U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kentucky > Louisville area
 [Register]
Louisville area Jefferson County
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 05-23-2016, 04:07 PM
 
6,305 posts, read 13,203,006 times
Reputation: 2790

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigCreek View Post
I assume you are referring to Colonel Harlan Sanders, the original "Kentucky colonel" and creator of Kentucky Fried Chicken.

I also assume that any true Louisvillean - shoot, any real Kentuckian! - would know this gentleman's name and identity, and would have more respect than to refer to him as just "the KFC guy".

If you want to represent Louisville accurately, I suggest that you learn more history of that fine city and of the commonwealth in which it is located.
hahaha. I am not a native Kentuckian. Give me a break

I could not think of his name when I posted. He is NOT a Louisvillian, but yes, a famous Kentuckian. And his company is a Fortune 500 with HQ in Louisville (Yum). So yes, an important figure past and present.

 
Old 05-24-2016, 05:18 AM
 
7,098 posts, read 4,097,322 times
Reputation: 3584
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnBoy64 View Post
With the exception of a tiny fraction of Hate groups in this country, I don’t think anybody North, South, East or West in today’s America who doesn’t view slavery as an evil practice regardless of their stance on monuments. That’s a bit much there and it statements like these that can come across as being morally superior and provokes feelings of being attacked and can result in people digging in their heels and defending something that is abhorrent. It’s divisive language and not to over dramatize this but this dynamic is one of the many reasons the country landed in a civil war. Your points are valid and backed up with facts, the delivery needs a little work.
You are taking my arguments out of context. Only someone who did not read carefully the comments made in this thread, or who wasn't too offended by the historical inaccuracies embodied in these comments, would charge anybody as seeming "morally superior" by taking objection to the comments.

E.g., regarding Confederate monuments, if slavery was so evil, why should we prominently honor the Confederacy that fought to maintain the evil institution? If Nazi monuments were prominent in German cities and the Nazi symbols were incorporated into German flags, all because Germans wanted to honor the valor of the WWII German soldiers, would that be OK? You suggest that someone who even asks these questions is merely trying to act morally superior. What rubbish.

Arguments are made in this thread that are ridiculous -- the racial biases of the soldiers in the Confederate army were the same as the racial biases in the Union army, or, more recently, that northerners (outside of the border states still in the Union where slavery still was legal) owned slaves. E.g., was Kentucky (even though it remained in the Union) "northern" in 1861?

I never said that anybody today didn't consider slavery evil. However, some Confederate apologists still argue that slavery was relatively benign.

When the Confederacy primarily was founded to maintain the institution of slavery, and Confederate soldiers clearly, unlike Union soldiers and Union leaders, predominately even did not want African Americans in the Confederate army, it is preposterous to make the argument that appeared in this thread that the racial attitudes of Confederate soldiers differed little from those of Union soldiers.

Even though many Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, James McPherson and other Civil War historians explain in great detail that almost all Confederate soldiers did not want African Americans elevated to anywhere near the same level of citizenship and social status as white southerners. This clearly was not the attitude of Union abolitionist soldiers nor the sizable number of African Americans who fought for the Union. Jim Crow laws subsequently enacted in the South demonstrate that this racial bias was pervasive even after the Civil War in the one-time Confederate states.

To challenge the preposterous historical inaccuracies in this thread, arguments seemingly advanced to justify the continued location of the Louisville Confederate monument, was my primary motivation for posting here.

I certainly have no guilt over attempting to counter objectively the historical inaccuracies in this thread that likely are motivated by some desire to keep Confederate monuments in places where they are no longer welcome. And, to carry your acknowledgement that slavery was evil to its logical conclusion, the accurate association of the Confederacy with the evil of slavery largely explains why these monuments today are considered so offensive by many.

Personally, as noted, I have great respect for George Washington, who was invariably linked to the Confederate memorial, even though his beliefs at the end of his life were not those of the typical Confederate. I also have great respect for Robert E. Lee, who was tormented by his role in the Civil War, and yet summoned his great courage to make invaluable contributions to American society in his short number of years remaining after the war.

When African Americans see continued efforts even today to mitigate their democratic rights -- such as overcrowded polling centers, cumbersome voter ID procedures, overt gerrymanders -- it's easy to understand why they in particular are incensed by having to confront symbols of the Confederacy, whether flags or prominent monuments, in their daily lives. For sizable numbers of Americans, the Civil War still resonates in modern life, understandably so IMO.

