And, Still More About Flags

[Juniper]

I'd be interested in reading about that in a bit more detail. Could be...I just don't get it.

Hugo is stuck on the fact that in the past Dems were pubs and pubs were dems.

A lot of the far right loves to bring up the fact that The Klan were democrats and all that as if it has ANYthing to do with today.

Yes Indeed. When the president Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he famously said "We have lost the south".
And Ronald Reagan moved in to take it. 
And I agree that "if that has anything to do with it". The politics of the south are mired in a long tradition that they will only grudgingly give up. 

I'm interested in Juniper's comment above, " I'm certainly removed from the right, but I believe in keeping the Civil War Memorials, and the flags. I also, say: Let the local populations vote on the issue and then say no more." It's clear what you "believe" but not so clear why. Just curious.

I would say that just because some people want to see these things as signs of racism and oppression I can see how they can be both. I clearly see how some people  use them and own them in a negative way  as a way to display hatred and oppression, but I just as clearly see them in another way.  I see them as part of a heritage, I see that for some people,  they are symbols of deep pride and nationalism for a defeated Country. I admit there may be some denial mixed in there by those who cherish these symbols so much. But, I don't believe that every Southerner who has pride in symbols of the South has pride in the idea of slavery or oppression.  But what's more on my mind is why do I  have to believe that it is.  It's like a conversion attempt. Political Correctness shoved down my throat. I'm not black. I'm not a Southerner. I know of no family members who fought for North or South. I think I have less input on this than some others. Instead of keeping it something to battle  and foment over, let municipalities vote on it. That probably won't solve it either, but it's the only truly fair way I can think of for it.  Other than voluntary removal and creating museums where people can choose to go view these things or not.

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

[Wonky3]

Hugo is stuck on the fact that in the past Dems were pubs and pubs were dems.

A lot of the far right loves to bring up the fact that The Klan were democrats and all that as if it has ANYthing to do with today.

Yes Indeed. When the president Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he famously said "We have lost the south".
And Ronald Reagan moved in to take it. 
And I agree that "if that has anything to do with it". The politics of the south are mired in a long tradition that they will only grudgingly give up. 

I'm interested in Juniper's comment above, " I'm certainly removed from the right, but I believe in keeping the Civil War Memorials, and the flags. I also, say: Let the local populations vote on the issue and then say no more." It's clear what you "believe" but not so clear why. Just curious.

I would say that just because some people want to see these things as signs of racism and oppression I can see how they can be both. I clearly see how some people  use them and own them in a negative way  as a way to display hatred and oppression, but I just as clearly see them in another way.  I see them as part of a heritage, I see that for some people,  they are symbols of deep pride and nationalism for a defeated Country. I admit there may be some denial mixed in there by those who cherish these symbols so much. But, I don't believe that every Southerner who has pride in symbols of the South has pride in the idea of slavery or oppression.  But what's more on my mind is why do I  have to believe that it is.  It's like a conversion attempt. Political Correctness shoved down my throat. I'm not black. I'm not a Southerner. I know of no family members who fought for North or South. I think I have less input on this than some others. Instead of keeping it something to battle  and foment over, let municipalities vote on it. That probably won't solve it either, but it's the only truly fair way I can think of for it.  Other than voluntary removal and creating museums where people can choose to go view these things or not.

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Sorry. Your post was well done and you made how you feel very clear. I disagree with some of your views, but I've flooded the Topic with my view and don't know what more I could add. I think the crux of this is that we see symbols differently. That may never change.

[Juniper]

Yes Indeed. When the president Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he famously said "We have lost the south".
And Ronald Reagan moved in to take it. 
And I agree that "if that has anything to do with it". The politics of the south are mired in a long tradition that they will only grudgingly give up. 

I'm interested in Juniper's comment above, " I'm certainly removed from the right, but I believe in keeping the Civil War Memorials, and the flags. I also, say: Let the local populations vote on the issue and then say no more." It's clear what you "believe" but not so clear why. Just curious.

