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.
Slavery itself was the major issue. Historical documents back this up. And it goes back so many years. Bleeding Kansas. Fugitive Slave Act. Missouri Compromise.
I do not see Jackson, Lee, Forrest, as good men. Why? Because they fought for the Confederacy. Lee was sworn to protect this country, but sided with the CSA, just after the war started and before Virginia seceded. His loyalties were to go to the USA first. Technically he should have been tried for treason. He wasn't, but that is not the main concern for me. He fought for the CSA. That alone is a problem for me. Why am I a "Union cheerleader"? Simple. Even if the North wasn't much better for Blacks, the Confederates were that much worse. It's the lesser of two evils for me. Confederates were the greater of the two evils based on the Articles of Secession, based on the Cornerstone Speech of Alexander Stephens.
And Nathan Bedford Forrest founded the KKK, a white supremacy terrorist group. I really have a disgust for him.
I don't see them as "great men". I see them as men who would have furthered the enslavement of Blacks.
Think about this. A majority of Blacks in the USA are southerners. Why are the majority of Blacks AGAINST all things Confederate? If it's about "southern pride" wouldn't the majority of Blacks in this country embrace it?
Lee's reasons for fighting for the Confederacy were tied to his being torn between his home (Virginia) and his commission with the Union army. Whatever anyones reasons for taking either side were their own. Regardless of what you may think of any of them, they were NOT cowards nor traitors to their way of thinking. Regardless of your personal feelings the CSA had just as many brave and dedicated men and women as the Union.
I don't believe a Confederate victory in the war would have had a positive outcome. Slavery notwithstanding. The country would now be as fractured and weak as Europe had that been the outcome. I'm not going to argue Forrest with you. Other than to say he had the respect of his adversaries. His military strategies are taught at West point and his tactics as well. That speaks to his military ability. He was arguably the finest (and surely in the top five) of cavalry commanders in that unfortunate conflict.
I'm sure your sensibilities will be satisfied to a degree with the taking down of many Confederate monuments. But many will remain up as well. Speaking for myself I have no issue recognizing the military accomplishments of the Confederate forces. All politics aside, and from a strictly military standpoint. I've given up on the issue of slavery. It's over, and the war is over. But that doesn't by any means make me respect the absolute bravery of both Union and Confederate troops and commanders on the field of battle. Naepolianic tactics were not for the faint of heart. Whether US or CS, it took nads of solid tempered brass to line up muzzle to muzzle with weapons between 54 and 72 caliber and stand there trading volleys. That is just a fact that regardless of personal politics just can't be argued different. I don't have an issue with monuments honoring either side.
Hopefully, people in the future will think "what happened back then was wrong and we're doing better today".
I hope so too. Although, unfortunately, this poem came to mind, from grammar school days. Back then, & even now, I was influenced by the words & their visual impact on me. It's funny in a way but the picture that comes to mind hasn't changed much with the passage of years. & statues, etc. really are "lifeless things" it's the 'living things' that animate or give them their spirit or life force or whatever.
Ozymandias
Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1792 - 1822
Quote:
"I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: “Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.”
You must've missed the previous million pages, but it was the easily the #1 point of contention. Easily.
EASILY, since the founding the the United States
I think you're trying to use some kind of semantic wizardry. To say the South "fought" to preserve slavery, but they certainly seceded to preserve it as all of the declarations of secession state that clearly. They felt strongly enough to secede, I don't think it's a stretch to say they clearly felt strongly enough about it to defend the institution with force. All of their letters of secession point towards preserving their "peculiar institution" as the main motivator to secede. I posted this awhile back. //www.city-data.com/forum/47458656-post269.html
You can argue all day that Lincoln "didn't care about the slaves", but he knew anti-slave and slave states could not co-exist in one nation, and he leaned towards abolition.
Southern Democrats were very anxious about him becoming President. He may not have anticipated having to go to war over it, but that's how the cookie crumbled.
Lost Causers frequently try to point towards other issues of the time, but slavery was not just "one issue", it was a political issue, it was a religious issue, it was a social/caste issue, it was a economic issue, it was a tax issue, it was a Constitutional issue, it was a moral issue. It was essentially a point of friction from the very founding of the Constitution. It took roughly 80 years to come to a head. You honestly need to look further back than Lincoln's election to understand the American Civil War was a long time coming.
Re: bold: I agree wholeheartedly. Although sometimes I wonder about my own perceptions about the historical timeframe, the decades leading up to, the ACW, & the dozen or so decades after, I seem to come back to a similar assessment. 'Semantic wizardry' specious arguments or assertions, long story short - sophistry. The energies applied to submerging the idea that owning people as property was there from this Country's beginning & at odds (understatement) with the ideals, principles, underlying belief systems, etc., can be more suitably applied, now, in the present day, to continue to improve, move forward, progress, etc.
