Restricted Isn't the South Great. It would be a shame to erase it.

No, I don't. I haven't agreed that public property is an inappropriate location for a memorial to Confederate dead. Under your premise, even a monument in a public cemetery would be deemed "inappropriate." Needless to say, I don't agree.

I note your exception - which is rather why I qualified my statement with "almost all".

I'm not sure what you mean by "public cemetery". I think you intend "open to the public" perhaps?

Most cemeteries are private - owned by churches but open to the public. There are military cemeteries owned by state governments and the Feds in which soldier monuments are most appropriate.

"Public" in the context I speak of means owned by civic, state or Federal governments - paid for by the taxes of all the people. However, if you too mean this, then I again note your exception but seem to recall you did agree that the rebel battle-flag might not be OK on the statehouse?

If that's not the case, then it's just my not remembering correctly.

Cheers!
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
Many cemeteries are owned by cities. They are "public" in every sense of the word.

As to a battle flag at a statehouse, it depends on where it is. In front of a monument to Confederate dead, I see nothing inappropriate. Just there to be there is inappropriate.
 
johnny-carson.jpg


However, I think cemeteries are appropriate places for memorials to dead people.

And then we differ on the statehouse - the memorial should be somewhere else.
 
Last edited:

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
mouse-trap.jpg


Lemme see......yes? No? Hmmmmm....

How about, not if said monument celebrates service in the cause of rebellion against the country of which the said state is an eternal part?

So those who answered the call of their duly elected State government to rise to its defense, should not be honored by that state? So, a state that raised regiments to fight in the Mexican War is perfectly correct in erecting a monument to those who died and placing that monument on the statehouse lawn, but the regiments it raised to defend itself during the Civil War should not be entitled to the same honor. I'm sorry but I don't see, from a state's point of view, the difference. Now, from the federal government's point of view and placing them on federal property, I see your point, but not on state property.
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
I believe Ms. Hale opined that these monuments were, in essence, an act of defiance against the federal government and as an affront to blacks. This quotation addresses that:


"A Soldier's Recollections"

http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/mckim/mckim.html (excerpt from pp. 289-290)

A speech given by Randolph H. McKim, a Confederate veteran, at the 14th annual United Confederate Veterans Reunion held in Nashville, Tennessee on June 10, 1904

- Oration transcribed in his book, "A Soldier's Recollections," which was published in 1910

And yet, today, while that banner of the Union floats over us, we bring the offering of our love and loyalty to the memory of the flag of the Southern Confederacy! Strange as it may seem to one who does not understand our People; inconsistent and incomprehensible as it may appear; we salute yonder flag—the banner of the Stars and Stripes—as the symbol of our reunited country, at the same moment that we come together to do homage to the memory of the Stars and Bars. There is in our hearts a double loyalty today; a loyalty to the present, and a loyalty to the dear, dead past. We still love our old battle flag with the Southern cross upon its fiery folds! We have wrapped it round our hearts! We have enshrined it in the sacred ark of our love; and we will honor it and cherish it evermore, not now as a political symbol, but as the consecrated emblem of an heroic epoch; as the sacred memento of a day that is dead; as the embodiment of memories that will be tender and holy as long as life shall last.

Let not our fellow-countrymen of the North mistake the spirit of this great occasion. If Daniel Webster could say that the Bunker Hill monument was not erected “to perpetuate hostility to Great Britain,” much more can we say that the monuments we have erected, and will yet erect, in our Southland, to the memory of our dead heroes, are not intended to perpetuate the angry passions of the Civil War, or to foster or keep alive any feeling of hostility to our brethren of other parts of the Union. No; but these monuments are erected, and these great assemblages of our surviving veterans are held, in simple loyalty to the best and purest dictates of the human heart. The people that forgets its heroic dead is already dying at the heart; and we believe it will make for the strength and the glory of the United States if the sentiments that animate us today shall be perpetuated, generation after generation. Yes, we honor, and we bid our children honor, the loyalty to duty—to conscience—to fatherland--that inspired the men of '61, and it is our prayer and our hope that, as the years and the generations pass, the rising and the setting sun, the moon and the stars, winter and summer, spring and autumn, will see the people of the South loyal to the memories of those four terrible but glorious years of strife; loyally worshipping at the shrine of the splendid manhood of our heroic citizen soldiers, and the even more splendid womanhood, whose fortitude and whose endurance have challenged the admiration of the world. Then, when the united republic, in years to come, shall call, "To arms!" our children, and our children's children, will rally to the call, and, emulating the fidelity and the supreme devotion of the soldiers of the Confederacy, will gird the Stars and Stripes with an impenetrable rampart of steel.
 

