Should Monuments in the South Tell a Different Narrative about the ACW? (poll)

Should Monuments in the South tell a Different Narrative about the American Civil War?

  • Yes

    Votes: 15 26.8%
  • No

    Votes: 34 60.7%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 5 8.9%
  • Don't Know

    Votes: 2 3.6%

  • Total voters
    56

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
2,733
#1
Should Monuments in the South tell a different Narrative about the American Civil War?
 

(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

E_just_E

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,078
Location
Center Valley, PA
#3
ACW monuments in the South tell lots of narratives. Some are extreme and inaccurate on both sides. Lots have a revisionist history; some of those revisions of the post-bellum era, some of those revisions of the 1990s era. Lots of things are omitted. Most of those monuments are there because of funded agendas of different sorts.

So lots of different narratives are told today by those ACW monuments in the South (and North)
 

E_just_E

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,078
Location
Center Valley, PA
#4
Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech perhaps? One could ponder the brave men who did battle and think of how far we have come as a Nation simultaneously.
+1

Esp. this part:

I have a dream that one day [on the red hills of Georgia] the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

 
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Messages
774
Location
West Virginia
#5
Should the ACW be told differently in both regions? I'm thinking of black codes and Copperhead Dems in the north as well as Unionist areas and soldiers who fought for reasons other than slavery in the south. People know about this stuff here, but I never heard a word of it in school.
 

E_just_E

Brigadier General
Moderator
Joined
Sep 3, 2014
Messages
6,078
Location
Center Valley, PA
#6
Should the ACW be told differently in both regions? I'm thinking of black codes and Copperhead Dems in the north as well as Unionist areas and soldiers who fought for reasons other than slavery in the south. People know about this stuff here, but I never heard a word of it in school.
I'd love to see something about the slavery issue saying the following fact:

All slaves who came in the slave boats to the Americas were enslaved by rival black tribes in Africa who sold them to the British and Dutch Slavers.

Wonder why that is nowhere...
 

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
2,733
#7
Should the ACW be told differently in both regions? I'm thinking of black codes and Copperhead Dems in the north as well as Unionist areas and soldiers who fought for reasons other than slavery in the south. People know about this stuff here, but I never heard a word of it in school.
perhaps. However, all the controversy regarding monuments, at least that I have been hearing of, takes place in the south.
That is why I phrased the question the way I did.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Messages
7,639
Location
California
#8
I'd love to see something about the slavery issue saying the following fact:

All slaves who came in the slave boats to the Americas were enslaved by rival black tribes in Africa who sold them to the British and Dutch Slavers.

Wonder why that is nowhere...
Why would you love to see that?
Why no mention of Slavers from other countries (such as Portuguese, Spanish, French, American)?
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2015
Messages
774
Location
West Virginia
#9
I'd love to see something about the slavery issue saying the following fact: All slaves who came
I've heard it somewhere, but I never heard that it was all slaves.

perhaps. However, all the controversy regarding monuments, at least that I have been hearing of, takes place in the south. That is why I phrased the question the way I did.
i thought your question was fine. Being shocked beyond description by the nuances I have picked up on the ACW in the past two years I was just thinking out loud. People with interest will read a little farther but it needs taught in the schools IMHO
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,002
#11
Why pose a question like this? It strikes me as inflammatory. Monuments are there to commemorate something...... Period. Sure, some monuments on either side of an issue go up with a hidden agenda attached. But it's silly to think that they all have a hidden agenda. It's sillier still to suggest that Southern monuments all come with a hidden agenda. Don't invite people to read into them something which might not be there. Don't presume a hidden narrative in each monument. Don't presume to judge whether Southern monuments should have a different narrative. From what? From Northern monuments?

If that is logical, then it's logical by extension to assume that Northern monuments have a hidden agenda, too. That's just plain silly.

Whose narrative is genuine? Whose narrative is "different"? Whose narrative is the "genuine" narrative? How can we be certain of ANY of this?!

It's a total can or worms. But maybe I have misunderstood the intent of you post. If so , I offer my sincere apology.

Of course, this response is just my opinion. No hidden agenda here, but I know some of you aren't going to agree with me.
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,002
#13
With regard to my previous post, I probably misunderstood the intent of the OP. I still think, for the most part, monuments are just monuments. If I offended anyone by misunderstanding the OP, I apologize. But I will stand by my general line of thought: There should not be different narratives in different monuments, regardless of whether they are northern or southern. There should only be a commemoration of what happened that is being memorialized.

...easy for me to write...much harder to do in real life. I understand that.
 

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
2,733
#14
Why pose a question like this? It strikes me as inflammatory. Monuments are there to commemorate something...... Period. Sure, some monuments on either side of an issue go up with a hidden agenda attached. But it's silly to think that they all have a hidden agenda. It's sillier still to suggest that Southern monuments all come with a hidden agenda. Don't invite people to read into them something which might not be there. Don't presume a hidden narrative in each monument. Don't presume to judge whether Southern monuments should have a different narrative. From what? From Northern monuments?

If that is logical, then it's logical by extension to assume that Northern monuments have a hidden agenda, too. That's just plain silly.

Whose narrative is genuine? Whose narrative is "different"? Whose narrative is the "genuine" narrative? How can we be certain of ANY of this?!

It's a total can or worms. But maybe I have misunderstood the intent of you post. If so , I offer my sincere apology.

Of course, this response is just my opinion. No hidden agenda here, but I know some of you aren't going to agree with me.
There is no hidden intent in my question, I'm asking exactly what it sounds like I am asking.

As many people on this forum have pointed out, there is much controversy going on these days over confederate monuments in the south. If similar controversy existed over monuments in the North, I would have asked about the northern monuments as well.

Much of the controversy about monuments in the South surrounds the narrative being told by those monuments, and disagreements among people living in those regions about the validity/propriety/accuracy of those narratives.

That is where my question stems from.
 

Patrick H

Lt. Colonel
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
10,002
#15
There is no hidden intent in my question, I'm asking exactly what it sounds like I am asking.

As many people on this forum have pointed out, there is much controversy going on these days over confederate monuments in the south. If similar controversy existed over monuments in the North, I would have asked about the northern monuments as well.

Much of the controversy about monuments in the South surrounds the narrative being told by those monuments, and disagreements among people living in those regions about the validity/propriety/accuracy of those narratives.

That is where my question stems from.
Gem,
I admit I probably responded in too much haste and I totally misunderstood the thrust of your question. Please accept my apology. Man, this whole recent monument thing has got my head so spun around that I am just about beside myself!

Now that I understand your point better, I sure wish I hadn't gone off on you, but I can't get that back now. I can only apologize.

I think you're a fine contributor here and I enjoy your posts very much.

Patrick
 
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
7,782
#17
I'd love to see something about the slavery issue saying the following fact:

All slaves who came in the slave boats to the Americas were enslaved by rival black tribes in Africa who sold them to the British and Dutch Slavers.

Wonder why that is nowhere...
You forgot the New Englanders who controlled the Atlantic slave trade while it was legal (and perpetuated it after it was not). They deserve mention, too.
 

gem

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Oct 26, 2012
Messages
2,733
#18
Gem,
I admit I probably responded in too much haste and I totally misunderstood the thrust of your question. Please accept my apology. Man, this whole recent monument thing has got my head so spun around that I am just about beside myself!

Now that I understand your point better, I sure wish I hadn't gone off on you, but I can't get that back now. I can only apologize.

I think you're a fine contributor here and I enjoy your posts very much.

Patrick
no worries, I'm glad we could clear up any misunderstandings.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top