Restricted A P Hill

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
The majority have been OK with the A P Hill monument since 1892.
On Confederate Monuments:
In 2017 54% in favor, 27% for removal, 19% unsure. (Reuters)
In 2017 49% in favor, 33% for removal, 18% unsure. (HuffPost/YouGov)
Now we have pushy activists, brain washing and pushing THEIR OWN agenda.
Union prisoners were marched through Richmond after the 1st Manassas, why would USCT be any different?

Any more recent polls than 2017? Or was that an error when you listed the second 2017 info?
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
People forget it was AP Hills troops that paraded captured coloured troops through Richmond while Hill did nothing after the battle of the crater , While i deplore any vandalization and detest activists you simply cant leave statues up in public spaces that celebrate men who fought to preserve slavery and expect people to be ok with it.

*Edited*
Certainly a popular mob sentiment these days along with treason, etc.; but it is narrow minded and inaccurately simplistic-in my opinion
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
Any more recent polls than 2017? Or was that an error when you listed the second 2017 info?
It was there, since the Floyd thing it listed 44% to stay, 52% for removal (The Hill & Q U polls). Polls rarely come out exactly the same so I have my doubts about these.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Any more recent polls than 2017? Or was that an error when you listed the second 2017 info?
Here's a recent poll from this year. 46% support removal of confederate monuments, 42% want them to stay.

 

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
Here's a recent poll from this year. 46% support removal of confederate monuments, 42% want them to stay.

If that is accurate, then put it to a vote of the electorate. If the majority of the state's/city's population vote for removal, then so be it. I don't have to like the outcome, I just have to live with it...it's called Democracy. I have no problem with the exercise of our Constitutional form of government, it's the mob rule that I have an issue with. Also, an item on the ballot requires some time to get organized and approved by petition, that would be something of a cooling down period to allow a decision/vote to truly reflect thoughtful consideration of the issue, not one simply made in the heat of the moment.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Certainly a popular mob sentiment these days along with treason, etc.; but it is narrow minded and inaccurately simplistic-in my opinion
In that case Danny what exactly were they fighting for if not to preserve and expand slavery as part of the Confederate constitution.

I fail to see it any other terms.

It seemed to be a point of honour why many high ranking confederate officers who joined their state even if that states intentions were dishonourable as to selling human beings for profit, Whichever way you cut it people like Hill , Lee , Stuart all fought for a cause that wanted to preserve slavery and even expand it, They could have said no like George Thomas.

Its no secret both Lee and Hill held white supremist views and in a nation of multicultural society's like the USA and Great Britain i fail to see having statues up celebrating racist people could possibly help heal those divides.

At the opposite end of the debate Generals like Wofford , Jackson , Longstreet , Cleburne clearly held different views but felt they had no choice but to fight for their state or become alienated one simply cannot fight against family and friends no matter what you views right or wrong , But in the end they chose to fight knowing that if they won that slavery would be continued as part of the said constitution regardless of their views.

A very difficult choice indeed in my view.
 
Last edited:

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
In that case Danny what exactly were they fighting for if not to preserve and expand slavery as part of the Confederate constitution.

I fail to see it any other terms.

It seemed to be a point of honour why many high ranking confederate officers who joined their state even if that states intentions were dishonourable as to selling human beings for profit, Whichever way you cut it people like Hill , Lee , Stuart all fought for a cause that wanted to preserve slavery and even expand it, They could have said no like George Thomas.

Its no secret both Lee and Hill held white supremist views and in a nation of multicultural society's like the USA and Great Britain i fail to see having statues up celebrating racist people could possibly help heal those divides.

At the opposite end of the debate Generals like Wofford , Jackson , Longstreet , Cleburne clearly held different views but felt they had no choice but to fight for their state or become alienated one simply cannot fight against family and friends no matter what you views right or wrong , But in the end they chose to fight knowing that if they won that slavery would be continued as part of the said constitution regardless of their views.

A very difficult choice indeed in my view.
I would say that perhaps you are making the common error of presentism while judging history
 

jcaesar

Corporal
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
I would say that perhaps you are making the common error of presentism while judging history

I think we all know the statues aren't coming down over views on state vs federal power and secession. They are coming down over if individuals born two centuries ago had views on race that comport to the modern understanding of race.

