Living in parts of the South, I have never been *of* the South and have always seen the Civil War for what it was; treason in the cause of slavery. Would be apologists say the cause was "state’s rights" or other such nonsense. Yes, it was a State’s Rights effort to hold human chattel. Reading the records and memoirs of those who lived in that period leave no such questions. The public record itself is quite explicit. The various articles of secession by the several "Confederate" states. The newspapers, the diaries, statements by "Confederate" govt officials. Even foreigners saw it. The British consul to Charleston, SC during the 1850s-60s heard the public sentiment and reported such to London. His reporting stated that reviving the Slave trade (that was being suppressed by British and US warships in the Atlantic) was a goal of commercial interests throughout the South. That expanding Slave States to the West Coast would create a market for those new transported Slaves.
Of course, after the defeat, an effort was made to ennoble the sacrifices of the thousands and thousands of families. To say, "they died for Slavery" (while accurate) would not sit well over dinner. So another cause was needed. State’s Rights, a golden chivalrous age, a fight against crass commercialism of the North….take your pick. One element in this deceptive illusion was Confederate Monuments througout the South. Some are simple soldier statues or obelisks in from of courthouses to expensive and elaborate cast monuments and equestrian statues to military and political leaders of the rebellion.
They have been there so long as to become part of the landscape for many, but a reminder to others of a despicable past of bondage. I think since the shooting in the Charleston, SC church, the public sentiment shifted and the toleration for such things is falling.
New Orleans has begun the effort to remove those monuments. The Mayor of New Orleans, Mitch Landrieu , has given a speech about that effort and it is well worth the time to read. It lays out the cause for the monuments and their effect on that city’s citizens. He also lays out the root of the problem about the "Lost Cause".
Truth telling on a subject often lied about.
Ridge
———excerpt——–
http://pulsegulfcoast.com/2017/05/transcript-of-new-orleans-mayor-landrieus-address-on-confederate-monuments
So, let’s start with the facts.
The historic record is clear: the Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard statues were not erected just to honor these men, but as part of the movement which became known as The Cult of the Lost Cause. This `cult’ had one goal — through monuments and through other means — to rewrite history to hide the truth, which is that the Confederacy was on the wrong side of humanity.
First erected over 166 years after the founding of our city and 19 years after the end of the Civil War, the monuments that we took down were meant to rebrand the history of our city and the ideals of a defeated Confederacy.
It is self-evident that these men did not fight for the United States of America, They fought against it. They may have been warriors, but in this cause they were not patriots.
These statues are not just stone and metal. They are not just innocent remembrances of a benign history. These monuments purposefully celebrate a fictional, sanitized Confederacy; ignoring the death, ignoring the enslavement, and the terror that it actually stood for.
After the Civil War, these statues were a part of that terrorism as much as a burning cross on someone’s lawn; they were erected purposefully to send a strong message to all who walked in their shadows about who was still in charge in this city.
Should you have further doubt about the true goals of the Confederacy, in the very weeks before the war broke out, the Vice President of the Confederacy, Alexander Stephens, made it clear that the Confederate cause was about maintaining slavery and white supremacy.
He said in his now famous `Cornerstone speech’ that the Confederacy’s "cornerstone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."
Now, with these shocking words still ringing in your ears, I want to try to gently peel from your hands the grip on a false narrative of our history that I think weakens us and make straight a wrong turn we made many years ago so we can more closely connect with integrity to the founding principles of our nation and forge a clearer and straighter path toward a better city and more perfect union…….
And the Attorney-General of the United States bears as his middle name, the name of one of those traitors and enslavers.
As forceful a calling out the Lost Cause bullshit as Carter’s 1970 inauguration speech was in accepting the historical verdict of the civil rights movement and the courts.
Sunlight and truth are the best disinfectants of festering sores.
Landrieu need do no more but survive and ensure that his decision sticks. And maybe convince some of his gubernatorial brethren and sistren that his course is the wisest. To the extent that the South remains a place of cross-racial daily interactions and relationships and de facto segregated institutions instead of segregated geography and personal networks, it has greater promise for moving toward a multicultural society. And that is what the politicians who play on division fear most.
Thank you for writing this RidgeCook. Pretty much sums up my own thoughts on the matter as someone Southern Born, but never turned to the ‘Cult’ in my upbringing.
