Removing Civil War Monuments

[Airbrush]

Interesting to note that about 1/3 of US voters support Trump and what he says, but 2/3 want to KEEP civil war monuments.  This makes sense to me because I lived my entire life in Southern California and have never seen a single civil war monument.  They are all located in other states, especially southern states that erected most of the statues in the early 1900s, to subjugate the Afro-American population.  It was a tyranny of the majority white over the minority black.  Most Americans don't see or think about the statues much, so they don't care if they get removed or not.  So why not keep the nice statues of handsome men on horses?  Everyone loves statues of horses, so there is some guy with a hat on the horse, big deal.  So 2/3 of Americans would like to keep the statues.

Edited August 20, 2017 by Airbrush

[iNow]

Because monuments demonstrate what we revere and give visual form to the values which stitch us together as a people.

To revere those who stood for hate and to honor the acts of those who defended the continued abuse of civil rights and the continuance of slavery and subjugation based on skin color alone is a slap in the face to those most personally connected to it.

We must not whitewash history and we must look honestly and openly on our past, discussing its complexities, asking new questions, and learning from their answers, but that's what history books and museums and conversations with fellow community members are for. 

Monuments and statues, however, are intended as a celebration and we mustn't celebrate that which forces us apart or that which signifies and reveres the darkest parts of our human nature. 

[swansont]

The poll results reflect, in part, how it was worded. To me it looks like it was phrased to get a positive result.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, Airbrush said:

Interesting to note that about 1/3 of US voters support Trump and what he says, but 2/3 want to KEEP civil war monuments.  This makes sense to me because I lived my entire life in Southern California and have never seen a single civil war monument.  They are all located in other states, especially southern states that erected most of the statues in the early 1900s, to subjugate the Afro-American population.  It was a tyranny of the majority white over the minority black.  Most Americans don't see or think about the statues much, so they don't care if they get removed or not.  So why not keep the nice statues of handsome men on horses?  Everyone loves statues of horses, so there is some guy with a hat on the horse, big deal.  So 2/3 of Americans would like to keep the statues.

"CSA monument with the inscription "to honor the sacred memory of the pioneers who built Orange County after their valiant efforts to defend the Cause of Southern Independence" in Santa Ana Cemetery. Installed in 2004"

 "Traveler, the name of Robert E. Lee's famous horse and Traveler, mascot of the University of Southern California"

"Fort Bragg (town): A US Army garrison was named in 1857 for then US Army officer Braxton Bragg who later became a Confederate General."

"There are at least four remaining markers of the Jefferson Davis Highways in the state of California including the following:

• Berkerfield in Pioneer Village, installed in 1942 and rededicated in 1968.
• Hornbrook installed in 1944.
• Lebec at Fort Tejon dedicated in 1956 and rededicated in 1976.
• Winterhaven at Fort Yuma, installed in 1931."                                                                                                                                                                                      

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America

 

Unfortunately it is not accurate to say they are ALL in other states. There are Monuments and Memorials to Confederates in 30 states which means the majority of the country has them. Even some states that weren't officially states during the Civil War have them.

17 minutes ago, swansont said:

The poll results reflect, in part, how it was worded. To me it looks like it was phrased to get a positive result.

If one group wants option "A" and other groups wants option "C" than many people automatically assume option "B" is an acceptable safe position. By created a protracted discussion about whether Nazis and KKK members are any different than other standard political advocacy groups like BLM and obfucating the underlining issues I think the argument for "keeping history" has become that safe option "B" squeezed between calls to denounce hatred and united the whites. The compromise is to denounce hate groups but keep history. I think some people don't get any deeper into it than that.

[waitforufo]

First, the racist history of California is long and deep. LA in particular.  A significant number, if not a majority, of Hayden Lake Idaho Nazis who used to march annually in Coeur d'alene, where transplants from California.  

Second, remember that every one of those Confederate monuments are not only memorials to racists, are also memorials to traitors of the United States.  Robert E. Lee in particular, who was offered command of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War.   Had he accepted, the war may not have even occurred or would have been short.  The man swore an allegiance to the United States at West Point.  The man has no honor.  620,000 Americans died in the Civil war.  

Third, there are more history books written about the Civil War than any other subject in world history so I don't think there is any worry about forgetting Civil War history if every one of those memorials were destroyed.

