Robert E. Lee was a hero in the Mexican/American war.  He was reluctant to join the confederacy and only did so because that was what his home state chose to do.  In fact, he was very much against secession.


I disagree.  It wasn't until perhaps 10 years or so ago that the monuments, school names, etc. were deemed "offensive" or "repressive".  We are told by those on the left that there should be an "open and honest" dialog about black history.  What better way to start a conversation than to have someone ask the question as to why a piece of art 100+ years old is displayed where it is?

Much like the definition of "hate speech" the definition of a "proper monument" is purely subjective.

It was placed four to six decades after the civil War as part of a whole of government effort to roll back the rights and status that black people had won during Reconstruction, to erase not only the gains themselves but also the memory of those gains.

And Robert E Lee may have opposed seccession, but he also wholeheartedly supported slavery.  He rubbed salt into the wounds of the slaves he whipped theb wrote eloquent letters to his family about how it was God's will that they be "educated" this way.  His explanation for not wanting Virginia to secede but then fighting to defend her when she did was similarly strained and hypocritical, I'm sure.

Once again you are wrong.  It was a monument to the American soldiers from Florida that fought in The Civil War.  There weren't many and Florida had a relatively small role in The Civil War.

As far as your "history" regarding Robert E. Lee, you only look at it through your leftist democrat eyes.  Put yourself back in 1850 and honestly say that you would feel the same way that you do today.  Society was different back then.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I'm not saying the man never did anything nice.  
There are contexts where he's remembered positively.  I understand they study his battle plans at West Point alongside Rommel, Bonaparte, and even Hannibal, as they should.  And I understand he's a hero of the Mexican-American war as well.
But outside the context of military education, is there anything we remember Lee for that wasn't an effort to prolong or whitewash the enslavement of Americans?

Robert E. Lee was a hero in the Mexican/American war.  He was reluctant to join the confederacy and only did so because that was what his home state chose to do.  In fact, he was very much against secession.

I kind of thought one gave up the right to be called "American" when they took up arms against their own country.

Did Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull give up their "right" to be called American when they took up arms against the U.S. military?  Was their fight honorable or treasonous?  Should we remove monuments to them since they took up arms against the U.S.?

Not sad at all. 

Our American history is rich with many things that will continue to be taught to the next generation. Including the Civil War.
We aren't going to stop teaching it. 

In fact, we should do a better job of teaching it more completely so that those next generations are better at making decisions about exactly who and/or what would make a proper monument in front of city hall. 
Maybe they won't be tempted to erect a statue that exists as a symbol of oppression to 30% of the community where it stands. 

My maternal family tree leads directly to men who died fighting for the confederacy.  I don't need that statue to honor them  - ESPECIALLY when it affects so many others so negatively.

I disagree.  It wasn't until perhaps 10 years or so ago that the monuments, school names, etc. were deemed "offensive" or "repressive".  We are told by those on the left that there should be an "open and honest" dialog about black history.  What better way to start a conversation than to have someone ask the question as to why a piece of art 100+ years old is displayed where it is?

Much like the definition of "hate speech" the definition of a "proper monument" is purely subjective.

Just because YOU learned that it was offensive 10 years ago doesn't mean it hasn't been that for MUCH longer.
You were just late to arrive there and you unfortunately had to be notified of your ignorance to the pain of others. 

That conversation you think "needs starting" has been being played out in the streets since 1954, man. 

The conversation has been had. It's over. 

I don't find it proper to erect monuments that serve to divide the populace where they stand. This one did  - as evidenced by the opinions being expressed by African American Jacksonvillians today. 

You should think past this "well it doesn't offend ME" stance.  Many people have lived a very different experience than you and see those monuments very differently than you do.

---

So by your logic Crazy Horse was a traitor?


What exactly is "this job"?  Erase and deny a part of our history in order to appease a few?

This job is removing the names and likenesses of Confederate generals from places of honor, especially on public property.

As others in this thread have tried to teach you, we are obligated to do this because we have read and understood the relevant primary sources of history.  Others have denied the dark depths of Lee's means motives.  We neither deny nor erase anything about him.

You are so brainwashed.  Should we move one of the most hollowed grounds in American History (Arlington National Cemetery) since Robert E. Lee once owned and lived on the property?

"We" are obligated to do this because we want to erase history?

