Restricted Honoring Ancestors: From Rise and Fall of the Lost Cause view

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
I certainly understand the desire to defend the honor of ancestors and don't want to demean or belittle that. They sacrificed their all for what they believed for their times was the right thing to do.

This is the cruxt of the problem.

Defending the honor of ancestors that were morally wrong just continues the immorality.

This works in societies the same way it does on individuals. If you can't admit there is a problem, you will never grow from the experience.

Much of the malignance that comes from the Lost Cause comes from the fact that people don't want their sacred notions disabused with such a thing as 'historical fact.'

And that's one of the biggest things I'm just gobsmacked by - my great great grandpappy's actions have absolutely nothing to do with me as an individual. Hell, the first person by my sirname that landed on what we become US soil was a slave owner. I can't say I really care, other than acknowledging the truth of that and moving on.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
This is the cruxt of the problem.

Defending the honor of ancestors that were morally wrong just continues the immorality.

This works in societies the same way it does on individuals. If you can't admit there is a problem, you will never grow from the experience.

Much of the malignance that comes from the Lost Cause comes from the fact that people don't want their sacred notions disabused with such a thing as 'historical fact.'

And that's one of the biggest things I'm just gobsmacked by - my great great grandpappy's actions have absolutely nothing to do with me as an individual. Hell, the first person by my sirname that landed on what we become US soil was a slave owner. I can't say I really care, other than acknowledging the truth of that and moving on.
Good words, but most human history is about folks that were morally wrong in some way by some measure. IMHO if we say we cannot honor morally wrong ancestors, then few ancestors will be honored. morally wrong is subjective and changes with generation to generation. How do we judge a dead ancestor that was morally right in their time and place and now morally wrong? My existence is because some of my ancestors committed genocide? What do I do, disown them?

We can say that the Lost Cause was morally right for a very long time because it was the accepted truth for much of the country or at least the elites that mattered. History that ignored slavery was the accepted truth until the 1950s and struggled well beyond that. How can ancestors be judged with that track record.

So ancestors morally wrong can be honored, but their deeds died with them.

The question for historians is why things changed. Was it simply an enlightenment or did morality change with economic and political power? As demographics changed so did the outlook for a time of place that went from Gone in the Wind to 12 Years a Slave.

 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Good words, but most human history is about folks that were morally wrong in some way by some measure.

Then why should they be honored? Honored is not the same thing as considered or regarded.


IMHO if we say we cannot honor morally wrong ancestors, then few ancestors will be honored. morally wrong is subjective and changes with generation to generation. How do we judge a dead ancestor that was morally right in their time and place and now morally wrong? My existence is because some of my ancestors committed genocide? What do I do, disown them?

Not use terms like 'honor' them would be a start. This appears to be a uniquely southern pov in my experience.

And societally acceptable is not the same thing as morally correct.

This goes to the root of the issue. The Lost Cause was about what the war was over. When you acknowledge it as slavery, as virtually every historian has now done due to the primary source material of the written record of the Confederate leadership and their words and speeches on the issue, you don't need to conflate the issue any more.

Without the desire to spread the worst type of human bondage and suffering for the economic gratification of the plantation class, the Civil War doesn't happen.

And that was why they lost, because it was accepted that is what they were doing at the time and they couldn't count on the help of a single foreign power to aid them.

Specifically because it wasn't morally correct and therefore socially unacceptable to any of the other nations of the day.

We can say that the Lost Cause was morally right for a very long time because it was the accepted truth for much of the country or at least the elites that mattered. History that ignored slavery was the accepted truth until the 1950s and struggled well beyond that. How can ancestors be judged with that track record.

I couldn't disagree more. They intentionally lied about their history to cover up the crimes that they themselves committed, then generations after generations perpetuated that lie in order to honor ancestors that should have been condemned in the harshest possible terms. All to continue white supremacy in the name of God.

Again, moral correctness has nothing to do with societal acceptance.

So ancestors morally wrong can be honored, but their deeds died with them.

And again, it is wrong to do so. Why should they be honored? Again, this is the principle motivation of the regime they fought for. This isn't a peripheral matter, it's why the conflict existed. Many otherwise upright nations have done immoral things in cause of a greater good. Whether they should be honored for that great good is a question of worth.

But if the intent was to do immoral acts from the beginning, it's hard to see any way to honor those individuals and maintain your own moral integrity.

The question for historians is why things changed. Was it simply an enlightenment or did morality change with economic and political power? As demographics changed so did the outlook for a time of place that went from Gone in the Wind to 12 Years a Slave.

The analysis of the historians from the primary source materials certainly changed. It takes time for facts to interrupt a narrative.

We are seeing those facts interrupt this narrative. And what it took is better analysis and better communications. Hell, I personally can see many of these writings. I've research quite a few digitized originals that showed me exactly what the frame of mind people like Stephen Alexander had.

The Lost Cause is getting kicked in the nethers for the same reason religion is declining.

