Myrtle Hill Cemetery descreated Civil War soldier (courtesy
Previous Post
Next Post

If I was a German Jew, I wouldn’t be comfortable walking past statues honoring famous German soldiers or commanders who served the Fatherland during the Nazi era, no matter how valiant their service. So I understand why many descendants of American slaves aren’t OK with Civil War statuary immortalizing Confederate soldier or commanders. But I don’t approve of this [via] . . .

The national controversy over historical monuments made its way to Rome [Georgia] at mid-week when a Confederate monument atop historic Myrtle Hill Cemetery was broken up and smashed by a person or persons who went to a great deal of difficulty to make their statement. The damage to the monument was discovered early Thursday morning.

The statue depicts a Confederate soldier with his arms in front of him holding a long rifle, upright in his hand. The hands and rifle were knocked off, the face was bashed in and the brim of the hat broken off.

“It looked like it was surgically cut,” said Rome City Manager Sammy Rich.”It’s just super disappointing that somebody would go to that much trouble to get up there, put a ladder up or whatever to reach it.

The term “super disappointing” doesn’t say much about Mr. Rich’s cultural sensitivity. Or maybe it does. Anyway, desecration is desecration, right?

Short of public defilement, do you think Civil War statues and monuments honoring Confederate military men should be removed from public view? What’s the downside of doing so?

Previous Post
Next Post


  1. Problem with Robert Farago’s assumption is it’s NOT the ‘former’ slaves as their are none. Secondly the civil war was NOT fought because of slavery. Get an education of shut up on subject you have no idea about.

      • It wasn’t…
        WW1 was about the people that really controlled the British empire destroying germany to counter it’s rise in economic power due to chemical innovations. These chemicals required oil which germany had been actively trying to secure, which is why WW1 was the first war for oil in Iraq.

        WW2 was essentially a german uprising and pushback against the continual and deliberate demoralization and destruction of culture implemented after the destruction by war (look up what was going in in the weimar republic) , as well as the ongoing terrorism being waged by communist bolshevik rebels that were being funded and imported from outside of germany (Does sound familiar to current events? It should)

        Hitler didn’t wake up one day and decide “Hey lets be evil and hate the jews for no reason!”. Whether you like them or not, everything the nazi’s did was a logical and predicable reaction to the shit that was going on. They were made, not born.

        There is much more going on in any war than you will ever learn from just listening to simplistic propaganda, and it’d serve you well to understand why things happened if you don’t want a repeat of history.

        • No, Hitler developed his hate, and syphilis, over many years.

          The kindling for the Nazi party was the heavy handed way in which the Treaty of Versailles was implemented. Then the Great Depression happened, and a Nationalistic Populism throwing the blame at the Jews and mongrel races, looked good to the people.

          I love the excuses being generated on this thread about Nazi’s and Confederates, I mean its not like you can’t actually read the speeches of the founders. If they’re saying the Civil War was because of slavery, why not just let them speak for themselves. Mein Kampf was written in 1925, 8 years before Hitler was Chancellor.

        • B-Rad, I wouldn’t take everything in a speech as gospel; we all heard lots of BS in politician’s speeches. I don’t know when that started, but maybe it isn’t such new trend.

      • Binder – No WWII was NOT fought over the Holocaust, the Holocaust happened during WWII. Get out of mom’s basement, get a life, and get an educations!

        • Wow, just wow.

          OK, let me spell it out for you.

          WW2 was not fought over the holocaust, I think a little something called the The Treaty of Versailles and the Great Depression had a little more to do with it. (Good thing the Allies learned their lesson about that after the war.) But the Holocaust made it unacceptable to have monuments to the Germans who fought and died. Well, slavery taints the sacrifices made by the Confederate solders who also fought and died. No matter how much some people want to separate the two.

        • Except there are memorials to some of the fallen German soldiers from WW2, as there should be. Quit spouting that holocaust shit. Not everything in WW2 was about jews, even though they like to think it is and milk it for shekels.

    • Speaking of shutting up…
      Those who assert that the Civil War was not about slavery show an understanding of history akin to those who think the Second Amendment only referred to muskets.

      States’ rights, states’ rights, yeah. The only states’ right in dispute was the right to own slaves.

      • The Confederate Constitution forbade any state in the Confederacy from imposing limits on slavery. So much for ‘states’ rights’. They certainly didn’t object to the Fugitive Slave Act either.

      • Absent Lincoln’s election their would have been no secession at that time. Lincoln’s invasion of the South which followed had NOTHING to do with Black Slavery.

        • Do you know that the Confederates attacked first, and invaded the north first.

          If this is the history that we’re erasing, I’m all for it, because its exactly 100% wrong. You should actually know the history that you’re erasing, yours is closer to Lord of the Rings than reality. Complete fantasy land.

        • Lincoln’s election precipitated the succession. The Democrats had split, and had run three candidates. that diluted their vote, and created a Republican victory. The election of Trump caused some of the same behavior as Lincoln’s election.
          The Civil War can be discribed as a “conservative revolt.” Southerners saw their influence in government fading, the lack of suitable land to expand cotton production, and industrialization replacing agriculture. (Think of the tariff issue.) Succession was to maintain, not change a way of life.
          Slavery was the abortion issue of the day. Ask for an opinion on abortion today, and you’ll find absolute positions and no wish to compromise.

        • The point was, that Lincoln invaded the south. Well yes, after the south had initiated the war, invaded the north, sacked DC, invaded all the way to Vermont. The north invading the south initially is just pure fantasy land.

          Ft. Sumter, Virginia campaign of 1861.

        • “The point was, that Lincoln invaded the south. Well yes, after the south had initiated the war, invaded the north, sacked DC, invaded all the way to Vermont. The north invading the south initially is just pure fantasy land.”

          When did the south “sack” DC?

          When did the south invade “all the way to Vermont?

          Speaking of fantasy lands….

