Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Monuments and Statues Thread - Defacement, Protection, Removal and Discussion

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Salinator
    replied
    Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
    You really think the people in those protest mobs know what the sides were in the Civil War, or how to tell them apart...?
    I remember Civil War hats was a short fashion fad here sometime back in the early 80's.

    I will never forget that the White kids always chose blue while the Black kids always chose gray.

    As for myself, I thought the hats were stupid.

    Leave a comment:


  • T. A. Gardner
    replied
    You really think the people in those protest mobs know what the sides were in the Civil War, or how to tell them apart...?

    Leave a comment:


  • Persephone
    replied
    Originally posted by Skoblin View Post
    Antifa protestors damage Atlanta peace monument mistaking it for a confederate statue...

    http://buzz.blog.ajc.com/2017/08/14/...e-confederacy/

    Happened here too!
    Not sure if it was done by Antifa or just kids pranking the statue.


    Civil War statue toppled in Redwood City
    By Jim Clifford Aug 28, 2017

    Getting rid of Civil War statues that honor the Confederacy is fast becoming a regional pastime in the South, but why would anyone anywhere want to topple a statue commemorating the Union Army? The statue of a “Yankee” soldier at Redwood City’s Union Cemetery was destroyed more than once in what apparently were acts of vandalism rather than political statements.

    http://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/l...62d2e6355.html
    Last edited by Persephone; 30 Aug 17, 13:42.

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    You're looking at Lee through the glass of 152 years post-Appomatox. Push the clock back to 1861. I don't believe that when Lee resigned his commission in the US Army he thought the activity could in any way be considered treasonous. I believe, more specifically, that he believed himself to be doing the most correct thing at that time. Post-surrender, I believe he was confronted with his error and wished to make changes.

    Had the Continental Army surrendered and Washington not been immediately hanged as a traitor to the Crown, would he have not petitioned for restoration to being a lawful British subject?
    No doubt that Lee believed that his duty to Virginia trumped his duty to the United States. That's plain enough. That being said, however, Lee was still a practical man. He knew that if the US won the Civil War that he and other Confederates could legally be viewed as traitors: they had taken up arms against the United States. As a student of the American Revolution -- which Lee definitely was -- he would have been more than familiar with Benjamin Franklin's quip, "if we don't hang together we shall surely hang separately." Lee knew going in that neither the law nor history tend to view the losers of revolutions kindly. Towards that end, on the morning of 9 Apr 1865, Gen Lee donned his last clean uniform, expecting to be arrested and taken away to prison from Wilmer McLean's parlor. Gen Lee figured that that uniform would have to last him quite a long while.

    By the way, while Lee was paroled, Jefferson Davis was detained at Fort Monroe for two years, perhaps some of that in leg irons. While Lee was admired on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line, Jeff Davis was not. In fact, he was almost universally reviled. As CSA president, he was subject to all of the criticisms to which elected leaders are heir to, and then some: Davis' personality was both frosty and prickly, lacking the softer and warmer edges that warmed people to the likes of Gen Lee or Pres Lincoln, so Davis was always the target of criticism -- some of it quite unfair, from among his fellow Southerners. The icing on the cake was Davis' pledge to carry on the war after the fall of Richmond: the specter of guerilla war repulsed a good many Southerners as well as Northerners, so Davis was viewed as a snake-like evil figure by all kinds of people. The last straw was the tale of Davis' capture: he was in disguise, thus proving to his foes -- Northern and Southern alike -- that Davis was a coward at heart. Somehow the tale grew to Davis being captured in drag, which got Davis pegged as not so manly, in addition to being a coward. In the end, a combination of political considerations and legal uncertainties put the kibosh on Davis' prosecution. Pres Andrew Johnson issued a blanket amnesty to all Confederates in Dec of 1868.

    Leave a comment:


  • Massena
    replied
    Originally posted by Jose50 View Post
    What makes some people think that they can change history by just eliminating things that prove that history actually happened?
    History is fact. Believe it. Learn from it. Move on.
    If you're going to write or discuss history at all, first you have to assemble factual material and then come to a conclusion.

    Those to steps in historical inquiry are usually overlooked by too many on this forum.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jose50
    replied
    What makes some people think that they can change history by just eliminating things that prove that history actually happened?
    History is fact. Believe it. Learn from it. Move on.

