"Orange Confederate monument will include 32 rebel flags"

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,323
Location
Long Island, NY
Block is a good example of how the SCV and other heritage groups have damaged themselves. The incentives within those groups are all wrong, and the rewards (honors, election to higher office, etc.) generally go to those who are, to put it bluntly, defiant and dumb. The temper tantrum they threw last year at Olustee in Florida, over a proposed monument honoring Union troops who fought there, is a good example. Behavior like that gets lots of kudos from like-minded people, but for the other 99% of the population who aren't SCV members, it's exceptionally off-putting.
And it ultimately harms preservation and commemoration.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,069
Location
Laurinburg NC
I am not aware of any New Hampshire regiments serving the Confederacy so that might not be appropriate. There were many such regiments supporting the Union from Missouri and Kentucky. That is part of their heritage.

As we are always told this is about heritage.
Sounds like a good project for the SUV if they think those people deserve recognition. The Orange, Texas Monument is a SCV project, the SCV, and I doubt the SUV, customarily finance monuments to the enemy.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

AndyHall

Colonel
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
13,217
The SCV is using this monument to give us a history lesson:

Granvel Block of Orange, commander of the statewide SVC group and the Orange camp and main force behind the project, rebuffs arguments that slavery was the cause of the Civil War. He said slave owners were scattered across the map, not just the south.
Not just the South, but mostly the South. 1860 U.S. Census:

slaveholdingstates1860_720.png
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

hanna260

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 1, 2015
Messages
1,800
Location
Just Around the Riverbend
I don't get why loonies like this are allowed to represent the SCV, which I'm sure has so many lovely people who just want to get in touch in with their Confederate ancestors. You would think that with all the criticism of racism and controversy that's been going on in the last few years, the SCV would want to make it clear that their goal is preserving Confederate monuments.

This sort of stupid behavior, as AndyHall said, is not winning them any points from the people whom they need support from most or at least they would need support from most if they were really concerned about preserving the legacy of the Confederacy and Confederate heroes as they say on their website- people who otherwise wouldn't care about preserving monuments or Confederate history.
 

diane

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Jan 23, 2010
Messages
20,650
Location
State of Jefferson
Instead of building new things like this, in areas guaranteed to produce friction, why don't the descendants of the Confederate soldiers and sailors put their money into preserving and protecting the fine monuments and parks and cemeteries that already exist? That seems a best use of contributions, if your aim is to preserve heritage and history. (At least that's what they said their aim was...)
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
14,088
Location
Middle Tennessee
I love the advice to the SCV a by folks who wouldn't support it unless it wore a hairshirt and in every pronouncement, public or private, declared to the world the perfidity of their ancestors for supporting slavery and how awful they were while the forces of righteousness "tramped out the vintage."

If you don't like the monument or the SCV more power to you but this petty little sniping simply irritates me to the point of responding in kind. I realize, however, that would simply be as inane as some of this criticism.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

hanna260

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 1, 2015
Messages
1,800
Location
Just Around the Riverbend
I love the advice to the SCV a by folks who wouldn't support it unless it wore a hairshirt and in every pronouncement, public or private, declared to the world the perfidity of their ancestors for supporting slavery and how awful they were while the forces of righteousness "tramped out the vintage."

If you don't like the monument or the SCV more power to you but this petty little sniping simply irritates me to the point of responding in kind. I realize, however, that would simply be as inane as some of this criticism.
Hey, CM, I'm assuming that was addressed partially or perhaps fully to me? :smile: It's true- I'm not a Southerner, I don't have Confederate ancestors, by giving advice, I'm stepping a bit out of line.

And to clarify, I'm not saying that the SCV needs to proclaim to the world the perfidity of their ancestors for supporting slavery with every monument. I apologize if I gave that impression. I do think- however, that this sort of stuff- which seems deliberately provocative- is hurting their cause.
 

AndyHall

Colonel
Joined
Dec 13, 2011
Messages
13,217
Instead of building new things like this, in areas guaranteed to produce friction, why don't the descendants of the Confederate soldiers and sailors put their money into preserving and protecting the fine monuments and parks and cemeteries that already exist? That seems a best use of contributions, if your aim is to preserve heritage and history. (At least that's what they said their aim was...)
The article in another thread about the new highway flag outside of Charlottesville mentioned expenses of around $7,200, not including the value of volunteer labor or the (onging) cost of the flags themselves, which are substantial. That money would have gone a long way toward battlefield preservation (especially with a 5-to-1 match), or preserving actual Confederate flags from 1861-65.
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
14,088
Location
Middle Tennessee
Hey, CM, I'm assuming that was addressed partially or perhaps fully to me? :smile: It's true- I'm not a Southerner, I don't have Confederate ancestors, by giving advice, I'm stepping a bit out of line.
Actually, no. As I said you are free to advise as you want.

