Here here

I've done a lot of reading about confederate monuments.

A lot of folks down here (deep south) seem to think that these monuments went up immediately after the Civil War and that they are somehow, sanctioned by the American government as memorials to those who fell serving their country (or something that twisted).

These monuments actually did not start showing up until around 1940 - about 80 years after the Civil War and at about the same time that "Jim Crowe" arrived. Some other interesting trivia:

* many of these monuments were put up in black neighborhoods
* many of the soldiers depicted are typically facing north (see Stone Mountain carving) - a gesture towards "damned yankees"
* many - even though they are supposed to represent a particular soldier - are made from the same castings

Why remove them when they are part of history?

History cannot be rewritten.

Why remove them when they are part of history?

History cannot be rewritten.

Why should there be monuments to treason?

So, if you take down a Confederate statue, the Confederacy will simply vanish from history?

What does a Confederate statue teach you about history, gina?

Why remove them when they are part of history?

History cannot be rewritten.

Here we go again.
Applying the same logic: Why don't we have monuments commemorating the legacy of the Lee Harvey Oswald, Japanese internment camps, Ted Kaczynski, The DC sniper... etc

Nobody's trying to erase history, just trying to send a message that it is the 21st century and monuments to white supremacy don't belong in public spaces.
I expect some of the Diet Racism sales reps to check in here eventually. Heritage not hate my a$$

Bury my heart at wounded knee

It's ironic this topic has come back around.... I'm about to dawn my mask and venture to the next county over to remind the travelling League of the South Yahoos that drove from 3 hours away in VA to wave Confederate flags in front of a middle school named after an African American poet in protest of their precious monument being torn down by the town, that they aren't welcome here.
Good day to all.

Disclaimer-peaceful demonstration is my goal

Indianapolis is too

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederate_Soldiers_and_Sailors_Monument_(Indianapolis)

[Edited on 6/6/2020 by LeglizHemp]

These monuments actually did not start showing up until around 1940 - about 80 years after the Civil War and at about the same time that "Jim Crowe" arrived. Some other interesting trivia:

* many of these monuments were put up in black neighborhoods
* many of the soldiers depicted are typically facing north (see Stone Mountain carving) - a gesture towards "damned yankees"
* many - even though they are supposed to represent a particular soldier - are made from the same castings

You're right. The monuments weren't put up by survivors of the Civil War in honor of war dead. Funds were raised by political & "civic" organizations 50 years later. They were put up between 1900s - 1950s with the largest spike in the 1920s-50s mirroring the Jim Crow era in town centers or other locales where blacks were likely to see them as intimidation & warnings. The 1960s was when they were first called what they were - symbols of White Supremacy. The hatred & violence that have surrounded them since the Civil Rights era make them archaic.

Prior to that, markers, not statues, memorialized Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War in southern cemeteries or families buried their war dead in their own plots w/o reference to the generals who lost the war.

These monuments actually did not start showing up until around 1940 - about 80 years after the Civil War and at about the same time that "Jim Crowe" arrived. Some other interesting trivia:

* many of these monuments were put up in black neighborhoods
* many of the soldiers depicted are typically facing north (see Stone Mountain carving) - a gesture towards "damned yankees"
* many - even though they are supposed to represent a particular soldier - are made from the same castings

You're right. The monuments weren't put up by survivors of the Civil War in honor of war dead. Funds were raised by political & "civic" organizations 50 years later. They were put up between 1900s - 1950s with the largest spike in the 1920s-50s mirroring the Jim Crow era in town centers or other locales where blacks were likely to see them as intimidation & warnings. The 1960s was when they were first called what they were - symbols of White Supremacy. The hatred & violence that have surrounded them since the Civil Rights era make them archaic.

Prior to that, markers, not statues, memorialized Confederate soldiers who died in the Civil War in southern cemeteries or families buried their war dead in their own plots w/o reference to the generals who lost the war.

Do you know why there were no statues erected right after the war of 1861-65?

did you know that Robert E. Lee never owned a slave?

^ False.

And you accuse everyone else of following revisionist history as it pertains to the civil war

did you know that Robert E. Lee never owned a slave?

Not true & irrelevant. Virginia has recognized that statues of Confederate generals are a symbol of racial injustice (& for some, white supremacy) & is removing them from public land.

^ False.

And you accuse everyone else of following revisionist history as it pertains to the civil war

lukester420, IF you were referring to my posts, here's the truth.

1) During Reconstruction there was no money available to build monuments. Excessive taxes, confiscation of property, and almost all of the Souths' infrastructure had been destroyed.

