Civil War Statues?

[Tom Earp]

Interesting point was brought up that statues were built to honor someone.

That is what the statues of Southern Officers and soldiers were built for, not to pronounce that slavery was such a great thing. As I stated before, of course they were not built right after The Civil War because the South was beaten and trampled on the Carpetbaggers sent down from the North just like the American Indians were from the time whites were landing in The New World.

I would imagine the same could be said of American soldiers who fought in Viet Nam and came home and were spat on and to this day, The Wall is vandalized. Is this that much different than what is being done to Southern Statues?

I think we are all in agreement today that slavery was bad, but that is not today but way back when it was a norm of the times. Were there slaves up north, of course there was but they worked in the homes and were called servants and did not pick cotton in the fields.

Are all wars bad, yes because people get killed but try to get the worlds peoples to get along with out killing each other whether in this (OUR) or other Countries.

I first posted this to have a common sense discussion not turn it into a The South will rise again post bit just talk about it and now, we are getting down to something using some niggle of common sense. Oh, that means using some common sense which seems to be lacking in the Country at the moment. That is what I love about chatting with my G C Friends!

Thank you!!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

Interesting point was brought up that statues were built to honor someone.

I don't think anyone has supplied much if any evidence of that. There is far more evidence to support that these statues were built as part of the Lost Cause propaganda campaign to glorify those who fought to preserve the institution of slavery. You have been asked to explain why you think these are honorable men or why they deserve participation trophies. You have yet to respond in any meaningful way.

That is what the statues of Southern Officers and soldiers were built for, not to pronounce that slavery was such a great thing. As I stated before, of course they were not built right after The Civil War because the South was beaten and trampled on the Carpetbaggers sent down from the North just like the American Indians were from the time whites were landing in The New World.

That is your second theory. Do you have anything to back it up?

I would imagine the same could be said of American soldiers who fought in Viet Nam and came home and were spat on and to this day, The Wall is vandalized. Is this that much different than what is being done to Southern Statues?

If the Vietnam Memorial was built to honor Ho Chi Minh, I think you might have a fair point.

I think we are all in agreement today that slavery was bad, but that is not today but way back when it was a norm of the times. Were there slaves up north, of course there was but they worked in the homes and were called servants and did not pick cotton in the fields.

It depends on what you mean by "up north," but generally speaking, by 1860, there were no slaves up North as slavery was illegal.

It happened like this:

I first posted this to have a common sense discussion not turn it into a The South will rise again post bit just talk about it and now, we are getting down to something using some niggle of common sense. Oh, that means using some common sense which seems to be lacking in the Country at the moment. That is what I love about chatting with my G C Friends!

Well the subject of these statues necessarily involves talk of the South rising again because those are the people who erected these statues. Now local communities are having some tough conversations and making local decisions to make changes which reflect their community values.

[Sciencewoman]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I do question who is going to pay for the removal of these statues and the changing of millions of street/school/town/state names. We're in a time when we need public funding for such things as infrastructure, education, poverty, and massive governmental debt. I can remember all too well when a group of small, rural communities changed their street numbering system to help emergency vehicles find their destinations quickly. People's heads were exploding over having to (horrors!) buy new return address labels and house numbers!

Not to mention hurricane clean-up....

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In OKC, we are changing the names of 3 schools. That is being paid for with private donations.

That would be a good thing.

Originally Posted by Sciencewoman

Not to mention hurricane clean-up....

Sorry, I did include hurricane clean-up in my first draft, and accidentally omitted it prior to posting here.

[1964Alum]

I've hesitated to jump into this but will despite my reservations. I am a 13th generation Virginian and descendant of large land and slave owners. From the cradle on, the romance and glory of the Old South was drummed into my little blond-curled head. I'll offer up something to perhaps offer some more understanding of the controversy around the statues. As Kevin already posted, yes, these statues were erected in the same time frame as the ascendancy of Jim Crow in the South along with the resurgence of the KKK in far greater numbers than it had earlier existed and then with an entirely different population. Most were erected by the Daughters of the Confederacy and yes, it was an attempted revival of the Old Virginia with her notions of supremacy.

