Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do agree that outrage is selective, and I share your opinion of Lincoln.
I have a neutral opinion of Lee, and yes, I am aware of his thinking.
Let me ask you a question:
If I were to praise Bill Clinton for any of his many achievements, would you deride and counter my praise, by citing his many escapades?
***
Save a few isolated instances, can we agree that most persons who cherish and uphold Southern history, find an attachment to said history for issues outside of any racial component?
I am a proud Southerner including our "racial component." I cherish and uphold our history. I don't think you understand the history of these particular monuments.
I'm not sure I understand your Bill Clinton question, but it seems to imply that the ethical failures in his social life shouldn't overshadow all of his supposed good works. Again, the parallel to monuments built specifically to minimize and rewrite history doesn't match. Lee would have opposed the Lost Cause. You need to read more about it to understand. I don't blame my southern neighbors for misunderstanding. The PR campaign was effective and their parents/grandparent ate it up.
There is the accepted clause called "grandfather in" when renovating old buildings.
Which means that we should not apply today's standards when dealing with existing structures which are not endangering someone's life today.
Most things our ancestors have done are not acceptable today, as what we do now will not be accepted in couple of generations. Applying today's rules for past societies will not benefit anybody, we know it was wrong but cannot change the past, just learn from the mistakes and improve the lives of future generations.
There is the accepted clause called "grandfather in" when renovating old buildings.
Which means that we should not apply today's standards when dealing with existing structures which are not endangering someone's life today.
Most things our ancestors have done are not acceptable today, as what we do now will not be accepted in couple of generations. Applying today's rules for past societies will not benefit anybody, we know it was wrong but cannot change the past, just learn from the mistakes and improve the lives of future generations.
Good point. But we aren't talking about monuments from our ancestors. We are talking about monuments erected in honor of those dead ancestors designed to invoke sympathy and intimidate those that may feel less oppressed post emancipation.
Many of the confederate memorials in questions were built over 150 years AFTER the war. They were built as part of the Lost Cause effort during a period designed to change perceptions of the South and glorify southern culture while downplaying responsibility and minimizing the unethical characteristics of slavery. These monuments are not artifacts or battlefields. They don't deserve the same consideration.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,670,113 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
Could it be that those who cherish Southern history see their oaths in the same light as Lee, hence their attachment to this historical figure?
In all of this, I am not making a judgment about any person or event. There is, however, a knee jerk reaction taking place in society, and most of it's based on ignorance and misunderstandings.
The consequence of these misunderstandings is hostility and division between people...not good.
I do, at heart, have a utopian view of society, in which all people get along and share mutual respect. Much of the infighting in society today is unnecessary, unproductive, and insidious.
I had ancestors in NC by the 1760s. I don't really believe in Southern History. It's all just part of US History.
Robert E Lee was an army officer. As such, he took an oath to the US. He chose to resign his commission & take a position with the Confederate army. George Henry Thomas took the same oath. He felt bound by his oath & stayed in the federal army. After the war, Thomas was able to reconcile with his brother, but his sisters never spoke to him again. It was Thomas who didn't have a battle loss on his record, but revisionists claim that Lee had the best record in the war. Thomas' men loved him & called him Pap Thomas. Lee's men loved him & there are statues of him all over the South. Midwestern monuments usual just list the war dead. That's a regional difference.
The biggest problem with the Confederate monuments & statues is in the inscriptions. Believe me, I'm a Boomer, there were plenty of racists in the north & Midwest in the 50s & 60s & before, but they tended to keep that sort of thing off monuments.
Last edited by southbound_295; 08-16-2017 at 09:48 PM..
I am a proud Southerner including our "racial component." I cherish and uphold our history. I don't think you understand the history of these particular monuments.
This is very true. As much as I have seen, which is little, many of these monuments are dedicated to the memory of the dead.
Again, I defer to your judgment on this, as you likely know far more than I do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Essequamvideri
I'm not sure I understand your Bill Clinton question, but it seems to imply that the ethical failures in his social life shouldn't overshadow all of his supposed good works.
My point was simply that in anyone's life, no matter the individual, a picture can be painted by the overemphasis of one aspect of their life or service.
This is not to whitewash Lee's ownership of slaves, which I find deplorable. Yet, under intense scrutiny, there isn't an individual alive whose indiscretions couldn't be molded to fit a narrative.
In the little that I have read about Robert E Lee, the source material is suspect, with the writer's bias displayed - be it for or against the Confederacy. I cannot draw a conclusion on material that's suspect.
I end this with a sincere question:
Do you believe that the majority of folks who revere their past, do so on the basis of some perceived form of ethnic superiority?
For me, the intent of participants is the main issue.
