Should we remove statues and monuments of founding fathers?

[Deleted member 31923]

Now that statues of Columbus and the Confederacy are coming down either from protestors or lawmakers, I hear a lot of people on the right saying that statues of the founding fathers will be next. But I'm thinking, should they be taken down next? You could argue that the Confederacy statues are a slam dunk because they founded a country for slavery and represent only slavery, while the founding fathers had a more complex history and did not found this country just for slavery, though either way the country was built on slave labor. Do we need monuments to slave holders? Granted, not all founding fathers owned slaves, but the Declaration of Independence makes it clear that all men were created equal, and this did not include black men or women. So where do we draw the line? Should we take down monuments to any leader that had a racist past, even FDR because of his history with internment camps?

 

[Sunster]

Don't get sucked into an obvious strawman. No one is going to remove a Thomas Jefferson or George Washington monument

 

[WascallyWabbit]

Eh let's worry about all these more problematic statues first, still tons of em left

 

[I Am Captain America]

Lincoln should be the only one to remain up everything else should be burned down even Washington

 

[davepoobond]

It will never end. Anyone who came before will always be seen as "problematic"

 

[Ithil]

That's not gonna happen. You're only going to muddy the waters going after a completely fruitless endeavour.

 

[Titanpaul]

Lincoln should be the only one to remain up everything else should be burned down even Washington

Click to shrink...

Remove my Ben Franklin statue and you're gonna have a problem.

 

[Duane]

I mean, they DID form a country proclaiming ideals about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" while committing genocide against one people and enslaving another (and had been doing it for 150+ years by the time we officially became a country). It seems kind of inevitable that modern society will take them to task for that at some point and decide their atrocities outweigh their contributions. Or at least that there are better figures in American history to put on money and pedestals. Whether or not that's the most logical next step this minute, I don't know.

 

[Nairume]

It really depends on the individual, but sure.

 

[Dead Guy]

I could see like plaques or something put up beside them to inform people of the heinous shit they did but the founding fathers are so intrinsically linked to America's identity I can't see many people supporting taking them down

 

[ToddBonzalez]

I don't think this is realistic tbh. The biggest monuments to the founding fathers are the Washington Monument, Jefferson Memorial and Mount Rushmore. Those won't get demolished.

 

[WillyFive]

There's a very real difference between Washington and Lee, I think, even if it's political. Even if he owned slaves, Washington had a big part in building the country; Lee attacked the US and killed American soldiers.

 

[davepoobond]

I don't think this is realistic tbh. The biggest monuments to the founding fathers are the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial and those won't get demolished.

Click to shrink...

I think we would also need to take down Mount Rushmore

 

[Aaronrules380]

I mean, they DID form a country proclaiming ideals about "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" while committing genocide against one people and enslaving another (and had been doing it for 150+ years by the time we officially became a country). It seems kind of inevitable that modern society will take them to task for that at some point and decide their atrocities outweigh their contributions. Or at least that there are better figures in American history to put on money and pedestals.

Click to shrink...

I mean the question here isn't about building new monuments, but keeping old ones. Granted there is some cost for upkeep, but it's still not the same thing

 

[Mona]

also remove the landmarks of our funding fathers

 

[DrROBschiz]

I'm only partially conflicted

I think we need to stop Deifying historical figures as if they were somehow more amazing humans than what exists now

Why can't THIS generation or ANY generation be founders of a new way of life?

These men were not fucking gods and certainly not better than anyone else

 

[MrCibb]

I think we would also need to take down Mount Rushmore

Click to shrink...

Build a museum all around it. Problem solved.

 

[4CornersTHSA]

Confederate/Columbus? Without a shadow of a doubt.

I'd like to see some plaques/statues next to Washington and Jefferson to call out the gross hypocrisy and challenge us to do better.

Frederick Douglas needs more love.

 

[viskod]

There is a difference between the people who founded the country, and the people who literally betrayed and declared war on the country.

 

[BossAttack]

Nah, just get rid of Confederate statutes and Columbus.

For me, there's a difference between "man of their time" and someone who even in their day was fucking abhorrent. Columbus was such a shithead genocidal maniac that he was removed as Governor by the King and Queen of Spain. So, even by colonization standard he was considered out there.

