Written by a friend of my wife fighting cancer in a nursing home. They worked together for many years and she is s great person, I wish her well.

I agree about the statues being more art than a political viewpoint. I lived on Allen Ave. at Monument Ave. for years and the Statue was nice to see everyday. I would think anyone by now would be settled on the north vs south issues. To me it has been a massive destruction of antique art, some so badly that they can never be replaced. I was hoping they could end up as museum, or perhaps protected garden pieces, before they are totally destroyed. When I glance briefly at the news, and see the destruction, I just see rebellion and consuming bitterness....and venting that anger won't heal their issues....they are just feeding it.



Found these pics online, taken the day that Lee's statue was unveiled on May 29, 1890 to a crowd of 150,000. The project was in response to Lee's death, and took 20 years to complete. There was no "Monument Avenue" at the time, but it was rather placed in what was then an open field. The city grew up around it over the past 130 years. Good to know the true details of the event rather than assume that there's truth to the sinister, modern day version of its origin...that is, the accusation that it's there to perpetrate hate. The hate resides within the accusers.



Blacks have assumed that they were the core reason for the civil war...they were not. It was an issue of states rights to govern themselves, and a clash of power with the federal vs local government. Lincoln used freeing the slaves later to gain some political momentum after both sides were weary of all the deaths in the war, and the emancipation proclamation actually only applied to slaves fighting for the confederacy...it was a move to weaken the southern army, not intended to free all blacks residing in the north:



"Lincoln didn’t actually free any of the approximately 4 million men, women and children held in slavery in the United States when he signed the formal Emancipation Proclamation the following January. The document applied only to enslaved people in the Confederacy, and not to those in the border states that remained loyal to the Union."



So, the modern day myth that all of it was to free the slaves is just that, a myth. White men at the time would not have fought that long and died for black field laborers. There were many cases of white brothers fighting against each other, having taken different political views. The war was about money, and financial gain...what any war is usually about....and the reason that the south was consequently left crushed after the war. All the death and destruction was not "for freeing the black people"....that's the modern day twisted version.



Imagine what's happening to the school history books, what kind of garbage they are being told that only feeds the anger. As Lee put it, slavery was an unfortunate evil in our society in the 1800's....but then so was the treatment of the Native American...it didn't get any worse than that. And, the treatment of all women and children of all colors wasn't much better. When one views the big picture, in context, it becomes clear that our society had a long ways to go to be called "civilized"....and to extract only one part of it and rant about its injustice is an incomplete story. We could testify to injustice for women in the workplace in the '80's....we lived it...and sometimes it wasn't much fun, being treated as second class, occasionally as objects, and always as powerless....but we made the best of it.....and each generation contributes its part, so that the next generation has it just a little bit better.









"Lee is a gentleman, a man of honor, and a religious man with no vices and considerable patience. Optimistic and idealistic, he believes his men can do anything. He is soft-spoken and cares about his men, but is willing to use them boldly and lose them for the Cause."



"...While Lee helped assist individual slaves to freedom in Liberia, and provided for their emancipation in his own will, he believed the enslaved should be eventually freed in a general way only at some unspecified future date as a part of God's purpose. Slavery for Lee was a moral and religious issue, and not one that would yield to political solutions. Emancipation would sooner come from Christian impulse among slave masters before "storms and tempests of fiery controversy" such as was occurring in "Bleeding Kansas". Countering Southerners who argued for slavery as a positive good, Lee in his well-known analysis of slavery from an 1856 letter called it a moral and political evil. While both Robert and his wife Mary Lee were disgusted with slavery, they also defended it against abolitionist demands for immediate emancipation for all enslaved."





Richmond burned after the war...it took hard work, and a long time to rebuild:







I thought that Lee's life was worth at least a testimony based on truth, instead of wild accusations. I sure hope all the mess on TV will be resolved soon, and allow the city to settle down again.

That there is the truth and well written.
Olerebjr.

great post

Thanks for sharing that Darrell. I really wonder what version of that might be in a current history book , if at all that is.

+1

One question for the assembled:

Why are you folks afraid to put these statues in a museum?

They would be protected,properly preserved by the curators,and safe from vandalism.Anybody that would care to view them could,,the dangerous traffic patterns on Monument could be resolved,and with no rally point,a huge amount of local angst and violence could be averted.

Once again,why are you afraid to put these statues in a museum?

Dusty trolling his narrative again....
I see 0 opposition to the museum idea here.

Nice work OP

Not trolling at all,an honest question.Please don't try to deflect,most of the people I've talked with regarding this issue have no clear answer,and I would like to find out the reasoning for keeping the statues in situ.