War Horse

Captain
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Location
Lexington, SC
Let not our fellow-countrymen of the North mistake the spirit of this great occasion. If Daniel Webster could say that the Bunker Hill monument was not erected “to perpetuate hostility to Great Britain,” much more can we say that the monuments we have erected, and will yet erect, in our Southland, to the memory of our dead heroes, are not intended to perpetuate the angry passions of the Civil War, or to foster or keep alive any feeling of hostility to our brethren of other parts of the Union. No; but these monuments are erected, and these great assemblages of our surviving veterans are held, in simple loyalty to the best and purest dictates of the human heart. The people that forgets its heroic dead is already dying at the heart; and we believe it will make for the strength and the glory of the United States if the sentiments that animate us today shall be perpetuated, generation after generation. Yes, we honor, and we bid our children honor, the loyalty to duty—to conscience—to fatherland--that inspired the men of '61, and it is our prayer and our hope that, as the years and the generations pass, the rising and the setting sun, the moon and the stars, winter and summer, spring and autumn, will see the people of the South loyal to the memories of those four terrible but glorious years of strife

This single soldiers recollection says best what we have been attempting to say. Great post CMWinkler :thumbsup:
 
Very nice sentimentality. To me it does not at all trump the fact that the war was a Rebellion against the duly elected government and all those who fought for the "state" (i.e. the illegal entity that rebelled) were insurgents engaged in an insurrection. The official state of the Union, whether that be in 1776, 1866 or in 1965 or in 2015 has no business celebrating the activities of an illegal entity between 1861 and 1865.

The old soldier carefully glossed over any issue of slavery there too and doubtless did not give a **** for how darkies might feel about things - they didn't count before or during the war and nor did they count for much after. Especially in the south.

The analogy between Bunker Hill and USA/GB is a false analogy. The USA is welcome to celebrate its defiance of the colonial power. Nobody cares and it's a battlefield anyway.

Now what happens on private ground, in proper military parks, in cemeteries and one or two other locales is a different matter. History must be marked. It would be the height of stupidity and wrongness to say e.g. the South Carolina monument should be removed from Gettysburg.

I would not agitate for monuments to be removed from statehouse lawns myself. But if the state wants to do so, then obviously they can. And if the city of Birmingham wants to tidy the park up a bit in order to attract votes as the new state capital, well that's their lookout and not mine.

By the way - just one example of all these "detractors"? I hoped for more
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
Very nice sentimentality. To me it does not at all trump the fact that the war was a Rebellion against the duly elected government and all those who fought for the "state" (i.e. the illegal entity that rebelled) were insurgents engaged in an insurrection. The official state of the Union, whether that be in 1776, 1866 or in 1965 or in 2015 has no business celebrating the activities of an illegal entity between 1861 and 1865.

Hmmmm. So, let me make sure I understand. The federal government was duly elected and legitimate in 1860 but the state governments were not? I'm curious on how you reach that conclusion. Now, granted once the duly elected governments of the states rebelled against the central government, I understand they "deemed" them illegitimate but but I'm not sure they were. I'm interested why soldiers called to service by their state should not be honored by that state.

