Restricted Largest Confederate Monument In The South Is Coming Down

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I disagree. Northern racism has been discussed on this site many times over the years. A simple use of CWT's search engine for the term "Northern racism" will bring up almost 1,000 results.
While I can't speak for Stone.... I interpret his comments as, simply pointing out the double standards. ie: Folks pointing the racist finger South, might casually mention Northern policy but, rarely with the same vigor. When questioned, we usually get the accusation of whataboutism.

Plenty of the virtue signals pointed at those of us favoring Confederate Monuments, ignore or minimize the actions of Yankees. Many of the people demonizing Lee, hold the actions of Sherman, Sheridan, & Hunter in a much different light. If Lee spoke a word that in today's enlightened age can be interpreted as racist, he's blasted as less than honorable, & a horrible human being.... ignoring much of the man's life.

Plenty of folks have amnesia when it comes to Sherman & Sheridan's post war activities. Yet, NBF is more known by his haters for his brief affiliation with the Klan, than his views, & actions after. As stated before, this IS a double standard, & comes across as merely propaganda for a modern political movement/ideology.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
Something many of us on the pro monument side have been fine with from the beginning. Raise money & put up a monument to whomever you wish. If enough people support it, it'll be easy, & happen.
What you suggest is practically impossible, as detailed in this previous post.

Precisely because the solution you suggest is practically impossible, the handling of these monuments has, to some extent, taken on aspects of a zero sum game.

- Alan
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
What you suggest is practically impossible, as detailed in this previous post.

Precisely because the solution you suggest is practically impossible, the handling of these monuments has, to some extent, taken on aspects of a zero sum game.

- Alan
I disagree. The "Rumors of War" statue in Richmond is my evidence.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
The current movement is creating considerably more division, than unity.
I have seen the word "divisive" used a lot. I would agree that this issue of monuments is divisive. But it seems like some people are saying that the issue is so divisive now, as if there was unity regarding these monuments sometime before. That is an incorrect understanding of the past. There was no unity among whites and African Americans in the Jim Crow South when these monuments were created.

The thing is, in the past, the voices of African Americans were muted due to fear and powerlessness. But things that were unimaginable before are possible now. In the past, nobody would even think of removing Lee's statue, it was ridiculous idea. Meanwhile, the people who created those monuments never thought that black support might be needed to maintain those monuments in the public square... the idea that black southerners might have a say about it never occurred to them. (Or to be more precise, the idea did occur to them, and segregation took care of that potential problem).

The divisiveness we see today is a legacy of the unvoiced divisiveness of the past. I've said this before, we inherited a mess, it's not our fault, but it is our problem. This is a reckoning with our past.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
Scholars have been looking at this subject. W Fitzhugh Brundage published the book The Southern Past: A Clash of Race and Memory in 2005. Among other things, he recounts that in February 2000, the Richmond city council voted to change the names of two bridges in the city. Bridges that once bore the names of J. E. B. Stuart and and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson now carry the names of Samuel Tucker and Curtis Holt, two former civil rights activists.

These skirmishes have been ongoing. What's changed, for example, is that Richmond's Monument Ave statues had been seen as sacred cows, and it was unthinkable that they would ever be removed. But that was then.

Historians make the point that nothing is inevitable. Contingencies must be considered. I have made the point that one key to this is that formerly segregationists and presently white supremacists have embraced and brandished confederate symbols. The massacre at the Church in Charleston in 2015 and the killing at Charlottesville, VA in 2017 (Charlottesville is an hour and a half from Richmond) have galvanized recent protests against Confederate objects. And I've mentioned the deprecation in the positive attitudes military figures as a factor.

I think there will be a lot for scholars to think about concerning the history of attitudes toward Confederate monuments.

But at the end of the day, there is a simplification that can be applied. The fact of the matter is, the end of the Confederacy meant the liberation of enslaved people. Logically, African Americans at the least, and many others at the most, should be creating monuments to celebrate the fall of the Confederacy, if anything. Meanwhile, the southern commemorative landscape is almost bereft of objects that celebrate the freeing of almost 4 million people from bondage... this is a momentous event in world history about which the southern environment is relatively silent. All of that is due to the whims of previous power structures. But times are changing.

