# Memphis City Council removes two confederate statues



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

"MEMPHIS, Tenn. (AP) — Crews removed two Confederate statues from Memphis parks after the city sold them to a private entity.

The City Council had earlier voted unanimously Wednesday to sell two parks where Confederate statues were located and crews began working right away to remove a statue of Gen. Nathan Bedford Forrest. At the second park, a statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis was later taken down."

They had the legal right to do what they did to get the statues removed. 

From: http://wkrn.com/2017/12/20/memphis-...confederate-statues-from-city-owned-property/


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

From the article: "The parks were sold to Greenspace Inc. for $1,000 each, The Commercial Appeal reported."

That can't be right, looking at a map, the one park is an entire city block, and the other is even bigger. Gotta be worth more than a thousand bucks.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Clem said:


> From the article: "The parks were sold to Greenspace Inc. for $1,000 each, The Commercial Appeal reported."
> 
> That can't be right, looking at a map, the one park is an entire city block, and the other is even bigger. Gotta be worth more than a thousand bucks.


They would do anything to get rid of the scary statues. Watch out!!! Now that they have been removed, General Forest and President Davis will be watching you like elf on a shelf!!
I have stopped being surprised by the stupidity of government officials.


----------



## Clem (Apr 12, 2016)

Yeah, we need more statues of the founder of the KKK, alright. That's exactly what we need. 

Above is sarcasm, for the hard of reading. I don't subscribe to that sort of lunacy.

Regardless, it seems to me that there's something more involved with the sale of a city block in Memphis for a thousand bucks. Maybe the Greenspace, Inc. is a park management company, whatever that might be. It seems that the sale of city owned property would be open to public bids. I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy, I just think part of the story is missing.


----------



## Redlands Okie (Nov 28, 2017)

No doubt there are some issues. So where do we draw the line ? 

Does George Washington get removed from the dollar bill ?

Or how about other statues. From else where in the internet.......


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Clem said:


> Yeah, we need more statues of the founder of the KKK, alright. That's exactly what we need.
> 
> Above is sarcasm, for the hard of reading. I don't subscribe to that sort of lunacy.
> 
> Regardless, it seems to me that there's something more involved with the sale of a city block in Memphis for a thousand bucks. Maybe the Greenspace, Inc. is a park management company, whatever that might be. It seems that the sale of city owned property would be open to public bids. I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy, I just think part of the story is missing.


How about a statue of the first white man invited to speak by and for the group that was the progenitor of the NAACP? (Hint, it was the same guy) The KKK wasn't started as the racist terrorist group it ended up being.


----------



## MoonRiver (Sep 2, 2007)

I've had a change of heart on this issue. I used to think the statues were like speech - if someone didn't like the statue then they should put up the statue they did like. In other words, more statues, not less.

But I'm learning many of these statues were erected during Jim Crow or the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960's. The statues were political statements more than they were about honoring Confederate heroes. 

So where I am now is if the statue is historical in nature, such as the statue of Andrew Jackson in Jackson Square in New Orleans, I think it should stay. Statues that were put up as a negative response to equal rights for Blacks should be taken down. If some organization wants the statues they should be allowed to purchase and move them to a private location.

Favorite son statues are probably OK, but maybe plaques need to be added that explains the culture of that time.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

My thinking this thread is another attempt to bring up deep polarizing opinions. ....again.
Or....To stir the ship".....

Just my opinion....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

hunter63 said:


> My thinking this thread is another attempt to bring up deep polarizing opinions. ....again.
> Or....To stir the ship".....
> 
> Just my opinion....


I posted the article because the Memphis City Council figured out a way to move the statues off publicly owned property legally, and I ran the premise of the thread by the moderators to be sure it was OK, just to be sure I didn't stray from the rules. 

I'm entitled to an opinion as long as it's posted in a nice way, even if it is not universally accepted.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> I posted the article because the Memphis City Council figured out a way to move the statues off publicly owned property legally, and I ran the premise of the thread by the moderators to be sure it was OK, just to be sure I didn't stray from the rules.
> 
> I'm entitled to an opinion as long as it's posted in a nice way, even if it is not universally accepted.


So am I.....


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

hunter63 said:


> So am I.....


