It’s important to note that the traitors were always Americans, i.e. citizens of the United States of America. And at no point during their little rebellion did they cease being Americans. To say otherwise implies that the Confederate States of American had one iota of legitimacy and it did not. That’s why in United States vs. Lee (1882), the Lee family was compensated for land seized without due process back in 1861. Due process the Lee family was entitled to as they were citizens of the United States. Fun Fact: Mrs. Lee had attempted to pay the taxes on the property via an agent, but the government refused to accept it as it was required that owners pay in person.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m not for honoring Confederate soldiers like I would good Union men. But the Confederates were still Americans whether they liked it or not. (And let’s not forget the southerners who remained loyal to the United States throughout the war.)
I could be wrong but I think the OP is talking about a memorial/monument like we had in my hometown.
Went up after WW1, probably inspired by The Cenotaph, updated with new plaques after WW2 and Vietnam.
We used to have a memorial dedicated to Company A, Capitol Guards, here in Little Rock that was installed in 1911 and taken down in 2020. While I never found that one to be particularly offensive, I can’t say I was broken up when they took it down. I kind of miss it though. Just like I miss the tree in the same park that was taken out by a bad storm back in 2014 or 2015.
And yet, Lee went ahead and fought against Virginia, anyway.
And these soldiers can of course have tombstones. But tombstones follow the reverse rule of how people are known in life: MacGregor’s tombstone would identify him as the bridgebuilder and the churchbuilder, but not the sheepfucker. So on the tombstone of a Confederate soldier, go ahead and call him a loving husband, or a devoted father, or diligent farmer, or whatever. If you don’t know anything else about him, just put his name. But don’t label the grave as that of John Smith, Confederate soldier.
I think there’s a difference between people like Lee, Washington, and others who stood up and openly declared their allegiance and someone like Arnold who surreptitiously switched sides and attempted to turn the men and fort under his command over to the British. I don’t think Arnold was much respected by the majority of the British officers or public following the end of the war.
Context is everything. There is a life sized statue of John Wilkes Booth in the museum below Ford’s Theater. That’s perfectly appropriate, the museum is there to educate people about the assassination. There are photos of the other conspirators as well. Again, perfectly appropriate. Now if someone erected a statue of Booth in the town square, I’d find that entirely inappropriate and offensive.
The nonsense about erasing history is just that, nonsense. We don’t need statues in town squares to learn about history. I’d wager there are no statues of Hitler in public places in Germany, and I bet every German knows all about Hitler. Statues in public spaces do not exist to teach history, they exist to show what we honor. Statues of Confederate leaders in the town square give the message that the town supports white supremacy by honoring those who fought to maintain it. If there’s a statue of Robert E. Lee on a battlefield where he fought, no problem- that’s a legitimate historical teaching tool. A statue of Jefferson Davis at City Hall, that just serves to extend the middle finger to black residents.
I’d like to see every Confederate monument replaced with monuments and statues honoring the many slave revolts that took place in the US. They were freedom fighters who deserve to be remembered and honored, unlike the Confederate traitors.
I could absolutely support a memorial at the site of one of the major Civil War battles that lists all of the Confederate soldiers who died there, Vietnam Veterans Memorial Wall-style, with an inscription that says something like “These men gave their lives for a false and disgraced cause. Let us remember that always.”
What makes you think it was unclear? The law has always been clear on this point; Americans are citizens only of the US. There’s no such thing as “state citizen”.
The only time it was ever unclear is when some treasonous separatists decided to invent the concept of “state citizen” to justify their rebellion. The only unclear thing about it was whether they could get away with it, and we settled that question via trial of arms.
Not every Confederate was a monster, not every Confederate was willing, but each and every Confederate soldier and politician was a traitor. Apologists have concocted many ways to polish that turd, but it’s still the same bullshit.
[quote=“HMS_Irruncible, post:110, topic:946168”]
… There’s no such thing as “state citizen”. …[/quote]
Then what does this sentence in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution mean?
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
I think the second part was to make it clear that the States could not say ‘While you may be a citizen of the United Stats you are not a citizen of this State’.
No matter what the law was, many people considered themselves citizens of their state from the very beginning. Those in the South are remembered for doing so, but enormous movements in the Northeast and what was at the time the “West,” first meaning any place west of the Appalachians and, after 1848, the west coast, had separatist movements almost continually. The federal government was designed to be weak - though stronger than in the Articles of Confederation - and loyalties were indeed more to the state than the federal.
I’d argue that it was not until the Civil War that the notion of being state citizens over federal citizens was put to rest and not just in the South. As an 1887 Washington Post article put it:
“There was a time a few years ago when the United States was spoken of in the plural number. Men said ‘the United States are’ — ‘the United States have’ — ‘the United States were.’ But the war changed all that.” …
The surrender of Mr. Davis and Gen. Lee meant a transition from the plural to the singular.
