Restricted Instead of Removing Confederate Statues, Should We Add to Them?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
Of course the bull statue is also male, with notoriously gigantic testicles that tourists love to take pictures rubbing. The girl seems to be standing against "boys gone wild" as well.
This was the exact same interpretation that I was surruptitiously referring to in my comment on the blog:wink:

The juxtaposition created is hilarious and ridiculous at the same time.
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
I think Levin's post was directed at communities where the Confederate statuary is unwelcome to many residents. Places like Richmond and Charlottesville have efforts underway to remove the monuments. So he is offering this as one direction the locales might consider.
It might also be directed at communities where some folks are willing to spend enormous amounts of money defending Confederate monuments, but have never thought of putting that toward a new monument to celebrate say, USCT troops from that city. If those in New Orleans had funded a statue of Andre Cailloux, would they have been able to persuade others to leave the statue of Beauregard, since they're both native sons?
 

huskerblitz

Captain
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Location
Nebraska
It might also be directed at communities where some folks are willing to spend enormous amounts of money defending Confederate monuments, but have never thought of putting that toward a new monument to celebrate say, USCT troops from that city. If those in New Orleans had funded a statue of Andre Cailloux, would they have been able to persuade others to leave the statue of Beauregard, since they're both native sons?
I'm not sure that makes sense. The reason they are spending money to defend it would because it is already under attack. So if they were just pooling money together for new ones how could they protect the ones people are targeting? There is only so much money to go around.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

rebelatsea

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Location
Kent ,England.
Taking a naval theme, How about Davis Glasgow Farragut and Franklyn Buchanan at Mobile?
Or Isaac Newton Brown and Walke - I'm sure Mark could suggest a location for that pair.
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
If you wanted a monument to the numerous Louisiana USCT's who fought in the Civil War, that seems like a great idea.

But more advertising of the myth that the Native Guards fought for the Confederacy or were ever even recognized as Louisiana troops would be highly unacceptable. New Orleans has monuments to all kinds of people, Jose Marti, Simon Bolivar, priests who served the Confederacy but weren't from New Orleans, Arkansas Generals who weren't very popular in their home states.

Why is it so difficult to think of honoring a genuine NOLA hero like Andre Cailloux? Or the thousands of USCTs that came from Louisiana? Is there some rule that Southern History equals only White History?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Cavalry Charger

Captain
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
But I'm not above such actions. Davis and Douglass are long gone. This statue's for me.
Well, I hope you will enjoy it in the backyard of your own home, and none of us are above kneejerk reactions that make us want to show the middle finger sometimes...as per usual, that goes for both sides of any argument. I'm just glad you're not going to try me for 'insubordination', :wink:
 
Last edited:

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Andre Cailloux would be a good figure for a memorial, I agree.

If you wanted a monument to the numerous Louisiana USCT's who fought in the Civil War, that seems like a great idea.

But more advertising of the myth that the Native Guards fought for the Confederacy or were ever even recognized as Louisiana troops would be highly unacceptable.
Governor Moore of Louisiana did officially recognize them, even if the Confederate national government didn't, so they were an official military unit of a Confederate state. I think a monument to them would be appropriate. And such a monument ought to include both Confederate and Union history, as Desert Kid says.

Those men have an interesting story. Though Moore appointed white officers over the unit, company commanders were black or creole, from among the men. They were the first militia unit to have black officers in an American state. That alone ought to entitle them a place of note in our history. They did not see combat, though they did participate in military reviews. The Louisiana legislature passed an all-white militia law, forcing them to disband, Moore reinstated them when the Union navy started up the Mississippi river. They disbanded again after the Confederate military pulled out of New Orleans and returned to the civilian population at the advice of their officers.

Only about 10% of the Native Guard who had been Confederate actually joined the Union side, so it wasn't as though the entire group of 1400 changed allegiance.

Governor Moore was calling for black men to be allowed in the Confederate Army when that debate really took off in late 1864, which doesn't surprise me given his support for the Native Guard.
 
Last edited:

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Louisiana sent more than 24,000 men to be part of the USCT with the Union--more than any other state--that merits a monument to some.

Trying to continue the fantasy that the Louisiana Native Guards were anything more than a publicity stunt by Confederates to demonstrate that they had blacks on their side, or more than an attempt by wealthy Creoles of color from New Orleans to try and ensure that they weren't pressed into Confederate service and sent to dig ditches, by promoting a monument to these men who didn't drill, who weren't supplied uniforms and who weren't even used to escort prisoners is about the most inappropriate thing one can imagine. It's also indicative of what creates intransigence on the other side, who are told that they aren't even allowed their own heroes of color from the Civil War, much less a monument to them.