Its a troll. You posed the question in a thread ABOUT PUTTING THEM IN A MUSEUM.

You asked "Why are you folks afraid to put these statues in a museum?" Pure insinuation.

Stay on topic, start THAT topic

Saw a post that says BLM is actually Hamas.

No one here has any issue putting them anywhere so not sure why you would even bring it up? My question to you is why should they be moved at all? Because HAMAS doesn't like them? Or maybe you don't like them? They have been silently standing there for 130 or so years but only in the last 10 or 20 they have been a issue for someone. The Statues all raise property values because they are Historically recognized for what they are remembrances of a War gone by, a War lost by one side and now called racist. Dusty, for you to troll this post is surprising to me. If you have nothing constructive to add please don't comment, thanks.

They have always been a problem for a group of some of us Americans. They represent bondage and terror. While in slavery or Jim Crow that followed. I do understand for some other Americans they are their ancestors and maybe even their heroes. That’s cool, but it’s time to move on. I don’t agree with people destroying them in the streets but if moved to a place that they will be displayed in a historical context let’s do it in a orderly fashion. Not trolling just speaking my 2 cents.

Now that must be a truly amazing chain of logic to arrive at that conclusion.How do they support the claim?

Anyhow,a couple of folks seem sort of afraid of the idea,which seems odd.It would preserve the statues,and the whole area would benefit from the drop in accidents. There could even be an income increase from parking,restaurants,admissions,gift shops,etc. Why not?

edit:

There is one clue that I have noticed about your writing on the subject,dad.The complete name of the war is the American Civil War. Shortening to the War,and the multiple references to it as the War,gives a rather interesting "tell".

If we have equal rights in this country then my southern heritage should be just as important as black heritage. Wanna tear down the confederate statues ? Then tear down Author Ashe, he offends me.

He offends you why? Did take up arms to keep the institution of slavery going?fought against the federal government and lost? Or just because the color of his skin? I wonder who he oppressed... other than the other Gay men who died from Aids as well?

Of the statues the only ones that are not of the losing generals of a failed insurrection are Ashe and Maury. Ashe's record as a philanthropist,children's advocate,educational advocate,and civil rights spokesperson are without question. Maury is conflicted,but a scientist;and is revered in oceanography as well as other disciplines,and sought to de-escalate the American Civil War.

So,what sort of southern heritage are we talking about,the "lost cause" or our future?

I can respect and understand all points of view in this current debate about civil war statues. My personal opinion is that they never should have gone up in the first place. Honoring the leaders of the losing side in a conflict with statues reminds me of handing out participation trophies. Should we have a Viet Cong soldier memorial next to our Vietnam Memorial in D.C.? How about if Germany erected statues of Erwin Rommel or Herman Goering? Or named their roads and middle schools after them? I also don't like the idea of any statue or monument being removed 100 years after it was erected. This conversation should have happened 100 years ago, and now all sides look like jerks.

toughtom, My thoughts are similar. These arguments on each side are worse than the statues.

Odd as it may sound tom,complete agreement,but the mess was left for someone to clean,and hopefully we get it done this time.

Though it is interesting. We live in a state with a name derived from a former queen of England, so let's get started changing that.

Good point. We have a state, cities, towns, etc named after Washington who owned slaves. The left is never satisfied, so I don’t believe there is a stopping point. (Like it or not, the racial lens applied to everything is a tool of the left to divide and conquer. They seem to have forgotten that most of these statues are of Democrats...)

Ah, at last some truth about the so-called Civil War (wasn't really but that is another matter). Thank you

This is an effort to remove the history and provide more impetus for the ongoing cultural revolution. The statue removal reminds me of the recent Taliban actions in Syria etc. to destroy "idols" which do not fit their narrative. We need to be reminded (I guess) that these statues should stay up not, as one member here opined, to honor loosers but their commitment to to honor, duty and self rule. If we erase our history we lose sight of what made this country great.

The Communist Party, Democrats, BLM, ANTIFA and their supporters are trying, and succeeding so far, in dividing this country in an effort to instill as much economic and personal chaos with the aim of increasing the central government authority and reducing the individual (self rule).

[quote=Paratus]Ah, at last some truth about the so-called Civil War (wasn't really but that is another matter). Thank you

This is an effort to remove the history and provide more impetus for the ongoing cultural revolution. The statue removal reminds me of the recent Taliban actions in Syria etc. to destroy "idols" which do not fit their narrative. We need to be reminded (I guess) that these statues should stay up not, as one member here opined, to honor loosers but their commitment to to honor, duty and self rule. If we erase our history we lose sight of what made this country great.

