Should the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial carving be removed?

[otseng]

The world's largest Confederate Monument faces renewed calls for removal

Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial, a nine-story-high bas-relief sculpture carved into a sprawling rock face northeast of Atlanta, is perhaps the South's most audacious monument to its pro-slavery legacy still intact.

Despite long-standing demands for the removal of what many consider a shrine to racism, the giant depiction of three Confederate heroes on horseback still towers ominously over the Georgia countryside, protected by state law.

Is the carving a shrine to racism?
Should the carving be removed?

[koko]

All that hate above is utterly laughable. Here in the Twin Cities it is well established that the majority of BLM members, as well as those who have appeared on its behalf in public rallies, are white. To say it is anti white is pathetically laughable.

As we all know secession is unconstitutional as ruled in the Texas v White case. The Constitution clearly states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Davis and his fellow traitors were not foreigners. Their criminal actions killed over 600,000 Americans in their war against the USA so that this was treason. Only a traitor would dismiss this as inconsequential. All real patriots condemn this treason. Davis was lucky he got off because of the political correctness of the time as he should have been hung for his crimes.

[Elijah John]

Moderator Intervention

Let's tone it down on both sides. Especially the exchanges between Koko and Quantrill, the latter who has been warned several times. We can have a civil discussion on these matters without accusing the other of ignorance, bad intent etc. Also, it is best to be very careful when desribing any comment as "racist". And as a general matter, never call another poster "racist" as that is a personal attack. And let's refrain from generalizations about any race, black, white and others. That too would be a violation falling under the "blanket statement" category.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Miles]

Having been to Stone Mountain numerous times, I do not believe the carving is a giant billboard to promote racism and I'm not convinced it should be removed. Are there white supremacists that associate with Stone Mountain (and the carving)? Yes. Does Stone Mountain claim it is a monument to promote racism? No.

Regardless of its origin and construction the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial still sits as a tribute to three leaders of the Civil War, a war declared because the South wanted to assert its authority over the federal government so it could abolish federal laws it didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wanted, including taking slavery into western territories. Simply put, the three wanted to persevere the ability of a certain class of people to own other humans, and pretty much do with them as they wished.

Think that's admirable and worthy of tribute?

I don't. And because the monument does celebrate the attempt to perpetuate slavery, a prejudicial and discriminatory practice against those of a different race, I think it absolutely qualifies as racist. The pursuit to maintain slavery is nothing to celebrate or revere. It should be regard with disgust and hatred.

.

[Quantrill]

All that hate above is utterly laughable. Here in the Twin Cities it is well established that the majority of BLM members, as well as those who have appeared on its behalf in public rallies, are white. To say it is anti white is pathetically laughable.

As we all know secession is unconstitutional as ruled in the Texas v White case. The Constitution clearly states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Davis and his fellow traitors were not foreigners. Their criminal actions killed over 600,000 Americans in their war against the USA so that this was treason. Only a traitor would dismiss this as inconsequential. All real patriots condemn this treason. Davis was lucky he got off because of the political correctness of the time as he should have been hung for his crimes.

What hate is that?

BLM and the NAACP is behind all these protests. They fuel them. Just as the SPLC does. Of course they love the liberal whites getting on board. And there are plenty of liberal whites to do that. That doesn't mean they embrace they white people, they don't. They use the whites. And the liberal whites are too ignorant too recognize it. It wasn't that long ago that at a BLM rally the whites were told by the blacks they don't belong in the rally. They were told to get at the end of the line.

Again, more PC speech on your part and nothing to support it. The prosecutors against Davis, and for the Union said other wise. You just breathe the smoke they have been blowin up your backside...with no evidence.

From (When In The Course Of Human Events, Charles Adams, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, INC., 2000)

"Jefferson Davis, of course, was never tried, and to this day Northern historians assert that Davis was lucky." (P. 177)

"The federal government dropped the case because it became increasingly clear that it could not win...For four years the government had been shouting from the housetops that secessionists were traitors and conspirators...." (P. 178)

"One of the most famous trial lawyers of this era was Charles O'Connor of New York. He volunteered to be Davis's counsel." (P. 179)

"But with the passing of only a few months, the use of military courts in peacetime became impossible.....in America, the Constitution was resurrected in the North soon after the Confederacy collapsed, and that meant an end to military tribunals....Trying Davis in a bona fide civilian court, with due process, soon sobered up the president and his cabinet....And it might show that secessionists weren't traitors after all." (P. 180)

"The North had been so brainwashed by the traitor logic that it didn't realize how formidable Jefferson Davis's case was." (P. 185)

"They needed someone of great stature to stand up to the lawyers defending Davis. They chose as their leading trial prosecutor John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew, arguing that he had 'grave doubts' about the case and that the government could end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury." (P. 186)

"President Johnson though of an easy way out. He would pardon Davis as he had pardoned so many other Confederates. But Davis refused a pardon: 'To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt'. Davis wanted a trial...." (P. 186)

"Another special counsel was appointed to handle the case, the famous author and lawyer Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the great novel 'Two Years before the Mast' But he too decided the case was a loser....Dana argued that a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled ...as a rule of law by war....The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law." (P. 186)

The history is clear. Davis was not a traitor. The South was not a traitor. Thus the North let Davis go rather then admit they were the real traitors. Yet still people still want to believe the lie rather than the history. They don't want the truth. Just give me the lie, they say.

