A statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee at Lee Park in Turtle Creek. (Credit: DMHInIrving, Flickr Creative Commons)

Local News

Dallas’ Confederate Statues Must Come Down

Let the dead bury the dead. The only generation that matters now is the future one.

History, we are told, is written by the winners. In the South it has largely been written by the losers.

I know one version of that history well. I was steeped in it. Three of my direct ancestors served in Hood’s Brigade of the Confederate army. They did not fight for slavery, I was taught, but for states’ rights. As President Roosevelt said at the dedication of the Robert E. Lee statue in Dallas in 1936, their nobility and sacrifice should be celebrated.

That might be called the Cavalier version.

There is another version of Southern history. My father called it the Neanderthal version.

We have seen it on display in Charlottesville. We have seen it in Dallas. It holds that America is a white country. Sometimes they say a white Christian country, and we all know why they add the extra word. It is a very old strain in our history, predating the Civil War. It has been at various times anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, anti-Chinese, anti-Irish, anti-Italian, anti-Japanese, anti-Hispanic, anti-Muslim, and at all times, anti-black. In this version, the War of Northern Oppression destroyed an order ordained by God. Its half-baked theories about racial purity percolate through the 20th century and into our own.

To those not raised in the white South—to those raised in the black South or in the North—these two white Southern versions of history, living side by side, each either contemptuous or resentful of the other, are hard to distinguish. Perhaps the true lost cause is trying to maintain the distinction.

The Cavalier version of nobility and sacrifice on which I was raised and to which almost everyone I knew subscribed is a myth, a romantic gloss over the cold reality. The Civil War was fought over economics; the Southern way of life depended on the free labor of others.

Slavery was as real an evil as has ever been seen on the face of the earth. In the war’s aftermath, true sacrifice would have been humility; true nobility would have been repentance. Instead we got segregation and statues.

Let the dead bury the dead. The only generation that matters now is the future one. The intentions of past generations in erecting the statues, whether noble or defiant, are irrelevant. They are symbolic of new meanings now. Those are meanings that are as repugnant to the common history we have endured as they are dangerous to the common future we can build.

The statues must come down.

Newsletter

Get a weekly recap in your inbox every Sunday of our best stories from the week plus a primer for the days ahead.

Find It

Search our directories for...

Dining

Dining

Bars

Bars

Events

Events

Attractions

Attractions

View All

View All

Comments

  • Max Powers

    I have a suggestion for a replacement – Bernardo de Gálvez.

    • Marcie Batten

      He’s in a better position than Lee, having an iconic hotel in Galveston named after him.

      • Max Powers

        That and having helped the US during the War of Independence.

    • Juanito Ibañez

      Bernardo Vicente de Gálvez y Madrid, Viscount of Galveston and Count of Gálvez

      https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fga10

  • JohnyAlamo

    Put it to a vote on the next election.

  • Joe Hunter

    Removing the Confederate statues will not solve racism. Dallas will still remain segregated and racist as it has ever been. Leave the statues but proclaim what they stand for. You cannot erase the past nor can you change it. What has been done has been done and will never go away as long as humans have memories and oral histories. I too have ancestors who fought in that War. They did not own fellow human beings. They were just ordinary farmers swept up into elite politicians wars and they paid dearly for it. By the way, visit county courthouses in the South. You have a lot if statues of the ordinary farmer/soldier to remove. What is next for you foolish people?

    • bbetzen

      I agree Joe. Do not destroy significant historical monuments but tell the full history!

      • B Ho

        Significant for racist treasonous terroist, and like minded cowards. Let’s put up statues of all terrorist and celebrate them. Fuck those evil cowards and all that celebrate those devils.

        • Julio Fuentes

          then lets start with FDR who enslaved thousands of Japanese Americans during world war 2. Whose the evil fucking coward now, fool?

          • Angela Fickert

            my question is what about the American Indians? Their race is not thriving and we took their children from their parents and put them in American schools so they could no longer learn their language or their religion. a lot of the American Indian races have been completely deleted off the face of the Earth. Where is there Justice?

        • Angela Fickert

          I think BLM are hypocritical racist who display terrorist acts

    • James Hilliard-Alex

      Absolutely correct, if you don’t know your history you are doomed to repeat it!!!!😎

      • RompingWillyBilly

        Opinions about history are just like those about religion. The latter of these two isn’t taught in schools, but by the parents. In place of history, we should teach children how to drive vehicles from the level of pre-school to high school.

    • TJ Pierce

      You’re rationalizing the celebration of a traitor. History won’t forget the confederacy, but neither should their perfidy be celebrated. They caused the deaths of 700,000 Americans in their rebellion to preserve slavery.

      • LoriBoriAlist

        So why is this such a big issue NOW? You had decades to remove the statues…8 years of Obama and not a peep. But now that Trump is in office, the statues are suddenly symbols of oppression? What a bunch of garbage. More liberal drivel.

        • B Ho

          It’s always been an issue. More voices are now being heard. Fuck those evil devil’s, being celebrated by more cowards. Let’s just celebrate all evil terroist.

      • Julio Fuentes

        wrong, to preserve states rights, something you commie bastards never understood

      • Juanito Ibañez

        TJ Pierce wrote:

        “You’re rationalizing the celebration of a traitor.”

        Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee was no traitor, TJ, as secession was not a treasonous act — so sayeth Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court Salmon P. Chase.

        • Mavdog

          If the Confederates were not “traitors”, why would President Lincoln and President Johnson have issued the pardons specifically for treason?

          • JohnyAlamo

            The never issued ‘pardons’ as Grant and Lincoln were vehemently against ever labeling them as traitors. That was the stance of his administration during reconstruction.

          • Mavdog
          • JohnyAlamo

            My bad, the pardons were issued a whopping month after Appomattox.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            Probably for the same reason there were rumors that Barry Obama was considering pardons for Hillary, et al., for crimes not yet charged: same as Gerald Ford did for “Tricky Dick” Nixon with his ‘Proclamation 4311′ back on 8 Sept. 1974.

            Now, if you have a cite from a court of law stating that secession was “treason,” post it.

            Oh, BTW: after the war ended there was a movement in Congress to amend the Constitution to make secession “illegal.”

            That ended once it was pointed out to them that to do so was a tacit admission that the southern states’ secession was absolutely legal — thereby making Lincoln’s war an illegal war of conquest of another sovereign nation.

            Subject was DROPPED!

          • Mavdog

            Your comment on Obama must have seemed to make sense when you wrote it, yet it doesn’t.
            Richard Nixon was guilty, that is why he was granted a Pardon by Gerald Ford. That is who pardons are given, to the guilty.
            There was no reason to “make secession “illegal”, the issue was settled by SCOTUS. Secession was illegal, the Union was “perpetual”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

          • Juanito Ibañez

            “Richard Nixon was guilty”

            Where did a court of law rule that, Maddog?

            Your saying so doesn’t make it so.

            “There was no reason to ‘make secession ‘illegal’, the issue was settled by SCOTUS. Secession was illegal, the Union was ‘perpetual’.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White

            You will note that in ‘White’ there was no direct quotation from the Constitution which stated, unequivocally, that secession was illegal.

