Chatham County Online BBS

Chatham County Online => Chatham County Online => Topic started by: Pi on August 17, 2017, 04:24:13 PM



Title: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 17, 2017, 04:24:13 PM
To Whom This May Concern

A gravestone marks naught but those that have given their lives.  It does not stand for any causes.  It only recognizes one thing: loss of human life.  We all know this, in our heart of hearts.  We all know that in the course of waging war, it is almost always the poor and destitute who are charged with lunging into the fray of death and pain.

It is the truth of all those who served, and so it is with those who died as Confederate soldiers.  Men, both young and old, sacrificed their lives in what they perceived as defending their homeland.  Though they were on the wrong side of history, the vast majority did not own another human being.  If there is any truth on this Earth, it is that the rich and powerful declare the war while the poor are the ones who ultimately pay for it.  For many of them, there is no gravestone. For their bodies were burned or buried alongside of those they fought.  All that stands to remember them are the monuments that most people simply walk by without a second glance.

Monuments that stand in town squares here in the southeastern US represent the loss of human life, first and foremost.  They remind us that war has a cost.  They also remind us that not every cause is just.  But lest we forget, the survivors of the Civil War had sons that fought in the Spanish American War.  Their grandsons fought in the First World War.  Their great grandsons fought in the Second World War.  Their great great grandsons fought in Vietnam.

It can be said that for the most part, America is gracious in victory.  We allow our enemies to collect and bury their dead.  We allow them to honor those dead.  We often rebuild that which we destroy.  Despite all the horrible and tumultuous wars, no matter how terrible our enemies are, we still respect the sacrifice of their combatants.  Except when it comes to the Civil War.  Slavery has been abolished.  Those who fought and died in the bloodiest American conflict since our founding are long gone.  We have little left to remember them by but we can learn from their mistakes.

Let the monuments stand as a reminder of how terrible war can be.  Let them stand as a reminder that unless we love and care for one another as fellow human beings, the consequence just might be death and destruction.  For those who try to sweep history under the rug are often doomed to repeat it.  There is a pervasive hunger for violence against those who hold different views.  The espousing of unpopular ideas is being considered the same as violence and actual violence has become the accepted response.

Let us pray to whatever deity guides us, or look within ourselves, to find the tolerance we so desperately need.  


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: acorn on August 17, 2017, 07:40:30 PM
In short, this is not a gravestone, nor a memorial to war dead, it is actually a celebration of the confederacy, so take an actual look at it. I had some concerns when I thought of it as war memorial, until I went back and looked at all of it again. Please read the rest of my comment on the other thread: http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,34659.msg301718.html#msg301718 (http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,34659.msg301718.html#msg301718)


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 17, 2017, 09:14:36 PM
In short, this is not a gravestone, nor a memorial to war dead, it is actually a celebration of the confederacy, so take an actual look at it. I had some concerns when I thought of it as war memorial, until I went back and looked at all of it again. Please read the rest of my comment on the other thread: [url]http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,34659.msg301718.html#msg301718[/url] ([url]http://chatham-county-nc.com/bulletinboard/index.php/topic,34659.msg301718.html#msg301718[/url])


Wrong.  It is a monument that memorializes soldiers that fought in the Civil War.  Soldiers, I might add, that are by law considered American soldiers and all the rights and reverence that entails.  

I'm assuming then that you are in favor of its removal?  What, pray tell, is the reason for all of this now?  Don't you realize this is being used by people like Voller to simply get attention?

It says "Our Confederate Heroes" on there.  I think it is a fair assumption that, since that is pretty much the largest text on the thing, that it's the primary purpose of the monument/memorial.  Whether or not those who fought and/or died should be considered heroes is another discussion.  I happen to think they were fighting for the wrong side, even though (as I said above) they probably felt as if they were defending their homeland or their state.

Not sure how many of those soliders died, but based on the attrition rates it is probably safe to say many of them did.  I do not believe that it memorializes the Confederacy as much as it honors those who fought and perhaps died.  Clearly you have a different interpretation that fits your agenda.  Whatever the hell that is.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: John Florida on August 17, 2017, 10:11:57 PM
  The statues are being taken down by people that would never serve any army but would be all too willing to spit at the soldiers that did weather on the right side or not.  They just want to have the rights others died for.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: acorn on August 17, 2017, 11:00:53 PM
I'm assuming then that you are in favor of its removal?.....
It says "Our Confederate Heroes" on there.  I think it is a fair assumption that, since that is pretty much the largest text on the thing, that it's the primary purpose of the monument/memorial. ...  I do not believe that it memorializes the Confederacy as much as it honors those who fought and perhaps died.  Clearly you have a different interpretation that fits your agenda.  Whatever the hell that is.
Excerpted quote. The most prominent text is CSA 1861-1865.
I am not on a mission to get it removed and why would you assume that? and I don't have "an agenda" (what is with you people who see invisible agendas everywhere, sheesh!) I'm just pointing out that when I went and actually looked at it I formed a very different impression than I had before (that's preferably done in daylight).
And didn't your momma teach you not to cuss at people?


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 18, 2017, 04:10:26 AM
I'm assuming then that you are in favor of its removal?.....
It says "Our Confederate Heroes" on there.  I think it is a fair assumption that, since that is pretty much the largest text on the thing, that it's the primary purpose of the monument/memorial. ...  I do not believe that it memorializes the Confederacy as much as it honors those who fought and perhaps died.  Clearly you have a different interpretation that fits your agenda.  Whatever the hell that is.
Excerpted quote. The most prominent text is CSA 1861-1865.
I am not on a mission to get it removed and why would you assume that? and I don't have "an agenda" (what is with you people who see invisible agendas everywhere, sheesh!) I'm just pointing out that when I went and actually looked at it I formed a very different impression than I had before (that's preferably done in daylight).
And didn't your momma teach you not to cuss at people?

What is wrong with YOU people?  You are the ones claiming that the monument celebrates the Confederacy when in fact it is honoring the soldier. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that it also includes a statue of a solider? 

I shall use whatever language I deem appropriate for those spreading a false narrative. Your agenda is quite clear based on your posting history.

This is a wedge issue drummed up by people like Voller who seek nothing but self aggrandizement at best and a modicum of attention at the worst. Didn't your momma teach you not to carry the water for people like that?


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on August 19, 2017, 03:28:41 PM
At the dedication ceremony of the statue in Pittsboro, the keynote speaker, North Carolina Chief Justice William Clark not only championed the issue of state's rights, but specifically questioned the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment. Is there somehow a claim here that was just a simple coincidence?

The motivations behind the monument and what it was created to represent seem to clearly go a bit beyond a humble tribute to the fallen soldiers. Likewise, the UDC itself even went so far as to claim in its various writings that slaves were content with their position and that the KKK was a justified, necessary and noble group - right up into the 1930s and beyond. Clark's 1907 dedication speech was a typical hat tip to the great Lost Cause, even if he was simply playing to his audience.

People are free to interpret his statements and the text and statue according to their own beliefs and knowledge, but his dedication speech and the writings of the UDC provide some factual context. My family has veterans on both sides, who fought mainly to protect their family & homes. This does not change the facts about Clark's speech - or the context.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: 1911A on August 19, 2017, 04:25:29 PM
(http://americandigest.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/aisisandfrieds.jpg)


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 19, 2017, 05:21:46 PM
At the dedication ceremony of the statue in Pittsboro, the keynote speaker, North Carolina Chief Justice William Clark not only championed the issue of state's rights, but specifically questioned the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment. Is there somehow a claim here that was just a simple coincidence?

The motivations behind the monument and what it was created to represent seem to clearly go a bit beyond a humble tribute to the fallen soldiers. Likewise, the UDC itself even went so far as to claim in its various writings that slaves were content with their position and that the KKK was a justified, necessary and noble group - right up into the 1930s and beyond. Clark's 1907 dedication speech was a typical hat tip to the great Lost Cause, even if he was simply playing to his audience.

People are free to interpret his statements and the text and statue according to their own beliefs and knowledge, but his dedication speech and the writings of the UDC provide some factual context. My family has veterans on both sides, who fought mainly to protect their family & homes. This does not change the facts about Clark's speech - or the context.
.

Do you have a link to the full speech?  Wouldn't it be more instructive and informative to know what he actually said rather than implying that his motivations stemmed from racism? 

Do you think that he gave a speech and never mentioned those that fought and died?  Are we to believe that the monument is in no way in remembrance of those who gave their lives?  Can you produce the text of the speech and prove that the "context" you selectively mention is the whole story?

Simple question Yip. Should it stay or should it go? 


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: acorn on August 19, 2017, 05:35:28 PM
At the dedication ceremony of the statue in Pittsboro, the keynote speaker, North Carolina Chief Justice William Clark not only championed the issue of state's rights, but specifically questioned the legitimacy of the 14th Amendment. Is there somehow a claim here that was just a simple coincidence?

The motivations behind the monument and what it was created to represent seem to clearly go a bit beyond a humble tribute to the fallen soldiers. Likewise, the UDC itself even went so far as to claim in its various writings that slaves were content with their position and that the KKK was a justified, necessary and noble group - right up into the 1930s and beyond. Clark's 1907 dedication speech was a typical hat tip to the great Lost Cause, even if he was simply playing to his audience.

People are free to interpret his statements and the text and statue according to their own beliefs and knowledge, but his dedication speech and the writings of the UDC provide some factual context. My family has veterans on both sides, who fought mainly to protect their family & homes. This does not change the facts about Clark's speech - or the context.
.

Do you have a link to the full speech?  Wouldn't it be more instructive and informative to know what he actually said rather than implying that his motivations stemmed from racism? 

Do you think that he gave a speech and never mentioned those that fought and died?  Are we to believe that the monument is in no way in remembrance of those who gave their lives?  Can you produce the text of the speech and prove that the "context" you selectively mention is the whole story?

Simple question Yip. Should it stay or should it go? 

I appreciate learning about that dedication and am not totally surprised. I'm sure that there's a viable source though the full text of his speech may not survive, just possibly a report of it (I'm thinking of what seems most likely for the time).

I don't think it's productive to force people to take sides rather than trying to have a conversation, the reason being that given the current law, these may be false choices.



Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 19, 2017, 05:41:03 PM
Well, what people are apt to do is throw out unreferenced material and then take no official stance of their own. Even if it is clear that they do have a strong opinion.

It takes more courage to stand for something than undermine the beliefs of others.  Your methods obviously vary.

I am willing to bet that the speech did in fact make reference to fallen soldiers. I believe that was likely glossed over in an attempt to push a particular narrative.

The refrain most often heard (not necessarily here on the forum) is that unless you are in favor of removing all the monuments you are a racist. I think that's a very wrong, simplistic, and self-serving way of damning by association.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on August 19, 2017, 09:43:00 PM
I believe it should be moved and no longer represent the centerpiece of the town. It is right to honor loved ones and veterans. However, I don't believe a Confederate soldier should serve as a representative for the entire county. Some people support leaving it there, that does not make them racist.

Also, I clearly didn't say the speech did not reference fallen soldiers.

Of course it mentioned fallen soldiers, as it should. I do not have a link to the full text, but will try to track it down. Here's where I saw it:

http://chathamrabbit.blogspot.com/2007/08/monument-2-event.html (http://chathamrabbit.blogspot.com/2007/08/monument-2-event.html)

It is not pushing a narrative to point out that it seems the 14th Amendment was specifically referenced.

It is pointing out what may very well be facts. Glossing over things to push a particular narrative would be something more like claiming it was only about the soldiers while having no idea at all what was specifically said at the dedication ceremony - and also not looking for it. (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, maybe you did.)

So, if that section about the 14th was indeed included as quoted in the link, do you think it was a non-racial coincidence? Just random rambling?



Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on August 19, 2017, 09:48:33 PM
Partial text from link above:

"The hopes of our perpetuity as a government and the maintenance of our liberties as a free people depend upon upholding this guarantee of the rights of each state, in its integrity. There are a few good men who panic stricken at the result of the war of 1861-5 have declared that "state's rights died at Appomattox." Nothing is farther from the truth. [...]

