Started By
Message
re: University of Alabama system to review all building names, remove Confederate Army plaques
Posted on 6/9/20 at 9:31 am to BamaBo7
Posted on 6/9/20 at 9:31 am to BamaBo7
quote:
As a black guy this is stupid and pointless just to appease the masses now.. nobody today has enslaved me.. nor has any of us been enslaved. History is what it is.. we learn from it. We don’t want to swing so fast from one side to the other.. that is not what equality is. Trust me when I say if equality is forced and shoved down everyone’s throats racism will get stronger behind closed doors. We need a conversation.. both sides. There is serious issues in the justice system.. but there is also in our neighborhoods. We need to address it all.. when you have gang bangers leading the marches we have lost the point. Taking down a statue won’t change that.. might make you feel good, but pushes us further away from a real conversation and solutions.
This post was edited on 6/9/20 at 9:32 am
0
Posted on 6/9/20 at 10:17 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
Personally I think the issue is memorializing a rebellion against the current nation in which one of the key differences was ownership of human beings. And a rebellion that was lost.
I withdraw from conversation on removing statues of American founders/figures who lived before 1865 and owned slaves. Personally, I think that the memorials are clearly for their contribution to this nation. It's fair game to also criticize their participation in the great sin of the time, but scrubbing them from time and memorial is rather ridiculous IMHO.
OK, this is a reasonable perspective to have. How do you reconcile the fact that there are things named after James Longstreet and Joseph Wheeler, who fought for the Confederacy and later "rejoined" the United States with the fact that there are far, far more things named after Ulysses S. Grant, who did in fact own a slave (coincidentally inherited by virtue of his marriage to one of Longstreet's relatives) but fought for the Union and later became President?
This post was edited on 6/9/20 at 10:19 am
Posted on 6/9/20 at 10:28 am to Robot Santa
quote:
OK, this is a reasonable perspective to have. How do you reconcile the fact that there are things named after James Longstreet and Joseph Wheeler, who fought for the Confederacy and later "rejoined" the United States with the fact that there are far, far more things named after Ulysses S. Grant, who did in fact own a slave (coincidentally inherited by virtue of his marriage to one of Longstreet's relatives) but fought for the Union and later became President?
I think that their contributions to the United States should absolutely be celebrated.
My general feeling is the "Confederacy" should not be publicly (in public places, supported by government) celebrated. If an individual who fought for the Confederacy also has a life of success and glory outside of it, I do not think their legacy should be thrown away solely because they sided with their family and state during the War. I don't think wearing the Gray uniform disbars you from being spoken of positively or even memorialized. I don't think that the act of fighting in the rebellion should be, though.
As for Grant, it falls in line with my previous statement. My issue is with glorifying the failed rebellion, not individuals who did bad things during a time where certain bad things were legal and common.
Hope that came across in a sensible way.
This post was edited on 6/9/20 at 10:31 am
Posted on 6/9/20 at 10:38 am to SummerOfGeorge
There are absolutely relics and historical buildings from that period that should be preserved. The Little Round House on campus is one I would fight to preserve. The canon on the Quad is another. Those have actual historical significance and have an important historical story behind them. And there are figures from that era that, while they may have a complicated story to them, should be honored and remembered for their contributions to this country's history. I am uncomfortable applying the morals of today to people from that era.
These monuments to the Confederacy and Confederate figures that sprung up all over the South in the early 1900's as a middle finger to Reconstruction have no place on public property.
These monuments to the Confederacy and Confederate figures that sprung up all over the South in the early 1900's as a middle finger to Reconstruction have no place on public property.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 10:40 am to The Spleen
Amen
Posted on 6/9/20 at 10:51 am to SummerOfGeorge
Covering up history doesn't make it go away. This action builds on the "systemic racism" claim, both of which are ploys to depersonalize white people, much the same way the Nazis sought to depersonalized the Jews.
The War Between the States has a much more nuanced genesis than slavery. In fact, it nearly happened some 50 years earlier over tariffs on goods into America. Slavery became a tag-on justification for a war fought over economics, power and greed. The same genesis for all wars.
The War Between the States has a much more nuanced genesis than slavery. In fact, it nearly happened some 50 years earlier over tariffs on goods into America. Slavery became a tag-on justification for a war fought over economics, power and greed. The same genesis for all wars.
This post was edited on 6/9/20 at 10:52 am
Posted on 6/9/20 at 10:55 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
My general feeling is the "Confederacy" should not be publicly (in public places, supported by government) celebrated. If an individual who fought for the Confederacy also has a life of success and glory outside of it, I do not think their legacy should be thrown away solely because they sided with their family and state during the War. I don't think wearing the Gray uniform disbars you from being spoken of positively or even memorialized. I don't think that the act of fighting in the rebellion should be, though.
I agree with this 100%. Well said.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 11:01 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
My general feeling is the "Confederacy" should not be publicly (in public places, supported by government) celebrated. If an individual who fought for the Confederacy also has a life of success and glory outside of it, I do not think their legacy should be thrown away solely because they sided with their family and state during the War. I don't think wearing the Gray uniform disbars you from being spoken of positively or even memorialized. I don't think that the act of fighting in the rebellion should be, though.
As for Grant, it falls in line with my previous statement. My issue is with glorifying the failed rebellion, not individuals who did bad things during a time where certain bad things were legal and common.