<<Let me be clear about what the battle flag, statues and other symbols of the Confederacy are. They are representations of hate, emptied-out ideas of racial superiority, inhumanity and devilishness. The Civil War was not a war of “northern aggression” fought by sympathetic, victimized “Gone with the Wind” characters. It was a war about slavery – plain and simple. It was a conflict the South started to maintain its right to continue playing pharaoh and endlessly force its black brutes to make bricks out of straw. Every battle flag, T-shirt, and monument to these inhumane traitors remind us of that fact.>>

http://www.courier-journal.com/story...-u-l/83283382/

Last edited by WRnative; 05-24-2016 at 05:55 AM..
 
Old 05-24-2016, 01:40 PM
 
Location: Warren, OH
2,709 posts, read 3,142,429 times
Reputation: 6273
Quote:
Originally Posted by annie_himself View Post
I just don't understand why people think it's erasing history to remove a statue. It's just removing the glorification of symbols of oppression.
It isn't erasing history.It is dispensing with the glorification of slavery and the civil war.

If you go to Germany, they make no secret of their Nazi past. There are plaques everywhere telling and reminding Germans, and tourists that "on this sight on 9 December 1943 900 people were deported to (fill in the concentration camp.

Then there are the camps themselves. In Germany, Dachau and Buchenwald have not been demolished. They are open for tours. Where it is clearly stated that these were places of evil and torture.
They do NOT give tours of the fancy houses on Officers Row, outside of Buchenwald that honors the lavish lifestyles of the evil SS officers and their wives, who frequently took pleasure in tormenting inmates in their spare time.

There is a CLEAR DISTINCTION between GOOD and EVIL. And yes, all Nazi monuments have been destroyed and taken down.

I recently visited Louisville, and I found it to be a beautiful, fun city. However, the fact that there was at least one confederate monument was disconcerting.

Why not re-frame the whole Confederate - Slavery issue in Louisville - and NOT destroy monuments - but show them in CONTEXT. And stop revising history.
 
Old 05-24-2016, 02:14 PM
 
Location: The New England part of Ohio
17,634 posts, read 21,820,673 times
Reputation: 44546
Quote:
Originally Posted by VM1138 View Post
It's not about the slave owning issue per se. Sure some Founders had slaves. But Confederates fought the bloodiest war in our history to keep an entire race of people enslaved and were very anti-Democratic at a time the North was becoming more democratic. The Confederacy is the antithesis of the US and thus honoring it seems bizarre to many people.

Yes.As a recent visitor I was very impressed with the beauty, and quirky hipster aspects of Louisville! Fine dining on the river. I enjoyed the scenery, some galleries and thrift stores in the NU LU area.
And no one makes better bourbon drinks! People were cool and friendly.

Except the guy who alluded to the"War of Northern Aggression". But actually,he was from Indiana.


A statement to your citizens - white and black - and to tourists, students and other visitors would be to NOT revise history. We are all Americans now.

The Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery. Period.


ETA - I have ancestors on BOTH sides who fought in this horrible bloody war. It would honor them to honor the truth. They never had to die at such young ages.
 
Old 05-24-2016, 03:22 PM
 
6,305 posts, read 13,203,006 times
Reputation: 2790
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
You are taking my arguments out of context. Only someone who did not read carefully the comments made in this thread, or who wasn't too offended by the historical inaccuracies embodied in these comments, would charge anybody as seeming "morally superior" by taking objection to the comments.

E.g., regarding Confederate monuments, if slavery was so evil, why should we prominently honor the Confederacy that fought to maintain the evil institution? If Nazi monuments were prominent in German cities and the Nazi symbols were incorporated into German flags, all because Germans wanted to honor the valor of the WWII German soldiers, would that be OK? You suggest that someone who even asks these questions is merely trying to act morally superior. What rubbish.

Arguments are made in this thread that are ridiculous -- the racial biases of the soldiers in the Confederate army were the same as the racial biases in the Union army, or, more recently, that northerners (outside of the border states still in the Union where slavery still was legal) owned slaves. E.g., was Kentucky (even though it remained in the Union) "northern" in 1861?

I never said that anybody today didn't consider slavery evil. However, some Confederate apologists still argue that slavery was relatively benign.