- Alan
And not for the better
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
What you suggest is practically impossible, as detailed in this previous post. Precisely because the solution you suggest is practically impossible, the handling of these monuments has, to some extent, taken on aspects of a zero sum game.
I disagree. The "Rumors of War" statue in Richmond is my evidence.
Just to be clear, this is the issue as put forward by W. Fitzhugh Brundage:

In an ideal world with unlimited resources, a proposal to add monuments might make sense. But given the vast number of monuments to the Confederacy across the United States it would take decades, and millions of dollars, to add enough statuary to create a more inclusive commemorative landscape. And is there any reason to believe that state legislators are going to appropriate sufficient money for that purpose? Perhaps the defenders of Confederate monuments will demonstrate their good faith by pressing for funding for new monuments to Southerners, white and black, who fought on behalf of the Union or otherwise opposed the Confederacy. Until then, I will view their devotion to heritage preservation with skepticism.​

Note that, Brundage does NOT say he favors the removal of Confederate monuments. He is making the point that simply saying, "well let's just add more monuments" is not going to work. He counsels that there needs to be real dialogue about these monuments to solve the problem. See posts #338 and #339 for more details.

Let me add that, I am not saying that this controversy is inevitably going to lead to a zero sum game. But the dynamics of the discourse need to change. I think it would help to first acknowledge that the commemorative landscape does not represent the entirety of the southern experience, and needs to be modified. I think it would help for government officials to lay out plans for a commemorative landscape that will be representative (in the past, much of the landscape has been created on an ad hoc basis). But I do not have the answers, and nobody's asking for my opinion anyway.

- Alan
 

danny

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Hattiesburg
FYI, Washington has something of a tarnished reputation among a number of observers of African Americans history. One of his contemporaries, W E B DuBois, charged that Washington was an accommodationist who was obsequious to whites for their support and did not do enough to condemn segregation or lynching, for example.

His defenders make the point that Washington did not create racsim, but like all African Americans, he had to find a way to navigate around it to gain success... even if that meant silence on certain issues and an appprant appeasement toward southern whites and white northern elitists.

- Alan
That unmeasurable, and hence unobtainable goal, is the essence of endless strife. Yet, it has become the clamor of the times.
 

oldsouth46

Cadet
Joined
Jan 4, 2018
To be clear Lee and the cause he fought for, was the destruction of the United States and the intent of overthrowing a free and fair election by the nation he had sworn to defend, and to preserve slavery.

Lee's cause, the Confederacy, is the institution that has been thrown upon the ash heap of history as one of America's worst ideas, the enforced infliction of slavery upon an entire nation, and make no mistake, it was the goal of slaveholding leaders until they realized free state citizens weren't going to go along with such an idea.

I know there are those who pretty much worship Lee and consider the removal of his statue as something horrible and destructive. Problem is, others found his statue a monument to a cause and not just the man. And that's Lee's biggest problem, then and now, as he is clearly identifiable and unable to separate from that cause in which the Confederacy was created.

That fact is not debatable nor can it be diminished by fable and faith.

Nor can it be refuted that his statue is gone because those facts of history are finally getting clear of all the mists and excuses that relegated actual history to a haze of fiction and myth.

Lee was who he was, a great military commander who willingly led the fight in the worst cause ever embraced by fellow Americans.

That's why his statue came down and how he should be remembered.
Why is there such negativity on this site for something that no one today can say for sure how you would have felt if born in 1840 and at twenty years old you see states leave the union to form another “country”? Today, we are putting twenty-first century thoughts, values and culture on the people of the mid nineteenth century whose thoughts, values and culture were entirely different And condemning them with hatred and unwarranted actions. We today are hashing out something that took place long before we came on the scene and thinking we know the answers, we don’t. I’ve talked to many who talk just like you but can’t tell me why my state of Virginia left the union after voting many times to not leave. I image you would have had different opinions then than you do now and your hatred just shows the lack of tolerance that is needed in the country today. I was born and raised in the south and i am now embarrassed that my state was taken over by a bunch of liberals trying to appease certain segment and disregarding others. Let’s be open and more tolerant. Hatred only works to divide.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I disagree. The "Rumors of War" statue in Richmond is my evidence.
Just as a side note, the Rumors of War statue does not "work" for me, being more of a Civil War "purist." It is a work of art that makes a statement about the war, but it's not a Civil War monument in my eyes. I've suggested to Richmonders that I've met that the city should install a monument which recalls that a USCT regiment was the first to enter the city when it fell to the Union; and that the monument should not only depict USCT, but also black residents who witnessed the arrival of the soldiers. That would work for me.

