Most southerners my generation go back four or five generations to get to their ancestors who served in the Civil War. With a half century of genealogy as a hobby, I can say with some confidence that most Americans would be at a loss to name even a single great-great grandparent much less convey any knowledge of their involvement in the bloody conflict.
I would list seven of eight family lines in the service of the Confederate States of America. The eighth family was a transplanted Yankee who made a stop in Mississippi, didn’t like it, and settled in Georgia. My service-aged ancestor in the family was sent to school in New England where he rode out the war before returning to Georgia to marry the daughter of a CSA veteran which, I suppose, makes for a perfect average on such things. The death notice of the family patriarch who was born in Maine included the line, “He shared the views of his adopted region…” None of that qualifies me for anything except to be known as an southerner and as the acknowledged expert in my clan on family history, a title that comes with a dose of indulgence from younger relatives who wonder why anyone cares much about old cemeteries, lineage charts, and obscure historical records.
It would add some color to all this if I could launch into a series of Faulknerian family characters but my people were privates and sergeants rather than generals and statesmen. They were rather meager farmers, not planters, and were struggling rather than prosperous merchants. My best chance at generational wealth probably ended when my ancestor sold a huge farm in South Georgia but was paid in Confederate money.
Some of my people, half of the families from what I’ve been able to learn, owned, bought, sold, and bequeathed slaves. Records confirming this include wills (“I give to my daughter Adelaide my negro woman Sally…”) and census reports (owner John E listed six slaves, one named, five unnamed). In one case confirmation is found in the words of a former slave interviewed in the 1930s (“Massa Billy called us all up to the big house and a man told us we were free”).
I write all this as background for the most self-evident and salient of points on the matter: I chose not a single one of my ancestors. There isn’t a single fact, glorious or deplorable, that I can erase or alter in the slightest. I feel no need to apologize for them, neither do I feel compulsion to ignore or keep secret their lives. As an American who was born, not by my own choice, in the Deep South, I have never felt the need to expiate the sordid past. As a Christian I see neither the biblical command for nor the possibility of any vicarious repentance for the sins of my slave-owning ancestors.
Some use language in these discussions that make dialogue difficult. I don’t care for the term “heritage” partly because it has been soiled by excessive and inappropriate fondness for the past which conveniently ignores the vicious, unjust, and brutal systems that were part of the fabric of the age. The blithe reference to all remembrance of the antebellum south as celebration and reverence I reject as well. That some racists and supremacists have taken some of the people and symbols of the Confederacy for their own depraved use is regrettable and I reject them.
I see the technique used often where the practice seems to be to see who can string together the most horrific terminology about slavery, transfer all of that to any and all who fought or sympathized with the Confederacy, and demand the utter eradication of the memory of their existence on that basis. Honesty compels me to live with the understanding that most of my CSA veteran ancestors probably had attitudes consistent with their era. I am singularly untroubled if this is offensive to others. It’s a fact of my life. No more. No less.
That some see inappropriate and offensive celebration where I see history and family remembrance, I freely acknowledge. If some will spare me the smug condescension that I am using symbols, icons, and personages to sanitize the sordid past and make me feel better about it I will spare others the conclusion that they represent the 21st Century version of books burners and cheap moral scolds.
The public monuments present a complicated challenge which, it is my hope, Americans will handle in a decent, orderly, and measured manner. More later on that.
My closest CSA veteran ancestor, Robert, died about 110 years ago, four decades before I was born. Had I the family history interests I acquired later, I could have asked my grandmother, his daughter-in-law, about him. I suspect her answer would have been, “He never really said anything about the war.” Generally, they didn’t talk about it. Occasional unit reunions would be held. Small pensions for indigent veterans and widows were made available and they applied for those. Other than that, they scratched out a living.
Unrelated to anything current, I am ordering a grave marker for Robert. No one knew when he died or exactly where he is buried until a death notice was discovered recently. The marker will include “CSA 1862-1865” along with his unit. No room to say that he didn’t own slaves although his family did. No space to say that he spent two years in the malarial swamps of the Apalachicola River in Florida, a short time as a guard at the hellish Andersonville prison before being chased out of Georgia, through South Carolina to the final surrender in North Carolina after which I suppose he walked home and cobbled together another 44 years of a meager life.
There are groups that would come, dress up like Rebels of old, and do a CSA military ceremony when I place the marker. No thanks. It’s done. He’s long dead. I know enough to pass along the family history without them. If I can prevent it I’d respect his memory, including the war service, by preventing anyone from using him as a proxy for their current interests.
In Christ there is redemption. To Him and only Him be glory forever.
I have ancestors who fought for the Confederacy in the following units ; the 10th the 27th, the 49th, and 57th Georgia infantry units. I don’t celebrate the cause for which they fought. I do celebrate their bravery.
Nothing wrong with that. What counties?
Henry , Clayton and Wilkerson counties. I have been to most of the battlefields and many of their gravesites. My great grandfather had a cross burned in his yard when he stood up against injustice . however he was voted out as Pastor of his Church in the late 1940″s for his stand.
“That some racists and supremacists have taken some of the people and symbols of the Confederacy for their own depraved use is regrettable and I reject them.”
Agree. 100%.
*
Here’s someone who grew up as a slave that had no problem with Confederate monuments…
Speech of John F. Harris, Mississippi House of Representatives, February 11, 1890:
“Mr. Speaker, I have risen here in my place to offer a few words on the bill. I have come from a sick bed, and was forced to struggle up here leaning on the arm of a friend. I stand here in considerable pain. Perhaps it was not prudent for me to come. But, sir, I could not rest quietly in my room, sick though I am, and allow this discussion to pass without contributing to it a few remarks of my own. I was sorry to hear the speech of the young gentleman from Marshall county. I am sorry that any son of a soldier should go on record as opposed to the erection of a monument in honor of the brave dead. And, sir, I am convinced that had he seen what I saw at Seven Pines and in the seven day’s fighting round Richmond, the battlefields covered with the mangled forms of those who fought for their country and their country’s honor, he would not have made that speech. When the news came that the South was to be invaded, those men went forth to fight for what they believed, and they made no requests for monuments to commemorate their brave deeds and holy sacrifices. But they died, and their virtues should be remembered. Sir, I went with them. I, too, wore the gray, the same color that my master wore. We staid four long years, and if that war had gone on till now I would have been there yet. I know what it all meant, and understand the meaning of my words, when I say that I would have been with my countrymen still had the war continued until this good day. I want to honor those brave men who died for their convictions. When my mother died I was a boy. Who, sir, then acted the part of a mother to the orphaned slave boy but my ‘old missis?’ Were she living now, or could she speak to me from those high realms where are gathered the sainted dead, she would tell me to vote for this bill. And, sir, I shall vote for it. I want it known to all the world that my vote is given in favor of the bill to erect a monument in honor of the brave Confederate dead.”