Tell me this.  Does General Custer deserve to have monuments, towns and other things named after him?  Was he racist?  Was a a hero?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

I kind of thought one gave up the right to be called "American" when they took up arms against their own country.

Did Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull give up their "right" to be called American when they took up arms against the U.S. military?  Was their fight honorable or treasonous?  Should we remove monuments to them since they took up arms against the U.S.?

Very different scenarios. The Confederate states were very well-established and long-established states of the United States, voluntary parts of it. Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull, and many others in the Indian wars and subsequent Trail of Tears, were part of what had been their own sovereign nations (yes, I know both weren't born until the very tail end of/after Jackson's wars). Those sovereign nations never accepted entry into the US. They just had a bunch of white dudes with big guns show up on horses and say, "Congratulations, you're all Americans! You get to help your fellow countrymen right from the get-go, because we're taking your land. Also, here, have chlamydia, herpes and the common cold."

Let's say the US had fallen to Germany in WWII. Would you (or anyone outside of Germany) have faulted US citizens from fighting back decades after their country had been seized?

---

President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, freed all slaves in Confederate-controlled territory..... Not in the North

On September 22, soon after the Union victory at Antietam, he issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that as of January 1, 1863, all slaves in the rebellious states “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”

African-American slaves sweated in the summer heat and shivered in the winter’s cold while helping to build the U.S. Capitol.

They finished on Wed, 12.02.1863, almost a FULL YEAR after Lincoln "Freed" the slaves

---

Confederates Traitors fought (and lost) the Civil War in an effort to retain their right to slavery. There is no debate here, they all need to come down.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

Robert E. Lee was a hero in the Mexican/American war.  He was reluctant to join the confederacy and only did so because that was what his home state chose to do.  In fact, he was very much against secession.


Did Crazy Horse or Sitting Bull give up their "right" to be called American when they took up arms against the U.S. military?  Was their fight honorable or treasonous?  Should we remove monuments to them since they took up arms against the U.S.?


I disagree.  It wasn't until perhaps 10 years or so ago that the monuments, school names, etc. were deemed "offensive" or "repressive".  We are told by those on the left that there should be an "open and honest" dialog about black history.  What better way to start a conversation than to have someone ask the question as to why a piece of art 100+ years old is displayed where it is?

Much like the definition of "hate speech" the definition of a "proper monument" is purely subjective.

Just because YOU learned that it was offensive 10 years ago doesn't mean it hasn't been that for MUCH longer.
You were just late to arrive there and you unfortunately had to be notified of your ignorance to the pain of others. 

That conversation you think "needs starting" has been being played out in the streets since 1954, man. 

The conversation has been had. It's over. 

I don't find it proper to erect monuments that serve to divide the populace where they stand. This one did  - as evidenced by the opinions being expressed by African American Jacksonvillians today. 

You should think past this "well it doesn't offend ME" stance.  Many people have lived a very different experience than you and see those monuments very differently than you do.

Again I point to other things in our nation's history that may or may not be "offensive" to some people.  I get and understand why some black people might find a statue of a Confederate soldier "offensive".  Just like I think that some people might find monuments to others "offensive".

For the record I didn't "learn that it was 'offensive' 10 years ago".  I simply pointed out that from what I recall there were no complaints regarding the statue, school names, etc. as being "offensive" until around 10 years ago or so.  There may have been some prior to that, but I'm certainly not aware of it.  The statue had been there over a century.

Regarding the part in bold, I don't think that the statue was erected for the purpose that you state.

Much of the problem today is people think about the actions that happened back then in "today's terms" regarding race and culture.  The fact of the matter is slavery was "normal" back then to many people.  I'm not saying that it was right, but that's the way that it was back then.

I have had things done in a historical perspective to people of my heritage in the past.  Do I hold a grudge against the very (like) people that did it back then today?  Of course not.  It's HISTORY.

I know that I might be in the minority in some cases, but I tend to adhere to one of the things that Dr. Martin Luther King talked about.  I personally "judge" people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  I have actually had friends tell me that "they weren't sure" about me when they initially learned my last name.  My own wife was introduced to me as a blind date.  When her friend told her of my ethnicity at first it was a big "no".  30+ years later we have been happily married.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

This job is removing the names and likenesses of Confederate generals from places of honor, especially on public property.

