Restricted Largest Confederate Monument In The South Is Coming Down

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
In October of 1865, Oliver Otis Howard was tasked with informing the families living on Edisto Island in South Carolina that the land they had been granted under Special Field Order No. 15 was going to be returned to the white landowners who had fled during the war.

The Freedpeople living and farming on Edisto were horrified. They felt betrayed. They were betrayed. In a letter written to Howard a few days later, they laid out their case:

General It Is with painfull Hearts that we the committe address you, we Have thorougholy considered the order which you wished us to Sighn, we wish we could do so but cannot feel our rights Safe If we do so,

General we want Homestead's; we were promised Homestead's by the government, If It does not carry out the promises Its agents made to us, If the government Haveing concluded to befriend Its late enemies and to neglect to observe the principles of common faith between Its self and us Its allies In the war you said was over, now takes away from them all right to the soil they stand upon save such as they can get by again working for your late and thier all time ememies.–If the government does so we are left In a more unpleasant condition than our former

we are at the mercy of those who are combined to prevent us from getting land enough to lay our Fathers bones upon. We Have property In Horses, cattle, carriages, & articles of furniture, but we are landless and Homeless, from the Homes we Have lived In In the past we can only do one of three things Step Into the public road or the sea or remain on them working as In former time and subject to thire will as then. We can not resist It In any way without being driven out Homeless upon the road.

You will see this Is not the condition of really freemen

You ask us to forgive the land owners of our Island, You only lost your right arm. In war and might forgive them. The man who tied me to a tree & gave me 39 lashes & who stripped and flogged my mother & my sister & who will not let me stay In His empty Hut except I will do His planting & be Satisfied with His price & who combines with others to keep away land from me well knowing I would not Have any thing to do with Him If I Had land of my own.–that man, I cannot well forgive. Does It look as If He Has forgiven me, seeing How He tries to keep me In a condition of Helplessness

General, we cannot remain Here In such condition and If the government permits them to come back we ask It to Help us to reach land where we shall not be slaves nor compelled to work for those who would treat us as such

we Have not been treacherous, we Have not for selfish motives allied to us those who suffered like us from a common enemy & then Haveing gained our purpose left our allies In thier Hands There Is no rights secured to us there Is no law likely to be made which our Hands can reach. The state will make laws that we shall not be able to Hold land even If we pay for It Landless, Homeless. Voteless. we can only pray to god & Hope for His Help, your Infuence & assistance

With consideration of esteem your Obt Servts

In behalf of the people

Committe
Henry Bram
Ishmael Moultrie
yates Sampson
Their letter was in vain. The land was returned to its antebellum owners.

http://www.freedmen.umd.edu/Edisto petitions.htm
 

GwilymT

Sergeant Major
Joined
Aug 20, 2018
Location
Pittsburgh
Whats good for the goose, is good for the gander. Americans should be free to celebrate what they want.
And I’ve tended to notice that those in favor of protecting confederate monuments and “heritage” seem to be against celebrating Emancipation. Some things, and some aspects of “heritage” never change.

Imagine that.
 
Last edited:

Joshua Cude

Cadet
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Location
North Carolina
"As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and her institutions, and would defend any State if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it were intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government (not a compact) which can only be dissolved by revolution, or by the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution." Robert E. Lee letter to his son Jan 1861
<J. William Jones, Life and Letters of Robert Edward Lee, Soldier and Man. (New York: Neale Publishing Company, 1906), pp. 120-121.>

The founding fathers never claimed they were seceding from England, they knew they were rebelling and knew they would most likely be hanged if they lost. They were traitors to England. I'm not English so I don't care that they were traitors to them (I also happen to believe they had valid reasons to revolt).

I am American so I care that Lee and the rest of the confederates committed treason against America. I also happen to believe there reasons for doing so were

The colonists who fought against the crown were indeed traitors. As Benjamin Franklin allegedly said: “we must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”

You can also make a case they were terrorists. Tarring and feathering and all that.
Again, I cannot agree. Being a traitor is one of the most dishonorable things a person can be. But I see no alternative to a people who are oppressed by their government, and cannot settle their disagreements, than to form their government and nation. That does not seem dishonorable to me.
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
Again, I cannot agree. Being a traitor is one of the most dishonorable things a person can be. But I see no alternative to a people who are oppressed by their government, and cannot settle their disagreements, than to form their government and nation. That does not seem dishonorable to me.
Could you explain how it is that the people of the Confederate states were “oppressed”?

And, by extension, I presume you would support slave insurrections and, say, John Brown’s raid?
 

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
Again, I cannot agree. Being a traitor is one of the most dishonorable things a person can be. But I see no alternative to a people who are oppressed by their government, and cannot settle their disagreements, than to form their government and nation. That does not seem dishonorable to me.

Neither honor nor dishonor is part of the definition of treason. Levying war against the crown, however, is part of the definition as outlined in the Treason Act of 1351. It's actually one of the earliest English statutes still in effect today, though amended, and was last used in 1945.

