Richmond’s new Civil War museum aims to shatter conventional views of the conflict

I get aggravated when I attend a meeting a listen to stories of Confederate soldiers in rags, barefoot, and starving during instances like the Red River Campaign when in truth they were probably not in rags and actually pretty well uniformed, had shoes, and were getting some kind of ration
Hard to preserve a myth without fabrication.
 
It seems it is "divisive" because it is telling more than the familiar Southern white male story of the war. Providing alternate perspectives draws attention away from the same-old, same-old we've come to expect -- so we should grumble and growl and weep in our whiskers, and refuse to give it (heaven forbid!) open-minded consideration.

I’m in agreement. It seems that the reason so many are upset that the stories of people of color and women being told is that it puts the lie to the “Gone With the Wind” romantic notions of what the Confederacy was and presents other sides of the story. The only reason one would feel threatened by another perspective being told is if it calls into question their own.
 
I don't know why your offended and shouting racism, I'm perplexed by this, jumping to such foolish, ignorant conclusions.

When I referred to "Urban Virginia" there was no racism or subtle message, in short I'm offended that offended! The reason I brought that up is because in this day and age folks in the cities tend to either not care about museums, or want to see them go away and be replaced with something else that they feel is more useful. That issue is compounded by the unpleasant to some that Virginia is now culturally Northern, especially in cities, (oh God forbid I be accused of racism against yanks the same thing happens in every city), which means there is even less people who care about historic items.

Words can't describe my fury right now! Racist, me! Over stating what's essentially a common known fact now to anyone who looks at these basically economic matters where museums are concerned! It has always been my philosophy that it takes a racist mind to accuse others of racism over comments that never even mention much less had any thoughts of racism! I left this conversation before thinking "You know I ought not whack a hornet's nest and just leave it be." Now I stand accused of racism!

What leads you to believe that people in cities “either not care about museums, or want to see them go away”...? Not too long ago I posted that urban areas have much higher levels of education than rural areas. What on earth leads you to the conclusion that people in cities don’t like museums?
 
What leads you to believe that people in cities “either not care about museums, or want to see them go away”... not to long ago I posted that urban areas have much higher levels of education than rural areas. What on earth leads you to the conclusion that people in cities don’t like museums?

Personal experience and having an observant mind
 
Oh and while some rural areas may be undereducated, my experience is urban areas worse. Just the other day I had to explain to cousin's teenage child that the CW did happen, and they didn't have computers and internet back then, after his teacher filled his head with such nonsense and stuff like George Washington starting concentration camps. He was taught these fantasies in a an urban area

@GwilymT I don't wish to get into a debate over it, I'm already severely ticked off at one person, I just wish to respectfully disagree with your assertion that urban folks are more educated than rural ones, my view is both areas are severely undereducated these days.
 
Personal experience and having an observant mind

Well, I venture to state that your personal experience is misleading.

According to this article, most museum attendees are from urban areas and the largest growth is amongst non-white urban dwellers.

https://www.aam-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Demographic-Change-and-the-Future-of-Museums.pdf

This makes sense as museums are usually attractive to people of higher educational levels and urban populations are much higher educated on a whole than rural populations.
 
Oh and while some rural areas may be undereducated, my experience is urban areas worse. Just the other day I had to explain to cousin's teenage child that the CW did happen, and they didn't have computers and internet back then, after his teacher filled his head with such nonsense and stuff like George Washington starting concentration camps. He was taught these fantasies in a an urban area

@GwilymT I don't wish to get into a debate over it, I'm already severely ticked off at one person, I just wish to respectfully disagree with your assertion that urban folks are more educated than rural ones, my view is both areas are severely undereducated these days.

You can respectfully disagree but you are incorrect:

https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/employment-education/rural-education/
 
What "lies" are you referring to? The only lie I know of is the one currently being peddled that all Confederates were fighting 100% to perpetuate slavery.
A lie that few here support, though slavery most certainly was the root cause of secession.

