Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

[Pvt Schnapps]

Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

Sorry, guess geography isn't my strong suit - I thought Baltimore was in the United States.

The whole discussion in Baltimore was about what was appropriate for that city. The fact that it's in the US is no more an argument for statues of two Confederate generals than it is for one of King Kamehameha.

On the broader question, this thread is rife with more evidence of why serious historians don't take reenactors seriously as historians. Not only have folks here ignored what Baltimore specifically chose to keep, but they've also blithely brushed by the specific reasons Baltimore did not chose to keep the other memorials.

That's fine, everyone knows hobbyists have their little quirks and civil war reenacting is nearly exclusively by, for, and about white men with black powder weapons. And I appreciate the fact that the hosts here have tolerated my comments thus far.

But think a little bit before you go before a commission such as Baltimore's and stand adamantly against any reconsideration of any monument anywhere. Because you're not going to look like a thoughtful living historian. You're going to look like just another revanchist crank who wears funny clothes on the weekend.

Good luck with that. :)

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

That's fine, everyone knows hobbyists have their little quirks and civil war reenacting is nearly exclusively by, for, and about white men with black powder weapons. And I appreciate the fact that the hosts here have tolerated my comments thus far.

Schnapps,

I appreciate that you do recognize that tolerance. Statements like "by, for, and about white men with black powder weapons" seem to be aimed like a poison-tipped dart for the purpose of engendering an angry reply. So, yes, you're walking on the razor's edge of the "Be Nice" rule. But, in the interest of open dialogue, I don't think anyone wants to delete your posts... so keep it nice, OK?

Frankly, it is interesting to watch your arguments unfold here, and educational, too. You parse your facts and words very carefully, blending you opinion together with facts to make a nice dough... you know, I never have figured out how to get eggs, water, and flour separated after they've been mixed!

I like NPR a lot, especially coverage of the Supreme Court. I find it fascinating to hear how the justices weigh the case before them and consider how a ruling, one way or the other, may be applied more broadly to laws that cover different, seemingly unrelated issues. I say this because I don't think it is a stretch to consider, for example, the action in New Orleans where a statue is being removed with the reason that it is "a nuisance".

One can reasonably ask "what else might a town or city consider to be "A Nuisance" at some future date?

If a 130-year-old monument can go, then what else? Yes, yes... I can year you typing from here... "but, John, its got a Lee statue on it... he's not even FROM New Orleans! He hated gumbo!" Well, there's a statue of a Confederate Soldier in Ohio, a 9/11 monument in Indiana, and D-Day Monument in Virginia.

(I hear you typing again)

Yes, yes... I know you have all sorts of reasons why those other non-sequitur monuments are fine, but New Orleans is not. Or, maybe you think they should all go. I don't know. At the end of the day, it is just your opinion.

My point is, that once you set that precedent, it can be applied in places and ways that you cannot predict or control. Historic buildings can come down. Greenspaces developed. And, yes, in the future, some things this nation holds near and dear today could be challenged and, ultimately, come down. "Heads Up!", Boston! Not all of our founding fathers were of a sufficiently "unstained" character to withstand a "nuisance" label, so liberally applied!.

Type away! Apply more labels to me. I know what's coming.

(Pardon the snark. I really do appreciate opposing views and value debate with folks who's opinion differs from mine. Those conversations teach me a lot! However, your posts come in light on logic and argumentation and heavily spiced with the application of labels to those on the other side of the table... and just a pinch of vitriol).

[john duffer]

Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

Schnapps,

I appreciate that you do recognize that tolerance. Statements like "by, for, and about white men with black powder weapons" seem to be aimed like a poison-tipped dart for the purpose of engendering an angry reply. So, yes, you're walking on the razor's edge of the "Be Nice" rule. But, in the interest of open dialogue, I don't think anyone wants to delete your posts... so keep it nice, OK?

Frankly, it is interesting to watch your arguments unfold here, and educational, too. You parse your facts and words very carefully, blending you opinion together with facts to make a nice dough... you know, I never have figured out how to get eggs, water, and flour separated after they've been mixed!

I like NPR a lot, especially coverage of the Supreme Court. I find it fascinating to hear how the justices weigh the case before them and consider how a ruling, one way or the other, may be applied more broadly to laws that cover different, seemingly unrelated issues. I say this because I don't think it is a stretch to consider, for example, the action in New Orleans where a statue is being removed with the reason that it is "a nuisance".

One can reasonably ask "what else might a town or city consider to be "A Nuisance" at some future date?

If a 130-year-old monument can go, then what else? Yes, yes... I can year you typing from here... "but, John, its got a Lee statue on it... he's not even FROM New Orleans! He hated gumbo!" Well, there's a statue of a Confederate Soldier in Ohio, a 9/11 monument in Indiana, and D-Day Monument in Virginia.

(I hear you typing again)

Yes, yes... I know you have all sorts of reasons why those other non-sequitur monuments are fine, but New Orleans is not. Or, maybe you think they should all go. I don't know. At the end of the day, it is just your opinion.

My point is, that once you set that precedent, it can be applied in places and ways that you cannot predict or control. Historic buildings can come down. Greenspaces developed. And, yes, in the future, some things this nation holds near and dear today could be challenged and, ultimately, come down. "Heads Up!", Boston! Not all of our founding fathers were of a sufficiently "unstained" character to withstand a "nuisance" label, so liberally applied!.

Type away! Apply more labels to me. I know what's coming.

(Pardon the snark. I really do appreciate opposing views and value debate with folks who's opinion differs from mine. Those conversations teach me a lot! However, your posts come in light on logic and argumentation and heavily spiced with the application of labels to those on the other side of the table... and just a pinch of vitriol).

Where's the "like" button?

[beltplate53]

Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

No one really has to worry, most college graduates think Judge Judy sits on The Supreme Court. I doubt they know Taney. Great debate though.......

[Jhscott]

Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

I have had the honor to have my opinion on this particular issue published. I hope my input helps turn this around:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/removing-monuments-and-history-as-well-1475516443

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

Schnapps,

I appreciate that you do recognize that tolerance. Statements like "by, for, and about white men with black powder weapons" seem to be aimed like a poison-tipped dart for the purpose of engendering an angry reply. So, yes, you're walking on the razor's edge of the "Be Nice" rule. But, in the interest of open dialogue, I don't think anyone wants to delete your posts... so keep it nice, OK?

Frankly, it is interesting to watch your arguments unfold here, and educational, too. You parse your facts and words very carefully, blending you opinion together with facts to make a nice dough... you know, I never have figured out how to get eggs, water, and flour separated after they've been mixed!

I like NPR a lot, especially coverage of the Supreme Court. I find it fascinating to hear how the justices weigh the case before them and consider how a ruling, one way or the other, may be applied more broadly to laws that cover different, seemingly unrelated issues. I say this because I don't think it is a stretch to consider, for example, the action in New Orleans where a statue is being removed with the reason that it is "a nuisance".

One can reasonably ask "what else might a town or city consider to be "A Nuisance" at some future date?

If a 130-year-old monument can go, then what else? Yes, yes... I can year you typing from here... "but, John, its got a Lee statue on it... he's not even FROM New Orleans! He hated gumbo!" Well, there's a statue of a Confederate Soldier in Ohio, a 9/11 monument in Indiana, and D-Day Monument in Virginia.

(I hear you typing again)

Yes, yes... I know you have all sorts of reasons why those other non-sequitur monuments are fine, but New Orleans is not. Or, maybe you think they should all go. I don't know. At the end of the day, it is just your opinion.

My point is, that once you set that precedent, it can be applied in places and ways that you cannot predict or control. Historic buildings can come down. Greenspaces developed. And, yes, in the future, some things this nation holds near and dear today could be challenged and, ultimately, come down. "Heads Up!", Boston! Not all of our founding fathers were of a sufficiently "unstained" character to withstand a "nuisance" label, so liberally applied!.

Type away! Apply more labels to me. I know what's coming.

(Pardon the snark. I really do appreciate opposing views and value debate with folks who's opinion differs from mine. Those conversations teach me a lot! However, your posts come in light on logic and argumentation and heavily spiced with the application of labels to those on the other side of the table... and just a pinch of vitriol).

Where is the 1000 of "likes" button, Wick?

;)

- - - Updated - - -

Does anyone realize these monuments, placed over 100 or so years ago, have a history of their own? That of reconciliation, moving-on, brotherhood and honoring those that made the sacrifice, for better or worse, that we might have the great nation we have today? Why is only one heavily emotionally-charged and opinionated side presented? Perhaps re-opening old wounds will cause no one any good and there are those with an agenda to do so for their own gain? Perhaps our ancestors knew that and placed these monuments in order that this healing can happen?

Go ahead- label me. I don't care.

[Jhscott]

Re: Baltimore City Commission Recommends Removal of Two Confederate Monuments

In hopes to add to the discussion: This is a link to a Letter to the Editor on this subject, which I was honored to have published in The Wall Street Journal:http://www.wsj.com/articles/removing...ell-1475516443.

Also, here is a link to another Letter to the Editor I authored, which has been published in the Memphis (TN) Commercial Appeal on the subject of that city's memorial to Nathan Bedford Forrest: http://archive.commercialappeal.com/...384359541.html