            Fact is, the 1869 decision was an ex post facto justification for Lincoln’s “War of Northern Aggression”; to-wit: “The Constitution says secession was illegal because we now SAY it says that.”

            Moreover, you will note that it was the same Chief Justice who stated secession was NOT “treason” right after the war ended when radical northerners demanded CSA President Davis, General Lee, et al. be tried for treason.

            For your reference re “Texas v. White”:

            On Secession: An Analysis of Texas v. White
            http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2013/01/on_secssion.html

          • Mavdog

            Hmmm…you go on record as saying that Richard Nixon was not guilty (in spite of course of all the statements by his co-conspirators and evidence) because there was no verdict by “a court of law”, which of course means in your view the court of law is the decider…
            Yet the court of law decided on the legality of secession…. but NO! that doesn’t count because, well, it isn’t what you want.
            Consistency is not overrated.
            Thanks for playing.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            You didn’t actually read Cory Genelin’s extensively-researched article; did you, Maddog?

          • Mavdog

            Had read it before. Genelin does what he has been trained to do, argue a point from a side of the argument.
            I try to avoid the ironically named American Thinker.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            “Had read it before.”

            We note you failed to present any counterarguments.

            “I try to avoid the ironically named American Thinker.”

            Why’s that, Maddog? Because it makes you “think” instead of simply regurgitate LibSoc SJW dogma?

  • Happy Bennett

    Please don’t offend our intelligence by claiming the removal of historic public art work is “about the future”. The future is not about destruction to fulfill momentary gratification of your short term self esteem issues or inflicting guilt on the blameless who do not subscribe to your particular world view.

    • tl;dr version of this article: “I have daddy issues.”

    • JamieT

      As with respect to public roads projects, perceived optimum subscriber demographics change, and one must respect and change with them.

    • James Hilliard-Alex

      Absolutely correct, what’s next to goMonticelo????😎

      • Happy Bennett

        That and Andrew Jackson are in the cross hairs.

        • James Hilliard-Alex

          Taking down statue’s and monuments won’t heal the divide in this country!!!😎

    • Margaret S. Freelon

      I am a lover of history and have long said you can not erase history by acting like it never happen but I also believe that one need to look at history the way you are trained to look at bible verses. Just don’t look at the verse that speak to your point but look at the verses surrounding that verse to see what it really meant.

      Most of these so call confederate monuments was erected during the Jim Crow era when laws were written and enforced racial segregation in the South between the end of Reconstruction in 1877 and the beginning of the civil rights movement in the 1950s.

      The erection of a lot of these monuments had nothing to do with saving history but to act as reminders that the south may have lost the war Civil War battle but the South and the southern way of life of Segregation still run the South and the WAR rages on.
      If you want to honor the death of those that lost of life a simple tomb of the unknown confederate soldier would serve that purpose.

      The south has long stood for the use of free or cheap labor as long as if benefited them and wage a war to maintain the status quo because we are better than the people they used like the blacks slave imported or breed for free labor. The next big monument will be the border wall.

      Now your history!!!!

      • LoriBoriAlist

        Cheap labor…isn’t that why the liberals say we need to keep the illegal immigrants? Hmmmm. Sounds like the left has an issue here.

        • Juanito Ibañez

          RIMSHOT! 🙂

      • Julio Fuentes

        FDR enslaved thousands of Japanese Americans less than 75 years ago. When do his statues come down? The sound of silence…………..

  • Woodrow Wilson’s name needs to come off the schools first. Wilson’s army was more segregated than Lee’s.

    • Mavdog

      That is quite an interesting claim as Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army. Therefore the Confederate Army was 100% segregated.

      • Juanito Ibañez

        “Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army.”

        FALSE!

        Dedicated to the Black Americans who love and stand up for Dixie.
        http://www.texasconfederateveterans.com/BlackSupporters.htm

        “If This Shirt Offends You, You Need A History Lesson”
        http://www.texasconfederateveterans.com/b.jpg

        • Mavdog

          You are not very sharp about history are you?
          “Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers in the Confederate Army….There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war ”
          https://www.civilwar.org/learn/articles/black-confederates

          • Juanito Ibañez

            Guess you want to engage in a “battle of web sites,” Mavdog.

            First off, my cite included blacks whose forebearers served in combat.

            Now; further cites:

            Did blacks fight in combat for the Confederacy?

            “The majority of black Confederates who actually fought were essentially with the army as servants or personal attendants for officers. This was especially true in the initial part of the war (1861-62), I have read occasionally about these slave/servants taking up a rifle and fighting in the ranks with their master. Otherwise, various mulattoes or persons with light complexions may have been directly enrolled in the army. Since it was against C.S.A. policy to enlist blacks in the fighting army (until the very last in 1865), I doubt if formal records will show the extent of black combat participation. I’m convinced some did fight, but how many is a very subjective guess.”
            –Wiley Sword, Civil War author and historian

            https://civilwargazette.wordpress.com/2008/03/13/did-blacks-fight-in-combat-for-the-confederacy/

            Did Black Confederates Serve In Combat?
            By Vernon R. Padgett, Ph.D.

            Black Southern men served in the Confederate Army, and they served as soldiers. But did they fight in combat?

            Yes they did. The evidence is varied, and comes from many sources.
            […]
            http://www.dixiescv.org/fact_did-blacks-serve.html

            And WRT this discussion:

            “This important subject [black Confederate fighting in combat] is now needlessly embroiled in controversy, with politically correct historians of one sort refusing to see the importance (indeed existence) of the minority of slaves who were black Confederates, and politically correct historians of the opposite sort refusing to see the importance of black Confederates’ limited numbers.”
            –William Freehling, historian

            Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of The Root, have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that a few blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy.

            http://www.theroot.com/yes-there-were-black-confederates-here-s-why-1790858546

            And there are other such sites/cites: easy to find — IF you really want to know.

            So, Mavdog; take the advice from Albert R. ‘Cubby’ Broccoli: “Never say ‘Never’ (again).” 😉

            Oh, in case any of you LibSoc SJW “Winston Smiths” out there, wanting to obliterate the Confederacy and its veterans and heroes from history. are considering doing a “Durham” to the Lee Park site; consider this “food for thought”:

            The Robert E. Lee memorial statue in Dallas’ Lee Park cost over $50,000 back in 1903.

            That makes its value today $1,436,476.86 in 2017 dollars.

            That means to destroy this statue would classify as the crime of “Criminal Mischief / Destruction of Public Property”: a 1st Degree Felony here in Texas, and carries a fine not to exceed $10,000 and imprisonment for life, or for any term of not more than 99 years or less than 5 years (TxPC Sec. 12.32) upon conviction.

          • Mavdog

            Intersting, You respond to the correct statement “Black men were not legally allowed to serve as combat soldiers” by posting a quote saying “The majority of black Confederates who actually fought were essentially with the army as servants or personal attendants for officers. ”
            Not soldiers.
            In fact blacks were prohibited from serving as soldiers until an Act by the Confederate Congress on March 13, 1865 authorizing such.
            http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/csenlist.htm
            As the surrender of Lee was less than a month subsequent it didn’t matter.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            Wow, Maddog! Now you’ve “qualified” your original claim that “There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war” by now saying that those who DID serve “didn’t matter.”