It is true that there is the fourteenth amendment which was passed solely (if indeed legally adopted at all) to secure the rights of the newly emancipated colored people. The monopolies and plutocracy of this country quickly seized upon it as a device to draw all jurisdiction of all questions concerning them from the state courts, whose judges are mostly elected by the people, and responsible to them, into the subordinate federal courts whose judges are in most instances selected by the great capitalistic combinations and hold for life. "Like sappers and miners," to quote the words of Mr. Jefferson, they have been at work night and day to wrest the fourteenth amendment into something very different from its true meaning, and to make it repeal both the tenth and eleventh amendments and, indeed, nullify the whole spirit of the constitution.

Should this succeed, there would be no longer use for state judges or state legislatures, and even the acts of Congress would be set aside at will by judges appointed for life at the selection of Wall Street."


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 19, 2017, 11:23:34 PM
Yip, what you didn't say is the issue. You did not give a full accounting and it is also clear that the blogger has a narrative as well.

Here's what I am saying:

1. I don't think that monument represents all of a Chatham. It's really quite a stretch to say that it does. Monuments often have a specific purpose and I believe the purpose of that one is to remember those who served and/or died in the Civil War. No evidence that you have provided disproves or invalidates that notion.

2. Clark was clearly a racist. However I think the quote you provided shows that he was concerned that the 14th was being twisted by some entities. And that such twisting of the precedent was not in accordance with its true meaning and was instead being used to undermine state courts. On what issues I have no idea.  As far as I can tell, history has shown him to be as wrong about the courts as he was about the topic of equality. Our state courts seem to be very much alive and well.

What Clark said way back then is perhaps not as relevant as you think it is. The monument means different things to different people. If I thought the purpose of the monument was to honor the Confederacy, I would also support moving it. But I am not convinced that is all there is to it. Indeed, I think it stands as a memorial not just to those who fought and died, but as a warning that civil war is a horrible thing and should never be repeated. That slavery is abhorrent and is part of our history. To our everlasting shame.

The monument means many things. It represents our history and has become part of history itself. It is an imperfect symbol, but maybe that's also approproate.

This is little but yet another wedge issue drummed up to make people angry at one another. And why?  Because it serves the people who have something to gain by pitting us against each other.



Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on August 20, 2017, 10:11:59 PM
1) The monument is not located in a park or cemetery, but rather in the center of the county & town of Pittsboro - indeed the geographic center of the entire state. What location in the county could actually be more prominent? Ask yourself that question. I think you are downplaying the symbolic nature of its location, also outside the courthouse.

2) Not only Clark was a racist - the UDC itself has published many racist articles and books both before and after this particular statue, including a longstanding support and justification of the KKK. Clark was not just 'concerned that the 14th was being twisted' in general, his concern was that it was being used to give equal rights to black citizens. This is the very common tactic during that time period - and sadly beyond - of using states rights as a code word for legal slavery. Are you still seemingly claiming his bringing up the 14th had nothing to do with race??

So what were the goals of the UDC, the primary supporters and funders of these statues? It went far beyond honoring the dead - it was part of their overall propaganda effort of pushing for a 'southern version' of textbooks and the delivering of "Lost Cause" speeches that tried to legitimize the beliefs of the confederacy. So, now, you said that "If I thought the purpose of the monument was to honor the Confederacy, I would also support moving it." Let's look at what the UDC has said in its own writings:

From the "Minutes of the ... annual convention of the United Daughters of the Confederacy : [serial] North Carolina Division" 1899:

"The work of the United Daughter of the Confederacy is not based on sentiment alone, as the records of your work will show. Our main objects are memorial, historical, benevolent, educational and social. We are building monuments of bronze and marble to our noble Confederate dead as an inspiration for future generations. We have built and assisted in building all over the South, monuments in the form of Soldier's Homes, Hospitals, Memorial Halls and Schools for descendants of our Confederate Soldiers, in whose veins flow pure Anglo-Saxon blood, who otherwise could not be educated." - Mrs. I.F. Faison, President of the NC Div of the UDC

"We must see that correct history is taught our children...so they will be able to state facts and prove that they are right in the principles for which their fathers fought and died: and continue to preserve and defend their cause, until the whole civilized world will come to know that our cause was just and right.....No, our cause was not lost, because it was not wrong." - Mrs. I.F. Faison, President of the NC Div of the UDC

(Source: http://archive.org/stream/minutesofannualc1909unit#page/16/mode/2up/search/anglo-saxon (http://archive.org/stream/minutesofannualc1909unit#page/16/mode/2up/search/anglo-saxon))

Once again, your words: "If I thought the purpose of the monument was to honor the Confederacy, I would also support moving it."

I encourage you to look up the UDC yourself and read what they thought these statues represented and their views on race and the South. Perhaps you are already well aware.

The following does not prove that the motivation to build the statue was not simply a memorial. However, it does add to the context of their beliefs and speaks to their overall morality, somewhat like a character witness in a trial. I do understand how many people consider these things an entirely separate issue, of course. To me, the rate of the construction, the language of their surrounding speeches and the many written records are all part of my consideration. I do have respect for the humanity of the Confederate troops and men like Col. Lane as well. I read some place recently that some historians view the 'lost cause narrative' and their mythic statues were helpful in stitching the Union back together, by allowing Southerners some degree of respect in defeat. However, I don't think that this means they should be in the town square forever.

Just a friendly bunch off folks building a monument, right?

(https://s28.postimg.org/fy000x7ct/pittsboro_kkk.jpg)

"The Ku Klux Klan was an absolute necessity in the South at this time. This Order was not composed of the “riff raff” as has been represented in history, but of the very flower of South­ern manhood." - Miss Mildred Lewis Rutherford, Historian General United Daughters of the Confederacy

Just a little more context from the time period, with the added evidence of the UDC purchase of a KKK flag, which seems to signal their support of such crimes:

A colored man hanged in Chatham County. A revenue officer riding along the road, saw his body hanging and reported. His wife and children were sitting under the body moaning. Nothing was done about it.

A colored man in Chatham County badly whipped. As he returned to his house, the Kuklux followed. One of his daughters came out of his house with an infant in her arms, and fled. The Kuklux fired on her and wounded her and her infant.

A colored woman near Pittsborough, Chatham County, beaten with a club until her life was despaired of, because she complained to a magistrate that a white man, a Kuklux, had stolen her chickens.

A colored minister of the gospel in Gulf Township, Chatham County, compelled to take a torch and burn his own church, which he and others had built on his own land. The next morning, after the Kuklux had departed, the melancholy sight was presented of the minister and his congregation holding prayer over the ashes of his church.

There are many other documented cases of people being dragged from the jail and hanged with no trial by the KKK and their supporters in Chatham.

Again, apart from the specific quote about monuments provided above, of which perhaps there are more of in their writings, these facts do not directly show the intent of this one statue. However, taken as a whole, they do tend to signal a larger agenda of the UDC, which was clearly "to honor the Confederacy" as well as their belief system through their work.

BTW, according to former Chatham County Commissioner Tommy Emerson, the last lynching in Chatham was in 1924.



Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 21, 2017, 10:04:03 AM
Ah, so the issue is the morality of the people that put it up, and they are on trial in the court of public opinion.  And since the people that paid for the memorial were racist, then the monument has no redeeming value and should be removed.

Makes sense.  Except that you're ignoring the simple fact that you cannot prove it isn't to some degree a memorial.  Indeed, what is the first thing the UDC lists as their main objectives?  Memorial.  It is right there in what you have quoted.  But what matters more, Yip?  What is in the hearts and minds of the people currently walking the earth or those that are long gone?

You make some good points and I appreciate the info you've provided.  I'll keep thinking about it and perhaps I'll change my mind after all.  I would simply repeat what I've said before.  You seem to disregard the idea that people fought and often died in a terrible war.  Despite being on the wrong side of history, it is still part of our history.  Even if it is nothing more than a precautionary tale.

Once again, you are not able to disprove the notion that the primary purpose of the monument is a memorial.  Nobody denies that the UDC was racist.  Nobody denies the horrible stain of racism that is part of Chatham's history. 

You said earlier that people that support leaving the monument there are not racist.  I would agree.  I would also say that some of them are racist, albeit a small number.  One thing is true: we get to decide what meaning is applied to the monument. 

Don't you think it is possible to recognize the racist nature of those who constructed the monument but also respect the memorial aspect of it?


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 21, 2017, 11:01:02 AM
Let's look at history for examples of things that are also complex issues.  This isn't aimed at any person in particular.  I'm just saying that not every symbol is quite so cut and dried.

Take for example the avatar of our friend NC Yippie:

(http://webspace.webring.com/people/ig/gsgreene/MOLLUSlogo.jpg)

Here is the website for this organization.  http://www.suvcw.org/mollus/mollus.htm (http://www.suvcw.org/mollus/mollus.htm)

Now a little about the history of MOLLUS:

On April 15, 1865, as word of President Abraham Lincoln's deathspread throughout the country, three Union Army officer friends met in Philadelphiato discuss the tragic news. Rumors from Washington of a conspiracy to destroy the Federal government by assassination of its leaders prompted the threeofficers to form an organization that could help thwart future threats to the national government.

A mass meeting of Philadelphia veterans was held on April 20, 1865 topledge renewed allegiance to the Union and to plan for participation inthe funeral arrangements for the President. The Philadelphia officers, who served as an honor guard for President Lincoln's funeral cortege,met again after the funeral was over to establish a permanent organization of officers and former officers patterned after the Society of Cincinnati established after the Revolutionary War. The name they chose, the MilitaryOrder of the Loyal Legion of the United States, first appearedin a notice calling a meeting on May 31, 1865 at Independence Hall.


So MOLLUS is essentially an organization that is supposedly there to combat threats to the national government.  But it came about because they were so devastated by the assassination of Lincoln.  Now I shall ask if anyone knows who said the following:

"I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

“You and we are different races. We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is right or wrong I need not discuss, but this physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both, as I think your race suffers very greatly, many of them, by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. In a word, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason at least why we should be separated.”

“And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”


“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.”

“Our republican system was meant for a homogeneous people. As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man.”

If you guessed that the person who said those things was Abraham Lincoln, then you are correct.  The narrative has long been that Lincoln changed his mind about 1863 on the issue of equality.  However, there is evidence to the contrary.

See here:  http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.103?view=text;rgn=main (http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.103?view=text;rgn=main)

It is therefore factual to say that Abraham Lincoln was a racist, and MOLLUS was formed in reverence to him.  Thus, we see that history is complex and at times contains inconvenient truths.  Does this mean that NC Yippie's avatar is a covert attempt at honoring a racist President?  I don't happen to think so.

Why don't I think so?  Because I simply don't know enough about NC Yippie to make that determination.  I'd rather think that history is complicated and I prefer to give NC Yippie the benefit of the doubt.  I think it is possible to revere and respect Lincoln despite his faults.  Even if he was a racist and has memorials all over the nation; the largest of which is in Washington D.C.  I'd consider that prominent and rather symbolic in nature.  Lincoln was a racist person while living, but since then has become a symbol of equality.  Quotes by him are all over social media.  School children are often required to memorize and recite the Gettysburg address (I was).  Did they teach that Lincoln was a racist in elementary school?  No.  They taught that he freed the slaves.  Thus, we only got a partial picture of who the man truly was and what he stood for. 

Likewise, it is possible to accept and acknowledge that the funding for the monument in downtown Pittsboro came from a racist organization...but represents those that fought and often died in a terrible war that should never be repeated.  Should that lesson be prominent?  Yes it should.  How prominent is up for debate.

I would wager that most people, regardless of their race or creed, barely give the monument a second thought.  They drive right past it a thousand times without even a glance.  Others have very strong and completely different opinions about it. 

All I know is that I don't have all the answers.  I can see both sides.  But I don't know that removing it or destroying it is the best course of action.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Ice Pilot2 on August 21, 2017, 11:39:15 AM
1) The monument is not located in a park or cemetery, but rather in the center of the county & town of Pittsboro - indeed the geographic center of the entire state. What location in the county could actually be more prominent? Ask yourself that question. I think you are downplaying the symbolic nature of its location, also outside the courthouse.

