When were confederate monuments erected and why?

[randomuser]

One thing to remember is that htere was a lot of death and destruction all throughout the South during the Civil War. Years later when they were more established, maiy people wanted to have memorials for their brothers, sons, and husbands who had died during this war.

Then where are all the Confederate memorials for those “brothers, sons, and husbands”? You don’t honor your family members by building a statue to SOMEONE ELSE. Were all those foot soldiers related or something?

 

[commenter]

One thing to remember is that htere was** a lot of death and **destruction all throughout the South during the Civil War. Years later when they were more established, maiy people wanted to have memorials for their brothers, sons, and husbands who had died during this war. I think that it is unfair to the majority of teh people that the symbols of teh Confederacy appear to have been hijacked for the purposes of a few people whose extremist ideas don’t represent the majority of the people who they are trying to memorailize. .

True.
If we don’t remember the death and destruction of wars, we are more likely to repeat them.
Nowadays the trend it to ignore the individuals and focus on “causes”.
But **individuals **died in that war, individual widows and orphans had to go on, often in extreme poverty. The couldn’t afford to build a statue of most individuals, so a statue of one man would often be built in that town.

I would guess that 99% of the vandals have had more comfortable lives so far than 99% of the Confederate population.

What’s troubling is the flip flop of the Left. 50 or so years ago the Left was saying that, true, the Confederate politicians were supporting a bad system, but that in general the South - 99% of the Southerners - was more victim than perpetrator.

College history courses would emphasize the wealthier, imperialistic North exploiting the South, both before and after the War. The Left compared the military occupation of the South - (has there ever been a worse euphemism than “Reconstruction”?) - as causing the KKK, and hatred by poor whites in the South.

The scary thing about the Left is how they switch overnight, how they now trash the military weaker, economically poorer. The Left is not about persons, it is only about causes, and is media driven.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

Then where are all the Confederate memorials for those “brothers, sons, and husbands”? You don’t honor your family members by building a statue to SOMEONE ELSE. Were all those foot soldiers related or something?

Well sometimes you do. Remember this was 1865, and the South was destitute. They didn’t exactly have the funds to go out and find their dead, much less have elaborate cemeteries. So many times there weren’t any graves to visit, only public monuments to them. Many of these monuments, like the one pulled down and stomped by vandals in Duke, were the generic “stoic soldier looking into the distance” statue, then a plaque with an inscription something along the lines of, “to all the men from this town who gave their lives in defense of their home and the constitution”. The monuments of specific men are usually dedicated to their deeds both in the war and their actions towards reconciliation.

There is actually a confederate cemetery plot at Arlington with the graves arrayed in a circle around a memorial statue of a female embodiment of the South.

 

[stevegravy]

Bustin’ up rebel monuments how Taliban.

This is just good ol’ fashion ancient history destruction write in Yankeedom largess stemming from their inbred puritanical instincts to burn witches.

Future must have very dull and single version with Stalinesque type control. Enjoy.

 

[stevegravy]

True.
If we don’t remember the death and destruction of wars, we are more likely to repeat them.
Nowadays the trend it to ignore the individuals and focus on “causes”.
But **individuals **died in that war, individual widows and orphans had to go on, often in extreme poverty. The couldn’t afford to build a statue of most individuals, so a statue of one man would often be built in that town.

I would guess that 99% of the vandals have had more comfortable lives so far than 99% of the Confederate population.

What’s troubling is the flip flop of the Left. 50 or so years ago the Left was saying that, true, the Confederate politicians were supporting a bad system, but that in general the South - 99% of the Southerners - was more victim than perpetrator.

College history courses would emphasize the wealthier, imperialistic North exploiting the South, both before and after the War. The Left compared the military occupation of the South - (has there ever been a worse euphemism than “Reconstruction”?) - as causing the KKK, and hatred by poor whites in the South.

The scary thing about the Left is how they switch overnight, how they now trash the military weaker, economically poorer. The Left is not about persons, it is only about causes, and is media driven.

You truly emphasis the need to really stay up with current truth.

 

[FirstFiveEighth]

How was the Union at fault for waging war? Did the Union conspire to have Davis order Fort Sumter captured?

Calls for war started after the CSA fired on that Fort.

If you look back in this very thread a few pages, I provided evidence that Lincoln and his cabinet deliberately provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort so they could have their casus belli. Long story short, Major Anderson occupied the fort AFTER the declaration of succession. South Carolina had asked them to leave, and had sent delegates to Washington to pay for the property. Lincoln, against the advice of his entire cabinet except his postmaster, of all people, approved a plan (developed by the postmaster’s son-in-law, a naval officer) to send a ship to “Reinforce” Sumter as a deliberate act of provocation. Lincoln also requested that the ship carry nothing but food, so that he could claim that South Carolina attacked an unarmed ship and have the moral high ground.

