Age, 1,000 BC vs. 1960's. Other than that, both are historical artifacts.

I'm okay with Southern states erecting Confederate statues for their historical importance. When I visit, I always wonder where's the Sherman statue in Georgia to celebrate when he marched to the sea. I don't recall ever seeing that in the tourists books.

The difference is the ideology behind their actions I suppose.

Personally, I don't understand why they have statues to men who were trying to break apart the US.

But hey, it is their state, I am not going to dictate what they can and cannot put up.

The founding fathers of the United States were traitors to England.  Should all Revolutionary War monuments and statues be expunged since they committed treason against their king?  Why would half a dozen states choosing to seceded from the Union be considered any more treasonous than what George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, James Madison, George Mason, etc, etc, etc, did?

Had the US lost the war of independence, imagine how differently we, as a continuing British Colony, would judge those individuals and all who "conspired" with them.

Our nation was built upon states rights.  The Civil War put to rest the question of whether a state can seceded from the Union legally and have full autonomy over their affairs. 

Sounds like a colony fighting for the same right, huh?

Does Britain have statues of George Washington or Samuel Adams in Britain?

Would you be ok with a statue of Benedict Arnold on American soil?

As usual, you ignored my questions and made up deflecting questions of your own.


There are plenty of statues in the US that don't thrill me, like Communist leaders and such. 

History can not be erased by destroying public and private property.  Don't like a monument?  Start a drive to raise money and get permission to remove it from whoever manages the location.

There are plenty of US Military memorials and such in Hawaii.  Are we going to destroy those because "the US stole our Kingdom?"

Yes, I saw the similarities between the American war for independence and the civil war, I am not disputing that.

My point was only that it is weird to have statues and flags here of what was once an enemy of the USA. I wouldn't fly the flag of what was once my enemy as a source of pride.

I think getting butt hurt over statues is stupid as well. And as you say, if they don't want the statue they should do the civil thing and petition the government to remove it.

We have buildings in Hawaii riddled with bullet holes created on Dec 7, 1941.  These are designated historical landmarks.  As such, the holes can't be removed or repaired without some serious approvals.

If we can protect bullet holes in buildings caused by the enemy, then there is absolutely no justification for allowing these protestors to destroy historical monuments which can never be restored to original condition.  There's no difference in my mind.

If the SJW are allowed to impose their version of righteousness upon the entire country, how long could it be before books and films start burning? How long before civil war reenactments are outlawed? Will our local Gettysburg fun shoot be picketed for displaying the Confederate Flag?

Any society which allows historic artifacts or symbols to be destroyed or outlawed in an attempt to rewrite history is doomed to failure.

What?! You don't think the move to destroy/remove symbols the progs don't like has transformed the people who (formerly) saw some value it them? I'm pretty sure they all saw the light, the errors of their ways, and are now progs themselves. I think I saw that on "the news".

There are plenty of US Military memorials and such in Hawaii.  Are we going to destroy those because "the US stole our Kingdom?"

“You and we are different races,” he astutely observed. “We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races.… This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both” and “affords a reason at least why we should be separated.… It is better for us both, therefore, to be separate.” 1

This incident was not a onetime flight of fancy for [him]. In his July 6, 1852, eulogy to Henry Clay, delivered in Springfield, Illinois, [he] approvingly quoted Clay’s statement that “there is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children,” which would supposedly be “a signal blessing to that most unfortunate region.” He first proposed deporting American blacks to Liberia in an 1854 speech in Peoria, Illinois. On June 26, 1857, as an aside while commenting on the Dred Scott decision, [he] offered another reason why he favored colonization: “There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people, to the idea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races.…”2 He voiced such opinions throughout his entire adult life. Such views were consistent with the views of the vast majority of white people in the North.

[He] instructed [the Secretary of State] to begin the procedure to enact a constitutional amendment that would say, “the Constitution should never be altered so as to authorize Congress to abolish or interfere with slavery in the states.” 3

“I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” 4

1. Abraham Lincoln, “Address on Colonization to a Committee of Colored Men,” August 14, 1862, in Abraham Lincoln: Speeches and Writings, Vol. 2, 1859–1865 (New York: Library of America, 1989), p. 353.

2. Abraham Lincoln, “Comment on the Dred Scott Decision,” June 26, 1857, online at http://www.founding.com/library/body.cfm?id=321&parent=63.

3: Doris Kearns Goodwin, Team of Rivals (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005) p. 296. [Lincoln to Seward]

4. Abraham Lincoln, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861.

So when's the Lincoln Memorial coming down?