Finally, any memorial that is left up should be required to include a predominate plaque that reads that this person (or group) fought to continue the practice of owning human beings as property.  Perhaps additionally, if approved by the African American populous, all memorials including human likenesses left standing should be painted to resemble lawn jockeys. 

 

 

[John Cuthber]

I rather liked the suggestion I saw earlier.
Keep the statues but change the plaques .
My favourite suggestion was "Civil war (2nd place)"

[MigL]

I don't think losing the war should be relevant John.
We have statues in Canada of L Riel; he was hanged.
we have statues of French generals in Quebec; they lost to the English.

But this is an American decision; and it should be up to the American people to decide.
I'd also like to add that, despite the number of books written ( did not know that waitforufo, thanks ), 90% of Americans probably don't know if a statue is a Confederate or Union General. Young people don't seem to have much appreciation for history. Maybe that's why we are well on the road to repeating it.

[Ten oz]

37 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

First, the racist history of California is long and deep. LA in particular.  A significant number, if not a majority, of Hayden Lake Idaho Nazis who used to march annually in Coeur d'alene, where transplants from California.  

Second, remember that every one of those Confederate monuments are not only memorials to racists, are also memorials to traitors of the United States.  Robert E. Lee in particular, who was offered command of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War.   Had he accepted, the war may not have even occurred or would have been short.  The man swore an allegiance to the United States at West Point.  The man has no honor.  620,000 Americans died in the Civil war.  

Third, there are more history books written about the Civil War than any other subject in world history so I don't think there is any worry about forgetting Civil War history if every one of those memorials were destroyed.

Finally, any memorial that is left up should be required to include a predominate plaque that reads that this person (or group) fought to continue the practice of owning human beings as property.  Perhaps additionally, if approved by the African American populous, all memorials including human likenesses left standing should be painted to resemble lawn jockeys. 

 

 

Can you support that with a citation? I find it shocking that the Civil War would be the focus of more history books than Antiquity, Egypt, Ancient Greece, or etc.

[Delta1212]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

First, the racist history of California is long and deep. LA in particular.  A significant number, if not a majority, of Hayden Lake Idaho Nazis who used to march annually in Coeur d'alene, where transplants from California.  

Second, remember that every one of those Confederate monuments are not only memorials to racists, are also memorials to traitors of the United States.  Robert E. Lee in particular, who was offered command of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War.   Had he accepted, the war may not have even occurred or would have been short.  The man swore an allegiance to the United States at West Point.  The man has no honor.  620,000 Americans died in the Civil war.  

Third, there are more history books written about the Civil War than any other subject in world history so I don't think there is any worry about forgetting Civil War history if every one of those memorials were destroyed.

Finally, any memorial that is left up should be required to include a predominate plaque that reads that this person (or group) fought to continue the practice of owning human beings as property.  Perhaps additionally, if approved by the African American populous, all memorials including human likenesses left standing should be painted to resemble lawn jockeys. 

 

 

Huh, I broadly agree with something waitforufo posted in the Politics section. What do you know?

[swansont]

40 minutes ago, MigL said:

I'd also like to add that, despite the number of books written ( did not know that waitforufo, thanks ), 90% of Americans probably don't know if a statue is a Confederate or Union General. Young people don't seem to have much appreciation for history. Maybe that's why we are well on the road to repeating it.

I would venture to guess that the number in former confederate states knowing the difference is a tad higher than 10%.

 

[Ten oz]

I think it is worth noting that real pieces of history are removed all the time. Original homes, buildings, parks, forrests, and etc are bulldozed to make way for freeways, shopping centers, mines, crops, and etc all the time. Local efforts and national efforts like the national regristry of historical places managed by the national parks service attempt to preserve history but are often labelled as over reaching and harmful to business. These confederate monuments are not historical pieces that date back to the Civil War. They are pieces of art erected decades after the civil war by those enamored with the confederacy. I find the charge that removing these confederate art peices erases history, being made by Trump and various other Republican and conversative groups, very disingenuous considering Trump and GOP leaders in congress are seeking to slash the National Parks Service's budget to pay for tax cuts. Same national park service that manages he national regristry of historical places.