2) Not only Clark was a racist - the UDC itself has published many racist articles and books both before and after this particular statue, including a longstanding support and justification of the KKK. Clark was not just 'concerned that the 14th was being twisted' in general, his concern was that it was being used to give equal rights to black citizens. This is the very common tactic during that time period - and sadly beyond - of using states rights as a code word for legal slavery. Are you still seemingly claiming his bringing up the 14th had nothing to do with race??

So what were the goals of the UDC, the primary supporters and funders of these statues? It went far beyond honoring the dead - it was part of their overall propaganda effort of pushing for a 'southern version' of textbooks and the delivering of "Lost Cause" speeches that tried to legitimize the beliefs of the confederacy. So, now, you said that "If I thought the purpose of the monument was to honor the Confederacy, I would also support moving it." Let's look at what the UDC has said in its own writings:

From the "Minutes of the ... annual convention of the United Daughters of the Confederacy : [serial] North Carolina Division" 1899:

"The work of the United Daughter of the Confederacy is not based on sentiment alone, as the records of your work will show. Our main objects are memorial, historical, benevolent, educational and social. We are building monuments of bronze and marble to our noble Confederate dead as an inspiration for future generations. We have built and assisted in building all over the South, monuments in the form of Soldier's Homes, Hospitals, Memorial Halls and Schools for descendants of our Confederate Soldiers, in whose veins flow pure Anglo-Saxon blood, who otherwise could not be educated." - Mrs. I.F. Faison, President of the NC Div of the UDC

"We must see that correct history is taught our children...so they will be able to state facts and prove that they are right in the principles for which their fathers fought and died: and continue to preserve and defend their cause, until the whole civilized world will come to know that our cause was just and right.....No, our cause was not lost, because it was not wrong." - Mrs. I.F. Faison, President of the NC Div of the UDC

(Source: [url]http://archive.org/stream/minutesofannualc1909unit#page/16/mode/2up/search/anglo-saxon[/url] ([url]http://archive.org/stream/minutesofannualc1909unit#page/16/mode/2up/search/anglo-saxon[/url]))

Once again, your words: "If I thought the purpose of the monument was to honor the Confederacy, I would also support moving it."

I encourage you to look up the UDC yourself and read what they thought these statues represented and their views on race and the South.

The following does not prove that the motivation to build the statue was not simply a memorial. However, it does add to the context of their beliefs and speaks to their overall morality, somewhat like a character witness in a trial. Just a friendly bunch off folks building a monument, right?

([url]https://s28.postimg.org/fy000x7ct/pittsboro_kkk.jpg[/url])

Just a little more context from the time period, with the added evidence of the UDC purchase of a KKK flag, which seems to signal their support of such crimes:

A colored man hanged in Chatham County. A revenue officer riding along the road, saw his body hanging and reported. His wife and children were sitting under the body moaning. Nothing was done about it.

A colored man in Chatham County badly whipped. As he returned to his house, the Kuklux followed. One of his daughters came out of his house with an infant in her arms, and fled. The Kuklux fired on her and wounded her and her infant.

A colored woman near Pittsborough, Chatham County, beaten with a club until her life was despaired of, because she complained to a magistrate that a white man, a Kuklux, had stolen her chickens.

A colored minister of the gospel in Gulf Township, Chatham County, compelled to take a torch and burn his own church, which he and others had built on his own land. The next morning, after the Kuklux had departed, the melancholy sight was presented of the minister and his congregation holding prayer over the ashes of his church.

There are many other documented cases of people being dragged from the jail and hanged with no trial by the KKK and their supporters in Chatham.

BTW, according to former Chatham County Commissioner Tommy Emerson, the last lynching in Chatham was in 1924.


Yip, Pi, thanks to you both.  Really.   The time and effort ya'll have put in to thoughtful responses is to be applauded.   Personally, I do not think this Confederate Memorial is clearly 100% about or for one thing.   Unlike this one in Salisbury that is pretty darn clear:

http://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/67/ (http://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/67/)

Here is one recent view of these monuments.  I am sure there are many more opinions and factual data to be presented on both sides..  

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy (https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy)

In response to Yip's post above, I just shake my head when thinking about the war ended in 1865, but, things like lynching, vote suppression, segregation, open discrimination in the workplace,  etc. went on for so long and were defended so strongly as the right thing to do.  ( and yes everyone, I know that lynching was not exclusive to black people)    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/02/10/even-more-black-people-were-lynched-in-the-u-s-than-previously-thought-study-finds/?utm_term=.5e739d030d7b

I am a native North Carolinian, Vietnam era vet, son of a Korean War vet, grandson of an illiterate cotton mill worker, great grandson of a Scot (Scotch) Irish immigrant - caucasian (white) male.  I do not have an agenda and am not trying to create or direct a narrative.  But, to be clear, on Pi's direct question posted earlier; ( "Should it stay or should it go?")   As an American that loves his imperfect county, loves being identified as an imperfect "Southerner", my answer is Yes.  It is time for it to go somewhere else.  It is time for me to say that.  Also to be clear, imho, it should not be desecrated or destroyed by an angry mob ever.  A decision, on it's fate, should be reached after discussion and deliberation.  


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 21, 2017, 12:05:35 PM
If the answer is yes and it should be moved, then I think it is fair to revisit other monuments. At a minimum the Lincoln memorial should be moved or rebuilt at another location. The Confederate soldiers buried at Arlington should be moved. The Jefferson memorial and Washington monument are then also problematic. If we use the same rationale, then we should remove them as well.

Perhaps there is far too much historical artifacts mingled with the government. The past will always be at odds with the present. Maybe ridding ourselves of that overlap is the best thing we can do.

It would be symbolic in a positive way.  Contemporary governance is free of the trappings of the past. Maybe that is the best solution. As a (small L) libertarian, I am not entirely opposed to the idea.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Ice Pilot2 on August 21, 2017, 12:17:31 PM
If the answer is yes and it should be moved, then I think it is fair to revisit other monuments. At a minimum the Lincoln memorial should be moved or rebuilt at another location. The Confederate soldiers buried at Arlington should be moved. The Jefferson memorial and Washington monument are then also problematic. If we use the same rationale, then we should remove them as well.

Perhaps there is far too much historical artifacts mingled with the government. The past will always be at odds with the present. Maybe ridding ourselves of that overlap is the best thing we can do.

It would be symbolic in a positive way.  Contemporary governance is free of the trappings of the past. Maybe that is the best solution. As a (small L) libertarian, I am not entirely opposed to the idea.
I thought about the next logical question " move to where?"   -   I kinda like the idea of moving them to cemeteries. Especially when they are thought of by so many as tributes to sacrifices of soldiers.  


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: 1911A on August 22, 2017, 12:07:59 AM
Quote
... This Confederate monument narrative is designed by the left to provoke a backlash from whites who are tired of being scorned, ridiculed, belittled and called racists, rednecks and deplorables by so called open minded progressives. It’s working. The cold race war is beginning to turn hot. The president has no intention of trying to bring the two sides together because it’s impossible at this point. That’s how Fourth Turnings roll. The mood of the country will continue to darken. Reactions to these types of events will intensify. More blood will be shed. It’s too bad these functional illiterates didn’t pay attention in history class or ever read a book. They are going to learn some harsh lessons over the next decade.

https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/08/15/functional-illiterates-trying-to-erase-history/ (https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/08/15/functional-illiterates-trying-to-erase-history/)


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on August 22, 2017, 01:16:20 PM
Ah, so the issue is the morality of the people that put it up, and they are on trial in the court of public opinion.  And since the people that paid for the memorial were racist, then the monument has no redeeming value and should be removed.

Did I say anything about 'no redeeming value' or that it was completely a clear cut case?

Likewise, I don't think you can ignore the fact that it also celebrates the Confederacy by calling them heroes, by location and as part of a documented strategy of revision.

I appreciate you acknowledging a few of my points. But which ones specifically?

I think my clear statement "I do have respect for the humanity of the Confederate troops and men like Col. Lane as well" addresses your claim that I disregard that people fought & died. I don't and as I've said, some of them were my ancestors, on both sides. Having respect for the humanity of others who you may disagree with on some major points and having them occupy a place of honor in the center of town is, at least in my mind, two different things. I don't know if it is true, but I have heard that there are more than double the amount of Confederate statues than Union ones. Some of that blame lies upon all of us, those who were related and society in general of course. The UDC was a monument making machine! Another questionable fact, I've even read in another place that there are more monuments to Confederate soldiers than any other veteran's group any place in the world.

I see you have switched to using 'primary purpose' based upon the order of a sentence. Is it primary just because it was listed first there? Not sure that is the case. However, we can also see in those quotes that they were seeking to celebrate the Confederacy, to promote the notion that their ideas were not wrong and to inspire future generations to take up their lost cause. Also, what of the language used in speeches at the dedication of many of these monuments? Or are we only to go by what was carved into the stone itself? (Look up Julian Carr's speech at the Silent Sam dedication, it is horrific.) They do celebrate the Confederacy with the language of 'heroes' instead of simply soldiers or dead, but that is a bit of a stretch, sure.

I think that moving it to a less prominent place, like a Confederate cemetery, might be a reasonable compromise. I think it would be fair to look at other monuments, as you mentioned, and have the people who live in that area weigh in on them individually. History and individuals are indeed complicated, with good deeds and horrible deeds, as you know.

I love how there are documented quotes from Robert E. Lee against creating statues of himself and others, as it would in his words yet they are ignored by those quoting him about other issues. It is especially funny when he is quoted by those claiming to be so much more informed than others.

"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 in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour. All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times." - Robert E. Lee, 1866



Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 22, 2017, 01:36:24 PM
Ah, so the issue is the morality of the people that put it up, and they are on trial in the court of public opinion.  And since the people that paid for the memorial were racist, then the monument has no redeeming value and should be removed.

Did I say anything about 'no redeeming value' or that it was completely a clear cut case?

Likewise, I don't think you can ignore the fact that it also celebrates the Confederacy by calling them heroes, by location and as part of a documented strategy of revision.

I appreciate you acknowledging a few of my points. But which ones specifically?

First of all, stop being snippy.  I did mention a few points and said I am still thinking and considering the information you provided.  That's more than you're willing to do in this discussion.

I think my clear statement "I do have respect for the humanity of the Confederate troops and men like Col. Lane as well" addresses your claim that I disregard that people fought & died. I don't and as I've said, some of them were my ancestors, on both sides. Having respect for the humanity of others who you may disagree with on some major points and having them occupy a place of honor in the center of town is, at least in my mind, two different things. I don't know if it is true, but I have heard that there are more than double the amount of Confederate statues than Union ones. Some of that blame lies upon all of us, those who were related and society in general of course. The UDC was a monument making machine! Another questionable fact, I've even read in another place that there are more monuments to Confederate soldiers than any other veteran's group any place in the world.

No, it wasn't clear that you understood that in specific reference to the monument in question.  I believe it is important to understand the link between those two things, as that is part of understanding the issue with this monument.  I think that if it is reasonable to have a monument to Union soldiers in the middle of town then it is reasonable to have monuments for Confederate soldiers.  I'm not sure I agree that the monument is all about glorifying the Confederacy though.  We'll just have to agree to disagree on that point.

I see you have switched to using 'primary purpose' based upon the order of a sentence. Is it primary just because it was listed first there? Not sure that is the case. However, we can also see in those quotes that they were seeking to celebrate the Confederacy, to promote the notion that their ideas were not wrong and to inspire future generations to take up their lost cause. Also, what of the language used in speeches at the dedication of many of these monuments? Or are we only to go by what was carved into the stone itself? (Look up Julian Carr's speech at the Silent Sam dedication, it is horrific.) They do celebrate the Confederacy with the language of 'heroes' instead of simply soldiers or dead, but that is a bit of a stretch, sure.

I haven't switched anything.  The UDC lists "memorial" as one of their primary purposes.  Now Yip, if you're going to cite the UDC with regard to their motivations, you can't simply disregard part of what they've said because it doesn't fit perfectly with your narrative.  I'm acknowledging all of what they said and am simply asking you to do the same.  You're trying to obscure or call it into question.  Look, if you're going to use their quotes as a reference, you can't be that selective.  Memorial is one of their primary purposes.  It's right there in the information you provided.