            Disingenuousness thy name is “mavdog.”

          • Mavdog

            Reading comprehension is not your strong suit is it?
            The prohibition was there. The Confederacy removed it less than a month before the end. That was too late, as IF any black man would have elected to volunteer the war was over…hence “it didn’t matter”.
            You are like the mole in the game, when your points are struck down you pop up out of your hole with a separate one.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            My reading comprehension is quite good, Maddog.

            You claimed there were no black Confederate combat troops, which I countered with facts there were.

            Now you have publicly “switched horses midstream” and accepted there WERE black combat troops, but claim “it didn’t matter”.

            IOW: you are trying to “weasel out” of the lie you tried to perpetrate here.

            You also failed to note that, unlike some, I do not even try to claim “50,000” blacks served in combat, but merely point out that SOME did.

            Since that flew against your posted lie, your necessity to “crawfish” by claiming “So What? It didn’t matter”.

            We have a saying here in the Ether quite applicable to you, Maddog:

            “Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus.”

          • Mavdog

            Yes, you do have reading issues. Also emotional ones at that, please get help.
            I have shown without a doubt your claim of there being black confederate soldiers to be a farcical claim.
            You have not proven that somehow “some” black soldiers were able to be enlisted, transported and in combat by the end of the war, a matter of weeks after the Confederate Congress allowed such a thing to possibly happen. There is no record of such a thing happening. The facts are such a difficult thing for you to acknowledge.
            To utilize the word “lie” reveals all anyone needs to know about your style and manners.

          • Juanito Ibañez

            After being caught in your lie, you compound your lying even further: a typical Liberal Debate Tactic.

            There are records — they have been referenced here; yet you refuse to accept them.

            Try calling Nelson Winbush yet, Maddog?

            “No”? Of course not: it screws your agenda here.

            Go try peddling your horse manure elsewhere. You’ve been “outted” here.

            Quod erat demonstrandum

          • Mavdog

            Still butthurt on being exposed? Therapy may help. Good luck!

          • Juanito Ibañez

            “Arguing with idiots [Liberal SJW Mavdog] is like playing chess with a pigeon; no matter how good you are at chess, the pigeon is just going to knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like it’s victorious.”
            – Mark Twain

          • Mavdog

            “Never argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.”
            Mark Twain

          • Juanito Ibañez

            Well, Maddog; seeing as how you’ve claimed “victory” here … 🙂

            Meanwhile:

            Liberal hypocrisy on display
            https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/21032714_1502668963122924_4380535573252373445_n.jpg?oh=1326f59843d19ccf58684735cf2c11fa&oe=5A2690BA

          • Mavdog

            uh oh, you propagate BS…go figure.
            http://www.snopes.com/clinton-gore-92-confederate/

          • Juanito Ibañez

            LibSoc SJW quisling propagandist for George Soros & Co. @Mavdog wrote:

            ” uh oh, you propagate BS…go figure. ”
            http://www.snopes.com/clinton-gore-92-confederate

            “However, what’s seen here, if it dates from 1992, was likely a privately-made or other local item not authorized by the national campaign.”
            “[Craig] Smith said he thought the buttons were likely made by someone unaffiliated with the campaign looking to make a buck.”
            –Ibid.

            IOW, a Liberal wanting to take advantage of the fact both Clinton and Gore “hailed from the former Confederate states of Arkansas and Tennessee” in an “unofficial” effort to elect Clinton/Gore as POTUS/VPOTUS, while “making a buck” at the same time.

            So, ‘dog’, where’s the “BS”?

            BTW: how’s that relocation to The Peoples Socialistiк Яepubliк of Mexifornistaи, so you can ably assist in making ‘Calexit’ come to fruition going?

            You should find this helpful in that move:

            myBekins® Moving Company – Full Service, Great Rates
            http://www.mybekins.com/Dallas

            🙂

    • PeterTx52

      couldn’t agree more Wilson was a racist, and West Virginia needs to remove the late Senator Robert Byrd’s name from all buildings. he is a former KKK Kleagle oh and he was a Democrat

    • Woodrow Wildcat

      Woodrow is the model for diversity in Dallas.

      • Woodrow Wilson was a racist who resegregated the armed forces and federal buildings for the first time since Lincoln and said “Birth of a Nation” was the greatest film of all time.

        But, you know, he gets a pass, because he was a Progressive Democrat.

        • Woodrow Wildcat

          I’m talking about our high school.

          • And I’m talking about the name.

        • thefncrow

          Wilson’s name absolutely should come off that school. Ideally, we’ll rename both Woodrow and Lee at the same time, but the more pressing matter is the one that’s being used as a rallying call for Nazis and Confederate apologists.

          • Cool. Let’s also renamed Malcolm X Blvd (X was a human trafficker — prostitution — and supported segregation).

          • Mavdog

            Wrong. Malcolm X did not support segregation, and he wasn’t a pimp.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXUACu9PY2w

          • Guest

            Malcolm X’s father was a Baptist minister who was inspired by Marcus Bar by and preached sepretism so the idea of segregation of whites and blacks was something Malcolm X believed in as a young boy. When his fathered died he ended up in a white foster home.

            In 1941 Malcolm X left and became a shoe shine boy and railroad waiter in Boston. Eventually he began pimping, drug dealing, and was a burglar. In 1945 he received a 10 year sentence for his crimes where he was introduced into the Nation of Islam.

            In 1952 he was released from prison and quickly rose to prominence in the NO I and was influenced by Elijah Mohammed. He referred to whites as the white devil and preached in favor of segregation.

            In 1964 he left the NO I because he felt they weren’t doing enough to push for change as he wanted to do. He converted to Islam and then traveled to Mecca and around Africa where his beliefs about whites, segregation, and his ideals began to transform. He believed he could bring all people together through Islam.

          • So you are going to let Nazis set the agenda?

            You think THAT is the way to go?

  • Amy S

    I wish I could hold to the idea that my ancestors did not have slaves. They lived in West Virginia and were landholders. I’m going to say they very likely were slaveholders, and probably treated their people the same as other owners. As a descendant, I can do more than decry this sick belief in an America without rights for all, I can advocate for a better tomorrow. I’m in, Wick.

    • You mean, like most non-industrial/plantation owners, they treated their slaves as part of the family?

    • LoriBoriAlist

      White guilt is a bitch.

  • Joel Martinez

    History is full of atrocities committed by men/women. We can try to erase it or change it after the fact. Leave the statues alone

  • Joel Martinez

    I Meant can’t

  • Edgar

    To a bigoted strain like the one that showed up in Charlottesville, removal of these statutes has obviously become a rallying cry. Yet art means different things to different people. Why allow them to co-opt the meaning? As Buddy Apple and Peter Simek have suggested here and in the DMN, re-contextualize it. In Manhattan, the Fearless Girl statue gave interesting new meanings to the Charging Bull.

