HOW DO WE EXPLAIN STATUES HONORING REBELS?

The Lee Monument (picture from here) is located on Monument Avenue in Richmond, VA

Rebellion may seem like either an esoteric topic or childish. Few rebel against their government. So most of us only have inkling of what rebellion portends. As children, almost all of us rebelled against our parents, and almost all of us received punishment.

Still, there are times to rebel, when we must rebel. Then, depending upon our point-of-view, we may think of rebellion as a good or a bad thing.

Saul Who Became Paul

From God’s point-of-view, we are all in rebellion.

Genesis 3:22-24 New King James Version (NKJV)

22 Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil. And now, lest he put out his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— 23 therefore the Lord God sent him out of the garden of Eden to till the ground from which he was taken. 24 So He drove out the man; and He placed cherubim at the east of the garden of Eden, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life.

Our rebellion continues today. The Christian Church did not end it. In fact, the man most responsible for the spread of the church Jesus established was at first among its worst persecutors. Then his name was Saul. Saul abhorred what he perceived as the rebellion of the Christians. So it is that in the Bible we first hear of him with the stoning of Stephen.

Acts 7:57-60 New King James Version (NKJV)

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, stopped their ears, and ran at him with one accord; 58 and they cast him out of the city and stoned him. And the witnesses laid down their clothes at the feet of a young man named Saul. 59 And they stoned Stephen as he was calling on God and saying, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” 60 Then he knelt down and cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not charge them with this sin.” And when he had said this, he fell asleep.

Time passed. Regret germinated in Saul’s heart. One day Saul saw the light (see Acts 9:1-19). What happened? Saul spoke with Jesus. How? Who among us knows, but in time Saul became Paul. In time Paul became perhaps the greatest of the apostles, at least as men judge such things. Still Paul remembered Saul.

1 Timothy 1:12-17 New King James Version (NKJV)

Glory to God for His Grace

12 And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord who has enabled me, because He counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry, 13 although I was formerly a blasphemer, a persecutor, and an insolent man; but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. 14 And the grace of our Lord was exceedingly abundant, with faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. 15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief. 16 However, for this reason I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show all longsuffering, as a pattern to those who are going to believe on Him for everlasting life. 17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.

Paul was a brilliant man, a devoted Pharisee. Still, that did not prevent him from doing something horribly wrong.

Galatians 1:13-14 New King James Version (NKJV)

13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.

Instead of keeping his focus on God, the man once known as Saul became exceedingly zealous for the traditions of his fathers. We all do that to some extent, but our Lord corrects us. So it was with Saul.

Why Did Southerners Keep Slaves?

Why did polite, well-mannered Southern gentlemen keep slaves? They did so because they were exceedingly zealous for the traditions of their fathers. In this one thing, slavery, WE NOW AGREE those in the South erred just bit more than their brethren in the North. So there was war.

Matthew 10:34-39 New King James Version (NKJV)

Christ Brings Division

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35 For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; 36 and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ 37 He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it.

Christians in the North looked to the Bible and condemned slavery. Christians in the South looked to the Bible and defended slavery. Which side twisted God’s Word? Christians on both sides argued vehemently. The dispute tore families apart. The South rebelled and tore the nation apart. Eventually, the Blue and Gray shed blood and thousands upon thousands died.

How did the war end? Following the example of Jesus, Stephen set the example for us. He forgave. In time, God helped his persecutors begin to understand their error. In time, God helped both the North and the South to understand racism is wrong.

51 thoughts on “HOW DO WE EXPLAIN STATUES HONORING REBELS?

  1. Nice post Tom. I would refer you, however, to something that you have said about “forgiveness” in the past which I have come to believe is true. It also coincides with part of a sermon by Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. that I read recently.

    Reverend King said in his “Loving Your Enemies” sermon that only the injured party can grant forgiveness. And actual reconciliation only really comes when the injuring party recognizes the harm he has done, asks for forgiveness and the injured party wholeheartedly grants that forgiveness.

    Was the erection of these statues a sign that Southern whites had recognized the grevious harm that they had caused to African Americans throughout their centuries of bondage? Hardly. At best, these statues demonstrated callous disregard for that harm and at worst, they were meant to continue that harm through intimidation.

    Certainly, a great deal of blood was shed by the Union during that war. Perhaps many confederate soldiers asked for forgiveness and perhaps many union soldiers granted it. As you say, had Lincoln lived, it appears that he would have sought such reconciliation. However, your whole focus here is on the injured whites on each side and not on the suffering of the blacks.

    Instead of a recognition of their injuries and a request for forgiveness, African American slaves and their progeny got another 90 years of oppression by Jim Crow laws and the terrorism of the KKK. And even now the people who oppose tearing down these monuments to the leaders defending human bondage don’t recognise the greavious harm that their slave holding and slavery defending ancestors did to African Americans. They have romanticized it into a cultural fantasy that makes it somehow noble to own slaves and to fight a bloody war for the right to continue doing so.

    MLK preached:

    “First, we must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. It is impossible even to begin the act of loving one’s enemy without the prior acceptance of the necessity, over and over again, of forgiving those who inflict evil and injury upon us.”

    Certainly, if we are to be the good Christians that MLK preached we shoild be, we all can and should forgive the perpetrators of the horrendous institutions of slave holding, and we can forgive the blood they shed in defending slavery in the Civil War. However, as the injured parties, only the slaves themselves could really forgive the men who enslaved them and only those who suffered legal discrimination and racial terror in the South and throughout the country can forgive those who perpetrated and continue to perpetrate that racism. Neither you nor I can grant that forgiveness for them. And even if the true injured parties granted that forgiveness, how can reconciliation ever happen if we continue to put on a pedestal the men who fought to continue the injury?

    As I have read you to say yourself many times, how can their be reconciliation without a recognition of the harm caused, a request for forgiveness for causing that harm and a grant of forgiveness by the true injured parties? It may not be our place to grant the last two requirements, but we can at least recognize that that the men on these statues grievously injured our brothers and sisters, and that by our continuing to enshrine them in our public spaces exactly for theirs acts of defending evil, we continue to perpetuate the harm, we keep the wound open, we block the truth that leads to reconciliation.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. @Tony

      Because Stephen forgave — because Jesus forgave — before forgiveness was asked, that is what every Christian is called upon to do.

      Every sin, no matter how small or great, is a sin against our Creator. It is Him we disappoint the most. It is His law we break. It is His creations we harm.

      Am I expecting a higher standards from blacks than whites? No. My debate is with you. I have higher expectations from somebody who has been given more opportunity to know what is true.