I think of the witnessing of the USCT by Richmond's enslaved population as one of the most profound and sublime moments in US history.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

jcaesar

Private
Joined
Aug 28, 2020
The South thanks to Virginia forcing the votes of the Senators to switch in favor of black troops in the CSA Congress did have black troops near the end of the war that had paraded through Richmond with thousands watching.

The idea of only showing USCT troops in Virginia and pretending the ones that Virginia pushed for and managed to get didn't exist I was not a fan of. Show both or neither. But, its immaterial because the statue issue is entirely infused with the modern political point scoring in a way that has nothing to due to history or its preservation.
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
That unmeasurable, and hence unobtainable goal, is the essence of endless strife. Yet, it has become the clamor of the times.
(I hope I'm properly interpreting the point you were making)

I don't know the exact distance in miles that we are from the Sun; but I can tell that it's far away. When it came to Washington, I don't know that one could say, "here's an exact list of everything he should have said or done that would made everybody happy with him; and oh, sorry if the list is a million pages long." But there were particular, actual, "measurable" things he said and did which drew disapproval from his peers, and from observers up through today. Of note, there was clamor back then...

When listening to young African Americans especially, I sometimes hear them say "if I was living back then, I would have told those slave drivers to kiss my ****." Of course they wouldn't have done that; and if they did, they would have gotten whipped, and then went back to doing what the slave driver said. Enslaved people were living in impossible times, that is, things that we take for granted were impossible for them.

Washington was living in impossible times, and many people are understanding that as they assess his legacy and realize the benefits of his accomplishments. But to be sure, it was not without controversy.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Confederacy history is not synonymous with American history.
Agree.......would also assume that's why the majority are indeed state, city or county and not national monuments. But for least 11 states Confederate history is indeed part of their state, county, and cities history. More if border states feel their dividedness should be reflected.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
I doubt it. I was just in Atlanta this past weekend to watch a baseball game and the blacks outnumbered the whites by like 5 to 1 and I covered that city many times. I severely doubt the black people in Georgia would mind if they renamed some army dog base after Sherman. I don't know what the population census is in Georgia but it sure looks like there are more blacks in that state. Definitely in Atlanta and its greater area. But I agree it would spite the white people who cling to past.

So are you saying history should be presented based on race? And if so, based on current demographics or within the context of the demographics of the historical period being presented?

Should historical presentation of the same events differ based on if a city is 60% black or 60% white within a state for example?
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
The idea of only showing USCT troops in Virginia and pretending the ones that Virginia pushed for and managed to get didn't exist I was not a fan of. Show both or neither. But, its immaterial because the statue issue is entirely infused with the modern political point scoring in a way that has nothing to due to history or its preservation.
Just to be clear, I was advocating for the addition of this statue and not the removal of any other statue.

When you talk about the "the ones that Virginia pushed for": enslaved Virginians appreciated that the Union army liberated them from bondage. Their jubilee was a great event that is largely unchronicled in the commemorative landscape.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
What you suggest is practically impossible, as detailed in this previous post.

Precisely because the solution you suggest is practically impossible, the handling of these monuments has, to some extent, taken on aspects of a zero sum game.

- Alan
Actually your point seems a herring.....as you ask "And is there any reason to believe that state legislators are going to appropriate sufficient money for that purpose? "

As weren't the majority of monuments actually raised by private groups then as well as even today? Certainly large numbers I have seen have plaques noting the efforts and donation from Union and Confederate veteran groups, then later heritage groups. There is nothing prohibiting current grass root efforts for monuments that I'm aware of.