I would say that just because some people want to see these things as signs of racism and oppression I can see how they can be both. I clearly see how some people  use them and own them in a negative way  as a way to display hatred and oppression, but I just as clearly see them in another way.  I see them as part of a heritage, I see that for some people,  they are symbols of deep pride and nationalism for a defeated Country. I admit there may be some denial mixed in there by those who cherish these symbols so much. But, I don't believe that every Southerner who has pride in symbols of the South has pride in the idea of slavery or oppression.  But what's more on my mind is why do I  have to believe that it is.  It's like a conversion attempt. Political Correctness shoved down my throat. I'm not black. I'm not a Southerner. I know of no family members who fought for North or South. I think I have less input on this than some others. Instead of keeping it something to battle  and foment over, let municipalities vote on it. That probably won't solve it either, but it's the only truly fair way I can think of for it.  Other than voluntary removal and creating museums where people can choose to go view these things or not.

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Sorry. Your post was well done and you made how you feel very clear. I disagree with some of your views, but I've flooded the Topic with my view and don't know what more I could add. I think the crux of this is that we see symbols differently. That may never change.

Should have left it at that in that case.

[Wonky3]

I would say that just because some people want to see these things as signs of racism and oppression I can see how they can be both. I clearly see how some people  use them and own them in a negative way  as a way to display hatred and oppression, but I just as clearly see them in another way.  I see them as part of a heritage, I see that for some people,  they are symbols of deep pride and nationalism for a defeated Country. I admit there may be some denial mixed in there by those who cherish these symbols so much. But, I don't believe that every Southerner who has pride in symbols of the South has pride in the idea of slavery or oppression.  But what's more on my mind is why do I  have to believe that it is.  It's like a conversion attempt. Political Correctness shoved down my throat. I'm not black. I'm not a Southerner. I know of no family members who fought for North or South. I think I have less input on this than some others. Instead of keeping it something to battle  and foment over, let municipalities vote on it. That probably won't solve it either, but it's the only truly fair way I can think of for it.  Other than voluntary removal and creating museums where people can choose to go view these things or not.

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Sorry. Your post was well done and you made how you feel very clear. I disagree with some of your views, but I've flooded the Topic with my view and don't know what more I could add. I think the crux of this is that we see symbols differently. That may never change.

Should have left it at that in that case.

I guess. But I'm glad you did make that post. Again, we do disagree about the symbols discussed and because I've already posted about a million words (many poorly expressed) I don't know what real value it would be to "counter" your view that you expressed so well. We just feel differently and I doubt that continuing the discussion would make much difference. 
Thanks for taking the time to write a complete and well thought-out post. I really don't mean to ignore your thoughts. 
More than that, I can't explain.

[Hugo]

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Sorry. Your post was well done and you made how you feel very clear. I disagree with some of your views, but I've flooded the Topic with my view and don't know what more I could add. I think the crux of this is that we see symbols differently. That may never change.

Should have left it at that in that case.

I guess. But I'm glad you did make that post. Again, we do disagree about the symbols discussed and because I've already posted about a million words (many poorly expressed) I don't know what real value it would be to "counter" your view that you expressed so well. We just feel differently and I doubt that continuing the discussion would make much difference. 
Thanks for taking the time to write a complete and well thought-out post. I really don't mean to ignore your thoughts. 
More than that, I can't explain.

But having the last word on it sure feels good, don't it?

[Wonky3]

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Sorry. Your post was well done and you made how you feel very clear. I disagree with some of your views, but I've flooded the Topic with my view and don't know what more I could add. I think the crux of this is that we see symbols differently. That may never change.

Should have left it at that in that case.

I guess. But I'm glad you did make that post. Again, we do disagree about the symbols discussed and because I've already posted about a million words (many poorly expressed) I don't know what real value it would be to "counter" your view that you expressed so well. We just feel differently and I doubt that continuing the discussion would make much difference. 
Thanks for taking the time to write a complete and well thought-out post. I really don't mean to ignore your thoughts. 
More than that, I can't explain.

But having the last word on it sure feels good, don't it?

Hugo, your hostility is almost as obvious as your good looks. 
Did I spit in your beer or something?

[Hugo]

Sorry. Your post was well done and you made how you feel very clear. I disagree with some of your views, but I've flooded the Topic with my view and don't know what more I could add. I think the crux of this is that we see symbols differently. That may never change.

Should have left it at that in that case.

