Is it time to rename Rupp Arena?

[Ryan Lemonds Diary]

My question is will they take down any statues of founding fathers who were involved with the murder and imprisonment of Native Americans when they came here and overtook this land? Or is this limited to just the South and it's leaders?

 

[KYFOSSIL]

It was primarily about slavery. Historians tend to agree that the best official and contemporary statement of the reasons behind secession and thus the war were stated in Confederate VP Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Address" of March 21, 1851.

Stephens enumerated the difference between the North and South as a difference in beliefs about races (emphasis mine):

Our new government is founded upon exactly (this) idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

He specifically stated the driving reason for secession was slavery (again, emphasis mine):

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right."

The idea that it wasn't hugely and primarily about slavery is a re-imagining of history that began in the 1920s and 1930s under historical revisionists like Howard Beale and Charles Beard (ironically, both northerners from Chicago and Connecticut, respectively). Prior to them, there was little or no debate as to why secession happened. The rank and file soldiers of the Confederacy, and even some of its higher ranking officers likely cared little for or against slavery (whatever their personal feelings on slavery, they likely cared more about loyalty to their state), but the rank and file populace of the south aren't who seceded and rebelled- that was the politicians and elite, and that was about slavery.

Conversely, the idea that Rupp was a virulent racist is a re-writing of history as well that began mostly in and around 1966.

Wrong. Slavery was used as a catalyst but the south succeeded in the overall issue of state rights. Slavery is hideous and I do not justify the rebellion but the vast majority of soldiers never owned slaves and many were indentured servants themselves.

 

[ModernThirst_Bill]

Wrong. Slavery was used as a catalyst but the south succeeded in the overall issue of state rights. Slavery is hideous and I do not justify the rebellion but the vast majority of soldiers never owned slaves and many were indentured servants themselves.

The only "States' Right" that to cause the division was slavery. The "not slavery but states' rights" argument was a 20th century revision of history propagated by Southern Democrats based on books written in the late 1920s through the 1930s. Secession and Rebellion were about slavery. As I wrote above, the rank and file of the confederate army were likely more concerned with loyalty to their state, and were likely not directly invested in the underlying political issues. But the rank and file didn't secede. They just signed up to fight when their states were going to war.

The political issue that drove the politicians and elite to secede was Slavery. It was clearly and plainly stated as such at the time, and not until the 1920s and later that the issue was muddied with revisionism.

The US Government made punishment of debtors (which is how indentured servants were categorized) illegal in 1833, so there were very few Indentured Servants in the US by the 1850s, most of whom were in the northwest territories. Ironically, Andrew Johnson, who succeeded Lincoln upon his assassination, was an indentured Servant (legally bound apprentice) in his youth.

 

[Cowtown Cat]

I didn't know Rupp fought for the Confederacy.

If the media could've somehow snuck that in there, they would've. Of course, the majority of people would've bought in and ran with it. Never seen a bunch of people that can't think for themselves like most of our country's population.

 

[FrankUnderwood]

It was primarily about slavery. Historians tend to agree that the best official and contemporary statement of the reasons behind secession and thus the war were stated in Confederate VP Alexander Stephens' "Cornerstone Address" of March 21, 1851.

Stephens enumerated the difference between the North and South as a difference in beliefs about races (emphasis mine):

Our new government is founded upon exactly (this) idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth

He specifically stated the driving reason for secession was slavery (again, emphasis mine):

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right."

The idea that it wasn't hugely and primarily about slavery is a re-imagining of history that began in the 1920s and 1930s under historical revisionists like Howard Beale and Charles Beard (ironically, both northerners from Chicago and Connecticut, respectively). Prior to them, there was little or no debate as to why secession happened. The rank and file soldiers of the Confederacy, and even some of its higher ranking officers likely cared little for or against slavery (whatever their personal feelings on slavery, they likely cared more about loyalty to their state), but the rank and file populace of the south aren't who seceded and rebelled- that was the politicians and elite, and that was about slavery.