But these had less to do with slavery than it did with White Supremacy. Was RE Lee a White Supremacist? Yes! of course he was! Virginia was established with a new world aristocracy from the get-go. Early colonists coming to Virginia came bearing their family coats of arms, and a commission was even created in colonial Virginia to ensure the legitimacy of the bearers of these coats of arms. There was from the beginning a clear caste system from the "aristocratic "whites at the very top all the way down to the black slaves, particularly where marriage was concerned. There was even a class/caste system among the slaves. This class/caste system continued all the way up to and after the Civil War. RE Lee descended from the Washington and "King" Carter families along with the Lees, at the very top of the Virginia aristocracy. This still exists to some but much lesser extent today.

The young men in these families were taught from the cradle on that they were born to rule and that blacks were inherently inferior and only by the grace of God were they brought to Virginia to save them from life in Africa and their primitive religions. Whites not of their social status were considered inferior as well. Great wealth and even more enhanced social status came with these large land holdings which depended on owning slaves to work these lands. Also to have servants in the homes. There was a certain honor code, but it was based greatly upon noblesse oblige of the upper classes toward their inferiors, the slaves occupying the lowest spot on the totem pole.

There was economic devastation in Virginia as a result of the Civil War, and white
Virginians feared that their alleged racial superiority would disappear. There was a saying in the county that my ancestors helped settle that "All we have left is our good names and the family silver, which we buried." RE Lee and some of the other Virginia generals exemplified to them Southern honor and nobility of the highest order. I'm not sure how I escaped this mind set, but neither slavery nor white supremacy in any form is a part of my heritage that I want to embrace or perpetuate. They all belong in the dust bin of history. I have many friends with deep Southern roots who have also come to terms with deeply flawed aspects of their ancestry and have long since discarded them as part of their now value system. The reality is that these statues conjure up the fantasy of the ante bellum South to some and cause great pain to others.

I would hope other Southerners would take a clear-headed look and understanding of what these statues represent. I personally would like these statues put into museums of history along with reality-based teaching opportunities.

[JonInKC]

Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson, Van Buren, Polk, Harrison, Tyler, Taylor, Johnson, Ulysses S Grant

These are all US Presidents that owned slaves. If we should take down Confederate statues "because slavery" then we need to take down any statues of those people too. Many if not all of these criticisms of Lee can be leveled against those people as well.

[1964Alum]

No, their roles in the history and development of our country was very different from that of Confederates who withdrew from and fought against our nation in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

But I do agree that we need to understand the role of slavery in the formation of our country. And that of White Supremacy. For that matter, only white male land owners were originally permitted to vote. Our founding fathers were also flawed human beings.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

I've hesitated to jump into this but will despite my reservations.

This Tar Heel (though with some old Virginia roots thrown in) appreciates very much that you've jumped in. Thank you.

Admittedly, relatively few people have posted about this topic, so it's certainly not a representative sampling, but I find it interesting that the Southerners¹ who've weighed in have, I think, been uniform in saying that the statues were primarily erected in order to reinforce White Supremacy and no longer have a place in the public squares of our communities, while those who have talked about things like erasing history, honoring the dead or where to draw lines have been from outside the states of the Confederacy. FWIW.


¹ Meaning here people from states that seceded to join the Confederacy. (Though now that I think about it, and without going back and looking through the thread, that may just be you and me. There are others who have posted with family roots in the South.)

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

No, their roles in the history and development of our country was very different from that of Confederates who withdrew from and fought against our nation in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

This. There's a big difference between honoring people specifically because they fought to preserve slavery (and preserving monuments built to reinforce and perpetuate racial division) and honoring people who were instrumental in founding or leading this country despite being slave owners.

But I do agree that we need to understand the role of slavery in the formation of our country. And that of White Supremacy. For that matter, only white male land owners were originally permitted to vote. Our founding fathers were also flawed human beings.

Yes. Monticello, for example, does a good job of exploring the history of Jefferson and his slaves.

[JonInKC]

Originally Posted by 1964Alum

No, their roles in the history and development of our country was very different from that of Confederates who withdrew from and fought against our nation in order to preserve the institution of slavery.

Washington, Jefferson, et al didn't fight against slavery because they were PRO-SLAVERY. They were perfectly fine with owning slaves.
You can't spin that away.