Information makes myth unnecessary.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
hen why should they be honored? Honored is not the same thing as considered or regarded.
Are you suggesting an intrusive regime to insure families, kin and interested people behave the way you suggest?
honored
  1. regard with great respect.
    "Joyce has now learned to honor her father's memory"
    synonyms: esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to; More
I couldn't disagree more. They intentionally lied about their history to cover up the crimes that they themselves committed, then generations after generations perpetuated that lie in order to honor ancestors that should have been condemned in the harshest possible terms. All to continue white supremacy in the name of God.

Again, moral correctness has nothing to do with societal acceptance.
Sounds like a lot of human groups to me. Perhaps if you were more specific in what your assertion is.
What is the precise historical definition of 'moral correctness'- we are a history site, not philosophy or religion site. What does it mean in historical terms.

Societies will determine what is acceptable for public spaces. One generation may hold that public expressions of Lost Cause may be acceptable, one or two generations later it may not be acceptable. Families change one generation a CSA ancestor is honored, the next they are not.

I may not understand what your point is?
And again, it is wrong to do so. Why should they be honored? Again, this is the principle motivation of the regime they fought for. This isn't a peripheral matter, it's why the conflict existed. Many otherwise upright nations have done immoral things in cause of a greater good. Whether they should be honored for that great good is a question of worth.

But if the intent was to do immoral acts from the beginning, it's hard to see any way to honor those individuals and maintain your own moral integrity.
What if the judgement of those "immoral acts" lay far in the future and that judgement was more the results of amoral politics and war than thoughtful persuasion? Are those who you complain about, immoral because you say so? Certainly there is little evidence they thought themselves as immoral.
The analysis of the historians from the primary source materials certainly changed. It takes time for facts to interrupt a narrative.
Are you suggesting that it takes time for a new morality to replace another?
We are seeing those facts interrupt this narrative. And what it took is better analysis and better communications. Hell, I personally can see many of these writings. I've research quite a few digitized originals that showed me exactly what the frame of mind people like Stephen Alexander had.
You have a quote where Stephens said the institution of slavery was immoral in his eyes.
The Lost Cause is getting kicked in the nethers for the same reason religion is declining.

Information makes myth unnecessary.
Religion is not appropriate for this forum. IMHO myth dies not of information but when it is no longer useful. Southerners were abandoning Lost Cause long before others caught on. Getting to be a political negative when it used to be a positive.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Are you suggesting an intrusive regime to insure families, kin and interested people behave the way you suggest?
honored
  1. regard with great respect.
    "Joyce has now learned to honor her father's memory"
    synonyms: esteem, respect, admire, defer to, look up to; More

LOL, no. Simply challenging the assertion that you have to honor someone whose decisions you were in no part responsible for that happens to be in your blood line. If your ancestor was a piece of ****, learn for that, don't embrace it. Seems pretty self-evident to me - we better ourselves through acknowledging mistakes. This works on the individual, familial, and societal levels.

Sounds like a lot of human groups to me. Perhaps if you were more specific in what your assertion is.
What is the precise historical definition of 'moral correctness'- we are a history site, not philosophy or religion site. What does it mean in historical terms.

Perhaps I had the advantage of going to university in the last few decades, but cross pollination across different venues of studies has been a trend for many, many years now.

And if you don't understand what I mean in terms of 'moral correctness' within the concept of the War For Slavery, it just underscores the point.

Moral considerations were extremely involved in this war, and you can't possibly understand the context of the Civil War without understanding how those motivated the individuals who were involved within it. The entire encounter can be described as a moral parable where those crying 'freedom' were actually the enslavers, and unlike their ancestors they received no assistance because of the moral judgement of other cultures.

When it came to aid from outside powers that the Founders received and the Confederates were denied, the Confederates failed because there values were deemed too reprehensible to support by these outside cultures.

Societies will determine what is acceptable for public spaces. One generation may hold that public expressions of Lost Cause may be acceptable, one or two generations later it may not be acceptable. Families change one generation a CSA ancestor is honored, the next they are not.

I may not understand what your point is?

My point is that moral relativism is disingenous at best and allows the advocation of terrible deeds at worst. White supremacist groups go on and on about honoring the Confederates. Is it because they believe that their deeds were incorrect? No, it's because they are arguing that white supremacy is the correct path. People are still dying over that creed.

The pathway to legitimizing this is to say there was no difference between the political leaders who fought to ensure whtie supremacy versus those who acted against it.

The Lost Cause perpetuates to this day the belief that the wrong side won.

What if the judgement of those "immoral acts" lay far in the future and that judgement was more the results of amoral politics and war than thoughtful persuasion?

Then those findings would be immoral as well. And thanks, you just explained 150 years of the Lost Cause. The battles fought to surpress black Republicanism, the destruction of entire towns, thousands of lynchings, Jim Crow and the death of civil rights workers, all to continue white supremacy.

