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.
Removal of each statue should be considered carefully, I don't think that is the case at the moment and people are overreacting. I just read where there is a statue of Oliver Cromwell in London, he was a fairly brutal leader. After his death his remains were disinterred and they cut off his head yet there is a statue of him.
People need to take a deep breath and wait before they rush into these decisions many of which seem to be based more on emotion.
No. It means we teach the truth about the Civil War. It means we recognize that some people don't deserve to be honored, ever. It is about teaching the difference between who deserves honor, and who doesn't.
Some of my Virginia direct ancestors (a 4th great grandfather and his brothers) were "conscripted" by the CSA and taken to build railroads in the state for the benefit of the CSA also to work in Richmond. I found documentation of this in VA's archives which hold plantation records and CSA records of that era.
There is a lot of doubt about believing that a significant number of blacks actually served as soldiers in the Confederate portion of the war, other than those who were creole/mullattoes who were free and could pass for white. It is true that these free blacks did fight for the CSA and also true that a small amount of black slaves were forced to fight. A good summary of this is here:
African Americans were the first to publicize the presence of black Confederates. Frederick Douglass bemoaned the Confederate victory of First Manassas in July 1861 by noting in the August 1861 issue of his newspaper, Douglass’ Monthly, that “among rebels were black troops, no doubt pressed into service by their tyrant masters.” He used this evidence to pressure the administration of Abraham Lincoln to abolish slavery and arm blacks as a military strategy. It was “the speediest method of terminating the war,” he said.
Will note that oftentimes people overlook the fact that black Americans both past and present are usually the first people to discuss such controversial "race matters" such as what occurred with Douglass (people really should learn more about him versus just reading his Autobiography that many colleges assign or decent high schools).
Also from the link on slaves being forced to fight for the CSA:
Quote:
He published in the March 1862 issue of Douglass’ Monthly a brief autobiography of John Parker, one of the black Confederates at Manassas. A Virginia slave, Parker was sent to Richmond to build batteries and breastworks. After completing this job, he and his fellow slaves were ordered to Manassas “to fight,” as he said. He was put in an artillery unit with three other black men. On Sunday, July 21, “we opened fire about 10:00 in the morning; couldn’t see the Yankees at all and only fired at random.”
During the battle, Parker said, he worried about dying, hoped for a Union victory and thought of fleeing to the Union side. “We wished to our hearts that the Yankees would whip us. … We would have run over to the other side but our officers would have shot us if we had made the attempt.” He and his fellow slaves had been promised their freedom “and money besides” if they fought. “None of us believed them; we only fought because we had to.”
Parker remained on the battlefield for two weeks, burying the dead, bayoneting the wounded to put them out of their misery, and stripping the Yankees of clothes and valuables. His burial duty was, like his impressment as a laborer and gunner, under orders and the threat of being shot.
Parker’s ticket to freedom was the first Confiscation Act, passed on Aug. 6, 1861, which authorized the Union Army to confiscate slaves aiding the Confederate war effort. Although the act did not mention freedom, it was in effect the first emancipation act, as the historian James Oakes has noted, because it prohibited officers from returning “contrabands” into slavery.
Parker fled for Union lines and in early 1862 reached Gen. Nathaniel Banks’ division near Frederick, Md. Union soldiers “welcomed” him. They gave him a suit of clothes and plenty to eat and asked him to return to Virginia as a Union scout. Parker refused, saying that he “was bound for the North,” but told them everything he knew about rebel positions. They gave him provisions, a contraband pass and a letter of introduction to a minister in New York City who could help him. He arrived safely in New York and began lecturing on “The War and Its Causes” for 10 cents a ticket, according to an advertisement for his lecture.
Blacks who served in the confederacy were slaves to their masters and taken as manservants and laborers, like my ancestors were and which I have documentation showing that they were. They were not fighting to stay enslaved lol. Also a large amount of slaves taken into the field by confederate soldiers/officers were forced with threat of death to fight and like Parker many ran away and joined the Union and/or became laborers for the Union army. It is estimated, per the link that about 3000-6000 black men served in the confederacy, very few of them were actual slaves and of those slaves they were forced to serve.
On monuments to slaves/servants of the confederacy, I don't have a problem with them. However, if a location decides to change the name away from a park, school, or remove a monument/statue of a particular Confederate, like what occurred in Charlottesville that made the racists descend upon the place - I believe they have the right to do as they so please. I find it strange that so many apologists for these groups on this very forum are overlooking the fact that the council in many of these cities have voted to remove these CSA references and that this is what got the white supremacists upset and caused them to have this rally that lead to someone's death.
Last edited by residinghere2007; 08-21-2017 at 09:12 AM..
No. It means we teach the truth about the Civil War. It means we recognize that some people don't deserve to be honored, ever. It is about teaching the difference between who deserves honor, and who doesn't.
How about we get some southerners to come to New York City to riot about Grant's Tomb?
Take some down if the bother most people in the area, keep some up if they are wanted by most, decided on a case by case bases why to go one way or the other. I don't agree will taking everything down because people today don't like people of yesterday since the country was unified after the war and specifically those who lead and fought in the confederacy were not seen as traitors to help the country heal. We still need some of that. Maybe not every statue put up but the Daughers/Sons of The Confederacy but having a statue of Gen Lee somewhere or commemorating battles that were fought is expected and will harm nobody. Either will statues to important people who played a part in pushing this country towards it's future regardless of their lifestyle. We don't have a ton of old things in this country and I'll be damned if I'm going to blindly agree to get rid of a bunch of what we do have because it's suddenly trendy.
How about we get some southerners to come to New York City to riot about Grant's Tomb?
Let me guess, you can refute what I said, so you resort to ad hominem remarks. That's fine. That just shows me how unstable and childish your mindset is. You know you can't prove me wrong, and it struck a nerve with you. Rather than offer some facts, you offer a childish remark. Come on, show me whete I'm wrong.
wow this will be yet another case of cognitive dissonance for the left
No cog diss for me. These guy's statues should be taken down and replaced by black soldiers who fought for the Union. You know, the WINNERS of the war?
Besides, there's very few 'hero worshipping' going on when it comes to uniting the peoples & states.
Division is 'all the rage' - in fashion & de rigueur these days.
How's that working out?
Well, division has always been the thing. Hence, why so many Confederate monuments went up in the first place. This is why Jim Crow existed in the South. This is why things like race-based restrictive covenants and sundown laws were in effect in many areas throughout the USA. I can't think of one time when the USA didn't have some kind of division or contention.
Well, division has always been the thing. Hence, why so many Confederate monuments went up in the first place. This is why Jim Crow existed in the South. This is why things like race-based restrictive covenants and sundown laws were in effect in many areas throughout the USA. I can't think of one time when the USA didn't have some kind of division or contention.
Strongly agree with all of these.
Just stressing the significance of the "one time" the division came to taking up arms against each other. This is what some choose to celebrate?
& the 'hero worshipping' is pretty much a one-sided & pathetic affair imho.
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.
How would that be helpful?