[swansont]

As someone said on twitter (paraphrase), the ones wanting to save "historic" confederacy statues apparently had no issues bulldozing through ancient sacred sites & artifacts for a pipeline

[HB of CJ]

As a long time student of American History in general and the War Of Northern Aggression, (War Between The States) in somewhat particular and being born in raised in the South, I am amazed and appalled at the lack of understanding and knowledge regarding ANY reasoning demanding the removal of Civil War Monuments.

HB ... shorter sentences come to mind also! 

I kinda doubt most folks today with the average public school education could even pass a simple 50 questionnaire defining the root causes of that most unfortunate portion of our Nation's history.  It was a very bad series of unfortunate events that even led up to the first shooting.  That War was indeed our Nation's darkest hour.  Sad.

[iNow]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

As someone said on twitter (paraphrase), the ones wanting to save "historic" confederacy statues apparently had no issues bulldozing through ancient sacred sites & artifacts for a pipeline

[Airbrush]

3 hours ago, MigL said:

......90% of Americans probably don't know if a statue is a Confederate or Union General. Young people don't seem to have much appreciation for history. Maybe that's why we are well on the road to repeating it.

Exactly, 90% of Americans are unaware of what side of the war a statue is about.  It is a guy on a horse, that is as far as people notice.  Only those educated would object.

Ten Oz and Waitforufo, thanks for the info about confederate and white supremacist installations in California!  Very interesting list of confederate monuments.

[zapatos]

If you are in the South, I think it is a safe bet that the guy on a horse represented by the statue was a confederate. 

[swansont]

13 hours ago, HB of CJ said:

I kinda doubt most folks today with the average public school education could even pass a simple 50 questionnaire defining the root causes of that most unfortunate portion of our Nation's history.  It was a very bad series of unfortunate events that even led up to the first shooting.  That War was indeed our Nation's darkest hour.  Sad.

The first question would be worth 90% of the points.

 

edit: W.E.B. DuBois on Robert E. Lee
http://cwmemory.com/2017/05/30/w-e-b-dubois-on-robert-e-lee/

[iNow]

A nice piece by Jon Meacham on this topic. A brief snippet below:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/21/opinion/why-lee-should-go-and-washington-should-stay.html

Quote

"I wonder,” Mr. Trump said, “is it George Washington next week, and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

To me, the answer to Mr. Trump’s question begins with a straightforward test: Was the person to whom a monument is erected on public property devoted to the American experiment in liberty and self-government? Washington and Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were. Each owned slaves; each was largely a creature of his time and place on matters of race. Yet each also believed in the transcendent significance of the nation, and each was committed to the journey toward “a more perfect Union.”

By definition, the Confederate hierarchy fails that test. Those who took up arms against the Union were explicitly attempting to stop the American odyssey.

 

[Airbrush]

Are there many Union Monuments in northern states?  U.S. Grant on horseback?

Edited August 22, 2017 by Airbrush

[Ten oz]

WASHINGTON – Vice President Pence on Tuesday argued against pulling down Confederate monuments, calling that an attempt to “erase parts of our history just in the name of some contemporary political cause.”

“Rather than tearing down monuments that have graced our cities all across this country for years, we ought to have been building more monuments,” Pence told Fox & Friends. “We ought to be celebrating the men and women who've helped our nation move toward a more perfect union and tell the whole story of America.”

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017/08/22/pence-backs-adding-monuments-not-taking-them-down-contemporary-political-cause/589609001/

 

According to Mike Pence removing monuments, which do not actually date by to the Civil War in the first place, erases history. Meanwhile speaking about Confederates soldiers who fought for secession as "men and women who've helped our nation move toward a more perfect union" doesn't erase history?

[Airbrush]

Now is the time to replace confederate statues with NEW monuments to great people that MORE people can agree upon.  Or modify some, as Steven Colbert recently proposed "Let's Repurpose Those Confederate Statues", or even by changing the riders on the horses to Revolutionary War heroes.  Heroes of WWI were still riding on horses right?

