Duke University Removes Confederate Statue

nivek

nivek

As Above So Below
Duke University President's Perfect Words to Community About Statues and Painful History

c7699593-b5b8-4815-a09b-b106171e805e.jpg


A statue of a Confederate soldier in front of the Durham County, NC courthouse was taken down by a group of "protesters" on Monday who then kicked the statue while shouting, "F*** Trump" and other slogans. At least three of those involved have been arrested, and on Friday hundreds of protesters again took to the streets of Durham, this time to show their support for the vandals.

Statues honoring Confederate soldiers or leaders have been defaced throughout North Carolina this week, including in Winston-Salem and on university campuses.

Wednesday night, a statue of Robert E. Lee on the campus of Durham's Duke University was vandalized. The statue was removed early Saturday morning, university president Vincent E. Price said, to protect the integrity of Duke Chapel, to protect the statue, and to protect students and worshipers who visit Duke Chapel (which is also a tourist destination).

To announce the removal and explain his reasoning Price published a letter to the university community. His words and proposed course of action are wise and calm, and in a tone that is not common in today's political conversations. After the initial paragraphs, Price writes [emphasis added]:

The removal also presents an opportunity for us to learn and heal. The statue will be preserved so that students can study Duke’s complex past and take part in a more inclusive future.

Wednesday night’s act of vandalism made clear that the turmoil and turbulence of recent months do not stop at Duke’s gates. We have a responsibility to come together as a community to determine how we can respond to this unrest in a way that demonstrates our firm commitment to justice, not discrimination; to civil protest, not violence; to authentic dialogue, not rhetoric; and to empathy, not hatred.

Price outlined two steps Duke University will take towards that learning and healing.

I am creating a commission, to include faculty, students, staff, alumni, trustees and members of the Durham community, to advise on next steps and to assist us in navigating the role of memory and history at Duke. The commission will look at how we memorialize individuals on the Duke campus in buildings and sculpture and recommend principles drawn from Duke’s core values to guide us when questions arise.

In addition, and in concert with Provost Sally Kornbluth, we will use the next year to explore various aspects of Duke's history and ambitions through teaching and scholarship. This will include an exhibition in the Library; a campus conversation about controversy and injustice in Duke’s history; and a forum to explore academic freedom, freedom of speech, and freedom of assembly in the university.

There is certainly controversy and injustice in Duke's history.

Prior to being known as Duke University, the campus was Trinity College. Durham industrialist James Buchanan Duke created an endowment upon his death in 1924, leaving a large sum of money to the college, which was then renamed Duke University. Duke's family made its fortune in tobacco in Reconstruction-era North Carolina, forming the American Tobacco Company, the largest tobacco company in the world. Duke's empire also included Duke Energy and a number of textile mills. He was a classic robber baron, being fined by anti-trust regulators numerous times and sued by former business partners. In other words, he was the "dirty capitalist" many of these Antifa groups would abhor.

Duke Energy's legacy continues to be felt in both positive and negative ways. In rural North Carolina, toxic coal ash ponds from Duke Energy's power plants have poisoned thousands and continue to harm the drinking water. The utility has resisted the state's requests to fully clean up their mess and continue to look for cheap and not-totally-effective ways to claim they're taking care of the problem.

But, the Duke family also used their fortune to bring about positive social changes. Washington Duke, James Buchanan Duke's father, gave Trinity College $100,000 when its financial situation was dire - but on the condition that it "open its doors to women, placing them on equal footing with men." The Duke Endowment also funds two children's homes in North Carolina and provides funding to retired United Methodist Church pastors.

What's the point of bringing up the above? The point is not to bash Duke, but rather to show that (as most of us know) the history of people and institutions is complex and doesn't always boil down to a simplistic determination of being good or bad. President Price's letter is a positive start to what hopefully can be a rational conversation about racial divisions in our country.
Click to expand...

Duke University President's Perfect Words to Community About Statues and Painful History
 
Gambeir

Gambeir

Celestial
Castle-Yankee54 said:
I know.....personally I've read quite few books that hurt. I wish more people did that.....but when I was saying that the south seceded and then fired on Fort Sumter I was told to check my "facts".

As a civil war re-enactor I've been able to camp on several battlefields......this includes camping on the of North America's bloodiest ground at Antietam.
Click to expand...

Should just say this is my understanding which may not be entirely accurate.

Lincoln started the civil war and the south enabled him to do it. Slavery was a dead issue. Almost any historian will tell you that slavery was dead, and it was dead because the Southern Women would have no more part of it. This because of the many mixed race slaves that looked just like their owner.

The Civil War was one of the first central bank created wars. Using the same tools as today they whipped up a storm over slavery in the North, and States Rights in the South. The new's of that time was just as culpable of treason as it is still today.

Seven States Seceded in 1860; the Constitution supposedly being unclear about the legality of the issue. This above all else is what the Civil War was about: Contractual Law. The first state to secede was South Carolina. South Carolina militia under the command of Gen. Pierre G.T. Beauregard, had informed fort sumter that if they raised the Stars and Stripes they would fire on it. So they did, and thus commenced the Civil War.

When South Carolina seceded they demanded that the federal property be handed over to them since it inside their State. Lincoln refused to do this and decided he would re-supply fort sumter by sea. Effectively then placing a hostile base inside the the land of the Republic of South Carolina. Now of course this is going to result in war. It's an act of war.

Lincoln's mistake was in not allowing Congress and the Senate to establish whether the seceded States had done so legally, or then to put it upon those branches of government to decide whether or not to go to war. It can rightfully be said that Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War, and that he himself acted outside the bounds of the laws. This was not his place to decide that States could not secede from the compact.

