Restricted Removing Confederate Monuments would edit history

1950lemans

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Location
Connecticut
I like the idea of leaving monuments alone but I also like the idea of adding a “disclaimer” to some of them (which somebody previously mentioned earlier in other threads). Wouldn't this add to the history lesson the monument is trying to tell? I’m basically talking about monuments not in battlefield parks. Removing monuments smacks too much of Stalinist-era revisionist history.

Confederate monuments symbolize slavery, oppression, etc. Then again monuments commemorate heritage, honor, mourning, etc. As mentioned in other threads, many times, the monuments are sanitized history based on the reconciliationist viewpoint.

I’m not a big monument aficionado. A general here or there; generic monuments to the Confederate dead emphasize their honor, their bravery, etc. You’ve got to admit that military monuments are impressive to look at.

But it’s a good thing that all the uproar is about Confederate monuments and not about other monuments from the CW era that explicitly tell a story. The glorious military veneer is swept aside. These monuments tell it like it was. They commemorate post-1865 events. If more people knew about these monuments, I suspect there would be an even bigger uproar. I have no idea how many of these types exist.

These monuments are not “sanitized”; these definitely need a disclaimer marker IMO. For example, this one interests me:

http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=10170
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Good question, there may have been some newspaper or internet polls but as far as I know the question of the Lincoln monument, or any other monument, has never been put on a ballot and voted on by the people. Perhaps Virginia, or any other state, should do what Mississippi did several years ago when their state flag became an issue with a minority – let the people of the state vote on it.

So, that's a "no," right?
 

Jamieva

Captain
Forum Host
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Location
Midlothian, VA
I like the idea of leaving monuments alone but I also like the idea of adding a “disclaimer” to some of them (which somebody previously mentioned earlier in other threads). Wouldn't this add to the history lesson the monument is trying to tell? I’m basically talking about monuments not in battlefield parks. Removing monuments smacks too much of Stalinist-era revisionist history.

Confederate monuments symbolize slavery, oppression, etc. Then again monuments commemorate heritage, honor, mourning, etc. As mentioned in other threads, many times, the monuments are sanitized history based on the reconciliationist viewpoint.

I’m not a big monument aficionado. A general here or there; generic monuments to the Confederate dead emphasize their honor, their bravery, etc. You’ve got to admit that military monuments are impressive to look at.

But it’s a good thing that all the uproar is about Confederate monuments and not about other monuments from the CW era that explicitly tell a story. The glorious military veneer is swept aside. These monuments tell it like it was. They commemorate post-1865 events. If more people knew about these monuments, I suspect there would be an even bigger uproar. I have no idea how many of these types exist.

These monuments are not “sanitized”; these definitely need a disclaimer marker IMO. For example, this one interests me:

http://www.hmdb.org/marker.asp?marker=10170


I don't see adding a disclaimer to every monument. It's up to the individual to learn and interpret what that momument is about and means. The entire idea of a disclaimer just leads to more cripping debate about who would write it and what it would contain etc.
 

jgoodguy

Banished Forever
-:- A Mime -:-
is a terrible thing...
Don’t feed the Mime
Joined
Aug 17, 2011
Location
Birmingham, Alabama
I don't see adding a disclaimer to every monument. It's up to the individual to learn and interpret what that momument is about and means. The entire idea of a disclaimer just leads to more cripping debate about who would write it and what it would contain etc.

Something will need to be done in areas where no one cares about or dislikes the monument. Disclaimers might be a compromise.
 
Joined
Aug 2, 2013
Location
Hainesville, West Virginia
Hogwash.

Speculation.

Over reaction.

The Sky Is Falling syndrome.

I would counsel a bit of patience before I set fire to every monument and every symbol.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

Respectfully, I totally disagree with you. The usual suspect sharks smell blood in the water, and we live in an era of extreme political hyperbole. It is certainly not speculation that there are activists calling for the complete expungement of anyone from public life who was a slaveholder. Financial reparations are the endgame that extreme social justice iconoclasts will eventually seek, after they have finished their campaign against the Confederate icons, and other historical American emblems and monuments that might offend them.
 

major bill

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Forum Host
Joined
Aug 25, 2012
There are extremists on both side of this issue. If all we talk about is the people on the outer edge of the argument then we will never move forward on the issue. If extremists on both sides pursue a "take no prisoners", or a "I get it all my way and you get nothing" path both sides risk being excluded from the discussion making progress. Some one will decide the issue and refusing to have any discussion with the other side, refusing to even consider the other sides opinion, could result in decisions that pleases neither side.
 

