down south? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

down south?
in United States

By maxxmaxx 172 Pts
should confederate monuments and confederate flags be allowed in the united states? 



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • There are two sides of the issue, in my eyes.
    1. There is absolutely no reason to outlaw any monuments, flags or symbols in general. A large steel Hitler's figure is not going to hurt anyone, and people should remember their history, both good and bad. In addition, statues, flags and so on are expressions of free speech, and free speech in the US is protected by the Constitution from the governmental restrictions. If someone loves Stalin and invests a fortune to produce a million flags with Stalin's face on them and communist slogans, then, by all means, let them do that - and vote with your wallets for whether you think such business practices are appropriate or not.
    2. On the other hand, I do not think the government should have any role at all in the process. That is, the government should not install and maintain any statues or flags at the taxpayers' expense. I do not want to see a $10,000,000 Lincoln monument in Washington DC; I want to see a $10,000,000 worth of practically useful infrastructure built in Washington DC, or, even better, I want to see $10,000,000 finding their way into people's wallets, so they could decide for themselves what they want to spend it on. Needless to say, governments should not take ANY stances on history; it is a scientific domain, not a political one. I am not interested in hearing what my local senator thinks of Napoleon; it is not what I pay him my hard-earned money to do.
    Aside from these abstract notions, in this particular case the Union has done a thorough job rewriting history and painting Confederation into extremely dark tones, comparing it to Hitler's Germany and presenting the Union and Lincoln as liberators and saviors. The real history was much more grey, and both sides have committed unspeakable atrocities, before the war, during it and after. The atrocities were just of different kinds: on the South people themselves have done a lot of nasty things, while on the North they bowed before the government doing a lot of nasty things. And while morally Union was probably more positive than Confederation, their values still differed a lot from those the Founding Fathers promoted. All this worship of big government and welfare state we have nowadays - originated in the Union overrun by federalists very early on. Had the Confederates won the war, we would probably have very different problems now, and not necessarily easier ones.

    History is always written by the victors. But at this stage of cultural evolution, we probably can silence the most obvious victor - the government - and let people write their own history. Nothing good can come from letting the government teach history in schools, given how obviously biased it is and how much it has to gain from people accepting a certain narrative.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Yes, I don't care if people are getting offended its part of America's history and you can't just act like it didn't happen.
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    true; yet when the states succeeded they automatically became a foreign power occupying the united states of America.  are we to glorify that?@payton
  • @payton

    Absolutely not! The victim cannot glorify on other's success in the victim's territory. If people want to know about the so called rich 'history' of AMERICA they can learn it through textbooks. A statue does mark the pride of the manipulated 'history' but it does not represent everything. Information in a textbook will! I know people may get offended by my remarks on AMERICA'S accidental history but hey, Culture = INDIA!
  • Well, are any other nation flags allowed? Yes, so technically the Confederate flag should be allowed too... I think (not sure) that there is a statute somewhere banning flying the flag of a country the US is at war with...

    Since the Confederation doesn't exist anymore and that the war is over, I fail to see any legal grounds to ban the Confederate flag in the US... Unless you're talking about official State or Federal buildings and property in which case it's already prohibited...
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    edited November 22
    actually , it is not a matter of a flag.   we do not glorify hitler or stalin and we do not erect statues  of anyone who we fought a war with so why should we have a  statue of lee so to speak. we fought a war against a foreign power, the confederacy and there is simply no reason to erect or keep monuments to glorify it on either side.  we lost a lot of lives due to that war and what you do not understand is simply that the confederacy was a foreign power bent upon the destruction of the united states , so tell me why should we glorify that? if @Plaffelvohfen
  • maxx said:
    actually , it is not a matter of a flag.   we do not glorify hitler or stalin and we do not erect statues  of anyone who we fought a war with so why should we have a  statue of lee so to speak. we fought a war against a foreign power, the confederacy and there is simply no reason to erect or keep monuments to glorify it on either side.  we lost a lot of lives due to that war and what you do not understand is simply that the confederacy was a foreign power bent upon the destruction of the united states , so tell me why should we glorify that? if @Plaffelvohfen
    Maxx there was not united states union at the time of the Civil War There was an America of states by inherent politics the state of the legal constitutional union had been allowed to fail. They did not occupy America they had moved to be independent and the republic could not let states paid for in blood and money go without payment to independence.  
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2310 Pts
    edited November 22
    @maxx

    We should not "glorify" anything period. History must be studied and analysed in the most impartial and emotionless way possible, in order for the analysis to be objective. The purpose of statues should not be to "glorify" something or someone, but, rather, to encourage people to study that aspect of history because of its importance in a particular context.

    In Budapest, Hungary's capital, a building formerly used by KGB to torture people after the collapse of the East Bloc had the word "terror" erected on it, and the entire building was remade into a museum of history of Soviet occupation:



    Obviously the purpose of this is not to glorify terror and Soviet occupation; in fact, it is exactly the opposite.

