Restricted New ACW marker.

Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
This story was in my news feed today, not sure how to react other then find it hilarious.....if we are going to impartially erect signage to every place 2 people enlisted, the sign factories are going to be booming.

If not, this is a rather gross overaction to two people enlisting.........and would amount to little more then absurd pandering.

https://www.winchesterstar.com/winc...cle_e78affe9-3d42-549c-88b6-cc4e8da40815.html
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Pandering for sure and very one-sided at that.
It's patently absurd if that 'event' deserves a marker to inform people about the enlistment of just two people [claiming without evidence that "it was most likely" the other 200 African Americans living in the town had already enlisted with the Union] when a simple marker about a more historically important event [first Confederate officer death - John Marr Monument] had to be removed late last year [link].

Marr.jpg
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Pandering for sure and very one-sided at that.
It's patently absurd if that 'event' deserves a marker to inform people about the enlistment of just two people [claiming without evidence that "it was most likely" the other 200 African Americans living in the town had already enlisted with the Union] when a simple marker about a more historically important event [first Confederate officer death - John Marr Monument] had to be removed late last year [link].

View attachment 405476
Imagine about every tavern, church, public square or community house in about every city or village, north and south..... probably had least 2 people recruited there........
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
It's a bit odd that anyone would be ridiculing new markers.
For a recruiting drive of two guys enlisting? Not really......perhaps if we weren't removing markers of significance, putting up markers to the trivial would not seem as out of context.

Honestly just look through this forum, this new marker is far less historically significant then most listed here as attacked or threatened. Stephen Foster, US Grant, Lincoln Emancipating the slaves, Lees contribution to W&L, ect
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
For a recruiting drive of two guys enlisting? Not really......perhaps if we weren't removing markers of significance, putting up markers to the trivial would not seem as out of context.

Honestly just look through this forum, this new marker is far less historically significant then most listed here as attacked or threatened. Stephen Foster, US Grant, Lincoln Emancipating the slaves, Lees contribution to W&L, ect
Trivial? I think a regiment of USCT marching through a slave state looking for recruits is an interesting bit of history. I'm not sure why anyone who is interested in history would have a problem with new historical markers. Markers serve to teach history, and remind the public that there is an interesting local history to learn.

I'd rather have more informational markers and fewer glorifying statues. The former actually teach history. The latter promote hero-worship.
 
Last edited:

Cycom

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
Trivial? I think a regiment of USCT marching through a slave state looking for recruits is an interesting bit of history. I'm not sure why anyone who is interested in history would have a problem with new historical markers. Markers serve to teach history, and remind the public that there is an interesting local history to learn.

I'd rather have more informational markers and fewer glorifying statues. The former actually teach history. The latter promote hero-worship.
Monuments and statues also teach about history. They ARE history.

I would rather have both markers and statues.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Trivial? I think a regiment of USCT marching through a slave state looking for recruits is an interesting bit of history. I'm not sure why anyone who is interested in history would have a problem with new historical markers. Markers serve to teach history, and remind the public that there is an interesting local history to learn.

I'd rather have more informational markers and fewer glorifying statues. The former actually teach history. The latter promote hero-worship.

Yes, trivial when, as @archieclement said, "this new marker is far less historically significant then most listed here as attacked or threatened".

There is no "hero-worship" in the John Marr monument mentioned above just a simple statement about what occurred at that particular place. The attempted removal of the Lee name at Washington and Lee University where Lee played a pivotal role. Various gravesite markers/monuments either removed or being removed including; A P Hill monument; N B Forrest monument; and (pictured below) the Confederate gravesite marker at Silver Spring (defaced, toppled then removed).
silver spring.jpg


To that you can add many, many others which, as said above, you only need to look through this forum to find many but there are numerous websites that document those that have been removed. Many historical in their own right given the length of time they were standing.