So if we're going to be consistent in this overly binary way of classifying people as "good" or "evil", let's keep that in mind.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by JonInKC

Washington, Jefferson, et al didn't fight against slavery because they were PRO-SLAVERY. They were perfectly fine with owning slaves.

So if we're going to be consistent in this overly binary way of classifying people as "good" or "evil", let's keep that in mind.

It's probably inaccurate to describe Washington as "pro-slavery." Accepting of slavery up to a point is probably closer.

But regardless, that's still not the point. People are not being honored for being "good" or "evil." They're being honored for what they did for their state or their country. There's nothing binary about it—the salient question is "Why did we build monuments or memorials to honor this person?"

Monuments were built to honor Washington and Jefferson for the many positive things they did relative to the establishment of the country and its government, despite the fact that they owned (and in Jefferson's case, severely mistreated) slaves. The monuments to them were not built to honor their role in the preservation of slavery. And in the case of Jefferson, I would argue that the monuments to him were built to honor his vision for the country—"All men are created equal . . . ," etc.—which we now acknowledge compels recognition of the rights of all people even if Jefferson himself did not fully appreciate that.

The monuments to specific or generic Confederate soldiers were built to honor their role in a war that was about preservation of slavery, as well as to send a message about continuing white supremacy.

Apples and oranges.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

This Tar Heel (though with some old Virginia roots thrown in) appreciates very much that you've jumped in. Thank you.

Admittedly, relatively few people have posted about this topic, so it's certainly not a representative sampling, but I find it interesting that the Southerners¹ who've weighed in have, I think, been uniform in saying that the statues were primarily erected in order to reinforce White Supremacy and no longer have a place in the public squares of our communities, while those who have talked about things like erasing history, honoring the dead or where to draw lines have been from outside the states of the Confederacy. FWIW.


¹ Meaning here people from states that seceded to join the Confederacy. (Though now that I think about it, and without going back and looking through the thread, that may just be you and me. There are others who have posted with family roots in the South.)

I think there may be more, who are either conflicted or simply not speaking up. I have Southern roots, but I have yet to be able to prove that any of my ancestors owned slaves. Sadly, there is one line which may have done so, but I'm still working on that proof. It's not as if I can change the fact, either way.

Yes. Monticello, for example, does a good job of exploring the history of Jefferson and his slaves.

As do both Mount Vernon and Colonial Wiliamsburg. I can only imagine that the trend will continue throughout other antebellum mansions or sites.

[Kevin]

My grandmother married into what I believe is the Johnston family, which produced two Confederate generals, Joseph E. Johnston and Albert Sidney Johnston. Step-grandfather's last name was Johnson (without the t) so I'm not quite sure how they were related, but in 1963 (or thereabouts), they went on a tour of the South with stepdad.

One of the stops along the way included a visit to see "Uncle Al" at the Johnston Plantation. I assume he was a descendant of General Albert Sidney Johnston. The Plantation was spared from Sherman's army as General Joseph E. Johnston fortified the Plantation with the Army of the Tennessee. Sherman simply left that Army alone and went about his destruction of the South. The Plantation was still in full operation. The Slave Quarters were occupied by whom you'd probably safely assume were the direct descendants of the former slaves of the Plantation. They were compensated only in company script which was only redeemable at the Company Store.

They met "Uncle Al" who was at the time wheelchair bound. He descended to greet them on an automatic chair lift. Across his lap was draped a Confederate Battle Flag. He lectured them regarding the black race (using the most pejorative term), that they were subhuman, needed to be governed by white men, etc. His wife challenged him on that point because she observed he required them to bow down and accept Jesus into their hearts when in his presence (he was a former travelling evangelist) and that his views were inconsistent if he believed blacks to be less than human.. my father reports that even despite his upbringing in then very segregated Enid, Oklahoma, this was all pretty terrifying stuff.

