Opportunity to see civil war history

[Al]

With the current storm of destruction of our history's efforts to immortalize what was, this old screening with moderator will enlighten many of the younger readers on the forum.
Compare the attitude and acceptance of what had happened with the settling results of reality of going forward as brother solider in arms.

What we see today in the public square reflects a total lack of decorum. Ignorance of our history, confirming a extreme lack of education of what this country's history has to offer. Tragic situation, Enjoy: [YOU MAY WILL HAVE TO TAKE THE VIDEO BACK TO START-SORRY]

Al-Ketchikan

 

[hfoster]

History is history!


Cheers.


H.

 

[TowLou]

Pretty neat as I used to reenact the Civil War for many years when I was growing up.

 

[Bacchus]

Reenactments will likely soon be banned...insensitive to acknowledge anything related to the souths effort...hard to do a reenactment with only one side participating.

Also...please note everyone should halt spending any bills with our southern slave holder presidents on them...just send them to me and I will assure proper disposal...do not attemp this ypurself just send them to me.

 

[TowLou]

[emoji115] [emoji23]

 

[FF]

New York , both city and state will have to be renamed ,
as the Duke of York (as well as his king) were involved in slave transportation and sales.

Destroying history is the surest way to learn nothing from it , and get to repeat it.

 

[rwidman]

History is history!

Until certain groups have it changed to suit their political views.

It has been said that a civilization that ignores its history is bound to repeat it. That's something to think about.

 

[angus99]

Until certain groups have it changed to suit their political views.

It has been said that a civilization that ignores its history is bound to repeat it. That's something to think about.

History is history and the idea that removing statues changes it is nonsense.

Have you considered that the current view of history many embrace was, itself, changed to suit the political views of the early and mid-20th century, when denying equal rights to blacks was taken for granted? It's often been said that the south lost the war, but won the PR battle to interpret it. The idea of the "lost cause" of the confederacy was post-Civil War revisionism -- an invention of southern states in the days of Jim Crow and reinforced during the 50s and 60s desegregation battles. Lee, himself, did not want any statues built to commemorate him, but argued that the war should be put behind us to heal the nation's wounds.

I was raised in the south and believe it should be up to local communities to determine what statues appear in their public squares, particularly those places where people of all races go to receive justice. I can understand why a banner that was used to enslave millions would be offensive to their ancestors, just as a swastika is to others. Finally, the argument that removing -- or relocating -- monuments to those who led an armed insurrection to preserve slavery will lead to removing statues of founders who owned slaves is yet another false equivalence. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves but did not take up arms against the United States. Would you build statues today to commemorate militia leaders that violently seek to overthrow the government?

 

[rwidman]

In theory, "history" is the record of what happened in the past. While removing evidence of that history doesn't actually change it, it deprives future generations of knowing about it. Statues of historical figures are part of that knowledge of history.

A I posted above, "a civilization that ignores its history is bound to repeat it."

 

[dhays]

History is history and the idea that removing statues changes it is nonsense.



Have you considered that the current view of history many embrace was, itself, changed to suit the political views of the early and mid-20th century, when denying equal rights to blacks was taken for granted? It's often been said that the south lost the war, but won the PR battle to interpret it. The idea of the "lost cause" of the confederacy was post-Civil War revisionism -- an invention of southern states in the days of Jim Crow and reinforced during the 50s and 60s desegregation battles. Lee, himself, did not want any statues built to commemorate him, but argued that the war should be put behind us to heal the nation's wounds.



I was raised in the south and believe it should be up to local communities to determine what statues appear in their public squares, particularly those places where people of all races go to receive justice. I can understand why a banner that was used to enslave millions would be offensive to their ancestors, just as a swastika is to others. Finally, the argument that removing -- or relocating -- monuments to those who led an armed insurrection to preserve slavery will lead to removing statues of founders who owned slaves is yet another false equivalence. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves but did not take up arms against the United States. Would you build statues today to commemorate militia leaders that violently seek to overthrow the government?

Well thought out post Angus, thanks.

As someone raised in the PNW, the history of the Civil War is simply that, history. While some of my ancestors fought in the war, I am removed from it by 4 generations.

Both my wife and I have felt that the removal of statues is a bit silly. I have no problem if a community decides they want to do it, but we don't view having a statue of a Confederate general to be a racist act. I know that as a middle class white guy I lack the appropriate sensitivity and some would argue don't have the standing to weigh in, but still...

