Garfield Park Confederate Memorial--Its now an issue in our backyard

[Kutnupe14]

Ok I am going to throw in my .02cents worth.
I don't beleive any of these Confederate stutes/monuments were ever erected because of their ideals or opinions. Rather they were erected as a testament to their leadership. I acknowledge slavery was a huge factor in the civil war. I also acknowledge it was an abomination. I also say keep in mind the slaves were first enslaved in Africa presumably by people of other tribes (for lack of better words). I have to beleive that slaves were also sold to other countries. Furthermore I think that there may have been some Native American slave or other people of color (Idk but it's possible). I think a look at each monument/statue should be done individually, and decide if it should be removed. In effort to be brief, I will jump to Gen Robert E Lee's statue. He was a great leader and was instrumental in the surrender that finally ended the war. He did it with grace, dignity and honor. And afterward he wanted to help heal and rebuild our nation. Those are traits of a leader that should be recognized. Also realize that during the civil war the union required he pay property taxes in person. But, when he sent his wife to pay the taxes the Government wouldn't accept her money and so the Government took their land. The union decided it was a great place to bury union soldiers. Land that we now know as Arlington National Cemetery. If we are to remove all these monuments in a sort of cleansing and erasing of history, where does it stop? Those that served on both sides were Americans, this is OUR history and we are all in it together. IF we want to point boney fingers at OUR past lets look deeper at some atrocities that were committed under the righteous leadership of the union Generals. Look around at all the parks, cities, streets etc that are named after people who had plenty of faults but are remembered as great leaders. Surely we can't allow it to all be destroyed, it has to stop somewhere. How is it that just recently so many have become offended by these monuments they hardly noticed before? Why is it those who push the agenda of open acceptance for all (refrencing border issues/LGBT etc) have no acceptance of those who don't agree with them? They can't even accept that this is part of their history too.

Edit- another point to consider the wealthy plantation slave owners of the time in large part identified as being democrats.

I see this mentioned often. Why is this relevant? It's almost as if the belief is, because Africans kept slaves, then it is ok for other people to keep slaves. Have you ever heard anyone say. Slavery is a bad thing in the United States, but Africa? ... oh yeah that's perfectly fine.
As far as Lee being instrumental in ending the war, I'd agree, but not in the way you'd think. Lee was a brilliant tactician, who instrumental in prolonging the war by years.
Both sides of the Civil War were Americans; one side loyal, the other side traitor to their nation. I do not agree with disturbing the graves of Confederate soldiers, that's beyond the pale. They died honorable deaths for the wrong cause, so graveyard memorials should remain untouched.
Now when it comes to random monuments that dot the landscape, don't fool yourself. The vast majority were erected in the 20th Century, as a white washing of the "noble" cause of the Confederacy. You will find that most of these were put up after 1915. 1915 being a noteworthy date, as that was the year that the movie "Birth of a Nation" was released. 1915 also coincides with the 2nd incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Take the monument in Charlottesville. It was put erected in 1924, but was commissioned in 1917. Do you not find the convenient that the rebirth of the Klan, the release of Birth of a Nation, and the commissioning of the statue all occurred within a very small timeframe?

 

[Trigger Time]

I see this mentioned often. Why is this relevant? It's almost as if the belief is, because Africans kept slaves, then it is ok for other people to keep slaves. Have you ever heard anyone say. Slavery is a bad thing in the United States, but Africa? ... oh yeah that's perfectly fine.
As far as Lee being instrumental in ending the war, I'd agree, but not in the way you'd think. Lee was a brilliant tactician, who instrumental in prolonging the war by years.
Both sides of the Civil War were Americans; one side loyal, the other side traitor to their nation. I do not agree with disturbing the graves of Confederate soldiers, that's beyond the pale. They died honorable deaths for the wrong cause, so graveyard memorials should remain untouched.
Now when it comes to random monuments that dot the landscape, don't fool yourself. The vast majority were erected in the 20th Century, as a white washing of the "noble" cause of the Confederacy. You will find that most of these were put up after 1915. 1915 being a noteworthy date, as that was the year that the movie "Birth of a Nation" was released. 1915 also coincides with the 2nd incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Take the monument in Charlottesville. It was put erected in 1924, but was commissioned in 1917. Do you not find the convenient that the rebirth of the Klan, the release of Birth of a Nation, and the commissioning of the statue all occurred within a very small timeframe?

