Stained-glass windows depicting Confederate generals.

Opponents are criticizing the move as “revisionist history.” Once we start taking down monuments and memorials, they ask, where do we stop?


In the wake of a national discussion about controversial monuments and statues, Washington National Cathedral in the nation’s capital has decided to remove two stained-glass windows depicting Confederate generals Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Church leaders agreed that the images sent the wrong message to parishioners, and ought to be replaced.

“This isn’t simply a conversation about the history of the windows, but a very real conversation in the wider culture about how the Confederate flag and the Old South narrative have been lively symbols today for white supremacists. We’d be made of stone ourselves if we weren’t paying attention to that,” said one bishop.

Relics of the Past

The stained-glass windows were installed back in 1953, and there they stayed for over 60 years without controversy. Then, back in 2015, Dylan Roof walked into a church in South Carolina and murdered nine church-goers – reportedly in the hopes of sparking a race war. It was this horrific attack that spurred officials at the Washington National Cathedral to first contemplate removing the Confederacy-themed windows. However, it wasn’t until the recent events in Charlottesville that the church decided it was time to act. In a meeting held last week, church leaders voted “overwhelmingly” to remove the windows.

Criticism

Despite the majority being in favor, a number of church leaders opposed the removal, arguing that the windows should be contextualized as part of the cathedral’s history. Removing the Confederate images entirely effectively whitewashes that history, they say. Opponents criticize this “revisionist history” strategy as a slippery slope. Once we start taking down monuments and memorials, where do we stop?

Washington National Cathedral in D.C.Erasing History or Making History?

For those who support the removal, keeping the windows in place is antithetical to the cathedral’s claim of being a “spiritual home for the nation.”

“As difficult as it is to remove something that was dedicated in a sacred space, we felt it was a Christian imperative and our moral responsibility,” remarked one church official.

Furthermore, many Americans in favor of removal insist that taking down Confederate statues and monuments is not erasing history but rather making history.  For this group, a nation free of Confederate monuments signifies a nation that is finally ready to fight racism within its borders.

But therein lies the question: will removing such monuments help to heal the country of its bloody and racist past?

An Uncertain Future

If there’s one thing we can be certain of, it’s that the controversy over Confederate memorials won’t be ending anytime soon.  Supporters of the effort insist that each monument to come down is a step in the right direction. But their opponents hold that painting over the dark moments in American history will do nothing to solve our current problems, and may actually have unintended side effects.

For their part, officials at the Washington National Cathedral have sent a clear message by removing the stained-glass windows. In their mind, such images have no place in a house of worship.

Do you agree?

 

156 comments

  1. Doug Barron says:

    The National Cathedral; those who oversee it, srand for nothing; so the will move with popular whim, in order to be politically correct.
    Jesus was NOT politically correct! Shalom.

    1. HSW says:

      Please explain how this historic house of worship stands for nothing.

    2. Rev paul collins says:

      I think they are trying to remove history

      1. MICHAEL says:

        History cannot be removed. It happened and, no matter how much some folks want to forget it, it cannot be removed. Removal of monuments and statues lionizing traitors to the United States does not remove the fact that they committed treason.

        1. thcbar says:

          What treason. These people did not have or condone slavery. this is just trying to erase the from history because they were from the south.

        2. LuAnn Powers says:

          I agree. This is still history. Our grandchildren won’t have an idea about the hardship and struggles that generation have gone through! Peace would be awesome.

    3. John says:

      Dylan roof and Benji McDowell were 2 thugs looking for attention.white serpremist and white separatist have their own flags.the Confederate flag is a symbol of men (heros) long gone away that stood for something they believe in.it is history.as history tells us the biggest recruiting stations were in church after mass.they we’re all God’s children.i don’t want to ick out other races or religions.but let’s start removing things that others don’t like or understand and watch the racial holy war start.i think our teachers need to be better educated.

    4. Rev. Ned says:

      Apparently, Talibanism is becoming popular here. The Taliban get off on destroying old monuments too.

      1. John Owens says:

        Agreed.

        1. JOHN MAHER says:

          W T F does the TALIBAN have to do with the CONFEDERACY, DID they INITIATE it ??? YOU ORANGUtRUMPS have HEADS FULL of ZEROs, AIRHEADS, DUMP the IGNORAMUS COWARD CRIMINAL TRAITOR ORANGUtRUMP, GOD is GREAT so is the US of A, OWINS U must be A OWINS SOMEBODY,BOY !!!

      2. James says:

        The first thing a contending ideology will do is remove the history of a nation. The communists did this in Russia when that regime took over. http://www.businessinsider.com/people-who-were-erased-from-history-2013-12

    5. Brenda says:

      Those monuments represent the Civil War. A war in which the south ceded from the United States of America to fight for the right to own slaves. Put them in a museum, not on our public lands. Germany doesn’t laud Nazis, we should laud racists. You want to see history, go to a museum!

      1. John says:

        The war wasn’t about slVery.take a history lesson

        1. JOHN MAHER says:

          WHAT then GREAT SCHOLARS of the CONFEDERACY was the CIVIL WAR FOUGHT OVER ???

          1. Yarn Spells says:

            Commerce.

          2. Lee Boutell says:

            True, the war was fought over commerce and the economy. The north was industrialized for the most part, and the south was a plantation economy that sold mostly cotton, to Europe and the rest of the world. The Civil War was fought to preserve the southern economy and way of life at that point in history, just before the industrial revolution that made slavery unnecessary. In the 1860’s cotton was king in the south and slavery was necessary to sustain this economy. That’s why the war was fought. Over the economy and commerce based on slavery. And slavery was based simply on the color of your skin.

      2. john says:

        the civil war was not fought over slavery ,,,, get over yourself

      3. William P Serrani says:

        Right on

    6. John says:

      I just seen a post the said the war was against slavery.lol. I really feel before posting something you should know what ur talking about

      1. David Mitchell says:

        If the war was only about slavery, why didn’t the North invade Delaware, Maryland, Missouri and the border states that continued to hold slaves? Why did Gen. U.S. Grant hold his slaves until December 1865 when he had to release them eight months after Appomattox? The South did not seek to destroy the Northern/Federal government(a true ‘civil war’) but to repel the Northern/Federal invasion and to secure independence n the same basis as the colonies had 90 years earlier. Sure, slavery was an issue but the vast majority of Southern soldiers were not slave owners. Other major issues included Northern tariffs on southern produce (especially cotton) and cultural differences between the agricultural Scotch-Irish South and the commercial-industrial North.

        Hope this helps.

        PS The church made the wrong decision in removing the windows. They’re part of history including African-American history. What’s next? Pulling down Washington and Jefferson’s statutes? Jackson off the Twenty? (Oh, too late for Jackson).

        1. Minister Kevin Gironda says:

          Best info yet thanks I also believe it’s a mistake to remove those windows like it or not they are a part of history. Also those windows are historic and we’re done by hard working people. Should we remove all documents of every mistake ever made.

          Minister Kevin

        2. Lee Boutell says:

          Grant did own a slave named William Jones that was given to him and his wife by his wife’s father when they ran the family farm in Missouri, a slave state. Grant freed Jones in 1859, before the war started. Apparently there were other slaves not owned by Grant on the farm, and they simply walked away from the farm during the Civil War. This is according to the official site of the historic farm in Missouri.
          By the way, the north did not “invade” the south to start the war. There had already been US forts in the south and the Confederate States of American invaded them and took them over for their own purposes. A couple of forts in the south did not readily give up their arms, ammunition and strategic locations to the southern armies, hence the CSA attacked Fort Sumter and the war started. The south first militarily attacked a federally operated US government fort. There was no northern invasion to start the war.