Clarion Ledger (Jackson, MS), February 27, 1890
“Some use language in these discussions that make dialogue difficult.” William, I think I am right to understand you mean some on both sides. Nevertheless, in relation to much of your post, I will speak about one side. To me it feels like, whether they mean to or not, that some want to twist our Southern arms behind our backs until we cry “terrorist,” “rapist” and “child molester” to describe our ancestors. Two things, I think this generally won’t happen and that is mostly unproductive. Probably most Southerners my age and older have ingrained within them the ideas of “respect your elders” and “don’t speak ill of the dead.” We can and are now and will in the future seek racial reconciliation generally and Christian fellowship specifically with all Christians of all races (and church fellowship where similar faith and practice and allows it), but you probably will not get most of us to publicly speak ill of our ancestors. Why not just accept the fact that we have come to the same conclusion as you while walking on a different path to get there?
“The public monuments present a complicated challenge which, it is my hope, Americans will handle in a decent, orderly, and measured manner.” In my little neck of the woods, I can’t tell that most people (black and white) who get up in the morning, put their pants on one leg at a time, and head out to work, really care about these monuments one way or the other. For my part I am happy to let the people of Baltimore and Charlottesville and New Orleans and everywhere else make their own decisions that make them happy.
Thank you! You summed up the emotions I could not seem to corral during these strange and difficult days.
I prayed for you this morning, though I don’t know you. A voice of reason in a climate of hysteria is often met with judgement, criticism and worse. I prayed the Father would thicken your skin and encourage your heart.
You helped one old southern boy who loves my past and all people of all colors to grasp the simplicity of the truth about me and my heritage (I know you don’t care for that word).
Bless you, my friend.
William, I appreciate your post here. It was enjoyable to read and honest. I don’t have any problem and don’t think people should have any problem with personal or family remembrances, or personal grave markers like the one you describe. And your condemnation of groups who use those things for evil is also appreciated. I often say I want us to listen well to minority voices. We should also have no problem listening to the presentation William has given here.
I agree with you that the public monuments are a different question and am with you as well on leaving that to another post.
William, a bit more on the monuments. Last night I posted some quotes on evil, racism, light and darkness, by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Eric Metaxas, Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Bible. Here are a couple of quotes from a leading Civil War general of the Union Army.
“The more [Indians] we can kill this year the fewer we will need to kill the next, because the more I see of the Indians the more convinced I become that they must either all be killed or be maintained as a species of pauper.” — Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children.” — Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman
No doubt this will also be decried as “whataboutism,” but this suggests to me that there is selective outrage about who was evil and which monuments must come down. (And I am not suggesting monuments to Sherman must come down.)
“No doubt this will also be decried as “whataboutism,” but this suggests to me that there is selective outrage about who was evil and which monuments must come down. (And I am not suggesting monuments to Sherman must come down.)”
What are you talking about? Back all this up. That’s a strong accusation that is unfounded. Who exactly would give Sherman a pass for this? And, who is engaging in outrage about monuments here? Go ahead and break it all down so we know.
And, Alan, I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I think it can be well documented in several threads here on SBCVoices that when anyone says something other than about the white supremacists at Charlottesville that it has been decried as “whataboutism.”
I don’t think anyone here would, and didn’t charge anyone here with agreeing with Sherman on the annihilation of the Plains Indians. But the general point is valid. I have not seen any outrage calling for taking down General Sherman monuments. If it exists you or others are free to show it.
I’ve never once in my life called for the taking down of any monuments. I’m not sure who IS calling for the taking down of monuments here. If there is, it isn’t a consensus opinion. I’m not saying the monuments should stay or go. That’s a local community decision. Why should I insert myself into what Charlottesville or any other town choose to do?
Alan, my comment on “whataboutism” was related to posts on SBC Voices, but I am making a general observation about the protest against monuments. Not here (as far as I know), but I’m sure you will agree that the calling for taking down monuments is for the most part a selective and specific outrage against confederate monuments. Comments against Lenin and Sherman monuments may be randomly made, but they are usually talking points, not calls that they be removed. I am in basic agreement with you. I think it is the decision of the communities where the monuments exist and also that they can handle it better as a local decision without a bunch of protesters from hither, thither and yon interfering.
Alan,
I think Robert’s reference was to Dave’s post “Frustration, Irritation, and the Race Issue: Confessions from the SBC Voices “Brain Trust””on 8/16/17. See in #3 under The Cast of Characters section and in #’s 3 & 4 under the Going Forward section.
Thank you! My Southern heritage is similar to yours. Both sides of the family are from Alabama and Mississippi. My ancestors owned slaves. They fought and died for the Confederacy. I have met descendants of the slaves owned by my Mississippi relatives. They have the same last name as my grandmother. I wouldn’t be surprised that some of them are blood relatives. They are welcome at family reunions and we are welcome at their family reunions. I am appalled by some of my ancestor’s history. My paternal grandfather was a high ranking member of the KKK until he became a Christian when I was five years of age. He repented and even apologized to some of those he offended. He burned the robes, books, and posters that represented part of his old life. Christ redeems and changes hearts. I have visited battlefields where my ancestors fought and died. I didn’t view the Confederate monuments as honoring those who owned slaves. I saw the monuments as a reminder that good men can do evil. When we recognize that we can’t change history but can learn from it in order to not commit the same sin, we will be able to move past the scars of the past. Again William, thank you for your in sightful post.
John,
I’d like to springboard off your comment because I think what I’d like to contribute should try to get the focus of these discussion in a direction that is conforms with God’s work to being unity out of so much diversity.
You’re heritage is your heritage. There is not much anyone can do to change that. Like the heritage of anyone, Jew, Greek, Arabic, Oriental, African, etc.
God can and does use whatever heritage our background is from and redirect that heritage toward His goal, like He did with your grandfather.
The Christian, God oriented goal, will in the end engulf all and every heritage into the heritage of His Bride, the Church.
The term “heritage” is a trigger word these days. It’s the reality on the ground, though regrettable in a way. I don’t use it and can usually discern motivations after reading how others use it. No one appointed me the vocabulary police here or elsewhere it’s just that it is wise to recognize terms that others frontload with content beyond what we might mean.