Some more background info, Major Anderson was purchasing provisions from the town of Charleston well after the declaration of succession, and it was not until Lincoln, in his inaugural address, said that the Southern states could either rejoin the union by choice, or rejoin the union by force of arms, and Anderson moved his force to Sumter, that they refused to sell him food anymore.

In playground terms, Lincoln walked up to South Carolina and called his mother a hooker and told him he was gonna whoop his butt if he didn’t come back to basketball court, then went and ran to the teacher saying “he hit me!” when South Carolina punched him in the face.

 

[exnihilo]

College history courses would emphasize the wealthier, imperialistic North exploiting the South, both before and after the War. The Left compared the military occupation of the South - (has there ever been a worse euphemism than “Reconstruction”?) - as causing the KKK, and hatred by poor whites in the South.

One correction, I believe the South was wealthier. This is why the North wanted them to foot the bill for the federal taxes that went to develop its Northern industry. Some of the South’s wealth was of course invested in slaves.

It didn’t end with Reconstruction. Years later wealthy Yankees came down South with their factories to exploit the cheap labor and poor working conditions of an impoverished people. In a sense the South was the first China for these great crusaders for social justice.

This is just good ol’ fashion ancient history destruction write in Yankeedom largess stemming from their inbred puritanical instincts to burn witches.

Future must have very dull and single version with Stalinesque type control. Enjoy.

I think you are right. The US attitude of live and let live and cherishing of freedom is really Southern. The South was the region who most pushed and fought for independence from Great Britain. The South is the region that parted ways with the Union while wishing it no malice. The South even today more than any other region most allows people to live as they please. It is the Northern Puritanical spirit that says we must stomp out the great sin of smoking everywhere we find it while making everyone true believers in holy sodomy.

 

[johnnykins]

I do not accept your rash judgment of me for defending Jim Crow or taking away any civil rights of black people, or condoning slavery for that matter, because I did none of those things.

The people you defend did that. The people you want honored did that.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[exnihilo]

The people you defend did that. The people you want honored did that.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Um, people on both sides did that. If you are going to be consistent then you’ll have to condemn just about everyone from that period and on.

 

[GKC]

The, it was a different time, argument is kind of a moral cop out. Isn’t it?

No. It’s a perfectly valid point. Persons who lived in a different historical era often will be found acting as if they lived in a different historical era exhibiting the mores, customs, social structures, relationships, attitudes and beliefs common to the particular era. That people living in the 16th century lived and acted and interacted as if they lived in the 16th century is a commonplace, not a cop out. And it’s an observation that is true, whichever side of an issue one might taking in discussion.

 

[GKC]

How was the Union at fault for waging war? Did the Union conspire to have Davis order Fort Sumter captured?

Calls for war started after the CSA fired on that Fort.

As noted by others, there is a complicated history behind that question.

History is like that.

 

[stevegravy]

I would like to submit for your consideration my opinion of little worth:

1. Lincoln was not an evil man in that he did what any head of government would do when he saw his control falling apart. He used all weapons at his disposal to squash opposition.
2. Lincoln had his backers to answer to same as any politician today. At the time they were mouthing manifest destiny and envisioned a continental nation state/ empire. Canada would be tolerated; it was too small of a population to be a threat and at the time offered no additional EASY wealth to grab. Taking on the Brits was not in the cards. Mexico… well the deep state at the time already got what they wanted from Mexico. Therefore, allowing a large Confederacy on the empire’s southern border and exhibiting an unwillingness to keep it would energize further breakdown until the empire evaporated something that would not be tolerated.
3. The guys leaving the federation were not innocent victims of puritanical nonsense (remember these northerners were virtue signaling harpies going on as if slavery as the greatest evil ever, NAZIs were not invented yet). They also had glorious dream of manifest destiny. Instead of a northern empire they looked south to Cuba and the newly acquired Mexican territory. These folks leading their constituents were politicians filled with the same heady desires as their northern contemporaries only seeing themselves as masters of their universe.

And the beat goes on…

 

[jtauke]

If you look back in this very thread a few pages, I provided evidence that Lincoln and his cabinet deliberately provoked South Carolina into firing on the fort so they could have their casus belli. Long story short, Major Anderson occupied the fort AFTER the declaration of succession. South Carolina had asked them to leave, and had sent delegates to Washington to pay for the property. Lincoln, against the advice of his entire cabinet except his postmaster, of all people, approved a plan (developed by the postmaster’s son-in-law, a naval officer) to send a ship to “Reinforce” Sumter as a deliberate act of provocation. Lincoln also requested that the ship carry nothing but food, so that he could claim that South Carolina attacked an unarmed ship and have the moral high ground.

