If we are basing the removal of statues on current moral sentiments...

I think it's alright to keep the statues not for historical importance per say because it's not something we should constantly be reminded about (It wasn't good for any american citizen) but because people died for it. I think people that go to war and die for a cause deserve a statue or some sort of monument.

>forgiving them
Yeah, because when they surrendered they renounced the Confederacy and its ideology and returned to being "American". "Muh heritage" is a fucking smokescreen and the people waving the battle-flag in these marches either again want to leave the union or completely transform the country into their own vision in clear defiance of the constitution.

...

The whole point of the statues was a show of reconciliation and unity post war. Although they lost, their leaders worked with the Union to rebuild the South and repair relations.
And it worked.
Liberals are too retarded to tell the difference between commemoration and glorification.

Christ

Kind of a shitty poll. Why not ask should remain or be removed, without adding context like "because they're offensive".

What if I think they belong in a museum, rather than on a public street? What if I don't find them offensive, but think them being a rallying point for swastika waving /pol/tards and sore loser southerners is a negative?

>muh slippery slope

If we let the confederate statues go, next they'll take the statue of liberty, then they'll take all of our copper, then they'll take the gold, then they'll take the rocks, then the earth. Soon we'll have nothing left.

> completely transform the country into their own vision in clear defiance of the constitution.

Pretty sure they just want to be left alone.

Yeah, the 'le sherman xd' faggots don't even know about his post-CW history.
He used a brutal but effective tactic in times of war, he later went on to use this same tactic against the Sioux and Plains Injins, killing thousands. He didn't give a shit about 'killing rednecks' or whatever those morons think, he later led those rednecks into battle.
Guess we'd better remove his statues too!

google.com.au/amp/s/www.mediaite.com/tv/cnns-angela-rye-statues-of-washington-jefferson-and-lee-all-need-to-come-down/amp/
Liberals are subhuman retards.

>event started by a self-described white nationalist, invited people such as Spencer, who is on record for saying he wants a whites only nation
Okay.

>He thinks the slippery slope isn't real when dealing with people whose only reason is because it triggers them.

The justifications are only window dressing. It is their feelings which guide them. And their feelings will never be satisfied once one pet project is done, they must find another subject to virtue signal about.

>The whole point of the statues was a show of reconciliation and unity post war.
Some of them are, but a shitload of them were erected in the 1910's/20's (such as the one brought down in Durham), well after any period of "reconciliation" had ended.

I'm against the leaders having statues, but that statue of what was basically an unnamed confederate soldier shouldn't have been torn down. The common man didn't really have a choice, their nation made them fight, There's nothing wrong with honoring people who died fighting in a war they were more or less forced into.

The ones built in the late 50s/early 60s can fuck off though. We both know the real reason those were built had nothing to do with rememberance.

>One person
A fringe group of black nationalists want all Ghandi statues to be taken down, because he supported apartheid, it doesn't mean shit.
It isn't, because you aren't going to sway public opinion against the founding fathers.

>everyone is a crazy SJW so it's not a slippery slope
/pol/ is one hell of a drug

But if they let the statues stay, then they'll have to let that statue of Trump with no testicles stay, and then any statue someone puts up. Soon statues won't be enough, and we won't be able to throw out any garbage, because of it's rich historical value. We'll have to abandon whole cities (which we'll have to leave standing) because all the apartments are filled with garbage we're not allowed to get rid of.

Most Yankees want them to stay, too.
It's literally only progressive retards who want them removed.

youtube.com/watch?v=rpnWefa5oEk

Secondly it does not take a majority. Merely a strong enough minority that politicians are willing to cave to their demands in order to keep the peace. Or even more simply, enough virtue signaling teens to think public destruction of property is somehow high level protest.

I think the statues honoring the fallen soldiers should stay but ones honoring slave owners should be put in museums. I can understand why Blacks would be opposed to statues of individuals who enslaved their ancestors.

>woah look at these retards
>the government is totally going to listen to them guys!
There's a difference between the US government taking down symbols of an enemy rebel state and taking down their own symbols of power. Wouldn't you say?

