Restricted Who defines "Southern Heritage?"

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
5,239
Location
mo
What northerners feel is outside the scope of this thread. This is about how people in the South have contested southern heritage. I beg you, please please please don't go off topic.

- Alan
I didn't, I responded to someone else who asked "How did Northern whites especially veterans feel about a flag that seemed to throw defiance in the face of the soldiers who had fought to keep the Union together?"

And I agree what northerners think should have little to do with what defines southern heritage, by defination its a southern inheritence
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,857
Location
District of Columbia
Little confused by the question of "who". The defination of heritage is "something transmitted by or acquired from a predecessor". Would seem to me the heritage of the south comes directly from the history of the south. The history is the same for white or black descendants of the south, slavery and the confederacy was equally parts of eithers history. Thats what seems somewhat odd to me, the heritage of the south should be inclusive to both blacks and whites, not one opposing the other and trying to selectively erase parts of the past
What you say is the ideal, not the real.

The reality is that our memory of the past is colored by our subjective beliefs, emotions, interests, and worldview. As a matter of fact, black and white southerners have contested the meaning of southern heritage over time, it's just that, many people are unaware of that. This book documents those contests.

- Alan
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
3,243
As suggested earlier, there seems to be this stereotype that Brundage is anti-Confederate, which is unwarranted, and thus justifies mean-spirited denigration. Where are our better angels?

- Alan
Seems to be?
Brundage (born and educated in the north):
"[Confederate monuments] can be transferred to the archives, museums — or the trash heap of history."
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
5,239
Location
mo
What you say is the ideal, not the real.

The reality is that our memory of the past is colored by our subjective beliefs, emotions, interests, and worldview. As a matter of fact, black and white southerners have contested the meaning of southern heritage over time, it's just that, many people are unaware of that. This book documents those contests.

- Alan
If we are moving forward, shouldn't the ideal should be the real?

Its no secret I inherited a 5th generation farm, my GGGF founded it with 4-5 slaves, he aslo fought n the MSG and later the CSA army, its part of my heritage.

Now if we knew someone was descended from one of those 4 or 5 slaves, whether their family went on to become an American success story or still struggle to this day, its part of their heritage.

While somewhat intertwined, ones heritage doesn't change the other, nor is one more "southern" then the other...…...theres as many different southern heritages as their are descendants from whatever point in time one starts. All are equally part of a collective southern heritage.
 

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
3,243
Seems to be?
Brundage (born an educated in the north):
"[Confederate monuments] can be transferred to the archives, museums — or the trash heap of history."
It's like a Russian telling the Poles what sort of monuments they should have.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,857
Location
District of Columbia
If we are moving forward, the ideal should be the real.

Its no secret I inherited a 5th generation farm, my GGGF founded it with 4-5 slaves, he aslo fought n the MSG and later the CSA army, its part of my heritage.

Now if we knew someone was descended from one of those 4 or 5 slaves, whether their family went on to become an American success story or still struggle to this day, its part of their heritage.

While somewhat intertwined, ones heritage doesn't change the other, nor is one more "southern" then the other...…...theres as many different southern heritages as their are descendants from whatever point in time one starts. All are equally part of a collective southern heritage.
Nobody can disagree with what you are saying. The question is, how do we get to the end goal? That is where the controversy lies. The commemorative landscape of today does not reflect the ideal, and the road to getting there is the subject of much disagreement.

- Alan
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,857
Location
District of Columbia
Seems to be?
Brundage (born an educated in the north):
"[Confederate monuments] can be transferred to the archives, museums — or the trash heap of history."
Brundage does not say that in his book, which is more objective in stating the history and much more conciliatory in tone in terms of moving forward. I will add some material from the book later on. I do think his ending tone is too harsh.

I will add that Brundage has no fight with Confederates, but rather, with the Jim Crow regime under which they were created. He is right to point out that African Americans had no power to weigh in on how the memorial landscape should look.

