Restricted Another What's the Big Fuss Thread...

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
about Confederate memorials? I personally do not believe in tearing down historical monuments, statues or anything pertaining to history. Here's my take: People cannot erase history and imagine that it didn't exist, because that's moral relativism and not an exactly a healthy way to view life. Evidently some people think that Confederate monuments are a symbol of white supremacy and should be eliminated from the American society. Whereas, a lot of southerners think the Confederate monuments should remain unharmed and they're a symbol of their heritage. Both parties have a moral relativism view on why or why not Confederate memorials should be left alone. I personally believe that if the south wants to celebrate their ancestors through memorials and other Confederate paraphernalia in the south, it's their business and nobody should meddle.

IMO, if there is a reason to tear down Confederate memorials it has to do with fighting against the USA, not white supremacy. The white supremacy theory is scanty and get's on my nerves. One of the reasons the north went to war was because they feared the spread of slavery into the north and out west, and to be quite frank, they just didn't want blacks living in their neighborhoods. However, I have a little problem with celebrating Confederates because they did fight against the USA. White supremacy=no. Warring with the USA=yes. Therefore, I think all Confederate memorials and other things should be left alone but an excerpt should be placed on them telling the whole story.

Any takers? :smile:
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
I wish some of the Confederate supporters would give us their take on it.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
This is an emotional issue. Some see the monuments as representing white supremacy. Some see the monuments as part of southern heritage. Others have opinions that, for lack of a better description, fall somewhere in between. I see all the arguments as having some validity, which IMHO makes it a difficult issue to deal with.

Yeah, and that's why they should be left alone. Too many conflicting opinions, and the history should be preserved. People just cancel history if they don't like it, it was still part of the USA history.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I wish some of the Confederate supporters would give us their take on it.
I have said repeatedly over the years, I'm not in favor of tearing down ANY monuments. Even those I don't personally care for. They were, or are, important to some people. I do this really radical thing when I encounter something in the public sphere that I find repulsive, I ignore it.

As far as Confederate monuments in particular, I've probably beaten this to death. However, I throw 2 cents into your thread. The majority of Confederate monuments are nothing more than monuments to the dead. Plenty of these monuments were raised by widows, & fatherless children over many years. Dimes at a time. Bake sales, subscriptions sold in newspapers, various fundraisers. Keeping in mind of course, the South was impoverished for some time after the war. Why did they do this..? To keep Freemen in check..? Hardly.

Most of these monuments were placed to honor, & remember their loved ones. What place more fitting, than the last place they saw them..? In many cases, this was the courthouse, or city hall, in the center of town, where enlistment drives took place. Many a family never had a body to bury on the family farm, or at the church cemetery. These monuments allowed a lot of widows, & orphaned children to honor & show respect to their loved ones, & members of their communities loved ones who perished. It really is that simple. Many of the inscriptions on them, & the dedication speeches back this up. Can you find some that have trigger words in them, which some folks today use to point the racism finger..? Sure. However, this overlooks the context of the times, & the overwhelming sentiment of racial views in that time frame. The South had no monopoly on that viewpoint, or sentiment.

Contrast that with Richmond, VA's newest statue: "Rumors of War" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/richmond-gets-new-soaring-statue-one-dreadlocks-n1099596 Imagine what would happen to some folks who attempted to vandalize it..? Do you think local leaders would encourage them..? Would law enforcement sit idly by, & allow it to happen..? Would the vandals be attacked..?

I hear you on the "fighting against the USA". I must add though, at the time, plenty of folks believed they had the right to separate from the US. Remember lots of Confederates were descendants of Revolutionary Patriots. Many Southerners heard first hand from their Grandfathers, & Fathers about those events. The concept of secession was not settled law at the time, & had not been thoroughly decided in 1860. If it had, in Dec 1860 when South Carolina issued their Secession, the US government would've done something immediately. ie: file a lawsuit. Amass troops, etc. They did nothing, why..? Because they weren't sure they had the legal authority to do so. Nothing would've been worse for Buchanan, or Lincoln, than to take the matter to court & lose. Boom. We're two countries now.

