Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?

[cnelsen]

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state..

I've lived in Maryland for nearly 50 years.
Maryland was not 'in between'. It was a southern state coopted by the north because of its proximity to DC.
The fascist academics on the U of MD campus removed the state song's melody from the campus chapel's clock chimes because some democrat fascist pointed out that the lyrics, written in 1847 or so, made reference to the 'tyranny of the north'.
Marylanders during the Civil War used the red and white Crossland portion of the state flag as their confederate battle flag.
If Maryland Democrat fascists want to be taken seriously then they need to be consistent and remove all vestiges of red and white from the campus and its sports teams, too. Good luck with that. Too much money at risk for the billion dollar sports industry there that Curley Byrd generated in the 1940's. Oh, BTW, the Democrat Nazis took Byrd's name off of the football stadium a couple of years back because he favored 'separate but equal' back in the 1950's. This was in spite of the tons of money he directed towards Maryland's black universities.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone."

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

I don't care what they supposedly represent. Snowflakes are morons. Statues or no statues the left still bitches, they just move like locusts consuming topics full of hate...from one to another and if they can't find one to bitch about they invent one.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They're already calling for the Washington and Jefferson monuments to be taken down on CNN.

'They'?

The feds are running out of space on the Mall, and Trump has plans for a new memorial with a statue of him holding Obama's birth certificate in one hand, and picking up a Mexican by the throat with the other.

Here is a perfect example of the ignorant snowflakes I speak of. See how his entire post is fabricated bullshit?

It's all they have

 

[cnelsen]

if they can't find one to bitch about they invent one.

With one important caveat: the cause must in some way attack the white Christian founding stock and their legacy.

 

[cnelsen]

They're already calling for the Washington and Jefferson monuments to be taken down on CNN.

'They'?

The feds are running out of space on the Mall, and Trump has plans for a new memorial with a statue of him holding Obama's birth certificate in one hand, and picking up a Mexican by the throat with the other.

Here is a perfect example of the ignorant snowflakes I speak of. See how his entire post is fabricated bullshit?

It's all they have

You are referencing Vandalshandle, I presume.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Nobody, subsequent to the Confederacy's defeat, "co-opted all things Confederate" to stand for slavery, segregation and white supremacy. In the words of Alexander Stevens, Vice President of the Confederate States of America:

"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization."

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite 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."

"With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."​

Nobody co-opted history and thereby misrepresented the central belief about what the CSA stood for. Quite simply, and as seen from the words of the VP of the CSA, the Confederates' central belief about white supremacy and slavery formed the cornerstone upon which the CSA was built. Period.

J. Davis was talking to the plantation owners. Hardly any soldiers fought for slavery during the Civil War. They fought because their state had been "invaded". Whites did not compete with blacks in the cotton fields, and few soldiers owned slaves. For the average poor white, it was a non issue, until they lost the war. Then, it was all perceived as the blacks fault. This was REALLY brought home to them during reconstruction, when Northerners came down and had legislators elected who were illiterate blacks. That is when the personal hate really began. When President Arthur withdrew federal troops, the lynchings began.

Read the effing speech. Among other things, you'll find that Davis wasn't talking at all and that Stevens wasn't talking about plantation owners, he was talking to them.

Chill out, Xe. I know all about Stevens. He had been the governor of Ga. before the war. His heart had never been in the whole enterprise. You are looking at the whole thing simplistically. The entire war was about economics, as all wars are, really. My great grandfather fought for Tennessee from 1862 to 1865, captured twice, escaped once, paroled once, and carried a minette ball in his leg the rest of his life. He never owned a slave, and prospered after the war as the owner of a dry goods store, which building still stands today in Tennessee. In the town from whence he came, I seriously doubt if a single slave resided there.

In the old South, there was a huge difference between poor whites, and wealthy whites.There were very few of the latter, and they all owned the slaves. The poor whites did not consider it an issue at all. it was just the way things were, and had nothing much to do with them. The Southern hatred for blacks was primarily a post war phenomenon. Before the war, it was mostly just whites fearing another Nat Turner, or Haitian, uprising.

I know all about Stevens.

It would appear you do not for were you to, you'd have address the point below.

In the old South, there was a huge difference between poor whites, and wealthy whites.

Stevens recognized that fact.

"With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

What resounding outcry of disagreement with Stevens remarks came from poor white Confederates? None of which I'm aware.