The Communist Party, Democrats, BLM, ANTIFA and their supporters are trying, and succeeding so far, in dividing this country in an effort to instill as much economic and personal chaos with the aim of increasing the central government authority and reducing the individual (self rule).



yeap,proof that the sooner we start cleaning up this mess the better.

With the situation we have today and the mindset of the dems, cowtowing to BLM terrorists it should be a simple matter to change "Virginia" to 'Va gi na".

I am so ashamed of my state. We are now questioning the decision we made to retire here.

I grew up here,busted;and have "voted with my feet" before.If you find it uncomfortable to be here,may I suggest you consider the same?Let us know where the wind takes you.

I find the germany comment to be hilariously relevent. Our current political and social climate seem to be mirroring GE circa 1930.

Increased polarization, the demonization of minority (read small, not racial) groups, Outcry for more/less policing, fewer guns. Quotes about trade deficit and foreign interference. Not to mention the economics.

The funny part is nobody looks to the past. We are repeating it.

I personally think the statues are an important part of our history. No war has ever been one dimensional, and the people involved are no different.

But.... For alot of people, those statues are artifacts of slavery, representing not the civil war, but centuries of hate and oppression. People like to simplify, and if a politician can use that as a platform, they will. If you can use that statue to represent the institutional hatred, and then show yourself attacking that hatred by tearing down a statue (or more renewably, calling for it to be torn down.) You instantly can endear yourself to the populations affected.

Its all just politics, keep your heads straight.

Excellent observations and rather telling given the current political climate.But to borrow a line,just remember that "history does not repeat itself,but it certainly does rhyme".
What would your take on dealing with the statues be? I want to hear from someone younger than myself and the other O*D F**TS on the board! Not a fish,honestly curious.

Alright, I'll bite if 40 is young enough...

To me, the Civil War is a very different conflict than our other wars, and shouldn't be held to the same standard. People went from the south to fight for the Union, and from the North to fight for the confederacy- and very few southerners who fought owned slaves. Robert E Lee wasn't a slave owner, but felt loyalty to his state and supported state's rights. Slavery was the issue that sparked it, but ultimately the conflict began over the question of state vs federal authority. (Don't forget that the Emancipation Proclamation wasn't signed until well AFTER the war began, and only freed slaves in certain states- it did NOT end slavery altogether). Because of the multiple issues, divided loyalties, and the fact that many confederate soldiers did not necessarily support slavery or own slaves, the statues and monuments are not as black and white as they may seem. The war exacted a terrible price, so they serve as both a reminder of how far we've come and a bit of the underdog spirit that Americans have always supported. There is a certain nobility in standing up for something, and the South suffered far more in the war.

If we go back into the history of any major figure we will find stains and less than admirable actions, but this latest movement is a slippery slope. Were MLK or Malcolm X perfect figures? No, but we highlight what they did right and understand that it outweighed the wrong. Don't Jefferson and Washington deserve the same? Was Lee a more honorable figure than Sherman despite fighting for the losing side? I would argue that he was. We don't venerate our ancestors, but in my opinion history should be seen for what it was and not assigned a status of good or bad. Why not take down the Enola Gay for the death that she represents? Why allow the statue of Chris Kyle to stand given the men that he killed? Because the victors write the history books.

Oof.

There is no right answer, so here is mine.

Leave the statues where they are, install standing plaques giving greater detail about who the individual was, and what they did in life.

The statues are important. They represent part of our past. They can be used to show how far we have come.

We have a truly poor public education system. Instead of 'teaching' that Christopher Columbus discovered America (Joke), I would like to see a more indepth approach to our nations history, the displacement of peoples, and the development of our collective society and expansionism.

I am 23, I attended one of our states public schools. During my attendance, I was 'taught' that the civil war was due to slavery, and that Lincoln freed the slaves. There was no in-depth discussion about the balance between states rights, and federal powers, Nor about how Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in Confederate territories. I fully realize that this type of education is not in vogue, and that it can be politically incorrect, but a lack of this type of contentious content impacts our children's ability to think critically, or to form opinions based off of more then a single source. I realize that sheep-like behavior is in the public interest (laugh), but it would be nice to see us equipping a generation with the tools necessary to succeed, and to advance our nation, rather than importing needed talent.

Bottom line is that the statues are not the problem, as much as the political narrative is.

omg there is a ray of light for a dark future

I don't believe it,duckin and I agree on something.



