What are your thoughts on the Confederate memorials being taken down in NOLA?
- Thread starter Displaced Bama Fan
- Start date
My take may be somewhat controversial (welcome to the internet) but I'm ok with their removal. I don't buy the argument that it erases our history. I've never seen a WWI monument, a monument to Harriet Tubman, a monument to the Wright Bros. or a monument to Jonas Salk but I know plenty about all of those events and I know that future generations will learn about them as well. Removing a monument couldn't possibly erase an event as mammoth as the Civil War or the key figures who contributed to it.
IMHO, monuments and statues are symbols built for celebration or to highlight a character's or event's greatness. In today's America it's difficult to openly celebrate, praise or admire men who fought for the Confederacy - because if they achieved their aim it could very well have meant terrible things for people of color. So since that is how I view statues and monuments (or that's at least the psychological effect they have on me) then I understand removing them. To apply some empathy, if I was a person of color I think they would make me uncomfortable, like "Why do the guys who wanted to keep me a slave get a statue?" And sure we can argue about what the war was really about but if the South had won it's not insane to think that slavery would have continued on for some time - so I don't think it's insane for people of color to feel that way about the statues and monuments. (Clarification: I don't want those last 2 lines to be construed as people of color being the only ones who want the statues removed, but they are, in my view, the ones who would have the most conflicted feelings about this.)
An anecdotal example. I was shooting a music video a few years ago in Richmond with an African-American director. And we were down shooting by the GIANT statue of Robert E. Lee on horseback. If you've never seen it the thing is gigantic. The director told me that he had mixed feelings about the statue. On one hand he admired Robert E. Lee for the man that he was and the convictions that he held - he was of high character and principle. Yet he couldn't detach the man from the cause he represented. And to have so large a statue in the state's capital seemed not only a celebration of the man but the man's cause. I think that's where people will argue that its just about REL and the fact that he was a great man and it's his home state and how much he means to Virginia and all that. But to be honest I don't really need a humongous statue of the leader of a failed revolt to remember him, especially if it is upsetting to a specific group people who may have suffered if he had succeeded in his task.
Last edited:
I'm all for them being displayed in a manner where people can put them in proper historical context. Maybe have them re-erected in a museum as part of a Civil War exhibit. Given the historical relevance the monuments have, it does seem silly just to do away with them. However, leaving them in place on a public street as monuments gives them a status of reverence rather than one of historical artifact.
I pretty much agree with you. I also think it would be great to have a law banning public funding of statues and monuments. That way we won't waste money on something the next generation will have to destroy.
I understand the desire to memorialize the people and moments of our history, but I agree with Dub on this one.
That said:
1- they are considered offensive to a segment of our society, and
2- regardless of the above, they are the equivalent of participation trophies.
I know both points might ruffle some feathers, and I understand that some of the people referenced in #1 above have never studied the history of the Civil War. I also don't mean to minimize the character or bravery of those who are memorized by point #2.
Again, I think they need to be in a museum where people can go to learn more about the entire period and causes.
That said:
1- they are considered offensive to a segment of our society, and
2- regardless of the above, they are the equivalent of participation trophies.
I know both points might ruffle some feathers, and I understand that some of the people referenced in #1 above have never studied the history of the Civil War. I also don't mean to minimize the character or bravery of those who are memorized by point #2.
Again, I think they need to be in a museum where people can go to learn more about the entire period and causes.
It is probably more accurate to call the Liberty Place Monument a US monument (erected in 1891, a quarter century after the Confederacy died and commemorating an event which happened in the United States) or a Democratic monument.
The various inscription was added later:
The various inscription was added later:
In 1974, the city government added an adjacent marker, which stated:
When the monument was moved in 1993, some of the original inscriptions were removed, and replaced with new inscriptions that state in part:
It is interesting how public commemoration of an event evolves over time.
Apparently inclusion and tolerance mean exclusion and intolerance, but then again, we've always been at war with Oceania...Mayor Mitch said:
Last edited:
When do we take this offensive statue down?
I'm guessing the number of women he's either raped or sexually assaulted at somewhere near 50.
If a statue, monument, or plaque helps anyone to understand the man that Lee actually was, as opposed to the notion that he represents the institution of slavery, then I am for more statues, monuments, and plaques. If all people see is SLAVERY when they see a statue of a man of Lee's quality, then the problem is with them, in my not humble opinion, and they don't deserve to have their ignorance enshrined in public policy.
Probably best to move on and not have monuments to honor those who fought to maintain a part of our history that should have never happened. If you want to show Lee as something other than a confederate general that would be different but other than that he would have been just another forgotten general. Maybe moving it to a battlefield where there could be some context could be an option, maybe.
Like others above, the best context for these things is in a museum or a setting explaining all significant people, events, trends, etc. than in a place where others will interpret the image/monument as a celebration of that person or what they fought for. It's hard for me because the Civil War wasn't initially about slavery by itself; it was about who/what is allowed to determine if slavery can exist, and why. I totally agree that it is a period of time in American history that is shameful and disgusting, but it did happen, and I feel it needs to be discussed in a historical context.