He raises a point which I have raised earlier. To wit, in his words:

We are also sure to hear calls to add monuments (honoring African Americans, for example) as an alternative to removing those we find offensive, and thereby “erasing” history. But removing — or moving — Confederate monuments is not historical erasure. The same logic could have been used to justify maintaining, after 1964, signs that identified “Negro water fountains,” “Colored waiting room,” and the other markers of Southern segregation.​
In an ideal world with unlimited resources, a proposal to add monuments might make sense. But given the vast number of monuments to the Confederacy across the United States it would take decades, and millions of dollars, to add enough statuary to create a more inclusive commemorative landscape. And is there any reason to believe that state legislators are going to appropriate sufficient money for that purpose? Perhaps the defenders of Confederate monuments will demonstrate their good faith by pressing for funding for new monuments to Southerners, white and black, who fought on behalf of the Union or otherwise opposed the Confederacy. Until then, I will view their devotion to heritage preservation with skepticism.​

The point I've made is that as long as the commemorative landscape represents an unfair and unbalanced view of the past, then people will agitate against it. As Brundage implies, the more power the unrepresented get, the greater their level of agitation. I said this back in 2016:

There is a point to your concern. In another venue, I talked about going "beyond the CBF," and gave some suggestions for making additions to the public space that I feel will balance out the commemorative landscape. But I don't know how much traction there is for that.​
People's attitudes evolve in the environment in which they live. For so long, the landscape has been unfair and unbalanced. I feel that some number of people don't even think about restructuring the public space, they just want to blow it up. They just can't, or better put don't, conceive of an end game where the landscape will finally be fair to them. So, they'd rather just remove everything. The idea is, no commemorative landscape at all is preferable to one that is perpetually one-sided and unfair.​
For folks who are upset over the racial exclusivity of the southern commemorative landscape this "strategy" (I use the term in quotes, because I don't think is well-thought out, articulated plan) works because, they have so little to lose-decades of exclusion means there is little in the public space to remove that represents them. Having no vested interest in maintaining a landscape that has purposely excluded their input, and that is not subject to improvement, there is no incentive for those folks to do anything but tear it all down. I have struggled to make a good counter-argument to that. Progress has been so slow. On the other hand, the explosion of monuments to African American CW soldiers that we've seen in the last two decades gives some reason to hope.​

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Viper21

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,517
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
b) Having said that, as a matter of fact, the flag does represent the population of the state as of the 1860s - it represents the white minority population of the state that was Confederate. The question is, Why? Why does it represent that minority population of the early 1860s and not the majority population? Does it have anything to do with power relationship within the state?

Just asking rhetorical questions.

- Alan
Wasn't the Mississippi State flag adopted in 1894..?? Seems the population of Mississippi liked the flag 30 years after the war.

If I'm not mistaken, some groups have been trying to get it changed recently. Seems the people of Mississippi still like the flag the way it is.
 

Viper21

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,517
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
I haven’t read Brundage’s book so am only going off quotes and comments by the OP. He seems to be making a meal over unpatriotic white southerners boycotting the 4th of July while at the same time resentful of the day being celebrated by black southerners. His evidence is from contemporary newspaper accounts which as we know can be tailored to fit any ideology desired; for example see the thread on newspapers and black Confederates. In other words the foundation for his thesis is resting on sand but in all fairness if one looks at his publications and essay commentary this is exactly what you would expect from a person coming to the table with his POV.

Now for a real world example. Below is a keepsake receipt from the agent soliciting funds for the completion of the Washington Monument to my great grandfather showing that he contributed $50 to the cause. In 2019 dollars that would be about $1,200. This is not for a Confederate statue and it is of course located in the capital city of the country that only 15 years previous had been the man’s enemy. Though he soldiered the entire war; was wounded twice, captured at Vicksburg, was beside his brother at Nashville when he was mortally wounded, and who was buried in his UCV uniform at the end of his life, he put serious money out there and clearly demonstrated his patriotism, regardless of whether or not he attended picnic on 4th of July.

Here’s betting that Mr. Brundage wouldn’t do the same.

View attachment 300523
Super cool to have something like that from your G Grandfather. Wow. :cool:
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
5,239
Location
mo
Brundage does not say that in his book, which is more objective in stating of the history and much more conciliatory in tone in terms of moving forward. I will add some material from the book later on. I do think his ending tone is too harsh.

I will add that Brundage has no fight with Confederates, but rather, with the Jim Crow regime under which they were created. He is right to point out that African Americans had no power to weigh in on how the memorial landscape should look.

