Restricted Six Ballot Referendums to Remove Confederate Monuments in Virginia

Georgia

Sergeant
What is written is obviously what they wanted to impart.

Don't put alot of stock into ouiji boards, ESP or any other form of supposed clairvoyance to claim something is meant that is neither there or stated.
Last post as I’m waiting on return calls-
I’m not suggesting anything that is written on a stone monument is anything but the truth.
What I am saying is that monuments placed into position during the segregation and Civil Rights era may have been added without the purest intentions to memorialize lost soldiers.

Nothing more, nothing less.

But, you can’t tell me that the state of Georgia in 1956, during segregation’s issues, that those in power just decided for the fun of it to add a confederate battle flag to the state flag for a change of color.
These are the sorts of issues I was alluding to previously.
 

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
If they can be found, newspaper articles published around the time particular monuments where erected/unveiled often give an indication of how the public reacted to them at the time.

The unveiling of the larger monuments were often conducted in front of large crowds (much larger than protests to have them removed in recent times), and accompanied by speeches, parades and other commemorative events. The mass attendance at such unveilings is particularly impressive in the following two instances given Richmond's population was about one-third of today's population.

Unveiling of R E Lee Monument

Unveiling of A P Hill Monument
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Last post as I’m waiting on return calls-
I’m not suggesting anything that is written on a stone monument is anything but the truth.
What I am saying is that monuments placed into position during the segregation and Civil Rights era may have been added without the purest intentions to memorialize lost soldiers.

Nothing more, nothing less.

But, you can’t tell me that the state of Georgia in 1956, during segregation’s issues, that those in power just decided for the fun of it to add a confederate battle flag to the state flag for a change of color.
These are the sorts of issues I was alluding to previously.
Generally things have been done in advance to mark major anniversaries......that the 100th anniversary of a major event in Georgia's history and heritige was approaching would seem a rather obvious possibility.

It was claimed afterwards by some of those who instituted the change it was to honor soldiers and the civil war centennial. Others since have claimed that was never stated at the time......yet then seem to admit there are no records of the speech on the floor to indicate otherwise.......so it seems another example of wishing to ignore actual stated reasons, for made up ones that don't exist or have substance.
 
Last edited:

Georgia

Sergeant
Generally things have been done in advance to mark major anniversaries......that the 100th anniversary of a major event in Georgia's history and heritige was approaching would seem a rather obvious possibility.

It was claimed afterwards by some of those who instituted the change it was to honor soldiers and the civil war centennial. Others since have claimed that was never stated at the time......yet then seem to admit there are no records of the speech on the floor to indicate otherwise.......so it seems another example of wishing to ignore actual stated reasons, for made up ones that don't exist or have substance.
Why, I didn’t realize you were from my home state since you obviously know so very much about the Georgia flag.

Actually, in 2000, a research report made by the Georgia Senate found that the flag was changed during a very volatile time during segregation and those seated in opposition of the change are on the record of stating the flag was changed to send a message, not unlike someone riding around in a pickup truck with a gun rack in the back window.
When hit with retaliation about the flag, those who pushed the change through said it was done in preparation to the 100th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. Except during the time leading up to the backlash, no one had even made a peep about the change being done in honor of the anniversary or for the soldiers.


Here’s a link to the research documented written by the Georgia State Senate in the issue.
Believe it’s on page 9 where you might like to start reading.

 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Why, I didn’t realize you were from my home state since you obviously know so very much about the Georgia flag.

Actually, in 2000, a research report made by the Georgia Senate found that the flag was changed during a very volatile time during segregation and those seated in opposition of the change are on the record of stating the flag was changed to send a message, not unlike someone riding around in a pickup truck with a gun rack in the back window.
When hit with retaliation about the flag, those who pushed the change through said it was done in preparation to the 100th anniversary of the start of the Civil War. Except during the time leading up to the backlash, no one had even made a peep about the change being done in honor of the anniversary or for the soldiers.


Here’s a link to the research documented written by the Georgia State Senate in the issue.
Believe it’s on page 9 where you might like to start reading.

Yes so that a political take with a political agenda, not surprising.....alot of that these days......didn't know that one has to be from any state to comment on it........guess most of everyone's posts need removed by that comment.........

Btw it at the bottom of page 20 to 21 that's relevant as to why it was adopted. Again no need for chicken bones or a ouiji board to try to "divine" their motive and reason. I had read it before, why I had refered to it's absurdity.

Like when it tried to declare the anniversary was only used after the fact......yet later it admits it doesn't know what was said or raised on the floor during the legislative process......rather funny, as then you don't actually know if it was raised or not at the time.......simply modern politics and spin.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Even with the willingness of every citizen, it cannot be erased. It can be buried, hidden, and taught to be forgot about... but not undone. Kind of like the saying "can't unscramble the eggs". The Civil War is part of our moral fiber... it's an event in history that helped mold this Country, whether you agree with where we ended up or not.

