And down come the monuments to the Confederacy....

[jmdrake]

The North also let the rich out of the draft, America was never perfect but the South was better than the North.

The bastards in the south instituted the draft first. And they started the damn war. The south was much worse than the north. That's why sections of the south seceded from the confederacy. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones" and educate yourself. I've lived in the south my whole damn life so I'm talking from experience and not "yankee ignorance." Southern planters didn't give a damn about the white dirt farmers they either suckered or forced at gun point to fight for their immoral and illegitimate cause. Hell, go back to before the civil war and read about the case of negro Will. He was a black slave who had invented a new hoe. (Farming implement, not street walker). The white overseer demanded Will let another slave use his hoe. Will was like "Screw you! This is my hoe!" The overseer fought Will and Will kicked his ass so bad that he died. Guess who paid for Will's defense? The plantation owner. Why? Because as property, Will was worth more than the overseer. Will got off. Later Will killed another slave. Guess what happened then? Then owner hung Will. Why? Because Will destroyed his property. Southerners who didn't own slaves were nothing but the hoes (as in street walkers) for the southerners who did own slaves. Once the south lost the civil war economic prosperity in the form of manufacturing and agricultural diversity came to the south and everyone was better off. Losing the civil war was the best thing that could have happened to the south. The south was brought into the industrial age kicking and screaming but the it found out "Hey...this ain't so bad after all." It's kind of like Japan's economy taking off after losing World War II.

 

[Swordsmyth]

The bastards in the south instituted the draft first. And they started the damn war. The south was much worse than the north. That's why sections of the south seceded from the confederacy. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones" and educate yourself. I've lived in the south my whole damn life so I'm talking from experience and not "yankee ignorance." Southern planters didn't give a damn about the white dirt farmers they either suckered or forced at gun point to fight for their immoral and illegitimate cause. Hell, go back to before the civil war and read about the case of negro Will. He was a black slave who had invented a new hoe. (Farming implement, not street walker). The white overseer demanded Will let another slave use his hoe. Will was like "Screw you! This is my hoe!" The overseer fought Will and Will kicked his ass so bad that he died. Guess who paid for Will's defense? The plantation owner. Why? Because as property, Will was worth more than the overseer. Will got off. Later Will killed another slave. Guess what happened then? Then owner hung Will. Why? Because Will destroyed his property. Southerners who didn't own slaves were nothing but the hoes (as in street walkers) for the southerners who did own slaves. Once the south lost the civil war economic prosperity in the form of manufacturing and agricultural diversity came to the south and everyone was better off. Losing the civil war was the best thing that could have happened to the south. The south was brought into the industrial age kicking and screaming but the it found out "Hey...this ain't so bad after all." It's kind of like Japan's economy taking off after losing World War II.

You are insane, the rich in the North were as bad and worse, the North started the war by refusing to remove northern troops from Southern soil, the people of the South were slaughtered and their assets destroyed or stolen, the carpetbaggers brought industrialization and proceeded to exploit the southerners worse than the Planters ever did.

 

[jmdrake]

The Civil War was not.

It was a war of secession.

An important and critical distinction, I think.

I think it's a distinction that makes no freaking difference at all. The south could have legitimately seceded when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president and the only thing on the table was tariffs. But they ran like cowardly dogs when Jackson threatened to hang the secessionists. Then, when tariffs were at record lows, but slavery was threatened by an anti slavery party taking over the presidency, then they seceded. And when parts of the south decided they wanted no part of the confederacy their right to secede was not respected. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones." That was a libertarian state that was created by poor whites who joined up with escaped slaves to form what is probably the only libertarian county to ever exist in the United States of America. No slavery was allowed and no taxes either. Each person kept what he grew himself. People voluntarily banded together for the common defense. And they kicked the confederates asses. That is the kind of insurrection that libertarians should support. But I bet you never even heard of it. I know I didn't until I saw the movie.