        • How about the St. Albans Raid, October 19th, 1864, as in St. Albans Vermont. Did the Confederates start from the Canadian side, yes, it was still the Confederates, still Vermont, still war, so…

          After the Battle of Bull Run during the Manassas Campaign the Confederates began indiscriminate shelling of Washington, then on July 11th and 12th of 1864 at the Battle of Fort Stevens, the Union Army defeated the invasion force of Jubal Early, that would be in Northwest DC. The capital was under constant harassment and bombardment for much of the war, although the perimeter defenses were sufficient to deny the southern armies a complete take over of the city. Most government agencies had relocated to NYC since nearly all of the surrounding residential land was under constant threat or actual control of the Confederate Army.

      • The problem is labeling. It was not a civil war, but a war of secession. If the original 13 colonies could secede from Britain, why couln’t the South secede from the North?

        • There was no legal basis for refusal to acknowledge secession. Indeed, the question was very much in doubt prior to Fort Sumter. We tend to believe that the issue was settled via the war, but it was only tabled. There are still disagreements, and much discussion in history. One of the least opaque discussions I have read can be found at:

          Part of the discussion regards our times, and is tenuously anchored in the history of the union. But overall, it is a good read.

        • Did the Confederacy allow states to secede from it?

          As with apologists for Imperial Japan, there’s a lot of hypocrisy in neo-Confederite circles.

      • Curtis in IL – You just proved the saying – Keep your mouth shut and the world may think you a fool, open it and remove all doubt!

      • Explain why the Federal government had allowed slavery since 1776.

        Explain why slavery remained legal throughout the war (1860-65) in 7 Union States and inside DC.

        The United States never tried to “end” Slavery during the war. Therefore the Confederacy wasn’t defending anything but their own territory, homes and families.

        • People can evolve and recognize something wrong, and do something about it.

          And, the south didn’t just defend their homes, blah blah blah. They left the United States, created their own nation, initiated hostilities with the United States, invaded the United States, then got smashed by the superiority of the northern industrial complex.

          The Civil War was exactly about slavery, as the alternative in the south to industrialization, they didn’t have the natural resources, capital, and technical knowledge to compete, and saw the societal change coming, slavery would end, and those in power had built their wealth and power with the economic benefits of owning people. Slavery was the proximate cause of the war, period.

        • All you need to do to know what the war was fought over, is listen to what the Confederate leadership had to say on the matter back in 1861.

          “Our new government is founded upon exactly idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

          “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin. ”

          “The people of Georgia have ever been willing to stand by this bargain, this contract; they have never sought to evade any of its obligations; they have never hitherto sought to establish any new government; they have struggled to maintain the ancient right of themselves and the human race through and by that Constitution. But they know the value of parchment rights in treacherous hands, and therefore they refuse to commit their own to the rulers whom the North offers us. Why? Because by their declared principles and policy they have outlawed $3,000,000,000 of our property in the common territories of the Union; put it under the ban of the Republic in the States where it exists and out of the protection of Federal law everywhere”

          “On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.”

          “In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color– a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

          “As a people, we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag [“Stainless Banner”] would thus be emblematical of our cause. Such a flag would soon take rank among the proudest ensigns of the nations, and be hailed by the civilized world as THE WHITE MAN’S FLAG”

          • Slavery existed. Modern slavery (defined as permanent control or ownership of a person based upon identifiable characteristics of that person) began with Muslim faithful who bought black Africans from other black Africans, when the Islamic terrorists of the 14th Century had run out of captured locals from captured or pirated lands. These Islamists then recognized an opportunity and began reselling black Africans to any willing to buy. Med states (Eurpoean, Levantine and African) were among the first buyers, but Northern European and Asian buyers also participated. When the American continents were discovered by Europeans, Muslim slave traders had black African slaves available to serve the new markets. The most prolific buyers in the developing market were New England merchants who resold slaves all around the North Atlantic

            So if Muslims created the business (and to this day still buy and sell slaves), New Englanders exploted the trade in humans, the entire colonial system used slaves, and the United States permitted slaves – Why do agenda driven revisionists blame the Confederate States in their entirety for a common practice that only about one percent of Southerners actually participated in?

            The North fought for two years – opposed only to the South’s “right” to remove itself from the Union – without once arguing it was slavery. Only when the very real threat of an alliance between the UK and the Confederate States forced Lincoln’s hand did the politics of slavery create a new issue in 1863. Lincoln’s “Emancipation Proclamation” freed no slaves and was not intended to do enything more than freeze England – which had just ended slavery itself. The UK did not join the CSA in the war, but notably – after Lincoln’s proclamation became public the North had to depend upon it’s draft to get people to fight.

            How is it that the war, argued by some on this forum to be exclusively about slavery, was fought almost exclusively by southern volunteers who never owned, or expected to own, a slave? How could the South put an entirely volunteer army in the field that was – for three years – the equal to the larger industrialized North which had to draft people to field an army? If the cause was “slavery” why would anyone not involved in slavery, participate? If the issue was slavery, why did Maryland and Delaware, slave states, field armies FOR THE NORTH?

            People, please use your head for something besides the race baiting, class warfare, liberal garbage long pushed by the revisionist Democrats.

          • Slavery was legal. Legal. Constitutionally Legal. Period. Full stop.

            The abolitionists were trying to deprive southern states of “rights” and powers of the states to determine the laws of their states. The issue was the legality of using legislative (as in not a constitutional amendment) measures to end slavery and prohibit future expansion (new states had all the rights of states already in the union).

            If the constitution protects behavior that you find distasteful, neither you nor any posse, has the constitutional right to remove that protected behavior without going through the amendment process, or launching a new revolution to make things be the way you like.

            The issue was powers/rights of states under the constitution. The proximate cause was slavery (property rights). It is important to understand the distinction.

    • The one that needs an education is you. Or rather you should stop reading that revisionist history. This is from the Mississippi Declaration of Secession:

      “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.”

      Are you going to still claim the Civil War wasn’t about slavery? No doubt you will since you’re too far gone into the Neo-Confederate nonsense.

      • The two sides were fighting for different things. Read Lincolns own words. Keeping the Union intact was primary for him.

        Iraq has WMDs morphed into Iraqi Freedom for some odd reason /sarc

        I was there in 2003 to see this history rewrite myself.

        Those who think that the primary reason for the War for Southern Independence was slavery I will say it was a bit more complex than that.

