Maggie's Farm

This morning, my wife pointed out that Germany doesn't have statues to its Nazi leaders, so why are we busy protecting statues of Confederate leaders?

There are, in my opinion, huge differences and the comparison is a false one. This isn't to say Confederate leaders were good people, just and wise, or people of necessarily great merit in today's world. Statues rise and fall, but the question we should be asking is what is the benefit in removing them?

There are statues around the world to cruel leaders who represented the 'best' of their time, or some other set of values which locals adhere to. Genghis Khan, Vlad Tepes, several brutal English kings such as Edward Longshanks, French Kings of various types, Robespierre....to name a few.

The statues have varying interest or value. Many are related to national identities, many are related to local history.

I'm not outright opposed to removing statues of Confederates. But I am opposed to removing statues based on modern conceptions of right and wrong in order to salve our guilt about our past.

While the Civil War was sparked by slavery, it was about states' rights, too. States' rights is still a major issue today. While most Confederate leaders were supporters of slavery, there were Union leaders who had slaves (Grant's wife owned them, and Grant had one until he freed him in 1859). Lincoln himself was opposed to slavery, but also made it clear when he ran for president that ending it was not on his to-do list, nor did he think blacks should have the same rights as whites.


If we're going to take the removal of statues to its logical conclusion, we're going to have to tear down every statue because of the flaws inherent in so many individuals. Even those we find 'great' leaders had major problems. Jefferson is lauded with statues and a massive stone monument - but was a slave owner and even kept one as a mistress.

I don't see a Confederacy/Nazi comparison for many reasons. To start with, post-war Germany outlawed the Nazi party. During the Reconstruction, former Confederates were needed to help stabilize the political and economic structure of the South. Taking an oath to abide by the Constitution and uphold the Union was enough to get back into good graces.

For another, the Confederacy is a very meaningful part of our national history. Even today, as people (mostly on the left) call for an Article 5 convention, they essentially are acknowledging the right of states to secede. After all, if such a convention makes changes to the Constitution, states have the right to not ratify - what then? The only logical outcome is secession. Take it a step further, since Hillary supporters in states where she won went bonkers and now want to outright secede (funny how it was OK when they want it, but not OK when South Carolina wanted it).

Finally, we can't apply today's moral values to the past. What was considered 'just' 150 years ago is not necessarily the same as what is 'just' today. Slavery was never a good thing, yet for many years it was a normal part of everyday life, going back deep into history. In many cultures it was simply accepted. We can decide they were wrong for believing it, but we can't fault them for believing what was common in their time. Similarly, we shouldn't apply geographical values to areas they don't fit. While I was born in a city, I was raised in a rural area, and now I live in a city again. The values here are extremely different from those where I grew up.

Someone held in high regard out in my hometown would be considered a rube here in NYC. I know this is true because in relating some stories, that's exactly how NYC denizens have described people I grew up with. Even my wife stated that I grew up in a "backwater town". Maybe I did. But that didn't make us wrong, stupid, or uninformed. We just didn't have access to the luxuries urban people did, and we developed different behaviors because of these differences.

If a community decides to tear down its Confederate statues, then let it. But the current trend of outsiders, both in protest groups, and political entities, showing their faces to demand the removal of something they disapprove of is incredibly presumptuous.

My sons, long ago, once asked me about the Civil War when we were visiting Fort Sumter. I pointed out to them it was a painful episode in the nation's development. But we should remember both sides' roles equally because while slavery was wrong, the Confederates also had positive points and qualities, too. I pointed out we should remember them not only for those positive qualities, but also to remind ourselves that we're not perfect, either.

Actually, I first heard about an Article V convention from Progressive friends in New Mexico, where it's taken on a whole new slant since the Trump election.
After reading up on it, I saw that Libertarians and Constitutionalists had supported it prior to that point, which I find very odd.
Since the election, however, I have only heard Progressives talk about it, and it's actually fairly common here in NYC. Funny, because it's the same people who probably would laugh it off in any other circumstance.

As for the Civil War, I pointed out slavery was the primary issue in my comment. However, singularly focusing on that ignores the host of other issues (however minor) which played out in its development. We can agree that slavery was the main cause. We can't agree it's the only point of the war. If we do, then why did it take so long for the Emancipation Proclamation? The logic doesn't hold up.

Revisionists have come up with lots of reasons to support slavery as the ONLY issue. And if you parse speeches and language, you can make it seem like it is, just like you can make Lincoln seem like an abolitionist (which he wasn't, though he aligned with them).

This was in an article she read. Weeping for our future over a comparison like that is a bit extreme.

She was open to a response. I don't necessarily think she liked my response, or even agreed with it.

The problem, today, is empathy. We want to 'feel' the pain of people who are 'offended' or 'hurt' by these statues. I say "we" in the most ironical of uses, mind you. The desire to not offend, today, is greater than the desire to think and understand.

If we're going to weep for the future, let's weep for those who (unlike my wife) are simply unwilling to discuss this point, and keep foisting their feelings about how things must be, or need to be, upon us with laws and coercion. That's a far greater danger than people who improperly equate the Confederacy with Nazis.

And to my point...the stupidity is only beginning...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/11/museum-natural-history-theodore-roosevelt-statue-protest

It is my view that while some of their goals are different, Nazis and most Leftists are pretty much the same in terms of what they want and how they seek to achieve their goals.

Ultimately, there isn't much difference.

What we have, though, is a problem of identity politics and broad-brush appeals to group dynamics.

While there is a "Right" and a "Left", being "Right" does not mean you are "Alt-Right" - but this is what the mainstream press tries to put forth. I have, in fact, been told I am "Alt-Right" even though I've disavowed many of the most repugnant aspects of alt-rightism. But if you think the media treats the Left the same way, you'd be wrong.

There is no broad-brush applied attempting to make all leftists seem like the Far Left. As a result, students at the University of Missouri are lauded for their anti-racist stance, but few spend any time discussing their scare tactics or anti-free speech message.

I believe the result of this deliberate attempt to mainstream far-left behaviors is a rise in the far-right, which is universally despised. The far-left is not universally despised, and in fact people believe they at least have people's best interests in mind which is far from the truth.

2 years ago, after the city of Memphis voted to move Nathan Bedford Forrest's grave, and additional approvals were required, activists showed up with shovels and started digging to remove him! He is still there, partially a result of poltical impasse, but also partially a result of extremist impatience and intolerance.

I'm not making a judgement here on Forrest's body and where it should be. He's a horrid aspect of history. I am making a judgement on group behaviors and dynamics which engage grave desecration as a tolerable action, and see no political rebuke for such behavior.

I disagree with Trump that there was fault on both sides in Charlottesville. I do agree with him there is fault on both sides for acting out on their worst natures.

We can't have a reasonable discussion on the issue of race unless we set aside identity politics, and unless we set guidelines for acceptable and tolerable behavior.

Intolerance of intolerance is not tolerance.