I'll be honest. I have more respect for neo-Nazis. What did a Nazi ever do to me? Black soldiers and airmen that were captured by the Nazis were treated better than they were by the U.S. Army. Back in high school I had to just suck it up and ignore all of the confederate hats and belt buckles and whatnot. I ignored stupid comments like "I know it would have been bad for you Drake but we could have won the civil war if..." No idiot. It would have been bad for all of us. The south would have remained the ignorant, non-industrialized, agrarian backwater that it was before the civil war. That's why the South lost the Civil War. The North ultimately out produced the South. The outcome was inevitable. It's just like U.S. industrialization out performed German and Japanese industrialization in World War II. In high school as a computer geek I hung out in the computer lab all the time. One day I saw this kid drawing a swastika using computer graphics. I was like "Why the hell are you doing that?" He was like "I'm German. This is my German heritage." I started to respond, then I thought about it. I had excused the confederate flag as "southern hertitage" and I was going to bust a gut over the swastika? What the hell for? Nazis never did anything to me or mine. I watched a documentary on "Bo Jangles" Jackson the other day. It was starring Gregory Hines. He showed the absolute brillance of that man. Bo Jangles had been regulated to crappy "step-in-fetch-it" roles his entire life just because he was black. He basically made Shirley Temple's career. And, to give southerner's some credit, he did get better treatment in Vaudville than he did in Hollywood. Oh...but World War II came, the U.S. was getting its ass kicked, "Tokyo Rose" was broadcasting to black GIs "Why are you fighting us for the U.S. when we aren't mistreating you like they are." To get blacks behind the war effort, the U.S. War Department asked Bo Jangles and other black performers to make a film blacks could be proud of and Stormy Weather was the result. So again, why am I supposed to be angry at the neo-Nazis but sympathetic to the neo-confederates?

The South is still but hurt over a war that's end result brought it undreamed of economic prosperity. Slavery just doesn't work inside factories. Far too much can go wrong. You take a screw off a plow and maybe it breaks and the slaves get a day off and can go swimming. You take a screw off a foundry and the whole thing could fall over, men could die and the entire factory could be destroyed. The South needed slavery to end but they were just too stupid to realize it. And once slavery ended and the South industrialized, all of a sudden tarriffs became a non issue too. Many a confederate had wearing southerner who today works in a factor wants Donald Trump to do something about our trade imballance. I'm not saying protectionism is good. I am saying that people who think the south was acting off of some type of economic libertarianism are deluding themselves. You can't be libertarian and support slavery. And the South absolutely supported slavery. You see that in their declarations of secession. You see it in the southern constitution. When I started looking into this question decades ago I had an open mind. My high school history teacher was a southern apologist so all I heard was the "it was just about tariffs" argument. Oh, and he was also dumb as hell. I would get a test back with a C on it and by the time we got through correcting it in class, and I showed from the book that he was wrong, I had an A. This happened repeatedly. When I was older and had access to the internet, I did my own research, read all the documents I could, and came to the inescapable conclusion that slavery was a but for cause for southern secession. So a big capital FU to the confederacy and all it stands for. Does that mean I support tearing down confederate monuments? No. What the hell is the point? How does doing that do anything about any real problems facing black people today or anybody else for that matter? It is kind of odd that, as far as I know, we are the only country with monuments all over the place to the losing side in a war, but hell, this is America and we are bat guano crazy.

/rant

 

[heavenlyboy34]

The bastards in the south instituted the draft first. And they started the damn war. The south was much worse than the north. That's why sections of the south seceded from the confederacy. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones" and educate yourself. I've lived in the south my whole damn life so I'm talking from experience and not "yankee ignorance." Southern planters didn't give a damn about the white dirt farmers they either suckered or forced at gun point to fight for their immoral and illegitimate cause. Hell, go back to before the civil war and read about the case of negro Will. He was a black slave who had invented a new hoe. (Farming implement, not street walker). The white overseer demanded Will let another slave use his hoe. Will was like "Screw you! This is my hoe!" The overseer fought Will and Will kicked his ass so bad that he died. Guess who paid for Will's defense? The plantation owner. Why? Because as property, Will was worth more than the overseer. Will got off. Later Will killed another slave. Guess what happened then? Then owner hung Will. Why? Because Will destroyed his property. Southerners who didn't own slaves were nothing but the hoes (as in street walkers) for the southerners who did own slaves. Once the south lost the civil war economic prosperity in the form of manufacturing and agricultural diversity came to the south and everyone was better off. Losing the civil war was the best thing that could have happened to the south. The south was brought into the industrial age kicking and screaming but the it found out "Hey...this ain't so bad after all." It's kind of like Japan's economy taking off after losing World War II.