      There is no monument in the world that pleases everyone. There is nothing that cannot be argued against. I have two children. They are beautiful young women. As our father once wrote:

      When I give up this life for good
      I’ll need no marker made of wood
      No monument of polished stone
      My children are of flesh and bone
      Perhaps thru them some part of me
      Will live until eternity

      Those children, the product of my love for my lady and her love for me, are the best monuments we could have. Yet there are people who argue that no child should be brought into this world. And to some these dry and arid souls make sense. Nothing a man can create is perfect. That can be especially true in the eyes of another imperfect man.

      Those monuments are old now. The people they were for and the people who built them are dead. We who live today have had ample opportunity to learn why their creators built those monuments and to reconcile our hearts with their existence.

      Today the monuments stand as memorials as to brave, if misguided men. To others they serve as grim testimony of a bloody, needless conflict, one we should do our best not to repeat. And to many they illustrate the futility of irrational prejudice. In the end, God wins, and He will judge.

      Liked by 1 person

  2. In this one thing, slavery, WE NOW AGREE those in the South erred just bit more than their brethren in the North. So there was war.

    So if you keep other human beings as slaves (including beating, breeding and raping them at will) you “just err a bit more” than your average racist. Did the Nazis “just err a bit more”, too? Or do you think racists are little better than actual slavers?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Always interesting how people point to the Nazis in these types of discussions. Naziism was an extermination ideology. Slavery is closer to the Marxist ideologies of Stalin and Mao.

      Like

        1. Interesting. Do you have statues of Rommel over there? Kaiser Wilhelm? How about the Red Baron?
          We have, currently, a great many native American burial grounds on our one little military base here. Can’t touch them, they are forever sacred ground.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. @anon

          I am not aware of any Rommel statues. I searched online and only found mentions for two memorials, marking places of his birth (sponsored by a veteran association of the North Africa Corps back in 1961) and his death. The former recently drew critizism for “celebrating” the “Nazi-General”. A new plaque was added in response, translating roughly as: “50 years after its dedication, a generation looks at this memorial, which has found its home in a united and peaceful Europe. Gallantry and valor, guilt and crime, these lie close together in times or war. May the fate of Erwin Rommel and his soldiers serve as a permanent reminder to lead our youth towards a peaceful future.”

          Which Kaiser Wilhelm? I or II? Anyway, most of the monuments and statues dedicated to either of them were destroyed during the two world wars. I think there are about 6 for Wilhelm I. that have been kept intact, but I am unaware of any new errected between or after the world wars.

          We have a jet fighter unit “Richthofen” in the air force and a few places and streets named after him in Berlin, that’s about it.

          Like

  3. They did so because they were exceedingly zealous for the traditions of their fathers.

    Alexander Stephens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America, in his Cornerstone speech strongly disagrees with you over the “traditions of their fathers” bit:

    Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. [Applause.] This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. People do sin. Not just some people. All people. If we could erase — if we were to erase — every memorial to the sins of mankind — then there were would no trace left of mankind in this universe.

      So what do we do? Pray. Our best is all we have. We can only hope it is enough to please our Creator.

      There is this old bit of wisdom. Never put up a monument to a man, it is best to wait until he is dead. There is always the possibility that a memorial to a living man will prove to be an embarrassment.

      Now it seems that old bit of wisdom is insufficient. Because we are so much perfect, I suppose, our generation is even more easily embarrassed. We would take down monuments to men long dead. So it is that I am tempted to advise my children not to waste their time on monuments. They will not last. One momentary fad, and down they will come.

      Like

      1. You are sidetracking. You alleged the Southern just clung to tradition, whereas their leaders campaigned on going into new territory, i.e. embracing white supremacism and make it a foundational element of their confederacy.

        Like

        1. @marmoewp
          What you have insisted upon is that any who advocate for keeping those monuments must by inference be racists, even for slavery. I have emphatically rejected that premise again and again and again. Why should I do so yet again? You already know the answer.

          What was the point of this post? Each of us sees something different in those monuments. There is sin in every man, but God sees something good. If God can see something good in each of us, each a sinner and far from perfect, why cannot you not imagine that another man might see something good in those monuments? You don’t think a slave owner ever went to heaven? If that is true, then how can any of us be saved?

          Like

        2. @Tom
          What you have insisted upon is that any who advocate for keeping those monuments must by inference be racists, even for slavery.

          Is this really the way you want to argue? Invent more alternative facts and declare victory?

          Like

  4. There is no rational way to reconcile the Word of God with slavery.

    Since the two greatest events in the Bible were God freeing man from slavery, Southern “Christians” were really idolaters who used the Bible to justify their worship of coin and comfort and their vile wickedness.

    During that time period the Catholic Church backed the South because it thought the North to modern and prosperous. The Southern slave powered lifestyle, you see, hearkened back to the quaint lifestyle of yore.

    I was banned from the discussion area at a Catholic grad school for finding out and then trying to discuss this matter with the professor and my classmates.

    Very powerful and determined people can’t handle truth that calls into question their particular hallucination of reality.

    Liked by 2 people

        1. I guess Abraham never made it to heaven? He owned slaves, right?

          Abraham was justified by faith, not his own perfection.. He believe God. Yet until the day of his death Abraham owned slaves, and that as you say is indefensible.

          We are foolish creatures. Sometimes we give in to sin, knowing better. Sometimes we sin, not quite knowing or accepting what else we ought to do. Yet if we believe God, trust Him, and strive to obey Him, we do better than we otherwise would.

          It is odd thing. I suppose the Catholic Church declares some saints. Even so there was only one man who died and went to heaven who was perfectly good. We know that because His resurrection.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Citizen,

          But man does change.

          Our understanding of God develops over time.

          That’s why it took 1500 years for Western Civilization to develop.

          It didn’t happen all by itself. And it didn’t happen all at once.

          Additionally, the people God picked in the Old Testament weren’t saints.

          King David was God’s favorite yet he was a murdering, profligate, violent tyrant.

          And like father like son only worse, in King Solomon’s case.

          Like

        3. The apostles Peter and Paul did not overtly condemn slavery. That is one of the reasons some could not read the Bible and see it prohibits slavery. They refused to make the logical leap. If we love our neighbors, we don’t make slaves out them.

          Could Peter and Paul have made that logical leap? Maybe, but what they wrote in the Bible suggests that they never did. Did they even consider the possibility? We don’t know.

          What Socrates said about the unexamined life is still true. To appreciate just how sinful we are, we must first examine our assumptions. Then we can repent begin to turn to Jesus.

          Like

  5. Slavery was only one reason of the Civil War and trying to erase history – doesn’t change it. If the Union Army had lost, would we now be demanding those soldiers’ statues be torn down? Would that alter the past? Would that make them any less brave soldiers fighting for what they believe?

