When were confederate monuments erected and why?

[jc4751]

Tearing down the statues reminds me of the Soviet practice of airbrushing people out of photos if they fell out of favor with Stalin.

In many cases, the statues are memorials, and not glorifications. In other cases, their meanings have changed over the years. In most cases, people have lived with these monuments in visible sight without paying much attention to them, just as the Islamic world paid basically no attention to the Crusaders until the post-colonial awakening. I believe that the threat of lynching or other visible miscarriages of justice in the South were far more prominent in the minds of blacks than what some pigeons were pooping on.

As for the Civil War, the problem is that we cannot selectively honor one side, while ignoring their moral failings. War crimes were committed by the Union, just as every army in every war commits war crimes in one form or another, even if the victors choose to ignore that truth. Trying to brush this aside with the idea that this is excused because there was a “greater good” is not consistent with Catholic moral theology, just as the hypothetical saving of American lives due to dropping the atomic bombs - or trying to end the war by intentionally killing civilians in fire bombing raids - does not cancel out the moral weight of those actions. Further, ignorance of history leads to glorification of Native Americans or African conquerors, where no one speaks for their victims. The Zulus, for example, did not establish their kingdom by kinds words and bake sales.

And, if we are, as a society, going to engage in what is effectively a “moral panic,” are we also willing to erase the history as a whole? Should the Confederacy be completely removed from history books, or cast as cardboard character villains without any uncomfortable questions about the North’s moral ambiguity at times? Are we effectively saying that the neo-Nazis own this narrative and the historical record, which lets them co-opt a block of history that does not belong to them, any more than it does for the political left?

Last, exactly where does this end? Who is pure enough to keep casting these stones? Are some immoral acts and war crimes okay, but not too many? Are we going to simplify history so that no one gets “confused” when they read it, by recognizing that millions of men on both sides felt that they had justifications for fighting?

 

[dvdjs]

Tearing down the statues reminds me of the Soviet practice of airbrushing people out of photos if they fell out of favor with Stalin.

Hardly. No one is looking to expunge history. Just to minimize the risk adn damage of sending the message that the secessionist whose cause was centered in the institution of slavery are being honored.

I believe that the threat of lynching or other visible miscarriages of justice in the South were far more prominent in the minds of blacks than what some pigeons were pooping on.

They were. Now, not as much.

As for the Civil War, the problem is that we cannot selectively honor one side, while ignoring their moral failings. War crimes were committed by the Union, just as every army in every war commits war crimes in one form or another, even if the victors choose to ignore that truth.

Working overtimes to miss the point? The issues with Lee was not about the excesses of war or a lack of impeccability, it is that he chose to support a horrific cause - secession in the support of the institution of slavery.

And, if we are, as a society, going to engage in what is effectively a “moral panic,” are we also willing to erase the history as a whole?

Again, the issue is not to erase history. It is to avoid the risk of sending the message that we honor his leadership of the army of the secessionist whose cause was the institution of slavery.

Should the Confederacy be completely removed from history books, or cast as cardboard character villains without any uncomfortable questions about the North’s moral ambiguity at times? Are we effectively saying that the neo-Nazis own this narrative and the historical record, which lets them co-opt a block of history that does not belong to them, any more than it does for the political left?

No.

Last, exactly where does this end? Who is pure enough to keep casting these stones? Are some immoral acts and war crimes okay, but not too many? Are we going to simplify history so that no one gets “confused” when they read it, by recognizing that millions of men on both sides felt that they had justifications for fighting?

Again, this is not about the immoral acts of individuals but the appalling nature of the South’s cause in this war.

 

[poche]

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?

I would support a memorial to the slaves if someone would like to put one up. During the Georgia Gang it was pointed out that it would take a change in state law to put up a statue of Martin Luther King jr on the grounds. I would support such a change and I think we should not just stop with Dr. King. I think we should also include Dr. Benjamin Mays, Hosea Williams, and Ralph David Abernathy to name a few. I think this would be a good opportunity to promote reconciliation between the black community and the descendents of the old Confederacy.

 

[poche]

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.

The Daughters of the Confederacy had nothing to do with not letting Marian Anderson sing. That concert hall belonged to the Daughters of the American Revolution.

 

[poche]

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.

We may have lost the war, but we can win the peace.