Are those who you complain about, immoral because you say so? Certainly there is little evidence they thought themselves as immoral.

Philosophers have discussed this for years, and objective morality includes such advocates as Kant and his categorical imperatives, and the school of utilitarianism.

The converse is that there is no such thing as morality at all, it's all subjective, and if society decides Marx was right or we start sacrificing babies to Abbadon tomorrow that this is just as valid as our current moral belief structures.

The fact that an individual or society believes evil acts are moral because they want to commit those evil acts has never been a valid reason for ignoring the harm of those acts.

Are you suggesting that it takes time for a new morality to replace another?

You have a quote where Stephens said the institution of slavery was immoral in his eyes.

The narratives that it takes to change public opinion on any issue, including morality, can take time, and sometimes are only adopted after the previous generation dies out. Of course, public opinion does not make morality.

And no, Stephens said that the Founding Fathers were wrong to minimize slavery in the Constititution (where the term is never used), and that instead the Confederacy should embrace the difference between their point of view and that of the Founding Fathers. He was an advocate of slavery as a positive good.

Religion is not appropriate for this forum. IMHO myth dies not of information but when it is no longer useful. Southerners were abandoning Lost Cause long before others caught on. Getting to be a political negative when it used to be a positive.

The main point of contention, was slavery the leading reason for the civil war, is still more prevalent in the South than anywhere else. It's the only area of the nation where more people still believe that is true than don't. It's part of the 150 years disinformation campaign. From a McClatchy Marist poll:

Regional differences exist. At least half of residents in the Northeast, 50%, Midwest, 56%, and West, 67%, say slavery caused the Civil War. However, Southerners divide. 49% report it was not the main reason for the conflict. 45% say slavery was at the heart of the Civil War.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/86-a-nation-still-divided-the-confederate-flag/
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
LOL, no. Simply challenging the assertion that you have to honor someone whose decisions you were in no part responsible for that happens to be in your blood line. If your ancestor was a piece of ****, learn for that, don't embrace it. Seems pretty self-evident to me - we better ourselves through acknowledging mistakes. This works on the individual, familial, and societal levels.



Perhaps I had the advantage of going to university in the last few decades, but cross pollination across different venues of studies has been a trend for many, many years now.

And if you don't understand what I mean in terms of 'moral correctness' within the concept of the War For Slavery, it just underscores the point.

Moral considerations were extremely involved in this war, and you can't possibly understand the context of the Civil War without understanding how those motivated the individuals who were involved within it. The entire encounter can be described as a moral parable where those crying 'freedom' were actually the enslavers, and unlike their ancestors they received no assistance because of the moral judgement of other cultures.

When it came to aid from outside powers that the Founders received and the Confederates were denied, the Confederates failed because there values were deemed too reprehensible to support by these outside cultures.



My point is that moral relativism is disingenous at best and allows the advocation of terrible deeds at worst. White supremacist groups go on and on about honoring the Confederates. Is it because they believe that their deeds were incorrect? No, it's because they are arguing that white supremacy is the correct path. People are still dying over that creed.

The pathway to legitimizing this is to say there was no difference between the political leaders who fought to ensure whtie supremacy versus those who acted against it.

The Lost Cause perpetuates to this day the belief that the wrong side won.



Then those findings would be immoral as well. And thanks, you just explained 150 years of the Lost Cause. The battles fought to surpress black Republicanism, the destruction of entire towns, thousands of lynchings, Jim Crow and the death of civil rights workers, all to continue white supremacy.



Philosophers have discussed this for years, and objective morality includes such advocates as Kant and his categorical imperatives, and the school of utilitarianism.

The converse is that there is no such thing as morality at all, it's all subjective, and if society decides Marx was right or we start sacrificing babies to Abbadon tomorrow that this is just as valid as our current moral belief structures.

The fact that an individual or society believes evil acts are moral because they want to commit those evil acts has never been a valid reason for ignoring the harm of those acts.



The narratives that it takes to change public opinion on any issue, including morality, can take time, and sometimes are only adopted after the previous generation dies out. Of course, public opinion does not make morality.

And no, Stephens said that the Founding Fathers were wrong to minimize slavery in the Constititution (where the term is never used), and that instead the Confederacy should embrace the difference between their point of view and that of the Founding Fathers. He was an advocate of slavery as a positive good.



The main point of contention, was slavery the leading reason for the civil war, is still more prevalent in the South than anywhere else. It's the only area of the nation where more people still believe that is true than don't. It's part of the 150 years disinformation campaign. From a McClatchy Marist poll:

Regional differences exist. At least half of residents in the Northeast, 50%, Midwest, 56%, and West, 67%, say slavery caused the Civil War. However, Southerners divide. 49% report it was not the main reason for the conflict. 45% say slavery was at the heart of the Civil War.
http://maristpoll.marist.edu/86-a-nation-still-divided-the-confederate-flag/

It is my position that anyone has the inherent right to honor anything. They do not have the inherent right to force anyone to honor what they honor.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
It is my position that anyone has the inherent right to honor anything. They do not have the inherent right to force anyone to honor what they honor.