William, thanks for your article. I have a similar background and share your perspective on the confederacy and race relations. In rural Georgia, we have had some turbulence over a confederate memorial on city property. Some leaders have discussed moving the memorial to private property so that no government funds are associated or allocated to the monuments. The idea is to encourage citizens who like and want the memorial to pay for it and maintain it. I look forward to more possible solutions to maintain civility and peace for our nation and communities.
According to family lore, I had a great-great grandfather, John David Patrick, who served as a Confederate soldier and whose leg was shot off at Fort Sumter. No longer able to farm, the primary means of livelihood for nearly 90% of the population, he felt called to preach and became a Methodist Minister. Having never even met him, I am not at all to blame for his doctrinally questionable Methodist principles—or any other aspect of his life, for that matter.
His world and mine bear almost no resemblance to each other. I have never milked a cow or plowed a field. He would find it hard to wrap his mind around the fact that a talented African American athlete in 2017 will sign a contract and earn more money in one day than every person in our family tree, combined, earned in their entire lifetimes.
He would not understand my world. I do not understand his. When we view 19th Century history through the lens of 21st Century culture, we create a very distorted picture. For the sake of history, art, literature, archaeology, anthropology, psychology, religion, and other disciplines, I hope we will not destroy the records of the past in a passionate moment of emotional frenzy.
I suppose I can live with a “remove but preserve” philosophy, although most other educational disciplines struggle to get the information out of the museums and into the public square. This approach seems to work in the other direction, making it more difficult for people to learn from the mistakes of the past, or to understand a culture gone with the wind.
There is a great book title “the redemption of the devil “about the conversion of Nathan Bedford Forrest. Great read
The Confederate Statues and Memorials should stay and be protected. They are part of our history and heritage. They teach multiple lessons. We should not cleanse and whitewash our own history.
Those who are offended by Confederate Memorials – maybe that is part of the price you need pay for multi-culturalism. Allowing these Statues helped in bringing a divided country together again. Tolerance should work both ways. Confederate Statues should even be allowed to be established today.
Get rid of other people’s Statues and Memorials, and you should not be surprised when one day others get rid of your Statues and Memorials. How about being respectful and tolerant to both sides?
On the other hand, Union Statues (Civil War era), Black Leaders Statues (liberal and conservative Black Leaders), other Ethnic Statues and Memorials should also be freely allowed (and are). After all, we are a diverse, free society.
A few ideas for statues of Black leaders:
Frederick Douglass
Booker T. Washington
Harriet Tubman
Ida B. Wells
George Washington Carver
John Jasper
Martin Luther King
S. M. Lockridge
Clarence Thomas
Thomas Sowell
Walter Williams
Condoleezza Rice
By the way, it could be a great history lesson to have a public park with Confederate Statues along with statues of Frederick Douglass, etc.
David R. Brumbelow
David B,
To put Frederick Douglas & MLK in the same park with the racists, murderous, White Supremacist that u suggests would be an insult to those two great men, history, and the Black race. More of Trump’s moral equivalency non-sense. Please stop it!!!
The best of men are men at best.
As one person responded what about Wm T Sherman and the overwhelming view of “white Americans” in the late 19th century in respect to Native Americans?
The times in which all of us live since the fall is fraught with sin and evil of all sorts May God grant forgiveness and peace
Just a question then, where do we stop with the statues of historical figures being torn down? Washington, Jefferson, and other Founding Fathers of the USA governed under a slave/master economy. Many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. So, should we bring down the statues of them? Do we need to completely purge our nation of all the statues and monuments where someone believed something wrong, or did something bad?
Also, I’m not sure why the article on Gen. Forrest was deleted? It’s a great, historically accurate look at Gen. Forrest. He was not the founder of the KKK, BTW. He was even given awards by a Black, civil right group in Memphis.
But anyway, racism is evil. Racism is sinful. Hatred and bigotry are not only terrible, but they’re also ignorant.
“where do we stop with the statues of historical figures being torn down?”
David W,
One needs to begin by asking: when were they erected?; why were they erected?; & who was responsible for erecting them?
Most of the statues were erected under Jim Crow laws, by persons who had the racial ideaology of the alt-right. They were erected before the ’65-’65 voting rights laws were approved. They were erected because of a nostalgia related to the ‘old South. Black & Hispanic folks had little to no political power or influence or in many cases, voting privileges, when these statues were erected. Today, things are different & that’s why the people who had zero decision making influence then on these matters, are now casting their votes; and they are voting, no.
Dwight M- “why were they erected?”
Simple. In memory of the fathers, sons and brothers who died in a war.
Just about every nation or place in the world does this – establish memorials to those who died in a war.
Dwight M- “when were they erected?”
When Southerners had rebuilt their lives and fortunes and could >afford< to build them.
William,
Informative post.
Long, though.
😉
1,043 words. I try to stay under the magic 1,000…slight error.
Tom H,
“every nation in the world does this”
When the ‘ole South erected these statues, they were not a nation. Therefore, that nullifies the reason u stated for erecting the statues. They erected the statues to celebrate an era when White Supremacy ruled.
These statues were erected when Black people were not freely allowed to vote. They were disenfranchised in many different ways by White Supremacist. That’s when & why these statues were built.
Dwight-
“Tom H,
‘every nation in the world does this’
When the ‘ole South erected these statues, they were not a nation. Therefore, that nullifies the reason u stated for erecting the statues…”
You misquoted me. I said-
“Just about every nation >or place< in the world does this"
Dwight- “That’s when & why these statues were built.”
Sorry, Dwight, you bought the Big Lie of 2017.
I’ve lived in the South all my life. I’ve never heard anyone say that these monuments were for “white supremacy” or to “show blacks their place,” etc. Never heard anything like that…until now.
“Demagoguery is an appeal to people that plays on their emotions and prejudices rather than on their rational side.”
The monuments are simply memorials to people who died in a war.
Most were built after the generation that actually fought the war had died. They were put up after people like Pitchfork Ben Tillman in SC took political control by violence and intimidation. Then they enacted what we know as Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black citizens and keep them subjugated.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monuments-backlash-chart-trnd/index.html
Louis- “Most were built after the generation that actually fought the war had died.”
Most of the monuments were built between 1900 and 1915. Many Confederate veterans were still living at the time. There was a census of veterans in 1890 and over 400,000 were counted.
“They were put up after people like Pitchfork Ben Tillman in SC took political control by violence and intimidation. Then they enacted what we know as Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise black citizens and keep them subjugated.”
Jim Crow started after Reconstruction (1877).
A monument should be erected for the shortest reply ever from Brother Cross. ?
Did not end up following Alan’s reply.
