Richmond’s massive Robert E. Lee statue removed from pedestal on Monument Avenue

[mountaineer]

Gov. Blackface, on Facebook:

Governor of Virginia
Public Official

Finally—Virginia and Monument Avenue have moved beyond celebrating the Confederate insurrection. We can all look forward to seeing Virginia’s history remembered in a way that reflects who we are in the 21st century.

My response: History - by definition - is not meant to reflect "who we are" now, but simply what happened back then. Destroying a statue doesn't change history. History cannot be changed at all, just like those photos of Gov. Northam in blackface or KKK hood.

[Smokin Joe]

It continues to amaze me how ignorant people in Virginia have become.
Moved here in 1960 from Texas.... what a change.

I was just across the Potomac for my youth, went to school there for my BS.
The change is profound, and even the University I attended has gone 'woke'.

[Fishrrman]

Looks like it may be time before too much longer, for another siege of Richmond...

[Smokin Joe]

Looks like it may be time before too much longer, for another siege of Richmond...

Democrats already burned it once...

[sneakypete]

Richmond’s massive Robert E. Lee statue removed from pedestal on Monument Avenue
NBC12, Sep 8, 2021

RICHMOND, Va. (AP/WWBT) - History was made in Richmond Wednesday as one of the country’s largest Confederate monuments came down on the city’s famous Monument Avenue.

The 21-foot-tall bronze statue of Robert E. Lee on a horse was hoisted off its 40-foot pedestal, 131 years after it was erected in the former capital of the Confederacy as a tribute to the Civil War leader.

While many saw the statue as an offensive glorification of the South’s slave-holding past, public officials had long resisted its removal, along with residents of Virginia who argued moving the monument would be akin to erasing history.

Governor Ralph Northam announced intentions last year to remove Lee from the state-owned property. Last week, he finally won the right to take it down after more than a year in litigation.

Northam issued the following statement after the Robert E. Lee Monument was officially removed:

“After 133 years, the statue of Robert E. Lee has finally come down—the last Confederate statue on Monument Avenue, and the largest in the South. The public monuments reflect the story we choose to tell about who we are as a people. It is time to display history as history, and use the public memorials to honor the full and inclusive truth of who we are today and in the future.”


https://www.nbc12.com/2021/09/08/live-richmonds-massive-robert-e-lee-statue-be-removed-sent-storage/

@Right_in_Virginia

No doubt they needed the room for a statue of some black thug.

[Smokin Joe]

The sad part is that Lee owned no slaves. He resigned his commission in the Union Army to go home to his home State of Virginia. At the time, yes, we were all Americans, but the States had more power than now, and were what the name implies, sovereign states, united to provide a better common defense and for purposes of trade. Each State had it's governor, legislature, Secretary of State, Treasurer, constitution and unique set of laws--in effect a State, a nation unto itself, bound only by an agreement that they would work together to secure the Liberties and Rights reserved for the States and the People in the US Constitution, the compact which formed the Republic.
When that compact was no longer working, many States chose to follow the advice of the Declaration of Independence

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

This was no spur of the moment decision, and tensions had been building between the Northern States and Southern States for decades. Virginia was slow to secede, so much so that Maryland lost the opportunity to do so and was invaded by the armies of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts before such a vote could be taken.

Lee faced a serious quandary, whether to remain in the Army of the Federal Government, or return to and be of service to his home State of Virginia.

Consider, in modern terms, if you were a British general of the Army of the European Union (should such exist), and had to decide whether to remain in the EU army, or go home with Brexit and be true to your roots.

Lee chose Virginia.

Not "slavery" but his home State, and trying to make the war solely about slavery (racism) only ensures that the other issues which were raised then will return, and quite possibly, bloody conflict with them.

Only the intense ignorance of honorable men will permit their memories to be thus sullied, and for the Capital city of the State, and indeed, the Confederacy, to tear down his statue is an egregious desecration of the memory of an honorable man.

