Civil War Statues?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonInKC

Interesting. So how do you feel about traitors like George Washington?

Just fine. I've never been a subject of the Queen.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by naraht

Would people rather see a statue of a Union Soldier who owned slaves or Confederate Soldier who didn't. (Both situations did occur, mostly in the border states, but I'm not sure the highest rank held by soldiers in these situations.

Gonna have to say the Union soldier. I think it's probably even more noble for someone to have the courage to risk one's life to end an institution one was benefiting from because it's the moral thing to do. People change. The slave owners who fought for the North and kept fighting when their slaves were freed seem to be pretty noble people.

To be a slave owner who thought it was moral must have required some pretty serious internal moral jujitsu. To be able to flip on those beliefs and come around to reality and risk one's life to end that institution? That's not so bad.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

There is a lot of vandalism going on along with march's, protest with violence!

Has P CNess come amok of something that happened years ago? I am becoming very sad about all of this and do not know what to say?? Early Americans became terrorists against England to found America that we live in today.
Removing statues and names of Southern Soldiers is erasing our history that happened and can never be changed.

If anyone has visited any of the Civil War Battle fields know how somber the feeling is being there and I have been to many. It was a hard decision to make for the South to leave the Union but it was for many reasons.

So, what are your thoughts?

My thoughts . . .

I think way too many people have been drinking the Lost Cause Kool-Aid.

I think that way too many of the people worried about "erasing history" don't know the actual history to start with. (See the Lost Cause Kool-Aid above.)

I think that way too many people label as political correctness behavior that is nothing more than, in Neil Gaimon's words, "treating other people with respect."

I think way too many people defending Confederate monuments and memorials, as well as the use of Confederate symbols, are clueless—some willfully so—about how Confederate symbols were used (or not used) in the years immediately following the Civil War, as well as how they were used (or abused) in the Jim Crow era and throughout the Civil Rights Movement.

I think the use (or abuse) of Confederate symbols and imagery often has little to do with honoring those who fought for the Confederacy or even states' rights, and lots to do with other political motives or a mix of motives, be they white supremacy, perceived or real loss of privilege, distrust of the federal government, rebellion against the establishment, or whatever.

I could be quite wrong about this, but I think Robert E. Lee would have not have felt honored by the statues of him specifically and of Confederate soldiers generally, or by the apparent desire to hang on to the Lost Cause.

I think my heart sank when I was walking by the State Capitol a few weeks ago (before Charlottesville) and heard an African American mother tell her husband that she'd catch up with him in just a minute, that her young son wanted to check out what the monument down the block was. I knew what the monument was, knew that she would see the seal of the Confederate States of America and "To Our Confederate Dead." I tried to imagine what the conversation between that mother and son would be like, and it was hard to imagine it as anything other than painful for that mother.

I'll put my Southern cred—including ancestors who fought for the Confederacy—up against anyone else's. And I think the time is long past to have the conversation about moving these monuments off of public grounds where their presence equals endorsement of what they stand for and either putting them away for good or putting them in museums or cemeteries, on battlegrounds or somewhere else they can be seen in context.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

The fact that Congress recognized them in 1958 IN 1958 as veterans for the sole purpose of awarding pensions to veterans and their widows does not change history. It was done not only nearly a century after the surrender, but was only done for the limited purpose of awarding pensions by conferring status for that purpose. There is not a whisper of the word "pardon" in the statute and it certainly doesn't make them the same as veterans of the United States (for anything but a limited purpose).

There is likely not a whisper of the word "pardon" in a 1958 law because the vast majority of Confederate soldiers and officers were pardoned and granted amnesty by the end of 1868 as part of Reconstruction.

That said, I agree that nothing made them veterans of the United States military, unless they separately served in the United States military.

Originally Posted by Kevin

To be a slave owner who thought it was moral must have required some pretty serious internal moral jujitsu.

Yes, but that internal jujitsu wasn't nearly as complicated when the society in which you had always lived told you that it was moral, and when you considered that slavery in some form has always existed.

I'm not excusing anyone, believe me. But there is some danger in simply applying contemporary moral understandings to any situation in the past. I have little doubt that there are things widely considered normal or near normal now that our great-great-great grandchildren will say required pretty serious internal moral jujitsu on our parts.

[naraht]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

There is likely not a whisper of the word "pardon" in a 1958 law because the vast majority of Confederate soldiers and officers were pardoned and granted amnesty by the end of 1868 as part of Reconstruction.

That said, I agree that nothing made them veterans of the United States military, unless they separately served in the United States military.

Anyone know what the veterans status is of those (like Robert E. Lee) who did serve in the US Military prior to the war? (And I would imagine there are also those who were the other way around. The US Military probably would have been willing to take a confederate veteran in the various Indian Wars.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Yes, but that internal jujitsu wasn't nearly as complicated when the society in which you had always lived told you that it was moral, and when you considered that slavery in some form has always existed.

Lots of people still believe in a 6,000 year old Earth, so that doesn't seem to be a stretch. Back to the topic though, while we may be able to rationalize the mindset, that still doesn't help me understand why we need statues of the losing generals in a civil war to be standing in the public square.

[Kevin]

And FWIW, Lee was against monuments of any kind.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ate-monuments/

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And FWIW, Lee was against monuments of any kind.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/...ate-monuments/

Thanks. I thought I remembered that being the case, but couldn't put my hands on anything to be sure.