I guess. But I'm glad you did make that post. Again, we do disagree about the symbols discussed and because I've already posted about a million words (many poorly expressed) I don't know what real value it would be to "counter" your view that you expressed so well. We just feel differently and I doubt that continuing the discussion would make much difference. 
Thanks for taking the time to write a complete and well thought-out post. I really don't mean to ignore your thoughts. 
More than that, I can't explain.

But having the last word on it sure feels good, don't it?

Hugo, your hostility is almost as obvious as your good looks. 
Did I spit in your beer or something?

  And you prove me right....... again.

[tvguy]

Hugo is stuck on the fact that in the past Dems were pubs and pubs were dems.

A lot of the far right loves to bring up the fact that The Klan were democrats and all that as if it has ANYthing to do with today.

Yes Indeed. When the president Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he famously said "We have lost the south".
And Ronald Reagan moved in to take it. 
And I agree that "if that has anything to do with it". The politics of the south are mired in a long tradition that they will only grudgingly give up. 

I'm interested in Juniper's comment above, " I'm certainly removed from the right, but I believe in keeping the Civil War Memorials, and the flags. I also, say: Let the local populations vote on the issue and then say no more." It's clear what you "believe" but not so clear why. Just curious.

I would say that just because some people want to see these things as signs of racism and oppression I can see how they can be both. I clearly see how some people  use them and own them in a negative way  as a way to display hatred and oppression, but I just as clearly see them in another way.  I see them as part of a heritage, I see that for some people,  they are symbols of deep pride and nationalism for a defeated Country. I admit there may be some denial mixed in there by those who cherish these symbols so much. But, I don't believe that every Southerner who has pride in symbols of the South has pride in the idea of slavery or oppression.  But what's more on my mind is why do I  have to believe that it is.  It's like a conversion attempt. Political Correctness shoved down my throat. I'm not black. I'm not a Southerner. I know of no family members who fought for North or South. I think I have less input on this than some others. Instead of keeping it something to battle  and foment over, let municipalities vote on it. That probably won't solve it either, but it's the only truly fair way I can think of for it.  Other than voluntary removal and creating museums where people can choose to go view these things or not.

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Wonky....."Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era"

So according to you WHEN a statue was erected is proof of what it symbolizes.

"The term Reconstruction Era, in the context of the history of the United States, has two senses: the first covers the complete history of the entire country from [b]1865 to 1877"


"Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.Jul 19, 2017:


[/b] The  Reconstruction Era was from 1865 until 1877 and the Jim Crow era started at 1877.

So according to you a  statue symbolized racism if it was erected any time after 1877.
In other words cities ,counties or states only had 12 years to erect a stature starting at the very end of the civil war.
Or I assume AFTER the civil rights act?

So what if some cities ,counties or states didn't get the memo stating the exact window of time a statue was erected symbolized racism or simply honored Robert R Lee?



 

[Wonky3]

Yes Indeed. When the president Johnson signed the 1964 Civil Rights Act he famously said "We have lost the south".
And Ronald Reagan moved in to take it. 
And I agree that "if that has anything to do with it". The politics of the south are mired in a long tradition that they will only grudgingly give up. 

I'm interested in Juniper's comment above, " I'm certainly removed from the right, but I believe in keeping the Civil War Memorials, and the flags. I also, say: Let the local populations vote on the issue and then say no more." It's clear what you "believe" but not so clear why. Just curious.

I would say that just because some people want to see these things as signs of racism and oppression I can see how they can be both. I clearly see how some people  use them and own them in a negative way  as a way to display hatred and oppression, but I just as clearly see them in another way.  I see them as part of a heritage, I see that for some people,  they are symbols of deep pride and nationalism for a defeated Country. I admit there may be some denial mixed in there by those who cherish these symbols so much. But, I don't believe that every Southerner who has pride in symbols of the South has pride in the idea of slavery or oppression.  But what's more on my mind is why do I  have to believe that it is.  It's like a conversion attempt. Political Correctness shoved down my throat. I'm not black. I'm not a Southerner. I know of no family members who fought for North or South. I think I have less input on this than some others. Instead of keeping it something to battle  and foment over, let municipalities vote on it. That probably won't solve it either, but it's the only truly fair way I can think of for it.  Other than voluntary removal and creating museums where people can choose to go view these things or not.

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Wonky....."Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era"

So according to you WHEN a statue was erected is proof of what it symbolizes.