Other then the current climate the anti memorial crowd themselves have engendered that may make public institutions less likely to accept a donated memorial in the future.
 

John S. Carter

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
To be clear Lee and the cause he fought for, was the destruction of the United States and the intent of overthrowing a free and fair election by the nation he had sworn to defend, and to preserve slavery.

Lee's cause, the Confederacy, is the institution that has been thrown upon the ash heap of history as one of America's worst ideas, the enforced infliction of slavery upon an entire nation, and make no mistake, it was the goal of slaveholding leaders until they realized free state citizens weren't going to go along with such an idea.

I know there are those who pretty much worship Lee and consider the removal of his statue as something horrible and destructive. Problem is, others found his statue a monument to a cause and not just the man. And that's Lee's biggest problem, then and now, as he is clearly identifiable and unable to separate from that cause in which the Confederacy was created.

That fact is not debatable nor can it be diminished by fable and faith.

Nor can it be refuted that his statue is gone because those facts of history are finally getting clear of all the mists and excuses that relegated actual history to a haze of fiction and myth.

Lee was who he was, a great military commander who willingly led the fight in the worst cause ever embraced by fellow Americans.

That's why his statue came down and how he should be remembered.
Please to correct me but did not Lee state to Scott that the reason for his not taking command and resigning was to return to Virginia was to fight in defense of his country of Virginia? I have found no where that he stated that he was resigning to returning home to fight or defend the institute of slavery . Then did not Virginia not secede only after Lincoln called for enlistments and then were marched towards Virginia ? This was the fear of Northern aggression which would lead to military suppression that the people of the South feared and encouraged to believe by the political -social leaders We read of the events that lead to the war but not of the fears of the South towards the treats of their way of life of individual rights. Lee was devoted to his state more than to his country and would not take his sword against his "people". That was his sin and not that he fought in defense of slavery system. Yes he had slaves but then did not certain Northern generals maintain slaves which may be referred to as "servants in bondage ". If for nothing else is that he was willing to realize that the ANV must surrender and not carry on a war that if continued would result in only mean further destruction and death . I have not read of Scott's response to Lee's action. If one knows of it I would like to have this information. Lastly, what Lee did was what possibly most of the common soldier did. They did not go to war for the slave but for his own sense of country and his way of life. To the regular Southern people there was the fear of free blacks and what they would do and the hostility of those in the North who desired to free the black and their own hostility towards the Southern people even those who did not own slaves, This was lectured to them by those who they trust to tell them the truth and this is told over and over even from generation to generation when this leaders really desired for a separate nation or just for the power it gave to them for their political position. Has there been any writings on this decision affected Lee ,a man who since his early years from West Point had served.? If Johnson had not be killed what are the chances that Lee would have given command or would have gone thought the war as a Jefferson aid?
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
No more than they, & other hate groups have embraced US symbols, or flags. This is a talking point that gets repeated a lot. One that is a half truth. I call it a half truth because when used, rarely if ever is it mentioned, that the same groups, & or other groups have brandished US flags/symbols. Historically, & presently.

For example, every picture one could share of a "bad" person, whose brandishing a CBF, I could easily show a picture of an equally "bad" person or group, brandishing the US Flag if not 2 or 3.
There are a lot of things happening in other countries (I'd start with N Korea and go down a list) that I don't like. But I can't do anything about it. If a guy in California (I live on the east coast) is firing a gun at innocent people, I can't do anything about it. But if that happens where I live, I will at least call the police, and help the wounded if I can. That is, I do what I can.

A lot of people are doing stuff we don't like, but we can't do anything about it. For decades southern African Americans lived under Jim Crow laws and customs that muzzled their speech, limited their actions, and stifled their imagination concerning what they could do and not do. Now Jim Crow is gone.