1950lemans

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 23, 2013
Location
Connecticut
I don't see adding a disclaimer to every monument. It's up to the individual to learn and interpret what that momument is about and means. The entire idea of a disclaimer just leads to more cripping debate about who would write it and what it would contain etc.
Totally agree. Definitely not every monument; maybe some of those that have been mentioned in various threads.

What to write? I'm pretty sure there are plenty of "objective" folks out there who are up to the task of presenting a well balanced statement. I don't think it's a pipe dream. Monuments are public, for all the people, so a statement understandable to the public seems appropriate. Who knows, it might even get more of the public interested in the CW.
 

goberg4

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Location
Newark, De
The states and people who contributed to the battlefield monuments back 110-150 yrs ago mostly erected dignified and respectful statues and representations to honor their states' contribution to the various battles. As an example of not erecting controversial statues is that there is no statue of Mr Daniel E. Sickles at Gettysburg even though right or wrong was a big player in the battle, lost most of the soldiers in his corps, and lost a leg as well. Why? He was disobedient and callous. He also was a murderer and a non west point graduate. He was hated and despised by so many others on his side of the war. So he never was allowed or others approved like the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association (GBMA) a personal monument. The monuments with or without flags are there to mark history right or wrong offensive or not. Those that have lasted more than a century of placement should be protected just like historical homes and buildings are. The veterans approved and attended their erections. To remove any is to dishonor their memory. as they wanted it to be this way to honor their dead. and their personal sacrifice right or wrong. Do not fly the CSA flag in public non historical places - no problem. But you cannot take it out of places that tell the story like the battlefields and museums. If it offends you then dont go there just like an offensive tv or radio program - turn it off. Watching the all star game tonight there was mention made of the "negro" league former all stars. Should they have said the word negro? Certaintly that is a no no word today. It is historical and correct right or wrong to call it the negro league. Should we take Andrew Jackson off our $20 bill? After all we are honoring him as a great president and during his tenure occurred the trail of tears and partial genocide and banishment of native Indians living east of the Mississippi. Should we take FDR off the dime? After all he wrongly put American Japenese in camps during world war II.
 
Last edited:

rpkennedy

Lt. Colonel
Member of the Year
Joined
May 18, 2011
Location
Carlisle, PA
The states and people who contributed to the battlefield monuments back 110-150 yrs ago mostly erected dignified and respectful statues and representations to honor their states' contribution to the various battles. As an example of not erecting controversial statues is that there is no statue of Mr Daniel E. Sickles at Gettysburg even though right or wrong was a big player in the battle, lost most of the soldiers in his corps, and lost a leg as well. Why? He was disobedient and callous. He also was a murderer and a non west point graduate. He was hated and despised by so many others on his side of the war. So he never was allowed or others approved like the Gettysburg Battlefield Memorial Association (GBMA) a personal monument. The monuments with or without flags are there to mark history right or wrong offensive or not. Those that have lasted more than a century of placement should be protected just like historical homes and buildings are. The veterans approved and attended their erections. To remove any is to dishonor their memory. as they wanted it to be this way to honor their dead. and their personal sacrifice right or wrong. Do not fly the CSA flag in public non historical places - no problem. But you cannot take it out of places that tell the story like the battlefields and museums. If it offends you then dont go there just like an offensive tv or radio program - turn it off. Watching the all star game tonight there was mention made of the "negro" league former all stars. Should they have said the word negro? Certaintly that is a no no word today. It is historical and correct right or wrong to call it the negro league. Should we take Andrew Jackson off our $20 bill? After all we are honoring him as a great president and during his tenure occurred the trail of tears and partial genocide and banishment of native Indians living east of the Mississippi. Should we take FDR off the dime? After all he wrongly put American Japenese in camps during world war II.

Sickles didn't get a monument because he was instrumental in preserving the battlefield, later saying that the entire field was his monument.

R
 

Pat Young

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Featured Book Reviewer
Joined
Jan 7, 2013
Location
Long Island, NY
Should we take Andrew Jackson off our $20 bill? After all we are honoring him as a great president and during his tenure occurred the trail of tears and partial genocide and banishment of native Indians living east of the Mississippi.
I see you have answered your own question.
 