Tom H,
If u want to live in fantasy land and believe those monuments and men do not represent an era & philosophy of White Supremacy….be my guest. To any clear thinking objective person, there’s. O other conclusion to reach. You cannot separate the monuments from the historical context and ideologies they represent. That’s what u are attempting to do. The Confederracy stood for White Supremacy. Therefore the monuments represented White Supremacy. It is not “the lie of 2017.” It’s the truth, always has been, always will be. As far as the misquote, it was not. It was a direct quote. “Place” as u used the term, would inevitably include place in time and history. And the “place” in time & history the monuments were erected, was an era of official White Supremacy in the U S, particularly in the South, where most of the monuments were built. Did u read the CNN link?
Dwight- “The Confederracy stood for White Supremacy.”
The country they were fighting against also stood for white supremacy. Do you want me to quote Lincoln? The USA had white supremacy from 1776 to the 1960s…and some may say beyond that.
I believe that most of the statues put up around 1915 or so were placed as the soldiers began to die. The communities chose to remember their bravery as soldiers.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/us/confederate-monuments-backlash-chart-trnd/index.html
Louis C,
Thanks for this link to the CNN article on the motivation and timing for the erecting of the statures.
If David W & Tom H read the CNN link, that should end the discussion as to why the statures should not exist outside on publicly owned properties, but rather, should be in a historical museum somewhere.
Your link was a slam dunk in proving my point to David W & Tom H. Thanks again.
I think the 50 year and 100 year anniversaries of the war and also just as easily account for these spikes in monuments.
Tom H,
I’ll give u the last word. You seem to acknowledge that the Confederacy and the country they were fighting against, both stood for White Supremacy: Agreed. So then, how could the Confederate Monuments not represent White Supremacy & why are u in favor of maintaining White Supremacy reminders/structures in public places, to be constantly viewed by a group of people who were victims themselves and descendants of the victims of White Supremacy?
Dwight- “I’ll give u the last word. You seem to acknowledge that the Confederacy and the country they were fighting against, both stood for White Supremacy: Agreed. So then, how could the Confederate Monuments not represent White Supremacy & why are u in favor of maintaining White Supremacy reminders/structures in public places, to be constantly viewed by a group of people who were victims themselves and descendants of the victims of White Supremacy?”
The entire country (north, south, east, west) was a white supremacist society, but monuments were not established for that purpose.
The CNN chart was compiled by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), i.e., a suspect source which most reputable outlets would avoid citing. But assuming they were objective and accurately handling their data on ‘when,’ that doesn’t shed much light on ‘why.’ That would take a lot of research.
Marist poll out yesterday-
Most want the monuments to remain – 62%-27%.
African-Americans want them to remain too- 44%-40%.
That sure doesn’t match the rhetoric we’ve been hearing.
It seems the “controversy” is being generated by extremist groups, certain politicians and certain elements in the media and most Americans don’t care about moving the monuments.
http://www.npr.org/2017/08/16/543957964/poll-majority-believe-trump-s-response-to-charlottesville-hasn-t-been-strong-eno
Tom H,
Based on the African American statistics cited from the Marist poll, the caption above those statistics should have been:
MOST AFRICAN AMERICANS WANT CONFEDERATE STATUES REMOVED.
MOST AFRICAN AMERICANS WANT CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS REMOVED
Dr. McKissic: How does the black community view the monuments?
Dwight- “MOST AFRICAN AMERICANS WANT CONFEDERATE MONUMENTS REMOVED”
Only if 40% counts as “most.”
Let’s vote on it in our fought for God given republic.
In case Tom’s percents listed might be unclear, here is a little more detail in how it breaks down in the Marist poll:
African-Americans who said they think Confederate statues should remain: 44%
African-Americans who said they think Confederate statues should be removed: 40%
African-Americans who said they were unsure: 16%
This can be found on page 11 of the poll as posted at NPR.
https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=3933461-NPR-PBS-NewsHour-Marist-Poll-Aug-17-2017
However, just for sake of argument as Dr. McKissic’s track record of being correct has been shown to be 100%, if you add those who are unsure, and they may be unsure because of not wanting to have people forget or out of tired of the fighting or whatever reason, that is actually 60%.
I admittedly do now know how I feel about the statues being removed. We also seem to act as if whites are the only ones who vote, African Americans vote and I think that Bill has made a good point that I hadn’t thought about of taxes being paid for the upkeep.
It also depends on how many people participated in the poll. As I said as a reminder, Dwight McKissic’s track record on issues brought to the forefront have been pretty prophetic. He’s 100% on issues he has brought to us.
That should be I admittedly do not know how I feel……
A voice of reason.
Andrew Young- “it’s too costly to refight the Civil War.”
“We have paid too great a price in trying to bring people together,”
http://news.wabe.org/post/andrew-young-focuses-substance-not-confederate-symbols
Greg Roberts,
What do you mean voting on the issue? That’s ridiculous since African Americans make up 12% of the population. We have to do what is right morally, no more and no less.
Looking at the chart in the web article Louise posted, there are spikes in time where monuments are effected and schools named. And it most certainly looks like the activity was in response to various events related to it: as if the south was saying we will never forget our cause.
As a dispassionate white northerner I have no personal stake in statues other than to see peace and equity in the land.
As a Christian I think it is better to be offended than to offend. Thus it would be better to take them down (off the public square to a museum) than to offend my brethren by keeping them up AND it works be better to leave them up than to offend my brethren who have stock in them.
How to choose between the two?
If I had a vote I would say it would be better to take them down. But I don’t have a vote.
And to follow up on the above comment:
The Christians who happen to be black (and all of us) need to realize that there is not a single thing the Christians who happen to be white (or anyone else) can do to erase or make up or ease the pain and suffering of the past. Nada. Nothing. Zip. Zilch.
If you are in turmoil now for the atrocities committed in the past, only fleeing to Jesus will give you peace. That’s it. Only Jesus.
And why are we hanging on to statues of those who fought secular battles? Why as Christians do we lay so much importance on the deeds of men?
Especially when they fought for what you now call despicable: racism?
My opinion is that we as s people of God needed to grow up on each side and lay aside our differences at what ever personal sacrifice that entails or we too will also suffer in the coming judgment on this nation.
Ben Shapiro made a good point last night that I hadn’t thought of. In places where these confederate symbols may be found, black taxpayers are actually paying taxes for the upkeep on monuments and such of people who fought for the right to keep their ancestors enslaved.
This is a matter of local control. Any attempt on a ban of confederate “stuff” will never pass constitutional muster. I’ve forgotten why we even started discussing this. Some places will take them down, some will keep them up. Everyone is just going to have to deal with it.