When the Confederacy primarily was founded to maintain the institution of slavery, and Confederate soldiers clearly, unlike Union soldiers and Union leaders, predominately even did not want African Americans in the Confederate army, it is preposterous to make the argument that appeared in this thread that the racial attitudes of Confederate soldiers differed little from those of Union soldiers.

Even though many Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, James McPherson and other Civil War historians explain in great detail that almost all Confederate soldiers did not want African Americans elevated to anywhere near the same level of citizenship and social status as white southerners. This clearly was not the attitude of Union abolitionist soldiers nor the sizable number of African Americans who fought for the Union. Jim Crow laws subsequently enacted in the South demonstrate that this racial bias was pervasive even after the Civil War in the one-time Confederate states.

To challenge the preposterous historical inaccuracies in this thread, arguments seemingly advanced to justify the continued location of the Louisville Confederate monument, was my primary motivation for posting here.

I certainly have no guilt over attempting to counter objectively the historical inaccuracies in this thread that likely are motivated by some desire to keep Confederate monuments in places where they are no longer welcome. And, to carry your acknowledgement that slavery was evil to its logical conclusion, the accurate association of the Confederacy with the evil of slavery largely explains why these monuments today are considered so offensive by many.

Personally, as noted, I have great respect for George Washington, who was invariably linked to the Confederate memorial, even though his beliefs at the end of his life were not those of the typical Confederate. I also have great respect for Robert E. Lee, who was tormented by his role in the Civil War, and yet summoned his great courage to make invaluable contributions to American society in his short number of years remaining after the war.

When African Americans see continued efforts even today to mitigate their democratic rights -- such as overcrowded polling centers, cumbersome voter ID procedures, overt gerrymanders -- it's easy to understand why they in particular are incensed by having to confront symbols of the Confederacy, whether flags or prominent monuments, in their daily lives. For sizable numbers of Americans, the Civil War still resonates in modern life, understandably so IMO.

<<Let me be clear about what the battle flag, statues and other symbols of the Confederacy are. They are representations of hate, emptied-out ideas of racial superiority, inhumanity and devilishness. The Civil War was not a war of “northern aggression” fought by sympathetic, victimized “Gone with the Wind” characters. It was a war about slavery – plain and simple. It was a conflict the South started to maintain its right to continue playing pharaoh and endlessly force its black brutes to make bricks out of straw. Every battle flag, T-shirt, and monument to these inhumane traitors remind us of that fact.>>

Jones | It's time to remove the Confederate statue from U of L
Excellent post. Louisville was always a union city. But remember most of Louisville's southern vibe was post war so it could trade with the south (the "middle man" for interior US south to north trades). Late 19th century Louisville held the same size and prominence as somewhere like Dallas does today.

Louisville's modern southern slant was perpetuated a few ways:

1. Louisville had an industrial boom in the 1910s/20s, and LG&E posted a sign on the river downtown that said "Gateway to the South" in Neon letters. (I think the city should revive this in light of the south's booming popularity now)

2. Mayor Farnsley in the 50s promoted Louisville as being south due to his ties with the Whiskey industry and wanting to promote the Derby

3. Louisville was NEVER pronounced Luhvul or Looavul until the last 35 years. Old timers do not say it that way unless they are from the south or rural KY. A very cute weather girl in the 1970s who actually was from the south started saying it that way and it caught in.

4. In the last 20 years, the south has become "cool" so Louisville has embraced it...bourbon tourism, distilleries, and the "big derby hats" are something to sell and "selling" means tourists. The amount of tourists in the city today is very impressive

To this day at least half the metro area, if not more, have little to no "southern accent" especially compared to TN, AL, etc.

Louisville is a true hybrid city, a mix of south and north, and the confed monument has no place on the biggest university in the city. It should be moved to a culturally sensitive site, and the entrance to the white "unknown" confederate graves at Cave Hill Cemetery is the correct location.
 
Old 05-24-2016, 04:21 PM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
9,593 posts, read 20,495,960 times
Reputation: 9083
WR, if people acted logically then it would be correct to assume people who support the CSA would be slavery apologists. Problem is many Americans are very ignorant on history and geography. Polls show most Americans have no idea which amendment ended slavery, many can't identify their own state on a map. In modern times the Confederate flag has become less about the South and more about White Supremacy. Honestly I see more CSA flags in Indiana, Pennsylvania, etc than in Kentucky or the Deep South. I suspect most of the people around me in Southern Indiana flying them have Union ancestors. That is the main reason the even GOP elected officials across the South are finally voting to remove CSA things from publically funded facilities.