Absolutely, I don't think I remotely indicated otherwise, I just wanted you to know your opinion of why I posted the link is wrong. Just settin' the record straight.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Interesting..............
And I don't mind you bringing it to our attention. I actually appreciate it and have remarked numerous times to people I know, "Oh yeah, I heard about that days ago on The Homesteading forum".

I am curious about this sale though.
The council probably IS authorized to do so as with any piece of city owned land.
But what about the price?
Is it allowed to be done without an open bidding process?
Can they sell it dirt cheap to anyone they choose?
Wouldn't that open a can of worms to unscrupulous financial deals?
Where does the money go? Into the general fund?
Is that normally done without public hearings and votes?
What about the man's remains underneath?
Is ok to sell a grave to a private buyer or is it only ok to do it to confederate soldiers?

I don't guess there are any answers to those at the moment and quite a few that don't really care..............


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> Interesting..............
> And I don't mind you bringing it to our attention. I actually appreciate it and have remarked numerous times to people I know, "Oh yeah, I heard about that days ago on The Homesteading forum".
> 
> I am curious about this sale though.
> ...



The plot thickens.

http://wreg.com/2017/12/21/memphis-greenspace-addresses-purchase-of-parks/

It may not be a legal sale after all.

First this:

_The city of Memphis said property sales do not have to be put out for bid and an ordinance amended by the city council *allows the mayor to sell property to a non-profit for less than market value*, saying this was discussed publicly for several months at city council._

But then there is this:

_According to paperwork obtained by the Tennessee Secretary of State’s Office the non-profit organization was formed on Oct 5, 2017 and Turner said it is currently in the process of obtaining 501(C)3 status from the IRS._

I have formed two 501c3's and they take about 6 months. You have to wait on the IRS to do the paperwork and they never get in a hurry.

So, the mayor sold it non compete bid to a non (legally) recognized entity. That's gonna come back and bite them I bet. You cant just say you are 501c3 and be one. Looks like the mayor had a vendetta and just couldnt wait the other three months to settle it. Other than that, I could care less what the people there do. 
_
_


----------



## frogmammy (Dec 8, 2004)

However, if you read the laws for the state of Indiana, a business can buy and sell as a 501c3 as soon as approved by the STATE, don't have to wait for the IRS. May be same law in TN.

Mon


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

farmrbrown said:


> But what about the price?
> I
> I don't guess there are any answers to those at the moment and quite a few that don't really care..............





frogmammy said:


> However, if you read the laws for the state of Indiana, *a business can buy and sell as a 501c3 as soon as approved by the STATE*, don't have to wait for the IRS. May be same law in TN.
> 
> Mon


There is the rub. If that is true in that state it doesnt take into account that according to the article I linked the mayor cant SELL unless its a non profit. You are not a nonprofit until the IRS says you are. That is the whole purpose of the status. To not pay federal taxes.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> The plot thickens.
> 
> http://wreg.com/2017/12/21/memphis-greenspace-addresses-purchase-of-parks/
> 
> ...


Nice catch.
I looked into this too.......

https://www.memphisdailynews.com/ne...nd-davis-statues-removed-as-city-sells-parks/

I found the city code on the sale too, but I stopped to read about the County Commissioner who heads this non-profit that the city commission sold it to............


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

mreynolds said:


> There is the rub. If that is true in that state it doesnt take into account that according to the article I linked the mayor cant SELL unless its a non profit. You are not a nonprofit until the IRS says you are. That is the whole purpose of the status. To not pay federal taxes.



Not necessarily.
Here's the ordinance........
https://library.municode.com/tn/memphis/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=TIT2AD_CH2-16CIREPRMA

Note there are a lot of requirements to meet and procedures to follow. Somehow I think a quick vote and a four hour turnover might not have been as legal as claimed.......



> Disposition/conveyance of property for public benefit.
> 
> 1.
> 
> ...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> What about the man's remains underneath?
> Is ok to sell a grave to a private buyer or is it only ok to do it to confederate soldiers?
> 
> I don't guess there are any answers to those at the moment and quite a few that don't really care..............


Did I miss something in the article that indicated there were human remains under under either of the statues?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> Did I miss something in the article that indicated there were human remains under under either of the statues?


Yep.
Forrest and his wife.