The American Civil War didn't just pop up out of nowhere, the seeds were there from the beginning. Those 'seeds' are perhaps still with us. Those seeds were very definitely present during the period of Reconstruction.
I find the following conversation fascinating, General Grant was a fascinating personality full stop. I often wonder why Mr. Lee is lionized, deified, enshrined, while Mr. Grant is overshadowed? (Certainly not in his own time, more like in the present day.)
Quote:
The following is a conversation between Otto von Bismarck (the founder and first chancellor of the German Empire) and General Grant that occurred in June, 1878.
"You are so happily placed," replied the prince, "in America that you need fear no wars. What always seemed so sad to me about your last great war was that you were fighting your own people. That is always so terrible in wars, so very hard."
"But it had to be done." said the General.
"Yes," said the prince, "you had to save the Union just as we had to save Germany."
"Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery," answered the General.
"I suppose, however, the Union was the real sentiment, the dominant sentiment," said the prince.
"In the beginning, yes," said the General; "but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."
"I had an old and good friend, an American, in Motley," said the prince, "who used to write me now and then. Well, when your war broke out he wrote me. ...
This is another fascinating conversation to imagine:
Quote:
...When I had left camp that morning I had not expected so soon the result that was then taking place, and consequently was in rough garb. I was without a sword, as I usually was when on horseback on the field, and wore a soldier’s blouse for a coat, with the shoulder straps of my rank to indicate to the army who I was. When I went into the house I found General Lee. We greeted each other, and after shaking hands took our seats. I had my staff with me, a good portion of whom were in the room during the whole of the interview. 10
What General Lee’s feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassible face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter, were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us. ...
The house Jackson was born in is right across the street from the courthouse and monument in Clarksburg. The locals would not tolerate outsiders rolling in demanding these monuments be taken down.That a group of schoolchildren would want a bridge named after Jackson doesn't surprise me. Folks there talk to their kids about history. WV may have been a "Union state", but it was made so at the point of a bayonet to secure the industrial base there. The people were not exactly flocking to put on blue uniforms.
The politics of the War are far more complicated than just an issue of slavery and the rank and file were not fighting to preserve that institution. Nor were they duped in any way. They were angry about forcible occupation and confiscation of personal/private property by troops pointing 1861 Springfield rifles at them. Jackson, having been born in WV is a matter of personal pride. Face it Union cheerleaders, he was a great man, as was Lee, Stuart, Hood and a bunch of other less well knowns, Virginians all. Just as Forrest is a source of pride for Tennesee.
Yes, the winners get to write history. But having a measure of pride in true history , last I checked, was not lillegal in the US. Forcible removal of monuments to Confederate figures however seems to be. Folks have a right to their opinions regardless of what anyone else thinks of those opinions. So sure, take down a statue of Lee and try to replace it with one of Grant, or worse, Sherman, and I'll take up a position a safe distance away with a good set of binoculars.
Thing is, the folks who want these monuments left be are no less loyal to the US than anyone else. They just want to honor brave men. And they are not adverse to honoring Union soldiers either. Both sides had brave and dedicated soldiers. One other image I remember from the time I spent in WV/Kentucky is of a union and Confederate soldier shaking hands. There is reconciliation. But people just don't want to see the bravery of either side demeaned for the sake of uninformed and purely emotional ranting of people who don't know, or want to know the truth of it all.
Re: bold: Are you denying the 'losers' got to write their own version? (IMHO, the Confederate-Americans were coddled for more than 100 years following ACW.) By the way, we all lost the American Civil War. Apparently, all American people are still losing.
Re: underlined: I really don't understand where you get the impression there is, literally, a single person who is, in reality, speaking about replacing a statue of a Confederate idol with someone from the American side of the American Civil War?
Do people really think this way? Or, is it yet more drama queenery afoot?
Yes, the winners get to write history. But having a measure of pride in true history , last I checked, was not lillegal in the US. Forcible removal of monuments to Confederate figures however seems to be. Folks have a right to their opinions regardless of what anyone else thinks of those opinions...
Thing is, the folks who want these monuments left be are no less loyal to the US than anyone else. They just want to honor brave men. ...
You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
The fact is that these monuments and statues honor traitors.
They keep alive the "South shall rise again" secessionist, KKK, white supremacy BS and we can all see where that's getting us.
Pride in true history? The true history is that thousands were slaughtered for slave-owners. Where is the pride in that?
Instead of strutting about being proud of being traitors, they should be ashamed. Southern slave-owners instigated a horrible time in our history and we are still paying the price for it.
There's a reason we don't have monuments to Aaron Burr, Benedict Arnold, etc.
Condoleeza Rice has the right take in this issue. It is part of our history, a dark chapter no doubt, but still a part of our nation's history A paraphrased from memory, but believe I captured the essence of her comment. It takes maturity and wisdom for her to say that.
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.
Or, is it yet more drama queenery afoot? 
Well, for better or for worse...