The old soldier carefully glossed over any issue of slavery there too and doubtless did not give a **** for how darkies might feel about things - they didn't count before or during the war and nor did they count for much after. Especially in the south.

Interesting assertion. So if you don't mention slavery in every utterance, you are deemed to be a racist? An interesting assertion.

The analogy between Bunker Hill and USA/GB is a false analogy. The USA is welcome to celebrate its defiance of the colonial power. Nobody cares and it's a battlefield anyway.

I'm sure Reverend McKim would be interested in your analysis. So that fact that his words do not coincide with your views makes him wrong. OK, you are entitled to believe that.

Now what happens on private ground, in proper military parks, in cemeteries and one or two other locales is a different matter. History must be marked. It would be the height of stupidity and wrongness to say e.g. the South Carolina monument should be removed from Gettysburg.

Why? If these monuments to Confederate dead should NOT set on public property, then they should not. I see not logical consistency in your position.

I would not agitate for monuments to be removed from statehouse lawns myself. But if the state wants to do so, then obviously they can. And if the city of Birmingham wants to tidy the park up a bit in order to attract votes as the new state capital, well that's their lookout and not mine.

OK. I've not challenged their right, of course, depending on state law, but you seem to advocate it's a good idea. Now how that is differentiated from agitating, I'm not sure. If the city of Birmingham seeks to level every historic remembrance to save its residents the "pain" of confronting unfortunate facts, it's certainly free to do so but I believe it ill-advised.

By the way - just one example of all these "detractors"? I hoped for more

You asked for evidence. I didn't see that you had specified an amount of evidence required. I'm sorry to have disappointed you. Are you suggesting that many Confederate monuments have not been targeted for "removal?" It seems to me that such things are true. There's another monument in St. Louis that is threatened, as well, that was much in the news.
 
South Carolina seceded December 20, 1860. If I'd said "1861" you'd be jumping up and down saying "1860". The secession state governments were illegal - in 1860 and in 1861 and thereafter until those rebel governments were suppressed.

Of course, you set up a straw man at once, pretending I wrote that slavery must be mentioned in every utterance. I wrote no such thing. Try to address what is there and not your imaginary friend.

The reverend is wrong because he's wrong - for no other reason. There is no analogy between a battlefield monument on Bunker Hill and a monument erected by one of the United States to celebrate insurrection against the United States.

Don't be so utterly absurd. Battlefield monuments, as I have stated continually, belong in battlefield parks designed to preserve the history of that battle.

Once again you're off in la-la land. Birmingham has not proposed "levelling" even one monument. You provided a link; I commented upon it. If you want to describe the city government as "agitating" that's your lookout.

You wrote: The detractors here make no distinction. I read plural in 'detractors' and I assume "Tennessee" by 'here'. You provide one example. That's feeble.

Glad you mentioned St Louis. The mayor there initiated discussion about whether the rebel monument should be at its current location or moved somewhere else. That is an ongoing discussion with the Historical Society recommending it remain and others suggesting diverse placements such as Jefferson Barracks Park, North Riverfront Park, the Architecture Hall of the City Museum and even on the Saint Louis University Campus (a former Confederate staging ground). The mayor notes that Confederates should be accustomed to memorials being moved:

"In the late 1950s, Saint Louis University received a large gift from the daughter of Confederate General Daniel Frost, in exchange for which the St. Louis University campus was renamed the “Frost” Campus. Another condition of the gift was that a statute of Union Army General Nathaniel Lyons (sic), which had been situated on the prominent corner of Grand Boulevard and West Pine Avenue be exiled to a sleepy southside park today known as Lyons (sic) Park"

None of these thousands of ... Oh... sorry ... two ... memorials are "threatened". They are the subject of discussion as to placement. I want more detractors identified!
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
South Carolina seceded December 20, 1860. If I'd said "1861" you'd be jumping up and down saying "1860". The secession state governments were illegal - in 1860 and in 1861 and thereafter until those rebel governments were suppressed.

An interesting assertion. You are entitled to believe that but absent some proof, I'll withhold any acceptance.