Its also important to recognize what they are remembered for. Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner, but he was also a important political theorist that drafted the Declaration of Independence, became head of one of the first political parties in America, became President who purchased much of "the West," and was even an inventor. You can celebrate his accomplishments beyond his slave owning. Plus, at least his views started changing at the end of his life.

On the other hand, Columbus is literally only known for "discovering" the New World. He's celebrated for "discovering" a place where people already existed and mistaken it for the East. He can go. Confederates only claim to fame for being shithead racist, slave owning traitors. They too can go.

 

[Angelus Errare]

I mean they weren't MY founding fathers, they owned mine. I have 0 historic/emotional/appreciative connection to any of them 🤷🏾‍♂️

 

[My Blue Heaven]

This will not actually happen regardless of how ERA feels about it. The kind of people you would need to support this will not get on board.

The truth is that many important historical figures were varying levels of good, bad, pieces of shit, sex maniacs, racist, stupid, egotistical and any basic level biography will tell you this. The idea is to always put that figure into context and memorialize their importance to our history while highlighting that they are not saints or gods. Jefferson can be an important figure that we remember while also remembering that he was a hypocrite that wrote about the freedom of men while owning men.

 

[Eeyore]

You joke but even Lincoln wanted to send slaves to Liberia once he freed them. At the very least, we should be honest about the hypocrisy around the founding of this country instead of the utter veneration of people like Washington and Jefferson.

This will not actually happen regardless of how ERA feels about it. The kind of people you would need to support this will not get on board.

The truth is that many important historical figures were varying levels of good, bad, pieces of shit, sex maniacs, racist, stupid, egotistical and any basic level biography will tell you this. The idea is to always put that figure into context and memorialize their importance to our history while highlighting that they are not saints or gods.

Click to shrink...

I think it's cool if the US was more transparent about it. A lot of people are blind to the complexities of these figures.

 

[Deleted member 6582]

It makes we wonder if in a couple hundred years the only people we recognize in such ways will be fictional characters whose backgrounds can be rewritten, who have no secrets aside from what the author chose them to have. It would also align with a growing reverence for pop media. But I don't think we'll always feel the same way about statues or about the people they depict.

 

[kess]

Washington et al. were generally on the side of progress despite obvious flaws. Now, you find a statue of George Whitefield, feel free to tear that one down -- dude talked Georgia into introducing Slavery.

It would be a lot more effective to get the founding fathers off of currency, which deifies and memorializes them in ways they never should have been, and I'd wager most of them would have agreed.

 

[Stoof]

I don't expect the majority to turn against the founding fathers anytime soon. It would be better to destroy and rename all the Confederate statues and street/building names first.

 

[Atolm]

There's no point on demolishing that kind of stuff imo. It won't erase what our ancestors did; instead we should learn to live with those facts that are unpleasant, and give those monuments proper context.

I think this holds true for every country with a problematic past, USA, Germany, Russia, etc. Simply removing them is hiding and turning our faces away from the truth, imo.

Because evil deeds and acts have, like it or not, a role to play in defining societies.

 

[Apathy]

Weren't the founding fathers version of equality for white men who owned land? Like they wouldn't even let women vote, let alone poc. Fuck em', they don't deserve statues

 

[Elegant Weapon]

I mean they weren't MY founding fathers, they owned mine. I have 0 historic/emotional/appreciative connection to any of them 🤷🏾‍♂️

Click to shrink...

what, you don't worship white men who owned your ancestors as cattle?

how dare you

 

[Zweizer]

Hell yeah.

 

[Pantaghana]

I'm not American so I don't have any skin in this.

I don't like turning historical figures into idols in general, so taking down all statues that represent a specific individual is fine by me.
I'm fine with more abstract stuff, like the Statue of Liberty. I'm even fine with the Washington Monument as it's less about the person and more about the institution and precedent he created (or at least that's how I interpret it, feel free to correct me).

 

[shem]

Build a museum all around it. Problem solved.

Click to shrink...

They kinda already did that...

