[graciegirl]

Not a single person reading this thread would consider using other humans for slavery. Nor would they think of woman as chattel or support having their clitoris removed.

NOT one.

We all continue to grow and learn.

Most of the hate we are taught is political and some of our erroneous strong feelings are based in religion, that for the most part is good to have, good to believe in, good to protect us in time of fear or worry.

There is good and bad in all of us. We all have prejudices that are easily perceived by others and sadly some of these are based in real truth. It just isn't acceptable or kind to discuss it.

We all are sanctimonious and holier than the next based on how we were raised and what we have had to endure in our lives.

Sometimes hatred is necessary to protect ourselves and stay alive.

Some people are born more savvy than others.

You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

You can't make a cardiologist out of some people destined to fry at McDonalds.

Some not all.

The secret to living peacefully is to respect those who do not wish to harm others.

And defend against those who do.

Snotty attitude, superior views and hateful words will do no one good.

Most of us are peddling as fast as we can.

And most of us have value, even if we don't live up to what others think is right.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

It is history. Our ancestor, Charles Schorn won the Congressional Medal of Honor for capturing the last flag of the Civil War at Appomattox. He was an eighteen year old kid who had migrated from Germany. He lived along the Ohio river in Pomeroy, Ohio and volunteered and fought with the West Virginia unit. He returned to be a barber in Pomeroy and was patriarch to an amazing group of people, one of them is my husband of sixty years.

Charles Schorn - Wikipedia

He was poor. Many of his descendants became wealthy and financially successful. I never heard any of them judge anyone on their finances. I never heard any of them say anything negative about the South and it's people.

The people who fought for the South felt as strongly as those that fought for the North I am sure. It wasn't just about slavery at all but about tribe and honor and their patriotism.

People who fought for the South were good people. I think Robert E. Lee was a military leader who was also a good man.

It isn't about biases and hatreds always. It is not about groups always. Each of us is an individual. I so dislike the people who think that folks who are rural or who live in the south are dumb and slow. I HATE that. Each of us then and now were and are individuals. Bigotry throws the baby out with the bath water.

Kudos. Interesting heritage and associated story!

[jimjamuser]

Thanks for the good History!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by nhtexasrn

There are many things about Lee that obviously you don't know. For instance, Lincoln offered him command of the United States Army. He refused because of loyalty to his home state saying he could not raise a sword to the state of his home and birth. Lee was a top graduate of the United States Military Academy and an exceptional officer and military engineer in the United States Army for 32 years. During this time, he served throughout the United States, distinguished himself during the Mexican–American War, and served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. 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. It was said of Lee, "He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbour without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guile." Yes, he was born into a certain culture and that's all he knew at the time, but it's so much more complicated than what you have stated. He and his wife were both disgusted by slavery even though they were born in to that culture.

Thanks for the good history!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MandoMan

While I agree in general, I would suggest kindly that further reading in history would be interesting for you. Most white people in Richmond were NOT wealthy in 1890. Indeed, there were only a few thousand white people in the Confederate states BEFORE the war who were wealthy, and a large percentage of those who were then were not wealthy after the war. The vast majority of Southern whites in 1860 were poor, often miserably poor, and had never owned slaves. The same was true in 1890. Many of their descendants are still poor. Most of the Southern soldiers who died had never owned a slave. Perhaps they supported slavery for various reasons (such as hoping they might someday be able to afford one), just as plenty of poor whites today who depend on government handouts want lower taxes on the rich because they hope to someday be rich, but they still lived in poverty and dressed in rags.

Meanwhile, while there were millions of “poverty-stricken black people,” the two were not synonymous. There had been “free people of color” in the South for centuries, and a number of them owned slaves, owned farms, or were respected small business owners and craftsmen. This was even more the case in the North.

However, I agree with you in thinking about how the black citizens of Richmond must have felt in 1890 as they saw tax dollars go to memorialize those who had fought to keep them enslaved.