It was in the article, but here's another link confirming it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest_Monument



> The *Nathan Bedford Forrest Monument* was a bronze sculpture by Charles Henry Niehaus, installed in what was Forrest Park (changed to "Health Sciences Park" in 2013)[1] in Memphis, Tennessee depicting a mounted General Nathan Bedford Forrest wearing a uniform of the Confederate States Army. The statue was cast in Paris. Forrest and his wife are buried in front of the monument, after being moved there from Elmwood Cemetery in a ceremony on November 11, 1904.[2] The cornerstone for the monument was laid on May 30, 1901 and the monument was dedicated on May 16, 1905.[3] It was removed December 20, 2017.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

farmrbrown said:


> What about the man's remains underneath?
> Is ok to sell a grave to a private buyer or is it only ok to do it to confederate soldiers?
> 
> I don't guess there are any answers to those at the moment and quite a few that don't really care..............


Did I miss something in the article that indicated there were human remains under under either of the statues? 

Thanks, sometimes, even glasses don't help with small print on my phone. I really have no interest in statues so it really doesn't bother me either way if one were to be removed but I have very strong feelings about disturbing graves and the idea of simply digging someone up and moving them to a new location is unacceptable to me.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

wr said:


> Did I miss something in the article that indicated there were human remains under under either of the statues?


Yes one was an actual grave and the statue was of the man in it.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

wr said:


> Did I miss something in the article that indicated there were human remains under under either of the statues?
> 
> Thanks, sometimes, even glasses don't help with small print on my phone. I really have no interest in statues so it really doesn't bother me either way if one were to be removed but I have very strong feelings about disturbing graves and the idea of simply digging someone up and moving them to a new location is unacceptable to me.



A lot of people feel that way about graves, I'm the oddball in that category. Never have seen the sense in turning prime real estate into a storage facility for dead bodies.
I tell my wife I'll leave her a burn barrel and a can of gas. No need to waste good money on coffins, tombstones and gravesides for something that's returning to dirt after I'm gone.
Send flowers to the living, they can appreciate them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> A lot of people feel that way about graves, I'm the oddball in that category. Never have seen the sense in turning prime real estate into a storage facility for dead bodies.
> I tell my wife I'll leave her a burn barrel and a can of gas. No need to waste good money on coffins, tombstones and gravesides for something that's returning to dirt after I'm gone.
> Send flowers to the living, they can appreciate them.


I feel the same way (so do Klingons BTW  ), my body is just the vessel that holds the thing that was me. I'm having mine burned, and there will a cerebration rather than a funeral.


----------



## hiddensprings (Aug 6, 2009)

I find it sad that we are attempting to remove our history by removing all of these statues. What is it they say "if you forget, history will repeats itself" (or something like that). As a child, my father was stationed in Germany and I can still remember touring one of the concentration camps. I'll never forget it. And yet, in the U.S. everyone is offended by something and wants it removed. For what purpose? Removing the statues doesn't remove the history of our country. Before long, we will have no statues, no books (we're not there yet but give it time), no art, and such. (hummm, kind of sounds like what Hitler try to do!) I would rather take my grandchildren to see a statue and have a solid conversation around what happened a long time ago, then just pretend it never happened. Just my opinion.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Taking down statues doesn’t remove history. It does remove the public honoring of those who fought against our country and who fought to maintain a system that kept others in bondage. 

Maintaining former slave quarters and markets as a reminder of past injustice is appropriate. Putting up statues to honor those who bought and sold those slaves on those grounds would be inappropriate. How many statues of German generals did you see in the concentration camps?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Taking down statues doesn’t remove history. It does remove the public honoring of those who fought against our country and who fought to maintain a system that kept others in bondage.
> 
> Maintaining former slave quarters and markets as a reminder of past injustice is appropriate. Putting up statues to honor those who bought and sold those slaves on those grounds would be inappropriate. How many statues of German generals did you see in the concentration camps?


George Washington owned over 300 slaves and Thomas Jefferson owned 600 slaves. George Washington was also a traitor of Britain, no different than Davis. So I think we should blow George Washington and Thomas Jefferson off Rushmore and any Ulysses Grant statues should be removed too because he as well owned slaves. Bunch of double standard hypocrites!

FYI- Auschwitz is still open for tourism....what does that say?!?!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> George Washington owned over 300 slaves and Thomas Jefferson owned 600 slaves. George Washington was also a traitor of Britain, no different than Davis. So I think we should blow George Washington and Thomas Jefferson off Rushmore and any Ulysses Grant statues should be removed too because he as well owned slaves. Bunch of double standard hypocrites!


