Confederate Statues

Reconciliation. The US wanted to make sure the war was “history.” They wanted no hard feelings. Remember the southern states weren’t merely defeated, they were utterly and totally crushed, their cities were leveled, their economy destroyed to such an extent that, at best, they didn’t recover until the late 20th century. The civil war still impacts many area, such as why no southern university is “Ivy League” (their endowments were wiped out by the war), to the fact that post-1865 northern English is the American standard and souther dialect is considered inferior and a sign of poor intelligence.

Loyalists, such as Benedict Arnold weren’t a problem since they left and moved to Canada (though the US was always on the brink of war with Canada for the next century, and only became buddies in the early 20th century). It took a century for the US and Britain to become friends again.

In Britain there was no reconciliation after their civil wars of the 17th and 18th centuries (no statues honoring Jacobites, and Cromwell remained controversial until 250 years over his death) – and the aftereffects of those civil wars are still a major factor in British politics.

The US didn’t want the losers going around with a chip on their shoulder, and honoring the memory of the fallen rebels was a major part of reconciliation.

Bring down all those statues of the traitors and ban them as well as the Confederate flag.

Akuperma,’
Benedict Arnold was not a Loyalist, he was a traitor, a big difference. Loyalists were those who chose to remain loyal to King George. Benedict Arnold was a general in the Continental Army who made a deal with the British to turn over control of the fortress at West Point ( and with it control over the vital Hudson River ). When the plot was discovered, Arnold escaped and became a British general and moved to London after the war

There is an Anti-Semetic Statue in Prague. Its called “The Crucifix and Calvary”, You can google it.

I bet everyone here who supports the confederate statues, would support removal of this statue

Statues are idols and need to be removed.

Most of the statutes were put up by opponents of the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, as a symbol of resistance to desegregation, blacks’ voting rights, etc. This is a good argument for taking them down. Some of them were put up for a reconciliation-oriented purpose, including I think the one in Charlottesville. This would suggest being selective in which ones we take down.

In any case, having them prominently displayed gives them honor and respect which they do not deserve. Taking them down and putting them in museums instead, as historical items instead of public monuments, is a popular proposal on the right and left. There are decent arguments on both sides.

RY23, I meant to ban them (Confederate flags and statues) on all public properties (federal, state and local — including legislatures and parks), not to ban them on private property or persons. The government is entitled to choose to not host statues of Robert Lee, King George III, Stonewall Jackson, Mussolini or Stalin as well as to choose not to host (or pictures on State flags) the flags of the Confederacy or Mexico.

@huju
Hanging behind my office desk as I type is a framed $1,000 Confederate States of America Bond bearing coupons for six percent interest. Issued in late 1864, the purchaser was only able to redeem 2 interest coupons ($30 each) before the war was lost and so was his investment.
I don’t think of this as a tribute to the racist south, but an interesting piece of American political and banking history.
As for the statues, I believe that states are entitled to have statues of their sons who donned uniforms and fought to protect their states. This is fine from a historical perspective, but when they become rallying points for a return to a system of discrimination, their misuse is the problem, not the statues themselves.

To CTLawyer: I certainly would not think that a Confederate government note is intended to be a tribute. I do think you have understated the problem with the Confederacy: “discrimination” was a relatively minor problem, but the bigger problem was slavery. And a statue memorializing a soldier who fought to defend that state is an abomination.

@Huju
Most white southerners did not own slaves. The average soldier in the Civil War was supporting his state. This was on both sides. The idea of fighting for the country really evolved much later. Soldiers didn’t join up to the US Army or the CSA Army, they joined units such as the 1st Illinois or Lee’s Army of Virginia.

The statues erected in the late 19th and early 20th Century south were rallying spots for those practicing discrimination, much of it legal. Plessy v. Ferguson (separate but equal) was the law of the land until the 1950s and Brown v. Board of Education, These statues were not rallying points for slavery which was no longer legal.
I don’t agree that a statue on a town green commemorating local boys/men who answered the call and fought for their state and country is a bad thing. This is quite different than statues of Generals on horseback used to foster ill feeling towards African-Americans and other minorities.

I live in a town settled in the 1600s. On Memorial Day American Flags are placed on the graves of deceased service men and women. We don’t skip those who served in the local militia under a Royal Governor before the Revolutionary War.
There is no reason to erase history, better to use it as a teaching tool.

Remember, here in the north, we call it the Civil War. Some in assorted places call it the War Between the States (which reinforces my point about soldiers joining up to support a state, not a country), BUT in parts of the deep south, especially those areas who suffered the carpetbaggers of Reconstruction, it is known as the War of Northern Aggression.

