Removal of Confederate statues and flags?

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,061
Republika Srpska
#62
Later, yes; but not during the time to which I referred responding to the idea of CAUSE; while addressing the even larger idea of the difference between partial truth and whole truth.
Slavery caused the war. Sure, the secession started it, but the South only seceded because they felt slavery was threatened. If you remove slavery from the equation, you have no war.
 
Likes: Scaeva

Code Blue

Ad Honorem
Feb 2015
3,592
Caribbean
#63
Slavery caused the war. Sure, the secession started it, but the South only seceded because they felt slavery was threatened. If you remove slavery from the equation, you have no war.
There are a lot of variables from the (multi-variate) equation, like Lincoln, that could be removed and there would have been no war (as I just posted). Also, slavery was in the equation from 1783 to 1860, but no civil war.

Entire books, numerous academic papers, and countless words have been devoted to the causes of the Civil War. Don't you think any attempt to boil that down to a single sentence or word must fail?
 

Maki

Ad Honorem
Jan 2017
2,061
Republika Srpska
#64
There are a lot of variables from the (multi-variate) equation, like Lincoln, and have no war (as I just posted). Also, slavery was in the equation from 1783 to 1860, but no civil war.

Entire books, numerous academic papers, and countless words have been devoted to the causes of the Civil War. Don't you think any attempt to boil that down to a single sentence or word must fail?
Slavery was in the equation from 1783 to 1860 and had always been a tricky subject that threatened to divide the US. That's why many compromises were made, and even more attempted. The issue simply exploded in 1860 after Lincoln's election.
 
Likes: Scaeva

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,354
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#65
Clearly this is an American matter, so European viewpoints can be superfluous or simply out of context. Anyway, from a general perspective I would suggest to keep history separated from urban decor. Simply we've got the duty to consider what history is.

It's reality. It can be good or bad, positive or negative, according to our present "feelings", but a historian shouldn't listen to "feelings". So on history books no one will never erase Hitler or Mussolini. On history books ...

In Italy we are just observing a similar process about streets and monuments making reference to the Soviet Union [here you can find "Soviet Union Boulevard" in some cities ... the most know is in Turin]. The point is that a present reference to something which now is considered negative could be no more politically correct. There is nothing wrong in removing it. It doesn't mean to erase history, it means to live in the present.

Then, in a federal country like US the matter can be a bit more complicated: if the citizens of a state with the Confederate Flag want to keep it ... on which legal base could Washington force them to abandon it?

This makes the pair with the flag of the state of Hawaii ... when I saw it for the first time I wondered if Hawaii was still in the Commonwealth ...
 
Feb 2015
364
Outer Deseret
#66
Excellent Video! (The accent of the narrator didn't make it easy to understand and there were some technical glitches ... but the content was excellent.)

The economic causes of the Civil War was the primary focus and the moral outrage of slavery was treated as a literal postscript at the end. Those (like me) who feel that the moral outrage should be the primary focus should reflect on this. The reality of the situation could well be that none of our moral outrage really matters enough unless there is a foundation of economic causation first. My own first confrontation with moral outrage was the Vietnam War. Looking back, none of that outrage made the slightest difference. Today, the outrageous behavior of our current President doesn't seem to make the slightest difference. To recall the prewar support for Mussolini, a critical hard core believes that he "makes the trains run on time". (Whether that is actually true or not is a different question and is one for economics, not history.)

It could well be that mankind simply doesn't have much of a moral compass or one that is much, much weaker than our personal economic interests.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,812
Lisbon, Portugal
#68
It's reality. It can be good or bad, positive or negative, according to our present "feelings", but a historian shouldn't listen to "feelings". So on history books no one will never erase Hitler or Mussolini. On history books ...
Exactly, those figures should be mostly presented on history books, not on public squares or names of places or public institutions. No one is saying for the names of the Confederate generals and leaders to be erased from history books.

In Italy we are just observing a similar process about streets and monuments making reference to the Soviet Union [here you can find "Soviet Union Boulevard" in some cities ... the most know is in Turin]. The point is that a present reference to something which now is considered negative could be no more politically correct. There is nothing wrong in removing it. It doesn't mean to erase history, it means to live in the present.
It's totally legitimate for Italians to try to remove streets and monuments made of Soviet references. They were no put there for altruistic reasons, there was a political reason for those monuments to be erected. It's political propaganda, pure and simple.

Then, in a federal country like US the matter can be a bit more complicated: if the citizens of a state with the Confederate Flag want to keep it ... on which legal base could Washington force them to abandon it?
Washington is not forcing them to abandon it, all the removal of statues and symbols related to the confederacy were made on a State level, not on a federal one.
 

robto

Ad Honorem
Jun 2014
5,812
Lisbon, Portugal
#69
People are demanding that the names be removed, not just the statues. The statues are a tiny sliver of this discussion, they are attempting to remove ALL sources of CSA pride. Not just generals on horseback, they are renaming schools, even going so far to suggest naming major universities. Its a political maneuver bred on hypocrisy and selective outrage.
Names of public institutions such as schools and public streets - I don't see that as any different than an actual statue on a public place, they both carry the same political message.