[Ten oz]

It is interesting to me that what happened in Charlottesville wasn't described as a "Riot". Rather the term violent protest gets used. Following Dylann Roof murdering church goers in 2015 the Confederat flag was removed from the Soth Carolina capitol. Violent white nationalist and Nazi protesters showed up, 23 people were treated for injuries, and 7 people taken to the hospital yet headlines read that it was a protest that became violent. The word Riot wasn't used just as it isn't used in Charlottesville situation. Meanwhile during Occupy Wall Street I recall the word "Riot" and "Rioting" being used to describe seemingly every protest which the police broke up via force.Same goes for Ferguson and Baltimore protests led by BLM; protesters were labelled "Rioters".   What is the distinction between a violent protest and a Riot? Seems to me that if it comes from the left it is a Riot and if it comes from the right it is protest that turns violent (on both sides, many sides).

[Outrider]

On 8/20/2017 at 3:31 PM, Ten oz said:

Can you support that with a citation? I find it shocking that the Civil War would be the focus of more history books than Antiquity, Egypt, Ancient Greece, or etc.

I'm  willing to bet Waitforufo's claim "there are more history books written about the Civil War than any other subject in world history " is not to far off the mark.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/how-many-books-have-been-written-about-the-civil-war.7708/

Quote

According to the Library of Congress Civil War Desk Reference, 2002, page 860, approximately 70,000 books have been published on the Civil War over the years up to that date. The Library of Congress, though not owning every one of these books, most likely owns copies of a great majority of them. The shelf space taken up by the Civil War books just in the E call number classification in the closed book stacks is considerable. This does not include those books which cover Civil War related information and may be cataloged primarily under other subjects. One should also consider that the Library owns many thousands of photographs and illustrations, maps, and manuscript materials on the Civil War.

I hope this information proves to be of help to you. Thank you.

W. Elsbury
Reference Specialist
Main Reading Room
Humanities and Social Sciences Division
Library of Congress
101 Independence Ave. SE
Washington, DC 20540-4660
202-707-3399

 

 

Also Amazon has over 100 books published this year listed for sell.

On 8/20/2017 at 2:38 PM, waitforufo said:

 

Second, remember that every one of those Confederate monuments are not only memorials to racists, are also memorials to traitors of the United States.  Robert E. Lee in particular, who was offered command of the Union Army at the start of the Civil War.   Had he accepted, the war may not have even occurred or would have been short.  The man swore an allegiance to the United States at West Point.  The man has no honor.  620,000 Americans died in the Civil.

 

 

Lee was opposed to secession before the war and he supported reconstruction after the war. When Virginia seceded it left Lee with a choice, be a tratior to the U.S. or be a  tratior to his home state. It is well documented that this was a painfull choice for him. Lee was considered an honorable man by many in the north before, during and after the war. Some evidence for this would be U.S. Grant publicly inviting Lee to the White House during his term as POTUS. 

I don't think the statue needs to come down because he was a tratior or that Lee even deserves to be branded as such.

Also you have no evidence that "the war may not have even occurred or would have been short." if Lee would have commanded U.S. forces. The south's main advantage was that they got to play defense not superior leadership as is commonly thought. For evidence look to U.S. vs Korea and similar.

Lee's statue should come down because he treated human life as personal property and no other reason is needed or even wanted. All these red herrings you and others are pointing to is just taking the focus from where it belongs.

Washington, Jackson, Jefferson, Lee all owned persons and all spoke against the practice. I say actions speak louder than words. Lets twist Trump's words and take them all down and replace them with two words "Never Again".

P.S.

The "long walk of the  Navajo" took place in 1863 during the civil war. Native Americans were marched 450 miles by the U.S. government (you know the one Lee is a tratior to) and stragglers, mostly women and children, were shot. 2,500 died. I wonder what president ordered that massacre?

Edited August 27, 2017 by Outrider
Missed a word

[Endy0816]

What happens for things that straddle the fence? Lee's Arlington house comes to mind, sitting in the middle of Arlington national cemetery.

[swansont]

15 hours ago, Outrider said:

 Lee was opposed to secession before the war and he supported reconstruction after the war. When Virginia seceded it left Lee with a choice, be a tratior to the U.S. or be a  tratior to his home state. It is well documented that this was a painfull choice for him. Lee was considered an honorable man by many in the north before, during and after the war. Some evidence for this would be U.S. Grant publicly inviting Lee to the White House during his term as POTUS. 

I don't think the statue needs to come down because he was a tratior or that Lee even deserves to be branded as such.

Lee swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, as a graduate of West Point. He committed treason when he went to war against the US.

see the above link: W.E.B. DuBois on Robert E. Lee