So then I guess it's not us misunderstanding each other. It's just a different belief of what was noble and what wasn't. I believe the confederates cause was a noble one and the largest part had nothing to do with slavery but instead withdrawing from a overreaching and abusive federal government. Also I believe slavery was advantageous to the slaves because it allowed them to have opportunities after slavery they wouldn't have had otherwise and also probably let their numbers increase to levels they never would have normaly been at. I wish it would have never happened at all! However it did and America is better than Africa.
Either way soldiers did their duty on each side and deserve to be memorialized. There was evil on both sides not just the south because war brings out evil. It wasn't a genocide like the nazis. I view the slavery of the past as wrong but I don't view it as this dark stain on America since it was what helped build America and the way things were IN THE PAST. There is no place for it today however, even though in Africa it still continues and even genocide.
The kkk, shouldn't be allowed to exists today. Nor should violent groups on the other side. I believe a court of law should rule certain groups as terror groups and not eligible for free speech protections. I've laid out the best way I can of what i think. If people don't agree with me I don't care. I don't hurt anyone or seek out anyone to treat any different than I would anyone else I interact with daily

 

[Punkinhead]

Leave all the confederate monuments up but label them for what they are:

 

[Kutnupe14]

So then I guess it's not us misunderstanding each other. It's just a different belief of what was noble and what wasn't. I believe the confederates cause was a noble one and the largest part had nothing to do with slavery but instead withdrawing from a overreaching and abusive federal government. Also I believe slavery was advantageous to the slaves because it allowed them to have opportunities after slavery they wouldn't have. I wish it would have never happened at all but it did and America is better than Africa.

TT, that's nonsense. 12.5 million slaves "officially" arrived in the New World, between 1698 and 1807. This makes no mention of those who died in the middle passage, or who were smuggled in. I think it's a fair bet to say that of those persons kidnapped, they were most likely not persons who were elderly, or obviously infirm. In 1953 the continental population of Africa was approximately 250 Million. Given that populations grow exponentially, the population of the African continent, was probably in the 70-80 million range, 1698-1807 respectively. I know you know military history, so you I don't need to go into how devastating the loss of millions or generations can be to the long-term success of populace. It's impossible to say how the African continent would have evolved if it wasn't for slavery and colonialism. One certainly can't say that slaves from Africa were "better off" by becoming slaves, nor presume to know what opportunities would have been available to them if the institution had never existed.
And yes, I personally do not see the CSA cause as being a noble one. And the "overreaching and abusive" federal govt never intended to take away their evil institution. The Southern states were mainly upset that they had lost in Congress about the expansion of slavery into other states/territories. The legislation doing such, was legal under the Constitution. The South just wanted to expand their evil practice.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Leave all the confederate monuments up but label them for what they are:

View attachment 58344

Now that's funny

 

[Trigger Time]

TT, that's nonsense. 12.5 million slaves "officially" arrived in the New World, between 1698 and 1807. This makes no mention of those who died in the middle passage, or who were smuggled in. I think it's a fair bet to say that of those persons kidnapped, they were most likely not persons who were elderly, or obviously infirm. In 1953 the continental population of Africa was approximately 250 Million. Given that populations grow exponentially, the population of the African continent, was probably in the 70-80 million range, 1698-1807 respectively. I know you know military history, so you I don't need to go into how devastating the loss of millions or generations can be to the long-term success of populace. It's impossible to say how the African continent would have evolved if it wasn't for slavery and colonialism. One certainly can't say that slaves from Africa were "better off" by becoming slaves, nor presume to know what opportunities would have been available to them if the institution had never existed.
And yes, I personally do not see the CSA cause as being a noble one. And the "overreaching and abusive" federal govt never intended to take away their evil institution. The Southern states were mainly upset that they had lost in Congress about the expansion of slavery into other states/territories. The legislation doing such, was legal under the Constitution. The South just wanted to expand their evil practice.

