When were confederate monuments erected and why?

[LeafByNiggle]

This graph shows the timeline of the erection of confederate monuments from the time of the Civil War to the present. It is interesting to note that relatively few monuments were erected in the 30 years following the Civil War, which one might expect if their purpose was to “preserve history.” The biggest push for confederate statues happens to coincide nicely with the peak of the Jim Crow era. Another peak occurred right during the Civil Rights movement.

Coincidence? I think not.

A more reasonable explanation for the timing of these monuments is that they were erected at times of racial tension by those in power who wanted to maintain that power by glorifying the men who fought for that cause.

 

[poche]

They represent a people not an ideology.

 

[randomuser]

We’re not erasing history by removing monuments to the LOSERS. There are still museums and books. Remember books?

Do we expect Jewish Americans to honor the sacrifices of the Gestapo? Of course not. That would be silly. Yet, if we don’t feel compelled to honor the un-American, un-patriotic LOSERS - deemed “politically correct” by many of the same people who attacked our brave and heroic Vietnam veterans, all of them, including John McCain, those Vietnam veterans are all heroes deserving of our respect and appreciation.

The CSA losers LOST. Get over it.

 

[Xystus]

This graph shows the timeline of the erection of confederate monuments from the time of the Civil War to the present. It is interesting to note that relatively few monuments were erected in the 30 years following the Civil War, which one might expect if their purpose was to “preserve history.” The biggest push for confederate statues happens to coincide nicely with the peak of the Jim Crow era. Another peak occurred right during the Civil Rights movement.

Coincidence? I think not.

A more reasonable explanation for the timing of these monuments is that they were erected at times of racial tension by those in power who wanted to maintain that power by glorifying the men who fought for that cause.

another possibility may be that 30 years after the end of the civil war those who were there and participated in the war were starting to die off and they wanted to preserve memories and history. I don’t know for sure but it seems possible.

 

[josie_L]

This graph shows the timeline of the erection of confederate monuments from the time of the Civil War to the present. It is interesting to note that relatively few monuments were erected in the 30 years following the Civil War, which one might expect if their purpose was to “preserve history.” The biggest push for confederate statues happens to coincide nicely with the peak of the Jim Crow era. Another peak occurred right during the Civil Rights movement.

Coincidence? I think not.

A more reasonable explanation for the timing of these monuments is that they were erected at times of racial tension by those in power who wanted to maintain that power by glorifying the men who fought for that cause.

Who was the party that put up those monuments?

 

[Nicea325]

This graph shows the timeline of the erection of confederate monuments from the time of the Civil War to the present. It is interesting to note that relatively few monuments were erected in the 30 years following the Civil War, which one might expect if their purpose was to “preserve history.” The biggest push for confederate statues happens to coincide nicely with the peak of the Jim Crow era. Another peak occurred right during the Civil Rights movement.

Coincidence? I think not.

A more reasonable explanation for the timing of these monuments is that they were erected at times of racial tension by those in power who wanted to maintain that power by glorifying the men who fought for that cause.

Well from my understanding there exist quite a large number of monuments dedicated to Confederate leaders and very few to the slaves. Indeed it is a part of our history, but an ugly side of U.S History. Case in point: Germany. Ever been to Germany? There isn’t one monument dedicated to Hitler or any of his Nazi regime leaders. And guess who was responsible for such a move? The U.S. after WWII. I guess as a nation we need to practice what we preach-eh?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

Who was the party that put up those monuments?

Hmm, if they put them up, then they should bring them down.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Who was the party that put up those monuments?

More importantly for today, who are the people who put up those monuments? They are the people who were Southern Democrats when Republicans were for equal rights, and became Republicans in the 1960s when the Democrats were for equal rights. There is no ideological continuity between the nominal political parties in the South before 1950 and the political parties after 1970. So your observation has no relevance to political parties of today.

 

[josie_L]

Hmm, if they put them up, then they should bring them down.

Well, I was thinking more along the lines that if they want to remove all traces of slavery, then they might want to start with themselves, i.e., the Democratic party.

 

[randomuser]

Who was the party that put up those monuments?

No-name groups like “Daughters of The Confederacy” and the DAR (the ones who wouldn’t let Marian Anderson sing in their concert hall.)

Losers who waited hundreds of years before deciding to honor their equally no-name loser generals.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Who was going to erect monuments during Reconstruction, and who had the money to do it, given the economic devastation in the South? I couldn’t open your link, but I have seen others indicating the overwhelming number were erected between about 1900 and 1914.

At that point in time, there were no few ex-Confederates still alive, and a significant number of the young men in the country were the sons or grandsons of Confederate veterans who undoubtedly told them about the hardships of the war, its aftermath, and the things they had seen.

During that same period, there was a lot of uncertainty as to whether southern young men would defend the Union, particularly in light of the fact that the closer war came in Europe, the more likely it appeared the country would have to call on those very men. It would be my guess that the monument building was a conciliatory gesture.

