Restricted Chatting about monuments was Board votes to remove Confederate monument from Linn Park - AL

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
You cannot dispute that Lincoln won on an anti-slavery platform. The anti-slavery sentiment in the north was not, by and large, abolitionist, but it was strongly in the majority. After all, that was why Southern secessionists broke away from the Union and created a Confederacy that was, as Alexander Stephens put it, founded on the belief "that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery -- subordination to the superior race -- is his natural and normal condition."

These differences in opinion of the morality of slavery were recognized, by essentially everyone of the time, as the fundamental difference between the sections. Lincoln said so directly in December 1860 to Stephens: "You think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. It certainly is the only substantial difference between us."

This differing moral assessment of slavery may have played little role early in the war. But by late 1862, after increasing pressure by northerners--many of whom had been rather conservative in regards to emancipation and race relations in 1861--Lincoln formally made emancipation a military objective, thus officially linking the Union war effort to the freedom of millions of people. There is no doubt that the Emancipation Proclamation was a strategic act, intended to weaken the Confederacy. But there is also no doubt that Lincoln and millions of Americans--white and black--recognized it as a monumental social and moral accomplishment.

Finally, I have no idea what you think your reference to Kentucky and Maryland accomplishes. Most people on this website understand the tenuous position of the border states and how carefully the Lincoln administration attempted to balance their interests and keep them in the Union. Nonetheless, and I assume you would know, Lincoln worked quite hard to encourage these border states to adopt a voluntary and gradual emancipation policy. He advocated a compensated emancipation plan to Congress in December 1861, and again in March 1862. He drafted a bill to emancipate Delaware's slaves and called upon border state leaders to push legislation in their own states. Oh, and he abolished slavery in Washington, D.C., and set the 13th Amendment in motion.

So, while we see a growing abolitionist sentiment, increasingly bold emancipation efforts, and new rights and opportunities for black Americans (such as the enlistment of over 150,000 black troops) in the Union, we also see Lee's Confederate army capturing freed blacks in Pennsylvania and shipping them South, Confederate soldiers executing black Union soldiers in several different instances, and a continued dedication to the institution of slavery in Confederate areas until forcefully ended by U.S. Army units.

A sincere moral comparison of the Union and the Confederacy looks at the comprehensive picture -- not just a surface view of a single moment in early 1861, or so, and calls it even.

President Lincoln won on an anti expansion of slavery platform. That being said, I see nothing you have said that undermines my argument. You speak of the precarious position of Kentucky and Maryland. I can't agree more. If, however, as you suggest it was a moral crusade, alowing them to remain slave states seems to undermine the crusade. I will simply leave it that we will not come to an agreement on this issue and leave it at that.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
... the Union cause started ... much of Northern sentiment ...
I think there is a mistake in equating the two as identical.

If they were, as you suggest so anti-slavery the treatment of Kentucky and Maryland strikes me as, well, odd.

In Maryland, the Union party pushed for a new constitution that ended slavery (which had been written into the existing one) and once it had control of the legislature it created one and adopted it. Kentucky wouldn't accept Lincoln's proposals of compensated emancipation and the Republican/Union party couldn't get enough support to take political control of the state so Kentucky had to be forced to accept the 13th amendment.
Is that odd?


Slavery existed in the Union after the defeat of the Confederacy. Odd if this was a moral crusade against slavery.
Only if one has blinders on. 13th Amendment passed Congress before defeat of Confederacy and was ratified the same year.
 

Scotsman

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 6, 2006
President Lincoln won on an anti expansion of slavery platform. That being said, I see nothing you have said that undermines my argument. You speak of the precarious position of Kentucky and Maryland. I can't agree more. If, however, as you suggest it was a moral crusade, alowing them to remain slave states seems to undermine the crusade. I will simply leave it that we will not come to an agreement on this issue and leave it at that.

I never suggested that the Union was on some formal "moral crusade." I pointed out that there were fundamental differences--including moral perspectives--regarding slavery between the Confederacy and the Union, as a whole. (Also, the anti-expansion platform was, inherently, an anti-slavery platform.) These differences in slavery further evolved during the war, as the Union rapidly turned more radical against slavery and more accommodating to black civil rights, while the Confederacy struggled to maintain its defense of white supremacy and permanent black bondage.

