When were confederate monuments erected and why?

[cthulhubryan]

Roundup will kill it. Kills poison ivy too. First application might not kill either one because they have root structures underground. But keep after it, and you’ll get it.

If, however, you don’t want to kill other plants (like grass) around it, use a mixture of Remedy and Grazon-Next, half and half, with a surfactant to help it stick to the leaves.

Remedy and Grazon-Next won’t kill grass unless used wildly excessively, but they’ll kill any broadleafed plant, usually with the first application.

Good luck!

We use Roundup, but not the premix. The concentrate says to use 6 ounces per 1 gallon but I have found that doubling this kills off both leaf and root of poison ivy and poison sumac.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We use Roundup, but not the premix. The concentrate says to use 6 ounces per 1 gallon but I have found that doubling this kills off both leaf and root of poison ivy and poison sumac.

No doubt you’re right. I don’t use Roundup myself because my only spraying is in pastures, and I don’t want to kill the grass along with the weeds or woody plants. Probably Roundup is better than Grazon-Next and Remedy for something like poison ivy.

 

[Ender]

I wonder how many will remember these “arguments” when the very same ones are used to rid the land of other symbols of oppression…such as the cross. For people who can in all seriousness compare Confederates with Nazis it will be a simple thing to turn their fire on the church given her comments on homosexuality. Is oppression based on sexual orientation less offensive than that based on race? If we ban symbols of the latter should we not also ban those of the former?

I have wondered why the Confederacy has so suddenly become a target for the left, but perhaps their real target lies elsewhere and this is merely a way to get people in the right frame of mind. In that it appears remarkably successful.

Ender

 

[Ridgerunner]

I wonder how many will remember these “arguments” when the very same ones are used to rid the land of other symbols of oppression…such as the cross. For people who can in all seriousness compare Confederates with Nazis it will be a simple thing to turn their fire on the church given her comments on homosexuality. Is oppression based on sexual orientation less offensive than that based on race? If we ban symbols of the latter should we not also ban those of the former?

I have wondered why the Confederacy has so suddenly become a target for the left, but perhaps their real target lies elsewhere and this is merely a way to get people in the right frame of mind. In that it appears remarkably successful.

Ender

Southern people are the immediate targets, but there are undoubtedly other targets due for defamation and isolation.

 

[dvdjs]

For people who can in all seriousness compare Confederates with Nazis …

Both were animated by underlying idea of racial supremacy.

The South worked to be able to keep people as slaves.
The Nazi worked to exterminate the untermenschung after using them for slave labor…
I doubt that if they “only” enslaved the Jews, rather than gassing them, that history would have treated them any more kindly

 

[commenter]

I wonder how many will remember these “arguments” when the very same ones are used to rid the land of other symbols of oppression…such as the cross. For people who can in all seriousness compare Confederates with Nazis it will be a simple thing to turn their fire on the church given her comments on homosexuality. Is oppression based on sexual orientation less offensive than that based on race? If we ban symbols of the latter should we not also ban those of the former?

I have wondered why the Confederacy has so suddenly become a target for the left, but perhaps their real target lies elsewhere and this is merely a way to get people in the right frame of mind. In that it appears remarkably successful.

Ender

Some thoughts:

• There aren’t any Nazis since the death of Hitler. The bullies and racists dressing up as Nazis would not be able to explain the difference between fascism and faucets, or between Nietzsche and napkins. That does not mean they are harmless.
• The majority of the bullies and vandals claim to be on “the Left”. Individually they are not worse than the faux Nazis. But they are more dangerous en mass because they have the backing (or follow the commands) of the media and academic establishment. An individual snowflake is harmless. But a huge accumulation of snowflakes, especially with a powerful wind directing them, can cause much suffering.
• Based on my own experience, most college students and recent graduates have never been shown Critical Thinking. They are in a stimulus - response mode. Everything is simple, no complications or nuances. All black and white.
• The Confederacy is an easy target for the Left, though I would not dignify the bullies with that “Left” title. 60 years ago the real Left was far more intelligent. They regarded slavery and racism as wrong, of course, but regarded the Civil War, and especially reconstruction occupation, as causing complicated cultural legacy, with good and bad people on all sides. Such careful reasoning is light years beyond the pavlovians marching for what gets called “the Left” today.
• 60 years ago the Left did not feel obligated to make a target, to trash. But if they did, they probably would not have chosen the Confederacy, considering that government was defeated a century earlier. They would have chosen a currently live target.

