Washington and Jefferson only achievement wasn't succeeding from the union and starting a war over their right to hold slaves; and if that is your only claim to fame you don't deserve a monument.
I had this same thought, so I looked up a few of these confederates. To keep it short, they have other claims to fame. Perhaps some do not, but many do and arguably deserve a statue as much as anyone.
Sort of like Bob alluded to, culture was very different and slave owners usually had slaves not because they enjoyed owning humans or believed one race was inferior, it was just how the economy worked. The south needed slaves and the North did not, read about TN or VA to really see how economis divided the decision.
To bring those points together, i do believe that many honored confederates were not what ww would call evil, perhaps just caught on the "wrong" side. Many didn't even like the idea of slaves (so I have read) but I suppose they just needed them (so they thought).
Maybe it would behoove proponents for these monuments to stress the "claim to fame" and not which side they fought for. There certainly are some remarkable individuals on both sides...
About that flag,.......I'm not in favor of the confederate battle flag flying on any state's capitol building. I have concerns with it flying anywhere because I'm aware of all it's cruel associations. When I was very young, I was not aware. Not fully aware. Although my folks never displayed it or even had one, the confederate battle flag to me was symbolic of regional identity. I don't remember any rebel flag t-shirts in my collection but, I remember having a little souvenir confederate battle flag tacked up to the wall in my room (along with a US flag). I remember Lynyrd Skynyrd's confederate battle flag imagery. I remember some kids had confederate flag beach towels. Most of the time when I saw that flag I didn't think much about the civil war actually. And I didn't much associate it with slavery or oppression or hating anyone. I knew of the KKK using it but, in my mind, in my friend's minds, that wasn't us, that was them. The KKK to us was just a bunch of kooks and losers. I never heard of anybody that even knew anybody in the klan. The phrase "The South's Gonna Rise Again" was just a silly joke. It didn't feel like we were trying to intimidate anyone. Once my black friends opened my eyes to their personal menacing interpretations of that flag, I made it a point to never display or wear the image because I didn't want to be misunderstood. I see it's imagery as many things but I won't take a chance that anyone else would see me with it and assume the worst of me. That's my experience with it.
I can see how, being from the part of the country you are from, that this would be incomprehensible for you. The Stars and Bars are probably only seen and used as a symbol of hate there. For those of us here in the part of the country where it originated, who have always known the parts of history that are now finally being told elsewhere it is different. Perhaps an example will help.
My son was once stationed with a black Captain who was from TN. On the front of his pick-up he had a Confederate flag. People assumed he just hadn't removed it, or it had been put there as a sick joke. When asked,he told them that he had put it there because he believed that the agrarian way of life would have been better for America, that Cyrus McCormick and Jefferson Davis would have eventually freed the slaves with McCormicks modern machines, and Davis's beliefs that the African American population needed to be first given an opportunity to become educated and acculturized, as he was doing for the slaves on his plantation with the help of his best friend and plantation manager, the first slave he owned. When Davis went out west with this man, they formed a life long bond. When Davis was not at home, this was the person who made all binding agreements and business decisions, not Davis wife. Davis believed that forced emancipation would result in resentments and hatred that would last for generations. His views were not always well received in his own culture, therefore he believed that thewhite population would also require education and acclimatization to what was for him and some oyhers the inescapable fact that the black race was create by God to be the white races equal in every way.
These are verifiable facts.
Does that help?
Amos, this just isn't borne out by any objective analysis of history, starting with Davis's own writings. In his own memoir--published nearly 20 years after the war--he insisted that blacks were much better off as slaves in America than they would have been living in freedom in Africa. He also believe that slaves were treated humanely by their masters and were happy and contented "servants"(using the fact that most slaves didn't try to escape when their masters went off on business or even to war as "proof").