  2. rebadams7 says:

    Everything should be held in context. There is a place to remember those fallen soldiers there is a place to remember how our country was torn asunder and put back together. The history we do not know is the history we are doomed to repeat. The more you point out differences the more prominent and divisive they become. We are allowing outside forces to determine our truth and our history instead of our own country and our own conscience leading us. I am very sad
    R

    1. HSW says:

      What outside forces? I’m in Richmond, VA and those hateful symbols need to come down.

      1. Rev.Hoagie says:

        Spoken like a true believing Marxist or perhaps a moslem, HSW They love tearing down historical and religious statues of *hate*. Oddly the only hate I detect is yours, comrade HSW.

        They are erasing America. They are erasing our heritage. America isn’t perfect but those men from the South fought for their States. They lost. Many were killed. But they were Americans and by the way, they were pardoned. Or you can keep on hating.

        1. John Owens says:

          They try to be rational and intellectual, Hoagie, but they just can’t help the hating. All fascists are like that. They are like religious fanatics, only their religion is their own false view of everything, which changes every few years, depending on the propaganda of the time. They are blown about by whatever doctrine blows toward them from “academia” and the fake news channels.

          1. JOHN MAHER says:

            JOHN BOOGER OWINS, LOOK WHOS TALKING ABOUT HATE, ALL YOU do is INSULT ANYONE that DOES NOT AGREE with U, JUST LIKE UR LEADER the IGNORAMUS ORANGUtRUMP, IGNORANCE in EXCELLENCE, the ONLY THING that BLOWS is YOU and MONICA……………

          2. John Owens says:

            Liar. I only insult the ones who insult me, and I have insulted YOU a LOT less than you have insulted me. Seems you are the one always insulting.

          3. Jim says:

            John Maher, you are a troll!

      2. kimm says:

        What is hateful? I live in the south as well. First..The Aggression was NOT about slavery. Second, for those who do drag slavery into it, Lee was probably more against slavery that most of the North, who by the way, pillaged, burned and raped their way through the South (I’m an ex northerner) and spared no one…Not even slaves they ran in to if they got in the way. There was absolutely no reason for what the Union soldiers did to the people, cities and towns. Third, Lee was originally asked to lead the Union army. Fourth, why do we not discuss the hatred in the North at the time. They didn’t even want black people in their military, and escaped slaves certainly were not given the welcome mat. Where I was brought up in the North was a big underground railroad hub. They had to keep their activity as secret there as they did in the south. Yep…a real sign of northern tolerance of the times. And finally, do you propose we bury all the soldiers at Arlington somewhere else? After all, that property belonged to General Lee as well.
        Time that a lot of people get a history lesson.

        1. William Rahman Schors says:

          Wow, lots of good info there.

        2. gsl2727 says:

          Well, he should have been jailed as a traitor to the US and his oath at West Point to defend the country against all enemies, foreign and domestic once he left the Union. He was also reported to be very hard on his slaves and there are accounts of his having salt water poured on post whipping wounds. You say the Confederacy was not about slavery. Yet, every bill of session for every Confederate State lays out slavery as being the primary reason for leaving. Yes, African slaves were looked down on in the North also. Hardly justification for slavery. Finally, Lee himself, in an address at Washington College, now Washington-Lee Univ. stated that he thought statues to himself, other generals or the war in general were a bad idea.

          1. John Owens says:

            Lotta BS in that.

        3. Mary says:

          you are right.. I think the people emoving all the srt need a history lesson

          1. Mary says:

            sorry about the typ o’s I ment to say renoving art

        4. Lee Boutell says:

          In answer to Kimm, yes the north did have blacks in their ranks and there were many famous battles in the Civil War with the all black regiments. Some famous battles occurred in Oklahoma between all-black Union forces and all-native American Confederate forces. There are many accounts of former slaves taking up arms for the north to fight against the Confederates.

          1. Todd says:

            There is also stories of confederate units made up of blacks as they did not want the north to win

          2. Lee Boutell says:

            It is true that some slaves did fight alongside their masters during the Civil War, but nobody knows the exact number. However, the Confederacy legally prohibited slaves from fighting as soldiers until the last month of the war. Claiming that slaves did not want the north to win and thus have slavery abolished is pretty much nonsense, although there may have been a few who did fear a northern victory along with an unknown shake up of their lives in the south.
            See this article that examines this contentions issue in depth: http://www.theroot.com/yes-there-were-black-confederates-here-s-why-1790858546

          3. Todd says:

            Lee you referenced a biased source so I will do the same from scv.org “It has been estimated that over 65,000 Southern blacks were in the Confederate ranks.”

          4. Lee Boutell says:

            Todd, you didn’t reference to the pages where you got your information. I’d like to read it. The source I referenced above has statements and research from many historians. You called it a biased source without giving any reasons why. Please use some specific reasoning or sources to back up your claims. Otherwise, you’re just in the field of opinion only, like so much of what tries to pass as “news” or information today.

          5. Todd says:

            Lee ,the root is a historic black site. ( does have some great articles.om genealogy though)Just like I referenced
            the sons of confederate veterans. All it takes is a quick Google. The root was just one that has been passed around liberal news and websites.

          6. Lee Boutell says:

            Todd, you are assuming a “black” website cannot present information in an even, unbiased manner. Because it is a “black” website does not mean it presents inaccurate information. What is presented on that site is verifiable and historically accurate. When there is overwhelming evidence of something as well documented as slavery and the Civil War, one does not need to present biased or inaccurate information to prove that slavery was wrong and evil, or that it was why the Civil War was fought. Biased, inaccurate, and incomplete information is what is needed to defend slavery, to defend the Confederate rebellion against the United States of America, or to say that the southern economic system was not rooted in racism. Ignoring or discounting slavery as the primary reason for the Civil War is distortion of the Truth. Truth is what we are supposed to be seeking as ministers of faith.

          7. Todd says:

            Lee again you miss a major point. Every group has its distortions. Even the root is clearly bias against the right of center, white issues, police issues etc. Every group, black/white, male/female, north/South, european/American deal with things and see things differently. By basing it on a website, that is clearly biased to the far left of center, and seeing things from one view point it can make it inaccurate. Many times in college I pointed out inaccuracies to professors, some appreciated it others not so much. I have always been a free thinking not confirming to the viewpoint in front of me. Research from all viewpoints. If you research the war from a civil war soldier enlisted from the south it was not about slavery. It was about pride in his State and northern aggression. My relatives from the north did it patriotism not fighting slavery. My southern relatives from WV escaped to OH as they wereagsi st slavery and had mixed children

          8. Lee Boutell says:

            Todd, I appreciate your pursuit of different sides to find out the truth. I do research subjects from multiple avenues and perspectives. And I agree that most sites do display some bias. Are there any that are not biased? I don’t know. But facts are facts. And what I said about a few thousand blacks fighting for the Confederacy in the last month of the war and that there were hundreds of thousands of blacks fighting for the Union during much of the war is verifiable from many places and is accepted as truth by serious historians. These facts are also stated by the History Channel article below. Are they “biased”? I can keep posting more references from other places if you want: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/confederacy-approves-black-soldiers By the way, you still haven’t posted an article you got your information from.