He raises a point which I have raised earlier. To wit, in his words:

We are also sure to hear calls to add monuments (honoring African Americans, for example) as an alternative to removing those we find offensive, and thereby “erasing” history. But removing — or moving — Confederate monuments is not historical erasure. The same logic could have been used to justify maintaining, after 1964, signs that identified “Negro water fountains,” “Colored waiting room,” and the other markers of Southern segregation.​
In an ideal world with unlimited resources, a proposal to add monuments might make sense. But given the vast number of monuments to the Confederacy across the United States it would take decades, and millions of dollars, to add enough statuary to create a more inclusive commemorative landscape. And is there any reason to believe that state legislators are going to appropriate sufficient money for that purpose? Perhaps the defenders of Confederate monuments will demonstrate their good faith by pressing for funding for new monuments to Southerners, white and black, who fought on behalf of the Union or otherwise opposed the Confederacy. Until then, I will view their devotion to heritage preservation with skepticism.​

The point I've made is that as long as the commemorative landscape represents an unfair and unbalanced view of the past, then people will agitate against it. As Brundage implies, the more power the unrepresented get, the greater their level of agitation. I said this back in 2016:

There is a point to your concern. In another venue, I talked about going "beyond the CBF," and gave some suggestions for making additions to the public space that I feel will balance out the commemorative landscape. But I don't know how much traction there is for that.​
People's attitudes evolve in the environment in which they live. For so long, the landscape has been unfair and unbalanced. I feel that some number of people don't even think about restructuring the public space, they just want to blow it up. They just can't, or better put don't, conceive of an end game where the landscape will finally be fair to them. So, they'd rather just remove everything. The idea is, no commemorative landscape at all is preferable to one that is perpetually one-sided and unfair.​
For folks who are upset over the racial exclusivity of the southern commemorative landscape this "strategy" (I use the term in quotes, because I don't think is well-thought out, articulated plan) works because, they have so little to lose-decades of exclusion means there is little in the public space to remove that represents them. Having no vested interest in maintaining a landscape that has purposely excluded their input, and that is not subject to improvement, there is no incentive for those folks to do anything but tear it all down. I have struggled to make a good counter-argument to that. Progress has been so slow. On the other hand, the explosion of monuments to African American CW soldiers that we've seen in the last two decades gives some reason to hope.​

- Alan
Not sure why you think black monuments should come from state legislatures.........Many of the confederate memorials in the news whether over removal arguments or vandalism weren't put up by state legislatures at all, but private heritage groups such as the SCV or UDC. There's nothing preventing black communities or heritage groups from organizing and raising money for privately funded memorials also if they feel there is a need or priority to do so. Most of the newer monuments around where I live were all raised from private funds, usually SCV.

EDIT-added-----A quick look at wiki shows SCV membership 98k, the NAACP 500k, would seem they should be able to also if they prioritized it
 
Last edited:

Northern Light

Lt. Colonel
Forum Host
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
10,880
What northerners feel is outside the scope of this thread. This is about how people in the South have contested southern heritage. I beg you, please please please don't go off topic.

- Alan
Sorry, Alan that was meant as a rhetorical question. I should have made than clearer.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,857
Location
District of Columbia
Wasn't the Mississippi State flag adopted in 1894..?? Seems the population of Mississippi liked the flag 30 years after the war.

If I'm not mistaken, some groups have been trying to get it changed recently. Seems the people of Mississippi still like the flag the way it is.
A main point that has been made is that in the South, whites have had the power to control what is represented in the public space, while African Americans have not. Mississippi looks like an example of this.

As noted in Wiki, "The first official flag of Mississippi was known as the Magnolia Flag. It was the official flag of the state from 1861 until 1865. It remained in use as an unofficial flag until 1894, when the current state flag was first adopted." I believe this is how the flag looks (@RobertP can correct me if I have the wrong image):

1100.jpg


Before the war, there were no persons (of known) African American descent in the state legislature. After the war, when the Reconstruction Amendments were passed, African Americans were represented in the state legislature, almost as many as 50 persons at one time. Consider this image, for example.

Figure-207.2-Reconstruction.jpg


But that would change by the end of the 19th century. As noted in Wiki,

In 1890 the state adopted a new constitution that imposed a poll tax of $2 a year, which the great majority of blacks and poor whites could not pay in order to register to vote; they were effectively excluded from the political process. These requirements, with additions in legislation of 1892, resulted in a 90% reduction in the number of blacks who voted. In every county whites allowed a handful of prominent black ministers and local leaders to vote.​

As noted at the Mississippi History Now website, "The 1890 Constitution was not sent to the people for ratification."