    Liked by 4 people

  6. @CT

    Glad you mentioned Saul of Tarsus/Paul the apostle in your rebelry. His epistles are plenty of proof that God’s word is true, and that God is good, and can reach even the most stout of heart.

    Then you wrap it up with Stephen. Nice. And who were the rebels, but they who pelted him to death with rocks. Forgiveness is powerful, but we don’t pay attention.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. The statues of “rebels” in the past hasn’t seemed to negatively impact the loyalty of southern states. Since the early 1970s and probably before, they have been, and remain, our active duty military’s highest source of procurement. That’s a pretty big thing in
    Just a tangentially related fact. A fact that is pretty significant since our active duty force is comprised of only 0.4 percent of our population.

    https://www.cna.org/pop-rep/2015/summary/summary.pdf

    Liked by 1 person

  8. I lived in South Korea for a while. At the time I was a tall blonde woman, early twenties. Going anywhere was interesting. Everyone would point, men would stare and suck their teeth and gasp audibly. Sometimes they’d make motions with their arms (it was the Baywatch years) hands over their chests in a “I’ve got a pair of breasts” motion. It was odd being a minority…in the biggest sense. Not only did I look differently I was literally pointed at, talked about openly and so forth. Strange thing happened. After a few months I stopped noticing it. What would’ve brought it to my mind daily is if I were around a perpetual outrage crowd that would demand I notice it daily.
    This is a statue of history. Lee was a brilliant General and overall honorable man.
    I hope they have statues of Romell in Germany or North Africa.
    Perhaps they do or perhaps they don’t but I don’t see why there would be anything wrong with that.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “This is a statue of history. Lee was a brilliant General and overall honorable man.
      I hope they have statues of Romell in Germany or North Africa.
      Perhaps they do or perhaps they don’t but I don’t see why there would be anything wrong with that.”

      Have you ever considered that our opinion on this might be colored by the fact that we were not ever directly harmed by Romell. Have you ever thought about the fact that your opinion is not what matters?

      Our (Tom’s and My). father served in North Africa, Italy and Germany during several key battles of WWII. Like many from that conflict, Dad rarely spoke of the war. However, we came upon a batch of his war letters to home a few years ago. Most of them were from Germany after the Germans had surrendered and while the war in Japan was still going on. One gets the impression that he either helped liberate some Jewish concentration camps or that he was otherwise very familiar with the inhuman details. It was strange to read your father in his 20 something year old voice, but I think that at that point in his life, if he could have killed all the German soldiers, he would have.

      After the war, Dad married a WWII widow (our Mom) and went on to serve 26 years of combined service in the Army and the Air Force. He saw a good bit of the world during that time. He saw three of his sons and one daughter go into military service, but he died before he could see the fourth son enlist. He was buried at Fort Snelling National Cemetary alongside his brothers at arms and along with two of his actual brothers who also served in WWII.

      As I have gotten older, I have come to realize that our Dad was both proud and scarred by his war experiences. Because he never talked about it, I can’t tell you how he would have felt right before he died about a statue to Rommel being erected anywhere, much less in places where he watched his fellow soldiers die as a result of Rommel’s excellent leadership, but I can tell you that the young soldier in those letters would have puked at the thought. I wonder how the survivors and the families of the victims of the Holocaust would feel even today? How would the widows and children of dead Allied soldiers have felt soon after war, and how would they feel today?

      And that is the point that you don’t seem to take into account. Who cares how you or I feel about statues of Rommel or statues of Lee? It is easy for us to forgive and admire such men who fought valiantly, even if for an evil cause. However, in decisions to either put up or take down statues of such men, don’t you think we ought to at least empathize with and weigh heavily the opinions and feelings of the real victims of their supposed tactical genius and valor in their pursuit of an evil cause?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. @Tony

        WWII? The Civil War. Apples and oranges. The South never operated a genocide program. Slavery simply isn’t in the same league.

        A quarter of the white men in the South died during the war. The North embargoed and ravaged the land. That is what it took to force the South to surrender. At Appomattox, when Union soldiers accepted the surrender of the Rebels, they saluted men who had fought bravely and honorably. Few of the veterans of the North hated those of the South. That is why those monuments were tolerable and allowed to stand.

        Men do commit atrocities. We see slavery as an atrocity today, but it was once regarded as perfectly normal. Why did that change? Jesus. You may find this series of posts interesting => https://citizentom.com/2016/10/16/who-is-this-man-by-john-ortberg-part-1/.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. My uncle was a soldier in the European theatre and he was present when they initially found the concentration camps in Poland. He isn’t alive today so I can’t ask him, but I’m reasonably certain a statue of Rommel would not have offended him. He had a Phd in history and spoke fluent German.
        My dad was a fighter pilot in the pacific theatre (later the Korean war and he did three tours in Vietnam). I’m certain a historical statue of any great military leader, in any country, would not offend him. When I say great I mean an honorable leader.
        But then Dad was also the first to buy Japanese made cars, when they started coming out and were better than the US made ones.

        Like

        1. My mother was born a little before WWII, and grew up in post WWII Italy. If they had had a good Italian general, anywhere, it would’ve been appropriate to put up a statue. Those soldiers were treated horribly, and in many cases died miserably. My grandfather was a POW. The British captured him early on. He was very lucky. He came home well fed, brandishing chocolate, to his starving family.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. I suppose marmoewp has a better estimate of this matter. Nevertheless, I think I understand this much. Because the men who led them to war ruled their nations so abhorrently, both the Japanese and the Germans have a very negative attitude towards war. Rommel was a skilled and able general, but that just made him a good warrior. So I expect the Germans have mixed feelings about him. I expect most Germans mostly just want to forget the war. They fear a repetition. So they warn their children of war, and they glorify no part of it.

          On the other hand, Rommel seems to have been involved in the plot to assassinate Hitler. So that makes it easier for Americans to romanticize him and see him as something of a Gen. Robert E. Lee type. We can forget that when Hitler survived the assassination plot, Germany paid the price, not us. When you are not the victim of another’s failure, it is easier to forgive and admire the attempt.

          I expect the Democrat Liberals in this country have developed a similar attitude towards war. Because weapons have become so destructive, most Americans increasingly see war as evil. Nuclear bombs, germ warfare, and chemical weapons tend to be difficult to romanticize. Because soldiers fight wars, many Americans now see soldiers as representative of something they deeply fear and despise.

          How does all that connect with the topic? Blacks vote over 95% Democrat and find it difficult to empathize with Civil War rebels (They have been conditioned not to try.). Because they associate them with war, many Democrat Liberals don’t like soldiers. Because they hate war, many Democrat Liberals don’t respect the bravery of soldiers, especially rebels who defended slavery. Therefore, many Democrat Liberals now feel free to rant about Civil War rebels as traitors.