 

[The Albatross]

No, I think that there is a clear difference between commemorating and celebrating Jefferson Davis, a person who is only commemorated because of his support of the cause of slavery and his willingness to secede from the United States, versus someone like Thomas Jefferson... Where his historical legacy as both an advocate for basic human freedom while also owning slaves has been part of his legacy since the 1800s. The Jefferson estate does not hide or try to revise Jefferson's slave owning past, it's actually one of the primary focuses when you visit Monticello ... A huge, maybe primary, focus of the tour is on the horrors of slavery, the rape of slaves, and the Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemming, the half-sister of his dead wife who he likely fathered six children with. The Jefferson tour is not whitewashed, and it's an excellent historical, informative tour.

I'd contrast this from Washington's estate -- Mount Vernon -- which basically romanticizes Washington's relationship with his slaves, and passes off myth-making revisionism as fact. Washington is credited with starting a trend of freeing his slaves upon his death. He's the first noteworthy American to be credited with this. Except he didn't. In his will, he declared his slaves free upon the death of Martha Washington, and she only "freed" some of them years later because she feared a very tangible slave revolt at their estate. She kept her own slaves until her own death. Mount Vernon spends almost no time of the tour on slavery, it's a stark contrast to Monticello where slavery is a primary focus of the tour.

(more to add, sorry being interrupted)

 

[TheGrayFox]

They won't come down but I definitely understand the argument for why they should

 

[smileyforall220]

Maybe move them to a museum or something but outright destroying them? Nah. They are symbols of what the past used to be. Destroying them only reinforces the false idea that it never happened in the future, kind of a whitewashing of history if you will. Confederate monuments? I could care less. If someone wants to pay to put them in a museaum than let them have it, otherwise I won't cry if they go down.

 

[Deleted member 6582]

Weren't the founding fathers version of equality for white men who owned land? Like they wouldn't even let women vote, let alone poc. Fuck em', they don't deserve statues

Click to shrink...

Many were the progressives of their time. Monarchy was still the most popular form of government where white landowners weren't even allowed to vote and equality wasn't even a target.

 

[Temp_User]

Just a quick and dirty compromise idea:

For slave-owning founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, we could destroy their existing monument plaques instead of the whole monument and replace it (and other history text) with pretty much the same content with the addition of the following:
While <insert founding father and his importance to the country>, he, as a civic leader and as a slave owning plantation owner helped condone and propagate a national culture of discrimination and disenfranchisement to a significant number of his fellow african-americans.

For assholes that persecuted native americans like Thomas *fuckin* Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, its the same only with a slightly different text . . . . he, as a civic leader helped condone and propagate a national policy of persecution and disenfranchisement to a significant number of his fellow native americans.

 

[FakePlasticTree]

I never saw the point in statues, removing them isn't gonna change history so it's a wonder why so many people are uppity about the idea of demolishing statues of people who did terrible shit. Books, museums and such aren't going anywhere if you wanna learn about the history of terrible people and how we got where we are today.

 

[mikeys_legendary]

Leave the Founding Fathers' statues up, those statues didn't go up as a direct response to the Civil Rights Movement.

Also, they have a meaning other than "fought to defend slavery." Washington was the first President, Jefferson was an excellent statesman who doubled the size of the United States and was instrumental in designing our government.

Jefferson Davis was just a rebel that lost. Spectacularly at that.

 

[Beef Supreme]

I don't believe in erasing what was done in the past. Quite the opposite, I think they should remain to show future generations what are country once was. Trying to erase a mistake is like acting like it never happened. We should be learning from them instead.

Just a quick and dirty compromise idea:

For slave-owning founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, we could destroy their existing monument plaques instead of the whole monument and replace it (and other history text) with pretty much the same content with the addition of the following:
While <insert founding father and his importance to the country>, he, as a civic leader and as a slave owning plantation owner helped condone and propagate a national culture of discrimination and disenfranchisement to a significant number of his fellow african-americans.

For assholes that persecuted native americans like Thomas *fuckin* Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, its the same only with a slightly different text . . . . he, as a civic leader helped condone and propagate a national policy of persecution and disenfranchisement to a significant number of his fellow native americans.

Click to shrink...

I could totally get behind this.

