Monument Avenue Statues In Richmond, VA

Rebforever

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Personally i think Lee would be in favour of taking his statue down and replacing it with a monument to Virginias dead if anything he was not vain or egotistic and I'm sure he would of disapproved of all this idol worship.
People in America Are free to worship anyone they want to.
 

Paul Yancey

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Location
Kentucky
I like this quote from the article that refers to current conditions in Richmond - "Those problems stand out in high relief in Richmond, half of whose inhabitants are black. Virginia Standards of Learning Test results for 2018-2019 (the most recent year for which figures are available) showed 50 percent of the River City's black public school students failing in reading and math, a far higher failure rate than white students'. Eighty-four percent of 2019 births of black babies were out of wedlock. Dismal conditions prevail in the city's public housing. Fatal and nonfatal shootings in black neighborhoods have surged over the past year, while numerous Richmond police officers have left the force in the wake of Stoney's weak response to the BLM disorders. Taking Confederate statues down has done, and will do, nothing to improve the situation."

IMO, the powers that be in Richmond have much more pressing issues than the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee.
 

Scott1967

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 11, 2016
Location
England
I like this quote from the article that refers to current conditions in Richmond - "Those problems stand out in high relief in Richmond, half of whose inhabitants are black. Virginia Standards of Learning Test results for 2018-2019 (the most recent year for which figures are available) showed 50 percent of the River City's black public school students failing in reading and math, a far higher failure rate than white students'. Eighty-four percent of 2019 births of black babies were out of wedlock. Dismal conditions prevail in the city's public housing. Fatal and nonfatal shootings in black neighborhoods have surged over the past year, while numerous Richmond police officers have left the force in the wake of Stoney's weak response to the BLM disorders. Taking Confederate statues down has done, and will do, nothing to improve the situation."

IMO, the powers that be in Richmond have much more pressing issues than the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee.
I could not agree with you more Paul their are indeed more pressing issues unfortunately even if they remove the statues and erase Southern history nothing will change and then they will move onto another excuse.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Great article from National Review about the Lee monument on Monument Avenue. There are plenty of modern political references in the article, but there are also more timeless observations about the value of those monuments and the virtues of the South.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2021...paign=hero&utm_content=related&utm_term=first

All too likely to be buried by the current political wisdom is the elementary fact that, for all its terrible shortcomings, the Old South imposed demanding standards of personal honor, courage, and self-sacrifice on its guardians. If they hadn’t been recognized as signal exponents of those virtues, Lee, Jackson, Stuart, and Davis would never have been commemorated on Monument Avenue.​

The courage to do what? To fight for one of the worst causes a people ever did?
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
The courage to do what? To fight for one of the worst causes a people ever did?

There have been plenty of causes people have fought for, that were worse. Keeping in mind of course, I don't accept your view of "the cause", or the reason my ancestors fought. Having said that, there are people still alive today, that fought to exterminate other groups of people. There are even some folks, still attempting the same.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
The courage to do what? To fight for one of the worst causes a people ever did?

It is interesting to me that even though the author writes of the South's "terrible shortcomings" and "searing injustices of the past" alongside descriptions of the positive aspects of the South and men like Lee and Jackson, this attempt at honest balance seems not to matter. You're as free as any of us here to read the article and determine the author's meaning, and that would be my advice here.
 
Last edited:

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
The courage to do what? To fight for one of the worst causes a people ever did?
I never knew courage was judged by the cause, and I don't share your views of the cause. Takes no courage to topple or vandalize a defenceles statue. Yet those who do this are considered courageous heros by some people.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
There have been plenty of causes people have fought for, that were worse. Keeping in mind of course, I don't accept your view of "the cause", or the reason my ancestors fought. Having said that, there are people still alive today, that fought to exterminate other groups of people. There are even some folks, still attempting the same.
And those people you mention of today have no more sympathy from me than all the other men who fought for the Confederacy for a cause they thought just and right.

It is interesting to me that even though the author writes of the South's "terrible shortcomings" and "searing injustices of the past" alongside descriptions of the positive aspects of the South and men like Lee and Jackson, this attempt at honest balance seems not to matter. You're as free as any of us here to read the article and determine the author's meaning, and that would be my advice here.