AP: Douglas statue comes down, but Lincoln had racist views, too

The anti monument movement is built on a set of assumptions that one can evaluate if people are good or bad in past centuries based on their vision and understanding of the world at the time.
 
Last edited:

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
In that case Danny what exactly were they fighting for if not to preserve and expand slavery as part of the Confederate constitution.

I fail to see it any other terms.

It seemed to be a point of honour why many high ranking confederate officers who joined their state even if that states intentions were dishonourable as to selling human beings for profit, Whichever way you cut it people like Hill , Lee , Stuart all fought for a cause that wanted to preserve slavery and even expand it, They could have said no like George Thomas.

Its no secret both Lee and Hill held white supremist views and in a nation of multicultural society's like the USA and Great Britain i fail to see having statues up celebrating racist people could possibly help heal those divides.

At the opposite end of the debate Generals like Wofford , Jackson , Longstreet , Cleburne clearly held different views but felt they had no choice but to fight for their state or become alienated one simply cannot fight against family and friends no matter what you views right or wrong , But in the end they chose to fight knowing that if they won that slavery would be continued as part of the said constitution regardless of their views.

A very difficult choice indeed in my view.
Maybe you can find an answer here:

 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Maybe you can find an answer here:


Yes i have read this , May i point out that without slavery their would be no tariffs so to speak , The South relied on cash crops to make their economy work without slaves to do that work the South would simply have to fall in line with the rest of the country and therefore would be taxed accordingly.

This is what Benning said on his visit to Virginia just before the war broke out.

In early 1861, he took his secessionist campaign to Virginia, where he complained to the legislature that the abolition of slavery would lead to 'black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that?'

He also predicted that 'the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa or Saint Domingo'.

Imagining a world in which former slave Frederick Douglass became President, Benning said: 'I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.'

Benning also made explicit that Georgia was fighting for slavery, saying secession had come from 'a deep conviction that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery'.

Now what were you saying about Tariffs ?.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Yes i have read this , May i point out that without slavery their would be no tariffs so to speak , The South relied on cash crops to make their economy work without slaves to do that work the South would simply have to fall in line with the rest of the country and therefore would be taxed accordingly.

This is what Benning said on his visit to Virginia just before the war broke out.

In early 1861, he took his secessionist campaign to Virginia, where he complained to the legislature that the abolition of slavery would lead to 'black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that?'

He also predicted that 'the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa or Saint Domingo'.

Imagining a world in which former slave Frederick Douglass became President, Benning said: 'I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.'

Benning also made explicit that Georgia was fighting for slavery, saying secession had come from 'a deep conviction that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery'.

Now what were you saying about Tariffs ?.

Irrelevant to A P Hill monument. Your comment may be better placed in the SecessionTalk forum.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
Irrelevant to A P Hill monument. Your comment may be better placed in the SecessionTalk forum.
Actually its very relevant , AP Hill as far as i am aware owned no slaves but his family did Benning made that speech in early 1861 and AP Hill resigned two weeks before Virginia Succeeded he had already made his mind up to fight for a cause that put slavery at the forefront of its ideals.

Should Hill's statue remain on public property a public that includes descendants of the slaves that Hill fought so hard to keep enslaved? I fail to see any positives about keep his statue up and while his statue was erected in a time when racism and bigotry were the norm i would like to think we have progressed in the last 120 years to a more tolerant society where equality actually does mean that.

Saying all i have said i do not support any movements from the far right or the far left they are both equally as bad.

In my own view the celebration of erecting statues over a civil war that claimed 750,000 people seems rather sad and empty in the USA history i don't know of any other country that does over a civil war and in Britain we have had numerous civil wars but thankfully all consigned to the history books and none of them really glamorized to such an extent.

In my opinion.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Actually its very relevant , AP Hill as far as i am aware owned no slaves but his family did Benning made that speech in early 1861 and AP Hill resigned two weeks before Virginia Succeeded he had already made his mind up to fight for a cause that put slavery at the forefront of its ideals.

Should Hill's statue remain on public property a public that includes descendants of the slaves that Hill fought so hard to keep enslaved? I fail to see any positives about keep his statue up and while his statue was erected in a time when racism and bigotry were the norm i would like to think we have progressed in the last 120 years to a more tolerant society where equality actually does mean that.