We will necer agree on this issue.

 

[foszoe]

Now when it comes to random monuments that dot the landscape, don't fool yourself. The vast majority were erected in the 20th Century, as a white washing of the "noble" cause of the Confederacy. You will find that most of these were put up after 1915. 1915 being a noteworthy date, as that was the year that the movie "Birth of a Nation" was released. 1915 also coincides with the 2nd incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Take the monument in Charlottesville. It was put erected in 1924, but was commissioned in 1917. Do you not find the convenient that the rebirth of the Klan, the release of Birth of a Nation, and the commissioning of the statue all occurred within a very small timeframe?

I am starting to hear this justification more often but other then hearing people say it, I haven't heard anything to substantiate the claim. Is there any definitive works on this subject? It certainly is possible that it occurred, but its the vast majority claim which should be supported by evidence. I apologize if such evidence has already been presented on INGO and I have missed it. Nor do I wish to call into question that you have an honest belief that it is so for I believe you are an honorable person. I would just like to see some historians agreeing with that position.

I do know (believe) that monuments tend to start being erected as a generation realizes its time on earth is expiring and the events which took place are passing into history thus yielding a desire to preserve the generations moment in time.

 

[caverjamie]

Now when it comes to random monuments that dot the landscape, don't fool yourself. The vast majority were erected in the 20th Century, as a white washing of the "noble" cause of the Confederacy. You will find that most of these were put up after 1915. 1915 being a noteworthy date, as that was the year that the movie "Birth of a Nation" was released. 1915 also coincides with the 2nd incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Take the monument in Charlottesville. It was put erected in 1924, but was commissioned in 1917. Do you not find the convenient that the rebirth of the Klan, the release of Birth of a Nation, and the commissioning of the statue all occurred within a very small timeframe?

First thing I think is, who cares why the statue was put there 100 years ago? If everyone else can place whatever meaning on the statue they want, I can too. I shall call them historical monuments. But seriously, seems like I read the person who paid for the Charlottesville statue was considered a good guy who donated quite a few other things, education and parks I think. Are we sure he was closet KKK? If so I'd like to see some evidence before I change my opinion of his statues.

 

[Expat]

I am starting to hear this justification more often but other then hearing people say it, I haven't heard anything to substantiate the claim. Is there any definitive works on this subject? It certainly is possible that it occurred, but its the vast majority claim which should be supported by evidence. I apologize if such evidence has already been presented on INGO and I have missed it. Nor do I wish to call into question that you have an honest belief that it is so for I believe you are an honorable person. I would just like to see some historians agreeing with that position.

I do know (believe) that monuments tend to start being erected as a generation realizes its time on earth is expiring and the events which took place are passing into history thus yielding a desire to preserve the generations moment in time.

The leftists have to change the narrative since they are still losing in the court of public opinion. They were likely shocked by the Marist poll that showed American overwhelmingly think the statues need to be left alone. Based upon the reporting in the fake news media, they probably thought the public was 100% behind them committing vandalism.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We will necer agree on this issue.

Lol, you're probably right.