This isn't the place to debate the merits of the American cause in the 18th Century, but it's sort of irrelevant. Treason is treason.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
And I’ve tended to notice that those in favor of protecting confederate monuments and “heritage” seem to be against celebrating Emancipation. Some things, and some aspects of “heritage” never change.

Imagine that.
I'm not against anyone celebrating anything. So feel free to celebrate what you want. I'll celebrate what I what too.
Live and let live.
 
Last edited:

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
Again, I cannot agree. Being a traitor is one of the most dishonorable things a person can be. But I see no alternative to a people who are oppressed by their government, and cannot settle their disagreements, than to form their government and nation. That does not seem dishonorable to me.
I think the the founding fathers set out a good framework for judging when a rebellion is justified, or not.

1) should not be changed for light or transient causes. I can't think of many things more light or transient than losing a free and fair election in a constitutional republic with a robust system of checks and balances.

2) a long string of abuses and usurpations. Our government had been dominated by southern slave interests since it's creation. There were numerous compromises made to slavery interests.

3)that the rebelling group has little or no say in the government. The south still had enough power to block republican actions in congress and had a supreme court favorable to them.

4)that the rebelling group tried all avenues to have their grievances heard and acted upon. The founding fathers spend eleven years from the enactment of the stamp act petitioning the British government to address their grievances. South Carolina declared secession on Dec 20, 1860. Only six weeks after Lincoln was elected and before he actually was in a position to even do anything.

The last element is one I came up with myself. That the new system of government is better or improves upon the old. At the time of the American revolution only about 3% of the British citizenry had a say in their government. After the revolution about 6% of American citizenry had a say in the government. The American constitution also allowed states to abolish slavery. The confederate constitution made this an impossibility.
 

Cycom

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
He seems to be constantly needing a defense, does he not?

Oh, and as a side-note, his statue is gone.
Yes, he does…as do the memories of many famous historical figures whose legacies are spit on.

Seems like some of the Union “good guys” could use some assistance as well, as they are not immune to the whims of the modern pc crowd.
 
Last edited:

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
Could you explain how it is that the people of the Confederate states were “oppressed”?

And, by extension, I presume you would support slave insurrections and, say, John Brown’s raid?
John Brown to watchman: "I came here from Kansas and this is a slave state: I want to free all the negroes in this state: I have possession of the U.S. Armory, and if the citizens interfere with me, I must burn the town and have blood". 16 People were killed including 6 that were not in his group. The mans cheese had done slid off his cracker.
 

seboyle

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 11, 2010
Location
Squamish, B.C.
John Brown to watchman: "I came here from Kansas and this is a slave state: I want to free all the negroes in this state: I have possession of the U.S. Armory, and if the citizens interfere with me, I must burn the town and have blood". 16 People were killed including 6 that were not in his group. The mans cheese had done slid off his cracker.
That’s as may be but it is irrelevant to the question here.

Both sides here appear to agree that loss of liberty, personal freedom, autonomy, rights or whatever you want to term it, is the primary consideration in determining whether someone has the right to revolt against the government they are living under. On an American forum I believe it is a good thing for this to be the case.

The disagreement arises when some will apply this to all people and some will not. Would you not agree, whether he was bats**t crazy or not, that John Brown’s cause, liberty for a people held in perpetual bondage, was a just one? Certainly more than, “that man I don’t like won an election”?

That’s the point here. No one should be complaining about ‘oppression’ because an election was lost when there is a truly genuine example right under their noses that they don’t want to reckon with. If one truly believes in liberty then John Brown’s cause was just. Whether or not he was cray cray.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, if one professes to love liberty then one also ought to understand and appreciate why, at the very least, statues and monuments to the Confederacy might cause others some consternation.
 

Joshua Cude

Cadet
Joined
Aug 15, 2015
Location
North Carolina
Could you explain how it is that the people of the Confederate states were “oppressed”?

And, by extension, I presume you would support slave insurrections and, say, John Brown’s raid?

Could you explain how it is that the people of the Confederate states were “oppressed”?

And, by extension, I presume you would support slave insurrections and, say, John Brown’s raid
I would first off say that I would be hard pressed to find anyone who had more right to rise up against their oppressors than the slaves. I know I could not watch done to my family what was done to the slaves, and set by and do nothing. I do not believe slave insurrections were intended to overthrow a government, and therefore it doesn't really apply to the subject of treason. John Brown was dislodged from the arsenal at Harper's Ferry by United States Marines from Washington D.C. He had attacked a federal arsenal, which although his reasons might be good, he went about it in the wrong way. He was tried and convicted of treason among other things.