    The statement, “you can’t erase history” has become cliche, but in this case, the statues themselves (and the fact that they have continued to exist without much comment all these years) are the history we’re reckoning with here in Dallas as much as the Civil War is. Perhaps the impulses behind the creation of the statues were repugnant. To me, the statues, as they stand today, are a monument to that fact. The meaning of the statue is that it helps tell that story, rather than to celebrate the Confederacy. Why not aspire to do something more interesting and thought-provoking than tearing them down?

  • Pol Pot

    In order to see clearly in the present, we must understand the burdens of our past. The statues should be moved to a museum. Include FDR’s dedication speech, include the lessons that can be learned. But let’s not pretend the past didn’t happen. (BTW, I don’t think Wick is trying to sweep it all under the rug.)

  • bbetzen

    You write, “The only generation that matters now is the future one.”

    Sadly current violence cannot be ignored. Trump’s election encouraged racists to become more public and organize which allowed the deadly violent demonstrations now happening. We must study de-escalation methods to minimize violence potential while keeping to our message, but what is it?

    Those of us against the racist monuments have different messages that can be expressed as “erase the monuments from public” vs “make full history dominate the original monument”?

    While it is definitely down the list of concerns due to current threats, we still need to be concerned about education a hundred years from now and future generations. What will they see? Will they understand how these monuments truly dominated the public space in 1940? Will they easily understand the truth surrounding the time when these monuments were dedicated?

    This is an opportunity to make that critical history more public now, and for all future generations. Publish the facts 20 years either side of 1936 when the Lee statue was dedicated. Create a larger Monument to dominate the Lee statue of an integrated classroom of 6th graders learning about history from an African American teacher. We must celebrate the integration of our schools and communities, in public and in front of the statues designed to stop that from happening. That will be a more complete public statement that hopefully our community can endorse.

    Sadly, due to how segregated Dallas remains, maybe we are not yet ready for public monuments celebrating integration. Where does Dallas stand?

  • Brenda Marks

    Agree. Some of my Tennessee landholding ancestors also fought for the south. The myth white southerners and the Daughters of the Confederacy spent large sums of money creating in the early 20th century, now referred to in scholarship as “Lost Cause” mythology, was the basis for re-renaming my neighborhood park after Lee and planting his giant likeness on the most the prominent corner in the park. Give my park back its rightful name. Bring him down. Put him in a warehouse. Put him in a cemetery. I don’t care. Just bring him down and get him out of our neighborhood park.

  • SuperTroll

    The statues don’t bother me, but if they bother the “snowflakes” then move them to a museum. They are beautiful works of art. Just don’t expect the whining to stop. Next year they will find some other battle to fight and then they still won’t be happy.

    • Marcie Batten

      That’s why one should just practicing saying “no” to irrational behavior.

    • To hell with the snowflakes. Better that they melt than to put out the fire of Western Civilization.

  • Stephen Coonley

    there were more slaves in the north than the south

    • Mavdog

      what?
      There were approx. 445k slaves in northern states according to the 1860 census. Half of those slaves were in one state, Kentucky.
      There were approx. 3.4 Million in the southern states according to the 1860 census.
      Want to reconsider your obviously inaccurate claim?

      • Texas2009

        Kentucky was a confederate state.

        • Mavdog

          Did you fail American history? Kentucky never seceded and was a base for Union forces during the Civil War.

  • Mavdog

    No, don’t remove the statues. Take the money and effort the relocation would entail and install additional monuments which will complete the story.

    A statue of a slave in chains by the Confederate War Memorial, with the facts of the suffering those who were forced into slavery endured.

    A monument to the Union soldiers, as well as a tribute to the abolitionists who worked to rid our country of the scourge of slavery, placed by the Lee statue,

    Leverage what we already have to educate and to honor those true American heroes, which will hopefully minimize any honor these Confederate statues previously possessed.

    • DubiousBrother

      To complete the story, a statue of a tribal warrior that captured the slaves in Africa before selling them to the Muslim slave traders of north Africa (who also deserve a statue) who sold them to the Portuguese slave traders (another statue) who transported them to the U.S. or whatever other country was buying at the time. And for good measure, how about a statue of Sultan Qaboos of Oman that forward thinking Muslim country that abolished slavery (wink, wink) in 1970.

      • Mavdog

        umm, no.
        But thanks for the tangental but totally unnecessary input.

    • Woodrow Wildcat

      I don’t think we would want a monument to Union General Sherman, who led genocide of Native Americans.

      • Mavdog

        OK, then goforit.

  • rf7777

    This is silly. You don’t see Germany taking down all of their Hitler, Goebbels and Himmler statues and monuments! Oh, wait…

    • Happy Bennett

      There were no statues of Hitler etc. in Nazi era Germany.

      • Mavdog

        True, not actual statues per se; however, many busts of Hitler were installed in almost every community and most cities/towns had major streets renamed “Adolph Hitler Street” or “Adolph Hitler Plaza”.
        Those were all removed and the streets/plazas renamed back to their original name.

  • br333

    Why go through all this trouble to take them down. In recent interviews with college educated kids over 3/4s of them could not even tell you who fought the civil war or who won. That mean’s most of them do not even know why the monuments are there or what they stand for to start with.

    • Tom Spilman

      Great… then they won’t miss them. Thanks for you vote for taking them down!

      • JohnyAlamo

        Great, so you admit they don’t know history and then endorse remaining ignorant of it. Niiice. You’re a real credit to humanity.

  • Happy Bennett

    Most if not all of the befuddled folks writing posts about Nazi and Hitler statues do not realize that there were no public statues of Hitler in Nazi era Germany. Please feel free to look it up, James.

  • JohnyAlamo

    What crap. The Nazi’s were a full 74 years AFTER our Civil War. It was a war fought INSIDE our own country, brother against brother. That is why sentiments are much more complex. Even the founder of our city, John Neely Bryan fought for the confederacy. The Nazi’s wanted nothing but world domination. To liken the Civil War to the WWII shows a gross ignorance of U.S. History.

    • Juanito Ibañez

      “John Neely Bryan fought for the confederacy.”

      …in the Eighteenth Texas Cavalry regiment under the command of Col. Nicholas H. Darnell; the only person to serve as Speaker of the House of the Republic of Texas House of Representatives and the State of Texas House of Representatives.

  • David Pruitt

    If you did not know your history where would we be. Just so you know Robert E Lee served as a colonel in the US Army and was in Texas for the war against Mexico. He was never in Texas under the confederacy.
    Should we remove statues of Washington, Jefferson, and Adams because they owned slaves?

    • thefncrow

      Key distinction: Washington, Jefferson, and Adams didn’t lead a treasonous revolt against the legitimate government in support of enslaving people.

      • Happy Bennett

        1) Great Britain is/was a legitimate government. 2) Although there was some discussion at the time about ending slavery, it did not happen. 3) since most advanced civilizations have owned slaves, and slavery was abolished as an institution in this country in 1865 at the cost of a great many lives, it becomes counter productive to blame contemporary Americans for it.