    Leave a comment:


  • TacCovert4
    replied
    Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
    If Lee believed he hadn't committed treason, why did he apply for amnesty?
    You're looking at Lee through the glass of 152 years post-Appomatox. Push the clock back to 1861. I don't believe that when Lee resigned his commission in the US Army he thought the activity could in any way be considered treasonous. I believe, more specifically, that he believed himself to be doing the most correct thing at that time. Post-surrender, I believe he was confronted with his error and wished to make changes.

    Had the Continental Army surrendered and Washington not been immediately hanged as a traitor to the Crown, would he have not petitioned for restoration to being a lawful British subject?

    Leave a comment:


  • Skoblin
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Holliday View Post
    It will end when no male child is named John or Johnny...or Robert..Obviously the last name of Jackson cannot be made to change...
    Everybody will be named Pat and be registered as Other...

    Leave a comment:


  • Cambronnne
    replied
    Originally posted by Darth Holliday View Post
    It will end when no male child is named John or Johnny...or Robert..Obviously the last name of Jackson cannot be made to change...
    It will never end.
    The people who wish to impose their will on everyone else will just find new things to be outraged about.
    As we have seen with Grant and Washington, etc,.

    If there is nothing to be outraged about, then those people lose their relevance and sense of self importance. And they aren't going to let that happen.
    (See Al Gore and Jesse Jackson as examples)

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by R. Evans View Post
    If Lee believed he hadn't committed treason, why did he apply for amnesty?
    Because he was paroled at Appomattox and could not be tried for treason ect, but wanted his citizenship restored ect ect.

    ""Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65." R.E. Lee


    In 1975, Lee's full rights of citizenship were posthumously restored by a joint congressional resolution effective June 13, 1865.

    At the August 5, 1975, signing ceremony, President Gerald R. Ford acknowledged the discovery of Lee's Oath of Allegiance in the National Archives and remarked: "General Lee's character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride."
    Last edited by Darth Holliday; 30 Aug 17, 08:45.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by BELGRAVE View Post
    Excellent response (+1).
    And yet Lee's statues are under threat even though he obviously acted in complete good faith Perhaps the same could be said of other Leaders of the Confederacy.
    I note that the film Gone with the Wind has been banned in a cinema in the USA. Where will it all end ?
    It will end when no male child is named John or Johnny...or Robert..Obviously the last name of Jackson cannot be made to change...

    Leave a comment:


  • R. Evans
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    When it comes to treason, the secret is to not lose.

    In no way do I think Lee was operating under the belief that he was committing treason. Nor do I think many or possibly even most of the men under arms believed they were either. There were probably a number of the politicians who thought as such, whether they cared or not is equally in question.

    Based on his actions, it appears that Lee felt himself on the horns of a dilemma. He was an American and a Virginian. His state had seceded through legislative process, something that IIRC he personally wasn't in agreement with. He was forced to choose between the one or the other. He did not see any legal opinions that he could take as irrefutable that a voted and legislated secession was illegal or treasonous. Therefore he chose to resign his commission in the US Army and transfer it to Virginia, which was his state of birth and residence and had to the best of his knowledge lawfully and in good faith seceded from the Union.

    I think that this bears out through his actions during the war. He was not a fan of partisan activities and didn't actively solicit them. He commanded the Army of Northern Virginia, and behaved in a manner as a commander of a national army in time of war, not a 'rebel' army. His two attempted invasions were for strategic goals to end the war, rather than the rampages against the civilian populations of Pennsylvania and Maryland which he could have easily done. His action in defeat was as that of a Commander of a national army surrendering to the commander of another national army. And when confronted with the facts that the secession had been made null and void by right of war, he did what little he could to try to restore the Union itself and not encourage actual acts of rebellion such as partisans or secret societies.
    If Lee believed he hadn't committed treason, why did he apply for amnesty?

    Leave a comment:


  • BELGRAVE
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    When it comes to treason, the secret is to not lose.

    In no way do I think Lee was operating under the belief that he was committing treason. Nor do I think many or possibly even most of the men under arms believed they were either. There were probably a number of the politicians who thought as such, whether they cared or not is equally in question.

    Based on his actions, it appears that Lee felt himself on the horns of a dilemma. He was an American and a Virginian. His state had seceded through legislative process, something that IIRC he personally wasn't in agreement with. He was forced to choose between the one or the other. He did not see any legal opinions that he could take as irrefutable that a voted and legislated secession was illegal or treasonous. Therefore he chose to resign his commission in the US Army and transfer it to Virginia, which was his state of birth and residence and had to the best of his knowledge lawfully and in good faith seceded from the Union.