 

[thunderchicken]

I see this mentioned often. Why is this relevant? It's almost as if the belief is, because Africans kept slaves, then it is ok for other people to keep slaves. Have you ever heard anyone say. Slavery is a bad thing in the United States, but Africa? ... oh yeah that's perfectly fine.
As far as Lee being instrumental in ending the war, I'd agree, but not in the way you'd think. Lee was a brilliant tactician, who instrumental in prolonging the war by years.
Both sides of the Civil War were Americans; one side loyal, the other side traitor to their nation. I do not agree with disturbing the graves of Confederate soldiers, that's beyond the pale. They died honorable deaths for the wrong cause, so graveyard memorials should remain untouched.
Now when it comes to random monuments that dot the landscape, don't fool yourself. The vast majority were erected in the 20th Century, as a white washing of the "noble" cause of the Confederacy. You will find that most of these were put up after 1915. 1915 being a noteworthy date, as that was the year that the movie "Birth of a Nation" was released. 1915 also coincides with the 2nd incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Take the monument in Charlottesville. It was put erected in 1924, but was commissioned in 1917. Do you not find the convenient that the rebirth of the Klan, the release of Birth of a Nation, and the commissioning of the statue all occurred within a very small timeframe?

Well let me start from the top. I can't speak for others as to why they mention slaves being enslaved & sold in Africa. I mention it because it is relevent in the sense that in that time and for centuries before slavery was legal in several countries. Heck there are plenty of stories in the bible where people are described as man servants and women servants. I may not be a historian and haven't researched it but I am sure that meant slaves. Especially when you consider the lower status that women had/have in other cultures.
As for the statues/monuments, even Gen Lee himself said following the war he didn't want monuments to the Confederate ideas because he felt it would prolong the healing of our country and would create further divide. I would also point out and agree that yes the Confederacy were traitors. Just as the men/women who fought for our Independence through the revolutionary war were. The Confederacy wanted to separate from the union and become it's own country. Granted in large part because of the issue of slavery but also because they felt the federal govt's laws should be guidelines and that individual state laws should trump federal law. Now, I confess I have no idea when the majority of these monuments where put commissioned or put up. Nor do I know much at all about the KKK, other than they are a reprehensible group that spews hate. I trust the info/dates you posted are accurate and never knew of the Birth of a nation movie before. I would say, I can see where the coincidence certainly had some effect in all of this. I am not completely against some of these monuments being removed. Such as any that depict Nathan Bedford Forrest or any others that chose to continue their own fight and terrorized the nation. But, as I also mentioned there were plenty of atrocities committed by the union army and it's leadership. Looking at it in a historical context that is a tough pill to swallow. I feel that if we allow everything so named after or representing the Confederacy then likewise anything representing the Union Army of the time should be treated the same. Keep in mind how poorly the Union Army treated the black people who signed up to fight in the civil war. Sure the yanks didn't have slaves but they did treat black and non white people as a lower sub culture of people. Oh, and yes Gen Lee as a tactician/leader did cause the war to be prolonged. That was his job as a General, to win. However, I think he realized the south was going to lose long before it did. And when he realized they had lost he accepted it and wanted to find peace and help rebuild our nation.

 

[foszoe]

It's one thing to believe something and another to establish the truthfulness of a belief.

The March of Dimes was established to fight Polio. Once Polio was eradicated, the March of Dimes did not cease to exist. it just changed its mission to birth defects. One can attribute at least 2 causes to this.

1. Organizations, once started, tend to self preservation. This reason has negative connotations for most of us.
2. The Organization, while established to fight Polio, was made up of people who genuinely wanted to help kids so they redirected their energies. This reason allows us to view the organization positively.

With the south, slavery and state's rights.

They are the 2 main reasons given for the war. Assigning the "largest part" it is what pushes people to take opposite sides. At some point, one must defer to the historians on the matter for they are the ones most qualified to give an answer.

When my car won't start, I can believe the engine has failed or I can ask an expert and find out only the starter needs replaced.

The problem in general is, most people have a vested interest in making sure they have a running car. They have no vested interest in challenging historical beliefs.

In the end it is hard to kick against the pricks that the State's Right that the South wanted to preserve the most was chattel slavery, not some other grandiose right that was being challenged.