You make some very good points however that I really had not considered. How would I react if another person who wanted to start a revolt against the federal government had a statue erected in his honor? Timothy McVeigh.

 

[angus99]

In theory, "history" is the record of what happened in the past. While removing evidence of that history doesn't actually change it, it deprives future generations of knowing about it. Statues of historical figures are part of that knowledge of history.

A I posted above, "a civilization that ignores its history is bound to repeat it."

I agree with that, Wes. I just disagree that relocating monuments to revisionist history is ignoring history.

 

[angus99]

Well thought out post Angus, thanks.

As someone raised in the PNW, the history of the Civil War is simply that, history. While some of my ancestors fought in the war, I am removed from it by 4 generations.

Both my wife and I have felt that the removal of statues is a bit silly. I have no problem if a community decides they want to do it, but we don't view having a statue of a Confederate general to be a racist act. I know that as a middle class white guy I lack the appropriate sensitivity and some would argue don't have the standing to weigh in, but still...

You make some very good points however that I really had not considered. How would I react if another person who wanted to start a revolt against the federal government had a statue erected in his honor? Timothy McVeigh.

Thanks, Dave. It's a thorny question, for sure. And McVeigh came to mind when I was writing earlier.

I am not for a minute suggesting that the courage of Confederate troops should be forgotten . . . nor the tactical brilliance of Confederate military leaders . . . nor the devotion that soldiers had for the homes they loved. But IMHO the leaders of an armed rebellion (who never disavowed their strong advocacy for slavery) don't automatically merit monuments in public places if local communities don't want them there.

One thing I've learned as I've gotten older is that the way I saw the world as a child isn't the way I see it today. Actual history--not just the symbols of it--is far more complex than the simplistic stories I was taught in school or the nostalgic meanings we attach to it today.

Finally, the meaning that symbols of the Confederacy once had -- including its flag and monuments to Confederate leaders -- have been co-opted by ultra right-wing racists and any positive meaning they once might have had for me--living most of my life in the south--has been irredeemably ruined. Symbols can change forever when bad actors take them over. The textbook example is a symbol that once represented luck, good wishes and good fortune to ancient civilizations: the swastika.

 

[hfoster]

Until certain groups have it changed to suit their political views.

It has been said that a civilization that ignores its history is bound to repeat it. That's something to think about.

Agree Mate.

However for those of us that remember when schools taught history we can pass along the history. As far as those Nutter's that want to change the history to suit their political views. Well that can Bugger off in my book!:lol:

Cheers.

H.

 

[rwidman]

Agree Mate.

However for those of us that remember when schools taught history we can pass along the history. As far as those Nutter's that want to change the history to suit their political views. Well that can Bugger off in my book!:lol:

Cheers.

H.

Yes but once these people grow up and begin teaching their own version of history in schools, the real history will be forgotten

 

[Moonstruck]

Ian, I can agree with you on many points, but the South's idea was secession not the over throw of the US government. There is talk in California today of secession, and there was talk of it in Texas.

Chattanooga is a unique area in that there are monuments throughout the area to both US and Southern troops. There are monuments to mark skirmishes all around. The New York monument is one of the largest in the area. I just moved from a home that was within a few hundred feet of both Grant's and Sherman's headquarters. Just because a few have disgraced the South's symbols is no cause to remove them all.

By the way, the stars and bars came from the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. There were over 600,000 casualties in that war. Let them all rest in peace.

 

[Cottontop]

Lee, Jackson and Davis were enemies of the United States of America. Whether their motivations were slavery, tariffs, taxes or states' rights, or some combination of some or all of those, they were tragically wrong; and I am glad the South lost (I grew up in Alabama). What country erects monuments to its enemies?

And whatever the motivations of Lee, Jackson and Davis may have been, the motivations of those who erected the statutes and other monuments long after the war are clear. They were a bunch of racists.

Of course we should study history, try to understand it, try to learn from it. But not all history should be celebrated, and not every historical figure should be honored.

 

[dhays]

And whatever the motivations of Lee, Jackson and Davis may have been, the motivations of those who erected the statutes and other monuments long after the war are clear. They were a bunch of racists.

I think that assuming that all who supported the erection of the statues were racist is pretty ridiculous. That makes no more sense than assuming that those that fought for the Union weren't racist. My ancestors fought for the union. They were against slavery. I am quite confident they were also racist.

We do a disservice to the understanding of history by viewing things in simple, black and white terms.