And to clarify, I'm not saying that the SCV needs to proclaim to the world the perfidity of their ancestors for supporting slavery with every monument. I apologize if I gave that impression. I do think- however, that this sort of stuff- which seems deliberately provocative- is hurting their cause.
I guess my problem boils down to this: it has been said here the the SCV logo is offensive and provocative. With that, little the SCV can do that is not provocative.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

hanna260

Sergeant Major
Joined
Mar 1, 2015
Messages
1,800
Location
Just Around the Riverbend
Actually, no. As I said you are free to advise as you want.
Alrighty then, good. :smile: I always worry about spouting off my mouth to Native Southerners because ultimately I don't live there and have in fact never been there- so I'm not as informed when these sort of issues come up.

I guess my problem boils down to this: it has been said here the the SCV logo is offensive and provocative. With that, little the SCV can do that is not provocative.
That's true. And it's hard because I know there must be so many members in the SCV who simply want to honor their ancestors and their history and who know that slavery was a bad thing and probably don't need to reminded of it every opportunity. But- that sort of was my point- at a time when the SCV seems to be seen in the worst light it can be, don't you think efforts like this- which would be provocative from any group- hurt it more than help it? Maybe efforts purely focused on conservation would help the logo- certainly it wouldn't hurt it.
 

JerseyBart

Brigadier General
Moderator
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 19, 2006
Messages
8,987
Location
New Jersey
I love the advice to the SCV a by folks who wouldn't support it unless it wore a hairshirt and in every pronouncement, public or private, declared to the world the perfidity of their ancestors for supporting slavery and how awful they were while the forces of righteousness "tramped out the vintage."

If you don't like the monument or the SCV more power to you but this petty little sniping simply irritates me to the point of responding in kind. I realize, however, that would simply be as inane as some of this criticism.
That being said, the thread was posted in the open on civil war talk. Did the OP only expect and only want positive responses to the thread, article and its contents? That doesn't often happen here and we ALL know that. Heck, sometimes threads are posted just to incite a fight...for the author's funsies. If a thread is put out here: expect debate, discussion, agreement and disagreement. If disagreement within a thread its content and its opinion cannot be handled, it shouldn't be posted.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CMWinkler

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
14,088
Location
Middle Tennessee
Alrighty then, good. :smile: I always worry about spouting off my mouth to Native Southerners because ultimately I don't live there and have in fact never been there- so I'm not as informed when these sort of issues come up.
Well, as a non-native Southerner, I hope not. I'm a Yankee transplant according to many.

That's true. And it's hard because I know there must be so many members in the SCV who simply want to honor their ancestors and their history and who know that slavery was a bad thing and probably don't need to reminded of it every opportunity. But- that sort of was my point- at a time when the SCV seems to be seen in the worst light it can be, don't you think efforts like this- which would be provocative from any group- hurt it more than help it? Maybe efforts purely focused on conservation would help the logo- certainly it wouldn't hurt it.
First, I don't know anyone who thinks slavery was a good thing. I'm curious, what in your mind puts the SCV in the worst light? Seeking a Texas specialty plate or putting up a Confederate Monument? Both of those activities have been widely and roundly criticized here as offensive and provocative. May the SCV only limit itself to activities of which its critics approve? Would you ask any only organization to limit its activities in that way? Andy, as always, makes good points, but must the SCV limit itself only to preserving battlefields in order to be free from attack?

Let me say this, I do not see the SCV as being without fault. There are many things it does that, frankly, puzzle me. As you may know, I am actively involved in raising funds to restore the Garfield Park Confederate POW Monument in Indianapolis, Indiana. This monument memorializes the 1,616 Confederates who died in captivity in Camp Morton. We have run into opposition by the Indiana Division of the SCV and they have denounced me personally for my efforts. I find this troubling because this, in my view, is exactly one of the things the SCV should unite in doing.

By the same token, I have no problem whatsoever, with this monument in Orange. So long as it honors Confederate dead, it, too, is exactly what I think the SCV should be doing. The Texas Division for all the criticism it receives here will, I expect, donate a portion of the funds it receives from its "offensive" specialty plates to preservation of Texas' collection of Confederate flags. That's exactly what we in Tennessee do, having donated tens of thousands of dollars for that purpose.

