Tennessee House Republicans call for investigation after Memphis removes Confederate statues

[IM2]

With fountains or something. The statues have likely been destroyed like the movements of the monsters they portrayed.

No, actually Memphis should be fined and required to pay for replacement even if they have to be remade. These men were my ancestors and provided great and honorable service to my State. Memorializing them is in no way about race and pandering to hate groups only encourages hate groups to flourish. In addition these men were by law American veterans and deserve to be honored as such.

Sorry but that’s a load of bs. Screw those traitors. Piss on their graves.

And screw those traitors in the Memphis City Council and the hate groups they enslave themselves to. May their ancestors also be disrespected and dishonored. May the Lincoln Memorial be the next memorial torn down.

What traitors and what hate groups? The confederacy was its own nation that seceded to fight the Untied States and got beat.

Tennessee including Memphis was a part of that nation; the men memorialized were true to their Nation; not traitors.
CSA veterans veterans are by law American veterans. Only traitorous asshoes dishonor American veteran graves/memorials. Who but hate groups would destroy shared heritage?

They are traitors who formed a nation that declared war against the United States. There is no shared heritage. I do not share that heritage. Nor did my family who all came from the south. Only hate groups want to keep these symbols of hate standing.

 

[9thIDdoc]

No, actually Memphis should be fined and required to pay for replacement even if they have to be remade. These men were my ancestors and provided great and honorable service to my State. Memorializing them is in no way about race and pandering to hate groups only encourages hate groups to flourish. In addition these men were by law American veterans and deserve to be honored as such.

Sorry but that’s a load of bs. Screw those traitors. Piss on their graves.

And screw those traitors in the Memphis City Council and the hate groups they enslave themselves to. May their ancestors also be disrespected and dishonored. May the Lincoln Memorial be the next memorial torn down.

What traitors and what hate groups? The confederacy was its own nation that seceded to fight the Untied States and got beat.

Tennessee including Memphis was a part of that nation; the men memorialized were true to their Nation; not traitors.
CSA veterans veterans are by law American veterans. Only traitorous asshoes dishonor American veteran graves/memorials. Who but hate groups would destroy shared heritage?

They are traitors who formed a nation that declared war against the United States. There is no shared heritage. I do not share that heritage. Nor did my family who all came from the south. Only hate groups want to keep these symbols of hate standing.

If your family is from the South you share Southern heritage like it or not. And careful your own hate is pretty obvious.
Temper tantrums by hate groups do not change history they only invite more hate. Hard to respect people who seem determined to act like petulant children.I hope Memphis is eviscerated in the courts as it deserves.

 

[Pogo]

Sorry but that’s a load of bs. Screw those traitors. Piss on their graves.

And screw those traitors in the Memphis City Council and the hate groups they enslave themselves to. May their ancestors also be disrespected and dishonored. May the Lincoln Memorial be the next memorial torn down.

What traitors and what hate groups? The confederacy was its own nation that seceded to fight the Untied States and got beat.

Tennessee including Memphis was a part of that nation; the men memorialized were true to their Nation; not traitors.
CSA veterans veterans are by law American veterans. Only traitorous asshoes dishonor American veteran graves/memorials. Who but hate groups would destroy shared heritage?

They are traitors who formed a nation that declared war against the United States. There is no shared heritage. I do not share that heritage. Nor did my family who all came from the south. Only hate groups want to keep these symbols of hate standing.

If your family is from the South you share Southern heritage like it or not. And careful your own hate is pretty obvious.
Temper tantrums by hate groups do not change history they only invite more hate. Hard to respect people who seem determined to act like petulant children.I hope Memphis is eviscerated in the courts as it deserves.

I'll ask you again, since you ignored the question the first time ---

--- where did anyone "destroy heritage"? Still waiting.

You can hold your breath and stomp around the room all you like but the petulant child who isn't getting his way just because the public wants control of its own public spaces, that would seem to be you. Ain't nothing being "destroyed". New Orleans didn't "destroy" its plaque commemorating a white supremacist group staging a coup; it moved it out of a prominent place where it had been placed to look as if it was endorsed by the city. Same with the Robert E. Lee and P.T. Beauregard and whatever else artifacts. Even the plaque commemorating the organization of the Ku Klux Klan wasn't "destroyed" --- it hangs in the same place to this day a hundred years after the UDC put it there, turned backward so that it's now blank. The building owner described that move as the town "turning its back" on that legacy.

But in none of those cases was any "heritage" destroyed. Nor were any artifacts. Amazingly the reversal of the Klan plaque did not suddenly cause the names on it to suddenly disappear from the history books. Because that's where history actually lives.

But yanno what, when that building owner turned that Klan plaque around, he was confronted with the same bullshit arguments you're putting down here by the hate groups that met there every year to have a hatefest. Too friggin' bad. They too can hold their breath and stomp around the room but it's his building, not theirs, so fuck 'em. It's the same thing.

 

[MikeK]

With fountains or something. The statues have likely been destroyed like the movements of the monsters they portrayed.

Monsters?

I'm a born-and-bred New York yankee with absolutely no special reverence for the South or any of its historical figures. But the Civil War is a major component of American history and the statues in question represent significant elements of that history. Removing the statues does not alter or remove history.

 

[Pogo]

With fountains or something. The statues have likely been destroyed like the movements of the monsters they portrayed.

Monsters?

I'm a born-and-bred New York yankee with absolutely no special reverence for the South or any of its historical figures. But the Civil War is a major component of American history and the statues in question represent significant elements of that history. Removing the statues does not alter or remove history.

Far as I've read no statues or monuments have been "destroyed", nor was that ever the point anyway. The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is that these artifacts were erected for a specific purpose in specific places, that being as propaganda transmitters for the Lost Cause revisionism. That's exactly why they've been sitting in public squares, in front of public/government buildings, and in high-traffic areas --- to imply a state-sponsored/general public imprimatur to that message and more bluntly to let black people know "who's in charge".

And that's far more insidious than the Civil War in the respect that the Civil War was finite; it actually came to an end -- while these propaganda transmitters have been sitting in their public perches for a hundred years. Dressing them up in robes of "noble honor" acts as a protective shield, a pseudoreligious one that makes removing them some kind of "sacrilege" --- which of course requires buying into the 'sacred' song and dance in the first place in order to point that finger.

That's why cities and towns are moving them out -- because their placement strongly implies an endorsement by that city. It's just like real estate --- location, location, location. So cities are saying "not in our front yard" .

There used to be restrooms and water fountains and building entrances marked "Colored" too, sending the same message. I have yet to see anyone wailing they had to be preserved "because heritage".

 

[9thIDdoc]

With fountains or something. The statues have likely been destroyed like the movements of the monsters they portrayed.

Monsters?

I'm a born-and-bred New York yankee with absolutely no special reverence for the South or any of its historical figures. But the Civil War is a major component of American history and the statues in question represent significant elements of that history. Removing the statues does not alter or remove history.

Far as I've read no statues or monuments have been "destroyed", nor was that ever the point anyway. The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is that these artifacts were erected for a specific purpose in specific places, that being as propaganda transmitters for the Lost Cause revisionism. That's exactly why they've been sitting in public squares, in front of public/government buildings, and in high-traffic areas --- to imply a state-sponsored/general public imprimatur to that message and more bluntly to let black people know "who's in charge".

And that's far more insidious than the Civil War in the respect that the Civil War was finite; it actually came to an end -- while these propaganda transmitters have been sitting in their public perches for a hundred years. Dressing them up in robes of "noble honor" acts as a protective shield, a pseudoreligious one that makes removing them some kind of "sacrilege" --- which of course requires buying into the 'sacred' song and dance in the first place in order to point that finger.


That's why cities and towns are moving them out -- because their placement strongly implies an endorsement by that city. It's just like real estate --- location, location, location. So cities are saying "not in our front yard" .

There used to be restrooms and water fountains and building entrances marked "Colored" too, sending the same message. I have yet to see anyone wailing they had to be preserved "because heritage".

"The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is that these artifacts were erected for a specific purpose in specific places, that being as propaganda transmitters for the Lost Cause revisionism."

Untrue. Monuments exist to honor and and help remember someone or something which is why they are known as "memorials". Attempting to claim that the monuments in question made any statement about race or slavery is as silly and untrue as trying to claim that their statement is that men are superior because no women are not depicted. Monuments are often (perhaps usually) paid for and erected by groups of the public and allowed to be legally placed on public property by representatives of the public. By the same token if the public decides the monument should be removed (though it's representatives) there are laws that govern removal. There are also laws that govern disposal of public property and vandalism. And these are questions for the court to decide.

"That's why cities and towns are moving them out -- because their placement strongly implies an endorsement by that city. It's just like real estate --"

The vast majority of public land is not managed (again laws) by cities and towns but by counties, states, or the federal government nor do I know of any reason to assume that a majority of the Memphis public favor their removal. Do you?

"The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is..."

Do you imagine that your stated opinion contains any less?

 

[Pogo]

With fountains or something. The statues have likely been destroyed like the movements of the monsters they portrayed.

Monsters?

I'm a born-and-bred New York yankee with absolutely no special reverence for the South or any of its historical figures. But the Civil War is a major component of American history and the statues in question represent significant elements of that history. Removing the statues does not alter or remove history.

Far as I've read no statues or monuments have been "destroyed", nor was that ever the point anyway. The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is that these artifacts were erected for a specific purpose in specific places, that being as propaganda transmitters for the Lost Cause revisionism. That's exactly why they've been sitting in public squares, in front of public/government buildings, and in high-traffic areas --- to imply a state-sponsored/general public imprimatur to that message and more bluntly to let black people know "who's in charge".

And that's far more insidious than the Civil War in the respect that the Civil War was finite; it actually came to an end -- while these propaganda transmitters have been sitting in their public perches for a hundred years. Dressing them up in robes of "noble honor" acts as a protective shield, a pseudoreligious one that makes removing them some kind of "sacrilege" --- which of course requires buying into the 'sacred' song and dance in the first place in order to point that finger.


That's why cities and towns are moving them out -- because their placement strongly implies an endorsement by that city. It's just like real estate --- location, location, location. So cities are saying "not in our front yard" .

There used to be restrooms and water fountains and building entrances marked "Colored" too, sending the same message. I have yet to see anyone wailing they had to be preserved "because heritage".

"The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is that these artifacts were erected for a specific purpose in specific places, that being as propaganda transmitters for the Lost Cause revisionism."

Untrue. Monuments exist to honor and and help remember someone or something which is why they are known as "memorials". Attempting to claim that the monuments in question made any statement about race or slavery is as silly and untrue as trying to claim that their statement is that men are superior because no women are not depicted. Monuments are often (perhaps usually) paid for and erected by groups of the public and allowed to be legally placed on public property by representatives of the public. By the same token if the public decides the monument should be removed (though it's representatives) there are laws that govern removal. There are also laws that govern disposal of public property and vandalism. And these are questions for the court to decide.

"That's why cities and towns are moving them out -- because their placement strongly implies an endorsement by that city. It's just like real estate --"

The vast majority of public land is not managed (again laws) by cities and towns but by counties, states, or the federal government nor do I know of any reason to assume that a majority of the Memphis public favor their removal. Do you?

"The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is..."

Do you imagine that your stated opinion contains any less?

Oh BULLSHIT.

These propaganda transmitters were all put up in one wave, that being not immediately after the War but five to six decades later when the propaganda campaign hit stride in earnest. The vast majority were erected by the propaganda group United Daughters of the Confederacy in the same time period that coincided with the other aspects of that same Lost Cause revisionism, those being Dixon's novel/play "The Clansman" which then morphed into the film "Birth of a Nation" which then spurred the re-formation of the Ku Klux Klan, all of which coincided with Jim Crow laws, an epidemic of lynchings, the worst period of race riots in this nation's history including Tulsa and the infamous Red Summer, "colored" waiting rooms and water fountains and restrooms, and even major league baseball's "gentlemen's agreement" that banned blacks from the sport for sixty years between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson. ALL at the same time and all made of the same mentality.

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

Propaganda? For what purpose? To promote what idea?

 

[paperview]

[...]

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

Propaganda? For what purpose? To promote what idea?

White Supremacy.

 

[Pogo]

[...]

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

Propaganda? For what purpose? To promote what idea?

As I keep linking --- the Lost Cause.

>> The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is a movement that describes the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds despite its defeat. The beliefs endorse the virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the American Civil War as an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life,[1] while minimizing or denying the central role of slavery. While it was not taught in the North, aspects of it did win acceptance there and helped the process of reunifying American whites.

The Lost Cause belief system synthesized numerous ideas into a coherent package. Lost Cause supporters argued that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War, and claimed that few scholars saw it as such before the 1950s.[2] In order to reach this conclusion, they often denied or minimized the wartime writings and speeches of Confederate leaders in favor of post-war views.[3] (See Cornerstone Speech.) Supporters often stressed the idea of secession as a defense against a Northern threat to their way of life and said that the threat violated the states' rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They believed any state had the right to secede, a point strongly denied by the North. The Lost Cause portrayed the South as more profoundly Christian than the greedy North. It portrayed the slavery system as more benevolent than cruel, emphasizing that it taught Christianity and civilization. Stories of "happy slaves" were often used as propaganda in an effort to defend slavery. These stories would be used to explain slavery to Northerners. Many times they also portrayed slave owners being kind to their slaves. In explaining Confederate defeat, the Lost Cause said that the main factor was not qualitative inferiority in leadership or fighting ability but the massive quantitative superiority of the Yankee industrial machine.[4] At the peak of troops strengths in 1863, Union soldiers outnumbered Confederate soldiers by over 2 to 1 and financially, the Union had three times the bank deposits as the Confederacy.[5]

For most white Southerners, the Lost Cause evolved into a language of vindication and renewal, while critics have stated that white supremacy was a key characteristic of the narrative.[6] Supporters typically portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and its leadership as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry and honor, defeated by the Union armies through numerical and industrial force that overwhelmed the South's superior military skill and courage. Proponents of the Lost Cause movement also condemned the Reconstruction that followed the Civil War, claiming that it had been a deliberate attempt by Northern politicians and speculators to destroy the traditional Southern way of life. In recent decades Lost Cause themes have been widely promoted by the Neo-Confederate movement in books and op-eds, and especially in one of the movement's magazines, the Southern Partisan. The Lost Cause theme has been a major element in defining gender roles in the white South, in terms of honor, tradition, and family roles.[7] The Lost Cause has inspired many prominent Southern memorials and even religious attitudes.[8] <<​

The same thing that spurred Dixon's "The Clansman" (1905) and Griffith's "Birth of a Nation".(1915) Rewriting history of (then) half a century past. These statues/monuments ALL date from that period and virtually all placed where they were by the UDC, a major propaganda arm of the Lost Cause.

That's exactly why they're there, that's why they're placed where they are. Propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time. Just as Griffith made it seem real with his "history written in lightning" film, in its time technologically innovative. Monuments, strategically placed in public squares, in traffic circles, on city property, in front of local government facilities, all to lend the propaganda an air of "legitimacy" so that it would be taken seriously.

Not unlike the way the (original) Ku Klux Klan, already developing a shady reputation in 1867, drafted a famous and respected war general to be its CEO -- to make it appear "legitimate".

It's always crucial to ask "who put this here" and "why". --- and why it's placed where it is.

As also already laid out, this all coincided with the proliferation of Jim Crow laws and facilities marked for "white" and "colored" and rampant race riots and rampant lynchings where postcards and body parts were sold as souvenirs. The same time the Klan re-formed, literally to ride the wave of Birth of a Nation, which rode the wave of The Clansman. It's all tied together in the same time period and generated by the same propaganda and mindset.

And the same time, for one example, that baseball banned blacks for six decades between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson You notice baseball never describes Robinson as "the first black player", because he wasn't. What they say is he "broke the color line" without ever going into detail about what the "color line" was --- a so-called "gentlemen's agreement" to in effect erect the same "white/colored" signs over the doors to MLB. That too came in the same period, for the same reasons.

History books don't go into a whole lot of these dynamics. That's the influence of the same propaganda.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Tennessee House Republicans want proof the South lost the war.

 

[9thIDdoc]

With fountains or something. The statues have likely been destroyed like the movements of the monsters they portrayed.

Monsters?

I'm a born-and-bred New York yankee with absolutely no special reverence for the South or any of its historical figures. But the Civil War is a major component of American history and the statues in question represent significant elements of that history. Removing the statues does not alter or remove history.

Far as I've read no statues or monuments have been "destroyed", nor was that ever the point anyway. The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is that these artifacts were erected for a specific purpose in specific places, that being as propaganda transmitters for the Lost Cause revisionism. That's exactly why they've been sitting in public squares, in front of public/government buildings, and in high-traffic areas --- to imply a state-sponsored/general public imprimatur to that message and more bluntly to let black people know "who's in charge".

And that's far more insidious than the Civil War in the respect that the Civil War was finite; it actually came to an end -- while these propaganda transmitters have been sitting in their public perches for a hundred years. Dressing them up in robes of "noble honor" acts as a protective shield, a pseudoreligious one that makes removing them some kind of "sacrilege" --- which of course requires buying into the 'sacred' song and dance in the first place in order to point that finger.

That's why cities and towns are moving them out -- because their placement strongly implies an endorsement by that city. It's just like real estate --- location, location, location. So cities are saying "not in our front yard" .

There used to be restrooms and water fountains and building entrances marked "Colored" too, sending the same message. I have yet to see anyone wailing they had to be preserved "because heritage".

With fountains or something. The statues have likely been destroyed like the movements of the monsters they portrayed.

Monsters?

I'm a born-and-bred New York yankee with absolutely no special reverence for the South or any of its historical figures. But the Civil War is a major component of American history and the statues in question represent significant elements of that history. Removing the statues does not alter or remove history.

Far as I've read no statues or monuments have been "destroyed", nor was that ever the point anyway. The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is that these artifacts were erected for a specific purpose in specific places, that being as propaganda transmitters for the Lost Cause revisionism. That's exactly why they've been sitting in public squares, in front of public/government buildings, and in high-traffic areas --- to imply a state-sponsored/general public imprimatur to that message and more bluntly to let black people know "who's in charge".

And that's far more insidious than the Civil War in the respect that the Civil War was finite; it actually came to an end -- while these propaganda transmitters have been sitting in their public perches for a hundred years. Dressing them up in robes of "noble honor" acts as a protective shield, a pseudoreligious one that makes removing them some kind of "sacrilege" --- which of course requires buying into the 'sacred' song and dance in the first place in order to point that finger.


That's why cities and towns are moving them out -- because their placement strongly implies an endorsement by that city. It's just like real estate --- location, location, location. So cities are saying "not in our front yard" .

There used to be restrooms and water fountains and building entrances marked "Colored" too, sending the same message. I have yet to see anyone wailing they had to be preserved "because heritage".

"The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is that these artifacts were erected for a specific purpose in specific places, that being as propaganda transmitters for the Lost Cause revisionism."

Untrue. Monuments exist to honor and and help remember someone or something which is why they are known as "memorials". Attempting to claim that the monuments in question made any statement about race or slavery is as silly and untrue as trying to claim that their statement is that men are superior because no women are not depicted. Monuments are often (perhaps usually) paid for and erected by groups of the public and allowed to be legally placed on public property by representatives of the public. By the same token if the public decides the monument should be removed (though it's representatives) there are laws that govern removal. There are also laws that govern disposal of public property and vandalism. And these are questions for the court to decide.

"That's why cities and towns are moving them out -- because their placement strongly implies an endorsement by that city. It's just like real estate --"

The vast majority of public land is not managed (again laws) by cities and towns but by counties, states, or the federal government nor do I know of any reason to assume that a majority of the Memphis public favor their removal. Do you?

"The actual point lurking beneath all the demagoguery and emotional prattle is..."

Do you imagine that your stated opinion contains any less?

Oh BULLSHIT.

These propaganda transmitters were all put up in one wave, that being not immediately after the War but five to six decades later when the propaganda campaign hit stride in earnest. The vast majority were erected by the propaganda group United Daughters of the Confederacy in the same time period that coincided with the other aspects of that same Lost Cause revisionism, those being Dixon's novel/play "The Clansman" which then morphed into the film "Birth of a Nation" which then spurred the re-formation of the Ku Klux Klan, all of which coincided with Jim Crow laws, an epidemic of lynchings, the worst period of race riots in this nation's history including Tulsa and the infamous Red Summer, "colored" waiting rooms and water fountains and restrooms, and even major league baseball's "gentlemen's agreement" that banned blacks from the sport for sixty years between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson. ALL at the same time and all made of the same mentality.

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

I hate to break it to you but the world only revolves around your pet peeves in your fevered imagination. Nor do you get to decide the preferences and opinions of the public in general. You are perfectly free to have any opinion you like while I can and do find them ridiculous concerning monuments, propaganda and the CSA in general. I had direct ancestors who were Northern, who fought for the North, and sacrificed much to stand up for what they believed in (which may have included freeing the slaves). I also had direct ancestors who were Southern, fought for the South and died standing up for what they believed in. They all deserve to be remembered and honored for those qualities. Some people (to include ALL races) of that era kept slaves. But it should also be remembered that a great many more White people fought and died or otherwise sacrificed to free them.

"When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda."

Untrue. That's just another example of people deciding for themselves what they want on their property. Sorry, but nobody asked you to do that for them.
There have been both more and more violent race riots since the Civil Rights Acts laws were enacted and Jim Crow laws were repealed and they continue today with increasing violence while today Blacks have their very own version of the KKK in BLM. Progress indeed.

 

[Pogo]

[...]

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

Propaganda? For what purpose? To promote what idea?

As I keep linking --- the Lost Cause.

>> The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is a movement that describes the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds despite its defeat. The beliefs endorse the virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the American Civil War as an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life,[1] while minimizing or denying the central role of slavery. While it was not taught in the North, aspects of it did win acceptance there and helped the process of reunifying American whites.

The Lost Cause belief system synthesized numerous ideas into a coherent package. Lost Cause supporters argued that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War, and claimed that few scholars saw it as such before the 1950s.[2] In order to reach this conclusion, they often denied or minimized the wartime writings and speeches of Confederate leaders in favor of post-war views.[3] (See Cornerstone Speech.) Supporters often stressed the idea of secession as a defense against a Northern threat to their way of life and said that the threat violated the states' rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They believed any state had the right to secede, a point strongly denied by the North. The Lost Cause portrayed the South as more profoundly Christian than the greedy North. It portrayed the slavery system as more benevolent than cruel, emphasizing that it taught Christianity and civilization. Stories of "happy slaves" were often used as propaganda in an effort to defend slavery. These stories would be used to explain slavery to Northerners. Many times they also portrayed slave owners being kind to their slaves. In explaining Confederate defeat, the Lost Cause said that the main factor was not qualitative inferiority in leadership or fighting ability but the massive quantitative superiority of the Yankee industrial machine.[4] At the peak of troops strengths in 1863, Union soldiers outnumbered Confederate soldiers by over 2 to 1 and financially, the Union had three times the bank deposits as the Confederacy.[5]

For most white Southerners, the Lost Cause evolved into a language of vindication and renewal, while critics have stated that white supremacy was a key characteristic of the narrative.[6] Supporters typically portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and its leadership as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry and honor, defeated by the Union armies through numerical and industrial force that overwhelmed the South's superior military skill and courage. Proponents of the Lost Cause movement also condemned the Reconstruction that followed the Civil War, claiming that it had been a deliberate attempt by Northern politicians and speculators to destroy the traditional Southern way of life. In recent decades Lost Cause themes have been widely promoted by the Neo-Confederate movement in books and op-eds, and especially in one of the movement's magazines, the Southern Partisan. The Lost Cause theme has been a major element in defining gender roles in the white South, in terms of honor, tradition, and family roles.[7] The Lost Cause has inspired many prominent Southern memorials and even religious attitudes.[8] <<​

The same thing that spurred Dixon's "The Clansman" (1905) and Griffith's "Birth of a Nation".(1915) Rewriting history of (then) half a century past. These statues/monuments ALL date from that period and virtually all placed where they were by the UDC, a major propaganda arm of the Lost Cause.

That's exactly why they're there, that's why they're placed where they are. Propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time. Just as Griffith made it seem real with his "history written in lightning" film, in its time technologically innovative. Monuments, strategically placed in public squares, in traffic circles, on city property, in front of local government facilities, all to lend the propaganda an air of "legitimacy" so that it would be taken seriously.

Not unlike the way the (original) Ku Klux Klan, already developing a shady reputation in 1867, drafted a famous and respected war general to be its CEO -- to make it appear "legitimate".

It's always crucial to ask "who put this here" and "why". --- and why it's placed where it is.

As also already laid out, this all coincided with the proliferation of Jim Crow laws and facilities marked for "white" and "colored" and rampant race riots and rampant lynchings where postcards and body parts were sold as souvenirs. The same time the Klan re-formed, literally to ride the wave of Birth of a Nation, which rode the wave of The Clansman. It's all tied together in the same time period and generated by the same propaganda and mindset.

And the same time, for one example, that baseball banned blacks for six decades between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson You notice baseball never describes Robinson as "the first black player", because he wasn't. What they say is he "broke the color line" without ever going into detail about what the "color line" was --- a so-called "gentlemen's agreement" to in effect erect the same "white/colored" signs over the doors to MLB. That too came in the same period, for the same reasons.

History books don't go into a whole lot of these dynamics. That's the influence of the same propaganda.

From the same link above, a lucid summary of this propaganda movement is articulated as long ago as 1868, by US Army General George Henry Thomas:

>> [T]he greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them.16] <<
​

And as regards the physical manifestations alluded to earlier --- from the analyses of two historians:

>> UDC leaders were determined to assert women's cultural authority over virtually every representation of the region's past. This they did by lobbying for state archives and museums, national historic sites, and historic highways; compiling genealogies; interviewing former soldiers; writing history textbooks; and erecting monuments, which now moved triumphantly from cemeteries into town centers. More than half a century before women's history and public history emerged as fields of inquiry and action, the UDC, with other women's associations, strove to etch women's accomplishments into the historical record and to take history to the people, from the nursery and the fireside to the schoolhouse and the public square.[43] <<

>> These women architects of whites' historical memory, by both explaining and mystifying the historical roots of white supremacy and elite power in the South, performed a conspicuous civic function at a time of heightened concern about the perpetuation of social and political hierarchies. Although denied the franchise, organized white women nevertheless played a dominant role in crafting the historical memory that would inform and undergird southern politics and public life.[48] <<​

 

[9thIDdoc]

[...]

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

Propaganda? For what purpose? To promote what idea?

As I keep linking --- the Lost Cause.

>> The Lost Cause of the Confederacy, or simply the Lost Cause, is a movement that describes the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds despite its defeat. The beliefs endorse the virtues of the antebellum South, viewing the American Civil War as an honorable struggle for the Southern way of life,[1] while minimizing or denying the central role of slavery. While it was not taught in the North, aspects of it did win acceptance there and helped the process of reunifying American whites.

The Lost Cause belief system synthesized numerous ideas into a coherent package. Lost Cause supporters argued that slavery was not the main cause of the Civil War, and claimed that few scholars saw it as such before the 1950s.[2] In order to reach this conclusion, they often denied or minimized the wartime writings and speeches of Confederate leaders in favor of post-war views.[3] (See Cornerstone Speech.) Supporters often stressed the idea of secession as a defense against a Northern threat to their way of life and said that the threat violated the states' rights guaranteed by the Constitution. They believed any state had the right to secede, a point strongly denied by the North. The Lost Cause portrayed the South as more profoundly Christian than the greedy North. It portrayed the slavery system as more benevolent than cruel, emphasizing that it taught Christianity and civilization. Stories of "happy slaves" were often used as propaganda in an effort to defend slavery. These stories would be used to explain slavery to Northerners. Many times they also portrayed slave owners being kind to their slaves. In explaining Confederate defeat, the Lost Cause said that the main factor was not qualitative inferiority in leadership or fighting ability but the massive quantitative superiority of the Yankee industrial machine.[4] At the peak of troops strengths in 1863, Union soldiers outnumbered Confederate soldiers by over 2 to 1 and financially, the Union had three times the bank deposits as the Confederacy.[5]

For most white Southerners, the Lost Cause evolved into a language of vindication and renewal, while critics have stated that white supremacy was a key characteristic of the narrative.[6] Supporters typically portray the Confederacy's cause as noble and its leadership as exemplars of old-fashioned chivalry and honor, defeated by the Union armies through numerical and industrial force that overwhelmed the South's superior military skill and courage. Proponents of the Lost Cause movement also condemned the Reconstruction that followed the Civil War, claiming that it had been a deliberate attempt by Northern politicians and speculators to destroy the traditional Southern way of life. In recent decades Lost Cause themes have been widely promoted by the Neo-Confederate movement in books and op-eds, and especially in one of the movement's magazines, the Southern Partisan. The Lost Cause theme has been a major element in defining gender roles in the white South, in terms of honor, tradition, and family roles.[7] The Lost Cause has inspired many prominent Southern memorials and even religious attitudes.[8] <<​

The same thing that spurred Dixon's "The Clansman" (1905) and Griffith's "Birth of a Nation".(1915) Rewriting history of (then) half a century past. These statues/monuments ALL date from that period and virtually all placed where they were by the UDC, a major propaganda arm of the Lost Cause.

That's exactly why they're there, that's why they're placed where they are. Propaganda transmitters. The technology of the time. Just as Griffith made it seem real with his "history written in lightning" film, in its time technologically innovative. Monuments, strategically placed in public squares, in traffic circles, on city property, in front of local government facilities, all to lend the propaganda an air of "legitimacy" so that it would be taken seriously.

Not unlike the way the (original) Ku Klux Klan, already developing a shady reputation in 1867, drafted a famous and respected war general to be its CEO -- to make it appear "legitimate".

It's always crucial to ask "who put this here" and "why". --- and why it's placed where it is.

As also already laid out, this all coincided with the proliferation of Jim Crow laws and facilities marked for "white" and "colored" and rampant race riots and rampant lynchings where postcards and body parts were sold as souvenirs. The same time the Klan re-formed, literally to ride the wave of Birth of a Nation, which rode the wave of The Clansman. It's all tied together in the same time period and generated by the same propaganda and mindset.

And the same time, for one example, that baseball banned blacks for six decades between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson You notice baseball never describes Robinson as "the first black player", because he wasn't. What they say is he "broke the color line" without ever going into detail about what the "color line" was --- a so-called "gentlemen's agreement" to in effect erect the same "white/colored" signs over the doors to MLB. That too came in the same period, for the same reasons.

History books don't go into a whole lot of these dynamics. That's the influence of the same propaganda.

"History books don't go into a whole lot of these dynamics. That's the influence of the same propaganda"

Or maybe because those dynamics only exist in your imaginary version of history.

I had never noticed "Lost Cause" as a "movement" but it appears that they have a far far better grasp of history than you. If you are determined to change history books to suit your imagination the least you could do is inform us as to what that "history' is. The actual heyday of the KKK was long after 1867 and during that time was considered legitimate and respected by presidents and other notable members of society. History is what it is.
The UDC is no more a propaganda group than the Daughters of the (other) American Revolution or the NAACP and the idea that monuments are "transmitters of propaganda" is itself a nasty form of propaganda. Are you also willing to claim that monuments/statues to MLK and A. Lincoln are also no more than propaganda?

"It's always crucial to ask "who put this here" and "why". --- and why it's placed where it is."

Fine. But those questions deserve honest answers. You don't have a right to make them up to suit your own agenda and thereby your own propaganda. In the '60s there was a quite valid resurgence of Southern pride which had nothing to do with racism or slavery as you would try to twist it.

 

[Pogo]

I had never noticed "Lost Cause" as a "movement"

I'd say there are many who haven't. Which is the lesson the wave of statue/monument/flag attention teaches us, if we have ears to hear it. And why I keep citing it as a causation and putting the historical puzzle together.

Of course the crucial phrase there is "if we have ears to hear it". That's apparently a big if.

If you are determined to change history books to suit your imagination

Actually that's literally part of what the Lost Cause movement did. Already covered that.

Again from the same Wiki link, another example:

>> In October 2015 outrage erupted online at the discovery of a Texan school's geography textbook which described slaves as "immigrants" and "workers"[23][24] <<​

We can demonstrate this over and over and over, until the reality sinks in.

The actual heyday of the KKK was long after 1867 and during that time was considered legitimate and respected by presidents and other notable members of society. History is what it is.

You're speaking of the second KKK. That's why I specifically said the original one. In 1867 the first Klan, taken over by terroristic elements, were earning a shady reputation for their activities, which is why they drafted the General Nathan Bedford Forrest (in absentia) to be its figurehead, hoping to hide behind the gravitas of his name. An effort to sanitize its own image.

The second Klan (formed 1915 in that same Lost Cause period, which I also posted, referring to its attempt to ride the notoriety of "Birth of a Nation" (same year)) also developed the same reputation, for the same reasons. I don't know of any presidents who "respected" it but there was quite a lot of movement to denounce it, especially in 1924, which is when it was at the peak you refer to.

"It's always crucial to ask "who put this here" and "why". --- and why it's placed where it is."

Fine. But those questions deserve honest answers. You don't have a right to make them up to suit your own agenda and thereby your own propaganda. In the '60s there was a quite valid resurgence of Southern pride which had nothing to do with racism or slavery as you would try to twist it.

I just laid out those answers. Twice. And here I laid out more.

As I said --- "ears to hear".

 

[9thIDdoc]

"I just laid out those answers. Twice. And here I laid out more.

As I said --- "ears to hear".

I have ears to hear that you laid out nothing but your own propaganda. Where exactly have you laid out any evidence (much less proof) that discredits what you claim to be false history? All you do is beg the question and hope that folks don't know or find out better.

 

[MikeK]

[...]

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

Propaganda? For what purpose? To promote what idea?

White Supremacy.

I've tried but cannot understand how the presence of statues commemorating two Confederate military icons who functioned in a White vs White civil conflict can serve the purpose of propaganda in the interest of White supremacy.

How would that work? Please explain.

 

[Pogo]

[...]

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

Propaganda? For what purpose? To promote what idea?

White Supremacy.

I've tried but cannot understand how the presence of statues commemorating two Confederate military icons who functioned in a White vs White civil conflict can serve the purpose of propaganda in the interest of White supremacy.

How would that work? Please explain.

White supremacy was, in effect, what the War was about --- despite the multimedia rewrite by the Lost Cause, which included books, both fiction and nonfiction right down to school textbooks, theater plays and movies (Gone With the Wind also apparently applies here though I'm less personally familiar with that) and the public spectacles of the statues and monuments. It's also in effect what lynchings were about, what Jim Crow was about, what baseball's "gentlemen's agreement" was about, what the "colored" signs over public facilities was about, and what the re-formation of the Ku Klux Klan was about.

The fact that there were different groups of whites on different sides of that ideology, in no way makes them incapable of holding either view.

And it's worth pointing out, said ideologues, by definition, led the ideological charge, which is a different thing from suggesting "the South" or "the former Confederacy" as a whole led it. These are a select group of propagandists attempting to sway the masses behind them, in the same way wars themselves are set up.

​

As always, the politicians, demagogues and cultural influencers set the path, whether well-intentioned or not, and attempt to get the population behind it. That's the whole purpose of propaganda.

 

[9thIDdoc]

As if actual history was ever anything different than what it is now and/or as lost cause has stated it. More bullshit and question begging.

 

[paperview]

[...]

When the town of Gettysburg erects a marker at the battle scene commemorating and explaining what happened THERE, that's a legitimate monument. When the UDC trudges out to fucking Montana to perch some Confederate figure from two thousand miles away in front of a public building --- that's friggin' propaganda.

Propaganda? For what purpose? To promote what idea?

White Supremacy.

I've tried but cannot understand how the presence of statues commemorating two Confederate military icons who functioned in a White vs White civil conflict can serve the purpose of propaganda in the interest of White supremacy.

How would that work? Please explain.

How can anyone be stupid enough to not know the entire confederacy was based on White Supremacy?