Because the ends always justify the means.

 

[jmdrake]

You are insane

No. I am informed. You are not. I'm going to try to make it a point not to argue with ignorant people. The documentation is out there for anyone who wants to know the truth. The South seceded because they wanted to protect slavery. They said that's why they were seceding. And before any blood was shed on "Southern soil", Southern pro slavery terrorists shed blood in "bloody Kansas." And if the South gave a crap about liberty, when people in the South wanted to secede from the South, the southern states tried to put down their secession with violence. I pointed that out to you in my last post and instead of addressing it like an adult, you decided to become a child and resort to name calling. That proves that you have lost the argument.

 

[jmdrake]

Because the ends always justify the means.

What's the justification for the southern "means" or "ends"? right back at you. The Southern states were hypocrites that didn't believe in the right of secession of actual libertarian groups that didn't want to be part of the confederacy. The Southern states first instituted the draft, enslaving poor whites to fight in a rich mans war, then turned around and exempted slave owners from fighting. Note they didn't just exempt rich people! They only exempted slave owners! So if you were rich but had a conscience and didn't own slaves you were still subject to the draft! Where is the morality in that?

Again, explain to me why I should be against neo-Nazis but complacent with southern apologists? What did the Nazis ever to do me or anyone like me? Sieg Heil!

 

[Swordsmyth]

I think it's a distinction that makes no freaking difference at all. The south could have legitimately seceded when southern slave owner Andrew Jackson was president and the only thing on the table was tariffs. But they ran like cowardly dogs when Jackson threatened to hang the secessionists. Then, when tariffs were at record lows, but slavery was threatened by an anti slavery party taking over the presidency, then they seceded. And when parts of the south decided they wanted no part of the confederacy their right to secede was not respected. Again, watch the "Free State of Jones." That was a libertarian state that was created by poor whites who joined up with escaped slaves to form what is probably the only libertarian county to ever exist in the United States of America. No slavery was allowed and no taxes either. Each person kept what he grew himself. People voluntarily banded together for the common defense. And they kicked the confederates asses. That is the kind of insurrection that libertarians should support. But I bet you never even heard of it. I know I didn't until I saw the movie.

I'll be honest. I have more respect for neo-Nazis. What did a Nazi ever do to me? Black soldiers and airmen that were captured by the Nazis were treated better than they were by the U.S. Army. Back in high school I had to just suck it up and ignore all of the confederate hats and belt buckles and whatnot. I ignored stupid comments like "I know it would have been bad for you Drake but we could have won the civil war if..." No idiot. It would have been bad for all of us. The south would have remained the ignorant, non-industrialized, agrarian backwater that it was before the civil war. That's why the South lost the Civil War. The North ultimately out produced the South. The outcome was inevitable. It's just like U.S. industrialization out performed German and Japanese industrialization in World War II. In high school as a computer geek I hung out in the computer lab all the time. One day I saw this kid drawing a swastika using computer graphics. I was like "Why the hell are you doing that?" He was like "I'm German. This is my German heritage." I started to respond, then I thought about it. I had excused the confederate flag as "southern hertitage" and I was going to bust a gut over the swastika? What the hell for? Nazis never did anything to me or mine. I watched a documentary on "Bo Jangles" Jackson the other day. It was starring Gregory Hines. He showed the absolute brillance of that man. Bo Jangles had been regulated to crappy "step-in-fetch-it" roles his entire life just because he was black. He basically made Shirley Temple's career. And, to give southerner's some credit, he did get better treatment in Vaudville than he did in Hollywood. Oh...but World War II came, the U.S. was getting its ass kicked, "Tokyo Rose" was broadcasting to black GIs "Why are you fighting us for the U.S. when we aren't mistreating you like they are." To get blacks behind the war effort, the U.S. War Department asked Bo Jangles and other black performers to make a film blacks could be proud of and Stormy Weather was the result. So again, why am I supposed to be angry at the neo-Nazis but sympathetic to the neo-confederates?

