Link: 1913 Gettysburg reunion...

History is there to remind us of the good and bad; trying to erase that history is simply ignorant overreaction.

jps1983 said:

History is there to remind us of the good and bad; trying to erase that history is simply ignorant overreaction.

Click to expand...

no one is trying to erase history.

92tide said:

no one is trying to erase history.

Click to expand...

Birmingham decided yesterday to remove a 110 year old Confederate Memorial. Keep your eyes closed as long as you want, but don't tell us to keep ours shut too.

92tide said:

no one is trying to erase history.

Click to expand...

It's happening, slowly but it is.

RedStar said:

Birmingham decided yesterday to remove a 110 year old Confederate Memorial. Keep your eyes closed as long as you want, but don't tell us to keep ours shut too.

Click to expand...

when did i tell anyone to keep their eyes shut? you can think whatever you want about this.

history is not dependent on memorials. if it means that much to you, hang a confederate flag in your yard and/or place a monument. or better yet, team up with like minded folks and buy some property on which to place these things.

Bamafaninco1 said:

It's happening, slowly but it is.

Click to expand...

i think the opposite, more people are acknowledging the horrible history that is tied up with the symbolism of the confederate flag and jim crow, segregation, kkk, etc.

you may not like that the symbolism of the confederacy has been "hi-jacked" by those movements over the past 100+ years, but it was.

"you may not like that the symbolism of the confederacy has been "hi-jacked" by those movements over the past 100+ years, but it was."

Only in the small minds of people who want to define what is in the hearts of others so they can control the narrative to manipulate others to their benefit.

Gr8hope said:

"you may not like that the symbolism of the confederacy has been "hi-jacked" by those movements over the past 100+ years, but it was."

Only in the small minds of people who want to define what is in the hearts of others so they can control the narrative to manipulate others to their benefit.

Click to expand...

keep telling yourself that

92tide said:

when did i tell anyone to keep their eyes shut? you can think whatever you want about this.

history is not dependent on memorials. if it means that much to you, hang a confederate flag in your yard and/or place a monument. or better yet, team up with like minded folks and buy some property on which to place these things.

Click to expand...

You realize there's more than 2 sides to this right? I don't own a confederate flag, I don't own any confederate regalia, but I also don't care that others do. And I also don't understand the rush to remove memorials and touchstones to those who died in battle less than 2 centuries ago.

The confederate flag has no place on a state capitol, or on a state flag. That's a reasonable statement. What is unreasonable is removing the flag from historical places. If you can't understand or accept that, then I guess you can go your way and I'll go mine.

92tide said:

no one is trying to erase history.

Click to expand...

This a-hole is giving it the old college try.

When people put up a monument to the Confederate veterans (like Charles City County Virginia) which applauds the "Defenders of Constitutional Liberty and the Right Of Self-Government" that is just code speak for "oppressors of women and minorities." They probably lauughed all the way to the KKK meeting after foisting that deception on the unsuspecting people of Charles City County ("Boy, we sure fooled'em again. We put up a monument to the "Defenders of Constitutional Liberty and the Right Of Self-Government" when everybody knows that this really mean "Racism and Slavery.")

Or, alternatively, perhaps when they erect a monument with that subscription, what they really mean is to honor the the "Defenders of Constitutional Liberty and the Right Of Self-Government." Maybe they meant exactly what they said. I dunno, it's a possibility.

TIDE-HSV said:

So amazing these men who gave and lost so much could bury the hatchet and move one, only to to have their symbols dug up and perverted so many decades later...


LINK

Click to expand...

Thanks for this, very informative,

RedStar said:

You realize there's more than 2 sides to this right? I don't own a confederate flag, I don't own any confederate regalia, but I also don't care that others do. And I also don't understand the rush to remove memorials and touchstones to those who died in battle less than 2 centuries ago.

The confederate flag has no place on a state capitol, or on a state flag. That's a reasonable statement. What is unreasonable is removing the flag from historical places. If you can't understand or accept that, then I guess you can go your way and I'll go mine.

Click to expand...

i dont care that others do either. the only part i personally care about is that it is not on a state flag or flown at government buildings.

my point is that even if the flag is removed from historical places, the history is not erased. if at town wants to take down a confederate memorial, that is up to them imo. it doesn't erase the fact that the civil war happened.

Tidewater said:

This a-hole is giving it the old college try.

When people put up a monument to the Confederate veterans (like Charles City County Virginia) which applauds the "Defenders of Constitutional Liberty and the Right Of Self-Government" that is just code speak for "oppressors of women and minorities." They probably lauughed all the way to the KKK meeting after foisting that deception on the unsuspecting people of Charles City County ("Boy, we sure fooled'em again. We put up a monument to the "Defenders of Constitutional Liberty and the Right Of Self-Government" when everybody knows that this really mean "Racism and Slavery.")

Or, alternatively, perhaps when they erect a monument with that subscription, what they really mean is to honor the the "Defenders of Constitutional Liberty and the Right Of Self-Government." Maybe they meant exactly what they said. I dunno, it's a possibility.

Click to expand...

he is not trying to erase history. he states fairly plainly that he is explaining why neo-confederate revisionism is mis-guided.

