Civil War Statues?

[apd76]

I'm a native New Yorker and still reside in NYC. My family first arrived in the US from Italy 30 years after the Civil War ended so I have no ancestors who fought in that war. The removal of the statues is an effort by the left to destroy certain aspects of southern culture. Not only northern liberals either and that's the shame of it. I grew up with a lot of these big city liberals and they hate the south and southerners for who knows what reason. I never had a problem with statues of Confederate generals, or the confederate flag etc.

As others have noted in this thread Grant gave Lee and the south benevolent surrender terms in a effort to heal the nation.

[AZTheta]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

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?

NO THEY WERE NOT. READ WHAT KEVIN WROTE TO YOU SINCE YOU IGNORE ME.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by apd76

I'm a native New Yorker and still reside in NYC. My family first arrived in the US from Italy 30 years after the Civil War ended so I have no ancestors who fought in that war. The removal of the statues is an effort by the left to destroy certain aspects of southern culture. Not only northern liberals either and that's the shame of it. I grew up with a lot of these big city liberals and they hate the south and southerners for who knows what reason. I never had a problem with statues of Confederate generals, or the confederate flag etc.

As others have noted in this thread Grant gave Lee and the south benevolent surrender terms in a effort to heal the nation.

I think you fail to grasp some really fundamental issues to understanding what is going on here.

The bit about you not believing you have an ancestor who fought in the war is a tad bizarre. Unless you come from a cloistered community, I'm sure that if your ancestors came in the 1890s as some of mine did from Ireland, you will find others who have been here much longer. A subscription to ancestry.com is recommended. It's pretty interesting stuff, but I digress.

This whole notion of big city northern liberals trying to control the South is just bizarre. This is a story about schools and LOCAL governments deciding to take down monuments honoring the Confederacy. This isn't about changing history as that would be impossible. How history is viewed may be changing and if you step back from your feelings and preconceived notions, maybe the understanding of history insofar as the "Lost Cause" needs to change.

While you may not have a problem with the flag or aspects of the confederacy, many people do. And those people on a local level are now making decisions to remove some of those things which they object to. If you love Robert E. Lee, you are free to erect a shrine in is honor. Put a big 'ol statue in your front yard and fly those stars and bars if it makes you feel good.

This isn't that though. This is about having those symbols on Main Street and in front of courthouses and government buildings. These symbols are hurtful to some and for others in the white nationalist/Nazi movements, these symbols are things they venerate. Local governments and schools have found that unacceptable and are taking corrective action.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by apd76

I'm a native New Yorker and still reside in NYC. My family first arrived in the US from Italy 30 years after the Civil War ended so I have no ancestors who fought in that war. The removal of the statues is an effort by the left to destroy certain aspects of southern culture.

As someone who has lived in the South all of his life, and whose ancestors did fight in the war, I'll just say this is BS. Kevin has it right. Thanks anyway for trying to defend our Southern culture, but please don't bother. We can defend it—the parts worth defending, anyway—just fine on our own.


AZTheta and Sciencewoman: Hey, y'all!

[Sciencewoman]

"Hey, y'all" back, although I don't routinely say y'all IRL. Because I'm a northern liberal, and that might be construed as "ironical" when I get together with my other northern liberal friends for the purpose of plotting what we can do to destroy southern culture.

Don't be a stranger.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

As someone who has lived in the South all of his life, and whose ancestors did fight in the war, I'll just say this is BS. Kevin has it right. Thanks anyway for trying to defend our Southern culture, but please don't bother. We can defend it—the parts worth defending, anyway—just fine on our own.


AZTheta and Sciencewoman: Hey, y'all!

Don't ya love it when they Yankeesplain?

[AZTheta]

Ah MysticCat. will you please stay? We miss you so much.

And let me remind you (and for those who don't know) of my birthplace: Tennessee. Yes there is a very strong California upbringing but those roots are there in that lovely state.

[Tom Earp]

Ah, my reference to Viet Nam was brought up by Kevin, so step off. That Memorial is often being vandalize and my question is why? It was a shitty war but it was our young people dieing there!
Just maybe it was a Political War just like the Civil War?
So enough said about that.

But the question was brought up why it took so long to build statues of C S A Heroes, maybe it because there was no damn money for them to be built, ever think about that Nay Sayers? I do not give a crap about those who say it is erasing History, what the hell do you think it is doing? M L King preached anti gay speeches, so now should his statues be torn down?