The South is still but hurt over a war that's end result brought it undreamed of economic prosperity. Slavery just doesn't work inside factories. Far too much can go wrong. You take a screw off a plow and maybe it breaks and the slaves get a day off and can go swimming. You take a screw off a foundry and the whole thing could fall over, men could die and the entire factory could be destroyed. The South needed slavery to end but they were just too stupid to realize it. And once slavery ended and the South industrialized, all of a sudden tarriffs became a non issue too. Many a confederate had wearing southerner who today works in a factor wants Donald Trump to do something about our trade imballance. I'm not saying protectionism is good. I am saying that people who think the south was acting off of some type of economic libertarianism are deluding themselves. You can't be libertarian and support slavery. And the South absolutely supported slavery. You see that in their declarations of secession. You see it in the southern constitution. When I started looking into this question decades ago I had an open mind. My high school history teacher was a southern apologist so all I heard was the "it was just about tariffs" argument. Oh, and he was also dumb as hell. I would get a test back with a C on it and by the time we got through correcting it in class, and I showed from the book that he was wrong, I had an A. This happened repeatedly. When I was older and had access to the internet, I did my own research, read all the documents I could, and came to the inescapable conclusion that slavery was a but for cause for southern secession. So a big capital FU to the confederacy and all it stands for. Does that mean I support tearing down confederate monuments? No. What the hell is the point? How does doing that do anything about any real problems facing black people today or anybody else for that matter? It is kind of odd that, as far as I know, we are the only country with monuments all over the place to the losing side in a war, but hell, this is America and we are bat guano crazy.

/rant

There is so much that you are right about and so much you are wrong about.
I think the best thing to do is look to the future and the principles we agree about.

 

[jmdrake]

There is so much that you are right about and so much you are wrong about.
I think the best thing to do is look to the future and the principles we agree about.

Okay. Here's what we probably agree on. This is just a damn distraction. Tearing down statues is symbolic crap that changes nothing for anybody. Unless they're going to melt down the metal and use it to pay down the deficit who cares? The BLM movement is stupid. It masks the issue of police brutality against everybody and makes it solely about race. That Aussie woman that was gunned down by a black copy is just as much a victim of police brutality as the black concealed carry holder that was gunned down by a Hispanic cop or Tamir Rice, the black kid with the BB gun, who was gunned down by two white cops. I want real freedom. Not black freedom. Not white freedom. Real freedom. Don't think I'll get it until Jesus comes though.

 

[Anti Federalist]

I think it's a distinction that makes no freaking difference at all.

A nice rant, +rep.

I do think it makes a difference.

I think it better to walk away, when faced with insurmountable difficulties, than to be forced to stay and remain at each other's throats.

Had the South just gone, everybody would have been better off: there would have been no war, there would have been no Leviathan federal state, as you noted, slavery was going to end anyway, there would have been no Jim Crow, there would have been no KKK, there would have been no lynchings, there would have been no Selma...and on and on and on...things would have been infinitely better all around.

 

[jmdrake]

A nice rant, +rep.

I do think it makes a difference.

I think it better to walk away, when faced with insurmountable difficulties, than to be forced to stay and remain at each other's throats.

Had the South just gone, everybody would have been better off: there would have been no war, there would have been no Leviathan federal state, as you noted, slavery was going to end anyway, there would have been no Jim Crow, there would have been no KKK, there would have been no lynchings, there would have been no Selma...and on and on and on...things would have been infinitely better all around.