 

[Brendan]

Of course South Carolina ceded the land to the Federal Government as a member of that federation. That is how you get a federal fort to defend your harbor, and investment in your state. However, assuming the validity of secession as a course of action, which was widely believed as a legitimate political process in 1861, once South Carolina left that federation, there is no need for the Federal government to occupy a fort defending a harbor their government no longer owns. Unless, of course, you have no intention of honoring that state’s declaration of secession…

Not necessarily true. The US still holds onto our lease of Guantanamo Bay. And the British held on to Hong Kong for decades until it’s lease on the mainland properties expired.

Even then, it had a legitimate claim to Hong Kong island in perpetuity.
The UK chose to relinquish the island, but China could not require it to do so.

The US government might not have felt a need, but similarly, it had every legal right to remain there if it so chose.

 

[Nicea325]

What is your take on the whole Confederate monuments?

 

[exnihilo]

Not necessarily true. The US still holds onto our lease of Guantanamo Bay. And the British held on to Hong Kong for decades until it’s lease on the mainland properties expired.

Even then, it had a legitimate claim to Hong Kong island in perpetuity.
The UK chose to relinquish the island, but China could not require it to do so.

The US government might not have felt a need, but similarly, it had every legal right to remain there if it so chose.

Yes, empires hold onto their remote bases or colonial outposts. The principle of eminent domain, recognized by both the US and U.K., would be sufficient to take the property. But neither would allow it. Not out of principle but out of imperial prerogative. Basically whoever is strongest makes up the rules.

We know this is all ad hoc justification for imperial action because the US would not allow a foreign government to have a military base on its property. The U.K. does allow the US because it is itself a declining empire. While still stronger than most other countries it is weaker than the US and relied on the US to save it during WWII.

 

[poche]

I wonder how many will remember these “arguments” when the very same ones are used to rid the land of other symbols of oppression…such as the cross. For people who can in all seriousness compare Confederates with Nazis it will be a simple thing to turn their fire on the church given her comments on homosexuality. Is oppression based on sexual orientation less offensive than that based on race? If we ban symbols of the latter should we not also ban those of the former?

I have wondered why the Confederacy has so suddenly become a target for the left, but perhaps their real target lies elsewhere and this is merely a way to get people in the right frame of mind. In that it appears remarkably successful.

Ender

If you want to talk about the Germans, they have memorials to their fallen soldiers. Ronald Reagan caused controversy when he placed a wreath at it. I think we should have reconciliation with the Germans of World War II and since the Civil War was much longer ago, I think we should put some of the rencor behind us.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Not necessarily true. The US still holds onto our lease of Guantanamo Bay. And the British held on to Hong Kong for decades until it’s lease on the mainland properties expired.

Even then, it had a legitimate claim to Hong Kong island in perpetuity.
The UK chose to relinquish the island, but China could not require it to do so.

The US government might not have felt a need, but similarly, it had every legal right to remain there if it so chose.

The difference is that the US and the U.K. kept those locations by agreement with the people who lived there. The US also has military bases in Europe by agreement of the people living there. It would make zero sense for the US to try and maintain a base in, say, Germany if the German government formally asked the Americans to leave. In fact, I would argue that if Germany asked the US to abandon all US bases inside Germany, and the US refused to do so, that is tantamount to an act of war on the part of the United States.

It is a bit odd to extend the situation of the British colonial city of Hong Kong to federal forts in the southern United States. In this era there really were no “garrison” posts where large groups of active soldiers trained in case of war on foreign soil. Those forts were established explicitly for the purpose of defending US territory, whether by attack from the sea by foreign powers, or frontier posts to protect from attack by Indians. Lastly you had federal arsenals where munitions were stored. Everything else was taken care of by the state militia. So if the state is no longer part of the US, there is nothing to protect.