This is why you avoid my questions concerning the trial of Jeff Davis. The lie is more easily palatable to you and others.

Quantrill

[koko]

Moderator Intervention

Let's tone it down on both sides. Especially the exchanges between Koko and Quantrill, the latter who has been warned several times. We can have a civil discussion on these matters without accusing the other of ignorance, bad intent etc. Also, it is best to be very careful when desribing any comment as "racist". And as a general matter, never call another poster "racist" as that is a personal attack. And let's refrain from generalizations about any race, black, white and others. That too would be a violation falling under the "blanket statement" category.

Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

Thank you for pointing out that it is the latter who has been violative of the rules.

I will unsubscribe (second thread I've done that) to try to keep the peace.

[Quantrill]

All that hate above is utterly laughable. Here in the Twin Cities it is well established that the majority of BLM members, as well as those who have appeared on its behalf in public rallies, are white. To say it is anti white is pathetically laughable.

As we all know secession is unconstitutional as ruled in the Texas v White case. The Constitution clearly states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." Davis and his fellow traitors were not foreigners. Their criminal actions killed over 600,000 Americans in their war against the USA so that this was treason. Only a traitor would dismiss this as inconsequential. All real patriots condemn this treason. Davis was lucky he got off because of the political correctness of the time as he should have been hung for his crimes.

What hate is that?

BLM and the NAACP is behind all these protests. They fuel them. Just as the SPLC does. Of course they love the liberal whites getting on board. And there are plenty of liberal whites to do that. That doesn't mean they embrace they white people, they don't. They use the whites. And the liberal whites are too ignorant too recognize it. It wasn't that long ago that at a BLM rally the whites were told by the blacks they don't belong in the rally. They were told to get at the end of the line.

Again, more PC speech on your part and nothing to support it. The prosecutors against Davis, and for the Union said other wise. You just breathe the smoke they have been blowin up your backside...with no evidence.

From (When In The Course Of Human Events, Charles Adams, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, INC., 2000)

"Jefferson Davis, of course, was never tried, and to this day Northern historians assert that Davis was lucky." (P. 177)

"The federal government dropped the case because it became increasingly clear that it could not win...For four years the government had been shouting from the housetops that secessionists were traitors and conspirators...." (P. 178)

"One of the most famous trial lawyers of this era was Charles O'Connor of New York. He volunteered to be Davis's counsel." (P. 179)

"But with the passing of only a few months, the use of military courts in peacetime became impossible.....in America, the Constitution was resurrected in the North soon after the Confederacy collapsed, and that meant an end to military tribunals....Trying Davis in a bona fide civilian court, with due process, soon sobered up the president and his cabinet....And it might show that secessionists weren't traitors after all." (P. 180)

"The North had been so brainwashed by the traitor logic that it didn't realize how formidable Jefferson Davis's case was." (P. 185)

"They needed someone of great stature to stand up to the lawyers defending Davis. They chose as their leading trial prosecutor John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew, arguing that he had 'grave doubts' about the case and that the government could end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury." (P. 186)

"President Johnson though of an easy way out. He would pardon Davis as he had pardoned so many other Confederates. But Davis refused a pardon: 'To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt'. Davis wanted a trial...." (P. 186)

"Another special counsel was appointed to handle the case, the famous author and lawyer Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the great novel 'Two Years before the Mast' But he too decided the case was a loser....Dana argued that a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled ...as a rule of law by war....The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law." (P. 186)

The history is clear. Davis was not a traitor. The South was not a traitor. Thus the North let Davis go rather then admit they were the real traitors. Yet still people still want to believe the lie rather than the history. They don't want the truth. Just give me the lie, they say.

This is why you avoid my questions concerning the trial of Jeff Davis. The lie is more easily palatable to you and others.

Quantrill

[Quantrill]

Thank you for pointing out that it is the latter who has been violative of the rules.

I will unsubscribe (second thread I've done that) to try to keep the peace.

You 'unsubscribe' because you can't answer the questions.

I have proven my point concerning the trial of Jeff Davis. You prove nothing.

Quantrill

[otseng]

You just breathe the smoke they have been blowin up your backside.

Moderator Warning


This would be considered an uncivil comment.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Mithrae]

Regardless of its origin and construction the Stone Mountain Confederate Memorial still sits as a tribute to three leaders of the Civil War, a war declared because the South wanted to assert its authority over the federal government so it could abolish federal laws it didn't support, especially laws interfering with the South's right to keep slaves and take them wherever they wanted, including taking slavery into western territories. Simply put, the three wanted to persevere the ability of a certain class of people to own other humans, and pretty much do with them as they wished.

