Restricted New ACW marker.

Cycom

Sergeant
Joined
Feb 19, 2021
Location
Los Angeles, California
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.
Well said.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
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.
I agree as well, however two people enlisting is still just two people enlisting and in fact trivial in significance compared to most the events or people reflected in the monuments in this forums threads that have been threatened, removed, destroyed, or vandalized.

As I originally said what makes it laughable to me, is it's in context to more significant ones being removed........
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I agree as well, however two people enlisting is still just two people enlisting and in fact trivial in significance compared to most the events or people reflected in the monuments in this forums threads that have been threatened, removed, destroyed, or vandalized.

As I originally said what makes it laughable to me, is it's in context to more significant ones being removed........
Do you know the actual text of the marker?
 

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
I indicated the thread was based on the linked news article. That's what has been commented on.

Which is what most the threads are on as the forum description says "Threads may be debates and/or news."
The linked article doesn't indicate that the focus of the marker is on the number of enlistments. And without knowing the actual text of the marker, it's presumptuous to claim the focus of the marker is on the two enlistments.

And actually, the linked article suggests that there is additional interesting information on the marker, such as the number of black residents that already enlisted from the town, and the fact that a regiment of black soldiers were marching through the area, and encountering resistance from the confederates. So to claim it is only about the number of enlistments is a misrepresentation.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Well if you don't want to comment on news stories, then don't.....

But that is essentially what this forum is about. Commenting on monuments in the news and debating whether events should be acknowledged or marked, which if one isn't pandering would be based on their significance.

The only mispresentation continues seem to be you as no one has said it didn't address other things, but as it's located at the spot of the enlistment of the two soldiers, and not at the spot of any others, does suggest the focus of it.

Rather odd you haven't before suggested it would be presumptuous to claim a racial superiority statement to monuments, where we do know the text and it made no such claim at all.
 
Last edited:

DanSBHawk

Captain
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Well if you don't want to comment on news stories, then don't.....

But that is essentially what this forum is about. Commenting on monuments in the news and debating whether events should be acknowledged or marked, which if one isn't pandering would be based on their significance.

The only mispresentation continues seem to be you as no one has said it didn't address other things, but as it's located at the spot of the enlistment of the two soldiers, and not at the spot of any others, does suggest the focus of it.

Rather odd you haven't before suggested it would be presumptuous to claim a racial superiority statement to monuments, where we do know the text and it made no such claim at all.
There is no "pandering" involved, and the use of the word is revealing.
 
Top