Xel, we have always been on the same side of the fence, and I am sorry that you find my position on the South, monuments, racism, and bigotry so hard to digest. I am just calling it as it is, a guy who's family, since 1657 has always lived in the South.

Just in case I have not made myself clear, I hate racism in all, forms. I do not apologize for the Civil War. I was not there at the time. I am not ashamed of my ancestors for fighting for their states. In a world that had no internet, tv, or radio, all they knew was what they read in the papers, which was, "The Yankees are coming, and they are going to take over your state". Before the Civil War, it was not uncommon for people to feel a deeper loyalty to their state, than to the union. For one thing, their states existed BEFORE their union.

...I am sorry that you find my position on the South, monuments, racism, and bigotry so hard to digest.I am just calling it as it is.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone." White supremacy and slavery are the things upon which the existence of all else in the Confederacy depended. The whole of the Confederacy's economy depended on it. The social culture depended on it. The legal and civil structure and institutions embraced and codified white supremacy by enshrining in the CSA Constitution the principle that blacks were property.

• Constitution of the Confederate States of America
  • Article I Section 9(4)
  • No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
  • Article IV Section 3(3)
  • In all [territory admitted to Confederacy after its founding], the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States.
  • The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
•  Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861
  "We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel....We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
• Recovering the Legal History of the Confederacy
  
• Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
  "While some of these monuments were erected shortly after the war by grieving Southern families to honor the valor of fallen leaders and loved ones, many more were put in place for a more troubling purpose. Decades after the war, advocates of the Lost Cause erected these monuments all over the country to vindicate the Confederacy at the bar of history, erase the central issues of slavery and emancipation from our understanding of the war, and reaffirm a system of state-sanctioned white supremacy. Put simply, the erection of these Confederate memorials and enforcement of Jim Crow went hand-in-hand. They were intended as a celebration of white supremacy when they were constructed."
  
  Chart showing the quantity of Confederate Memorials erected by year.
  
  
  
  • Origins of the Lost Cause: Pollard to the Present
    
  • The Lost Cause

Simply put, the Confederacy was, more than any other thing, about white supremacy and establishing a nation where whites -- all of them -- were supreme and non-whites were property.

That is true. However, just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight, and they had absolutely no say in the matter. Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them. The Southern Soldier thought only in terms of protecting his state from "invasion". In fact, the South had to resort to the draft before the union did. The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state..

I've lived in Maryland for nearly 50 years.
Maryland was not 'in between'. It was a southern state coopted by the north because of its proximity to DC.
The fascist academics on the U of MD campus removed the state song's melody from the campus chapel's clock chimes because some democrat fascist pointed out that the lyrics, written in 1847 or so, made reference to the 'tyranny of the north'.
Marylanders during the Civil War used the red and white Crossland portion of the state flag as their confederate battle flag.
If Maryland Democrat fascists want to be taken seriously then they need to be consistent and remove all vestiges of red and white from the campus and its sports teams, too. Good luck with that. Too much money at risk for the billion dollar sports industry there that Curley Byrd generated in the 1940's. Oh, BTW, the Democrat Nazis took Byrd's name off of the football stadium a couple of years back because he favored 'separate but equal' back in the 1950's. This was in spite of the tons of money he directed towards Maryland's black universities.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone."

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

You know, given loaded nature of your question, I'm not going to provide a substantive response to your question. You can retract it and ask a question that doesn't, in answering it, force me to accede to the assertions in your question if you want.

 

[Slash]

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

We can quote Jefferson Davis

"We recognize the fact of the inferiority stamped upon that race of men by the Creator, and from the cradle to the grave, our Government, as a civil institution, marks that inferiority."

"[P]roperty in slaves, recognized as such by the local law of any of the States of the Union, shall stand on the same footing in all constitutional and federal relations as any other species of property so recognized; and, like other property, shall not be subject to be divested or impaired by the local law of any other State, either in escape thereto or of transit or sojourn of the owner therein; and in no case whatever shall such property be subject to be divested or impaired by any legislative act of the United States, or of any of the Territories thereof."

"You too know, that among us, white men have an equality resulting from a presence of a lower caste, which cannot exist where white men fill the position here occupied by the servile race."