Think that's admirable and worthy of tribute?

I don't. And because the monument does celebrate the attempt to perpetuate slavery, a prejudicial and discriminatory practice against those of a different race, I think it absolutely qualifies as racist. The pursuit to maintain slavery is nothing to celebrate or revere. It should be regard with disgust and hatred.

I'm not sure that the emotionalism of disgust and hatred is the best approach. For people who had lived through that period emotionalism would have been understandable; but looking back on history centuries later, surely we should strive instead for rationalism and objectivity?

Those so inclined could surely make almost identical arguments for tearing down Mount Rushmore and Brazil's Christ the Redeemer statue as a representations of Western political and religious imperialism and eradication of native cultures; the Colosseum in Rome for its obvious glorification of brutality and empire; the Pyramids as monuments to totalitarianism and religious indoctrination. Like Mal says in Firefly, "It's my estimation that every man ever got a statue made of him was one kind of sumbitch or another." Vandalizing or destroying artworks in the name of ideology seems like a tricky issue to me: On the one hand just because some artist made something doesn't automatically entitle it to preservation, but on the other just because we disagree with the artists' ideology doesn't automatically warrant its destruction!

A century from now no-one's going to miss some life-sized Confederate statue in a local park so sure, if the relevant legislative or private institutions decide it's appropriate to do so they may as well be removed, but this Stone Mountain memorial sounds like it's as impressive as Mount Rushmore etc. Why not have the plaques and tour guides describe its construction history and note that it is now understood as a monument to the sometimes unfortunate tenacity of tradition; a reminder to be aware of what we're telling our children and each other, because in the long run history doesn't always look kindly on the views of insular, backwards-looking folk? Or even further - recognizing that tenacity of tradition and local/regional culture - it could serve as a reminder to try to be understanding and patient towards those with whom we disagree rather than just attacking and condemning others for their differences.

Either of those seems like it could be a much more useful lesson than simply insisting that my ideology justifies destruction of anything and everything I don't like.

[Quantrill]

What hate is that?

BLM and the NAACP is behind all these protests. They fuel them. Just as the SPLC does. Of course they love the liberal whites getting on board. And there are plenty of liberal whites to do that. That doesn't mean they embrace they white people, they don't. They use the whites. And the liberal whites are too ignorant too recognize it. It wasn't that long ago that at a BLM rally the whites were told by the blacks they don't belong in the rally. They were told to get at the end of the line.

Again, more PC speech on your part and nothing to support it. The prosecutors against Davis, and for the Union said other wise. You just breathe the smoke they have been blowin up your backside...with no evidence.

From (When In The Course Of Human Events, Charles Adams, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, INC., 2000)

"Jefferson Davis, of course, was never tried, and to this day Northern historians assert that Davis was lucky." (P. 177)

"The federal government dropped the case because it became increasingly clear that it could not win...For four years the government had been shouting from the housetops that secessionists were traitors and conspirators...." (P. 178)

"One of the most famous trial lawyers of this era was Charles O'Connor of New York. He volunteered to be Davis's counsel." (P. 179)

"But with the passing of only a few months, the use of military courts in peacetime became impossible.....in America, the Constitution was resurrected in the North soon after the Confederacy collapsed, and that meant an end to military tribunals....Trying Davis in a bona fide civilian court, with due process, soon sobered up the president and his cabinet....And it might show that secessionists weren't traitors after all." (P. 180)

"The North had been so brainwashed by the traitor logic that it didn't realize how formidable Jefferson Davis's case was." (P. 185)

"They needed someone of great stature to stand up to the lawyers defending Davis. They chose as their leading trial prosecutor John J. Clifford. But after reviewing the case, Clifford withdrew, arguing that he had 'grave doubts' about the case and that the government could end up having fought a successful war, only to have it declared unlawful by a Virginia jury." (P. 186)

"President Johnson though of an easy way out. He would pardon Davis as he had pardoned so many other Confederates. But Davis refused a pardon: 'To ask for a pardon would be a confession of guilt'. Davis wanted a trial...." (P. 186)

"Another special counsel was appointed to handle the case, the famous author and lawyer Richard Dana of Boston, who had written the great novel 'Two Years before the Mast' But he too decided the case was a loser....Dana argued that a conviction will settle nothing in law or national practice not now settled ...as a rule of law by war....The North should accept its uncivilized victory, however dirty its hands might be, and not expose the fruits of its carnage to scrutiny by a peaceful court of law." (P. 186)

The history is clear. Davis was not a traitor. The South was not a traitor. Thus the North let Davis go rather then admit they were the real traitors. Yet still people still want to believe the lie rather than the history. They don't want the truth. Just give me the lie, they say.

This is why you avoid my questions concerning the trial of Jeff Davis. The lie is more easily palatable to you and others.

Quantrill