I am exercising that freedom in seeing a side to this article's 'balance' you seem to think matters, in validating a cause for civil war that evokes no sympathy from me in the slightest.

I never knew courage was judged by the cause, and I don't share your views of the cause. Takes no courage to topple or vandalize a defenceles statue. Yet those who do this are considered courageous heros by some people.

Of course, courage in the service of a bad cause is judged, here and now and even at the time of the Civil War. I know you don't share my views of the cause, it's not important to me if you do or not. I simply read the facts left behind of those men of so-called courage in a cause they stated plainly was their reason for rebellion.

And for the flip side that in your view that it takes no courage to topple a defenseles statue, I feel the same way about those putting up those same statues, secure in the knowledge they had all the power to deny anyone who opposed such emplacements.

From a voice of the time with a point of view on this matter of courage:

"...The essence and significance of our devotions here today are not to be found in the fact that the men whose remains fill these graves were brave in battle. If we met simply to show our sense of bravery, we should find enough on both sides to kindle admiration. In the raging storm of fire and blood, in the fierce torrent of shot and shell, of sword and bayonet, whether on foot or on horse, unflinching courage marked the rebel not less than the loyal soldier.

But we are not here to applaud manly courage, save as in it has been displayed in a noble cause. We must never forget that victory to the rebellion meant death to the republic. We must never forget that the loyal soldiers who rest beneath this sod flung themselves between the nation and the nation's destroyers. If today we have a country not boiling in an agony of blood, like France, if now we have a united country, no longer cursed by the hell-black system of human bondage, if the American name is no longer a by-word and a hissing to a mocking earth, if the star-spangled banner floats over free American citizens in every quarter of the land, and our country has before it a long and glorious career of justice, liberty, and civilization, we are indebted to the unselfish devotion of the noble army who rest in these honored graves all around us."


--Frederick Douglass, May 30, 1871.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
And those people you mention of today have no more sympathy from me than all the other men who fought for the Confederacy for a cause they thought just and right.



I am exercising that freedom in seeing a side to this article's 'balance' you seem to think matters, in validating a cause for civil war that evokes no sympathy from me in the slightest.



Of course, courage in the service of a bad cause is judged, here and now and even at the time of the Civil War. I know you don't share my views of the cause, it's not important to me if you do or not. I simply read the facts left behind of those men of so-called courage in a cause they stated plainly was their reason for rebellion.

And for the flip side that in your view that it takes no courage to topple a defenseles statue, I feel the same way about those putting up those same statues, secure in the knowledge they had all the power to deny anyone who opposed such emplacements.

From a voice of the time with a point of view on this matter of courage:

"...The essence and significance of our devotions here today are not to be found in the fact that the men whose remains fill these graves were brave in battle. If we met simply to show our sense of bravery, we should find enough on both sides to kindle admiration. In the raging storm of fire and blood, in the fierce torrent of shot and shell, of sword and bayonet, whether on foot or on horse, unflinching courage marked the rebel not less than the loyal soldier.

But we are not here to applaud manly courage, save as in it has been displayed in a noble cause. We must never forget that victory to the rebellion meant death to the republic. We must never forget that the loyal soldiers who rest beneath this sod flung themselves between the nation and the nation's destroyers. If today we have a country not boiling in an agony of blood, like France, if now we have a united country, no longer cursed by the hell-black system of human bondage, if the American name is no longer a by-word and a hissing to a mocking earth, if the star-spangled banner floats over free American citizens in every quarter of the land, and our country has before it a long and glorious career of justice, liberty, and civilization, we are indebted to the unselfish devotion of the noble army who rest in these honored graves all around us."


--Frederick Douglass, May 30, 1871.
You see it this way as a Single Causer and the belief that all Confederates fought for slavery. Yet there is proof R.E. Lee, Stonewall and many others joined to protect their native state of Virginia.

If we are to believe what Frederick Douglas says then you also must be a believer in Black Confederates. Sept 1861

"It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas and they are probable there still."
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
You see it this way as a Single Causer and the belief that all Confederates fought for slavery. Yet there is proof R.E. Lee, Stonewall and many others joined to protect their native state of Virginia.