>Or even more simply, enough virtue signaling teens to think public destruction of property is somehow high level protest
If you think edgy teens destroying shit to fuck with the man is somehow new you've got another thing coming.

In addition to this, if Germany can have cemetaries for the rank and file soldiers of the 2 world wars, I don't see why the rank and file of the confederacy can't have a statue.

>current moral sentiments
The narrative that "slavery is bad" IS a "current moral sentiment". At the time of the Civil War, it was an economic means to an end for half the country, and the other half demanded industrialization overnight (which is impossible no matter who it's being demanded of).

Slavery is bad, statues commemorating the man who fought to keep it are bad, and if the statue is inspiring people to kill others over it, it needs to be taken down. Period.

Comparing Robert E. Lee to any other great leader (Washington, Napoleon, et al.) is false equivalency. Hes a failed military general who LOST the only major war he fought in. If he were ANYTHING like the others, the Confederacy would've won. As it stands, hes a dumbass fighting for slavery and for some reason, we're still idolizing his failures.

>taking down their own symbols of power.
If symbols of power are redefined as should of oppression. It was not long ago that Confederate statues were considered symbols of power. And again, according to the poll above, a majority still holds that these statues remain, yet the mi ority has managed to remove them in a great number of places.

Why is this suddenly an issue?

You have no idea why Robert E. Lee fought for the Confederacy at all, do you?

because riots

Because Liberals.

Unironically because of Trump. They had 8 years of a democratic president where they could've done it without making a huge scene and never bothered, now they're doing it out of backlash.

Coz /pol/ needs an issue to moan about stuff outside of /pol/

>It was not long ago that Confederate statues were considered symbols of power
No they weren't? Again why would the US federal government consider honoring rebel generals as a projection their of power? The only reason they were allow to stay is to keep Dixie fags happy. And now local Southern officials are them taking down because they realize it makes look retarded. When they started taking the stars and bars off the state flags in the 60's and 70's was that also the SJWs? The South is under going a huge demographic shift. A lot of new people are coming to the South that don't appeaciate this bullshit. And the local government changed accordingly. Sure the SJWs were screaming about it around the same time but they scream about everything. You can prove correlation but you can't really prove causation.

because people would rather act against statues that don't hurt anyone than against actual issues that would require real work. Plus the major view pushed by the media is that anyone who disagrees about these statues is a racist, and no one wants to be called racist over a statue.

Meanwhile there's tens of millions of Americans w/o health insurance, hundreds of thousands/millions of homeless, millions who don't get enough to eat/millions who eat too much or too poorly, millions who can't afford to get higher education (trade school or college) and millions with student loan debt, and a national debt that was over $17 trillion last I checked.

But those little issues can wait, at least some spooky statues are going down.

very good point, tbqhw you

"When Virginia declared its secession from the Union in April 1861, Lee chose to follow his home state, despite his desire for the country to remain intact and an offer of a senior Union command."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee

It goes on to read
>Lee's strategic foresight was more questionable, and both of his major offensives into Union territory ended in defeat.[4][5][6] Lee's aggressive tactics, which resulted in high casualties at a time when the Confederacy had a shortage of manpower, have come under criticism in recent years.

If you "fought for the confederacy", you were fighting for your "states right" to continue slavery.
It's in their mission statement, their VP made a speech and everything. That is what you were doing on that battlefield. Fighting FOR slavery.

I understand that, but what was said here
>hes a dumbass fighting for slavery
Is absolutely wrong.
Robert E. Lee opposed slavery greatly and felt they could not work with his christian values at all. The reason he fought for the confederacy was because he did not want to betray his family and state that had turned against the union.

dailycaller.com/2017/08/15/fact-check-did-robert-e-lee-oppose-slavery/

Anything else?

>Hes a failed military general who LOST the only major war he fought in
Retard.
Lee won way more battles than he lost, I'd say he was the second most capable general in the war, behind Jackson.
Either way, he also fought in the Mexican-American War, which was a victory. He also defeated the Harper's Ferry raid, well before the Civil War.
'History board' my fucking ass.