And when you find the statues of Washington and Jefferson in Trafalgar Square call me. 

Owning slaves is not the issue. Rebeling against your country is and shouldn’t be honored. Couple that with the history of when and why these monuments were erected and you can understand why some might object to them.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> And when you find the statues of Washington and Jefferson in Trafalgar Square call me.
> 
> Owning slaves is not the issue. Rebeling against your country is and shouldn’t be honored. Couple that with the history of when and why these monuments were erected and you can understand why some might object to them.


Slavery is the issue. Are you clueless or just can’t read? The colonist did what the confederates did. Colonists were traitors of Britain just as confederates were traitors of USA. Why can you not grasp this? People want the stuff gone because they are offended, I’m offended they want it removed, but because I’m a white male who cares right?


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> *And when you find the statues of Washington and Jefferson in Trafalgar Square call me.*
> 
> Owning slaves is not the issue. Rebeling against your country is and shouldn’t be honored. Couple that with the history of when and why these monuments were erected and you can understand why some might object to them.


https://www.guidelondon.org.uk/blog/around-london/statues-6-american-presidents-london/

Send me your number!


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> https://www.guidelondon.org.uk/blog/around-london/statues-6-american-presidents-london/
> 
> Send me your number!


I stand humbly corrected.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Slavery is the issue. Are you clueless or just can’t read? The colonist did what the confederates did. Colonists were traitors of Britain just as confederates were traitors of USA. Why can you not grasp this? People want the stuff gone because they are offended, I’m offended they want it removed, but because I’m a white male who cares right?


And the colonists won. The confederacy lost. To the victors go the spoils, and the statues. Slavery is part of the issue but not the entire issue. Also at issue is that the statues were erected at a time when Jim Crowe laws ruled the south and white males such as yourself wished to remind a certain segment of the population that while they may be free they would never be equal. A how better to remind them than with symbols of those who fought against their freedom and equality in the town square or on the courthouse lawn.

You’re free to be offended by whatever you wish to be. So are others.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> And the colonists won. The confederacy lost. To the victors go the spoils, and the statues. Slavery is part of the issue but not the entire issue. Also at issue is that the statues were erected at a time when Jim Crowe laws ruled the south and white males such as yourself wished to remind a certain segment of the population that while they may be free they would never be equal. A how better to remind them than with symbols of those who fought against their freedom and equality in the town square or on the courthouse lawn.
> 
> You’re free to be offended by whatever you wish to be. So are others.


Good concise post. 

I'm rather shocked there is a statue of Washington in London. Good to know, thanks for the link Texaspredatorhu.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> And the colonists won. The confederacy lost. To the victors go the spoils, and the statues. Slavery is part of the issue but not the entire issue. Also at issue is that the statues were erected at a time when Jim Crowe laws ruled the south and white males such as yourself wished to remind a certain segment of the population that while they may be free they would never be equal. A how better to remind them than with symbols of those who fought against their freedom and equality in the town square or on the courthouse lawn.
> 
> *You’re free to be offended by whatever you wish to be. So are others.*


Exactly. That’s the point. These idiots are tearing these statues down based on them owning slaves and fighting for the CSA, but because they are offended they have that right. Do you think maybe they would say how many people are going to be offended by me tearing this statue down and spitting on it? How many people will be offended by me turning this cop car over in our “peaceful” protest? No because they only care about their own sorry backsides and what the think they know. Look at the liberal protests today, they turn into violence real quick. That’s something to be proud of.


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

.....and we are ...off....LOL.
I'm hearing echo's...


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Exactly. That’s the point. These idiots are tearing these statues down based on them owning slaves and fighting for the CSA, but because they are offended they have that right. Do you think maybe they would say how many people are going to be offended by me tearing this statue down and spitting on it? How many people will be offended by me turning this cop car over in our “peaceful” protest? No because they only care about their own sorry backsides and what the think they know. Look at the liberal protests today, they turn into violence real quick. That’s something to be proud of.


Have a Merry Christmas.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

mmoetc said:


> Have a Merry Christmas.


You too!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

mmoetc said:


> Have a Merry Christmas.


ALL HOLIDAYS MATTER!!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Texaspredatorhu said:


> Exactly. That’s the point. These idiots are tearing these statues down based on them owning slaves and fighting for the CSA, but because they are offended they have that right. Do you think maybe they would say how many people are going to be offended by me tearing this statue down and spitting on it? How many people will be offended by me turning this cop car over in our “peaceful” protest? No because they only care about their own sorry backsides and what the think they know. Look at the liberal protests today, they turn into violence real quick. That’s something to be proud of.


