So what do you do about the embarrassing celebration of the confederacy that is Stone Mountain.

[FireDragon76]

Are those men who "sent soldiers" dead? If so, it is a remembering of the dead. You may not like those dead people, but quite obviously a lot do (according to Wikipedia, it has been the most visited destination in the state of Georgia since 2017).

That's not saying much, considering Georgia doesn't rank very high as a tourist destination in general.

Perhaps if Georgia were not so known for its legacy of racism, things could be different. As it is, relics like Stone Mountain do little to benefit the state's image.

 

[cow451]

The problem is that Stone Mountain is not some war monument, but a commemoration of a group of people who went to war to defend their right to own other human beings, finished as recently as 1970.

It's time to let nature take its course and for the state of Georgia to stop celebrating slavery.

Since it is a tourist attraction there are options to add more diverse aspects. And, it’s not sitting on the courthouse lawn.

 

[tbstor]

That's not saying much, considering Georgia doesn't rank very high as a tourist destination in general.

Perhaps if Georgia were not so known for its legacy of racism, things could be different. As it is, relics like Stone Mountain do little to benefit the state's image.

Georgia is the ninth most visited state in the US.

 

[Paulos23]

That's true of any democratic decision outside of this century. I don't see the significance of mentioning it.

Sorry, was it a "democratic will" if blacks and women weren't involved?

My point was there was a population that was property that could not even tell their owners how they want to be treated.

You say democratic like just having the state houses voting on it makes it true. It doesn't. There is no clear path for a state to leave the union.

This was not a good thing for the south, no matter how you show it. They wanted to keep slaves, they didn't want the rest of the union telling them that they couldn't own slaves, and all the state governments voting themselves out of the union doesn't justify their action.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's important to put art in context, which alot of the tourism around Stone Mountain does not.

There's a museum dedicated to Jim Crow-era racist art and imagery, for instance, but it places it in its historical context:

Jim Crow Museum - Ferris State University

I wouldn't object to putting it in better context.

 

[tbstor]

You say democratic like just having the state houses voting on it makes it true. It doesn't. There is no clear path for a state to leave the union.

This was not a good thing for the south, no matter how you show it. They wanted to keep slaves, they didn't want the rest of the union telling them that they couldn't own slaves, and all the state governments voting themselves out of the union doesn't justify their action.

The state houses voting on it did make it true. Secession occurred through democratic channels. However, those democratic decisions were undone via non-democratic intervention (for better or worse).

I didn't say the democratic nature of secession "justified" it. We haven't spoken on the issue of justification. All I said was "reinforcing is aggressive action if it is done in anticipation of an undesired democratic result."

 

[variant]

I wouldn't object to putting it in better context.

I agree.

We should be adding a museum to tell the history behind both the war and the monument.

 

[durangodawood]

Every democratic result excluded blacks and women for most of history. It is useless to mention it unless you are willing to question the legitimacy of all democratic decisions that fall outside of this century.

And you may think anything you'd like, I won't stop you. But that doesn't move me one way or the other.

Yes, but probably not the best moral appeal to make when in this case the people with the most at stake had the least say.

 

[variant]

Reinforcing is aggressive action if it is done in anticipation of an undesired democratic result. As well, it isn't clear that those forts were "taken by force." No shots were fired (to my knowledge). It was as simple as them securing their states.

Your knowledge is incorrect.

The forts were taken by force:

Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia

Fort Sumter surrendered after being bombarded by shore batteries and resupply efforts failed.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think it is an excellent idea to have vegetation partially obscure the relief - almost like an old-fashioned Folly. Not only would it look nice, but it would send the message that this is set-aside - like the legs of Ozymandias, a triumphalism that came to naught. They could then keep the memorial lawn in front of it, and the contextual image would be that we have set it behind us, and allowed growth from it. It would also be the cheapest option by far.

 

[FireDragon76]

The south leaving the union was not democratic as there was a significate portion of the populace that was not allowed to vote for representative government.

That's true. Even for white people in the confederacy, political freedoms were far from certain. The Confederacy regularly persecuted dissenting voices, particularly those that objected to slavery or who had sympathies with the Union.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well yes Lincoln was not an abolitionist, which the South falsely painted him as. He believed Slavery was economically dead and would die a natural death. He would not support expanding it to new states, but was not about to abolish it.

That's why the Confederacy was not just fighting for slavery, but the expansion of slavery. That should make memorializing them even more problematic.

 

[FireDragon76]

Georgia is the ninth most visited state in the US.

Beat out by South Carolina and Arizona... two states that don't exactly top high on most peoples' tourist destinations.

 

[tbstor]

Your knowledge is incorrect.

The forts were taken by force:

Battle of Fort Sumter - Wikipedia

Fort Sumter surrendered after being bombarded by shore batteries and resupply efforts failed.

Yes, because the administration in the North failed to peacefully withdraw from the Fort. It was then on Confederate land after secession.

 

[Paulos23]

The state houses voting on it did make it true. Secession occurred through democratic channels. However, those democratic decisions were undone via non-democratic intervention (for better or worse).

I didn't say the democratic nature of secession "justified" it. We haven't spoken on the issue of justification. All I said was "reinforcing is aggressive action if it is done in anticipation of an undesired democratic result."

Reinforcing is by itself is not aggression. Rumors of reinforcing, which some of the governors were acting on, is not aggression. Taking forts and armories, even if it was just by intimidation and not a shot was fired, is aggression.

 

[Desk trauma]

One of our great history books are coming under attack. Will the Bible be next? It's being called hate speech more and more everyday.

What history book is being attacked and by whom?

 

[tbstor]

Reinforcing is by itself is not aggression. Rumors of reinforcing, which some of the governors were acting on, is not aggression. Taking forts and armories, even if it was just by intimidation and not a shot was fired, is aggression.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I see it as an act of self-preservation and not aggression.

 

[Arc F1]

What history book is being attacked and by whom?

The Bible. On numerous forums I've been hearing more and more about the Bible being hate speach.

 

[Paulos23]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. I see it as an act of self-preservation and not aggression.

It could be both. The main reason for the southern states to leave the union was to maintain their way of life, so from their standpoint, it was an act of self-preservation. It was a desperate move though, and taking the forts and armories moved the rest of the union against them.

 

[Goonie]

The Bible. On numerous forums I've been hearing more and more about the Bible being hate speach.

There are definitely passages in the Bible that can be defined as hate speech.

In regard to this thread this springs to mind “Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to the good and gentle but also to the cruel.” (1 Peter 2:18).