The vast majority of posters on here agree that the Confederate Monument needs to be moved. Much of the discussion was understanding why a hybrid Upper South / Lower Midwest city that was 80/20 in support of the Union put up such a monument within living memory of many Civil War veterans, with Union veterans at the opening ceremony in support of it. People simply made the point that while in Cleveland or New England the war might have been mostly about ending slavery in other places (like here) people with similar views on slavery joined different sides. My family highlights this complexity: the last slave owning family on my family tree had a son who died fighting for the Union at Vicksburg.
 
Old 05-24-2016, 04:29 PM
 
Location: New Albany, Indiana (Greater Louisville)
9,593 posts, read 20,495,960 times
Reputation: 9083
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
It should be moved to a culturally sensitive site, and the entrance to the white "unknown" confederate graves at Cave Hill Cemetery is the correct location.
If it was a monument specific to a more nortorius Confederate - say Bloody Bill Anderson or the veterans of Ft Pillow I would say demolish it. Because it is a general monument for all Louisville's Confederate dead that's a fair suggestion, as would the CSA cemetery at Pewe Valley. Part of me would like to see all CSA stuff in a museum but I know that won't happen. At least get it off of public property.


As a Kentuckian by heart I would really like to see Jefferson Davis birthplace transfered out of the state park system as well and handed off to a private group. In light of the budget cuts this is a good time for such a disscussion.
 
Old 05-24-2016, 06:20 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
449 posts, read 145,354 times
Reputation: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by censusdata View Post
The vast majority of posters on here agree that the Confederate Monument needs to be moved. Much of the discussion was understanding why a hybrid Upper South / Lower Midwest city that was 80/20 in support of the Union put up such a monument within living memory of many Civil War veterans, with Union veterans at the opening ceremony in support of it. People simply made the point that while in Cleveland or New England the war might have been mostly about ending slavery in other places (like here) people with similar views on slavery joined different sides. My family highlights this complexity: the last slave owning family on my family tree had a son who died fighting for the Union at Vicksburg.
One of the ironies about Kentucky’s union support is that the strongest advocates for staying in the union came from slave holders. That’s one of the things that Anne Marshall writes about in her book Creating a Confederate Kentucky. Louisville and Lexington were two of the largest slave trading cities in the entire US, plus there was a strong intrastate slave trade, so there were very strong economic incentives to continue that institution. When you look at the memoirs and speeches made during 1860/61 one of the primary pleas of the union advocates is that by staying in the union Kentucky would be rewarded by keeping their way of life, in other words, staying in the union was the best way to preserve the institution of slavery.
 
Old 05-24-2016, 08:52 PM
 
9,776 posts, read 7,690,153 times
Reputation: 17639
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter1948 View Post
Excellent post. Louisville was always a union city. But remember most of Louisville's southern vibe was post war so it could trade with the south (the "middle man" for interior US south to north trades). Late 19th century Louisville held the same size and prominence as somewhere like Dallas does today.

Louisville's modern southern slant was perpetuated a few ways:

1. Louisville had an industrial boom in the 1910s/20s, and LG&E posted a sign on the river downtown that said "Gateway to the South" in Neon letters. (I think the city should revive this in light of the south's booming popularity now)

2. Mayor Farnsley in the 50s promoted Louisville as being south due to his ties with the Whiskey industry and wanting to promote the Derby

3. Louisville was NEVER pronounced Luhvul or Looavul until the last 35 years. Old timers do not say it that way unless they are from the south or rural KY. A very cute weather girl in the 1970s who actually was from the south started saying it that way and it caught in.

4. In the last 20 years, the south has become "cool" so Louisville has embraced it...bourbon tourism, distilleries, and the "big derby hats" are something to sell and "selling" means tourists. The amount of tourists in the city today is very impressive

To this day at least half the metro area, if not more, have little to no "southern accent" especially compared to TN, AL, etc.

Louisville is a true hybrid city, a mix of south and north, and the confed monument has no place on the biggest university in the city. It should be moved to a culturally sensitive site, and the entrance to the white "unknown" confederate graves at Cave Hill Cemetery is the correct location.

Sorry, but I am almost twice 35 years old, a Louisville native, have lived in Kentucky for all but five years of my life - and have always pronounced it "Louavul". No cute weather "girl" influence here.
 