    2. Chaplain Bill says:

      So should we put up statues to Timothy Mcveigh or the 911 hijackers. Traitors to our great country should not be memorialized, they can be remembered in infamy.

      1. Todd says:

        They have a statue of bill Clinton. An impeached philander who lied under oath. I say take that down as he still offends me and every other decent American

        1. John Owens says:

          We could blow it up, if we were like liberals. It’s okay if they do stuff like that. THEY’RE “freedom-fighters.”

          1. Todd says:

            That sounds like fun 😁

      2. John Owens says:

        Like Hillary and the Kenyan?

        1. Clyde says:

          Good God, guy; how racist are you? And, ignorant to boot. You are likely to be a birther then. you’ll probably believe the very next bunch of smelly garbage that comes out of the Racist-in-Chief’s hateful mouth! This is a religious site. Alt right, alt left, alt center, and alt upside down have no business on it. Enough hate propaganda. That is not doing the Creator’s work, it’s spitting in the Creator’s “face”. Ignorance breeds fear, familiarity breeds contempt, and haters breed both in order to divide and conquer others. Get a spirit check young homie and check yourself. Praying for forgiveness is a good start.

          1. John Owens says:

            Read the hate and gossip in your own written swill, Clyde. What hate propaganda do you mean? Do you think it racist to call someone a KENYAN? Isn’t it racist to THINK that? And please, tell me, how come Trump was buddy buddy with Jesse Jackson and all the King family and other black leaders UNTIL he won the Presidency, and now all of a sudden he is a racist?

            So, you know exactly jack-squat about me, and you come up with all of this? You are a PRIME example of ignorant and bigot. Please don’t even mention the Creator to me. You make it seem like a dirty word when you use it. You are a prepucio.

          2. Todd says:

            Wow such hateful speech. Calling the president racist without proof. In fact up until the election he was honored by lots of different groups for his works. You must look in the mirror as you sir are the one that is hateful and spiteful. We pray that YOU can overcome such willful ignorance and spread good thoughts and actions

          3. John Owens says:

            Thanks, Todd. For quite some time I was feeling lonely on these blogs and these intellectual Chihuahuas were yapping at me all the time. They do this: call you racist and ignorant and make up things you say or don’t say, lying about the president all the while, showing they are the ignorant, the dishonorable, the indoctrinated, the bigoted. Still, there are more and more thinking people speaking up here. Warms my heart.

  3. HSW says:

    I’ve seen the windows in the National Cathedral. Each time I found them garish and out of place in a house of worship. I think they did the right thing.

    1. Rev.Hoagie says:

      So now comrade HSW is the kommissar of what is garish and what is acceptable? No borscht for you! Off to the gulag!

  4. Jean Hill says:

    I thought we were adults on this site who attempted to respect each other despite differences in opinion, faith, etc. I see Rev. Hoagie attacking HSW as a communist because HSW didn’t like the windows in the National Cathedral. This makes me think of the Westboro Baptist Church tactics, and I hope HSW isn’t intimidated into shrinking from the fray.
    Having said that, I will share my OPINION about this issue. Opinions are neither right or wrong, they just are, like feelings. We cannot erase history. It happened. It has been commemorated in many movies, books, and museums. We don’t need to glorify the Civil War in which so many Americans died on both sides. I doubt if we’re going to forget the Civil War for many many years, judging by the persistence and resurgence of white supremacy and bigotry even, apparently, in the White House. I don’t think stained glass windows glorifying the Civil War belong in any church. Just my opinion. I was raised in the South, but I was educated as to the fallacies being taught and lived in many places in the South – I believe we are all created equal – ALL. And nobody is more equal than anyone else, as my father used to opine, tongue in cheek…

    1. HSW says:

      Thank you. I’m good. Fully adulting here.

    2. Todd says:

      You showed your bias and lost all credibility when you said there was “white supremacy and bigotry” in the whitehouse. Spreading lies instead of facts is not being an adult. Facts speak
      I am sure there is a bigot in every administration since the beginning. Even in Obama’s.

      1. John Owens says:

        You’re right, Todd. The only reason they started harping on white supremacy was because the “Russia Investigation” keeps revealing more dirt on Democrats than the Trump administration, so they started harping on it to divert attention from themselves, and these suckers are swallowing hook, line, and sinker. She thinks HSW is sensible because he’s a fellow-sucker.

  5. Ray says:

    1984 is here, a tad late but here.

    1. Roy L. Patterson says:

      100% RIGHT

    2. HSW says:

      How does this relate to 1984? This was not in any way a government action. This is a private organization whose governing body made an informed decision.

      1. John Owens says:

        They made a chicken-shit decision, but I hate stained glass windows and I hate cathedrals anyway. They are monuments to false religion. They inspire reverence to the building, and those who administer them, instead of the Living God, in my humble opinion.

  6. James says:

    Look for trouble and you’ll find it. Look for a reason and you’ll find it. Do we really know the history of the Civil War? Do we really have the understanding to say it was only, only due to slavery? So being lead around by your noses. More than half of the earth still has slavery. America was one of the first to outlaw it and the north had slaves far after the Civil War. The largest slave traders and breeders were of African decent. Not to mention European people were slaves as well. Not only in America. Not saying that the Civil War or slavery wasn’t, isn’t horrible, yet this is just like religion and the constitution. Freedom of religion, not from religion. Freedom of expression, not from expression. My grandfather always said to keep your nose out of other people’s business. So if we don’t live there ;yep “butt out!” let’s try not to point to an issue in a negative way. Let’s be thankful we learned from our past and honor the changes we made and the lives lost to change. Even by having memorials of it. Lets do what is next.

    1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

      Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery in society and created the thirteenth amendment of the United States constitution to make slavery an institutionalized punishment.

      1. Todd says:

        Actually Lincoln wanted to send the slaves all back to Africa. Little is said of that idea that was in the works

        1. John Owens says:

          Hence the country, Liberia, which is still heavily involved in slave trade to this day. NFL players aren’t kneeling because of THAT.

  7. John says:

    Where are we going? If we remove the statues, stained-glass windows, what’s next? The Tombs of the Unknown Soldiers? This is OUR history. The history of OUR great Nation! If we keep removing the monuments, we erase how our Nation was built, we sacrifice the memory of the people who gave their lives for our freedom. What do we have left?

    I can understand the pain that these may mean to people, but to grow, we need to face the pain of the past to grow into the future. If we ignore what has happened in the past we are doomed to make the same mistakes. I can see no sense in removing them.

    1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

      Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery in society and created the thirteenth amendment of the United States constitution to make slavery an institutionalized punishment.

      1. kimm says:

        Actually, Lincoln wasn’t looking to abolish slavery, he just wanted to make sure that it didn’t spread any further. Anyway, slavery was beginning to abolish itself as some who owned slaves were freeing them in their wills or owner’s family members who were against slavery and freeing them on the owner’s death.

  8. Lee Boutell says:

    Statues, monuments, decorative windows, plaques and other items that celebrate the Confederacy do not belong in public spaces without providing historical context to explain what they represent and detailing what happened to our country because of the abomination of a racially-based system of slavery. These monuments do belong in a museum–we do need to realize how strongly the attitude of racism and white supremacy remains to this day. We need to be able to see how so many southerners have tried to re-interpret and re-define the reason for the Civil War as a fight for “state’s rights.” So we should put these plaques and monuments in a museum and provide explanatory context.