        • The Confederate States left because they were afraid Lincoln was going to ban slavery. It’s just like when states threatened to secede when Obama and Trump came into office because they were afraid of what they MIGHT do, only the truth is that Lincoln didn’t actually want to ban slavery right away, but do away with it over time. Once the war was in full swing he banned slavery for the CSA as a kick in the teeth, but allowed Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia to keep their slaves.

        • Read Alexander Stephen’s “Cornerstone Speech.” Stephens was the confederate vice-president and in March 1861 spoke on the reasons for the war:

          “The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution…Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.”

        • Fake News, that’s a leftist commie liberal, spreading disinformation and lies. The Confederacy was created to allow states rights and tarriff’s, or not tarriff’s. All people were created, and stuff. Line Item Veto, bitches.

        • I think I remember some speeches (some by President no less) about the WMDs in Iraq. But no “Sorry, we didn’t find any WMDs, my bad, going home now.” speeches.

        • Do not forget that Syria recently used Iraqi chemical weapons on it’s own citizens. Turns out – there really were WMDs in Iraq before the invasion – but Hussein sent them to his buddy in Syria for safekeeping during the “international inspections” the UN fumbled. So the manic rants of anti-Bush43 socialists like Obama and his democrats, are just as dishonest today as they were in 2008. Very much like their current “Trump is racist” and “white privilege” and if it isn’t liberal socialist it’s “racist.” The “destroy all things Confederate” movement is part of that vile, divisive bigotry.

        • anonymoose, it’s not accurate to say Lincoln allowed northern states to keep their slaves, because he didn’t have the authority to change their status in the first place — only Congress had that authority. The reason he could ban slavery in the South was because those states were considered to be under military authority and he was the CiC.

          • “…he didn’t have the authority to change their status in the first place — only Congress had that authority.”

            Your thinking may have run ahead of your typing. Congress did not have the authority to abolish slavery, either. Only the states, via a constitutional amendment, could abolish slavery. Which was the entire point of secession.

    • The civil war WAS fought because of slavery.. coming from someone who has an education. and also coming from someone that’s read the succession statements that made it impossible for both sides to come to an agreement.

      Slavery is bad. The Civil War was about slavery.. period… anyone else that says otherwise is trying to cherry pick something that isn’t even there. And no one’s falling for it anymore.

      • An education is sniffing glue? I mean if slavery was the reason for the season, it is confirmed by the North totally banning slavery for themselves first and not engaging in any economic actions that might have enraged a large swath of the nation, right? Oh wait…

        Neither side was innocent. Get over it.

        • It cannot be denied that there were plenty of racists in the North–and Lincoln’s winning the nomination reflected that split, as well as Lincoln’s reluctance to ban slavery in the north because he recognized that it would lose him many votes in the midwestern states and their German American voters. Chase, by contrast, was an absolute abolitionist, and it cost him the nomination.

          Slavery was the life blood, the economic engine of the South. This element of the Southern cause cannot be overlooked or ignoo\red. The South was convinced that without slavery, its entire way of life would be crushed, and the powers were not going to allow that to happen. The Missouri compromise satisfied no one, and instead lead to major massacres in Kansas and Missouri committed by both sides.

          Yes, “states’ rights” played a part–the claimed right of the Southern states to remain slave states, and the ongoing conflict as to whether new states would be able to determine that issue for themselves rather than by federal fiat. And it is also true that many rebel soldiers were nothing but “po’ white trash” that owned little if any land and no slaves, who fought for the “glorious south” and “southern rights to self-determination” preached to them by their politicians and preachers. Were they racist? Undoubtedly–their social stats as “white men” was dependent on the continued institution of slavery.

      • “The Civil War was about slavery.. period”

        Nope. Get a refund for your education.

        The civil war was about whether one section of the country could remove, repeal, overturn, eradicate a constitutionally-protected right to property without amending the constitution, and whether, even if the constitution had survived ratification, the constitution prevented a sovereign state from voluntarily quitting the union. The reason these two legal issues resulted in a civil war was that one section wanted to preserve (and allow new states to implement) slavery that was not prohibited by the constitution.

        In April 1864 (year before the end of the war), the Senate passed the 13th. Opposition from Democrats in the House killed the bill. In November of 1864 (Lincoln’s re-election), Lincoln got eight Democrats to switch votes (likely because the re-election was “writing on the wall”). The proposed amendment went to the states, and was ratified (Georgia). After that followed Oregon, California, Florida, Iowa, New Jersey, Texas, Delaware*, Kentucky*, Missippi*. (37 states so far; the 13th was specifically rejected by Deleware in February 1865, New Jersey in March 1865, and Mississippi in December 1865)
        (*after 1900)

        The first constitutional issue was whether simple “moral” legislation could invalidate a constitutionally-protected right to property (slavery and indentured servitude of other than punishment of a crime). The second issue was secession, which was not prohibited by the constitution.

        Ultimately, there was no universal agreement in the northern states that states could not nullify their compact with the central government (the states were sovereign). Nor was there universal opposition to slavery among the northern states. Indeed, if PTG Beauregard has not fired on Fort Sumter, secession might have been accepted by the remaining federal union. Regardless of the merits (or not) of the legal arguments, the unprovoked attack on Fort Sumter settled the hash. A sovereign state attacked the sovereign (delegated) federal government of other sovereign states. It would have been no different if Beauregard had fired on Pennsylvania.

        Final note in this history lesson: Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation freed zero slaves in the Confederacy. Indeed, he had no legal authority to expropriate property in states remaining in the union. The Proclamation rested on war powers of the President to take necessary measures to prosecute the war (recruiting “freed slaves” into the army). The Proclamation did not apply to slave states not in rebellion (Kentucky, Maryland, Delaware, Missouri).

        • ^^^

          Ding! Ding! Ding!

          We have a winner! And by winner, I mean someone who actually know WTF they are talking about on the subject matter.

        • The property that you don’t name, that was people, not a rake. You’re trying to defend a war for the south to ensure that the rights of the rake and the people were the same.

          I know, “You’re looking at it with modern eyes” yeah, because I don’t have a time machine and the 1st Marine Division. Dumb people 160 years ago doesn’t mean you should defend it today, you have frickin modern eyes too. You introduce me the poor sharecropper, who “didn’t know no better” and I’ll eat a turd, I’m thinking they’ve been dead for a while. I’ve even less sympathy for the tiny minority that lost their “property” the conquering army didn’t steal the rakes, they were people, and depopulating the males on a continent didn’t work out well did it.