          It used to be: it is the economy, stupid! Now the insults are even more harsh. Obama’s and H. Clinton’s socialist policies were indefensible, anyway. So Democrat Liberal politicians had to find something else, and they did.

          Like

        3. Because the men who led them to war ruled their nations so abhorrently, both the Japanese and the Germans have a very negative attitude towards war.

          I can only tell about my view. One reason, while anti-semitism and racism were wide-spread in the Western world, it was Germany that went for a Holocaust as a “solution”. Large parts of the population are ashamed about the crimes that were commited in their name. Too many people looked away or participated. It takes the glory out of war, when you realize that your people waged war for the opportunity to kill millions of people just because of their race, sexual orientation or political affiliation.

          Another one, the generation of my parents and grand-parents have learned what total destruction looks like. At the end of WWII every other flat in Hamburg was destroyed. The centers of all major cities, Berlin, Cologne, Munich, Dresden, Frankfurt, …, they basically no longer existed. An extreme example that I know of, the city of Jülich lost more than 90% of its houses in a single air raid; the primary target had been unavailable due to clouds. Where your fathers or uncles may have told stories of battles and heroic actions in the war, mine told stories of flight and plight and destruction.

          A third one, we have lived through the cold war with the knowledge, that should that war turn hot, no matter how brief, Germany would be a central battleground. No matter who won, whether or not it escalated to a nuclear exchange or not, Germany would be turned into a wasteland in the process.

          The above tend to kill the taste for war and make keeping soldiers and military action look like necessary evils in a hostile world. Don’t get me wrong, I was in the Army as a conscript and I would have fought to defend Germany. But I did not see any glory in this undertaking.

          Liked by 2 people

        4. There was a time men saw glory in war. I suppose some still do. Why? I suppose there is a certain thrill in the contest. We play sports, don’t we?

          It is well that war is so terrible, otherwise we should grow too fond of it. — Robert E. Lee (Comment to James Longstreet, on seeing a Union charge repelled in the Battle of Fredericksburg (13 December 1862))

          Mechanized warfare saw its beginnings around Gen. Lee’s time. It has become just to easy to kill and so difficult to keep the peace.

          Liked by 1 person

  9. Anon, you know of course, that by the examples you have given of your relatives, you are simply emphasizing the point that it is only the attitudes of the perpetrators and the victims that matters.

    Returning to my Dad, it is quite probable that by the time that he died, he too would not have minded a statute of Rommel being erected in North Africa or Germany. He had matured and seen a lot of the world. We were stationed in Japan for a while in the 50’s. Maybe he would have taken into account that Rommel is believed to have been implicated in an assassination attempt on Hitler. Maybe he would have come to feel the camaraderie that even old enemies can feel for each other if they fought against each other bravely and honorably. Would the survivors and families of the victims of the holocaust have felt the same? Would the Germans even want such a statue? Should they? The Germans have spent many years after that war trying to reconcile with the rest of the world for atrocities committed in the name of German nationalism. Have they really gotten to the point where they are ready put up tributes to their heroes of that time without even considering how the victims of that time may have felt or may feel now? Would doing so be a dangerous warning sign that Germany had abandoned that reconciliation?

    The point is that it is their feelings and motives that matter, not yours or mine. Honestly, were the motives of the people who put up the statues in New Orleans really some honorable attempt to reconcile for what they had done, or was it instead an attempt to excuse it and to normalize the atrocities against former slaves that began at the same time that the statues were erected? Were the feelings of those former slaves even considered then? Shouldn’t the feelings of the victims and the families of victims of the Jim Crow period and the lynchings and the legalized servitude that only recently was abated be considered most important in what remains as a monument to such inhumanity in their own city?

    And Tom, can’t you see beyond your blind partisan political rage long enough to empathize with how looking at a monument to normalize the fight to defend man’s sinful inhumanity to man might be just a little offensive? That black people are not all just sheep to the Democratic Party in this? “Apples and Oranges”?!? Since when do you parse such evil so glibly? Centuries of cruel servitude and having a peoples’s humanity and dignity deprived doesn’t rise to the level of genocide because slavery was historically normalized? You know genocide is pretty historically normal too, don’t you? What did Jesus die for if it was not to teach us that all such hatred and sin and the culture of death no longer has to be the norm? We can chose life, redemption, reconciliation and love?

    Like

    1. ”Anon, you know of course, that by the examples you have given of your relatives, you are simply emphasizing the point that it is only the attitudes of the perpetrators and the victims that matters.”

      Well…it isn’t my opinion that anyone should be FORCED to erect a statue of their own honorable military leader, in their own country. It should of course be their decision.

      FWIW: I only brought up my own family as a reaction to your response “have you ever thought you think this way because you’ve never been directly harmed by Rommel?”
      followed by a list of your family’s military accomplishments. Mine was comparatively brief. I could go on (my brother served, my spouse has served for over twenty years, my son has now decided to sign on to serve).

      War is hell, to quote Sherman. His speech to Atlanta before he burned that city to the ground: http://www.rjgeib.com/thoughts/sherman/sherman-to-burn-atlanta.html

      At the end of his speech he said the following: ”But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.”

      I’m trying to think of a way to convey this, but I’m not terribly eloquent. When Germany (and Japan) were defeated they were absolutely crushed. Their spirit was crushed, their cities had been bombed to the ground, they were occupied, their young men whom they had been so proud of were mostly dead or irreparably damaged. War brings out the very worst in humanity, but it can also bring out the best. In those rare times it brings out the best that should be remembered. I don’t think the victors should demand the abjectly vanquished give up the best with the worst. Our honorable are remembered, most of our dishonorable forgotten. We were the victors and that’s how it goes.
      When a nation is crushed like that and its culture and spirit irreparably impacted even small courtesies can go a long way. That too shows the goodness in humanity. **Morale saves lives (and inversely, lack of morale can cause a nation to implode). The South, too, was absolutely vanquished. So, no, I don’t think the statues were erected to “gloat” and keep former slaves people down. I don’t think it had anything to do with slavery at all.
      It is worth mentioning that the current mayor of New Orleans, is the first “white” mayor in almost forty years (since 1978).

      **I can think of no better example than lipstick. Yes, even lipstick saves lives. If you aren’t familiar with this story please read this link (last paragraph) http://www.bergenbelsen.co.uk/pages/Database/ReliefStaffAccount.asp?HeroesID=17&

      Just a small example of a gesture of honorable behavior, in this case from a US Major toward a surrendering German General:

      (the General’s speech in the video that follows is good as well)

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Anon,

        Give your family my thanks for their service. I honor such service, and I think that most of the spouses of service members actually have the harder role and often deserve more honor than the service members themselves. Forgive me if you think I take too much pride in my own family’s military service, particularly my father’s. However, it was meant to illustrate a point.