He had a dream just as the Southern States did but nothing is said against him.

For total narrow minded people out there, I do not dislike you, I feel sorry for you! I love how people say I have NO clue, well, maybe I do and you do not! Think about it Yall!

[elicampbell]

Tom, why did you start this thread?

As a History Major, who specialised in Southern History, the monuments were put up in the early 1900's to the 1930's. The Lost Cause Mythology was in full force during that time. Remember this was just after Plessy V. Ferguson, doctrine of "separate but equal". The Klan was reborn in 1915 on Stone Mt. Ga. These are monuments that for the most part do not say "To our Glorious Dead." If the monuments do not say that, then they are not honoring the dead.

[Kevin]

Tom, the basis of your argument seems to be that if we haul away the Robert E. Lee statue, then Washington and Jefferson are next. I think you're possibly right that there'll at least be a public debate with some extreme elements vying for attention, so I guess the best thing to do is to look at any monuments to Washington or Jefferson and question why they were built.

Washington was the "father" of our country, had the opportunity to be King but turned it down, led the Continental Army. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, led the Democratic Party, fought for the Bill of Rights to be in the Constitution, truly understood that we were a secular government, secured the Louisiana Purchase and initiated the first major expedition into the West, and was something of a Philosopher-President when that was needed. Those men's great accomplishments earn them honor despite their massive shortcomings. Jefferson's writings indicate that he had great moral misgivings about slavery, but he still owned (and bedded) slaves. I'm not sure whether that makes him a better or worse human being. It's a conversation which will someday need to be had, but it's not the same conversation.

Lee's great accomplishment was as a great military leader for the Confederacy. He led an insurrection which cost the lives of a significant portion of our population in a war which was fought to protect the institution of slavery. Lee did a lot to help to heal the nation after the War, and that is certainly laudable. Lee understood and wrote about how he disapproved of these Confederate monuments. Lee was correct in that the best path forward did not include any sort of glorification of the South.

The monuments of Washington and Jefferson were not built for the purpose of allowing the white hegemony to remind blacks who was still in charge. The Washington and Jefferson monuments were not built to promote a false narrative about the Civil War. They're different things and if anyone wants to trot out the "because they owned slaves" idea, let's hear their views, but it's going to take a lot to convince me that these things are all the same. Show me how the Washington and Jefferson monuments and statutes were built specifically as instruments of oppression, but best come with evidence.

[JonInKC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tom, the basis of your argument seems to be that if we haul away the Robert E. Lee statue, then Washington and Jefferson are next. I think you're possibly right that there'll at least be a public debate with some extreme elements vying for attention, so I guess the best thing to do is to look at any monuments to Washington or Jefferson and question why they were built.

Washington was the "father" of our country, had the opportunity to be King but turned it down, led the Continental Army. Jefferson drafted the Declaration of Independence, led the Democratic Party, fought for the Bill of Rights to be in the Constitution, truly understood that we were a secular government, secured the Louisiana Purchase and initiated the first major expedition into the West, and was something of a Philosopher-President when that was needed. Those men's great accomplishments earn them honor despite their massive shortcomings. Jefferson's writings indicate that he had great moral misgivings about slavery, but he still owned (and bedded) slaves. I'm not sure whether that makes him a better or worse human being. It's a conversation which will someday need to be had, but it's not the same conversation.

Lee's great accomplishment was as a great military leader for the Confederacy. He led an insurrection which cost the lives of a significant portion of our population in a war which was fought to protect the institution of slavery. Lee did a lot to help to heal the nation after the War, and that is certainly laudable. Lee understood and wrote about how he disapproved of these Confederate monuments. Lee was correct in that the best path forward did not include any sort of glorification of the South.

The monuments of Washington and Jefferson were not built for the purpose of allowing the white hegemony to remind blacks who was still in charge. The Washington and Jefferson monuments were not built to promote a false narrative about the Civil War. They're different things and if anyone wants to trot out the "because they owned slaves" idea, let's hear their views, but it's going to take a lot to convince me that these things are all the same. Show me how the Washington and Jefferson monuments and statutes were built specifically as instruments of oppression, but best come with evidence.