Sure, you have that right all you want.

And the rest of us have the right to criticize you for it if we feel it's warranted.

If you flip out and pull a Preston Brooks to my Charles Sumner, that's when it becomes a problem. :D
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
Sure, you have that right all you want.

And the rest of us have the right to criticize you for it if we feel it's warranted.

If you flip out and pull a Preston Brooks to my Charles Sumner, that's when it becomes a problem. :D
No, but I sure don't mine you all spending 100 words to my 1 doing it
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
In that regard, as the good Southern boy Warren puts forward, the TOV is a complete myth.

What they really don't like hearing is that there was a moral and immoral side in that one specific instance. That makes them feel bad about their great great grandpappies, who was a good man, dammit!

I believe many of us who honor our Confederate ancestors find the snarky, antagonistic comments like these offensive. It is an attack on a group of people, & particularly designed to throw mud in the eye of their descendants, & or those who honor their sacrifices.

It is that attitude, coupled with ignoring or justifying the atrocities committed upon Southern civilians that many today would certainly consider a TOV, & far from a myth.

Many honorable men of the past, have taken part in things that by today's standards are appalling. Some of them were not Confederates....
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
I believe many of us who honor our Confederate ancestors find the snarky, antagonistic comments like these offensive. It is an attack on a group of people, & particularly designed to throw mud in the eye of their descendants, & or those who honor their sacrifices.

That in no way is intended to throw mud in the eyes of their descendants. I don't believe the actions of someone 150 years ago that likely shares very little with you in terms of the culture or philosophy reflect on any way on you, nor do I believe my own descendants reflect on me.

The question is do you still believe what they did was justifiable. If so, than that is reflective of your own social and moral constructs. I find quite a bit of that in my daily life living where I do.

It is that attitude, coupled with ignoring or justifying the atrocities committed upon Southern civilians that many today would certainly consider a TOV, & far from a myth.

If they are justified by actual historical evidence than of course they are still relevant. Civilians always suffer in wars. Both sides had literal blood on their hands.

Many honorable men of the past, have taken part in things that by today's standards are appalling. Some of them were not Confederates....

Here we disagree. If you do things that are appalling, you aren't an 'honorable' man in the first place. But then, fighting in a war in the first place isn't enough to be considered appalling, even in today's more rarefied moral airs.

Such as starting the KKK, or conducting lynchings, or Jim Crow, or wiping out entire towns because of their race, etc ad nausea, ad nauseum. All of these things came directly from the Confederate cause.

A side note, there's often the discussion of the actions of the US army against the native americans used as a moral indictment of the US. Most historians, philosophers and ethicists would agree with that. I certainly do.

But acknowledging the misdeed, taking it to heart and understanding why it was wrong allows us to learn for the lesson as those people's descendants and ensure it doesn't happen again. What I find unusual is the very large percentage of Southerners that refuses to acknowledge wrong doing was done at all. That's why it's still relevant 150 years later.
 
Last edited:

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Here we disagree. If you do things that are appalling, you aren't an 'honorable' man in the first place. But then, fighting in a war in the first place isn't enough to be considered appalling, even in today's more rarefied moral airs.

Such as starting the KKK, or conducting lynchings, or Jim Crow, or wiping out entire towns because of their race, etc ad nausea, ad nauseum. All of these things came directly from the Confederate cause.

Are Grant, Sherman, & Sheridan honorable men ..??



A side note, there's often the discussion of the actions of the US army against the native americans used as a moral indictment of the US. Most historians, philosophers and ethicists would agree with that. I certainly do.

But acknowledging the misdeed, taking it to heart and understanding why it was wrong allows us to learn for the lesson as those people's descendants and ensure it doesn't happen again. What I find unusual is the very large percentage of Southerners that refuses to acknowledge wrong doing was done at all. That's why it's still relevant 150 years later.

I was typing my response when I noticed you added this. I'm a native born Virginian, & consider myself a "Southerner". I've never met a single person in my life who believes slavery wasn't wrong or an evil. Having said that, I choose to honor my Confederate ancestors for their courage, & sacrifices in a very difficult time. Their reasons for enlisting, & fighting vary from person to person, a point debated plenty.

What I find equally unusual is, the very large percentage of those who don't see anything wrong whatsoever with the atrocities committed upon Southern civilians. Oh well.... "it happens in war". LOL To say it happened on both sides is ridiculous considering where most of the war was fought. How many battles were fought in the Northern states..?? I wonder how those with the, "it happens in war" attitude would've felt if for example, Lee had won in PA, & marched into New York City, & burned the whole city to the ground....lol. I bet the, "it happens in war" crowd would feel differently, just a hunch.