And the historical and political context was the same as any other, ancestors honoring their parents. The United Daughters of the Confederacy are no different than groups like Daughters of the American Revolution, they're social clubs for upper class girls to do work with the community, to socialize, while the men folk belong to other clubs. They sponsor and put up statues in the 1890s-1920s because it was their own parents and grandparents who fought in or lived through the American Civil War. That is just what Southerners do, they have pride in their heritage and that includes martial pride (which I'm sure offends many on Historum). Southerners honor their ancestors in the past the same exact way they are still doing it to this day, putting up statues individuals fighting in other wars, which I'm sure many will be offended of because they think it represents American imperialism, the evils of Capitalism, or whatever is the latest outrage.
You are only seeing half of the picture. The Daughters of the Confederacy were not just a benign organization to remember the deaths of their parents and grandparents, they were also a political organizations spreading an agenda and perpetuating a political system and social environment that is nowadays condemned by mainstream American society.

The UDC were in many times in league with the KKK. They made memorials in honour and commemorating that organization. They have one outside of the city of Concord, North Carolina and erected in 1926.

Many of their leaders and organizers unabashedly and publicly expressed support for white supremacy and declared it was the mission of the organization to spread that message.

It was Mrs. Faison who, as president of the North Carolina UDC at its 13th annual convention in 1909, summarized the group's purpose and who it was intended to benefit:

The work of the United Daughters of the Confederacy is not based on sentiment alone, as the records of our work will show. Our main objects are memorial, historical, benevolent, educational and social. We are building monuments of bronze and marble to our noble Confederate dead as an inspiration to future generations. We have built and assisted in building all over the South, monuments in the form of Soldiers Homes, Hospitals, Memorial Halls and Schools for descendants of our Confederate soldiers, in whose veins flow pure Anglo Saxon blood, who otherwise could not be educated.
Some North Carolina UDC members were more explicit in their rhetorical embrace of white supremacy. Like the
declaration of Lucy Closs Parker, president of the Vance County chapter, at the third annual N.C. Division convention in 1899:

The old Confederate soldier looks down from the sky and laughs as he sees the principles for which he fought established, the great battle for the Constitution, State's rights, white supremacy, all the South has conquered.

Segregation era politicians, like Joseph B. Ramsey, an affluent lawyer, Rocky Mount city council member,
openly praised the UDC's commitment to white supremacy:

You were the song of the Old South: you are the theme of the New South; and to-day in this high hour of peace and commercialism, when men are prone to forget, we find you banded together, United Daughters of the Confederacy, all still loyal to Southern rights, democracy, and, thank God, to white supremacy.

At their national convention in 1901, the UDC adopted a motto that pledged to educate the descendants of "the men who wore the grey … and thereby fasten more securely the rights and privileges of citizenship upon a pure Anglo-Saxon race."

At a speech in Washington, D.C., in 1912, Mildred Lewis Rutherford, the Georgia-born historian general for the national UDC, stated the group's view of Reconstruction in the South:

It is true, he [white men] had to fight his way with shackled hands during the awful reconstruction period; but wise men of the North understand why it was a necessity then. He [white men] were compelled to establish the political supremacy of the white man in the South. (Applause). So too, the Ku Klux Klan was a necessity at that time, and there can come no reproach to the men of the South for resorting to that expedient.

You can also take a look about the opinion about Black people on an address in 1916 Dallas, Texas:

The South was giving to the negro the best possible education — that education that fitted him for the workshop, the field, the church, the kitchen, the nursery, the home. This was an education that taught the negro self-control, obedience and perseverance — yes, taught him to realize his weaknesses and how to grow stronger for the battle of life. The institution of slavery as it was in the South, so far from degrading the negro, was fast elevating him above his nature and his race.

The UDC was totally committed in spreading the "Lost Cause" narrative and justifying the "Jim Crow era" establishment. That was their main goal, of course the UDC nowadays are a totally different organization with a different message, but most of the Confederacy monuments were erected in a period were there was a political agenda to spread the ideals of the "Lost cause" ideology. I don't see any reason of why 21st century USA needs to keep erected political propaganda that supported the disenfranchisement of a considered number of US citizens, the same ones, that are paying their tax dollars for those monuments.

, called the Price of Liberty, is going to be built in Texas to celebrate people like me, who fought in Iraq or Afghanistan. And even if they aren't honest enough to say so, I bet money many on Historum will have a problem with it. So what? Many of them have a problem with the United States of America existing in almost any form.
I don't see the analogy.

And if the Russians themselves or the Iraqis themselves want those statues up, someone from America or Portugal should have no say what so ever in the matter. Mind your business.
Lol, ok. What an elucidate comment.
 
Likes: Fiver

AlpinLuke

Ad Honoris
Oct 2011
24,354
Lago Maggiore, Italy
#70
Exactly, those figures should be mostly presented on history books, not on public squares or names of places or public institutions. No one is saying for the names of the Confederate generals and leaders to be erased from history books.



It's totally legitimate for Italians to try to remove streets and monuments made of Soviet references. They were no put there for altruistic reasons, there was a political reason for those monuments to be erected. It's political propaganda, pure and simple.



Washington is not forcing them to abandon it, all the removal of statues and symbols related to the confederacy were made on a State level, not on a federal one.
If on a state level they have got all the rights to remove those flags. And if the majority of the citizens of this or that state agree on removing the flags I don't see why they shouldn't remove them.

From an external perspective, just to say, I don't tend to connect those flags and those symbols with slavery [otherwise we should connect with slavery a lot of other flags ... the French flag, the British flag ... if I remember well, just to say, the Union Jack got adopted in 1801, slavery had abolished in 1833]. Its simply a political choice, not a historical matter.
 

Similar History Discussions