        • thefncrow

          The South revolted from the Union because of slavery. There is no other cause. Their own secession documents cite nothing else, and the CSA Constitution puts to bed any “Lost Cause” claims about “states’ rights”, seeing as how it’s just the same Constitution but with a federal prohibition barring any state from abolishing slavery. The Revolution, on the other hand, may have failed to abolish slavery in it’s aftermath when they should have, but it most certainly was not about preserving intolerable cruelty and bigotry.

        • JamieT

          There will always be shining-eyed zealots ready to purify the land of its sins.

          • Happy Bennett

            They need to be enshrined in Guyana on a pedestal of unicorn horns adhesed with dried Kool-Aid. But, they should never be taken seriously.

      • Can’t tell if sarcastic or just stupid.

        • thefncrow

          I’d say I was disappointed with this utterly substanceless snarky comment, but snarky bullshit without a point is pretty much what you can be counted on to post.

          If you’ve got something to say about the substance of what I said, you’re more than welcome to post that instead of this petty bullshit.

          • So, stupid. OK.

            Revolt is, by definition, treasonous.

            The British were the legitimate government. In fact, most historians agree that if there had been a referendum, the loyalists would have outnumbered the revolutionaries.

            The government established by Washington, Jefferson, and Adams supported slavery and enshrined it in the constitution (in the 3/5 compromise). It is worth noting that the government they rebelled from ALSO supported enslaving people.

            So, every single part of your comment was historically and logically wrong. If you were going for satire, it would have been well done. I’m disappointed to find out that you are just an illiterate retard.

          • thefncrow

            Revolution is against an established government. I didn’t say anything otherwise because it’s implied by the word.

            The fact that the nation that arose from the Revolution included slavery is a FAR different beast from a revolt that was fought SPECIFICALLY over slavery. As you dutifully noted, the English also at the time supported slavery. Slavery had no role in creating the Revolution, whereas the singular cause of the Civil War was the South being worried that they might actually have to treat people like people and not like property.

            And I’m shocked, shocked, that you’re one of those knuckle dragging morons who still uses the R-word. Because of course you are.

          • The Somerset case of 1772 and Lord Dunmore’s offer to free and arm slaves to put down revolts in Virginia are direct causes of the Revolution. While New England was tossing tea in the harbor over taxes, the southern colonies were using slavery to fuel the country’s export business (and buying their food from the north, who also benefited from this arrangement.)

            The south was largely out of the war in 1775. It wasn’t until Dunmore threatened to confiscate 20K slaves from men like Washington and Jefferson that the south mobilized.

            But then, I don’t expect the kind of retard who is shocked by the word retard to know anything about the war itself or how it started.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYnnT7QMDe8

          • Mavdog

            Dunmore and the “Gunpowder Incident” were a result of the Patriot’s seizing control of most of Virginia, it was not a “cause of the Revolution” as the Revolution had already begun. Dunmore took the gunpowder due to his fear it would fall into the hands of the Patriot militia, and his offer of emancipation was issued in a bid to protect him from losing Virginia to the Patriots.

      • V. Rodier

        No, they lead a treasonous revolt against Great Britain, their legitimate government. They just happened to win.

    • Broceliand Forest

      John Adams did not own slaves. He opposed slavery, and his son was a noted abolitionist

  • Happy Bennett

    Mr. Allison, being a man of means and a CEO, should voluntarily pay reparations, if he feels the need to do something “meaningful”. Likewise, Ms. Marks, and “Amy S.” who feel that their long ago southern relatives “may” have been guilty of slave holding should perhaps make some personal sacrifice. I should not be obligated to share their collective guilt (or insecurity?).

    • JamieT

      As a third generation immigrant myself, I find the revisionist urges of the individuals you list to retroactively whitewash their family legacies unsettling. Then again, this is Dallas, where a little nip, a little tuck, a larger breast, and a tighter vagina is always in order.

  • JohnyAlamo

    Yes, now that we have conquered racism, it would be a great symbolic gesture to take down these monuments. We are much better people now and they are unsightly..

  • jjjcccc53

    Put it on a ballot and let the voters decide whether the statues come down or stay up! Power to tbe people and not the politicians!

    • rf7777

      If we did not, people in Dallas would probably still own slaves. Great idea…

  • Brian Cleveland

    Total reactionary.

    • Marcie Batten

      Half baked reactionary.

  • PeterTx52

    considering all the comments posted here I would say this article is a prime example of clickbait

  • Brian Cleveland

    I want truth, tolerance, discussion. This article just wants revenge.

  • Ryan Merkow

    should we demolish Mt. Rushmore too? I’m sure most Native Americans would appreciate that. it’s a slippery slope Wick. Never forget the past and where we came come.

  • ilovephishstyx

    Why Now? These confederate statues have been up for decades and not one word.

    • JamieT

      See PeterTx52 just above. Those People newspapers aren’t moving.

  • Jim Bewley

    The Neo Nazis and KKK are satisfied to remain low key in this country as long as they have these statues of Confederate leaders to hold on to. When cities have decided to remove these statues and erase history,these groups raise their ugly heads to defend their position. This past weekend was an example of what is to come each time a city removes the statues and changes the name of parks to remove any part of the Confederate history. Why not leave the statues to appease this group so they will go back home and stay quiet. If you think you have a right to be offended by these statues, just put your self in the shoes of the Native Americans. How do you think they feel every time they see an American Flag flying over THEIR LAND ? Yes the land we stole from them and killed them, and forced them onto reservations to starve!

    • thefncrow

      You might have learned the wrong lessons from WW2 if you think that appeasing Nazis is a good idea.

      • You might have learned the wrong lessons from WW1 if you think that needlessly humiliating and belittling an aggressive people is a good idea.

        • thefncrow

          There’s nothing needless about humiliating and belittling people who advocate for the elimination of non-white people. There is no room in society for that inherently violent trash.

          • There are far, far more people calling for the elimination of white people than non-white people.

            Let’s expel those inherently violent trash first.

  • firebearer

    “The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”
    ― George Orwell

  • Danny Ambrose

    Come Back Up

  • The Truth

    I been saying it needs to come down for years …. they lost the fucking war and fought against America … they’re not heroes of any sort. They were champions of bigotry only

  • CK

    What a fascist artical, reminds me of when the Spanish priest thought it was a good idea to tear down all Aztec, Inca, & Mayan statues and anything else that did not fit their own current views.

  • Malcolm Harris

    I have a Sledge Hammer!

    Destroying the statues will not solve the racial divide, but it will show a willingness to empathize with those who’s lives were and are tainted by slavery.

    BRING IT DOWN!

  • bunny06

    NO THEY need to stay. Knock it off they fought for what they believed in they gave their lives.

    • Tom Spilman

      Should we throw a few monuments up to Nazis? How about a few for Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto? Maybe we need a monument to ISIS?

      I suspect all of them fought for what they believed in… a putrid belief does not deserve a monument.

      • I’m fine with Japan’s war monuments. I’m fine with Germany keeping Nazi monuments. That’s essentially what Auschwitz is. ISIS has their monument, the Kabbah.

        Why do you hate diversity so much that you will only allow monuments to yourself?

