Civil War Statues?

[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?

[JonInKC]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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?

And here's my problem with this whole deal...who decides where the line is drawn? As someone pointed out, you can't erase history. It sure seems that some people want to white wash (no pun intended) history though.

I have a hard time labeling Lee as a traitor. He was American as they came, but there was no way in hell he was going to take up arms against his home state of Virginia.

[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.

[Sciencewoman]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Maybe they can give us driving tips soon, too.

We just can't help ourselves there.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Sciencewoman

We just can't help ourselves there.

Yes, but Southerners have the sense God gave them and know to stay home when it snows or gets icy. It's the Yankees who've moved down here who think that because they know how to drive in the never-ending snow up there, they know how to drive in the once-or-twice-a-year snow/ice storm down here.

That picture, by the way, was taken a few miles from my house. I remember that day—that's a fairly thick layer of ice, not snow, on the road. But I'm sure y'all can help us learn to drive on that—once you learn how yourselves, of course.

Bless your hearts.

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AZTheta

Ah MysticCat. will you please stay?

Maybe. Until the wind changes.

[honeychile]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Maybe. Until the wind changes.

Which is what keeps you our MysticCat! Good to see you, my Jamestown cousin!

As long as I can remember, I've not been a fan of statues or the need to "worship" statues. Few, if any, mere mortals should be venerated to this extent, I don't really know how unique that feeling is, but maybe that's what has kept me out of most of these discussions.

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

So, I have no immediate answers, but offer these questions.

Doubting that I'll be commenting any further, but I'll keep my popcorn at the ready and will be reading.

[Tom Earp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you!!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Tom Earp

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It happened like this:

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

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