WI Removal of List of POW Dead from Cemetery

No one has the right to dictate who someone else considers a hero. There's a big difference between giving respect to someone and praising them publicly as a hero in a shared space. Just ask Southerners about Sherman and Lincoln.

When you praise a group on a monument as heroes in a shared space you are subject to the opinions of those you share that space with. Just a fact of life.

I don't agree with the people that want this removed due to it praising Confederates as heroes, though I respect they have every right to have their opinion and to pursue the official process in regards to shared spaces.

I have no problem with "sharing" public places..... They are the ones apparently not wishing to share with the UDC, I see no reason the UDC shouldn't be allowed, or GAR, Mollus , SCV, VVA or American Legion, if they are willing to memorialize their fallen its worthy cause. However if want to ban one....we probally should consider banning all, as they all wish to commemorate their fallen...… If hero or unsung heroes to fallen soldiers is objectionable, there's a lot of memorials from a lot of wars that probably should go... In city parks, cemeteries, state and national parks...…

After all many outside the confederacy fought for a country that included slavery, segregation, denying women's rights, ect, The CSA has no monopoly on travesties through United States history if we are being honest.....Actually its 4 years is a blip compared the USA's 200+ years, of which many of those years fell short of todays idealized views.
 
Last edited:
Unknown Union dead buried in Confederate cemeteries...

Dalton, Ga.
DaltonCSA.jpg


Appomattox, Va.
unknown-union-soldier-appomattox.jpg
 
Last edited:
I understand there are individual markers as well as the monuments at issue. My point was that at least one of the monuments being removed is, in fact, functionally the same as the individual markers (and not a separate type of thing, as I thought you implied). It's a collective marker - i.e. a gravestone for multiple persons. It doesn't matter if there are also individual markers; they're the same thing. I provided examples of such that commonly are found.

I'm not sure if we disagree or not. Whatever you call it there are individual markers for the individual graves and a collective monument whether a grave stone or not to the group of individuals separate from their individual markers. Likewise the collective monument came in 1906 many years after the lady who laid the individual markers had already died (not sure when they were specifically laid).

So whatever the terminology this is a monument in a grave, maybe that makes it a gravestone, though removing this monument is not in fact removing the marking of graves for these Confederate dead. Which I think is an important distinction that some people might be confused with.
 
I have no problem with "sharing" public places..... They are the ones apparently not wishing to share with the UDC, I see no reason the UDC shouldn't be allowed, or GAR, Mollus , SCV, VVA or American Legion, if they are willing to memorialize their fallen its worthy cause. However if want to ban one....we probally should consider banning all, as they all wish to commemorate their fallen...… If hero or unsung heroes to fallen soldiers is objectionable, there's a lot of memorials from a lot of wars that probably should go... In city parks, cemeteries, state and national parks...…

After all many outside the confederacy fought for a country that included slavery, segregation, denying women's rights, ect, The CSA has no monopoly on travesties though United States history if we are being honest.....Actually its 4 years is a blip compared the USA's 200+ years, which many of those years fell short of todays idealized views.

Your opinion is noted. If you share public spaces you have to work within those spaces according to those you share it with. There are individual gravestones that commemorate the Confederate dead, this Monument was added years after those were laid. Removing the monument is categorically not banning commemorating Confederate dead, just choosing to remove one expression of it via local policy.

"If hero or unsung heroes to fallen soldiers is objectionable, there's a lot of memorials from a lot of wars that probably should go... In city parks, cemeteries, state and national parks"

That's completely up to those people and places according to the policies that dictate it. These things were raised according to their policies of their time no differently.
 
I'm not sure if we disagree or not. Whatever you call it there are individual markers for the individual graves and a collective monument whether a grave stone or not to the group of individuals separate from their individual markers. Likewise the collective monument came in 1906 many years after the lady who laid the individual markers had already died (not sure when they were specifically laid).

So whatever the terminology this is a monument in a grave, maybe that makes it a gravestone, though removing this monument is not in fact removing the marking of graves for these Confederate dead. Which I think is an important distinction that some people might be confused with.

OK, maybe we don't disagree. I understand that you are trying to make it clear that the graves will remain marked. I'm saying they were doubly marked and half the markers are being removed and there is no difference between a marker and a monument. As I felt that you were at least implying that such a difference existed and was noteworthy I posted to disagree (that there is a difference and that it makes a difference). The monuments are grave stones and it doesn't matter if there are other grave stones; grave stones are being removed. Maybe we do disagree after all; not sure.
 
OK, maybe we don't disagree. I understand that you are trying to make it clear that the graves will remain marked. I'm saying they were doubly marked and half the markers are being removed and there is no difference between a marker and a monument. As I felt that you were at least implying that such a difference existed and was noteworthy I posted to disagree (that there is a difference and that it makes a difference). The monuments are grave stones and it doesn't matter if there are other grave stones; grave stones are being removed. Maybe we do disagree after all; not sure.

haha, I too don't know if we disagree. I think we do to some degree... maybe

1) I'm fine calling this a gravestone (it is literally a stone in a grave anyways). I'll just note that in no article now or in my newspaper searches do I see it called that, only a monument, so I speculate others might in fact not apply the term gravestone to all monuments like these but I concede the point as not really mattering and you may very well be right (or it could just be a terminology thing).