        Yes, War is hell and neither side comes out completely unsullied. You have not said anything that I disagree with except that, not being either the conquerers, the vanquished or the victims, how is it our place to grant such honors or to decide if they should revoked, not without at least considering the feelings, wishes and intentions of all of the people who actually fit into those categories.

        The Dylann Roof tragedy keeps coming back to my mind during this debate. Particularly, the courtroom scene where the families of the victims forgave Roof for murdering their relatives. Talk about walking the walk! I’m not sure that I could have done that, especially when my family member’s blood was so freshly and savagely spilled, and while they graciously welcoming Roof at their church no less. However, only they could have granted that forgiveness, not you or I. Did Roof ever ask for forgiveness? No. To my knowledge, Roof is still proud of what he did.

        The whole state and the whole country rallied around those families and we mourned with them. As a result of the victims tragic death at the hands of a white supremacist, Nikki Haley, the Republican governor at that time, was convinced of the need to take the confederate battle flag down from the capital grounds and put it somewhere more appropriate.

        Yes, I know that it is not a perfect analogy. Roof may be unredeemable whereas Lee, for example, was a very honorable man in most respects. If my memory of history serves me, the irony is that, as the leading general of the confederacy, Lee did not even own slaves and he thought the whole institution was barbaric. However, generations of African American suffered grievously for centuries under the yoke of bondage, and Lee is better known than just about anyone else for doing an excellent job fighting and killing to try to keep them in that brutal servitude. Who has the right to forgive that? Did Lee ever publicly ask African Americans for such forgiveness? Was there ever an offer by Lee for reconciliation and was he willing to use his formidable reputation to convince Southern whites to grant the former slaves equal rights? Had Lee been such a leader for African American equality and reconciliation, I would imagine that African Americans would still be laying roses at his statue, but his statue would not be that of a General on a horse but of a peace maker with a dove in his hand.

        Furthermore, did the white people of the South who enjoyed the centuries of the transfer of wealth from those slaves’ backs to them ever ask for forgiveness or offer to pay them back? No, that economic transfer of wealth continued for almost another century of servitude in another form.

        And so I come back to the whole process of apology and forgiveness that leads to redemption and reconciliation. The families of the victims of Roof’s hateful heart were themselves redeemed by their amazing forgiveness of Roof, and Roof might be redeemed too if he were to ever repent what he did and ask for forgiveness. I won’t hold my breath.

        It may not be our place to ask untold generations of African Americans for forgiveness for what our nation did to them and allowed to be done to them under slavery and Jim Crow, but we can at least empathize with how they might feel about such symbols of the fight to keep them in servitude not remaining on the public spaces that we all own.

        And BTW, you are quite eloquent.

        Like

        1. Thank you,Tony. Military life isn’t easy but not without its compensations (we’re very blessed to be surrounded by and raise our children around very good people). And, thank you also for the compliment. 🙂

          Per the topic, to answer the rest of your post:
          From my perspective, at a certain point a historical monument/statue becomes a cherished item of the public commons. Our nation is very new and we don’t have a lot of things that date back to 1884. So there should be a really compelling reason for its removal and I don’t see one in this case (as compared to the Dylan Roof example).
          Italy has a lot of history and I think (for example) the nation as a whole would have been ill served if they’d decided to tear down the colosseum. And the colosseum actually DID represent evil at one time. But it’s still interesting to walk through the ruins of ancient Rome (all around the country) and I think the nation would have lost something valuable with their removal.

          Liked by 1 person

        2. Just to add:
          The National Register of Historic Places is the nation’s official list of cultural resources worthy of preservation, and the 1884 statue of Robert E Lee was on that list.

          From the website:
          “The National Register is part of a national program to coordinate and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect historic and archeological resources. Properties listed in the National Register include districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that are significant in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture.

          National Register properties are distinguished by having been evaluated according to uniform standards. These criteria recognize the accomplishments of all people who have contributed to the history and heritage of the United States and are designed to help state and local governments, federal agencies, and others identify important historic and archeological properties worthy of preservation and of consideration in planning and development decisions.”

          Has something very compelling happened since this statue was placed on this list of National historical significance that would supersede its (documented) importance as a piece of historical significance worth preserving? I haven’t seen any evidence to that effect.

          Liked by 2 people

    2. @Tony

      Blind partisan political rage? Since almost every Democrat Party constituency casts itself as some sort of victim group I cannot accuse Democrats of great evil. The greatest evil is indifference, not victim hood. However, the Republican Party is a party of rich, heartless, selfish white guys. We are just enraged you are depriving us of our unearned stuff and privileges. So we are horridly evil and you expect me to see beyond my blind partisan political rage? Well, thank you for having some faith that I can.

      When you take away a Christian’s stuff and privileges, we are suppose to remain content (Philippians 4:11-13). All that we have is on loan anyway. It is our Lord’s to give and take away.

      When we suffer, it is often difficult not to see ourselves as the victims of the “man”. However, the “man” is just another man, another man at the mercy of the ebbs and flow of God’s creation. We each have free will. We each can control our attitude, We each can make choices, but the ultimate outcome we cannot control.

      So it is best to do our best. That our Lord expects of us. It is also imperative that we strive to learn each lesson he sets before us.

      Hebrews 12:3-11 New King James Version (NKJV)

      The Discipline of God

      3 For consider Him who endured such hostility from sinners against Himself, lest you become weary and discouraged in your souls. 4 You have not yet resisted to bloodshed, striving against sin. 5 And you have forgotten the exhortation which speaks to you as to sons:

      “My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,
      Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him;
      6 For whom the Lord loves He chastens,
      And scourges every son whom He receives.”

      7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten? 8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons. 9 Furthermore, we have had human fathers who corrected us, and we paid them respect. Shall we not much more readily be in subjection to the Father of spirits and live? 10 For they indeed for a few days chastened us as seemed best to them, but He for our profit, that we may be partakers of His holiness. 11 Now no chastening seems to be joyful for the present, but painful; nevertheless, afterward it yields the peaceable fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

      This is something not easily accepted. None of us want to suffer. It is not healthy to feel we deserve to suffer, but we cannot avoid suffering. We can only forgive those who cause us to suffer.

      Time and chance has put those monuments under the control of a largely black populace and a white mayor. While we have something, are we a good steward of what we have been given? The answer to that question matters, not our victim status. Love requires us to look beyond our own suffering.