I think that moving it to a less prominent place, like a Confederate cemetery, might be a reasonable compromise. I think it would be fair to look at other monuments, as you mentioned, and have the people who live in that area weigh in on them individually. History and individuals are indeed complicated, with good deeds and horrible deeds, as you know.

Well, your avatar is problematic for the reasons I mentioned.  Unsurprisingly, you decided to ignore that.   ;)

By your reasoning, if the people in this area decided to keep the monument where it is, then it should stay. 

I love how there are documented quotes from Robert E. Lee against creating statues of himself and others, as it would in his words yet they are ignored by those quoting him about other issues. It is especially funny when he is quoted by those claiming to be so much more informed than others.

"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 in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour. All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times." - Robert E. Lee, 1866

Note that he said "in the present condition of the country".  But remember that sentiment changed a bit after the Spanish American War.  Perhaps Lee would have had a different opinion had he lived long enough to see that.  Context cuts both ways, Yip.

Again, I think saying the monument celebrates the Confederacy by calling them heroes is a stretch.  To me, it is clearly directed at the people who served, not the Confederacy.  I think you're reading a bit too much into things.  But that's certainly your right to do so.    


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on August 22, 2017, 04:03:38 PM
Well, stop trying to put words in my mouth or link me to statements that I never made and we'll be fine.

I didn't catch the reference to this specific statue with your "You seem to disregard the idea that people fought and often died in a terrible war" sentence and the ones around it. Thus the slight miscommunication there, which may be my fault. However, I still think you are backing away from something that seems clear when we look at the speeches the UDC and their speakers gave when dedicating similar monuments - it was a statue not only to the soldiers, but to their cause, the Confederacy. So your saying they did not build these monuments to glorify the Confederacy? Even after reading through their many documents, which all say exactly that? Or are you saying that was not their primary goal? Or are you only talking about this one, specific statue?

Yes, memorial is one of their primary purposes, certainly. However, you actually said "the primary purpose" not "a primary purpose" which is what I was talking about there. So if you apply it as an 'a' instead of a 'the' to this statue - as you just did - that means that their goals of historical, benevolent, educational and social are also primary to their purpose when creating monuments. So with that in mind, it is both a memorial to the Confederate soldiers, as well as a tribute their ideas and social structure - part of legitimizing the 'Old South' one might say.

(BTW, I gave a lengthy reply to your points and simply left the avatar discussion for another post. I certainly agree that Lincoln was a racist. However, in order to be a member of MOLLUS, you first have to be a direct descendent of a Union soldier. It was created to defend the Union aka the country, as Lincoln was already dead. I don't believe there is any reference to Lincoln in the founding documents at all. It was more a reaction to his assassination as a US President and possible further conspiracies as a threat to the Union after he was killed than about him as an individual. It was a reaction of loyalty to the United States in defense of those who might attempt to destroy it, foreign or domestic.)

So let's get back to the monument in Pittsboro - if it was shown that someone said "I hereby proclaim that we have created this monument, not only to remember our brave Confederate dead but also as a celebration of pure Anglo-Saxon blood and the Confederacy and all it stood for, for the education of future generations" would that make any difference to you, if it was not also carved in stone on the monument itself? Or should our only consideration be what is there in the stone?

Speaking of skipping over things, you have danced around my point about Clark's dedication speech specifically mentioning the 14th Amendment and why he did that. First you said that "However I think the quote you provided shows that he was concerned that the 14th was being twisted by some entities. And that such twisting of the precedent was not in accordance with its true meaning and was instead being used to undermine state courts. On what issues I have no idea."

So really, on what issues you have no idea? Let's read what he said again, shall we?

"It is true that there is the fourteenth amendment which was passed solely (if indeed legally adopted at all) to secure the rights of the newly emancipated colored people."

Again, your reply was "On what issues I have no idea." Really? You don't think that was a clear reference to slavery???

I consider his statements at the dedication, as reported I believe in the Chatham Record, by an editor that I think was the husband of one of the leaders of the UDC, to be factual. Perhaps this is one of my points that you are still considering, but have not mentioned again as yet. It is my point here, again, that what was said at the dedication does in fact matter, as part of the factual record, when considering the motivations behind the monument. Indeed, as you said, context cuts both ways.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Bill Crawford on August 22, 2017, 07:59:56 PM
Open letter to Pittsboro:

The culture war seems to run in waves and the top subject changes with it. After Charlottesville, the top subject switched to memorials and statues, mainly confederate ones (although across the country recently, other targets have been tagged). We are presently having our own regarding the memorial in front of our Courthouse. I'm going to say my piece and I doubt that I would carry the day in a vote here, but this is a democracy and I don't always get my way in that glorious process.

I understand there are other sensibilities out there regarding this subject and I respect that. I am just hoping to present another side for all of you to consider.

First, I realize that most of the people getting involved with this are considering what is (in my mind) the more reasonable option of moving the statue somewhere else. The people I have talked to who wish it to be simply taken down often use other examples of this in history, from Hitler's figures being destroyed all the way up to the U.S. Army lending their equipment to take down Saddam Hussein's edifice in 2003. I would simply point out to you that all of these examples were immediately following a war, which few of the confederate statues in question fall under. In fact, I'd bet that if the Mexicans managed to capture a chunk of our Southwest in the 19th century and we later pushed them out, it probably wouldn't be hard to gather a working majority of Americans in all the states and territories to remove any standing marble reminders of Pancho Villa.

Second, while I understand there is a lot of argument pouring out about the wave of construction of these statues in the 1910-20 period being a push to set the terms for Reconstruction, set up the network of Jim Crow laws and advance the "Lost Cause" narrative (all of which have validity to them), I beg you to see that there is another side to be considered. That time period was also a recognition that many of the Civil War vets were getting on in years and many people wanted to show them their respects before they passed on. We had a similar wave in the media with WWII vets in the latter part of the last century. Reagan's Pointe Du Hoc speech in Normandy in 1984 was given for that purpose. This was a war between Americans. Families fought on opposite sides. A President was assassinated over it. The war itself was probably the dirtiest in history- the weapons were the first generation of 20th century- more reliable and better constructed than Revolutionary War rifles and capable of reloading and firing much faster, injuring more and more catastrophically, but the state of medicine was still not much better than medieval times. There was a lot of healing that needed to happen, and these statues were part of that process, not simply a symbol of slavery and racial animus.

Finally, I would like you to consider my "eyes wide open" approach to history. Moving them to make the world around you more comfortable also takes away some strong teachable moments such memorials provide. I didn't have to take my children to see such a thing, they asked me about who that was standing by the Courthouse and I gave them both barrels of history- the good, bad and ugly. I told them that the old saw said that "the truth will set you free", but along the way it will occasionally make you uncomfortable as hell. Having it out there as it was set in 1909 could also serve as a more ubiquitous reminder of the other side of the better angels of our nature and could make it less likely for some idiot to whip people up fifty years from now and repeat the same stupidity.

The Germans have deliberately left some of the Nazi prison camps up intact, so people can be properly horrified and hopefully follow Elie Wiesel's mantra of "Never Forget!" When Eisenhower went through those camps, he collected a small army of photographers and cinematographers to record all they could, to better chance that down the road, Holocaust deniers would more likely be properly be denounced as fools. They didn't want things destroyed, or moved to a quieter place.

We should face the future with a clear eye on the past. Every age has it's positive and negative, we should not hide from the worst parts of the past. Let us work to make sure the worst parts are not repeated.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 23, 2017, 04:47:12 AM
Well, stop trying to put words in my mouth or link me to statements that I never made and we'll be fine.

Calm down Yip. Nobody is putting words in your mouth. That's your maneuver.

I didn't catch the reference to this specific statue with your "You seem to disregard the idea that people fought and often died in a terrible war" sentence and the ones around it. Thus the slight miscommunication there, which may be my fault.

Yeah it's your fault.

However, I still think you are backing away from something that seems clear when we look at the speeches the UDC and their speakers gave when dedicating similar monuments - it was a statue not only to the soldiers, but to their cause, the Confederacy. So your saying they did not build these monuments to glorify the Confederacy? Even after reading through their many documents, which all say exactly that? Or are you saying that was not their primary goal? Or are you only talking about this one, specific statue?

I've already addressed this with complete clarity and I am in no mood to repeat myself. It is always the same game with you. You ignore what I say and pretend to be obtuse as a method of repeating an accusation. I'm tired of playing that game with you. If you aren't bright enough to hold up your end of the conversation, that's not my fault.

Yes, memorial is one of their primary purposes, certainly.

You can stop right there. That's the point I was trying to make and you were trying to avoid acknowledging. The rest of what you typed is nonsense designed to soften the blow of you having to concede the point. Their racism has already been acknowledged by me.  If you once agree that "memorial" was part of their primary purpose, then t stands to reason that the monument is also a memorial to some degree. I think that's not too much of a stretch.

If you also once agree that people are able to support the monument staying there without being racist, then what the hell are you yammering about?  We already agreed that history is complicated.

(BTW, I gave a lengthy reply to your points and simply left the avatar discussion for another post. I certainly agree that Lincoln was a racist. However, in order to be a member of MOLLUS, you first have to be a direct descendent of a Union soldier. It was created to defend the Union aka the country, as Lincoln was already dead. I don't believe there is any reference to Lincoln in the founding documents at all. It was more a reaction to his assassination as a US President and possible further conspiracies as a threat to the Union after he was killed than about him as an individual. It was a reaction of loyalty to the United States in defense of those who might attempt to destroy it, foreign or domestic.)

Watching you squirm about this is highly entertaining.  That avatar is your way of saying you're some sort of social justice warrior and it was hilarious to educate you on it.

So let's get back to the monument in Pittsboro -

Yeah I bet you'd like that lol.

if it was shown that someone said "I hereby proclaim that we have created this monument, not only to remember our brave Confederate dead but also as a celebration of pure Anglo-Saxon blood and the Confederacy and all it stood for, for the education of future generations" would that make any difference to you, if it was not also carved in stone on the monument itself? Or should our only consideration be what is there in the stone?

Sure it is a consideration and I've already said that. Even if your quote is manufactured. Already addressed Yip.

Speaking of skipping over things, you have danced around my point about Clark's dedication speech specifically mentioning the 14th Amendment and why he did that. First you said that "However I think the quote you provided shows that he was concerned that the 14th was being twisted by some entities. And that such twisting of the precedent was not in accordance with its true meaning and was instead being used to undermine state courts. On what issues I have no idea."

So really, on what issues you have no idea? Let's read what he said again, shall we?

"It is true that there is the fourteenth amendment which was passed solely (if indeed legally adopted at all) to secure the rights of the newly emancipated colored people."

Again, your reply was "On what issues I have no idea." Really? You don't think that was a clear reference to slavery???

Dude, did you just stop reading at that point or did you read the rest?  It is not my job to educate you. If you are smart enough to find the links you are smart enough to stop and think about what is being said.  You are smart enough to 1) realize I already acknowledged the reference to slavery and 2) understand that there is additional context there related to states rights and judicial precedence that is NOT related to slavery.

I consider his statements at the dedication, as reported I believe in the Chatham Record, by an editor that I think was the husband of one of the leaders of the UDC, to be factual. Perhaps this is one of my points that you are still considering, but have not mentioned again as yet. It is my point here, again, that what was said at the dedication does in fact matter, as part of the factual record, when considering the motivations behind the monument. Indeed, as you said, context cuts both ways.

We got that the first two time you said it Yip.  You're not presenting any new information here. Nobody is ignoring the racist motivations of those who caused the monument to exist in the first place.

We're simply saying that memorializing those that fought and/or died is a major part of its purpose. Apparently you see it as a monument to the Confederacy and as such it has little value you to you. We get it. We read you loud and clear. Subsequent virtue signaling on your part is not necessary.

To be clear, I appreciate you bringing this context to the discussion. I really do. And understand that it is a compliment that based on your information I'm still thinking very hard about this.

