Robert E. Lee statue vandalized in Richmond

This is a shame, totally uncalled for. The local NBC affiliate says that the city police may investigate this as a hate crime.

http://www.dailypress.com/news/local/virginia/dp-va--brf-confederatest0117jan17,0,7469068.story?coll=dp-headlines-virginia


Published January 17, 2004

RICHMOND, Va. -- A statue of Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee on Richmond's Monument Avenue was vandalized and damaged Saturday, Virginia Capitol Police said.

The words, "Happy Birthday, MLK," were painted on the statue sometime between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m., police Maj. Mike Jones said. A light that illuminates the statue was broken, he said. The phrase "Death to Nazis" also was scrawled on the statue.

It isn't rare for the five statues of Confederate heroes lining Monument Avenue to be vandalized. The Lee statue, the only one owned by the state, has been scratched and spray-painted several times over the years, Jones said.

respect them as part of our troubled history, and at the same time I do understand how Blacks feel about them. I don't believe that we should be like Old Russia, where history was re-written when groups changed the power structure. Perhaps a solution is to have statues of Martin Luther King in public places?

on *GASP* Monument avenue. See this is oooooold Richmond stuff. Monument avenue has statues of J.E.B. Stuart, Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jefferson Davis, and Maury (inventor of sonar) from east to west. Three blocks west of the Maury statue they put up the Ashe monument even though Ashe washed his hands of this town as soon as possible. His father did maintenance on the city tennis courts but Ashe was not allowed to play on them.

The statue itself was yet again a screw up by the infamous Richmond city council (that is a whole thread on its own). The monument that is up was supposed to be one of several in a competition and it depicts Ashe holding a tennis racket in one hand and a book in another with a group of children kneeling in front of him. If you are in the right hand lane on Monument avenue at the stoplight as Roseneath (I live in this area) it almost looks like Ashe is about to hit one of the kids with the racket. Like I said they whole thing was a screw up by city council and was the center of a huge controversy and still is really.

apart from the lousy design was the intent of council in it's creation. They were trying to coopt some tourism appeal off the native son's memory.

It seemed easier than addressing our infamous murder rates and horrible schools.

Ever been to a "cocktail party" to watch a city council meeting? I haven't but I understand they go on all the time, they are quite hilarious. One of my best friend's former in-laws from St.Louis told us that there is a regular feature on the front page of one of the papers there, This week in Richmond. The openly laugh at us.

Doing city business in the back of a city police car at 4 AM?
Heroin addict RE-ELECTED?
The Post Office lost your mortgage payment 9 months in a row?
Bring your best stuff?
A hunger strike from 8 AM to 9PM with a brief snack at midday?

I don't know if anyone will see these but as a resident of Richmond you know what I am talking about.


Kaine need only point the people he had to deal with to show that he can govern over even the unimagineable situation.

but I'll pass on the parties.

How about Gwen voting NOT to have her continued appearance on the council looked into by the council's lawyer ? I think "abstain" might have been more appropriate.

If Leno ever hears about us everyone will forget Marion Berry and we'll become the new butt of city related jokes. It really is hilarious except that its so very sad.

to end up in jail...


Richmond's municipal government could give the Daleys in Chicago lessons in corruption...

it would be different if they were any good at being corrupt but they're so cheesy !

In Salt Lake City Utah, a giant statue of Brigham Young stands in the middle of an intersection on one of the main streets with his back side to this large Mormon Tabernacle (church) and Brigham's hand reaching out to a bank, that is across the street from the Temple.

I've never could figure out why they couldn't invert the statue.

See my post above on Richmond city council doings, if you need explanation PM me.

Give me a break.

manner. While I understand the feelings on BOTH sides,to try to remove symbols of history is NOT the answer. Nor is using a single figure as a receptacle for all that we view as historically wrong during that person's lifetime. The truth is that Lee was a respected figure by both sides of that conflict. While it is easy for us to look back 120 years later and say he was on the wrong side-- so too can we say that about Thomas Jefferson (and many of the founding fathers) and his role in propagating slavery. In fact, Lincoln, despite the good he did in emancipating the slaves and leading the nation through arguably, the most difficult time in our history, stopped far short of wanting to absolutely abolish the wrongs of slavery.

Understanding comes from learning as much as possible of the times, the people, the issues, and the lessons provided from that time. It does not come from single-minded attempts to re-write history or remove its vestiges.

I lived in Richmond many years ago--As for the Arthur Ashe controversy discussed earlier, I hadn't kept up beyond the initial controversy, which saddened me. Ashe was a hero to me as a child and motivated many a mediocre tennis player like myself to think I could succeed in that or, if not, in something equally worthwhile. I'm glad his statue is on Monument Avenue, though it sounds like the depiction is less than it should have been.

You are right about Lee not only did both sides want him to lead their armies he was dedicated to education and founded/expanded Washington & Lee university, that was not the name of it at the time.

It is easy to say that anyone who owned slaves were wrong but given the time the lived in.....well. I have heard from my step-father a native Virginian and history buff that ending slavery was discussed at the Constitutional Congress but has shelved after strident objection from the NY and MASS delegations, the homes of the brokers.

Lincoln didn't free the slaves with the Emancipation Proclamation he free the slaves in states at war with the union, the southern states. The 13th Amendment did that.

Monument Avenue. I'd like to see other African American figures take their place there in the future, to try to bridge the divide that still exists. Ashe is an excellent first step.

And yes, it's early here in Denver and I overspoke on the Emancipation Procalamation. My point was simply that, while Lincoln took important first steps, even he stopped far short of ending slavery and advocating the need to bring equality. As I recall Lincoln ok'd the right for the western territories to continue slavery as they might determine.

but then if we take it in context he may have been trying to soften the political blows or just a man of his times or.....

many of us find hard to accept in our current crop of Democratic leaders. He did what was possible to achieve at the time, knowing that overplaying his hand might have done more harm than good. This is not too different from "moving to the center" on some issues, which is sometimes necessary.

I think when we look at our leaders, past or current in absolutist right and wrong terms, is when we get into problems. Sometimes you have to give some benefit of the doubt, based on the times, based on the competing challenges, and the fact that they are human and fallible.

"I recall Lincoln ok'd the right for the western territories to continue slavery as they might determine."

Actually, slavery was outlawed in the territories two years before the passage of the XIII Amendment. Lincoln's policy, initially, was containment of slavery to the existing states. That later changed to a form of abolition and formal equality.

Martin

is that they glorify treasonous people who went to war against American troops and America itself. Nowdays, those people would be villified by Faux, CNN and every other right wing-nut publication.

I will never embrace pride-filled treason.

Before the war broke out, Lincoln offered command of the UNION armies to R.E. Lee....

If somebody had vandalized the Ashe statue, spraypainting "Death to N-word" and "Happy Birthday, Strom Thurmond!" on it, wouldn't that qualify as a hate crime? I think it would...

There are acceptable ways to celebrate King Day. Vandalizing statues ain't one of them.

With the shrub defacing the 75th birthday celebrations of MLK in
Atlanta this is trivial. I'll bet it gets more news time though.

:hi:

From Robb's post....

"(snip)

Lorne Lyles, CeeCee Lyles' husband, said he would prefer not to think that someone would intentionally knock the statue down. Lyles said he was in town during the weekend the statue fell.

"It was light. It could have blown down," he said.

(more)"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=1031341


From above.

"The words, "Happy Birthday, MLK," were painted on the statue sometime between 4 a.m. and 6 a.m., police Maj. Mike Jones said. A light that illuminates the statue was broken, he said. The phrase "Death to Nazis" also was scrawled on the statue."

What's wrong with people these days?
:shrug:

An old southern tree had been cut down said to be planted by Lee. And the paper said they knew it was vandals or Yankee's.Right off I did not think we would make it in the South, Whole family sounded like we came from Boston.

I don't know why I didn't anticipate seeing the Confederate statues, but I didn't. They gave me the creeps. I instantly felt like I was in a different and possibly hostile country.

I have to admit at times to having a bit of a love/hate relationship with the South. While I was never considered a Yankee, given my initial origins from a "border state," I do understand why people from the North would have some shell shock or feel singled out. But, as I've (hopefully) matured a little bit, I realize the need for the South, and many regions of the country to maintain their heritage -- not at the expense of bringing dignity to their fellow African American citizens, mind you, but still, I think it entrenched and necessary to remember the figures that were so historically important to the history of the region. To remember Confederate "heros" while also remembering the mistakes that were made and acknowledging the lessons learned is important, I think.

The one point that is often lost on Americans from regions outside the South is that Southerners believe strongly that the civil war was not simply a war for or against slavery, but a struggle for state's rights. As an objective observer who has done a fair amount of historical reading of the period, they do have a point. We teach American history in a very simplistic manner now, and clearly from our perspective now, slavery was THE most important issue to that war. But, it was not the only one. This state's rights issue (and the perception of Federal/"Northern" agression) permeates still. Ironically it may be one that the Repubs are beginning to lose ground on-- given their many recent actions that trample on state autonomy.

So, perhaps my former "bratty" and simplistic attitude towards the South has been turned into a more mature and sensitive understanding of the complexities. I hope that others will come to that point as well.

South Carolina at the time contributed about 70% of the federal budget through taxes on exports.

You obviously know that whole argument so I won't go into it.

Slavery is a much easier way to explain the war between the states, you are right.

Where are the statues memorializing the contributions they made to the culture and history of the South, paid for by their blood, sweat and tears? Why is what is so-oft referred to as "Southern Heritage" a "whites only" history?

If military leaders of a slaveholding South are glorified with statues lining the streets of Richmond, then why not those of the Virginia regiments of United States Colored Troops (see: http://www.civilwararchive.com/Unreghst/uncolcav.htm for some examples) or for brave Virginia men such the Reverend Leonard Grimes, a freeman who helped slaves escape via the Underground Railroad?

Southern heritage is not just the heritage of what was its WHITE minority.

and the evil was not so much the man, but the time. Lee, like Jefferson and so many before him, had a glimmer of the evil of slavery, but no compass to guide him. If one must deface a statue, there are perhaps better targets.


Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856, in response to a speech by President Pierce:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war.

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.

How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist!

While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . .

Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

And, as to practicing what one preaches...

http://www.nps.gov/arho/tour/history/slavery.html

"While such allowances may have improved the quality of life for the Arlington slaves, most black men and women on the estate remained legally in bondage until the Civil War. In his will, George Washington Parke Custis stipulated that all the Arlington slaves should be freed upon his death if the estate was found to be in good financial standing or within five years otherwise. When Custis died in 1857, Robert E. Lee?the executor of the estate?determined that the slave labor was necessary to improve Arlington's financial status. The Arlington slaves found Lee to be a more stringent taskmaster than his predacessor. Eleven slaves were ?hired out? while others were sent to the Pamunkey River estates. In accordance with Custis's instructions, Lee officially freed the slaves on December 29, 1862."

Hope they burned the confederate flag while their at it.

the real shame is that statues like this exist...

He was never tried.

Treason is the most serious crime.

I would think that at least at DU, where people care about civil liberties, that posters wouldn't call people criminals, unless they were found guilty.

How'd you like it if someday the Bush administration arrests you for child molestation. Then they never put you on trial. They just leave it out there the rest of your life so people on the internet can call you a child molestor?

I'm amazed at some of the stuff I read here.

they'd realize Lee for the disgusting human being that he was.

You can have any opinion about anyone you want to, informed or not. Then if people want to, they can argue their opinions against yours.

Calling someone a criminal who the government refused to try, much less convict, I think is just plain wrong.

Just because you don't get tried doesn't mean you aren't one.

if we just forget the whole trial and right to defense thing.

A person is guilty if Dr. Weird at DU proclaims him guilty, and he is guilty of whatever crime Dr. Weird proclaims him. And to think of all the money we've been wasting on lawyers.

by subjecting blacks to a second "middle passage" by shipping them all back to Africa wasn't criminal?

It's wrong to judge people in antiquity by today's standards. "Hindsight is 20/20".

Yes, Lincoln spent a lot of his adult life believing that a Back to Africa movement was best for blacks in America. He had never really spent time learning about what that would take. It was more of a theoretical notion. Also, Lincoln's limited experience with slaves meant he had no concept of what it had taken to bring us to these shores.

Over time, Lincoln came around and not only freed us, but assured by his actions that we became citizens.

was that if you judge people back then by today's standards, they were all completely nuts.

At the time, Lincoln was a flaming radical of the left. If he was here today, with the same positions he held then, he'd be a flaming conservative on the right.

"The sin of presentism," and it's something historians guard against -- judging people of the past by today's standards. It's an easy divot to trip over.

I agree with Muddle's main point, that on race relations, Lincoln was quite ahead of his time.

Where I part with Lincoln is that I didn't think he did enough during his campaign and lame duck period to avert the war. There were many men of god will from around the nation willing to stay in Washington and try to avert the secession crisis, and Lincoln wouldn't meet with them or give them any guidance. Meanwhile, time for a peaceful settlement ran out.

Lincoln's calling out of the militias of the border states to put down the rebellion was also an incredible blunder which sent Virginia, N Carolina, and Tennessee into the Confederacy. Before that call. Tennessee had just by referrendum decided against holding a secession convention. Once the call of the militia went out, the state seceeded quickly.

On Feb. 11, 1861, Lincoln left Springfield to take up his duties as president. Before him lay, as he recognized, "a task ... greater than that which rested upon Washington." The seven states of the lower South had seceded from the Union, and Southern delegates meeting in Montgomery, Ala., had formed a new, separate government. Before Lincoln reached the national capital, Jefferson Davis was inaugurated as President of the Confederate States of America. The four states of the upper South teetered on the brink of secession, and disunion sentiment was rampant in the border states of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri.

http://www.grolier.com/presidents/ea/bios/16plinc.html

Things were very difficult when Lincoln arrived at the White House. For one thing states had succeeded just because Lincoln was elected. There is more about states rights than meets the eye in most textbooks. That was Lincoln was willing and did circumvent the constitution to put the nation back together.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Perhaps the people of your home town ought not have supported slavery for an entire group of people, nor tried to leave the union.

No side of a civil war comes out clean. War is ugly. Civil war is far uglier.

That said, the worst thing to happen to the South during the war, was the assassination of Lincoln. He would have done more to unify and heal than his next several successors.

take some time to read up on this part of history. Perhaps then, you'll have both a better understanding of why this is not such a simple issue. Lee was not the villain that some would make him out to be. He was widely admired, even by his former opponents both during and after the war.

I'm no confederate apologist, (quite the contrary, if you read my previous posts), but I DO believe in striving for a true understanding of this most important lesson in American history.

who was greatly admired even by former opponent.

But he was still a nazi scumbag.

there's probably nothing I or anyone else can say to you. But, I'll still hold hope that one day, out of boredom, or whatever else, you'll take some time to read up on this major episode in history- beyond the simplicity offered in most school textbooks. There is much to learn there that may well offer us lessons for our current situation.

And it's not the early twentieth century "Birth of a Nation" pro South revisionist history that gets passed around as intellectualism.

And yes, I think the comparison between Rommel and Lee is rather stretched. In the end Rommel tried to assassinate Hitler. Whereas Lee remained loyal to the Confederacy.


I can only hope that fifty years from now some apologists don't try to excuse the holocaust by saying, "well sure, executing 6 million jews by todays standards is unthinkable. But you have to look at it from a 1938 perspective. Hitler wasn't a bad man, it was just a sign of his times," and then go and erect a Hitler statue in Skokie, Illinois.

How did Rommel die?

Oh yeah, he took poison, after being inplicated and arrested for taking part in the attempt on Hitler's life...

Sounds like a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi to me...

:shrug:

Perhaps, as an African-American, I can say something right and good about a man who fought for a cause I despise. When Lee surrendered in 1865, the South was not beaten. It's industry was damaged, but it had thousands and thousands of soldiers still in the field. Whole armies still marched.

Had Lee but said one word, they would have continued fighting. He could have broken up into small groups and fought a guerrilla war that would have scarred our nation for all time.

Instead, he said another word, "peace."

Hate the cause, but give the man his due.

I remember that in the thread about the Israeli ambassador to Sweden vandalizing a piece of artwork, you were quick to defend the act of vandalism due to what you felt was the inflammatory subject matter. Yet "as an African-American," you seem able to control your rage in this instance just fine, and even have a few nice things to say about a Confederate general. Don't you want to use your "fighting words" argument here? Even if you don't find the statue offensive, some people arguable could. Personally, I deplore both acts of vandalism, I just wonder about your apparent lack of consistency.

Because in the final analysis, the war would have happened anyhow. Lee did not start it, but he did finish it. Not a little, but a lot. So, for THAT, and the fact that he had supported an end to slavery prior to the end of the war, I don't hold him in the regard that others earn from me.

I simply wanted to point out that the argument you made with regard to the ambassador could just as easily (and wrongly) be made in this situation.

Lee was an active participant in the Confederate Army... are you disputing this? Every single person that fought against the Union was a traitor... courts or not...

as a former college history instructor and history textbook author, I can't resist.

The issue of whether the Confederate leaders, starting with President Davis were traitors was fiercely debated within the Johnson administration for years. There are thousands of pages of documents extant to go over.

Both Lee and Davis were indicted for treason. The problems started to come up once the government began preparing its case against them. First Lee was immediately put on the back burner as the best case was obviously against Davis.

Was Davis a traitor?

The first problem that came up was that any trial would have to be held in Virginia, and finding a jury in Virginia to convict him seemed formidable.

The next question was did Virginia secede legally? If so obviously Confederates in Virginia were not traitors. Well the Constitution was silent on the issue of secession. Davis was begging for a trial and had a high powered group of northern lawyers well financed by abolitionists Cornelius Vanderbilt and Horace Greeley of all people to defend him. His defense team of course felt Davis had a strong case. Viginia seceded by vote of the state legislatiure, later ratified overwhelmingly by a vote of the people. Was that legal? That would have to go to the courts which led to the reason that Davis was never tried.

What if the issue went to the Supreme Court and the court ruled that secession was legal? What would the government do then? Leave the Confederacy and say "oops, sorry?" That was seen as a credible, and nightmare scenario by the government legal teams.

That was too great a risk to take, so even with Davis in prison begging for a trial, the government just sat on their hands, left him in prison, and eventually freed him on bail. A pretty cowardly act in my opinion by the government.

One of the problems with the government's decision not to make a decision is that it allows any junior high student to now skip the whole debate, constitutional arguments and counterarguments and just declare them traitors while smacking their chewing gum, but I guess that's what the internet is for.

I guess even the civilians who voted against secesssion but were then drafted into the Confederate Army are traitors according to some ill-informed people, but then again, hey, I'm convinced Joe DiMaggio shot JFK, and I get to say that on the internet without any thought either.

I remembered this history with respect to Davis, but couldn't remember enough details to post a coherent summary.

And, I have to admit, I find it frustrating that so many are so ill-informed about this, among the most important chapters in US history. Like Bush and his "either with us or 'gin' us," "evil versus good mentality," so many Americans are content to boil the whole thing down to an assumption that Southerners were traitors. Unfortunately, that seems to flavor discussion of the South, as a region today (as we've seen from time to time in unfortunate threads here on DU).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Nor Bush...

Wow! So I guess we can conveniently ignore the fact that Ralph Abernathy and Fred Shuttlesworth have said in their memoirs that MLK enjoyed beating prostitutes? Keep in mind that neither of these two men were in league with J. Edgar, but were simply telling the truth as they saw it. So, in light of this, should we remove all the MLK monuments since he abused women?

outside of Nashville on highway 40....Forrest, of course, was the founder of the KKK. And we have a statue devoted to his honor in a very prominent place here.


It's just beggin' for some non-removable paint.......

Do to it what Forrest and his cavalry did to the soldiers at Fort Pillow.

Martin

Was founding the KKK his only claim to fame? Please, tell me there is some other reason for him to have a statue.

That is absolutely sickening.

Many of his contemporaries (including Sherman and Lee) considered Forrest to be THE outstanding military genius to come out of the Civil War.

He led Confederate cavalry that often operated on its own far behind the lines against supply lines. It was also often the only organized resistance to federal invasions which could go through the deep south pretty much at will burning and tearing up roads and tracks. Some of his victories were truly outstanding against forces far superior to his, including getting much larger forces to surrender to him.

The Fort Pillow massacre is still being researched and is a serious mark against his career.

One of the first leaders of the Ku Klux Klan, it should also be noted that he formally disbanded the organization in 1869, when he felt it had become excessively violent.

he was probably the best field tactician in American history. He was also a failed planter and a successful slave trader. Seems like Ft Pillow was well within character, armed blacks were his worst nightmare.

I don't think there's ever been an American who has had more responsibility put into his hands than Lee. He did the best he could in executing it honestly, without corruption, or lust for power.

When he was at Gettysburg, he had about one of every 11 southern white adult males under his command. No general in American history had ever had that kind of responsibility.

No doubt the morons who vandalized his statue were not 1/10th the man he was.

attacking a UNITED STATES MILITARY INSTALLATION should NOT be glorified...although you wouldn't think of glorifying the terrorists who recently attacked the Pentagon, somehow, it has become acceptable to glorify the confederates....

these creepy license plates are all over Virginia



We must make it a social disgrace to glorify the confederacy in any way. DEMAND the removal of the traitor's statues, change the street names that glorify traitors and terrorists, change the park names that glorify traitors/terrorists, close the museums that glorify traitors/terrorists/slavery....

pull these statues down, just like the saddam statues...

wish to jail those who dissent against government policies, who protest against the current administration or commit such "traitorous" acts as to protest US policy in going to preemptive war against another sovereign nation.


History is important in that it teaches lessons. We can't rewrite history by masking it, nor ignoring it.

sigh... what is so hard to understand about this? The Confederacy was a REBELLION against the Union. It's one thing to protest the actions of your country, its another to lead armies in battle against it.

I don't defend the actions of the confederacy, but it is necessary to really read the history of the time to appreciate the complexities.

One of the most horrendous disservices of our current school system is that they teach issues as important as this in very simplistic terms. Just as we see the rewriting of the end of the "cold war," to suggest a single speach by Reagan somehow made that happen.

Again, you'll believe what you will, but I will still have hope that you'll take the time to read up on this time in history. I find it fascinating in its lessons for todays challenges, and strongly suspect you would too.

but nevertheless, the Confederacy did seek to destroy the Union... this struggle between state power and federal power went back to the Constitutional assemblies.

why can't confederacy apologists accept the fact THEY WERE TRAITORS who wanted to destroy the federal government?

The United States would have gotten along just fine without the seven, later eleven Confederate States.

and no, the US would not have gotten along just fine... we would not be the great united country (nor the superpower) we are today.

I think the north would have been better to let the south go, but that's just my idle opinion, and as much as I do enjoy the history "What if" games, it's a whole different topic than this one. I wonder how many inventions and discoveries and great works of art we lost with the deaths of those 600,000 men. This leaves the realm of history and substitutes speculation though, so it shouldn't be taken seriously.

What a great point.

History for us is not a fucking "What if" game. We know what if. My ancestors lived it. What if for us meant not just servitude. It meant slavery. That meant massah could split up families and sell children or parents at will. That meant we could be beaten, tortured, raped and murdered. That meant that if massah took a liking to a black woman, any woman -- wife, mother, 10-year-old daughter, twins, anyone -- he could have her. He could use her and have his friends use her. Challenge that and you would be beaten or killed.

Gee, I wonder how many inventions and discoveries and works of art YOUR version of history would have cost the world.

It was becoming an economically unworkable system.

Had the North let the South go, do you really think that the South would have maintained slavery for any length of time? Slaves were very expensive, a HUGE investment of capital, with an average field hand fetching over a thousand dollars. This was at a time when the average wage for an unskilled lower class worker was in the neighborhood of $.25 a DAY, or $65 a YEAR(assuming a 52 week year @$1.25 a week), with none of the associated costs to the employer that slavery entailed (like food, shelter, and clothing). If a slave got injured or killed, you lost your entire investment. If a worker got killed or injured, you just hired another one.

How many more rapes? How many more murders? How many more years to keep an entire people in chains?

Slavery had been declining because it was constantly frustrated by the north. Unchecked, it could have lasted years, decades or even to this very day. Perhaps it would have morphed into something better, but there is no genuine reason to believe that.

One other thing is certain. What kind of rights would blacks have today in a state founded on such evil?

You seek to claim that it was not a just or wise war. It was both just and wise.

what about the damage caused by the Civil War? I'm not talking economic damage, which was severe, or the cost in lives, which was great, but rather in terms of race relations.

If slavery had died out of natural causes within 10 or even 20 years (say by the 1880s), and the impetus for it had come from the South as an economic measure instead of being imposed at the point of a bayonet from the North, wouldn't race relations have been better now?

Think about it....If Lee had seceded Davis as president of the Confederacy, and slavery had been ended as an act of the Confederate Congress, there might have been no KKK, no Jim Crow, et cetera. The Civil War generated huge amounts of hostility which still hasn't dissipated, and which still poisons race relations to this day. There was even talk during the Confederacy of emancipating slaves if they served in the Confederate Army, so this isn't some pipe dream.

We can't say for sure what would have happened, but what actually DID happen wasn't some rosy "best case scenario" kind of result. The evils of slavery persisted after slavery was made illegal. How long was it before a white man was convicted of raping a black woman or child in the South? Another route towards destroying slavery COULD have had a better result.

Every scenario you paint has us enslaved for decades more. No thanks.

Was it with the passage of the 13th amendment? I'd say not, even though that's when it technically became illegal. One only has to look at the plight of the sharecroppers and the "vagrancy" laws (which were used to convict blacks, and then "rent them out" to people who needed labor) for examples of this.

From my point of view, slavery didn't really end until much later, despite the fact that statutorily it was illegal.

Chief among them was the ability to leave, which many blacks did.

Another was education. Reading, which had been denied to us, suddenly became available.

On such a foundation is built greatness.

this thread shows how we're a great united country...

As for being a superpower, is that such a good thing?

The Confederacy wanted to go its own way. They didn't really expect there would even BE a war, and if there was one, they figured that as soon as they dusted up the Northerners would say "Ah, screw this, it isn't worth it." This is why they didn't start conscription until well after the war itself was on. They thought a series of small-scale defensive skirmishes would do the trick just fine (boy, were they ever wrong!).

At no time did the Confederacy entertain thoughts of conquering the North and disbanding the Federal Government, nor does it make sense to say that by leaving the Union they would destroy it. That's like saying that if half the members of the AARP quit, the AARP will cease to exist. The Confederacy did not want to destroy the Federal Government, they just didn't want anything to do with it anymore.

Do I agree with the Confederacy's motives? NO. I think the reasons they had for seceding were ludicrous at best, evil at worst, and against the interests (to put it mildly) of about 95% of the people in the South. That said, do I agree that a state should be able to leave the US? Absolutely. What kind of ridiculous club doesn't let you leave once you join?

In conclusion, Free Cascadia!

That American who was arrested with the Taliban should then have a statue erected, since he took up arms against his country just like the confederates did. They are all painted with the same ugly brush. No difference, except time and adjusted memory.

In my opinion and may I say many others, the Civil War rebels were nothing more than terrorists. They were responsible for the murder, rape, and torture of over 100+ k Americans. Statues honoring these criminals should be pulled down just like Saddam Hussein's in Baghdad!

Considering that the people in the South withdrew their consent to be governed from Washington, and Washington overrode their decision at the point of a bayonet, couldn't you accurately say that the South is an occupied territory, and the Federal Government is still oppressing us?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

whether it was a rebellion, or a legal separation.

Whether you take either of these two views makes all the difference in the world. The best legal minds in the US government at the time could not offer a difinitive opinion on the topic.

is truly delusional.....

the confederates attacked a U.S. Military Installation: Fort Sumter on April 12, 1861...that was the attack that STARTED the Civil War...starting a WAR is criminal....US citizens attacking a US Military Installation is TREASON....

....like attacking the Pentagon....perhaps you wish to erect statues to honor those who attacked the Pentagon???? same as erecting statues to honor those attacking Fort Sumter.....


we should NOT mask or ignore that fact by glorifying these confederate traitors with statues, street names, parks, museums.....


you compare these confederate traitors to PEACEFUL people, who use our freedom of speech to protest OUR Government's policies, holding signs outside to Pentagon to encourage PEACEFUL non-violent change in our government....

holding signs outside a US Military Installation does NOT equal an attack upon a US Military Installations with guns and cannons....

your allegation is insane....

to read up on history... Until then, I realize you are too entrenched in your current assessment of this page in history to hear any arguments to the contrary. (But, for the record, I did not compare the confederates taking of Fort Sumter to peaceful protests. The point being that those who apply such a narrow definition to who is patriotic and what actions are patriotic may also be readily willing to paint the entire civil war in similar simplistic terms).

The citizens of South Carolina had formally dissolved their relationship with the United States and were attempting to negotiate a peaceful handover of the US military installations within their dominion. Had the Federals not reinforced the garrison at Fort Sumter (which they had already agreed NOT to do) there would have been no attack there.

your argument suggests that at any time, any racists in the United States can 'dissolve their relationship' with the Government, then 'negotiate' to take over the Pentagon, and when that doesn't work, just BOMB the Pentagon....


it's ridiculous....the confederates were traitors and they raped, imprisoned and worked Black people to death....these wealthy traitors were willing to fight against the United States of America in order to maintain their lives as racists, slave owners, bigots, traitors who destroyed the lives of everyone around them....they were terrorists and war-profiteers and do not deserve any public homage...


you do NOT deny that the confederates ATTACKED A UNITED STATES MILITARY INSTALLATION...your argument is that the U.S. Government deserved to be attacked....traitorous.....

didn't own a single slave.

Slaves were EXPENSIVE.

BTW, if slavery made them traitors, what about Northern slaveowners? How about Lincoln's freeing the slaves in the South, but not the slaves in the North? Does that make HIM a traitor too?

You DO realize that slavery ceased to exist in the South before it ceased to exist in the North, don't you? Once the South was occupied, slavery was outlawed by the Emancipation Proclamation. Slaves in the North had to wait until the passage and ratification of the 13th Amendment.

the reinforcement of Ft. Sumpter, to enable it to blockade Confederate shipping, was a casus belli (what else could you call sending troops into a sovreign nation?), ESPECIALLY when you consider that the reinforcement took place during negotiations to withdraw the garrison. The North acted in bad faith, and wasn't willing to release their stranglehold on the South.

is that "all over" ?

May want to read up on your history. When you leave the union it is not possible to be a traitor.

Now you don't have to agree with why it was done and you may be glad that it didn't work out but you should also be fair

over Virginia, in every single county and city....

some people try to ignore them, some people pay extra money to display their ignorant racist attitudes....and some pretend that there are only TWO in the whole state of Virginia....

turning your back on racism and bigotry does not make it go away, and actually fuels more of the same....

but sales of this plate are not huge as you make them appear to be.

I think I'll take your advice and get involved in fighting the racism and bigotry that was behind the defacement of public property in this way. It has no place in my city and its gone on long enough.

Thanks for the inspiration !

public places....I live in Virginia, I am a Patriot, I love America...and I am horrified that statues of traitors, rapists, slave-owners, terrorists, and war profiteers are in public places....it's a disgrace to all citizens of Virginia....

no sense in ignoring the fact that my city was the capital of the confereracy and is rich in the history of early America.

I don't fear history, I learn from it. Statues harm noone but are a good learning aid.

'Dad/Mom who is the guy on the horse ?'
'Dad/Mom who is the guy with the tennis racket ?'
'Why are they here ?'
'What is a slave ?'
'That sounds mean, why would people do that ?'
'Whats a war ?'
'If Richmond is old where are the old buildings ?'
(the Union Army were unspeakably brutal
by current standards)
'Who is Columbus ?' (we got one of him too)
'Who is Mr Bojangles ?' (another native son)
'Who is that little boy with Mr Lincoln ?'
'Is that George Washington ?' (slave owner, father of country)

I prefer to worry about real present and viable enemies, not metal guys on horses.

and go to another country... but just because you say you're not going to be a member of the union doesn't mean that the government automatically divorces itself from you.

Does that also mean that you divorce yourself from the protection of the laws of the country, too? You're willing to forego all of your Bill of Rights, too? You don't get to have both, which is what they really wanted.

joined the Constitutional Union by a vote of their state legislature. They left the same way.

unless you're willing to start a second Civil War to do it...

I sometimes wonder if race relations might improve if more people knew about blacks that owned slaves.

http://americancivilwar.com/authors/black_slaveowners.htm

The article also mentions that only about 4.5% of southerners owned slaves.

Of course, the thing that would help the race issue the most is the promoting of interracial marriage. There was a time when "Irish", "English", "German", "Polish", etc were all considered different races. Mixed marriages have gone a long way to making those distinctions disappear.

And in case you think people before couldn't tell the difference, think again. My mother is the daughter of two emigrants from Poland. She works in a dry-cleaning store with recent emigrants from Eastern Europe. It wasn't long before she was approached by someone from Czechoslovakia asking her if she was Polish.

How does that ease the wounds of slavery? Whether the owners were white or in some rare cases black, it was still a brutal and wrong practice.

How does that ease the wounds of slavery? Whether the owners were white or in some rare cases black, it was still a brutal and wrong practice.

It helps by focusing the hostility on the immorality of slavery, rather than the races of the people involved.

I think it's more productive to see the issue as one of wrong versus right instead of black versus white.

We were talking about Lee.

Remember the Dred Scott decision?

That case didn't involve a Southerner as plaintiff OR defendant...

The article also mentions that only about 4.5% of southerners owned slaves.

So? They controlled the lives of hundreds of thousands of slaves over the years, in an institution whose legacy continues to poison and distort our nation and culture to this day. Many of the southerners were poor, and a few held most of the land and property...hmmm...sort of like today.

So? They controlled the lives of hundreds of thousands of slaves over the years, in an institution whose legacy continues to poison and distort our nation and culture to this day. Many of the southerners were poor, and a few held most of the land and property...hmmm...sort of like today.

The reason it's important is because it shows there was much more to the people of the south than slavery. It's difficult to make progress when a whole people is vilified because of the immorality of a small minority.

It's also somewhat similar to what happened with Germany after the first world war. The rise of Jim Crow in the south parallels the rise of the Nazi's after the first world war. In both cases, people were beaten up beyond what they deserved. Then they get to a point where they want find a scapegoat.

It gets to the point where racists are being CREATED.

At some point the south and southerners have to be forgiven. Knowing only a small percentage owned slaves might help.

And, we can't find the understanding needed to move beyond this chapter in our history, if we continue to scapegoat an entire region of the country and to fail to understand their historical point of view, much less destroy their landmarks and historical heritage.

And less, I get comments I'll preemptively state that I believe the confederate flag should be preserved, but only on display in museums-- not as part of state flags.

then why should blacks get over slavery?

:D

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Well it wasn't slave owners. That was a HUGE capital expense (sorry but they were seen a property...to some, to some part of the society/family) so most small farmers couldn't afford to buy them let alone house and feed them.

Well it wasn't slave owners. That was a HUGE capital expense (sorry but they were seen a property...to some, to some part of the society/family) so most small farmers couldn't afford to buy them let alone house and feed them.

That's true.

Somewhat related: I've been reading about the history of the Irish in America. One thing that struck me was that, in the pre-civil war south, the Irish did all the most dangerous work because slaves were considered too valuable. Railroad building, for example, was said to have had so many fatalities that there was "an Irishman buried under every tie".

Even comparing things like living conditions, food, etc. most Irish in the US, even though they were free, actually had lives even more miserable than slaves.

Also, it wasn't uncommon that many Irish would die on the trip to America. In one of the worst years, 1847, about 40,000 died en route or upon landing. This is close to the 45,000 Africans that died on the way to the colonies and US during the entire period during which importation of slaves was allowed.

It's an incredibly tragic story and it's heart-wrenching.

In the roughly 200 years of the legal slave trade to North America ALONE, an estimated 3,000,000 slaves were brought. At an average of 25% loss at sea, that's 750,000 slaves who died at sea. That's not even close to the 5 years of the Irish famine, or the 40,000 Irish lost at sea that you cite.

In the roughly 200 years of the legal slave trade to North America ALONE, an estimated 3,000,000 slaves were brought. At an average of 25% loss at sea, that's 750,000 slaves who died at sea. That's not even close to the 5 years of the Irish famine, or the 40,000 Irish lost at sea that you cite.

North America included more than just the colonies. Less than 500,000 came to the colonies. Several million went to plantations in the Caribbean. About 3,000,000 went to Brazil, all out of a total of about 10,000,000 that came to the western hemisphere. Your loss at sea number is also wrong. It was about 9% for those destined for the colonies. 9% of 500,000 is 45,000.

See The Atlantic Slave Trade by Philip D. Curtin, p.280.

I said North America alone, not the total for the Western Hemisphere.

Now, where did that huge number of Irish losses come from?

opened the valve to release the gas.

But they had the large majority of germans behind them.

"the article also mentions that only about 4.5% of southerners owned slaves."

but 100% of them benefitted from the laws enacted to prevent slaves from having personhood. They were happy with system of having slaves classified as property, to do with what they wanted.

I can't glorify someone who condones anyone who takes one's small child from them and sells her to someone who will rape her of her viriginity, beat her and treat her no better than an animal. There is nothing to be proud of in that, I don't care what their intentions were or what their death bed confessions put forth.

Racism is. Race relations would improve if some people stop pretending as if racism stopped when slavery ended.

but I don't seem to recall anything having happened to it since it was put up despite all our whacko racist rednecks. Could it be that they have more respect ?

on the flood wall.

Stupid just plain stupid, psst I suspect the VCU art students.

unless they were down at Bottom's Up getting pizza and had a few beers too many.

I would think its more likely vandals from the area.

I'm a VCU grad myself, accounting.

Not too long of a walk from Grace street to the Lee monument. :shrug:

How do you know if a VCU business student is going to give a presentation? They are wearing a suit.


How do you know if a VCU art student is going to give a presentation? They may be on fire.

I think we have our acts of hate vandalism mixed up.

Perhaps by the KKK or the likes?

"The left" (whatever that means) has been set up before. On the other hand, I don't doubt we have our share of jerks too. I wouldn't assume one way or the other until I had more info, but it is something to at least consider.

"It is well that war is so terrible, or we should get too fond of it."

I just started a new job and was surprised to find out that we had MLK day off. Only govt entities seem to celebrate it.

I told my boss that I thought it was exceptionally cool to remember what he stood for and for a technology company, no less- notorious for working people on holidays, to honor it.

I work remotely and he and I are both in Dallas, while the corporate office is in Northern California. He told me he wasnt celebrating MLK Jr day. He was celebrating Robert E. Lee's birthday.

Im back in the Bible belt... Sometimes, I dont know wether to laugh or cry.

A few quotes...

"Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less."


"My experience through life has convinced me that, while moderation and temperance in all things are commendable and beneficial, abstinence from spirituous liquors is the best safeguard of morals and health."


"We failed, but in the good providence of God apparent failure often proves a blessing."

Anyone who deludes themselves thinking racism doesn't exist in the same numbers in the north as the south (past or present) and slavery was only a southern problem needs to do a little more research.

I don't think hate crime laws cover traitors.

Is there a follow up to this story?