I don't always agree with everything the SCV does, but neither do I with any other organization with which I am affiliated. I am, however, extremely tired of the inane sniping at the SCV I see here and will continue to speak up against it.
 

CMWinkler

Colonel
Retired Moderator
Joined
Oct 17, 2012
Messages
14,088
Location
Middle Tennessee
That being said, the thread was posted in the open on civil war talk. Did the OP only expect and only want positive responses to the thread, article and its contents? That doesn't often happen here and we ALL know that. Heck, sometimes threads are posted just to incite a fight...for the author's funsies. If a thread is put out here: expect debate, discussion, agreement and disagreement. If disagreement within a thread its content and its opinion cannot be handled, it shouldn't be posted.
Criticism is one thing. Repeated posts sniping is quite another. Disagree all you like but doing so disrespectfully will get a disrespectful response. Hardly a way to carry on a reasoned discussion.
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,468
Except that neither of those states recognized themselves as part of the Confederacy. So much for States Rights.
Hey, Pat, I'm not arguing with you, but I'll just do a bit of nitpicking on the Missouri stance. It's quite true that the wartime government (including appointees in many chairs) didn't secede. I think it's also a safe bet to say the majority of average Missourians didn't want to secede. But Gov. Jackson and a significant portion of the elected government DID want to secede and they voted to do so. Ergo, the twelfth star in the Confederate battle flag. However, the legality of the action of those in exile as well as those appointees in the legislature is something that will probably be argued long after we are gone. Missouri seemed to simultaneously stay in the union and join the Confederacy. Crazy times, for sure!

But, all that said, you're quite correct that Missouri was considered a non-seceding border state by the federal government--and by most of its citizens, too.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
20,069
Location
Laurinburg NC
Well, as a non-native Southerner, I hope not. I'm a Yankee transplant according to many.



First, I don't know anyone who thinks slavery was a good thing. I'm curious, what in your mind puts the SCV in the worst light? Seeking a Texas specialty plate or putting up a Confederate Monument? Both of those activities have been widely and roundly criticized here as offensive and provocative. May the SCV only limit itself to activities of which its critics approve? Would you ask any only organization to limit its activities in that way? Andy, as always, makes good points, but must the SCV limit itself only to preserving battlefields in order to be free from attack?

Let me say this, I do not see the SCV as being without fault. There are many things it does that, frankly, puzzle me. As you may know, I am actively involved in raising funds to restore the Garfield Park Confederate POW Monument in Indianapolis, Indiana. This monument memorializes the 1,616 Confederates who died in captivity in Camp Morton. We have run into opposition by the Indiana Division of the SCV and they have denounced me personally for my efforts. I find this troubling because this, in my view, is exactly one of the things the SCV should unite in doing.

By the same token, I have no problem whatsoever, with this monument in Orange. So long as it honors Confederate dead, it, too, is exactly what I think the SCV should be doing. The Texas Division for all the criticism it receives here will, I expect, donate a portion of the funds it receives from its "offensive" specialty plates to preservation of Texas' collection of Confederate flags. That's exactly what we in Tennessee do, having donated tens of thousands of dollars for that purpose.

I don't always agree with everything the SCV does, but neither do I with any other organization with which I am affiliated. I am, however, extremely tired of the inane sniping at the SCV I see here and will continue to speak up against it.
The Indiana SCV’s opposition to a POW monument in Indianapolis does seem puzzling, I would have thought the division would be in the vanguard to get the monument there. There must be some explanation for their odd behavior, do you know their reason for the opposition?



The Indiana SCV’s opposition to a POW monument in Indianapolis does seem puzzling, I would have thought the division would be in the vanguard to get the monument there. There must be some explanation for their odd behavior, do you know their reason for the opposition?
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Messages
30,323
Location
Long Island, NY
By the same token, I have no problem whatsoever, with this monument in Orange. So long as it honors Confederate dead, it, too, is exactly what I think the SCV should be doing.
Let us separate the issue of the temporary flying of a flag from the act of erecting a monument in a community that appears not to want it. Marching with the CBF through the streets of Orange is more or less the equivalent of carrying a picket sign or other banner. People may like it or not, but it is an ordinary (and temporary) part of life in a democracy. Erecting a monument that much of the local community objects to is just being a bad neighbor. Why do it?

I can't think of a monument put up near me that most local people objected to before it was erected. Perhaps things are different in the South.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top