Yes Bill: It seems it is going to be by vote on a county by county or state by state basis isn’t it?
Yes, I don’t see how it could be any other way. I don’t think we’d want it to be any other way.
Here is a though provoking article posted by one of my Facebook friends, although not written by her.
“This same revisionist and racist mindset is what fueled the erecting of Confederate memorials throughout the South. The vast majority of them were built between 1895 and World War I, a time of violent persecution of black people as well as the systemic and government-sanctioned oppression of Jim Crow laws. Some statues were put up during the civil rights movement. Their message was clear: the South belongs to whites.
In light of today’s controversy over these Confederate memorials, I keep hearing people say that their removal is an attempt to erase history. This misses the point entirely. The memorials themselves were an attempt to erase history. If these monuments were about history, we would see statues of slaves being whipped by their owners, black families being torn apart as they were sold to different places, and plantation owners with their black slave mistresses and children. If this was about history and not white supremacy, we’d see a statue of an innocent black man hanging from a tree and a group of happy white people posing for a picture with his lifeless body. This isn’t about history. This is about whitewashing history.”
This same revisionist and racist mindset is what fueled the erecting of Confederate memorials throughout the South. The vast majority of them were built between 1895 and World War I, a time of violent persecution of black people as well as the systemic and government-sanctioned oppression of Jim Crow laws. Some statues were put up during the civil rights movement. Their message was clear: the South belongs to whites.
In light of today’s controversy over these Confederate memorials, I keep hearing people say that their removal is an attempt to erase history. This misses the point entirely. The memorials themselves were an attempt to erase history. If these monuments were about history, we would see statues of slaves being whipped by their owners, black families being torn apart as they were sold to different places, and plantation owners with their black slave mistresses and children. If this was about history and not white supremacy, we’d see a statue of an innocent black man hanging from a tree and a group of happy white people posing for a picture with his lifeless body. This isn’t about history. This is about whitewashing history.
Here’s a thought provoking piece from one of my FB friends:
All of this folderol is really about political correctness and, once again, it’s where exactly do we draw the line. Washington owned slaves, should we take his picture off of money and rename Washington, D.C. or Washington state? Jefferson owned slaves so should we remove his memory from everything and throw away the Declaration of Independence? In fact, 18 presidents owned slaves so should we delete them all off of the list of presidents because of past sins or should we simply allow the past to be the past? What about Grant, he owned at least one slave and went on to be in charge of the Union army and, later, a President as well?
I’m not defending slavery nor am I someone that condones racism of any nature. What I am saying is that political correctness is going to totally and completely divide and destroy our nation. This just happens to be the latest craze to hit the top of the charts to go along with all the rest of the insanity of the last 10 years or so. I always enjoyed history as a subject in school and, right, wrong or indifferent, our history is what it is, we can’t change it. Removing memorial statues and anything associated with The Confederacy doesn’t change the past and, it truth, leaving those things in place doesn’t promote racism nor fan the flames of our current divide. They simply represent history, a history that we can’t change irrespective of what we choose to remove, destroy, deface or hide in some museum or cellar.
The sad part? The things that matter, the things the media decides to cover ad nauseam, the things that occupy every social media site are all decided by a few Hollywood liberals and the FAR left. And, even at that, the bulk of the ones spewing all the hatred and getting all the headlines are those that are no longer recognized for anything other than the venom that flows from their mouth….Judd, O’Donnell, Goldberg, De Niro, Streep. The list is longer but point made; who exactly died and left that bunch to be Rhodes’ Scholars regarding all things important to take a stand on?
If we want to remove things from public view that represents all things immoral, then shouldn’t we remove any likeness of Kennedy? All of his family’s money got it’s beginnings from unscrupulous activities on Wall-street following the stock market crash and from bootlegging liquor. He was a known womanizer and adulterer. And yet, John Kennedy remains a hero near Saint status in the eyes of the left. In fact, all of the things they want to champion have nothing to do with right or wrong, moral or immoral. It simply boils down to whatever they decide is important becomes important and the politically correct are on a long roll!!!
Whatever happens to the statues of Lee and Stonewall Jackson or the face of Stone Mountain, our past is our past, why not let it be that and simply learn and move forward? If we expended all of this energy, all of these headlines, all of this activism on ending inner city crime and violence or eliminating social disease and unwanted pregnancy, wouldn’t it serve a better purpose? God help us. That’s not just something to say, it’s a cry to the only One that can get our country righted!!!”
Les, your friend must have missed the photos of white supremacists carrying torches if he thinks this is simply about political correctness. I hope you were sharing that to show how deceived some people really are not because you agree with what he said.
Adam, I’m pretty sure he’s seen the same pictures you and I have seen. He’s not uninformed and he’s s pretty smart guy. He’s a physician.
I largely agree with his thoughts. And I agree with Mikes most recent comments above.
Les: Adam didn’t say the word uninformed. He specifically said “deceived.”
Thank you Debbie. By uninformed, I meant of course that he has seen the pics that Adam was thinking he must have missed. Hence, he is informed and has seen the pics.
But you are correct Adam did infer that my friend on FB is deceived, or must be since he wrote what he wrote. I also don’t think my friend is deceived and it doesn’t necessarily follow that if he HAS seen said photos, and then went ahead and wrote what he wrote, that my friend MUST be deceived. Perhaps it is others who are deceived. IDK and I don’t purport to know if you and Adam and others are deceived. Maybe, just maybe, rational Jesus loving people can come to different conclusions on these matters.
The statues don’t keep history alive. We have BOOKS for that. Removing them won’t change anything except as a black person walks to school, they won’t be reminded that there are some who wish they were still slaves.
The link: https://medium.com/@rhettmc/thoughts-on-confederate-statues-from-a-southern-white-male-b81a2693113d
All of my comment should have began and ended with quotation marks as they are not my words but the authors.
Les: I always have a problem when an article or piece includes the words for the African Americans to “move on.” I don’t believe those words at all and I really don’t believe white people can say to move on. I even have a hard time if a African American would say it. That is just beyond my comprehension why that is being said at all.
As a northerner, I don’t have strong opinions about whether the statues should stay or go, which is good because it doesn’t matter what I think.
They do represent history, right enough. But it is naive to think everyone (or even most) is looking at those statues as a sober reminder of a shameful period in our history. Far too many are no doubt looking at them in regret that we’ve moved beyond the “good old days”.
Let’s face it, these men (the statues thereof) are not viewed as criminals or traitors by white people. They are respected and admired. So yes, they are history, but not in the same sense that the holocaust museum is history.
A true historical display of the days of slavery would not only have statues of confederate officers and soldiers, but of black people in the fields, in chains, and being beaten and lynched and raped.
Confederate statues are a reminder of history, but not a full reminder.
Bill Mac,
They are not viewed as criminals or traitors by the US government either. Their widows were eligible for public pensions just like the widows of the union forces were.
John,
Nor by me, although no doubt some were. My point is that, in my opinion, the people fighting for keeping the confederate symbols because they are “history”, are being a little misleading, as if these symbols actually bother them but they want to keep them for their educational value. I find that reasoning a bit of a stretch.
But having said that, this issue is way down the line in importance for me and being a northerner, my opinion probably doesn’t count for much anyway.
Bill Mac
I think that your opinion counts as much as anyone’s. I always appreciate the perspective you bring to the conversation.
Bill Mac, I don’t think they were traitors/criminals and I don’t think most people see them that way. If THEY were, then so were our founding fathers of the US traitors/criminals against their government at that time.
In any case, the hoo hah over this is over blown on both sides most likely. The ones clamoring for the removal of all statues and monuments do not have an end game. There isn’t one. And if they were consistent, they would need to demand the removal of the Washington monument, the Lincoln memorial, etc. There was no one back untainted by connections to the slave trade. No one. A granite monument removal is not going to bring genuine healing. Only Jesus can heal the hurt and bitterness that modern African Americans feel about what happened to their ancestors. And as for those of us who want to see the monuments remain, well we need not put too much stick in their staying or going. They are just things. I do think they serve a historical purpose, but if they go, they go.
To me the bigger issue is this continual demand by some to do what they demand or else. This kind of mob mentality is not good for our country. If a group can get enough people together and disrupt our lives and cause mayhem to get their way, well as I said, not good. I think we at large need to resist caving to the demands. Or else, the demands will never stop. It will never be enough.
John: Thanks
Les: I mainly agree. Some of these will come down and some will stay.
Look, I think a lot of Southerners are seeing this as South bashing and even if some of it is justified, it’s understandable that they resent it.
Hey, here’s a question that I just thought of. When I think of “Southerners”, I think of white people. Do black people living in the South consider themselves Southerners? I really don’t know the answer.
Bill Mac, “Do black people living in the South consider themselves Southerners? I really don’t know the answer.”
Absolutely, largely. I have several friends in my church who are African American (two of the men are elders) and both families proudly call themselves southerners. Both of those families are from Mississippi originally. One family are big Ole Miss fans. Several other AA families in our church are originally from the St. Louis area anyway so they don’t count as southerners. 🙂 I’m from Alabama originally from Alabama and my wife and I broke the color barrier in her small town (home of George Wallace) Baptist church back in 1979 at our wedding by inviting one of my close family friends (AA) to our wedding. He attended, sitting with my family w/o incident or grumbling.
I also have 3 white/AA neices and nephews in my family back in Alabama and they proudly think of themselves as southerners. One is a LEO in Birmingham and abhors all this identity politics, etc and is not bothered at all by the monuments all around his home state.
I find that most “seasoned” AA citizens in Alabama that I’m around several times a year don’t identify with the racial protests and demands and such. They live and work and play with white folks and seem to be doing just fine. There are a number of younger AA folks who are on the Al Sharpton kind of bandwagon though. Oh and many if not most millennials live and work and play and marry across racial lines and don’t get what all the fuss is about, even in the south. Those are just my observations.
Les,
Those are the same impressions I get from AA here in Ohio.
But there ones I know are middle class like me. Maybe those that are poor think differently, I don’t know.
Here in Columbus Ohio breaking news:
Protestors want to remove the statue of Christopher Columbus.
Link:
http://www.10tv.com/article/downtown-protest-calls-removal-christopher-columbus-statue
The organization is called: Showing Up for Racial Justice or SURI
Mike like some have wonderd, where will it end? It’s like paying a ransom or bribe. The kidnapper or briber ten has their prey on the hook.
“then” not “ten.”
Racial Injustice or SURI
INteresting web site on the KKK
http://www.history.com/topics/ku-klux-klan
One paragraph:
“In 1915, white Protestant nativists organized a revival of the Ku Klux Klan near Atlanta, Georgia, inspired by their romantic view of the Old South as well as Thomas Dixon’s 1905 book “The Clansman” and D.W. Griffith’s 1915 film “Birth of a Nation.” This second generation of the Klan was not only anti-black but also took a stand against Roman Catholics, Jews, foreigners and organized labor. It was fueled by growing hostility to the surge in immigration that America experienced in the early 20th century along with fears of communist revolution akin to the Bolshevik triumph in Russia in 1917. The organization took as its symbol a burning cross and held rallies, parades and marches around the country. At its peak in the 1920s, Klan membership exceeded 4 million people nationwide.”
It was in that time that a surge of monuments were put up as well as schools and parks were named after confederate personalities.
Just like in the Civil War, the government for these states was controlled by the Democratic Party.
William wrote, “Most southerners my generation go back four or five generations to get to their ancestors who served in the Civil War.”
Not for purpose of debate, but maybe historical interest. Today I noticed this U.S. News and World Report article from last August (2016), the “U.S. Still Paying a Civil War Pension.”
https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-08-08/civil-war-vets-pension-still-remains-on-governments-payroll-151-years-after-last-shot-fired
Irene Triplett (still alive, at least in May 2017) is the daughter of Mose Triplett, who first fought for the Confederacy, then deserted and joined the Union army. (Seems quite appropriate for the last Civil War pensioner.) The article also tells us: “The last Confederate widow, Maudie Hopkins died on Aug. 1, 2008, at age 93. The last Union widow, Gertrude Janeway, died Jan. 17, 2003, also at age 93. The last Civil War veterans themselves, both Union and Confederate, died in the 1950s. Both men were more than 100 years old.”
I found this interesting and that some of you might as well.
Seems strange but the math works. I had two great aunts who married CSA vets, May-December marriages. They lived well into my own lifetime but were extremely tight lipped about the War. One gave instructions for her husband’s war letters (to a first wife) to be destroyed. Regrettably, they were.
Part of why this stuff is ever present around here.
One of my pastors when I was around 18 or 19 yo was a son of a Civil War veteran (a product of a “May-December” marriage). He was about the same age as my Dad, who was a great-grandson of a Civil War veteran. So this was real close for some folks and far off for others.
Also interesting from that article: “The Spanish-American War was fought in 1898, yet there are 46 surviving children, and 42 surviving spouses, collecting benefits from the VA.”
