Civil War Statues?
 

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

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

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

So, what are your thoughts?

Tom, usually I scroll past your posts. This one I cannot let go without commenting: please, for the love of Mike, do more extensive reading and research before hitting the keyboard.

The statues were erected during the Jim Crow era, for starters. This has NOTHING to do with "PCNess" as you simplify it. Good grief. As for Early Americans becoming terrorists, are you talking about the Native Americans whose land our forefathers stole? Oh you forgot that, right?

Yes, I have visited battlefields. Heartbreaking. For future reference: please avoid false equivalencies. To wit: here's a question for you: should we erect a statue to Bin Laden? Or McVeigh? That's part of our history, too.

Popcorn and soda, settling in on the sofa.

How much I hate the phrase "erasing history." History cannot be erased.

Also, +1 AZTheta.

Just to set it as a marker, I did find the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan to be heartbreaking.

However so many of the Robert E. Lee statues are identical (and ordered from *Northern* foundaries!), I'd be *quite* happy with agreeing to keep 10 of each of the identical statues and offering the remainder up for auction to be placed anywhere on private land that the winners wanted.

For the most part, OTOH, I'm better with statues on battlefield national parks. The fact that there is a status of Lee at Gettysburg where the Confederate Troops were camped/are buried seems considerably less of a problem.

Yes, I agree that Stone Mountain is going to be problematic, but I'm quite willing to put that one off if other things are being dealt with...

If a governing body takes the time to thoroughly discuss the future of the statues in public places and ultimately believes that it is better to see them removed from said space, then I do believe that is the right thing to do. They could be returned to the original sponsors ie: Daughters of the Confederacy, gifted to a museum or donated to another private organization.

Now like naharat I do believe that there is value in retaining the monuments at Civil War battlefields and I'll add in cemeteries as well.

However I am concerned at the vandalism and toppling of the statues/monuments that has taken place recently. Some of were to recognize the peace made after the end of the war ie: Peace Monument in Piedmont Park, Atlanta. Also a monument to those who perished at the site of a former Union Army POW camp was also vandalized recently.

Thank you! I've said this to so many people as of late. Unless someone has a time machine that I'm unaware of, there's no "erasing" history.

A lot of the monuments are being placed in museums. That is not erasing history, but putting them where they belong to preserve history to those who wish to see it and away from public eyes.

Someone I know said it this way on Facebook:
If someone kidnapped your child and sold them, where would you want us to put the statue of that person?

This is probably not the best place to air those views next to your letters, Tom.

Robert E. Lee didn't want the monuments. Building monuments to the protectors of the institution of slavery was never a good idea. Taking those monuments down is a great idea.

I posted this to discuss the situations going on today. yes this is a hot button, but thinking we are all adults here, some good input. Just looking at all of the goings on with riots from marches.

If anyone is embarresed about it, then let the discussion die.

Yes, it was a very dark time in American History where more men were killed than any war ever.

Remember, not all USCA were not all slave holders or forced to fight for their beliefs. Brothers battled Brothers for what they thought of their right to govern themselves than be subject to Northern over rule. So, maybe enough is enough!

The statues were built mostly during the 1900-1930 era when the KKK was at full power in the South. If these statues were to honor great men, where are the statues of Ulysses Grant and Lincoln on the Ole Miss campus? At least they won their wars.

Apparently many people with my last name (which is not an extremely common one like Jones or Smith) fought in the Civil War, more for the South, but many for the North as well. And all of them are considered veterans by the United States government.

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

Further, these statues were almost all built well before the 1958 statute was passed. Federal law does not protect Confederate monuments or the graves of Confederate soldiers.

These men were traitors to their country and they lost the war. It is pretty typical for winners of wars to tear down the monuments of their enemies the moment they are able to do so.

For example...

http://www.famouspictures.org/wp-con...dam_Statue.jpg

I think a good argument can be made that these things need to be preserved and kept somewhere for historical purposes. But they don't belong in the public square. There's no good argument for that.

Hell.. there are a few of these things in my State and Oklahoma wasn't even a state in the Civil War although the last Confederate General to surrender was Stand Watie, who not coincidentally owned hundreds of slaves.

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

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

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

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

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

My thoughts . . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And FWIW, Lee was against monuments of any kind.

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

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

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

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

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

Just saying!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sigh.

Why are you bringing in the Viet Nam war?

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

Sigh. "just saying!"

Hi to MysticCat. I've missed you.

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

I second this. :)

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

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

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

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

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.:D 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?:confused:

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.

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

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.

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! ;)

"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.

Don't ya love it when they Yankeesplain?

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.

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!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

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.

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.