No one is tearing down statues in this situation, they are being removed because they set on publicly owned land. The land that is in part paid for by the descendants of former slaves that those men claimed were subhuman and kept in bondage.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> No one is tearing down statues in this situation, they are being removed because they set on publicly owned land. The land that is in part paid for by the descendants of former slaves that those men claimed were subhuman and kept in bondage.


Ironically they have been taken down because they are now on privately owned land. You know, the brand new corporation/soon to be 501c3. No one can say what gets taken down or up on private land. 

Mostly anyway.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> And when you find the statues of Washington and Jefferson in Trafalgar Square call me.
> 
> Owning slaves is not the issue. Rebeling against your country is and shouldn’t be honored. Couple that with the history of when and why these monuments were erected and you can understand why some might object to them.


In the interest of preserving history.... The southern states seceded from the union and formed their own country. They did not rebell.


----------



## mmoetc (Oct 9, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In the interest of preserving history.... The southern states seceded from the union and formed their own country. They did not rebell.


Yeah, they didn’t “ rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government”. 

Have a Merry Christmas.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

mmoetc said:


> Yeah, they didn’t “ rise in opposition or armed resistance to an established government”.
> 
> Have a Merry Christmas.


Exactly, and a merry Christmas to you and yours.


----------



## manfred (Dec 21, 2005)

I drove through Memphis last summer.
I would not pay $1000 for the entire city if I had to live there.


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

manfred said:


> I drove through Memphis last summer.
> I would not pay $1000 for the entire city if I had to live there.


Indeed. You would really love spending the night there. (dripping in sarcasm in case anyone missed it)


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> In the interest of preserving history.... The southern states seceded from the union and formed their own country. They did not rebell.


 Ummm nope they tried. Not quite the same as doing. 
For those that justify the erecting of statues based on the power of victory can’t you see that they are now being removed based on that same power ?
I think it’s a bad idea. It would be bettter to erect explanatory Plaques around those statues.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

mmoetc said:


> Maintaining former slave quarters and markets as a reminder of past injustice is *appropriate*.


So is maintaining the statues.
It's still just a matter of who is "offended".

Take down all statues everywhere if they offend anyone anywhere.
It's only fair.
Otherwise it's all hypocrisy.



> Rebeling against your country is and shouldn’t be honored.


Yes, let's abolish Independence Day.
It's offensive to England.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

Do yankees ever get tired of telling people in the South how to live?

Seriously.

As Shelby Foote told the story of what the Confederate told the Union soldier when asked why they the Confederate fought, he replied, "You're down here".


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/rebel
1.
a person who refuses allegiance to, resists,or rises in arms against the government or ruler of his or her country.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/seceded

To withdraw formally from an alliance, federation or association, as from a political union, religious organization etc.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Jolly said:


> *Do yankees ever get tired of telling people in the South how to live?*
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> As Shelby Foote told the story of what the Confederate told the Union soldier when asked why they the Confederate fought, he replied, "You're down here".


Apparently not.​


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)

AmericanStand said:


> Ummm nope they tried. Not quite the same as doing.
> For those that justify the erecting of statues based on the power of victory can’t you see that they are now being removed based on that same power ?
> I think it’s a bad idea. It would be bettter to erect explanatory Plaques around those statues.


No, the Confederacy did exist. It was a sovereign nation. It is true that the nations of Europe did not recognize the Confederacy, but that was mostly because of a very intense lobby against such by the Union State Department.

There are a lot of what ifs? regarding the Civil War. If Lee had not ventured into Pennsylvania, could the South have held on long enough for people in the North to finally walk away from the war. Remember, by war's end conscription was being heavily enforced in the North. In many areas, it was not a popular war at all.

Secondly, with the exception of slavery, did the South lose the Civil War in the long run? Slavery was abolished, but sharecroppers became a common way of working the land and eventually the carpetbaggers left. Without a longstanding occupying army (the U.S. is still in Germany and Japan 70 years later) can long term change be actually effected?


----------



## hunter63 (Jan 4, 2005)

hunter63 said:


> My thinking this thread is another attempt to bring up deep polarizing opinions. ....again.
> Or....To stir the ship".....
> 
> Just my opinion....


