Monuments James Robertson speaks

[Jimklag]

I wanted to get my picture taken with Dr. Bud, but it would have shattered the moment and interrupted the conversation. It seemed too trivial at the moment, but now I regret not asking

I had the same conversation with myself at the speakers tent at the 150th anniversary at Gettysburg and decided not to get selfies or pictures taken and I will continue to kick myself in the posterior for not doing so.

 

[Barnesville Blues]

I have never discussed this on these forums. However, on another forum I was talking aobut this with other people and about the possibiliy of putting up interpretive signage next to monuments. I am in favor of this as a compromise as long as certain conditions are met.

1. Only provable facts are put on the plaques or signs. No emotion, no rancor, and no "assumed intent". For instance, I would have no problem at all with a plaque next to a statue of Forrest stating that he was a slave trader...it is absolutely true and can be proven. I however would have a problem with a plaque stating that "This statue was erected in defiance of black civil rights", just because it was erected in the 1960's. If this can be proven with official documents, newspaper articles, or private collections, then again fine, I would have no problem with that. But a statue erected in 1961, it can be nore more proven that it was erected "in defiance of black civil rights" as it was erected in rememerance of the centenial of the start of the war. Proveable facts only.

2. We avoid charged language on the plaques. By this I mean words like racist, bigot, ****s and such. Such language will not solve the problem but only fan the flames and make things worse and just leave the issue open to deal with again...in just a few years.

3. And lastly, that we keep this about the history and not modern political ideologies.

My Compromise was not very well recieved on the other site.

 

[AshleyMel]

I just came across this thread and am excited to hear the presentation. I hope to enjoy it! I am a little afraid it might be a little above my understanding.

However, I am not a fan of long boring presentations no matter the perceived value. There is a notion that if you cannot summarize an idea in a one-page memo, you are in deep trouble.

I am reminded of asking folks about the Sunday sermon on Wednesday. It was great they'd say. What was it about? What points were made? What scripture was presented? I'd get a blank look

This is what I try to tell the Hubby, so I get it!
I also tell myself many times that if I want more out of something, I actually have to do some of the work! Kinda like looking for those "black confederates"

 

[jgoodguy]

I just came across this thread and am excited to hear the presentation. I hope to enjoy it! I am a little afraid it might be a little above my understanding.





This is what I try to tell the Hubby, so I get it!
I also tell myself many times that if I want more out of something, I actually have to do some of the work! Kinda like looking for those "black confederates"

BCs are much more exciting IMHO.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

It isn't going to be the least above you sweet AshleyMel! Just enjoy it.

 

[AshleyMel]

BCs are much more exciting IMHO.

Yes, we are~

 

[Drew]

I have to admit, I've not read any of this carefully, but, Mr. Kevin Levin has been elevated to Bud Robertson's level as an historian?

Really?

I need to start a blog. A good shot at opinion may bring the world around to my view of things, after all.

Poor Bud, all of that work...

 

[jgoodguy]

Let's take a segment and comment on it as to motives and accuracy.

I have to admit, I've not read any of this carefully, but, Mr. Kevin Levin has been elevated to Bud Robertson's level as an historian?

Really?

I need to start a blog. A good shot at opinion may bring the world around to my view of things, after all.

Poor Bud, all of that work...

Here is a segment that set poor Levin off.

I do not understand this segment, perhaps someone can explain it. It appears ahistorical in many ways.

Thanks


https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4743048/slavery-dying

Slavery was dying of natural causes. Cotton saps Everything out of the soil and the theory of crop rotation was for example, by 1860, deep south, planters would grow cotton in the field year after year until said field would not even grow weeds. Then they would search for other land. They were desperate throughout the 1850's trying to find usable land for cotton. And Certainly, the new acquisitions New Mexico, Arizona, California, offered nothing for it. Slavery would die naturally, because its bumper crop, cotton, would have ceased to exist. That is one compromise that could have, about. In addition, the industrial revolution was swinging into gear in the late 1850's. Industrialization would clearly surpass agriculture. We Would have become an industrial nation, and the cotton kingdom would disappear. In spite of these factors, neither side could agree. Southerners were too proud to admit what little the future held. Northerners were too impatient to wait for the inevitable.​

 

[JonnyReb_In_MI]

I watched it from start to finish. I certainly don't agree with him when he says that it was right to remove the flag in South Carolina, that it would be acceptable to remove the Davis monument in Richmond or his idea that the Lee statue on Monument Ave. would be better if it could be altered to depict Lee in civilian dress. With that said, even though I don't agree with every single word of his address, I really do love listening to Bud Robertson talk.

