Virginia's history is being erased right before our eyes (cost, legal)

[Shallow Hal]

Look the Civil War was an absolutely hideous time in our American History. But the reasons for it were not complex. Can we agree on the following:

Slavery is bad.

When a group of people take up arms against the United States and go to war against the US, these people are considered traitors.

War is hell and there were atrocities on both sides.

The Civil War ended about 150 years ago.

The South lost the War.

The statutes to commemorate traitors were erected during the Jim Crow era in the 1890's. Note comment directly above.

What country honors and persists in commemorating traitors? What do we learn by looking at a metal structure of a traitor?

Best way to learn about the history of Virginia is to read history books.

[FordBronco1967]

Originally Posted by Shallow Hal

Look the Civil War was an absolutely hideous time in our American History. But the reasons for it were not complex. Can we agree on the following:

Slavery is bad.

When a group of people take up arms against the United States and go to war against the US, these people are considered traitors.

War is hell and there were atrocities on both sides.

The Civil War ended about 150 years ago.

The South lost the War.

The statutes to commemorate traitors were erected during the Jim Crow era in the 1890's. Note comment directly above.

What country honors and persists in commemorating traitors? What do we learn by looking at a metal structure of a traitor?

Best way to learn about the history of Virginia is to read history books.

It isn't so much the history on the statues, but the history of the statues, themselves. Why were these statues erected in the first place? To reunite a divided nation. The statues are a symbol of unification, which is something missing in our current society.

[Bungalove]

Originally Posted by FordBronco1967

It isn't so much the history on the statues, but the history of the statues, themselves. Why were these statues erected in the first place? To reunite a divided nation. The statues are a symbol of unification, which is something missing in our current society.

BS. Most of the statues were erected by groups like the Daughters of the Confederacy and similar groups to perpetuate the myth of "The Lost Cause" of the "glorious" South. The statues were a way of reminding black people, in particular, that they still had no place or rights in white society. They had absolutely nothing to do with "reuniting a divided nation". I say all this as someone who lives in a city that still has plenty of Confederate symbols and monuments and only recently changed the name of Jefferson Davis Hwy. with kicking and screaming in protest by a lot of Southerners (in that case, rednecks).

[Rogarven]

I am glad that I visited Richmond before the Monument Row or Blvd was taken down. Part of history being politized. I also don't believe the charges of racism that were made at Charlottesville by Pres. Trump. If I had ancestors that fought in the Conf. I would not disown them and disrespect them . However, my ancestors were planting potatoes in Ireland so I have no "dog in the fight".

[16 Acres]

Originally Posted by Shallow Hal

When a group of people take up arms against the United States and go to war against the US, these people are considered traitors.

Ahh, Lincoln is the one who invaded Virginia with guns drawn aiming to kill and kill they did.

You may be referring to Fort Sumter.

Maybe you do, maybe you don't but about 98% of the people out there do not know the truth and what really went on in detail about Fort Sumter.

There is a lot to say about it but I will say, for now, that NO ONE was killed by enemy fire.

Compare that to what Lincoln did when he first invaded Virginia in the First Battle of Bull Run.

By the way, you sure are correct. Slavery was bad and should never had been started in the first place way back in 1619.

[16 Acres]

Originally Posted by Rogarven

I am glad that I visited Richmond before the Monument Row or Blvd was taken down.

That is one thing that I missed. I never figured they would be taken down like that, but once the negativity started, it was no place I'd want to go to anyway.

[webster]

As Tom Robbins, a southerner, wrote in Cowgirls Get the Blues, that Monument Avenue was the "Banana Belt for Snuffed Generals". Robbins saw that together the five statues of Confederate heroes served as a shrine to a specific version of white southern history; some cities define themselves by their layout, others by their riverfront, Richmond had chosen to dedicate its most beautiful street to Confederates. It sent a clear message.

But the statues on Monument Ave. were always devise. General Early (CSA) was outraged that the base to Lee Monument was from Maine granite. It delayed construction. Then there was the sheer cost of maintaining it.

When the Ashe Monument was proposed in 1991, the contemporary meaning of the statues on Monument Avenue was publicly debated. Sons of Confederate Veterans marched; that it was for a Confederate narrative was made clear as one protester carrying a Confederate flag said. "...It's a Confederate boulevard. It's not about American history, it's not about Civil War history, it's Confederate history." (source: John Harris, "Monumental Issue Divides Old Dominion," Washington Post September 29,1991).

[VA Outdoorsman]

Too much debate is on whether people like the monuments and the history or not and if not, they should come down. That's not how it works. Monuments and statues don't contextualize in a vacuum. If you wanted to promulgate an alternative narrative -- say one that runs counter to the predominant southern one -- why not add to the history instead of knocking it down? When you start taking down symbols of the old to replace with the new, you are attacking living history. That's classic communism right there.

Many Virginians have ancestors that fought for the South in the War Between the States, as well as other ancestors for Civil Rights 100 years later. These things are not mutually-exclusive. You can have your history while allowing for differences in opinion on who fought for what cause 162 years ago.

[twinkletwinkle22]

Why can't southern states be proud about things other than the Civil War? Why cling to the past?
When an injury has healed you remove the bandage and live in the present.
You don't keep the bandage and proudly show it on your lawn or living room wall.

Unfortunately there are politicians who are taking advantage of people who are unhappy with history.

This is hurting our country, especially southern states who lag behind northern states in many important areas.
I have a very nice relative who is moving out of South Carolina because he does not want to live in a place he doesn't feel safe because of unrest among locals. He's retired, white, educated, non-political, lives in a very nice neighborhood of low crime. He's the kind of neighbor anyone would be happy with. No statues have been removed near his town.

Something is very wrong when good people leave a place because they don't feel safe around people who they should feel fine around.

[mpier015]

Originally Posted by webster

As Tom Robbins, a southerner, wrote in Cowgirls Get the Blues, that Monument Avenue was the "Banana Belt for Snuffed Generals". Robbins saw that together the five statues of Confederate heroes served as a shrine to a specific version of white southern history; some cities define themselves by their layout, others by their riverfront, Richmond had chosen to dedicate its most beautiful street to Confederates. It sent a clear message.

But the statues on Monument Ave. were always devise. General Early (CSA) was outraged that the base to Lee Monument was from Maine granite. It delayed construction. Then there was the sheer cost of maintaining it.

When the Ashe Monument was proposed in 1991, the contemporary meaning of the statues on Monument Avenue was publicly debated. Sons of Confederate Veterans marched; that it was for a Confederate narrative was made clear as one protester carrying a Confederate flag said. "...It's a Confederate boulevard. It's not about American history, it's not about Civil War history, it's Confederate history." (source: John Harris, "Monumental Issue Divides Old Dominion," Washington Post September 29,1991).

Not to mention that Monument Avenue was originally marketed as a place where black people wouldn't be welcomed and black people were kept from owning property in the neighborhood.

"The Confederate monuments dedicated throughout the South from 1880 to 1930 were never intended to be passive commemorations of a dead past; rather, they helped do the work of justifying segregation and relegating African Americans to second-class status. Monument Avenue was unique in this regard. While most monuments were added to public spaces such as courthouse squares, parks, and intersections, Monument Avenue was conceived as part of the initial plans for the development of the city’s West End neighborhood—a neighborhood that explicitly barred black Richmonders."