Yes, I do see this as a single cause, the cause of slavery. I cannot get over the idea that people can deny that it was over slavery, the issue that troubled and convulsed the country since the beginning of the American Union. Even more, I cannot believe that the ordinary, common Confederate soldier, thought that it was about anything else, other than slavery. I won't believe they were that ignorant not to know the issue of the conflict. And why did Lee and others join the cause to defend Virginia and other seceding States? We always, always, have to circle back to slavery as the reason they had to betray their country and fight for the rebellion.

If we are to believe what Frederick Douglas says then you also must be a believer in Black Confederates. Sept 1861

"It is now pretty well established, that there are at the present moment many colored men in the Confederate Army doing duty not only as cooks, servants and laborers, but as real soldiers, having muskets on their shoulders, and bullets in their pockets, ready to shoot down loyal troops, and do all that soldiers may to destroy the Federal Government and build up that of traitors and rebels. There were such soldiers at Manassas and they are probable there still."

I'm pretty sure you have seen the numerous threads on the topic of Black Confederate soldiers and this very same quote by Douglass. And you know you yourself have seen the various explanations for him giving it. Why not see what he said about the topic?

"As Douglass later made clear, he actually regarded Davis's plan (the enlisting of slaves as soldiers) as evidence of a kind of "madness" precisely because it "called upon the Negro for help to fight against the freedom which he so longed to find, for the bondage he would escape--against Lincoln the emancipator for Davis the enslaver." Confederate leaders could convince themselves slaves might accept such an absurd offer, Douglass noted, only because "the South was desperate," and "desperation discards logic."

--Frederick Douglass, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass Papers, (rev. ed. 1892; reprint, London: Collier-Macmillan, 1962), p. 362 (quotation).
 
Last edited:

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
Yes, I do see this as a single cause, the cause of slavery. I cannot get over the idea that people can deny that it was over slavery, the issue that troubled and convulsed the country sinde the beginning of the American Union. Even more, I cannot believe that the ordinary, common Confederate soldier, thought that it was about anything else, other than slavery. I won't believe they were that ignorant not to know the issue of the conflict. And why did Lee and others join the cause to defend Virginia and other seceding States? We always, always, have to circle back to slavery as the reason they had to betray their country and fight for the rebellion.



I'm pretty sure you have seen the numerous threads on the topic of Black Confederate soldiers and this very same quote by Douglass. And you know you yourself have seen the various explanations for him giving it. Why not see what he said about the topic?

"As Douglass later made clear, he actually regarded Davis's plan (the enlisting of slaves as soldiers) as evidence of a kind of "madness" precisely because it "called upon the Negro for help to fight against the freedom which he so longed to find, for the bondage he would escape--against Lincoln the emancipator for Davis the enslaver." Confederate leaders could convince themselves slaves might accept such an absurd offer, Douglass noted, only because "the South was desperate," and "desperation discards logic."

--Frederick Douglass, Life and Times of Frederick Douglass Papers, (rev. ed. 1892; reprint, London: Collier-Macmillan, 1962), p. 362 (quotation).
Strange that you can understand slaves wanting freedom. But can't understand Southerners wanting their own country and freedom from the overbearing north. African Americans with the Confederate Army got the same benefits African Americans got fighting for the Union. Nothing was said about their freedom either. Until after Lincolns desperate anoucement of the EP and to include USCT in fighting his war.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
It meant death to northern profits from slavery or the cheap labor of "freedmen."
It meant that more in the slaveholding South than anywhere in the North. $4 BILLION in 1860 dollars of slave property that out valued all the Northern factories, railroads, gold deposits, banks, ships, you name it and the South had more money. The first millionares in the US were rich Southerners who grew cotton and had slaves gather it for them.

Death to Northern profits? A question for you. Did the North go broke at anytime during the Civil War?

Strange that you can understand slaves wanting freedom. But can't understand Southerners wanting their own country and freedom from the overbearing north. African Americans with the Confederate Army got the same benefits African Americans got fighting for the Union. Nothing was said about their freedom either. Until after Lincolns desperate anoucement of the EP and to include USCT in fighting his war.