[sneakypete]

The sad part is that Lee owned no slaves. He resigned his commission in the Union Army to go home to his home State of Virginia. At the time, yes, we were all Americans, but the States had more power than now, and were what the name implies, sovereign states, united to provide a better common defense and for purposes of trade. Each State had it's governor, legislature, Secretary of State, Treasurer, constitution and unique set of laws--in effect a State, a nation unto itself, bound only by an agreement that they would work together to secure the Liberties and Rights reserved for the States and the People in the US Constitution, the compact which formed the Republic.
When that compact was no longer working, many States chose to follow the advice of the Declaration of Independence
This was no spur of the moment decision, and tensions had been building between the Northern States and Southern States for decades. Virginia was slow to secede, so much so that Maryland lost the opportunity to do so and was invaded by the armies of Pennsylvania and Massachusetts before such a vote could be taken.

Lee faced a serious quandary, whether to remain in the Army of the Federal Government, or return to and be of service to his home State of Virginia.

Consider, in modern terms, if you were a British general of the Army of the European Union (should such exist), and had to decide whether to remain in the EU army, or go home with Brexit and be true to your roots.

Lee chose Virginia.

Not "slavery" but his home State, and trying to make the war solely about slavery (racism) only ensures that the other issues which were raised then will return, and quite possibly, bloody conflict with them.

Only the intense ignorance of honorable men will permit their memories to be thus sullied, and for the Capital city of the State, and indeed, the Confederacy, to tear down his statue is an egregious desecration of the memory of an honorable man.

@Smokin Joe

Bravo! That noise you hear in the background is my applauding and stomping my feet in agreement.

What we are seeing her is the SAME THING Americans saw in 1861,an attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the very same government who is responsible for defending both,AND.........for the very same reasons. The people in charge want to seize land and other assets so they can buy them up at tax and bankruptcy sales,just like what happened the last time they played this game.

Or do you really think it was accidental that northern industralists ended up owning so much southern farm land bought at bankruptcy sales for back taxes by accident?

[Slide Rule]

Well if federal employees decline the stab, Joe can fire them. How many? Millions of federal employees fired.

Joe will be the greatest conservative to ever sit at the WH. Except for Coolidge.

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

Bravo! That noise you hear in the background is my applauding and stomping my feet in agreement.

What we are seeing her is the SAME THING Americans saw in 1861,an attack on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the very same government who is responsible for defending both,AND.........for the very same reasons. The people in charge want to seize land and other assets so they can buy them up at tax and bankruptcy sales,just like what happened the last time they played this game.

Or do you really think it was accidental that northern industralists ended up owning so much southern farm land bought at bankruptcy sales for back taxes by accident?

Our family was fortunate, in that it did not lose all its land to the carpetbaggers and criminals installed by the invaders in the judiciary, still the fraction of the original land grant retained was very small in comparison. But the "back taxes" gambit was far from done. The Dawes Act was used to divest members of my wife's tribe of over 10 MILLION acres, by forcing the tribal lands to be distributed to individuals, and then taking the land for "back taxes".

So we had a lot in common when we met. We were both from families which antedated the formation of the Republic, and both families had lost considerable land and wealth to the "great white father" (who spoke with forked tongue), blue coated soldiers, and corrupt bureaucrats.


Plus ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose

Chicken one day, feathers the next.

BTW, the entire focus of the war benefited the Northern Industrialists, who enslaved a source of raw materials, used up their surplus Irish, and made a fortune arming and equipping the Army of Northern Aggression for the invasion and subjugation of the South for the purposes of "Preserving the Union".

[catfish1957]

Now that I have had a day to calm down.  I must now call out SCV, who has laid down and played dead all during the 5 year assault on Confederate Heritage.

For an organization whose sole purpose in life is to protect and defend southern heritage....  they sure have done a pretty shitty job.   

Taking down the Richmond statue without at least attempting to secure the statue for a park or museum, is sad...   very sad.

[Fishrrman]

Catfish wrote:
"Taking down the Richmond statue without at least attempting to secure the statue for a park or museum, is sad... "

There's a reason why this statue -- which stood as a beautiful work of sculpture in its own right as well as a representation of General Lee -- was not only removed from its pedestal, but then CUT INTO PIECES afterwards.