And his threatening secession if an anti-slavery Republican became president BEFORE the election "I say to you here as I have said to the Democracy of New York, if it should ever come to pass that the Constitution shall be perverted to the destruction of our rights so that we shall have the mere right as a feeble minority unprotected by the barrier of the Constitution to give an ineffectual negative vote in the Halls of Congress, we shall then bear to the federal government the relation our colonial fathers did to the British crown,"



We can quote secretary of State of the Confederacy too. Robert MT Hunter

"There is not a respectable system of civilization known to history who's foundations were not laid in the institution of domestic slavery... what did we go to war for if not to protect our property"


And yes. Hitler in his attempt to win WWII let Jews serve in his military. Doesn't mean he was not an anti-semite.



We can quote the articles of secession that the politicians wrote and the minutes of their state Congresses when secession was the topic. Every one of them mentions slavery as the reason for secession. Every one of them mentions a Republican abolitionist winning the presidency as a reason. We can quote the governors letters to their legislators on secession like

Governor Moore of Alabama to his lawmakers "It will be excluded from the Territories, and other free States will in hot haste be admitted into the Union, until they have a majority to alter the Constitution. Then slavery will be abolished by law in the States, and the "irrepressible conflict" will end; for we are notified that it shall never cease, until "the foot of the slave shall cease to tread the soil of the United States." The state of society that must exist in the Southern States, with four millions of free negroes and their increase, turned loose upon them, I will not discuss—it is too horrible to contemplate."


I guess we can try to say it wasn't the cornerstone. It wasn't that their positions were "thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery"... But we are going to need to burn a LOT of books to make that the case.

 

[Fang]

I stand by my initial statement that this is a contrived crisis. It is elite Liberal White people saying to Black people "Now you need to look at these statues and be offended. Here is why you need to be offended and demand their removal". Their motive is to gain political leverage by "defeating White Racism" to create the illusion they accomplished something before the 2018 elections.

Charles Barkley put it best. "I've never spent a day of my life worrying about those stupid statues". They are just bronze, stone and pigeon poop. We should ignore them just like we've ignored them for the last 80 years.

This is the best post to describe what is happening right now. I've been saying if Trump had lost there would be no issue with the statues.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Mark my words...

Next they will demand we blow the faces off Mt. Rushmore like the fucking Taliban did to Buddhist carvings.

Then they will demand we destroy monuments to Jefferson and Washington.

Pete, you really do live in a special world of your own, don't you?

Yeah, its called the REAL WORLD.

You should try it sometime, loser.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Read the effing speech. Among other things, you'll find that Davis wasn't talking at all and that Stevens wasn't talking about plantation owners, he was talking to them.

Chill out, Xe. I know all about Stevens. He had been the governor of Ga. before the war. His heart had never been in the whole enterprise. You are looking at the whole thing simplistically. The entire war was about economics, as all wars are, really. My great grandfather fought for Tennessee from 1862 to 1865, captured twice, escaped once, paroled once, and carried a minette ball in his leg the rest of his life. He never owned a slave, and prospered after the war as the owner of a dry goods store, which building still stands today in Tennessee. In the town from whence he came, I seriously doubt if a single slave resided there.

In the old South, there was a huge difference between poor whites, and wealthy whites.There were very few of the latter, and they all owned the slaves. The poor whites did not consider it an issue at all. it was just the way things were, and had nothing much to do with them. The Southern hatred for blacks was primarily a post war phenomenon. Before the war, it was mostly just whites fearing another Nat Turner, or Haitian, uprising.

I know all about Stevens.

It would appear you do not for were you to, you'd have address the point below.

In the old South, there was a huge difference between poor whites, and wealthy whites.

Stevens recognized that fact.

"With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

What resounding outcry of disagreement with Stevens remarks came from poor white Confederates? None of which I'm aware.

Xel, we have always been on the same side of the fence, and I am sorry that you find my position on the South, monuments, racism, and bigotry so hard to digest. I am just calling it as it is, a guy who's family, since 1657 has always lived in the South.

Just in case I have not made myself clear, I hate racism in all, forms. I do not apologize for the Civil War. I was not there at the time. I am not ashamed of my ancestors for fighting for their states. In a world that had no internet, tv, or radio, all they knew was what they read in the papers, which was, "The Yankees are coming, and they are going to take over your state". Before the Civil War, it was not uncommon for people to feel a deeper loyalty to their state, than to the union. For one thing, their states existed BEFORE their union.