Thanks for the comments and the +rep. For the record I'm not saying slavery would have ended anyway. You have far more faith, apparently, than I do in the ability of people who think they are getting a free lunch to realize they are actually cutting their own throats. Let me put it to you another way. Do you think welfare is going to just end on its own? It's just as counter productive to the people that are on it as slavery was to the south.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Thanks for the comments and the +rep. For the record I'm not saying slavery would have ended anyway. You have far more faith, apparently, than I do in the ability of people who think they are getting a free lunch to realize they are actually cutting their own throats. Let me put it to you another way. Do you think welfare is going to just end on its own? It's just as counter productive to the people that are on it as slavery was to the south.

You wrote:

The South needed slavery to end but they were just too stupid to realize it. And once slavery ended and the South industrialized, all of a sudden tarriffs became a non issue too.

That would have happened on it's own, or else the whole system would have collapsed, like failed Communist states, especially as world public opinion swung against it. The UK had already eliminated the slave trade by then and the Dutch.

Let me put it to you another way. Do you think welfare is going to just end on its own? It's just as counter productive to the people that are on it as slavery was to the south

Yes it is, but the goal is the opposite.

A slave, as an economic commodity, is supposed to be productive.

A slave of the state, through welfare or the coming Universal Basic Income, is supposed to be non-productive: helpless and hopeless and forever dependent upon the state.

At least maybe until 2120 or so, when the machines and the elites make the "final solution" move on the 90 percent of us meat bags that are useless and superfluous and not needed.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

What's the justification for the southern "means" or "ends"? right back at you. The Southern states were hypocrites that didn't believe in the right of secession of actual libertarian groups that didn't want to be part of the confederacy. The Southern states first instituted the draft, enslaving poor whites to fight in a rich mans war, then turned around and exempted slave owners from fighting. Note they didn't just exempt rich people! They only exempted slave owners! So if you were rich but had a conscience and didn't own slaves you were still subject to the draft! Where is the morality in that?

Again, explain to me why I should be against neo-Nazis but complacent with southern apologists? What did the Nazis ever to do me or anyone like me? Sieg Heil!

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed the CSA to be a proto-libertarian bunch. (For me this is a matter of "more correct" than "perfectly correct on everything", as there is no such thing as a just involuntary government- as the CSA and USA were/are) They were just right about certain critically important principles, as AF, et al have pointed out.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't believe anyone has ever claimed the CSA to be a proto-libertarian bunch. (For me this is a matter of "more correct" than "perfectly correct on everything", as there is no such thing as a just involuntary government- as the CSA and USA were/are) They were just right about certain critically important principles, as AF, et al have pointed out.

The Nazis were right about certain things as I pointed out. In fact when Stalin invaded Finland, which at the time had and still does have a representative form of government, it was the Nazis that came to Finland's aid in what is now known as the Winter War. Sieg Heil!

 

[RonPaulMall]

No. I am informed. You are not. I'm going to try to make it a point not to argue with ignorant people. The documentation is out there for anyone who wants to know the truth. The South seceded because they wanted to protect slavery. They said that's why they were seceding. And before any blood was shed on "Southern soil", Southern pro slavery terrorists shed blood in "bloody Kansas." And if the South gave a crap about liberty, when people in the South wanted to secede from the South, the southern states tried to put down their secession with violence. I pointed that out to you in my last post and instead of addressing it like an adult, you decided to become a child and resort to name calling. That proves that you have lost the argument.

Even if what you say is true, and it is not, that only applies to the Deep South. The Upper South all voted to remain in the Union following Lincoln's election. It was only when Lincoln later ordered them to send troops for an invasion of the Lower South that the Upper Southern states all decided to leave.

 

[jmdrake]

You wrote:



That would have happened on it's own, or else the whole system would have collapsed, like failed Communist states, especially as world public opinion swung against it. The UK had already eliminated the slave trade by then and the Dutch.



Yes it is, but the goal is the opposite.

A slave, as an economic commodity, is supposed to be productive.

A slave of the state, through welfare or the coming Universal Basic Income, is supposed to be non-productive: helpless and hopeless and forever dependent upon the state.

At least maybe until 2120 or so, when the machines and the elites make the "final solution" move on the 90 percent of us meat bags that are useless and superfluous and not needed.