History is the polemics of the victor, William F. Buckley allegedly said. Not so in the United States, at least not regarding the Civil War. As soon as Confederates laid down their arms, some picked up their pens and began to distort what they had done, and why. Their resulting mythology went national a generation later and persists — which is why a presidential candidate can suggest that slavery was somehow pro-family, and the public believes that the war was mainly fought over states’ rights.

Click to expand...

i also found this part from the article interesting.

Kentucky’s legislature voted not to secede, and early in the war, Confederate Gen. Albert Sidney Johnston ventured through the western part of the state and found “no enthusiasm as we imagined and hoped but hostility … in Kentucky.” Eventually, 90,000 Kentuckians would fight for the United States, while 35,000 fought for the Confederate States. Nevertheless, according to historian Thomas Clark, the state now has 72 Confederate monuments and only two Union ones.

Click to expand...

Or this: Clarke County, Virginia: "Erected to the memory of the sons of Clarke who gave their lives in defense of the rights of the states and of constitutional government."

Or this, Halifax County, Virginia: "This monument is erected by an appreciative people in loving remembrance of the Confederate soldiers of Halifax county, who fought for constitutional
liberty in the war of 1861 – 1865."

Or this, Westmoreland County, Virginia: "To confederate soldiers of Westmoreland who fell in defense of Virginia and the cause of constitutional liberty. This monument is erected in gratitude and love by the women of Westmoreland erected by the Ladies Memorial Association of Westmoreland Co. Va."

92tide said:

he is not trying to erase history. he states fairly plainly that he is explaining why neo-confederate revisionism is mis-guided.

i also found this part from the article interesting.

Click to expand...

Kentucky has been described at the post-mortem member of the Confederacy.
The Union occupied most of it from the spring of 1862 onwards (with a brief period of Confederate occupation in the fall of 1862). About 100,000 Kentuckians fought for the Union (including 24,000 African-Americans) and between 25,000-40,000 fought for the Confederacy, despite the state not being occupied (in other words, those wishing to fight for the South had to go to Confederate territory to sign up; the US Army drafted Kentuckians where they found them).
The conduct of the Federal government and US army was so arbitrary and abusive that, by the fall of 1864, the Unionist governor had serious concerns about a general uprising of the people, not so much pro-Confederate, as anti-Union.
Kentucky, which had been strongly Whig (anti-Democrat) before the war, became a single-party (Democratic) state for the next century.

92tide said:

he is not trying to erase history. he states fairly plainly that he is explaining why neo-confederate revisionism is mis-guided.

Click to expand...

No, he is arguing that his view of what the Confederacy meant is the only valid one and everyone must agree with him as to the meaning of that legacy and therefore, anyone who is not offended by the sight of the Confederate flag or the presence of a Confederate monument must be a racist. That is inherently dishonest.
I disagree with his policy prescriptions precisely because I disagree with him as to the meaning of the Confederate legacy.

You will not hear me say slavery had nothing to do with the Confederacy, nor that the flag had nothing to do with segregationists in the 1950s and 1960s. Some folks were vitally interested in the institution of slavery and some redneck yahoos were waving flags in opposition to racial integration.
I just argue that any event involving millions of people and decades of time is probably too complex to distill down to a bumper-sticker level of simplicity, despite the fact that folks like Loewen would like to do so.

Tidewater said:

No, he is arguing that his view of what the Confederacy meant is the only valid one and everyone must agree with him as to the meaning of that legacy and therefore, anyone who is not offended by the sight of the Confederate flag or the presence of a Confederate monument must be a racist. That is inherently dishonest.
I disagree with his policy prescriptions precisely because I disagree with him as to the meaning of the Confederate legacy.

You will not hear me say slavery had nothing to do with the Confederacy, nor that the flag had nothing to do with segregationists in the 1950s and 1960s. Some folks were vitally interested in the institution of slavery and some redneck yahoos were waving flags in opposition to racial integration.
I just argue that any event involving millions of people and decades of time is probably too complex to distill down to a bumper-sticker level of simplicity, despite the fact that folks like Loewen would like to do so.

Click to expand...

it was a lot more than some.

i think his article was a bit over the top. but his point (at least as i read it) is that all of these things cant just be waved away as secondary to what people are saying is their heritage. it is a very large part of the heritage of the flag and other confederate symbolism.

92tide said:

it was a lot more than some.

i think his article was a bit over the top. but his point (at least as i read it) is that all of these things cant just be waved away as secondary to what people are saying is their heritage. it is a very large part of the heritage of the flag and other confederate symbolism.

Click to expand...

It is your view that most Southerners today are flag-waving racists and that most Southerners have ancestries full of flag-waving, hose-wielding, bomb-throwing racists?

Personally, I don't recall any ancestors in my family tree ever owning a Confederate flag or being racists. My family has historically been too poor to afford either.

Tide1986 said:

It is your view that most Southerners today are flag-waving racists and that most Southerners have ancestries full of flag-waving, hose-wielding, bomb-throwing racists?

Personally, I don't recall any ancestors in my family tree ever owning a Confederate flag or being racists. My family has historically been too poor to afford either.

Click to expand...

you have to do some pretty impressive mental gymnastics to get that from my posting.