But, of course, it does not stop there. More continue to be removed and now it has moved to battlefields [CWT Thread re Gettysburg Protest], a process that will progress at a rapid pace once Section 442 of HR7608 passes the Senate (as it will see all Confederate commemorative works, such as statues, monuments, sculptures, memorials, and even plaques removed from battlefields like Gettysburg).
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Yes, trivial when, as @archieclement said, "this new marker is far less historically significant then most listed here as attacked or threatened".

There is no "hero-worship" in the John Marr monument mentioned above just a simple statement about what occurred at that particular place. The attempted removal of the Lee name at Washington and Lee University where Lee played a pivotal role. Various gravesite markers/monuments either removed or being removed including; A P Hill monument; N B Forrest monument; and (pictured below) the Confederate gravesite marker at Silver Spring (defaced, toppled then removed).
View attachment 405726

To that you can add many, many others which, as said above, you only need to look through this forum to find many but there are numerous websites that document those that have been removed. Many historical in their own right given the length of time they were standing.

But, of course, it does not stop there. More continue to be removed and now it has moved to battlefields [CWT Thread re Gettysburg Protest], a process that will progress at a rapid pace once Section 442 of HR7608 passes the Senate (as it will see all Confederate commemorative works, such as statues, monuments, sculptures, memorials, and even plaques removed from battlefields like Gettysburg).
This country is in the process of deciding who is really worthy of public commemoration. We'll see how it all shakes out.

But informational markers are not in the same league as "monuments." Markers are to teach. Monuments are to glorify.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
This country is in the process of deciding who is really worthy of public commemoration. We'll see how it all shakes out.

But informational markers are not in the same league as "monuments." Markers are to teach. Monuments are to glorify.
Would disagree, unless a city was putting up "informational" markers at every place 2 or more enlisted during the war....it's purpose is not to inform or teach at all, but to pander or "glorify"

If the purpose is to inform or teach, who you or anyone else think is worthy of public commemoration has little to do with actual historical significance, as most that have threads here are subjects or events of more historical significance then this one. So it's a little confusing as you seem to have it rather backwards, as promoting less significant historical events or figures over more significant ones, would seem the actual "glorification" attempts.
 
Last edited:

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
Would disagree, unless a city was putting up "informational" markers at every place 2 or more enlisted during the war....it's purpose is not to inform or teach at all, but to pander or "glorify"

If the purpose is to inform or teach, who you or anyone else think is worthy of public commemoration has little to do with actual historical significance, as most that have threads here are subjects or events of more historical significance then this one. So it's a little confusing as you seem to have it rather backwards, as promoting less significant historical events or figures over more significant ones, would seem the actual "glorification" attempts.
Maybe people just disagree on what is historically significant......nothing wrong or unusual about that.
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Would disagree, unless a city was putting up "informational" markers at every place 2 or more enlisted during the war....it's purpose is not to inform or teach at all, but to pander or "glorify"

If the purpose is to inform or teach, who you or anyone else think is worthy of public commemoration has little to do with actual historical significance, as most that have threads here are subjects or events of more historical significance then this one. So it's a little confusing as you seem to have it rather backwards, as promoting less significant historical events or figures over more significant ones, would seem the actual "glorification" attempts.
There is more of historical significance to the marker than 2 enlistments. As I said, a black regiment marching through a slave state collecting recruits is an interesting event. The fact that 200 black residents of the town had already enlisted in the Union army is an interesting fact.

Whatever happened to the monuments-defenders doctrine of "If you don't like something, don't look at it?"

I don't understand what you mean by pandering? Why use that word? The locals decided they wanted an informational marker. It's their choice.
 

Booklady

Sergeant
Joined
Mar 19, 2017
Location
New England
This country is in the process of deciding who is really worthy of public commemoration. We'll see how it all shakes out.