This ain't reddit kid. The "muh states rights to OWN slaves" argument doesn't work here because most people don't care about niggers and a minority even want a right to own them.

The CSA had a right to own niggers since at the time niggers were considered subhuman and the feds shouldn't be able to tell states to free them.

>twitter reaction gif
>using the phrase "fact check"
How did twitter niggerlovers find Veeky Forums?

>he was the second most capable general in the war, behind Jackson.
This. CSA didn't lose for lack of skill, that's for sure.
>Harper's Ferry
To be fair, that was a pretty minor battle.

Could we replace the statues with better ones?

Many of them were installed in the 20th century, though. Not all, but a good many.

fucking
triggered

>this aint reddit kid

>Again why would the US federal government consider honoring rebel generals as a projection their of power?
>The Federal Government

Fuck off you have no knowledge about this topic. The Federal Government is not even an issue in this. It has always been an issue of local and state governments.

As for it being only SJWs the poll above essentially confirms that it's only a minority making a lot of noise over nothing, and virtue signalling politicians getting hard baited/revealing their true selves. Note how the current governor of Virginia is from New York.

Redditards from /r/badhistory (basically /r/wrongthink) are trying to discredit the Confederacy like they did the Wehrmacht.

Look out for anyone using the term "Leeaboo" it's their new phrase fresh from reddit.

>Verdict False
>Article admits Lee disagreed with slavery

Not an argument.

"Demographic shift" is codeword for yankee carpetbaggers and mexinigger invaders

>What is The Society of the Spectacle?
Come on son

>Most people don't want to be ISIS tier and bow down to Radical BLM and Antifa terrorists
Oh rly?

The South is 100 million people, a third of the country. If 'changing demographics' are the reason, then why do two thirds of the country want to leave them alone?

No statues of people should ever be removed.
That's the same as erasing history.
Revisionism needs to be punished wherever it roots up from.

This discussion was beaten to death 3 months ago after these statues first got taken down. The statues AREN'T being demolished - they're going to museums where they cannot be vandalized or weathered down by pidgeon shit.

Georgia native here. Most don't even care anymore. I will stay eternally butthurt

>It has always been an issue of local and state governments.
I literally said the local government were responsible.
Maybe you should read the whole comment chain or just finish reading the comment you actually responded to before you call me an idiot.

>Note how the current governor of Virginia is from New York.
And yet the people of Virginia voted him in. Virginia has become pretty liberal recently so you can't really be surprised that a liberal governor from an increasingly liberal state removed a Confederate symbol can you? But I'm sure it was actually just muh SjWs right? And the poll doesn't ask "should they be removed from public spaces into a museum." It just asks should they be removed period. Which is not what's at stake here. The statues aren't being destroyed. Moving them to a museum would nicely fit into that first category. It's almost like random public opinion polls aren't a hard science or something.

I mean if you wanna be anal. The event was really started by Cville's vice mayor Wes Bellamy who started the move for the statue to be removed.

damn

>It isn't, because you aren't going to sway public opinion against the founding fathers.

you underestimate the power of the jewish media

>Cville
Am i the only one who keeps reading this as cwcville?

The entire planet ought to be razed, and all ought to die too. By the same logic as that employed by these budget-iconoclasts, all living have been violated or are violators and thus are not suitable for the Liberal Ideostate.

>I literally said the local government were responsible.
>Maybe you should read the whole comment chain or just finish reading the comment you actually responded to before you call me an idiot.

You were the one who mentioned the Fed and insisted them as having any sort of stake in this.

>And yet the people of Virginia voted him in
When he was running for office he explicitly declared this matter to be a local issue and even further more declared the statues part of history in various speeches. He's now either revealing his true opinion, or far more likely afraid of being primaried.

>Moving them to a museum would nicely fit into that first category.
No it wouldn't. It fits more in the second option. The word removed still being used keys you in to that. And the reason still remains, that they are being removed because they are offensive.