As others in this thread have tried to teach you, we are obligated to do this because we have read and understood the relevant primary sources of history.  Others have denied the dark depths of Lee's means motives.  We neither deny nor erase anything about him.

You are so brainwashed.  Should we move one of the most hollowed grounds in American History (Arlington National Cemetery) since Robert E. Lee once owned and lived on the property?

"We" are obligated to do this because we want to erase history?

Tell me this.  Does General Custer deserve to have monuments, towns and other things named after him?  Was he racist?  Was a a hero?

The federal government seized the Arlington plantation from Robert E Lee against his wishes.
Suffice it to say, his peers in government knew what kind of man Lee was and treated him accordingly. It was a later generation that created the fable of him being honorable.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

You are so brainwashed.  Should we move one of the most hollowed grounds in American History (Arlington National Cemetery) since Robert E. Lee once owned and lived on the property?

"We" are obligated to do this because we want to erase history?

Tell me this.  Does General Custer deserve to have monuments, towns and other things named after him?  Was he racist?  Was a a hero?

The federal government seized the Arlington plantation from Robert E Lee against his wishes. 
Suffice it to say, his peers in government knew what kind of man Lee was and treated him accordingly. It was a later generation that created the fable of him being honorable.

Keep trying to rewrite history.

Are you O.K. with the Federal Government seizing private property because they might have the opinion of "what kind of man he was/is"?

Again you don't know Robert E. Lee's history.  All you know is your "perceived" history of him.

Was General Custer a "good and honorable" man?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

President Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863, freed all slaves in Confederate-controlled territory..... Not in the North

On September 22, soon after the Union victory at Antietam, he issued a preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that as of January 1, 1863, all slaves in the rebellious states “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free.”

African-American slaves sweated in the summer heat and shivered in the winter’s cold while helping to build the U.S. Capitol.

They finished on Wed, 12.02.1863, almost a FULL YEAR after Lincoln "Freed" the slaves

Slavery was abolished in Washington DC on April 16, 1862, which was 8 months before the Emancipation Proclamation.

---

Just because YOU learned that it was offensive 10 years ago doesn't mean it hasn't been that for MUCH longer.
You were just late to arrive there and you unfortunately had to be notified of your ignorance to the pain of others. 

That conversation you think "needs starting" has been being played out in the streets since 1954, man. 

The conversation has been had. It's over. 

I don't find it proper to erect monuments that serve to divide the populace where they stand. This one did  - as evidenced by the opinions being expressed by African American Jacksonvillians today. 

You should think past this "well it doesn't offend ME" stance.  Many people have lived a very different experience than you and see those monuments very differently than you do.

Again I point to other things in our nation's history that may or may not be "offensive" to some people.  I get and understand why some black people might find a statue of a Confederate soldier "offensive".  Just like I think that some people might find monuments to others "offensive".

For the record I didn't "learn that it was 'offensive' 10 years ago".  I simply pointed out that from what I recall there were no complaints regarding the statue, school names, etc. as being "offensive" until around 10 years ago or so.  There may have been some prior to that, but I'm certainly not aware of it.  The statue had been there over a century.

Regarding the part in bold, I don't think that the statue was erected for the purpose that you state.

Much of the problem today is people think about the actions that happened back then in "today's terms" regarding race and culture.  The fact of the matter is slavery was "normal" back then to many people.  I'm not saying that it was right, but that's the way that it was back then.

I have had things done in a historical perspective to people of my heritage in the past.  Do I hold a grudge against the very (like) people that did it back then today?  Of course not.  It's HISTORY.

I know that I might be in the minority in some cases, but I tend to adhere to one of the things that Dr. Martin Luther King talked about.  I personally "judge" people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  I have actually had friends tell me that "they weren't sure" about me when they initially learned my last name.  My own wife was introduced to me as a blind date.  When her friend told her of my ethnicity at first it was a big "no".  30+ years later we have been happily married.

So where’s the Hitler statue?

Did you ever think that maybe people are becoming more educated on certain topics and therefore see how dumb it was to put up a statue like this in the first place?

---

This is a good start to abolishing racism. However, I don't think it will be truly abolished until reparations are paid to every person descending from slavery.

---

Once again you are wrong.  It was a monument to the American soldiers from Florida that fought in The Civil War.  There weren't many and Florida had a relatively small role in The Civil War.