I feel they can learn about that in the classroom. I mean - other than leading the South in the Civil War what did Lee ever do to deserve a statue of this size?
We don't just erect statues to men with great qualities - we erect them for the deeds they have done. So when talking about a monument or memorial, especially of that size, it's impossible to separate the character of the man from his deeds. WHY was the statue erected? Because Lee was a really standup dude or because he led the Army of Virginia in rebellion against the United States? It is somewhat frustrating because Lee was solid - but he will also always be connected to history as one of the leaders of a failed rebellion against the United States on a side that, if it had won, would have retained slavery. I can understand people who don't want a statue to a man who led the charge to rebel against the U.S.
Slavery was the law in Virginia, Lee thought of himself more of a son of Virginia than than Wash DC. He was offered the Northern Command but refused. He wasn't fighting Wash DC, in his mind merely defending Virginia's position.I feel they can learn about that in the classroom. I mean - other than leading the South in the Civil War what did Lee ever do to deserve a statue of this size?
We don't just erect statues to men with great qualities - we erect them for the deeds they have done. So when talking about a monument or memorial, especially of that size, it's impossible to separate the character of the man from his deeds. WHY was the statue erected? Because Lee was a really standup dude or because he led the Army of Virginia in rebellion against the United States? It is somewhat frustrating because Lee was solid - but he will also always be connected to history as one of the leaders of a failed rebellion against the United States on a side that, if it had won, would have retained slavery. I can understand people who don't want a statue to a man who led the charge to rebel against the U.S.
I'm not arguing that point at all. Whatever his motive may have been people will still say that (by the end of the war at least) he was the commanding general of the Confederacy - and the Confederacy is not to be praised or celebrated in the public sector. It's unfortunate, but a reality.
Gosh, where to begin?
First, just for the record, we have U. S. Grant on the $50 bill to this day and Grant owned more slaves than R. E. Lee. Grant owned a slave when he lived in Missouri before the war. Here is Grant’s manumission paper. Anybody who suggests the U.S. Treasury put Grant on the $50 to "celebrate slavery" is being silly.
As far as I can tell, Lee never owned a slave himself at all. He was the executor of his father-in-law’s will, an estate which included Arlington (& White House on the Pamunkey & Romancoke) and 170 slaves. Lee was actually filling out manumission papers during the Fredericksburg campaign in 1862.
Lee, in 1870, said this on getting rid of slavery(REL by Freeman, vol. IV, p. 401):
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” And Lee lost everything in that war. He was homeless and penniless.
If Lee was only about defending slavery, as his less-than-well-informed detractors would have us believe, then once the Deep South seceded, he would have hot-footed it to South Carolina, and volunteered his services to Go. Pickens. Yet, for some reason, he did not (because he was not all about defending slavery).
In April 1861, after Virginia seceded and thoughtless people were celebrating, Lee said “I must say, that I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession.” John S. Mosby: Memoirs, 379.
In a letter to his son in January 1861, Lee wrote, “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. …Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.” So, Lee, before the war even started, was declaring that he did not support secession, but he also opposed the Federal government unconstitutionally using force to keep together peoples who had legally and constitutionally declared they preferred separation. This was a quintessentially Virginian position.
After the war, Lee said, “I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them.” (J. William Jones, Life and Letters of Robert E. Lee, 401)
Immediately after the war, when relations between freedmen and white southerners were still being determines, a black man went to to communion rail at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Richmond. White parishioners were aghast and not sure what to do. Lee quietly got up and went to the communion rail next to the black man. This quiet act of Christian charity, humility, and decorum set the example for the other parishioners.
Lee on the definition of a gentleman: “The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman. The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly — the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light. The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.”
I understand why people who would not recognize a noble generous instinct see Lee as a riddle and a cipher. I wish we had more men like him in this graceless age.
After the war, Lee to Lord Acton “…while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”
We need more R. E. Lees not less. Statists or consolidationists (then and since) hate R. E. Lee because he shows it is possible to oppose the overreach of the Federal government and protect local self-government and do so honorably.
If you choose not to honor Lee's memory, you are free to do so, but this reasoning that "anybody who honors Lee's memory is celebrating slavery" is dishonest and it should stop.
First, just for the record, we have U. S. Grant on the $50 bill to this day and Grant owned more slaves than R. E. Lee. Grant owned a slave when he lived in Missouri before the war. Here is Grant’s manumission paper. Anybody who suggests the U.S. Treasury put Grant on the $50 to "celebrate slavery" is being silly.
As far as I can tell, Lee never owned a slave himself at all. He was the executor of his father-in-law’s will, an estate which included Arlington (& White House on the Pamunkey & Romancoke) and 170 slaves. Lee was actually filling out manumission papers during the Fredericksburg campaign in 1862.