"The term Reconstruction Era, in the context of the history of the United States, has two senses: the first covers the complete history of the entire country from [b]1865 to 1877"


"Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.Jul 19, 2017:


[/b] The  Reconstruction Era was from 1865 until 1877 and the Jim Crow era started at 1877.

So according to you a  statue symbolized racism if it was erected any time after 1877.
In other words cities ,counties or states only had 12 years to erect a stature starting at the very end of the civil war.
Or I assume AFTER the civil rights act?

So what if some cities ,counties or states didn't get the memo stating the exact window of time a statue was erected symbolized racism or simply honored Robert R Lee?



 

The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).
During Reconstruction, it was not done for obvious reasons. 
After "Jim Crow" had "settled the dust" is was, for the most part, The Daughters of The Confederacy who started the practice: From WIKI...


The United Daughters of the Confederacy, also known as the UDC, is a hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894. The stated purpose of the organization is to commemorate Confederate soldiers and its main activity is the erection of monuments to these men, and its promotion of the Lost Cause movement.

Note the date. 


Not that I care all that much. You have made your feelings about this clear, I've been as clear as possible about my views, and I doubt this really needs a lot more attention.

[tvguy]

I would say that just because some people want to see these things as signs of racism and oppression I can see how they can be both. I clearly see how some people  use them and own them in a negative way  as a way to display hatred and oppression, but I just as clearly see them in another way.  I see them as part of a heritage, I see that for some people,  they are symbols of deep pride and nationalism for a defeated Country. I admit there may be some denial mixed in there by those who cherish these symbols so much. But, I don't believe that every Southerner who has pride in symbols of the South has pride in the idea of slavery or oppression.  But what's more on my mind is why do I  have to believe that it is.  It's like a conversion attempt. Political Correctness shoved down my throat. I'm not black. I'm not a Southerner. I know of no family members who fought for North or South. I think I have less input on this than some others. Instead of keeping it something to battle  and foment over, let municipalities vote on it. That probably won't solve it either, but it's the only truly fair way I can think of for it.  Other than voluntary removal and creating museums where people can choose to go view these things or not.

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Wonky....."Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era"

So according to you WHEN a statue was erected is proof of what it symbolizes.

"The term Reconstruction Era, in the context of the history of the United States, has two senses: the first covers the complete history of the entire country from [b]1865 to 1877"


"Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.Jul 19, 2017:


[/b] The  Reconstruction Era was from 1865 until 1877 and the Jim Crow era started at 1877.

So according to you a  statue symbolized racism if it was erected any time after 1877.
In other words cities ,counties or states only had 12 years to erect a stature starting at the very end of the civil war.
Or I assume AFTER the civil rights act?

So what if some cities ,counties or states didn't get the memo stating the exact window of time a statue was erected symbolized racism or simply honored Robert R Lee?



 

The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).
During Reconstruction, it was not done for obvious reasons. 
After "Jim Crow" had "settled the dust" is was, for the most part, The Daughters of The Confederacy who started the practice: From WIKI...


The United Daughters of the Confederacy, also known as the UDC, is a hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894. The stated purpose of the organization is to commemorate Confederate soldiers and its main activity is the erection of monuments to these men, and its promotion of the Lost Cause movement.

Note the date. 


Not that I care all that much. You have made your feelings about this clear, I've been as clear as possible about my views, and I doubt this really needs a lot more attention.

I don't give a rats ass if you "doubt this really needs a lot more attention."

Sorry but you are NOT in control and like Hugo said you just want the last word.


The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).

Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans.

 

[Wonky3]

Could be. 
Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era when racism became again overt and oppressive. 
I've posted my own attitudes and feelings, to a fault, so have nothing more to add.

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Wonky....."Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era"

So according to you WHEN a statue was erected is proof of what it symbolizes.

"The term Reconstruction Era, in the context of the history of the United States, has two senses: the first covers the complete history of the entire country from [b]1865 to 1877"


"Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.Jul 19, 2017:


[/b] The  Reconstruction Era was from 1865 until 1877 and the Jim Crow era started at 1877.

So according to you a  statue symbolized racism if it was erected any time after 1877.
In other words cities ,counties or states only had 12 years to erect a stature starting at the very end of the civil war.
Or I assume AFTER the civil rights act?