The *South* was never homogenous in its views, which is another Cult lie. Just as families were split, as were states and regions. Those states or portions of states removed from the wealthy agricultural areas were often loyal. The Western slope of the Appalachians, where the rivers ran West were more culturally and economically tied to Ohio, Ill, Ind, etc… than the Tidewater/Piedmont regions of VA or NC. Much of Ky and Tenn were like that. For WV, the rivers ran West and the region was neglected re: internal improvement and investment. Often ignored or forgotten in Richmond. Slavery was never a major economic force there and 1830s-40s saw the rise of proposals at some sort of abolition. Post Civil War, many Deep South blacks came into WV as it was perceived as less prejudiced.
So, mark up as another lie that the political leadership of states in Rebellion had the complete support of their population. Often that support was by law and questioning was met with force.
R
To give an idea how split the South was, Sherman’s army grew as it marched though Georgia. It wasn’t just the upland areas with few slaves that had substantial support for the North. Even in a plantation area, many were willing to volunteer for the North.
Also, Jim Crow was needed after Reconstruction because in many Southern states blacks plus liberal whites were a majority – including both Carolinas and Mississippi. That’s no longer true, because many blacks fled Jim Crow, and because the Lost Cause myth has successfully indoctrinated many of the whites. But it was true then.
Did Sherman allow blacks in his Army? Or were those white recruits?
Many Union forces allowed blacks in their armies at that time, but not Sherman. He was recruiting along the way, but not African-Americans.
Now can we get rid of the Robert E. Lee Memorial? Return it what George Washington Parke Custis intended it to be when he constructed it, a monument to his step-grandfather George Washington who had raised him.
It would have been great symbolism if Obama had done it.
Ha ha. But that could have jeopardized Hillary’s ability to carry VA. Forced VA voters to choose between being part of the north or the south. We know how that’s worked out in the past when given that choice.
There’s not too much doubt about what the political motivation and goal of the Confederacy was, all clearly explained in its “official” justifying pronouncements—such as Stephens’ famous speech. And certainly there were many individual participants who wholeheartedly agreed as a personal matter.
Yet as much as we are told not to paint all individual “Southerners” with too broad a brush today, it does indeed seem that there were Confederate soldiers and even some generals who were motivated to a large degree by a strange feeling that they somehow had an “allegiance” to their state, and were duty bound to “side” with “her” (as they said) in the (Southern-manufactured) crisis. Many explained their (voluntary) participation as simply defending their homes and families from “invaders”. It is of course a very strange country and culture indeed where people could claim to feel far more allegiance to their “home” state than the nation of which they were citizens.
Of course it must also be admitted that there were many many Southerners all across the Old Confederacy that denounced the breakup of the union and maintained (overtly or covertly) their continued allegiance to the USA. Western Virginia was solidly unionist, and was admitted as a new state in 1863, I think. The Confederates found eastern Tennessee ungovernable. While there was much Confederate sympathy in the border (slave) states, as everyone knows.
But there is no doubt that these “glorious” monuments stem from a very uniform motivation, the desire to overawe and dominate. The Lost Cause really was a fabulously successful propaganda campaign, but it must be acknowledged that the nation’s leaders basically made a collective decision not to challenge the campaign and look the other way. Look away Dixieland, indeed.
The removal of these monuments is quite striking to me since they are basically located across the Old Confederacy (which is somewhat smaller than today’s Neo-Confederacy). One would think that the various state legislatures of the (Repub) Neo-Confederacy would have quickly stepped in to stop cities and colleges from removing them. But I guess it’s just another act in the long-running Confederate flag “debate”.
And how exactly does the removal of these symbols of the Confederacy play with the anxiety of the angry Southern working class white? (“Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson, for God’s sake!!”) Another backlash in the making?
The first monument to go down was a monument to the white home rule riot that seized power in New Orleans from a fusion government. It was a coup d’etat in a city government–changing representation by force. It and the “Mississippi Plan” of 1875 was an armed white insurgency that stole the 1876 elections through force in the Southern states as President Grant and a impotent Congress looked on, no willing to restart the war.
How this works is the conservative powers-that-be use Southern (or state) loyalty over American (or national) loyalty to rile up the white working class that they are losing their “way of life”, code words for “white supremacy”. And the suckers obey the very folks that steal the money from their paychecks, because they are job-scared and don’t want to be singled out for retaliation. It is an indirectly engineered political response and not an immediate backlash. The Confederacy has become just another shiny object of distraction to picking pockets and sending other men (and women) to fight. It has retarded progress in the South for 337 years. The ghost of Nathaniel Bacon still haunts the South.
I swear to God, that is the first reference to Bacon’s Rebellion I have seen on Internet boards in 20 yrs. Touché!