The victory of the United States did mean terrible things for people of color. Look at the next 100 years of American history. It is impossible to say what would have happened over the subsequent century if the United States had not invaded and overthrown the elected state governments of ten states and replaced the elected governments with military governors. Maybe, with peaceful secession, northern states would have said, “Alright. Now that the slave states are out of the Union, we are no longer obligated to return fugitive slaves,” and violence-minded radicals like John Brown would have said, “I am no longer morally responsible for slavery now that it exists in a foreign country, so I’m moving on to the next radical cause, prohibition (or whatever) …” With the ending of northern attacks (both violent and rhetorical) on the South for being a slaveholding republic, maybe white southerners would have been less defensive about it and would have started ameliorating the institution (e.g. legally recognizing slave marriages, outlawing the breaking up of slave families, and maybe starting gradual emancipation schemes like the northern states had adopted in the early 1800s: slaves born after a certain date are free on the 21st birthday, etc.) We’ll never know. Those elected governments were overthrown by military force and replaced by military governors, and then the Federal government started dictating who got to vote and who didn't.
Unless you are 152 years old, that could not happen. There is no reason to suppose slavery would have survived to the present day. It did not survive 25 years past the American Civil War in Cuba or Brazil and neither the Cubans nor the Brazilians needed to kill 620,000 people to get it done either.
Lee, in 1870, said this on getting rid of slavery(REL by Freeman, vol. IV, p. 401):
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.” And Lee lost everything in that war. He was homeless and penniless.
If Lee was only about defending slavery, as his less-than-well-informed detractors would have us believe, then once the Deep South seceded, he would have hot-footed it to South Carolina, and volunteered his services to Go. Pickens. Yet, for some reason, he did not (because he was not all about defending slavery).
In April 1861, after Virginia seceded and thoughtless people were celebrating, Lee said “I must say, that I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession.” John S. Mosby: Memoirs, 379.
In a letter to his son in January 1861, Lee wrote, “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. …Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.” So, Lee, before the war even started, was declaring that he did not support secession, but he also opposed the Federal government unconstitutionally using force to keep together peoples who had legally and constitutionally declared they preferred separation. This was a quintessentially Virginian position.
Let’s see, served the US Army well and faithfully and with distinction in the War against Mexico, saved St. Louis from the silting up of the Mississippi, built Fort Pulaski in Savannah, built Ft. Monroe in Virginia, commanded the 2nd Cavalry Regiment of the U. S. Army, after the war, he refused to be baited into rehashing old wounds and urged southerners to do likewise, and served as president of Washington College.
Have a lot to learn about the nature of the Union. Virginia wasn’t rebelling against the Union, the Federal government was rebelling against the Constitution. Which is all the more reason to have a monument to Lee and other Confederate soldiers, because they give us an opportunity to pause and think about the nature of the Union.
After the war, Lee said, “I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them.” (J. William Jones, Life and Letters of Robert E. Lee, 401)
Immediately after the war, when relations between freedmen and white southerners were still being determines, a black man went to to communion rail at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Richmond. White parishioners were aghast and not sure what to do. Lee quietly got up and went to the communion rail next to the black man. This quiet act of Christian charity, humility, and decorum set the example for the other parishioners.
Lee on the definition of a gentleman: “The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman. The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly — the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light. The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.”
I understand why people who would not recognize a noble generous instinct see Lee as a riddle and a cipher. I wish we had more men like him in this graceless age.
After the war, Lee to Lord Acton “…while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”
We need more R. E. Lees not less. Statists or consolidationists (then and since) hate R. E. Lee because he shows it is possible to oppose the overreach of the Federal government and protect local self-government and do so honorably.
If you choose not to honor Lee's memory, you are free to do so, but this reasoning that "anybody who honors Lee's memory is celebrating slavery" is dishonest and it should stop.
Last edited:
But he chose to defend the side that wanted to maintain slavery. Thats enough to not want to honor him.
So don't honor him.
But don't you dare tell me that by honoring him, I'm celebrating slavery.
And you know good and darn well that if he was only defending slavery, he would have resigned and gone south in December 1860.
He only resigned after his state seceded and you know good and darn well that Virginia only seceded after Lincoln called for troops to invade the seceded states and overthrow their elected governments.
I had a discussion with one of PGT Beauregard's distant relatives about this last week. You could make a good case for Beauregard's statue to stand, given his racial reconciliation work after the war, but even he might be offended at his image being used that way, and why they are there is important. With many of these statues, they aren't really about the Civil War as much as they are about the fetishistic fad of Confederate nostalgia that swept the south in the late 19th/early 20th century, when most of these statues were erected. That's when a lot of people who only had vague early childhood memories (or no memories at all since they weren't born yet) of the actual suffering and destruction. They developed a romantic view of the era typified by things like Birth of a Nation or Gone with the Wind. Which is funny to me, as the romantic notion of the antebellum south is pretty laughable.
Last edited:
Bottom line, he had a choice which side to support. He chose the wrong side and took up arms against the United States.
Latest threads
-
A huge win today at my doctor's office...- Started by uafan4life
- Replies: 2
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