The Confederate states, like John Brown were half right/half wrong. They were fighting for states rights. They believed that states had the right to make their own laws, and that the federal government did not have the authority to over rule them. What would be the point in the people electing state lawmakers who would make the laws the people wanted, and then them be nullified. That is going against the will of the people, which would be oppressive. Now since the argument was over slavery, I don't think that's a bad thing in this case, but I do think they had a point as far as states rights are concerned.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I quoted what Gregory's claim was from the Court's judgement.

What you see or don't see is obviously at odds with my observation. That "the 1890 deed did not use the correct language" is specifically what I meant when I said the judgement "defied commonsense" as it is clear to anyone who reads the words of Gregory's ancestors who gifted the land that they did so in anticipation that Virginia would "guarantee that she will hold said Statue and pedestal and Circle of ground perpetually sacred to the Monumental purpose to which they have been devoted and that she will faithfully guard it and affectionately protect it."

As it has turned out that guarantee was worthless as legal argument enabled today's Virginia to wriggle its way out of what clearly were her obligations in receiving the gift. I can not see anything that would indicate the Gregory's ancestors would have ever considered giving away their valuable land unless they were sure at the time that it was to be used for the purpose for which it had been gifted to Virginia. That's commonsense. I appreciate that legal interpretation need have no regard to commonsense but that does not make the recent action any less despicable.
An issue is that the agreement was a restrictive covenant. It turns out that the courts have a lot of problems with them, as they limit "the free use of land." This is certainly not unique to the case in question, and one could foretell that the agreement might have a problem in court.

This very brief video might be useful:

This will not make you feel the decision was any less despicable. I'm just making the point, this agreement was ripe for challenge from a legal standpoint, maybe even doomed to fail if challenged in court. And it indicates that other such agreements might be in similar peril.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Location
District of Columbia
I'm not against anyone celebrating anything. So feel free to celebrate what you want. I'll celebrate what I what too.
Live and let live.
Constitutionally speaking, you have a right to free speech and assembly, and groups like the ACLU will help protect those rights. The use of public lands is a different thing. For example, we do not have a right to dismantle a government office building to put up a monument to one of our heroes. The use of public lands is a matter of public policy.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
John Brown to watchman: "I came here from Kansas and this is a slave state: I want to free all the negroes in this state: I have possession of the U.S. Armory, and if the citizens interfere with me, I must burn the town and have blood". 16 People were killed including 6 that were not in his group. The mans cheese had done slid off his cracker.
So, one man attempting a bad plan to free slaves by violence means the entire North somehow "oppressed" ALL of the Southern States?

Even after it was the Federal Government that went to Harper's Ferry to stop and capture him?

Hmmmm....
 

bdtex

Major General
★★ Sr. Moderator
Silver Patron
Annual Winner
Regtl. Quartermaster Chickamauga 2018 Vicksburg 2019
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Location
Texas
So...we are 25 pages in and some folks are throwing personal digs at other posters and not even discussing the monument. The folks doing that have put this thread on the verge of being locked. There are other forums designated for slavery, secession, Reconstruction and Lee. If you can't refrain from personal digs and have nothing more to say about the Lee monument in Richmond, please move on.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
So...we are 25 pages in and some folks are throwing personal digs at other posters and not even discussing the monument. The folks doing that have put this thread on the verge of being locked. There are other forums designated for slavery, secession, Reconstruction and Lee. If you can't refrain from personal digs and have nothing more to say about the Lee monument in Richmond, please move on.
Moving...and glad to do so.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
That’s as may be but it is irrelevant to the question here.

Both sides here appear to agree that loss of liberty, personal freedom, autonomy, rights or whatever you want to term it, is the primary consideration in determining whether someone has the right to revolt against the government they are living under. On an American forum I believe it is a good thing for this to be the case.

The disagreement arises when some will apply this to all people and some will not. Would you not agree, whether he was bats**t crazy or not, that John Brown’s cause, liberty for a people held in perpetual bondage, was a just one? Certainly more than, “that man I don’t like won an election”?

That’s the point here. No one should be complaining about ‘oppression’ because an election was lost when there is a truly genuine example right under their noses that they don’t want to reckon with. If one truly believes in liberty then John Brown’s cause was just. Whether or not he was cray cray.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, if one professes to love liberty then one also ought to understand and appreciate why, at the very least, statues and monuments to the Confederacy might cause others some consternation.
PM me if you want my answer.
 

Firedanse

Cadet
Joined
Jun 10, 2021
I started my military service in the Marines and then joined the Army. This was the mid 90s. After joining the Army is when I discovered that the Army actually had bases named after confederate generals. I could not understand this. I grew up and was educated in northern Ohio and to me it was obvious that the confederates were traitors. They took up arms against America. Why the hell do we have Army bases named after people who attempted to destroy America and killed loyal Americans?

So for me this is not a new belief brought on by current events. Its a belief I've had for a long time based on historical facts. Though I do have to admit that my stance on this issue allies me with a side I usually don't agree with.
Does anyone even really associate base names with the person anymore? Does anyone say I'm joining the military so I can serve on a confederate named base?
 
Top