Some more background info, Major Anderson was purchasing provisions from the town of Charleston well after the declaration of succession, and it was not until Lincoln, in his inaugural address, said that the Southern states could either rejoin the union by choice, or rejoin the union by force of arms, and Anderson moved his force to Sumter, that they refused to sell him food anymore.

In playground terms, Lincoln walked up to South Carolina and called his mother a hooker and told him he was gonna whoop his butt if he didn’t come back to basketball court, then went and ran to the teacher saying “he hit me!” when South Carolina punched him in the face.

Except South Carolina had no rights to Fort Sumter. They ceded control of that land in 1836.

“Resolved, that this state do cede to the United States, all the right title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter…”

Edit:

books.google.com/books?id=fc4DAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA376&lpg=PA376&dq=Resolved+that+this+state+do+cede+to+the+United+States+all+the+right+title+and+claim+of+South+Carolina+to+the+site+of+Fort+Sumter&source=bl&ots=eKxeVmgeX_&sig=9Y0xdlkvNAmkrvnkgF6iE80OcDI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=j2BjUffbO_Ot0AGG5oEw#v=onepage&q=Resolved%20that%20this%20state%20do%20cede%20to%20the%20United%20States%20all%20the%20right%20title%20and%20claim%20of%20South%20Carolina%20to%20the%20site%20of%20Fort%20Sumter&f=false

studycivilwar.wordpress.com/2013/04/14/who-owned-fort-sumter/

 

[johnnykins]

Um, people on both sides did that. If you are going to be consistent then you’ll have to condemn just about everyone from that period and on.

The south - ex-Confederates - implemented the Jim Crow laws, fought to maintain them …and now people on this forum defend that.

And they call themselves 'Christian." Perhaps if Conservatives now denounced the Confederates and racist segregationists for what they were and are it would make some moral sense. As it is, the supporters of the Confederacy today are despicable, anti-Christian self-serving hypocrites promoting evil. That such types appear on this forum is a disgrace.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

The south - ex-Confederates - implemented the Jim Crow laws, fought to maintain them …and now people on this forum defend that.

And they call themselves 'Christian." Perhaps if Conservatives now denounced the Confederates and racist segregationists for what they were and are it would make some moral sense. As it is, the supporters of the Confederacy today are despicable, anti-Christian self-serving hypocrites promoting evil. That such types appear on this forum is a disgrace.

Specifically, please, who are the people here on this forum who defend Jim Crow laws?

Unless, of course, you mean the Democrat / Democratic Party which formed the KKK to intimidate Blacks, Jews and Catholics to keep them from voting or from being Republicans.

Remember Senator Byrd of West Virginia who was a very high official of the KKK for many decades, and a mentor of Hillary Clinton and a friend of Bill Clinton, who gave a eulogy at Senator Byrd’s funeral. And for whom many many civic structures are named in West Virginia.

Is that what you mean?

 

[mary_bobo]

The people you defend did that. The people you want honored did that.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are sweeping with a very broad brush. Many of us, or any of our relatives, had no part in the war or owned slaves for that matter. Some of those you did honor their dead with statues. The causes of the Civil War are more than just slavery. All of our history is not black and white as some want to paint it.

 

[randomuser]

The people you defend did that. The people you want honored did that.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The people you defend did that. The people you want honored did that.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

I’m not ashamed at all in opposing the desecration of monuments to the ancestors of millions of Americans.

I will consider it, however, when Pope Francis leaves the Jesuit order, disbands the order, and closes all the Jesuit universities due to the order once having owned slaves, and when he furthermore “de-saints” St. Katherine Ann Drexel who founded the then all-black college, Xavier University, in New Orleans.

Why don’t you write him a letter and tell him how ashamed he should be.

 

[dvdjs]

The US attitude of live and let live and cherishing of freedom is really Southern.

You do, of course, mean live and let live and cherishing the freedom of like-minded white folk.

Breathtaking and worse.

 

[dvdjs]

I’m not ashamed at all in opposing the desecration of monuments to the ancestors of millions of Americans.

I will consider it, however, when Pope Francis leaves the Jesuit order, disbands the order, and closes all the Jesuit universities due to the order once having owned slaves, and when he furthermore “de-saints” St. Katherine Ann Drexel who founded the then all-black college, Xavier University, in New Orleans.

Why don’t you write him a letter and tell him how ashamed he should be.

Back to the phony argument.
All have sinned. All fall short of the glory of God.
We memorialize those who despite their sin have done good.
We do not memorialize those who claim to fame are their moral failings.

Odd that you are so stubborn in barking up the wrong tree.