This is all reasonable. The people leading this charge are not reasonable. It isn't about Confederate history for them, and it is already too late to stop this train.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 11:08 am to SummerOfGeorge
quote:
My issue is with glorifying the failed rebellion, not individuals who did bad things during a time where certain bad things were legal and common.
Hope that came across in a sensible way.
Yeah that's reasonable. And I guess that is why I struggle with really jumping to either side of the issue. I am not at all comfortable with glorifying the Confederacy, much less the concept of slavery, nor am I comfortable with the proposition that someone's otherwise notable contributions to the world be denegrated due to the fact that they ascribed to the societal and economic norms of their era.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 11:21 am to LovetheLord
quote:
The War Between the States has a much more nuanced genesis than slavery. In fact, it nearly happened some 50 years earlier over tariffs on goods into America. Slavery became a tag-on justification for a war fought over economics, power and greed. The same genesis for all wars.
You can make arguments that the war was over other things, but all those other things tie back to slavery. Economic reasons? The Confederacy's entire economy was dependent on slave labor. Power? The South's political power was tied to slavery, in that they feared as more non-slave states were added to the country, their power would diminish. Every southern state's Articles of Secession mentions slavery and maintaining that institution.
The bare truth is the Confederacy fought the war to maintain the institution of slavery. That doesn't mean the Union fought it to end slavery though. And that doesn't mean every Confederate soldier had a vested interest in maintaining that institution either.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 11:28 am to The Spleen
quote:
These monuments to the Confederacy and Confederate figures that sprung up all over the South in the early 1900's as a middle finger to Reconstruction have no place on public property.
I agree here but also understand reconstruction has more to do with racism we are dealing with today then the Civil War, slavery, or anything prior to the war. I believe if Lincoln were still alive during the reconstruction years many of the issues we are dealing with today in regards to racism and equality would not exist. Prior to the war the majority of the people in the south lived a life outside of slavery or the economic concerns of the plantation owners. The war united people in the south, many on false premises to protect state rights and personal liberties. After the war during reconstruction almost every person in the south was affected and punished no matter their role in pre-war issues that the elite were dealing with.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 11:37 am to TideWarrior
This has been a great thread boys - appreciate all the input. These issues are hard as hell for all of us who love the University and the region but also know that not all of it's past is beautiful.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 11:39 am to TideWarrior
quote:
The war united people in the south, many on false premises to protect state rights and personal liberties.
"States rights" didn't enter lexicon until the 1910's and 1920's. It was a propaganda term to whitewash the truth that the south seceded over maintaining slavery. It's not mentioned in any of the Article of Secession, nor in any news articles and historical texts from that time.
Reconstruction was horribly administered, but I don't think the south was going to cooperate with it regardless.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 11:47 am to The Spleen
quote:
"States rights" didn't enter lexicon until the 1910's and 1920's.
At the end of the day, slavery was a state's rights issue. Secession was also a state's rights issue. The Civil War only put an end to one of those things, and it wasn't slavery.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 11:48 am to The Spleen
I don't know about all this stuff, but this is the prime time to create a Lawn Service/Ping Pong major and house it in a building named after the great Forest Gump and have a statue of Bubba out in front.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 12:06 pm to The Spleen
quote:
"States rights" didn't enter lexicon until the 1910's and 1920's. It was a propaganda term to whitewash the truth that the south seceded over maintaining slavery. It's not mentioned in any of the Article of Secession, nor in any news articles and historical texts from that time.
I understand that every state seceded due to slavery as the main reason and have read all the secession speeches. But my comment was more about the people with power(plantation owners) who controlled all the power, especially in regards to the political power in the south, even though their true motive as seen in their speeches was to protect the institution of slavery(mainly economic reasons) used false motives like state rights and the protection of individual liberties to convince the majority of those in the south to join the rebellion.
The articles of succession were written and conceived by the few elite of the south. It did not at anytime represent the sentiment of the majority in the south.
In regards to documentation every recruitment poster that went out in every state was about protecting state and private rights. Not one mentioned protecting the institution of slavery as a reason to join.
They were being told their state was being invaded, that would be looted, property would be taken, and even one I read said their women were being taken.
The other day in Oregon a false rumor went out that buses were being sent to a small town filled with antifa to burn and loot and kill white officers. So many believed the rumor the state national guard was put on alert and the police were sending out warnings. Now imagine with very little communication to confirm either true or false back in the 1860s how scared people got and would believe anything out there.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 12:10 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
They were being told their state was being invaded, that would be looted, property would be taken
I mean...in a thread about the University of Alabama being burned when the war was well in hand for the Union, I'm not sure how anyone could say these were false statements.
Posted on 6/9/20 at 12:42 pm to imjustafatkid
All the recruitment posters look like that and even though the secession speeches included protecting the institution of slavery that was not printed and sent out to everyone. The official declaration that went out to the newspapers in the south and to the people spoke of protecting state rights.
Here is one from a GA newspaper and most looked like this. So not sure where you got that regarding state rights were not what was being sold to the people in the south.
LINK
This post was edited on 6/9/20 at 12:44 pm
Posted on 6/9/20 at 12:46 pm to TideWarrior
Not to derail the thread, but I find it kind of interesting that the exact same argument (using states rights/individual liberty as a cover for lawful discrimination) is still being used to great effect 160 years later.
This post was edited on 6/9/20 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 6/9/20 at 12:50 pm to TideWarrior
quote:
So not sure where you got that regarding state rights were not what was being sold to the people in the south.
I didn't. I agree with you.
Page 5 of 11
Latest Alabama News
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News