2) I disagree that there is indeed a difference. Not that they are completely different but clearly different. The individual markers were laid long before and much later someone came and laid a monument listing all of their names and a message. This monument is basically the same as we see outside of cemeteries it just was laid inside one near the graves and already existing markers. So yes I do think there is indeed a clear and provable difference though clearly they can in fact both serve similar purposes as well.

Either way I think it's important that people know there are earlier laid individual stones and then a monument stone laid to collectively honor them. The later one specifically called a "monument." Additionally what I see is the proposed removal of the monument and not the individual gravestones. So even if we call the monument a gravestone the proposal referenced is not calling for the removal of all Confederate gravestones, just the collective one. Whatever that means is up to the individual but I think it's an important distinction.
 
I do think you are underestimating American's capability to form controversy over anything.
Hubby wants to go to the movies tonight, so I have to run but I just had to respond to this real quick. It's important.
My wonderful dear friend, I have never underestimate this.
With my back ground, my experiences - the journey that I am undertaking now in discovering my heritage - I am quite familiar with controversy. :cold: Lots of it. I could write a book.

Blessings to you Matt for always wanting to express all sides of the issues in a kind and caring way.
:thumbsup:
 
I tried to post a picture of Confederate Rest, showing the individual stones for the soldiers and the monument with the names of the soldiers and Mrs Waterman. The cement slab in the foreground is where the brass plaque was mounted. Not sure the photo will show in my post. The photo is from WMTV, Channel 15, Madison.
www.nbc15.com/content/news/City-votes-to-remove-Madison-confederate-monuments-479345063.html

Then I tried to post a photo of Confederate Rest made in 1898.

"Confederate Rest" in Forest Hill Cemetery where Confederate prisoners of war who died at Camp Randall are buried. In this early photograph, there is a wooden fence surrounding the plot and the graves are marked with wooden headboards.

Image published in Confederate Veterans' Association of Washington, D.C. report of January 2, 1898.

www.wisconsinhistory.org/Records/Image/IM57932

If the photos don't show, hopefully you can go to the links.
 
I just spent about a half hour on the website for United Daughters of the Confederacy https://www.hqudc.org/ and could not find anything remotely racist or promoting ****. They seem like a fairly innocuous group of nice ladies who have genteel get-togethers and raise money for monuments remembering their ancestors who fought and died in the Lost Cause.

I also searched online using the term “daughters of the confederacy controversy” and I can’t seem to find any actual evidence of racism, covert or otherwise.

I’m calling bulls*** on these allegations.
 
Are we saying the elected representatives and their appointed officials of a local community have no right to their own opinions and issues on a local matter?
\Yep - they certainly do have the right. And we who disagree with their actions have the right to criticize them. I don't think anyone here is really denying the "due process" (for want of a better term) by which they decide to remove the monument. It was all legal, etc etc. We are just saying they did something stupid. And that is OUR right.
 
I just spent about a half hour on the website for United Daughters of the Confederacy https://www.hqudc.org/ and could not find anything remotely racist or promoting ****. They seem like a fairly innocuous group of nice ladies who have genteel get-togethers and raise money for monuments remembering their ancestors who fought and died in the Lost Cause.

I also searched online using the term “daughters of the confederacy controversy” and I can’t seem to find any actual evidence of racism, covert or otherwise.

I’m calling bulls*** on these allegations.

Preface: I have great respect for the ladies on CWT who are members of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. As I have said in a previous post in this thread, I know they would never be affiliated with a UDC chapter that wasn’t about doing good works. I also believe we need organizations like those UDC chapters that want to honor and respect our ancestors and to promote a love of history.

Now...

A lot of people picture a group of mainly older women dressed in widow’s weeds who meet to honor their Confederate ancestors when they think of the United Daughters of the Confederacy. That is a mistake. These ladies aren’t just laying wreaths of boxwood and holly and singing mournful renditions of Dixie. As memorials have toppled and Confederate place names have begun to vanish, the UDC has fought back with lawsuits aimed at stopping the removal of Confederate monuments from public spaces.

Founded in 1894, the UDC emerged from women’s “hospital associations, sewing societies and knitting circles” across the South that worked to aid Confederate soldiers. The group’s articles of incorporation list five key objectives: “Historical, Benevolent, Educational, Memorial and Patriotic.” UDC membership is open to descendants of those who served honorably in the Confederate military or “who gave material aid to the cause.” Applicants cannot use an ancestor who took the oath of allegiance to the United States before April 9, 1865, when Lee surrendered at Appomattox. After the war, the UDC generously offered assistance to Confederate widows and orphans.