I agree with you on the denial of history. If more emphasis was put on educating people about the Civil War, it may bring some calmness when discussed. I feel the white southerner of the 1800's is vilified today. Maybe educating would bring some clarity to this topic as well.

Slavery aside, because it was sin... but is it fair to sit here today and pass judgment on those people for what they did over 150 years ago... you have to wonder in another 150 what people will think of us who lived through the year of 2020... they may be very disappointed in us.

What is history for except to learn from it and pass judgment on it? If we don't learn from history, aren't we in danger of repeating past mistakes? How do we learn from history? We decide what was good and what was bad. That calls for a judgment.

And make no mistake about it, we of 2020 WILL be judged for our own words and actions, and some will be disappointed in us.
 

Pete Longstreet

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Mar 3, 2020
Location
Hartford, CT
What is history for except to learn from it and pass judgment on it? If we don't learn from history, aren't we in danger of repeating past mistakes? How do we learn from history? We decide what was good and what was bad. That calls for a judgment.

And make no mistake about it, we of 2020 WILL be judged for our own words and actions, and some will be disappointed in us.
I absolutely agree with you on learning from history. That is what makes us superior creatures. Yet that superiority can work against us, as we have seen. Although judgement will be cast upon all of us by generations after, I don't want to be grouped in with a certain part of the population of 2020 who was tied to rioting, looting, and tearing down monuments. Just like it would be unfair to paint all white southerners who fought for the Confederacy with the same broad brush.

It reminds me of a story my late father told me.... he said when he returned home from Vietnam, while getting off the plane people called him a "murderer" and other disrespectful names, held up signs and protested him and his fellow soldiers. He also told me he didn't believe in the cause he was fighting for... but had a duty to his country and served honorably for 3 years. I'm sure many men felt the same in the Civil war... on both sides.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
What is history for except to learn from it and pass judgment on it? If we don't learn from history, aren't we in danger of repeating past mistakes? How do we learn from history? We decide what was good and what was bad. That calls for a judgment.

And make no mistake about it, we of 2020 WILL be judged for our own words and actions, and some will be disappointed in us.
I agree that in the future some will more then likely be disappointed in us as morality has no set value and is constantly shifting or evolving

I like to be mindful of not only in the future.....but while some like pronounce judgements on the past......those in the past would have been equally disdainful of ours today as well.

Whenever its pronounced we are right, and everyone else was wrong for 1000's of years......I can't but help also think that view seems somewhat rather egotistical and vain from a historical perspective........
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
I absolutely agree with you on learning from history. That is what makes us superior creatures. Yet that superiority can work against us, as we have seen. Although judgement will be cast upon all of us by generations after, I don't want to be grouped in with a certain part of the population of 2020 who was tied to rioting, looting, and tearing down monuments. Just like it would be unfair to paint all white southerners who fought for the Confederacy with the same broad brush.

It reminds me of a story my late father told me.... he said when he returned home from Vietnam, while getting off the plane people called him a "murderer" and other disrespectful names, held up signs and protested him and his fellow soldiers. He also told me he didn't believe in the cause he was fighting for... but had a duty to his country and served honorably for 3 years. I'm sure many men felt the same in the Civil war... on both sides.

Reminds me of when I was a US soldier in the 70's and was called a baby-killer and given the *edited* salute when in uniform. Went on to serve 20 years and so that the public had learned from Vietnam and did not treat soldiers from Desert Storm or Just Cause in the same manner, but had come to realize soldiers were just performing their duty in spite of what people felt about those conflicts.

In other words, people do learn from history.
I agree that in the future some will more then likely be disappointed in us as morality has no set value and is constantly shifting or evolving

I like to be mindful of not only in the future.....but while some like pronounce judgements on the past......those in the past would have been equally disdainful of ours today as well.

Whenever its pronounced we are right, and everyone else was wrong for 1000's of years......I can't but help also think that view seems somewhat rather egotistical and vain from a historical perspective........

Some wrongs remain wrong, no matter how far in the past some actions were committed. I don't think WWII concentration camps or genocide attacks will ever be granted a historical prospective "pass" by future generations. Learning right and wrong from history is not vain or egotistical, it is a hard bought lesson that should not be ignored or given some sort of exparation date.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Quaama

Sergeant
Joined
Sep 13, 2020
Location
Port Macquarie, Australia
Reminds me of when I was a US soldier in the 70's and was called a baby-killer and given the *edited* salute when in uniform. Went on to serve 20 years and so that the public had learned from Vietnam and did not treat soldiers from Desert Storm or Just Cause in the same manner, but had come to realize soldiers were just performing their duty in spite of what people felt about those conflicts.

In other words, people do learn from history.