An interesting note I’m just reading about the last few days. Evidently Robert E. Lee, by his writings, was not in favor of confederate monuments, feeling that their presence did not allow the country to move forward.
That’s correct Bill Mac. He was not in favor of slavery either. Interesting.
Not in favor but a slaveowner, that is rich.
Kind of like saying Hugh Hefner was not in favor of pornography.
Thank Louis Cook. #notunderstanding
Les: It doesn’t matter if he was for or against slavery. He fought for the side that was fighting for slavery.
Debbie, are you confident that if YOU had been born in the south back then that YOU would have been on the right side of things?
Les: No. And I don’t care how that sounds. I was around bigotry and still am. I always knew without anyone teaching me that it was wrong to treat other people as less than human. I have always hated slavery and I always hated watching the evening news in the 60’s and 70’s when I was a kid and young person, and the treatment African Americans were receiving.
I think the South knew better too. To own another human being is wrong. That is just right thinking. I think they ignored it. Evidently Lee did too. He not only fought for the South, but led it.
Debbie, my pastor recently wrote for a lot of our present generation:
___________
“Confederate statues are falling. Some are delighted. Others are dismayed.
I am far less concerned with the statues than I am intrigued by how those statues have revealed a strain of moral arrogance within the American populace. To put it bluntly, we think we’re better than past generations.
Our sense of moral superiority is currently directed against racism, and specifically at the evils of the Confederacy. This present generation views the Civil War generation—or at least the Southern part of it—as a monolithic collection of knuckle-dragging haters. Any suggestion whatsoever that men who served the Confederacy possessed admirable attributes is shouted down in a hail of angry salvos—the verbal equivalent of Molotov cocktails. The morally superior demand a blanket condemnation of all Confederates, for our moral indignation suffers no nuance.
Don’t get me wrong. I have no desire to see the South rise again, and I am convinced that racism is a wanton repudiation of the Bible. Nor do I believe that monuments of Confederate leaders must remain in order for our nation to remember its history. Were every statue removed, the national wounds of Antietam, Shiloh, and Gettysburg would remain. No exercise in monument removal can scour the Civil War from our collective conscience.
Nevertheless, current rhetoric and actions in reference to Confederate monuments spring from this assumption: I would not have been on their side had I been alive then, and therefore I am morally superior to them. Surely I would not have been a slaveholder; I would not have supported slavery; I would not have been a Confederate.
Such views are self-serving and presumptuous.
Technology advances from generation to generation; clothing styles change; political winds blow. Human nature remains unaltered. Each person within every generation is conceived and born in sin. For each of us the assessment of Jeremiah 17:9 rings true. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick.” Even as the Apostle Paul acknowledges in Titus 3:3, “We ourselves were once foolish, disobedient, led astray, slaves to various passions and pleasures, passing our days in malice and envy, hated by others and hating one another.” Paul did not escape that indictment. Neither did his audience. Nor do we. Moreover, Paul did not say that later generations outgrew his assessment. Society does not evolve to a higher morality, and this present generation possesses no moral advantages over the generation that we are currently disparaging. Instead, Paul continues in Titus 3:4-5, writing, “When the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy.” We are not morally superior to Confederate soldiers; we are merely immoral in different ways. We all stand in need of a Savior.
An old phrase thus comes to mind: But for the grace of God there go I. If you are not a racist, if you rightly condemn the evils of slavery, and if you could not dream of having supported the Confederacy, then thank God. It is due only to the grace of God that you were born in a different time and place, and were subject to better influences. You possess no moral superiority, and neither do I. We possess only the grace of God that has prevented us from becoming the very racists that we now abjure.
No racist will be cured of his racism by removing a statue. None will suddenly see the light because he has been called a hater. The grace of God in Christ Jesus alone will deliver us from being “hated by others and hating one another.”
All the moral superiority is His.”
__________
I think my pastor has hit it on the proverbial head. Way too many people are far too confident that they would dared never to have done what men and women of our past have done. I call bull on it too.
That answer should be yes.
Just as a historical thought. Lee freed he slaves. Grant did not.
It would be amazing to have opportunity to talk to those men of the past who led those armies on both sides of that terrible war. American gave up 58, 000 of her sons in three days during the Battle of Gettysburg. Thar is the same number we lost during the entire war in Southeast Asia.
It would have been glorious had we been better at negotiating peace and freedom for all Americans than we were (and maybe are, I pray not) at killing and enslaving each other.
Lee freed ‘his’slaves. . . .
‘That” is the number . . .
Bad hands tonight. kinda like a Running Back for Iowa or Clemson. 😉
Lee freed his slaves on December 29, 1862. Important to note that he lost control of his plantation when it was occupied on May 24, 1861. It remained in Union hands for the rest of the war. He had hired out eleven slaves to plantations further South. He was owner of Arlington and thus owner of slaves for five years prior to his freeing slaves no longer directly under his control. His father-in-law had requested that they be freed upon his death but Lee decided to wait five years to do so.
Ulysses Grant freed the only slave that he had owned in 1859. Grant’s father-in-law owneed four slaves but Grant owned only one, William Jones, and as stated above he freed him.
Louis Cook, this might help you sort the facts out properly. https://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/General-Lee-Slaves/General-Lee-Family-Slaves.html
I have them sorted perfectly. He was allowed to free them and did not do so until both the last possible moment and after having lost physical control of both his estate and his slaves.
There has been a concerted campaign to make General Lee into a “marble man” as the late historian Dr Thomas Connelly called it. The result has been the elevation and idolization of a sinful man, as we all are, into something even he would not recognize. For believers to do have done this and to continue to do it in present day is shameful.
Stop and think about Grant & Lee. Grant’s weaknesses and failures are well discussed and doumented but with Lee any attempt to shed light on the reality of his life is met with scorn. There is a desire to put him up as some idol to worship. This is not healthy, wise or warranted.
From C. Vann Woodward’s 1977 book review of “Marble Man’ by Dr Thomas Connelly:
The Lost Cause itself was at stake, its vain outpouring of blood, its loss of treasure, the impoverishment of a people, the charge of treason, the stigma of defeat. How could this experience be reconciled with the American faith in a direct link between God’s grace and success? The answer lay in the unflawed marble image. “To justify Lee,” as Connelly says, “was to justify the Southern cause.”
Review in total.
http://www.nytimes.com/1977/04/03/archives/the-case-of-robert-e-lee-the-marble-man-the-marble-man.html?mcubz=3
Ah the NYT. Nice try Louis but I don’t buy into #fakehistory or #revisionisthistory. It’s shameful that so many fall prey to that.