TWO excellent responses (yes chris,you are "young enough),two somewhat different responses,but both center over the same flaw in this whole narrative regarding the statues:

EDUCATION

My youngest(he'll be 32 this year) regularly bemoans the fact that most people in his age bracket cannot reason their way out of a ditch full of raw sewage.Sadly,the peaceful protests over police accountability and civil rights(yes we are still fighting that fight over half a century later) have been overshadowed by dimwhits on both sides.Time for a change.Let's pay teachers enough that we can truly attract people that want to teach.Let's teach reasoning and critical thinking,history with all the warts and nastiness that we seek to hide(mostly from ourselves) for a change. Let's live up to our ability to reason our way as humans.

As to the fate of the statues:frankly,I don't believe that I'll see a resolution in my lifetime to that issue,there is always somebody on ether side willing to waste time being offended by somebody on the other. As artifacts,yes they need to be preserved,to forget the American Civil War is to forget that before it we spoke in terms of "the United States ARE";after we speak "the United States IS". Big difference there,even with all the growing we still need to do.So put them in a museum.

If we need a monument or monuments there,let the largest one be a simple obelisk with the following inscription on all four sides:

FOR THE DEAD OF BOTH SIDES
APRIL 12 1861-APRIL 9 1865

I was lucky enough to have come across people with common sense who instilled in me my basic life skills (and love of alliteration). The greatest gift you can give to the ignorant, is knowledge and patience.

I am glad to know that other right-minded souls perservere. Keep on struggling.

tip of the hat,"pea shooter",may reason guide you well.

Why are the revisionists afraid to leave them where they are? This has nothing to do with the so-called Civil War, slavery or anything else. Wake up.

I think you really don't know what "revisionist" means regarding history.

I have zero desire to see the statues of veterans of the civil war removed:

But:
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Lost_Cause_The#start_entry


In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: "We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable."


https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/american-civil-war-history

Let’s not fool ours selves. All this recent violence, riots and statue hating isnt about the civil war.




https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2015...y-debunked.html

A bit close to the issue for Virginians/Richmonders:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornerstone_Speech

Sorry,Agent;but to call them veterans would be a misstatement. It was only due to a general amnesty that the military commanders of the secession were not captured,tried,and executed.

Anyone in the Middleburg area know if the "J.SINGLETON MOSEBY HERITAGE AREA" Signs have been removed?

That is incorrect. First 'veterans' in this sense are men under organized arms. The Brits for instance did not summarily execute the soldiers they captured during the Revolutionary War.

Secession is not an argument for treason, though the argument as to whether a state could secede can be debated. Likewise, nowhere in the Constitution does it give the 'government' the power to make war against one of the states. In fact, going back to the Treaty of Paris, September 3, 1783, which stated: “Article 1st. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, to be free, sovereign and independent states . . . ", one could see the argument that the states could consider themselves sovereign.

The fact is that few people actually thought of themselves firat as Americans at that time, most identified first and foremost by their state. Few people ever left the state they were born in and many never even left their county in the 1850s. If the 'north' had seceded likely all of the Union generals would have been the 'confederates'.

The states could choose to leave the union.

The north invaded the south, not the other way around.

Lee was a West Point grad, hero in the Mexican-Americsn war, West Point superintendent from 1852-55 and heir to the heroric revolutionary war spirit of Harry Lighthorse Lee.
Lee did not want to command troops in the invasion of Virginia. He gave up his commission because he loved his home more than his job.

Lincoln could have chosen peaceful separation of the union, but he chose to invade the south and directly cause the deaths of more Americans than any other President. If any statues should come down, if any likeness should be taken off of coins and currency, it is that of Lincoln.

http://www.sonofthesouth.net/leefoundation/major-anderson-ft-sumter_Dir/first-shot-civil-war.htm

The January 26, 1861 edition of Harper's Weekly featured the following illustration, showing the First Shot of the Civil War. The first shot was fired on January 10, 1861. It was fired by the South Carolinians on Morris Island. They fired on the Union Ship "Star of the West" as it attempted to reinforce Major Anderson at Fort Sumter.



Imho, the attack of the confederate statues are the left trying to erase it's racist past.
Sadly, as usual they are using misinformed black Americans, and guilt ridden whites to do their bidding.

Most if not all of these statues are Democrats.

Man am I glad I was fortunate enough tobhave teachers who were willing to spend more time teaching real history. The statues being an issue isnt new. People are just now listening. Lincoln has been quoted as saying if he thought he could win the war without freeing slaves, then he would have. The idea that the statues an acknowledgement of ones southern heritage doesnt align for everyone. That notion is a reminder not just of industry but of the fact the my ancestors were brought here as slaves and were subjected to some pretty bad things (to put it nicely).

Yeah I have never owned anyone, much less any slaves. I did however see a black produced video of the black warrior women who were ordered by their kings to catch and sell them to the Europeans. Those women looked bad **I'M AN IDIOT**!