I'm not a stupid man Yip. Give me time to process and parse things out. I'm quite capable of evolving.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 23, 2017, 05:17:12 AM
All of this back and forth has brought us further away from the main point. Acorn said that the monument was not a memorial.

I think it is clear that it is indeed a memorial. It is at the very least part of its purpose. Even if it was put there by people with reprehensible views.  

The other day I saw an Indy magazine. On the front cover it had a picture of a statue and a caption that read "TEAR THEM ALL DOWN". That is the sentiment I was referring to in the original post. Note that the thread title specially says "destruction" and not "relocation".

Just wanted to remind folks where this thread started before it drifts too far.  


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 23, 2017, 05:45:44 AM
(BTW, I gave a lengthy reply to your points and simply left the avatar discussion for another post. I certainly agree that Lincoln was a racist. However, in order to be a member of MOLLUS, you first have to be a direct descendent of a Union soldier. It was created to defend the Union aka the country, as Lincoln was already dead. I don't believe there is any reference to Lincoln in the founding documents at all. It was more a reaction to his assassination as a US President and possible further conspiracies as a threat to the Union after he was killed than about him as an individual. It was a reaction of loyalty to the United States in defense of those who might attempt to destroy it, foreign or domestic.)

Let's look at this again because there is a valid point to be made here.

https://www.lmunet.edu/academics/abraham-lincoln-library-and-museum-1/mollus (https://www.lmunet.edu/academics/abraham-lincoln-library-and-museum-1/mollus)

MOLLUS, in association with the National Park Service, hosts the Lincoln Commemorative Birthday Celebration each February 12 in Washington, DC,

MOLLUS seeks to foster military and naval science, promote allegiance to the United States government, perpetuate the memory of those who fought to preserve the unity and indivisibility of the Republic and to honor the memory and promote the ideals of President Abraham Lincoln.


1. Promote allegiance to the US government. Interesting distinction. Not the United States.  The government.

2. I'm hoping that when it comes to the "memory and ideals of President Abraham Lincoln" they don't mean his racist ones.  I'm sure they are rather "selective" when it comes to his ideals.

If some people can look at a racist like Lincoln and the reverence an organization has for a person with such faults; and if those people can proudly display an emblem representative of that...

Can others not do the same with regard to a monument that had an inauspicious beginning but also stands for memorial?

I believe so.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Silk_Hope on August 23, 2017, 01:05:53 PM
ATTENTION: DO NOT – I repeat – DO NOT use $1 – $2 – $50 or $100 bills.

They display pictures of former slave owners on them and must be disposed of immediately!

Send them all to me and I will take care of this, free of charge!

DO NOT just throw them away. They need to be disposed of properly and I am certified to do so.

Send a Private Message to me if you need my mailing address.

We must get these out of circulation ASAP.


Thank you for your cooperation.
Like


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: witler on August 25, 2017, 10:45:39 AM
I guess it completes the liberal triangle, Chapel Hill, Cary and now Pittsboro.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: John Florida on August 25, 2017, 09:20:12 PM
  No being born here and don't have a dog in this fight I keep asking myself why is this country fighting against it's history??  Take the statues down then what burn the books?  Shoot the people that refuse to give them up?  For what will any of it change what happened?


   It's your history live with it it won't change.  What's next the next offended party demands MLK statues gone the streets renames don't forget the schools those have to got too books and all.

  It was bad but it got fixed as well as possible and we still work on it but the past will always be there.  It's all your call but it's idiocy you ESPN not sending  an Asian because his name is Robert Lee??  Some idiot football team wants their mascot gone because it's the same color as R.E.Lees horse and the name is similar??

   You have the mayor of N.Y. fretting about street names while he's watching a mass exodus of business's  from his city and the idiot Governor that's watching the same thing happening state wide and yet street names are what they worry about?

  My people were not here when it all went down but we are here now and this is the history were witnessing and I don't see anything for you to be proud of.

  I won't be commenting on this any more


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on August 26, 2017, 03:14:49 PM
Well Pi, if you aren't 'bright enough to understand the difference' in what you said changing from "the" primary purpose to "a" primary purpose, that's not my fault either. Likewise with MOLLUS, if you are 'too dense to understand' the clear difference between someone's right to use an avatar in a private forum versus the right to display a controversial statue in the center of town, I can't do much about that either. If you think you are educating me in any way about the group by spending two minutes on a Google search, that is also pretty funny.

Quote
I've already addressed this with complete clarity and I am in no mood to repeat myself. It is always the same game with you. You ignore what I say and pretend to be obtuse as a method of repeating an accusation. I'm tired of playing that game with you. If you aren't bright enough to hold up your end of the conversation, that's not my fault.

Nice try, but nope, that is not what I am doing. I'm pointing out that not just that they were a racist group, or were racist individually, but also that they specifically said the monuments were not just put up to honor the dead, but also to celebrate the Confederacy and its beliefs. It has nothing to do with my intellect, which you seem to be focusing on at the moment for your own deflection strategy, but rather with the disconnect of you saying you would support moving it if you thought it celebrated the Confederacy and then attempting to ignore evidence that shows exactly that. It is not 'nonsense' to document the celebration of the Confederacy was a clear part of their plan and motivation. What is nonsense is for you to claim you have already addressed that point clearly. I have been perfectly willing to concede that it is also a memorial to the dead as well from the start of this thread. To say that the motivations go beyond a humble tribute to the fallen soldiers is not a denial that was part of their purpose.

Quote
Clark was clearly a racist. However I think the quote you provided shows that he was concerned that the 14th was being twisted by some entities. And that such twisting of the precedent was not in accordance with its true meaning and was instead being used to undermine state courts. On what issues I have no idea.  As far as I can tell, history has shown him to be as wrong about the courts as he was about the topic of equality. Our state courts seem to be very much alive and well.

Quote
1) realize I already acknowledged the reference to slavery and

OK, so show me where you said he was definitely talking about slavery there. I don't think you did, specifically, despite your "did you just stop reading" claim. You mentioned the horrors of slavery or whatever, you said he was a racist, but I don't believe you acknowledged the point that his dedication speech itself brought top the 14th in relation to slavery and also as a means to legitimize and celebrate the Confederacy. Prove me wrong.

Quote
Nobody is ignoring the racist motivations of those who caused the monument to exist in the first place.

Actually, I think many people are doing exactly that. They are saying this statue in Pittsboro is only a memorial to the dead and not admitting it was also put there to both celebrate the Confederacy and promote their racist ideology. It is more obvious with some statues and text than with others, but their overall, documented cause remains the same.

So again, do you still think that one of the primary motivations of this Pittsboro statue was to celebrate the Confederacy? I have yet to see you clearly acknowledge that part. So that is why I circled back around to the same point for emphasis. You said it partially memorializes the Confederacy much earlier here, but still stopped short of any admission that it represents a celebration of the Confederacy and related values. Especially since you have already admitted the context of his speech matters.

Quote
I don't think that monument represents all of a Chatham. It's really quite a stretch to say that it does. Monuments often have a specific purpose and I believe the purpose of that one is to remember those who served and/or died in the Civil War. No evidence that you have provided disproves or invalidates that notion.

I pointed out the statue was in the center of town, as well as the center of the state, in front of the courthouse. I think that it is pretty clear that it represents the whole county in that position. It's hard to think of a more symbolic spot really. Your sentence above came before I brought those facts up, but I didn't see where you addressed that point after that.

You've got all the time in the world to think about this & evolve - and then finally admit that it would probably be the right thing to do, to move it to another less prominent location. I know that is hard though, because that will also require you to admit that I have been right on this issue from the start. But yeah, feel free to keep talking about my avatar.  ::)


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: John Florida on August 26, 2017, 07:49:39 PM
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/video-southside-chicago-blacks-reject-calls-local-elites-tear-washington-statue/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/08/video-southside-chicago-blacks-reject-calls-local-elites-tear-washington-statue/)


  https://youtu.be/LhtyzR7KoeE (https://youtu.be/LhtyzR7KoeE)


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: John Florida on August 27, 2017, 06:54:51 PM
(https://i.imgbox.com/giaZxfZs.png)


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 28, 2017, 08:12:09 AM
Yip, once again you are getting wrapped around the axles of unrighteous indignation. I'm not going to repeat myself and your continued attempts to get me to do so are dumb. I've said the UDC was racist. I also said that I believe the primary purpose of the monument is a memorial. If some part of it also celebrates the Confederacy then I of course understand how that would offend some people.

The point about MOLLUS was a valid one and I can tell it stung. You didn't know as much as you thought you did about it. If you did, you wouldn't have chose it. Now you're too stubborn to change it.
This just goes to show that I am capable of evolving and you simply double down.   8)

It is, as you said, a memorial. It is also a reminder of a horrible past. But it is the history of Chatham County and people that fought and often died to protect what they thought was their community. If you think that the rank and file Confederate soldier marched off to war because they personally wanted to preserve slavery then you are simply wrong.

Anyone who has studied the Civil War (and read so many of their letters) knows that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers felt they were defending their homes. They felt they were defending their own freedoms. It is a sad irony that despite all their machinations about freedom, they were actually fighting for the subjugation of others in the end. Regardless of their personal motivations.

You think that moving the monument would be the right step. But I do not believe the social justice warrriors are content to simply move it to a cemetary.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/17/madison-mayor-orders-removal-two-confederate-memorials-cemetery/578889001/ (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2017/08/17/madison-mayor-orders-removal-two-confederate-memorials-cemetery/578889001/)

I've not ignored the information you have provided. Of the two of us, only one has rejected the point of this entire thread. I've called attention to the fact that the issue isn't quite so cut and dried and that it is indeed a memorial. It wouldn't be fair to say that you believe those lives to be meaningless. Likewise it is unfair to say that I have disregarded the racist motivations of those who erected the monument in the first place.

You're angry at me because I don't agree with you. That's a common problem I see with most of my liberal friends. It's not even enough when I agree with them if I don't display the appropriate measure of outrage.  I find all of that fake virtue signaling to be tedious.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on August 28, 2017, 08:33:29 AM
For those watching the tennis match it is interesting to observe how Yip adheres to the playbook. This is what happens when they cannot debate the issue. They instead hang their hat on a nonsense point. In this case we see a declaration that something was ignored when it clearly was acknowledged.

The original sentiment was as follows:
"People are free to interpret his statements and the text and statue according to their own beliefs and knowledge"

But that's not really what Yip meant. What Yip meant is that any conclusion that doesn't match his is wrong. The fact is, many people like Yip are very emotionally invested in their opinion. And that is why statements like this that encourage some introspection are met with such derision. 

"If some people can look at a racist like Lincoln and the reverence an organization has for a person with such faults; and if those people can proudly display an emblem representative of that...

Can others not do the same with regard to a monument that had an inauspicious beginning but also stands for memorial?

I believe so."

The answer is: of course they can.  At the end of the day, that's what everyone should remember. On a positive note, it looks like nobody in this thread is advocating tearing anything down. That is encouraging.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on September 17, 2017, 07:58:40 PM
First off, anyone reading this thread can clearly see that I have not only debated the issue at hand, but have also provided numerous examples of specific evidence to support my opinions. It's obvious that you say such things here because you want to deflect and make this debate about me, so that your echo chamber of apologists can chime in and shout hooray. Saying that someone is free to hold their own beliefs does not mean I agree with all those beliefs and will not try and debate the factual basis and context of those beliefs.

There’s no shift there, other than again, Pi trying to make this thread about me instead of the topic at hand with his struggling backhand in the face of mounting evidence. It’s funny, for a man who likes to tell everyone how smart he is here, Pi also doesn't seem to get the humor in some of my posts at all, and comprehend that they are often simply a direct quote of his own previous statements, using his exact tone as quoted, but somehow in reverse he claims they are now indicative of indignation. Read it back - it is Pi who first used those phrases, throwing tiny jabs like the last breaths of the fading Confederacy.