Based on our confederate flags flying high up on the Northside, one would think this was the capital of the confederate states.

---

Again I point to other things in our nation's history that may or may not be "offensive" to some people.  I get and understand why some black people might find a statue of a Confederate soldier "offensive".  Just like I think that some people might find monuments to others "offensive".

For the record I didn't "learn that it was 'offensive' 10 years ago".  I simply pointed out that from what I recall there were no complaints regarding the statue, school names, etc. as being "offensive" until around 10 years ago or so.  There may have been some prior to that, but I'm certainly not aware of it.  The statue had been there over a century.

Regarding the part in bold, I don't think that the statue was erected for the purpose that you state.

Much of the problem today is people think about the actions that happened back then in "today's terms" regarding race and culture.  The fact of the matter is slavery was "normal" back then to many people.  I'm not saying that it was right, but that's the way that it was back then.

I have had things done in a historical perspective to people of my heritage in the past.  Do I hold a grudge against the very (like) people that did it back then today?  Of course not.  It's HISTORY.

I know that I might be in the minority in some cases, but I tend to adhere to one of the things that Dr. Martin Luther King talked about.  I personally "judge" people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  I have actually had friends tell me that "they weren't sure" about me when they initially learned my last name.  My own wife was introduced to me as a blind date.  When her friend told her of my ethnicity at first it was a big "no".  30+ years later we have been happily married.

So where’s the Hitler statue?

Did you ever think that maybe people are becoming more educated on certain topics and therefore see how dumb it was to put up a statue like this in the first place?

A statue of Hitler is not the same as a statue of an American soldier.  Like it or not it's a FACT that confederate soldiers during that time were in FACT Americans.

Put it this way.  Yes some of the population of our city/county might have been "offended" by the fact that a statue that has been in place well over a century.  Did anyone even consider that what that statue signified being taken down in the middle of the night (cowardly) might be "offensive" towards the people that it memorialized?

The so-called "educated" or "woke" people might see it as "dumb", but those with a more proper education might just understand what it symbolized.  When are the "educated" people going to take down this monument?

Was the treatment of the Sioux or Cheyenne better or worse than the slaves during that time?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Once again you are wrong.  It was a monument to the American soldiers from Florida that fought in The Civil War.  There weren't many and Florida had a relatively small role in The Civil War.

Based on our confederate flags flying high up on the Northside, one would think this was the capital of the confederate states.

Perhaps because some people are proud of their heritage and history.  Why do immigrants from other countries fly their flags?

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Based on our confederate flags flying high up on the Northside, one would think this was the capital of the confederate states.

Perhaps because some people are proud of their heritage and history.  Why do immigrants from other countries fly their flags?

Your "heritage" is that of a failed insurrection that conceded the moral high ground to its opponent? 

Strange thing to fly a flag about. 

Why not the state flag? Is that not historical enough?  If you're comparing it to my neighbor who has a Puerto Rico flag hanging from the mirror of his car, then you'd be flying an American flag or a State of FL flag by comparison. Not a confederate flag.

---

The federal government seized the Arlington plantation from Robert E Lee against his wishes. 
Suffice it to say, his peers in government knew what kind of man Lee was and treated him accordingly. It was a later generation that created the fable of him being honorable.

Keep trying to rewrite history.

Are you O.K. with the Federal Government seizing private property because they might have the opinion of "what kind of man he was/is"?

Again you don't know Robert E. Lee's history.  All you know is your "perceived" history of him.

Was General Custer a "good and honorable" man?

There are a lot of moving parts leading up to the government's seizure of that property.
In general, yes, I support the government's power to seize private land, for public use, with just compensation.

That's not what happened to Lee's land.
I don't think you'll find a person alive who fully understands and agrees with the blow by blow of how the land was taken. The supreme Court decision ended five to four, after all.

I'm not a judge, but I do find poetic fairness in simply taking the property of slave drivers who rise up in arms against their duly elected government. And obviously many people on the union side had the same thought at the time.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Just because YOU learned that it was offensive 10 years ago doesn't mean it hasn't been that for MUCH longer.
You were just late to arrive there and you unfortunately had to be notified of your ignorance to the pain of others. 

That conversation you think "needs starting" has been being played out in the streets since 1954, man. 