Old 05-25-2016, 01:56 PM
 
1,168 posts, read 679,775 times
Reputation: 1413
Quote:
Originally Posted by WRnative View Post
You are taking my arguments out of context. Only someone who did not read carefully the comments made in this thread, or who wasn't too offended by the historical inaccuracies embodied in these comments, would charge anybody as seeming "morally superior" by taking objection to the comments.

E.g., regarding Confederate monuments, if slavery was so evil, why should we prominently honor the Confederacy that fought to maintain the evil institution? If Nazi monuments were prominent in German cities and the Nazi symbols were incorporated into German flags, all because Germans wanted to honor the valor of the WWII German soldiers, would that be OK? You suggest that someone who even asks these questions is merely trying to act morally superior. What rubbish.

Arguments are made in this thread that are ridiculous -- the racial biases of the soldiers in the Confederate army were the same as the racial biases in the Union army, or, more recently, that northerners (outside of the border states still in the Union where slavery still was legal) owned slaves. E.g., was Kentucky (even though it remained in the Union) "northern" in 1861?

I never said that anybody today didn't consider slavery evil. However, some Confederate apologists still argue that slavery was relatively benign.

When the Confederacy primarily was founded to maintain the institution of slavery, and Confederate soldiers clearly, unlike Union soldiers and Union leaders, predominately even did not want African Americans in the Confederate army, it is preposterous to make the argument that appeared in this thread that the racial attitudes of Confederate soldiers differed little from those of Union soldiers.

Even though many Confederate soldiers did not own slaves, James McPherson and other Civil War historians explain in great detail that almost all Confederate soldiers did not want African Americans elevated to anywhere near the same level of citizenship and social status as white southerners. This clearly was not the attitude of Union abolitionist soldiers nor the sizable number of African Americans who fought for the Union. Jim Crow laws subsequently enacted in the South demonstrate that this racial bias was pervasive even after the Civil War in the one-time Confederate states.

To challenge the preposterous historical inaccuracies in this thread, arguments seemingly advanced to justify the continued location of the Louisville Confederate monument, was my primary motivation for posting here.

I certainly have no guilt over attempting to counter objectively the historical inaccuracies in this thread that likely are motivated by some desire to keep Confederate monuments in places where they are no longer welcome. And, to carry your acknowledgement that slavery was evil to its logical conclusion, the accurate association of the Confederacy with the evil of slavery largely explains why these monuments today are considered so offensive by many.

Personally, as noted, I have great respect for George Washington, who was invariably linked to the Confederate memorial, even though his beliefs at the end of his life were not those of the typical Confederate. I also have great respect for Robert E. Lee, who was tormented by his role in the Civil War, and yet summoned his great courage to make invaluable contributions to American society in his short number of years remaining after the war.

When African Americans see continued efforts even today to mitigate their democratic rights -- such as overcrowded polling centers, cumbersome voter ID procedures, overt gerrymanders -- it's easy to understand why they in particular are incensed by having to confront symbols of the Confederacy, whether flags or prominent monuments, in their daily lives. For sizable numbers of Americans, the Civil War still resonates in modern life, understandably so IMO.

<<Let me be clear about what the battle flag, statues and other symbols of the Confederacy are. They are representations of hate, emptied-out ideas of racial superiority, inhumanity and devilishness. The Civil War was not a war of “northern aggression” fought by sympathetic, victimized “Gone with the Wind” characters. It was a war about slavery – plain and simple. It was a conflict the South started to maintain its right to continue playing pharaoh and endlessly force its black brutes to make bricks out of straw. Every battle flag, T-shirt, and monument to these inhumane traitors remind us of that fact.>>

Jones | It's time to remove the Confederate statue from U of L
Slavery was a non issue at the beginning of the Civil war. The Civil war was instigated over excess taxation. It was the North that elevated it to include slavery. If all your info was correct, Blacks would have been full citizens of the US from the day the war ended and their rights would have been protected like all others. However this didnt happen until the 1960's. So any reference to the North being the "Good Guys" wanting to free the slaves just is ludicrous. Even today you find the most abuse of blacks in the northern states.
The north found that the Indentured servitude of the Irish and other European immigrants was much more profitable than the keeping of slaves. Slaves were expensive. You didnt want to risk them in some industrial application when you could just get some Irish to work for pennies, then steal back those pennies from them by over charging them food and board.

The status should stay where they are. It is important to be reminded of not only your greatest achievements but your failures too.
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.


Closed Thread


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Kentucky > Louisville area
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top