    It is important to have reminders not only on good, but also on controversial and bad parts of our history. And that some people choose to use the Confederate statues to glorify Confederation - has no bearing on the inherent value of the statues themselves. Some people go to the House of Terror in Budapest to worship communists, and that is completely irrelevant with regards to the purpose of the House, and the House largely serves its purpose well.

    P.S. I would love to see a statue of Hitler or Stalin at the center of New York City or Los Angeles. That would be a very strong statement in support of freedom of speech, and would also serve as a reminder of what socialism, national or "regular", is in the essence and what people can expect if socialists take power here - a very relevant statement nowadays, when the fundamental values of Western culture are questioned by so many people.
    I practice what I preach too; I have a Che t-shirt I wear episodically, even though I cannot stand the guy. Let people who are afraid of symbols show their true nature: that a t-shirt scares them more than actual possibility of losing freedom of speech.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • @maxx

    Your original question makes no distinction between private or public ownership, so I answered accordingly... 
     
    Would you outright ban the ownership, sale or display of Confederate flags at a federal level?? 
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    first you should explain abot the union; for the union was formed in 1776 so I must be missing something.  according to a quote by sam adams in 1776, he said of the ratified constitution that the union of the united states was complete.  regardless, once the south suceedeed, then they automatically became a foreign power. They could have been an ally or an enemy, but they were a foreign power. They were occupying land that once belonged to the united states were prepared to battle to keep it.  a monument will have either no meaning or a different meaning an individual one would give to it if they can not learn the history through books. As time passes, people would assume that they erected these monuments because they were great men instead of a foreign power we fought and gave so many lives to. the monuments will eventually become like say.. Halloween. originally it was considered a work of evil and it was shunned as such. now-a-days, very few would recognize it as such. no I would not ban the sale of flags, but I do believe that there is a law stating that a display of any flag has to be accompanied by the American flag in a higher position. @John_C_87
  • No, the states had made grievance to independence as a constitutional union unto the southern states themselves, in law a United State Constitutional union is never complete as long as ratifications continue providing basic principle and legal precedent continue and are maintained. Okay, there are some issues, first the legislation was giving land away with little or no conditions and this is created a legal precedent of the time. As the gifting of land was documented in law's written by the House. Second, on top of this woman had been politically pushing for a right to own property in itself a major undertaking of the time . Third, slavery was an international issue over the treatment of prisoners of war and was not even being openly addressed nationally by its basic principle. Fourth for now, the use of a gold standard exposed transportations of precious metals for open road high jackings or open or inland water piracy.

    We? no sir, it was not a consistent democratic choice to build parks to which the monuments rest, it had been a donation of ground and the donator's who are commemorated by monument of that donation in their memories of death. It was a mark of legal precedent of a time period as many public records had been sketchy or incomplete and often destroyed and re-drawn.. Something else you should also understand in any remembrance, in many cases pertaining to the Civil War specifically, the grounds with monuments had been hollowed and are graves of dead who have not been named.

    As governed lands form state these parcel have right to file grievance, they also have right to fly their flag and flags as seen fit to their rank and file. As any law dictating that a flags distance from the ground and not its treatment while flow is surely just asking for an American flag to be hung in destress, having a military specification to follow is not the tyranny of law maxx.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Lets make this a much less complicated argument. shall we? What you are asking basically is does a elected official or group have a constitutional right after time to dig up human remains and place them elsewhere? Or just change the markers and monuments placed over top of the unmarked graves and un named dead to be forever forgotten as their only documentation?


    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    np, that is not what I am asking.  in your "opinion", is it moral to erect monuments to glorify an enemy whom fought against us?@John_C_87
  • Yes it is exactly what you are asking, is it moral to remove a grave marker from mass Civil War grave. Some places mark places where bodies had been placed in the ground others where bodies had been burned as they had rotted so bad the health risk was to great to wait any longer. Politics and education are much like selective memory when it comes to parts of history.
    Plaffelvohfen
  • Sorry, some statues marked places of mass burial, others of mass cremations of dangerous rotting boddies.

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/burial

    Plaffelvohfen
  • Plaffelvohfen
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    edited November 22
    I know what i am asking sir. we should glorify the fallen American soldiers and not the enemy that we fought by erecting monuments to them. @John_C_87
    AlofRI
  • No you do not know what you are asking...It is a question of honor not morality. The Civil War and confederate army are nothing more than what national guard would be today. Including those in command. There are many places where dead soldiers had been taken to either be identified and taken home, or cremated, buried, for no-one ever came, or the bodies never made the trip home to identify. So they lay rotting in the sun so bad they had to be placed in unmarked graves due to the inabilities of the states to deal with the large numbers of lost life during the Civil War. There was that many dead. It isn't even a point of just unidentifiable human remains from cannon fire and explosions as such. The statues often showing under whos command those resting in unmarked graves served as that may have been the best guess of who they were.



    PlaffelvohfenAlofRI
  • maxxmaxx 172 Pts
    do not put words in my mouth or you can find another debate. my question stands regardless. @John_C_87
    AlofRI
  • Are these your words? 
    "should confederate monuments and confederate flags be allowed in the united states"
    Do you understand and know that the parks are mass graves? 