A couple of my great-grandparents were from British Guiana or Suriname and racially mixed. (One of my third great-grandfathers was a Scot who owned four plantations in Suriname and several hundred slaves, married an African woman he had purchased, and left his plantations to his mulatto children. Two of those mulatto sons were tried for beating a thief to death on one of their plantations in 1867. History is complicated!) When slavery was ended in those countries, instead of having a war, the governments of Great Britain and the Netherlands bought each slave, reimbursing the owners, and freed them. But the slaves were required to stay and work on the plantations for several years while indentured servants were brought in from India to take their place. Eventually, the government bought a lot of these plantations, which were often about 500 acres, divided them up into plots of two to five acres, and gave them to ex-slaves. They could live on that in a shack they built and with a big garden. Many, of course, left the plantations and moved to town, even though it was hard to find work there. Lincoln offered the South a similar deal, buying slaves instead of fighting, but the Southern politicians refused, alas. It would have been very expensive, but still cheaper than the war. Plantations should have been confiscated and divided up and distributed to ex-slaves, but alas that didn’t happen.

It IS too bad that the plantations were NOT split up into small acres. Small farms probably pollute less by virtue of being closer to their consumers - and maybe the great numbers of Black ownership farms would have equalized somewhat the wealth between Whites and Blacks. That could have been a good thing. Today we might have less of a wealth gap and less racism. I believe in TIPPING POINTS in History.

[CosmicTrucker]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

I agree with putting Jim Crow-era statues in museums or warehouses until museums are paid for and purchased - but as far a military strategy goes (I imagine) Gen. Lee was dealt a losing hand as far as manpower and resources go - and those normally win wars fought conventionally. So, Lee had to improvise a hit-and-run mobile army. So, of course, he lost MOST battles like an underdog in a heavyweight fight usually does! Maybe, just maybe (I can't be sure) Southern US whites and military minds respect Gen. Lee for just representing the UNDERDOG, which is a US pattern. Also, southern whites NEEDED statues to maintain BOTH their self-proclaimed, legendary dignity and to try and STAY at the top of the pecking order. They were probably rightfully defensive about the invasion of "Carpetbaggers" from the North.

They cut the Lee statue into 3 pieces

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by b0bd0herty

Just like over 50% of our population does...

That IS an over-the-top, off-the-wall, and out of the bounds of humanity statement !

[Escape Artist]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

It IS too bad that the plantations were NOT split up into small acres. Small farms probably pollute less by virtue of being closer to their consumers - and maybe the great numbers of Black ownership farms would have equalized somewhat the wealth between Whites and Blacks. That could have been a good thing. Today we might have less of a wealth gap and less racism. I believe in TIPPING POINTS in History.

You cherry-picked his comments. He said that most Southern whites were NOT wealthy at the time of the Civil War and afterwards and did not own slaves. It was very costly to own slaves and as he mentioned, most Confederate soldiers did not come from slave-owning families. It's estimated that only a third of Confederate officers, who were mainly from a higher economic class, had any connection to slavery.

It would do you good to read about Southern history, the good and bad, and you will learn that the desire for secession was mainly driven by economics (which included slavery) but also a strong belief that Southerners and Northerners had little in common culturally or otherwise.

I remember many years ago Southerners bemoaning the fact that regional accents were being lost due to the homogeneity that TV and movies brought, especially among the young. Multiply that by a million nowadays because of social media. But there was a time when the South had it's own distinct culture, customs, manners, morals, speech/idioms, etc. even decades after the Civil War.

[JSR22]

Originally Posted by marylees

In 100 Years will they take down the 9/11 monuments because it offends Muslims?

Very offensive

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Escape Artist

On a 9/11 anniversary note, the removal of statues by those who cannot see them in a historical context and as representing a past that pre-dates their ideology reminds me very much of the Taliban, who in 2001, just a few months before Sept. 11th, destroyed the ancient Buddhist statues in Afghanistan despite pleas from the global community not to because they should be seen as artifacts not religious symbols. No matter, they did it anyway.

Closed, intolerant minds filled with ignorance, hate and fear knows no particular ethnicity, race, religion, ideology or culture.

"Removal" of statues erected within the past 200 years does not equate with "destruction of ancient statues that were erected over a thousand years ago and, themselves, have historic significance."

The statue of General Lee was not an historic object of its own until very recently, comparative to the history of civilization. The statues of Buddha were carved in the 6th century.

There is no comparison to the REMOVAL of a modern-age statue and the DESTRUCTION of two statues of architectural historic significance.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by CosmicTrucker

They cut the Lee statue into 3 pieces

Yes, because it was the only way they could fit it in the truck to move it elsewhere. The plan (which was heavily publicized) was to dismantle it on site, clean it up and store it and then move it when they have a proper, appropriate location for it to be displayed.