So then I guess it's not us misunderstanding each other. It's just a different belief of what was noble and what wasn't. I believe the confederates cause was a noble one and the largest part had nothing to do with slavery but instead withdrawing from a overreaching and abusive federal government. Also I believe slavery was advantageous to the slaves because it allowed them to have opportunities after slavery they wouldn't have had otherwise and also probably let their numbers increase to levels they never would have normaly been at. I wish it would have never happened at all! However it did and America is better than Africa.
Either way soldiers did their duty on each side and deserve to be memorialized. There was evil on both sides not just the south because war brings out evil. It wasn't a genocide like the nazis. I view the slavery of the past as wrong but I don't view it as this dark stain on America since it was what helped build America and the way things were IN THE PAST. There is no place for it today however, even though in Africa it still continues and even genocide.
The kkk, shouldn't be allowed to exists today. Nor should violent groups on the other side. I believe a court of law should rule certain groups as terror groups and not eligible for free speech protections. I've laid out the best way I can of what i think. If people don't agree with me I don't care. I don't hurt anyone or seek out anyone to treat any different than I would anyone else I interact with daily

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am starting to hear this justification more often but other then hearing people say it, I haven't heard anything to substantiate the claim. Is there any definitive works on this subject? It certainly is possible that it occurred, but its the vast majority claim which should be supported by evidence. I apologize if such evidence has already been presented on INGO and I have missed it. Nor do I wish to call into question that you have an honest belief that it is so for I believe you are an honorable person. I would just like to see some historians agreeing with that position.

I do know (believe) that monuments tend to start being erected as a generation realizes its time on earth is expiring and the events which took place are passing into history thus yielding a desire to preserve the generations moment in time.

Lol, well, I doubt you find any contemporary sources that will explicitly say, "We knew were supporting an evil institution, so after the whole Civil War thing blew over, we decided to give our history a favorable 'new coat of paint'." Which of course means that all information presented afterward is subjective. However, you will many historians who see the 20th Century rewriting of the Civil War narrative, as a whitewashing. There's even a term for it: "Lost Cause of the Confederacy."

 

[Kutnupe14]

Well let me start from the top. I can't speak for others as to why they mention slaves being enslaved & sold in Africa. I mention it because it is relevent in the sense that in that time and for centuries before slavery was legal in several countries. Heck there are plenty of stories in the bible where people are described as man servants and women servants. I may not be a historian and haven't researched it but I am sure that meant slaves. Especially when you consider the lower status that women had/have in other cultures.
As for the statues/monuments, even Gen Lee himself said following the war he didn't want monuments to the Confederate ideas because he felt it would prolong the healing of our country and would create further divide. I would also point out and agree that yes the Confederacy were traitors. Just as the men/women who fought for our Independence through the revolutionary war were. The Confederacy wanted to separate from the union and become it's own country. Granted in large part because of the issue of slavery but also because they felt the federal govt's laws should be guidelines and that individual state laws should trump federal law. Now, I confess I have no idea when the majority of these monuments where put commissioned or put up. Nor do I know much at all about the KKK, other than they are a reprehensible group that spews hate. I trust the info/dates you posted are accurate and never knew of the Birth of a nation movie before. I would say, I can see where the coincidence certainly had some effect in all of this. I am not completely against some of these monuments being removed. Such as any that depict Nathan Bedford Forrest or any others that chose to continue their own fight and terrorized the nation. But, as I also mentioned there were plenty of atrocities committed by the union army and it's leadership. Looking at it in a historical context that is a tough pill to swallow. I feel that if we allow everything so named after or representing the Confederacy then likewise anything representing the Union Army of the time should be treated the same. Keep in mind how poorly the Union Army treated the black people who signed up to fight in the civil war. Sure the yanks didn't have slaves but they did treat black and non white people as a lower sub culture of people. Oh, and yes Gen Lee as a tactician/leader did cause the war to be prolonged. That was his job as a General, to win. However, I think he realized the south was going to lose long before it did. And when he realized they had lost he accepted it and wanted to find peace and help rebuild our nation.

