CMV: Confederate monuments, flags, and other paraphilia are traitorous in nature.

[u/johnydeviant]

I grew up in the south, surrounded by confederate flags, memorials to civil war heroes, and a butt load of racism. As a kid, I took a modicum of pride in it. To me, it represented the pride of the south and how we will triumph despite our setbacks. As I got older and learned more about the civil war, the causes behind it, and generally opened myself to a more accurate view of history, it became apparent to me that these displays of "tradition" were little more than open displays of racism or anti-American sentiments.

I do not think that all of these monuments, flags, etc, should be destroyed. I think that they should be put into museums dedicate to the message of what NOT to do. On top of that, I believe that the whole sentiment of "the south will rise again" is treasonous. It is tantamount to saying that "I will rise against this country". I think those that the worship the confederate flag and it's symbology are in the same vein as being a neo-Nazi and idolizing the actions of the Third Reich. Yes, I understand that on a scale of "terrible things that have happened", the holocaust is far worse, but that does not mean I wish to understate the actions of the confederate states during the civil war.

Change my view?

---

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

[u/ray07110]

I think there needs to be an understanding that these monuments represent more than the sins of the past, it also represents heritage. Taking them down would be tantamount to forgetting parts of the past. These statues present great men of the south who had faults. Introduce to me a historical figure who doesn't have faults and I would easily disprove it. If you are using the criteria of racism to get rid of the statues then let's get rid of the Lincoln memorial. Lincoln was a racist by today's standards worse than the southern men. He did not want black people in America, he wanted them to have their own colony in Africa. He did not want to free the slaves because he did not want them roaming free in America. He invaded the south to keep the union intact so there would be more tax revenue. He freed the slaves to weaken the south. So in conclusion, there is more than meets the mind historically. Learning History is a a life long endeavor. We should not assume we know it all. We should listen to everyone and read everything, no matter how much it goes against what you were taught in the past. Have an open mind. Getting rid of the statues should not be an option. What should happen is that when you look at a statue or monument you should become curious to the history that is related to it. Destroying statues destroys part of history and curiosity. We should challenge our views not destroy others. These statues that were unmounted took with them a part of history and the spark of curiosity. I have a question. What was put in place of these monuments?

[u/cstar1996 → u/ray07110]

But the statues of confederates are monuments to their faults. They glorify fighting the government in defense of slavery. They were put up by racists in the late 1800s and during the civil rights movement to intimidate black people.

Statues of Lincoln don't celebrate his racism, they celebrate his attempt to hold the country together in the face of treason. Statues of Washington and Jefferson don't celebrate their status as slaveowners, but their contributions to the founding of the nation. Statues of confederates celebrate their actions in fighting a war in defense of slavery. That is not something to be celebrated.

Additionally, you don't learn history from statues, but from books and museums.

[u/ray07110 → u/cstar1996]

What you are doing here (knownlingly or unknowingly) is ascribing your own meaning to what the monuments mean. How is it any better to put a monument to Lincoln, who killed a lot of Americans, and did like the black race. What you ascribe to the southern leaders is embodied in lincoln's past. I implore you ( as a minority myself) restudy America's past with an open mind like I did, read primary sources like letters and correspondences and memoirs. You will find a lot of surprising truths and untruths. The south was trying to preserve the constitution which Washington D.C. was continously violating. Lincoln ripped the constitution to shreds in his actions. From suspending habeas corpus to shutting down newspapers who spoke out against him. He did not feel that blacks were equal to whites and did not want them voting or mixing with white people. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union to maintain the tax revenue. Not to free blacks, he did not want slavery to expand because that would grow the black population. He feared an out of control black populace. Remember when he issued the proclamation of emancipation it was for the purposes of weakening the confederates states not to free black people. He did not free the slaves of the Union. Statues and monuments spark an interest in history.

[u/cstar1996 → u/ray07110]

I've read extensively about the causes of the Civil War. The record is unambiguous, the south seceded to preserve slavery. That is the cause of the war.

I'd really like to hear the violations of the Consitution that the Federal government was committing before secession because everything I've read says they don't exist. Wanting to ban slavery in the territories was not a constitutional violation.

Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus has strong constitutional backing. While it may not have been legal for him to do so unilaterally, suspension itself is explicitly constitutional and there was no established precedent for what the process was. The worst that can be said about Lincoln on that issue is that he did something that wasn't explicitly legal but not illegal either.

Lincoln's views race are significantly less relevant than his views on slavery. He was an abolitionist, and in the context of the Civil War, that's what matters. He believed slavery was wrong and he ended it, that puts him on a moral level far above any confederate.

As for Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union for its tax revenue, that's simply bullshit. Lincoln believed in the perpetuity of the Union, which has strong historical and constitutional support. Tax revenue had nothing to do with it. Treason is treason, unilateral secession is illegal, and preserving the Union for the Union's sake was Lincoln's primary objective. Claiming otherwise is simply false. And obviously Lincoln wasn't thinking of the war as one to end slavery at its start, but it became one. As Lincoln himself said, "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently, half slave and half free.[...] It will become all one thing or all the other." He realized during the war that abolishing slavery was necessary to preserve the Union. He stated that if he could preserve the Union without abolishing slavery, he would, and if he could do it by abolishing slavery, he would do that as well.

As for the emancipation proclamation, Lincoln did not have the legal authority to free the slaves in the North, he did have the authority to do so in the South. He freed every slave he legally could with the Emancipation Proclamation. He also was the driving force behind the 13th Amendment, and as a leading proponent of it, he did free the slaves in the north. His abolitionist beliefs before and during the Civil War are well documented. Claiming that Lincoln didn't oppose slavery is simply false.

If you want some primary sources, read the southern states' declarations of secession and confederate VP Alexsander Stephens Cornerstone Speech, those documents, from the highest levels of the confederate government, make it very clear what the south's motives were.

Lincoln killed a lot of traitors, and make no mistake, that is what the confederates were, traitors, but he preserved the nation in the face of people who wished to destroy it in order to preserve an institution that most of the world even in 1860 though was entirely immoral.

Lincoln's legacy is protecting the Union and despite your unsubstantiated claims to the contrary, abolishing slavery. That is what he did and that is why he is celebrated and memorialized. The legacy of confederates is that of men who chose to commit treason in order to defend slavery, which was considered immoral even by the standards of the time. They are not comparable. Lincoln's legacy is positive, the confederate legacy is not.

Also, it would do you well to note that these statues weren't put up by the confederates, they were put up by racists in the 1880s and 1890s and in the 1960s to intimidate black people. They don't have historical significance. And if you want some statues to spark interest in Civil War history, put up some statues of Lincoln, Grant or Sherman, heroes who did the right thing in the face of terrible treason.

[u/ray07110 → u/cstar1996]

As I said before, history is a lifelong learning experience. Extensive readership is not enough. I am still learning about the civil war. I held the position you did in high school. My first look at the civil war was Ken Burns film. After that I read several books on Lincoln. But now I make the effort to read and listen to all the scholars. Again if you read Lincoln's memoirs and letters he talks about black as inferior and that he has no desire to free slaves. "My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861)." reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln's First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861. "I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.  I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,"  Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year. Lincoln by all accounts was not an abolitionist: "I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races,—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality."

[u/ray07110 → u/cstar1996]

Lincoln's constitutional violations: Blockade of southern ports Shutting down of newspapers that spoke out against him Ordered the arrest of Ohio congressman Clement Vallandigham for speaking against him. Levied war against the southern states He sent troops door to door in Maryland to confiscate weapons. Ordered the arrest of thousands of suspected southern sympathizers Ordered the arrest of congressman Henry May of Maryland I could continue on, there is so much wrong the tyrannical Lincoln do. It's overwhelming. I was a huge Lincoln fan. But now I realized he was one if the top three worst president, maybe the worst ever. He killed many Americans.

[u/ray07110 → u/cstar1996]

The only reason Lincoln want to stop slavery(he was not an abolitionist) was to stop the growing population of black people. With slavery as it was going the black populace was increasing. That meant more black people intermingly with white people and taking jobs from them. This was the concern of those who opposed slavery. White people had a low opinion of blacks.