Limited Protesters push to take down Confederate monuments from Gettysburg

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
Then in reality none of the state monuments advance any history, and every states should be removed.........

Though if it indeed is those 12, Maryland's recognised Marylanders on both sides.

But if you think a Virginia state monument recognizing Virginians fought and bled there, advances no real history.........neither would a Pennsylvania monument noting Pennsylvanians fought and bled there........
Maryland's would be the 13th Statue and does not appear to be included for whatever reason.

And you're not wrong about none of the state monuments advancing any history.....
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
Unfortunately, we live in an era of "common sense" in which people see the writing on the monuments, think, "huh, this is literally white supremacist propaganda," and then want to get rid of it.

I don't agree. Regardless, how much effect do you think words from 1963 have on most visitors to the park? Prior to this current fad of destroying history, most people didn't pay much attention at all to what was written on memorials. It was read and quickly forgotten.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
I don't agree. Regardless, how much effect do you think words from 1963 have on most visitors to the park? Prior to this current fad of destroying history, most people didn't pay much attention at all to what was written on memorials. It was read and quickly forgotten.
If what you say is true than there should be no controversy in changing it so it is more historically accurate.
 

BuckeyeWarrior

Sergeant
Joined
Jan 1, 2020
Location
Ohio
The historical fact is both sides equally thought themselves right, both sides were equally firm in their convictions, and both sides equally bravely fought and sacrificed.

So a monument saying that a side fought and fell for a cause that they believed right is actually an rather accurate historical description regardless of side.
It is accurate to say that both sides fought and died for a cause they believed in and that was right. It is not accurate to say that the causes both sides fought for were equally right. It is also a lie to say that the southern rebels fought for state rights. They fought to defend slavery.
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
If what you say is true than there should be no controversy in changing it so it is more historically accurate.

Accurate by whose standards? I have a real problem with the idea that out of all the generations between the war and now that only WE have arrived at a "true and accurate" understanding of history and should therefore correct those who came before us, or else remove their words entirely. There's a certain hubris in that line of thinking. Will the generations that follow us be correcting history again in 10 years, or 25 years, assuming any monuments survive? Once we start "correcting" the history on monuments, where does it end?
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
It is accurate to say that both sides fought and died for a cause they believed in and that was right. It is not accurate to say that the causes both sides fought for were equally right. It is also a lie to say that the southern rebels fought for state rights. They fought to defend slavery.


A small percentage fought "to defend slavery" among other reasons. Most fought for other reasons and said so in letters and diaries during the war, and in writing after the war. For you to say simply "they fought to defend slavery" is to omit facts and context and thus to push a partial truth at best. And therein lies one major problem with wanting to impose a modern understanding of the Civil War over a decades old understanding of it. You would only replace what you see as old propaganda with what is clearly censorious and condemnatory modern propaganda, not accurate history.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
It is accurate to say that both sides fought and died for a cause they believed in and that was right. It is not accurate to say that the causes both sides fought for were equally right. It is also a lie to say that the southern rebels fought for state rights. They fought to defend slavery.
Haven't seen a monument that states their cause was equally right at all. However they do historically note they were fighting for what they believed in......as slavery was a state right, that would hardly be a lie. It's no more misleading then Union....when Union at the time also included slavery.....
 
Last edited:

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
I do not agree with your analogy (which is both an appeal to the absurd and to ridicule). Putting up a monument to aliens isn't comparable to why the monuments at Gettysburg were erected. That people thought certain things in the past that motivated them to erect the monuments is part of our history. We don't have to agree with what they thought but it is part of our past which tells us how we got where we are today. Thus, interpretive panels would serve to teach people about how we've evolved and what people in the past thought and believed (which is part of the history of the place and several eras). The monuments do not "cover up and shut down any other interpretation of the period"; they simply exemplify one era and one interpretation (from 50-60 years ago). That such offends you is just unfortunate.

That such does not offend you is just unfortunate.

Correct me if I'm wrong - the leading argument in favor of keeping the statues on this thread is, "well, the racist and segregationist organizations and governors literally carved their beliefs in stone so who are we to get rid of it?" It's been pretty thoroughly established that the twelve monuments in question hold no value in teaching the history of the battle or the war and were put up over the protests of the National Park Service. Their only value, as you (using the general "you" here) put it, is in demonstrating the viewpoint held by a specific group of people (not an entire generation) who had the money and desire to carve said viewpoint in stone. Clearly they thought that enshrining in stone on the most iconic and well-visited battlefield of the Civil War the argument that the war was fought over states' rights (to do what exactly?) would pass that message on to future generations or else why would they have bothered? Why would they have taken the time and energy to carve into the South Carolina monument, "Abiding faith in the sacredness of States Rights provided their creed" if they didn't think anyone could be swayed by words on statues?

