Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?

[Syriusly]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

The entire premise is a red herring.

The issue is NOT what the Statues represent. The issue is censorship and the silencing of any voice in America. There is no hazard to the public by the existence of any statue, therefore there is no legitimate reason to censor them.

Censor who?

The people who want them to remain.

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

To censor what people?

The people who erected these monuments are virtually all dead.

And the campaign of violence?

Charlottesville's violence was to intimidate those who would remove those statues.

 

[Syriusly]

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

People keep trying to Sanitize the Civil War by separating out the issue of slavery and repackaging it as a state's rights conflict where slavery played only a minor roll.

I'm not the one demanding statues come down because I get my feelings hurt by looking at it. You want them down and support the pussies that approve of it.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Some communities are caving into a national campaign of pressure where if the local community does not take these statues down, the violence will escalate even more until they capitulate.

It would be one thing if the community voted to take these down without the entire nation putting pressure on them. In fact, if those communities really thought they should not be displayed, they would have quietly removed them and no one would have noticed.

Now it's a national blackmail campaign by the progressive pussies who are butthurt over some iron, copper, and stone, so they wish to censor those who had no problem with their existence to begin.

Apparently Durham NC didn't act quickly enough for the vandals.

If these statues were so much of a problem, why haven't they been taken down during the almost 100 years someone them have been up?

Yes. We have already seen that if a community does not act as swiftly as the butthurt Antifa crowd wishes of them, they will escalate the violence and start tearing down these statues. Not much of a council vote in that instance, is there?

The vandals don't care if there is a vote or not. Since there wasn't a vote in Durham, NC, the statue should be put back up and those cowards made to watch.

If Durham wants to put the statue back up, i would support that decision.

And if Durham decides to keep it down- I would support that decision also.

The local community should decide- not a bunch of right wing racists.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmm I don't remember being there...oh wait- you are lying about me again......

You don't have the guts.

Don't have the guts to what? Respond to your pansy posts on USMB?

To tear down a statue when I have repeatedly said I am against mobs tearing down a statue?

LOL- what a pissy little snowflake you are.

I'm not the one demanding statues come down because I get my feelings hurt by looking at it. You want them down and support the pussies that approve of it.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

 

[Syriusly]

Hmmmm the statues represent people who fought against the United States.

They were acting to 'discredit' the United States when they declared that the United States was acting against them.

When was Christopher Columbus fighting against the United States? Catholic Saints? Abraham Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? All statues recently attacked and vandalized by the left..

Last I checked Christopher Columbus was not a Confederate- nor do I recall Teddy Roosevelt being a Confederate- and Confederates are whom I was speaking.

Statues unfortunately get vandalized all the time- and I am against the vandalization of any statues- by anyone.

How about you?

Point being...if this leftist statue bullshit was actually about confederate soldiers...you twits wouldn't be vandalizing and calling for the removal of everything from Catholic Saints to Christopher Columbus to Teddy Roosevelt..

'you twits'? I am not vandalizing anything. Are you?

Point being- you snowflakes just are pissed off that local communities are deciding to remove the statues of your heroes.

they are not necessarily anyones hero. They sure are not mine. that isnt the point.

They certainly are heroes to some.

Once again- I am opposed to any vandalism, and that includes mobs toppling statues.

But if local communities- and yes that includes local governments- decides to no longer honor people- then I support that decision.

The contards of course get their panties in a wad when local communties decide to not honor their heroes 'properly'

 

[Votto]

 

[Darkwind]

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

People keep trying to Sanitize the Civil War by separating out the issue of slavery and repackaging it as a state's rights conflict where slavery played only a minor roll.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Some communities are caving into a national campaign of pressure where if the local community does not take these statues down, the violence will escalate even more until they capitulate.

It would be one thing if the community voted to take these down without the entire nation putting pressure on them. In fact, if those communities really thought they should not be displayed, they would have quietly removed them and no one would have noticed.

Now it's a national blackmail campaign by the progressive pussies who are butthurt over some iron, copper, and stone, so they wish to censor those who had no problem with their existence to begin.

Apparently Durham NC didn't act quickly enough for the vandals.

If these statues were so much of a problem, why haven't they been taken down during the almost 100 years someone them have been up?

Yes. We have already seen that if a community does not act as swiftly as the butthurt Antifa crowd wishes of them, they will escalate the violence and start tearing down these statues. Not much of a council vote in that instance, is there?

The vandals don't care if there is a vote or not. Since there wasn't a vote in Durham, NC, the statue should be put back up and those cowards made to watch.

If Durham wants to put the statue back up, i would support that decision.

And if Durham decides to keep it down- I would support that decision also.

The local community should decide- not a bunch of right wing racists.

The community should not be under threat of violence by a bunch of left wing racists.

 

[Darkwind]

You don't have the guts.

Don't have the guts to what? Respond to your pansy posts on USMB?

To tear down a statue when I have repeatedly said I am against mobs tearing down a statue?

LOL- what a pissy little snowflake you are.

I'm not the one demanding statues come down because I get my feelings hurt by looking at it. You want them down and support the pussies that approve of it.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

That anyone is pissed because communities don't want to support my heros.

First lie. They are not My heroes.
Second lie. Some communities are not deciding this on their own, but are being threatened with violence.
Biggest lie. That this is anything other than censoring free speech.