 

[GKC]

I would support a memorial to the slaves if someone would like to put one up. During the Georgia Gang it was pointed out that it would take a change in state law to put up a statue of Martin Luther King jr on the grounds. I would support such a change and I think we should not just stop with Dr. King. I think we should also include Dr. Benjamin Mays, Hosea Williams, and Ralph David Abernathy to name a few. I think this would be a good opportunity to promote reconciliation between the black community and the descendents of the old Confederacy.

There is such a memorial to African Americans and their experiences on the state capital grounds in South Carolina. It dates from 2001, for a specific reason. And sits near a couple of Confederate memorials. None of the memorials has tossed a rock or a can of paint at the other.

 

[sallybutler]

Perhaps we should put up a statue of Emperor Hirohito near Pearl Harbor, King George on the Potomac. While we are at it, we could also put up statues of Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Booth, and Lee Harvey Oswald in lots of public parks. After all, they are just part of our U.S. history.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

I would support a memorial to the slaves if someone would like to put one up. During the Georgia Gang it was pointed out that it would take a change in state law to put up a statue of Martin Luther King jr on the grounds. I would support such a change and I think we should not just stop with Dr. King. I think we should also include Dr. Benjamin Mays, Hosea Williams, and Ralph David Abernathy to name a few. I think this would be a good opportunity to promote reconciliation between the black community and the descendents of the old Confederacy.

Yes, I completely agree with this.

Perhaps we should put up a statue of Emperor Hirohito near Pearl Harbor, King George on the Potomac. While we are at it, we could also put up statues of Benedict Arnold, John Wilkes Booth, and Lee Harvey Oswald in lots of public parks. After all, they are just part of our U.S. history.

You are being intentionally obtuse.

But since you brought it up, I believe that the Pearl Harbor commemorations are frequently joint US-Japanese affairs.

The Japanese, however, are an example of a people who will not admit they were in the wrong. They teach themselves that they were fighting to dismantle European colonialism in Asia and refuse to acknowledge their numerous war crimes against the Chinese and other local populations, let alone Allied soldiers.

 

[jc4751]

Working overtimes to miss the point? The issues with Lee was not about the excesses of war or a lack of impeccability, it is that he chose to support a horrific cause - secession in the support of the institution of slavery.

Again, this is not about the immoral acts of individuals but the appalling nature of the South’s cause in this war.

I don’t particularly appreciate the ad hominem attack, when I’m trying to make a rhetorical point here. The motivations of the Southern soldiers were mixed, but I’m pointing out that the South was hardly alone in being morally repugnant at times, yet the so-called critical self-examination we seem to be engaged in is focused on only one aspect of our history and being done out of what seems like a political expediency, as opposed to a genuine discourse on what exactly confronting that history means for our nation.

 

[GKC]

Yes, I completely agree with this.



You are being intentionally obtuse.

But since you brought it up, I believe that the Pearl Harbor commemorations are frequently joint US-Japanese affairs.

The Japanese, however, are an example of a people who will not admit they were in the wrong. They teach themselves that they were fighting to dismantle European colonialism in Asia and refuse to acknowledge their numerous war crimes against the Chinese and other local populations, let alone Allied soldiers.

True, on both points.

 

[commenter]

Again, the issue is not to erase history. It is to avoid the risk of sending the message that we honor his leadership of the army of the secessionist whose cause was the institution of slavery.

Again, this is not about the immoral acts of individuals but the appalling nature of the South’s cause in this war.

They are vandalizing not only monuments of those in a position to make decisions, such as General Lee. They are vandalizing monuments to ordinary foot soldiers who were drafted, who had no choices about slavery or about waging the Civil War. They were defending their home town.

Whenever people say “it is not about you personally” or “it’s not about individuals” (living or dead), its about the “cause”, this means you are putting **your **cause above human individuals. I have forced myself to watch some news video of vandals. There is no sense of sadness visible, there is a party atmosphere, like with juvenile delinquents. There is stomping on faces of statues tipped over, with glee. It is not so much the removal of statues they desired, as the opportunity to step on the faces of them.

All evil that is done, is done toward individuals not causes. The greatest excuse for evil is pursuing one’s own cause.

 

[randomuser]

They are vandalizing not only monuments of those in a position to make decisions, such as General Lee. They are vandalizing monuments to ordinary foot soldiers…

Then why aren’t those “foot soldiers” acknowledged by name on any of those monuments? The Wall in Washington, D.C., names our heroic Vietnam veterans by name. Is there a comparable 2nd Place Consolation Prize for the losers of the Civil War?