Also, as another aside almost any public poll is in no way hard science.

It actually is Chris Chan's hometown.

>You were the one who mentioned the Fed and insisted them as having any sort of stake in this.
In regards to taking down statutes of Washington or Jefferson as put forward by many of the slippery slope arguments other anons are making. Again don't call me a moron because you weren't paying attention to the context of the argument.

>When he was running for office he explicitly declared this matter to be a local issue and even further more declared the statues part of history in various speeches
It's legally still a local matter and the statues will still be a part of history. I don't see the contradiction here.

>No it wouldn't. It fits more in the second option. The word removed still being used keys you in to that.
Yes but the first option says "Remain as a historic symbol" it's pretty hard to argue that's not what's happening. So theoretically you could support removing the statues and still agree with the first option. It's vague and misleading. Manipulative polling 101.

>Also, as another aside almost any public poll is in no way hard science.
Then why use this shitty poll to support your argument?

This.
If it's causing this much trouble just fucking leave them be. They're carved pieces of rock ffs.

damn are you triggered?

or

>>Hes a failed military general who LOST the only major war he fought in
Napoleon also lost his only two wars he fought in.

most retarded post on Veeky Forums award, congratulations.

please, give the people a speech for this monumentous occassion.

what

> its pure coincidence that Trudeau legalised dog blowjobs

shitty bait

>Comparing Robert E. Lee to any other great leader (Washington, Napoleon, et al.) is false equivalency. Hes a failed military general who LOST the only major war he fought in

>they represent traitors and should not be glorified
So do the statues of the Revolutionary War.

nah youre fucking retarded because napoleon won multiple wars outright. You realize it took 6 coalitions to put him down for good, right? You know 4 of the coalitions failed right? You know thats 4 victories for the french, right? Math. You realize they were winning wars left and right for 2 decades before they were finally taken out? You realize napoleon is known for dismantling the holy roman empire after he WON the war against them, regardless of support from fucking everyone? You realize that the ebtire napoleonic era is not in fact a single war but several?

You dont realize any of this, and thats why you won the most retarded post on Veeky Forums award.

Public statues are meant to represent the civic cult, and the pantheon will naturally change with time.

I'm all for wiping out Lost Cause revisionism.

>That's the same as erasing history.
The removal itself is creating history.

people act like tearing down statues is a new thing. Virtually every war in recorded history involves statues that represent defeated ideologies being torn down. It was one of the most iconic images of the iraq war. These same rednecks were cheering on Sadaam's statue being destroyed, bunch of hypocrites.

Only the man who thinks he is on the right side of history is the one about to be taught wrong
-Hitler most likely

Robert E Lee was actually a pretty cool dude, desu

Did they actually word a poll like that? That's atrocious.

Anyways, I'm sure many statues over time would be put up to be demolished, certainly not all of them, though. But it's the choice of the communities around it, really. I don't think there's much historical value in most of these statues, and I think they're more pageantry and pride than historical reverence. Especially when you look at when many of them were put up, when civil war veterans were all already dead.

>he still thinks this issue is about Yankees vs Dixie
How bluepilled can you be. I'm from Ohio so not a southernet and to me this is a clear attack on whiteness. George Washington statues will be next.

He was okay. Paternalistic in his view towards black Americans, which I think is the root of a lot of social problems. But I don't think he had bad intentions.

>a clear attack on whiteness
That depends. It's certainly a clear attack on whiteness as defined by Confederate, Jim Crow, and American white nationalist ideas.

You don't see anyone agitating to take down statues of Longstreet and southern Republicans/Unionists (because there aren't much for the above reasons).

There's already calls for blowinh up Mount Rushmore and takinh down Teddy Roosevelt statues.

There always were. We're talking about serious public discourse here.

Do you think that the reason we know so little about the past is that retards kept trashing art because "lol we don't need it"?

Shut up Tsumugi

>blowing up Mount Rushmore

That's a fucking Team America joke.

Stop the universe, I want to get off.

That's only for civilizations without continuity to your own. We know plenty about European history back 500 years without having to use statues.