 

[Conservative65]

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Some communities are caving into a national campaign of pressure where if the local community does not take these statues down, the violence will escalate even more until they capitulate.

It would be one thing if the community voted to take these down without the entire nation putting pressure on them. In fact, if those communities really thought they should not be displayed, they would have quietly removed them and no one would have noticed.

Now it's a national blackmail campaign by the progressive pussies who are butthurt over some iron, copper, and stone, so they wish to censor those who had no problem with their existence to begin.

Apparently Durham NC didn't act quickly enough for the vandals.

If these statues were so much of a problem, why haven't they been taken down during the almost 100 years someone them have been up?

Yes. We have already seen that if a community does not act as swiftly as the butthurt Antifa crowd wishes of them, they will escalate the violence and start tearing down these statues. Not much of a council vote in that instance, is there?

The vandals don't care if there is a vote or not. Since there wasn't a vote in Durham, NC, the statue should be put back up and those cowards made to watch.

Tell me about the vote to erect them...

They weren't put up without a vote. Quite different than the pieces of shit that pull them down without one.

 

[Conservative65]

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone." White supremacy and slavery are the things upon which the existence of all else in the Confederacy depended. The whole of the Confederacy's economy depended on it. The social culture depended on it. The legal and civil structure and institutions embraced and codified white supremacy by enshrining in the CSA Constitution the principle that blacks were property.

• Constitution of the Confederate States of America
  • Article I Section 9(4)
  • No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
  • Article IV Section 3(3)
  • In all [territory admitted to Confederacy after its founding], the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States.
  • The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
•  Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861
  "We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel....We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
• Recovering the Legal History of the Confederacy
  
• Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
  "While some of these monuments were erected shortly after the war by grieving Southern families to honor the valor of fallen leaders and loved ones, many more were put in place for a more troubling purpose. Decades after the war, advocates of the Lost Cause erected these monuments all over the country to vindicate the Confederacy at the bar of history, erase the central issues of slavery and emancipation from our understanding of the war, and reaffirm a system of state-sanctioned white supremacy. Put simply, the erection of these Confederate memorials and enforcement of Jim Crow went hand-in-hand. They were intended as a celebration of white supremacy when they were constructed."
  
  Chart showing the quantity of Confederate Memorials erected by year.
  
  
  
  • Origins of the Lost Cause: Pollard to the Present
    
  • The Lost Cause

Simply put, the Confederacy was, more than any other thing, about white supremacy and establishing a nation where whites -- all of them -- were supreme and non-whites were property.

That is true. However, just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight, and they had absolutely no say in the matter. Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them. The Southern Soldier thought only in terms of protecting his state from "invasion". In fact, the South had to resort to the draft before the union did. The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight....The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

Well, when you or someone else shows us that Confederate soldiers/veterans, in the main, before or after returning from the war:

• Collectively and in general protested on behalf of former slaves,
• Openly opposed the CSA Constitution provisions noted earlier in this conversation,
• Exercised their 1st Amendment right to to prevent the implementation of Black Codes,
• Were not a material quantity of membership of the KKK having not followed Nathan Bedford Forrest into that organization,
• Were not, by and large, Democrats,
• Did not welcome the Plessy decision,
• Did not concur with the Southern populist movement's refusal to challenge white supremacy,
• Were Southern Mennonites or Quakers,
• Did not support the restoration of "home rule" in the South, "home rule" being but a euphemism for white supremacy, (See also: "Reconstruction in the South,"
• Etc., etc.....

...When someone credibly demonstrates the preponderance of those things' verity among the majority of Confederate veterans, your assertions will have merit. Until then, I shall construe that you may have some specific anecdotal evidence of one or a few individuals who for whom those things may have been so, but not widely, preponderantly so.

Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them.

And what did Ali do in light of his lack of animus toward Vietnamese? How many (or what share of) Confederate citizens in substance -- I realize the legal framework of the mid-19th century differed from that of the late middle 20th century -- "aped" his approach of conscientious objection or moved north? (See the "Mennonite" and "Quaker" papers linked above.) The answer is not nearly enough to legitimize, beyond merely being anecdotal observations about the behavior of the proportionately few, the claims you're making.

Well, Xel, if you want to insist that the Southern White man hated blacks from the time they first appeared in the South, go ahead. Yes, the Southern whites were always racists, but the hate came after the war. Until then, they were just white supremacists. Reconstruction turned them into terrorists and hateful bigots.My anecdotal observations include the fact that the South was where I, and all my ancestors, were born and raised from the 1600's forward. The conversation was why were most of the confederate statues erected around 1890-1930. The answer is that whites were seriously pissed off about Reconstruction, because blacks now competed with whites for factory jobs. and finally, white feared negroes would "pollute" white blood by having white women. None of these three things had been an issue before the Civil War.

...if you want to insist that the Southern White man hated blacks from the time they first appeared in the South, go ahead.Yes, the Southern whites were always racists, but the hate came after the war.

I'm sorry. The notion that racism and hate are not inextricably bound is anathema to me.

The conversation was why were most of the confederate statues erected around 1890-1930.

You and I have very different understandings of what gave rise to this discussion and what we've been discussing.

Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?...So what do these things REALLY represent?

Answering that question -- what messages and sentiments were the statues intended to convey and inspire? -- and refuting your assertion about someone (some groups) co-opted "all things Confederate" to be about segregation (and by implication white supremacy and slavery) is what my remarks and linked content have been doing.

Why they were erected specifically between 1890 and 1930, the temporal aspect, is not what I've been addressing because, quite frankly, I don't see that the focus of the OP has a damn thing to do with why the timing of the statues' erection was as it was. The timing contributes to understanding why they were emplaced at all; thus noting the timing is relevant. But the "why" of the timing isn't the focus of the OP.

Over the course of this discussion I've provided multiple credible references and quotes and/or asked questions that:

• Show nobody co-opted the Confederacy to stand for segregation, white supremacy and slavery. The creators and leaders of the Confederacy asserted that much themselves. (Posts 14, 36, and 38.)
• Requested demonstrable evidence that the relative indifference you've attributed to your ancestors was in fact a widespread thing, and you've not provided anything beyond anecdotes. (Post 51.)
• Show that the preponderance of statues honoring Confederates were erected "to vindicate the Confederacy at the bar of history, erase the central issues of slavery and emancipation from our understanding of the war, and reaffirm a system of state-sanctioned white supremacy." (Post 38.)

In the [Tennessee] town from whence [my great grandfather] came, I seriously doubt if a single slave resided there.

I really can't speak to that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that you've not shared any corroborated details about the city or county from which your forebears hailed. Your attestation is certainly plausible for in 1860, about 25% of TN's population owned slaves and slaves comprised about a quarter of the population. Additionally, TN was the last state to secede. Indeed, Scott County, TN was known as a Unionist stronghold.

• Scott County, Tenn., has a unique history
• Our History -- Scott County, TN
• The Curious History of the “Free and Independent State of Scott”

That said, Scott County most assuredly did not have many people in it. Even today there are only ~25K people there. (See the above "25%" link for TN's 1860 statewide population.)

One thing I can say is that TN slave ownership was not restricted to plantation owners and their country estates and farms. Scott County residents' disdain for plantation owners and other so-called elite members of the Confederacy, however, is well established. Be that as it may, there is little reason for inferring that their sentiments were emblematic of the remainder of the "average" citizen of the Confederacy. Rather, the mindset of the Scott County residents and that of other Unionist pockets in the South is best characterised as anomalous, not typical. Other "hotbeds" of Unionist support in the Confederacy included:

• West Virginia nee western Virginia.
• Winston County, AL
• Jones County, MS
• Searcy County, AR
  
• Texas Hill Country

So, while I am aware there were exceptions to the Confederate narrative and sentiments, the statues that are the object of this discussion did not come to be because tons of those exceptional individuals wanted them erected, which would need to be the majority cause to give germanity to the line about merely existential exceptions. Accordingly and given that context, I don't see what be the non-ancillary point of even mentioning that there were Confederates, Southerners who differed with the overall theses of the Confederacy. I'm thrilled that there were people like your great grandfather who weren't necessarily and wholly supportive of the Confederacy, but those people didn't contribute the statues of Confederates either.

Until then, they were just white supremacists.

Excuse me? What about being "just [a] white supremacist" does not include hate? How is white supremacy and the racism/bigotry it spawns not a manifestation of hate?

• The Design of Everyday Hate: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

The entire war was about economics, as all wars are, really.

I suspect with the statement above you are alluding to what economists call the "rational choice" model and applying it, as Brustein did re: Nazism in Logic of Evil, to the Confederacy. Brustein argues that the hatred of xenophobia, antisemitism, racism, nationalism, etc. existed before Nazis, but that they came to the fore because the Nazi party promised things -- jobs especially -- the "rank and file" members who comprised the vast majority of the Nazi party/citizenry found more desirable than did they find opprobrious the hatred the party also embraced. I think you're essentially applying the same theme to Confederates, in particular, the ones who were not part of the Confederacy's political, social and military leadership.

While I cannot reject the "rational choice" model, indeed, I think it applies; however, it's not all that applies. The other thing that applies is that one cannot take the Confederacy and not take the racism, slavery, white supremacy and so on that came with it. Like it or not, even merely acquiescing to being Confederates and permitting the leadership to secede and enact the Confederate Constitution de facto makes the people -- people who let that happen, the people didn't rail against it, the people who didn't leave the South, people who didn't vote Republican, and so on -- it makes them every bit as much part and party to all that the creators of the Confederacy declared it to be.

What does buy one exculpation of the sort you've described in your various remarks? Well, to use a present day example, being among the Republicans who are, for example, "never Trumpers." Being among the population of Scott County, TN and having seceded, as Scott Cnty did, from TN (or another state as West Virginians did) might militate for one's considering the residents there as being notably opposed to the Confederacy and what it stood for despite being collocated in a Confederate state.

One might ask why I wrote "might militate." I did because "the non-slaveholder knows that as soon as his savings will admit, he can become a slaveholder… with ordinary frugality, can, in general, be accomplished in a few years… The large slaveholders and proprietors of the South begin life in great part as non-slaveholders… But should such fortune not be in reserve for the non-slaveholder, he will understand by honesty and industry it may be realized to his children…” That aspiration is no different than what many "average" moderns have for their children. Quite simply rational choice informs us that nobody really takes offense to "making it big," no matter their feelings and thoughts about those who already have done or the lawful (if ethical or not) means by which they do so. There is also the matter of folks having "made it big" forgetting from whence they came..."There but for the grace of God go I -- who among us, no matter our financial position, have not witnessed someone whose politics give no credence to that maxim?

white feared negroes would "pollute" white blood by having white women. None of these three things had been an issue before the Civil War.

What? Surely you don't think that concern just popped up in 1863? (See: Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro. ) Concerns about interbreeding, particularly between white women and black men, had existed from at least the late 1600s (third bullet point below).

• "Even before the end of slavery, the Alabama code prohibited the establishment of relationships giving the appearance of marriage between whites and blacks. The first statute became part of the Alabama code in 1852 and its basic form remained constant through the Civil War. The 1852 version of the code allowed the solemnization of marriages between free blacks, but barred weddings between members of different races."
  Source (Racial Constructions: The Legal Regulation of Miscegenation in Alabama, 1890–1934) (See also: "Race, Marriage, and the Law of Freedom: Alabama and Virginia 1860s-1960 - Freedom: Personal Liberty and Private Law" )
• "In the antebellum period, twenty-one of thirty-four states had, by 1860, adopted statutes proscribing or punishing interracial sex....Enforcement in the years before the Civil War...continued to be applied most often to public, domestic relationships between white women and black men. As long as white men kept their relationships with black women informal and hidden, they did not fear prosecution. If, however, a white man lived openly with a black woman, and the couple demonstrated an affectionate and stable union, they could also face state action."
  
  "During Reconstruction, Congressmen from northern and southern states questioned whether the new civil rights laws, including the Fourteenth Amendment, might void anti-miscegenation statutes. Such arguments persuaded the state supreme courts of Texas and Alabama to declare their laws against interracial sex unconstitutional. In response, the Republican Congress agreed that the civil rights legislation would not prevent states from legislating against interracial marriage, and only Louisiana actually repealed its anti-miscegenation statute."
  
  Source
• Maintaining racial purity within the white race has been the dominant discourse in marriage laws and intermarriage prohibitions. Historically, legal restrictions placed on inter-marriage and miscegenation have varied by state. In some states intermarriage was legal, while in others it was illegal. Miscegenation had been discouraged and treated as socially deviant since the arrival of African slaves in the American colonies, but it was not until 1691 that interracial sex was made illegal. Virginia passed the first statute against miscegenation between blacks and whites. The goal was to prevent “that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may increase in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawful accompanying with one another”
  Source
• "Wives of slave masters also practiced miscegenation with blacks. By choosing a slave lover, an elite white woman could coerce the silence of her sexual partner because she could threaten him with an accusation of rape should he refuse her advances or reveal their relationship. Black male slaves accused of this crime were swiftly and severely punished, often resulting in death."
  Source
• "Harriet Jacobs is an example of the sexual domination that white slave owners attempted to exercise over their black female slaves. Jacobs was a Louisianan slave owned by Dr. Flint. At the tender age of eleven, and while being forty years her senior, Flint began to sexually harass her. Jacobs viewed Dr. Flint as any other white slave owner – he considered women of no value, unless they continually increased his stock. When Harriet grew into adulthood, she began to engage in a relationship with a black carpenter from another plantation. Flint discovered her relationship with this man and disallowed her from marrying him or even seeing him again. She would end up becoming pregnant and delivered a baby boy, and Flint flew into a rage over this. He threatened to sell her child if she did not consent to his future sexual demands. Flint also threatened to shoot the carpenter and made plans to build a cottage on the outskirts of town to incorporate Harriet as his “permanent” concubine. Harriet estimated that he already had eleven slave mistresses prior to her, and he sent them away with their babies when his lechery turned elsewhere."
  Source
• "Miscegenation between the white master and mulatto slave was a common trend in the antebellum South, and Thomas Reade Rootes Cobb of Georgia favored this superior race as the result of their mixture of white and black blood. He blamed miscegenation on the “natural lewdness” of blacks but found the problem mitigated because race mixture was beneficial to slavery."
  Source

While there may have been some somewhat exceptional individuals in your family of ancestors, they were just were just that, exceptions.

I'll wait for the Cliff Notes version of this to come out,

You're still too stupid to understand it.

 

[cnelsen]

So, once all the Confederate monuments come down, everyone will be satisfied? Once the lovely Harriet Tubman replaces Andrew Jackson on the $20, we'll have racial harmony?

Why do you need to remark on Harriet Tubman's looks? What about Andrew Jackson? Is he handsome? DOES IT MATTER EITHER WAY?

Because men don't care how men look.

 

[usmbguest5318]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

The entire premise is a red herring.

The issue is NOT what the Statues represent. The issue is censorship and the silencing of any voice in America. There is no hazard to the public by the existence of any statue, therefore there is no legitimate reason to censor them.

Censor who?

The people who want them to remain.

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

People keep trying to Sanitize the Civil War by separating out the issue of slavery and repackaging it as a state's rights conflict where slavery played only a minor roll.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Some communities are caving into a national campaign of pressure where if the local community does not take these statues down, the violence will escalate even more until they capitulate.

It would be one thing if the community voted to take these down without the entire nation putting pressure on them. In fact, if those communities really thought they should not be displayed, they would have quietly removed them and no one would have noticed.

Now it's a national blackmail campaign by the progressive pussies who are butthurt over some iron, copper, and stone, so they wish to censor those who had no problem with their existence to begin.

Apparently Durham NC didn't act quickly enough for the vandals.

If these statues were so much of a problem, why haven't they been taken down during the almost 100 years someone them have been up?

Yes. We have already seen that if a community does not act as swiftly as the butthurt Antifa crowd wishes of them, they will escalate the violence and start tearing down these statues. Not much of a council vote in that instance, is there?

The vandals don't care if there is a vote or not. Since there wasn't a vote in Durham, NC, the statue should be put back up and those cowards made to watch.

If Durham wants to put the statue back up, i would support that decision.

And if Durham decides to keep it down- I would support that decision also.

The local community should decide- not a bunch of right wing racists.

The local community didn't decide in Durham. A bunch of pussies did. They really kicked the ass of something that couldn't fight back. I'm yet to see any of them try to take down the rotation of flags of the Confederacy I fly.

 

[Conservative65]

The entire premise is a red herring.

The issue is NOT what the Statues represent. The issue is censorship and the silencing of any voice in America. There is no hazard to the public by the existence of any statue, therefore there is no legitimate reason to censor them.

Censor who?

The people who want them to remain.

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Who had a voice in them going up? Are they any different then statues of Stalin?

You'd have to read the history of each to determine who had a voice in putting them up. I do know that tearing them down and waging a campaign of violence to intimidate these communities to take them down is nothing less than an attempt to censor people.

Let them go away and state that no more violence will be issued toward them, and then see if these communities vote to take these statues down. However, before they do that, I think they should hold a series of public forums (local community ONLY) to ensure that is the true will of the people.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

I am advocating that for every community that elects to bow down to these violent intimidations, that America boycott spending any dollars in the community at all. Let their tourist dollars dry up.

Removing them without the consent of the City council (tearing them down as they did in Durham), or waging a war of intimidation is NOT the right way to do this.

One of the tenets of republican governance is that elected leaders must sometimes do things because they are the right thing to do, because they think it best, even though at the time they are unpopular things to do. One may not like that, but the fact remains that it is the case. Republics are not variously direct democracies when it's convenient and republics when that is convenient. They are republics or they are not.

"Heavy is the head that wears the crown" applies to more than just monarchs. It is the burden of leadership at all levels. Be that as it may, we elect our leaders to carry that burden, so carry it they must.

Are you saying that if you agree with what those elected leaders do it's automatically the right thing?

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Ok, but it is not legit as long as my counterpoints stand.

That is how debate works, dude.

Your counter points are addressed in the content I linked well before you posted them. That's why I'm not going over them again.

 

[Conservative65]

You don't have the guts.

Don't have the guts to what? Respond to your pansy posts on USMB?

To tear down a statue when I have repeatedly said I am against mobs tearing down a statue?

LOL- what a pissy little snowflake you are.

I'm not the one demanding statues come down because I get my feelings hurt by looking at it. You want them down and support the pussies that approve of it.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Point out my lie- if you aren't a typical contard cowardly pussy.

Point out where you told the truth - if you aren't the typical NL leftwing retard.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Calling the Confederacy what it is/was does not include denying what its VP explicitly described as its "cornerstone." White supremacy and slavery are the things upon which the existence of all else in the Confederacy depended. The whole of the Confederacy's economy depended on it. The social culture depended on it. The legal and civil structure and institutions embraced and codified white supremacy by enshrining in the CSA Constitution the principle that blacks were property.

• Constitution of the Confederate States of America
  • Article I Section 9(4)
  • No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
  • Article IV Section 3(3)
  • In all [territory admitted to Confederacy after its founding], the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States.
  • The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
•  Robert Hardy Smith, An Address to the Citizens of Alabama on the Constitution and Laws of the Confederate States of America, 1861
  "We have dissolved the late Union chiefly because of the negro quarrel....We have called our negroes 'slaves', and we have recognized and protected them as persons and our rights to them as property."
• Recovering the Legal History of the Confederacy
  
• Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
  "While some of these monuments were erected shortly after the war by grieving Southern families to honor the valor of fallen leaders and loved ones, many more were put in place for a more troubling purpose. Decades after the war, advocates of the Lost Cause erected these monuments all over the country to vindicate the Confederacy at the bar of history, erase the central issues of slavery and emancipation from our understanding of the war, and reaffirm a system of state-sanctioned white supremacy. Put simply, the erection of these Confederate memorials and enforcement of Jim Crow went hand-in-hand. They were intended as a celebration of white supremacy when they were constructed."
  
  Chart showing the quantity of Confederate Memorials erected by year.
  
  
  
  • Origins of the Lost Cause: Pollard to the Present
    
  • The Lost Cause

Simply put, the Confederacy was, more than any other thing, about white supremacy and establishing a nation where whites -- all of them -- were supreme and non-whites were property.

That is true. However, just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight, and they had absolutely no say in the matter. Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them. The Southern Soldier thought only in terms of protecting his state from "invasion". In fact, the South had to resort to the draft before the union did. The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

just like in the Vietnam war, the soldiers did not fight to defend America or to kill commies. They fought because they were told it was their duty to fight....The Southern soldier thought of blacks as a sort of trained beast of burden that worked for the rich guy in Mississippi picking cotton. it meant nothing to him.

Well, when you or someone else shows us that Confederate soldiers/veterans, in the main, before or after returning from the war:

• Collectively and in general protested on behalf of former slaves,
• Openly opposed the CSA Constitution provisions noted earlier in this conversation,
• Exercised their 1st Amendment right to to prevent the implementation of Black Codes,
• Were not a material quantity of membership of the KKK having not followed Nathan Bedford Forrest into that organization,
• Were not, by and large, Democrats,
• Did not welcome the Plessy decision,
• Did not concur with the Southern populist movement's refusal to challenge white supremacy,
• Were Southern Mennonites or Quakers,
• Did not support the restoration of "home rule" in the South, "home rule" being but a euphemism for white supremacy, (See also: "Reconstruction in the South,"
• Etc., etc.....

...When someone credibly demonstrates the preponderance of those things' verity among the majority of Confederate veterans, your assertions will have merit. Until then, I shall construe that you may have some specific anecdotal evidence of one or a few individuals who for whom those things may have been so, but not widely, preponderantly so.

Muhammad Ali was spot on, when he said that no Vietnamese had ever discriminated against him, and that he saw no reason to go halfway around the world to kill them.

And what did Ali do in light of his lack of animus toward Vietnamese? How many (or what share of) Confederate citizens in substance -- I realize the legal framework of the mid-19th century differed from that of the late middle 20th century -- "aped" his approach of conscientious objection or moved north? (See the "Mennonite" and "Quaker" papers linked above.) The answer is not nearly enough to legitimize, beyond merely being anecdotal observations about the behavior of the proportionately few, the claims you're making.

Well, Xel, if you want to insist that the Southern White man hated blacks from the time they first appeared in the South, go ahead. Yes, the Southern whites were always racists, but the hate came after the war. Until then, they were just white supremacists. Reconstruction turned them into terrorists and hateful bigots.My anecdotal observations include the fact that the South was where I, and all my ancestors, were born and raised from the 1600's forward. The conversation was why were most of the confederate statues erected around 1890-1930. The answer is that whites were seriously pissed off about Reconstruction, because blacks now competed with whites for factory jobs. and finally, white feared negroes would "pollute" white blood by having white women. None of these three things had been an issue before the Civil War.

...if you want to insist that the Southern White man hated blacks from the time they first appeared in the South, go ahead.Yes, the Southern whites were always racists, but the hate came after the war.

I'm sorry. The notion that racism and hate are not inextricably bound is anathema to me.

The conversation was why were most of the confederate statues erected around 1890-1930.

You and I have very different understandings of what gave rise to this discussion and what we've been discussing.

Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?...So what do these things REALLY represent?

Answering that question -- what messages and sentiments were the statues intended to convey and inspire? -- and refuting your assertion about someone (some groups) co-opted "all things Confederate" to be about segregation (and by implication white supremacy and slavery) is what my remarks and linked content have been doing.

Why they were erected specifically between 1890 and 1930, the temporal aspect, is not what I've been addressing because, quite frankly, I don't see that the focus of the OP has a damn thing to do with why the timing of the statues' erection was as it was. The timing contributes to understanding why they were emplaced at all; thus noting the timing is relevant. But the "why" of the timing isn't the focus of the OP.

Over the course of this discussion I've provided multiple credible references and quotes and/or asked questions that:

• Show nobody co-opted the Confederacy to stand for segregation, white supremacy and slavery. The creators and leaders of the Confederacy asserted that much themselves. (Posts 14, 36, and 38.)
• Requested demonstrable evidence that the relative indifference you've attributed to your ancestors was in fact a widespread thing, and you've not provided anything beyond anecdotes. (Post 51.)
• Show that the preponderance of statues honoring Confederates were erected "to vindicate the Confederacy at the bar of history, erase the central issues of slavery and emancipation from our understanding of the war, and reaffirm a system of state-sanctioned white supremacy." (Post 38.)

In the [Tennessee] town from whence [my great grandfather] came, I seriously doubt if a single slave resided there.

I really can't speak to that for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that you've not shared any corroborated details about the city or county from which your forebears hailed. Your attestation is certainly plausible for in 1860, about 25% of TN's population owned slaves and slaves comprised about a quarter of the population. Additionally, TN was the last state to secede. Indeed, Scott County, TN was known as a Unionist stronghold.

• Scott County, Tenn., has a unique history
• Our History -- Scott County, TN
• The Curious History of the “Free and Independent State of Scott”

That said, Scott County most assuredly did not have many people in it. Even today there are only ~25K people there. (See the above "25%" link for TN's 1860 statewide population.)

One thing I can say is that TN slave ownership was not restricted to plantation owners and their country estates and farms. Scott County residents' disdain for plantation owners and other so-called elite members of the Confederacy, however, is well established. Be that as it may, there is little reason for inferring that their sentiments were emblematic of the remainder of the "average" citizen of the Confederacy. Rather, the mindset of the Scott County residents and that of other Unionist pockets in the South is best characterised as anomalous, not typical. Other "hotbeds" of Unionist support in the Confederacy included:

• West Virginia nee western Virginia.
• Winston County, AL
• Jones County, MS
• Searcy County, AR
  
• Texas Hill Country

So, while I am aware there were exceptions to the Confederate narrative and sentiments, the statues that are the object of this discussion did not come to be because tons of those exceptional individuals wanted them erected, which would need to be the majority cause to give germanity to the line about merely existential exceptions. Accordingly and given that context, I don't see what be the non-ancillary point of even mentioning that there were Confederates, Southerners who differed with the overall theses of the Confederacy. I'm thrilled that there were people like your great grandfather who weren't necessarily and wholly supportive of the Confederacy, but those people didn't contribute the statues of Confederates either.

