Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

I appreciate your concerns. We agree more than disagree. Reread my statement and you will see I did not say that slavery was not the cause. I am well acquainted with Alexander Stephens writings (my paternal grandmother's family). But it was certainly not the only cause. You are correct to say that Lincoln went to war to preserve the union. As I pointed out, federal law was settled on slavery and he would have been in violation of federal law. You can question the correctness of the Supreme Court decision, but that was the precedent at the time. We also agree that the concept of separate but equal was just flat wrong. But men practicing any of those things at the time were, in fact, law abiding citizens. Jim Crow type laws existed in the north too.

You ask why it took so long to erect the statues and monuments? How many people have them erected in their own lifetime? Various towns and organizations such as the United Daughters of the Confederacy erected many of those monuments. At the turn of the century, the children and grandchildren of confederate veterans recognized the need to remember the leaders that written history was leaving out or giving little credit for their leadership. It was merely a southern pride thing. No one complained back then. A lot of those monuments were also dedicated to the thousands of confederate soldiers who died. And believe me, at that time, nearly everyone had a relative who fought in that war. Most of those former confederate generals and leaders were held in high regard after the war by their northern counterparts. Now we're talking about tearing their monuments down?

As for the reconstruction period after the war, I could write a book on my opinions about that corrupt period. I'll just say that living under military occupation caused a whole lot of hatred and mistrust for the US government that lasted for generations. The tax man finished off many families (including some of mine) in the south that barely survived the war.

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

lets say we grant you for the sake of argument that some of these statues were erected to honor these people who fought for the south. My family was from Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana. All these states were Union, not southern. why are there statues there.

now lets look at some of the generals that fought for the south during the war. Many were in the army before the war started. They swore an oath that still goes on today, that they will protect this country from both foreign and domestic threats. By definition, these men betrayed that oath, and should have been court marshaled, convicted and shot for sedition. Why would anyone want to honor a traitor?

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

You would have to research the individual erected monument or statue to know why it is there. I do a lot of history and genealogy research and am often surprised how easy some things are to find information on.

Your'e overlooking an important fact. In those days, you held the state you were from in higher regard than the US Government. Your state came first. General Lee struggled with this himself. These officers resigned their US commissions (and therefore their oaths) and joined the confederate army. You may view them as a traitor. But they were heroes in their own day.

You don't have to honor anyone. Just don't tell others who to honor a hundred years after those before us found worthy. You cannot erase history.

You are still trying to view people in history by what we know or feel generations later.

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

its not my opinion they are traitors it is matter of fact and military law. They broke the oath of office.

This accusation of us trying to erase history, to be blunt is bull****. There are not statues through out Germany and Austria of the **** leaders and they know their history quite well. There are no statues in France of the people who were in the Vichy government and they know their history.

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

You really shouldn't try to compare the American civil war to the atrocities of WWII. These men were not war criminals.

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

yes, i can, andersonville was just as bad as any horror in wwii and i did not compare the atrocities at all, I pointed out these people have not forgotten their history. And have we forgotten the war of 182? I have not seen many statues of that war around. And you give this ad hoc answer. I am sorry that logic destroys your position but its not my fault.And resigning a commission and joining a foreign government does not make you any less guilty of sedition. You are still committing treason.

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

There are no statues of the men who ran Andersonville. It's ridiculous to think that's what this is about. Have you ever researched the prisoner of war camps in the north and how many died there? That is a bad argument.

I don't know what war of 182 is and probably have not researched it anyway.

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

If you want to really get into atrocities consider what was done to the native americans (for lack of a better term).

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

I am not the one who brought up horrors during the war you did. And I have not condoned any horror that occurred. And this little dodging of a direct question only shows the weakness in your argument.

Re: Removal of historic monuments
 

I agree and I have not seen any statues honoring the native americans and we have not forgotten this horror