But informational markers are not in the same league as "monuments." Markers are to teach. Monuments are to glorify.
I would only offer the observation that monuments, being inanimate objects, memorialize -- they cause something to be remembered (for good or ill). Only people can glorify or its opposite, denigrate (or perhaps vilify) what is being remembered. Causing something to be remembered is a form of teaching, too.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
There is more of historical significance to the marker than 2 enlistments. As I said, a black regiment marching through a slave state collecting recruits is an interesting event. The fact that 200 black residents of the town had already enlisted in the Union army is an interesting fact.

Whatever happened to the monuments-defenders doctrine of "If you don't like something, don't look at it?"

I don't understand what you mean by pandering? Why use that word? The locals decided they wanted an informational marker. It's their choice.
Again interesting to you, isn't actually significant, as their were over 2000 Union regt's marching over states and recruiting as doing so.

Again it's a rather simple test, should their be individual markers as every spot every Regt ever stopped to sign up a couple of recruits? I know of no actual historian who would advocate that case.

What distinguishes this one from 10,000's other such events that makes it somehow especially significant? Haven't seen anything at all provided. Apparently Winchester provided over 4 companies to the CSA, so it doesn't provide any actual context to the sentiment of the town itself, as far as context to the town it could actually be considered rather misleading in that regard.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Again interesting to you, isn't actually significant, as their were over 2000 Union regt's marching over states and recruiting as doing so.

Again it's a rather simple test, should their be individual markers as every spot every Regt ever stopped to sign up a couple of recruits? I know of no actual historian who would advocate that case.

What distinguishes this one from 10,000's other such events that makes it somehow especially significant? Haven't seen anything at all provided. Apparently Winchester provided over 4 companies to the CSA, so it doesn't provide any actual context to the sentiment of the town itself, as far as context to the town it could actually be considered rather misleading in that regard.
If you don't find a black regiment, made up at least partly of former slaves, marching through a slave state gathering recruits, as historically significant or interesting then that's simply your opinion. Others find it interesting. And enough of the locals found it interesting, that they decided to install a marker describing the event. It's their choice.

If non-residents are going to mock their choice, then the non-residents shouldn't complain when their own favored markers and monuments are mocked and removed.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
That makes no sense as it's a red herring and misrepresentation, so guess that it makes no sense is noted.......

Personally I do realize not everyone is against racism as it's not a perfect world, but that is exactly what pandering based on race is.

As the only difference between this incident and other recruiting incidents in Winchester during the war is simply race. I find it as significant as the tens of thousands other incidents of a CW Regt signing up a recruit during the war, no more and no less, and it is indeed laughable to suggest these trivial events need marked, when larger events and people aren't being, or are even being removed.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
That makes no sense as it's a red herring and misrepresentation, so guess that it makes no sense is noted.......

Personally I do realize not everyone is against racism as it's not a perfect world, but that is exactly what pandering based on race is.

As the only difference between this incident and other recruiting incidents in Winchester during the war is simply race. I find it as significant as the tens of thousands other incidents of a CW Regt signing up a recruit during the war, no more and no less, and it is indeed laughable to suggest these trivial events need marked, when larger events and people aren't being, or are even being removed.
Anyone who thinks this historical marker is pandering based on race, is ignoring that race was a major issue in the war. To go from slave to soldier is historically interesting and historically significant.

I think the implication of your statement "not everyone is against racism" is the red herring. I have a pretty good sense of what is actually racism.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Anyone who thinks this historical marker is pandering based on race, is ignoring that race was a major issue in the war. To go from slave to soldier is historically interesting and historically significant.

I think the implication of your statement "not everyone is against racism" is the red herring. I have a pretty good sense of what is actually racism.
Evidently not.
 

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
For the era in which the war was fought it is significant that people of color were allowed to serve as combat troops at all. There was racism on both sides and until later in the war the Union did not allow the enlistment of men of color. So I do agree that this is a meaningful and interesting moment in history and worthy to be commemorated.
I am in support of the preservation of all historical monuments that tell the story of our growth as a nation.
 
Top