          The north had no great love for the black people, but they at least saw that they were frickin people.

          “Deny them their property rights” STFU

          • You are taking the simple-minded approach to a complex problem. Your remarks seem to indicate that because you don’t like something, then that thing must be rectified, even if it means perverting, ignoring or twisting the law to do so.

            To defend the constitution is not to agree with its every sentence. If that were necessary, we would have no constitution at all. The “slavery” issue was punted in the effort to gain enough votes to ratify the current constitution. Without the subterfuge of permitting southern states to maintain their “property”, while corralling the power of an unending increase in “people” who were slaves, you would have a very different history.

            Just because you are offended that something you dislike was legal under the constitution, does not mean that something can be overturned simply because it is offensive. Slaves were not only property, they posed significant political power for the slave-holding states. Every slave counted as a “person” for purposes of apportioning delegates to the House of Representatives (the mere fact I must explain this to you should shame your understanding of your own history). The southern states could continue to expand their numbers in the House by merely increasing the number of slaves in their states. Seeing this, the founders insisted on the “3/5s” rule. It was not that all the white people thought of black people as only “3/5s” human, or “3/5s” of a person, but that assigning that value to slaves placed a bit of a throttle on southern power resulting from increased slavery.

            The above situation held for about fifty years. Then, two things collided: abolitionist agitation, and creation of new states to the west. The southern states noted that the political leaders of the north wanted to abolish slavery with simple legislation, rather than amending the constitution properly (because the abolitionists would lose). The southern states also saw that the northern states were also intent on stopping slavery by legislating that no new states could be brought into the union as “slave states”. This was perceived as another attempt to legislate around the constitution.

            Once the southern states recognized that the northern states would never end their abolitionist campaign, the southern states foresaw a nation that refused to recognize the constitutional right to own slaves in the southern states, a nation that would eventually be hostile to the very fabric of southern states. AS SOVEREIGN political powers, the southern states found the only way to preserve their way of life was to rescind all the powers delegated to the central government, and once done, there was no union to which the southern states would belong. The upshot is that the southern states believed the northern states were in breach of the contract constituting the union, thus the southern states were free of the association, free to go their own way. At this juncture, Lincoln AND the southern states understood that the ultimate struggle was over the nature of the compact called the Constitution. One side declared the union unbreakable, and the other rejected that argument.

            The whole point is that there was a tool available to end slavery in the US; amendment of the constitution. The way the union was supposed to work was that disputes such as that over slavery would be decided by amending the constitution. Until such time as the northern states could muster the political power to do so, slavery should have been left alone. To put this in 2A terms, the gun-grabbers want to neuter the 2A via simple legislation because they know they cannot get 2A repealed. Thus, just as the abolitionists, the gun grabbers are trying to run national legislation over the sovereign states. The abolitionists and the gun-grabbers use the same concepts, same terms. The gun-grabbers want “compromise” of our constitutionally protected RTKBA such that we have none, and the abolitionists wanted “compromise” on slavery that had only one outcome…abolishment.

            With the law and the constitution, one does not get to split hairs. If it is wrong to bypass the constitution for the purpose of gun control (and confiscation?), it was wrong to bypass the constitution for the purpose of ending slavery. No, you don’t get to claim that when the constitution protects something that is “evil”, then exceptions must be made….because I (and others) can make the case that private gun ownership is, itself, “evil”.

            Defending the rule of law is not the same as sponsoring, endorsing or approving slavery.

        • I don’t always agree with you, but you are killing on this Sam! You just saved me a long ass reply to herp derp here.

          • I was blessed with good teachers/professors, and a deep love of reading, and studying history. But without the teachers, I was just an unguided rocket, lost in make-believe world.

        • The confederacy really isn’t as complicated as your trying to make it.

          Whatabout property rights, whatabout states rights, whatabout the African’s, whatabout the Belgians, whatabout…

          What about it? is slavery right or wrong? if you’re trying to bounce around the issue, that is very illustrative.

          • Right or Wrong is irrelevant. Slavery was protected by the constitution. The means of changing the constitution was known and settled; amendment. No matter your revulsion, supporting a change to constitutional rights via mere legislation (or warfare) means you must support gun control legislation as a legitimate means to curtail or remove your RTKBA. You don’t get to throw the constitution overboard only when it suits your sensitivities.

      • You might have skipped some days getting your oh so superior education. Like the day they explained the difference between succession and secession. Is your history at similar level?

      • “The Civil War was about slavery.. period”

        I have to wonder what the black guy I knew in college who had a big Confederate battle flag on his wall — he’d inherited it from an ancestor who fought for the South because of how the Union armies were devastating the land.

        Yes, the sore issue was slavery, but there were other reasons people fought.

    • The civil war’s main cause was in fact slavery, however, lost in the argument about slavery is in fact the myriad of other causes of the war. It’s important to note this because the civil war likely still would’ve occurred had slavery never been an issue. The Nullification Crisis and Andrew Jackson’s response proves this. There were and still are, unresolved constitutional divides on many of these non slavery issues. Many of these underlying causes of the Nullification Crisis and the civil war, continue to exist to this day, and will likely play center rolls in our next civil war- which is coming.

    • The vice president of the Confederacy Alexander Stephenson stated the reason why the South went to war against the north was to keep their slaves and to spread slavery. Check out the Cornerstone speech that he gave years after the Civil War ended.

    • Yeah, the civil war was fought mainly over slavery. Read the various declarations of secession, read the Confederate Constitution; they make it pretty clear that slavery was the primary motivation.

    • The Civil War was fought over secession. Secession took place because of hostility, both real and imagined, towards slavery and the expansion of slavery into the territories. The Southern states were not shy in stating that their cause was integrally linked to slavery. It doesn’t take much reading of period sources, especially the secession declarations, to see that.

    • The Civil War was not about slavery, but was about “states rights” is an argument that would never have been made by the men behind succession. It was about the right of states to permit slavery. All one need do to prove this is look at the reason the states gave for succession, how they revised their state constitutions and the fact that the Confederate Constitution specifically permitted slavery.