[Tom Earp]

WOW, DAMN, AMAZING, SHAZAM, there Is ACTUALLY ADULT CONVERSATION about this! That is why I posted this and for no other reason.

Thank you. Actually, who cares when The Statues were built? They were built to HONOR MEN WHO FOUGHT IN WAR and died! Were they Heroes from Those Who Were Not Union Troops any more than than those who fought for the South and what they believed in? Who today can say? Were you there? Of course not! Easy to second guess isn't it?

How many Statues were built ASAP? How about The VIET NAM WAR?

Just saying!

[Kevin]

I can think of no other examples of the victorious country erecting monuments to the leaders of those who were defeated.

I think Lee's take on it was prescient considering the fact that these monuments are now viewed by white supremacists as important symbols of their cause. His words on the subject:

“My conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour.”

On another occasion, when asked to appear at a dedication at Gettysburg, he wrote:

Engagements will not permit me to be present. Wiser … not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

And really, we're not talking about monuments to the men who died, although some are of men who died. We're talking about the butchers who sent young, mostly poor men to fight for the right of rich men to own other people. Also, it's quite arguable that these statues were erected not to honor the dead but to be public, outward signs as to who is in charge, i.e., you may have defeated us on the battlefield, Yankees, but we're going to build statues to our dead heroes and there's nothing you can do about it. Now power dynamics in those communities have shifted and in many places, the public no longer wishes to be reminded of a past that no one is proud of... well some are proud of. I'm sure a bit of taking these statues down is also that those who are now in control can manifest their power by tearing down the monuments to dead traitors.

I suppose if you wanted to put the Vietnam War Memorial in Vietnam, you might have a similarish situation, but I don't think the context would really be all that comparable even then.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Actually, who cares when The Statues were built? They were built to HONOR MEN WHO FOUGHT IN WAR and died!

That's the point, Tom. When they were built sheds light on what the motives for erecting them were.

The majority of them were built after Reconstruction—between, say, 1895 or so and the early 1930s—as whites were asserting supremacy and enacting and enforcing Jim Crow laws. They were, in part, about honoring the dead, but they were also about honoring the society they fought for—a society in which whites were masters and blacks were subservient. They were intended to send a message that whites were still in charge, that things would not change. Often, the speeches made when the monuments were dedicated made that very clear.

That's why people care when the statues were erected, Tom, or why they should. Because the romantic myths of the Old South notwithstanding, the actual history matters.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

WOW, DAMN, AMAZING, SHAZAM, there Is ACTUALLY ADULT CONVERSATION about this! That is why I posted this and for no other reason.

Thank you. Actually, who cares when The Statues were built? They were built to HONOR MEN WHO FOUGHT IN WAR and died! Were they Heroes from Those Who Were Not Union Troops any more than than those who fought for the South and what they believed in? Who today can say? Were you there? Of course not! Easy to second guess isn't it?

How many Statues were built ASAP? How about The VIET NAM WAR?

Just saying!

Sigh.

Why are you bringing in the Viet Nam war?

You really really really really really need to READ and RESEARCH and STUDY before you go off on these diatribes. Oh, and don't think it hasn't been noticed: nice that you don't respond to any of the female posters here, only the males.

Sigh. "just saying!"

Hi to MysticCat. I've missed you.

[naraht]

In regards to statues of People in the United States. Other than people from religious scripture (Jesus, Mary, Moroni (LDS), etc), who other than George Washington is likely to have more statues of them that Robert E. Lee?

[Sciencewoman]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

Hi to MysticCat. I've missed you.

I second this.

This NY Times op-ed link was written this week by one of my daughter's Washington and Lee friends. The author was just selected as a Rhodes Scholar, and he was one of the valedictorians of his class. And my daughter's date to one of her sorority formals.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/22/o...tionalism.html

(if you get the "ad page" just click on the blue bar with "continue on to NY Times")

It's an interesting take on the students' perspective, and how they approach the pros and cons of how Robert E. Lee and his legacy are viewed on campus.

[Tom Earp]

Originally Posted by naraht

Anyone know what the veterans status is of those (like Robert E. Lee) who did serve in the US Military prior to the war? (And I would imagine there are also those who were the other way around. The US Military probably would have been willing to take a confederate veteran in the various Indian Wars.

With Lees' surrender to Grant, Grant told lee he could keep his sword and all of his troops could keep their horses and guns if they never used them against the North again. Lee and Grant had served together before and respected each other with trust and honor.

Many of the Southern Leading Officers were men from West Point and were members of the Union Army and fought together in the Mexican wars. BTW, more battles were fought in Mo. than any other state, LOL! Battle of Westpert was called the Gettysburg of the West. Indian wars were mainly fought by black troops ergo the Nick Name Buffalo Soldiers came from because of dark skin and curly hair. Last major battle was in Pea Ridge Ark. South lost that the CSA troops they then headed to Texas. Just a few trivia facts. I do not care when the Statues were built, but they were built to honor the Soldiers who fought even if they did not win.

Now another snake raises its head in K C. If any know of K C there is a beautiful fountain on the Country Club Plaza which renowned in K C called J C Nichols Fountain. Google it to see how pretty it is. But since J C laid out by laws, it designated where blacks could not live there. Now some little twit wants to change the name. God, when will this shit ever end?

Don't we have many more problems today than fighting over crap like this?