So yes, absolutely, there are things that the groups you mention do which are not being addressed. I don't see how that de-legitimzes those who are protesting these monuments. This issue with monuments, they are addressing it. I recall the phrase from a TV show, one impossible thing at a time. The thing is, if you were to tell those folks "hey, why aren't you going after this other stuff those groups do?", they'd probably say, "yes, we agree with you, we do need to get to that other stuff... won't you join us?"

- Alan
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Why is there such negativity on this site for something that no one today can say for sure how you would have felt if born in 1840 and at twenty years old you see states leave the union to form another “country”? Today, we are putting twenty-first century thoughts, values and culture on the people of the mid nineteenth century whose thoughts, values and culture were entirely different And condemning them with hatred and unwarranted actions. We today are hashing out something that took place long before we came on the scene and thinking we know the answers, we don’t. I’ve talked to many who talk just like you but can’t tell me why my state of Virginia left the union after voting many times to not leave. I image you would have had different opinions then than you do now and your hatred just shows the lack of tolerance that is needed in the country today. I was born and raised in the south and i am now embarrassed that my state was taken over by a bunch of liberals trying to appease certain segment and disregarding others. Let’s be open and more tolerant. Hatred only works to divide.
The only standard I have is the one I have grown up with, admittedly 20th & 21st century ones. But one should recognize the even people in the 19th century did not have the same views or standards as everyone else did.

And we can know why Virginia left the Union, as they have left records in the secession journals stating those reasons, slavery being the primary reason. It's there, in their own words. One just has to believe what they said of keep making excuses fior what was considered a bad cause even then.

I have no "hatred" for those people of long ago as they are dead and long gone. My main issue is with the people of this time and century who seem to desperately need a reason to refuse to acknowledge actual historical fact.

I agree that hate only seeks to divide and that all should be more tolerant and open, but it's that 'open' part that seems to be lacking among those who continue to espouse Confederate Heritage and continue to excuse their ancestors actions for a bad cause in the 19th century.

We read history to learn and not repeat our past mistakes, to draw lessons for today and the future. The continued false history represented by these Confederate statues continues the divider of hatred you so deplore. Even in the late 19th century, people were against these monuments that twisted the real reason behind secession and the Civil War.

Are we learning from history? Or are we doing our dead-level best to present something easier to take, something that let's us sleep at night with the memories of our ancestors?

History is hard. Learning from it is hard and not easy. But it must be done if we are to move forward as a people and a nation.

Unionblue
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Please to correct me but did not Lee state to Scott that the reason for his not taking command and resigning was to return to Virginia was to fight in defense of his country of Virginia? I have found no where that he stated that he was resigning to returning home to fight or defend the institute of slavery . Then did not Virginia not secede only after Lincoln called for enlistments and then were marched towards Virginia ? This was the fear of Northern aggression which would lead to military suppression that the people of the South feared and encouraged to believe by the political -social leaders We read of the events that lead to the war but not of the fears of the South towards the treats of their way of life of individual rights. Lee was devoted to his state more than to his country and would not take his sword against his "people". That was his sin and not that he fought in defense of slavery system. Yes he had slaves but then did not certain Northern generals maintain slaves which may be referred to as "servants in bondage ". If for nothing else is that he was willing to realize that the ANV must surrender and not carry on a war that if continued would result in only mean further destruction and death . I have not read of Scott's response to Lee's action. If one knows of it I would like to have this information. Lastly, what Lee did was what possibly most of the common soldier did. They did not go to war for the slave but for his own sense of country and his way of life. To the regular Southern people there was the fear of free blacks and what they would do and the hostility of those in the North who desired to free the black and their own hostility towards the Southern people even those who did not own slaves, This was lectured to them by those who they trust to tell them the truth and this is told over and over even from generation to generation when this leaders really desired for a separate nation or just for the power it gave to them for their political position. Has there been any writings on this decision affected Lee ,a man who since his early years from West Point had served.? If Johnson had not be killed what are the chances that Lee would have given command or would have gone thought the war as a Jefferson aid?
Lee fought to defend slavery. He knew exactly what the Confederacy's goals were when he resigned and then enlisted under that organization. He could not help knowing that fact. He is forever tainted with that fact. No amount of excuses or theories or "what if's" is going to change that fact.
 
Top