Regional identity has always existed, but nobody can ever claim that they had conflicting allegiances under the law. Your mention of separatism underscores this. Separatists have always been separatists; they have never been citizens who were confused about their allegiances.
The only confusion was whether they would ever be permitted to act on their separatist inclinations, and that question is now settled following trial by combat. The losers now want to claim that they weren’t treasonous separatists; merely that the subject of their allegiance was murky, but neither history nor the law supports that attempt at whitewashing.
Furthermore, the Confederates were traitors to their states, as well as to the federal government. The Supreme Law of Virginia defines what Lee did as treason, and the government of the state of Virginia unanimously condemned his actions.
All of history is a running story of people putting their own interests and loyalties ahead of the law - and getting away with it for decades or centuries. Saying “but it was the law” simply sweeps all of history under the rug.
Saying that also raises the question of how people knew it was the law. Article IV, Section II, Clause 1. The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States doesn’t offer any guidance to the issue. What the clause legally meant had been changing for the entire time it existed. None of the cases I see there said specifically that no such thing as state citizenship applied. To the contrary, they kept to the strict wording of the clause and guaranteed state citizens that the federal rights applied to all states. It’s easy to see how that would be understood as the primacy of state citizenship.
There’s been a half-assed response by Tennessee officials to complaints about having a bust of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest in the State Capitol.
The state has finally removed the bust of Forrest to the state museum, but at the same time also moved Capitol busts of Admiral David (“Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead”) Farragut and Admiral Albert Gleaves (another Tennessean who served honorably in WWI and was responsible for advances in torpedo development) to the state museum. From The Tennessean:
“State officials compromised last summer on moving Farragut, a Tennessean who remained loyal to the Union during the Civil War, and Gleaves, a commander in World War I, so as not to only remove the bust of the Confederate general.”
Yeah - they didn’t want to single out a slave-trading Confederate leader whose troops committed the Fort Pillow massacre and who was the first leader of the Ku Klux Klan, so they “'compromised” by placing the same value on two honorable military leaders.
Governor Lee, who the Tennessean thinks deserves “credit” for the bust removal, not long ago had a different take on Gen. Forrest.
This pretty much describes all the World War II memorials in Germany. They just bear some generic dedication to the memory of the fallen soldiers, sometimes listing their individual names. There may be some nationalistic symbols like an eagle (which had been an emblem of Germany long before the Nazis took power, and remains its emblem today), or militaristic symbols like guns and helmets, but nothing specific to the Nazi regime. These memorials are often standalone cenotaphs located in parks, public squares, or cemeteries, and sometimes carved tablets in churches. Nobody in Europe seems to have a problem with this sort of memorial. (Leastaways, I’ve never heard anyone complain, and I’ve never heard of them being the subject of public protests or vandalism.)
psychonaut describes what I’ve seen in every English village I’ve been in; a memorial in the village listing every serviceman killed in the war (WWI & WWII). While here in America we have these chest-thumping memorials all throughout the South, I think the personalized touch of people from the community who served their duty is much more tasteful.
In 2017 at The University of Texas at Austin, we removed the statues of the Confederates that were placed there essentially by edict of the university’s main benefactor (former Confederate colonel George Littlefield). He was an ardent supporter of the Lost Cause and thought the statuary would ensure that the campus wouldn’t be moved to the river, on the land of the #2 benefactor. (I kind of would dig having a campus on the river…)
Jeff Davis, John Reagan, Albert Johnston, Robert Lee, and Woodrow Wilson were all carted off to the archives. Davis was cleaned up and is in an exhibit in the Briscoe Center for American History - it’s actually very well done, and shows through the letters from the sculptor to Littlefield that it was a hotly debated and argued project. John Hogg’s statue was removed from campus, but later re-installed in a different spot (he was actually not a confederate).
The plinths that the statues stood atop are still present, though the copper tablets labeling Davis and Wilson are gone (the other plinths have inscriptions carved in marble). I gave a tour a few years ago about 2 years after the statues were removed. In a class of 18 students, only one knew the identity of the statues that were there previously.
Ironically, one of the most popular purveyors of early confederate monuments was a company from Connecticut - the Monumental Bronze Company - who had a bog-standard infantryman statue that came in CSA and USA flavors.
My personal opinion is that statues commemorating white supremacists and/or glorifying them is a historical aberration that’s being corrected. I’m glad to see them go, especially in New Orleans, Richmond, and even around the world in South Africa (Cecil Rhodes) and England (Edward Colston). I agree that memorials for war dead are appropriate, regardless of which side they fought on.