These differences were recognized then, and now, as starkly different in regards to the moral position of the Confederacy compared to that of the Union.
 

Sons of Liberty

Sergeant
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Location
State of Southern Illinois
Once we begin erasing history we will be doomed to repeat it. Once all of the Confederate monuments have been removed a precedent will have been put in place that may be impossible to stop. Who will decide what gets done away with next because they are offended by it? Colonial era historical sites? Mount Rushmore? Your church? Where will it end?
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
It is typically less expensive to demolish a structure than to relocate it.

I recall that when a Heritagist group put up a billboard honoring the Gran Wizard of the KKK near the Edmund Pettus Bridge for the 50th anniversary of the bloody march across that bridge, a lot of the heritage defenders here thought that was just great. The fact that it had the message for blacks choosing to march of "Keep the skeer on 'em" seemed endearing.

Do you not think these tactics, clearly racist to anyone without an ax to grind, have an impact on public perception of "Confederate Heritage?" Folks forget that black people can vote to remove the memorials that white people erected while denying blacks the vote.

I was thinking about that. How clever they thought they were being, trying to spit on the 50th anniversary of the Selma march. And of the whole crew here, not one "heritage, not hate" crowd even seeing that, and certainly not objecting to it. During the Selma march, how many American flags were carried by the marchers? Too many to count. How many Confederate flags? An easy number to remember: zero. That's the heritage of the Confederate flag. And that's why people look at the physical relics like Germans at the Berlin Wall.
 

W. Richardson

Captain
Joined
Jun 29, 2011
Location
Mt. Gilead, North Carolina
As long as we're tossing out Lincoln quotes, here's one for you William: "Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and under a just God, cannot long retain it."
FWIW, I've got two older sisters and a brother so I can do this as long as you can. But maybe,just this once, we should stay on topic.


I have more wonderful Lincoln quotes and as to how long we can do this.............I don't need my siblings to help........I can go as long as needed I have great stamina......................If you are submitting to staying on topic then we shall. I will leave that up to you.


1st National Confederate Flag   1.jpg

Respectfully,
William
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
I think there is a mistake in equating the two as identical.

How are they different?

In Maryland, the Union party pushed for a new constitution that ended slavery (which had been written into the existing one) and once it had control of the legislature it created one and adopted it. Kentucky wouldn't accept Lincoln's proposals of compensated emancipation and the Republican/Union party couldn't get enough support to take political control of the state so Kentucky had to be forced to accept the 13th amendment.
Is that odd?

My recollection was that many who were proslavery were arrested in Maryland and the antislavery faction won based on the votes of Union soldiers stationed there. Be that as it may, it remained a slave state until the end of 1864. As to Kentucky, her slaves were freed as a result of the 13th Amendment. Yes, it is odd that if it were a war for emancipation that they remained slave states.



Only if one has blinders on. 13th Amendment passed Congress before defeat of Confederacy and was ratified the same year.

Yes Congress passed it in January 1865, before Confederate surrender. It was ratified in December, well after surrender. How does that leave me with blinders?
 
Joined
Oct 3, 2005
I wouldn't want any monuments taken down or even moved. Its part of the history of this country. I'm sorry the revolutionaries torn down the statues of King George III, but not because I'm a monarchist. But the Confederate flag isn't appropriate to fly over a government building or a public park anymore than the Union Jack is.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
How are they different?

The Union cause was driven by influential leaders; 'Northern sentiment' is the attitude of the broader population, often just along for the ride.

Yes, it is odd that if it were a war for emancipation that they remained slave states.
As you just pointed out, they did not remain slave states; the war made it possible to end slavery in those states also.

Yes Congress passed it in January 1865, before Confederate surrender. It was ratified in December, well after surrender. How does that leave me with blinders?
The passage of the 13th Amendment and the defeat of the Confederacy were part of the same effort; trying to look at them in isolation is putting blinders on.
 