 

[Peter B]

Interesting topic this. Because prompted by the above, over here in Australia we have had a surge of folk wanting to take down the statue of Captain Cook, because it offends some Aborigines because of the association with the take-over of the land. Then the folk in Townsville, named after a Governor Towns, want the statue of him taken down because he was not well liked and fairly brutal.

You could well ask do statues honour the people they represent, or just act as reminders of the significant role they played during their life. I feel the latter, and therefore best left alone to remind today's folk, about the past, so it is not forgotten, or like FF and WesK said - we are doomed to repeat the past we forget.

 

[angus99]

I think that assuming that all who supported the erection of the statues were racist is pretty ridiculous. That makes no more sense than assuming that those that fought for the Union weren't racist. My ancestors fought for the union. They were against slavery. I am quite confident they were also racist.

We do a disservice to the understanding of history by viewing things in simple, black and white terms.

You make an excellent point, Dave. Racism was rampant on both sides of the Mason Dixon line (one of the most virulent I ever met was from Pennsylvania).

To me, however, there should remain a difference between how we memorialize those those who initiated an armed struggle to dissolve the nation (on behalf of the right to own slaves) and those (both Yankee and Confederate) who were merely caught up in the war--most of whom didn't own slaves.

Again, IMHO, it should be up to local communities to decide and a key difference comes down to locations where official government services are provided. I can understand how Blacks, going to a courthouse where justice is supposed to be dispensed in the 21st century, might feel being greeted by larger-than-life symbols of the leaders of the system that enslaved and oppressed their ancestors. On the other hand, I think it's totally appropriate to memorialize Confederate (and Union) leaders in battlefields, parks and museums established for that purpose. (One of our favorite places for hikes since our son was an infant has been Chickamauga Battlefield.) Making this distinction does not erase history, but puts it in its proper context vs the revisionism that took place during Jim Crow.

Don, to your point on secession vs overthrow, I guess I see a difference between you and me talking about secession--which is everyone's legal right--and firing cannon at American soldiers to effectively overthrow the Federal government in my state.

One of the hardest things in life is to question the things we were brought up believing. I wasn't born in the South, but I've been a Southerner (by the grace of God) for about 55 years, married into a Southern family and have countess Southern friends. Southerners are among the warmest, most gracious, kindest people on earth and it's been fascinating to watch attitudes about the Civil War slowly change over the decades as people come to terms with the history that almost tore this nation apart.

 

[Moonstruck]

Robert E. Lee was faced with a tough decision. He was offered the job of leading Union forces. He was also pulled toward his beloved state of Virginia that had voted to secede. Knowing that he was facing the industrial might of the North and long odds, he chose his home state. Lee was brilliant. His big mistake was invading North of the Mason-Dixon Line. He outran his supply chain.

Stonewall Jackson was just a fighter. Wounded several times because of sitting on his horse leading his men, he persisted. He spent as much time riding on a stretcher in a covered wagon recuperating as he did on his horse. He finally succumbed at Chancellorsville.

Jefferson was a politician. What politician would turn down being president of anything.

An interesting anecdote is that Arlington Cemetary, America's most hallowed ground was placed on the Custis/Lee Estate. Light Horse Harry Lee was Robert E. Lee's uncle. Martha Custis married George Washington. The cemetary was placed there as an insult to the Lee family. It is visible from the Washington Mall. It has turned out to be cherished because so many of our heroes are buried there.

Generals are generals. Do you not think that George S. Patton would have fought for any side that would have him. We were just fortunate that he was fighting for us. I hate to think what he could have done with the the German Tiger tanks with their 88 mm guns.

My grandsons' 4th great grand father rode for the 5th Georgia Calvary. He owned no slaves. Was he a racist? I can't say, but he was from Thomas County Georgia. He could well have been, but makes little difference now.

 

[Moonstruck]

One thing lost in considering the South is the long period of reconstruction. The South didn't really start rising out of the reconstruction period until after WWII. There were few jobs available, and those to be had were low paying. I can remember the desperate poverty of Appalachia. The mountains were dotted with one and two men and a horse coal mines. It was subsistence living. Others were forced to work hard scrabble farms. Moonshining surfaced because it produced cash, and turned corn into an easily transported commodity out of the mountains.

In our area Chattanooga was rightly known as a carpetbagger town. We were along with Birmingham manufacturing centers. After the Civil War carpetbaggers descended on Chattanooga to take over the banking and much of the industry. The rest of the industry was scooped up by Union officers. Some northern companies opened plants in the South to take advantage of the cheap labor. There is a strong connection in Chattanooga to Cincinnati, Ohio. So, what was left for Southerners? Very little. We treated Japan and Germany better than the South was treated. Are there lingering resentments? Some, but those that can remember what I can remember are fading away. Life in the South is pretty good on the whole. The younger generation will not remember what their parents and grand parents did to provide for them.