So what if some cities ,counties or states didn't get the memo stating the exact window of time a statue was erected symbolized racism or simply honored Robert R Lee?



 

The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).
During Reconstruction, it was not done for obvious reasons. 
After "Jim Crow" had "settled the dust" is was, for the most part, The Daughters of The Confederacy who started the practice: From WIKI...


The United Daughters of the Confederacy, also known as the UDC, is a hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894. The stated purpose of the organization is to commemorate Confederate soldiers and its main activity is the erection of monuments to these men, and its promotion of the Lost Cause movement.

Note the date. 


Not that I care all that much. You have made your feelings about this clear, I've been as clear as possible about my views, and I doubt this really needs a lot more attention.

I don't give a rats ass if you "doubt this really needs a lot more attention."

Sorry but you are NOT in control and like Hugo said you just want the last word.


The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).

Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans.

 

I don't know. 
We have covered this ground, it seems. I guess we just disagree. 
One point: 
You say: "Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans."
Well, in a sense.
Central the argument I tried to make earlier was that when the CSA succeeded from The Union, they were no longer part of THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA. 
I guess geography would describe them as Americans, but politically they were a separate nation intent on defeating the USA. 
But, they were defeated. Defeated armies and peoples seldom (ever?) glorify that defeat. 

And...I'm just repeating myself. Then you will repeat yourself. My views are only opinions based on the history I've read and the feelings I've adopted over the years. I might be a wrong as rain during a picnic. So, after expressing the things I have, I can't do any more. 
Unless you have something new to offer, neither can you. 
Let's agree to disagree.

[Juniper]

Well, that's lame. I wouldn't have posted at all if you hadn't said you wanted to hear more.  

Wonky....."Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era"

So according to you WHEN a statue was erected is proof of what it symbolizes.

"The term Reconstruction Era, in the context of the history of the United States, has two senses: the first covers the complete history of the entire country from [b]1865 to 1877"


"Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.Jul 19, 2017:


[/b] The  Reconstruction Era was from 1865 until 1877 and the Jim Crow era started at 1877.

So according to you a  statue symbolized racism if it was erected any time after 1877.
In other words cities ,counties or states only had 12 years to erect a stature starting at the very end of the civil war.
Or I assume AFTER the civil rights act?

So what if some cities ,counties or states didn't get the memo stating the exact window of time a statue was erected symbolized racism or simply honored Robert R Lee?



 

The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).
During Reconstruction, it was not done for obvious reasons. 
After "Jim Crow" had "settled the dust" is was, for the most part, The Daughters of The Confederacy who started the practice: From WIKI...


The United Daughters of the Confederacy, also known as the UDC, is a hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894. The stated purpose of the organization is to commemorate Confederate soldiers and its main activity is the erection of monuments to these men, and its promotion of the Lost Cause movement.

Note the date. 


Not that I care all that much. You have made your feelings about this clear, I've been as clear as possible about my views, and I doubt this really needs a lot more attention.

I don't give a rats ass if you "doubt this really needs a lot more attention."

Sorry but you are NOT in control and like Hugo said you just want the last word.


The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).

Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans.

 

I don't know. 
We have covered this ground, it seems. I guess we just disagree. 
One point: 
You say: "Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans."
Well, in a sense.
Central the argument I tried to make earlier was that when the CSA succeeded from The Union, they were no longer part of THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA. 
I guess geography would describe them as Americans, but politically they were a separate nation intent on defeating the USA. 
But, they were defeated. Defeated armies and peoples seldom (ever?) glorify that defeat. 

And...I'm just repeating myself. Then you will repeat yourself. My views are only opinions based on the history I've read and the feelings I've adopted over the years. I might be a wrong as rain during a picnic. So, after expressing the things I have, I can't do any more. 
Unless you have something new to offer, neither can you. 
Let's agree to disagree.

Then, why not let this thread die?  Why keep flogging it back into position?

[tvguy]

Wonky....."Curious that the statues and memorials went up AFTER Reconstruction and DURING the Jim Crow era"

So according to you WHEN a statue was erected is proof of what it symbolizes.

"The term Reconstruction Era, in the context of the history of the United States, has two senses: the first covers the complete history of the entire country from [b]1865 to 1877"


"Jim Crow law, in U.S. history, any of the laws that enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.Jul 19, 2017:


[/b] The  Reconstruction Era was from 1865 until 1877 and the Jim Crow era started at 1877.