From post #8
Seems this is coming true.......

Merry Christmas ...Good will toward men.....


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Jolly said:


> Do yankees ever get tired of telling people in the South how to live?
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> As Shelby Foote told the story of what the Confederate told the Union soldier when asked why they the Confederate fought, he replied, "You're down here".


They all move here and get offended and take it all down. Like we are living in a backwards world or something of the sort! As Davy Crockett said you all may go to hell, I will go to Texas!


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

The bottom line is that when a statue of men that thought other people were subhuman and owned them like animals and were part of a force that attacked the United States (some would say it's treason) is on public property, it can be legally removed. This situation is a case in point.

People can divert to what the founding father's did to try to justify their opinion, but that's not the issue at this time, if you (collective you) want those statues/memorials removed contact the local, state, federal government on which they stand.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jolly said:


> No, the Confederacy did exist. It was a sovereign nation. It is true that the nations of Europe did not recognize the Confederacy, but that was mostly because of a very intense lobby against such by the Union State Department.
> ?


 Lol nope they didn’t They gave it a good go but eventually the fine people from the north convinced them that they really did want to try it. And of course they were so pathetic that the European states didn’t want to recognize them. Blame it on the state department if you will but that’s just another part of warfare.

I really don’t have a dog in this fight I consider myself Alaskan and referred to Maine Yankees as being from one of those little bitty southern states just like I do Texans


----------



## IndyDave (Jul 17, 2017)

AmericanStand said:


> Lol nope they didn’t They gave it a good go but eventually the fine people from the north convinced them that they really did want to try it. And of course they were so pathetic that the European states didn’t want to recognize them. Blame it on the state department if you will but that’s just another part of warfare.
> 
> I really don’t have a dog in this fight I consider myself Alaskan and referred to Maine Yankees as being from one of those little bitty southern states just like I do Texans


This is what the Emancipation Proclamation was all about. The British who made the decisions were sympathetic to the South for largely economic reasons. The average Briton on the street believed that slavery was inherently wrong in the post-Wilberforce era of British society. While doing little of nothing to change anything and not even freeing the slaves held in the slave states which did not secede, it gave the North a moral high ground in the perception of the average Briton which was sufficient to leverage a withdrawal of support that amounted to anything for the South.


----------



## Jolly (Jan 8, 2004)




----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> The bottom line is that when a statue of men that thought other people were subhuman and owned them like animals and were part of a force that attacked the United States (some would say it's treason) is on public property, it can be legally removed. This situation is a case in point.
> 
> People can divert to what the founding father's did to try to justify their opinion, but that's not the issue at this time, if you (collective you) want those statues/memorials removed contact the local, state, federal government on which they stand.


That's one side of it, to be sure.
Of course totally ignoring the side that attacked their own countrymen to the point that more lives were lost than all of our other wars combined is a neat trick.
One of the foundations of a successful war is treating the opponent as if they were all subhuman. Once that is done, the killing becomes easy. 
I'm glad my morals won't stretch that far.

The statues can be removed easily, but the attitude of treating your fellow countrymen as less than equal.........well, apparently we ALL have a long way to go before THAT is erased from memory.


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

That the government even allowed the statues tells you how great this country is.

What other conquering government let's the vanquished fly their battle flag, put up statues to their generals and government leaders? 

As to all the hubbub meh take em down leave em up, I don't really have a hard stand. I don't especially consider them to teach history.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> That's one side of it, to be sure.
> Of course totally ignoring the side that attacked their own countrymen to the point that more lives were lost than all of our other wars combined is a neat trick.
> One of the foundations of a successful war is treating the opponent as if they were all subhuman. Once that is done, the killing becomes easy.
> I'm glad my morals won't stretch that far.
> ...


I don't think anyone's morals should stretch that far, mine certainly don't. 

It's simply fact, which side seceded, and formed (in it's mind) their own country, government, and army? Which side fired on the other to start the war? When were the majority of the statues and monuments erected? Were these years known as Jim Crow era? Why do you think that time period was chosen?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think anyone's morals should stretch that far, mine certainly don't.
> 
> It's simply fact, which side seceded, and formed (in it's mind) their own country, government, and army? Which side fired on the other to start the war? When were the majority of the statues and monuments erected? Were these years known as Jim Crow era? Why do you think that time period was chosen?