Can you guess why?
HINT: It has nuthin' to do with "sad"...

[catfish1957]

Catfish wrote:
"Taking down the Richmond statue without at least attempting to secure the statue for a park or museum, is sad... "

There's a reason why this statue -- which stood as a beautiful work of sculpture in its own right as well as a representation of General Lee -- was not only removed from its pedestal, but then CUT INTO PIECES afterwards.

Can you guess why?
HINT: It has nuthin' to do with "sad"...

There isn't a bigger supporter of southern heritage than I am at TBR. I know the SJW's agenda and despicable pieces of shit that they are.
BLM is  terrorist organization...  But, not a lot I can do about that.

OTOH, you have SCV which used to pride itself of Southern Heritage Defense that has done zilch in this woke assault.  If these bozos had any honor they'd close up shop and refund membership fees to their members.  It has become almost embarassing.

[sneakypete]

Our family was fortunate, in that it did not lose all its land to the carpetbaggers and criminals installed by the invaders in the judiciary, still the fraction of the original land grant retained was very small in comparison. But the "back taxes" gambit was far from done. The Dawes Act was used to divest members of my wife's tribe of over 10 MILLION acres, by forcing the tribal lands to be distributed to individuals, and then taking the land for "back taxes".

So we had a lot in common when we met. We were both from families which antedated the formation of the Republic, and both families had lost considerable land and wealth to the "great white father" (who spoke with forked tongue), blue coated soldiers, and corrupt bureaucrats.


Plus ça Change, Plus C'est La Même Chose

Chicken one day, feathers the next.

BTW, the entire focus of the war benefited the Northern Industrialists, who enslaved a source of raw materials, used up their surplus Irish, and made a fortune arming and equipping the Army of Northern Aggression for the invasion and subjugation of the South for the purposes of "Preserving the Union".

@Smokin Joe

Not only that,but the northern industralists wanted slavery ended in the south because the "white trash Irish" they had been brutalizing and cheating were starting to get "uppity",and they needed someone to replace them.

Who better than an ignorant former slave who had never held a paid job before,and didn't even know how to read or write,which guaranteed he or she would remain ignorant for the rest of their work lives. The industrailists could install them in ghetto housing which THEY owned,and then subtract the rent money from their wages with no complaints because these people had no idea how life really worked in America.

As slaves,they were valuable property,and their owners did whatever they could do to make sure they remained healthy so they could work and produce an income for them. In return,they got free housing,free food,and free medical care,as well as free clothing. "Free" in the sense they didn't have to come up with cash money to pay for it,anyhow. NOT really "free" because they had already done the work,and more,necessary to pay for it.

Still,the northern industralists didn't give a squat if they got sick or not. If they were sick and missed work and missed a weekly rent payment,they were suddenly sick and homeless. If they died,they died. The industralists didn't care because the worker was instantly replaced with another former slave that didn't know any better.

[EdinVA]

@Smokin Joe

Not only that,but the northern industralists wanted slavery ended in the south because the "white trash Irish" they had been brutalizing and cheating were starting to get "uppity",and they needed someone to replace them.

Who better than an ignorant former slave who had never held a paid job before,and didn't even know how to read or write,which guaranteed he or she would remain ignorant for the rest of their work lives. The industrailists could install them in ghetto housing which THEY owned,and then subtract the rent money from their wages with no complaints because these people had no idea how life really worked in America.

As slaves,they were valuable property,and their owners did whatever they could do to make sure they remained healthy so they could work and produce an income for them. In return,they got free housing,free food,and free medical care,as well as free clothing. "Free" in the sense they didn't have to come up with cash money to pay for it,anyhow. NOT really "free" because they had already done the work,and more,necessary to pay for it.

Still,the northern industralists didn't give a squat if they got sick or not. If they were sick and missed work and missed a weekly rent payment,they were suddenly sick and homeless. If they died,they died. The industralists didn't care because the worker was instantly replaced with another former slave that didn't know any better.