...I am sorry that you find my position on the South, monuments, racism, and bigotry so hard to digest.I am just calling it as it is.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone." White supremacy and slavery are the things upon which the existence of all else in the Confederacy depended. The whole of the Confederacy's economy depended on it. The social culture depended on it. The legal and civil structure and institutions embraced and codified white supremacy by enshrining in the CSA Constitution the principle that blacks were property.

• Constitution of the Confederate States of America
  • Article I Section 9(4)
  • No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
  • Article IV Section 3(3)
  • In all [territory admitted to Confederacy after its founding], the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States.
  • The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
•  Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861
  "We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel....We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
• Recovering the Legal History of the Confederacy
  
• Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
  "While some of these monuments were erected shortly after the war by grieving Southern families to honor the valor of fallen leaders and loved ones, many more were put in place for a more troubling purpose. Decades after the war, advocates of the Lost Cause erected these monuments all over the country to vindicate the Confederacy at the bar of history, erase the central issues of slavery and emancipation from our understanding of the war, and reaffirm a system of state-sanctioned white supremacy. Put simply, the erection of these Confederate memorials and enforcement of Jim Crow went hand-in-hand. They were intended as a celebration of white supremacy when they were constructed."
  
  Chart showing the quantity of Confederate Memorials erected by year.
  
  
  
  • Origins of the Lost Cause: Pollard to the Present
    
  • The Lost Cause

Simply put, the Confederacy was, more than any other thing, about white supremacy and establishing a nation where whites -- all of them -- were supreme and non-whites were property.

That is true. However, just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight, and they had absolutely no say in the matter. Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them. The Southern Soldier thought only in terms of protecting his state from "invasion". In fact, the South had to resort to the draft before the union did. The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight....The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

Well, when you or someone else shows us that Confederate soldiers/veterans, in the main, before or after returning from the war:

• Collectively and in general protested on behalf of former slaves,
• Openly opposed the CSA Constitution provisions noted earlier in this conversation,
• Exercised their 1st Amendment right to to prevent the implementation of Black Codes,
• Were not a material quantity of membership of the KKK having not followed Nathan Bedford Forrest into that organization,
• Were not, by and large, Democrats,
• Did not welcome the Plessy decision,
• Did not concur with the Southern populist movement's refusal to challenge white supremacy,
• Were Southern Mennonites or Quakers,
• Did not support the restoration of "home rule" in the South, "home rule" being but a euphemism for white supremacy, (See also: "Reconstruction in the South,"
• Etc., etc.....

...When someone credibly demonstrates the preponderance of those things' verity among the majority of Confederate veterans, your assertions will have merit. Until then, I shall construe that you may have some specific anecdotal evidence of one or a few individuals who for whom those things may have been so, but not widely, preponderantly so.

Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them.

And what did Ali do in light of his lack of animus toward Vietnamese? How many (or what share of) Confederate citizens in substance -- I realize the legal framework of the mid-19th century differed from that of the late middle 20th century -- "aped" his approach of conscientious objection or moved north? (See the "Mennonite" and "Quaker" papers linked above.) The answer is not nearly enough to legitimize, beyond merely being anecdotal observations about the behavior of the proportionately few, the claims you're making.

 

[Yarddog]

I grew up in the deep South, and the Confederacy was a proud part of our legacy, UNTIL all things confederate were co-opted to stand for segregation. For example, as soon as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown Vs. Board of Education, my home state of Georgia put the stars and bars on to the Georgia flag in 1956:

It didn't stop there, of course, it is no longer the symbol of the confederacy. It is the tool of redneck racists.

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state.

I'm curious...what do you make of the reason these monuments were erected - of how they coincided with segrationist movements and such? Was it something you weren't aware of (I wasn't)...?

Like I said - I found the Civil War history fascinating. My father used to take me to the Battle Field sites, and taught me a good bit about it. I'm near both Maryland and Pennsylvania and am frequently coming accross placards commemerating some Civil War event or another. But the monuments in question weren't battle field monuments. That kind of surprised me.

Do you think it might be time to retire some of these symbols to institutions of history, like Museums? I find it hard to imagine that black citizens living in those states could ever feel totally included with those symbols.

Serious thoughts - not trolling or anything.

In Georgia some wanted the Confederate flag removed from a Civil War Museum. Curator closed the museum.