Conversely, the idea that Rupp was a virulent racist is a re-writing of history as well that began mostly in and around 1966.

Slavery had quite a bit to do with the war don't get me wrong, but initially and the first year/2 of the war it was not* primarily because of slavery.

 

[Mr_GG]

The OP, perhaps incidentally, makes a good point.

THIS IS NOT ABOUT CONFEDERATE STATUES. It's merely the first step in the radical left's plan to stamp out and rewrite American history.

It won't end at confederate statutes for the radical left, there will simply be a new target for their ire. Mount Vernon? Jefferson Memorial? (Already being called for by Al Sharpton today) Vietnam Memorial?

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."
~ George Orwell, from his novel 1984

Be careful, you will be labeled as a crazy "alt-right" (stupid term) conspiracy theorist for talking that way.

 

[ModernThirst_Bill]

Slavery had quite a bit to do with the war don't get me wrong, but initially and the first year/2 of the war it was not* primarily because of slavery.

The Confederate government uncategorically said it was the main reason.

 

[Mr_GG]

Slavery had quite a bit to do with the war don't get me wrong, but initially and the first year/2 of the war it was not* primarily because of slavery.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that."
- Abraham Lincoln

 

[Wall2Wall]

Rupp Arena should never be renamed. I won't bash on the OP since he's gotten probably more than his share on the first three pages of this thread. But looking ahead what would be a good name for the next arena that would host our beloved Cats should Rupp Arena ever be retired?

 

[Global Havok]

I find it hilarious that people think the only thing the civil war was about was slavery. Don't be lazy and instead do a little research on what the states were standing for.

Oh and you realize those "founding fathers" you hold so high were not only traitorous to England but owned slaves too?

And I find it hilarious that you somehow came to a conclusion on my thoughts of slavery's relationship to the civil war when I never even mentioned slavery. I know you don't have an actual argument when you try and argue things I never even brought up.

And yes, the founding fathers were traitors to Great Britian. Luckily, I'm an American and not British.

 

[Schwagg]

Democrats are taking down statues of Democrats while labeling Conservatives rascist. Talk about stupid. Liberalism is a destructive & debilitating disease.

 

[Global Havok]

Joseph Stalin would certainly agree. Now rationally explain to us, why you think you have a right to remove flags, statues , and symbols that offend you? Freedom of speech seems to be an increasingly pesky thing to the left in this country. How about confederate graves? Want to desecrate them as well because you have decided they offend you? When did the left become the Taliban?
Btw, it's not that the civil war won't be taught, it's that it will be taught how YOU WANT IT TAUGHT.
“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.” George Orwell, 1984

The statues should be removed because the people in the communities housing the statues are overwhelmingly in support of their removal. Or do you feel that your opinion is more important that great majority of people in the communities the statues are being removed from?

Everything else in your post sounds like a paranoid crazy person. Believe it or not, your freedom of speech doesn't disappear when the public decides to remove the participation trophies of your apparent heroes.

 

[Global Havok]

Democrats are taking down statues of Democrats while labeling Conservatives rascist. Talk about stupid. Liberalism is a destructive & debilitating disease.

If you think democrats are the only anti-confederate people in the country, you live a sad and sheltered life.

 

[JPScott]

Not surprised by the responses so far. This is not an area of the country known for its progressive thinking.

There's nothing progressive about being ignorant of history, which is exactly what you've revealed of yourself by simply posing such an inane question.

This is not even a left-right issue. This is a ignorance vs. knowledge issue

 

[drcats2013]

Given the current climate and direction of the country is it time to be proactive and rename the arena and distance ourselves from the segregated past?

This guy was after attention and he got what he wanted.

 

[TNCatfanforever]

i'm 100% certain that will be the stupidest question I answer today.
I voted no.

No the not only today but ever on this board

 

[Global Havok]

No the not only today but ever on this board

Its up there, but there have been some pretty stupid questions in the past too.

 

[Col. Angus]

Every single person taking this seriously has been trolled to Bolivia.

Good job.