Communism ended? Apparently nobody told the North Koreans....or the Chinese....or the Cubans. Oh yeah, and slavery is alive and well in North Korea and China. In fact it's alive and well in the U.S. in the form of the prison industrial complex. Oh but you may counter "But China isn't pure communist." The Soviet Union wasn't "pure communist" either. And if you've read animal farm you known that the end goal is for the pigs to look like the humans and the humans look like the pigs. (Communists take on aspects of capitalism and capitalists take on aspects of communism/socialism and the rest of the animals still get screwed by both sides.) Looks like the plan is right on track to me. Tell me what I'm missing? Seriously give me some hope here. I want to be wrong.

Yes, the U.K. abolished slavery in 1833 and did so without war. They were able to do that because slavery was not a regional issue like it was in the United States. There were not "slave" and "free" areas of the United Kingdom. Thus parliament did not have "slave" and "free" factions the was the United States did. So the takeaway? If Britain had finished the job in 1812 or won in 1776, slavery would have ended sooner in what is now the United States sooner as well. I guess I should adopt the position of libertarian billionaire Peter Schiff that the U.S. would have been better off if we had lost the revolutionary war? (See: http://www.ronpaulforums.com/archive/index.php/t-205338.html?) Certainly in other British colonies the problem of racism is not nearly as pronounced. In fact in 1812 the British offered freedom to any slave who joined with them against the United States. That was the cause for the now "lost verse" of the Star Spangled Banner. And people wonder why Colin Kaeprinick didn't stand or why Gabby Douglas didn't put her hand over her heart for the national anthem? (See: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinio...y/no-refuge-save-hireling-slave/#.WZWCwVWGOUk) Of course Merika only came down hard on the man (Colin) and largely ignored the woman, cute little Gabby Douglas. It's much more politically correct to beat a man down economically for standing up for what he believes in than to beat down a woman.

Anyway, slavery ended in the U.S. because God willed it to and it ended in a bloody civil war because God willed that as well. The civil war was God's punishment on the South for slavery and God's punishment on the North for allowing it. That's why it was one of the bloodiest wars in history on both sides. In God's economy, blood atones for sin. The North should have won the war quickly and easily, but God wouldn't allow that to happen until Lincoln reluctantly signed the emancipation proclamation. Then all sorts of "bad luck" (God's judgment) happened to the south, like the South's best General, Stonewall Jackson, getting accidentally shot by his own men. Explain that one outside of the hand of God? And here's one of the few places I disagree with Ron Paul. He talks about how slavery could have ended to compensated emancipation. Well....Lincoln tried that with the border states (the slave states that didn't secede), but he couldn't get the plan through congress. The greedy slave owners wanted more money than was being offered and the non slave states didn't want to give them jack for something morally they should have done on their own without being paid. The Egyptians didn't get paid when the Hebrews left Egypt. Quite the contrary, they paid the Hebrews. And then some of the Egyptians decided they wanted to get their money and slaves back and got drowned in the Red Sea. "Be not deceived, God is not mocked, whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap."

Here is the only way that I can think of that under the U.S. system slavery could have ended without war. Taxing people who didn't own slaves to pay for the compensated emancipation of people who did own slaves is immoral. Sure it's better than war but it's still immoral. But, had the tariffs been dramatically increased, and all of the tariff money been used to buy freedom for slaves and then provided the economic means for them to get on their feet, then maybe war could have been avoided. The South would have had no argument that tariffs represented a transfer of wealth to the North. And what they thought was a fair price could have been negotiated. But God didn't want it to go that way. "The Most High rules in the kingdoms of men and He puts up and He sets down whom He sees fit." The Bible says God hardened Pharaoh's heart so that His wrath could be brought down on Egypt. Well that same God hardened the hearts of U.S. politicians so that His wrath could be brought to bear on the United States of American, North and South.

 

[jmdrake]

Even if what you say is true, and it is not, that only applies to the Deep South. The Upper South all voted to remain in the Union following Lincoln's election. It was only when Lincoln later ordered them to send troops for an invasion of the Lower South that the Upper Southern states all decided to leave.

