You have really thought through this, iSpider. It's a pretty interesting solution, though I do have to say that I do also like the idea that Monument Ave is like a museum itself. I think I was a sophomore or junior when the Arthur Ashe statue went up. I can't specifically remember the reaction at the time, but I do remember that there was some controversy. This argument is sort of the opposite of that.
Remove the Pyramids from Egypt.
- Thread starter AnnapSpider
- Start date
yep, spoke with Arthur right before his death, did not discuss any statue but do know that he would roll over in his grave if he knew the statue was on monument ave., would not have wanted it there at all.
i, is there not a monument to abe in dc even though he was from il?
i, is there not a monument to abe in dc even though he was from il?
Last edited:
Interesting observation here, too, which makes me rethink this whole thing quite a bit more.
The Pyramids would not be built today. Machu Picchu would not be built today. The Sistine Chapel would not be built today. Asking whether something would be built today is an absurd standard that plays in to the hands of the cultural Marxist who would love nothing more than to tear down every structure built before the 1930's.
Today's University of Richmond may be tomorrow's Machu Picchu. When MP was built, it wasn't built to pay homage to itself or the Inca culture. It was actually a fairly utilitarian place with a few important spots within (space for a ruling leader, important astronomical sites, etc.). What it did better than many other major sites is survive, and in quite excellent shape to boot. So, I take issue with the idea that things are not being built today that are culturally relevant.
Statues of people are built with the express purpose of paying homage to that person. Eight Legger raises a reasonable point very clearly without asking the specific question --
Would anyone support building a statue of Jeff Davis in Richmond today?
Statues of people are built with the express purpose of paying homage to that person. Eight Legger raises a reasonable point very clearly without asking the specific question --
Would anyone support building a statue of Jeff Davis in Richmond today?
Of course, Spinner, you are absolutely correct in suggesting that the Lincoln Memorial in DC honors a person from Illinois and not from the District of Columbia. Further, in support of your point, I do not know of anyone memorialized in DC that is from DC. But I think you may be missing my point, whether you agree with it or not. Jefferson, Washington, and many other non-District of Columbians are memorialized in DC by statues, monuments, memorials and even buildings named after them.
DC is the capital of our nation and such leaders were highly distinguished representatives of the United States of America, established in 1776 along with a sacred constitution which they swore to and did, in point of fact, defend. They are the leaders and representatives that we all look up to as role models for what they accomplished. They all worked hard and successfully to maintain, preserve and further the ideals of the United States. As such, their memorials are appropriate and, among other things, remind and inspire us as to the importance of preserving the unity of our country. They are also appropriately situated in DC because it is the capital of the nation they fought so hard to defend and whose ideals they vigorously fought to preserve.
In Virginia, we have also rightfully decided to honor some of those who we deem worthy of memorializing because of their valor, honor, and accomplishments. The memorials on Monument Avenue in Richmond not including that of Arthur Ashe and with the exception of that of Jefferson Davis, represent distinguished Virginia soldiers and a sailor (Maury) who fought with distinction and valor for a state (Commonwealth) which they loved and decided to defend because of family roots, heritage, and understandable loyalty to the Commonwealth which superseded their decisions to stand with the Union, higher Virginia governmental powers having made the decision to stand with the divisive South. However, be clear that not only were they true Virginians, none of them stood with the South because of their belief in the perpetuation of slavery in the United States (See Wiki quotes which follow, all are linked). Despite their reasons to stand with the South in the Civil War, who many argue was a mistake, though even that is arguable given the different times and societal mores in which they were raised and lived, they will forever remain revered because of their contributions to this Country and to Virginia's heritage. All three either attended or taught at Virginia Military Academy. They are not only memorialized by our statues of them on Monument Avenue but also in other cities and universities throughout the Commonwealth including not only Virginia Military Institute, but also, among others, the University of Virginia, The College of William & Mary and Washington and Lee University.