JPK Huson 1863

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Joined
Feb 14, 2012
Location
Central Pennsylvania
I'm seeing the beginning of an awful lot of wasted time, energy and no doubt money on inevitable law suits. Why? No one wishes to read Alan's post on what the societal impact is with Confederate monuments and ask well ok, how do we as a society ensure History is finally where justice and lessons of the past meet? How is this a usable moment going forward?

Every other day there's a legitimate need for our attention, energy, time and God knows money somewhere preserving our battlefields, heck, helping the chain of History we claim to venerate by helping vets in this century heal war wounds, any number of a bazillion things other than stone lumps representing the past. I'd say the same no matter which monuments were receiving the attention.

I'm hearing a great deal of self interest, no moves towards a middle ground and there always, always is one. Middle is too far really. There are centuries of denial to take into consideration- repression, revisionism. We're being called on to acknowledge a wrong has been committed to Confederate memory here. It's extremely tough to take too seriously when African American memory concerning these is dismissed with no conversation allowed.
 

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Respectfully, I totally disagree with you.

As is your right.

The usual suspect sharks smell blood in the water, and we live in an era of extreme political hyperbole.

If we permit ourselves to do so.

It is certainly not speculation that there are activists calling for the complete expungement of anyone from public life who was a slaveholder.

True, but we do not have to listen or agree with them to do such.

Financial reparations are the endgame that extreme social justice iconoclasts will eventually seek, after they have finished their campaign against the Confederate icons, and other historical American emblems and monuments that might offend them.

And how is that reparations thing going for all blacks who claim them for the institution of slavery thing going?

Or the one calling for those who Confederate ancestors lost property in the Civil War advancing?

In my own view, its going to take a while for the sky to fall or the creek to rise. There are just too many Americans right now who are concerned with their jobs, their children, their savings, their retirements, their favorite TV show, car payments, taxes, and getting their kids through college or out of jail.

Then there is the nuke deal with Iran, the upcoming 2016 elections, Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, Obamacare, social security, the national debt, and so on and so on. The monument and flag debate is not on my personal back burner, it's WAY outside of the kitchen and mostly confined to this and other internet forums.

Perspective, yeah, that's the ticket.

Yeah, the monument thingy plays well on Fox and some other news channels and newspapers right now, but the dust will settle and then we'll see.

In the meantime, I'm going to watch another Stargate SG-1 DVD from my collection.

Excuse please.
Unionblue
 

Mild53

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Location
Maine
You know what, Cash? I sat down to sarcastically respond to you, again, and I realized, that's exactly what you want me to do. I also realized I'd taken an oath to protect your right to do this. You know, Troll the forum, randomly responding to posts with your opinions. I thought about that for a minute and decided not to drop to your level, again. In fact, I apologize to you and to everyone else here that had to see this, while they're here, trying to enjoy their hobby. I don't have any right to do anything to take that from them. If this is how you enjoy yourself, that's fine too. Who am I to judge. Right? After all, I'm sure you'll have more fun doing this with someone else anyway. I bore of childish arguments quickly, and that obviously isn't what you're looking for. I don't wan't to take away from your experience either. Like I told you earlier. Everyone has an equal voice, and the right to be heard. If this is how you'd like to be heard. Carry on, sir. I hope you enjoy yourself.

Have a good evening, Cash.
I had sworn off posting on threads about monuments and flags for the very reasons you site. I even see folks that are normally quite civil act badly. I think this place is best used for discussion, not sounding off or throwing hand grenades back and forth.

As for monuments, I think there is a consensus among us that they should not be removed though some , including me, think that monuments and statues could moved to less controversial places. If we largely agree, why all the harsh words? Besides, unless we live in the community we have no say in the decision anyway.
 

CSA Today

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Location
Laurinburg NC
Respectfully, I totally disagree with you. The usual suspect sharks smell blood in the water, and we live in an era of extreme political hyperbole. It is certainly not speculation that there are activists calling for the complete expungement of anyone from public life who was a slaveholder. Financial reparations are the endgame that extreme social justice iconoclasts will eventually seek, after they have finished their campaign against the Confederate icons, and other historical American emblems and monuments that might offend them.

Guess where they will turn to pay them? Not to Confederate heritage organisations -- nowhere near enough money there.
 
Top