What I have always found interesting is the fetishazation of the "old South" by poor whites. Confederate flags off trailers and rusted out pickups. Yes, it is the shiny object to keep them looking the other way while their pocket is picked and jobs are shipped overseas. Fox News is the national example of this. We have had the discussion before that it is either encouraged or tolerated by the power cliques in small towns who don’t want to be seen as redneck prejudiced, but benefit by its presence. In the past they would not have been allowed on the porch of the Big House, let alone have their feet under the table. But they think they share that "heritage" White Trash is the common term and they have been useful tools since the end of the Civil War. I guess if you are at the bottom of the heap in your town, it helps to have someone else thought lower.
R
The removal is happening in New Orleans, which has a much more complicated racial history than say, Montgomery or Richmond. Charlottesville? As essentially a "genteel" suburb of DC and educated liberal whites, removal of Lee’s statue is not surprising. Monument Ave in Richmond, that is when the wall will fall, if ever. I never expect to see removal of the generic Confederate Soldier (mass produced in Italy of marble and sold throughout the region) in front of small town county courthouses. They are everywhere off the Interstate in Va. NC, SC and points South.
Even in Western counties of Va (not WV) you see them. Google Giles Co courthouse, Floyd Co. courthouse, etc… and there they stand.
As to why they commissioned officers of the US Army decided their allegiance belonged to their states over their oath to the US, I have never understood it. Nor the political notion that the ‘confederates" were returning to the spirit of the Articles of Confederation goes against the Preamble of that document refers to "Perpetual Union" between the States.
It was, and still is, any and all excuses or justification in the cause of armed treason for slavery.
R
Honestly, I think the overwhelming majority of those who claimed their “allegiance” to their state forced them to rebel against their country were just looking for an excuse so they could fight for slavery. They all knew it was wrong, but they didn’t want to admit how evil they were publicly. The most famous “oh I must stand with my state” act was of course Robert E. Lee’s – and he owned slaves. It was just an excuse.
At least Memphis removed the statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest from the park across the street from the Greyhound. At least, I think they did.
I had a Mississippi guy, very liberal in other ways, say that Forrest was not a racist. He also referred to “the War of Northern Aggression”. Indoctrination.
BTW, he was the guy that told me the statue was Forrest. In wouldn’t have bothered to look.
The Tennessee state legislature passed legislation in 2013 that makes it difficult to remove Confederate memorabilia. In 1905 Forrest and his wife were disinterred from Elmwood Cemetery and reinterred in Forrest Park near the statue. Here’s the latest on the removal of Forrest’s statue and body:
“The Tennessee Historical Commission rejected a move by Memphis City Council to relocate the controversial statue of Nathan Bedford Forrest from a park near downtown Memphis.
The application for the move was submitted in reaction to the Tennessee Heritage Protection Act of 2013, which prevents cities or counties from relocating, removing, renaming, or otherwise disturbing war memorials on public properties.”
http://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/local/tennessee/2016/10/21/nathan-bedford-forrest-wont-be-moved/9
2510072/
Tennessee was the last state to secede from the Union and it will be the last one to truly “join” the Union. Trust me.
Thanks, Karl. I just got in from Alabama. People here wouldn’t believe the coffee house conversations I overheard. But I know you would. Suffice it to say that the 24 hour “Trump! Russia!” is having the opposite of the desired effect. I wonder if the recent noose incidents and Tiger Woods graffiti are backlash too.
It’s so sad because Trump is betraying them 24-7 but the media just harps on the witch hunt instead of policy and it hardens his voters to criticism.
I was listening to CNN during breakfast today (Hotel, no choice of station). Some one unnamed alleges that Trump may have consulted with Russia on possible interference with the election. If that isn’t a black cat in a sack in a coal mine! Bolding are exact words from the screen bottom scroll.
Meanwhile, I saw a TV ad by this loon named Strange (sic) running for Senator. Almost the whole ad concentrates on his 100% rating from the NRA. At the end he pledges to destroy Obamacare. My daughter says he is the front runner.
I met many people. Some weren’t all that friendly, most were, but I didn’t see any horns or fangs.
Recently read this book which tells the tale of “Robert Bunch, who served as Her Majesty’s consul in Charleston, S.C. From 1853 to 1863”. He was present for the run up to and the opening shots of the Civil War. He sat and drank with planters, shipping magnates, and politicians; and heard what they told themselves over cigars; not what was in the newspapers.
Anyone interested in what the Southern social elites were telling each other, this is a good source.
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/19/books/review/our-man-in-charleston-by-christopher-dickey.html?_r=
0
Ridge