    But these monuments do not belong out on the street or in other public spaces. Being in public spaces implies support for what they represent–slavery, white supremacy, rebellion and according to the US Constitution, treason (taking up arms against the USA). Why should we publicly honor racism, rebellion and treason? If you choose to honor the Confederate rebellion or white supremacy you can do it in the privacy of your own home, but not in public. And to a large percentage of Americans, the display of Confederate items is disgusting, appalling and insulting, similarly to how Jews view the Nazi flag.

    After defeat of the Nazis, Germany outlawed the display of Nazi flags or other items associated with Nazis, including doing the Nazi salute. Nazi leaders were tried and convicted as war criminals. The USA did not go so far as to outlaw the Confederate flag or other items and did not put the rebels on trial (although many northern leaders had insisted that this be the case) but the fact that the issues of slavery and systemic racism are still being debated and causing problems 150 years after the Civil War suggests that perhaps the government of the USA was far too gentle with the treasonous rebels after the Confederacy was defeated militarily and surrendered. Some may argue that creating monuments to the rebellion should have been made illegal in the first place.

    Instead of trials and laws being made after the war, Abraham Lincoln wanted the nation to heal. He insisted that we forgive, re-build and try to heal the country that was so violently torn apart . Apparently his wish for healing this divided country has never been fulfilled.

    1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

      Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery in society and created the thirteenth amendment of the United States constitution to make slavery an institutionalized punishment

      1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

        Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery in society and created the thirteenth amendment of the United States constitution to make slavery an institutionalized punishment.

      2. HSW says:

        To what end do you repeatedly cut and paste?

    2. Minister JR says:

      Very good analogy. No one has mentioned the fact that most of these windows and statues were erected in the 1950s. I have no problem keeping monuments erected right after the Civil War. What were my parents thinking in the 1950s? I’m sure they did not consult the relatives of former slaves. This was also a time when the police could beat you until you confessed even if you were innocent. Some of that hasn’t changed either. Take them down.

  9. Robert Sherman Nix III says:

    No, I do not agree with removal of Çonfederate images as they have naught to do with racism but secession. The Civil War was not fought for slavery. And for that matter slavery was a worldwide economic reality for Negroes on Negroes also. To remove images is hypocritical, stigmatizes Southerners, and makes scapegoats of the South in the face of and against historical reality. The Church makes itself into a liar as the Confederates were patriots that the other regions of the United States were versus, and that these images illustrated reconciliation and not the conflict the Church is saying is motivation of their actions, but in opposite the images are representative of reconciliation and healing of the rift in the nation, and not emblems if racism but denote honesty of the Confederates. Therefore you might as well remove the building because you are trustworthy to administer justice, as it is a hunt against Confederate apropos and nothing to do about church shootings or flags used in such things but is anti-Confedederate and wronging the people in their graves by labeling them in a criminal way. Do you forget Negroe Confederates ? Because thus action is lying under assumption Confederates were not Negroes and it spreads the lies that Confederate images are versus inclusiveness when in fact the anti-Confederates garner some value of hate mongers in choruses against minority Confederates that stood up to the bullying United States tyrants and regional president Lincoln so that the Civil War was region against region not about slavery except some northern people could not obtain slaves, which was all colors, and these actions reinforce lied in society about history of slavery, a black on black establishment , as if it were Confederates that iniated slavery, so that the Church is choosing a lie to support.

    1. Lee Boutell says:

      Black people disagree with your premise that Confederate images are not racist. If you were black you would consider the system of slavery before the Civil War as completely evil, and it was all about the color of your skin. You can rationalize in your own mind how the people who fought to preserve this evil economic system were somehow noble, but this does not pass the smell test. It’s plain and simple: the Civil War was fought to preserve the plantation slavery based economy of the south in the face of mounting pressure from the abolitionists in the north who wanted to ban slavery and were gaining support from their political representatives who began to take steps to ban it. Succession was all about preserving the economy of the south, which depended 100% on slavery at that time, before the industrial revolution and machinery-based agricultural practices. Put yourself in the shoes of black people. Think about how Jews feel about the concentration camps. Should those be honored by statues? Should we honor Adolf Hitler in our churches? Slavery was pure evil as was the Holocaust.

      1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

        Your right Lee

      2. Steve says:

        You stated ” Succession was all about preserving the economy of the south, which depended 100% on slavery at that time, before the industrial revolution and machinery-based agricultural practices”. Where do you get your data? An average of approx 31% of the states that seceded owned slaves, THAT is directly from the 1850 census. Half of those owned 1 to 4 slaves. New York was a major hub of the slave trade…….You can not just throw numbers out there like 100%, it is just plain false…..

      3. Todd says:

        It did not depend 100% on slavery. Most 90% of confederate soldiers did not own slaves not anyone in those family. It was economic. And sure slavery was part of commerce even in the north during that time. Just think if northern states had not put high tariffs on goods slavery would ha e fizzled out and that would have been no war.

    2. Richard says:

      Read the secession proclamations. Almost all of them cite the retention of slavery as a key, if not the key, reason for secession.

      Also, many of these monuments are not in the South. Even if you were to accept that they are historically interesting in context, why are they erected in Washington DC and New York?

  10. Robert Sherman Nix III says:

    The problems about Confederate issues is they are almost Revolutionary War period in which slander and defamation is used against the Confederates who lacked motives that modern day people hate them as themselves display, therefore the actions of the Church show ignorance, bowing to secular pressure, or they are hypocrite’s and haters. If previous generations did not see hate symbols but regular symbols of their nation, then it is only today viewed as hate symbols from insistence by anti-Confederate schools have taught it as such, when in fact it is a symbol of the nation. There were not only one race and if so these actions by the Church likewise inflict hate against the people rather than reconciliation and denial of the United States and absolvement of the Unite States for its crimes and wrongs in the Civil War by emptying itself upon the South to carry all the blame, which is unjust and a lie. Once secession was confirmed by the States, the Civil War proceeded by Lincoln to force them into the United States by force and bloodshed, and in that process the slavery fell by men being away at the battle front, which is not unethical except if criminally applied, so that it is just as true to say the Confederacy ended slavery by fighting in the Civil War as to say the same for the Union . Another pitfall the Church is putting itself into, is that the current political anti-Confederate hysterics has nothing to do with post-Civil War reunion and reconciliation, but is cheap hate and utilized by Communist and others who have no stakeholders in Civil War images, such as later immigrants which the Civil War had no bona fide connection in all the facets of dynamics, but are only taught that Confederates were victimizers which is a lie. Many Indians were Confederates and it I’d similar to when someone just becomes a hate mongers and fictionalizes crimes and characters of a another generation of current people which is slander and libel and hate mongers because it is a lie, and in that case all the African flags should be removed from America for their own slavery if this justice it makes a liar of truth.

    Robert Sherman Nix III

  11. Robert Sherman Nix III says:

    It don’t look like it made an issue until the media made it a political issue and it is a violation of the civil rights of Confederate people who has rights in these matters that other people have partially or totally but the Confederate people absolutely have rights to these Confederate images

    1. JOHN MAHER says:

      TO ALL the BIBLE BABBLERS, WHAT DOES the GOOD BOOK SAY ABOUT FALSE IDOLS, A STATUE, ANY STATUE is a FALSE IDOL, NO IFs , ANDs or BUTTS, REVER in AWE at YOUR FAMILY NOT B S………………………

      1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

        To uphold the abuse of mankind is a slap in the face to those who suffered the abuse. The confederate flag has history behind it that shows why its justified to remove it from public view.