      Like

      1. As the rest of your post mostly just appears to be hyperbole, self absorption and sarcasm, I will respond to what seems to be the serious part first:

        “Time and chance has put those monuments under the control of a largely black populace and a white mayor. While we have something, are we a good steward of what we have been given?”

        Especially since hurricane Katrina, New Orleans is more diverse than you think, and why do you assume that the white population of New Orleans was unified in wanting to leave the statues up? And finally, what is it to you if the people of New Orleans in their own public spaces prefer not to have these monuments to the defense of the hateful institution of slavery? They are not destroying any precious art work here. And they feel (and I bet you’d find that most historians agree) that the removal of these statues corrects a revisionist history rather than destroying it. I agree with the people of New Orleans, but again, they are not my statues.

        “The answer to that question matters, not our victim status. Love requires us to look beyond our own suffering.”

        No Tom, love first requires recognition and compassion of SOMEONE ELSE’S actual suffering. That’s the place to start from, not from the place of whining about our own supposed suffering, and not from the place of telling other people that they are not really suffering when they really are, or that they should just get over it while the stones are still coming at them.

        And as for victim status, the Republican Right has made victimhood into an art form. Even now, with control of all three branches of government, you play the victim over and over constantly, blame your Representative’s ineptitude on everyone else and still can’t get anything actually done except whine about it. Hell, most of your comment that I am responding to is about how well-off, white Republicans are the poor (not so silent) suffering victims in this country. Somehow, even the people of New Orleans choosing to take down public monuments to racism is victimizing you. And yet you’d think that rich white Republicans suffered the trials of Job just because they have to pay some taxes for the care of their own community. It is sort of like what Ann Richards once said about George W. Bush, that he was born on third base and thought that he hit a triple. Only in this case it’s whining about only being born with a tripple.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. @Tony
          Curious. You quoted what I said.

          “The answer to that question matters, not our victim status. Love requires us to look beyond our own suffering.”

          Then you said this.

          No Tom, love first requires recognition and compassion of SOMEONE ELSE’S actual suffering.

          Then you went on an all-out knee-jerk attack on Republicans. Apparently the “sarcasm” in first paragraph of my last comment set you off far more I expected. Either I struck a raw nerve or you were in a rotten mood. Did read what I wrote? Doesn’t look like it.

          Do Republicans play the victim? I am sure that some do, but our big “crime” is we like to reduce taxes and spending (hard to get any politicians to do the latter). Other than that I think that Republicans complain government too often exceeds its Constitutional authority.

          Let me remind you once again that I have not suggested that anyone should stop the people of New Orleans from taking down those statues. If that is what the city wants to do and their state government does not stop them, I have no desire to Federalize the issue. I have just said that they should not do it, and you are having a cow about that.

          Virginia has lots of Civil War monuments. I hope the people of Richmond, another city that is is about 50 percent black, recognizes the pure silliness of pissing off the rest of the state. Instead of tearing down monuments to other people’s heroes (establishing a precedent they may latter regret) they would do better to find appropriate ways to recognize the heroes they prefer. The memorial to Abraham Lincoln, for example, seems to have been thoughtfully done. The decision to put a statue of Authur Ashe (=> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Ashe) on Monument Avenue (=> https://rotj.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/arthur-ashe-statue-on-monument-avenue/) struck me as a little bit odd. However, Ashe was born in Richmond, and he was a hero and a thoroughly decent man. And I know how fanatic people can be about their sports.

          Like

  10. @Anon,

    Forgive this comment for being time late. I have been on the road for a particularly grueling few days and so this is the first moment that I have had time to look at your excellent response above.

    First, let me say that this is the most cogent argument written here thus far in defense these statues. No high rhetoric or romantic revisionism about the South, but just a straight, well reasoned, evidence based presentation on why we should preserve historical artifacts. And your references to the Roman Collosium and the national registry were particularly persuasive. (Makes me wonder if you might have legal training because it is a very lawyerly argument, and I mean that as a compliment). That said. I think that what you said is indeed persuasive but not convincing, much less conclusive. Here are a few reasons:

    1. While these statues have historical significance, if there is a scale for such things, I don’t think that statues dedicated after the Civil War would have the historical value of something like the Colosseum, an architectual wonder that has incredible historical and archeological value completely apart from whether innocent people were slaughtered there or not. However, your point that our history is short and that at least one of these statutes was considered historically significant enough that it would be placed on a historical registry is well taken.

    2. I don’t think that New Orleans plans to destroy these statues, but instead plans to eventually display them in a time, place and manner that gives better context to their “true” historical significance, including the good and the bad. It would be difficult to move the Colloseum, even in the unlikely event that modern Italian Christians somehow suddenly resented that this archeological wonder might be a monument to barbarity. On the other hand, even moved to a museum and displayed in the factusl context of the time and place that they were erected, these statutes will retain their significance as artifacts, and in a way which will shine a more realistic light on their historical significance rather that dampening it.

    3. A statute on public land at a key city center location has symbolic meaning that goes beyond its historical and archeological significance as an artifact.. As such a symbol, it is a monument, not just to what the city actually prizes from its past, but also how it sees itself in the present and how it envisions its future. I doubt that anyone in Rome looks at the Colosseum and romanticizes it as a prized monument to a notion that the brutality and slaughter that went on there is a heritage that they see as the center of their culture now or in the future. As noted before, New Orleans could have kept these statues where they were and simply added plaques and signs that illucidated their dark context as well as their more noble meaning. I grew up near New Orleans (and wasted a good bit of my early youth there). I drilled at NAS New Orleans for almost a decade in the Navy Reserves. I still go there quite often. If you have ever been to Lee Circle in New Orleans, you know how inappropriate a time and place Lee Circle is to serve as aa more dialectical historical display. Many of the other statues are in such other settings. It would be like having a giant tall monument to barbarity with only a tiny disclaimer attached: “This statue placed on an enormous pedestal on some the highest ground in the city is a monument to one of the leaders in war fought in defense of mans’ inhumanity to man – please don’t try this at home”.

    Finally, I’m not saying (pardon the bad pun) that this is a black and white issue, either literally or figuratively. As I said, you reason out factual and historical points very well, much better points than ranting emotional nonsense like “they hate our dead” (talk about demonizing the other side). However, weighing the practical and historical arguments and evidence of both sides, New Orleans has the better case that they are correct in utilizing these public spaces in a way that better represents the actual history of New Orleans, where the city sees itself now and what their vision of the future is.

    Like

    1. @Tony

      You are advocating taking down the statues because of an emotional response to them. You just cover up by asserting that you “know” what people were thinking when they put them up. Now when the shoe is on the other foot, “they hate our dead”, that is demonizing the other side. Well, they fact is you and your mayor called some people traitors. You do hate them.

