So what do you do about the embarrassing celebration of the confederacy that is Stone Mountain.

[Paulos23]

You've introduced the term "lost cause," but you appear to not understand what it is about. What is academically labeled as "lost cause" is not "slavery and the right to own people." In fact, that is purposefully downplayed in lost cause narratives.

I understand that Southern history probably doesn't hold much significance for you, which is fine. Though it does hold significance for many Southern Americans, myself included. I have numerous ancestors on both sides of my family that served in the Confederate infantry. I view them no differently than my ancestors that fought in the Revolutionary War.

Slavery was the motive for secession, it was not the motive for the war. You'll note that the Southern states peacefully seceded from the Union. It wasn't until the leadership of the North failed to release Fort Sumter (which fell on Confederate land) that the war broke out. Slavery was not what caused shots to be fired. It was a desperate hope for restoration on the part of the Union which caused the war to take place.

Boiling down the significant cultural differences between the North and South to justify slavery is about as misleading as it can get.

No, it was the fact the southern states where losing political power in the US to keep their laws to own slaves. The South attacked multiple federal forts and depots to get arms and strong points before the Union army was called forth.

The South knew they could not keep the balance of power going between 'slave' and 'free' states much longer. So they tried to leave, by force.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Carve a pair of these on either side

 

[Goonie]

You've introduced the term "lost cause," but you appear to not understand what it is about. What is academically labeled as "lost cause" is not "slavery and the right to own people." In fact, that is purposefully downplayed in lost cause narratives.

I understand that Southern history probably doesn't hold much significance for you, which is fine. Though it does hold significance for many Southern Americans, myself included. I have numerous ancestors on both sides of my family that served in the Confederate infantry. I view them no differently than my ancestors that fought in the Revolutionary War.

Slavery was the motive for secession, it was not the motive for the war. You'll note that the Southern states peacefully seceded from the Union. It wasn't until the leadership of the North failed to release Fort Sumter (which fell on Confederate land) that the war broke out. Slavery was not what caused shots to be fired. It was a desperate hope for restoration on the part of the Union which caused the war to take place.

Boiling down the significant cultural differences between the North and South to just slavery is about as misleading as it can get.

And the response from the North would be that the succession was illegal, something that the Supreme court has supported in judgements since the war, so the South in attacking federal forces legally occupying land was an act of treason and a hostile act of war by the South to support slavery.

 

[jayem]

It wasn't until the leadership of the North failed to release Fort Sumter (which fell on Confederate land) that the war broke out. Slavery was not what caused shots to be fired.

Not to get off topic into Civil War history... In 1861, just before Lincoln’s inauguration, South Carolina did offer to buy Fort Sumpter. But with a warning that the state had a right to seize the property if no deal was reached. So why should the federal government have sold it? It would be giving in to extortion. Suppose California declared itself an independent country. (Which many conservatives would not oppose. ) It wants to own San Diego Naval Base. And it will occupy it by force if the government won’t sell. Should the DoD just take the money and run?

I’m a native southerner myself. Born and raised in GA. I’ve climbed Stone Mountain on the walk- up trail. But it should be appreciated for it’s geologic significance. The Civil War is memorialized in Atlanta with the Cyclorama. There’s no compelling need for giant bas-relief carvings of Confederate leaders.

BTW: IMO, Robt. E. Lee is the only figure worth commemorating. Stonewall Jackson, though a tactical genius, probably had OCD, with many bizarre obsessive thoughts. And Jeff Davis was an ineffectual political hack,

Sorry for going off topic.

 

[jardiniere]

What we can do now about Stone Mountain's 150ft Confederate carving | Ryan Gravel and Scott Morris

Stop cleaning it, and let nature do its work is a start.

Repurpose it as an enormous shame on the Confederacy. It's big enough to continue to carve more than what is there now. "Here is where this country sought to celebrate the war to enslave black people"

 

[Arc F1]

What we can do now about Stone Mountain's 150ft Confederate carving | Ryan Gravel and Scott Morris

Stop cleaning it, and let nature do its work is a start.

Leave it as a historical reference. We can't take down everything. That would be like erasing all references to BLM because some members are shooting people, looting and preaching hate. Sometimes we need to remember what happened.

 

[Arcangl86]

Leave it as a historical reference. We can't take down everything. That would be like erasing all references to BLM because some members are shooting people, looting and preaching hate. Sometimes we need to remember what happened.

That's why we have history books.

 

[Goonie]

Leave it as a historical reference. We can't take down everything. That would be like erasing all references to BLM because some members are shooting people, looting and preaching hate. Sometimes we need to remember what happened.

The problem is that Stone Mountain is a false memory commemorating the myth of the 'lost cause'.

 

[Arc F1]

The problem is that Stone Mountain is a false memory commemorating the myth of the 'lost cause'.

I don't much about it but I do know we can't erase everything we don't like. Some things need to be a reminder.

 

[Arc F1]

That's why we have history books.

One of our great history books are coming under attack. Will the Bible be next? It's being called hate speech more and more everyday.

 

[tbstor]

No, it was the fact the southern states where losing political power in the US to keep their laws to own slaves. The South attacked multiple federal forts and depots to get arms and strong points before the Union army was called forth.

The South knew they could not keep the balance of power going between 'slave' and 'free' states much longer. So they tried to leave, by force.