        1. Lee Boutell says:

          Well said, Minister Anthony.

    2. hsw says:

      There are no “confederate people” so your premise is invalid.

  12. Alicia says:

    This is a cathedral….a church. Why are there images of anyone other than those relevant to the religion? Sorry….these windows don’t belong and should be replaced by something relevant.

    As for taking down all statues of Confederate generals: No…..Leave them alone! These men were a part of our history, good, bad or indifferent. Instead of taking them down, use them as tools of learning. Slavery was not the only issue of the Civil War. This happened over a hundred years ago. We have grown as a nation in many ways, one of which is to know that slavery should never happen again. Instead of taking down these statues, commission new ones to stand along side them. Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks, Dred Scott….all deserve to be to stand in bronze the part they played in history. Teach the good with the bad.

    It’s become a joke to take down statues/monuments and change names of buildings, streets and schools simply because the person these things were named after were slave owners, or fought for the Confederacy. Washington and Jefferson may have owned slaves, but they were the product of their time but, owning slaves was not ALL they did!

    Where will the insanity end? A theater in Tennessee will no longer show Gone with the Wind because it’s now considered “offensive”. An elementary school must now change it’s name because it’s named after the Lynch family, who donated the property to build that school. There’s a call to ban To Kill a Mockingbird because it’s “racist”. Where does it stop????

    1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

      I disagree. Dismantling negative and replace with good is a method used to show the public that the issue is being addressed to keep the peace.

      1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

        Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery in society and created the thirteenth amendment of the United States constitution to make slavery an institutionalized punishment

  13. Mark says:

    Will it matter in 5 years? Will/does it change history? Aren’t these the questions?

    1. Lee Boutell says:

      This is the point, It WILL matter in 5 years, it will matter in 150 years, as it does today. What values do we choose to honor–truth, justice, peace, respect? Or violent subjugation of others, white supremacy, tyranny and rebellion? The history is there already, what we are discussing is how our past is viewed–both now and in the future. Let’s look through the lens of justice and truth.

      1. Mark says:

        Really ? What’s next – editing the civil war and slavery out of history books?

        “Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors are destined to repeat them.” Edmund Burke

        1. Lee Boutell says:

          Exactly. We are doomed to repeat our mistakes if we do not provide a context where we can learn from them and chose to change. White supremacy is a myth. Slavery is evil. Honoring these things is wrong and perpetuates the evil. We are not erasing our history but looking at it for the purpose of education and enlightenment, so we do NOT repeat the same mistakes.

  14. Kathleen Baird says:

    The best comment I have seen regarding the Confederate statues glorifying those who sought to destroy the United States, in order to keep their right to own human beings as slaves, was this:
    Would you look at it as just “preserving history” if Germans put up statues of Hitler to honour the man who killed millions because he deemed them to be sub-humans?

    1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

      To uphold the abuse of mankind by glorifying the people who caused the wrong is to shame God and uphold satonism.

  15. Clyde says:

    Some interesting folk ask, “Where will it stop?” It stops as of the first day of the War of Secession (Not Civil, it wasn’t, not between the states, for the Confederacy claimed to be a country…). Washington’s monuments are not in danger when Stonewall Jackson is taken down just because they both had slaves. All that is straw man bull is full of false equivalency. Those generals who fought for the South were merely traitors, and anyone but the poor grunts who fought and died for these slave owner secessionists were merely traitors, too. Washington, though a slave owner was a founder, not a traitor to this country. Washington was a traitor to Great Britain, but he won. I don’t know of one statue,or any memorial for that matter, of King George III anywhere in the USA. The Tories got over it. No one wants to become a British colony again.
    Secondly, Separation between church and state is on a dangerous precipice when tax dollars fund religious edifices in the first place. Not a cent should go to any religious organization in this country that isn’t given as personal tithing. These gross constructions mimicking Eurocentric Christianity and its colonialist structures are an abomination to the First Amendment. That said, any stained glass window in any religious edifice that has anything but religious scenes relating solely to that religion is a non-sequitur. To think that racist radicals had so much power in the Fifties to get those stained glass windows in that church, nearly a century after the the War of Secession scares the booboo out of me. That is not history, it is a feeble effort at visual propaganda supporting racism. Simple. Clear. Obvious. While some racist artist included “Read the Bible” in his stained glass window, he obviously didn’t bother to read the Constitution.
    The vast majority of Whites either owned slaves, were part of the family that owned slaves, or their income was inextricably woven into the inhuman industry of slavery and its products. The Deep South’s only real reason to leave the Union was slavery. Period. The rest is window dressing and myths. That said, “The Day They Drove Ole Dixie Down” is an apt and justifiable song against the unnecessary abuse by the North in it’s self-righteous fervor. Sheridan’s scorched earth policy in the South on his swath of destruction to Savanna was seen as inhumanly cruel even by Northerners as adding insult upon injury of a population.
    The post-war “Reconstruction” was a barrel of fish every carpetbagger from the North was sure to profit by just shooting into it. The oppression of the White population evidently was real, and it seems not many from the North objected to the South’s new (albeit somewhat justifiable) subjugation. That breeds hate, loathing, and revenge that was soon taken out upon the black population as an easy target. After winning the war and helping free Black folk, Sheridan demonstrated his hypocrisy by going back to the West and murdering Native American Indians with glee and impunity.
    Sherman is just the murdering racist who won. As a citizen of a Nation of America’s First Peoples, I think that this genocidal maniac’s sculptures should be taken down, too. (Well, at least the ones depicted after the Uncivil War.) Lincoln and Sheridan were surely racists. They just won. They surely ain’t saints. Their countenances have no place in religious art or displayed in a religious edifice either.

    1. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

      True. Teach brother

    2. Todd says:

      You realize first nation peoples owned lots of slaves. And no most people did not own slaves. No where in my family tree did any family own a slave. ( some trees i have go bact to early 1600s) Not even a housekeeper. Your premise is false as testified in census data. Please do a little research

  16. Tom says:

    This is clearly revisionist history…as long as there is no active promoting of slavery, prejudice, bias, etc, by parents, schools and theological institutions, this mania to destroy statues is just another excuse to rile people up…every country has historical figures and icons of which it would not be proud today…as has been sung: teach your children well…Tom

    1. Lee Boutell says:

      The revisionist history is written on the “historical plaques” and monuments to the Confederacy, calling it a noble cause for state’s rights. Have you ever read them?
      I have made a study of them in my visits to the south. This biased presentation of history is why these plaques and monuments need to go into a museum and be removed from the public squares and churches where their very presence is TOTALLY INSULTING and REPULSIVE to a majority of people this country. Again, do Jews and right-minded people want to see statues and monuments to Hitler and Nazis placed in our public spaces? These monuments are INSULTING and REPULSIVE to the majority, no matter how much you think the Confederacy was a noble cause. It WAS NOT.