And the northern industrialists just moved everyone to indentured servitude for 20 years.... big improvement   

[Hoodat]

Less than 24 hours after Virginia seceded, Northern troops crossed the Potomac and invaded.  It bore the brunt of the entire War of Secession.

[sneakypete]

And the northern industrialists just moved everyone to indentured servitude for 20 years.... big improvement   

@EdinVA

Hell,it was a step backwards.  Slaves had it better because their masters considered them to be valuable property that needed the right medical care and the right diet in order to be productive enough to make more profits for their owners.

The industralists were slave masters without the benefits for the workers that actual slaves received.

BTW. If white slavemasters were so brutal,why were there so many elderly slaves still living on the plantations,eating free food,living in free housing,and even getting free medical care once they got too old to work in the fields?

True,they DID serve a useful purpose by babysitting the small children of the working slaves that were too young to work themselves,but other than not being free,they had it better than many of the elderly that weren't slaves.

I know *I* never heard of any elderly slaves being executed or starved to death because they were too old to work,have any of you?

And you KNOW if they had,we would have ALL read about it in the history books.

What REALLY killed slavery in ALL it's various forms in rural areas was the invention of things like tractors and combines. There was just no way in hell a large farming operation worked by slaves  could compete with farm machinery.

Frankly,I have a hard time understanding how they could even make money using slaves before the tractor and combine. Just look at all the time and work it took to clear cut a forest and dig up the stumps and roots in order to be able to plow it and plant crops. Yes,I do understand some parts of the country didn't have so many trees to deal with,but any way you look at it,farming was a VERY labor intensive business back then,and two years in a row of bad weather or crop diseases could wipe you out.

[EdinVA]

@EdinVA

Hell,it was a step backwards.  Slaves had it better because their masters considered them to be valuable property that needed the right medical care and the right diet in order to be productive enough to make more profits for their owners.

The industralists were slave masters without the benefits for the workers that actual slaves received.

BTW. If white slavemasters were so brutal,why were there so many elderly slaves still living on the plantations,eating free food,living in free housing,and even getting free medical care once they got too old to work in the fields?

True,they DID serve a useful purpose by babysitting the small children of the working slaves that were too young to work themselves,but other than not being free,they had it better than many of the elderly that weren't slaves.

I know *I* never heard of any elderly slaves being executed or starved to death because they were too old to work,have any of you?

And you KNOW if they had,we would have ALL read about it in the history books.

@sneakypete
There were white, Asian and European slaves as well...

 

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete
There were white, Asian and European slaves as well...

@EdinVA

Yup,but THEY were called "indentured servants".

Seems like most of the Asian slaves were  railroad workers,putting in the lines and tracks.

BTW,the VERY FIRST slave in the English Speaking New World came as an indentured servant,with the deal being he work X amount of years to pay off the debt of his passage,his clothing,food,and housing while an indentured servant. Once his indenturement (real word?) ended,he was GIVEN a plot of farmland as well as seeds and the tools he needed to get his own farm going.

What happened to the first slave,who did happen to be black even though most indentured servants were white,was that his employer took it to court with the claim that it had cost him  so much to pay the shipping,clothing,medial care,food,etc,etc,etc, that the man  would never live long enough to work it off,and for some odd reason,the judge agreed. Thus began slavery in the English-speakig New World.

BTW,the land owner that took him to court and made him a slave was black. He ended up being the very wealthy owner of a horse farm in Maryland when he died.

Good luck finding a public school history book that has THOSE "uncomfortable" factoids in them.

[mountaineer]

If white slavemasters were so brutal,why were there so many elderly slaves still living on the plantations,eating free food,living in free housing,and even getting free medical care once they got too old to work in the fields?