But if you want to talk about the Louisiana Native Guard, let's look at the timelines:

April 22, 1861 -1,500 men of color in New Orleans pledge to serve in a militia
May 2, 1861 - Governor Moore accepts their pledges and forms the 1st Louisiana Native Guard
Sept., 1861 - Louisiana Native Guard not allowed to escort prisoners of war.
Nov. , '61 and Jan. 1862- The Native Guards participated in military reviews but many of them had no uniforms or weapons. One company had only 10 muskets.
Jan., 1862 - Louisiana Legislature passes a law that militia can only be white.
Febr. 16, 1862 - Louisiana Native Guard officially disbanded.
March 24, 1862 - When Farragut's vessels are already in the Mississippi River, Gov. Moore calls upon the Native Guards to reassemble to help defend New Orleans .
April 26, 1862 - Farragut accepts surrender of New Orleans, Louisiana Native Guard disbanded again.

This merits a monument, but the Louisiana Native Guards of the Union, who fought valiantly at Port Hudson do not? Because charging and dying in the face of enemy fire somehow doesn't count?
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY
Louisiana sent more than 24,000 men to be part of the USCT with the Union--more than any other state--that merits a monument to some.

Trying to continue the fantasy that the Louisiana Native Guards were anything more than a publicity stunt by Confederates to demonstrate that they had blacks on their side, or more than an attempt by wealthy Creoles of color from New Orleans to try and ensure that they weren't pressed into Confederate service and sent to dig ditches, by promoting a monument to these men who didn't drill, who weren't supplied uniforms and who weren't even used to escort prisoners is about the most inappropriate thing one can imagine. It's also indicative of what creates intransigence on the other side, who are told that they aren't even allowed their own heroes of color from the Civil War, much less a monument to them.

But if you want to talk about the Louisiana Native Guard, let's look at the timelines:

April 22, 1861 -1,500 men of color in New Orleans pledge to serve in a militia
May 2, 1861 - Governor Moore accepts their pledges and forms the 1st Louisiana Native Guard
Sept., 1861 - Louisiana Native Guard not allowed to escort prisoners of war.
Nov. , '61 and Jan. 1862- The Native Guards participated in military reviews but many of them had no uniforms or weapons. One company had only 10 muskets.
Jan., 1862 - Louisiana Legislature passes a law that militia can only be white.
Febr. 16, 1862 - Louisiana Native Guard officially disbanded.
March 24, 1862 - When Farragut's vessels are already in the Mississippi River, Gov. Moore calls upon the Native Guards to reassemble to help defend New Orleans .
April 26, 1862 - Farragut accepts surrender of New Orleans, Louisiana Native Guard disbanded again.

This merits a monument, but the Louisiana Native Guards of the Union, who fought valiantly at Port Hudson do not? Because charging and dying in the face of enemy fire somehow doesn't count?
Thanks for the timeline.
 

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
This merits a monument, but the Louisiana Native Guards of the Union, who fought valiantly at Port Hudson do not? Because charging and dying in the face of enemy fire somehow doesn't count?
I did say both Confederate and Union history ought to be on any theoretical monument, so I'm not sure how you're getting the idea that I think their Union service "doesn't count". All I pointed out was that only a small fraction of the Native Guard actually signed up for Union service, at least initially. It wasn't as if the entire group changed allegiance.
 
Last edited:

Drew

Major
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Kevin Levin has an interesting suggestion on his blog today, prompted by some "guerrilla" statuary. Here in NY, the infamous "Charging Bull" statue got an addition a month ago when a small statue of a "Fearless Girl" was placed in front of it.

View attachment 128935

The Charging Bull, erected illegally two decades ago, has often been criticized for its seeming glorification of unrestrained capitalish, seemed to many New Yorkers to have met its match in the defiant little girl. Like any "art", both pieces are open to multiple interpretations. However, apart from the individual merits of either statue, the two seem to create a different space than either of them would alone.

In his blog, Levin asks if, instead of removing Confederate memorials or adding interpretive signage as some have suggested in Richmond and other cities, the example of the Fearless Girl should be followed.

http://cwmemory.com/2017/03/28/does-the-robert-e-lee-monument-need-a-fearless-girl/
Well, all I've got to say about this is, congratulations. Political Correctness run completely amok. Good for you.