As I mentioned in another post, there was a similar effort among Irish-Americans who were resistant to the idea of “fighting for England” in WWI.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No-name groups like “Daughters of The Confederacy” and the DAR (the ones who wouldn’t let Marian Anderson sing in their concert hall.)

Losers who waited hundreds of years before deciding to honor their equally no-name loser generals.

Hundreds of years? More like anywhere from “a few years” to “fifty years” for most of them.

And the “Daughters of the Confederacy” are not the same people as the “DAR” (Daughters of the American Revolution".

The insistence on calling Confederate dead “losers” won’t hurt the dead. The insulting epithet is aimed at their descendants, of whom there are millions.

 

[St_Francis]

This graph shows the timeline of the erection of confederate monuments from the time of the Civil War to the present. It is interesting to note that relatively few monuments were erected in the 30 years following the Civil War, which one might expect if their purpose was to “preserve history.” The biggest push for confederate statues happens to coincide nicely with the peak of the Jim Crow era. Another peak occurred right during the Civil Rights movement.

Coincidence? I think not.

A more reasonable explanation for the timing of these monuments is that they were erected at times of racial tension by those in power who wanted to maintain that power by glorifying the men who fought for that cause.

I think there was a lot more to the Confederacy than racial superiority.

It would be interesting to see a timeline of when memorials to the great men of other wars were put up, or even of the Union heroes. An increase in interest in the 3rd generation down, and another at the centeniary point?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Blacks who were never slaves are fighting whites who were never Nazis over a Confederate statue erected by southern Democrats because now Democrats can’t stand their own history anymore … and they all arrived in the same charter bus at the same time donning printed shirts on arrival … paid for by a “former” Hungarian …yet somehow it’s Trumps fault!

 

[St_Francis]

Hmmm, quote a number of these staues memorializing American Revolutionary leaders were raised in the first decade of the 20th cemtury as well. What does that mean, that we were going through a hate-England phase?

 

[exnihilo]

Who was going to erect monuments during Reconstruction, and who had the money to do it, given the economic devastation in the South? I couldn’t open your link, but I have seen others indicating the overwhelming number were erected between about 1900 and 1914.

An invading army literally burned the South. Then a cruel military occupation was enforced. The South also lost all the wealth it owned in slaves. Even long after you had serious repercussions like the Pellagra epidemic. The South was just starting to recover when the monuments went up.

A more reasonable explanation for the timing of these monuments is that they were erected at times of racial tension by those in power who wanted to maintain that power by glorifying the men who fought for that cause.

That does seem more reasonable when you juxtapose hand picked events with the erection of monuments. But you could also juxtapose other factors, like economic wealth or the 50th anniversary or the 100th and it would fit just as nicely.

Why did they need to put up a statue to honor war dead if Whites had all the power and exercised it brutally? What exactly did a monument accomplish? Nothing. It accomplished nothing in terms of oppressing anyone. Those in power didn’t need to do anything to maintain their power.

 

[exnihilo]

Hmmm, quote a number of these staues memorializing American Revolutionary leaders were raised in the first decade of the 20th cemtury as well. What does that mean, that we were going through a hate-England phase?

Obviously. The Washington monument was being built during the war. This was sixty years after he died. What does that mean? Something terrible obviously.

 

[randomuser]

The insistence on calling Confederate dead “losers” won’t hurt the dead. The insulting epithet is aimed at their descendants, of whom there are millions.

I insist on proper English grammar: a war has winners and losers. Their descendants, obviously, aren’t the ones who lost and therefore did not magically inherit being losers.

The un-patriotic traitors who lost are the losers. I don’t know how much clearer I can state that.

 

[St_Francis]

I insist on proper English grammar: a war has winners and losers. Their descendants, obviously, aren’t the ones who lost and therefore did not magically inherit being losers.

The un-patriotic traitors who lost are the losers. I don’t know how much clearer I can state that.

In the mid-1800s, people considered themselves loyal to their states more than to the gathered states. This we have Robert E Lee, who agreed with maintaining the union, but who felt it would be unpatriotic to not fight for Virginia.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I insist on proper English grammar: a war has winners and losers. Their descendants, obviously, aren’t the ones who lost and therefore did not magically inherit being losers.

The un-patriotic traitors who lost are the losers. I don’t know how much clearer I can state that.

You are still calling the ancestors of millions of Americans “losers”. If someone said that about yours, you wouldn’t take it well. It would not only not change your mind about your ancestors, it would strike you as personally insulting and make you very doubtful of the good faith of the person who said it.

The purpose of such epithets now is to demean and anger people now living. The dead don’t care what you call them.

As I have said before, it’s like Achilleus dragging the body of Hektor around the walls of Troy. Hektor was dead. It didn’t hurt him. The purpose was to cause anguish to the watching Trojans by dishonoring their dead, and to express Achilleus’ overweening pride. Even in the Greek mind, such vanity was so over the top that it offended the gods and ensured Achilleus’ downfall.