      Like

  11. Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t hate anybody Tom, especially not someone who betrayed his country over a century ago. Who has the time and energy for such nonsense? Christians don’t “hate” people because they sin. We recognize that we are all sinners. However, as you know better than I, we don’t romanticize and glorify their sins either.

    That Jefferson betrayed his loyalty to his country in favor of his loyalty to his state is an historical fact. That Jefferson would not have felt the need to do so absent the issue of preserving the evil of statutory human bondage is a historical fact. That, as you have said, our ancestors were mostly white, post Civil War immigrants to the U.S so we and our families were never harmed parties of slavery and Jim Crow indisputably means Jefferson would not particularly engender my personal hatred in any event. Claiming that I and (not my but) New Orlean’s mayor “hates [their] dead” is ad hominem laced demagoguery designed only to arouse the bile of hatred, not abate it. I’m surprised that you associate yourself with such an uncivil diatribe. It counters everything you have written previously about how Christians should act with civility, compassion and love, even in the face of vehement disagreement.

    However, to paraphrase a great Christian sentiment by a great man, insofar as anyone’s human dignity is diminished anywhere, we are all diminished. Our rational and emotional Christian empathy for an entire group of people who for centuries had their human dignity diminished by another entire group of people through the cruelty of legally enforced human servitude is an act of compassionate love, not hatred.

    I’ve conceded constantly that Jefferson was a virtuous man in most respects and he is perhaps one of the most brilliant military leaders our country has ever had. As much as Jefferson and other confederate soldiers may have fought nobly for other virtuous intentions, you know as well as I do that claiming that preserving the evil institution of slavery was not the primary impetus of the Civil War is just historical revisionism blatantly designed to whitewash evil as good. That historical revisionism of history began with the erection of these statues, was used to justify a century of Jim Crow and continues to this day. Continuation of that evil fantasy corrupts the real history, it dishonors the dead on both sides and it wraps the evil deprivation of the God given dignity of hundreds of generations of African Americans in a faux nobility that only perpetuates that deprivation.

    Like

    1. @Tony

      Sorry to disappoint, but I don’t hate anybody Tom, especially not someone who betrayed his country over a century ago. Who has the time and energy for such nonsense?

      You do, apparently. As I have said before, you say too much for effect. The term for it is “posturing”. That is what all this crap with removing the monuments in New Orleans is about. It is just a dumb pose that makes some people feel good.

      Did the North regard the rebels with some anger? Yeah, but they tried to control their fury. So they just punished the “traitors” by making the rebels swear a loyalty oath.

      When we are talking about an entire region rebelling, it is absurd to speak of traitorous conduct. Unfortunately, when we get angry at people, we tend to lower ourselves by calling the people who make us angry absurd names.

      The Constitution does not explain how a state is supposed to secede from the Union. Do the states have the right to secede or don’t they? You have the answer? Then point to it in the Constitution. Otherwise, you may as well quite pretending you are any better than the rebels. We are not.

      How was the issue settled? With the blood of a soldiers spilled upon battlefields. That is what Abraham Lincoln spoke of in the Gettysburg Address.

      When the rebels fired upon Fort Sumter, they foolishly (in hindsight) gave Lincoln the pretext he needed to squelch the rebellion. Nobody really knew what was to come, but after the First Battle of Mananas people knew it would not be a picnic.

      Like

  12. Ha, ya now I’m a hater of long dead folks who did nothing to me? 😒

    You’ve run out of real things to say so you quibble. Ok, Lee lead an armed and violent rebellion against the flag he previously fought under, the uniform he previously wore and the nation he swore an oath to defend. If want to argue that “traitor” is the wrong word for that, and demonize me as a hater for using it, then you must have run out of rational and moral arguments, and instead have surrendered to calling me silly names. (How about “snowflake” while you are at it? That makes about as much sense. ). The facts still are what they are.

    Yes, people’s motivations and history are complex (and it is refreshing to see you make that argument for once). No one is saying otherwise. However, some facts are simply undisputed. That Lee rebelled is one of them. And that the war would not have been fought absent the white supremacy issue of the subjugation of a people by denying them their humanity is another. You want to say that there were many other motivations at play by every single soldier, who is arguing otherwise? However, to completely divorce these dominant issues from Lee’s legacy and the symbolism meant by his statue is just magical thinking and romantic revisionism.

    Like

    1. Does hatred have to make any sense? Consider the story of Cain and Abel. God refused Cain’s sacrifice. God accepted Abel’s sacrifice. Mad at God and jealous of Abel, Cain killed Abel.

      Was Cain’s behavior rational? No, but no one laughs and calls the story preposterous. Who is silly enough to suggest no one could be so foolish?

      Does saying that Cain could do such a thing demonize him? No. He did it.

      You called long dead folks traitors. You set aside the fact that gentlemen like Robert E. Lee had a difficult choice. Defend their state, or defend the Union. As they saw it, the Union was about to invade their states. Literally, the Union did invade their states.

      Was the invasion of the South justified? Under the Constitution? I guess we are not going to quibble about that. We both know the Constitution provides no answer.

      Consider what I said to Stephen.
      https://citizentom.com/2017/06/04/they-hate-our-dead/#comment-74366

      Why did the North invade the South? Was it end slavery? No, and that is the simple fact that makes your argument hollow. The soldiers from the Union did not fight to end slavery. Lincoln conceded the South’s right to own slaves. He did not purpose to end slavery; he purposed to save the Union. The necessity to create a union is why the Constitution permitted the South to have slaves.

      Was the invasion justified? Obviously, Lincoln and many others thought so. Perhaps they were right, but I wonder how well Lincoln slept during the war. Lincoln is much admired — I certainly admire the man — but was he a happy president? Not likely.

      Like

  13. Again you deflect rather than face the crux of the issue of these monuments to slave holding. To say that the secession of the South was a constitutional crisis is an obvious understatement, but that issue arises ipso facto of the issue of slavery.

    Slavery was an infected wound to the whole meaning of the Constitution that had been festering for a century and was the subject of numerous unsuccessful compromises between slave holding and free states. It came to a final crisis only when an avowed abolitionist was elected president. Seeing this existential threat to their economy of human bondage, only then did the slave states decide to secede. Absent the slavery issue and absent that election, no constitutional crises, no secession.

    Whether secession was constitutionally justified or not is a fascinating discussion, and it is a fascinating topic, but it is only remotely and secondarily related to the monuments issue, which was all about maintaining white supremacy and putting a romantic haze over the core reason of the war, slavery. The Civil War was fought to maintain slavery, not just on some lawyerly whim to test the constitutionality of secession. You are willfully fooling yourself into not to realizing this just because you refuse to see the ugly truth of it.

