NM

[GGGG]

  it hasn't been banned outright, but there are some out there who have accomplished it, hopefully temporarily.

Like whom?

[Lennys Tap]

    I accept that the founding fathers were flawed souls, many of whom were slave holders.     

I accept that every hero who ever walked the earth was a flawed soul, (what was it Fitzgerald said, "Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy"?) especially when we dissect their lives hundreds of years after the fact and disregard context.

[keefe]

Faulkner and Twain?  Never.   False argument.   Red Herring.     Keefe, I understand your arguments about a flawed constitution, the 3/5 solution,  state's rights, union overreach, Missouri Compromise, Kansas-Nebraska act, Dred Scott.......   they all have one unifying theme.     The stain on America's conscience.      I accept that the founding fathers were flawed souls, many of whom were slave holders.    I accept the notion that many great Americans in the first 75 years of our nation were slaveowners.     That this was part of society.     This should not be whitewashed.    It should be taken out, held up to the light, and studied for the flaws within it to remind us of how easy it is to go along with society instead of doing the right thing.   I want the confederate statues taken down because these leaders led a war against our country to protect that sin.   Take the statues, put them in museums devoted to telling the story of slavery and the confederacy.     But don't hold them up as icons and heroes to put in front of schools and government buildings.

Again, you miss the point. The question is did the secessionist states have the legal right to do so. Until you answer that you cannot pass judgment on what is and what is not treason.

[keefe]

From your private photo collection?

No, from the crucifix on the wall I believe that to be a female Scooper from her days in Cobeen.

[keefe]

Send pics. This thread could use some meat porn.

[rocket surgeon]

Like whom?

giving you the benefit of doubt here, but i think you know darn well "by whom" and where it has been happening.  how does this go? "free advice" call berkeley and tell them ben and ann want to speak on campus.  can you say antifa?

[tower912]

Again, you miss the point. The question is did the secessionist states have the legal right to do so. Until you answer that you cannot pass judgment on what is and what is not treason.

Again, you miss the point.   What basic underlying issue would make them look into seceding?

[Bocephys]

Again, you miss the point.   What basic underlying issue would make them look into seceding?

I'm pretty sure it was the pea guacamole controversy of 2015 that started everything.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

  it hasn't been banned outright, but there are some out there who have accomplished it, hopefully temporarily.  we all know where that is and no need to get in to that argument.

They have?  Who has?  Please enlighten me.

[GGGG]

giving you the benefit of doubt here, but i think you know darn well "by whom" and where it has been happening.  how does this go? "free advice" call berkeley and tell them ben and ann want to speak on campus.  can you say antifa?

That's not an example of limiting freedom of speech.  Those who were cancelled by Berkeley have every right to say what they want.  They can shout it on a street corner, put it on a website, etc. without fear of being arrested for that speech (which is what the first amendment covers.)

Denying someone a venue to speak is not limiting free speech.

[Golden Avalanche]

I accept that every hero who ever walked the earth was a flawed soul, (what was it Fitzgerald said, "Show me a hero and I'll write you a tragedy"?) especially when we dissect their lives hundreds of years after the fact and disregard context.

The context is simple: there were Americans who wanted to own black people and there were Americans who didn't want to own black people. They engaged in a war.

A century and a half later the losing side is upset that their participation trophies, which were predominantly erected many many decades after the war during periods of societal division over racial equality, are possibly being removed.

Simple as.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

History tells me that declaring independence from one's governing entity is an act of war. The rebellion of 1776 is called a Revolution because the rebels won.  The rebellion of 1861 is called a Civil War because the rebels lost.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

One of the most offensive weapons employed by ideologues is banning free speech. When does Faulkner's magnificent pen or Twain's wry wit  get tossed on the burning heap?

The people that propose banning books generally aren't the ones that believe we should remove the statues that glorify those that fought to own black people.  On the other hand, we know which side sympathizes with book burners.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Monuments to treason.   Rock on.

Confederate traitors.  All of them.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

People should consider the fact that the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were not slaveholders. And one cannot discount the fact that state's rights was the predominate issue at play.

Our country was an imperfect union from the start - John Adams made significant moral compromises to effect the sole goal of independence from Great Britain. The history of America through the election of Lincoln hinged on the central question of federal versus state authority.

Were confederate soldiers traitors? Some might judge them as such but I do believe they fought for their conception of what the American Republic was supposed to be. And no less an authority than Lincoln said we were obliged to welcome them back as the American brothers they always were.

People want to eradicate Robert E. Lee from the pages of history but had Virginia not seceded he would have commanded the Union Army. His loyalty, as was the loyalty of almost every American in the antebellum period, was not to the Republic but to their community then state.

Lee was a brilliant field commander whose campaigns are still studied in America's War Colleges (of which I am a graduate.) He served his nation and then his state. We should cherish his greatness while understanding his faults.

In Savannah two weeks ago, there is a monument in beautiful Forsyth Park.  It roughly reads "To the Confederate Dead".  There is a statue bust in front of the monument that reads nothing more than "Confederate General" and his name.   I detest monuments to the Confederacy and I'm still split on this one if it is acceptable.  The war was traumatic on both sides, so this is closure to remember those who died.  No promotion of the Confederacy.  On the other hand it's still a monument to the Confederacy.   
At the same time the city does take pride in promoting General Sherman's House, the place General Sherman used as command post when his march south finally reached the sea.

[brewcity77]

Not all speech is free.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio

According to the Supreme Court, speech that is "directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action" is not protected by the Constitution. The case this derived from was a KKK member. None of what happened in C'Ville from the Nazis and KKK members should be protected by the First Amendment. If you are espousing the eradication of a people, which is what shouting Nazi chants and carrying swastikas is doing, you should have no protection from the First Amendment.

This isn't about protecting some poor KKK member's feelings, it's about preventing the incitement of violence, which is their intent from the start. If you really think they aren't going out with that in mind, I have a bridge to sell you.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

In Savannah two weeks ago, there is a monument in beautiful Forsyth Park.  It roughly reads "To the Confederate Dead".  There is a statue bust in front of the monument that reads nothing more than "Confederate General" and his name.   I detest monuments to the Confederacy and I'm still split on this one if it is acceptable.  The war was traumatic on both sides, so this is closure to remember those who died.  No promotion of the Confederacy.  On the other hand it's still a monument to the Confederacy.   
At the same time the city does take pride in promoting General Sherman's House, the place General Sherman used as command post when his march south finally reached the sea.

I spend quite a bit of time in Northwest Arkansas for business and I've walked the entire battlefield at Pea Ridge at least four times.  Near a tavern where the heaviest fighting occurred, there are two simple obelisk memorials.  These were erected in remembrance of the soldiers that fought an died there and specifically talk about reuniting.  They do not glorify the cause, only honor those that fought there, and speak to reconciliation.

Not all Civil War monuments are the same, and I doubt these are on anyone's list to remove.

[Benny B]

Trying to equate the third reich to the confederacy would have, at the time of their respective existence, been an apples and oranges comparison... but today, it's become an oranges and tangelos comparison, i.e. still unrelated yet universally interchangeable for one another.

Germany today doesn't allow symbols, paraphernalia, signs, etc. from banned organizations... so why can't we in the US adhere to the same ban of German organizations, in solidarity, and interchangeably apply it to the organization (i.e. confederacy) that sought to preserve the greatest human atrocity that took place on our soil?

Seems to me that there's nothing purposeful or symbolic about the swastika or confederate flag that exists in a manner not intended to incite violence these days, so Brandenburg v. Ohio would hold up.

[MU Fan in Connecticut]

Thanks. I will definitely check it out.

ironically, I am a huge fan of both Adams and Jefferson. An astounding partnership.

Ditto here Keefe.  The North-and-South Poles of the Revolution.
I coincidentally think my visit to the Adams family homestead in Quincy, MA was the same year I visited Monticello (and Monroe's Ash-Lawn Highland home also in Charlottesville.)

On a similar note, the more books I read on the Founding Fathers the more it seems these guys were at their best when working in conjunction with another founder.

[keefe]

The people that propose banning books generally aren't the ones that believe we should remove the statues that glorify those that fought to own black people.  On the other hand, we know which side sympathizes with book burners.

Thought control articulates in many ways and forms.

And to compare the Confederacy to Nazi Germany is specious at best.

[keefe]

Denying someone a venue to speak is not limiting free speech.

You can't be serious...especially an academic forum. Good Lord that is feeble.

[keefe]

Again, you miss the point.   What basic underlying issue would make them look into seceding?

Your logic is obtuse. Forget about slavery, the right to tax, regulate commerce, or any other specific matter. The issue of treason by citizens of the Confederacy rests entirely on the right of a sovereign state to secede.

Yes, slavery is reprehensible. But let me ask - where is everyone's outrage about the continuing enslavement of humans by others?

After losing a loved one I spent almost a year helping an organization in Nepal (Next Generation Nepal) recover and resettle children sold into the most hideous forms of human bondage.

In Bellevue, WA the FBI busted a ring that was bringing young women from Korea, Cambodia, and China and forcing them to work in "massage parlors."

I am dumbfounded that people express outrage over what happened more than a century ago but do nothing about ongoing institutionalized human bondage.

Some people anguish over statues; I got up off my arse and devoted almost a year helping fight slavery that is happening today. I suggest I understand the point very well.   

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Some people anguish over statues

As Steve Bannon said, nothing would please him more than to make this a debate about statues.

It isn't about statues; it's about the fact that these statues were erected specifically to send a message to black people, and that white supremacists agree with that message and use them as rallying points for their ideology, and that the sitting President of the United States can't or won't condemn that message.

[GooooMarquette]

How 'bout this eclipse?

[GGGG]

You can't be serious...especially an academic forum. Good Lord that is feeble.

Limiting someone's ability to speak at an academic institution has all sorts of negative consequences.  However that is not "banning free speech."