My point is, when looking at the period, there's lots of finger pointing that can be done. North & South. None excuse the other... at least in my opinion.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Are Grant, Sherman, & Sheridan honorable men ..??

Not in my opinion, no. Scorched earth tactics such as Sherman and Sheridan definitely include privation and oppression of civilian populaces. Doesn't mean it couldn't be considered justified to end the bloodshed, which it did, but you can't claim sainthood after you give the order for your troops to drive women and children out of their homes and have the homes looted and burned. Grant has some of this on him as well, and of course also has the legacy of one of the most corrupt presidential administrations in history.

But then, honor to me is a cultural sense of right that people should strive to emulate. You don't teach your children to emulate such actions.

Honestly, Grant, Sherman and Sheridan are barely even mentioned in contemporary Northern, Mid West and Western dialogue. They simply aren't important cultural figures any more.

Lee, Jackson and Davis still are in the South. And part of that reason is that parents teach their children to honor them, which means emulate them as well.


I was typing my response when I noticed you added this. I'm a native born Virginian, & consider myself a "Southerner". I've never met a single person in my life who believes slavery wasn't wrong or an evil. Having said that, I choose to honor my Confederate ancestors for their courage, & sacrifices in a very difficult time. Their reasons for enlisting, & fighting vary from person to person, a point debated plenty.

I'm not a native Virginian, but I've lived here for 41 years from the age of 6 years old. My experience is dramatically different than yours. I've heard the term 'mud race' be used without a hint of irony, and I know many racists. Now as an adult I can disengage from them, as a child I didn't have that luxury. I dated a girl whose father was openly racist against blacks (she wasn't) and proudly claimed dual citizenship to the United and Confederate State of America.

And we live in a state where neo-Nazs and neo-Confederates have rallied openly and killed several innocents here over the last year. White supremacy is still a undercurrent to daily life in this state.

What I find equally unusual is, the very large percentage of those who don't see anything wrong whatsoever with the atrocities committed upon Southern civilians. Oh well.... "it happens in war". LOL To say it happened on both sides is ridiculous considering where most of the war was fought. How many battles were fought in the Northern states..?? I wonder how those with the, "it happens in war" attitude would've felt if for example, Lee had won in PA, & marched into New York City, & burned the whole city to the ground....lol. I bet the, "it happens in war" crowd would feel differently, just a hunch.

Not only did it happen on both sides, it's morally ridiculous to assert that the two sides were equally responsible for it. The war was brought to fruition by Southern greed, Southern pride and Southern cannons. Lincoln hadn't even called up troops when Sumter was attacked. The war is the South's fault, period. I certainly can find sympathy for any individuals that faced deprivation due to that, but there's no doubt whose agency caused the war.

But it also must be acknowledged that most of the dying was done by individuals not responsible for the war. The concept of 'just desert' applies to the region as a whole, but that doesn't lesson the tragedy for any specific family or individual.

It's unknown just how many deaths there were during this time. McPherson estimated 50,000 due to disease, famine and other factors of war.

Was the US army and the tactics of the generals you listed above responsible for those deaths?

Absolutely.

I can't say however that I'm not glad that the US won the war.

My point is, when looking at the period, there's lots of finger pointing that can be done. North & South. None excuse the other... at least in my opinion.

In my opinion, the South is at fault for the war, and therefore must take responsibility for the rest of it. The South used guerrilla tactics which included scorched earth when they could, but simply didn't have the resources to do so at the level that the US army could.

There were peaceful options available, but they didn't want them, because it wouldn't grant the Southern leaders what they truly wanted - the territories open for slavery expansion. They couldn't get that done in the Courts or Legislature at this point, so they started the killing.

A horrific reason for a horrible cause.

So no, I don't see the men who lead that cause as noble, or think they should be 'honored.' I believe the same of the men who were forced to put them down, because of the tactics they choose to prosecute the war under.

I just don't see much discussion about that on the US side.

I constantly am exposed to Southerners that still feel that the Confederates were the good guys, and I am repulsed by the lies that they tell to try to convince themselves of that.

And to use the term 'honor' while doing so?

This is literally still killing people.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Lee, Jackson and Davis still are in the South. And part of that reason is that parents teach their children to honor them, which means emulate them as well.

I'm sure many would dispute YOUR definition. I know I do, as I've never considered honor & emulation as one in the same. It's certainly possible to honor someone's life without emulating all of their actions.

And we live in a state where neo-Nazs and neo-Confederates have rallied openly and killed several innocents here over the last year. White supremacy is still a undercurrent to daily life in this state.

Wow. So one skin head lunatic runs over a BLM activist & that is somehow indicative of white supremacy & Confederate heritage supporters..? The SCV sent out memorandums ahead of this advertised rally forbidding it's members from attending. The SCV also forbids members from being involved in ANY organization promoting hate of any kind.

How many murders occurred in the Richmond area in 2017..?