Anyway, again Mr. Pi also seems to think that I didn't know something on a topic he has only researched quite recently via Google University, about a group that I have been involved with for many years. Any student of Lincoln is well aware he was a man with many faults. As I already stated Mr. Pi, you have not taught me a single thing about MOLLUS. Talk about hanging your hat on a nonsense point - oh the irony! Your 'point' there is also obviously not even a valid analogy, even if you repeat it and mutter it to yourself while driving around town, because again, there is a HUGE (Trump voice) difference between personal statements and those enshrined on public property, as I've already pointed out. Of course you leave that out of your sophomoric analysis there because it completely invalidates your entire analogy. You choose to skip over that and just say your point 'was valid' with no actual counterpoint.

Pi has clearly also, of course, been fed the dopey line of Confederate apologists, who use the deceptive "the vast majority did not own another human being” when talking about soldiers fighting for the South, which is often claimed to be roughly 1 in 10, however, with no context. (There’s an obvious reason escaped slaves headed to the North - hundreds of thousands of them. It is estimated by some that by the end of the war, 180k blacks were fighting for the North, with about half of them being escaped slaves.) So let’s talk about that popular 1 out of 10 figure in better context. First, most of the troops were young and had not accumulated enough wealth to buy their own slaves. However, many of the soldiers still lived in a household with slaves owned by their parents, or worked at another location owned by a slaveholder, or made money related to slavery in some way:

"One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation. The fact that their paper notes frequently depicted scenes of slaves demonstrated the institution's central role and symbolic value to the Confederacy."

(Source: https://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-Army-Victory-Collapse/dp/1416596976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276825358&sr=1-1 (https://www.amazon.com/General-Lees-Army-Victory-Collapse/dp/1416596976/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1276825358&sr=1-1))

It’s just bullshit to say that the Confederate soldiers were not - as one of their major reasons - fighting to support the ‘Old South’ which included the institution and benefits for them of slavery. There are mountains of letters, quotes and evidence of exactly that in their own writings. It was the Union troops who sang of John Brown's Body and however racist, fought side by side on the battlefield with thousands of free blacks. So, let's take a look at what the Governor of North Carolina, John Ellis, said at the state convention in 1860:

"Such, gentlemen, are the parties to the contest. The issue between them should be clearly understood, especially here at the South. I assert, and shall maintain it with the proofs, that this issue is, whether African slavery shall be abolished here in the States, where it now exists? Let us not be deceived upon this point. Men may talk about our rights in the territories, but depend upon it they are not the questions now in issue. The abolition of slavery here at home is the design of our opponents. This is the bond that cements all the anti-slavery elements in one solid column against us.”
http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/ellis/ellis.html (http://docsouth.unc.edu/nc/ellis/ellis.html)

However, in anticipation of the counterpoint, it can easily be claimed that the average soldier from this area most likely knew nothing or very little about that speech. However, there is also evidence that soldiers from NC factored racism and slavery into their personal reasons for fighting. One soldier from North Carolina claimed he would never stop fighting Yankees, because they were "trying to force us to live as the colored race." Another soldier in the 38th North Carolina expressed similar views in a letter, saying he vowed to fight to show the Yankees "that a white man is better than a nigger." In some cases, this hatred resulted in the murder of black soldiers who had already surrendered. A soldier from NC recalled that "several were taken prisoner and after were bayoneted or burnt" in one case, not to mention the documented massacre of black soldiers at Plymouth, NC, and many other battles where it was a known fact that any black person who surrendered wearing Union blue would be killed. Those racist tactics had nothing to do with state's rights or homeland.
(From For Cause and Comrades: Why Men Fought in the Civil War, by James M. McPherson)

You also said that "If some part of it also celebrates the Confederacy" but have yet to admit that the quotes I show, the speeches and the context show clearly that is indeed the case - it is not just a hollow theory with zero evidence - in other words, it is not an “if” situation, but a matter of just how much. Yet you still don't seem to be able to say clearly that one of the primary motivations of this Pittsboro statue was to celebrate the Confederacy. All you can muster is 'if some part' which still leaves it as a question, even though you know it is true, because you already admitted the context matters and I have provided that specific context and what I could find of the exact historical record. So that has nothing to do with displaying 'the appropriate amount of outrage,' but rather with admitting what the evidence clearly shows or making a counterpoint based upon your own evidence. 

It's not that any conclusion that doesn't match mine is simply wrong, it is that I have provided much more factual evidence to support my opinion here than anyone else posting in this thread. Yes, they are still free to hold their beliefs, but at the same time, I am free to provide more and more evidence. One can look at Lincoln as flawed, as indeed he was, but to conflate personal beliefs, whatever they may be, with public displays is not only a poor analogy, but also completely irrelevant to the discussion as it is private conduct.

1) "If I thought the purpose of the monument was to honor the Confederacy, I would also support moving it." So if it can be proven that part of the purpose was indeed to celebrate the Confederacy, as I indeed have already attempted to show with quotes and other evidence - does your statement still apply? Or are we back to 'the' vs 'a' purpose? You said that you have been clear earlier, but I think that anyone reading this back can see that is actually not the case. You just go with the vague " inauspicious beginning" instead of full blown racist KKK supporters. (This is also why you had to deflect to my personal avatar, BTW.)

2) You said you did not think it represented the entire county and that I provided no evidence. However, I said it is in the geographic center of town, as well as the state, in the town square and in front of the courthouse. I also made the point that it was likely the most prominent place in Chatham. Did you agree with that or not? Seems pretty clear to me, but no clear answer or reply.

3) You said you have evolved here. From where to where? It seems a bit like you are back exactly where you started.

The UDC were not simply racists like many in their time, they also financially supported and publicly backed the KKK. This was at the same time the KKK was murdering residents of this county with no trial. Such evil acts of the KKK at the time include not only the killing black men, but the hanging infants from trees, the beating and shooting women and children and the burning churches to the ground. This is not tacit ideological support - they paid for an old KKK flag and spoke of it with reverence (with evidence of a donation for this flag coming from right here from Chatham), a flag which was likely held when they went on their illegal and murderous raids. The UDC talked about the KKK as noble southerners, protecting the virtues of the Old South. The UDC promoted books for school children to absorb, like Susan Pendleton Lee’s 1895 textbook, A School History of the United States, in which she declared that the Ku Klux Klan was necessary “for protection against . . . outrages committed by misguided negroes.”

(https://i.imgur.com/B3Xmd3Z.jpg)

"Mrs. S. E. F. Rose, of West Point, Miss., is a most enthusiastic U. D. C. worker. Her administration as State President of the U. D. C. of Mississippi, which was just closed by constitutional limitation, was marked by brilliancy and advancement along all lines of work, over a thousand new members having been added to the Division. When asked as to what she attributed her success, she replied: “My heart was in it.” Mrs. Rose served as State Historian, U. D. C., prior to her election as President, and has written many valuable historical papers, notably the “Ku Klux Clan,” which she gave permission to the Mississippi Division to sell for the benefit of a Confederate monument to be erected at Beauvoir, Miss., the home of the President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis. The booklet met with great success, having been sold in thirty-eight States and in far-away China, and the Mississippi Division now has the sum of $500 from the sales of the booklet as a nucleus for the monument."

(https://i.imgur.com/lpe2pxT.png)

During the past summer Mrs. Rose prepared a history of the Ku Klux Clan in suitable form for school study, and she will endeavor to secure its adoption as a supplementary reader in the schools, thus bringing the true history of this great organization direct to the young people of the Southland, our boys and girls of to-day, who will be our citizens of to-morrow. Mrs. Rose will ask the indorsement of the U. D. C. for the book and feels that if she can get this information to the youth of our land she will have accomplished a great mission.”

(https://i.imgur.com/OBJfHYI.png)

The Ku Klux Klan or Invisible Empire, written by Laura Martin Rose of Mississippi, former president and historian of the Mississippi United Daughters of the Confederacy, was explicit about Forrests’ involvement, giving him the title of “Grand Wizard of the Invisible Empire.” Rose was a native of Giles County, Tennessee, the birthplace of the Klan. Rose’s booklet, sold to raise funds for a monument to Jefferson Davis at Beauvoir, was both excerpted and advertised for sale in the Confederate Veteran magazine, a journal written by and for former Confederate soldiers and their families.

Do all modern UDC members support the party line? No:

“Remove them (Confederate monuments) from public display of places and put them in cemeteries or let them be moved to veterans’ parks, or private parks or private lands. I'm all for that," said Rudiger. “If it’s on public property and because of the issue of slavery, and because we've had so many years in our country of unfairness in this country to minority groups, why not relocate these to places where they can be given the respect they deserve for veteran service?” - Ginger Rudiger, President of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, Florida Division

People can support keeping the statue front and center as a historical reminder and as a memorial to fallen Confederate soldiers from the area. I have also stated clearly that such support does not make them a racist. However, those with other views - that the statue was created as part of an effort to rewrite history, to celebrate and glorify the Confederacy and the southern cause, are just as free to view it as such. There is also much documentation about the intent - we don't have to guess. It was created as a representation of support for the Confederate cause and was also part of a documented strategy to promote white supremacy. Also, the group that put it up was not just racist - they actively supported the racist murders of citizens with no trial.

Finally, it seems to me that if the public voted to erect it or elected those that did and they have that right, then the same public can vote to take it down or move it. It's really not more complex than that - you can't have the right to create it but not have the right to remove it. So let's just bring it to a vote.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: 1911A on September 17, 2017, 09:18:08 PM
No, we're not moving a damn thing, pal, and you can tell that to whomever wrote the preceding post for ya.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on September 18, 2017, 09:31:55 AM
First off, anyone reading this thread can clearly see that I have not only debated the issue at hand, but have also provided numerous examples of specific evidence to support my opinions. It's obvious that you say such things here because you want to deflect and make this debate about me, so that your echo chamber of apologists can chime in and shout hooray. Saying that someone is free to hold their own beliefs does not mean I agree with all those beliefs and will not try and debate the factual basis and context of those beliefs.

I'm not trying to make this about you.  However, you entered this thread spouting the usual tripe about racism.  This from the same fellow that equates libertarian beliefs with racism.  No, Yip, we didn't forget your post where you asked about the viability of "states rights" and then posted this pic of George Wallace as an opener:

(https://williamhogeland.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/wallace.jpg)

So let's not pretend you're at all interested in having an honest and respectful discussion.  Because you're not.  Your goal, just like a lot of other social justice warriors, is to raise the spectre of racism.  That's really what this push to remove monuments is all about.  It's to create a narrative that racism exists and is everywhere.  And that white folks are the perpetrators of all the world's wrongs.

This type of tactic is destructive and like most things, has unintended consequences.  The consequence of social justice witch hunts with regard to free speech and free thought are precisely what made Donald Trump our president.  As you know, I'm not a fan and argued vociferously AGAINST his nomination here on the board. 

So thanks for that.  /sarcasm

Pi has clearly also, of course, been fed the dopey line of Confederate apologists, who use the deceptive "the vast majority did not own another human being” when talking about soldiers fighting for the South, which is often claimed to be roughly 1 in 10, however, with no context. (There’s an obvious reason escaped slaves headed to the North - hundreds of thousands of them. It is estimated by some that by the end of the war, 180k blacks were fighting for the North, with about half of them being escaped slaves.) So let’s talk about that popular 1 out of 10 figure in better context. First, most of the troops were young and had not accumulated enough wealth to buy their own slaves. However, many of the soldiers still lived in a household with slaves owned by their parents, or worked at another location owned by a slaveholder, or made money related to slavery in some way

And here you go again, saying I'm trotting out the lines of "Confederate apologists".  There's just one problem with that Yip.  It's not true.  The vast majority did NOT own slaves.  Your own Google "research" doesn't dispute that claim either.  The reason I say that is because I, and many others, see the monument as a memorial.  And just like every other war, the ones that fought and died were most often poor folks who believed they were fighting off invaders or protecting their homes.   However, I guess you acknowledging that is not going to happen.  And so instead, you move the goalposts to "lived with or worked with or did business with"" slavery.  No sh!t Sherlock.  They were from the South.  When the powerful people are the ones that own slaves, and also most of the business concerns, how the hell would someone avoid being associated with someone that owns slaves?  I guess if they wore cotton clothing they were also supporting slavery in some shape or form too, right?