Sorry, @WJC , and @Vicksburger , but that's exactly what each and every Confederate soldier was fighting for, whether he wanted to or not.

Just like every Union soldier was fighting for Emancipation whether he wanted to or not.

Just as no mechanic ever asks his tools if it's OK to work on a particular machine, no government, Confederate or US ever says to it's soldiers, "Pretty please, fight for something you're not personally for." The soldier is a tool in the nation's toolbox, a hammar when nothing else (compromise, diplomacy, etc.) will accomplish that government's political goals.

Oh, the soldier may be fighting for home, family, religion, or adventure and money, but his government does not concern itself with those personal motivations when it is fighting to preserve and protect slavery or to preserve the Union.

He goes where he is told and fights who he is pointed at. He may believe what he wishes, but he fights all the same for his nation's goals.

Unionblue
 
Sorry, @WJC , and @Vicksburger , but that's exactly what each and every Confederate soldier was fighting for, whether he wanted to or not.

Just like every Union soldier was fighting for Emancipation whether he wanted to or not.

Just as no mechanic ever asks his tools if it's OK to work on a particular machine, no government, Confederate or US ever says to it's soldiers, "Pretty please, fight for something you're not personally for." The soldier is a tool in the nation's toolbox, a hammar when nothing else (compromise, diplomacy, etc.) will accomplish that government's political goals.

Oh, the soldier may be fighting for home, family, religion, or adventure and money, but his government does not concern itself with those personal motivations when it is fighting to preserve and protect slavery or to preserve the Union.

He goes where he is told and fights who he is pointed at. He may believe what he wishes, but he fights all the same for his nation's goals.

Unionblue
by your logic every union soldier was fighting to preserve slavery, which was still legal in the United States

also hard to not notice every union soldier wasn't fighting for emancipation in 61, 62, or half of 63 as it didn't exist.........

If you going to attribute motivations by extension of a government's policy, least do it across the board, in defending all US policies during the war
 
by your logic every union soldier was fighting to preserve slavery, which was still legal in the United States

also hard to not notice every union soldier wasn't fighting for emancipation in 61, 62, or half of 63 as it didn't exist.........

My logic is the hard logic of reality.

Soldiers do not get a vote on who and what they are going to fight for. Their governments and rebellious leadership do that for them.

Until the federal government made it a political goal, the Union soldier was not fighting to eliminate slavery, BUT, when that goal was decided upon, EVERY Union soldier fought for emancipation.

It was much easier for the Confederate soldier, as his "nation's" goal never changed, the protection of slavery.
 
My logic is the hard logic of reality.

Soldiers do not get a vote on who and what they are going to fight for. Their governments and rebellious leadership do that for them.

Until the federal government made it a political goal, the Union soldier was not fighting to eliminate slavery, BUT, when that goal was decided upon, EVERY Union soldier fought for emancipation.

It was much easier for the Confederate soldier, as his "nation's" goal never changed, the protection of slavery.
However even as they fought for emancipation as you say, I assume your aware they were also fighting to defend U.S. Slavery as emancipation had nothing to do with U.S. Slaves

that's a hard reality everyone wants to conveniently ignore
 
However even as they fought for emancipation as you say, I assume your aware they were also fighting to defend U.S. Slavery as emancipation had nothing to do with U.S. Slaves.

Really? You don't think by the time of the Emancipation Proclamation that Union, as well as Confederate soldiers, knew that slavery was on it's way out? That it was not going to survive this war? That most Union soldiers were of the profound opinion that slavery had brought on the war and that it's destruction was demanded in order that it not bring war again? Hmmm...

that's a hard reality everyone wants to conveniently ignore

No, it's not being ignored, not even conveniently.

I'll repeat it for you, once again.

Until the Emancipation Proclamation, no Union soldier was fighting to free the slaves, whether he wanted to or not. If that to you means he was fighting for slavery, so be it. But it should be admitted that changed after the EP.