2) Robert E. Lee never owned a slave. His father had several, but sold them due to bad finances. His mother did own several and passed them down to R. E. Lee, but he never took possession and they were passed to his wife's family as that he had no need for slaves while engaged in his military career. So those belonged to the Custis family, not R.E. Lee.
When Custis died, he left the plantation and all property to Mary Lee (great grand-daughter to Martha Washington). The will stated that all slaves would be manumitted as soon as economically feasible, or within 5 years.

So, NO, Robert E. Lee never owned a slave.

So those belonged to the Custis family, not R.E. Lee.
When Custis died, he left the plantation and all property to Mary Lee (great grand-daughter to Martha Washington). The will stated that all slaves would be manumitted as soon as economically feasible, or within 5 years.

So, NO, Robert E. Lee never owned a slave.

https://acwm.org/blog/myths-misunderstandings-lee-slaveholder/

Whatever I guess it's a waste if time linking a source that disproves your uncited claims since you won't read anything about that time period that wasn't written by your Great Gran Pappy. I suppose those carpet baggin yanks at the American Civil War Museum are all liars.

A story through a single lens is never the whole story

never a waste of time to read someones view of history.

Here's one for you to read:
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Lee_Robert_E_and_slavery

Here's one from the Park Service

https:www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm

Again, while his mother did will her slaves to Robert, he gave them to the Custis family, not needing them.
He did later become the custodian of the slaves when Custis died and R.E. Lee was the executor of the estate.

While he did have control over the slaves, he did not own them, nor did he ever personally own one.

American Civil War Museum are all liars.

The Civil War Museum is just one source of reputable historians that contradict the myth that Lee never owned slaves. The Lee-As-Saint mystique is deeply embedded in confederate mythology & no one on this message board is likely to convince anyone to the contrary if they want to believe.

It misses the point that the statues in Richmond are being removed for racist connotations in the 21st century & the timing is one of healing when the president of the US (not of the confederacy) is calling for US troops to "dominate" US citizens on US soil.

Cyclone is right, whether or not he owned slaves is irrelevant to why his or any other Confederate statues don’t need to be preserved. That being said, he had slaves willed to him and gave them away, that doesn’t constitute ownership? How does one give something away that isn’t their property?

The man grew up in a slave owning family, had slaves willed to him and oversaw an estate that included slaves and did not allow them to go free until he was more or less forced to, that should outweigh the semantics of if he owned slaves or not (he did). And again this is all a moot point anyway as it is not really relevant the original post.

Cyclone is right, whether or not he owned slaves is irrelevant to why his or any other Confederate statues don’t need to be preserved. That being said, he had slaves willed to him and gave them away, that doesn’t constitute ownership? How does one give something away that isn’t their property?

The man grew up in a slave owning family, had slaves willed to him and oversaw an estate that included slaves and did not allow them to go free until he was more or less forced to, that should outweigh the semantics of if he owned slaves or not (he did). And again this is all a moot point anyway as it is not really relevant the original post.

Again lukester, he never owned a slave. He had use of slaves from his mother, he was willed those his mother owned, but never took possession of them transferring his right of ownership to his father-in-law.
He became the custodian of the slaves as the executor of the Custis estate, he did not own any of the slaves.
yes, he did work slaves until the specified time period was up, he and Mary also worked to get them ready for their freedom.
Since I presume you read the articles, you know about the illegal Sunday school they established so the slaves would know the three R's (readin', writin', and rithmatic), and you know of the dreadful way they treated maria Syphax, freeing her and her husband and making them live on the sixteen acres given to them by the family.
just really mean, bad people those Lee and Custis families.

The lee and Custis families were so mean to blacks that they backed the Liberian movement of freed slaves back to Africa, which also included Abe Lincoln as a proponent.

I'm going to give you a modern example of how he did not own slaves.

Decided not to do the "modern example" since it might (might hell, would) cause some decidedly vile remarks thrown my way about comparing blacks to*********.

Well, there is this about Mr Lee.
Fake news I'm sure...

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

Again lukester, he never owned a slave.

Lukester, this dogged belief in southern myths in spite of decades of scholarly, 1st source research goes to the heart of perpetuating racism. Lee wasn't a saint. He was a slave owner who managed 4 plantations w/slave labor. As a soldier, his letters express his disappointment that not only was he not allowed to bring 3 slaves w/him on campaigns, he wasn't allowed even 1. After retirement, he became president of Washington & Lee University in Lexington VA where a chapter of the KKK was founded during his tenure & where Lee turned a blind eye to violence against blacks by students, including rape of black girls/women & lynchings. He was indecisive at best about the major issues of the day, his personal life, & career choices. A reluctant general is hardly who one wants as commander of the armed forces in a war.