      Were there many honorable men who fought for the Confederacy because they believed it was their duty? Yes. Were some of these men opposed to slavery? You bet.
      Were their small numbers of Black people who fought for the Confederacy – either by “passing” as white or serving as trusted and armed “bodyguards” for their wealth masters? Absolutely. Were there even a few Black slaveholders? Unquestionably. Was Succession an unsettled legal question? Certainly – in fact it probably was legal.

      The Confederacy was likely legally correct, but without question morally wrong. Just because something is legal, that does not make it right.

      • “Just because something is legal, that does not make it right.”

        Totally irrelevant thought and comment.

        If you are to be a nation of laws, you abide the laws until they can be changed. No matter how unpalatable the law, or the reason for the law, once you sink to deciding that a “bad law” should be done away with by popular acclamation you have lost your moral claim.

        Slavery could have been ended by the proper use of the constitution (amendment), but people found the constitution to be too inconvenient for their moral dignity; a way around the constitution had to be found. Legislation didn’t work. War worked, but only proved “might makes right”. Helluva way to run a nation of laws.

        • We have the winner. RAHOWA. We appreciate all of your support. We have been trying to communicate this for years. WPWW!!!

        • Jefferson and other Founding Fathers asserted a duty to disobey unjust laws.

          Following the law until it’s changed would be a better argument if the power of juries hadn’t been neutered. The power of a jury to declare a law unjust was part of the checks and balances intended to restrain government.

          • “Jefferson and other Founding Fathers asserted a duty to disobey unjust laws.”

            The DOI was not, and is not “law”. Note that “Jefferson and other Founding Fathers” did not include the natural, human and civil right in the body of the constitution. Indeed, overthrowing the government (author of unjust laws) was specifically identified as prohibited. And codified into federal law (18 U.S.C. § 2385 – U.S. Code – Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 2385. Advocating overthrow of Government).

    • “If I was a German Jew…”
      First off, it should be “If I WERE!” Secondly, if you don’t like the statues, have an educational plack posted by each.
      NOBODY is considering the “history, environment, nor general thinking of the day.”

      P.S. The first documented slave-holder was a BLACK man in Virginia.

    • A larger question is, “Why is Robert Farago posting such a divisive issue on his gun blog?”. I emailed him about it, asking if the acrimony it produces between readers of the blog is worth the “clicks”. The American Civil War continues to be a divisive issue to this day. Most of the responses are emotionally based by people who have spent little time studying history. It is fairly easy to see which side of the Mason Dixon line they are from by their biased responses and that very few try to understand the history in terms of those who lived it, who had different viewpoints, standards, and morals than modern people have. As others would term it, it’s “click bait”.

  2. I really don’t see a problem with the statues being up. Demanding they be taken down seems to be… Like trying to erase history. I don’t know. You’d be hard pressed to find any kind of historical figure or entity that was squeaky clean and the war ended over 150 years ago. If someone is offended by a statue, it seems to me that they have the problem, not the statue.

    • This I think is the biggest, most disturbing thing about this issue, and even the farthest leaning left liberal should agree with me. The monuments, battlefield and re-enactments keep the history alive and fresh. It’s painful and still very much with us as Americans. But when you start to eliminate people and events from history you eventually will lose all recognition what happened. It’s happening in Germany right now, and there’s still veterans and survivors of the war alive. No bullshit: You know who Germans blame for the Islamic terrorist attacks in Europe? The Jews. Who do they blame for the migration crisis? Jews. Who do they blame for all the Middle East problems? Israel. Who do they blame for the global financial crisis? Rich Jewish bankers. You know what happened the last time Israel bombed Palestine in retaliation for terrorist attacks? Germans protested Jewish bakeries in Germany and chanted “Juden Juden come out and pay” “juden Juden you’re going away”. It’s the same in France. This is really happening people. You know why? Because Germany has actively suppressed a huge portion of their history surrounding World War Two. I can tell you right now, not only is another large scale war in Europe coming, but there will be another holocaust of Jews in Western Europe.

  3. There are several Lenin statues standing in public across the U.S. and there are (still) many people who aren’t comfortable walking past them.

    Are we OK with those?

    • All about the “feeling?”

      Well then, those concerned about such feelings re statues shouldn’t object to gun bans due to the “feelings” of those who say they are offended, frightened, whatever by our guns.

      You can’t have it both ways.

      Personally, I don’t give a damn about any statues – regardless of what they are. My argument is with this “public property” nonsense.

    • The Lenin statue in Seattle is on private property so the city claims it can do nothing about it. Actually there is an element that thinks it is cool. However, there is another group that doesn’t agree and Comrade Lenin’s hands are always painted red, you know, to show he has blood on his hands.

      I always wonder what the city of Seattle would think if someone put up a statue of Hitler on private property in Seattle. I am sure they would find a way to get rid of it. Lenin though, is A-OK with them. A joke you know. I guess the millions of people that died because of that idiot mean nothing.

  4. Yeah, take that s*** down. The majority of thoes were put up durring the Jim Crowe era. You want to learn about the Confederacy then put them in a museum.

      • When you use the term “ghetto goblins”, who or what are you referring to? I’ve never heard that term before.

        • Ghetto Goblins. Suburban Orcs. Beach Trolls. Hill-country Imps… I don’t think JRR Tolkien came up with these…

        • On a complete tangent, don’t watch Bright on Netflix, it sort of retroactively ruins the 7 races, although I only counted 3, but I assume they were trying to set up some sequels with the rest.

        • Too late. Watched it yesterday. Orks and Elfs played big roles of course, Fairies are pests to be killed with a broom. They mentioned, but never showed Dwarfs. Other than those I didn’t notice anything. I liked Will Smith. His partner was a bit wooden, but then again maybe all Orks are like that.

        • Dirty Orc scum. I think the premise has a lot of promise, but how they spent $90million on it, I’ll never know. Max Landis, the original writer, disavowed it after David Ayer’s basically rewrote it during production. He did such a great job with Suicide Squad.

  5. We better take down the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial too…they were slave owners, so of course they were evil nasty people who don’t deserve any respect, and should be erased from history too.