        • Mavdog

          “I’m fine with Germany keeping Nazi monuments. That’s essentially what Auschwitz is”
          No Phelps, Auschwitz and Treblinka are not “Nazi monuments”, they are victim’s monuments.

          • pingz

            Actually Auschwitz is a museum… which is where all Nazis and Confederates belong.

      • LoriBoriAlist

        Nazis, Isis, Yamamoto…none of them are Americans. Smell the difference?

        • pingz

          Confederates were traitors to America… a pretty important difference you would like to forget.

    • rf7777

      They believed in the right for white people to OWN black people. THAT is what they gave their lives for.

      • Just like Washington and Jefferson.

  • bunny06

    OK lets just tear the pages about slavery and the civil war out of the history books. Lets act like its all milk and cookies. Erase that chapter.

    • Tom Spilman

      Germany removed all monuments and links to Hitler and Nazis, yet somehow we all still know about them today.

      Removing a monument to traitors and bigots doesn’t erase their acts from history. It simply keeps them from being glorified.

      • LoriBoriAlist

        Hitler and the Nazi’s and Lee and the Confederates are not the same thing at all. Not even close. But I know you lefties like to use that argument. And I also know, today it will be the monuments…and where does it end? How much do you plan to remove to appease this little temper tantrum.

        “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” – George Orwell 1984

        • pingz

          Nazis and the Confederates are the same in one critical issue… they both considered some people sub-human and unworthy of life and liberty.

          This is why people rightfully make the comparison.

          No reasonable person has ever wanted to erase them from history. Quite the opposite… we want them to be history in a museum and not a glorification to a putrid cause.

          • LoriBoriAlist

            “…they both considered some people sub-human and unworthy of life and liberty.” Thanks for pointing out the obvious there, genius. And I agree…no reasonable person wants them erased from history. Which is why the liberals are all for it.

          • pingz

            Thank you and you’re welcome. I am glad to help you better understand the problem.

            No one, including liberals, are asking to erase history.. not that it would even be possible. We actually want the opposite. We want this all to be history and only appear in history books and museums.

  • bunny06

    blame the blacks in africa they sold their own into slavery

    • CK

      And the Dutch were the mules!

  • John Bond

    Monuments were built mostly by the mothers and daughters of southern soldiers who saw there husbands and father’s leave home and go off to war against an invading army who was ordered to destroy the city’s , farms, homes of the people in the south … then after the war this same massive military nearly wiped the American Indians off the face of the earth

  • abhaille

    This is misleading. There were never schools named after Hitler and Goebbles and Rommel. At least if there were they didn’t last long. How long have there been schools named Robert E. Lee or parks named Lee Park ? They are ubiquitous in the united states. It’s not the same thing at all. I disinvoke Godwin’s Law.

  • abhaille

    I attended John Glenn Elementary School. I attended Graceland Elementary School. I attended Peabody Elementary School that my grandmother attended. Not too many people know much about who their school was named after. I knew who John Glenn was. I knew who Elvis Presley was. I didn’t know who Mr. Peabody was but there is a hotel named after him in Memphis and I figured it was the same guy. Who should we name our schools after?

  • TJ Pierce

    Here here. History is not served by celebrating those who betrayed the country in order to preserve slavery. History has not forgotten Adolf Hitler, but neither is he celebrated with monuments. Turn the damn thing into scrap metal and rename the park.

  • Woodrow Wildcat

    White guilt in the Park Cities telling Dallas what to do…

    • rf7777

      Whites in the South should have guilt. IMMENSE AND UNRELENTING GUILT. They wanted to preserve white people owning black people. [period]

      • LoriBoriAlist

        WHY? They weren’t even alive then! My God you lefties are nothing but a bunch of sorry ass drama queens.

  • Kate Jones

    History is not to be glossed over. You’re basically asking Americans to roll over and relinquish their long-held opinions about one of the most divisive and controversial struggles this nation has ever faced. Monuments such as this one hold symbolic meaning to many, and trying to edit which statues deserve to stand and which do not is nothing but pure political correctness and censorship. What’s next, public book book burning?

    • JamieT

      The best way to remediate Dallas’ reputation as the City of Hate would be to bulldoze our memorial to Lee Harvey Oswald and the notorious Grassy Knoll. Philip Kingston, are you listening?

      • rf7777

        I have lived in Dallas for many years, but have never seen our memorial to Lee Harvey Oswald. But you are not even close to comparing him to The Great Robert E. Lee. Oswald assassinated a president. Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country and responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people in order to maintain the ownership of black people by white people. Really no comparison.

    • Mavdog

      Yes, there is “symbolic meaning to many”. That is the problem. The meaning today is now used by those who promote the cause of white supremacy. Those who wish to preserve the statues and monuments of Confederates out of nostalgia have lost the symbolism of those items to other groups.

    • rf7777

      Oh please. Check your white privilege at the door. A controversial struggle??? WTF? Are you trying to say all Americans “struggled” through this “controversy” equally? There was a correct side and a horribly incorrect side of that “struggle.”

      • Kate Jones

        Both sides took very hard losses. Thousands upon thousands of Americans were slain, and families on both sides felt the effects, whether they had enlisted willingly or were merely innocent bystanders. Have you read about Antietam? Andersonville Prison? Did you skip over Sherman’s March to the Sea in your hurry to oversimplify an extremely complex war? Instead of crying about perceived privilege, how about you educate yourself?

        • rf7777

          The war was over whether it was fine and OK to own other PEOPLE. Let that sink in. Should white people OWN black people? That is what the “controversy” [war] was about! Babble on about the atrocities of the war all your want, but never forget what the war was actually about.

          • LoriBoriAlist

            That IS NOT what the war was about. Freeing the slaves was an after thought. Pick up a history book and stop spouting rhetoric.

          • rf7777

            [jaw on floor speechless…]

          • LoriBoriAlist

            I have no doubt you are speechless. Idiots such as yourself are frequently stunned when faced with the truth. Go read a history book on the Civil War…front to back…before you open your fat mouth next time. Hell, you could even watch “Lincoln” by Scorsese and learn a hell of a lot more than you apparently know now, which is apparently jack.

          • rf7777

            * Spielberg

          • LoriBoriAlist

            At least you are right about that, so that’s your consolation prize for losing out on the rest of this debate.

          • thefncrow

            The north fought to preserve the union, but the Confederacy started the war by seceding, and they seceded because of slavery. If you’re reading a history book that tells you that the cause of the Civil War wasn’t slavery, then you’re reading some Lost Cause revisionist history nonsense.

          • LoriBoriAlist

            Yes, you are a lost cause revisionist. They seceded over much more than just slavery, and Lincoln was not planning to free the slaves until the last minute. You can twist it any way you like, but those are the facts. The MAJORITY of the public were angry when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, not thinking it would ever and/or should ever happen. So if this was all about ‘freeing the slaves’, funny how the North would send so many to their deaths for a cause they didn’t believe in.

          • pingz

            That is exactly what the war was about.

            “The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America.” – James McPherson, Pulitzer Prize-winning author, American Civil War historian.

