The Confederate flag

[DarthSkywalker]

I think stuff like this should be handle by the local government, through voting. I can see both arguments. But I also don't need to drive past anything reminding me that this country once hated me.

 

[regwec]

Affixing plaques explaining the prevalent modern view might be a reasonable compromise.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Affixing plaques explaining the prevalent modern view might be a reasonable compromise.

Wouldn't that sort of defeat the purpose? Sounds like the asterisk idea in the Baseball HOF.

 

[Uskok]

Slavery is one of the major causes of the Civil War.

People need to pick a side. Either you believe the South deserved to win the Civil War or you don't.

If you don't there's no reason to glorify their "heroes" in the United States.

Many people in the South and elsewhere wish the South had won the Civil War and don't give a damn if blacks suffered as a result. That's the ugly truth about people who want promote the confederate flag.

The blacks have suffered because the Americans won the War for Independence. If the Redcoats won the war, slavery in North America would end in 1830.

 

[regwec]

Wouldn't that sort of defeat the purpose? Sounds like the asterisk idea in the Baseball HOF.

I don't understand the reference, I'm afraid. Most historical monuments have some form of information panel nearby; that's all I mean.

 

[chamber-music]

Ku Klux Klan marching in South Carolina in defence of the Confederate flag next week.

Watch Republican Rep. Jenny Anderson Horne, a descendant of Jefferson Davis, give a passionate speech on the state house floor urging the Confederate flag be removed.

[YT]/6a6Hup6tWKQ[/YT]

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

The blacks have suffered because the Americans won the War for Independence. If the Redcoats won the war, slavery in North America would end in 1830.

Well someone could make that argument if America didn't free the slaves a couple decades after the British Empire (officially in 1838).

 

[regwec]

What's a couple of decades to a slave, eh?

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So you are saying that something which doesn't exist has no historical significance, ergo something with historical significance shouldn't exist.

I'm sorry, but I think you're completely wrong on this point.

No I'm saying monuments and statues that celebrate and glorify people who advocated sucession and slavery have no place in the United States.

Just like statues and monuments that glorify red coats and King George have no place in New England.

The South lost. Their heroes belong in a museums, not celebrated in city squares and public parks.

 

[regwec]

I just don't understand why you believe that history ought to be concealed in closed buildings. That seems highly illiberal and anti-intellectual to me.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What's a couple of decades to a slave, eh?

Having two more decades of slavery doesn't justify the nullification of America's existence.

But if you told me the Native American population would not have been decimated and slavery would have never existed then that's another story.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I just don't understand why you believe that history ought to be concealed in closed buildings. That seems highly illiberal and anti-intellectual to me.

I have no problem with historic sites where battles were fought or some other major historical event.

But a monument or statue glorifies and celebrates people who fought for causes that were wrong.

Again, would it be acceptable to have statues glorifying red coats and King George all over New England?

 

[regwec]

If they were erected at the time, yes. They would be a part of the story of the rebellion. You have chosen an imaginary artefact to make an argument against existing ones, however. America actually has a very, very small amount of historical sites. It's worth hanging on to what there is.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

But if you told me the Native American population would not have been decimated and slavery would have never existed then that's another story.

There is little doubt that the slaves and Native Americans would have been far better off with a British victory. One of the main causes of the war was Britain trying to prevent expansion westward to to appease the Natives, which really angered the Colonials who wanted to steal that land from them.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

There is little doubt that the slaves and Native Americans would have been far better off with a British victory. One of the main causes of the war was Britain trying to prevent expansion westward to to appease the Natives, which really angered the Colonials who wanted to steal that land from them.

It's a little more complex though because you also need to consider the outcome of WW2 without the United States.

Maybe the Axis powers win and the atrocities that happened to Native Americans and blacks is multiplied many times.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

If they were erected at the time, yes. They would be a part of the story of the rebellion. You have chosen an imaginary artefact to make an argument against existing ones, however. America actually has a very, very small amount of historical sites. It's worth hanging on to what there is.