I see no issue with it being in the museums - that is the appropriate place imo.

I have no connection whatsoever to those Confederate statues, having lived in California my whole life, but I'm opposed to bringing them all down.

First of all, we are told Its just about these statues and that the people they represent were bad people."Why do you want to support generals who fought for slavery?" Well, IF IT REALLY WAS, just about these statues it would be one thing, but its really more about that some of us can see this is just a continuation of an ongoing effort to discredit the United States. Just look at people burning the US flag, saying the national anthem is racist, Trying to discredit the founders of the country. And of course next, would be any documents that were written by the founders of the country. Confederate Generals are only a soft target. It's the easy place to start, but to me I just kind of see it as all the same mindset. The mindset of looking for a grievance, not really wanting to get along or compromise, not wanting to be thankful for living in a place full of opportunity but rather wanting to tear someone else down in an effort to get some sort of social justice, which I really see as a never ending thing.

 

[cnelsen]

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state..

I've lived in Maryland for nearly 50 years.
Maryland was not 'in between'. It was a southern state coopted by the north because of its proximity to DC.
The fascist academics on the U of MD campus removed the state song's melody from the campus chapel's clock chimes because some democrat fascist pointed out that the lyrics, written in 1847 or so, made reference to the 'tyranny of the north'.
Marylanders during the Civil War used the red and white Crossland portion of the state flag as their confederate battle flag.
If Maryland Democrat fascists want to be taken seriously then they need to be consistent and remove all vestiges of red and white from the campus and its sports teams, too. Good luck with that. Too much money at risk for the billion dollar sports industry there that Curley Byrd generated in the 1940's. Oh, BTW, the Democrat Nazis took Byrd's name off of the football stadium a couple of years back because he favored 'separate but equal' back in the 1950's. This was in spite of the tons of money he directed towards Maryland's black universities.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone."

You anti-whites always quote the Vice President of the Confederacy. Why not the President? or the Secretary of State, who, to "preserve the Confederacy as military defeat made its situation increasingly desperate, he advocated freeing and arming the slaves, but his proposals were not accepted until it was too late."

You know, given loaded nature of your question, I'm not going to provide a substantive response to your question. You can retract it and ask a question that doesn't, in answering it, force me to accede to the assertions in your question if you want.

The Confederate Secretary of State, a wealthy slave-holder from Louisiana, also held previously the position of Secretary of War for the Confederacy, the appointment to which made him the first Jew to hold a cabinet position in our history. His name was Judah Benjamin. I don'tr know whether there are any statues of him around.

 

[Vandalshandle]

Chill out, Xe. I know all about Stevens. He had been the governor of Ga. before the war. His heart had never been in the whole enterprise. You are looking at the whole thing simplistically. The entire war was about economics, as all wars are, really. My great grandfather fought for Tennessee from 1862 to 1865, captured twice, escaped once, paroled once, and carried a minette ball in his leg the rest of his life. He never owned a slave, and prospered after the war as the owner of a dry goods store, which building still stands today in Tennessee. In the town from whence he came, I seriously doubt if a single slave resided there.

In the old South, there was a huge difference between poor whites, and wealthy whites.There were very few of the latter, and they all owned the slaves. The poor whites did not consider it an issue at all. it was just the way things were, and had nothing much to do with them. The Southern hatred for blacks was primarily a post war phenomenon. Before the war, it was mostly just whites fearing another Nat Turner, or Haitian, uprising.

I know all about Stevens.

It would appear you do not for were you to, you'd have address the point below.

In the old South, there was a huge difference between poor whites, and wealthy whites.

Stevens recognized that fact.

"With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

What resounding outcry of disagreement with Stevens remarks came from poor white Confederates? None of which I'm aware.

Xel, we have always been on the same side of the fence, and I am sorry that you find my position on the South, monuments, racism, and bigotry so hard to digest. I am just calling it as it is, a guy who's family, since 1657 has always lived in the South.

Just in case I have not made myself clear, I hate racism in all, forms. I do not apologize for the Civil War. I was not there at the time. I am not ashamed of my ancestors for fighting for their states. In a world that had no internet, tv, or radio, all they knew was what they read in the papers, which was, "The Yankees are coming, and they are going to take over your state". Before the Civil War, it was not uncommon for people to feel a deeper loyalty to their state, than to the union. For one thing, their states existed BEFORE their union.