In the course of researching family history, I came across one ancestor (nicknamed "Paddy") who owned slaves. Paddy and his wife, Miriam, purchased a slave from Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's mother for $250, and apparently treated the man, "Old Jack," very well. As Paddy’s eyesight began to fail, “Old Jack” would go rabbit hunting with him, spot the rabbit and tell Paddy where to shoot his arrow. Jack asked to be buried with his master, who died in 1862 and Miriam in 1865, but the only room on the rocky escarpment for his grave was at their feet. That's where he was buried. I have not yet had a chance to visit the site to see whether their graves are still there.

[sneakypete]

In the course of researching family history, I came across one ancestor (nicknamed "Paddy") who owned slaves. Paddy and his wife, Miriam, purchased a slave from Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson's mother for $250, and apparently treated the man, "Old Jack," very well. As Paddy’s eyesight began to fail, “Old Jack” would go rabbit hunting with him, spot the rabbit and tell Paddy where to shoot his arrow. Jack asked to be buried with his master, who died in 1862 and Miriam in 1865, but the only room on the rocky escarpment for his grave was at their feet. That's where he was buried. I have not yet had a chance to visit the site to see whether their graves are still there.

@mountaineer

Which further proves my point. $250 was an insane amount of money back then,and nobody was going to just throw it away by causing the early death or disability of a valuable asset like that.

And the definition of "slavery" covers a lot of territory in history. The Scottish coal miners of the 1700's,for example.

Not to mention just about every "able-bodied seaman" who ever shipped out on a sailing vessel for the new world. LOTS of those sailors didn't even know they had volunteered until they came out of their drunken stupor and found themselves at sea.

The serfs of the landowners in England and many other places at that time didn't fare any better. Technically,they were free,but that was only free to starve to death because if they left the hovel they were born in,no other farmer would hire them. Ironically enough,many of them ended up being the shanghied seamen mentioned above.

And I may be wrong,but I don't think there was a single American Indian tribe that didn't have slaves.

[Smokin Joe]

@EdinVA

Hell,it was a step backwards.  Slaves had it better because their masters considered them to be valuable property that needed the right medical care and the right diet in order to be productive enough to make more profits for their owners.

The industralists were slave masters without the benefits for the workers that actual slaves received.

BTW. If white slavemasters were so brutal,why were there so many elderly slaves still living on the plantations,eating free food,living in free housing,and even getting free medical care once they got too old to work in the fields?

True,they DID serve a useful purpose by babysitting the small children of the working slaves that were too young to work themselves,but other than not being free,they had it better than many of the elderly that weren't slaves.

I know *I* never heard of any elderly slaves being executed or starved to death because they were too old to work,have any of you?

And you KNOW if they had,we would have ALL read about it in the history books.

What REALLY killed slavery in ALL it's various forms in rural areas was the invention of things like tractors and combines. There was just no way in hell a large farming operation worked by slaves  could compete with farm machinery.

Frankly,I have a hard time understanding how they could even make money using slaves before the tractor and combine. Just look at all the time and work it took to clear cut a forest and dig up the stumps and roots in order to be able to plow it and plant crops. Yes,I do understand some parts of the country didn't have so many trees to deal with,but any way you look at it,farming was a VERY labor intensive business back then,and two years in a row of bad weather or crop diseases could wipe you out.

Oh, there were exceptions. Some crops remained labor intensive for quite a while (some even still are).

In particular, tobacco and cotton, which were two drivers of the Southern economy.

[Hoodat]

I'm starting to miss the days when Richmond was the murder capital of the US.

[mountaineer]

I'm starting to miss the days when Richmond was the murder capital of the US.

We go there frequently so Mr. M can run the Richmond Marathon. One time there was a murder right outside our hotel, the Omni.  The police sirens woke us up.

[Hoodat]

Meanwhile, a bust of Woodrow Wilson remains on display in the Rotunda of the Capitol.  Wilson federalized racial segregation and sparked the twentieth century rebirth of the KKK.

[sneakypete]

Meanwhile, a bust of Woodrow Wilson remains on display in the Rotunda of the Capitol.  Wilson federalized racial segregation and sparked the twentieth century rebirth of the KKK.

@Hoodat

That's ok. Nobody in the BLM crowd has ever ever heard of him,so it doesn't matter.