[charlieo1126@gmail.com]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

He committed treason against the United States. The only people who celebrated him were the Confederacy - which existed to overturn the US Government in a massive insurrection that most of us like to call the Civil War.

who complain on here about history being whitewashed are some of the same people pushing the noble cause movement, you know the one that used to be used only by guys with confederate flags on there trucks and has gone mainstream you know like the fake moon landing and parasite treatments for horses can prevent covid

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

"Removal" of statues erected within the past 200 years does not equate with "destruction of ancient statues that were erected over a thousand years ago and, themselves, have historic significance."

The statue of General Lee was not an historic object of its own until very recently, comparative to the history of civilization. The statues of Buddha were carved in the 6th century.

There is no comparison to the REMOVAL of a modern-age statue and the DESTRUCTION of two statues of architectural historic significance.

How people feel about heroes who stand for something they honor or a time they honor is not based in years. I wonder how some would feel about taking down honoring pictures of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. It is all how we each look at things. Some treasure the aura of the old south. We all love certain eras and places and people in the U.S.

[Escape Artist]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

"Removal" of statues erected within the past 200 years does not equate with "destruction of ancient statues that were erected over a thousand years ago and, themselves, have historic significance."

The statue of General Lee was not an historic object of its own until very recently, comparative to the history of civilization. The statues of Buddha were carved in the 6th century.

There is no comparison to the REMOVAL of a modern-age statue and the DESTRUCTION of two statues of architectural historic significance.

It's part of Virginia's history as a state and also part of U.S. history. We have monuments or statues honoring those who fought in the Pacific in WWII even though the U.S. later dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and stateside put thousands of Japanese-Americans in internment camps., stripping them of their legally owned property and their dignity. Both were barbaric acts deemed necessary back then, but deplored now.

Nevertheless, we can separate the actions of a military or government with those of the men who sacrificed their lives for their country. It's the same with Confederate symbols and statues. They represent men who died fighting to preserve a way of life. They were proud of their cultural heritage and defended it from what they considered Northern tyranny. Being Southern in the 19th century meant a lot more than just slavery or support of such. Most Southerners didn't own slaves and many abhorred it on religious and moral grounds, like Abraham Lincoln who was from Kentucky.

Empathy, wisdom and historical context is needed when judging the past, whether it's the Taliban blowing up ancient statues that offend their religious views or those taking down a statue of a Southern icon that was a part of the state's history and dismembering it in public as the crowd (mostly young, white, pseudo-radical poseurs) cheered. Not much difference between the two that I can ascertain.

[Hogfan55]

Originally Posted by nhtexasrn

There are many things about Lee that obviously you don't know. For instance, Lincoln offered him command of the United States Army. He refused because of loyalty to his home state saying he could not raise a sword to the state of his home and birth. Lee was a top graduate of the United States Military Academy and an exceptional officer and military engineer in the United States Army for 32 years. During this time, he served throughout the United States, distinguished himself during the Mexican–American War, and served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy. 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. It was said of Lee, "He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbour without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guile." Yes, he was born into a certain culture and that's all he knew at the time, but it's so much more complicated than what you have stated. He and his wife were both disgusted by slavery even though they were born in to that culture.

You are spot on. What is ironic and obvious to me is even after 156 years those from northern states are the ones that refuse to let the Civil War be over. It was the same during Reconstruction. To this day they want to put their thumb on southerners. They want to portray southerners as ignorant, they insist that we publicly condemn our ancestors as traitors while portraying themselves as conquering heroes which we know is a joke. They would have never fought the war if it was to end slavery. Even Lincoln wasn’t for racial equality. But the northern libs won’t stop until we kneel at the monument of political correctness. The cause of slavery was wrong and southerners admit that. But you must judge those from the past by the customs and mores of their time, not by the present. Regardless of which side you were on during the war Robert E Lee had the respect of both sides both as a General and as a man of honor. Time will not erase the truth. I have read several biographies of R E Lee. I disagree with taking statues down but it will never change my opinion of him. And I won’t bow to those that disagree. As a matter of fact I will now have a portrait of Lee hanging on a wall of my home. When I’m asked who it is I will tell the truth. An honorable man that could not raise his sword against his own state. Even though he disagreed with their cause.