Akuperma and CT, both of you have bought into the Southern mythology of the Lost Cause.
The Civil War was fought for one reason only : SLAVERY. The Missouri Compromise and the Kansas-Nebraska Act were failed attempts to avoid war by having an equal number of slave and free states; they didn’t address the desire or opposition of extending slavery into the western territories.
Southern men did enlist to defend their states, but their states went to war to defend slavery.
States rights as a war issue first appeared AFTER the war when Confederate president Jefferson Davis and other leaders tried to sanitize their war aims. In all of his pre war speeches and writing, Davis never mentioned states rights.
AmCT, you’re a lawyer. How can you say that the Jim Crow laws were the law of the land? They violated the 14th and 15th amendments and the Federalgovernment simply looked the other way
Lastly, Akuperma the South wasn’t crushed by its debt. It was crushed by two major reasons. First, it overestimated the importance of King Cotton. It’s biggest cash crop and Britain it’s biggest customer. Second , the Federal blockade of Southern ports. It slowly strangled the South as it’s effectiveness grew. Cotton had no value if you couldn’t export and England found other sources ( India). The South had vvirtually no industry requiring almost everything to be imported. But with the blockade goods became scarce, prices soared , with rampant inflation making Southern currency, and its debt, worthless.

Most of the soldiers weren’t fighting because they believed in what they were fighting for.

You are not creating jobs. You are keeping specific types of jobs in the country.

@lesschumras
I never used the term Jim Crow. I am an attorney, I specifically referred to legal discrimination in public education which was found legal by the US Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson (which stood for more than 50 years).

“the bigger problem was slavery. And a statue memorializing a soldier who fought to defend that state is an abomination.”

So, when does the wrecking ball take aim at the Jefferson Memorial. He was a slaveowner too.

“So, when does the wrecking ball take aim at the Jefferson Memorial. He was a slaveowner too. ”

The University of Virginia (UVA), located in Charlottesville, was founded by Thomas Jefferson.

Last fall, a group of UVA faculty members asked the president of the university to refrain from quoting Jefferson in her emails, because Jefferson was a slave owner.

APY

“So, when does the wrecking ball take aim at the Jefferson Memorial. He was a slaveowner too”

Is that his claim to fame? Are we commemorating Jefferson becasue he was a slaveowner? Or in spite of it?

The south stood for slavery. that was the prime reason for the Civil war (although there were other factors) this is explicit in the decleration of war
The comparison is laughable.
The Comparison to Arch of Titus falls flat too. The ITalian Government didnt erect the arch nor are they supporting it in their public square. IT is a relic. nobody is saying any mention of the South shoudl be scrubbed from museums. Onthe contrary they BELONG in museums.

“Recent statue removing has nothing to do with trying to eradicate discrimination ”

Obviously. IT is symbolic of course it doesn’t actualy eradicate racisim.

“its simply a … Anti-American act ”
Lol. ISnt supporting the confederacy the utmost “Anti-American act”

“who still can’t take the defeat by the rednecks. ”
You need to brush up on your history. The rednecks lost the civil war

” Some of these statues are over hundred years old.”
that should read “few”

There seems to be some confusion over thsi issue
LEts let the south speak for themselves

From Mississippi’s deceleration of secession: “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery– the greatest material interest of the world. ” it lists several other specific points including “It advocates negro equality, socially and politically,”

See South Carolin’a
which includes several lines such as “have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery;”

Yes ultimatly if the South remained in the Union the war may have been delayed. But slavery led to secession and secession to war.

“Recent statue removing has nothing to do with trying to eradicate discrimination ”
Obviously. IT is symbolic of course it doesn’t actualy eradicate racisim.”

It all depends from which perspective you are coming from (as below)

“its simply a … Anti-American act ”
Lol. ISnt supporting the confederacy the utmost “Anti-American act”

There is quiet a difference between “supporting the confederacy” and the ‘people’ of the confederacy. Half of Americans who helped build this country were on the south. After the war they were still Americans and, generals like Lee were their leaders.

“who still can’t take the defeat by the rednecks. ”
You need to brush up on your history. The rednecks lost the civil war”

Rednecks defeat as of the recent election…as you know what I meant.

Think about it — why NOW?

” Some of these statues are over hundred years old.”
that should read “few”

The point is, they are part of American history and they were leaders of the south, and were not erected for the sake of “racism”, these “few” indicate that.

Fact – slavery (unfortunately!) at the time was considered the culturally norm — George Washington had slaves and so did Jefferson and so is the constitution ‘racist’. It was time for change and many opposed it, including many slaves from the south.
Every president and leader at one point and until recent had some elements of “racism”, let it be against the “poor white” Irish, women etc., American Civil rights was an uphill battle and long process, which progressed with the time.
Are we going to take down Mt Rushmore and every leader until recent?
Are we going to ban all studies from anyone who ever supported slavery (e.g. Aristotle)?
You have to know how to differentiate between real hate and what was simply a cultural issue.
The latest is just a result of a Leftist agenda of Anti-Nationalism, Pro-globalization, Anti-Religion, Anti-Right etc.