Accurate by whose standards? I have a real problem with the idea that out of all the generations between the war and now that only WE have arrived at a "true and accurate" understanding of history and should therefore correct those who came before us, or else remove their words entirely. There's a certain hubris in that line of thinking. Will the generations that follow us be correcting history again in 10 years, or 25 years, assuming any monuments survive? Once we start "correcting" the history on monuments, where does it end?

I think Bob Dylan wrote a song about this......

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'

Historical interpretation is always changing and we have to be prepared for new scholarship (or, in this case, old scholarship reasserting itself since WEB DuBois and others were writing about this in the early 1900s) to require changes to the statues.

A small percentage fought "to defend slavery" among other reasons. Most fought for other reasons and said so in letters and diaries during the war, and in writing after the war. For you to say simply "they fought to defend slavery" is to omit facts and context and thus to push a partial truth at best. And therein lies one major problem with wanting to impose a modern understanding of the Civil War over a decades old understanding of it. You would only replace what you see as old propaganda with what is clearly censorious and condemnatory modern propaganda, not accurate history.

Who said anything about replacing the monuments?

Look, I know that I'm screaming into a hurricane trying to defend the removal of statues on this forum, and I'm not going to continue to wage a pointless argument on the internet. You are never going to sway me and I am never going to sway you.

That being said, I think the key takeaway from this whole monument debate is one simple question:
Can you - just for a moment - step out of your own shoes and view the monument from the perspective of someone else?
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Look, I know that I'm screaming into a hurricane trying to defend the removal of statues on this forum, and I'm not going to continue to wage a pointless argument on the internet. You are never going to sway me and I am never going to sway you.

That being said, I think the key takeaway from this whole monument debate is one simple question:
Can you - just for a moment - step out of your own shoes and view the monument from the perspective of someone else?
Can you..?

Where does it end..? With no monuments to anyone ..? Are Lincoln, Jefferson, & Washington (in Wash DC) next..?
 

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
That being said, I think the key takeaway from this whole monument debate is one simple question:
Can you - just for a moment - step out of your own shoes and view the monument from the perspective of someone else?

Can they step out of their shoes and see it from our perspective? And are they making decisions based on actual facts, or on emotional conclusions uninformed by the facts?

Just to pick a Gettysburg monument as an example, what was said at the dedication with regard to why it existed? Are these reasons what we're being told today?

We are met today to unveil a memorial to those North Carolina soldiers who fought in the War Between the States. Out of respect for, and in loving memory of, the devotion of these men to some simple ideals of honor and duty which we, as a people, live by, North Carolina has caused this monument to be erected. It is fitting and proper that we should do this.​


.. time and nature heal the wounds made by war and I was impressed as I drove out here this morning by the peaceful beauty of this place. But for these memorials, who would now be reminded of the fact that 66 years ago one of the fiercest and bloodiest battles in the history of the world was fought here? I am told by people who visited the scene that on the battlefield of Argonne presented a terrible spectacle of desolation at the cessation of hostilities in 1918, yet when I visited it last summer, nature had been so rapid and complete in its work of restoration that scarcely a reminder of that former dreary waste was discernable.... it seemed to me there... that all nature was trying to beguile men into forgetfulness of the tragedy, heartaches and sorrows of war.​


https://civilwartalk.com/threads/in...federate-memorials.168979/page-4#post-2382054
 

DanSBHawk

1st Lieutenant
Joined
May 8, 2015
Location
Wisconsin
Can they step out of their shoes and see it from our perspective? And are they making decisions based on actual facts, or on emotional conclusions uninformed by the facts?
I think most of the people on the side of moving them or adding information to them do try to see it from your perspective. That's why they're suggesting moving or modifying, rather than destroying them. They know that there is an emotional attachment to these monuments for many people.

Moving or modifying them is a compromise. The monument advocates who refuse to consider either of those options are the ones that are not willing to see it from other perspectives and not willing to compromise.