Until then, they were just white supremacists.

Excuse me? What about being "just [a] white supremacist" does not include hate? How is white supremacy and the racism/bigotry it spawns not a manifestation of hate?

• The Design of Everyday Hate: A Qualitative and Quantitative Analysis

The entire war was about economics, as all wars are, really.

I suspect with the statement above you are alluding to what economists call the "rational choice" model and applying it, as Brustein did re: Nazism in Logic of Evil, to the Confederacy. Brustein argues that the hatred of xenophobia, antisemitism, racism, nationalism, etc. existed before Nazis, but that they came to the fore because the Nazi party promised things -- jobs especially -- the "rank and file" members who comprised the vast majority of the Nazi party/citizenry found more desirable than did they find opprobrious the hatred the party also embraced. I think you're essentially applying the same theme to Confederates, in particular, the ones who were not part of the Confederacy's political, social and military leadership.

While I cannot reject the "rational choice" model, indeed, I think it applies; however, it's not all that applies. The other thing that applies is that one cannot take the Confederacy and not take the racism, slavery, white supremacy and so on that came with it. Like it or not, even merely acquiescing to being Confederates and permitting the leadership to secede and enact the Confederate Constitution de facto makes the people -- people who let that happen, the people didn't rail against it, the people who didn't leave the South, people who didn't vote Republican, and so on -- it makes them every bit as much part and party to all that the creators of the Confederacy declared it to be.

What does buy one exculpation of the sort you've described in your various remarks? Well, to use a present day example, being among the Republicans who are, for example, "never Trumpers." Being among the population of Scott County, TN and having seceded, as Scott Cnty did, from TN (or another state as West Virginians did) might militate for one's considering the residents there as being notably opposed to the Confederacy and what it stood for despite being collocated in a Confederate state.

One might ask why I wrote "might militate." I did because "the non-slaveholder knows that as soon as his savings will admit, he can become a slaveholder… with ordinary frugality, can, in general, be accomplished in a few years… The large slaveholders and proprietors of the South begin life in great part as non-slaveholders… But should such fortune not be in reserve for the non-slaveholder, he will understand by honesty and industry it may be realized to his children…” That aspiration is no different than what many "average" moderns have for their children. Quite simply rational choice informs us that nobody really takes offense to "making it big," no matter their feelings and thoughts about those who already have done or the lawful (if ethical or not) means by which they do so. There is also the matter of folks having "made it big" forgetting from whence they came..."There but for the grace of God go I -- who among us, no matter our financial position, have not witnessed someone whose politics give no credence to that maxim?

white feared negroes would "pollute" white blood by having white women. None of these three things had been an issue before the Civil War.

What? Surely you don't think that concern just popped up in 1863? (See: Miscegenation: The Theory of the Blending of the Races, Applied to the American White Man and Negro. ) Concerns about interbreeding, particularly between white women and black men, had existed from at least the late 1600s (third bullet point below).

• "Even before the end of slavery, the Alabama code prohibited the establishment of relationships giving the appearance of marriage between whites and blacks. The first statute became part of the Alabama code in 1852 and its basic form remained constant through the Civil War. The 1852 version of the code allowed the solemnization of marriages between free blacks, but barred weddings between members of different races."
  Source (Racial Constructions: The Legal Regulation of Miscegenation in Alabama, 1890–1934) (See also: "Race, Marriage, and the Law of Freedom: Alabama and Virginia 1860s-1960 - Freedom: Personal Liberty and Private Law" )
• "In the antebellum period, twenty-one of thirty-four states had, by 1860, adopted statutes proscribing or punishing interracial sex....Enforcement in the years before the Civil War...continued to be applied most often to public, domestic relationships between white women and black men. As long as white men kept their relationships with black women informal and hidden, they did not fear prosecution. If, however, a white man lived openly with a black woman, and the couple demonstrated an affectionate and stable union, they could also face state action."
  
  "During Reconstruction, Congressmen from northern and southern states questioned whether the new civil rights laws, including the Fourteenth Amendment, might void anti-miscegenation statutes. Such arguments persuaded the state supreme courts of Texas and Alabama to declare their laws against interracial sex unconstitutional. In response, the Republican Congress agreed that the civil rights legislation would not prevent states from legislating against interracial marriage, and only Louisiana actually repealed its anti-miscegenation statute."
  