K Hale

Colonel
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Location
Texas
Once one is moved and the UDC pay for it, it will then roll down hill. More and more of them will be "voted" on to be moved with the UDC footing the bill. This is no more than the next step to the eradication of My Confederate Heritage..........

View attachment 72347
Respectfully,
William
Why is the word voted in quotes?
 

James B White

Captain
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
My recollection was that many who were proslavery were arrested in Maryland and the antislavery faction won based on the votes of Union soldiers stationed there. Be that as it may, it remained a slave state until the end of 1864. As to Kentucky, her slaves were freed as a result of the 13th Amendment. Yes, it is odd that if it were a war for emancipation that they remained slave states.
I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that it was the "fault" of Kentucky, Maryland, etc. for not seceding and therefore being slave states in the union? Or do you mean it's the "fault" of the federal government for either accepting them in the union or not forcing them to end slavery if they were going to remain? What alternative history would you expect, if the federal government was actually against slavery?

It seems to me the alternatives were either illegal actions by the federal government, or else one has to put the choice to maintain slavery and stay in the union on the citizens of the slave states and not the federal government. Without a Constitutional amendment, which the feds were working on, I don't see how they could have legally done anything to change the stuation.
 

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Location
Central Pennsylvania
Whats next? The removal of all monuments from National Parks, and public owned cemetaries of their tombstones that has any reference of the confederacy? Lets just sanitize the whole civil war it's the union fighting nobody, in nowhere, and nowhen.


You know- there's a valid point here. A lot of these sentiments grow out of emotional reactivity, I understand that. But. There is an historical bottom line here somewhere no one seems to be pausing to sort out before decisions occur. I's a pendulum swinging wildly in extremes, the motion never allowed to still. We just, plain cannot silence rational conversation when it is something or coming from somewhere which arouses reactivity. It may feel like an attack but what if it is not? What if it is a serious question which really should be addressed before our American History is swept from view? We all rail against revisionism. There should be a conversation and a real one.

Our Civil War is our History. The Confederacy, soldiers, pride, generals- the place all this existed, what it meant, what it means to us today- all of it- Good Heavens, why isn't it a little frightening we could lose our History? Please no one yell at me, tell me I want flags in public places, blah blah blah This isn't about that. It is about collective History and why the blazes we are all where we are. A LOT of the people making these sweeping changes know almost nothing about History, I'm guessing haven't looked at it beyond the whole ' Southern Redneck ' thing. This buys into something I've been witching about for years ( not that anyone is supposed to know what the take of one member might be ) , Hollywood's abuse of that image with their intrusive, idiotic, endless series- Honeybooboo, all the beat up on people THEY think they're better than shows.

It still could happen, it's not just the streak of Pollyanna in my head saying this- both ' sides' have a story, so deeply intertwined, one gripping the other through centuries they're still rubbed raw. I'm not even sure there's a ton of input ' Yanks' get to make beyond supporting the bejammers out of History if this other Union ever happens. Can't imagine how strong a voice that would be.
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
I'm not sure what you're saying. Do you mean that it was the "fault" of Kentucky, Maryland, etc. for not seceding and therefore being slave states in the union? Or do you mean it's the "fault" of the federal government for either accepting them in the union or not forcing them to end slavery if they were going to remain? What alternative history would you expect, if the federal government was actually against slavery?

It seems to me the alternatives were either illegal actions by the federal government, or else one has to put the choice to maintain slavery and stay in the union on the citizens of the slave states and not the federal government. Without a Constitutional amendment, which the feds were working on, I don't see how they could have legally done anything to change the stuation.

My point is quite simple: the simplistic assertion of anti-slavery Union verses pro-slavery Confederacy fails to account for the real world nuances of history. Therefore such assertions serve to distort history in the same manner the Lost Cause has. That was my point and remains my point.
 

James B White

Captain
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 4, 2011
Our Civil War is our History. The Confederacy, soldiers, pride, generals- the place all this existed, what it meant, what it means to us today- all of it- Good Heavens, why isn't it a little frightening we could lose our History?
So far it seems that most of the history we're losing is the history of the 1950s-60s Jim Crow era, and a little of the white historiography of the war from the early 20th century. I dunno. I think it's important to remember the various ways whites tried to control public spaces and how they celebrated predominantly white history and heritage. But there's got to be a better way than freezing the entire public landscape into a massive living history museum to the era.
 