Here's one quote from his memoir, on his feelings about the enlistment of freedmen in the Union army during the Civil War:
The forefathers of these negro soldiers were gathered from the torrid plains and malarial swamps of inhospitable Africa. Generally they were born the slaves of barbarian masters, untaught in all the useful arts and occupations, reared in heathen darkness, they were transferred to shores enlightened by the rays of Christianity. There, put to servitude, they were trained in the gentle arts of peace and order and civilization; they increased from a few unprofitable savages to millions of efficient Christian laborers. Their servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches. Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service to those to whom their service or labor was due. A strong mutual affection was the natural result of this lifelong relation, a feeling best if not only understood by those who have grown from childhood under its influence.
These are not the words of someone who believed either in manumission or that--without intervention of civil war--that slavery would eventually "die on the root." Nor the words of someone who believed that blacks could ever achieve anything remotely resembling equality with white--or should.
Getting back to the OP, this doesn't mean that I support vandalism of Confederate flags or monuments--I absolutely am against this lawless behavior, having witnessed this kind of destructive and hateful behavior perpetrated against my own people on numerous occasions. Let the democratic process determine what symbols will or won't be allowed on public properties.
Good points. Davis was certainly a product of his times. However, by comparison with many of his contemporaries, his ideas were quite liberal. I don't think we can judge any of the people involved by today's standards of thought, we have progressed so far since then that there can be no comparison. He should be given credit where due, as his defiance of the laws of the time in educating his own slaves, etc.
Like Bob, I've never owned or displayed a Confederate flag, except on the back of a T-Shirt given to me as a gift, where it was displayed along with the stars & stripes. Actually, I didn't even notice it the first few times I wore the shirt, it's just too common a thing, easily overlooked.
The American version of slavery has sometimes been defended, as Davis did above, by pointing out that slavery was a way of life in Africa. Still is today. Our version was quite different, however. In the African model, it was possible for a slave to marry into the masters family, become a family member, inherit property etc. Ours took it to a new low, there was no way out. It was, simply, indefensible.
This has drifted from the original point of this thread, the vandalism, but probably needs to be said here, so as to avoid misunderstanding the positions taken by myself and others. We gain nothing by vandalism, or by rewriting the history, which was done extensively after the Civil War, by both sides. Of course, the victors side became the official history, and the losers side is full of rationalizations. I don't think we benefit by erasing these things, but rather by studying them for what they are, and remembering them as they were, and learning from those things.
Thanks for weighing in, Raisindot, I always appreciate your views.
WARNING: The above post may contain thoughts or ideas known to the State of Caliphornia to cause seething rage, confusion, distemper, nausea, perspiration, sphincter release, or cranial implosion to persons who implicitly trust only one news source, or find themselves at either the left or right political extreme. Proceed at your own risk.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
I look at the Confederate love kinda like if someone was super proud of their relatives killing all the Indians (I'm part Indian ). I don't knock you if your family fought and you're super proud, but I also don't knock those who are offended at a flag that represents 100 years of slavery, lynchings, rapes, torture, murder , families ripped apart, etc,etc.half my fam is from the south, and is hard core conservative, and they love the flag, it's a big meh for me, you can't study and understand the history of this country and not have empathy for those that suffered at the hands of others, not trying to offend, but also not gonna stand here and pretend that the status quo of history can stand as is #changeishere
The American version of slavery has sometimes been defended, as Davis did above, by pointing out that slavery was a way of life in Africa. Still is today. Our version was quite different, however. In the African model, it was possible for a slave to marry into the masters family, become a family member, inherit property etc. Ours took it to a new low, there was no way out. It was, simply, indefensible.
.
An absolutely valid historical point. Slavery was an acceptable practice in nearly every society through most of human history (heck, even the Bible condones it). And "legalized" slavery existed in the world until very late in the 19th century (although, as you said, it still exists in many countries today).
If you're at all interested in this topic, I suggest reading The Slave Trade, by Hugh Thomas. It's probably the most exhaustive one-volume history of the African slave trade, starting in ancient times and moving through the Renaissance and cataloging, in great detail, the rise of the slave trading in Africa by Arabs, Portuguese, Spaniards, the Dutch, the British, the Americans and the native Africans themselves. It really shows the differences between the "old world" model of slavery, where slaves were primarily domestic servants and artisans and some ascended to positions of great authority in their households and often were able to earn their freedom; and the "New World" model where Africans were brought to the Americas primarily to be worked to death as farm and plantation laborers (although some of the relatively fortunate did serve as domestic servants.and artisans).