 

[TheGrayFox]

No, I think that there is a clear difference between commemorating and celebrating Jefferson Davis, a person who is only commemorated because of his support of the cause of slavery and his willingness to secede from the United States, versus someone like Thomas Jefferson... Where his historical legacy as both an advocate for basic human freedom while also owning slaves has been part of his legacy since the 1800s. The Jefferson estate does not hide or try to revise Jefferson's slave owning past, it's actually one of the primary focuses when you visit Monticello ... A huge, maybe primary, focus of the tour is on the horrors of slavery, the rape of slaves, and the Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemming, the half-sister of his dead wife who he likely fathered six children with. The Jefferson tour is not whitewashed, and it's an excellent historical, informative tour.

I'd contrast this from Washington's estate -- Mount Vernon -- which basically romanticizes Washington's relationship with his slaves, and passes off myth-making revisionism as fact. Washington is credited with starting a trend of freeing his slaves upon his death. He's the first noteworthy American to be credited with this. Except he didn't. In his will, he declared his slaves free upon the death of Martha Washington, and she only "freed" some of them years later because she feared a very tangible slave revolt at their estate. She kept her own slaves until her own death. Mount Vernon spends almost no time of the tour on slavery, it's a stark contrast to Monticello where slavery is a primary focus of the tour.

(more to add, sorry being interrupted)

Click to shrink...

The Jefferson Estate's acknowledgement of slavery and his relationship with Sally Hemmings is a very recent phenomenon though. I absolutely agree with you that the new tour is historical and informative and lacking in whitewashing but your claim that been part of his legacy since the 1800s is wrong.

 

[makonero]

i am patiently waiting for john adams to finally get his due. not a slave owner, not in favor of slavery, and (for the time) progressive in supporting his wife owning property. as far as founding fathers go, he is one of the better ones, albeit with flaws of his own.

(yes, he passed the alien and sedition acts which are horrible and shouldn't be forgotten, so he is absolutely not blameless. it's a massive black mark on his legacy.)

 

[Richiek]

Just a quick and dirty compromise idea:

For slave-owning founding fathers like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington, we could destroy their existing monument plaques instead of the whole monument and replace it (and other history text) with pretty much the same content with the addition of the following:
While <insert founding father and his importance to the country>, he, as a civic leader and as a slave owning plantation owner helped condone and propagate a national culture of discrimination and disenfranchisement to a significant number of his fellow african-americans.

For assholes that persecuted native americans like Thomas *fuckin* Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, its the same only with a slightly different text . . . . he, as a civic leader helped condone and propagate a national policy of persecution and disenfranchisement to a significant number of his fellow native americans.

Click to shrink...

I would support taking Andrew Jackson off the $20 bill. Fucking genocidal maniac.

 

[GulAtiCa]

Eh let's worry about all these more problematic statues first, still tons of em left

Click to shrink...

This is my take. LEt's remove all the awful statues first before moving on to others.

 

[Randam]

remove all the shitheads and replace them with new ones of people that deserve one.

 

[BringBackSonics]

I voted to keep them (except confederates etc), Anything outside of that would be ridiculously unpopular.

 

[Zombegoast]

Even back then they knew Slavery was wrong. It was a slow process to abolish it starting from banning importation in 1778 to ending Slavery after the Civil War.

 

[Aaronrules380]

Even back then they knew Slavery was wrong. It was a slow process to abolish it starting from banning importation in 1778 to ending Slavery after the Civil War.

Click to shrink...

yeah, pretty sure at least a few of the founding fathers were abolitionists who called out the hypocracy of saying all men are equal and then owning slaves

 

[Deleted member 7279]

It really starts with removing confederate monuments and renaming federal things that are still named for confederates.

That is like the bare minimum that should have been happening ages ago.

It is a testament to the strength of white supremacy in America that those things were even built at the time they were and have been allowed to stay and even had people defending them.

If you want to build a museum that illustrates the history of the confederacy and educate people that this is what it looks like to be treasonous against the united states, do that instead.

 

[Deleted member 2620]

i don't think any of these people should be romanticized in the way that they are, given that this is a nation built through slave labor on stolen land

i also don't understand why anybody is hemming and hawing about public opinion in this thread given that it's broadly asking whether something should happen. just tear 'em down.