This pretty much decimated the political power of African Americans. I have not been able to determine how many African Americans remained in the state legislature by 1894, but I would assume the number was small by then.

Why is 1894 significant? That was the year the current flag was adopted. Is it a coincidence that a Confederate-centric flag was adopted after African Americans in huge numbers were removed from the voting rolls? I can only report, I will let you decide.

- Alan
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

Viper21

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jul 4, 2016
Messages
2,517
Location
Rockbridge County, Virginia
Not sure why you think black monuments should come from state legislatures.........Many of the confederate memorials in the news whether over removal arguments or vandalism weren't put up by state legislatures at all, but private heritage groups such as the SCV or UDC. There's nothing preventing black communities or heritage groups from organizing and raising money for privately funded memorials also if they feel there is a need or priority to do so. Most of the newer monuments around where I live were all raised from private funds, usually SCV.

EDIT-added-----A quick look at wiki shows SCV membership 98k, the NAACP 500k, would seem they should be able to also if they prioritized it
The overwhelming majority I've seen, & been to, were not only privately funded but, were/are monuments to the Confederate Dead, & or Confederate Soldiers. Plenty of folks donated what they could, in an effort to memorialize their loved ones who never returned from the war. Thousands of families never had a body to bury. Their Husbands/Sons/Brothers left to rot in some mass grave somewhere.

To many folks, these monuments brought them peace. Much like a tombstone, or final resting place for a loved one often does.
 

ForeverFree

Major
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
8,857
Location
District of Columbia
Not sure why you think black monuments should come from state legislatures.........Many of the confederate memorials in the news whether over removal arguments or vandalism weren't put up by state legislatures at all, but private heritage groups such as the SCV or UDC. There's nothing preventing black communities or heritage groups from organizing and raising money for privately funded memorials also if they feel there is a need or priority to do so. Most of the newer monuments around where I live were all raised from private funds, usually SCV.

EDIT-added-----A quick look at wiki shows SCV membership 98k, the NAACP 500k, would seem they should be able to also if they prioritized it
1) I did not say that black monuments should come from state legislatures.

2) I do not know why you would suggest that the NAACP needs to funds these monuments, or why it should. I have been a member, there wasn't enough money to fund everything on the mission statement. The financial capacity that you imagine the NAACP has does not exist. The idea that the NAACP, which is a civil rights organization, can be all things to all black people is beyond reason.

3) FYI, many (most?) of the monuments in question are on public property, and many are maintained using public funds. Some legislative approval would be needed for land and maintenance, so some type of commitment would have to come from the government, whether local, state, or federal.

4) My hope is that people of all backgrounds are interested in furthering the accurate commemoration of US history. All Americans should ensure that the history we see in the public space is correct, fair, and balanced, not just people of African descent.

5) My understanding is that many African Americans have been involved in creating and funding various commemoration projects across the country. I don't know the details of all the various commemoration projects, and it's not like there's a database where we can get this information. I can only share some anecdotes.

0-jpg.jpg

Dr. Frank Smith, at right, in front of the African American Civil War Monument in Washington, DC

In the case of the African American Civil War Memorial in Washigton, DC, many African Americans did provide financial support. The main person behind the installation of the monument was Dr Frank Smith, an African American, a former member of the District of Columbia City Council, and current head of the African American Civil War Museum that is next door to the monument. I know Dr Smith, and have provided many hours of volunteer support to the Museum. To me, his efforts in erecting this monument and the museum make him a hero in terms of commemorating the African American Civil War Experience. Many other persons, including Gen Colin Powell, had some role in this project, and helped raise funds for it.

Of note: Several (most?) of the Board of Directors of the African American Civil War Museum (who have engaged in fundraising duties) are African American. I presume they provided financial support for the monument as well.