Look, I find all murder a tragedy. I find racism, & or discrimination appalling. However, to say white supremacy is an undercurrent to daily life in Virginia is ridiculous as best. To blame Confederate heritage supporters is dishonest.

Every group out there has some extreme elements to it. The majority of the extremes aren't good examples of the entire bodies.

So no, I don't see the men who lead that cause as noble, or think they should be 'honored.' I believe the same of the men who were forced to put them down, because of the tactics they choose to prosecute the war under.

I just don't see much discussion about that on the US side.

I constantly am exposed to Southerners that still feel that the Confederates were the good guys, and I am repulsed by the lies that they tell to try to convince themselves of that.

And to use the term 'honor' while doing so?

This is literally still killing people.

Well, while I disagree with lots of your points, I must admit.... you're the first I've seen at least acknowledge the actions of the US Army were less than honorable with respect to Southern civilians. At least we can agree on something...lol

I'll say again that I honor my Confederate ancestors, & their sacrifices. Many lost everything. To think that my respect for an ancestor & their personal suffrage is in someway an endorsement of slavery, or white supremacy is ludicrous.

ps. I respect my yankee ancestors too. Without either, I wouldn't be here.
 

byron ed

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 22, 2017
Location
Midwest
...I'm a native born Virginian, & consider myself a "Southerner". I've never met a single person in my life who believes slavery wasn't wrong or an evil.

While the rest of your points are well-made, I'm definitiely suspicious of this assertion. I've visited the South (and have Southern relatives) and even in my brief personal visits there I can tell you there are definitely resident Southerners, and more than a few, who yet believe at some level that slavery wasn't wrong or wasn't evil, if not both of those things. And if by "meet" you include folks on this forum, well you've certainly missed the slavery apologists here (who've typically been considerate enough to claim by proxy only to avoid flame-ups).

So please elaborate -- I won't say fess up because it is your experience after all. Perhaps you live in one of the bigger cities where, any more, Confederate legacy is a smaller part of the mix; or perhaps you tend to keep to yourself at CW events.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
While the rest of your points are well-made, I'm definitiely suspicious of this assertion. I've visited the South (and have Southern relatives) and even in my brief personal visits there I can tell you there are definitely resident Southerners, and more than a few, who yet believe at some level that slavery wasn't wrong or wasn't evil, if not both of those things. And if by "meet" you include folks on this forum, well you've certainly missed the slavery apologists here (who've typically been considerate enough to claim by proxy only to avoid flame-ups).

So please elaborate -- I won't say fess up because it is your experience after all. Perhaps you live in one of the bigger cities where, any more, Confederate legacy is a smaller part of the mix; or perhaps you tend to keep to yourself at CW events.

Actually, I live in a pretty rural part of Virginia, not far from Lexington (same county). There's a CW era event there this coming weekend actually.

I stand by my assertion. I've yet to meet anybody (in person), who personally believes slavery wasn't an evil thing.

The biggest problem (besides the obvious) imo, it's a difficult issue to discuss with people. Seems the worst thing in the world today is to be a racist. It's a sensitive button, & a label thrown around with ease. To label somebody as racist today shuts down discussion usually pretty quick. On top of that, the fear of being labeled a racist prevents plenty of people from having honest discussions on sensitive subjects.

So, having said that.... maybe I HAVE encountered some that feel that way. I've just never met anybody who actually said that to me, or voiced an opinion that led me to believe they thought slavery wasn't wrong, or evil.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Actually, I live in a pretty rural part of Virginia, not far from Lexington (same county). There's a CW era event there this coming weekend actually.

I stand by my assertion. I've yet to meet anybody (in person), who personally believes slavery wasn't an evil thing.

The biggest problem (besides the obvious) imo, it's a difficult issue to discuss with people. Seems the worst thing in the world today is to be a racist. It's a sensitive button, & a label thrown around with ease. To label somebody as racist today shuts down discussion usually pretty quick. On top of that, the fear of being labeled a racist prevents plenty of people from having honest discussions on sensitive subjects.

So, having said that.... maybe I HAVE encountered some that feel that way. I've just never met anybody who actually said that to me, or voiced an opinion that led me to believe they thought slavery wasn't wrong, or evil.

Well, in case you weren't aware, here's some of the things that have happened in your county in the last few years.

1)The KKK has actively sent out fliers in order to recruit, distributing them throughout the town

2) A newspaper ran an ad that said no blacks or democrats would be allowed on the private property of one of the county residents that displays a large confederate flag

3) The SCV put Confederate flags on dozens of light poles and government buildings. Complaints came from the citizenry, they were removed, the SCV then sued the county to be able to display Confederate emblems on government property. They lost.

4) Trucks with confederate flags drove through black areas of the town screaming racial expletives according to the only black councilmember.