    • As soon as we turn that corner we will invariably head down a trail heading to the conclusion that all those Founders touched is rained and must be removed as well. Then we will be right where the Progressives ultimately wanted us. Unprotected be either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution proper.

      • Yes! Down the memory hole with all that we don’t like! Ignorance is a strenght! We’ve always been at war with Eastasia!

        • “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia!”

          No we haven’t. Where did you get that treasonous propaganda? From Winston?

      • They HAVE advocated that, but the thought of removing the Washington, Jefferson or Madison monuments or defacing Mt. Rushmore has died off.

    • Washington and Jefferson did not commit treason against the United States of America. You might think that “patriots” would understand the difference.

      • The winners get to decide who is guilty of treason (note: there were no trials of confederates after the war).

        If you believe people trying to deny you any aspect of the RTKBA are defying the constitution, you must declare them “traitors”. People sworn to uphold the constitution yet work hard to “infringe” on your 2A rights, are guilty of “treason”, as they are directly aiding all those who would overturn out constitutional government. Oh….such people cannot truly be termed “traitors”? Why? They are trying to destroy your nation. Oh, maybe they are just rebelling against the second amendment, but are not actually “traitors”.

        In the years between 1783, and 1868, the states were the power in the nation. The states were superior to the central government (accept for powers voluntarily delegated). The citizens of the states were citizens of the states first, and then, by extension, citizens of the new nation. The state was the prime political arena, not the federal government. The most obvious example of that allegiance to states first was the nomenclature of the military units of the northern armies. There were actual units established as part of the standing US army (only about 26,000 soldiers, coast-to-coast). State-named units made up the vast majority. These were not National Guard (which units use federal designations, not state). These were units composed of people with allegiance to states. Confederate units were likewise identified. There was a reason for all the state designations. It was indicative of people of sovereign states going to the rescue/defense of the national government, but not possessions of the national government. We cannot imagine this configuration of society today.

        Circling back, when certain states believe that other certain states are aligned to deprive those first states of their powers/rights under the constitution, the idea of “traitor” fits both sides.

  6. Depends on context. Statues put up in the 1920s by actual Confederate veterans should stay IMHO. Maybe allow some formal process for a plaque nearby that gives some context and competing viewpoints. Better yet, don’t like a statue – hold a fundraiser to build a statue of someone you approve of.

    Stuff put up by the Daughters of the Confederacy in the 1950s should probably come down.

  7. Leave them up. Just remind everyone that it was their democrat leaders in the 60’s (during the civil rights movement) that put most of them up.

    • THIS RIGHT HERE! Day in and day out, as I talk to my people, when I explain to them that the true racists who sought to enslave blacks, and when that wasn’t working, everyone else , was the Democrats I receive the craziest looks. If we allow them to whitewash their crimes and tried intentions how will anyone ever know?

      • And of course the Southern Democrats were America’s conservatives until Ronald Reagan. Today the Republicans are the conservative party.

        • I don’t think there’s much in common with Dixiecrats and Democrats of today. Today people talk about signalling, talking about the thing without saying it. The Dixiecrats just flat out said they were for segregation, some even for forced repatriation. The Whigs, No-Nothings aren’t The Republicans either. In fact the only first principle any political stripe has today is money, maybe followed by power, but with enough of the first, you get the second.

        • “In fact the only first principle any political stripe has today is money, maybe followed by power, but with enough of the first, you get the second.”
          And vice versa.

  8. In and around Gettysburg, PA there are hundreds of monuments, many depicting Confederate soldiers or officers. They were erected to remember history. Taking them down would be stupid.

    Sometimes, history is ugly. That’s all the more reason to preserve it.

    • Something I saw on a church marquee once:
      “Forgiveness mean giving up all hope of a better past”

      I love that line. The past cannot be changed. People who continue to hold grudges against people long dead who did wrong to other people who are also long dead need to move on. The past needs to be remembered lest it be repeated again some day. And there is nothing wrong with honoring the valor of a vanquished enemy, indeed I would consider that the epitome of graciousness.
      Seeing people getting their knickers in a twist over a tarnished and overlooked statue in a park just seems… classless… classless and shallow.

      • Exactly, the Confederates were traitors, villains, and lost the war defending a horrid institution. We shouldn’t try to defend the legacy of evil.

        Just because some uneducated grunts weren’t bad guys, doesn’t mean they were not fighting for a vile goal. Plus they were losing losers.

        Why do I see pickups in Michigan flying 8ft confederate flags? If those were the rising sun banners of imperial Japan, would that be cool, definitely less racist.

        • Michigan flying 8ft confederate flags Because there are many elected demtard Marxist progs running gov’t bodies?

          • “Exactly, the Confederates were traitors, villains, and lost the war defending a horrid institution. ”

            “Traitor” is determined by the winner, in a civil war.

            The “union” was not a superior government, or any other kind of entity, to the individual states. An inferior institution does not “delegate” power to a superior institution. The superior institution simply exercises power over the inferior. If you insist on looking at 1850-1870 through prism of the non-federalist arrangement no in place, you cannot understand what you are talking about.

            The constitution was an entity created by sovereign, individual, separate states (not that far out of colony status). The states were suspicious and jealous of each other, and determined to not have a central government that could interfere with internal matters of the states, except as that power was delegated. “The Union !” was not even a thing. Indeed, secession was not invented by the “confederacy”. The run up to the War of 1812 saw Massachusetts threaten to secede because war with Britain would ruin profitable trade agreements. None of the states, at the founding, had any notion that they had no recourse other than revolution to protect themselves from tyranny of a powerful central government. The “confederacy” believed they were acting within the constitution in pursuingand preserving the slave trade (the constitution was not, not a moralistic document, things found “immoral”, or “evil” could not override the provisions of the constitution). There was no constitutional authority to stop slave trading. We shall never know what would have happened if the 13th Amendment had been ratified prior between 1840 and 1860. By most accounts, there were not enough abolitionist (which is not the same as integrationist) states to sustain ratification of the 13th prior to the civil war (what does that tell you?).

            If you like the idea that merely declaring something “offensive”, “immoral”, or “evil” is enough authority to ignore the provisions of the constitution, you will be doomed to disappointment.