            Maybe you should find a better history book?

  • Brian Cleveland
  • Jeff Chang

    I want to remove the FDR memorial in DC.

    FDR was a racist that:
    -Appointed a KKK member to SCOTUS.
    -Did not support an Anti-lynching bill.
    -Imprisoned the Japanese.
    -Was a racist towards Jesse Owens.

  • Derek Palmer

    After WWII, all swastikas and other public displays representative of the Nazi party were removed in Germany. And as we’ve seen recently on the news, you can be arrested in Germany for giving the Nazi salute. The German government has taken the right path to deter those who would like to see a return to the Nazi party and Adolf Hitler. Isn’t it about time that the American government takes the same path when it comes to the “glorification” of those who wanted to keep slavery intact?

    • LoriBoriAlist

      Why now? Why was this not a trigger for all of you until now? Obama could have removed them if they were truly signs of oppression and racism. He had 8 years to do so, and they’ve been standing for 75 plus years, so plenty of time to make this an issue, but of course, we all know it’s not a sign of oppression. It’s a sign of politics and the continuing temper tantrum being thrown by the left since they lost the election.

  • Stephanie G119

    Wick, I think you should rethink this one. These statues are not repugnant. They represent a war fought, as all wars, over a difference of opinion – the subject matter of which was legal at the time. They represent the 620,000 Americans, black and white, who fought and died in a civil war whose end resulted in the Emancipation Proclamation. And that historic symbol is not repugnant.

  • Gary Webb

    Let’s remove the ethnicity block on all job applications.

  • LoriBoriAlist

    “Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right.” – George Orwell – 1984

  • ElizaBleak

    This isn’t about being “offended.” The citizens of these cities, regardless of color, have never voted to remove these art pieces. And many have been up for almost 100 years. This is about liberals trying to rewrite history.

    “He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”
    ― George Orwell, 1984

  • Jon A. Haslett

    This is a dumbass statement: “The intentions of past generations in erecting the statues, whether noble or defiant, are irrelevant.” No, history is ALWAYS relevant, even when you think the history is “bad.”

  • Larry Hinkle

    I like that statue and would be sorry to see it go. People need to stop being triggered, I’m guessing most people complaining never even go by the park.

  • brent young

    please forgive me ; no offense to your “knowledgeable~accent”, of your “intellect~inclined~narative”, but i will share humbly for your SALVATION, through a living god, (JESUS), says, it is “neither jew nor gentile, black or white”, but a new “Creation in Christ Jesus”, let the “dead bury the dead, and come follow me”, here at stone mountain georgia we have a Confederate Mantle Carved into the mountainside, that makes that statue look like “childsplay”, Epheasians 6, “says”, you wrestle not against “flesh and blood, but against principalities, and powers”, fill your soul with gods good Word(Jesus), and Know his Forgiveness, as He Forgave (you), forgive those who “tresspassed against you”, you hinder the “Kingdom of God(JESUS), with, forgive me, your antiquaited~thinking, Preach The Gospel of Jesus Christ (Acts 2:38), from (Acts 4:10-12), which is (John 3:16). sincerely, as a whitness through JESUS, i Love you enough to take “your burden hurt and wrath, on the cheek”, and i turn my other one “ready for your assult”, …but really their is no need for all this, “love your enemies, that despitefully use you”, pray for them out of a sincere heart, your Faith through a living~god(JESUS), will even bring down stone mountain, in atlanta,…Spiritually ; many will walk free, when their “Heart of Mind”, and Eternal Soul, “rest in gods(JESUS) LOVE”, and not in “robert e lee brass, or stone in a mountain form”.sincerely in love i speak…
    the new movie “Detroit”, i highly recomend…not for the misguided hate, but the Spiritual Message of a Free and Saved People through JESUS(god) it “sends”, as a TRUE ANSWER too (ALL), the Devils Work, through Mans Choices…love brother brent

  • Matt Wright

    Rediculous

  • RompingWillyBilly

    Go ahead and destroy all those confederate statues so that you
    can then further burn up all the southern books. Its not going to keep me from chewing tobacco, keeping momma in the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, and strategically placing forty loaded rifles scattered about my property.

  • RompingWillyBilly

    Compared to the many many millions of people who died in WW2, only a few million Jews died. I really don’t care any more. Now, I will act like I care, but that was a long time ago. When a new movie comes out about it, I won’t go to watch it. For cripes sake, the holocaust has become a new religion.

  • charlescity

    The presentation at Lee Park involves three structures: the statue, the engraved bench, and the plantation. Interpretation is multi-layered and complicated. The one certainty is that the Arlington House replica is there
    because of the historic fact backed up by a United States Supreme Court
    opinion United States v. Lee (1882) that Mrs. Lee’s home was confiscated
    Nazi-style by Lincoln and his henchmen. This is not an a academic matter.
    President Tyler’s widow and underaged children spent a good part of the war
    behind Union lines in New York state and survived. Denied the sanctuary of
    the Arlington estate for the women and children in her family, Mrs. Lee lost a
    daughter, a daughter-in-law, and two small grandchildren during the course of the war. I am glad that the Holocaust Museum is involved in the discussion as its administrators should be able to identify with a property crime of this sort. In no way, shape or form did General Lee own the
    Arlington property. And of course Mrs. Lee was Martha Washington’s
    great grand daughter and owner of George Washington’ personal possessions. So much for Southern propaganda sponsored by the archvillians at the Daughters of the Confederacy. Mayor Rawlings and Mr.
    Allison should be ashamed.

  • JohnyAlamo

    No, the point is people feel that by applying a temporary salve to their white guilt by taking down old relics, that they are doing more for our society than actually using that energy to to fight for funding of DISD and more development in the southern sector.

  • Bonnie Ream

    History is history… it’s neither bad or good, it is just the past. Making statements like “the only generation that matters now is the future one” is ignorant. It’s VERY ignorant. And narcissistic. History matters – it matters more than most things because it’s how we learn not to repeat the same mistakes over and over again. History is an instruction manual for the future – it’s a roadmap. So the writer was raised with a romantasized version of history? Maybe, maybe not – he wasn’t there, his parents weren’t there and no one really KNOWS anymore exactly what was going on in the minds and hearts of those fighting for the South. There’s an awful lot of ego running around proclaiming to know what a bunch of dead people thought and felt leading up to, during and after the war. As an outsider, it doesn’t seem to be that much of a stretch to see that the federal governments over reach on slavery was the last straw. I’m sure there were people who weren’t necessarily opposed to abolishing slavery (if that had, in fact, been the purpose of Lincoln, which it wasn’t) but felt like they were headed down a slippery slope and needed to put the brakes on. I’m sure plenty of people in the South saw right through Lincoln’s posturing and outright lies about his intentions. I am from the North – grew up here and was brought up on tales of how the benevolent North fought and won the good fight. Guess what? Ending slavery was never the purpose for the North… but the truth (that it was all about the money) is just not packaged as pretty. If it was really about ending slavery, why was Kentucky and other border states siding with the North (along with plenty of slave owners in the North) allowed to continue to own slaves long after Lincoln made it illegal in the South? If Lincoln was such a hero, why was his original plan to round up all the blacks, stick them on a ship and send them back to Africa where they came from because while he claimed he didn’t think they should be owned, he certainly didn’t believe they were good enough to integrate with whites socially and economically either. He didn’t think they had a place in America at all. His first draft of the Immancupation Proclamation said so. We could all read it in its original form but decades ago it was determined to be offensive and racist so stories about it were taken out of history books and as far as I know, all copies of it have been destroyed.

