[quote=@The Harbinger of Ferocity]

[@Skepic]

I have to agree from a martial standpoint that the destruction and domination of the Confederacy by the Union would have been the best choice if that had been the goal. But this was never the goal, not even from the start. An intellectual man could tell you that defeating and destroying your enemy down to their identity is the most intelligent option, but a wise man would tell you reconciliation and the reunion is more important.
[/quote]

Well I'd tell the wise man that he needs to go back to wise man college and retake his tests cause he ain't soundin so wise, but that's a discussion for another time. ;D 

[quote]

Hindsight will forever be in the favor of those in the future, but the objective was not to defeat and control the Southern states and their rebels. It was more important to the people of the time to reunite the United States, a philosophy by which I abide. It was a classical example of Americans waging war on a moral matter rather than a factual matter. We have done this time and time again throughout history, with recent history proving this best; it would have been strongly in American favor if we had completely dominated Afghanistan and Iraq and destroyed not only the enemy, but it's sympathizers. We do fight in such a manner though; it is not our battle identity.

However, we as the United States do not wage that war. Especially not when the President at the time was assassinated and his message, emphasis and objective was to reunite. It made it a just war then in the eyes of the public, who then largely wanted to see his message carried out. His death convinced more that he was speaking the truth. It is in part the reason Abraham Lincoln is so martyred now.
[/quote]

Hindsight is a bitch indeed, and I'm not saying they made hugely unreasonable choices in their situations. I will say they failed in a lot of ways, to truly reunite the United States and heal the massive gaping scare left by the Civil War, as practically no Southern man, general, or political leader was punished. No reshuffling of power in any significant way, no long term attempt to change any of the South's ideas on race or political identity. The moment the Union troops left, was the the moment the South began to chant "The South will Rise Again!" ect. Nothing had really changed, other than a stop to the massive violence and open rebellion, but to the Union leadership at the time, that was enough for them. And like I said, fair enough, but they still failed at the follow through and like many before them, left the problems to be dealt with by the people of the future. 

Anyway, on to the topic we were actually suppose to be talking about. (But I am enjoying this! Just hard to keep these points straight in my head, cause I'll end up typing up a response only to realize that it was meant for another part or point of the discussion and end up deleting most of it. xD) 

[quote]
The recency of the topic has no meaning to me. In many ways, even with that motive, history has proven who is right. Did they erect those monuments as a way to combat the Civil Rights Movement? Very likely, the time frame and rationale of being a "good rebel" suggest it. But who won that war? The American people, again. If anything it stands as good testament to the character of the nation.

We should focus not on the destruction of what we find offensive, rather we should focus on the constructive, such as bettering our historical education and dedication to the National Parks and Historical Sites of the country. The majority of the nation agrees, even with that Left-leaning poll's inherent bias. 
[/quote]

Sure, long-term wise I believe focusing on teaching history as objectively and truthfully as possible, no matter how hard that can be as we are inherently biased whether we try or not. However, I don't see why we can't do both. It sounds that the alt left has somewhat swayed that opinion of yours as well, as I don't think it has to be solely because people are "offended" by it. It is a symbol of racism, a constant, ugly reminder of a regressive, dark time built in a public place. This is not some guy hoisting a confederate flag on his farm, this is a whole street in my state's Capitol (Monument Ave, Richmond, VA) dedicated to honoring the "heroes" of the Confederacy. Hero's who defended the Confederacy's right to enslave human beings. It's not "Very Likely" they were built as a way to combat the Civil Rights movement, they were [i]explicitly [/i]built to combat the Civil Rights movement. 

You can build whatever you want on your property, display whatever horrific shit on your land, but when you have very clear, very undisputed symbols of racism, of slavery, in the middle of a major public road in your state capitol, then that is a very different story. That reflects and inability to move on from the past, to stop idolizing figures who ultimately stood for a terrible regime, and accept that what they stood for in the end was wrong. That's refusing who the victor was in history, and attempting to push a different narrative on a state government level (or at least, a city government level), which I do not agree with or stand by. It shows the opposite, not that the American people won, but that the South isn't done. 

I do, however agree with your last statement. We should focus on our National Parks and Historical sites. The "Crater" should be our reminder of the civil war, not some idealistic statues of Confederate leaders on horses in the middle of the State capitol. That doesn't reflect the war accurately in any shape or form. A war torn stretch of land, filed with dedicated staff, artifacts, and smelly historical Civil War reenactors will go a lot longer in objectively showing the real, human side of the war, its reason for starting, and the lessons learned from it, then any (admittedly pretty) statue of Confederate leaders built for the wrong reasons, during the wrong time. 

So Mr. Harbinger of Ferocity, tear down this [s]wall [/s]the statues! 
(sorry... couldn't resist.)