Monument Contemplation

[Van]

Monument Contemplation



Recently in the news there have been reports of lawful and unlawful removal of monuments and the like honoring those who defended their southern culture in the American Civil War.

I have traveled a bit in the South, and have seen their statures and monuments way more often than I see monuments heralding the North and its point of view.

And in conversations, I have heard southerners that say the civil war was about northern exploitation rather than the ungodly institution of slavery.

I think it is fair to say the North and its abolitionist point of view did not win the hearts and minds of the south. Even as recently as the 1960’s we had de facto and de jure subjugation of non-whites. Segregation and Jim Crow laws/ One day as a little tyke, my mother and I boarded one of the public transportation electric train (Red Car) vehicles. I was surprised when I saw all the black people huddled at the back. Now California had no laws saying blacks had to ride at the back of the bus, but the southern culture had made a lasting imprint upon the blacks of California.

I was born in the age of Polio, so today when I hear that many people are against vaccination, I simply do not understand. You cannot escape the culture of your formative years.

I am all for getting rid of things that say there was something good about defending the institution of slavery, but it should be done lawfully with the consent of the governed. After all, that was one of the things wrong with slavery.

 

[HankD]

Hmm, I remember seeing in the news that radical Islamist use the same tactics. They destroy statues and images that offend them, beating those who in the immediate vicinity.

HankD

 

[JonC]

Viewing this a racial issue is too simplistic (just as restricting the Civil War to slavery is too simplistic).

 

[Van]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no one said or implied it was a racial issue, its a cultural issue, that results in people not being able to see the truth because of the cultural imprint.

For example, Southern culture teaches the war was not because of slavery. But that is a racist fiction. At Gettysburg, up on the high ground the soldiers dressed in blue sat around their camp fires and sang this refrain, "As Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."

 

[JonC]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but no one said or implied it was a racial issue, its a cultural issue, that results in people not being able to see the truth because of the cultural imprint.

For example, Southern culture teaches the war was not because of slavery. But that is a racist fiction. At Gettysburg, up on the high ground the soldiers dressed in blue sat around their camp fires and sang this refrain, "As Christ died to make men holy, let us die to make men free."

I grew up in the south. We were taught that the Civil War involved many issues to include and often culminating in the issue of slavery. What you mean to say (if you want to be correct) is that Southern culture, while acknowledging the horrible institution of slavery, does not teach that the Civil War was solely about slavery.

Things get simplified and in simplifying some truth is lost.

But even this strays from the OP. The issue is about monuments that represent a specific people and a specific time in history. It does not advocate slavery, racism, the Confederacy, or even the pride Southerners can have in their culture. These are monuments to history.

 

[HankD]

I grew up in the south. We were taught that the Civil War involved many issues to include and often culminating in the issue of slavery. What you mean to say (if you want to be correct) is that Southern culture, while acknowledging the horrible institution of slavery, does not teach that the Civil War was solely about slavery.

Things get simplified and in simplifying some truth is lost.

But even this strays from the OP. The issue is about monuments that represent a specific people and a specific time in history. It does not advocate slavery, racism, the Confederacy, or even the pride Southerners can have in their culture. These are monuments to history.

As a recipient of the GI Bill, after separation I enrolled as an engineering student at San Jose State in CA.

I was a JFK Democrat (pre-Roe v Wade - 1964). SJC was liberal at that time, so was I.

I took a core required US History course and followed the theme of the required text book and wrote a paper that the Civil War was not about slavery as the text book vehemently suggested.

Now they (liberals) have done a complete turn about and blaspheme those who propound that idea.

Got a B+ from my liberal professor (too many spelling errors).

5 years later (oops - 7), married, a software engineer, conservative, 2 children, went off to Calvary University in KCMO to study Blble Lit and languages.

I now believe the Civil War was primarily about slavery and its abolition.

HankD

 

[Deacon]

A friend of mine has a PhD in history, specializing in the Civil War period.
A while back he was laid off and took a job 'Down South'.

His comment even before leaving was, "No more teaching about the Civil War; I'll be teaching about the War of Northern Aggression".

Rob

 

[JonC]

I now believe the Civil War was primarily about slavery and its abolition.

It was, but not simply about slavery and its abolition (that is, not slavery just from a moral standpoint).

What you will find is that Southerners now translate this into one of its non-moral aspects (state rights), often ignoring slavery itself. Others translate it into a purely moral issue (ignoring the fact that most Southerners did not own slaves).

My point is that it is wrong to simply believe these monuments stand for slavery.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Shelby Foot said the best definition of the Civil War he ever head was that it "was one culture at war with another culture."