The characters of Lee, Jackson, Davis, Maury, or Stuart are irrelevant. It's that the monuments were erected starting in 1890 to intimidate blacks & remind them of the white male supremacy that remained in place until the Civil Rights movement 70 years later. Now, 130 years later, the statues are being removed. They serve no purpose except to antagonize & humiliate the black citizens of Virginia. They're being appropriated by the resurgence of the white supremacy movement. Removal is long overdue.

Virginia's announcement was made swiftly after the death of George Floyd & before the arrest of his killer. Yes, there were early protests in Richmond, but state & city leadership took action toward healing - something their predecessors failed to do.

Well, there is this about Mr Lee.
Fake news I'm sure...

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/

I read that one too, but knowing the audience for this discussion I figured anything from the Atlantic would illicit scoffs since the paper was founded in Boston.

Decided not to do the "modern example" since it might (might hell, would) cause some decidedly vile remarks thrown my way about comparing blacks to*********.

Gee thanks for showing restraint. Again if you are willed something and transfer OWNERSHIP, that means you owned it, what is the point of trying to use technicalities to prove a false point that Lee was somehow this wonderful man. I just find it highly hypocritical and suspect that Mr. Jerry pretends to be the authority on Civil War history around here but subscribes to all the historical whitewashing that mirrors the beliefs of the Klan and the Neo Confederate scumbags then wonders why his remarks are construed has being racist.

The characters of Lee, Jackson, Davis, Maury, or Stuart are irrelevant. It's that the monuments were erected starting in 1890 to intimidate blacks & remind them of the white male supremacy that remained in place until the Civil Rights movement 70 years later. Now, 130 years later, the statues are being removed. They serve no purpose except to antagonize & humiliate the black citizens of Virginia. They're being appropriated by the resurgence of the white supremacy movement. Removal is long overdue.

X2
That statement makes this false argument Jerry is making pointless but I'm sure it will continue to be made, I'm done addressing it since it is false as well as completely superfluous in the context of this thread.

The characters of Lee, Jackson, Davis, Maury, or Stuart are irrelevant. It's that the monuments were erected starting in 1890 to intimidate blacks & remind them of the white male supremacy that remained in place until the Civil Rights movement 70 years later. Now, 130 years later, the statues are being removed. They serve no purpose except to antagonize & humiliate the black citizens of Virginia. They're being appropriated by the resurgence of the white supremacy movement. Removal is long overdue.

X2
That statement makes this false argument Jerry is making pointless but I'm sure it will continue to be made, I'm done addressing it since it is false as well as completely superfluous in the context of this thread.

There have been previous attempts to remove the statues in Richmond, Va, but all failed. There were the typical push pulls on aspects of what the statues represent or don't represent, impact to tourism, how city council members would vote, state vs local politics, etc.

Then there was George Floyd which was the probably the single most impacting catalyst to have Lee and others removed quickly. Many who were previously against have jumped on board. I wonder if they see it as not being holdouts or last man standing, or if they truly have seen the impacts. The protests in Richmond followed the course as in other major cities across the country and are still ongoing with many of these at the base of Lee and Jeb Stuart.

The other night a statue was pulled down in Monroe Park. See below:

UPDATE: Protesters pull down Confederate statue in Richmond's Monroe Park of Confederate Gen. Williams Carter Wickham, which has stood in the park since 1891

https://www.richmond.com/news/local/update-protesters-pull-down-confederate-statue-in-richmonds-monroe-park/article_8e071910-e47f-5114-bb05-325e39fc20fd.html

They serve no purpose beyond reminding black people that they were once slaves

So, using this same logic, both Washington and Jefferson were slave OWNERS and their images are on paper money which has far more exposure than a statue could ever dream of, When are they being removed from circulation?

There have been previous attempts to remove the statues in Richmond, Va, but all failed.

My original point is kudos to the Virginia governor & Richmond mayor who are finally making it happen.

They serve no purpose beyond reminding black people that they were once slaves

So, using this same logic, both Washington and Jefferson were slave OWNERS and their images are on paper money which has far more exposure than a statue could ever dream of, When are they being removed from circulation?

Some of the same people petitioning the removal of these statues have been asking that same question for 20+ years, usually met with pushback from the same crowd thats crying about these statues.

Our money looks like baseball cards for slave owners
-Dave Chappelle