The biggest problem with the Confederate monuments & statues is in the inscriptions. Believe me, I'm a Boomer, there were plenty of racists in the north & Midwest in the 50s & 60s & before, but they tended to keep that sort of thing off monuments.
Exactly, and that is my issue: among some is the opinion that a lack of sophistication, and tribal attitudes, have their domain in the South, and this is simply not so.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,670,113 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by NDL
Exactly, and that is my issue: among some is the opinion that a lack of sophistication, and tribal attitudes, have their domain in the South, and this is simply not so.
I don't think that it's lack of sophistication. It's what the audience will bear.
Men who fought in the Confederate army & had been officers frequently wanted to be called by their military rank for the rest of their lives. These were usually wealthy men. As in other regions, the wealthy said & did things that were over the top. However, other regions hadn't lived through reconstruction. The whole country lived through the war & suffered. The Confederate states did suffer more because of the Union blockade. But the real difference was the reconstruction period. The Radical Republicans in DC wanted to rub their noses in the punishment. Most of these monuments in question were paid for by wealthy individuals after reconstruction. Some of the inscriptions are nothing more than well-worded temper tantrums.
This is very true. As much as I have seen, which is little, many of these monuments are dedicated to the memory of the dead.
Again, I defer to your judgment on this, as you likely know far more than I do.
My point was simply that in anyone's life, no matter the individual, a picture can be painted by the overemphasis of one aspect of their life or service.
This is not to whitewash Lee's ownership of slaves, which I find deplorable. Yet, under intense scrutiny, there isn't an individual alive whose indiscretions couldn't be molded to fit a narrative.
In the little that I have read about Robert E Lee, the source material is suspect, with the writer's bias displayed - be it for or against the Confederacy. I cannot draw a conclusion on material that's suspect.
I end this with a sincere question:
Do you believe that the majority of folks who revere their past, do so on the basis of some perceived form of ethnic superiority?
For me, the intent of participants is the main issue.
My source material is Lee himself. Can we use his own words to learn what kind of man he was? He said slavery was:
1) more harmful to whites than blacks
2) a source of good Christian values
3) necessary to "train and educate" blacks
But again - this isn't a debate about whether Lee was a good or a bad man. I don't care about him. The main point, the one everyone is missing, is that these particular monuments are a result of the Lost Cause - a campaign designed to sentimentalize and whitewash the less savory truths of the south during the civil war. It was effective. Birth of a Nation and Gone with the Wind played well. I am against this rewrite of history. Everyone claiming the need to "preserve history" should be on my side because the Lost Cause campaign was a propaganda campaign to the fullest driven by fear
of emancipated minorities and shame of their role prior. It's responsible for so many misconceptions of the South today (civil war was about states' rights; slavery wasn't that bad; the northern aggression was unwarranted and brutal; etc.)
No I don't think the majority of "folks" who revere their past do so on the basis of perceived ethnic superiority.
I don't think that it's lack of sophistication. It's what the audience will bear.
Men who fought in the Confederate army & had been officers frequently wanted to be called by their military rank for the rest of their lives. These were usually wealthy men. As in other regions, the wealthy said & did things that were over the top. However, other regions hadn't lived through reconstruction. The whole country lived through the war & suffered. The Confederate states did suffer more because of the Union blockade. But the real difference was the reconstruction period. The Radical Republicans in DC wanted to rub their noses in the punishment. Most of these monuments in question were paid for by wealthy individuals after reconstruction. Some of the inscriptions are nothing more than well-worded temper tantrums.
Good posting. Additionally, the Radical Republicans, during reconstruction, did what they could to keep the races divided in the south along with promoting hatred in fear of southern reprisals by southerners both black and white. As we know, former slaves mostly remained in place with their previous masters as practically no provisions or plans were made for their expected exodus after being freed and there were severe restrictions on blacks going into northern states. They were not wanted. The "Freedman's Bureau" begged former masters to employ their former slaves. In reality, reconstruction was about as harmful as the war itself.
The tradition of officers retaining their rank their whole lives is still a tradition often practiced in Great Britain.
Many of the confederate memorials in questions were built over 150 years AFTER the war. They were built as part of the Lost Cause effort during a period designed to change perceptions of the South and glorify southern culture while downplaying responsibility and minimizing the unethical characteristics of slavery. These monuments are not artifacts or battlefields. They don't deserve the same consideration.
This whole "time" argument is silly and pointless. Almost all monuments are erected long after the person has died or the event has taken place. The Battle of Bunker Hill monument was started 50 years after the battle. As was construction of the Washington monument. Sherman's statue in Grand Army Plaza in New York was erected in 1902. The 17 Civil War monuments in Washington DC were all erected in the early years of the 20th century. The Korean War Memorial was dedicated 42 years after the end of the war.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