            Read the newspapers of the founding era. Read the papers of the major cities in America prior, during and after the Revolution. Investigate the political climate of the establishment of the Articles of Confederation (that last word alone should tell you much). Understand the times as they were. Else, forfeit any opinion on the matter as mere ignorance and posturing. We have a nation of laws, or we don’t.

        • You took a thing, added another thing to it, so what is it you’re trying communicate? That those guys are democrats? or that there are democrats, because in the first case, that’s just not so, in the second, yes, there are democrats.

          But the racist dick heads flying those flags are democrats? That just doesn’t make sense, the southern dixiecrats where about as far from Marxists that you could get. Do democrats only pay lip service to the Black vote, sure, again, not the guys driving around with flags. So you’ve managed to conflate two things, and confuse me.

  9. First, this seems like the wrong blog for this. What does this have to do with guns?

    Second, statues like that should be in museums, not on public property as monuments, but certainly not destroyed.

    • ‘…a Confederate monument atop historic Myrtle Hill Cemetery was broken up and smashed… The statue depicts a Confederate soldier with his ar ms in front of him holding a long ri fle, upright in his hand.’

  10. I have only one problem with the confederate statues. Those guys lost. Losers shouldn’t get statues. That is something that should be reserved for people that actually won the war that they decided to start. Not the fuckups that had a temper tantrum, started a civil war, got half a million men killed, and then still lost.

    • Then do we take down all the gravestones that list CSA remains? Here in S Utah the local U changed its name from Dixie State and
      It’s mascot from the Rebels to the Red Storm to, now, the trailblazers, with a white buffalo mascot. The area is called Utah’s Dixie because they grew cotton in the 1850’s.

  11. I don’t have a problem with them coming down if it’s done the right way, community pententioning their local government or a local vote. Not a fan of the bullying tactics that are used by media and social media, groups that force cities to react. Honestly most ppl drove pass these statues, walked pass them and didn’t have a clue what the statue represented. Now all of a sudden these in adamant objects are the source of pain and suffering for people of color. As a man of color, those statues never stop me from doing anything. Just typical hysteria generated by twitter activist and media.

    • Agree with you sir. Let each community decide for itself what statues sit on their public properties. As for cemeteries let the owners decide and if it is city owned, then the community decides. For private property it is not the city’s or the communitie’s place to decide what kind of statue can be there. One can say something that is decent to any reasonable person is acceptable. For those where the community takes them down I would suggest to the, to place at least a good number of them into museums either public or private.

      And the statues we are referencing here certainly fit that definition. I see “modern” art in public places and some of it is “WTF” is that and some of it is even a bit less than decent, at least to me. And defacing or destroying these or any displays is never acceptable period.

      The history and hopefully lessons from the Civil War that these represent are valuable to remember. And yes there are things related from that period that even today are still in some ways unsettled. One needs to embrace the history, learn from it, and where they were weak and wrong do better and be stronger. Holding other people as slaves is wrong, immoral, and not Christian.

      It is too bad that early in this countty’s history we did not take an approach more like that of Spanish Florida. Unfortunately the country ended up completely under what one could call the British white colonial rule and with it the Brits/colonists then decided Black humans had no value compared to them and enslaved them under generally awful conditions. One can speculate endlessly what kind of different country we would be had things gone differently and the Spanish who were here first had continued to colonize this country.

      None of these people were prefect and righteous, nor are we today. Our founders created a country that said basically we were all created by God equally and had certain freedoms under God as men. Well except Black people, and oh not Native people either. etc. And we today are also not perfect, after all we had Trump and HC as the candidates for the parties and we elected despicable Trump over despicable HC. So we still do have a lot to learn both from our history and just from a point of decency overall.

  12. I don’t care anymore. The statues are infinitesimally small items in the problems this country has. We need to help Trump drain the swamp by recruiting and running true conservatives to replace the traitors, democrats and RINOs alike, in the Congress. Only then will we be able to preserve the entire bill of rights.

  13. I despise the Confederacy and every loathsome thing for which it stood.

    That having been said, like the Confederate battle flag, these statues are reminders of the crushing defeat of a corrupt and wretched regime.

    Losers’ flag, losers’ statues, it’s all the same to me.

    If the Confederacy’s supporters wish to commemorate that crushing defeat, I say have at it.

    While you’re at it, put up a statue of Hannibal and fly the flag of Carthage… if it had one.

  14. I’ve recently seen several posts calling for the removal of monuments in public
    spaces that some have deemed “racist” “glorify slavery” or “represent oppression”.
    I have to say; I’m all for this. I know the counter argument will be “ it’s not about any
    of those things, it’s about history”. Well, we can’t let history stand in the way of progress.
    But let’s not do this thing half way. Go big or go home. If we do this, let’s do it right.
    Any and all images, effigies, monuments and texts that are racist, glorify or advocate
    slavery, represent oppression, or should be offensive to a polite society. I have made a list
    of suggested items I feel should be removed from our society. It is by no means a complete
    list. Just a good starting point.

    We’ve already begun removing Confederate monuments, bravo, let’s keep it going.
    Images of several founders of this nation. Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, and Hancock to name just a few. All slave owners.
    2. The Bible, The Torah, and The Koran. Slavery. (have you read these nightmare fairy tales?) Advocates slavery several times. Get rid of the churches as well.
    3. Margaret Sanger and all Planned Parenthood clinics. She was a vocal eugenics enthusiast, advocated for the extermination of African-Americans.
    4. Franklin D. Roosevelt. Racist. Interned well over 100,000 Asian Americans during WWII.
    5. Vladimir Lenin. Oppressor. Overseer of 9,000,000 deaths during his revolution. His brand of Communism would claim the lives another 90,000,000 by the end of the last century.
    6. Martin Luther King. Homophobe. Once told a gay young man to seek psychiatric help to cure his homosexuality.
    7. Ulysses S. Grant. Genocide. Launched an illegal war against the Lakota people of South Dakota in order to secure gold to bring the United states out of a crippling depression. I would also add war criminal to this for his ordering the destruction of private property during the Civil war.
    8. Woodrow Wilson. Racist. Segregated government office workers by race, and threw the civil-rights leader William Monroe Trotter out of the Oval Office.
    9. Nelson Mandela. Terrorist. Murdered political opponents. Several through the method of “necklacing”. (Look up that beautiful method of execution. Gruesome.)
    10. William J. Clinton. Misogynist. This man’s misogyny and rape allegations are well documented in recent history.
    11. Robert Byrd. Racist. Exalted Cyclops of the Ku Klux Klan. Need I say more?

