cause of the civil war". it's pretty much word for word your beliefs, and it's a known attempt at rewriting history with an agenda.
neither side of the civil war attacked civilians. giving up and allowing the south to continue owning people is not "just". the south was wrong to defend slavery. it's very simple.
I'm actually Canadian. I didn't learn about Lincoln at all in school. I have no vested interest in glorifying or attacking either side.
You are making an argument that Lincoln did terrible things. But you have provided nothing to back that up. If I claimed that Lee was a pedophile, cannibal and then said "I saw it in a book, I think it's true", would you accept that he is a pedophile, or would you expect me to provide evidence? You can't debate a topic if you throw out things as if they are facts but have nothing to back them up.
The south illegally succeeded from the union in order to protect their rights to enslave people. They then fought a war that killed over half a million people to keep their slaves. They aren't heroes. I'm not saying their villains either. Life isn't black and white, it is almost always a shade of gray. But to say that these men are heroes, men who betrayed their country so that they could continue to deprive people of basic human rights seems like a weird choice to me. The southern US has alot of great men and women who deserve statues in their honor. I don't think civil war soldiers are in that category.
you are right I have not. all I can tell you is, the U.S history text book has the information. Sure there is more then on.
I actually seen many text books in my school days. The U.S history text book seem to be the most rounded information I have read so far.
I actually live in AZ. The Textbook I read had a lot of valid information. When you google Abraham Lincoln. it's basically all its talking about slavery and his assassination. that's all I get. I do believe he ended slavery. And I do believe he wanted to end it. But I'm not only just believing he murdered innocent lives. People want Robert E Lee statue down because of. "Slaves." Don't you think that's making him look like the monster here?
you can question my intellectual honesty, that's fine. It is one book, but I don't believe that book to be wrong. You and I have been taught throughout school, Abraham Lincoln yes? Don't you think that making him look like rainbows and sunshine? My goal isn't to make him look like a monster. Not the textbook ether. It may seem that way, but Abraham Lincoln did go in and pillage a lot of the South's people and resources.
And the other information that is available is literally all information about the subject. To my knowledge, which admittedly is not perfect, there aren't any accounts of what you are describing. You also have not been able to find any evidence of what you are describing.
I don't mean that you are dishonest, as in lying. I mean you are not intellectually honest. As in you trying to look at information in an unbiased way to determine the truth.
You saw one textbook in school years ago, I'm guessing in a school board in the south. You are choosing to believe that book over all other information available because it fits the narrative and world view you want to be true. IE that the south were somehow fighting for rights and freedoms when they were fighting for their right to deny rights and freedoms to people they viewed as not fully human.
In the same vein you are choosing to believe that Lincoln murdered lots of innocent people when you cannot find any information that supports this, based solely on a single book you do not have.
You want to believe that people who expressly said they were fighting for slavery were somehow not fighting for slavery. You also want to believe that the people who fought to keep your country together were evil monsters that killed lots of innocent people.
what other evidence are available?
You act as if a Book does not count as proper information. That Book, happened to be in a school that I read.(While I was still in school.) I wasn't talking about one book to despite other books of information.
Frankly; weather you think I'm honest or not. I don't care. I've been saying the same thing over and over.
Lol you read a book once that told you something. That information is completely contrary to every other book and website. And you are going to believe the book you saw once over literally all available evidence?
That does not bode well for your intellectual honesty.
Trump represents the conservatives.
It is true. I was taught this. There is no good source to get the information from. it was from a text book from what I remember, it was called. "United States history."
the reason that's the only link is because its not true. and I see no mention of it in the link you sent.
you said Republicans do not represent conservative values and religious beliefs.
what are you smoking?
what does that mean?
An associate. Like a colleague.
of course I know if you have a support, they can be considered your associate.
what do you mean associate?
those are amongst their main and most fundamental tenants. at least as far as a majority of their speeches go.
The Link is the best I can find. Every other link is just not actually reliable.
I did not say don't Republicans support Religion or Conservative. I said they don't associate with them.
I said that if you dont think Republicans represent religious and conservative values, you are delusional.
your link isnt even about the civil war and looks like a general history of that war. can you quote or at least guide me to anything that is relevant to our discussion?
I didn't say Abraham was a Noble man. I was taught this. I was also taught that Abraham Lincoln did kill innocent people. People that are innocent die in wars all the time. that's not emotional. those are all factual.
best I can find for you.
I never said conservatives are delusional. That is not what I was trying to get across. Nor did I mention anyone being delusional. As for the Republicans supporting their Religion. What is THEY'RE religion? unless they are a Religion. I don't know, all I know is Religion and Republic don't have anything to do with each other.
As for mic pence and Donald Trump. 2 Republicans means Republicans are associated with Religion and conservative? Trump has Conservative judges. Who cares. He could Have Liberal judges, it wouldn't make a difference.(except Liberals hate Trump)
I say I never seen a Republican associate with a conservative or a Religion because. I literally have not seen it. It's not a lie, nor am I trying to troll here. That is not my purpose here.