Statues celebrating defeated enemies rarely remain standing which is why I had to invent my own example.

I guess a plaque that explained why the statue is divisive is a fair compromise.

I'm not asking to erase history, just to add some much needed context.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's a little more complex though because you also need to consider the outcome of WW2 without the United States.

Maybe the Axis powers win and the atrocities that happened to Native Americans and blacks is multiplied many times.

Well. This is convenient.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It's a little more complex though because you also need to consider the outcome of WW2 without the United States.

Maybe the Axis powers win and the atrocities that happened to Native Americans and blacks is multiplied many times.

Trying to project what would happen that far into the future is merely guesswork. My personal feeling is that self-rule was inevitable in the long run, although we probably would have ended up like Canada with ties to the Commonwealth and the Queen as official head of state. Logistically it was just really difficult for an island like Great Britain to rule over a continent, especially in the days when communication between the two would take weeks. The British Empire was too big and too spread out to keep together forever. But that's just my opinion. Like I said, it is all guesswork.

One thing I should add though, is that Hitler was beaten in real life when he declared war on Stalin. The minute he invaded the Soviet Union, he lost the war. The US wasn't even in the war yet.

Again, would it be acceptable to have statues glorifying red coats and King George all over New England?

Absolutely. I was at the unveiling of a couple of British-Canadian monuments at Sackett's Harbor a couple of years back, and while there aren't many around in comparison to Civil War monuments, they still do exist at some battlefields.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Well. This is convenient.

Dat butterfly effect.

 

[regwec]

Your assumption is that an America with the same head of state at Britain would be less likely to side with Britain against Hitler. I don't understand. Australia, India and Canada sided with Britain, and they didn't wait over two years to make up their minds.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I guess a plaque that explained why the statue is divisive is a fair compromise.

I'm not asking to erase history, just to add some much needed context.

I'm good with that. I certainly don't agree with the Lost Cause view of history. I just feel very strongly that our history needs to be preserved so we can better educate future generations. Gettysburg National Military Park and parks like it are effectively gigantic outdoor museums and are the locations of some of the defining moments of our history.

Statues celebrating defeated enemies rarely remain standing which is why I had to invent my own example.

The Civil War was a bit of a different situation. They had to worry about reconciling with the former Confederacy and reabsorbing them into the Union. That wasn't an issue with Britain since they were no longer British subjects. It made things a lot easier to bring the country back together if the Union didn't rub the Confederates noses in it and declare Lee et al traitors and hang them. Creating a bitter and resentful population following a defeat can cause major problems down the road (see Germany after World War I). They should have done more with regards to forcing equal rights on the South, but the North didn't really believe in equality among the races either so I'm not exactly shocked it didn't happen. However, I do agree with the decision to not prosecute the Confederates and to allow them to honor their heroes. Peace was more important.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Without the American revolution history would be so different, it's rather pointless to talk about Hitler. He would never have been born.

 

[Schlosser85]

What does the American Revolution have to do with Hitler being born?

 

[Thundercrack85]

What does the American Revolution have to do with Hitler being born?

The sheer amount of butterfly effects caused by an elimination of the American Revolution would be so dramatic, it would dramatically impact the entire planet. Politically, and economically the American Revolution brought on the French Revolution, which brought on the German Revolution. You would probably still have those two happen, but the timeline would be different. Not to mention the Napoleonic Wars, and the results of that.

The entire timeline altered even slightly would mean that millions of different people will be born. Consider Europe's own demographics. No free independent United States means no country encouraging 6 million Germans (including ethnic Germans) to move to it in the early 19th century. What will they do instead? How would that alter Germany and Austria? Not even on a national level. Individually, that would change everyone's lives.

 

[regwec]

Yes, the point is that there are no certainties of either positive reaction or inaction. It's really not worth arguing about, except by analogy, which is why serious historians rarely dabble in hypothetical chronology.