    I think that this bears out through his actions during the war. He was not a fan of partisan activities and didn't actively solicit them. He commanded the Army of Northern Virginia, and behaved in a manner as a commander of a national army in time of war, not a 'rebel' army. His two attempted invasions were for strategic goals to end the war, rather than the rampages against the civilian populations of Pennsylvania and Maryland which he could have easily done. His action in defeat was as that of a Commander of a national army surrendering to the commander of another national army. And when confronted with the facts that the secession had been made null and void by right of war, he did what little he could to try to restore the Union itself and not encourage actual acts of rebellion such as partisans or secret societies.
    Excellent response (+1).
    And yet Lee's statues are under threat even though he obviously acted in complete good faith Perhaps the same could be said of other Leaders of the Confederacy.
    I note that the film Gone with the Wind has been banned in a cinema in the USA. Where will it all end ?
    Last edited by BELGRAVE; 30 Aug 17, 04:34.

    Leave a comment:


  • Darth Holliday
    replied
    Originally posted by TacCovert4 View Post
    When it comes to treason, the secret is to not lose.

    In no way do I think Lee was operating under the belief that he was committing treason. Nor do I think many or possibly even most of the men under arms believed they were either. There were probably a number of the politicians who thought as such, whether they cared or not is equally in question.

    Based on his actions, it appears that Lee felt himself on the horns of a dilemma. He was an American and a Virginian. His state had seceded through legislative process, something that IIRC he personally wasn't in agreement with. He was forced to choose between the one or the other. He did not see any legal opinions that he could take as irrefutable that a voted and legislated secession was illegal or treasonous. Therefore he chose to resign his commission in the US Army and transfer it to Virginia, which was his state of birth and residence and had to the best of his knowledge lawfully and in good faith seceded from the Union.

    I think that this bears out through his actions during the war. He was not a fan of partisan activities and didn't actively solicit them. He commanded the Army of Northern Virginia, and behaved in a manner as a commander of a national army in time of war, not a 'rebel' army. His two attempted invasions were for strategic goals to end the war, rather than the rampages against the civilian populations of Pennsylvania and Maryland which he could have easily done. His action in defeat was as that of a Commander of a national army surrendering to the commander of another national army. And when confronted with the facts that the secession had been made null and void by right of war, he did what little he could to try to restore the Union itself and not encourage actual acts of rebellion such as partisans or secret societies.
    I cant seem to Rep you...but I agree whole hardheartedly with your assessment..

    Leave a comment:


  • slick_miester
    replied
    Originally posted by walle View Post
    There were several reasons for secession, slavery was part of that, in that Southern economy was dependent on it. The South could not do away with slavery over night, they first had to modernize and put infrastructure in place to support future industry with, which they had begun to do, they had expanded on a close to insignificant railway system. It was a slow process, but it had begun.

    There is no denying that parts of Southern aristocracy were reluctant to do away with slavery thou, that they wanted to stick with the old ways, it afforded them the aristocratic lifestyle and social hierarchy. However, even they knew slavery was neither morally sustainable, let alone with any future in it.
    IIRC you'd mentioned in another thread a sarcastic comparison between this statue bruhaha and the Nazis. No, I don't want to go there, but within the context of these discussions there are a couple of interesting parallels. For one thing, Ludendorff's Stab in the Back crappola was straight out of Jeff Davis' Lost Cause. Both were leaders in wars lost, and both were desperate to rehabilitate their legacies, and both took to whitewashing their respective records and fashioning fantastical historical records wherein they were magically absolved of all responsibility. Ludendorff was particularly shameless about assigning blame, but Davis wasn't too far behind. Considering how the Stab in the Back fed into later strains of Weimar politics, it's hard -- very hard -- not to view Jefferson Davis and The Lost Cause in a similarly dim light.

    Another similarity -- one perhaps better addressed in that "romantic' thread -- was that the Nazis were masters at dredging up the mythic heroes of Germany's past and using them for their own purposes in the contemporary period. I have no doubt that plenty of young fellows joined the Nazi bandwagon not because they were frothing-at-the-mouth antisemites, but because they were moved by the heroic, romantic vision of Germany, both her past and her future. The Nazis were very clever about blurring the line between history and mythology, and from where I sit, that can be a very dangerous thing to do. Much the same can be said of Douglas Southall Freeman, Thomas Dixon, and other propagators of The Lost Cause.

    Leave a comment:

Latest Topics

Collapse

Working...
X