    This list could go on for days.

    • I concur. Any and all monuments and statues that in ANY way represent a perceived disrespect for ethnic groups, races and religions should be removed. I’d prefer a stone monument to the cell phone.

  15. I could understand wanting to remove a statue of Jefferson Davis or Robert E Lee in the town square, but this was a statue of a common soldier at a historic cemetery. Desecrating either is wrong, but it’s even wronger to desecrate a cemetery.

  16. A lot of people dont know that most of these statues were put up during the jim crow era. We should take these statues down. These arent statues that were put during or just after the civil war. They were put up to glorify “the good old days” and rewrite history.

    • No, these were put up in a cemetery containing deceased Confederate soldiers. Many were passing on and the statue was placed there to honor them, not as a testament to slavery. Someday the Nam War may be judged. Racist. Would you be happy with the Wall being torn down???

      • The wall fell, you know Reagan, Bush Sr. Or were you talking about a different wall. Vietnam Wall, You mean the Vietnam Memorial? If we could retcon our history I’m pretty sure no one would have get involved after the French defeat, at least Eisenhower would have been handed Ho Chi Minh’s letter in 54 in Paris.

  17. The comparison of Confederate slavery to Nazism is fundamentally flawed. What the Nazis did was a crime in the eyes of the contemporary world, as well as a crime in the eyes of contemporary Germans. That is why the Nazis went to great expense and effort to hide their crimes as they were committing them. They knew they were criminals. The slavery in the Confederate states was an accepted institution in more than half of the world at that time. Granted, most of the “civilized” world had recently abandoned slavery as morally egregious, but America was still a very young country and the Southern states more backward, hanging between civilizations. To draw an equivalency, should the Pyramids, along with the Acropolis be bulldozed? And don’t even start on the Vatican…

    • So statues aside, since slavery has a long and storied history, you don’t object to:
      * Soviet slave labor in the Gulag.
      * Nazi slave labor in the camps.
      * Japanese use of POW and civilian forced labor in coal mines, infrastructure, etc.

      Given the sheer number of slave laborers employed by those powers, such can hardly be considered “unusual”, and in fact went on in the Soviet Union for decades AFTER the war.

      • You have apparently not read my comment carefully. As with the Nazis, who were aware of their crimes and spent considerable effort in hiding them, so did the Soviets and the Japanese. What they did were crimes in the eyes of their own societies at that time. That is why they were all hiding these crimes. Slavery was an accepted institution in almost every country in the world since at least the earliest written history until the middle of the 19th century for the civilized world and continues to be practiced in many parts of the world today. Every Greek leader, every Roman leader, almost every Middle Ages leader either had slaves or certainly benefited from slavery. Are you proposing erasing all of that? Just keep in mind, that one-day owing pets may be viewed as cruel slavery and your history will be purged as well…

        • Neither the Soviets, Germans nor Japanese hid their slavery.

          It’s utter nonsense to claim otherwise.

          Huge slave labor projects such as the White Sea Canal were lavishly praised in Soviet newsreels.

          Slave laborers were widely distributed throughout Germany and it’s conquered territories.

          Allied slave laborers were a fixture of the Japanese economy.

          Slavery is slavery.

          All of the sophistry in the world won’t change that.

    • Slavery is evil today, it was evil yesterday, it was evil 100 years ago…

      A large minority of northern Americans were against it in the 1850’s, sometimes the tyranny of the majority is just wrong, hence the fundamental design of the US Constitution. The Declaration of Independence isn’t the Constitution, so black folk being 3/5 of a person wasn’t actually part of the Constitution, and was an evil thing that should have been outlawed, going to war to defend owning people is evil, couch it any way you want, states rights, blah blah blah, defending the right to own people, evil.

      • “Slavery is evil today, it was evil yesterday, it was evil 100 years ago.”

        Says us, for 167 years.

        Slavery goes back to forever. Not just nations of Europe and European descent. Which is/was worse? Slavery, or obliterating every person in a city after conquest? Which is/was worse when? What is acceptable today is subject to, and candidate for “evil” tomorrow.
        When we choose to hate the people of history for what was common in their day, we merely underscore that we are hateful people. If you start trying to tear down all the symbols of time and events you hate, you must begin at the root, and tear down everything born of the people of those times. Horrors were committed to advance science and technology. Peoples were enslaved, murdered and swindled so that others could benefit, then and forever.

        Do we destroy the Panama Canal because only the deaths of white men were celebrated/honored by a work stoppage for mourning? Do we destroy the canal because hundreds of blacks and natives were subjected to brutal conditions to build a device that primarily and almost exclusively benefited white people?

        Do we discard the gas mask because the inventor, Garrett Augustus Morgan, Sr., was born of slavery in this country? Do we throw away the benefits just because the only reason Mr. Morgan could have been been here to invent the gas mask was because his father was brutally treated as a slave, indeed, was a slave?

        If we want to rid ourselves of the evils of our history, we must be intellectually and morally consistent. If an evil act or condition provided us with benefit, we must utterly reject it; monetary compensation (reparations) will not assuage our guilt. We must destroy every vestige of whatever “evil” it is today that we choose to denounce.

        • People owning people is evil. Just because some of those people did other good things is immaterial. People can be more than one thing, starting a war to defend your right to invent a gas mask probably didn’t happen, but there was one to defend the right to own other people is evil, and at the start of the day, the end of the day, and all of the rest of the day, that is what the Civil War was about.

          The general unfairness of the Treaty of Versailles created the conditions for Nazi’ism, so we should just put up a big monument to Adolf in Arlington, or a big one next to the Arizona in Pearl Harbor.

          After Secession, the Confederates were a different nation, they initiated hostilities with the United States, and invaded. Those are just facts. Would the United States have invaded at some point, probably, but since that isn’t how it actually transpired, you have to deal with reality. The reality is most Confederate monuments were created from 50 to 100 years after the defeat of the Confederates.