Memphis may get penalized for removing Confederate statues

Most of the people on this site complain and bemoan the participation trophy culture when in fact they started it by giving awards, statues, (which is really just the ultimate life size trophy, right?) to honor a bunch of losers.

Clever....I was not aware that the South invented statues....learn something new every day......
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Most of the people on this site complain and bemoan the participation trophy culture when in fact they started it by giving awards, statues, (which is really just the ultimate life size trophy, right?) to honor a bunch of losers.

This post does not come close to your usual standard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
This post does not come close to your usual standard.

ehh. I am little hungover today. Did a little wine party last night. Everyone brought a couple of bottles of wine ($50 max between the two) and we tasted a bunch. Just had a bunch of little tasters. It didn't seem like much, but today I definitely feel it.

BTW, I gave you the like for calling me on it.
 
It was the primary reason the war was fought. In fact, I will go so far as to say that without the slavery issue there would have been no civil war.

Wanna bet that if cotton could have been grown in the north that slavery wouldn't have been an issue, or that tariffs and embargoes instigated by northern states just might have inflamed the issues.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
ehh. I am little hungover today. Did a little wine party last night. Everyone brought a couple of bottles of wine ($50 max between the two) and we tasted a bunch. Just had a bunch of little tasters. It didn't seem like much, but today I definitely feel it.

BTW, I gave you the like for calling me on it.

Go to a Threshers game instead.....you might not be so grumpy the next day......
 
ehh. I am little hungover today. Did a little wine party last night. Everyone brought a couple of bottles of wine ($50 max between the two) and we tasted a bunch. Just had a bunch of little tasters. It didn't seem like much, but today I definitely feel it.

BTW, I gave you the like for calling me on it.

To me, nothing is better than a little wine buzz...........on the other hand, nothing is worse than a wine hangover lol.
 
agreed, if anything Memphis taxpayers should be upset.

Regardless, what do they plan on doing with Nathan Bedford Forest's body? He is still buried at this park from what I understand. He deserves to be moved and placed with the monument in my opinion.

So if a marker is a little too flashy - a little to politically insensitive to some people, it's going to be OK to desecrate graves by removing markers now? Kinda makes you wonder about the northern markers scattered around Chattanooga. You brought up a very good point - something not considered before, but how long before Confederate cemeteries offend people? Better to leave history as is rather than fight it all over again.
 
Do you have the same opinion over Vietnam Memorials?

I do not. We aren't putting up statues of Viet Cong officers.

Like it or not, the confederacy was traitorous to the union and those confederate states are still part of the union today. Using public funds to put up and maintain statues to honor traitors is something I disagree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
So if a marker is a little too flashy - a little to politically insensitive to some people, it's going to be OK to desecrate graves by removing markers now? Kinda makes you wonder about the northern markers scattered around Chattanooga. You brought up a very good point - something not considered before, but how long before Confederate cemeteries offend people? Better to leave history as is rather than fight it all over again.

Grave markers in grave yards maintained with private funds should never be touched.
 
It seems we have a fundamental difference of opinion on how war works and what it is.

This quote summarizes it pretty well.

"War is rich old men protecting their property by sending middle class and lower class young men off to die. It always has been."

Yeah, well, how war is perceived after the fact is also a function of who won. Remember the Lees, for example, fought in both revolutions - the one against the British and the one against the north, as did other southerners. If the British hadn't decided to swing south into SC, NC, and VA, and messed with a different brand of American patriots, the flap at "football" games might be over a different national anthem. For the record, most guys leading the fight are't exactly young.

By the way, if you look it up, Lincoln also wrote a little thing that goes something like - if you don't agree with your government, you have a duty to overthrow it. Today the Lees and Washingtons who went to war against the British are seen differently from the Less who went to war against the north - had either war gone differently the perspective would be different.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
The true grave markers and graves were left untouched and, by all accounts, will continue to be left untouched unless the family and courts agree to a change.

What has been left out of this is the effort to place the statue of Forrest elsewhere to allow it to still be displayed. Savannah, TN turned down the opportunity. It is likely to be placed in Parker's Crossroads, TN where those interested can visit it.
 
Most of the people on this site complain and bemoan the participation trophy culture when in fact they started it by giving awards, statues, (which is really just the ultimate life size trophy, right?) to honor a bunch of losers.

I don't consider a fixed statue a trophy, but that's just me. I don't even see it as a participation trophy, not everyone gets one. Its more like the box score on a game, yeah the North won, but the South scored some points and here are the players that did good.

plenty of northern guys were losers who got statues. we have national parks on the battlefields that the north lost, are those participation trophies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
No. I was responding to the comment that it was not done in the open. It was all done open and with opportunity for public comment. Just ask the Tennessee Comptroller of the Treasury.

If that was the case, my bad.
 
It was the primary reason the war was fought. In fact, I will go so far as to say that without the slavery issue there would have been no civil war.

That's debatable, there was plenty of animosity over the north's abuse of the southern states. It may not have lead to open warfare minus slavery but a conflict was coming regardless.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people

"Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable - a most sacred right - a right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world."

Abraham Lincoln

Had the fight against Britain gone differently, then I suppose by your logic, Washington and many others would be "traitors". The terms "patriot" and "traitor" are too easily awarded based simply on the outcome of a conflict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

From the founding, the United States were considered individual sovereign states or nations that created a federal government with agency for specific limited powers. There was no prohibition against secession. The constitution most likely would not have been ratified with such a clause. In other words people were loyal to their state and this was understood by most people norrh and south. Robert E Lee would have been considered a traitor of Virginia had he accepted Lincoln's offer.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people

Ever wonder why the Constitution and Articles of Confederation always have the title State capitalized?

Because prior to the Civil War, the united States was a compact (or union if you prefer) of States with a loose federal governmental system. Or supposed to be. Many if not most officers at that time were more loyal to the individual States than they were to the Union as a whole. Robert E. Lee for example. He felt the Confederacy was nothing more than a revolt against the Union rather than a true formal nation. He even accepted a command in the Union Army until Virginia seceded from the Union. He was about Virginia first and foremost and wouldn't see her invaded by the Union. Which is why he reluctantly joined the Confederacy, though remained highly loyal to Virginia first.

So, while you call them traitors, they actually were more loyal to their home States rather than the concept of a powerful central government. To raise arms against their homes was seen as a more traitorous act than raising arms against the Union. The idea of an all powerful central government was foreign to the States, and in turn the citizens of those States, at the time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
I do not. We aren't putting up statues of Viet Cong officers.

Like it or not, the confederacy was traitorous to the union and those confederate states are still part of the union today. Using public funds to put up and maintain statues to honor traitors is something I disagree with.
If you were President today and California seceded from The Union, would you send troops to keep them in?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person

VN Store



Back
Top