Petition wants Stone Mt. Confederate carving removed

[south-to-west]

I'm ok with the engravings of the Confederate generals on Stone Mountain because it's part of history. However let's not lie to ourselves about the root causes of the war. It was about slavery - period, point blank. Wealthy slave-owners felt threatened by a president elected on a platform of restricting slavery from expanding into the newer western territories. In fact they felt so threatened that some states seceded from the Union before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Having a large pool of free labor meant huge profits for major ag sectors, like cotton.

Additionally, many poorer Southern whites felt threatened by the potential of having to compete economically with freed blacks. Even more so, they were whipped into hysteria by propaganda saying that freeing the slaves would led to widespread "miscegenation", which would lead to the endangerment of the white race.

It's ugly, but it's history nonetheless. Sometimes history is meant to be a lesson rather than being a point of pride.

[arjay57]

removed.

By the way, here's a phenomenal closeup of the carving. Be sure to click on the image to view it full size:

http://v7.cache3.c.bigcache.googleap...rect_counter=1

[Steelers10]

Confederates for state's rights. Funny. One of the precipitating factors of the hostilities between the North and the South was that Southern Congressmen and political allies successfully passed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 which essentially said any law enforcement official in ANY state who did not stop what he was doing to help apprehend an ALLEGED runaway slave was subject to a $1000 fine. Anyone in ANY state found giving any sort of aid to an ALLEGED runaway slave was subject to a $1000 fine and imprisonment. The state of Wisconsin nullified the law in 1859 and the Supreme Court overturned the nullification. Private citizens and law enforcement in states which outlawed slavery were conscripted for 15 years to help apprehend and return the private property (slaves) on essentially their own time and expense. Technically Union soldiers from non-slaveholding states were breaking the law if they did not return runaway slaves to slave owners until the passage of the 13th amendment. The only thing that kept American soldiers from prosecution was the fact that southerners took it upon themselves to collectively engage in treason against the US which gave Union generals broad powers to suspend Habeas Corpus. Yes, state's rights indeed.

When Alabama seceeded from the Union, North Alabama attempted to form its own state, slaveholding, but still part of the Union. The CSA denied North Alabamans this right. Thus North Alabamans had to form the First Alabama Union Cavalry to fight for their rights against their own state. East Tennessee wanted to remain part of the Union although slaveholding was still legal. The CSA denied East Tennesseeans this right. Most of the men in the First Alabama Union Cavalry were actually from East Tennessee. When Kentucky remained part of the Union and the USA unequivocally upheld the state's right to legal slavery, the CSA, not to be outdone, set up its own Confederate Kentucky government in Bowling Green. The Confederate States of America overrode the rights of citizens in its states and had a stronger and more domineering central government than the United States ever had to that point. The Confederate States of America, fighting for state's rights since...well never.

[afonega1]

Originally Posted by LovinDecatur

The reason meetings were convened at Stone Mountain is because it was wholly owned at that time by James Venable, who held a high position in the Georgia Klan.

Which further solidifies my point.A hateful man ahead of a hateful institution commissioned to have the work done.
Its like the Confederate Flag is used constantly as a backdrop for hater groups.Many times beside the Nazi flag.
Why did Georgia change its states flag in the 50's after the Civil Rights Act passed?Oh...let me guess,"states rights"
In not for defacing the monument but don't try to act like its about something that its really not.

In Germany,the Autobahn still stands even though it was built by the Nazi's.Yes it was built for travel for the Nazi's but nowadays everybody uses it.

[Steelers10]

Originally Posted by afonega1

Which further solidifies my point.A hateful man ahead of a hateful institution commissioned to have the work done.
Its like the Confederate Flag is used constantly as a backdrop for hater groups.Many times beside the Nazi flag.
Why did Georgia change its states flag in the 50's after the Civil Rights Act passed?Oh...let me guess,"states rights"
In not for defacing the monument but don't try to act like its about something that its really not.

In Germany,the Autobahn still stands even though it was built by the Nazi's.Yes it was built for travel for the Nazi's but nowadays everybody uses it.