“It all depends from which perspective you are coming from”

Of course. Question.: do you believe the hundreds of people who drove hundreds of miles to protest the rmeoval of the statue were all supporters of southern heritage? where they all civil war buffs? I guess that explains why they carried swastikas, the battle standard of the confederacy? and shouted ssuch southern slogans as “Jews will not repalce us” and blood and soil”

“There is quiet a difference between “supporting the confederacy” and the ‘people’ of the confederacy.”
A stuate to the leaders of the confederacy doent support the people. IT supports the conferat movment and by extension what it stood for.

“After the war they were still Americans and, generals like Lee were their leaders.”
Not quite, they lost their citizenship and the right to vote. Yes reconstruction was a tough time and their were conflicting views of how thee south was to be handled and amneties were granted. But at any rate you are kidding yourself if you believe the statue of LEe commemorates his post war activities. there is a reson why he is in unifrom.

“Think about it — why NOW?”
These discussions have been ongoing for well over a decade.
Though you think about it there were clear spikes when these monument swent up. Why did they go up in 1990? is it a coincidence that this was the time Jim crow laws were being enacted? And what was going on in the 50’s and 60’s that led to a second spike?
(CNN has a timeline that helps visualize these clear spikes)

“George Washington had slaves and so did Jefferson”
Yes as explained above, though that isnt what they stood for nor what they are memorialized for.

“and so is the constitution ‘racist’.”
You do know that it was changed, right? Ie amended.

“Are we going to take down Mt Rushmore and every leader until recent?”
Adressed several times. No only those who stood for or supported a movement that stood for slavery/racisim

“Are we going to ban all studies from anyone who ever supported slavery (e.g. Aristotle)?”
I’m not sure what you mean. The issue of ill gotten studies such as those done by Nazis is an important issue. But I dont understand how it applies here.

“You have to know how to differentiate between real hate and what was simply a cultural issue”

ditto. so I ask you again why did people drive hundreds of miles from Minnesota ohio oregon etc bringing along their swastikas. Do you really believe they just support southern culture?

“Anti-Nationalism, Pro-globalization, Anti-Religion, Anti-Right ”
I’ll give you anti-right. But how is opposing rebeliion “anti-nationalist or pro gloglization” and what does religion have to do with anything?

That is racist.

The right wing riots weren’t happening then.

People keep saying that a stand-alone Statute doesn’t provide “context” for understanding the full set of issues surrounding the individual and why he is being memorialized in stone or bronze….if that is the standard we use, than probably 90 percent of these statutes need to be removed or relocated to a museum where such context is feasible. Alternatively, one can think about something like the Vietnam memorial or new 9/11 memorial in D.C and NYC….the “place” alone seems to provide sufficient context without triggering all the emotions about the underlying historical debate over the underlying event being memorialized.

What side people fought for was mostly determined by their geographical location.

Ubiquitin,
Whilst I’m no expert in Civil War history, one thing is certain, the info you (and many others) have — based on your conclusions and confusion – are all via the one-sided media version, from the likes of CNN. Or even if from History writings, and, as the Southerners call it the “Yankee version”. Many books and research have been written on the very core of the subject and is far from the scope of YWN comment to elaborate.

Basically, you should ask yourself/research the following before you decide that a) all confederates are “traitors”. b) The Civil war was ALL about slavery etc.

1) What are the constitutional terms of State rights?
2) What is the law and procedures regarding Headstones and burial for Confederate soldiers? (Did they receive the same honor treatments as reg. Union US soldiers)
3) What is the law regarding pensions – did Confederate soldiers receive any USA pensions, as all soldiers receive? (Hint: US Public Law 85-425 sec 410)
If any of the two is yes, then outright “treason” couldn’t have been committed.
4) Was anyone (Jefferson Davis?) prosecuted for “treason” after the civil war (and if yes, by which law/account. Furthermore, search: ruling of US Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase)?
5) Was slavery a constitutional right? i.e. PRIOR to the 13th Amendment.
5) And lastly and mainly, does Secession = treason or altogether legal?
Hint – search “US Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon Chase” ruling.

What are our constitutional rights, if let’s say, the Feds decides to take away our rights e.g. freedom of religion? Can some states decide to secede or fight the Feds? Will they be considered “traitors”?

Note, whatever might be the conclusion of the above does not really matter, it surely indicates that the matter is far from simple fact as the left media has portrayed it, to the extent that fellow commentators are ‘wondering’ why and how statutes are honored.
There is a saying “history is written by the conquer” however, this is rather simply by the ignorant masses, who obtain their history via 5 min clips and media headlines .