So, for me, as a proud descendant of Confederate Veterans, I respect & honor my ancestors. While complex men, living in much different times than myself, I refuse to compare them, or hold them to the standards of today. I believe the modern hoo-ha about monuments to their memory, is nothing more than modern political posturing, & a disservice to history, & to the dead. I don't believe a single person's life will be improved by removing them. Crime won't drop in these cities, & overall life won't improve because the mean Confederate statue is gone.... Instead, it promotes a bad precedent. Throw a fit, riot, destroy, & vandalize property you don't like. Lots of municipalities won't do anything about it, & in some cases will be encouraged by local leaders. Just like children, if you don't punish bad behavior, you're going to get more of it.

Make no mistake. This has never been about Confederate monuments solely. It's a modern political movement. One that will affect everybody in the long run.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
I have said repeatedly over the years, I'm not in favor of tearing down ANY monuments. Even those I don't personally care for. They were, or are, important to some people. I do this really radical thing when I encounter something in the public sphere that I find repulsive, I ignore it.

As far as Confederate monuments in particular, I've probably beaten this to death. However, I throw 2 cents into your thread. The majority of Confederate monuments are nothing more than monuments to the dead. Plenty of these monuments were raised by widows, & fatherless children over many years. Dimes at a time. Bake sales, subscriptions sold in newspapers, various fundraisers. Keeping in mind of course, the South was impoverished for some time after the war. Why did they do this..? To keep Freemen in check..? Hardly.

Most of these monuments were placed to honor, & remember their loved ones. What place more fitting, than the last place they saw them..? In many cases, this was the courthouse, or city hall, in the center of town, where enlistment drives took place. Many a family never had a body to bury on the family farm, or at the church cemetery. These monuments allowed a lot of widows, & orphaned children to honor & show respect to their loved ones, & members of their communities loved ones who perished. It really is that simple. Many of the inscriptions on them, & the dedication speeches back this up. Can you find some that have trigger words in them, which some folks today use to point the racism finger..? Sure. However, this overlooks the context of the times, & the overwhelming sentiment of racial views in that time frame. The South had no monopoly on that viewpoint, or sentiment.

Contrast that with Richmond, VA's newest statue: "Rumors of War" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/richmond-gets-new-soaring-statue-one-dreadlocks-n1099596 Imagine what would happen to some folks who attempted to vandalize it..? Do you think local leaders would encourage them..? Would law enforcement sit idly by, & allow it to happen..? Would the vandals be attacked..?

I hear you on the "fighting against the USA". I must add though, at the time, plenty of folks believed they had the right to separate from the US. Remember lots of Confederates were descendants of Revolutionary Patriots. Many Southerners heard first hand from their Grandfathers, & Fathers about those events. The concept of secession was not settled law at the time, & had not been thoroughly decided in 1860. If it had, in Dec 1860 when South Carolina issued their Secession, the US government would've done something immediately. ie: file a lawsuit. Amass troops, etc. They did nothing, why..? Because they weren't sure they had the legal authority to do so. Nothing would've been worse for Buchanan, or Lincoln, than to take the matter to court & lose. Boom. We're two countries now.

So, for me, as a proud descendant of Confederate Veterans, I respect & honor my ancestors. While complex men, living in much different times than myself, I refuse to compare them, or hold them to the standards of today. I believe the modern hoo-ha about monuments to their memory, is nothing more than modern political posturing, & a disservice to history, & to the dead. I don't believe a single person's life will be improved by removing them. Crime won't drop in these cities, & overall life won't improve because the mean Confederate statue is gone.... Instead, it promotes a bad precedent. Throw a fit, riot, destroy, & vandalize property you don't like. Lots of municipalities won't do anything about it, & in some cases will be encouraged by local leaders. Just like children, if you don't punish bad behavior, you're going to get more of it.

Make no mistake. This has never been about Confederate monuments solely. It's a modern political movement. One that will affect everybody in the long run.

I agree with this post, except for the reasoning behind secession. If they did go to court the Supreme Court would have made the decision on secession. If there was no clear law on if secession was illegal, there was no clear law it was legal. We cannot interpret the Constitution and law in exegesis manner. The Monroe Doctrine is the best way to view secession, IMO. I'm sure you read it, but the idea behind the doctrine was to establish control in the Western Hemisphere and sustain it. I severely doubt that a legitimate court would have granted secession to divide the USA. The doctrine asserted that the New World and the Old World were to remain distinctly separate spheres of influence. The separation intended to avoid situations that could make the New World a battleground for the Old World powers so that the U.S. could exert its influence undisturbed. Dividing the USA would have made it vulnerable again to the old colonial powers: Britain, France and Spain. I'm quite sure they would have wanted their territories back, and the USA wouldn't have been strong enough to repel. Therefore, the USA would have been subject to neo-colonialism, which the old colonies would have exploited the USA. Quite common practice in the 1800-1900s, so there's no speculation. I doubt a ligament court would have ruled in favor of secession. Consequently, nothing would have been worse for the Confederate high command to lose a legal battle that they thought was a sure win.