You are showing your ignorance if you can not recognize C Vann Woodward or Thomas Connelly, two of the best historians of the American South.
It can be very hard to wade through so much conflicting data, as to which is really factual, without doing a lot of research in primary documents. But what I believe would pan out is that Robert E. Lee did own slaves prior to the Civil War, but no longer owned any by that time. The slaves that were released in 1862 were the slaves of George Washington Custis (Lee’s father-in-law). They were released by Lee not as an owner of the slaves, but as the executor of Custis’s will, in which Custis gave freedom to his slaves, who to be emancipated by the executor of his will “in such manner as he deems expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease.” (At least this is how I’ve put together and understood the conflicting data.)
When the smokes clears from all our arguments, the big picture is that many Americans North and South at one time or another are implicated in the perpetuation of racism and slavery — including Robert E. Lee and Ulysses S. Grant.
I have also read that Lee’s troops raided parts of Pennsylvania and captured blacks, both escaped slaves and free men, and returned them to to Virginia to be enslaved. In a letter to his wife, Lee stated that he believed slaves were better off in slavery than in Africa and that their trials would ultimately benefit their race.
Much of what Lee is recorded as saying, sounds good. However his actions were very different. That isn’t to paint him as a monster, but Louis is right, neither is he some kind of hero to be admired.
Robert Vaughn, I think your last post is a fair assessment. None of us who hold Lee in high regard believe he was a perfect man.
That said, I do think that many these days are riding some high horses in their view of Lee et al of that time. The wise words of my pastor (above) hold true for far too many:
“Nevertheless, current rhetoric and actions in reference to Confederate monuments spring from this assumption: I would not have been on their side had I been alive then, and therefore I am morally superior to them. Surely I would not have been a slaveholder; I would not have supported slavery; I would not have been a Confederate.”
“For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.”
BTW Robert, I do not include you in that assessment brother.
Bill Mac,
“Lee stated that he believed slaves were better off in slavery than in Africa and that their trials would ultimately benefit their race.”
Most people believe that to be true. I do as well.
“That isn’t to paint him as a monster, but Louis is right, neither is he some kind of hero to be admired.”
There are many things about Lee that are to be admired, IMO.
Not you necessarily Bill Mac, “but he or she without sins and casting the first stones, and such.”
Oh and here is part of that letter to his wife:
‘“In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.” But he goes on: “I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/#mjvymSJkqECiRtkB.99
Les, I will say that I hold Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in high regard as good but flawed men (and am even named after the former “second hand” through being named after my grandfather). To respect the good in them is not to overlook the bad. It is dangerous when we hold any human in high regard, because all are sinners, all are flawed. When I stand before God I expect I’ll find out what MY flaws are, that I can’t or won’t see!
I think your pastor has some wise counsel about not judging others in other times by our own standards in our times.
All this should not keep us from working toward the right goals in our times. I believe Christian fellowship and church fellowship (of like faith & order) between God’s people of all races is a right goal for our times (and all times).
Wise words Robert Vaughn, and gutsy to say you admire those two around these parts. I appreciate your measured approach and wisdom.
Les: You agree with this:
That passage is pure arrogance.
As I said, much of what Lee said is fine. His actions however, don’t seem to match his words. When assessing someone, their actions are a more true story than their words.
As for myself, I hope I would not have been a willing participant in such an evil system. But the bible warns against that kind of pride. Peer pressure and groupthink are powerful forces.
The above “you agree with this” should have been followed by a question mark.
“Most people believe that to be true”
Most white people, you mean. Although I’m not sure how you even guess at what most people believe.
Bill Mac,
“Les: You agree with this:
The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race,
That passage is pure arrogance.”
The full context: “The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”
For a man who history shows was not favorably disposed to slavery as an institution (see the first part of the quote above ““In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country.”) and a man who like most then saw all things working out I=under the hand of God’s providence, yes I can understand his words and agree with them. Lee wanted slaver to end. Just not by the aggression of the North, said North’s actions being about more than just the evil of slavery…which you know to be true. He favored a slower change of hearts and minds to bring about its end.
There was way more going on back then as a way of life for the entire union than just “pride, Peer pressure and groupthink.”
“Although I’m not sure how you even guess at what most people believe.”
Well, I guess I’m just following the example I see around these parts quite a lot. 🙂
Les: I cannot agree that Lee’s history shows a man unfavorably disposed to slavery. Some of Lee’s words, perhaps. But his actions tell a different story. I know you keep throwing up that whole passage (which I have read several times), but to say that slavery is for the good of the black race is beyond the pale. The context of that letter doesn’t soften it. It is patronizing arrogance and supremacy. Who is Lee (or you or me for that matter) to know what is best for the black race? Lee was not alone in these sentiments and he was a man of his time and slave owning culture. But he wasn’t a hero.
Bill Mac, then we just disagree. I think many things in his life confirm my assessment.
” he was a man of his time and slave owning culture.”
Yes he was. Who do we think we are to think, almost declare with certainty, that we are sooooo much more enlightened and we would NEVER have had a hand similar to Lee’s in that day and time? We are far morally superior, right? I’m not at all convinced brother. We THINK we are. But then I read this: “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned.”
By the way, Have I used the “hero” word? I admire much about General Lee. Period.
Louis, I’m familiar with them. I’m familiar with the modern revisionist history making. Seems like a lot of such analysis. I’ve not read the original books though.
Louis, one historian wrote re Connelly’s book and one by Nolan,
“Suddenly the floodgates were opened. Revisionist views of Lee became almost mandatory, it seemed. As more and more current books expanded on Nolan’s somewhat negative image of Lee, many began to wonder how a general of such allegedly limited ability could have sustained an army in the field for as long as he did against such overwhelming odds.”
I find it interesting that you would call it moral superiority Les. In fact that always boggles my mind. It’s simply the truth.
You make the case very well Debbie for what He said. And that from high up on your horse. 🙂
Les: I would strongly disagree with what your minister has written. That is a letter full of excuses and false accusations. I knew it was wrong. I have always acted on it and been outspoken about it. I should take it as a compliment. But I don’t understand how Christians especially can say this about slavery. It was wrong, every human being had to know it was wrong, yet they did it anyway. The ones who thought they are superior are those who treated blacks as they did, not the ones who call them out on it.
“Les: I would strongly disagree with what your minister has written.” And I am surprised, not. As I said a minute ago, you make his case classically.
If agreeable with my colleagues and friends, perhaps it would be best to call it quits here and move along to other topics. I appreciate the comments and I’m sure other appropriate occasions will arise for more of the same.