Now, northerners are retiring to the South's sunshine belt to take advantage of weather and cheaper living. Most made their money else where.
Besides, whoever heard of a Southerner retiring to the North?

That's just my take on the situation. One war was fought over others meddling in our affairs. We don't need or want another.

 

[FF]

"To me, however, there should remain a difference between how we memorialize those those who initiated an armed struggle to dissolve the nation (on behalf of the right to own slaves)."

That was the war winners story.

Happily the libraries that hold the newspapers of the time have not yet been burned.

Anyone that wants to can research the true cause of the war between the states as well as the reasons the democrats started the KKK , and continued Jim Crow into the 1960's.

"secession vs overthrow,-which is everyone's legal right--

Secession is/ was legal, and was talked about between some northern states for years, but the south was paying the vast majority of taxes (from importing and exporting) , so they stuck with the union.

"and firing cannon at American soldiers to effectively overthrow the Federal government in my state."

After the secession began the fort in Charlston SC was resupplied .

What would the response be if the forts in the NY harbor were resupplied by the south?

 

[angus99]

My thoughts below:

"To me, however, there should remain a difference between how we memorialize those those who initiated an armed struggle to dissolve the nation (on behalf of the right to own slaves)."

That was the war winners story. It's the consensus of scholars from the north and south.

Happily the libraries that hold the newspapers of the time have not yet been burned. you get your newspapers and I'll get mine. (Honestly though, I have never known you to cite newspaper accounts)

Anyone that wants to can research the true cause of the war between the states as well as the reasons the democrats started the KKK , and continued Jim Crow into the 1960's. Sorry, I'm calling BS on this one. Whatever the reasons may have been for their founding, the Klan and Jim Crow became a nightmare for African Americans and an unmitigated disaster for the South. Anyone who wants to can research the almost 3,500 blacks who were lynched between the Civil War and 1968--or the 1,200 whites . . . many of whom were lynched for helping blacks . . . complete with photos.

"secession vs overthrow,-which is everyone's legal right--

Secession is/ was legal, and was talked about between some northern states for years, but the south was paying the vast majority of taxes (from importing and exporting) , so they stuck with the union. That's been argued since the founding of the nation; the only time it's been tested in the Supreme Court, the right of a state to secede was rejected.

"and firing cannon at American soldiers to effectively overthrow the Federal government in my state."

After the secession began the fort in Charlston SC was resupplied .

What would the response be if the forts in the NY harbor were resupplied by the south? My guess: a blockade and wait them out. Lincoln wasn't going to fire the first shot.

 

[rwidman]

I think it's important to remember (this is history, BTW so let's not forget it) that since the beginning of time, countries or groups of people have fought other countries or groups of people and the winners either killed the losers or enslaved them. The Pyramids and most of the historic buildings in the middle east and Europe were built by slaves. Not black slaves, but slaves none the less.

Many of the African slaves imported into the US and other new world countries were captured not by slave traders, but by other African tribes and then sold to the slave traders.

It's only in the last couple hundred years that the thought of owning other people has become to be thought of as wrong. People who owned slaves did not think this was wrong at the time. It was quite normal for well off people to own slaves.

We know now that holding other humans in slavery is wrong, but the common thought a couple hundred years ago was that it was not. It seems unfair to tear down statues and attempt to erase history for something that was acceptable at the time.

If we begin erasing everything that might possibly offend someone, we would not only be tearing down statues, we would be tearing down or renaming buildings, bridges and roads. And renaming streets and waterways.

Just like each of us as individuals, our country has done things in the past that many of us are not proud of. It's part of our history though and we should keep these things in mind as we head into the future. And try not to make the same mistakes again.

 

[Moonstruck]

I just want to thank all the posters here for keeping this as a civil discussion. No name calling or personal attacks. It is readily apparent that there are strong feelings on each side.

Please check the birth and death dates on my grandsons' ancestor's grave marker. Born 1840. John Parramore was a very young man when he rode off to far away places with the 5th Georgia Calvary. He was mustered out in North Carolina trying to catch Sherman's army when the war ended. He had no slaves, so not fighting to preserve slavery. He was fighting to protect his homeland.

