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.
In the years from 1896 to 1917 this Confederate memorial movement came under the control and
leadership of new organizations like the United Daughters of the Confederacy and the United
Confederate Veterans. A common theme throughout the dedication of Confederate monuments,
Memorial Day celebrations, and museums was the glorification of the Lost Cause narrative that had
been articulated by the former President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis. In his two-volume
memoir, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, he placed the responsibility for secession
and war on the North. While the “Lost Cause” narratives varied “somewhat over how slavery should be
remembered, most shared a refurbished commitment to white supremacy and a desire for renewed
economic growth.”
Your conclusion is flawed at best. Notice that the speaker makes no reference to slavery or the confederate cause, but instead refers to the principles that the confederate soldiers held as individuals. In your rush to defend your position on the matter you clearly twisted the speakers words. At the very least you should provide a link to the entire speech so that we can get a better idea of the context. Cherry picking one quote and then twisting it to justify your position is an example of faulty logic. The quote could actually be used as evidence that the monument was indeed erected to honor the fallen soldiers, and not the confederate cause. Ask every member of the Armed Forces today about what their principles are and what they are fighting for, and each one will give you a different answer.
Sorry Frank - I just cant give short answers like you can.
The Grand Army of the Republic (GAR) was made up of Union veterans after the war - the guys who fought against the Confederacy. And while we see photos of veterans shaking hands at reunions, and building friendships after the conflict, we rarely see the resentment by many of the Union soldiers about the conflict - and specifically of, what we call today, the "rewriting of history". The GAR took no official stance on the Confederate monument at the time but there are quotes out there made by Union veterans at the time.
"“I am opposed to Confederate monuments anywhere, but if they insist on having them I am opposed to having them in public parks. If there is to be one in St. Louis, it should be at Jefferson Barracks, where Confederate soldiers are buried.” — Francis P. Becker, a member of the council of administration of the Grand Army of the Republic, a national organization of Union Army veterans
“We look upon this monument controversy with indifference, and while we may doubt the propriety of placing a monument in a public park in St. Louis, which never was a Confederate city, we shall probably say nothing about it. — Thomas B. Rodgers, assistant adjutant-general of the Missouri division of the Grand Army of the Republic.
Above quotes taken from PBS story posted online at Curious Louis: We take a monumental look at the Civil War in St. Louis | St. Louis Public Radio While I have seen positive statements made by Union soldiers about other Confederate monuments, those were being erected in cemeteries or on battlefields. The opposition from these GAR members seem to be about the location in a city park - much like the opposition today.
Here is an amazingly frank speech by another GAR member, a former Union captain, given a few months after the statue was erected. This speech can be found in its entirety in pdf format at http://www.suvcwmo.org/uploads/3/0/9...ansom_post.pdf
For those who are not history buffs, and prefer the abridged version, allow me to take a few quotes out of his talk. Keep in mind- this was given in February 1915 by a Union officer about the inscription on the St Louis monument - as it read then and reads today.
"Their respective causes, like those of Grant and Lee, were as irreconcilable and antagonistic as freedom and bondage - as a declaration of independence founded on human liberty and a Confederacy whose boasted cornerstone was human slavery" page 1
"This inscription appears indefinite and unsatisfactory, as stating but half the truth, or as a mere conclusion from connected facts not stated, and apparently well calculated to confuse rather than to educate. It ignores all the essential facts and circumstances inseparably connected with the subject matter and a consideration of which is absolutely necessary to an intelligent comprehension of the same."....."In the light of conceded historical facts, had this inscription stated the whole truth - the real objective - would it not have necessarily also proclaimed - 'Repudiating and denying any Constitutional obligation to the contrary they battled to establish and enforce the right of secession in order to better secure the perpetuation of human slavery'" (reference statement on monument about the CSA "preserving independence won from Great Britain) page 3
"Did they, either collectively or individually, ever suggest the absurd proposition that general friendship manifested for them in peace involved an acknowledgement of the justness of their cause in war?" page 5
"Were all the dreaded former armed enemies of the United States treated alike, what would our people think of the spectacle of monuments erected in our public parks to gratify our British, our Mexican and our Spanish citizens and proclaiming and teaching that in the wars with their respective countries the respective causes of our enemies were just and necessarily implying our government was wrong in defending itself against those who would defeat or destroy us?" page 6
There is much more but I did promise an abridged version. It will become obvious to anyone who takes the time to read his speech on what he calls the "Slaveholders Rebellion", that he is incensed by the words on the monument, more than the monument itself. Just one soldiers opinion, but apparently one the GAR chapter invited him to give in front of their membership.
Last edited by SW Missouri Dave; 06-30-2017 at 04:45 PM..
Reason: spelling
While it would be morally and historically absurd to suggest that Southern men who took up arms against President Lincoln's armies did so purely to oppress black people, it is true that virtually all white men in the 19th century, North or South, could not imagine a black president. Some simply wanted to get rid of blacks altogether, or as Lincoln told a delegation of black leaders he invited to the White House in 1862, "You and we are different races ... We have between us a broader difference than exists between almost any other two races ... This physical difference is a great disadvantage to us both ... It is better for us both, therefore, to be separated."
Lincoln constantly complained about "the troublesome presence of free negroes" and worked diligently with Congress on a plan to send American blacks to the African nation of Liberia. Lincoln also proposed a 13th amendment to the Constitution forever protecting the institution of slavery in order to pacify Southern secessionists. Needless to say, it didn't work.
Dissuading the South from seceding by promising to protect slavery didn't work, because the issue was secondary to the primary issue of constitutional government and states' rights. Southerners clung to the Founding Fathers' vision of a decentralized republic in which central planning, federal dictates, and permanent standing armies would have been impossible because the Constitution did not allow for a national government powerful enough to implement such measures.