The legacy of this is with us today. Other would be states have looked at the history and decided they are better off as territories. What the Civil war actually established was that the entry into the Union was a compact that transcended time and space, and that once entered into it was forever.

Now supposedly, the way I read it, a State can secede with the approval of 2/3rd's majority of the remaining states. The screw up on the South's part was to not procede along a legal path which would/could have undercut the plan for a civil war based on the unlawful invasion of federal authority upon the rights of the State.

So when I look at this conflict in my age what I see is a war on the South. An engineered war which was needless and stupid, but which enabled a few to grow wealthy over the bodies of their fellow humans, and it consolidated the power of the federal government effectively making it the supreme ruler.

Oh yea, and the freedom of the Slaves was of course done to spread salt in the wounds, because as Lincoln himself had said, all he cared about was preserving the Union. With or without slavery he himself said he didn't care.
 
Last edited:
Toroid

Toroid

Founding Member
Vandals decapitate confederate statue in Ohio.
Confederate soldier statue beheaded by vandals in Ohio | Daily Mail Online
  • A Confederate soldier statue in an Ohio cemetery was beheaded by vandals early Tuesday
  • The vandals appear to have climbed on an arched memorial and toppled the statue atop the monument
  • Police say the monument of a solider at Camp Chase Confederate Cemetery in Columbus had its head knocked off and stolen
  • Police say the vandalism occurred at the cemetery where around 2,000 soldiers are buried

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4814082/Confederate-soldier-statue-beheaded-vandals.html#ixzz4qXy5whYN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Click to expand...
4378F96E00000578-4814082-image-a-35_1503436641607.jpg
 
nivek

nivek

As Above So Below
Gambeir

Gambeir

Celestial
Castle-Yankee54 said:
It was actually the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. It has become a symbol of hate because of the lost cause group of people who appear to worship the white supremacist government of the confederacy.

I've not been watching it on the main stream media.

So you think its a criminal act for Germany to make worshiping the nazis and all their beliefs illegal?

So let me guess you are against the Zionist movement, big government & big business, international banking and the communist party. Let me know if I missed anything.
Click to expand...

I believe in the Bills of Rights

To answer you directly: Yes, freedom has no meaning if you pick and chose what others can do.
Freedom of speech; freedom means free of the tyranny of others.

People worship the devil too, in all his disguises...Lol
 
Sheltie

Sheltie

Fratty and out of touch.
Gambeir said:
Should just say this is my understanding which may not be entirely accurate.

Lincoln started the civil war and the south enabled him to do it. Slavery was a dead issue. Almost any historian will tell you that slavery was dead, and it was dead because the Southern Women would have no more part of it. This because of the many mixed race slaves that looked just like their owner.

The Civil War was one of the first central bank created wars. Using the same tools as today they whipped up a storm over slavery in the North, and States Rights in the South. The new's of that time was just as culpable of treason as it is still today.

Seven States Seceded in 1860; the Constitution supposedly being unclear about the legality of the issue. This above all else is what the Civil War was about: Contractual Law. The first state to secede was South Carolina. South Carolina militia under the command of Gen. Pierre G.T. Beauregard, had informed fort sumter that if they raised the Stars and Stripes they would fire on it. So they did, and thus commenced the Civil War.

When South Carolina seceded they demanded that the federal property be handed over to them since it inside their State. Lincoln refused to do this and decided he would re-supply fort sumter by sea. Effectively then placing a hostile base inside the the land of the Republic of South Carolina. Now of course this is going to result in war. It's an act of war.

Lincoln's mistake was in not allowing Congress and the Senate to establish whether the seceded States had done so legally, or then to put it upon those branches of government to decide whether or not to go to war. It can rightfully be said that Lincoln was responsible for the Civil War, and that he himself acted outside the bounds of the laws. This was not his place to decide that States could not secede from the compact.

The legacy of this is with us today. Other would be states have looked at the history and decided they are better off as territories. What the Civil war actually established was that the entry into the Union was a compact that transcended time and space, and that once entered into it was forever.

Now supposedly, the way I read it, a State can secede with the approval of 2/3rd's majority of the remaining states. The screw up on the South's part was to not procede along a legal path which would/could have undercut the plan for a civil war based on the unlawful invasion of federal authority upon the rights of the State.

So when I look at this conflict in my age what I see is a war on the South. An engineered war which was needless and stupid, but which enabled a few to grow wealthy over the bodies of their fellow humans, and it consolidated the power of the federal government effectively making it the supreme ruler.

Oh yea, and the freedom of the Slaves was of course done to spread salt in the wounds, because as Lincoln himself had said, all he cared about was preserving the Union. With or without slavery he himself said he didn't care.
Click to expand...

Lincoln did not believe the South was willing to shed blood over issues like slavery. Had he realized such a long bloody war would ensue, it's unlikely he would have forced the issue.
 
Sheltie

Sheltie

Fratty and out of touch.
Castle-Yankee54 said:
No not likely.....they are quite different than confederate leaders.
Click to expand...
There is already a movement underway at The University of Virginia to remove, not only Thomas Jefferson statues, but all references to him because he was a slave owner.
 
Castle-Yankee54

Castle-Yankee54

Celestial
Sheltie said:
Lincoln did not believe the South was willing to shed blood over issues like slavery. Had he realized such a long bloody war would ensue, it's unlikely he would have forced the issue.
Click to expand...

The confederacy didn't give him a chance by seceding and then twice firing on Federal property......most of which was before Lincoln was president.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top