Chatham County Online BBS
November 20, 2017, 06:37:10 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: View 1000s of full-color action-filled local sports images at Chatham Photos
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Tags Login Register  
Digg This!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Down
  Send this topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: To Those Demanding the Destruction of the Monument in Pittsboro  (Read 5454 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #15 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?
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #16 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:



Here is the website for this organization.  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

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.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Ice Pilot2
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 20, 2017, 10:10:33 PM
Date Registerd:January 16, 2017, 12:07:59 PM
Posts: 139


« Reply #17 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: 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.

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?



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/

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

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.  
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 12:18:58 PM by Ice Pilot2 » Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #18 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.
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Ice Pilot2
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 20, 2017, 10:10:33 PM
Date Registerd:January 16, 2017, 12:07:59 PM
Posts: 139


« Reply #19 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.  
« Last Edit: August 21, 2017, 04:44:22 PM by Ice Pilot2 » Logged
1911A
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:Yesterday at 10:48:24 PM
Date Registerd:April 22, 2006, 04:24:28 PM
Posts: 8,674

"Stand Your Ground" by Charles McNaughton


« Reply #20 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/
Logged

"You are clearly a bigoted, racist pig." - Matilda

"Let us assume for the moment everything you say about me is true. That just makes your problem bigger, doesn't it?"

Vetustior Humo.
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 02, 2017, 03:41:05 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,827



« Reply #21 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

Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #22 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.   Wink

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.    
« Last Edit: August 22, 2017, 01:39:25 PM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
NC YIPPIE
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 02, 2017, 03:41:05 PM
Date Registerd:February 09, 2006, 03:52:41 PM
Posts: 9,827



« Reply #23 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.
Logged
Bill Crawford
Chathamite
***
Offline Offline

Last Login:September 21, 2017, 05:33:05 PM
Date Registerd:September 26, 2008, 01:53:33 PM
Posts: 359


« Reply #24 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.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 12:51:01 PM by Bill Crawford » Logged
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #25 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.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 05:54:07 AM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #26 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.  
Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Pi
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:October 18, 2017, 02:18:36 PM
Date Registerd:August 09, 2011, 10:12:40 AM
Posts: 4,510



« Reply #27 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

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.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2017, 05:52:19 AM by Pi » Logged

There are two ways to conquer and enslave a country. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams
Silk_Hope
Chathamohican
*****
Offline Offline

Last Login:November 17, 2017, 10:45:49 AM
Date Registerd:April 02, 2007, 08:29:04 PM
Posts: 10,499



« Reply #28 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
Logged

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government. -- Declaration of Independence
witler
Member
**
Offline Offline

Last Login:August 25, 2017, 10:45:39 AM
Date Registerd:July 22, 2011, 05:22:56 PM
Posts: 84


« Reply #29 on: August 25, 2017, 10:45:39 AM »

I guess it completes the liberal triangle, Chapel Hill, Cary and now Pittsboro.
Logged
Tags:
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4   Go Up
  Send this topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!