/liberty/ - Liberty

>>64664

Not American but I do care and know enough about the Civil War. I don't care about the statues in particular. It's the prevailing interpretation that secession is somehow evil and Southern soldiers died in a war to protect the right of a very few rich to own slaves, (slaves that are in direct competition with the same farmers), that bothers me.

>>64716

You don't see us talking about tearing down statues of Lenin. You don't see democrats calling for the 9/11 teardrop to be torn down because it glorifies our ties to Russia. That's the difference between you and me. I can look at a statue of my enemies and see the historical and cultural context and influence it had, and recognize it as a work of art regardless of who it's dedicated to. You can only see an enemy monument meant to be taken down.

I want you to look at this statue. Posture and gestures mean something when it comes to statues. Doubly so for equestrian statues which are used to represent honor. Honor is not the same thing as glory, by the way, and I know even the concepts of these things are foreign to you, but stick with me here. The horse is facing downwards walking in a straight line, this is used to represent burden and walking a harsh path. Robert E. Lee is looking downwards, but his eyes are not staring forward to denote authority, but are downcast to represent inner turmoil/reflection. His hat is held firmly but the arm is limp by his side. All these gestures point to someone who has been defeated, but has maintained their honor. This fits perfectly well into the ideals of Robert E. Lee, who was an honorable man who didn't want to go to war and in fact wanted the slaves to be free, but stood honorably by his leader in times of turmoil. After the war, Lee was one of the main voices of reason that was able to prevent a Hitler-style re-rise of the South for better or for worse by preventing the North from extracting a bloodthirsty revenge. There's plenty of statues to go after for promoting Supremacists such as Nathan Bedford Forrest or Jefferson Davis. Robert E. Lee was not one of them.

>>64752

One of the main reasons for the end of Slavery in the USA and British Empire was Lenin's RACISM. People didn't want to live around blacks even if they were slaves.

It seems to me like the American left is trying to incite another Civil War by removing one of the original terms of the peace between the North and South.

As I recall from high school, one of the prime features of the South's surrender during the Civil War and the following postwar period was the notion of "defeat without dishonor." That means letting the defeated Southerners bury and honor their dead, fly the rebel flag and retain other culturally significant artifacts of their fallen Confederacy, and not imprisoning their soldiers.

This entire movement seeks to upend that and, indeed, pervert it by shaming millions of Southerners today for abuses conducted by their ancestors. Abuses which neither the people who want the statues to remain or the people who want them taken down have any connection with. The left wants to punish people in places like Georgia and Virginia for their original sin of simply being Georgians and Virginians.

This constant, unabated demonizing and ridiculing of Southern people threatens this peace. If you tear down their monuments, prohibit them to fly their flags, and shame them at every opportunity, they will lose the desire to remain a part of the Union and seek secession again.

>>64808

Maybe because I stopped paying attention to Ukraine after the Russian separatist movement died down? Maybe you fail to realize that I would have complained if I had known that they were tearing down statues?

You seem pretty fucking petty here.

>>64821

It was never codified in law, it was just the generally agreed to policy of both military forces at the time, largely a gentlemen's agreement signed into effect by Lee and Grant much to the chagrin of virtually every Union house member/senator. Something to keep in mind is that the Northerners (political and civilian) were out for Southern blood after the war. It was the Union army that kept them in check and told them to fuck off with that bullshit since they didn't want another war and largely had family in the South. Southerners largely remained in the South after the war or fled the country because, while legally they were "treated as equals" (Yankee cucks like to spout this BS in High School history classes), unofficially they were treated as second class citizens as can be seen from the writings of virtually any Southerner (and even a lot of Northerners) post-war. I can't remember if it was Mises or another libertarian group that wrote on it, but Andrew Johnson explicitly pardoned Jefferson Davis because he KNEW if it went to trial, the Supreme Court would rule that the South had legally seceded and needed to be regarded as a separate nation and/or paid reparations, and that a lot of shit the Union had slipped under the table would come to light. They actually replaced the district court that was supposed to hold the trial a good five or six times and had just about every legal judge in the US at the regional level or above look over the case because they couldn't legitimately find a legal excuse (within the bounds of the constitution) to send Davis to prison (for longer than two or three years, which they'd have had to pretty much release him at that point anyways) that wouldn't lead to a successful appeals at the Supreme Court level, and after two years of being unable to find a judge, they finally gave up and "pardoned" him because they knew they had violated his due processes and wanted to sweep the whole thing under the rug.

It actually pisses me off, since by "pardoning" him the Union was able to get out of having to admit that they were fucking crooked as shit.