You know your history. Here is the quote for everyone else:

I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

 

[femurphy77]

Well it does commemorate Confederate Soldiers. This thing is huge and It's even worse due to our President and his remarks. Not sure if Charlottesville alone could do this or not. I just think Trump made it worse,

It commemorates AMERICANS that died during one of the darkest periods of our short history. They died fighting for what they believed was right and I'm sure it's safe to say that most of them were not slave owners or wealthy but as is typical of many armies those fighting and dying in the trenches they were farmers and shopkeepers brought into service to fight a government they felt was hell bent on destroying their lives.

Like it or not they are our war dead and should be honored as such.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It commemorates AMERICANS that died during one of the darkest periods of our short history. They died fighting for what they believed was right and I'm sure it's safe to say that most of them were not slave owners or wealthy but as is typical of many armies those fighting and dying in the trenches they were farmers and shopkeepers brought into service to fight a government they felt was hell bent on destroying their lives.

Like it or not they are our war dead and should be honored as such.

Here's another one of things that makes say "what is the reason for pointing that out?" It's a bad argument.

 

[foszoe]

Lol, well, I doubt you find any contemporary sources that will explicitly say, "We knew were supporting an evil institution, so after the whole Civil War thing blew over, we decided to give our history a favorable 'new coat of paint'." Which of course means that all information presented afterward is subjective. However, you will many historians who see the 20th Century rewriting of the Civil War narrative, as a whitewashing. There's even a term for it: "Lost Cause of the Confederacy."

I was thinking more specifically of a historical survey of who financed what monument. At least that is where I would start. For example, a monument paid for by family members who died in a battle, probably not a whitewash. A Nathan Bedford Forrest monument financed by "south is gonna rise again" well that sounds more like a problem.

When did the National Park Service start?
When did the Battlefields gain Park status?
When were the monuments erected in the Parks?
Are these monuments counted in the vast majority claim or exempted?

From a recent article, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ls-confederate-monuments-here-stay/570779001/

The Gettysburg National Military Park, which memorializes soldiers who fought and died during the Battle of Gettysburg, including men who served in the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, has not received any complaints or requests related to the monuments, said Katie Lawhon, park spokeswoman.
"These memorials, erected predominantly in the early and mid-20th century, are an important part of the cultural landscape," Lawhon said in an email.

My curiousity is now up

 

[gunsisgood]

Lol. Broken record.
Nothing wrong with the confederacy and commemorating history. This just shows how the left is radical and will bite at any issue. They need to have a doctor issuing anti-depressants and anti-phsychotic drugs at the lefts rallys.
Indianapolis is ran by the dumb democrats and has been for a while (city council) so nothing will surprise me. They love shock value to keep their lazy base fired up.

^^^This x 10

 

[printcraft]

I see this mentioned often. Why is this relevant? It's almost as if the belief is, because Africans kept slaves, then it is ok for other people to keep slaves. Have you ever heard anyone say. Slavery is a bad thing in the United States, but Africa? ... oh yeah that's perfectly fine. ..........

Because it is completely dismissed from mention or any blame against Africans.
I have NEVER heard, in any discussion of slavery on a news program, throughout school, much less anywhere else that Africans were in ANY way to blame for slavery.
ALL the blame for slavery is placed squarely on the "white" U.S.
You NEVER hear "those evil black slave owners" it's 100% "those evil white slave owners"
Talk about whitewashing history.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I was thinking more specifically of a historical survey of who financed what monument. At least that is where I would start. For example, a monument paid for by family members who died in a battle, probably not a whitewash. A Nathan Bedford Forrest monument financed by "south is gonna rise again" well that sounds more like a problem.

When did the National Park Service start?
When did the Battlefields gain Park status?
When were the monuments erected in the Parks?
Are these monuments counted in the vast majority claim or exempted?

From a recent article, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ls-confederate-monuments-here-stay/570779001/



My curiousity is now up

Interesting, isn't it? In a place where CSA soldiers are buried in great numbers, the memorials weren't put up until the mid-20th Century. And yet the ones NOT in cemeteries were erected well earlier. Think on that for a minute.