  Source
• Maintaining racial purity within the white race has been the dominant discourse in marriage laws and intermarriage prohibitions. Historically, legal restrictions placed on inter-marriage and miscegenation have varied by state. In some states intermarriage was legal, while in others it was illegal. Miscegenation had been discouraged and treated as socially deviant since the arrival of African slaves in the American colonies, but it was not until 1691 that interracial sex was made illegal. Virginia passed the first statute against miscegenation between blacks and whites. The goal was to prevent “that abominable mixture and spurious issue which hereafter may increase in this dominion, as well by negroes, mulattoes, and Indians intermarrying with English, or other white women, as by their unlawful accompanying with one another”
  Source
• "Wives of slave masters also practiced miscegenation with blacks. By choosing a slave lover, an elite white woman could coerce the silence of her sexual partner because she could threaten him with an accusation of rape should he refuse her advances or reveal their relationship. Black male slaves accused of this crime were swiftly and severely punished, often resulting in death."
  Source
• "Harriet Jacobs is an example of the sexual domination that white slave owners attempted to exercise over their black female slaves. Jacobs was a Louisianan slave owned by Dr. Flint. At the tender age of eleven, and while being forty years her senior, Flint began to sexually harass her. Jacobs viewed Dr. Flint as any other white slave owner – he considered women of no value, unless they continually increased his stock. When Harriet grew into adulthood, she began to engage in a relationship with a black carpenter from another plantation. Flint discovered her relationship with this man and disallowed her from marrying him or even seeing him again. She would end up becoming pregnant and delivered a baby boy, and Flint flew into a rage over this. He threatened to sell her child if she did not consent to his future sexual demands. Flint also threatened to shoot the carpenter and made plans to build a cottage on the outskirts of town to incorporate Harriet as his “permanent” concubine. Harriet estimated that he already had eleven slave mistresses prior to her, and he sent them away with their babies when his lechery turned elsewhere."
  Source
• "Miscegenation between the white master and mulatto slave was a common trend in the antebellum South, and Thomas Reade Rootes Cobb of Georgia favored this superior race as the result of their mixture of white and black blood. He blamed miscegenation on the “natural lewdness” of blacks but found the problem mitigated because race mixture was beneficial to slavery."
  Source

While there may have been some somewhat exceptional individuals in your family of ancestors, they were just were just that, exceptions.

I'll wait for the Cliff Notes version of this to come out,

That is the "Cliff Notes" version. A material point of the links is so I don't have to write in my own words the supporting information that one'll find at the links.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

People keep trying to Sanitize the Civil War by separating out the issue of slavery and repackaging it as a state's rights conflict where slavery played only a minor roll.

Reading comprehension is not your strong point- along with being able to chew your food and walk.

I haven't once demanded that any statues come down.

You pussies just are pissed because some communities have decided to no longer honor your heroes.

This just makes you a liar.

Some communities are caving into a national campaign of pressure where if the local community does not take these statues down, the violence will escalate even more until they capitulate.

It would be one thing if the community voted to take these down without the entire nation putting pressure on them. In fact, if those communities really thought they should not be displayed, they would have quietly removed them and no one would have noticed.

Now it's a national blackmail campaign by the progressive pussies who are butthurt over some iron, copper, and stone, so they wish to censor those who had no problem with their existence to begin.

Apparently Durham NC didn't act quickly enough for the vandals.

If these statues were so much of a problem, why haven't they been taken down during the almost 100 years someone them have been up?

Yes. We have already seen that if a community does not act as swiftly as the butthurt Antifa crowd wishes of them, they will escalate the violence and start tearing down these statues. Not much of a council vote in that instance, is there?

The vandals don't care if there is a vote or not. Since there wasn't a vote in Durham, NC, the statue should be put back up and those cowards made to watch.

If Durham wants to put the statue back up, i would support that decision.

And if Durham decides to keep it down- I would support that decision also.

The local community should decide- not a bunch of right wing racists.

I'm sorry, but for me and on the matter of race and the divisiveness it causes and that we observe in the U.S., neutrality and indifference simply doesn't cut it. Each and every one of us must be accountable on the matter of race. We all must pick a side.

One can, AFAIC, be neutral about transsexuals and bathrooms; there aren't enough transsexuals to force accountability on that matter. Race matters are too broad in scope and impact for that to be acceptable.

 

[cnelsen]

The pussies are the ones that demand they come down. It hurts their feelings to see something they don't like.

That's why this whole Taliban Across America thing is guaranteed not to stop with Confederate monuments.

The real resentment here doesn't concern slavery. The real and poisonous resentment comes from the descendants of the immigrants who arrived when the Civil War was safely over.

The monumental achievements of the founding stock Americans--taming a continent and constructing a great nation on it, successfully ridding itself at enormous cost of the slavery scourge they inherited at the birth of the nation, devising a political and economic and social system so unique, so brilliant, and so advanced, no corner of the world has been untouched by emulation--these achievements are regarded with hatred and resentment by a particular kind of immigrant who came later. So the whole thing--at least any mention of the WASPs who created it-- must be torn down.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I don't know about you, but seceding from their state strikes me as a fairly convincing protest. One that likely wouldn't get very far these days.

Of course they did *I* posted the links to their stories, but all of them (except for W Virginia) still fought to protect their homes from Union hordes.

Which once again demonstrates that the American Civil War was NOT ALL about slavery, hence the statues are not either ALL about slavery.

I'm sorry, but I've already referenced quite a lot of highly credible content in this thread that shows the Civil War was all about the South, the Confederates, successfully seceding from the United States and that the Confederacy was "all about" slavery. I 'm not going to repost or restate all that stuff.

Ok, but it is not legit as long as my counterpoints stand.

That is how debate works, dude.

Your counter points are addressed in the content I linked well before you posted them. That's why I'm not going over them again.

Lol, could you at least give the post number?

You kinda have to make your own arguments, instead of saying "The answers are else where go look"

Till then your counterpoints are not made.

Besides, I think you think you countered my arguments, but I doubt that you really did.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I'm sorry, but for me and on the matter of race and the divisiveness it causes and that we observe in the U.S., neutrality and indifference simply doesn't cut it. Each and every one of us must be accountable on the matter of race. We all must pick a side.

Doesnt that divide the country?

And that is the whole point of what the Marxists are TRYING to do, dude.