I traveled down Monument Avenue from June 1964 to May 1965 while attending school in Richmond. I liked the statues that I saw on my journey, and I didn't think about their significance. While in the hospital during that period, I met an elderly woman who had helped to pull the Lee statue along the avenue to its final position when she was a child. Thank you for this video and the memories it has brought back.
@@nathanielscreativecollecti6392 This saying is boring and useless, because NO ONE adheres to it. People look at history in a way that is useful for their ideological interest and demonice everything else that isnt.
What a victory it is that the Confederate statues have been taken down and Arthur Ashe's stands tall, facing north. I think that's beautiful and exactly as it ought to be. There's hope for humanity yet.
I think you are right in saying that the North bears some responsibility for not protesting against Southern attempts to deny that slavery was the true cause of the Civil War. I grew up in Boston, which was the center of the Abolitionist movement, and still famous for the quality of education in its public schools. In 1951 or '52 I was in 7th grade. My homeroom teacher and/history teacher Miss A, a waspish and imperious Yankee, told us that "Secession," not Slavery was the true cause of the Civil War, and she emphasized it in her no-nonsense way. I think she knew better, but was forced to teach Civil War history that way by higher authority (probably the School Board) who would hold her responsible for doing so. Seventy years later I still remember it ! I'm not sure why this change in the way Civil War history was taught was made, but it emphasizes the degree to which the apologists for the Confederacy were able to make their view prevail even in the anti-slavery heartland. It was presented, however, as, the latest and smartest historical consensus on the subject. Whatever faults she may have had, Miss A. was both intelligent, and a good teacher, so I am sure she only did this under pressure. I later learned that states like Texas bought school books en mass, and for this reason were able to influence Text Book Publishers to only publish books that were acceptable to large school text purchasers such as Texas. Possibly, that was why. Anyway, thanks for a great presentation.
The problem is that... it was both reasons, and there two were interconnected. History is complex. The war's short term causes were not slavery directly but rather a political crisis and premature action by states such as South Carolina. And the stated aim of the US govt. at least until later on in the war was to preserve the union, and that was an aim that Democratic politicians in particular focused on. Politicians who if they had won in 1864 undoubtedly would have sought a compromise peace that brought the southern states back in under some kind of modus vivendi over slavery, like the Compromise of 1877 but with slavery continuing to be legal. It is unclear if this would have been possible to sign, and even if it was whether it would be politically stable given how the US would have become more and more of an outlier internationally as the 20th century approached. Of course in a way it is a strange apology for the Confederacy in the sense that even many pro-slavery or neutral northerners saw the actions of the confederacy as treasonous and in hock to pontential foreign interests that wanted to see both the north and south weaker and more dependent on imperial powers - and they were fully conscious of this attempting to draw Britain and France in - for the sake of their personal interests, financial and politically which in itself doesn't exactly paint them in the best light. There was a weird tension at the heart of the confederacy, on the one hand they wanted to present themselves as a new American revolution and Jefferson Davis as a second Washington. And yet their ideology owed far more to Tory paternalism of Britain or Catholic absolutism in its focus upon rigid social hierarchies and the supposed moral superiority of organic communities than the puritan and proto-Liberal thinking of the founding fathers. But then to only see the short term trigger of the war is to ignore why the southern states decided to seceed in the first place, which was directly because a series of confrontations with northern states over slavery especially in new territories and growing abolishment sentiment in the north that was reflected in the rise of the Republican party that culiminated in the election of Lincoln. The southern states knew Lincoln, whilst unlikely to abolish slavery completely (it was not clear before the 13th amendment if this was even constitutionally possible) - would mean grave limits on things such as expansion of slavery into new territories and the restitution of fugitive slaves in Northern states. It is possible to say slavery caused the war whilst not in itself being the direct casus belli. There is a channel here about WW2, where they note the theory that FDR knew of Pearl Harbour and let it happen in plausible if you don't understand the context in which the event took place. If you have read more about the period and the general flux of events the statement is patently ridiculous. But few people have that contextual knowledge. The same thing is true here, the claim that slavery had no role is plausible if you understand history in a vacuum and not in the context of the politics and decision making of the time.
@@forthrightgambitia1032 I don't think we're in much disagreement. Certainly, an argument can be made that the legal cause for the war was the attempt to secede by the Confederate States. But that is misleading as to the real motive: The desire to retain slavery in the Confederate States. There was hardly any other reason to secede. My point is that the apologists for the Confederacy by harping on the legal legal cause were deliberately muddying the waters as to the real motive for the rebellion. Defending slavery was, after the war, impossible. Defending the right to secede was, while legally a mute point, an idea that could deflect those who were, "un-contextualized" , as you put it, from the rather unmentionable, and better left un-discussed business about slavery. It would be impossible to lionize General Lee and other Soldiers of the Confederacy as Paladins defending slavery. But as Paladins defending States' Rights, that would work .They were defenders of a lost paradise, where everybody was happy even the slaves. What has always amazed me is the tenacity and the success of the southern apologists. The South has produced many fine writers, and they all tend to present a picture of the South as the noble victim of their own chivalrous ideas. Few writers from the Union side have made an effort to refute them, either because they thought the apology patently absurd, or because they didn't realize its importance as a means of rewriting history. So the movement of the apologists has bamboozled many. Only recently has it become acceptable to say that Lee (and others like him) may have been honorable , but as Tennyson said of Launcelot their "honor rooted in dishonor stood."
@@frankmorlock1403 I suspect at least part of this is because their cause speaks more deeply to certain (I would argue delusional) aspects of the American mythology. I always sense this in how there is (generally) a bias in favour of Jefferson as opposed to Hamilton. The idea the US was tricked into WW1, or deliberately provoked WW2. Who regards the Gilded Era as anything but the rapacious conquest by robber barons, even though it was the era in which the US became a global power, economically at least? The idea of Americans as rugged Jeffersonian farmers is a lot more appealing on a romaticised level than the image of the North of industry and commerce. There is a similar thing you see in Britain with the Gothic revival - there is an antimodernist nostalgia for a 'simpler' agricultural existence that of course is based on romantic and unrealistic visions of rural life. Which I might add is usually blighted by ignorance, conformism, bigotry and occasionally violence. Even I would argue the hippie movement fed into this stream of American mythology, which maybe in part explains why so many of them ripened in reactionaries later on.
I'm 20 and I think (and hope) that the mere existance of these statues during my lifetime will be the kind of thing I tell my grandkids about as a hard to believe fact about my youth, sort of like how it's hard for us today to comprehend our own grandparents stories about walking 10 km to school and living without running water.
And nothing exemplifies that more than these confederate statues being taken down. It's the people who participated in the protests to have them torn down rather than a have a few salty society people put up statues selling a false narrative. These wonderfully defaced plinths are the real monument of the people.
I live in Richmond and for me it's so great to see these statues come down. I hope they are put in a museum not on a public pedestal to be honored. I'd love to see monument avenue be filled with statues with local civil rights leaders, abolitionists, etc.
@@JohnDoe-bn2dy I don't think anyone is asking for the removal of burials. Here in Richmond we have tons of burial sights with Confederate soldiers and no one here is asking for their removal. There's a difference between a burial ground and statues that honor Confederate generals which frankly have no real reason to be honored in such a way.
Nah fuck that. Most confederate leaders were just people. Unlike the Union who commuted atrocity after atrocity on civilian city’s and towns in the south. Civil rights movement was a commie movement. That shit shouldn’t be celebrated
I traveled down Monument Avenue from June 1964 to May 1965 while attending school in Richmond. I liked the statues that I saw on my journey, and I didn't think about their significance. While in the hospital during that period, I met an elderly woman who had helped to pull the Lee statue along the avenue to its final position when she was a child. Thank you for this video and the memories it has brought back.
@@mikethebike2456 The Lee statue was erected in 1890, so she could have been 85.
America is a mess.
Truly
By forgetting our history, we doom ourselves to repeat it.
@@nathanielscreativecollecti6392 idk who this “we” you’re talking about
@@nathanielscreativecollecti6392
This saying is boring and useless, because NO ONE adheres to it.
People look at history in a way that is useful for their ideological interest and demonice everything else that isnt.
@@DiscernedEyes obviously “we” doesn’t include n i g g e r s like you since you never went to school to learn history in the first place 😂
Thank you so much for all of your work and all of your video.
What a victory it is that the Confederate statues have been taken down and Arthur Ashe's stands tall, facing north. I think that's beautiful and exactly as it ought to be. There's hope for humanity yet.
I think you are right in saying that the North bears some responsibility for not protesting against Southern attempts to deny that slavery was the true cause of the Civil War. I grew up in Boston, which was the center of the Abolitionist movement, and still famous for the quality of education in its public schools. In 1951 or '52 I was in 7th grade. My homeroom teacher and/history teacher Miss A, a waspish and imperious Yankee, told us that "Secession," not Slavery was the true cause of the Civil War, and she emphasized it in her
no-nonsense way. I think she knew better, but was forced to teach Civil War history that way by higher authority (probably the School Board) who would hold her responsible for doing so. Seventy years later I still remember it ! I'm not sure why this change in the way Civil War history was taught was made, but it emphasizes the degree to which the apologists for the Confederacy were able to make their view prevail even in the anti-slavery heartland. It was presented, however, as, the latest and smartest historical consensus on the subject. Whatever faults she may have had, Miss A. was both intelligent, and a good teacher, so I am sure she only did this under pressure. I later learned that states like Texas
bought school books en mass, and for this reason were able to influence Text Book Publishers to only publish books that were acceptable to large school text purchasers such as Texas. Possibly, that was why.
Anyway, thanks for a great presentation.
The problem is that... it was both reasons, and there two were interconnected. History is complex. The war's short term causes were not slavery directly but rather a political crisis and premature action by states such as South Carolina. And the stated aim of the US govt. at least until later on in the war was to preserve the union, and that was an aim that Democratic politicians in particular focused on. Politicians who if they had won in 1864 undoubtedly would have sought a compromise peace that brought the southern states back in under some kind of modus vivendi over slavery, like the Compromise of 1877 but with slavery continuing to be legal. It is unclear if this would have been possible to sign, and even if it was whether it would be politically stable given how the US would have become more and more of an outlier internationally as the 20th century approached. Of course in a way it is a strange apology for the Confederacy in the sense that even many pro-slavery or neutral northerners saw the actions of the confederacy as treasonous and in hock to pontential foreign interests that wanted to see both the north and south weaker and more dependent on imperial powers - and they were fully conscious of this attempting to draw Britain and France in - for the sake of their personal interests, financial and politically which in itself doesn't exactly paint them in the best light. There was a weird tension at the heart of the confederacy, on the one hand they wanted to present themselves as a new American revolution and Jefferson Davis as a second Washington. And yet their ideology owed far more to Tory paternalism of Britain or Catholic absolutism in its focus upon rigid social hierarchies and the supposed moral superiority of organic communities than the puritan and proto-Liberal thinking of the founding fathers.
But then to only see the short term trigger of the war is to ignore why the southern states decided to seceed in the first place, which was directly because a series of confrontations with northern states over slavery especially in new territories and growing abolishment sentiment in the north that was reflected in the rise of the Republican party that culiminated in the election of Lincoln. The southern states knew Lincoln, whilst unlikely to abolish slavery completely (it was not clear before the 13th amendment if this was even constitutionally possible) - would mean grave limits on things such as expansion of slavery into new territories and the restitution of fugitive slaves in Northern states. It is possible to say slavery caused the war whilst not in itself being the direct casus belli. There is a channel here about WW2, where they note the theory that FDR knew of Pearl Harbour and let it happen in plausible if you don't understand the context in which the event took place. If you have read more about the period and the general flux of events the statement is patently ridiculous. But few people have that contextual knowledge. The same thing is true here, the claim that slavery had no role is plausible if you understand history in a vacuum and not in the context of the politics and decision making of the time.