An overbearing North? That one is hard to swallow, especially since the South had held almost all of the federal government for nearly 70 years before Lincoln's election. Track the number of Southern Presidents, leaders of the Senate and the Supreme Court and then explain to me how the North dominated anything of political importance when Southerners held these important government positions.

African Americans got NOTHING from any so-called or imagined service with the Confederate army. The Post War South reveals NOTHING in the way of African American rights because no intention was ever made to include them in the South's political life. The Confederacy, even in it's last desperate days, could not see it's way clear to free ANY slave that would have served in the Confederate army.

The myth simply doesn't tally with the historical record.
 

Stone in the wall

2nd Lieutenant
Asst. Regtl. Quartermaster Antietam 2021
Joined
Sep 19, 2017
Location
Blue Ridge Mountains, Jefferson County WV
Defense of the home and duty with honor were strong primary reasons for the average soldier to enlist. No different North or South.

Carlton McCarthy:"dared not refuse to hear the call to arms, so plain was the duty and so urgent the call. His brethren and friends were answering the bugle-call and the sound of the drum" and "to stay was dishonor and shame"
B F Johnson 1908: Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia.

"most of them viewed the defense of slavery as to protect the fortunes and property of a leisured upper-middle class that most (of them) looked upon with hatred, envy and content" from: West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly Vol XIV, #4 Oct 2000
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Defense of the home and duty with honor were strong primary reasons for the average soldier to enlist. No different North or South.

Carlton McCarthy:"dared not refuse to hear the call to arms, so plain was the duty and so urgent the call. His brethren and friends were answering the bugle-call and the sound of the drum" and "to stay was dishonor and shame"
B F Johnson 1908: Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia.

"most of them viewed the defense of slavery as to protect the fortunes and property of a leisured upper-middle class that most (of them) looked upon with hatred, envy and content" from: West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly Vol XIV, #4 Oct 2000
100%

It doesn't matter how many times it's repeated, some folks are stuck on moral judgement of our ancestors, & can't fathom they were honorable people, in spite of what a few Southern politicians said or proclaimed. Listen to what politicians say today. Even those in your own districts, or states. Do they all represent you, & your values..? If not, then why are we to assume it was any different in 19th century America..?

I have the unique privilege of having copies of, over a dozen letters written during the war, by one of my Confederate ancestors. Not one time does he mention slavery, or anything even close to it. He speaks of battles, troop movements, honor, courage, duty, love of his family, friends, & God. It is clear from his letters, he expected to die on the battlefield, & like most people in that situation, he spoke of what really mattered to him.

Eleven of them, are transcribed & online. Read em yourself: https://altchive.org/node/15013 Then tell me what he was fighting for, & or why he enlisted.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Defense of the home and duty with honor were strong primary reasons for the average soldier to enlist. No different North or South.

Carlton McCarthy:"dared not refuse to hear the call to arms, so plain was the duty and so urgent the call. His brethren and friends were answering the bugle-call and the sound of the drum" and "to stay was dishonor and shame"
B F Johnson 1908: Soldier Life in the Army of Northern Virginia.

"most of them viewed the defense of slavery as to protect the fortunes and property of a leisured upper-middle class that most (of them) looked upon with hatred, envy and content" from: West Virginia Historical Society Quarterly Vol XIV, #4 Oct 2000

Defense of home and family brought about by those who could not see an end of slavery. Are you of the opinion that the average Confederate soldier had no idea what brought about this civil war? Do you not even consider the idea that free slaves put upon an equal, social and legal footing, had no concerns for the average Southern citizen? The fear of slaves unbound and free to travel and express themselves and compete as equals in society, the fear that the resentment of being enslaved might boil over into violence?

We must, we have to, take into consideration, how deeply ingrained slavery was in the Southern mind of the time. Defense of home, duty and honor, has to take into account how slavery effected everyday life and perceptions of those wanting to do such service. No man ignored what cause brought him to such service. I fail to see why we should ignore it here, in the 21st century.

I find your final sentence a bit perplexing. In the first part of your post, you give one reason for service, then list that hate, envy, and contempt of those fighting for those who wished to maintain that slavery for themselves. It was this difference that finally brought the Confederacy to an end.