    Do you not understand that by continually tearing down statues and removing parts of history that are offensive, white washing our past as you go, only creates a breeding ground for it to happen all over again?

    If you don’t like the history of the South being displayed, don’t go visit the statues. Feel free to move entirely. But continuing to pretend that there was a noble side in the last civil war is dangerous. There was no noble side then and there is no noble side now – just a bunch of bullies who want everyone to do what they say when they say it.

    By the way, I can’t wait till we get to tearing down the Lincoln memorial – I’d love to bring a sledge hammer to that event.

  • Julio Fuentes

    Funny, the author mentions FDR, the same President who enslaved thousands of Japanese Americans during WW2. What about his statues and monuments? Why are they celebrated and left to stand? Trump is right. There is no end to this

  • Julio Fuentes

    This is nothing more than an pathetic attempt by the Dems to show their base they are still relevant, given their historic loss of power over the last 8 years (Thanks Obama!). All they have left are liberal mayors in large cities who want to remove Confederate symbols that nobody, not even Blacks, give a damn about. It would be funny if it were not so pathetic

  • Julio Fuentes

    Once our idiot mayor of Dallas removes those evil statues he can go back to the business of running our city into the ground. Dallas is becoming unlivable, but hey, at least we don’t have those lousy statues anymore. Thanks Major Dumb Azzz

  • Julio Fuentes

    Malcolm X. The most famous ex pimp in US history. When do his statues come down?

  • thefncrow

    This is bad revisonist history. The Confederacy had nothing to do with states’ rights.

    Pro-slavery politics were actually explicitly anti-states’ rights at the time, because abolitionists were using states’ rights as a platform for states to outlaw slavery within their borders. The pro-slavery movement had resorted to using the power of the federal government to prohibit that behavior. The Dred Scott case was an important version of this (prohibiting states from outlawing slavery within their borders), and the Fugitive Slave Law was another (requiring that northern states assist in finding and returning escaped slaves even if slavery was illegal within the state and providing criminal penalties for anyone who refused to assist).

    The election of Lincoln made the South realize that federal power would no longer be a tool that could maintain slavery, and so they sought to create a new federal power that would. This is why the Confederacy’s constitution was just the US Constitution but with a provision that prohibited any state from outlawing slavery. This is the exact opposite of what you’d expect if the war had anything to do with “states’ rights”, as you would expect they’d take the opportunity to make states’ rights more explicit, not restrict them further.

    Also, plenty of people at the time recognized the evil of slavery. That’s not an excuse to let the Confederacy off the hook.

  • Robert Halh

    I think the statues coming down is horrible. I bought a shirt yesterday to wear at the protest. https://www.spreadshirt.com/history+matters+men-s+premium+t-shirt-A599847cbaa0c6d63c46238dd

  • Melanie Horn

    A statue dedicated to honor an American soldier’s sacrifice in a war victory that freed generations from oppression should not be offensive. You can look at a confederate monument with many different perspectives. Regardless of race, an American should be mindful and proud of the history the confederacy represents. If the confederacy symobolizes racism to you, remember that the country you live in and should be proud of does not tolerate racism. Racism is disgusting and illegal. History cannot be changed. Nor should we sit back and play “what if? The last thing we should do is try to hide it. Future generations need to remember that racism lost and be respectful of the dead. What better way to feel unified than to stand and look upon a man’s face in stone who’s death represents a win for black freedom and the Union. Don’t be offended. Be empowered.

    • DDoug04

      You cannot be serious.

  • janhglaser
  • Dan Rutherford

    Having read a few history books and not just fallen for the “Dummies guide to the civil war” that is now taught in schools, I’d like to challenge the author to explain to all of us stupid people why the south was dependent upon free labor . Somebody was buying all that cotton. Couldn’t the south have simply charged more? Could they have sold it to other buyers in Europe willing to pay more? There is not argument that Slavery was an abomination, and it didn’t only occur in the USA. But why did every other country on earth end the practice peacefully, but we in the USA is required a War that killed 600,000 ? Before you throw Lincoln around, just remember he approved the Corwin Amendment , and the state of Illinois did not allow nonwhite people to live in the state at that time.

  • Juanito Ibañez

    Wick Allison wrote:

    “…the Southern way of life depended on the free labor of others.”

    Not very cognizant about the economics of slave ownership; are you, Wick?

    While not defending the abhorrent practice of enslaving your fellow man, slaves were not obtained for free: they were purchased with cold, hard, U.S. currency (virtually all slave trading occurred prior to the establishment of the Confederate States of America).

    Moreover, not only did it cost the owner to purchase them in the first place, it cost to clothe, house and feed them: costs which were reflected in the sale price of the good they produced and their owners sold at market.

    Claiming the ‘The War of Northern Aggression’ was mainly about slavery is to ignore that the practice of slavery was in the process of dying out on its own: triggered by the invention of modern machinery.

    And another thing here, Wick: seeing as how the Dallas statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee was dedicated by a sitting United States President it actually belongs on both the Texas and National Historic Registers.

    No, Wick: tearing down such monuments only plays into the hands of LibSoc SJW “Winston Smiths” who are attempting to obliterate the honorable side of the Confederacy and its heroes from history.

  • Adrian Mach1

    I’m sorry but why now? Why not like 4 or 2 years ago to take them down or however long they was there for? And dallas shouldn’t be the ones to pay for the removal!!! The people complaining about the statues should pay for them to come down since they are the ones complaing about them. This is history!!!!

  • Juanito Ibañez

    Absolutely correct, Roder!

    Slavery existed many, MANY years longer under the numerous national flags of the United States than it did under the “Stars and Bars”, the “Stainless Banner” and the “Blooded Stainless Banner” (the three national flags of the Confederate States of America: none of which are the liberal-hated Saint Andrews Cross-derived flag of the Army of Northern Virginia and CSN Naval Ensign).

    But you never hear a single peep out of these LibSoc SJW “Winston Smiths” about doing away with “Old Glory”; do you?

  • Juanito Ibañez

    An Argument For Why Dallas’ Lee Park Statue Should Stay Where It Is

    “Every soldier’s grave made during our unfortunate Civil War is a tribute to American valor. And while, when those graves were made, we differed widely about the future of this government, those differences were long ago settled by the arbitrament of arms … What a glorious future awaits us if united, wisely, and bravely we face the new problems now pressing upon us, determined to solve them for right and humanity.”
    –William McKinley

    https://www.dmagazine.com/frontburner/2017/07/why-dallas-lee-park-statue-should-stay-where-it-is/

  • ATX

    Well, by your logic, they should also tear down the preserved concentration camps bc of what they “stand for”.