Some wrongs remain wrong, no matter how far in the past some actions were committed. I don't think WWII concentration camps or genocide attacks will ever be granted a historical prospective "pass" by future generations. Learning right and wrong from history is not vain or egotistical, it is a hard bought lesson that should not be ignored or given some sort of exparation date.

Wow, getting wildly off-topic there.

If monuments are to be removed, should it be put to a vote by the people?
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Reminds me of when I was a US soldier in the 70's and was called a baby-killer and given the *edited* salute when in uniform. Went on to serve 20 years and so that the public had learned from Vietnam and did not treat soldiers from Desert Storm or Just Cause in the same manner, but had come to realize soldiers were just performing their duty in spite of what people felt about those conflicts.

In other words, people do learn from history.


Some wrongs remain wrong, no matter how far in the past some actions were committed. I don't think WWII concentration camps or genocide attacks will ever be granted a historical prospective "pass" by future generations. Learning right and wrong from history is not vain or egotistical, it is a hard bought lesson that should not be ignored or given some sort of exparation date.
However when our perspective isn't in line with the majority of history, it does seem a bit vain and egotistical to assume our views are infallible, and everyone else wrong.

I personally generally think I am right, however I also realize that doesn't mean I am infallible, I would view our collective values the same. If one or a group doesn't recognize they aren't infallible, they would be a zealot/zealots.....History has plenty examples of zealotry ending badly........but we do seem to be straying, my orginal point is morality is a rather worthless standard, as it has no set value overall.

Different time periods have different moral standards, as you were correct to point out will likely continue to change in the future.....even within one time period it can vary widely by region/religion/culture. So in reality it has no defined meaning other then being a rather meaningless way to say I'm right, your wrong.......without even considering whomever you are calling wrong isn't using the same "moral standard" but their own "moral standard".............which tells me neithers are actually much a standard at all........
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
However when our perspective isn't in line with the majority of history, it does seem a bit vain and egotistical to assume our views are infallible, and everyone else wrong.

I personally generally think I am right, however I also realize that doesn't mean I am infallible, I would view our collective values the same. If one or a group doesn't recognize they aren't infallible, they would be a zealot/zealots.....History has plenty examples of zealotry ending badly........but we do seem to be straying, my orginal point is morality is a rather worthless standard, as it has no set value overall.

Different time periods have different moral standards, as you were correct to point out will likely continue to change in the future.....even within one time period it can vary widely by region/religion/culture. So in reality it has no defined meaning other then being a rather meaningless way to say I'm right, your wrong.......without even considering whomever you are calling wrong isn't using the same "moral standard" but their own "moral standard".............which tells me neithers are actually a standard at all........

Some wrongs remain wrong, no matter how far in the past some actions were committed. I don't think WWII concentration camps or genocide attacks will ever be granted a historical prospective "pass" by future generations. Learning right and wrong from history is not vain or egotistical, it is a hard bought lesson that should not be ignored or given some sort of exparation date.
 

PapaReb

First Sergeant
Joined
Feb 9, 2020
Location
Arkansas CSA occupied
Depends if one relates to the other.

Remove the state legislature restrictions on monuments and let the local citizens decide.
I wholeheartedly agree @unionblue, in fact that is whatI have stated numerous times. Some communities will vote to keep the monuments, some will vote for their removal. Regardless of the outcome, regardless of whether we like it or not the people will have made their wishes known in the legally prescribed manner.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Depends if one relates to the other.

Remove the state legislature restrictions on monuments and let the local citizens decide.
Why would one want to remove the states say?......It would seem the state would be the target audience of memorials to the soldiers of a state.......so it would seem the proper jurisdiction to decide.
 
Last edited:

unionblue

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Member of the Year
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Ocala, FL (as of December, 2015).
Why would one want to remove the states say?......It would seem the state would be the target audience of memorials to the soldiers of a state.......so it would seem the proper jurisdiction to decide.

It isn't.

If a statue is in a local community, it should be for that community to decide it's fate. The locals have to live with it every day so they should have final say.
 
Last edited:

atlantis

Sergeant Major
Joined
Nov 12, 2016
It isn't.

If a statue is in a local community, it should be for that community to decide it's fate. The locals have to live with it every day so they should have final say.
In theory that sounds fine but in reality political activists are driving this with no regard for the truth. Source documents tell us why these monuments of the past were erected but all the public hears is racism, white supremacy etc. No effort is made in many communities by local officials to even enforce the laws protecting these public properties until they can be removed via lawful means.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Location
mo
Disagree, there's greater communities to be considered.

That we recognize places and things as national historic landmarks, and national register of historic places is because sites have a significance beyond some local community.

Personally I don't think fate of historic sites should be decided by political flavors of the day, dislike for tourism, or that a community would prefer a casino over a battlefield. A larger majority with a broader consensus would simply more accurately reflect opinion on historic sites. But I most generally am for historic preservation if practical, whether CW or otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Top