5) A group of minority law students sent a notice to their dean indicating that they faced a hostile environment and diversity was not welcome at Washington and Lee. The university responded by taking down all the confederate flags outside of the Lee Chapel. When the SCV and other groups excoriated them for doing so, the University chose to ban any further celebrations in the chapel itself:

W&L President Kenneth Ruscio explained at the time that flags displayed in the assembly area of the building were being removed because as replicas, they lacked an educational purpose. But the school left room for authentic, historic Confederate flags in the chapel’s museum.

Reaction from the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other critics — much of it through social media — was so vitriolic that the school decided not to rent out the chapel, which will remain open to the general public on Saturday.

“We simply are not going to allow our own facilities to be used as a place from which these attacks can be made,” Eckert (the W&L university spokesman) said at the time.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/virgini...cle_4d291c69-79a9-52c1-b460-e70ff2686070.html

6) The city hosted it's very first MLK day parade in 2017. In prior years they only allowed Lee Jackson day. Lexington is one of the very few cities that still celebrate Lee Jackson. There was a controversy for allowing the MLK day group to use the parade route, and there were threats. The city council urged caution for 'unintended consequences.' Luckily there was no violence.

This in a 10 min news search.

So maybe you haven't heard anyone endorse slavery. No way for me to verify that. However, you live in the very center of the Lost Cause movement. Lee's Chapel, Jackson's burial place, and VMI are enduring symbols of the Confederacy.

This area isn't 'normal' when it comes to these issues.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Well, in case you weren't aware, here's some of the things that have happened in your county in the last few years.

I'm very aware of the things happening in my community. Actual events, as well as alleged events.

1)The KKK has actively sent out fliers in order to recruit, distributing them throughout the town
Hard to say if they were actually from the Klan or not. There's certainly multiple cases of people making racial claims that were later proven untrue. I've not seen any article with a member of the KKK claiming responsibility for said flyers.

FWIW, I find them & their ideology despicable. However, there's certainly other groups doing similar things

2) A newspaper ran an ad that said no blacks or democrats would be allowed on the private property of one of the county residents that displays a large confederate flag

You'd be hard pressed to find a newspaper in the area that is sympathetic to Confederate anything. Controversy sells for sure. I do remember this incident. If I recall correctly, the man had received multiple threats which prompted his proclamation.


3) The SCV put Confederate flags on dozens of light poles and government buildings. Complaints came from the citizenry, they were removed, the SCV then sued the county to be able to display Confederate emblems on government property. They lost.

Not sure what your point is here. Although, you've misrepresented the issue. For about 20yrs the local chapter of the SCV in Lexington, has had a parade on Lee/Jackson Day. Up until 2011 the parade route was lined with battle flags, etc. The city council who long has had a hatred for the SCV, & the CBF passed legislation prohibiting the hanging of flags on city property. They won. So...?? The same city actually tried to prevent the Battle Flag from even being carried in the parade in the past. They lost that battle when the ACLU defended the flag.

To say the SCV wanted to display Confederate emblems on government buildings & property is deceptive. This was all based on the Lee/Jackson holiday, & events.

4) Trucks with confederate flags drove through black areas of the town screaming racial expletives according to the only black councilmember.

So he says.


5) A group of minority law students sent a notice to their dean indicating that they faced a hostile environment and diversity was not welcome at Washington and Lee. The university responded by taking down all the confederate flags outside of the Lee Chapel. When the SCV and other groups excoriated them for doing so, the University chose to ban any further celebrations in the chapel itself:

W&L President Kenneth Ruscio explained at the time that flags displayed in the assembly area of the building were being removed because as replicas, they lacked an educational purpose. But the school left room for authentic, historic Confederate flags in the chapel’s museum.

Reaction from the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other critics — much of it through social media — was so vitriolic that the school decided not to rent out the chapel, which will remain open to the general public on Saturday.

“We simply are not going to allow our own facilities to be used as a place from which these attacks can be made,” Eckert (the W&L university spokesman) said at the time.

http://www.roanoke.com/news/virgini...cle_4d291c69-79a9-52c1-b460-e70ff2686070.html

Again, an exert from a news clipping far from tells the whole story or even close to all the facts. A small group of W&L law students threw a fit because of CBF's on display INSIDE Lee Chapel surrounding a sarcophagus memorial to Lee. A place where the only time most students even enter is during Freshman orientation. I have been to Lee Chapel both before, & after this. Nothing changed on the outside because, there were no flags in public view that I can remember. Like I said, only around the memorial to Lee at the very back of Chapel near the stairs that take you downstairs to where he is entombed, & where a museum to Lee exists.

The law students written demands to the University were:

1. We demand that the University fully recognize Martin Luther King, Jr. Day on the undergraduate campus.
2. We demand that the University stop allowing neo-confederates to march on campus with confederate flags on Lee-Jackson Day.
3. We demand that the University immediately remove all confederate flags from its property and premises, including those flags located within Lee Chapel.
4. We demand that the University issue an official apology for the University’s participation in chattel slavery, including a denunciation of General Robert E. Lee’s participation in slavery.