220px-United_States_Colored_Troops_Memorial_Statue_in_Lexington_Park%2C_Maryland%2C_front_view..jpg

This is the United States Colored Troops Memorial Statue in St Mary's County (southern Maryland). It was installed in mid-2012. The monument project was initiated by the Unified Committee for Afro-American Contributions (UCAC) Monument Committee, which I believe is a majority African American organization. On the website which discusses the monument, the UCAC and their partner, the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW), are identified as the main sponsors for the project.

african-american-monument-vicksburg-jpg.jpg


This is the African American Monument in Vicksburg National Military Park. In 1999, former Vicksburg Mayor Robert M. Walker, who is African American, proposed the placement of the monument in Vicksburg National Military Park. The city of Vicksburg, which is 60% black, provided $25,000 in funding. The state of Mississippi and others contributed to the project.

nashville-colored-troop-memorial-jpg.jpg

Above is the United States Colored Troops National Monument, in Nashville National Cemetery. This article, from Civil War News.com,discusses how the monument came to be built:

The nine-foot cast bronze statue, created by Middle Tennessee artist Roy Butler, is one of a very few “freestanding monuments to African American soldiers in the country and the only one in a national facility,” according to Norm Hill (who is African American - ForeverFree), chairman of the Tennessee Historical Commission.​
The project was coordinated by the African American Cultural Alliance of Nashville. The funds for the $80,000 project came from a variety of area contributors, while the Tennessee Historical Commission contributed $15,000.​
“This was a grassroots effort which included church contributions, individual citizens, businesses and other Civil War groups including the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV),” said Hill. “This isn’t about North or South. That was then. Today this is about honoring our fallen soldiers.”​
The idea for the memorial came up a few years ago during Black History Month at a Nashville university. Kwame Leo Lillard of the African American Cultural Alliance had longed for such recognition for years.​
“I wanted us to never forget those men, most who fled slavery to fight and die for freedom,” he told the crowd. The contribution of the USCTs to the war deserves greater visibility, especially the role of the Tennesseans in the conflict, he pointed out.​

6) As discussed above, African American involvement in those projects was not merely substantial, it was essential: I don't know if these monuments would exist today if not for the efforts of the blacks folks who I am happy to identify by name. I don't know the financial history of all of the African American monument projects, but I suspect that African Americans had a substantial role in most of them.

A list of monument to black Civil War soldiers is here. Most of these were created in the past 25 years - that is, after the successes of the Civil Rights movement enabled the commemoration of African American history to be placed into the unsegregated public square.

Of course, more needs to be done. The commemoration of African American history in the South is 100+ years behind where it might be if not for the conditions of Jim Crow and a sheer lack of resources. Additionally, African Americans, to put it kindly, have a lot of competing issues and problems to deal with. All things considered a lot of progress has been made, but it is tough going, to be sure.

- Alan
 
Last edited:

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
3,243
Why is 1894 significant? That was the year the current flag was adopted. Is it a coincidence that a Confederate-centric flag was adopted after African Americans in huge numbers were removed from the voting rolls? I can only report, I will let you decide.

- Alan
2001 Flag Vote
Current flag- 494,323 (64.39%)
New flag- 273,359 (35.61%)

You have to go back nearly 50 years to find a vote that lopsided in Mississippi.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
5,239
Location
mo
1) I did not say that black monuments should come from state legislatures.

2) I do not know why you would suggest that the NAACP needs to funds these monuments, or why it should. I have been a member, there wasn't enough money to fund everything on the mission statement. The financial capacity that you imagine the NAACP has does not exist. The idea that the NAACP, which is a civil rights organization, can be all things to all black people is beyond reason.

3) FYI, many (most?) of the monuments in question are on public property, and many are maintained using public funds. Some legislative approval would be needed for land and maintenance, so some type of commitment would have to come from the government, whether local, state, or federal.

4) My hope is that people of all backgrounds are interested in furthering the accurate commemoration of US history. All Americans should ensure that the history we see in the public space is correct, fair, and balanced, not just people of African descent.

5) My understanding is that many African Americans have been involved in creating and funding various commemoration projects across the country. I don't know the details of all the various commemoration projects, and it's not like there's a database where we can get this information. I can only share some anecdotes.

View attachment 300597
Dr. Frank Smith, at right, in front of the African American Civil War Monument in Washington, DC

In the case of the African American Civil War Memorial in Washigton, DC, many African Americans did provide financial support. The main person behind the installation of the monument was Dr Frank Smith, an African American, a former member of the District of Columbia City Council, and current head of the African American Civil War Museum that is next door to the monument. I know Dr Smith, and have provided many hours of volunteer support to the Museum. To me, his efforts in erecting this monument and the museum make him a hero in terms of commemorating the African American Civil War Experience. Many other persons, including Gen Colin Powell, had some role in this project, and helped raise funds for it.

Of note: Several (most?) of the Board of Directors of the African American Civil War Museum (who have engaged in fundraising duties) are African American. I presume they provided financial support for the monument as well.