But it must also be recognized by you, no matter what the individual Confederate soldier felt he was fighting for, by the same token, he was fighting to preserver and protect slavery from Ft. Sumter on. He, like his Union counterpart, HAD NO CHOICE in the matter of why and what he was fighting for.

That's the inconvenient truth.

Unionblue
 
Well, getting back to the previous museum for a minute there was one feature which I really found intriguing, and which I doubt I will see in the new museum. On the lower level, there was one rather small gallery with displays, exhibits and signage that I found to be considerably dated in style compared to all the other galleries in the building. Then I saw a somewhat weathered sign over the door leading into this gallery. I am pretty sure it said: "Museum of the Confederacy." I had the distinct impression that I was seeing one gallery representing the way the museum might have looked in the 1930s or 40s. In other words, sort of a museum interpretation of an earlier presentation. I thought it might be sort of a "tip of the hat" to the old museum as the place gradually modernized. I had never been prior to my visit last June, so I wonder if my impression was correct. I am sure there are people here who have seen the museum several times over many years. Did I gauge it correctly? I thought it was actually a nice touch.
 
No, it's not being ignored, not even conveniently.

I'll repeat it for you, once again.

Until the Emancipation Proclamation, no Union soldier was fighting to free the slaves, whether he wanted to or not. If that to you means he was fighting for slavery, so be it. But it should be admitted that changed after the EP.

But it must also be recognized by you, no matter what the individual Confederate soldier felt he was fighting for, by the same token, he was fighting to preserver and protect slavery from Ft. Sumter on. He, like his Union counterpart, HAD NO CHOICE in the matter of why and what he was fighting for.

That's the inconvenient truth.

Unionblue
???? I've never suggested the ACW wasn't between two slaveholding nations.....to suggest I have would be disingenuous

However there are some here who seem to seldom acknowledge the U.S. role.....or don't seem to want to equally apply that US position to the motivation of union soldiers. Although if one wishes to translate a government's position as motivation to all it soldiers.......it would seem to apply

I'm well aware I had family in a Union state who owned slaves during the war right up to the end, never have denied it or claimed otherwise. My GGGF fought for the MSG then CSA......however his father stayed and maintained the farm, including slaves throughout the war. Why we still have the farm today.
 
Last edited:
???? I've never suggested the ACW wasn't between two slaveholding nations.....to suggest I have would be disingenuous.

And I never said you personally did.

However there are some here who seem to seldom acknowledge the U.S. role.....or don't seem to want to equally apply that US position to the motivation of union soldiers.

You're posting to me, not anyone else. What are your thoughts on my reply posts to you?

Although if one wishes to translate a government's position as motivation to all it soldiers.......it would seem to apply.

It not only "seems" it is a fact. Join for any reason, or feeling, "fun, travel, adventure," etc., and end up doing what the government wants done. It's the hard reality of service to one's nation.

I'm well aware I had family in a Union state who owned slaves during the war right up to the end, never have denied it or claimed otherwise. My GGGF fought for the MSG then CSA......however his father stayed and maintained the farm, including slaves throughout the war. Why we still have the farm today.

As you are aware of your family history, you are more informed as to the history of the period. No reason to deny or claim otherwise.

It just was.

Unionblue
 
As you are aware of your family history, you are more informed as to the history of the period. No reason to deny or claim otherwise.

It just was.

Unionblue
I'd agree but it's hard to notice some seem to ignore both sides had slavery during the war, and that one side in particular, seems downplayed or ignored in some of the more recent presentations, if your wanting an accurate presentation it should be actually presented. Because saying union soldiers were fighting for emancipation, while leaving out while still defending a country with slavery, could be taken a tad misleading, not to mention for roughly half the war, they weren't even fighting for emancipation.......

Simply present they both was practicing slavery , ............no argument there
 
Last edited:
Back
Top