The conversation has been had. It's over. 

I don't find it proper to erect monuments that serve to divide the populace where they stand. This one did  - as evidenced by the opinions being expressed by African American Jacksonvillians today. 

You should think past this "well it doesn't offend ME" stance.  Many people have lived a very different experience than you and see those monuments very differently than you do.

Again I point to other things in our nation's history that may or may not be "offensive" to some people.  I get and understand why some black people might find a statue of a Confederate soldier "offensive".  Just like I think that some people might find monuments to others "offensive".

For the record I didn't "learn that it was 'offensive' 10 years ago".  I simply pointed out that from what I recall there were no complaints regarding the statue, school names, etc. as being "offensive" until around 10 years ago or so.  There may have been some prior to that, but I'm certainly not aware of it.  The statue had been there over a century.

Regarding the part in bold, I don't think that the statue was erected for the purpose that you state.

Much of the problem today is people think about the actions that happened back then in "today's terms" regarding race and culture.  The fact of the matter is slavery was "normal" back then to many people.  I'm not saying that it was right, but that's the way that it was back then.

I have had things done in a historical perspective to people of my heritage in the past.  Do I hold a grudge against the very (like) people that did it back then today?  Of course not.  It's HISTORY.

I know that I might be in the minority in some cases, but I tend to adhere to one of the things that Dr. Martin Luther King talked about.  I personally "judge" people not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.  I have actually had friends tell me that "they weren't sure" about me when they initially learned my last name.  My own wife was introduced to me as a blind date.  When her friend told her of my ethnicity at first it was a big "no".  30+ years later we have been happily married.

RE the bolded. 

Again, YOU don't get to decide whether or not African Americans see confederate flags and memorials as offensive. They do. And they've decided. Your personal take on your own heritage and it's historical scars doesn't change the way millions of others feel on the matter. It's done.  

But then again - you think that racism isn't really a thing anymore despite millions and millions of people protesting all over the planet for days on end, so...  I'm likely pissing in the wind pointing out reality to you.

---

It was placed four to six decades after the civil War as part of a whole of government effort to roll back the rights and status that black people had won during Reconstruction, to erase not only the gains themselves but also the memory of those gains.

And Robert E Lee may have opposed seccession, but he also wholeheartedly supported slavery.  He rubbed salt into the wounds of the slaves he whipped theb wrote eloquent letters to his family about how it was God's will that they be "educated" this way.  His explanation for not wanting Virginia to secede but then fighting to defend her when she did was similarly strained and hypocritical, I'm sure.

Once again you are wrong.  It was a monument to the American soldiers from Florida that fought in The Civil War.  There weren't many and Florida had a relatively small role in The Civil War.

As far as your "history" regarding Robert E. Lee, you only look at it through your leftist democrat eyes.  Put yourself back in 1850 and honestly say that you would feel the same way that you do today.  Society was different back then.

I'm not appealing to what was written on the plaque at the base of the statue.
I'm asking you to look at the time and the context and perhaps consider that the words carved on the plaque are much less than the full story.
Am I wrong about the statue being placed 40 to 60 years after the end of the civil War?
Am I wrong about what mindset was then dominant in Tallahassee and in Duval County? Am I wrong about how the same people who erected the statue curtailed the rights of their black neighbors, intimidating them for trying to vote, or trying to sue, or even trying to argue over wages and prices with their local businesses?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

So where’s the Hitler statue?

Did you ever think that maybe people are becoming more educated on certain topics and therefore see how dumb it was to put up a statue like this in the first place?

A statue of Hitler is not the same as a statue of an American soldier.  Like it or not it's a FACT that confederate soldiers during that time were in FACT Americans.

Put it this way.  Yes some of the population of our city/county might have been "offended" by the fact that a statue that has been in place well over a century.  Did anyone even consider that what that statue signified being taken down in the middle of the night (cowardly) might be "offensive" towards the people that it memorialized?

The so-called "educated" or "woke" people might see it as "dumb", but those with a more proper education might just understand what it symbolized.  When are the "educated" people going to take down this monument?

Was the treatment of the Sioux or Cheyenne better or worse than the slaves during that time?

So go build your own statue on your own property if it means that much to you. While you’re at it, build one of Charles Manson. He’s a part of AMERICAN history as well.

---