Restricted Why is it wrong to move monuments?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Lt.Drake

Corporal
Joined
May 22, 2015
Location
Johnson County, Kentucky
I dunno if he wasn't planning for the contingency of having to deal with a rapid military response or what, but it was almost like his strategy was sound until the troops showed up, then everything went to Heck. He and his men had no choice then but to either fortify their current position and try to hold out, or surrender. That's the problem with people with no military training in a combat situation. They lack the foresight as to what their enemy is capable of.
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
I got all riled up from being attacked from multiple fronts for no reason a couple hours back. I ranted, had a smoke, and calmed down. If you're of Texas blood, then you know how one can get all balled up and full of vinegar sometimes. I am very capable of looking at things objectively.

It's kind of comical, but one of the main reasons Texas didn't like Quantrill is that he went there and looted and pillaged for supplies. They expected him to act like a proper Confederate officer and not raid his own side, but Quantrill was essentially fighting on a third front...his own private war, so nothing was sacred to him.

John Brown is fairly well respected for his desire and attempts to abolish slavery. He did commit a violent crime though, and it wasn't technically an act of war. He attempted to start a rebellion, and hung for it. I will admit that I admire his operation in Harper's Ferry. It was well orchestrated up to a point, but he should have planned it better tactically. Exfiltration is always as important as infiltration if you want to preserve your forces.

As to which side was more brutal...that's really up in the air. If one was worse than the other, it was close. The pro-confederate guerrillas terrorized abolitionists, and the pro-union partisans don't really get enough credit for their actions in Missouri, Kansas and Kentucky. They were impressive to say the least. It was almost a war within a war, with Union and Confederate sympathizers being the targets, and the two irregular forces fighting not only each other, but regular forces as well.

Quantrill was simply a sociopathic killer and a common thief and the Texans recognized him as such. He was simply pursuing the kinds of criminal activities which he'd been known for prior to the war, but North Texas was populated by people who had less tolerance of your basic criminal than in the blood feud that was Missouri. They lived in an area close to outlaw territory--Quantrill must have been easy for them to recognize.
 

Lt.Drake

Corporal
Joined
May 22, 2015
Location
Johnson County, Kentucky
I wouldn't say that Quantrill was carrying out the same activities he did before the war. It was truly the war that MADE him. The chaos of war allowed his sadism and bloodlust to grow a hundredfold. Most serial killers escalate in the violence and audacity of their crimes, and that is in a society with rule of law. With the onset of the war, and the natural vacuum of law and order in Missouri and Kansas, his instinct took over, and his true nature came out in ways it may not have otherwise.

You stated that he was a sociopath. That term is thrown around alot, often erroneously, but in this case, it is true. Psychologically, Quantrill was a sociopath. He was in it for his own reasons, and those reasons took precedent over everything else. Calling him a common killer and thief is somewhat of an insult. He was, unfortunately for his enemies an EXCEPTIONAL killer and thief.

My area of study in college was behavioral psychology, and I know it sounds strange, but I love picking apart men like Quantrill.

Did you know that Bill Anderson was from North Texas?
 

Lt.Drake

Corporal
Joined
May 22, 2015
Location
Johnson County, Kentucky
In Quantrill's defense, his need for revenge, and love of war in and of itself caused him to create the first true racially integrated military unit. His force had several Native Americans scouts, blacks who served as spies and scouts, a defrocked baptist minister, and a 14 year old girl. I always found that interesting. His blinding hatred for one group caused him to overlook race in others, as long as they would serve his purpose. Interesting man to study.
 

18thVirginia

Major
Joined
Sep 8, 2012
Don't apologize to me. Ever. I was just suggesting we get back on topic before we find out what a real red-letter day is.

I'll ask once again if people think that New Orleanians have a reasonable rationale for removing the Liberty Place monument. I've asked the question several times and have watched people "dance a little sidestep" rather than answer.
 

Lt.Drake

Corporal
Joined
May 22, 2015
Location
Johnson County, Kentucky
I think it's a testament to a time in history people should not forget, and instead of seeing it as a negative thing, it should be used to teach the children, white and black, about the horrors of bigotry, and what racial tensions can lead to. Like all tragic parts of history, we can learn from it or repeat it. Let it stay as a monument to the dead, that people can remember why.
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
I'll ask once again if people think that New Orleanians have a reasonable rationale for removing the Liberty Place monument. I've asked the question several times and have watched people "dance a little sidestep" rather than answer.
I'm not a monument feller. I've never been to NOLA and have no idea what the Liberty Place Monument is or why it ought to be moved.

If it's moved to a better location, I'm fine with it. If it's moved to where no one gets to see it and learn something from it, I'm against it. Every monument has a historical lesson.
 

NedBaldwin

Major
Joined
Feb 19, 2011
Location
California
.... it should be used to teach the children, white and black, about the horrors of bigotry, and what racial tensions can lead to....
If its is the one I am thinking of, I dont see how it could teach that unless you put up a lot of explanatory signage. And if that is the case, why not replace it entirely with a different kind of monument that actually teaches what you suggest?
Otherwise, the orginal inscription seems to me to teach the opposite lesson.
 
Joined
May 18, 2005
Location
Spring Hill, Tennessee
If they're in your state, or community, that's up to you, and the community or state. I don't pay taxes, or live there. I have no right to tell anyone what to do with their property.

If you're worried about something that isn't in your state or community, you're wasting your time. Its not your call to make.

Federal property, battlefields etc. I would say leave them alone is my vote. That's an appropriate place for them. You have every right to your own opinion as well. How I may feel about your opinion matters not.
You make perfect sense... But then again, you apparently have sense. Many do not!
 
Joined
May 18, 2005
Location
Spring Hill, Tennessee
I've got a great idea. Let's have a Confederate rememberance park in the swamps far outside of Charleston. They can move every monument ever made in rememberance of people who fought for what they thought was right - no matter what their version if right was. Then gradually the monuments will slowly sink into the muck! You like? Anyone? Class... Class...?
 

ole

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Location
Near Kankakee
I've got a great idea. Let's have a Confederate rememberance park in the swamps far outside of Charleston. They can move every monument ever made in rememberance of people who fought for what they thought was right - no matter what their version if right was. Then gradually the monuments will slowly sink into the muck! You like? Anyone? Class... Class...?
You've done it again, Jamie ... pointed out the ridiculous by comparing it to something equally ridiculous.

By the way, Class? ... Class? Reminds me of an old Cheech and Chong skit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top