Saying all i have said i do not support any movements from the far right or the far left they are both equally as bad.

In my own view the celebration of erecting statues over a civil war that claimed 750,000 people seems rather sad and empty in the USA history i don't know of any other country that does over a civil war and in Britain we have had numerous civil wars but thankfully all consigned to the history books and none of them really glamorized to such an extent.

In my opinion.

Your earlier post talked about: slavery; tariffs; Bening; secessionist campaign; a Bening prediction; Douglass; and Georgia. No mention of A P Hill or monuments in a forum that is dedicated to 'Concerns About Civil War Monuments and Sites'. There are plenty of other forums in CWT for your opinions on the matters you raised but this is not one of them.

This thread is about the A P Hill monument with possible reference to other CS monuments in Richmond (and relevant references to gravesites which might pertain to A P Hill or other monuments) as per the OP which said:
"The court has lifted the injunction against removing CS monuments in Richmond. Hill is the last still standing, unclear what will play out as his remains are under the pedestal."
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
Yes i have read this , May i point out that without slavery their would be no tariffs so to speak , The South relied on cash crops to make their economy work without slaves to do that work the South would simply have to fall in line with the rest of the country and therefore would be taxed accordingly.

This is what Benning said on his visit to Virginia just before the war broke out.

In early 1861, he took his secessionist campaign to Virginia, where he complained to the legislature that the abolition of slavery would lead to 'black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. Is it to be supposed that the white race will stand for that?'

He also predicted that 'the land will be left in the possession of the blacks, and then it will go back to a wilderness and become another Africa or Saint Domingo'.

Imagining a world in which former slave Frederick Douglass became President, Benning said: 'I say give me pestilence and famine sooner than that.'

Benning also made explicit that Georgia was fighting for slavery, saying secession had come from 'a deep conviction that a separation from the North was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery'.

Now what were you saying about Tariffs ?.
I didn't say anything about tariffs. However, they were indeed a significant dynamic in the brewing of that horrific war. Maybe not as socially popular these days as a cause compared to slavery, but a factor nonetheless.
 

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
Gentlemen, I am not a moderator here, however we have seen other threads in this forum shut down because we strayed off topic in our discussions. Let‘s get back on track and keep this one open and on topic. There are other threads designated for discussion as to the causes of the War.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Gentlemen, I am not a moderator here, however we have seen other threads in this forum shut down because we strayed off topic in our discussions. Let‘s get back on track and keep this one open and on topic. There are other threads designated for discussion as to the causes of the War.

To All,

@PapaReb is correct in his concerns about remaining on topic in this thread.

I would suggest that all return to A. P. Hill and refrain from all other distractions.

Sincerely,
Unionblue
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
It seems to me that a fair bit needs to be done before any action is taken is in regards to the A P Hill monument. Virginia law on disinterment says:
"Unless so ordered by a court of competent jurisdiction, a body shall not be disinterred for removal or transportation until an application for disinterment has been submitted to the city or county registrar or to the State Registrar."

However, there has been little enforcement of other laws, including this one that states:
"If any person unlawfully destroys, defaces, damages, or removes without the intent to steal any property, real or personal, not his own, or breaks down, destroys, defaces, damages, or removes without the intent to steal, any monument or memorial for war veterans, not his own, described in § 15.2-1812; any monument erected to mark the site of any engagement fought during the Civil War, or any memorial to designate the boundaries of any city, town, tract of land, or any tree marked for that purpose, he shall be guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor, provided that the court may, in its discretion, dismiss the charge if the locality or organization that owns or is responsible for maintaining the injured property, monument, or memorial files a written affidavit with the court stating it has received full payment for the injury."
So perhaps the law on disinterment will also be ignored.
 

lelliott19

Brigadier General
Moderator
* OFFICIAL *
CWT PRESENTER
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Regtl. Staff Chickamauga 2018
Joined
Mar 15, 2013
Just a reminder that the topic of the thread is the A P Hill monument and concerns over actions related to it. There has been significant "drift" from the topic in some posts. Further off-topic posts will be deleted.

Many thanks to all who have remained on topic and to those who have attempted to help bring it back on topic. :thumbsup: --as moderator
 
Top