100%

It doesn't matter how many times it's repeated, some folks are stuck on moral judgement of our ancestors, & can't fathom they were honorable people, in spite of what a few Southern politicians said or proclaimed. Listen to what politicians say today. Even those in your own districts, or states. Do they all represent you, & your values..? If not, then why are we to assume it was any different in 19th century America..?

I have the unique privilege of having copies of, over a dozen letters written during the war, by one of my Confederate ancestors. Not one time does he mention slavery, or anything even close to it. He speaks of battles, troop movements, honor, courage, duty, love of his family, friends, & God. It is clear from his letters, he expected to die on the battlefield, & like most people in that situation, he spoke of what really mattered to him.

Eleven of them, are transcribed & online. Read em yourself: https://altchive.org/node/15013 Then tell me what he was fighting for, & or why he enlisted.

Who said that the average Southern citizen ever were not honorable people? Who said they all agreed with the Confederate leadership? And like you said, politicians of today don't always represent our wishes in this present time. I wasn't in favor of involvement in Vietnam when I first enlisted in the military, but I accepted the fact I might be sent there. When I talked to the veterans of that time, they said they didn't fight to stop the reds from taking over the country, but that they fought for one another, as all soldiers do throughout history.

Confederate soldiers, like soldiers of today, enlist for various reasons and causes, but they ALL fight for the political goals and objectives of their political leaders, whether those objectives are honorable or not. Every Confederate soldier fought to preserve slavery, whether he wanted to or not. This does not make them dishonorable. It makes them in service to a bad cause, the wrong cause, fighting against the flow of history.

I agree there were many different views among the soldiers themselves as to why they were fighting. Mine fought for slavery, as his records and documents clearly indicate to me. Was he a dishonorable man to me? No. Her was just wrong in his belief that holding slaves was a good thing.

You say your ancestor never said a thing about slavery in any of his letters to his loved ones? Did he ever leave any word on how he felt about the institution? Did he say why he felt the war had come about? When I wrote letters home to my wife and family, I never mentioned the debates in Congress, the press or the speeches of President Johnson in them one time. I was more concerned with personal, closer issues than those things.

One last thing. I have never stated Confederate soldiers were not honorable men. I have simply stated, time and again, they fought for slavery because they had no choice in the matter.

Unionblue
 

19thGeorgia

1st Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
It meant that more in the slaveholding South than anywhere in the North. $4 BILLION in 1860 dollars of slave property that out valued all the Northern factories, railroads, gold deposits, banks, ships, you name it and the South had more money.
Coasting Trade
"A prohibitive tax was placed on foreign built and foreign owned ships in 1789, followed by their complete exclusion from coastwise competition under the Navigation Act of 1817."
https://www.encyclopedia.com/histor...es-pictures-and-press-releases/coasting-trade

Not only would the North lose the profits of the Coasting Trade, but all the capital invested in the construction of ships involved in that trade.

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." -Chicago Daily Times, December 1860
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Coasting Trade
"A prohibitive tax was placed on foreign built and foreign owned ships in 1789, followed by their complete exclusion from coastwise competition under the Navigation Act of 1817."
https://www.encyclopedia.com/histor...es-pictures-and-press-releases/coasting-trade

Not only would the North lose the profits of the Coasting Trade, but all the capital invested in the construction of ships involved in that trade.

"In one single blow our foreign commerce must be reduced to less than one-half what it now is. Our coastwise trade would pass into other hands. One-half of our shipping would lie idle at our wharves. We should lose our trade with the South, with all of its immense profits. Our manufactories would be in utter ruins. Let the South adopt the free-trade system, or that of a tariff for revenue, and these results would likely follow." -Chicago Daily Times, December 1860

As I have asked you before in a previous post, did the North go broke anytime during the Civil War?
 
Last edited:

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Are you of the opinion that the average Confederate soldier had no idea what brought about this civil war?

Serious question: have you considered that they saw the situation differently than you do? Every time I read one of your posts, you are imposing your frame of reference and your understanding on them, and I would suggest that the reverse should be true if you're going to understand these men.
 
Top