Of course, you set up a straw man at once, pretending I wrote that slavery must be mentioned in every utterance. I wrote no such thing. Try to address what is there and not your imaginary friend.

You inferred something unstated based upon Rev. McKim's quotation and I'm setting up straw men? Hardly. I was simply pointing out the outstanding leap in your reasoning process. Again, a great inference for which you offer no evidence.

The reverend is wrong because he's wrong - for no other reason. There is no analogy between a battlefield monument on Bunker Hill and a monument erected by one of the United States to celebrate insurrection against the United States.

You are certainly free to assert that.

Don't be so utterly absurd. Battlefield monuments, as I have stated continually, belong in battlefield parks designed to preserve the history of that battle.

I'm sorry IF no monument to insurrection belongs on "public" land then they don't. Carving out this exception is fine with me, but then you are asserting that they should not be on public land except when we decide they are. Certainly a view but not logically consistent.

Once again you're off in la-la land. Birmingham has not proposed "levelling" even one monument. You provided a link; I commented upon it. If you want to describe the city government as "agitating" that's your lookout.

Now whose creating straw men? I said IF they were they had the power. I simply questioned its wisdom. Where has Birmingham proposed this monument go? If they can find no "suitable" location what do they do next? The simple answer is that the monument as it now exists is threatened.

You wrote: The detractors here make no distinction. I read plural in 'detractors' and I assume "Tennessee" by 'here'. You provide one example. That's feeble.

Tennessee has a statue that makes such things decidedly difficult but not impossible. Here, except in Memphis, monuments are fairly safe.

Glad you mentioned St Louis. The mayor there initiated discussion about whether the rebel monument should be at its current location or moved somewhere else. That is an ongoing discussion with the Historical Society recommending it remain and others suggesting diverse placements such as Jefferson Barracks Park, North Riverfront Park, the Architecture Hall of the City Museum and even on the Saint Louis University Campus (a former Confederate staging ground). The mayor notes that Confederates should be accustomed to memorials being moved:

"In the late 1950s, Saint Louis University received a large gift from the daughter of Confederate General Daniel Frost, in exchange for which the St. Louis University campus was renamed the “Frost” Campus. Another condition of the gift was that a statute of Union Army General Nathaniel Lyons (sic), which had been situated on the prominent corner of Grand Boulevard and West Pine Avenue be exiled to a sleepy southside park today known as Lyons (sic) Park"

None of these thousands of ... Oh... sorry ... two ... memorials are "threatened". They are the subject of discussion as to placement. I want more detractors identified!

I'm glad I pleased you by mentioning this monument. I love the mayor's comments. 70 years ago, in order to get money, they moved a Yankee monument so now we can renege and move this one. Yes, they can. They have the power. Feel free to talk about moving, removing, razing, declaring them nuisances, if you have the power to do so. Doing so, however, because an exceedingly small minority wants it done does not make it a good idea. As to more detractors, I assume you have some computer skills, feel free to look for them. As to whether my efforts are "pathetic" or not in your eyes. I made a statement and when asked for support I gave it. More than has been provided regarding the illegitimacy of state government in this thread.

Tell me when you want to gather the wounded again. I'll be happy to give you the final word. I've not changed my mind.
 

Allie

Captain
Joined
Dec 17, 2014
The seceding state governments were defeated, which means the Union gets to decide retroactively whether or not they were legal. The people participating in them did not regard them as illegal at the time. Nor does beating someone up to prove a point actually change right versus wrong - it only changes who got beaten up. That's why this is still an argument, because the government did not prove its point legally, they just beat up those who disagreed until they were forced to capitulate. That didn't change hearts and minds in 1865 and hasn't managed to 150 years later.
 
Oh I just deleted all the bickering stuff in here.

Look, you wrote about "detractors" who are "here" I don't know who all these detractors are or where "here" is.