So according to you a  statue symbolized racism if it was erected any time after 1877.
In other words cities ,counties or states only had 12 years to erect a stature starting at the very end of the civil war.
Or I assume AFTER the civil rights act?

So what if some cities ,counties or states didn't get the memo stating the exact window of time a statue was erected symbolized racism or simply honored Robert R Lee?



 

The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).
During Reconstruction, it was not done for obvious reasons. 
After "Jim Crow" had "settled the dust" is was, for the most part, The Daughters of The Confederacy who started the practice: From WIKI...


The United Daughters of the Confederacy, also known as the UDC, is a hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894. The stated purpose of the organization is to commemorate Confederate soldiers and its main activity is the erection of monuments to these men, and its promotion of the Lost Cause movement.

Note the date. 


Not that I care all that much. You have made your feelings about this clear, I've been as clear as possible about my views, and I doubt this really needs a lot more attention.

I don't give a rats ass if you "doubt this really needs a lot more attention."

Sorry but you are NOT in control and like Hugo said you just want the last word.


The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).

Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans.

 

I don't know. 
We have covered this ground, it seems. I guess we just disagree. 
One point: 
You say: "Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans."
Well, in a sense.
Central the argument I tried to make earlier was that when the CSA succeeded from The Union, they were no longer part of THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA. 
I guess geography would describe them as Americans, but politically they were a separate nation intent on defeating the USA. 
But, they were defeated. Defeated armies and peoples seldom (ever?) glorify that defeat. 

And...I'm just repeating myself. Then you will repeat yourself. My views are only opinions based on the history I've read and the feelings I've adopted over the years. I might be a wrong as rain during a picnic. So, after expressing the things I have, I can't do any more. 
Unless you have something new to offer, neither can you. 
Let's agree to disagree.

Then, why not let this thread die?  Why keep flogging it back into position?

"Central to the argument I tried to make earlier was that when the CSA succeeded from The Union, they were no longer part of THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA."


Central to the argument... when the civil war was over we were ALL Americans. To honor soldiers on either side with a statue did not have to mean you honor the reasons for the war.

 

[Juniper]

The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).
During Reconstruction, it was not done for obvious reasons. 
After "Jim Crow" had "settled the dust" is was, for the most part, The Daughters of The Confederacy who started the practice: From WIKI...


The United Daughters of the Confederacy, also known as the UDC, is a hereditary association of Southern women established in 1894. The stated purpose of the organization is to commemorate Confederate soldiers and its main activity is the erection of monuments to these men, and its promotion of the Lost Cause movement.

Note the date. 


Not that I care all that much. You have made your feelings about this clear, I've been as clear as possible about my views, and I doubt this really needs a lot more attention.

I don't give a rats ass if you "doubt this really needs a lot more attention."

Sorry but you are NOT in control and like Hugo said you just want the last word.


The people who make this point explain by saying that a defeated army does not often erect statues and memorials of it's leaders. (Historical fact).

Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans.

 

I don't know. 
We have covered this ground, it seems. I guess we just disagree. 
One point: 
You say: "Never mind that in this case both the winners and losers were Americans."
Well, in a sense.
Central the argument I tried to make earlier was that when the CSA succeeded from The Union, they were no longer part of THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA. 
I guess geography would describe them as Americans, but politically they were a separate nation intent on defeating the USA. 
But, they were defeated. Defeated armies and peoples seldom (ever?) glorify that defeat. 

And...I'm just repeating myself. Then you will repeat yourself. My views are only opinions based on the history I've read and the feelings I've adopted over the years. I might be a wrong as rain during a picnic. So, after expressing the things I have, I can't do any more. 
Unless you have something new to offer, neither can you. 
Let's agree to disagree.

Then, why not let this thread die?  Why keep flogging it back into position?

"Central to the argument I tried to make earlier was that when the CSA succeeded from The Union, they were no longer part of THE UNTIED STATES OF AMERICA."


Central to the argument... when the civil war was over we were ALL Americans. To honor soldiers on either side with a statue did not have to mean you honor the reasons for the war.

 

The United States instead of These United States.

[tvguy]

Read what it says.