You're right, the statues didn't remind people who was in charge, Washington and Jefferson showed that by owning slaves. And the people who would tear down Washington and Jefferson's monuments won't care about any of your argument anyway. Because slavery.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by JonInKC

You're right, the statues didn't remind people who was in charge, Washington and Jefferson showed that by owning slaves. And the people who would tear down Washington and Jefferson's monuments won't care about any of your argument anyway. Because slavery.

Perhaps. The question is whether those people can win those debates in the relevant assemblies and then I'm all for local people deciding local issues. The only Washington or Jefferson monuments which really matter are in D.C., so there would likely have to be some action taken by Congress or the National Parks Service or both for anything to happen to those. And if those who want to tear it down get the votes to do so, elections have consequences. And if that's how you feel about Washington and Jefferson and anyone who owned slaves, I can certainly respect that. I just don't think the behavior justified by that belief is something I can support. Are we next to demand Italy and Greece tear down their ancient ruins because they were built with slave labor? Time to tear down the Pyramids? Where do you draw the line? Why do you draw the line?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Don't ya love it when they Yankeesplain?

Oh yeah. I don't know how we've gotten by without their help in understanding and defending our own culture.

Maybe they can give us driving tips soon, too.

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

BTW, more battles were fought in Mo. than any other state, LOL!

Uh, no. Not even close. Missouri had more than most southern states, but nowhere near as many as Virginia had. Tennessee had more, too.

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

But the question was brought up why it took so long to build statues of C S A Heroes, maybe it because there was no damn money for them to be built, ever think about that Nay Sayers?

Yes, I have thought about that, and that could have been an issue. But the historical record simply doesn't bear out that it was the primary reason for most statues not being erected until later. FYI, this chart at Wikipedia provides a pretty good visual of the timeline on these Confederate monuments. Notice the spikes during Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Movement.

I'm trying to understand why this riles you up so much, Tom. I mean, I get that people have strong feelings, but it seems like your strong feelings are getting in the way of looking at the facts objectively. It's almost as if you started this thread just so that others could join in and decry the removal of Confederate memorials as A Bad Thing™, only to get pissed when others not only disagreed but suggested a different view of history from yours.

As for Washington, Jefferson and the like, my $0.02 is that what makes them different is that they are not being honored for trying to protect the institution of slavery or white supremacy, directly or indirectly.¹ They are being honored for their central role in establishing this country and its constitutional government, despite being slave owners—and in Jefferson's case, horribly abusive of slaves. In other words, what Kevin said.

¹ Regardless of what motives one assigns to secession of the various Southern states, protecting the institution of slavery was a, if not the, primary motivation.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

Ah MysticCat. will you please stay?

Maybe. Until the wind changes.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

But the question was brought up why it took so long to build statues of C S A Heroes, maybe it because there was no damn money for them to be built, ever think about that Nay Sayers?

So instead of what can reasonably be inferred or even confirmed from the historical record, which is what myself and almost everyone else has provided for you, you're going to invent a reason for the statues out of whole cloth and then land on that as your solid conclusion? You're not going to win friends and influence people using those tactics.

I do not give a crap about those who say it is erasing History, what the hell do you think it is doing? M L King preached anti gay speeches, so now should his statues be torn down?

He had a dream just as the Southern States did but nothing is said against him.

MLK is not known for his anti-gay speeches or philandering. He is known as a great martyr and icon of the Civil Rights Movement. Show me the monument built to MLK gay-shaming and then we can talk about the appropriateness of that monument. Maybe that stands somewhere on the campus of Bob Jones University, but I have my doubts.

For total narrow minded people out there, I do not dislike you, I feel sorry for you! I love how people say I have NO clue, well, maybe I do and you do not! Think about it Yall!

Tom, when you have little actual knowledge about a subject, it's best to do your research. Google is your friend. Hit unbiased sites, stay away from left and right wing propaganda (of which there is plenty on this subject). If you don't know what sites to trust, listen to folks who you do have reason to trust who are interested in nothing other than giving you just the facts.

If everyone who reads books is telling you that the statues in question are monuments to White Power, and there is actual evidence that the members of organized White Power movements revere these statues and believe them of import to their cause, why argue? Why make up reasons to rehabilitate these statues? Removing statues doesn't change history. Unless you can invent a time machine, history isn't subject to change. How we view and interpret history, however, will always change--and generally speaking, the further we are from historical events, the clearer the view of them gets.