      1. Tom says:

        Lee…i regret you did not think about what i was saying…and you apparently think people should vote on what is history, while i do not…monuments and plaques are historical markers; they are not burning crosses…this is not “1984”…think about it…Tom

        1. Lee Boutell says:

          Tom, apparently insulting millions of people with having public monuments to white supremacy is okay with you. It’s not about voting on history. It’s about respecting the sensibilities of others. It’s about giving people dignity by not constantly rubbing their noses in offensive images. Please show some respect for people alive today who have suffered due to segregation, racism and being treated like second class citizens or worse. Are you capable of having compassion for those who have suffered? Or do you believe that there is no suffering?

    2. Clyde says:

      Seen any Stalin statues lately?

      1. Clyde says:

        Hitler? Nixon? Mussolini? Idi Amin? See any of their statues? No. Why? They did and stood for bad things. Stained glass in a church and statues are commissioned to glorify. G L O R I F Y. As long as they stand high on a pedestal it is glorification of the person and what they symbolize. Period. It was a travesty to allow them to put the monuments and stained glass up in the Fifties to begin with. They never should have been erected. They were put in place as a backlash to the Civil Rights Movement. It was like hanging a rope over a tree or having an eternally burning cross on the public’s lawn. The Blacks got the message: “We will keep you under our heel in spite of these damn Yanks and outside agitators. We will kill you whenever we feel like it.” And they did. Often. They might as well have erected a giant Crow by the name of Jim to loom over all non-Whites to remind us/them of their “places” in society. Those are not history; history belongs in a book, a movie, or a museum. They are just martial symbols that glorify racism, prejudice, slavery and the dominance of the White race. Unfortunately, it seems that White Privilege makes some of you blind to it. It makes me wonder why some are so fervent for protecting the First Amendment. It makes me wonder if the rolls were reversed if they’d feel the same way. I was in Berkeley for the Free Speech Movement in the Sixties. Don’t lecture me about the First Amendment. Free speech doesn’t include yelling fire in a theater when there isn’t one, nor do forms of racist hate speech have a place in a publicly owned venue. Public. Like in ALL of us.

  17. Tom says:

    Once again i ask you to stop the censorship…thank you…Tom

    1. Clyde says:

      Sure. As soon as there IS censorship I will do my best to stop it. Many of you seem to not know what the word actually means. Or is it a metaphor to you’uns? Nobody is burning books. No one is going to jail for saying “fuck, or showing pudenda, or publishing pornography. That is censorship. Burning books. Banning press against questioning the honesty of the government is censorship. Buy a dictionary or download one on line, but ya gotta quit talkin’ out of your nether hole (I could have said “talkin’ out yer ass, but I didn’t.” That is self-censorship.)

      2 censor /ˈsɛnsɚ/ verb
      censors; censored; censoring
      Learner’s definition of CENSOR
      [+ object]
      : to examine books, movies, letters, etc., in order to remove things that are considered to be offensive, immoral, harmful to society, etc.

      The station censored her speech before broadcasting it.
      His report was heavily censored.
      The government censored [=removed] all references to the protest.

      Nothing is being removed, destroyed, or hidden. Nothing. Rather they are to be relocated to accessible locations more context driven, thus appropriate and educational. You can still find and gush over them.
      That ain’t censorship, Bubba. Throwing a book publisher like Lawrence Ferlingetti in jail for publishing a gay Jewish poet who wrote “Fuck” in a poem like Allen Ginsberg did is censorship. They sued. The Supreme Court sided with Ferlingetti and Ginsberg. That’s the First Amendment at work. That is free speech, that is the Constitution.

      If you still insist on calling relocating symbols of racism and White dominion censorship, then just sue. Bet you don’t get very far, because it ain’t censorship, bless your heart.

  18. Minister Anthony Longstreet says:

    To take down anything that reflect racism is a plus. But it is my opinion that as long as the issue of racism and the issue about the confederate flag has been talked about you would think that they should have been took down those materialistic things that resembled racism since they are people who represent God. God do not uphold the abuse of mankind.

  19. Rev. T. King says:

    There’s a difference between erasing history and ceasing to celebrate the lives of people who did not make a positive contribution to it.

  20. wayne k. says:

    The taliban also like erasing by destroying history that doesn’t fit their belief system. those who ignore history are often forced to repeat it. history is something to learn from, not hide like it never happened.

  21. MICHAEL says:

    Monuments and statues lionizing traitors and losers do not belong on public land. Huzzah to those private institutions removing memorials to those who committed treason against the United States Those who want to keep memorials and monuments to traitors and losers should buy them from the local governments and erect them in their own yards.

  22. Chaplain Bill says:

    As on Facebook you should have a place on each of the statements and replies were we can mark we agree or not with the statement. It would quickly show how many people like or dislike statements made and be more accurate in showing how our group feels.

  23. Chad Ali says:

    The statues are American history. People need to wake up and find something else to complain about. I believe that they should stay where they are and if people do not like them they should move. So what are we supposed to do remove all George Washington and Andrew Jackson statues because they and many of the founding fathers were slave owners. The past is the past move on and grow up already because we can not change the past. God bless America

  24. Steve says:

    I keep seeing on here as well as other places that Confederate soldiers and ALL of the south during the Civil War as TRAITORS….. Therefore they ALL should be removed. OK our founding fathers were called traitors (yes even by other colonist) during the time of the American revolution. So do we start taking down statues of Washington, Jefferson, etc??????Do we ban the American Flag?????

    1. Yarn Spells says:

      Sadly, I feel all of our American history, good and bad, is at risk. It may not be too far from now that all historical monuments and markers will start disappearing.

      1. John Owens says:

        That is part of the NWO agenda. At some point all the history will be wiped out, then all the people over a certain age, so that a new generation will come up that does not know anything about anything before their own generation, and what they are told.

        That erasure of things before us cannot happen all at once but in phases. This is just another phase. Prepping for the Brave New World.

  25. Amanda McCreless says:

    I disagree. If the government takes down one monument they should take down all religious or political monuments.

  26. Ed says:

    I don’t think these windows ever belonged in a cathedral, a house of worship, to begin with. They are lovely windows and should certainly be preserved for history, but not in a church.

  27. Lori Lassiter says:

    Museums preserve history. The belong in a museum, not “lording over” people.

  28. Carolyn Jean Evans says:

    These windows were put in place in 1953, not in 1863–They were part of a push back against the Civil Rights Movement. Most of the Confederate Statues and monuments date from the Civil Rights Period of the 50’s and 60’s or the Jim Crow era..not from the time of the Civil War. They were deliberate attempts to infuse a false nobility in “The Cause” and to continue the subjugation of people of color, of which I am one according to the Jim Crow Laws…although I have the fair skin of my Irish ancestors. I think that if the statues and monuments remain, they should also include a statement as to when they were erected and the reason behind them…the real reason.

  29. J. J. Mueller says:

    IF I were of African decent I would not want history rewritten. I would fear that without these visual reminders history would be repeated. And before someone makes a snide remark about me not knowing what I’m talking about let me state that my ancestors were Irish and German Jew. I can match any groups horror stories.

    1. Johnny Doeseph says:

      I agree.

  30. Herb Meister says:

    For those who think they know their history, go back and read the Emancipation Proclamation. Mr. Lincoln banned slavery for the Confederate States only. He wanted to cut down on the Confederate manpower resources. Slavery was alive and well in the Union States until after the Civil War. But, the majority of Americans, unread regarding history, claim the Lincoln was the Godsend who abolished slavery. The cold truth is, there was no slavery under the rebel flag. That’s more than you can say for the British flag or the American flag.