The underlined statement is compatible with what I said. I stated, "slavery was the motive for secession, it was not the motive for the war." Regarding the South attacking federal forts and depots, that isn't quite accurate. Relying on good ole' Wikipedia,

On March 4, 1861, Abraham Lincoln was sworn in as president. In his inaugural address, he argued that the Constitution was a more perfect union than the earlier Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, that it was a binding contract, and called any secession "legally void". He had no intent to invade Southern states, nor did he intend to end slavery where it existed, but said that he would use force to maintain possession of Federal property.

[...]

The South sent delegations to Washington and offered to pay for the federal properties and enter into a peace treaty with the United States. Lincoln rejected any negotiations with Confederate agents because he claimed the Confederacy was not a legitimate government, and that making any treaty with it would be tantamount to recognition of it as a sovereign government.​

The Confederate States were not aggressors. They legally and constitutionally seceded from the Union with the expectation of retaining the land that was rightfully theirs. It is quite generous that they even offered to purchase the federal property, all things considered.

This is partially why I dislike the term "civil war" being used to describe the events that occurred. A civil war conjures up the idea of two (or more) factions within a country fighting for total control of the said country (e.g., the Spanish Civil War). Of course, that isn't what happened in the American Civil War. The South had no intention of taking control of Union States. They wanted to peacefully secede from a Union that they viewed as no longer in their best interests. War came as a result of the refusal of the North to recognize the legitimacy of the Confederate States.

To clarify, you can be pleased with the outcome of the war without mischaracterizing what happened.

 

[tbstor]

And the response from the North would be that the succession was illegal, something that the Supreme court has supported in judgments since the war, so the South in attacking federal forces legally occupying land was an act of treason and a hostile act of war by the South to support slavery.

"something that the Supreme court has supported in judgments since the war..."

You hit the nail on the head. The SC decisions on secession came as a response to the Civil War, not prior. There is a reason why Confederate politicians and leaders weren't tried as war criminals: they didn't do anything illegal.

 

[FireDragon76]

Most people with a prominent position in history are known for more than one thing, but sadly some people only ever see the worst in other people, and incorrectly assume that a statue of that person is always a commemoration of the worst things they ever did. Many of these people are perpetually on the lookout for something to be offended or outraged about. I don't know why they are like this, maybe they don't have any productive or gainful interests or hobbies, and their only satisfaction in life comes from trying to make themselves feel morally and ethically superior by finding others from the history books that did a bad thing. I think it's a rather silly pursuit to spend hours, days, and even years judging people from hundreds of years ago by modern standards. It is certainly telling that these people seek to tear down and destroy rather than create, and I would argue that pulling down statues is a form of book burning.

Unfortunately for them, there is little good in the accomplishments of men like Jefferson Davis. In addition, Jackson and Lee chose the causes to fight for, poorly. Lee and Jefferson were fortunate to escape hanging, which in other circumstances was exactly what they deserved.

 

[Goonie]

"something that the Supreme court has supported in judgments since the war..."

You hit the nail on the head. The SC decisions on secession came as a response to the Civil War, not prior. There is a reason why Confederate politicians and leaders weren't tried as war criminals: they didn't do anything illegal.

Seriously? I suggest you go back to your history books. Last time I checked firing on and killing federal troops legally on US soil is act of treason and war.

The Confederate leaders were not prosecuted after the war as part of rebuilding the union.

 

[Paulos23]

The Confederate States were not aggressors.

Then why did the attack the forts and arms depots before the calling of the Union army?

They legally and constitutionally seceded from the Union with the expectation of retaining the land that was rightfully theirs.

The Supreme Court disagrees.

 

[tbstor]

Seriously? I suggest you go back to your history books. Last time I checked firing on and killing federal troops legally on US soil is act of treason and war.

The Confederate leaders were not prosecuted after the war as part of rebuilding the union.

Of course, how one defines "US soil" is key. But you know that (I hope). You're assuming that your understanding of the illegality of secession was already established in the courts prior to/during the war.

Confederate leaders were allowed to walk freely because that would help reunify the country? And allowing termites to rest in your walls helps keep the structure sound, I suppose? They were allowed to go free because they did nothing illegal. Jefferson Davis was held in prison for a period of time prior to being let free. They couldn't charge him with anything.

 

[tbstor]

Then why did the attack the forts and arms depots before the calling of the Union army?

Reference(s)?

The Supreme Court disagrees.

Postwar, yes. I guess the Confederates didn't consult the crystalball.

 

[Paulos23]

Reference(s)?

You should have looked at the video I posted. But in short:

Chronology of the Secession Crisis

https://civilwarhome.com/lincolntroops.htm

The southern states where busy seizing forts and arsenals through January 1861 and February.

Lincoln didn't call for the army until February 28th.

For the North to start the aggression, the south sure did a lot of seizing before the Union Army was called.

 

[durangodawood]

Maybe activists will manage to find a dynamite supplier who is sympathetic to their cause. Then we'll see something like this:

Destruction of Buddha statues by the Taliban using dynamite

Edit: I'd like to add that I find it more than a little strange that having fought the Taliban for years, partly on the basis that they are intolerant extremists, America is now under attack from domestic intolerant extremists who seek to destroy statues in much the same way that the Taliban did.

I dont think we should be value-neutral about who we choose to honor in public spaces.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Comparing statues of the Buddha, who is venerated by hundreds of millions of people for his wisdom and compassion, with a monument to a racist regime, is grotesque

Comparing the unreasonable destruction caused by one set of intolerant extremists to the unreasonable destruction caused by another set of intolerant extremists is reasonable.