Around 450 monuments, markers, buildings and other commemoratives are attributed to the efforts of the UDC. The memorials range from modest statues to the 351 foot concrete obelisk marking the Kentucky birthplace of Jefferson Davis. The UDC’s influence extends beyond the regional boundaries of the Confederacy. The vast majority of these monuments were erected during the late 19th and early 20th centuries when states were enacting Jim Crow laws and amid the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

In an interview earlier this year, historian Karen L. Cox, author of “Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture,” said, ”The UDC is most proud of the ‘living monuments’ it helped to create.” She was referencing the group’s youth auxiliary, the Children of the Confederacy, organized in 1896. Boys and girls go on field trips to historic sites and clean up cemeteries. They also memorize passages from the UDC’s Confederate Catechism, a summary of its principles.

The war, reads a text from 1904, was caused by the “disregard, on the part of the States of the North, for the rights of the southern or slave-holding states.” And slaves “were faithful and devoted and were always ready and willing to serve them.” According to Cox, the language has been tweaked over the years. In the version currently on the UDC website, that statement now reads: “Slaves, for the most part, were faithful and devoted. Most slaves were usually ready and willing to serve their masters.

It should be noted that the state chapters of the UDC have their own distinct personalities. For example, amid calls to remove a Confederate statue from the old courthouse in Tampa, Florida, the president of the UDC’s state division came out in support of moving such monuments from public property. Ginger Lathem-Rudiger told a Tampa television station:

“Because of the issue of slavery ... why not relocate these to places where they can be given the respect they deserve for veteran service?”

The UDC President General, Patricia M Bryson, has said:

… the Daughters, like our statues, have stayed quietly in the background, never engaging in public controversy.”



Sources:
The UDC website - https://www.hqudc.org

Dixie’s Daughters: The United Daughters of the Confederacy and the Preservation of Confederate Culture” by Karen L. Cox.

“The Lost Cause: The Women’s Group Fighting for Confederate Monuments” by Allen G Breed. The Associated Press in Chapel Hill, NC, August 10, 2018.
 
Last edited:
Will you please share that link or ask that member to do so? Thanks!
Unfortunately I deleted the link containing that address after I read it; perhaps he will see your request and provide it again, but he was reluctant to post it here in the first place because he figured - not without reason! - that some of our more rabid members would brand him as a racist for doing so!
 
The UDC President General, Patricia M Bryson, has said:

… the Daughters, like our statues, have stayed quietly in the background, never engaging in public controversy.”
Miss Patricia ain't met me yet!
:bounce:

She is a lovely lady! I have enjoyed reading her articles of encouragement in the UDC magazine!
 
\Yep - they certainly do have the right. And we who disagree with their actions have the right to criticize them. I don't think anyone here is really denying the "due process" (for want of a better term) by which they decide to remove the monument. It was all legal, etc etc. We are just saying they did something stupid. And that is OUR right.

Showing it is the living that care about these issues and no one else.
 
OTE][/QUOTE]
Showing it is the living that care about these issues and no one else.

Yep - and it is only "the living" that care about Battlefield preservation, Donald Trump, global warming, ISIS, famine in Africa, the American League Championship Series, illegal immigration, Wall Street, hurricane Michael, who will win an Oscar this year, what is Julia Roberts next film, and a few other things I don't have room to mention.
 
[QUOTE="mkyzzzrdet, post: 1908781, member: 8200"


Yep - and it is only "the living" that care about Battlefield preservation, Donald Trump, global warming, ISIS, famine in Africa, the American League Championship Series, illegal immigration, Wall Street, hurricane Michael, who will win an Oscar this year, what is Julia Roberts next film, and a few other things I don't have room to mention.[/QUOTE]

My point concerns the issue of the cemetery. Only the living appear to take issue over the dead and seem to have enough time and energy to be upset by it.

The dead continue to sleep and no one seems concerned with what they might have wished.

And, in reference to your above post, there are some other issues the living should be more concerned about, all except for the Oscar thingy.

Strange what the living do find important enough to rail against and yet how few write to President Trump about global warming, ISIS, illegal immigration, Wall Street, etc., etc.

The issue was a local one, decided by local institutions. Surely we are not advocating that outsiders decide this issue, especially those who do not live in the area, or are we?
 
[QUOTE="mkyzzzrdet, post: 1908781, member: 8200"


Yep - and it is only "the living" that care about Battlefield preservation, Donald Trump, global warming, ISIS, famine in Africa, the American League Championship Series, illegal immigration, Wall Street, hurricane Michael, who will win an Oscar this year, what is Julia Roberts next film, and a few other things I don't have room to mention.

My point concerns the issue of the cemetery. Only the living appear to take issue over the dead and seem to have enough time and energy to be upset by it.

The dead continue to sleep and no one seems concerned with what they might have wished.

And, in reference to your above post, there are some other issues the living should be more concerned about, all except for the Oscar thingy.

Strange what the living do find important enough to rail against and yet how few write to President Trump about global warming, ISIS, illegal immigration, Wall Street, etc., etc.

The issue was a local one, decided by local institutions. Surely we are not advocating that outsiders decide this issue, especially those who do not live in the area, or are we?[/QUOTE]


In reference to your last paragraph about "outsiders" - isn't that what the South felt in 1861?
 
Back
Top