...I am sorry that you find my position on the South, monuments, racism, and bigotry so hard to digest.I am just calling it as it is.

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone." White supremacy and slavery are the things upon which the existence of all else in the Confederacy depended. The whole of the Confederacy's economy depended on it. The social culture depended on it. The legal and civil structure and institutions embraced and codified white supremacy by enshrining in the CSA Constitution the principle that blacks were property.

• Constitution of the Confederate States of America
  • Article I Section 9(4)
  • No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
  • Article IV Section 3(3)
  • In all [territory admitted to Confederacy after its founding], the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States.
  • The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
•  Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861
  "We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel....We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
• Recovering the Legal History of the Confederacy
  
• Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
  "While some of these monuments were erected shortly after the war by grieving Southern families to honor the valor of fallen leaders and loved ones, many more were put in place for a more troubling purpose. Decades after the war, advocates of the Lost Cause erected these monuments all over the country to vindicate the Confederacy at the bar of history, erase the central issues of slavery and emancipation from our understanding of the war, and reaffirm a system of state-sanctioned white supremacy. Put simply, the erection of these Confederate memorials and enforcement of Jim Crow went hand-in-hand. They were intended as a celebration of white supremacy when they were constructed."
  
  Chart showing the quantity of Confederate Memorials erected by year.
  
  
  
  • Origins of the Lost Cause: Pollard to the Present
    
  • The Lost Cause

Simply put, the Confederacy was, more than any other thing, about white supremacy and establishing a nation where whites -- all of them -- were supreme and non-whites were property.

That is true. However, just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight, and they had absolutely no say in the matter. Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them. The Southern Soldier thought only in terms of protecting his state from "invasion". In fact, the South had to resort to the draft before the union did. The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight....The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

Well, when you or someone else shows us that Confederate soldiers/veterans, in the main, before or after returning from the war:

• Collectively and in general protested on behalf of former slaves,
• Openly opposed the CSA Constitution provisions noted earlier in this conversation,
• Exercised their 1st Amendment right to to prevent the implementation of Black Codes,
• Were not a material quantity of membership of the KKK having not followed Nathan Bedford Forrest into that organization,
• Were not, by and large, Democrats,
• Did not welcome the Plessy decision,
• Did not concur with the Southern populist movement's refusal to challenge white supremacy,
• Were Southern Mennonites or Quakers,
• Did not support the restoration of "home rule" in the South, "home rule" being but a euphemism for white supremacy, (See also: "Reconstruction in the South,"
• Etc., etc.....

...When someone credibly demonstrates the preponderance of those things' verity among the majority of Confederate veterans, your assertions will have merit. Until then, I shall construe that you may have some specific anecdotal evidence of one or a few individuals who for whom those things may have been so, but not widely, preponderantly so.

Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them.

And what did Ali do in light of his lack of animus toward Vietnamese? How many (or what share of) Confederate citizens in substance -- I realize the legal framework of the mid-19th century differed from that of the late middle 20th century -- "aped" his approach of conscientious objection or moved north? (See the "Mennonite" and "Quaker" papers linked above.) The answer is not nearly enough to legitimize, beyond merely being anecdotal observations about the behavior of the proportionately few, the claims you're making.

Well, Xel, if you want to insist that the Southern White man hated blacks from the time they first appeared in the South, go ahead. Yes, the Southern whites were always racists, but the hate came after the war. Until then, they were just white supremacists. Reconstruction turned them into terrorists and hateful bigots.My anecdotal observations include the fact that the South was where I, and all my ancestors, were born and raised from the 1600's forward. The conversation was why were most of the confederate statues erected around 1890-1930. The answer is that whites were seriously pissed off about Reconstruction, because blacks now competed with whites for factory jobs. and finally, white feared negroes would "pollute" white blood by having white women. None of these three things had been an issue before the Civil War.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

The conversation was why were most of the confederate statues erected around 1890-1930. The answer is that whites were seriously pissed off about Reconstruction, because blacks now competed with whites for factory jobs. and finally, white feared negroes would "pollute" white blood by having white women. None of these three things had been an issue before the Civil War.

I think a better answer is because it took that long for the south to rebuild to the point where they could afford to erect statues.

 

[Syriusly]

So, once all the Confederate monuments come down, everyone will be satisfied? Once the lovely Harriet Tubman replaces Andrew Jackson on the $20, we'll have racial harmony?