  31. Bill Fox says:

    If you don’t like what the National Cathedral is doing, don’t donate. It was built by and supported by private contributions. It represents the best of intentions and the worst of results.

    1. Herb Meister says:

      Very good point!

      1. JOHN MAHER says:

        THEY are ALL WHITE SUPREMIST RACIST BIGOT ORANGUtRUMP VILLAGE IDIOTS AND COWARDS like ORANGUtRUMP, THEY CAN’T EVEN READ LIKE ORANGUtRUMP, IGNORANCE is BLISS, it SOOTHES the SAVAGE IDIOTS LIKE ORANGUtRUMP

  32. Clyde says:

    Oh. So, evidently someone is equating the Taliban with we who are intolerant of racism, genocide, and slavery because we wish to dismount these symbols of human persecution. But, Racists put up those monuments and stained glass. The Taliban are evil because they are intolerant of other religions, and history has nothing to do with it. They rub out evidence of other religions. They slaughter and enslave innocent people. The Taliban are religionist, nationalist, and racist intolerants who believe they are better than others, just like the slave owners of America who quit the Union. The Skinhead/KKK/White Nationalists/White Supremacists are our Taliban. It is evidenced by defiantly erecting symbols of the ignorant, foolish and hateful justifications for cruelty and tyranny over another sovereign soul because of caste, class or race. It is not, by very definition, the folk who wish to END the shameful, overt, glorification of Class, Cast, and genocide. There is a difference between censorship and relocating symbols of hate off of their oppressive propaganda pedestals. Any logical person knows that.

  33. Clyde says:

    You say the UnCivil War was not about slavery. Yep, instead, it was about states’ rights; the right to retain slavery.Pretzel logic propaganda to promote racism and genocide. Show me one history professor living today at an accredited university who professes otherwise.

    1. John Owens says:

      No one is promoting racism and genocide, except the Muslims and some BLM people. Why would you think any professor’s opinion is rational, correct, or even matters more than any other person? They all study from the same history books, printed by the same companies, and THEIR professors force them to regurgitate the material until they are unable to think for themselves. The fact that any and all information is available to EVERYONE who can read should at least make a professor’s opinion’s value equal to anyone else’s and not greater.

      1. Clyde says:

        You obviously do not understand the art of research of source, original, and historical documents, nor the regimen required to achieve a master’ or doctorate degrees. They don’t become professors by joining some school book club, ya ignorant wanker.

  34. Clyde says:

    Yes, Jackson off the twenty. He was impeached for stealing money from the treasury to fund the Trail of Tears for all Native American Folk who during the reelection to Oklahoma, over one quarter of all Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw in the world suffered and died. That, after the Supreme Court had recognised these folk as sovereign nations, and declared the relocation unconstitutional. My Ancestors. The genocidal, sick son-of-a-bitch deserves no sanctification on currency. He was a dirty, deceitful maggot.

  35. Clyde says:

    Yes, Jackson off the twenty. He was impeached for stealing money from the treasury to fund the Trail of Tears for all Native American Folk who during the RELOCATION to Oklahoma, over one quarter of all Cherokee, Creek, Choctaw, and Chickasaw in the world suffered and died. That, after the Supreme Court had recognised these folk as sovereign nations, and declared the relocation unconstitutional. My Ancestors. The genocidal, sick son-of-a-bitch deserves no sanctification on currency. He was a dirty, deceitful maggot.
    Read more at https://www.themonastery.org/blog/2017/09/famous-cathedral-says-goodbye-to-confederate-monuments/#SRMIItz5ZtiOhrGY.99

  36. Johnny Doeseph says:

    I am personally for keeping them up, but anti protesting to keep them up. Taking them down won’t change anything, so it’s a waste of time. Protesting it is also a waste, because while others may want to waste their time, I refuse to waste mine. The fact is several great confederate generals opposed slavery, but fought confederate out of loyalty to the south. The confederate flag is also commonly used as a symbol of southern pride, not so much a racist symbol anymore.

  37. Dawn Pisturino says:

    Anybody who is so intolerant and offended by a statue, a picture, or a piece of cotton, as to have a total melt-down, is mentally ill. You cannot erase history, no matter how hard you try. The Jews keep the Holocaust alive to make sure people remember. Blacks should do the same and be proud of their accomplishments — not dwell on being a victim. These radical movements make me dislike and lose all respect for these people. And the federal government recognizes Confederate veterans as true American veterans. It’s all nonsense.

  38. Jim says:

    Ugh! Thank you to Johnny D and Dawn P for trying to bring this back around to what the article is actually about. This was not meant to prompt a debate over why the Civil War (War between the States, War of Secession, that thing we did a long time ago… whatever you’re happy calling it) was fought. It was about the removal of stained glass windows depicting confederate generals from the Washington National Cathedral. As far as the war itself, keep this in mind:

    North = Union = Good = Winners
    South = Confederacy = Bad = Losers

    For the purposes of this discussion, we don’t need more details than that.

    Now, as for the windows, or any other monuments or memorials that have to do with whatever, it is up to either the owner of whatever governing body has authority over such things. In the case of the Cathedral, it is up to the parishioners and leaders to make that decision. It’s a private entity, and they can do whatever they want.

    If we are talking about the statue in the city square or in the park, that is up to the citizens of that municipality and city council. For state capitals, that decision falls to the citizens of that state, it’s governor, and the state government. If there are protesters that are flooding in from far-away places to do nothing by make trouble and protest, they should be rounded up, charged with creating a public disturbance, inciting a riot, destruction of public property… whatever. They do not have anyone’s best interest at heart. They are just there to make trouble.

    Of course, this is just about who makes the decision on such things. The component that should also be considered is what the ramifications are when such monuments are removed. As George Santayana wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Whitewashing the landscape of monuments, statues and plaques may only be the first step. What happens when history books are edited to reflect an alternate history? Books that contradict the “new” history are banned and burned. Eventually, the old history becomes a distant memory only in the minds of the oldest of us that remember what we were taught in school… before the Revisionism. The world will be ripe to a Civil War “for the first time”… Again.

    If you don’t think history repeats itself, look at all the empires that once existed. Sure, we are aware of the Roman Empire, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire… those are the biggies. But there have actually been nearly 200 official empires throughout history. And they are all gone. Why? Because each failed to learn from the mistakes of their predecessors.

    The truly sad part is that all the hubbub over a bunch of glass, stone, brass and wood is ridiculous when you consider there are living, breathing people out there that would appreciate just an ounce of the effort these dopey protesters put out to make trouble. In my opinion, we have learned nothing, and we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past sooner rather than later.

  39. Lyn says:

    When and where have the victors of a war allowed the losing side to commemorate their their philosophy with all kinds of statuary, flags, and organizations? This was war. A war to reunite
    the United States. The North won. But the South, 152 years after being beaten, celebrate a system of States rights above and beyond legality, allow for the KKK, wear and display the confederate flag, and promote racism, etc.

    One person commented that Germany does not applaud Nazism. Not only do they not allow
    Memorabilia, it is ILLEGAL!!! And they lost the war as did the American South. The Confederate
    MUST conform to the laws and practices of this nation. They lost. Get over it and become a true
    American. We have no need for more hate in this country.

    1. John Owens says:

      Okay, so are you saying sanctuary cities are treasonous? Or that talk of California’s secession are treasonous? Because your position on the southern states should apply to all other states. I’m just asking.