Kentucky never left. There were other "border states" that never seceded. And they sent troops into the "Deep South." The emancipation proclamation was carefully crafted to avoid freeing slaves in the border states. But if you were like my great great grandfather, you got your freedom papers signed by Lincoln himself in reward for fighting against the Confederacy. Lincoln tried to pass compensated emancipation with the border states but they were too greedy for money they didn't deserve. Ultimately all of those slaves were freed when the war ended and the 13th amendment was ratified. God willed slavery to end and He willed for a bloody civil war to be the way it ended.

 

[goldenequity]

 

[goldenequity]

I post this vid to make a point.
The point: How MUCH I enjoyed reading through all the above posts by some very smart and educated minds
delivering great posts and counter posts. Amazing rants jmdrake.

I guess the point is civil discourse. Tucker laments its decay.

 

[phill4paul]

Vandals deface statue of Robert E. Lee at Duke Chapel.

DURHAM
A vandal or vandals defaced the statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee near the entrance of Duke Chapel.

The incident happened sometime overnight, Duke University spokesman Keith Lawrence said, adding that the campus police are investigating.

Lawrence declined to speculate about how the damage was inflicted. Parts of Lee’s face had been chipped off, including all of his nose.

The statue’s face is high enough off the ground that most people would need a stepstool or small ladder to reach it.

The incident happened amid the ongoing controversy, heightened by events last weekend in Charlottesville, Virginia, about the presence of Confederate monuments on public property and other prominent locations. On Monday, protesters pulled down one such monument in downtown Durham; seven people face charges.

Another local Confederate memorial, UNC Chapel Hill’s “Silent Sam” statue on McCorkle Place, has been vandalized repeatedly in recent years, usually with spray paint.

Thursday’s incident is the first known vandalism targeting the Lee statue at Duke.

Duke officials said they’d increased security around the chapel, and will review a surveillance video from inside it.

Like their counterparts at UNC-CH, the Duke administration faces calls to deal with the statue. A Duke Divinity School alumnus, Ocracoke United Methodist Church paster Richard Bryant, argues that campus officials should begin making plans to remove or disavow it.

“Racist iconography has no place in a Christian church,” Bryant said earlier this week.

On Thursday, Duke President Vince Price said people should respect the university’s process for dealing with the issue.

“For an individual or group of individuals to take matters into their own hands and vandalize a house of worship undermines the right, protected in our Commitment to Diversity and Inclusion, of every Duke student and employee to participate fully in university life,” Price said. “To that end, earlier this week I began consulting with students, faculty, alumni and others about the ways in which we can use this issue to teach, learn and heal. Together – and only together – we will determine an appropriate course of action informed by our collective values.”

He added that Duke Chapel “is a place of sanctuary and refuge that belongs to every member of the Duke community.”

Unlike Silent Sam and Durham County’s Confederate memorial, Duke Chapel and the Lee statue are on private property.

The statue of Lee is one of 10 that ring the portal of the cathedral’s main entrance, and has been there since Duke Chapel’s construction. While Duke has long held the statues are symbolic and not meant to represent real people, the image of Lee is unmistakably that of the Confederacy’s top general.

Duke lore holds that the chapel’s builder, John Donnelly, chose the people to depict in consultation with a professor at Vanderbilt University.

Read more here: http://www.heraldsun.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article167702402.html#fmp#storylink=cpy

 

[Brian4Liberty]

Protesters in Atlanta Vandalize ‘Peace Monument’ After Mistaking It for Confederate Symbol
by Penny Starr - 16 Aug 2017

Protesters vandalized and attempted to take down the Peace Monument in Piedmont Park in Atlanta on Sunday, mistaking it for a pro-Confederate statue.

The protesters were marching in response to the violent protests in Charlottesville, Virginia, on Saturday where one woman died after being deliberately hit by a car, and two law enforcement personnel were killed when the helicopter they were in crashed.
...
More: http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-peace-monument-mistaking-confederate-symbol/