Why would anyone ever be completely satisfied?

Why not replace Jackson with Tubman?

The OP is correct. That being said- if local communities want to keep monuments- that is their decision- likewise if they decide to take them down.

No on any vandalism or mob action though.

 

[Syriusly]

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state..

I've lived in Maryland for nearly 50 years.
Maryland was not 'in between'. It was a southern state coopted by the north because of its proximity to DC.
The fascist academics on the U of MD campus removed the state song's melody from the campus chapel's clock chimes because some democrat fascist pointed out that the lyrics, written in 1847 or so, made reference to the 'tyranny of the north'.
Marylanders during the Civil War used the red and white Crossland portion of the state flag as their confederate battle flag.
If Maryland Democrat fascists want to be taken seriously then they need to be consistent and remove all vestiges of red and white from the campus and its sports teams, too. Good luck with that. Too much money at risk for the billion dollar sports industry there that Curley Byrd generated in the 1940's. Oh, BTW, the Democrat Nazis took Byrd's name off of the football stadium a couple of years back because he favored 'separate but equal' back in the 1950's. This was in spite of the tons of money he directed towards Maryland's black universities.

Poor Rosha

Any time anyone suggest doing anything she doesn't approve of- they are 'fascists' or Nazi's.

 

[Syriusly]

I grew up in the deep South, and the Confederacy was a proud part of our legacy, UNTIL all things confederate were co-opted to stand for segregation. For example, as soon as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown Vs. Board of Education, my home state of Georgia put the stars and bars on to the Georgia flag in 1956:

It didn't stop there, of course, it is no longer the symbol of the confederacy. It is the tool of redneck racists.

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state.

I'm curious...what do you make of the reason these monuments were erected - of how they coincided with segrationist movements and such? Was it something you weren't aware of (I wasn't)...?

Like I said - I found the Civil War history fascinating. My father used to take me to the Battle Field sites, and taught me a good bit about it. I'm near both Maryland and Pennsylvania and am frequently coming accross placards commemerating some Civil War event or another. But the monuments in question weren't battle field monuments. That kind of surprised me.

Do you think it might be time to retire some of these symbols to institutions of history, like Museums? I find it hard to imagine that black citizens living in those states could ever feel totally included with those symbols.

Serious thoughts - not trolling or anything.

In Georgia some wanted the Confederate flag removed from a Civil War Museum. Curator closed the museum.

I see no issue with it being in the museums - that is the appropriate place imo.

I have no connection whatsoever to those Confederate statues, having lived in California my whole life, but I'm opposed to bringing them all down.

First of all, we are told Its just about these statues and that the people they represent were bad people."Why do you want to support generals who fought for slavery?" Well, IF IT REALLY WAS, just about these statues it would be one thing, but its really more about that some of us can see this is just a continuation of an ongoing effort to discredit the United States. Just look at people burning the US flag, saying the national anthem is racist, Trying to discredit the founders of the country. And of course next, would be any documents that were written by the founders of the country. Confederate Generals are only a soft target. It's the easy place to start, but to me I just kind of see it as all the same mindset. The mindset of looking for a grievance, not really wanting to get along or compromise, not wanting to be thankful for living in a place full of opportunity but rather wanting to tear someone else down in an effort to get some sort of social justice, which I really see as a never ending thing.

Hmmmm the statues represent people who fought against the United States.

They were acting to 'discredit' the United States when they declared that the United States was acting against them.

 

[Yarddog]

I grew up in the deep South, and the Confederacy was a proud part of our legacy, UNTIL all things confederate were co-opted to stand for segregation. For example, as soon as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown Vs. Board of Education, my home state of Georgia put the stars and bars on to the Georgia flag in 1956:

It didn't stop there, of course, it is no longer the symbol of the confederacy. It is the tool of redneck racists.

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state.

I'm curious...what do you make of the reason these monuments were erected - of how they coincided with segrationist movements and such? Was it something you weren't aware of (I wasn't)...?

Like I said - I found the Civil War history fascinating. My father used to take me to the Battle Field sites, and taught me a good bit about it. I'm near both Maryland and Pennsylvania and am frequently coming accross placards commemerating some Civil War event or another. But the monuments in question weren't battle field monuments. That kind of surprised me.