Anyway, again Mr. Pi also seems to think that I didn't know something on a topic he has only researched quite recently via Google University, about a group that I have been involved with for many years. Any student of Lincoln is well aware he was a man with many faults. As I already stated Mr. Pi, you have not taught me a single thing about MOLLUS. Talk about hanging your hat on a nonsense point - oh the irony! Your 'point' there is also obviously not even a valid analogy, even if you repeat it and mutter it to yourself while driving around town, because again, there is a HUGE (Trump voice) difference between personal statements and those enshrined on public property, as I've already pointed out. Of course you leave that out of your sophomoric analysis there because it completely invalidates your entire analogy. You choose to skip over that and just say your point 'was valid' with no actual counterpoint.

Yet again you sidestep the point.  Which is par for your course I suppose.  The point was about the dichotomy between revering MOLLUS when MOLLUS reveres a racist like Lincoln.  I made that quite clear and the point definitely hit more than a nerve.  Personal or public, the point goes to the complexity of people's feelings on the issue.  Your whole exercise here is to try to prove that people who support leaving the monument where it is are wrong.  And they are wrong, in your view, because the monument glorifies the Confederacy.  Those people have just as much right to disregard the racist and promotion of the Confederacy by the UDC as you have to disregard Lincoln's blatant racism. 

I see absolutely no difference between you and them from a moral standpoint.  You have NO moral high ground here whatsoever.

It’s just bullshit to say that the Confederate soldiers were not - as one of their major reasons - fighting to support the ‘Old South’ which included the institution and benefits for them of slavery. There are mountains of letters, quotes and evidence of exactly that in their own writings. It was the Union troops who sang of John Brown's Body and however racist, fought side by side on the battlefield with thousands of free blacks.

I would contend that there are more letters referencing the South being invaded by the North.  And THAT was what the vast majority of Confederate soldiers thought they were fighting for.  In point of fact, ending slavery was not an official Union goal until 1863 and the Emancipation Proclamation.  Of course I can post lots of letters home that talk about the 'Yankee incursion'.  But I suspect that wouldn't be fruitful.  Most people have enough sense to know that the rich declare wars and the poor fight them. 

It just makes it much easier for people like Yip to assume that everyone that fought for the South was "guilty" of supporting slavery.  To a degree that is absolutely correct.  But it is only part of the story and in no way summarizes the motivations of those who fought and died. 

It's not that any conclusion that doesn't match mine is simply wrong, it is that I have provided much more factual evidence to support my opinion here than anyone else posting in this thread. Yes, they are still free to hold their beliefs, but at the same time, I am free to provide more and more evidence. One can look at Lincoln as flawed, as indeed he was, but to conflate personal beliefs, whatever they may be, with public displays is not only a poor analogy, but also completely irrelevant to the discussion as it is private conduct.

Not sure a public message board is the same as "private conduct".  Leaving that aside, public displays are driven by personal beliefs.  It is appropriate to acknowledge those who fought in war with a prominently placed monument.  Unless, as I said before, we decide to get rid of ALL monuments.  Strange that you've yet to comment on that solution. 

The UDC was/maybe is a racist organization.  But you and I are not going to agree that the only purpose of the monument is to glorify the Confederacy.  But what's more important at this point in time is what people today think it stands for.  If the contemporary interpretation of the meaning of the monument is a memorial (which I believe to be the case) and not to glorify the Confederacy, what does that mean, exactly?

I'll tell you what I think it means.  It means that in your usual jaundiced view of the world, you missed an important aspect here.  If it is seen as a memorial, then the UDC has failed in their mission.  Personally I don't give a damn about the Confederacy.  To me, it is a memorial to those who fought and often died.  If the goal of the UDC was to make me shed a tear over the Confederacy, then they have fallen short. 

Now, as to whether or not I've "evolved" on this issue: I've said that maybe we should consider moving all monuments.  If you can't see that as a big step I don't know what to tell you.  Also, I'm still thinking about this issue.

If it is any consolation, I'm reading what you wrote and I've been thinking about it.  It's not my goal to simply argue with you for the sake of arguing.  While you are an insufferable social justice warrior and a race baiter of the worst sort, it doesn't mean that you're incapable of making a good point.  While I think you are misguided I do applaud your passion.  Discussing these issues just wouldn't be the same without you.

Finally, it seems to me that if the public voted to erect it or elected those that did and they have that right, then the same public can vote to take it down or move it. It's really not more complex than that - you can't have the right to create it but not have the right to remove it. So let's just bring it to a vote.

You're exactly right on this point.  That which resides in the public square was put there by acclaimation and can therefore be moved or removed the same way.  The complexity here is how people feel about it.  And some people feel very strongly about it.

What I am against is the destruction of these memorials by groups of protesters.  I don't think there's anything brave or laudable about destroying them. 

Above all, I think this is really a manufactured crisis on the part of the social justice warriors.  It fits a narrative, as I've already said.  The problem is that it's going to get push back.  People who mind their own damn business and go to work every day are being told "Hey, your ancestors were a bunch of racist a55holes and we're going to tear down the monument in the center of town.  And if you oppose us or disagree then you're also a racist rear end!".   That's not exactly what you're saying here, Yip.  Which is surprising to some extent.  I guess you've grown up a little over the past few years.  Time was when you'd have said exactly that.  I guess I was wrong.  You do evolve.   ;)

But many SJWs ARE saying that.  And as a result, most folks are not receptive to it, as you might imagine.  Look, we both agree that:

1. The UDC was a racist organization.
2. Lincoln was a racist.
3. It is possible for people to support leaving the monument where it is and NOT be racist.
4. Monument like this should not be destroyed by a bunch of protesters.

I don't recall if you've specifically agreed with me about #4.  But I'm assuming you do.  If so, there's really very little for us to argue about.  Not that that'd keep us from doing it.   :D


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Wilderness Voice on September 18, 2017, 10:46:46 AM
Regardless ~ slavery was a dark time in this nations history, even our founding fathers missed the mark when they wrote in the Constitution that all men were created equal in the eyes of God.  Anytime I see a moral issue, I go to scripture. 

These status are mere idols in God's eyes. 

When our black brothers, sisters and their children look upon these statues, what do you think they see??  I would use the example of Jews looking at a statue of Hitler.  The Civil War was fought for many reasons, but the confederacy lost on the slavery issue plain and simple.  The European slave trade was harsh and inhumane.  I'm a firm believer that God withheld his blessing from the Confederacy for this reason only and allowed it to be consumed by the north who outlawed slavery. 

No doubt corruption was on both sides of the Civil War, both north and south. 

You will see no church that follows the true Gospel of Grace speaking out against the removal of these idols. 



Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on September 18, 2017, 11:00:25 AM
Regardless ~ slavery was a dark time in this nations history, even our founding fathers missed the mark when they wrote in the Constitution that all men were created equal in the eyes of God.  Anytime I see a moral issue, I go to scripture.  

These status are mere idols in God's eyes.  

When our black brothers, sisters and their children look upon these statues, what do you think they see??  I would use the example of Jews looking at a statue of Hitler.  The Civil War was fought for many reasons, but the confederacy lost on the slavery issue plain and simple.  The European slave trade was harsh and inhumane.  I'm a firm believer that God withheld his blessing from the Confederacy for this reason only and allowed it to be consumed by the north who outlawed slavery.  

No doubt corruption was on both sides of the Civil War, both north and south.  

You will see no church that follows the true Gospel of Grace speaking out against the removal of these idols.  

Oh this is gonna be good.  We're going to see liberal atheists, who would otherwise do nothing but ridicule those who believe in God, point to this and say "See!  Even true Christians side with us!".

Crosses are prominently displayed in public buildings across the U.S.A.  They are a symbol of Christianity, and according to some people, Christianity was the cause of more loss of life than the exploits of Hitler.

This should be good.  You guys battle it out and I'll just make some popcorn.



Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Wilderness Voice on September 18, 2017, 11:49:22 AM
I only care about what Jesus did, not mankind


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on September 18, 2017, 12:19:47 PM
I only care about what Jesus did, not mankind

That's not entirely true.  You took the time to weigh in on it.

Mankind has knack for making people care.  The social justice revolution has just begun.  As a religion, Christianity is being changed from within and without.  Soon it won't be anything that you recognize. 

Behold the reformation.  It is happening before our eyes.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Wilderness Voice on September 18, 2017, 12:41:03 PM
chuckle  ~ Paul was fighting the same fight 2,000 years ago with his letters to the churches, not much has changed throughout history, just lots more people, voices and opinions on earth now


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on September 18, 2017, 01:20:25 PM
chuckle  ~ Paul was fighting the same fight 2,000 years ago with his letters to the churches, not much has changed

~ CHORTLE ~

You're wrong about that.

You should know that Paul's effort were related to the formation of Christianity, not reformation of Christianity.

Apples and chainsaws.


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Wilderness Voice on September 18, 2017, 01:38:29 PM
Paul was just bringing the deity of Jesus to the Gentiles, throughout history people have always attempted to bring Jesus in the picture to manipulate and distort his teachings to serve themselves and not God.  Nothing new here.  Now if you want a make a case for the end times, not even Jesus new that date, just the birthing pains that will happen prior


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on September 18, 2017, 02:09:14 PM
Paul was just bringing the deity of Jesus to the Gentiles, throughout history people have always attempted to bring Jesus in the picture to manipulate and distort his teachings to serve themselves and not God.  Nothing new here.  Now if you want a make a case for the end times, not even Jesus new that date, just the birthing pains that will happen prior

The end times?  I'll leave prognosticating about Armageddon to someone else. 

Everything comes to an end.  All great empires fall and something else often rises from the ashes.  What I am concerned with is a net loss of individual freedom brought about by an overbearing government driven by fuzzy notions of social justice.

The danger of this is not theoretical.  That which social justice says is for the "common good" or that which is "fair" and equitable are driven less by hard and fast principles than by fluid concepts.  The goalposts simply get moved each time it is revealed that attempts at equal outcomes have failed.  Or more to the point have been perceived to fail. 

One of the key steps is tearing down any and all authorities that rival the state.  This paints a very large target on the church.  The church will likely persist in basements and backrooms, just as it did in the USSR.  But I hardly consider that desirable or acceptable.

It doesn't matter what I think anyway.  It's going to be whatever it's going to be. 


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Wilderness Voice on September 18, 2017, 02:30:59 PM
try not to get religion and Jesus mixed up, as far as the end times whenever that may be?   I plan on spending eternity with Christ through Grace alone and pray you will accept the same Savior that God sent us


Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: NC YIPPIE on October 18, 2017, 11:26:39 AM
I'm not trying to make this about you.  However, you entered this thread spouting the usual tripe about racism.  This from the same fellow that equates libertarian beliefs with racism.  No, Yip, we didn't forget your post where you asked about the viability of "states rights" and then posted this pic of George Wallace as an opener:

So let's not pretend you're at all interested in having an honest and respectful discussion.  Because you're not.  Your goal, just like a lot of other social justice warriors, is to raise the spectre of racism.  That's really what this push to remove monuments is all about.  It's to create a narrative that racism exists and is everywhere.  And that white folks are the perpetrators of all the world's wrongs.

This type of tactic is destructive and like most things, has unintended consequences.  The consequence of social justice witch hunts with regard to free speech and free thought are precisely what made Donald Trump our president.  As you know, I'm not a fan and argued vociferously AGAINST his nomination here on the board.  

So thanks for that.  /sarcasm

The problem with that skewed 'analysis' is that I entered this thread with actual evidence of racism at the statue's dedication ceremony. So clearly, that is not 'tripe' as you say here, but actual, documented racism. I don't equate libertarian views with racism, which is why you can't quote me saying anything like that here. You are right about one thing though, I do equate the Confederate & KKK supporters who put up this statue with George Wallace and his effort to use the veil of "state's rights" to help hide his racism. That is not the spectre of racism either - it is actual, documented racism, again, at this statue's dedication ceremony. I said that the "state's rights" line in the speech was simply a smokescreen for the ‘right’ of the Confederacy to enslave others. It's also not a witch hunt to call out the KKK - and their financial supporters. The speaker at hand that I quoted not only declares the right of states to have slaves, he questions the 14th amendment of the US Constitution not because of some vague, lofty ideal, but because of a sinister self-interest to own other human beings. It is in that questioning and in the other statements that make it abundantly clear that it is certainly not tripe in the slightest - it is blatant racism & evil intentions hiding just behind the much more palatable banner of mysterious and unidentified state's rights. The other funny thing about state's right is that when it came to the topic of fugitive slaves, the South was all for the power of the federal government over other states. You have partially acknowledged that the context of the creation of this statue matters, but have downplayed the racism of that context as you have downplayed the role of slavery in motivating many who fought for the South. Your goal seems to be to dismiss discussions of the actual evidence we have and only focus on the text of the monument and the current feelings of some citizens. The more historical evidence presented, the more the attempt to shift the conversation to me instead of the statue.