Here's another way of looking at things: didn't the democrats hold the majority in Congress? If so, they could have voted for secession. Furthermore, if they didn't have the votes they could have filibustered, which there was no time limit on it. Hmm..
 
Last edited:

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
Here's another way of looking at things: didn't the democrats hold the majority in Congress? If so, they could have voted for secession. Furthermore, if they didn't have the votes they could have filibustered, which there was no time limit on it. Hmm..
A very lucid argument but the Southern states did not view secession as a right that needed to be granted to them or “approved” by the federal government rather as a natural right/power reserved to the individual state itself.
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
A very lucid argument but the Southern states did not view secession as a right that needed to be granted to them or “approved” by the federal government rather as a natural right/power reserved to the individual state itself.

Yeah, and they viewed it incorrectly, IMO. I was responding to Viper's court assertions with a court or legal assertion. That state rights jazz goes only so far, like I said about the Monroe Doctrine that the idea behind it is to establish control in the Western Hemisphere and to keep foreign countries from reestablishing influence in the region. The United States of America was not going to let its southern border vulnerable and cut the eastern part of the country in two because you say southern states thought they had a natural right to do what they pleased.

*edited* Neo-colonialism was a common practice in the 1800-1900s. France, England and Spain would have reestablished some control in the region or even took their old territory back. It constantly happened in Europe in Africa in the 1800-1900s. *edited*

I do believe you when say southern states thought it was their own natural right to break away from the USA, but they were delusional. If they were allowed to leave this country this country never would have became a superpower, and would have remained underdeveloped. Southern states were dead wrong.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
A very lucid argument but the Southern states did not view secession as a right that needed to be granted to them or “approved” by the federal government rather as a natural right/power reserved to the individual state itself.

It seems they were of the opinion that secession could come from the barrel of a gun instead.
 

infomanpa

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Location
Pennsylvania
about Confederate memorials? I personally do not believe in tearing down historical monuments, statues or anything pertaining to history. Here's my take: People cannot erase history and imagine that it didn't exist, b

Any takers? :smile:
I still can't understand why people think that those who want to take down statues are interested in "erasing history and imagining that it didn't exist." I don't believe that's their motivation at all. Like you said, you can't erase history.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
They asked to “go in peace”, the Union chose not to allow that. But feel free to continue in your belief that the Union was utterly blameless for prosecuting the war.

"They" also said at times they would shed blood, march on Boston, take Washington and that they could whip 5 Yankees for every Southern man.

They decided to engage in warlike acts LONG before Lincoln even took the oath of office by firing on US ships, stealing payrolls and a US mint, seizing ships, forts and arsenals, and taking US soldiers prisoner before the Union called for any troops to suppress the rebellion.

Sorry, @PapaReb , but the Union did not start the war and the slaveholding South did not even begin to "go in peace."

Perhaps you should check out the book, The Beginning And The End: The Civil War Story Of Federal Surrenders And Confederate Surrenders After Appomattox, by Dayton Pryor.

Unionblue
 

lurid

First Sergeant
Joined
Jan 3, 2019
"They" also said at times they would shed blood, march on Boston, take Washington and that they could whip 5 Yankees for every Southern man.

They decided to engage in warlike acts LONG before Lincoln even took the oath of office by firing on US ships, stealing payrolls and a US mint, seizing ships, forts and arsenals, and taking US soldiers prisoner before the Union called for any troops to suppress the rebellion.

Sorry, @PapaReb , but the Union did not start the war and the slaveholding South did not even begin to "go in peace."

Perhaps you should check out the book, The Beginning And The End: The Civil War Story Of Federal Surrenders And Confederate Surrenders After Appomattox, by Dayton Pryor.

Unionblue

I thought the Confederates said they had a 10:1 KIA advantage? Nevertheless, claiming they had a 5:1 ratio KIA advantage was a lofty predictions that never materialized.

I did the battlefield mortality rate numbers and at the war's end the north had a 3:1 KIA victory. That's a huge swing from the Confederates predicted and what actually happened.
 

Similar threads

Top