Do you think it might be time to retire some of these symbols to institutions of history, like Museums? I find it hard to imagine that black citizens living in those states could ever feel totally included with those symbols.

Serious thoughts - not trolling or anything.

In Georgia some wanted the Confederate flag removed from a Civil War Museum. Curator closed the museum.

I see no issue with it being in the museums - that is the appropriate place imo.

I have no connection whatsoever to those Confederate statues, having lived in California my whole life, but I'm opposed to bringing them all down.

First of all, we are told Its just about these statues and that the people they represent were bad people."Why do you want to support generals who fought for slavery?" Well, IF IT REALLY WAS, just about these statues it would be one thing, but its really more about that some of us can see this is just a continuation of an ongoing effort to discredit the United States. Just look at people burning the US flag, saying the national anthem is racist, Trying to discredit the founders of the country. And of course next, would be any documents that were written by the founders of the country. Confederate Generals are only a soft target. It's the easy place to start, but to me I just kind of see it as all the same mindset. The mindset of looking for a grievance, not really wanting to get along or compromise, not wanting to be thankful for living in a place full of opportunity but rather wanting to tear someone else down in an effort to get some sort of social justice, which I really see as a never ending thing.

Hmmmm the statues represent people who fought against the United States.

They were acting to 'discredit' the United States when they declared that the United States was acting against them.

Yeah, well the war is over now also, so i would say they dead on both sides can be respected in a show of peace and compromise. Let others put up their own monuments about what they think is important. and then we can still have a discussion about all these things. Why is it that the left needs to Tear things down? wether it is litteraly or figuratively, in order to create the perfect world?
Why cant they just Bring to the table, instead of knock the other guys' tea off the table?
Why can't they live up to that Co-exist bumper sticker they all have? You know, Like John Lennin said, IMAGINE.

Just IMAGINE how peaceful we could be right now if the Left didnt have to continually create a Crisis. Now we are all in crisis.

 

[BlueGin]

I grew up in the deep South, and the Confederacy was a proud part of our legacy, UNTIL all things confederate were co-opted to stand for segregation. For example, as soon as the Supreme Court ruled in Brown Vs. Board of Education, my home state of Georgia put the stars and bars on to the Georgia flag in 1956:

It didn't stop there, of course, it is no longer the symbol of the confederacy. It is the tool of redneck racists.

I grew up in Maryland - kind of an "in between" state.

I'm curious...what do you make of the reason these monuments were erected - of how they coincided with segrationist movements and such? Was it something you weren't aware of (I wasn't)...?

Like I said - I found the Civil War history fascinating. My father used to take me to the Battle Field sites, and taught me a good bit about it. I'm near both Maryland and Pennsylvania and am frequently coming accross placards commemerating some Civil War event or another. But the monuments in question weren't battle field monuments. That kind of surprised me.

Do you think it might be time to retire some of these symbols to institutions of history, like Museums? I find it hard to imagine that black citizens living in those states could ever feel totally included with those symbols.

Serious thoughts - not trolling or anything.

In Georgia some wanted the Confederate flag removed from a Civil War Museum. Curator closed the museum.

I see no issue with it being in the museums - that is the appropriate place imo.

I have no connection whatsoever to those Confederate statues, having lived in California my whole life, but I'm opposed to bringing them all down.

First of all, we are told Its just about these statues and that the people they represent were bad people."Why do you want to support generals who fought for slavery?" Well, IF IT REALLY WAS, just about these statues it would be one thing, but its really more about that some of us can see this is just a continuation of an ongoing effort to discredit the United States. Just look at people burning the US flag, saying the national anthem is racist, Trying to discredit the founders of the country. And of course next, would be any documents that were written by the founders of the country. Confederate Generals are only a soft target. It's the easy place to start, but to me I just kind of see it as all the same mindset. The mindset of looking for a grievance, not really wanting to get along or compromise, not wanting to be thankful for living in a place full of opportunity but rather wanting to tear someone else down in an effort to get some sort of social justice, which I really see as a never ending thing.

Hmmmm the statues represent people who fought against the United States.

They were acting to 'discredit' the United States when they declared that the United States was acting against them.

When was Christopher Columbus fighting against the United States? Catholic Saints? Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? All statues recently attacked and vandalized by the left.

You left wingers love to lie.

You assholes don't even really care about the statues...it's just a reason to destroy stuff in a faux PC protest.