Abraham Lincoln wasnt a noble, he was born quite poor actually. can you cite these pillaging and wanton murder of women and children in the civil war? your argument seems more emotional then fact based.
you saying Republicans dont support religion (specifically their religion) and conservatism is delusional. you must be outright lying. you never saw a Republican associate themselves with religion? how about Mike pence the vice president? how many times has trump bragged about loading up on conservative judges. are you trying to troll?
Then what's the point of seceding then? If they just wanted the slaves, then they wouldn't have wanted to secede. Your trying to say it's only about slavery. I'm telling you it's not just that. Just because something wants to secede doesn't mean they want slaves.
The moral of something you think is wrong and honouring something that wanted slaves. In that case you should want Abraham Lincoln Statue down also. Like I said. He sent Robert E Lee to fight for the south. And it's not to spread fear. It's to honor are greatest generals in history. The fact that it's meant to spread fear is absorbed.
First of all. The north did pillage the South's resources and go in and Kill woman and children. That's exactly what they did.
Your right! Noble men did go kill innocent People. And so did Abraham Lincoln.
And Republicans don't represent conservatives or Religion. I have never seen a Republican try to associate them selves with Conservatives or Religion. And maybe The Conservatives see him as a war hero because how good of a general in today's generation. Not because they want slaves.
yup, the fought the war almost entirely over slavery. the "states rights" claim was the stated rights to own slaves. and if you read the articles of cessation, almost every state made it clear they are fighting to keep slavery. its indisputable.
and the timing the monuments were built proved they have nothing to do with honoring the past but spreading fear and hate in the present.
what is this child killing you are talking about? the north didnt sack and pillage villages and cities. people died because of the economic instability caused by war. it could have been prevented by the southern states giving up human ownership.
in the past nobles were allowed to murder common people with no repercussions, just because it happened in the past doesnt mean it is right.
modern day Republicans dont have slaves, and many positions changed. but modern day Republicans do represent conservative, religious, rural, and often southern constituents, just like the Democrats of that era. the people who were the Republicans of then are the Democrats of today, northern, relatively secular, city dwellers. you seem to only care about the name and not the policies or actions. talk is cheap, actions speak louder.
They wanted to secede from the North because they didn't agree with the policies which were "slaves.". so yes, it does make sense.
The south wanted to preserve the institution of slaves.
Modern day Republicans do not want slaves. The conservatives are not Republicans.
And the children killed in the civil is being justified for being slaves. Guess what? Throughout history, people wear slaves. Its inhuman yes, but so is killing of a child. Taking a innocent life to save another is OK as long as it's freeing the slaves.
People look at Robert as a Person that fought to keep the slaves. Yet trying to protect the people that were being killed by Abraham Lincoln's men. And even the slaves weren't slaves anymore. They still got treated like shit as if they were still slaves.
you mean the same Democrats of 50 years ago who represented conservative, rural, religious, mostly southern interests? Aka modern day republicans?
war murdered those children, an unnecessary war that was started to keep people as property.
And the same people that want his statue down. Are the ones that use to want the slaves. (Which is Democrats)
So just because he's not a hero to some people means he should have his statue taken down? They can talk about how Robert fought to keep slaves. Someone won't mention the fact that Abraham Lincoln ended slavery. That will always be remembered.
despite Abraham Lincoln going to the South and murdering Men, woman and children weather they were BLACK or not. Abraham also destroyed a lot of trade routes which led the south to suffer after the civil war. (an early great depression basically the best way to describe it.)
"Owe but he ended slavery though!" Yeah. And like I said. The North sent Robert E Lee to fight for the south. *Cough* *Cough* *Abraham* *Lincoln* *Cough* Maybe we should take his statue down because he allowed Robert E Lee to go fight for the South.
why did they want to secede from the north? that makes no sense without a reason. the reason was because the north was anti slavery.
and the timing is important because they didnt build them after the war to honor heros. or after ww1 when many of the veterans were dying to honor their name. they build them in 1960s when black people were fighting for their rights in order to intimidate them and put them in their place.
those statues had nothing to do with honoring a memory, but to oppress and spread hate.
like I said. They fought to secede from the north. Not just slaves. And why does it matter when those statues were built?
and what of the people in the south who see him not as a hero but a leader in the push to keep them enslaved? do they not count?
what did they fight for besides slavery? which states right did the not have besides the right to own people?
when do you think those statues were built?
To the south, he was a hero. And Robert E Lee fought for the south so it can secede from the north. Not entirely for slaves. Not only that, being one of the greatest generals in American history.
while the South was heavily outnumbered and outclassed. Robert E Lee was actually sent from the north to fight for the south. By the North themselves.
1. treasonous general.
2. intended to intimidate blacks.
3. many black citizens live in these towns, how do they feel walking beneath the statue of a person who fought to keep them enslaved.
history belongs in a museum, public places are meant to honor heros.