In the following post, which should follow this one sequentially, I have set forth some quotes (italics and underlining are made by me) which I believe point out the differences in ideology and purpose of those who fought for the South and deserve a memorial on Monument Avenue (Lee, Jackson, and Maury) from Jefferson Davis. Because of my beliefs, which I acknowledge may differ from most on this board, I am hopeful that reading the quotes below (and, more so, the complete biographies in Wikipedia) it may open some minds, however slightly, to at least looking at a solid argument for the removal and relocation of the Jefferson Davis Monument, or, at the very least, viewing the topic from a slightly different perspective. Clearly, Jefferson Davis believed in the enslavement of all persons other than Caucasians from all that is known and recorded from his early public life until his death, frequently justifying his beliefs with quotes from the Constitution and Bible, which he clearly misunderstood. Neither Lee, Jackson nor Maury condoned such notions and clearly the preservation of slavery was not a cause for which they fought.
(Response continued)
Quotes as to slavery:
Robert E. Lee as to slavery, from Wiki:
"... In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.
— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856"
Stonewall Jackson as to slavery, from Wiki:
"Little as he was known to the white inhabitants of Lexington, Jackson was revered by many of the African Americans in town, both slaves and free blacks. In 1855, he was instrumental in the organization of Sunday School classes for blacks at the Presbyterian Church. His second wife, Mary Anna Jackson, taught with Jackson, as "he preferred that my labors should be given to the colored children, believing that it was more important and useful to put the strong hand of the Gospel under the ignorant African race, to lift them up."[26] The pastor, Dr. William Spottswood White, described the relationship between Jackson and his Sunday afternoon students: "In their religious instruction he succeeded wonderfully. His discipline was systematic and firm, but very kind. ... His servants reverenced and loved him, as they would have done a brother or father. ... He was emphatically the black man's friend." He addressed his students by name and they, in turn, referred to him affectionately as "Marse Major".[27]"
Matthew Fontaine Maury as to slavery, from Wiki:
"Attempted eradication of all slavery in the United States of America
In 1851, Maury sent his cousin, Lieutenant William Lewis Herndon, and another former co-worker at the United States Naval Observatory, Lieutenant Lardner Gibbon, to explore the valley of the Amazon, while gathering as much information as possible for both trade and slavery in the area. Maury thought the Amazon might serve as a "safety valve" by allowing Southern slave owners to resettle or sell their slaves there. (Maury's plan was basically following the idea of northern slave traders and slave holders just as they sold their slaves to the Southern states of the US.) The expedition aimed to map the area for the day when slave owners would go "with their goods and chattels to settle and to trade goods from South American countries along the river highways of the Amazon valley."[8] Brazil's slavery was extinguished after a slow process that began with the end of the international traffic in slaves in 1850 but did not end with complete abolition of slavery until 1888. Maury knew when he wrote in the News Journals of the day that Brazil was bringing in new slaves from Africa. Proposing moving those who were already slaves in the United States to Brazil, there would be less slavery or, in time, perhaps no slavery in as many areas of the United States as possible, while also hoping to stop the bringing of new slaves into Brazil which only increased slavery through the capture and enslavement of more Africans. "Imagine", Maury wrote to his cousin, "waking up some day and finding our country free of slavery!" (Source: s:Matthew Fontaine Maury/9 topic "African Slave Trade", the Letter to his cousin dated National Observatory, December 24, 1851[2]
Quotes by JEFFERSON DAVIS as to slavery, from Wikiquote:
"We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him. Our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude."
"We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority."
"There is a relation belonging to this species of property, unlike that of the apprentice or the hired man, which awakens whatever there is of kindness or of nobility of soul in the heart of him who owns it; this can only be alienated, obscured, or destroyed, by collecting this species of property into such masses that the owner is not personally acquainted with the individuals who compose it."
"It has been a conviction of pressing necessity, it has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has brought Mississippi into her present decision. She has heard proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the races....They have no reference to the slave; else, how happened it that among the items of arraignment made against George III was that he endeavored to do just what the North had been endeavoring of late to do - to stir up insurrection among our slaves? ,,,,When our Constitution was formed, the same idea was rendered more palpable, for there we find provision made for the very class of persons as property; they were not put upon the footing of equality with white men - not even upon that of paupers and convicts; but, so far as representation was concerned, were discriminated against as a lower caste, only to be represented in the numerical proportion of three-fifths."