The biggest problem I have is Robertson's insistence on compromise. He spends so much time expressing his opinion that this effort to remove monuments is lunacy, and I agree wholeheartedly with that thought, and so it is that I can't imagine why he thinks that we should compromise with such lunacy.

What needs to be done is what should have been done at the start: dismiss these calls for monument removal as lunacy from the outset and ignore them. Those bent on removing monuments do not see compromise as a solution; they see it as a stepping stone from which they can launch a new attack upon the whatever object of their collective ire.

None of these monuments require any change... not destruction, removal, alteration or additional signage. Just let them stand.

As for the response made by the failed high-school "history" teacher turned blogger/author, it's like a fly buzzing in response to the roar of a lion at best.

 

[jgoodguy]

What needs to be done is what should have been done at the start: dismiss these calls for monument removal as lunacy from the outset and ignore them. Those bent on removing monuments do not see compromise as a solution; they see it as a stepping stone from which they can launch a new attack upon the whatever object of their collective ire.

So in your opinion, no one has a right to speak on the subject except yourself. Interesting.

 

[dlofting]

The biggest problem I have is Robertson's insistence on compromise. He spends so much time expressing his opinion that this effort to remove monuments is lunacy, and I agree wholeheartedly with that thought, and so it is that I can't imagine why he thinks that we should compromise with such lunacy.

Because that is the way democracy works.

 

[cash]

I yield to no one in my admiration of, respect for, and yes, love for Professor Robertson. But his status does not make him immune to criticism by others. While I disagree with some of what Kevin says, I also agree with some of his criticisms.

I trust those who believe Kevin Levin isn't in a position to criticize what Professor Robertson said because he hasn't reached Professor Robertson's status as a historian will in the future never criticize another historian, including Kevin Levin, unless they've reached a comparative status. Kevin has a Master's Degree in History and is about to publish his third book, with a fourth book in the works. He's also published several articles in historical journals. So anyone of those folks claiming he has no status to criticize Professor Robertson then will refrain from criticizing Kevin until they get at least a Master's Degree in History and have published at least two books as well as articles in historical journals.

 

[Bee]

The first words I wrote to another participant who attended the lecture (besides @cash) was that half the folks were gonna be mad because Dr Bud was too easy on the monuments, and the other half will feel he was too harsh....

The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey live on....

 

[dlofting]

The first words I wrote to another participant who attended the lecture (besides @cash) was that half the folks were gonna be mad because Dr Bud was too easy on the monuments, and the other half will feel he was too harsh....

The Man, the Boy, and the Donkey live on....

I'm pretty sure I read this before, or something similar, but it is apropos.

 

[Bee]

I'm pretty sure I read this before, or something similar, but it is apropos.

Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.

 

[unionblue]

Æsop. (Sixth century B.C.) Fables.

I prefer Fractured Fairytales myself.

 

[WJC]

Thanks for sharing the link. Sorry I didn't get to it earlier, but now that I have, I find very little in Mr. Robertson's presentation to disagree with.

 

[Bee]

I prefer Fractured Fairytales myself.

That is the term I use with either or both sides of a Civil War discussion are being overly romantic in their perceptions of war.

 

[JonnyReb_In_MI]

So in your opinion, no one has a right to speak on the subject except yourself. Interesting.

Thanks for commenting, but no. Try again.

 

[mofederal]

I listened and I thought he said some relevant things, but I do not agree with everything he said. He is willing to compromise, and many are not. It is not the answer to everything, but it is a starting place for a sane discussion, of the issues. This is just my opinion Dr. Robertson is someone who has seen much change in his time, my father is similar, and his ideas of raising us kids changed and his views on our lives over time, and he was raised by parents who were total Victorians. His father was born in the 1860's and his mother in the late 1880's.