On the other hand, there are some that want all confederate monuments taken down and destroyed. Failure to find compromise may end up strengthening their influence.
 

dlofting

First Sergeant
Joined
Aug 13, 2013
Location
Vancouver, BC, Canada
I certainly do see (or try to see) the point of view of "both sides" in this debate. Some of the inscriptions on the monuments make me cringe a bit, but they do reflect the thinking of the people who erected them.

For me there is a difference between a monument on a battlefield, like Gettysburg, and one outside a town courthouse. A resident may have to pass by the latter whether they want to or not, when they are engaged in something that has nothing to do with history or the Civil War.

A person chooses to visit Gettysburg because of history and the Civil War so accepts the fact that some things may be uncomfortable to them and even offensive...that's just the way history is.
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I think most of the people on the side of moving them or adding information to them do try to see it from your perspective. That's why they're suggesting moving or modifying, rather than destroying them. They know that there is an emotional attachment to these monuments for many people.

Moving or modifying them is a compromise. The monument advocates who refuse to consider either of those options are the ones that are not willing to see it from other perspectives and not willing to compromise.

On the other hand, there are some that want all confederate monuments taken down and destroyed. Failure to find compromise may end up strengthening their influence.
We'll just have to disagree.

At first it was, remove them from the public landscape. ie: courthouses, public squares, & city parks, etc. Now, they are wanting them removed from battlefields, & cemeteries. That's insane in my opinion. Nothing more than a poke in the eye.

The evolution of the removal movement, won't end well for anyone. We'll be left only honoring the present. How narcissistic is that..?:frown:
 

Viper21

Brigadier General
Moderator
Silver Patron
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I certainly do see (or try to see) the point of view of "both sides" in this debate. Some of the inscriptions on the monuments make me cringe a bit, but they do reflect the thinking of the people who erected them.

For me there is a difference between a monument on a battlefield, like Gettysburg, and one outside a town courthouse. A resident may have to pass by the latter whether they want to or not, when they are engaged in something that has nothing to do with history or the Civil War.

A person chooses to visit Gettysburg because of history and the Civil War so accepts the fact that some things may be uncomfortable to them and even offensive...that's just the way history is.
I acknowledge your point. The one thing I would add is, the narrative of courthouse monuments has been effective in making people feel that way. The current narrative is along the lines of, they were put there to keep people down, white supremacy, blah blah, etc.

The real reason they were erected on courthouse lawns is, for lots of towns, that was the last place they saw their relatives. It was the recruitment place, & center of town. People forget, most of these courthouse monuments were erected by private donations, nickels & dimes, at a time. Bake sales, newspaper subscriptions, etc.. gathered by widows, & fatherless children over years.

I could show several within driving distance of me, that are nothing more than, monuments to boys & men who died serving in the war. Plenty of these towns, didn't have public parks, etc at the time. Some still don't.
 

John Winn

Major
Joined
Mar 13, 2014
Location
State of Jefferson
That such does not offend you is just unfortunate.

Correct me if I'm wrong - the leading argument in favor of keeping the statues on this thread is, "well, the racist and segregationist organizations and governors literally carved their beliefs in stone so who are we to get rid of it?" It's been pretty thoroughly established that the twelve monuments in question hold no value in teaching the history of the battle or the war and were put up over the protests of the National Park Service. Their only value, as you (using the general "you" here) put it, is in demonstrating the viewpoint held by a specific group of people (not an entire generation) who had the money and desire to carve said viewpoint in stone. Clearly they thought that enshrining in stone on the most iconic and well-visited battlefield of the Civil War the argument that the war was fought over states' rights (to do what exactly?) would pass that message on to future generations or else why would they have bothered? Why would they have taken the time and energy to carve into the South Carolina monument, "Abiding faith in the sacredness of States Rights provided their creed" if they didn't think anyone could be swayed by words on statues?

...
First off, there is no "general" you in English; it's either singular or plural. You are being disingenuous with your attempt to sound as if you aren't actually addressing me (which you are).

Surprise: almost all of the monuments were erected by racist and segregationist organizations (and people); that's just the way things were then, north and south. We don't have to like it but it's the truth. All the monuments express the viewpoints and values of those who erected them. Initially it was veterans or their direct relatives but, later, it was those who viewed the war with, perhaps, a certain bias. It's all part of the history of the park and also of our country and how the monuments came to be where they are. Thus, the monuments and their history are instructive concerning how the war affected later generations and how different viewpoints existed (and continue to exist) regarding the war. Those you specifically target can be useful in that respect but also to show how far our country has come regarding race relations. Interpretive signs can discuss that and help teach new generations about the past. To remove the monuments is to pretend that a history one might find offensive never happened.