To say the war was all about slavery is as wrong as those who say it was not about slavery at all. Slavery was part but so was expansion of slavery into new territories or not, economics, states rights, etc. It was not a simply one-issue war.

 

[HankD]

A friend of mine has a PhD in history, specializing in the Civil War period.
A while back he was laid off and took a job 'Down South'.

His comment even before leaving was, "No more teaching about the Civil War; I'll be teaching about the War of Northern Aggression".

Rob

Funny.

HankD

 

[Crabtownboy]

It was, but not simply about slavery and its abolition (that is, not slavery just from a moral standpoint).

What you will find is that Southerners now translate this into one of its non-moral aspects (state rights), often ignoring slavery itself. Others translate it into a purely moral issue (ignoring the fact that most Southerners did not own slaves).

My point is that it is wrong to simply believe these monuments stand for slavery.

They did not originally stand only for slavery. Sadly, the KKK during the civil rights era turned the flag into a pro-slavery, pro-segregationist, racist symbol. That tainted the idea of the monuments and brought a backlash that we see culminating in this time.

 

[Van]

Thanks HankD, well said.

JonC, it occurs to me the southern culture has imprints on you. The monuments are not history, no monuments showing KKK hanging strange fruit on trees. No monuments showing slave ship hands throwing dead off the slave ships. Or the rapes. The South did not face the truth but instead rewrote history to hide southern villainy. Just as the baby killers say its about reproductive rights, you say its about history rather than slavery.

Lincoln took a boat ride into the south and he saw first hand the real south. It is too bad the false facade covering the horrible truth is not gone with the wind.

 

[Van]

They did not originally stand only for slavery. Sadly, the KKK during the civil rights era turned the flag into a pro-slavery, pro-segregationist, racist symbol. That tainted the idea of the monuments and brought a backlash that we see culminating in this time.

Great post! I look at those monuments with eyes that lived through the 1960"s, and of course my heros are JFK, RFK MLK jr.

 

[carpro]

To the "Great Emancipator", the Civil War wasn't about slavery at all.

 

[HankD]

I believe the liberals who back in the day (my day) who said with passion that the Civil War was NOT about slavery were proven wrong several times over and it has taken a couple of generations for them to admit defeat.

The tide of racist Democrats (and there were plenteous of them in my day) - I remember George Wallace Dixiecrat campaign parades even in Boston Massachusetts - began to recede with LBJ (not our best of liberal Democrats) He was at least a champion of Civil Rights.

HankD

 

[carpro]

The tide of racist Democrats (and there were plenteous of them in my day) - I remember George Wallace Dixiecrat campaign parades even in Boston Massachusetts - began to recede with LBJ (not our best of liberal Democrats) He was at least a champion of Civil Rights.

HankD

LBJ, true to his democrat roots, was a racist of the first order, as well.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Thanks HankD, well said.

JonC, it occurs to me the southern culture has imprints on you. The monuments are not history, no monuments showing KKK hanging strange fruit on trees. No monuments showing slave ship hands throwing dead off the slave ships. Or the rapes. The South did not face the truth but instead rewrote history to hide southern villainy. Just as the baby killers say its about reproductive rights, you say its about history rather than slavery.
.

Van, everyone rewrites history or ignores what is unpleasant in their history. There are no monuments in the north to praise child labor, sweat shops, slum housing for immigrants, northern ships that brought slaves to America, etc. No one has clean hands when it comes to history. Kind of like in WV there are no monuments praising the bombing of coal miners during the Coal Field War. No region has good reason to feel superior and point fingers at others. Remember when you point a finger at others there are four pointing back at you.

Blessings.

 

[HankD]

LBJ, true to his democrat roots, was a racist of the first order, as well.

In his personal life Yes or so it seemed from his writings, which caused confusion among both liberal and conservative sectors.

Most (if I remember correctly) assumed his Civil Rights platform was a ploy for the presidency next time around - until of course the VC changed his mind.

HankD

 

[JonC]

They did not originally stand only for slavery. Sadly, the KKK during the civil rights era turned the flag into a pro-slavery, pro-segregationist, racist symbol. That tainted the idea of the monuments and brought a backlash that we see culminating in this time.

I would surrender to the theft of a culture if it would reach others for Christ.

 

[carpro]

In his personal life Yes or so it seemed from his writings, which caused confusion among both liberal and conservative sectors.

Most (if I remember correctly) assumed his Civil Rights platform was a ploy for the presidency next time around - until of course the VC changed his mind.

HankD

The purpose of his civil rights platform:

“I’ll have those ******* voting Democratic for 200 years.”

So far, he's been proven right.