 

[rwidman]

................ He was fighting to protect his homeland.

That's where the arguing begins. He was fighting to protect a way of life. Either way, his "homeland" was safe and his to go back to.

 

[Moonstruck]

I can see how you can think that, but there were extenuating circumstances. You see both Grant and Sherman were fighters. Grant loved Sherman and sent him through Georgia on a scorched earth policy. It was really a form of unrestricted warfare. Grant and Sherman wanted the civilian population to suffer so horribly that they would cry for surrender. Back then there were no "rules of engagement" so to speak.

When Sherman left Chattanooga to head for Atlanta there were a few skirmishes along the way. Then he laid siege to Atlanta, captured it, and burned the whole city. That's when he started his infamous march to the sea through Georgia. Their policy was to loot the homes of all valuables, steal the live stock, and burn the crops in the field. They even burned several homes. The point was that they would starve the population into submission. Sherman did this all the way through Macon and on to Savannah. He reached Savannah by Christmas. He was so taken with the beauty of the city that he ordered it not be burned. He set up his headquarters on one of the beautiful squares, and sent a message to President Lincoln. It said something like Mr. President I give you Savannah for Christmas.

Then Sherman left Savannah heading into the Carolinas with the same policy. That's when the 5th GA Cav took off after his army. So, you see many, many of the Southern troops had nothing to go home to but what was left of family.

I'm not passing judgement on if what Grant and Sherman did was wrong. They were fighters, and wanted to end the war as soon as possible. They were also amazing generals. Robert E. Lee was too much of a gentleman to do something like that, but Grant and Sherman were street fighters---not gentlemen in any way. The South did take some food to feed their troops when above the Mason-Dixon Line, but left food for the populace.

I think of Grant and Sherman in the same way of Patton. They loved the fight.

Now, let's go back to the start of the war. Lincoln had McClellan for the Union Army commander. McClellan would not fight for fear of losing. That would ruin his political aspirations. He frustrated Lincoln so badly that Lincoln wanted to fire him. Politically McClellan was the fair haired boy. He had so many political friends that Lincoln dared not fire him. The war was going badly in the East. One of the shining stars for Lincoln was Grant in the West. Grant came down to Nashville then on to Shiloh. Shiloh was a bloody battle with 10,000 casualties in one day. Grant made the South retreat for the first time. Grant went down through Mississippi and prevailed at Vicksburg. Then Lincoln fired McCellan and you know the rest of the story.

 

[Al]

have been co-opted by ultra right-wing racists /QUOTE]

I guess that would be me. I voted for Trump. But let me tell you how I treat this over used term:

On an additional quandary to discuss: There is a monument dedicated to the Buffalo Soldiers, the Black regiment formed in 1866 that slaughtered Native Americans. What the Hell do we do with this one?

The whole mess is one big educational success by those not of the right as those of the left who control the public education system. It only take one or two generations to change the scope and direction of society. We are witnessing the results of the 60's coming home to roost much like Rev. Wright projected.

 

[Al]

By the way, the stars and bars came from the battle flag of the Army of Northern Virginia. There were over 600,000 casualties in that war. Let them all rest in peace.

I fly the "Stars and Bars" off my bow pennant shaft out of the sheer hypocrisy of the times.

Al-Ketchikan

 

[angus99]

have been co-opted by ultra right-wing racists /QUOTE]

I guess that would be me. I voted for Trump. But let me tell you how I treat this over used term:

I never said all Trump voters were ultra right wing-racists; unless you were marching with the nazis in Charlottesville, I doubt you are one.

On an additional quandary to discuss: There is a monument dedicated to the Buffalo Soldiers, the Black regiment formed in 1866 that slaughtered Native Americans. What the Hell do we do with this one? Beats me. Ask some Native Americans. Do we have to avoid considering any injustice because we can't solve every injustice? The point is groups that were brutally oppressed throughout history finally have a way for their voices and grievances to be heard. As a white man, I may not like or agree with everything I hear, but I'm not going to automatically reject it without considering their merits.

The whole mess is one big educational success by those not of the right as those of the left who control the public education system. It only take one or two generations to change the scope and direction of society. We are witnessing the results of the 60's coming home to roost much like Rev. Wright projected. This certainly seems to threaten some folks. Personally, I form my opinions by reading perspectives from both sides, avoiding echo chambers and talking to people, including an ancient black man I once knew who had been raised with former slaves. I don't give a rat's ass if the truth happens to agree with the right or left. My opinions aren't based on the culture wars.