@@forthrightgambitia1032 I don't think we're in much disagreement. Certainly, an argument can be made that the legal cause for the war was the attempt to secede by the Confederate States. But that is misleading as to the real motive: The desire to retain slavery in the Confederate States. There was hardly any other reason to secede.
My point is that the apologists for the Confederacy by harping on the legal legal cause were deliberately muddying the waters as to the real
motive for the rebellion. Defending slavery was, after the war, impossible. Defending the right to secede was, while legally a mute point, an idea that could deflect those who were, "un-contextualized" , as you put it, from the rather unmentionable, and better left un-discussed
business about slavery. It would be impossible to lionize General Lee and other Soldiers of the Confederacy as Paladins defending slavery. But as Paladins defending States' Rights, that would work .They were defenders of a lost paradise, where everybody was happy even the slaves.
What has always amazed me is the tenacity and the success of the southern apologists. The South has produced many fine writers, and
they all tend to present a picture of the South as the noble victim of
their own chivalrous ideas. Few writers from the Union side have made an effort to refute them, either because they thought the apology patently absurd, or because they didn't realize its importance as a means of rewriting history. So the movement of the apologists has bamboozled many. Only recently has it become acceptable to say that Lee (and others like him) may have been honorable , but as Tennyson said of Launcelot their "honor rooted in dishonor stood."
@@frankmorlock1403 I suspect at least part of this is because their cause speaks more deeply to certain (I would argue delusional) aspects of the American mythology. I always sense this in how there is (generally) a bias in favour of Jefferson as opposed to Hamilton. The idea the US was tricked into WW1, or deliberately provoked WW2. Who regards the Gilded Era as anything but the rapacious conquest by robber barons, even though it was the era in which the US became a global power, economically at least? The idea of Americans as rugged Jeffersonian farmers is a lot more appealing on a romaticised level than the image of the North of industry and commerce. There is a similar thing you see in Britain with the Gothic revival - there is an antimodernist nostalgia for a 'simpler' agricultural existence that of course is based on romantic and unrealistic visions of rural life. Which I might add is usually blighted by ignorance, conformism, bigotry and occasionally violence. Even I would argue the hippie movement fed into this stream of American mythology, which maybe in part explains why so many of them ripened in reactionaries later on.
A monument avenue with no monuments! Hope that changes soon!
u hope they change the name of the avenue? 🤔
I hope future generations embrace a culture that preserves the US as the government by the people, of the people, and for the people.
I'm 20 and I think (and hope) that the mere existance of these statues during my lifetime will be the kind of thing I tell my grandkids about as a hard to believe fact about my youth, sort of like how it's hard for us today to comprehend our own grandparents stories about walking 10 km to school and living without running water.
And nothing exemplifies that more than these confederate statues being taken down. It's the people who participated in the protests to have them torn down rather than a have a few salty society people put up statues selling a false narrative. These wonderfully defaced plinths are the real monument of the people.
@@magicmachine1637 that’s cool, I’m 14 and my friends and I make fun of black people for being fragile pussies about these statues 😂
That ended when Lincoln arrested the Maryland legislature.
I was told that Monument Avenue was often referred to a "Losers Lane" for obvious reasons.
@@mikethebike2456 Granny on the Beverly Hillbillies thought that the South had won the war so I guess that makes sense.
I live in Richmond and for me it's so great to see these statues come down. I hope they are put in a museum not on a public pedestal to be honored. I'd love to see monument avenue be filled with statues with local civil rights leaders, abolitionists, etc.
@@JohnDoe-bn2dy I don't think anyone is asking for the removal of burials. Here in Richmond we have tons of burial sights with Confederate soldiers and no one here is asking for their removal. There's a difference between a burial ground and statues that honor Confederate generals which frankly have no real reason to be honored in such a way.
Nah fuck that. Most confederate leaders were just people. Unlike the Union who commuted atrocity after atrocity on civilian city’s and towns in the south. Civil rights movement was a commie movement. That shit shouldn’t be celebrated
@@MrThebeast115 - you are trash
@George Prince your city is going broke and I love it. Have fun in your ghetto. You go back to your bus lmao
Like your boy Fentanyl Floyd?