Quote:
Today, it is quite popular to make comparisons between Southern secessionists and the Nazis. But Hitler himself wrote in Mein Kampf of the Old South: "[T]he individual states of the American Union ... could not have possessed any state sovereignty of their own. For it was not these states that formed the Union; on the contrary it was the Union which formed a great part of such so-called states." This was also Lincoln's argument, and Hitler was an admirer of the 16th president for all the obvious reasons.
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus and imprisoned thousands upon thousands of newspaper editors, judges, politicians, and any other citizens, public or private, who dared to get in his way. Conducting the first "total war" of the modern era — in which Lincoln's armies intentionally targeted innocent women, children, and old men in the South — was nothing less than an act of "genocide" against Southerners. There is nothing even remotely comparable in the actions of Confederate President Jefferson Davis or even Southern leaders like Robert E. Lee to the fascist tactics of Lincoln.
And here is a quote from the opinion piece you forgot to list
My purpose here is not to say that Lincoln was on par with Hitler, but that if someone insists on making the comparison, the 16th president had far more in common with the Nazi dictator than the Southern soldiers who died fighting for their country's independence.
I like that the author calls himself the Southern Avenger. Wonder how many people actually read the Charleston City paper. It is called an altweekly, whatever that is. Apparently found in a grocery store near you. Keep bringing these first class sources to the forum. It really helps make your point.
And here is a quote from the opinion piece you forgot to list
My purpose here is not to say that Lincoln was on par with Hitler, but that if someone insists on making the comparison, the 16th president had far more in common with the Nazi dictator than the Southern soldiers who died fighting for their country's independence.
I like that the author calls himself the Southern Avenger. Wonder how many people actually read the Charleston City paper. It is called an altweekly, whatever that is. Apparently found in a grocery store near you. Keep bringing these first class sources to the forum. It really helps make your point.
Are you sure I forgot the link? It looks like I did include it in my initial post. I thought it was an interesting take on history, much more factual than many posts in this thread, lol! I didn't forget to include anything, I just didn't want to quote the entire article. That's why I provided a link. There is a big difference between posting a link to an article which is what I did, and taking an excerpt from a speech and then spinning it to fit your narrative.
Attacking the author and the publication rather than addressing the points in the article? Feel free to attack me next if it makes you feel better.
In general, I'd say that Americans lack perspective. I find our lack of appreciation for historical sites to be quite shallow, to the point where it is actually rather embarrassing. Years ago I had a chance to take a tour of the Eagle's Nest, a Nazi retreat near Berchtesgaden. Thinking back, I guess there were no statues, busts, and if my memory is correct, not even pictures of the Third Reich era.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
Any historical comparison would not be a true apples to apples comparison. The Nazi/Hitler comparison has already been used here several times to demonize confederate soldiers. The fact is that German soldiers were patriots that served their country. The same could be said for the Americans that fought in the Revolutionary War, the soldiers of the Confederate Army, or any soldier that served in conventional fighting force. Soldiers fight because it is their duty to fight, the cause is secondary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
1. You are aware that slavery was legal per the Constitution, Constitution as in the supreme law of the land? You know, the document that this country was founded on. 2. You didn't bother to discuss why your Hitler/Nazi comparison is more appropriate. Germany is in Europe and was founded on much different principles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1grin_g0
[u]Some people have no idea that there is a huge distinction between a Nazi and a German soldier.
You are correct 1grin - I saw you were once again bringing up the Nazi's and I overlooked the link you posted. I apologize. I will be more careful in the future - and look forward to you linking to something actually relevant to the St Louis statue. And I do not mean this sarcastically, but if look up Denazification in Google search - it will explain why you couldn't find any Nazi statues when you were in Germany, and why I think any comparison, by either side, is ridiculous.
You are correct 1grin - I saw you were once again bringing up the Nazi's and I overlooked the link you posted. I apologize. I will be more careful in the future - and look forward to you linking to something actually relevant to the St Louis statue. And I do not mean this sarcastically, but if look up Denazification in Google search - it will explain why you couldn't find any Nazi statues when you were in Germany, and why I think any comparison, by either side, is ridiculous.
When you were methodically digging through the pages you must have failed to notice that each one of those posts were a response to someone who made a comparison or brought it up in some way. And no I am not surprised that there wasn't a Nazi monument in Germany, but I do find it odd that there wasn't anything memorializing or even depicting German soldiers. I am surprised however, that some here are apparently incapable of making a distinction between a political party (Nazi) and a soldier.
When you were methodically digging through the pages you must have failed to notice that each one of those posts were a response to someone who made a comparison or brought it up in some way. And no I am not surprised that there wasn't a Nazi monument in Germany, but I do find it odd that there wasn't anything memorializing or even depicting German soldiers. I am surprised however, that some here are apparently incapable of making a distinction between a political party (Nazi) and a soldier.
The confederate nazi comparisons are completely off base.
It's amazing how sensitive totally-not-white-supremacist Confederate sympathizers are to Nazi comparisons, even when it's mainly brought up in this thread as an example of "we don't usually build hundreds of memorials to the soldiers of our enemies" rather than a value comparison.
It's amazing how sensitive totally-not-white-supremacist Confederate sympathizers are to Nazi comparisons, even when it's mainly brought up in this thread as an example of "we don't usually build hundreds of memorials to the soldiers of our enemies" rather than a value comparison.
Ha ha it's factually inaccurate and intellectually lazy. You can imply what you wish about me. After the war the confederates remained Americans. Get over it. Their ancestors fought the nazis.
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.