View attachment 300598
This is the United States Colored Troops Memorial Statue in St Mary's County (southern Maryland). It was installed in mid-2012. The monument project was initiated by the Unified Committee for Afro-American Contributions (UCAC) Monument Committee, which I believe is a majority African American organization. On the website which discusses the monument, the UCAC and their partner, the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War (SUVCW), are identified as the main sponsors for the project.

View attachment 300599

This is the African American Monument in Vicksburg National Military Park. In 1999, former Vicksburg Mayor Robert M. Walker, who is African American, proposed the placement of the monument in Vicksburg National Military Park. The city of Vicksburg, which is 60% black, provided $25,000 in funding. The state of Mississippi and others contributed to the project.

View attachment 300600
Above is the United States Colored Troops National Monument, in Nashville National Cemetery. This article, from Civil War News.com,discusses how the monument came to be built:

The nine-foot cast bronze statue, created by Middle Tennessee artist Roy Butler, is one of a very few “freestanding monuments to African American soldiers in the country and the only one in a national facility,” according to Norm Hill (who is African American - ForeverFree), chairman of the Tennessee Historical Commission.​
The project was coordinated by the African American Cultural Alliance of Nashville. The funds for the $80,000 project came from a variety of area contributors, while the Tennessee Historical Commission contributed $15,000.​
“This was a grassroots effort which included church contributions, individual citizens, businesses and other Civil War groups including the Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV),” said Hill. “This isn’t about North or South. That was then. Today this is about honoring our fallen soldiers.”​
The idea for the memorial came up a few years ago during Black History Month at a Nashville university. Kwame Leo Lillard of the African American Cultural Alliance had longed for such recognition for years.​
“I wanted us to never forget those men, most who fled slavery to fight and die for freedom,” he told the crowd. The contribution of the USCTs to the war deserves greater visibility, especially the role of the Tennesseans in the conflict, he pointed out.​

6) As discussed above, African American involvement in those projects was not merely substantial, it was essential: I don't know if these monuments would exist today if not for the efforts of the blacks folks who I am happy to identify by name. I don't know the financial history of all of the African American monument projects, but I suspect that African Americans had a substantial role in most of them.

A list of monument to black Civil War soldiers is here. Most of these were created in the past 25 years - that is, after the successes of the Civil Rights movement enabled the commemoration of African American history to be placed into the unsegregated public square.

Of course, more needs to be done. The commemoration of African American history in the South is 100+ years behind where it might be if not for the conditions of Jim Crow and a sheer lack of resources. Additionally, African Americans, to put it kindly, have a lot of competing issues and problems to deal with. All things considered a lot of progress has been made, but it is tough going, to be sure.

- Alan
I likewise would like to think all races of the South would come together to preserve monuments to its past and what was obviously part of the history of the entire south........

Sorry if I attributed brundages comment to you. However obviously the climate has changed and there would seem to be equal opportunity for private monuments going forward. His suggestion of funds from state legislatures seemed odd, as surely he is aware the majority of earlier ones were privately funded, not state. And private heritage groups still donate memorials to this day.

Frankly if one fifth of the NAACP values black heritige, there is a base equal to the SCV for a group going forward dedicated to preserving heritige. If most had been privately funded up to now, not sure why suggesting private funding should be somehow objectionable now. I used the NAACP simply as an example for a basis of a private heritage organisation going forward, as I wasn't aware of a black equivalent to the SCV or UDC, however the point was there is nothing prohibiting one if there's a perceived need in the black community
 
Last edited:

archieclement

Captain
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
5,239
Location
mo
2001 Flag Vote
Current flag- 494,323 (64.39%)
New flag- 273,359 (35.61%)

You have to go back nearly 50 years to find a vote that lopsided in Mississippi.
It would seem a 2001 vote would be more relevant to today then a 1894 one...…...and what Mississippians consider heritage today

It would seem to go the OP's question of who. The people of today would be who, not 1865, 1900, or 1960, but the people of the state's today who determine the current definition of their state or regional heritige.

It always strikes me odd these elaborate arguments of the view of history is always changing , so the traditional views should be challenged or even removed.........until polls or votes show that nationally or state wide the majority view hasn't changed and is still actually in favor of the status quo.........then the currently accepted view apparently means squat to some.
 
Last edited:
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Top