There is a new book titled For Slavery and Union which argues that Kentucky was both pro-Union and pro-slavery, wanting to walk the middle road, in the old Whig tradition of the early to mid nineteenth century. I would recommend it to understand Kentucky during and after the war.You should also understand the internal divisions in the Border States. It is true that in three of the four Border States, some important political leaders sided with the Confederacy. A third of Kentuckians who fought in the war did so on the side of the Confederates.
Within the Border States, slaveowners were more likely than their neighbors to support the Confederacy, but some slaveowners in Kentucky supported the Union, believing that secession endangered slavery.
Missouri and Maryland passed emancipation legislation before the end of the war, Kentucky was resistant to ending slavery til the last.
But here's thing- usually the things that the SCV does that end up here on this forum and in the news reports are the controversial things- the things that are newsworthy because a lot of people have differing opinions on it- which is what you guys got here. I bet the SCV does tons of things per year that no one ever comments on or no newspaper has issue with or perhaps that people on this forum approve of but it doesn't make it on here because it's not interesting or debatable enough to make it into the news or a whole thread.
Does that make any sense?
My Kentucky ancestors were slaveholders and unionists.There is a new book titled For Slavery and Union which argues that Kentucky was both pro-Union and pro-slavery, wanting to walk the middle road, in the old Whig tradition of the early to mid nineteenth century. I would recommend it to understand Kentucky during and after the war.
Hmmm so no one said, but you felt urged to post .....Wait right here, I have to find the instructions for that strawman kit... lolNo, I just told what that particular thing seemed to me. But I'm glad that you came up wilber, and made my point. I was just thinking of you when I was typing that "someone." Predictablicy is the thing I like in friends ￼
By celebrating the confederacy, you demean our country and all it now stands for .Since both Missouri and Kentucky had Confederate representatives in exile, it is therefore a matter of opinion as to who recognized whom and why. Those Missouri and Kentucky patriots that stood by the South are just as entitled to a star or column as anyone else without the blessing of some outside sanction or approval.
Thank you for this information, it is very telling.Orange has a troubled history of violence, much of it revolving around race. There were reports of murders of suspected abolition sympathizers in 1860/61, and the town had a well-known lynching tree on the main street downtown for many years, until some local business leaders decided that particular landmark wasn't actually so good for business and cut it down. Orange is alleged to have been a "sundown town," like a number of small communities in that area. With that historical baggage, it's not surprising that many in that community view the placement of this particular monument, with its almost three dozen Confederate flags, on MLK Drive to be delibrate provocation.
Yes, there is a grave stone in Maine for a confederate soldier that was sent here by mistake. Each year, a new confderate flag is placed on the grave - to honor the man and his service.So there is no place in this monument for honoring souhern patriots that were loyal to the United States?
William,It makes very good sense. IMO though anything the SCV does is made in to a CONTROVERSIAL issue because many people wish to discredit them. The SCV's existence is made to be CONTROVERSIAL, all of this because of wanting to honor their Confederate heritage.
And it appears there are times the SCV, at least portions of that organization, goes out of its way to invite controversy.
Interesting how this particular monument is right up against a MAJOR highway? That just smacks of "Flagger" mentality.