I thought that anecdote to be fairly instructive as to the views of the southerners who erected these statues as Uncle Al would have been around the right age to have had a hand in those statues erection. Someone from the midwest may simply lack the context to be able to understand why many southerners are eager to distance themselves from the views held by their forebears. Locally, Oklahoma has sort have been a wanna be Southern State. The KKK was such a force to be reckoned with locally that in the 1920s, following the Tulsa Race Riots, the Governor at the time declared marshal law in two counties and suspended habeas corpus. The KKK had such power that they were able to shut down the legislature and impeach said Governor within the year. Around that same time period many schools bearing the names of Confederate Generals were founded, all of our monuments were built between 1910 and 1917 with the notable exception of a monument in Wynnewood built in 2004. If you've been to Wynnewood, you'd understand.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by honeychile

I think there may be more, who are either conflicted or simply not speaking up.

Sure. That's why I was trying to be careful about how I phrased it in terms of people who had actually expressed an opinion. (Whether I succeeded in being careful is a different question. )

Originally Posted by Kevin

Someone from the midwest may simply lack the context to be able to understand why many southerners are eager to distance themselves from the views held by their forebears.

I think this is probably true. I also think that people who don't live here may lack the context or the first-hand experience to understand how the Lost Cause mythology/romanticism permeates things (though much less than it did when I was a child), the state (good and bad) of race relations now, or how these issues actually affect communities now.

In some ways, I think it may be a case of to "outsiders" (for want of a better term), this looks like a debate about monuments and history, while to many of us in the South—on both sides of the issue—it's more a debate about "who are we and what do we stand for?"

[naraht]

Originally Posted by Kevin

1789-1861 Image...

I've asked on Wikipedia that this slideshow to be fixed to show that Missouri added the Platte Purchase in its Northwest Corner for all slides after 1837. (That land was added to Missouri in March of 1837, so that slide could go either way)

[1964Alum]

[QUOTE=MysticCat

"I think this is probably true. I also think that people who don't live here may lack the context or the first-hand experience to understand how the Lost Cause mythology/romanticism permeates things (though much less than it did when I was a child), the state (good and bad) of race relations now, or how these issues actually affect communities now.

In some ways, I think it may be a case of to "outsiders" (for want of a better term), this looks like a debate about monuments and history, while to many of us in the South—on both sides of the issue—it's more a debate about "who are we and what do we stand for?"

Yes, absolutely. The romanticism of the Old South goes far beyond the issue of slavery. I never had the kind of encounters as Kevin did with his "Uncle Al", but it went without saying that Blacks, other people of color, and even the lower classes of whites were of inferior stock. I was taught to never, EVER, be rude or disrespectful to Blacks (or darkies as they were called in Virginia) as that was the behavior a lower class white would exhibit. I was not to be rude or disrespectful to anyone. The Blacks on my family farms (they had stopped calling them plantations) were also descendants of slaves and still lived in the former slave cabins. They would run out and wave to us as we drove by.

The KKK as revived in the 20th century was also strongly opposed to immigrants, except those from northern European countries, Catholics (which came from Mediterranean European countries and Central and South America) and was very powerful nationwide! So a new form of White Supremacy arose. And along with it a focus on pedigree among whites. My Virginia belle grandmother was the first in my family to marry outside the very small list of Virginia families that were considered acceptable. She married -GASP- a first generation Swede! And didn't bring him home to marry! The fact that he had a Ph D from Yale was completely irrelevant. After I inherited a good many of the family documents, I discovered a card engraved on heavy paper stock an announcement by my great grandparents that my grandmother had married a Dr. so and so, whose name had been anglicized. The announcement was bordered in black, which was customary for death announcements! All of her siblings except one younger brother married within the "approved" families. The next generation went further afield, but not entirely. Mine went even further, but not entirely as well.

Pedigree became everything. Our horses had pedigrees, our dogs and cats, even my great uncles' prized Black Angus, which they were proud to display pictures of. No Confederate flags displayed, but I still have Confederate money issued and signed by my great grandfather. It is out of sight in a drawer. My grandmother had the coats of arms of each of her parents displayed, which I now have hanging in our library. When I pledged Chi Omega in another much more southern Confederate state maaaany years ago, those old family lines were still the ones recommendations were written for. That has changed, of course. Thankfully.

As [B]Mystic Cat [/B]stated, it is now a question of "who we are and what do we stand for." I don't deny my heritage, which was a mixture of good and not so good. I don't pay homage to that which was not so good. It is not part of my value system, and I haven't passed it on to my son except to be aware of it.