I know the answers to the questions you ask.
Do you know the answers to mine?
The 'simple fact' that the other major events before and after are deemed irrelevant would indicate that there is plenty of blame and guilt for everyone to have a slice of, that is if they are as interested in swallowing it as they are in dishing it out.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> I know the answers to the questions you ask.
> Do you know the answers to mine?
> The 'simple fact' that the other major events before and after are deemed irrelevant would indicate that there is plenty of blame and guilt for everyone to have a slice of, that is if they are as interested in swallowing it as they are in dishing it out.


Respectfully, did you ask a question? I don't see one in your last couple of posts. 

There are many many other major events but the one in discussion right now is the removal of confederate statues and monuments, and my simple facts are the some of the reasons. The main reason is that most of the statues/monuments set on public land and the local, state, and federal goverment can remove them (mostly) at will. 

I understand that to many people this is an emotional issue, and I do feel sorry for the hurt feelings, but I still believe the statues on public ground should be removed. I haven't petitioned for any removals, and won't, be I do agree.


----------



## Earnest T. Bass (Jun 28, 2017)

Earliest record of slavery 1860 BC. Latest record, Libya today. Taking down statues will not change history or mans inhumanity to man that continues to this day.


----------



## Texaspredatorhu (Sep 15, 2015)

Irish Pixie said:


> I don't think anyone's morals should stretch that far, mine certainly don't.
> 
> It's simply fact, which side seceded, and formed (in it's mind) their own country, government, and army? Which side fired on the other to start the war? When were the majority of the statues and monuments erected? Were these years known as Jim Crow era? Why do you think that time period was chosen?


Are you referring to the revolution or the civil war? The first couple questions have 2 answers. The point is people are tearing down these statues because of the lack of education on their part that the only thing they fought for was slavery, your lack of knowledge of the topic proves this. The founding fathers owned slaves, more than most southerners, 12 of the first 16 presidents owned slaves in office. So outside of people being ignorant and tearing these statues down no mater when erected is plain old ignorance, I bet there isn’t a person here today who remembers someone alive who was a slave in the US. It’s done, it’s over, yes the South lost and became part of the US again. Big deal. Should we tear down the Alamo next because those who fought there were traitors to their country? Shall we rename Houston and Austin? Removing statues will not remove history, it won’t remove “reminders”, it won’t change a dang thing. All it is is a ploy of the libs and yanks to have their way and have something to cry about. 

Do you think we should close Auschwitz to tourism too? I mean a lot of people died there and there are a lot of people that go to see it. Don’t you think that is a slap in the face to every Jew in the world?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Respectfully, did you ask a question? I don't see one in your last couple of posts.
> 
> There are many many other major events but the one in discussion right now is the removal of confederate statues and monuments, and my simple facts are the some of the reasons. The main reason is that most of the statues/monuments set on public land and the local, state, and federal goverment can remove them (mostly) at will.
> 
> I understand that to many people this is an emotional issue, and I do feel sorry for the hurt feelings, but I still believe the statues on public ground should be removed. I haven't petitioned for any removals, and won't, be I do agree.


No, I didn't ask any this time on this thread.
They are just the same old tired questions that usually get asked and today I'm feeling old and tired too.
Just got done cutting and splitting some wood that's been sittin' there for a few months. 
It WAS a great big pile, but now I have some room to stack some more for the next few winters. 
I find it therapeutic to channel energy towards something that will do some good.
There's probably a lot of people that are trying to do some good taking down those monuments and their efforts should be appreciated.
I also think there are a few that would like nothing better than to use them for colonoscopies on anyone with fair skin and a Southern drawl.
Of the two groups, only one would be welcome to sit down and have some sweet potato casserole tomorrow, lol.
Same as it was 150 years ago, there are still those pretending that blood wasn't all over everyone's hands in that mess.
But the truth is - it was, and still is.
Time to wash them and sit down and break bread together instead of trying to hide the blood as if it wasn't there.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> No, I didn't ask any this time on this thread.
> They are just the same old tired questions that usually get asked and today I'm feeling old and tired too.
> Just got done cutting and splitting some wood that's been sittin' there for a few months.
> It WAS a great big pile, but now I have some room to stack some more for the next few winters.
> ...


I have one of those piles (it's split but I stack it in the barn) every year, and they mock a person half to death. Have a nice evening with your people.


----------