Comments
I had this same thought, so I looked up a few of these confederates. To keep it short, they have other claims to fame. Perhaps some do not, but many do and arguably deserve a statue as much as anyone.
Sort of like Bob alluded to, culture was very different and slave owners usually had slaves not because they enjoyed owning humans or believed one race was inferior, it was just how the economy worked. The south needed slaves and the North did not, read about TN or VA to really see how economis divided the decision.
To bring those points together, i do believe that many honored confederates were not what ww would call evil, perhaps just caught on the "wrong" side. Many didn't even like the idea of slaves (so I have read) but I suppose they just needed them (so they thought).
Maybe it would behoove proponents for these monuments to stress the "claim to fame" and not which side they fought for. There certainly are some remarkable individuals on both sides...
Here's one quote from his memoir, on his feelings about the enlistment of freedmen in the Union army during the Civil War:
The forefathers of these negro soldiers were gathered from the torrid plains and malarial swamps of inhospitable Africa. Generally they were born the slaves of barbarian masters, untaught in all the useful arts and occupations, reared in heathen darkness, they were transferred to shores enlightened by the rays of Christianity. There, put to servitude, they were trained in the gentle arts of peace and order and civilization; they increased from a few unprofitable savages to millions of efficient Christian laborers. Their servile instincts rendered them contented with their lot, and their patient toil blessed the land of their abode with unmeasured riches. Their strong local and personal attachment secured faithful service to those to whom their service or labor was due. A strong mutual affection was the natural result of this lifelong relation, a feeling best if not only understood by those who have grown from childhood under its influence.
These are not the words of someone who believed either in manumission or that--without intervention of civil war--that slavery would eventually "die on the root." Nor the words of someone who believed that blacks could ever achieve anything remotely resembling equality with white--or should.
Getting back to the OP, this doesn't mean that I support vandalism of Confederate flags or monuments--I absolutely am against this lawless behavior, having witnessed this kind of destructive and hateful behavior perpetrated against my own people on numerous occasions. Let the democratic process determine what symbols will or won't be allowed on public properties.
Like Bob, I've never owned or displayed a Confederate flag, except on the back of a T-Shirt given to me as a gift, where it was displayed along with the stars & stripes. Actually, I didn't even notice it the first few times I wore the shirt, it's just too common a thing, easily overlooked.
The American version of slavery has sometimes been defended, as Davis did above, by pointing out that slavery was a way of life in Africa. Still is today. Our version was quite different, however. In the African model, it was possible for a slave to marry into the masters family, become a family member, inherit property etc. Ours took it to a new low, there was no way out. It was, simply, indefensible.
This has drifted from the original point of this thread, the vandalism, but probably needs to be said here, so as to avoid misunderstanding the positions taken by myself and others. We gain nothing by vandalism, or by rewriting the history, which was done extensively after the Civil War, by both sides. Of course, the victors side became the official history, and the losers side is full of rationalizations. I don't think we benefit by erasing these things, but rather by studying them for what they are, and remembering them as they were, and learning from those things.
Thanks for weighing in, Raisindot, I always appreciate your views.
"If you do not read the newspapers you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- Mark Twain
If you're at all interested in this topic, I suggest reading The Slave Trade, by Hugh Thomas. It's probably the most exhaustive one-volume history of the African slave trade, starting in ancient times and moving through the Renaissance and cataloging, in great detail, the rise of the slave trading in Africa by Arabs, Portuguese, Spaniards, the Dutch, the British, the Americans and the native Africans themselves. It really shows the differences between the "old world" model of slavery, where slaves were primarily domestic servants and artisans and some ascended to positions of great authority in their households and often were able to earn their freedom; and the "New World" model where Africans were brought to the Americas primarily to be worked to death as farm and plantation laborers (although some of the relatively fortunate did serve as domestic servants.and artisans).