    Can you make an argument that some confederate soldiers, even though they had no slaves, may have been pursuaded to go to war by the demagoguery that they were only defending their homes from foreign invaders? Sure. However, Lee was not such an unsophisticated person that he did not fully realize that the core issue that he was fighting for was his state’s right to own people and its economy of human bondage. The fact that Lee knew slavery was a moral abomination just makes his guilt greater than that of his soldiers who may have wrongly been convinced that they were somehow fighting for something more noble.

    And so are we to continue to glorify the morally guilty Lee because his soldiers died honorably and virtuously to preserve a dishonorable institution? And just because they were fooled into believing that the issue that they were fighting for was something more noble? How many soldiers have died honorably and bravely throughout history fooled into believing they were fighting for good when they were really fighting for evil?

    So yes, we should honor foolish men who honestly thought that they battled and died virtuously, but do we honor their foolishness? Do we honor the leaders who knew better and talked them into fighting for evil by convincing them that it was good? Do we build and maintain monuments to a lie? Do we just keep fooling ourselves and others into this lie century after century? Or do we finally accept the truth, terrible though it may be that these poor souls, whether they knew it or not, ultimately died to protect the right of the Southern elite to enslave, rape and breed humans for economic gain?

    Without the cleansing light of such truth, healing reconciliation can never fully come.

    Like

    1. @Tony

      The ugly truth? Let’s see. What is the ugly TRUTH? Tony is a sinner. Tom is a sinner. Everyone is a sinner except Jesus, and without Jesus we must each pay in full for our sins.

      Check out the comment here => https://citizentom.com/2017/06/06/what-is-forgiveness/#comment-74378. It is quite good.

      Meanwhile, let’s consider the ugly truth. Was the South guilty of supporting the cause of slavery? Of course, the South did exactly that. The South refused to deal with an ugly truth, no doubt one of many. You keep acting as if you have to prove that, but you don’t.

      What ugly truth did the North fail to deal with. Well, most in the North thought blacks inferior. Even many decades latter, when Woodrow Wilson was president, and he re-segregated the Federal Government, no one stopped him. An ugly truth is that the North did not fight to end slavery; the North fought to maintain the union. Yet was what the North did constitutional and legal? Well, if not then they had no right to invade the South and lay waste to the land, but they resolutely did just that.

      How did the slave trade begin in United States? Who was responsible for creating this ugly truth. Many of the nations of Europe had a role in that. There were even ships that sailed from New England with goods they sold. Nations sailed to Africa with goods they sold. Then they sailed from Africa to the Americas with slaves crowded within their hulls. Then they sailed from the Americas to Europe with goods that they sold.

      Who sold the slave traders the slaves the carried across the sea? What about that ugly truth? Who captured men and women and children so they could sell them as slaves? Blacks sold other blacks.
      => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade
      => https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangular_trade

      You may wish to consider the etymology of the word “Satan”.
      => http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=satan

      In practice, Satan is styled as the Accuser.
      => http://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/accuser/

      Those monuments are to people long dead. When we are all guilty of some sin, what is the point dwelling upon the ugly truths about the people who preceded us?

      Philippians 4:8 New American Standard Bible (NASB)

      8 Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is of good repute, if there is any excellence and if anything worthy of praise, dwell on these things.

      Like

Comments are closed.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

In Saner Thought

"It is the duty of every man, as far as his ability extends, to detect and expose delusion and error"..Thomas Paine

John Liming. Blog

JUST ANOTHER WORDPRESS.COM SITE

SGM

Faithful servants never retire. You can retire from your career, but you will never retire from serving God. – Rick Warren

The Latin Community

"You will be my witnesses." Acts 1:8

All Along the Watchtower

A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you ... John 13:34

The Sheriff of Nottingham in Prince William County

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Derecho

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Bull Elephant

Conservative and libertarian news, analysis, and entertainment

Always On Watch: Semper Vigilans

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

The Family Foundation Blog - The Family Foundation

Welcome to Conservative commentary and Christian prayers from Gainesville, Virginia. That's OUTSIDE the Beltway.

Cry and Howl

Let not him that girdeth on his harness boast himself as he that putteth it off. I Kings 20:11

Twenty First Summer

Thoughtful. Positive. Relevant.

Dr. Luis C. Almeida

Christian College Professor

Settled In Heaven Blog

A text & video blog striving to honor Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ through Bible lessons, devotionals, Sunday School studies and small group studies.

praythroughhistory

Heal the past. Free the present. Bless the future.

Dr. Lloyd Stebbins

Deliberate Joy

I Refuse To Follow Your Blog

Stop being a follower!!!

Lillie-Put

The place where you can find out what Lillie thinks

He Hath Said

is the source of all wisdom, and the fountain of all comfort; let it dwell in you richly, as a well of living water, springing up unto everlasting life

partneringwitheagles

WHENEVER ANY FORM OF GOVERNMENT BECOMES DESTRUCTIVE OF THESE ENDS (LIFE,LIBERTY,AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS) IT IS THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO ALTER OR ABOLISH IT, AND TO INSTITUTE A NEW GOVERNMENT...

Defining the Narrative

Discussing the Soul of America

PUMABydesign001's Blog

“I hope we once again have reminded people that man is not free unless government is limited. There’s a clear cause and effect here that is as neat and predictable as a law of physics: as government expands, liberty contracts.” Ronald Reagan.

nebraskaenergyobserver

The view from the Anglosphere

Freedom Through Empowerment

Taking ownership of your life brings power to make needed changes. True freedom begins with reliance on God to guide this process and provide what you need.

Necessary and Proper

Returning to common sense in America

bluebird of bitterness

The opinions expressed are those of the author. You go get your own opinions.

Pacific Paratrooper

This WordPress.com site is Pacific War era information

The Isaiah 53:5 Project

Life: the time God gives you to determine how you spend eternity

altruistico

People Healing People

THE RIVER WALK

Daily Thoughts and Meditations as we journey together with our Lord.

The Ancients

Awakening From Adam's Sleep

Silence of Mind

Where God Speaks and Creation Listens

My Daily Musing

With God we will gain the victory, and he will trample our enemies. Psalms 109:13

atimetoshare.me

My Walk, His Way - daily inspiration

Nickel Boy Graphics

Comic Strips (Some Funny, Some Serious)

Rudy u Martinka

What the world needs now in addition to love is wisdom

Truth in Palmyra

By Wally Fry

Kingdom Pastor

Living Freely In God's Kingdom

The Life Project

Finding Clear and Simple Faith

In My Father's House

"...that where I am you may be also." Jn.14:3

cookiecrumbstoliveby

Life through the eyes of "cookie"

%d bloggers like this: