• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Confederate Monuments: Taken Down or Leave it Up?

Should these monuments be taken down?


  • Total voters
    95
  • Poll closed .
Robert E. Lee spent 17 years in grade as captain and he had the nick "King of Spades" due to his consistent command of ditch digging for ramparts and fortress walls from New York to the Mississippi for many and long years.

As one of the Confederate commanders Lee had success with some hit and run attacks but too many of his campaigns were disasters from the first one into West Virginia through to Gettysburg. It was only after Gettysburg that Lee wuz officially designated General in Chief of the Confederate States Army, more than anything else to brass him up as he continued to be run out of place after place.

CinC Lee met his Waterloo at Petersburg when he was beseiged by a competent and aggressive commander in General Ulysses S. Grant who finally broke Lee by the end of January 1865. The two met personally a few months later at Appomattox Virginia which is where General Grant found himself with two swords -- his own and the sword of General Robert E. Lee.

Your boy Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson of the Confederacy had the career nick of Tom Fool. Stonewall wuz shot by his own men in what came to be called "friendly fire." Pickett's Charge went on without Pickett who knowing better than to obey an order by Lee stayed back in the trees while his men were cut down during the one mile long attack across the open field.

Potus Lincoln and CinC General Winfield Scott had offered Lee command of the Union forces chiefly because it would have been a political coup against the embryonic Confederacy. The Custis-Lee family were known by Washington society and inside its circles of power. Getting Lee out of Virginia and away from the Confederacy was a smart move to attempt.

It was the case regardless that with the power and might of the Union industrial states at his command Lee could have succeeded as Union CinC. It would have been tough for Lee to have been any worse than McClellan or Halleck or Buell who among others were students of French fortifications, hence the "Do Nothing" tag applied to them during the first year of the war when they were in their naturally passive mode of command. These and other generals like 'em wanted to win without destroying Southern property -- not too much of it anyway. (We see the influence up to the present.)

Lincoln finally caught on that he needed attack generals who bite so he quickly advanced brass such as Sherman, Meade, Grant, Sheridan and a slew of other heavy hitters, shakers and fast movers. Admiral David Farragut who tied himself high onto his ship mast to command attacks routed the Confederate navy. Farragut cleared out the Mississippi starting at Mobile then New Orleans and upstream. He and Grant complemented one another by working a series of successes, Vicksburg most notably.

Given that Lee was anyway both timid and less than competent in campaign warfare, one of these generals would very likely have aced out Lee for the top spot. As it was, when Grant went after Lee in 1864 not only did Grant defeat Lee, Grant broke him. Gen. Meade hammered Lee at Gettysburg but Grant ended Lee at Petersburg. When Lee and his army fled Petersburg going west and away from Richmond and the Confederate main forces everyone knew Lee no longer knew up from down nevermind east from west. Game over.

Lee was a frail man. Grant was in contrast a bear of a man.

According to the census of 1860 the population of the United States numbered
31,443,321 persons. Approximately 23,000,000 of them were in the twenty-two
northern states and 9,000,000 in the eleven states that later seceded. Of the
latter total, 3,500,000 were slaves. The size of the opposing armies would reflect
this disparity. At one time or another about 2,100,000 men would serve in the northern
armies, while some 800,000 to 900,000 men would serve the South. Peak strength of
the two forces would be about 1,000,000 and 600,000, respectively.

Putting 2 & 2 together it seems to me that Lincoln could have promoted someone who
in those days we could assume had less insight into these matters than even you &
still would end up victorious being that the odds of 4 to 1 were impossible for the south to overcome.

Union and Confederate Resources, 18611 Union Confederacy
Percent of nation’s population 71% 29%
Percent of nation’s railroads 71% 29%
Percent of nation’s farm acreage 65% 35%
Percent of nation’s manufacturing workers 92% 8%
Percent of nation’s manufacturing output 92% 8%
Number of factories 110,000 18,000
Railroad mileage 22,000 9,000

As North and South lined up for battle, clearly the preponderance of productive
capacity, manpower, and agricultural potential lay on the side of the North. Its
crops were worth more annually than those of the South, In seapower, railroads,
material wealth, and industrial capacity to produce iron and munitions the North
was vastly superior to the South.
 
Last edited:
Did you happen to read VanceMack's post #28? Can you explain some of the history that he related? Do you think that maybe you're only relating part of the story? That there was far more going on during the civil war than simply pro-slavery vs anti-slavery forces?

[directed at no one in particular...]

One of the many excuses as to why monuments to Washington should be allowed while monuments to Confederates shouldn't be allowed is that Washington won his war while the Confederates lost theirs. We don't put up monuments to people of other countries in which we have defeated them after all right? (paraphrasing) The way I see it, yeah we don't. But then why would we? They're not American's. Whereas those in the Confederate Army were American's.

The Civil War is often referred to as a war between brother and brother (among other variations). For good reasons. There were literally brothers fighting against each other in that war. But the other reason is that it was American's fighting against other American's. I don't think that many today understand what that actually means. To see other American's as brothers. Sisters. Family. Today, everything is polarized and there is no sense of family. I find that kind of sad.



Memorials to the soldiers who fought would be fine, the brother who fought brother (and variations) having a memorial in their local community or elsewhere.

Glorifying Jefferson Davis is wrong given for instance his direct open and recorded statements fiercely defending slavery and secession. R.E. Lee wasn't big on slavery but Lee was wrongheaded about secession. And Lee took sides as a general with the slave and secession states. It's a direct violation of the Union of the states provided by the Constitution and by the national motto, e pluribus unum.

Lee was yet another southern boy who fought for e pluribus duo. Consequently Southern elites needed a severe spanking which is what they got. And then some. General Sherman who scorched Georgia to sever the Confederacy in an east-west half had many southern friends from West Point so he offered generous surrender terms to for instance the Confederate General Johnston when he surrendered to Sherman after Lee had surrendered to Gen. Grant.

In nearly every instance the Union states that won the war were generous to a fault to the Confederate states that had failed to secede. Allowing these monuments to the southern elites civilian and military is one among many such generous faults of the northern states.

What goes around comes around as we've seen many times. Only this time in this business of monuments to Confederate leaders and their vile cause it's coming down on 'em. Eventually, gradually, the northern states' generosity is beginning to come full circle. Confederate offenses against the Constitution are getting their due historical correcting, however incrementally, one at a time.
 
Last edited:
Do I think they care about it? Yes...because people have made it a 'cause'. Does it matter? Not a tiny ****ing bit. In every city and every community where the black community is literally dying, you know what you WONT find flown by those doing the destruction? A Confederate flag. What has happened is a bunch of people have for political gain shrieked THATS RACIST! And everyone else has followed suit.

That's not an argument for a government flying the confederate flag or maintaining monuments to dead confederates in prominent public spaces. It's just more 'whataboutism.' At best you're pointing out that removing a monument or flag has little if any real impact on the lives of blacks. OK, great. Leaving them UP has no large impact either, and yet governments have to decide what to do - take them down or leave them up.

So how do we decide? Are you arguing we should not decide on these things because other things are more important? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Now...let me save you the trouble. Your next comment will be "SO you are saying black people dont think for themselves?" To which I will respond, politically? In the sake and name of causes? Hands up dont shoot. Black Lives Matter. 80% voting as a bloc for the rat party since the 30s (approx average). Fractional political diversity. No...they think as a collective politically. History has proven it. So does the obsession over the confederate flag while they ignore the blood in the streets daily.

When you start saying **** like "rat party" I don't see any reason to respond, and your stats about party identification are historically ignorant to boot.
 
I hope that you're still on the green side of the grass then.

In any case I doubt that we'll see any Confederate flags or memorials on government property 50 years from now.

Putting them there gives some racists the idea that they have government support.

that could be very well true, however please remember that every future generation judges the past generations as you and others do, so things which are created now and during our life times, will be judged and iam sure removed.
 
I voted NO ........... these may be monuments to an era, to an idea, to an ideal, whatever, etc., that won't fly now but these are certainly reminders of one of the worst times historically within our nation .......... the monuments should stand as a reminder of our collective history ............ lest we forget ..........
 
That's not an argument for a government flying the confederate flag or maintaining monuments to dead confederates in prominent public spaces. It's just more 'whataboutism.' At best you're pointing out that removing a monument or flag has little if any real impact on the lives of blacks. OK, great. Leaving them UP has no large impact either, and yet governments have to decide what to do - take them down or leave them up.

So how do we decide? Are you arguing we should not decide on these things because other things are more important? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.



When you start saying **** like "rat party" I don't see any reason to respond, and your stats about party identification are historically ignorant to boot.
Governments support heritage. The people in the south that live today have as a part of their heritage, confederate soldiers who fought for their families, their homes, their land...not slavery. The inane desire to try to destroy history and heritage is being promoted by pathetic, small minded individuals.

Do you know how much of the northern history and early Americana involves slaves and slavery? Shall we eliminate George Washington from our history books? How about Jefferson? Adams? Shall we tear down every institution in the north that is in any way connected to a slave history because precious snowflake adults lack the intellectual capacity to not get butthurt (or worse...to fabricate butthurt) that we expect of children?

The rat party is simply an abbreviation, no less diabolical than the frequent use of CON here on this site...something which I am certain you have observed and not once see you **** yourself over. So...spare me your poutrage. Respond...dont respond....I dont much give a **** but for ****s sake...dont be a hypocrite.
 
Last edited:
That's false, sorry.

1860 Census Results

In Mississippi 49% of all families owned at least one slave. SC 46%. Georgia 37%. Alabama 35%. Florida 34%. NC and TX 28%.

And there were 0 slaves in most of the NE. DE 3%, and MD 12%. Every other state 0.00%.
One very sad map:

Slavery_Map2_zpsaab2f7b2.jpg
 
On it very face that seem to be complete nonsense and surely need to be check out by going to the 1860 source censor material.

The price of one slave in the 1860s was over a thousand dollars or roughly the yearly wage of a skill blacksmith.

In other word one slave would be one hell of an expense item for a family to own.

1/3 of southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi, it was nearly 50%. Think on this: There were only a total of one million free white families in the CSA> Ponder that.

Slaves were a commodity. Prices went up and down with the economy.

Slaves were much cheaper in the 1820 - 40's (it spiked midway corresponding with the 1837 crash, then went back down again.) -- these slaves did what? They reproduced (literally "breeding" them), they were handed down to families, and yes, the means to obtain one was not something out of reach, and the financiers did what?

Yep, you could mortgage a slave, quite readily. Many did. There were huge banking outfits all set to help you obtain a slave, just like people will help you obtain a car today. It paid off well.

The average per capita income in the South was on average a good deal more than in the north in the lead up to the war, and a good many Southern preachers then actually told their flock it was a noble and Christian principle to own a slave or two - and if you had the means, and didn't, you'd go to hell.
 
Governments support heritage. The people in the south that live today have as a part of their heritage, confederate soldiers who fought for their families, their homes, their land...not slavery. The inane desire to try to destroy history and heritage is being promoted by pathetic, small minded individuals.

The war itself was fought over slavery, but sure, certainly part of white heritage in the South is a lot of ordinary people fighting for family, homes, etc. But if you're a black person, what part of that "heritage" do you want to see preserved, celebrated? YOUR ancestors were almost all slaves, beaten, sold like cattle, etc. The same people who fought a war for slavery then reinforced what it was all about by instituting Jim Crow for the next century. Should THAT heritage also be celebrated with monuments and flags?

Do you know how much of the northern history and early American involves slaves and slavery? Shall we eliminate George Washington from our history books? How about Jefferson? Adams? Shall we tear down every institution in the north that is in any way connected to a slave history because precious snowflake adults lack the intellectual capacity to not get butthurt (or worse...to fabricate butthurt) that we expect of children?

We're talking about monuments and flags, not textbooks. Please stay on topic. I know it's easier to create red herrings but I'm not going to play along.

The rat party is simply an abbreviation, no less diabolical than the frequent use of CON here on this site...something which I am certain you have observed and not once see you **** yourself over. So...spare me your poutrage. Respond...dont respond....I dont much give a **** but for ****s sake...dont be a hypocrite.

Like I pointed out, your historical stats were ignorant as well, and there wasn't a point there I could see except blacks are stupid and democrats suck. What was there to respond to?
 
So are you assuming that any and all succession movements are motivated by a wish for the south to rise again? Does that go for the left wing state of California? They have a succession movement going as well.
Yes, but unlike the South they're trying to escape racism and bigotry not enforce it.

I heard no conservative or republican asking for or wishing for armed conflict if Hillary Von Pantsuit had won.

Well apparently you were only listening to your fake news garbage networks that didn't report it.

Militia groups prepare for civil unrest if Clinton wins | New York Post

Trump Supporters Are Threatening To Overthrow The Government If Hillary Clinton Wins

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/donald-trump-voters.html?_r=0
 
The war itself was fought over slavery, but sure, certainly part of white heritage in the South is a lot of ordinary people fighting for family, homes, etc. But if you're a black person, what part of that "heritage" do you want to see preserved, celebrated? YOUR ancestors were almost all slaves, beaten, sold like cattle, etc. The same people who fought a war for slavery then reinforced what it was all about by instituting Jim Crow for the next century. Should THAT heritage also be celebrated with monuments and flags?



We're talking about monuments and flags, not textbooks. Please stay on topic. I know it's easier to create red herrings but I'm not going to play along.



Like I pointed out, your historical stats were ignorant as well, and there wasn't a point there I could see except blacks are stupid and democrats suck. What was there to respond to?
There were many thousands of blacks fighting as entire regiments in the south independent of other units, for the south. What was their motivation? I dont know. There are black southernors today that take part in recreation and heritage events. What is their motivation? I dont know. Perhaps when we stop looking at the past through the lens of hysteria vs history, we will recognize that it is simple...what it is. No citizen living fought in the civil war. The people that are rending themselves over this issue today are activists...mentally and emotionally capable of being grown ups.

FFS...do you know how many Japanese people live in the US today? How many British? French? Italians? Germans? We celebrate the heritage of German Americans, Japanese Americans, all sorts of cultures and people that we have fought with in wars. This obsession with hatred towards the south is inane and not a little bit pathetic.

And yet here you are..responding...

And I'll bet money you have never once called out a fellow traveler for using CON in a derogatory manner. So please...stop presenting yourself as a hypocrite. Its unbecoming.
 
According to the census of 1860 the population of the United States numbered
31,443,321 persons. Approximately 23,000,000 of them were in the twenty-two
northern states and 9,000,000 in the eleven states that later seceded. Of the
latter total, 3,500,000 were slaves. The size of the opposing armies would reflect
this disparity. At one time or another about 2,100,000 men would serve in the northern
armies, while some 800,000 to 900,000 men would serve the South. Peak strength of
the two forces would be about 1,000,000 and 600,000, respectively.

Putting 2 & 2 together it seems to me that Lincoln could have promoted someone who
in those days we could assume had less insight into these matters than even you &
still would end up victorious being that the odds of 4 to 1 were impossible for the south to overcome.

Union and Confederate Resources, 18611 Union Confederacy
Percent of nation’s population 71% 29%
Percent of nation’s railroads 71% 29%
Percent of nation’s farm acreage 65% 35%
Percent of nation’s manufacturing workers 92% 8%
Percent of nation’s manufacturing output 92% 8%
Number of factories 110,000 18,000
Railroad mileage 22,000 9,000

As North and South lined up for battle, clearly the preponderance of productive
capacity, manpower, and agricultural potential lay on the side of the North. Its
crops were worth more annually than those of the South, In seapower, railroads,
material wealth, and industrial capacity to produce iron and munitions the North
was vastly superior to the South.


The post and data are a further confirmation of the old adage never to enter a fair fight. In war in particular. No general should ever go to war predicated on parity of forces and resources with the opponent. Rather, the general who takes the field with the most advantages is already identified as the very likely winner.

So the Union states were smart to enter the unfair fight. It was to their decided advantage. The Confederacy was on the stupid side of the equation.

Moreover if Potus Lincoln had had attack generals during the first year of the war it likely would have ended perhaps two years sooner than it did end.

At Gettysburg the Union new commander General Meade who thought more like a Prussian general than a French one used his 24,000 superiority in numbers to defend against Lee. It is anyway an old precept, premise and principle of war that the attacker -- in this instance Lee -- needs a numbers superiority of 3-1 against defenders. Lee had blundered seriously to set out invading the Union with a numbers disadvantage not to mention Lee's across the board resource disadvantage.

It is also the case Lee ordered Pickett's Charge that shredded the entire division as it had to move one mile across an open field against Meade's superior defenses (while Pickett remained in the woodline). Lee attacked uphill against Little Round Top where there were superior forces besides. There's much more of Lee's inept confusion.

Correct - the data said the Confederate states would never defeat the Union states. And when Potus Lincoln brought in attack oriented generals Sherman, Grant, Meade, Sheridan among others such as Admiral Farragut it wuz only a matter of time before the out-resourced and militarily deficient Confederacy was going to go under. R.E. Lee was never going to win his war. Neither was Jefferson Davis. Idiots both. The whole bunch of 'em.
 
Last edited:
There were many thousands of blacks fighting as entire regiments in the south independent of other units, for the south.
...

Bull

and

****.

Lost Cause nonsense. I've been through this for decades with ill-informed neo-confederates and their sympathizing counterparts.

They always lose.

There were a few hundred blacks, at best who fought for the confederacy. A great many slaves *did* help, at the command of their masters, in non combat roles.

It was illegal for slaves to be soldiers, up until the the very, very end, when the south was near moribund, on it's last legs, considering in its final gasps to make slaves into soldiers.
 
General Howell Cobb, once governor of Georgia:"You cannot make soldiers of slaves, nor slaves of soldiers. The moment you resort to negro soldiers your white soldiers will be lost to you

The day you make soldiers of them is the beginning of the end of the revolution.If slaves will make good soldiers our whole theory of slavery is wrong."

If LC'ers don't hold to the mythos, their whole theory is wrong.

(As it turned out, slaves did a fine job fighting as soldiers: for the Union (with many thanks to the Emancipation Proclamation - which encouraged them to come on over, and they did --to the tune of nearly 200,000 of them.)
 
What was the one thing Southern slaveholders feared the most?

You know the answer. A slave uprising. John Brown shook those fears heartily. Talk of it ruled the day. The slave revolts in the Caribbean were still fresh on their minds.

They were petrified of slaves getting enough courage to break their chains and leave for the natural state of man: an aching desire for freedom.

Now pretend you're a slaveowner - do you give your slaves guns? Hell no you don't.

They thought it, in their words, a "suicidal policy."

That's why the confederacy forbade it.

"Our position with the North and before the world will not allow the employment as armed soldiers of negroes."
CSA Secretary of War James A. Seddon
LINK: The War of the Rebellion: a compilation of the official records


...and why they were arguing as late as 1865 - near the very, very end - if they should allow the negroes to fight. This is a matter of record.

It was only when the south was beat to a bloody pulp, with not much more to lose, they considered doing so. And even then many would not hear of it. Even then.
 
There were many thousands of blacks fighting as entire regiments in the south independent of other units, for the south. What was their motivation? I dont know.

That's just nonsense, Lost Cause myth. The number of blacks fighting FOR the Confederacy of their own free will was trivial, both as a percentage of blacks and of the total fighting force. The CSA prohibited blacks from serving in battle until the last weeks of the war.

There are black southernors today that take part in recreation and heritage events. What is their motivation? I dont know. Perhaps when we stop looking at the past through the lens of hysteria vs history, we will recognize that it is simple...what it is. No citizen living fought in the civil war. The people that are rending themselves over this issue today are activists...mentally and emotionally capable of being grown ups.

First of all, you didn't address my comments at all, the main point of which you're looking at "heritage" from the eyes of whites who fought for slavery then instituted a regime of state sanctioned black suppression for the next century following the war. From the eyes of blacks, that 'noble heritage' of the South looks a little different, and you ought to at least consider their point of view more than to dismiss it as childish.

You're 'rending yourself' over protecting the monuments and the Confederate flag. Are you incapable of being a grown up? It's more likely that rational people have different opinions on the subject.

FFS...do you know how many Japanese people live in the US today? How many British? French? Italians? Germans? We celebrate the heritage of German Americans, Japanese Americans, all sorts of cultures and people that we have fought with in wars. This obsession with hatred towards the south is inane and not a little bit pathetic.

I have no idea what this latest red herring has to do with anything. Do we have governments maintaining Nazi memorials erected on public property? How about statues of Hitler or Hirohito? And for goodness sake, I'm a southerner. I don't have a problem celebrating southern 'culture' in many ways. But I can be proud to be a Southerner and OPPOSE my government flying the flag of white supremacy on public property - that part of our "heritage" is shameful and deserves no place of honor. I am less opposed to some monuments to Civil War greats. One of them removed from NO was a monument to an uprising of white supremacists against the ruling government post war. Dynamite that thing, reduce it to rubble, if it was up to me. If not, move to a museum. The others of Civil War generals - whatever. Most of the men were complicated individuals. It's up to the citizens of NO to decide what monuments are erected and maintained and where.

And yet here you are..responding...

And I'll bet money you have never once called out a fellow traveler for using CON in a derogatory manner. So please...stop presenting yourself as a hypocrite. Its unbecoming.

When you make points worth responding to, yes I'm responding. See how that works?
 
Bull

and

****.

Lost Cause nonsense. I've been through this for decades with ill-informed neo-confederates and their sympathizing counterparts.

It's really something. Nearly always, the people fighting for the Confederate white supremacist flag or monuments to dead confederates come on the thread and just spout Lost Cause, alternative history of the South and the Civil War.
 
There were many thousands of blacks fighting as entire regiments in the south independent of other units, for the south. What was their motivation? I dont know. There are black southernors today that take part in recreation and heritage events. What is their motivation? I dont know. Perhaps when we stop looking at the past through the lens of hysteria vs history, we will recognize that it is simple...what it is. No citizen living fought in the civil war. The people that are rending themselves over this issue today are activists...mentally and emotionally capable of being grown ups.

FFS...do you know how many Japanese people live in the US today? How many British? French? Italians? Germans? We celebrate the heritage of German Americans, Japanese Americans, all sorts of cultures and people that we have fought with in wars. This obsession with hatred towards the south is inane and not a little bit pathetic.

And yet here you are..responding...

And I'll bet money you have never once called out a fellow traveler for using CON in a derogatory manner. So please...stop presenting yourself as a hypocrite. Its unbecoming.

The Confederate army was the first American army to integrate.
 
That's just nonsense, Lost Cause myth. The number of blacks fighting FOR the Confederacy of their own free will was trivial, both as a percentage of blacks and of the total fighting force. The CSA prohibited blacks from serving in battle until the last weeks of the war.



First of all, you didn't address my comments at all, the main point of which you're looking at "heritage" from the eyes of whites who fought for slavery then instituted a regime of state sanctioned black suppression for the next century following the war. From the eyes of blacks, that 'noble heritage' of the South looks a little different, and you ought to at least consider their point of view more than to dismiss it as childish.

You're 'rending yourself' over protecting the monuments and the Confederate flag. Are you incapable of being a grown up? It's more likely that rational people have different opinions on the subject.



I have no idea what this latest red herring has to do with anything. Do we have governments maintaining Nazi memorials erected on public property? How about statues of Hitler or Hirohito? And for goodness sake, I'm a southerner. I don't have a problem celebrating southern 'culture' in many ways. But I can be proud to be a Southerner and OPPOSE my government flying the flag of white supremacy on public property - that part of our "heritage" is shameful and deserves no place of honor. I am less opposed to some monuments to Civil War greats. One of them removed from NO was a monument to an uprising of white supremacists against the ruling government post war. Dynamite that thing, reduce it to rubble, if it was up to me. If not, move to a museum. The others of Civil War generals - whatever. Most of the men were complicated individuals. It's up to the citizens of NO to decide what monuments are erected and maintained and where.



When you make points worth responding to, yes I'm responding. See how that works?

The Federals used black troops to dig ditches and for cannon fodder.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Wagner
 
Bull

and

****.

Lost Cause nonsense. I've been through this for decades with ill-informed neo-confederates and their sympathizing counterparts.

They always lose.

There were a few hundred blacks, at best who fought for the confederacy. A great many slaves *did* help, at the command of their masters, in non combat roles.

It was illegal for slaves to be soldiers, up until the the very, very end, when the south was near moribund, on it's last legs, considering in its final gasps to make slaves into soldiers.
I posted a rather complete and lengthy article on this subject earlier. Rather than **** yourself in ignorance because something doesnt fit your sad little perspective, you might choose to read it. Or not. There is little more effective in an argument than allowing your opponent paint themselves as ignorant. So...well played. You...ummm....win.
 
The Confederate army was the first American army to integrate.
I cited an article earlier written by a black historian on a black American focused web page citing historical records from Frederick Douglass, researched by Dr Henry Gates Jr. The poutrage and protestations aside...history simply is what it is. Im bored by the hysterians.
 
It's really something. Nearly always, the people fighting for the Confederate white supremacist flag or monuments to dead confederates come on the thread and just spout Lost Cause, alternative history of the South and the Civil War.
Same goes for you. Roll around in your ignorance or accept history simply as what it was.
 
So what is your perspective? Do you feel these monuments should stay, or to you think they should be taken down?

I remember the outrage over the destruction of the Roman ruins at Palmyra, which is classified as a World Heritage Site. Rome represented brutal conquest and oppression of vast regions of the world. Should we have just sided with ISIS in destroying it? How about the Great Pyramids? Hell, they still have the monarchy in England, which has a vast history of just being the most brutal family of warlords to have existed over the longest period of time. Are we going to dismantle that as well and tear down their palaces and castles?

History is history and it's usually not very clean. That's no reason to try and erase it. Now, we need to be building new monuments in the South but it's still part of our history.
 
The Federals used black troops to dig ditches and for cannon fodder.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Wagner

Thanks for the link. Did you have a point other than to cite an interesting bit of history?

Your link doesn't actually demonstrate blacks being used as "cannon fodder" any more that hundreds of similar assaults by white soldiers with devastating losses showed THEY were only cannon fodder, but it was a good link.

FWIW, here's a link about blacks serving in combat and in other roles for the Union army in large numbers.

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/blacks-civil-war
 
I cited an article earlier written by a black historian on a black American focused web page citing historical records from Frederick Douglass, researched by Dr Henry Gates Jr. The poutrage and protestations aside...history simply is what it is. Im bored by the hysterians.

Here's another account that recognizes that there were black soldiers fighting for the Confederacy. deadspin-quote-carrot-aligned-w-bgr-2

Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of The Root, have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that a few blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy.

How many supported it? No one knows precisely. But by drawing on these scholars and focusing on sources written or published during the war, I estimate that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.

We know that blacks made up more than half the toilers at Richmond’s Tredegar Iron Works and more than 75 percent of the workforce at Selma, Ala.’s naval ordnance plant. And slaves grew the crops that fed the Confederacy. As Frederick Douglass noted, blacks were “the stomach of the rebellion.”

The total number of black Confederate soldiers is statistically insignificant: They made up less than 1 percent of the 800,000 black men of military age (17-50) living in the Confederate states, based on 1860 U.S. census figures, and less than 1 percent of at least 750,000 Confederate soldiers.
...
The vast majority of eyewitness reports of black Confederate soldiers occurred during the first year of the war, especially the first six months. Why? Because after the first Confiscation Act, slave laborers began deserting to Union lines en masse, and free blacks’ expressions of loyalty toward the Confederacy waned.
....
Beginning in 1863, reliable eyewitness reports of blacks fighting as Confederate soldiers virtually disappear. The last known newspaper account of black Confederate soldiers occurred in January 1863, when Harper’s Weekly featured an engraving of two armed black rebel pickets “as seen through a field-glass,” based on an engraving by its artist, Theodore Davis.

What part of that history do you dispute?
 
Back
Top Bottom