The statue in question was provided as an offering after the Great Crash of 1987 to the spirit of an America that desperately needed it. Yes, it was delivered and placed by the artist, illegally. It's removal by police created a public outcry that brought the Mayor and the Parks Department Commissioner into action, to save it and so they did.

I don't know what the 'little girl' point is, but a bull is a sign of prosperity. Maybe a more Politically Correct artist may offer a new statue, of a bear, signifying downturn, recession and depression. All the bloggers will surely be happy with that.

http://chargingbull.com/chargingbull.html
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
I did say both Confederate and Union history ought to be on any theoretical monument, so I'm not sure how you're getting the idea that I think their Union service "doesn't count". All I pointed out was that only a small fraction of the Native Guard actually signed up for Union service, at least initially. It wasn't as if the entire group changed allegiance.
Because you've pointed out that the Union service of the men who were in the 1st Louisiana Native Guard doesn't count at all, doesn't deserve its own monument. Of all the units that were in the Civil War, they can only be honored if we find some Confederate unit--one that really wasn't even much of a military unit at all--and pair the 1st Louisiana with them.

That's just insulting to the memory of those men.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

huskerblitz

Captain
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Location
Nebraska
Of course the bull statue is also male, with notoriously gigantic testicles that tourists love to take pictures rubbing. The girl seems to be standing against "boys gone wild" as well.
One of the articles I read highlights one of my problems with simply adding to existing monuments. It changes the narrative of the reason they were placed in the first place. Again, let each tell their own story and let people come to the conclusion they come to, just as you apparently have in the 'boys vs. girls' setup. People complain about what Confederate monuments say I fail to see how adding something that completely changes is much better.
 

Longhall

Private
Joined
Mar 6, 2017
I recall watching the news one day several years ago as journalists filmed the Taliban shooting rockets at ancient desert monuments carved into the cliffs a thousand years ago by a people with a vision and they were blowing them to pieces. I thought at that time, someone will be at war with these people before long. Anyone with so little regard for history must also have a similarly small regard for human life.
The monuments erected north and south to great leaders military and political will always have detractors. Monuments are never erected by people who oppose them. It is the loyal few who understand the struggle and the Sacrifice of the men who paid the ultimate price. People with a vision of something perhaps an ideal which has become almost sacred, of ground which has been hallowed and ought to be preserved for perpetuity.
This idea of removing them, adding something counter the intent and purpose is just wrong in my opinion. You want a monument to stand for something different? Well there's a process to go through to get it. This is America you are welcome to proceed.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Joined
Jul 30, 2016
Location
berlin
I recall watching the news one day several years ago as journalists filmed the Taliban shooting rockets at ancient desert monuments carved into the cliffs a thousand years ago by a people with a vision and they were blowing them to pieces. I thought at that time, someone will be at war with these people before long. Anyone with so little regard for history must also have a similarly small regard for human life.
The monuments erected north and south to great leaders military and political will always have detractors. Monuments are never erected by people who oppose them. It is the loyal few who understand the struggle and the Sacrifice of the men who paid the ultimate price. People with a vision of something perhaps an ideal which has become almost sacred, of ground which has been hallowed and ought to be preserved for perpetuity.
This idea of removing them, adding something counter the intent and purpose is just wrong in my opinion. You want a monument to stand for something different? Well there's a process to go through to get it. This is America you are welcome to proceed.
so we should have kept all those uncle-joe-monuments in the former gdr (i'm not even starting on the other guy)? i guess it was also wrong to tear down those saddam h. statues?

disclaimer: i'm not comparing anything (as usual) - i'm just attacking that 'every monument is a good monument'-idea. in my eyes it's a bad joke.
 

Bee

Captain
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Dec 21, 2015
so we should have kept all those uncle-joe-monuments in the former gdr (i'm not even starting on the other guy)? i guess it was also wrong to tear down those saddam h. statues?
When I was livening in Italy, they could never finish a construction project, due to the layers of history buried under piles of rubble: monuments, architecture -- you name it. The US is a very young country with a unique practice of freedom. It has not experienced hostile takeovers, regime changes, and on-site monarchies that would practice the ritual of wiping out the symbols of the previous regime, so that it almost became normal. It is unique to this country that the defeated were allowed to erect tributes and fly emblems that would otherwise be indentified as treasonous behaviour in many other places.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top