And here you go again, saying I'm trotting out the lines of "Confederate apologists".  There's just one problem with that Yip.  It's not true.  The vast majority did NOT own slaves.  Your own Google "research" doesn't dispute that claim either.  The reason I say that is because I, and many others, see the monument as a memorial.  And just like every other war, the ones that fought and died were most often poor folks who believed they were fighting off invaders or protecting their homes.   However, I guess you acknowledging that is not going to happen.  And so instead, you move the goalposts to "lived with or worked with or did business with"" slavery.  No sh!t Sherlock.  They were from the South.  When the powerful people are the ones that own slaves, and also most of the business concerns, how the hell would someone avoid being associated with someone that owns slaves?  I guess if they wore cotton clothing they were also supporting slavery in some shape or form too, right?

Nice try, but yeah, that's exactly what you are doing. Saying someone did not directly own a slave does not mean they did not support and directly benefit from the institution of slavery. To clarify, I am speaking of a much more direct connection than owning a shirt. Slaves were owned by the richest male in a household - meaning that his five sons could live in that same master's house, beat slaves daily, rape them at night and then say - but hey, we don't technically 'own' those slaves, right? Again, I'm speaking of those directly connected to slavery and it was absolutely much higher than 10%. So that's why I'm calling you an apologist for pushing that "only 10% owned" line of thinking, which is based upon the tiny truth that only the master owned the slaves on paper, but not on the reality of the direct and often brutal participation of their sons, daughters and other white employees. No honest person would say that someone who orders slaves around their plantation, who forces them to do their bidding on a daily basis and who buys their clothes with money created by people they enslave is somehow not directly connected to slavery. They were a society up to their necks in the 'peculiar institution' of the south which was woven directly into the fabric of their daily existence. Feel free to compare that to someone far away owning cotton clothing if you like, that just strikes me as yet another display of a Confederate apologist pushing a narrative that is highly misleading. If you want downplaying the scope and responsibility of slavery to be your thing though, go for it.

More evidence:
"Thus, volunteers in 1861 were 42 percent more likely to own slaves themselves or to live with family members who owned slaves than the general population. The attachment to slavery, though, was even more powerful. One in every ten volunteers in 1861 did not own slaves themselves but lived in households headed by non family members who did. This figure, combined with the 36 percent who owned or whose family members owned slaves, indicated that almost one of every two 1861 recruits lived with slaveholders. Nor did the direct exposure stop there. Untold numbers of enlistees rented land from, sold crops to, or worked for slaveholders. In the final tabulation, the vast majority of the volunteers of 1861 had a direct connection to slavery. For slaveholder and nonslaveholder alike, slavery lay at the heart of the Confederate nation."
(Source: General Lee's Army: From Victory to Collapse)

Yet again you sidestep the point.  Which is par for your course I suppose.  The point was about the dichotomy between revering MOLLUS when MOLLUS reveres a racist like Lincoln.  I made that quite clear and the point definitely hit more than a nerve.  Personal or public, the point goes to the complexity of people's feelings on the issue.  Your whole exercise here is to try to prove that people who support leaving the monument where it is are wrong.  And they are wrong, in your view, because the monument glorifies the Confederacy.  Those people have just as much right to disregard the racist and promotion of the Confederacy by the UDC as you have to disregard Lincoln's blatant racism.  

I see absolutely no difference between you and them from a moral standpoint.  You have NO moral high ground here whatsoever.

You pretend to see no difference. Using the phrase personal or public is the real sidestep, as there is a huge, glaring difference between those two things. I have not in any place said they don't have the right to disregard the racist promotion of the Confederacy by the UDC. What I have questioned is the public funds and very prominent position of their statue and if it is still supported by the citizens of this county.  made the point that if they voted to erect it, they could also vote to take it down. Comparing that to a personal choice to join a group which in part glorifies Lincoln's role in maintaining the Union is not even in the same ballpark, even when you use the phrase "personal or public" as a smokescreen. We are talking about public here, in case you forgot. The complexity of people’s feelings? Whew, you're really starting to sound like an elbow-patched liberal there, hilarious! We are not talking about ‘private feelings’ or what someone does at home or as part of a private club. Lincoln was a flawed man, but in the end he was on the side fighting for the United States and against slavery, even though he had racist views. However, it was also the party of Lincoln that first put an end to slavery as part of its official platform, before the war ended. It was also Lincoln who in the end kept this country together. The UDC also promoted and supported the racist views of the Confederacy, which is something MOLLUS does not do with Lincoln. So even on a personal level, it is not the same.

Lincoln:"I think we want, and must have, a national policy in regard to the institution of slavery that acknowledges and deals with that institution as being wrong. Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and the nationalization of that institution yields all when he yields to any policy that either recognizes slavery as being right or as being an indifferent thing. Nothing will make you successful but setting up a policy which shall treat the thing as being wrong. When I say this I do not mean to say that this General Government is charged with the duty of redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world, but I do think that it is charged with preventing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs to itself. This Government is expressly charged with the duty of providing for the general welfare. We believe that the spreading and perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe, nay, we know, that that is the only thing that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which has ever menaced the destruction of the Government under which we live is this very thing. To repress this thing is, we think, providing for the general welfare."

It's also funny to see you try and put words in my mouth again, with the whole "But you and I are not going to agree that the only purpose of the monument is to glorify the Confederacy." I have never said that and again, that is why you can't quote me saying that to back up your fake point there. BTW, it's not a "public message board" it is a private message board used by members of the public, which again, is a big difference. In fact, I even used a quote that mentioned the memorial part specifically. It’s my opinion that is the main purpose, again, not the only one.

Also, there you go again, trying to put words in my mouth with your "it much easier for people like Yip to assume” because you can’t quote me. I never said that everyone that fought supported slavery. I never said that it "summarizes the motivations” but rather that your 1 in 10 apologist point was very misleading, of which there is little doubt - and even less so after this post. It’s much more than just a tiny degree - the support of slavery and its importance to the Southern cause was enshrined in many of their official documents of succession, word for word. Not in just private letters, but in the words of their leaders. Southerners didn't just have these views on slavery - they loudly supported them as an institution. They also shot down unarmed blacks who had surrendered in cold blood. As I mentioned earlier, there were 180,000 plus blacks fighting for the North. When slaves escaped, they ran North. That is clearly not because the North & South were the same in their views on slavery and the future of this county.

That which resides in the public square was put there by acclaimation and can therefore be moved or removed the same way.  

Agreed, as I said above. I disagree that it is entirely a manufactured crisis, I see it as more of a grassroots reaction to the recent rise in KKK gatherings and public appearances, the killings by Dylan Roof and the ongoing tension over various police killings, such as Walter Scott, Eric Garner and most recently Patrick Harmon. I also acknowledge the backhanded compliment, lol. It seems to me however, that you don't entirely comprehend what a race baiter of 'the worse sort' would really say here, so you latch on to what you consider 'the closest thing' and just use it when you are short on historical evidence. Anyway, I think I’ve made more than one good point here and you have certainly made a few of your own. I'm fine being called a social justice warrior, as I do support social justice. BTW, I've seen you be a social justice warrior here as well - but only on some issues.

Ok, so reviewing that 1-4 list again, are you really comparing the UDC views & Lincoln as equivalent as it seems there? Because it is not even close. With the UDC, you're talking about a group that did not just harbor some racist views, but who actively supported the KKK and attempted to legitimize their murderous activities as they killed babies, tortured innocent people and even burned people alive. The KKK lynched thousands without trial, killed sheriffs (with one example of this documented right here in Graham, NC). They castrated men with razors, bombed churches, poured burning hot tar on people, whipped old women, slit people’s throats and burned schools to the ground. So although Lincoln clearly did believe in the inferiority of the black race, to compare supporting Lincoln to supporting the KKK is completely ridiculous. On three, I have already said as such, as you know. On four, certainly the best way to go about it is by legal means.

My posts here are also to point out what the media coverage had not even mentioned - that the UDC did not just hold racists views, they actively supported and conducted PR efforts for the KKK and were part of the financial propaganda network that attempted to legitimize the KKK, even going so far as to ban certain textbooks. So sure, let's continue to have an honest public debate, with all the known facts - and let the chips fall where they may.



Title: Re: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro
Post by: Pi on October 18, 2017, 01:53:20 PM
Yip,

No one is dismissing any actual evidence.  You did in fact equate state's rights with racism.  Those of us who were reading the forum them remember it.  And while you deny it in one breath you state it again in the next.

I'm not downplaying the racist nature of the UDC.  But you're a Harper Valley hypocrite for saying that I am while you simultaneously try to downplay the racism of Lincoln.  I don't have a forum avatar that shows a logo of an organization that glorifies a racist.  You do.  Was Lincoln as racist as the UDC?  Perhaps not.  But then I'm not proudly displaying a MOLLUS emblem and you are.  Best thing you could have done is simply acknowledge the problematic nature of what you're doing.  I'm not saying that the UDC and Lincoln were one and the same.  But the fact that Lincoln was a racist should, at the very least, give you a moment to stop and reflect on things.

The point I made wasn't to liken Lincoln to the UDC.  The point I was making is that things are often complicated.  History has a rosy view of the victors, and such is the case when it comes to Lincoln.  MOLLUS clearly recognizes and glorifies Lincoln.  That's a fact.  But your perception of MOLLUS and Lincoln is interesting because it focuses on the positives and sort of excuses the negatives.

Thus, when modern day folks look at the monument in the center of town, they are also apt to focus on the fact that it is a memorial.  I'm simply asking you to apply the same consideration when it comes to others.

You are certainly free to reject my points, though you do admit from time to time that I've made good ones.  If I seem to make a point that you deem related to "social justice" it might just be true.  But understand that I always try to take the side of freedom.  Slavery and racism is the very opposite of freedom.

Social justice is all about the state forcing people to behave a certain way.  What I support is recognizing that people have the freedom to do as they please up to a certain point.  That point is when those actions affect others, and I don't mean hurting someone's feelings. 

As I said before, the monument was put there by public acclimation.  I really doubt, as you said, that there's much cost involved in maintaining it.  You've made it clear that you don't think much of those that fought for the South.  Most of them were "directly connected" to slavery in your opinion.  I disagree about that.  I've found different numbers that I shared above.  You're welcome to stick to your numbers.

You're welcome to keep discussing this, but really what this boils down to is you trying to convince others that removing the monument is the right thing to do.  I'm not so sure that is the right thing.  You don't seem to see that many people don't look at it as a symbol of racism.  I can see what you're trying to do is get people to first understand how racist the monument supposedly is and then change their minds.  I don't have a problem with that.

I don't even have a problem with you cherry picking facts.  But I do think you'll be more effective if you don't look down on those you're actually trying to convince.  You seem to interpret any disagreement with you as being rooted in ignorance.  Sometimes that's the case.  More often it is not.

Quite frankly, this is somewhat off topic.  This thread was about those that wanted to destroy the monument.  There were rumors going around that people would come in during the night and tear down the monument.  They didn't say they would hold a vigil or ask the city to remove it.  They were going to do it by force and use violence if necessary.

Whether or not that's true, I don't know.  I do know that has happened in other places and I don't think it is right.  It happened in Durham.  I'm not sure if you support those actions or not, to be honest.  For some reason I don't think you ever really discussed this aspect of the thread even though that's what it is actually about.

It seems that you're wanting a conversation about this, and I'm okay with that.  I'm not okay with people destroying the monument.