I don't believe one is entitled to not be offended; one just has to learn to deal with it. An avoidance strategy can often be useful.

As you said, you and I are not going to agree so I'll just mosey along now. You write your congressman and I'll write mine.
 
Last edited:

Andersonh1

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Location
South Carolina
I acknowledge your point. The one thing I would add is, the narrative of courthouse monuments has been effective in making people feel that way. The current narrative is along the lines of, they were put there to keep people down, white supremacy, blah blah, etc.

The real reason they were erected on courthouse lawns is, for lots of towns, that was the last place they saw their relatives. It was the recruitment place, & center of town. People forget, most of these courthouse monuments were erected by private donations, nickels & dimes, at a time. Bake sales, newspaper subscriptions, etc.. gathered by widows, & fatherless children over years.

I could show several within driving distance of me, that are nothing more than, monuments to boys & men who died serving in the war. Plenty of these towns, didn't have public parks, etc at the time. Some still don't.

Not to mention that when fundraising was done among the public, the finished product needed to be somewhere that the public who had paid for the monument could see it. What better place than the center of town?
 

Tony Z

Private
Joined
Jan 3, 2021
Being that it’s Mother’s Day, I will use a saying of dear, old, long departed Ma: “give them an inch and they’ll take a yard”. Concede any point at GB, and it will be a row of dominoes toppling. These people do not want to know or understand a thing about the battle, they want the publicity and then It’s onto their next objective.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
That such does not offend you is just unfortunate.

Correct me if I'm wrong - the leading argument in favor of keeping the statues on this thread is, "well, the racist and segregationist organizations and governors literally carved their beliefs in stone so who are we to get rid of it?" It's been pretty thoroughly established that the twelve monuments in question hold no value in teaching the history of the battle or the war and were put up over the protests of the National Park Service. Their only value, as you (using the general "you" here) put it, is in demonstrating the viewpoint held by a specific group of people (not an entire generation) who had the money and desire to carve said viewpoint in stone. Clearly they thought that enshrining in stone on the most iconic and well-visited battlefield of the Civil War the argument that the war was fought over states' rights (to do what exactly?) would pass that message on to future generations or else why would they have bothered? Why would they have taken the time and energy to carve into the South Carolina monument, "Abiding faith in the sacredness of States Rights provided their creed" if they didn't think anyone could be swayed by words on statues?



I think Bob Dylan wrote a song about this......

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin'
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'

Historical interpretation is always changing and we have to be prepared for new scholarship (or, in this case, old scholarship reasserting itself since WEB DuBois and others were writing about this in the early 1900s) to require changes to the statues.



Who said anything about replacing the monuments?

Look, I know that I'm screaming into a hurricane trying to defend the removal of statues on this forum, and I'm not going to continue to wage a pointless argument on the internet. You are never going to sway me and I am never going to sway you.

That being said, I think the key takeaway from this whole monument debate is one simple question:
Can you - just for a moment - step out of your own shoes and view the monument from the perspective of someone else?
If your not condoning or advancing removal of monuments and memorials, you obviously can see both sides and aren't favoring one side or view over the other.

Would seem rather obvious to me those who want any view or interpretation other then own removed.......are the only ones who are incapable of seeing others perspectives, they certainly don't seem for any diversity of opinions. At any battlefield.....in any war....there are two sides. They obviously have differing views, that should been presented. And if someone thinks there is some need to highlight when "states rights" is said, it meant slavery......it should be equally as needed to point in the majority of ACW battles to point out when "Union" is mentioned.....it was also a "Union" with legalized slavery as well they were fighting for.

(Technically all Union battles were as 13th wasnt ratified till postwar, but certainly till Jan 31 1865, it wasn't a given likely policy, as it had failed in Congress before that.)
 
Last edited:

Zack

Sergeant
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Location
Los Angeles, California
First off, there is no "general" you in English; it's either singular or plural. You are being disingenuous with your attempt to sound as if you aren't actually addressing me (which you are).

Wasn’t planning on responding but since it seems like I accidentally insulted you - I really did mean the plural you if general isn’t the right word for it. I couldn’t figure out a way to word the sentence without the word “you.” I should have tried harder. I really honest to god did not intend it as an address to you. It wasn’t a disingenuous attempt - it was bad wording. I apologize if it seems like I was singling you out. “You” was meant to mean “those arguing in favor of the statues remaining.”
 
Top