"Why, then, in the absence of all control over the subject of African slavery, are you agitated in relation to it? With Pharisaical pretension it is sometimes said it is a moral obligation to agitate.....Who gave them a right to decide that it is a sin? By what standard do they measure it? Not the Constitution; the Constitution recognizes the property in many forms, and imposes obligations in connection with that recognition. Not the Bible; that justifies it. Not the good of society; for if they go where it exists, they find that society recognizes it as good..."
You are merely an annoyance with your preposterous statements, on this forum simply to bait people into a discussion with which you are embarrassed to have openly with others. You could not find educated people who would do more than laugh at your arguments and/or pity your thinking so you come here and discuss them because of the anonymity which we afford. You most assuredly ended up on this board because of a google search of the word "pyramid," "slaves," "Holocaust" or "Egypt." I doubt that you have any connection with the University or any aspect of it other than, perhaps, having been denied admission. Not that those without direct connections to the Unversity are not welcome to participate on this board, it's rather that we discourage from participation those whose statements are an embarrassment to anyone with a high school diploma. Such are how I view your posts.
BTW, "cultural Marxist" should be "Cultural Marxists." If you are an expert on the topic, at least get the grammar correct. "cultural Marxism" could be correct, but not "cultural Marxist." I don't generally call people on their lack of correct grammar, but you have misused the terms throughout your posts.
You should be aware that most everyone agrees that Cultural Marxism is a snarl word used to red bait persons believed to be extreme left-wingers. However, it is anachronistic and outmoded. Please use the terms which have evolved from that term and have been the appropriate replacements for at least 15 years. Those words are "multiculturism" or "Political Correctness" which both more clearly express the point you are, however insincerely and extremely, attempting to make. Pat Buchanan, your apparent mentor, would be ashamed of your discussion and misuse of the terms he espoused 15 years ago. Even he has long used the accepted terminology.
As to dismissing whether something would be built today is absurd, you are absolutely wrong. It is important in considering all facets of our discussion because it allows us to consider whether it remains appropriate by today's standards and as to the consideration of whether it should be removed because of evolving beliefs which may render it so offensive that the offensiveness outweighs the value of the homage which it was initially intended to convey. Of course, this principle is probably beyond your grasp since you believe that progress can be made solely not only by the creation of a Trumpenreich but by a Trumpenreich which acts much more extremely than Donald Trump has ever suggested.
That said, I know that you will not accept any rationale set forth by others because of your purpose, however disingenuous, to singularly focus on the extreme right of the extreme right of the political and moral compass.
BTW, I think that I recognize your modus operandi. Did you, perchance, work for General Pinochet prior to his arrest?
I am loathe to respond to someone who is only here to call people names and, as iSpider points out, magically appeared to berate and label people. So I will simply say that, to my original point, it IS logical to ask the question: Would we build this same thing today? Would we enact the same laws today that we enacted 200 years ago? Etc. It's no different than what we do in our own lives. We have certain likes and interests and views about things when we are children, then teens, then young adults. Rarely do we maintain those exact same views, thoughts and beliefs without ever changing any of them the rest of our lives.
As a society, I would argue, we should do the same and constantly evaluate and re-evaluate where we stand. Sometimes we may choose to keep things the same. Other times we may determine the certain policies, beliefs or structures need to be altered, eliminated, removed, etc.
Again, as it relates to this specific topic, I would not champion removing the statues. But can I understand why some people might want to? Sure, I can.
As a society, I would argue, we should do the same and constantly evaluate and re-evaluate where we stand. Sometimes we may choose to keep things the same. Other times we may determine the certain policies, beliefs or structures need to be altered, eliminated, removed, etc.
Again, as it relates to this specific topic, I would not champion removing the statues. But can I understand why some people might want to? Sure, I can.
GEEZ, just move back to wisconsin and post multi-page arguments there. just kidding i but you go way overboard on something that is not going to happen. we have way too many probs in this country and in each state, city, county to worry about this one.
You may correct, but if ever head back to Wisconsin it will not be at this time of year and I would have to find a new wife.
BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone, especially you and the others who agree with you on this board, which at this time in history constitutes the majority, of anything which is inconsistent with your current views. I know that would be futile, but I still enjoy the discussion. I am merely laying out the rationale for my side of the debate so you can have a choice of disagreeing with my arguments rather than just assuming that I am an off-the-charts librul. Reasonable men may differ. I differ with you and others, and now you know why.
Certain changes I advocate may never happen in our lifetimes, but who knows what the future may bring? The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. I look at progress that way. I don't have this at the top of my list of priorities, but I do consider it important.
Actually, Varina District in Henrico was named after John Rolfe's plantation, which was called Varina. It predates Varina Howell by a couple hundred years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varina,_Virginia
As for the monuments on Monument Ave., I thought several generations removed from The Lost Cause movement would have accelerated the removal of the monuments. It hasn't, really. Millennials that I speak to, even those who are ultra liberal and those who didn't grow up here, tend to be indifferent about the monuments. I don't think they're going anywhere.
Last edited:
Morrisey was interviewed on the news last night and changed his position. He said it would be a mistake to remove the statute. He proposed instead a new statute with African American soldiers from both the north and south greeting one another.
No, it isn't logical, because by that logic, everything would be demolished. The pyramids wouldn't be built today. The Pantheon wouldn't be built today. The Taj Mahal wouldn't be built today. Versailles wouldn't be built today. The whole point about monuments is that they represent the marvels and wonders of the past. You don't have to agree with the Confederacy's cause to appreciate the valor and courage of the men that fought and died for their state and their people. You don't have to believe in human sacrifice to appreciate the engineering achievement of El Castillo.
And it isn't just respect for the past that the Frankfurt School wanted to eliminate. Even if the Palace of Versailles represented nothing at all, they'd still want it destroyed. Why? Because of its beauty. The Frankfurt School believes that all art and architecture should be as ugly and dehumanizing as possible. They were champions of the hideous Modernist architecture movement and its offshoot, Brutalism, that despoiled so much of Eastern Europe's urban core.
Well, in that case, did you see that Varina Davis was his second wife? His father-in-law from his first marriage was US President Zachary Taylor from Virginia.
Yes. I knew that. Not sure of the cause, but his first wife died at age 20 or 21, as I recall. I think her death took place within the first year of their marriage. I am aware that Zackary Taylor was her father who was Davis' commanding officer in the U.S. Army and that he objected to the marriage, though I am not sure why.
I also know that Jefferson Davis is buried in Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, but I am not sure how that came about.
DUH!!!! visit and obtain the names of those buried there, will open your eyes plus just a great walking outing i. talking about museums.....
Thanks for the suggestion, but I have been through Hollywood Cemetery many times and I agree that it is a great walk. You are also right about the museum nature of the cemetery.
Very impressive how many famous people are interred there, mainly Virginians.
A very famous Kentuckian. A cemetery and a mausoleum honoring him are in Louisville (See below).
He was much more famous as a general in the U.S. Army than as President. He had served as President a little more than a year when he died in 1850. Rumors circulated for a long time that he was poisoned by pro-slavery Southerners, but those rumors were largely dispelled with DNA testing about 30 years ago.
Taylor's mausoleum at the
Zachary Taylor National Cemetery
in Louisville, Kentucky
One can only wish that JD had gotten away from Virginia. Hard to compare the two.
of course not, that is just silly. he was the prez of the confederate states of america and has a monument for his service in richmond, the capital of the confederacy. my great grandpa served in the VA calvary and was wounded in the war and thus means a lot to me. you can dislike that all you wish but others do not feel as you do, some do, pretty much that way on everything that is around today. you cannot change history, may not like it but it is what it is and richmond being the capital of the confederacy, those moving here just need to get over it, enjoy the museums, the monuments, the battlefields and all that surrounds us and is part of the civil war, a big part of the history of our country, the united one.
on our annual trip to gulf shores for some beach time and decided to get off I-10 and do the beach road through part of mississippi and low and behold, BEAUVOIR, the jefferson davis home in biloxi. actually quite beautiful and am sure yet another museum to the man. did not stop and visit but did think of you i.
