martybegan
Diamond Member
- Apr 5, 2010
- 83,216
- 34,436
Their leaders died well before the vast majority of these were placed. Lee died just a few years after they surrendered, having lost his property and ability to vote or hold office.They are not separate. The statues were placed during segregation as a reminder of who retained power.Yes. The best thing you can say about the confederacy is they gave up.That's the way I look at it.
For the most part they were also forgiven and rehabilitated assholes. If the Union wanted to execute them for treason, they could have, but that might have started a gorilla campaign we could still be fighting today.
They surrendered, they came back to the Union, and in return the people who beat them forgave them and allowed them to honor the loss and their dead as they saw fit.
There is no honor in what the Confederacy did.
There was honor at the end, when they admitted they lost, surrendered, and willingly integrated back into the United States.
They could have kept fighting non conventionally, they didn't.
Kinda.
The south spent the next 100 years finding new ways to subjugate black people. Which is part of how these statutes came to be in the first place.
The issues of the failure of Reconstruction are separate. The issue here is the honoring of fallen Confederates as well as their failed leaders.
Considering that the Jim Crow laws were subjugating blacks de jure, the installation of monuments pales in comparison.
The one exception is that one memorial in New Orleans that was specifically a memorial to an white "uprising" that happened during reconstruction.
Battle of Liberty Place Monument - Wikipedia
They are, by and large, explicit symbols of oppression.
Why would they need reminders when they had all the power, and were abusing it?
This was also the time the leaders were dying off, and the veterans were getting older.
The civil war should be remembered most for being the biggest mistake we’ve ever made. Not to honor those who made it.
Monuments go up after people die, that's not unique to this situation.
You do realize that slavery might have gone on for at least another decade or two if the Civil War didn't happen, right?
Lincoln's policy was just to limit Slavery, not ban it. His platform was to deny spread of slavery by law to any new territories or States.
Nothing in the Republican platform was about federal law banning slavery where it already existed.