You produced one link to Birmingham city council discussing moving a monument. You mentioned St. Louis and it turns out the mayor has invited ideas as to whether or not a monument should be moved from one park to another or left where it is.

I'm not going to search the interwebs to find out what you meant by "detractors" "here".
 
Last edited:

K Hale

Colonel
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Location
Texas
I believe Ms. Hale opined that these monuments were, in essence, an act of defiance against the federal government and as an affront to blacks. This quotation addresses that:


"A Soldier's Recollections"

http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/mckim/mckim.html (excerpt from pp. 289-290)

A speech given by Randolph H. McKim, a Confederate veteran, at the 14th annual United Confederate Veterans Reunion held in Nashville, Tennessee on June 10, 1904

- Oration transcribed in his book, "A Soldier's Recollections," which was published in 1910

And yet, today, while that banner of the Union floats over us, we bring the offering of our love and loyalty to the memory of the flag of the Southern Confederacy! Strange as it may seem to one who does not understand our People; inconsistent and incomprehensible as it may appear; we salute yonder flag—the banner of the Stars and Stripes—as the symbol of our reunited country, at the same moment that we come together to do homage to the memory of the Stars and Bars. There is in our hearts a double loyalty today; a loyalty to the present, and a loyalty to the dear, dead past. We still love our old battle flag with the Southern cross upon its fiery folds! We have wrapped it round our hearts! We have enshrined it in the sacred ark of our love; and we will honor it and cherish it evermore, not now as a political symbol, but as the consecrated emblem of an heroic epoch; as the sacred memento of a day that is dead; as the embodiment of memories that will be tender and holy as long as life shall last.

Let not our fellow-countrymen of the North mistake the spirit of this great occasion. If Daniel Webster could say that the Bunker Hill monument was not erected “to perpetuate hostility to Great Britain,” much more can we say that the monuments we have erected, and will yet erect, in our Southland, to the memory of our dead heroes, are not intended to perpetuate the angry passions of the Civil War, or to foster or keep alive any feeling of hostility to our brethren of other parts of the Union. No; but these monuments are erected, and these great assemblages of our surviving veterans are held, in simple loyalty to the best and purest dictates of the human heart. The people that forgets its heroic dead is already dying at the heart; and we believe it will make for the strength and the glory of the United States if the sentiments that animate us today shall be perpetuated, generation after generation. Yes, we honor, and we bid our children honor, the loyalty to duty—to conscience—to fatherland--that inspired the men of '61, and it is our prayer and our hope that, as the years and the generations pass, the rising and the setting sun, the moon and the stars, winter and summer, spring and autumn, will see the people of the South loyal to the memories of those four terrible but glorious years of strife; loyally worshipping at the shrine of the splendid manhood of our heroic citizen soldiers, and the even more splendid womanhood, whose fortitude and whose endurance have challenged the admiration of the world. Then, when the united republic, in years to come, shall call, "To arms!" our children, and our children's children, will rally to the call, and, emulating the fidelity and the supreme devotion of the soldiers of the Confederacy, will gird the Stars and Stripes with an impenetrable rampart of steel.
Oh, gag.
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Forum Host
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Location
Middle Tennessee
Reverend McKim speaks from his heart and the response is to respond "Oh, gag." You asserted these monuments were put up to say an expletive to the Union. McKim, I think, effectively refutes that argument but instead of saying, "Yeah, he said that but here are ____ number of speakers of the era which proves my point," but what did we get? "Oh, gag."
 

War Horse

Captain
Member of the Year
Regtl. Quartermaster Gettysburg 2017
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Location
Lexington, SC
Reverend McKim speaks from his heart and the response is to respond "Oh, gag." You asserted these monuments were put up to say an expletive to the Union. McKim, I think, effectively refutes that argument but instead of saying, "Yeah, he said that but here are ____ number of speakers of the era which proves my point," but what did we get? "Oh, gag."
I'm curious what made you reply to this today? I was just reviewing this thread that has been idle for some time.
 
Top