Rob9641

Captain
Annual Winner
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Location
Maryland
1. Never stated I did not expect counterarguments or political activity.

2. Never stated I want others to believe in or honor My Confederate Heritage just because I do.

3. If a community is offended by a CBF on public ground, they are entitled to work for its removal.

a. Did this community take a vote of the people in the community to see if they were offended, or did some of the "they" take it upon themselves to act? If so are"they" representing the community or themselves?

4. Never stated I did not expect verbal flack. As to defending my display of My Confederate Heritage, I surely can and will.
As to being punched in the mouth, I unlike the Monuments/Memorials, will punch back..............lol...and my "punch" may be a bit more than theirs.............lol

View attachment 72370
Respectfully,
William

OK, I hear you. Re # 3, tho - who are "they" to you? If "they" are the legally voted in representatives of the community, "they" always act "taking it upon themselves." "They" can't take every issue to a vote - we'd all be at the polls every day. So if "they" are the elected representatives, then yes, "they" are by definition representing the community. If the community doesn't like what "they" do, the community can get the question on the ballot (if that is allowed in that jurisdiction) and/or the community votes "them" out of office.
 

Rob9641

Captain
Annual Winner
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Location
Maryland
Are you suggesting, Alan, that the Emancipation Proclamation was issued based upon morality as opposed to an expedient to weaken the Confederacy? Were not the Amendments adopted for essentially the same reason? Were they not to weaken the treasonous white Southerners and make sure they would never again obtain political power that would threat the Republican control of the nation? I am not suggesting that these measures were not a moral good, clearly they were. They helped to bring us along the path to truly make this a nation where all men were created equal. No one can criticize that but to suggest they were proposed and adopted through altruism and shows the Union forces were clearly more moral than Confederates is, in my view, wholly specious.

The Emancipation Proclamation was both a military and a moral decision. Lincoln and many Northerners were morally opposed to slavery long before the CW came around and yes, their political agenda was to contain slavery where it was so that it would gradually phase out altogether. That position was moral, and political, and economical, but it predated the military.

If the Amendments were to weaken white Southerners and make sure they never again obtained political power that would threaten Republican control of the nation, they did a p--- poor job of it. IMO, the Amendments were to ensure that slavery was done for and had little if anything to do with keeping white Southerners out of political power.
 

Rob9641

Captain
Annual Winner
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Location
Maryland
Once we begin erasing history we will be doomed to repeat it. Once all of the Confederate monuments have been removed a precedent will have been put in place that may be impossible to stop. Who will decide what gets done away with next because they are offended by it? Colonial era historical sites? Mount Rushmore? Your church? Where will it end?

The day that all Confederate monuments are removed will be the day I drink the Chesapeake Bay. I and practically everybody else on this board would never stand for monuments being removed from battlefields and military cemeteries, for instance. The impetus for removing ALL evidence that the Confederacy ever existed is simply not there.

There seems to be an inclination toward catastrophizing on this issue. Remove one CBF from any particular place and it inevitably leads to all monuments and any other thing remembering the Confederacy being eradicated? Not a chance. The "slippery slope" arguments happens on a lot of issues and from people of all political persuasions, but it's counterproductive and it makes your blood pressure go up unnecessarily.
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
The Emancipation Proclamation was both a military and a moral decision. Lincoln and many Northerners were morally opposed to slavery long before the CW came around and yes, their political agenda was to contain slavery where it was so that it would gradually phase out altogether. That position was moral, and political, and economical, but it predated the military.

If the Amendments were to weaken white Southerners and make sure they never again obtained political power that would threaten Republican control of the nation, they did a p--- poor job of it. IMO, the Amendments were to ensure that slavery was done for and had little if anything to do with keeping white Southerners out of political power.

My look at Reconstruction and its end lead me to think otherwise.
 
Top