The university gave in to all of them. Gee, how dare the SCV be upset over it. The Lee/Jackson Day parade would usually end at Lee Chapel with a memorial service. This was the case for over a decade until these demands were met.

The university no longer allows the SCV use of Lee Chapel. In a written letter last year denying the use, the university claimed, it would be an inappropriate use of the facility. Yeah... I suppose they have a point...... A memorial service for the man who arguably saved the university with his reconciliatory tone, at the place of his burial, in a chapel bearing his name, on the property of a University bearing his name...... yeah... definitely inappropriate.....


6) The city hosted it's very first MLK day parade in 2017. In prior years they only allowed Lee Jackson day. Lexington is one of the very few cities that still celebrate Lee Jackson. There was a controversy for allowing the MLK day group to use the parade route, and there were threats. The city council urged caution for 'unintended consequences.' Luckily there was no violence.

Again..... from afar you lack a lot of the details of this event. Every year (20yrs now), the SCV obtains a permit for the Lee Jackson Day Parade which goes through downtown Lexington. Last year, a new local group of activists named, "CARE" obtained a parade permit on the very day usually reserved for Lee Jackson Day. CARE claimed they just wanted to honor MLK. However, when the SCV contacted CARE, & offered to exchange parade dates with them (offering you know MLK Day), CARE refused, & insisted to have their parade on the Saturday typically of the Lee Jackson parade.

I can't imagine why the SCV would be upset. Anyways, there were ZERO incidents. As a side note, I have personally spoken to a member of the CARE organization who admitted their whole purpose was to poke the SCV in the eye. Very compassionate they are.

This in a 10 min news search.

So maybe you haven't heard anyone endorse slavery. No way for me to verify that. However, you live in the very center of the Lost Cause movement. Lee's Chapel, Jackson's burial place, and VMI are enduring symbols of the Confederacy.

This area isn't 'normal' when it comes to these issues.

Yes we agree about something else...!! Lee Chapel, Stonewall Jackson cemetery, & VMI ARE enduring symbols of the Confederacy. I've been to all 3 multiple times. I would recommend Stonewalls house tour as well. Although, VMI is really cool. Especially their chapel. There is a huge mural on the wall depicting the Cadets who became famous at New Market. Plus the 10 who lost their lives are entombed at VMI as well.

Normal..? Normal is very subjective. One look at modern issues of today certainly validates my statement...hahaha.
 
Last edited:

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I am not too much on the morality or historic significance of symbols of honor. Pretty much sound and fury signifying nothing. Thunder and lighting passing on. To me.

I am passionate in the rights:
To honor in private what we wish.
To express publicly what we honor.
To petition the government to make symbols of honor or to tear them down.​
There is some document honored by some that expresses this idea.

I see great excitement over rhetoric and emotions. I doubt anyone will be convince of much. Everyone has an opinion. Sometimes just have to accept that.
 

demiurge

Sergeant
Joined
Apr 15, 2016
Good day, & let me know if you wanna do that tour of Lexington..!!

Been there many times. As I stated, I'm a Virginian as well. :D Love Hull's Drive In, one of the few great remaining drive ins in the country. Spent some time at the Marshall Library at VMI doing some research. Took my kid to the natural bridge, the local zoos, and foamhenge, before they shipped it off.

I'm not particularly interested in the shrines of confederate generals, so on that regard I'll take a pass. I see nothing worth venerating there. Particularly as when Lee was dying he stated he didn't want any confederate iconography at his funeral (there wasn't) and when he was alive said he didn't want any memorials commemorating the war as they were divisive. Needless to say, his wishes weren't followed in death, and the battle flag is on display in the chapel now.

Oh, and perhaps that's one of the reasons the university doesn't want neo-Confederate groups using the chapel for propaganda purposes. Lee said he didn't want that.

As to the rest, several mistruths there, whether intentional or not. The leaflets specifically stated they were recruitment for the KKK. That's not an opinion.

Killing for white supremacy on ideological grounds has led to both the bloodiest war in US history as well as the bloodiest war in world history. Yes, we should pay more attention to that than gang violence in inner cities.

As to the issue with the University who recruited more black students specifically on a campaign of increasing diversity, you can't then also support a flag that fought for racial oppression of the highest order. The University changed their policy because it was the moral thing to do. The South has to grow up about its iconography, especially considering the large percentage of african americans that live in the region. Fortunately it appears that more and more individuals understand that.

More if I have time, but no, we aren't going to agree that the role that the SCV plays is a positive one. For example, not a big fan of their attempt to get the first grand dragon of the KKK his own commemorative license plate. And this isn't in the distant past - this was 2011. Or their law suit agaisnt the city of Vancouver, WA over the Jefferson Davis Highway there. What exactly does Washington state have to do with the Confederacy?

It's a propaganda group, pure and simple.
 

Attachments

  • garbage_leaflet.jpg
    garbage_leaflet.jpg
    131.3 KB · Views: 56
Top