    2. Jim says:

      Lyn, I completely understand your response, and it might seem like a good idea to prohibit the display of the confederate flag, allowing for the KKK, and even promoting racism. But there is another aspect to being a citizen of the United States of America, and that is the First Amendment. As deplorable as many ideas and opinions can be, citizens have a constitutionally protected right to have those ideas and opinions. Yes, even the 1A has legal limitations (e.g. you cannot slander or libel someone, you cannot incite a riot, etc.), but those limits have to justify their existence by demonstrating an injurious result.

      So the KKK and the like are legally allowed to say they hate everyone except for heterosexual Christian white people. Of course, normal thinking people are allowed to say the KKK are a bunch of bigoted crackpots.

      A long time ago it was explained to me that the First Amendment was not there to protect my right to say what I want, but rather is was there to protect the rights of others to say that which I do not want to hear. It really changes your perspective when you think of it that way. It is also the price we must pay to live in a free society.

  40. denise knight says:

    The monuments should NOT be removed. We need to be reminded of history 1. so we will know the truth of our roots 2. so we can celebrate past victories and get ideas for the present 3. so we can be reminded of wrongs and mistakes and learn not to make them again.

    Revisionist history is a dangerous platform.

  41. Andrew says:

    the winners get to write history… statues and stained glass windows like this don’t deserve to be removed…and NO they are not the same as Hitlers naziism. to promote racism and all the other claims you would have to put up posters, books, advertising, etc it would have to be voiced by the clergy, government. etc. a statue , battle flag, or stained glass window don’t speak. they don’t represent what you would like to make them represent. yes you can rewrite history and try to tell the public that certain things were bad or didn’t happen (Japan and WW2) .parts of the world vilify the stars and stripes, to them it represents all of their preceived ills. do you think they are wrong ?/right? the stars and stripes represent hedonism and slavery,the lack of respect for other cultures etc. those who want to deny history remove it from public view, assign it made up representations… are no better than those who assign concepts to other countries standards/flags,statues etc. it seems that everyone hates everyone else…stop it, see things as they are… a battle standard is just that,a battle standard, a pride in your history is just that, pride. a respect of your forebearers is just that, respect. if you deny people their inailiable(sp) rights do you deserve yours should circumstances change ? history is just that,history..it has changed..it is no longer the norm (for good or ill) we have learned and no longer do as those in the past did. there is no need for NEW representations but the old are there to remind. PS the first ( in modern times )africans were sold into slavery by other africans.

  42. Clyde says:

    I never said most whites owned slaves, just that nearly to a man their income completely depended upon the disgraceful institution.

    Next: Our ancestors owned slaves, as did probably every human’s ancestors of this planet, but my nation’s slaves were treated better than the Irish indentured servants were. A slave kept his family, and could earn enough income/possessions that he could purchase his freedom. When the was was over, All of our slaves became equal citizens of the Creek Nation. With the exception of the Anglicized Chickasaw, we “Civilized Tribes” of the South did not practice the cruelty and sadism of the Anglo style of slavery, nor did we take efforts to marginalize them or oppress them after the war was over. That is a matter of well-documented fact.

    Finally: Your “Your premise is false as testified in census data. Please do a little research,” is laughable. You have been fed BS and were told it was cotton candy. Real research means going to the source, not hearsay from Brightbart. There would be one owner, the head of the household who owned the patent deed on the slaves. So, counting all the white men, women and children who were family (how many,5? !0? 20? 40? Per slave owner?) or employed who did not OWN the slaves, but certainly were their legal masters. So, both of your paltry and poorly sourced assumptions are incorrect, specious, and smack of bias. Research takes more than one source and a thinking skill or two a well.

    Keep researching; you might find things are different from what you’ve been told. Good luck. Growth is good.

  43. John Owens says:

    I’d just like to say– I don’t know personally know anyone who would say that slavery is anything besides deplorable. WHATEVER happened to cause anyone to arrive at this country in times past, if they had not arrived, by whatever means, the people alive today would not have ever been born had not circumstances been what they were at that time. So, all things work together for good for those who love the Eternal One. War, slavery, hardship, potato famines, all of it. We are here now and BLESSED TO BE HERE. If you don’t feel that way, there is a whole planet where you can move around. Even if you want to be a slaver. There are countries that still practice that. Some still do it here. It is called human trafficking. If you ain’t doing anything about that, moving statues and flags and stuff is just hypocritical posing.

  44. Clyde says:

    No intelligent person blames the grunts, or judges them for their service. Regarding Viet Nam, folks enlisted fully believing they were doing it for God and Country: Their elders and leaders had assured them of that. The Red Scare, Commies, Pinkos…. were supposed to be the enemy.
    It was all lies. They were duped with propaganda. It was a racist war declared by the wealthy for fun and profit.
    So, I’m confident there were many heroic Southern patriots who also thought they fought for God and Country, but they were lied to: It was a racist war declared by the wealthy for (keeping all their) fun and profit.
    Never blame a grunt for the lies, propaganda, betrayal of trust of their political and religious leaders. Don’t blame a grunt for believing he’s doing the right thing because of one’s trust of authority given, wrongfully, to their political and religious leaders.
    Then again, some soldiers just hated minorities and thought that only white folk should have any rights (both wars). Blame them: They are still here, climbing out of the slime when almost no one is l;ooking to push the same old racist, ignorant, divisive, hateful, deplorable crap.

    1. John Owens says:

      Where, Clyde? I’m a biker from Alabama, and I haven’t seen any sign of any of that since they first integrated schools in the seventies.

      1. John Owens says:

        Oh, and how was Viet Nam a racist thing? I don’t get that at all.

        1. Todd says:

          Clyde TThinks everything is racist. Except if a native American does it. White people owned slaves bad. Indians owned slaves it’s ok they didn’t beat them as bad. Every war racist. You say anything against him it’s bigotry etc. Right out of Democrat playbook. Not worth my time any more his drama needs meds would help him feel.better..

  45. Bro Dave says:

    This has become a very contentious issue when it doesn’t have to be. Historic depictions; statues; et. al. are there as reminders of our past whether we like them or not. When we try to whitewash history, we are only creating resentment in part of our society. We saw the results of that resentment rear its’ ugly head this summer. President Trump has a valid point in asking where do we draw the line on our historic memorabilia. George Washington had slaves, and he is also known as “The Father of Our Country.” We live in a world of contradictions, and I believe it serves us well to keep the past in mind while working to improve our tomorrow.

  46. Robert T Butler says:

    Well, my friends you want to remove the windows because someone is offended by them. They’ve been there since the construction of the cathedral in 1907 and your just now getting offended by them? Hellen Keller is buried there , she was from tuscombia ALABAMA are you going to petition to get her exhumed and moved because she was from the SOUTH? a lot of people are making a big deal of something REDICULOUS and minor. How many people here now have been around 1907, how did it take a full CENTURY to get offended. This is totally ABSURD.

  47. eliud colbath says:

    Most of these people that want to take this history

  48. eliud colbath says:

    Most of these people that want to take our history away don’t realise that it’s their history.I would bet that if they were given a history test on the United States most of them would flunk. They don’t know that they are history itself. They are being lead and played by others.Hate is their ignorance.Can you imagine the stories they could tell their chidren.How wonderful it woud be for them to learn the truth.Without this signs how could we teach our children how to turn hate into love.after all.What does man live by? LOVE.God Bless you all.

Leave a Comment