 

[DeniseNY]

Then why aren’t those “foot soldiers” acknowledged by name on any of those monuments? The Wall in Washington, D.C., names our heroic Vietnam veterans by name. Is there a comparable 2nd Place Consolation Prize for the losers of the Civil War?

About 60,000 died in Vietnam. 600,000 confederate soldiers died during the Civil War. Where do you propose this wall be built? The Mexican border?

I would think you’d have a little more respect for the confederate “foot soldiers” as the men out on the front lines even if you dont respect the souths cause. It’s stunning that you continue to refer to them as losers.

 

[Seamus_L]

Lately it sounds like Winners = Good Guys, Losers = Bad Guys.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t particularly appreciate the ad hominem attack, when I’m trying to make a rhetorical point here. The motivations of the Southern soldiers were mixed, but I’m pointing out that the South was hardly alone in being morally repugnant at times, yet the so-called critical self-examination we seem to be engaged in is focused on only one aspect of our history and being done out of what seems like a political expediency, as opposed to a genuine discourse on what exactly confronting that history means for our nation.

Fine. All fall short of the glory of God. That is of zero help in discussing the propriety of a monument to a particular person.

Genuine discourse? Wouldn’t that be refreshing!

 

[johnnykins]

1. Let’s be quite clear: the Confederates were traitors. The Constitution itself defines treason in Article III Section 3:

1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

There is no doubt at all that the Confederates met the Constitutional definition. As a matter of prosecutorial and political discretion they were not tried, and so did not incur the legal penalties associated with treason. But, they were undoubtedly traitors.

I know of no country that honors traitors with monuments.

1. It is also undoubtedly clear that conservatives - then Democrats in the South - sought to, and DID, deprive African Americans of their civil and constitutional rights.
2. It’s also clear that these monuments to the Confederates were erected, at least in part, to be a constant reminder to African Americans of the past and current deprivation of rights - they honor the power of white southerners and “put it in the face” of black people.
3. The Republican 'Southern Strategy" of Nixon, GHW Bush, Reagan the Goldwater has undoubtedly transformed the current GOP into the party that now houses the racially intolerant modern day descendants of those who, ante-bellum and until the 60’s at least, once were Conservative racist Democrats. That is, the GOP today is the modern party of racists. Just read the posts on this forum.
4. No one wants to erase history; one can’t really do that.
5. Honoring traitors and pro-slavery leaders who waged war against the United States to preserve slavery is despicable and immoral.

 

[jtauke]

The Daughters of the Confederacy had nothing to do with not letting Marian Anderson sing. That concert hall belonged to the Daughters of the American Revolution.

They did however, have a hand in putting up a statue of a KKK leader in Selma, AL.

 

[dvdjs]

They are vandalizing not only monuments of those in a position to make decisions, such as General Lee. They are vandalizing monuments to ordinary foot soldiers who were drafted, who had no choices about slavery or about waging the Civil War. They were defending their home town.

That is a shame and should be prosecuted, as should any act of vandalism.

But why is this a “they”? Do you lump Mith Landrieu, who has written about taking down monuments of Confederacy leaders, in with this they? Has he vandalized anything. Is it required that in order to oppose vandalism we must put Lee on a pedestal? There is room to have a discussion that is not limited to “all or none”.

All evil that is done, is done toward individuals not causes. The greatest excuse for evil is pursuing one’s own cause.

Like, for example, leading an army of people whose states seceded to defend the institution of slavery.

 

[Brendan]

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, .

Actually, that was to be expected.

Lincoln had advocated for a strong reconciliation with the South. That ended with his assassination. The Congressional Hawks pushed through a Reconstruction that was effectively a military occupation with a strong repression of anything deemed to be Confederate. Combine that with an economically devastated South, that needed to spend money on rebuilding infrastructure rather than monuments.

It was not until the Reconstruction period ended that the South was both economically capable of spending capital on monuments, and was politically capable of erecting monuments.

It was also a time of reconciliation, where Confederate veterans and Union veterans began to hold joint reunions at major battlefields, where they would come across the filed and shake hands. That would have been very unlikely during the years shortly following the war, when tensions were still high.

 

[dvdjs]

I am glad that that is working out in Ireland, both North and South.