You can probably glean from my previous post what little esteem (none) I have for the Confederate States of America, their "cause", and contemporary Southerners who glorify their ancestors who are no uncertain terms, traitors.

With that being said, Jefferson Davis is the odd man out on Stone Mountain. For as much as I abhor the Confederacy, Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson actually were heroes. They were exemplary Americans before they ever became Confederates. While both were slaveowners, both were involved in the education of blacks even though it was technically illegal in the state of Virginia at that time. Both were involved in the apprehension of John Brown at Harper's Ferry, which was in Virginia at the time. While I sympathize and agree with John Brown's cause, he seized a federal armory. The Governor of Virginia ordered Lee and Jackson to retake the armory. There was no impetus for either to refuse this command in 1859.

Neither were in favor of Virginia's secession and joining of the Confederacy. At the time, units were organized by the states. Virginia's governor ordered Jackson back to Harper's Ferry in 1861. To not do so would have been an act of insubordination as well. Lee actually was offered a military command by Lincoln and actually surprised many when he did not relinquish his military post in Virginia (thus the Confederacy) because most of his family (the Lee's were a Virginian institution) were anti-secession.

I'm not defending either Lee or Jackson because both chose poorly when they did not defy the orders of Virginia's governor. But keep in mind Virginia's governor, General Assembly, and former congressmen were quite powerful individuals. The purpose behind moving the Confederate capital away from Jefferson Davis's home base of Montgomery, AL to Richmond was not only strategic, but a move of appeasement to place the capital in the hands of the true powerbrokers.

On that note, Jefferson Davis was scum. He was not popular, not particularly bright (Alexander Stephens was the true braintrust of the Confederacy), and not respected by Southern governors. If we are fighting for state's rights, why is Jefferson Davis attempting to boss us around? When Robert E. Lee proposed emancipation of slaves as a military strategy to help actually win the war, he was rebuffed. So I guess maintaining slavery was ultimately more important than Confederate "sovereignty" in the end. If any part of Stone Mountain should be dynamited, it should probably be the depiction of Jefferson Davis. But if there has to be a monument of any Southerners (individuals born in what would become the Confederacy prior to the Civil War), I would have to rank Lee and Jackson third and fourth after Washington and Jefferson, and those two are already on Mt. Rushmore. For the record, Andrew Jackson is scum too. Maybe Jefferson Davis's face could be replaced by P.G.T. Beauregard who opposed Reconstruction but as a Creole supported civil rights and enfranchisement for Freedman in for nothing else than to form a political alliance to return Democratic rule to his native Louisiana. His fellow countrymen preferred the strategy of terror, violence, and disenfranchisement instead.

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by afonega1

Im Black and I'm Southern.Quite proud of it for different reason as some white Southerners.

That's a really great point. "Southerners" are not a monolithic group!

[toll_booth]

Originally Posted by arjay57

Well, let's see how the state of Georgia explained its motivations at the time. Here's the opening paragraph of Georgia's official Declaration of Secession in 1861:

The people of Georgia having dissolved their political connection with the Government of the United States of America, present to their confederates and the world the causes which have led to the separation. For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war. Our people, still attached to the Union from habit and national traditions, and averse to change, hoped that time, reason, and argument would bring, if not redress, at least exemption from further insults, injuries, and dangers. Recent events have fully dissipated all such hopes and demonstrated the necessity of separation. Our Northern confederates, after a full and calm hearing of all the facts, after a fair warning of our purpose not to submit to the rule of the authors of all these wrongs and injuries, have by a large majority committed the Government of the United States into their hands. The people of Georgia, after an equally full and fair and deliberate hearing of the case, have declared with equal firmness that they shall not rule over them. A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution. While the subordination and the political and social inequality of the African race was fully conceded by all, it was plainly apparent that slavery would soon disappear from what are now the non-slave-holding States of the original thirteen. The opposition to slavery was then, as now, general in those States and the Constitution was made with direct reference to that fact.....etc., etc., etc.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Georgia Secession

Wow. So much for the war not being about slavery.

[atlantagreg30127]

If anyone needs to be reminded what the actual TOPIC is, please see the first post in the thread.

Anything not about the topic is gone from this point onward.

Thank you.