  • Okay, let's try this way.....
    The introduction of international POW's general welfare to the Civil War cause and blame was quick thinking on behalf of the North. It was not a quick answer to the numbers of mass casualties and human body parts as a result of the battles which brought disease and added deaths creating mass graves. 
  • @John_C_87 ;

    I was doing a job down in Mobile AL back in the 80's. I decided to take a back road trip back to my hotel. I quickly found myself in a seriously poor, black community. I drove across a small bridge (culvert) and off to my left was what appeared to be a cemetery, very poorly kept. there was a stream running through it (the culvert), that had apparently flooded after hurricanes and heavy rains. a lot of the ground had washed away and I could see parts of coffins sticking out from the dirt. No one seemed to care about them. They were STILL only 4/5ths human to those with the ability and equipment to correct this mess. Some of them may have been killed in that war you are speaking of … unmarked and forgotten … ! Some think that war was not fought over slavery, some still think that the Earth is flat!

    In answer to maxx: The monuments to the ones who would divide this country that our founding fathers fought and died for should NOT be displayed in public parks. We wouldn't want Satanic monuments , Nazi monuments, communist monuments, serial killer monuments on public display, they would offend too many people. Confederate monuments should be in museums where those who WANT to see them, can. We should not forget. However, to many of those that were what the war WAS fought over, they have the right to feel disgusted by them, to not want them revered. Many of those "4/5th human(s)" are our doctors, judges, scientists and politicians today. They deserve MORE respect than those who tried to divide this country, their country.
  • @AlofRi

    The one’s who most likely divided the United Constitutional state of union are not buried under or around the monuments.

    As we are going to get into semantics the Civil War was started over international trade, slaves as POW’s had always been a part of international trade. There was no resolution by Constitutional union ever made by the Americas Congress of the time over POW’s. WWII lade testament to that. I am not going to argue the duties of Executive officer Lincoln over his states of the Constitutional Union during Civil War.

    To stay more on topic the parks built in the northern cities such as New York City tend to be recreational by there creation. In the South, and Deep South bodies and body parts pick up off of the battle fields never made it home in condition to be identified to receive proper burials by family. They had been often put into mass graves unidentified, or the bodies were burned with those who died of diseases transporting them back to towns in the south.

    I understand a person needs to support the overall idea of bigotry and prejudice as a threat to the general welfare. However, many of these burial grounds that are said to be just public parks are of commissioned soldiers of a State Army never returned home to be claimed by the families. They deserve the respect give all religious cemetery. Shall we now place all grave markers in public museum’s and how is that different then allowing them to rest on the unmarked graves?

    I have never said this verbatim before but if a group is willing to place or allowed placed statue of someone in a cemetery to present a skewed idea of what history is. The morality of the display of overall powers of democracy should be openly declared. It may make a otherwise vandalism that occur in the general welfare more clear as to their nature of grievance. Not Right, not legal, not just, only clear as to cause.

    AlofRI
  • My mistake uncommission soldiers meaning they had not been promised education or money to face death in battle.
  • @MayCaesar 'emotionless' would not be the best word. We don't want people to get the idea that you must act like psychotic killers with no feelings when you read history.
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 2310 Pts
    edited December 1
    AlofRI said:

    The monuments to the ones who would divide this country that our founding fathers fought and died for should NOT be displayed in public parks. We wouldn't want Satanic monuments , Nazi monuments, communist monuments, serial killer monuments on public display, they would offend too many people. 
    The country was supposed to be divided by design; that is why it is called United States of America. It is supposed to be an alliance of independent states under some limited federal law, not a large unitary country, which it has been slowly becoming since the end of the Civil War.

    As for the second notion, speak for yourself. I absolutely would love to have those monuments around, and that they would "offend" someone is an absolutely irrelevant notion. Things that offend a lot of people are usually the ones most worthy of talking about and displaying, because they indicate systematic flaws in the society that need to be worked out. A mature society does not get offended by mere symbols.

    When Soviet Union collapsed, Lenin's statues all over the country were being demolished. That offended a lot of people who still believed in Leninism, and people would group up and guard the statues 24/7, so as to not allow for their demolition.
    What is your response to people who are going to be offended by demolition of the statues of the Confederate generals? Or is an appeal to offensiveness only relevant when it goes your way?

    I continue being amazed by the lack of foresight from so many political activists. They want to have their way right now, at this moment, by forceful means - not realising that the same forceful method can just as much be used against them in the future. They want democracy to only work in their favor, defeating the whole purpose of the system. Democracy is supposed to represent interests of everyone, even the people that you find reprehensible. It is not supposed to represent your interests and ignore everyone else's.
    If you believe that you can institute a soft tyranny working in your favor and not have it turn on you eventually, then you should study history harder, because this approach has never worked as intended. Not a single time. It always backfired.

    There is a reason we have due process mechanisms in place aimed at preventing tyranny of the majority. Just because the majority of people want something to happen does not give the government Constitutional power to make it happen. This is a democracy, not an ochlocracy, and what action you believe to be morally right has no bearing on whether it is permissible for the government to take the action.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch