Ole Miss students vote unanimously to remove Confederate statue from campus center [tr]

UK Daily Mail ^ | March 7, 2019 | Stephanie Haney

[x]

I don’t see why current students should be the decision makers. They’re temporary.

So were the people who put up the statues.

It should just be explained to them that you shouldn’t try to erase history, it will only provide fertile ground to repeat it. It should stay as a discussion point at least.

Or a rallying point? The students are probably thinking history is more likely to be repeated if the statue stays up.

[x]

These statues specifically state they either commemorate men of a specific unit(s) or all from a certain group of men who served either in the Union or Confederate armies.

On many monuments, there is also language celebrating the cause or principles of the Confederacy.

Even Harvard has a separate commemorative plaque honoring by name Harvard alums who served in the CSA.

I don't believe that they do. Princeton and Yale honor those who died on both sides and Bowdoin had a plaque commemorating the Confederate dead. Harvard no, though apparently there is a soldier in gray in a stained-glass window. There was an effort to add a memorial plaque to honor Harvardians who died for the Confederacy, but it hasn't succeed. If it did it would be against the wishes of those who built the original memorial to honor the school's Union dead.

Those of this wretched set of young fools that have Confederate ancestry have specifically dishonored their ancestors by this vote.

Maybe they think the ancestors dishonored them.

If you are a yankee stop butting in to our business, if you are from the South your words and attitudes are disgraceful.

It's up to you to decide, not the rest of us, but there's an internal debate going on in the South that ought to be taken more seriously.

[fuzzylogic]

You can go to any country on the planet and see statues of things that have a very shady history. Getting rid of them due to some politically correct “offense of the moment” would result in erasing much of it.

Bad idea.

[x]

In Ukraine and the Baltic countries, they took down statues of Lenin and put up statues of their own heroes. No history was lost, though there is controversy over some of their own monuments, because of the complicated history of the region. Of course, there are some monuments - to massacres and other horrendous events - whose removal would constitute a great erasure of history.

I think the question now is "Do we want it here?" Taking out all the Confederate monument would amount to a denial of a part of Southern (and American) history, but people in each location or institution are going to have to decide for themselves whether they want it in their yard. That means there will be pressure on the cities, towns, and institutions that really want to keep the statues after other places have gotten rid of them, but if a college really wants to remove a statue from public view, can you really stop them?

[central_va]

I don’t believe there ever was slavery. I think it is made up faux history.

[central_va]

crimes or human rights violation occur

I guess you are referring the Torch Sherman?

[central_va]

The statue is a reminder that the country was a REPUBLIC and since leftist state-ist thugs want a democracy they need to tear it down. So called Conservatives go along with this re writing of history. Shame shame shame.

[fuzzylogic]

...not arguing whether they can do it or not - they certainly can.

On a case by case basis the left will get their way...which means they all come down. IMO this is a disservice to society and its history.

[OIFVeteran]

Democrats have always been democrats. The republican party was the Conservative party of that era and this. They wanted to put slavery back on the road to extinction, just like most of the founding fathers wanted to. Ben Franklin joined an abolitionist group and many founding fathers spoke out agaiinst slavery. They realized that it was incompatible with the Declaration of Independence.

The democrats did the same thing with the Supreme Court that they do now. Legislate from the bench. Dred Scott was as bad a decision as roe v wade. To say that blacks could not be citizens when states had made them citizens since the founding of this country is as laughable as saying life doesn’t begin at conception.

If you wouldn’t be a Republican in 1861 I don’t know why you would be one now.

[Monterrosa-24]

“...If you wouldn’t be a Republican in 1861 I don’t know why you would be one now...”

Because I would rather be part of a Republic rather than an empire. As H.L. Mencken said when discussing the eloquence of the Gettysburg Address but noting that self-determination is what the South fought for, he stated that the states went into the war as sovereign states and came out as districts and “what they lost they never got back”.

[OIFVeteran]

States where never sovereign after adoption of the constitution. Under Article VI clause 2, the constitution became the supreme law of the land.