JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
328
Reactions
593
I don't have a personal stake in whether Confederate memorials stay or go. My southern ancestors lived in a pro-abolitionist, pro-union part of eastern Tennessee and, according to census records, never owned slaves. Except for my great-grandmother's great-uncle-—who was conscripted into the Confederate Army, never owned slaves, and died in a Union Army P.O.W. camp—none of them fought for either side. My weak preference, under the right circumstances, is that all or most of them should disappear from public property, except possibly in museum settings. What I do strongly care about is lawless mob action to settle the matter.

I also care about the Orwellian crimethink that often imposes upon those who publicly articulate a contrary opinion on what Confederate memorials symbolize a serious social or economic price and even violence. There's a lot of yammering about "diversity" and "tolerance" but when it comes to diversity of thought many of its advocates are hypocritical.

It would be false to claim that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. I would argue that it wasn't only about slavery and that not everyone on either side was necessarily fighting for or against slavery. For example, Ulysses S. Grant was the last US president to purchase a slave. Lincoln said repeatedly and publicly that the Civil War wasn't waged by him to end slavery. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't take effect until 1863 and why only slaves in rebel territory were freed. Slaves in Union territory were left in bondage under the Emancipation Proclamation.

As an aside, why was it that, with the exception of Haiti, every other country in the Western Hemisphere (and the majority of northern states in the antebellum period) was able to abolish slavery without tearing itself apart in a cataclysmic civil war?

The majority of the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War--like the rest of the population of the CSA--never owned slaves and they were hurt economically by the slave economy. The people who primarily benefited from slavery (and a war ostensibly to save it) were the small group of White, and a much smaller but still significant number of Black, slaveowners. The first person in the English colonies of North America to own another person as a chattel slave for life was a Black man. In 1655, a Virginia court ruled that John Casor was the permanent property of Anthony Johnson. Many of the Black slave owners (like many Europeans), such as Anna Madgigine Jai Kingsley, came from slave-owning societies in Africa, where slavery is still all too common but largely ignored in the US media.

Chandra Manning in What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 2007) details the machinations the slave-owning elite employed to bring the average Southerner to support secession. Here are some thoughts on the subject from LTC Robert Mackey, U.S. Army (Retired):
The simple fact is that the individual Confederate soldier -- from the lowest economic rung and in many cases disenfranchised as the slaves were -- fought for a variety of reasons. Localism and tribalism, which we in happily accept being a part of the modern Middle East, but for some reason can't understand as a normal part of antebellum American culture, played an important role. The nationalistic spirit of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, which we are still seeing today, was invented to heal the breach of the Civil War ... because it really didn't exist before 1861 ... To the men of that era, New York or Virginia was their country. Tied closely to this is the nature of how men went to war in 1861 -- you fought with your neighbors, relatives and friends in your local regiment. Peer pressure was a major part of why the individual fought. There was, of course, a not-so-honorable side as well, as the vilest of racial fears were encouraged, out of fear that the Yankee Abolitionists would not only overturn slavery, but put white Southern womanhood at risk as well. Others, while not the majority as reflected by the States Righters, believed that the issue was individual freedom and State's Rights == a flexible and nearly mystical idea as diaphanous as that of "Union." The reasons for each man who joined the armies of either side are as complex as each individual.
As James M. McPherson has documented, large numbers of Union soldiers fought to end slavery despite the contrary pronouncements of their commander-in-chief. How likely is it that the average rank-and-file Confederate soldier was fully onboard with and willing to fight for slavery to the exclusion of all other reasons? Likewise, who thinks most or every American troop who went to Vietnam was fully versed in and onboard with the Domino Theory?

So, could we as a society agree that, in actuality, the history of slavery and the Civil War is far more complicated than the simplistic mainstream media narrative? Could we possibly allow that a significant number of Confederate soldiers may have fought mainly because they sincerely, and not without cause, believed their homeland and freedom was threatened by a hostile power? Could we also allow that it is possible to fight bravely and honorably in a war for a dubious or ignoble cause? Could we concede that some of those who want to preserve Confederate memorials may have those virtues in mind?

Probably not.
 
Last Edited:
I don't have a personal stake in whether Confederate memorials stay or go. My southern ancestors lived in a pro-abolitionist, pro-union part of eastern Tennessee and, according to census records, never owned slaves. Except for my great-grandmother's great-uncle-—who was conscripted into the Confederate Army, never owned slaves, and died in a Union Army P.O.W. camp—none of them fought for either side. My weak preference, under the right circumstances, is that all or most of them should disappear from public property, except possibly in museum settings. What I do strongly care about is lawless mob action to settle the matter.

I also care about the Orwellian crimethink that often imposes upon those who publicly articulate a contrary opinion on what Confederate memorials symbolize a serious social or economic price and even violence. There's a lot of yammering about "diversity" and "tolerance" but when it comes to diversity of thought many of its advocates are hypocritical.

It would be false to claim that the Civil War had nothing to do with slavery. I would argue that it wasn't only about slavery and that not everyone on either side was necessarily fighting for or against slavery. For example, Ulysses S. Grant was the last US president to purchase a slave. Lincoln said repeatedly and publicly that the Civil War wasn't waged by him to end slavery. That's why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't take effect until 1863 and why only slaves in rebel territory were freed. Slaves in Union territory were left in bondage under the Emancipation Proclamation.

As an aside, why was it that, with the exception of Haiti, every other country in the Western Hemisphere (and the majority of northern states in the antebellum period) was able to abolish slavery without tearing itself apart in a cataclysmic civil war?

The majority of the Confederate soldiers who fought in the Civil War--like the rest of the population of the CSA--never owned slaves and they were hurt economically by the slave economy. The people who primarily benefited from slavery (and a war ostensibly to save it) were the small group of White, and a much smaller but still significant number of Black, slaveowners. The first person in the English colonies of North America to own another person as a chattel slave for life was a Black man. In 1655, a Virginia court ruled that John Casor was the permanent property of Anthony Johnson. Many of the Black slave owners (like many Europeans), such as Anna Madgigine Jai Kingsley, came from slave-owning societies in Africa, where slavery is still all too common but largely ignored in the US media.

Chandra Manning in What This Cruel War Was Over: Soldiers, Slavery, and the Civil War (Knopf, 2007) details the machinations the slave-owning elite employed to bring the average Southerner to support secession. Here are some thoughts on the subject from LTC Robert Mackey, U.S. Army (Retired):

As James M. McPherson has documented, large numbers of Union soldiers fought to end slavery despite the contrary pronouncements of their commander-in-chief. How likely is it that the average rank-and-file Confederate soldier was fully onboard with and willing to fight for slavery to the exclusion of all other reasons? Likewise, who thinks most or every American troop who went to Vietnam was fully versed in and onboard with the Domino Theory?

So, could we as a society agree that, in actuality, the history of slavery and the Civil War is far more complicated than the simplistic mainstream media narrative? Could we possibly allow that a significant number of Confederate soldiers may have fought mainly because they sincerely, and not without cause, believed their homeland and freedom was threatened by a hostile power? Could we also allow that it is possible to fight bravely and honorably in a war for a dubious or ignoble cause? Could we concede that some of those who want to preserve Confederate memorials may have those virtues in mind?

Probably not.
What would our country or countries look like if the war didn't happen and they went their own ways?
 
Why men fight is as varied as men themselves...
My favorite reason as to 'Why"...
Is this answer from a Confederate soldier :
" I'm fighting 'cause you are down here."

History is not what you want it be or what you wish would have happened...
History also does not care what you think of it.
History is just a record of events.

Now just who records those events and how those events are spun...is a whole other matter.....
Andy
 
Ahh yes the War of Northern aggression..men who got tired of high taxes, gun confiscations, and the constitution being thrown out the window..So they left the union..then history warped the view and made them look like "evil" folks so that the younger generation wouldnt look up to them and repeat.
 
Why men fight is as varied as men themselves...
My favorite reason as to 'Why"...
Is this answer from a Confederate soldier :
" I'm fighting 'cause you are down here."

History is not what you want it be or what you wish would have happened...
History also does not care what you think of it.
History is just a record of events.

Now just who records those events and how those events are spun...is a whole other matter.....
Andy



Those that win the battle. Or come to powerLater.
They write, and rewrite history.



Edit: I fixed it.
 
Memorials are fine. Statues in the center of town are not. We shouldn't idol worship the Confederacy. Take those statues down, and the flags too. We have one national flag in this country.
 
IMHO....
Let the individual communities decide. It shouldn't be an executive decision.

Aloha, Mark

PS....G. Washington was a slave owner........Washington State should change its name, Rrrrrrright.....
 
Just tossing this idea out there....

It might be wise to not engage with with those who :
Continually post to just get a reaction...
Post "blanket statements" / statements which do not speak for all in a given group...
Post comments which push only one agenda...
Put forth only comments that do nothing to further the conversation...

Lets not have yet another thread ruined....
Andy
 
Why men fight is as varied as men themselves...
My favorite reason as to 'Why"...
Is this answer from a Confederate soldier :
" I'm fighting 'cause you are down here."

History is not what you want it be or what you wish would have happened...
History also does not care what you think of it.
History is just a record of events.

Now just who records those events and how those events are spun...is a whole other matter.....
Andy
Yep, history is written by victors, whether truthful or not.
 
i dont have a problem with statues. like andy said, history is just record of what was and what clearconsciense said, people wanna erase it like they want it to relapse. to some, the rebel flag is just a flag. nothing wrong with it IMO. people are the problem. not objects. i know lots of people who are proud to have southern heritage and fly the rebel flag as well as the American flag. whos to tell them any different, people have the right to freedom of expression. i have native hawaiian heritage, am i wrong to fly the hawaiian flag under my American flag at home? i also fly the moultrie flag at my home.
 
Thanks for the history lesson.
A colleague who grew up in CA lives in Spartanburg SC. He is amused by the vandalism of the statues.
These soldiers and men were not genocidal maniacs like Hussein or Stalin. They were men, defending their land and doing their job.
I am saddened by the societal pressure to remove them and the loss of a vital reminder of our history.
 
Take those statues down, and the flags too. We have one national flag in this country.

Until eventually they'll take that flag down too. Most of the folks who dedicate themselves to taking down flags and memorials, don't much care for flags of any kind. Not really.

Yep, history is written by victors, whether truthful or not.

History is written by people in the Ivory Tower. There are plenty of books out there that tell the story of the vanquished, written by the vanquished. People who study history have the benefit of this perspective. The average person has only the perspective of Hollywood, but that doesn't mean the complete story isn't out there for public consumption.
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top