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.
So about a decade ago a group of volunteers organized a museum and Civil War reenactment center on county property. It is not certain that a battle was fought here, but one could have been.
In any case, one of the current commissioner has decide that that property would be better used as a public park and so forth rather than an ode to the South Shall Rise Again.
The guy who owned most of the artifacts got ticked because he couldn't do anything he wanted and decided to remove his things. Which is fine. Surely, the group can find somewhere else to reenact their dreams of glory and secession.
So about a decade ago a group of volunteers organized a museum and Civil War reenactment center on county property. It is not certain that a battle was fought here, but one could have been.
In any case, one of the current commissioner has decide that that property would be better used as a public park and so forth rather than an ode to the South Shall Rise Again.
The guy who owned most of the artifacts got ticked because he couldn't do anything he wanted and decided to remove his things. Which is fine. Surely, the group can find somewhere else to reenact their dreams of glory and secession.
I don't know enough about the particular museum cited, there are probably similar such elsewhere, particularly in the Southern States where the plantations existed & the battles took place.
If the property was formerly the Nash family's home & plantation, why not reflect the history of what life was actually like on a plantation? What was it like for the people living & working there?
Why erase the history of those enslaved by focusing on the failed, defunct, 4 year old, never recognized 'Country' of the CSA?
Seems like a ridiculous reason to shut down. Must have been looking for a controversy on the way out.
You are, apparently, correct:
Quote:
...An estimated 250 people peacefully rallied Saturday morning at Nash Farm Battlefield to show support for its museum with many aiming to take a stand for their southern heritage. ...
Seems disingenuous to call it 'Nash Farm' if it was a plantation. Were those enslaved 'migrant workers'? Why erase history by removing much more than half by neglecting to represent?
I'm a little confused. WHO should ban the Democratic Party? Republicans? You want a one party dictatorship? A totalitarian regime ... like China or North Korea? Be careful of what you wish for.
There's an interview with Mr. Dodd at the following link. I had some trouble getting it to play - it was re-loading & skipping, but thought he said something about the Holocaust Museum in Washington, DC. Something like, "What do they have on display? They have swastikas on display in the Holocaust Museum ..."
From what I understand, the museum was housed in the Nash family's home & plantation. Did it store info on the Nash family's history or was it basically a museum for the Confederacy?
It was not intended to be a museum depicting either the farm (whether you want to call it a plantation or not) or the Confederacy per se. It was specifically located there as a museum for the battle fought on the farm and included both Union and Confederate artifacts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould
So about a decade ago a group of volunteers organized a museum and Civil War reenactment center on county property. It is not certain that a battle was fought here, but one could have been.
In any case, one of the current commissioner has decide that that property would be better used as a public park and so forth rather than an ode to the South Shall Rise Again.
The guy who owned most of the artifacts got ticked because he couldn't do anything he wanted and decided to remove his things. Which is fine. Surely, the group can find somewhere else to reenact their dreams of glory and secession.
The battle was fought at the farm, confirmed with documentation in historical documents and artifacts found there.
There is no reason that the park could not be used for recreational purposes without launching an attack on the museum. I understand that Clemmons finds any flag associated with the Confederacy to be offensive; however, what she did to the museum was ill advised and divisive.
The donor who provided the artifacts has the right to remove them. Why should he provide them if the county is not going to support the museum?
Civil War reenactment is a popular hobby. You might be surprised to find that there are even African American reenactors. Battle reenactments will have participants portraying both Union and Confederate soldiers, and some participants will play for either "side", depending on what is needed.
Civil War historical sites are also popular with foreign tourists. There is an interesting comment concerning the exhibit on the museum Facebook page from an English visitor. My sister in law who is originally from England is also a Civil War buff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
I don't know enough about the particular museum cited, there are probably similar such elsewhere, particularly in the Southern States where the plantations existed & the battles took place.
If the property was formerly the Nash family's home & plantation, why not reflect the history of what life was actually like on a plantation? What was it like for the people living & working there?
Why erase the history of those enslaved by focusing on the failed, defunct, 4 year old, never recognized 'Country' of the CSA?
The museum focused on the battle fought at the farm. It was not intended to portray daily life on a "plantation".
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
Seems like a ridiculous reason to shut down. Must have been looking for a controversy on the way out.
It seems the one "looking for a controversy" was the commissioner. It looks like she was piggy backing on the movement elsewhere to remove all public displays of monuments to the Confederacy. Personally, I find that concept ill advised. It does not make the history go away to try to hide it. The owner of the artifacts cited a lack of confidence from the county as the reason for removing them. I can't say I blame him. I am sure he will find another place to display them.
Seems disingenuous to call it 'Nash Farm' if it was a plantation. Were those enslaved 'migrant workers'? Why erase history by removing much more than half by neglecting to represent?
What do you think a "plantation" was? All it means is a large farm.
"A plantation is a large agricultural property dedicated to planting a few crops on a large scale. If you dream of having 3,000 acres to raise cucumbers on, then you have dreams of a cucumber plantation."
Nash was a slave holder (he was also a minister); however, his land holding was not large, ultimately 350 acres. That information is available at the museum web site:
Those like the Taliban, that want to erase history.
Many Confederate-hyphen-Americans said as much or the like after losing their alleged right to own people as property & resisting the Civil Rights for all American people for over 100 years.
The history of those enslaved has been erased while revising history to present the Lost Cause while ignoring or denying the realities.
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.
Who?
