Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Defeated, heroized, dismantled: Richmond's Robert E. Lee Monument
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 вер 2021
- Antonin Mercié, Robert E. Lee Monument, 1890, bronze (removed from Monument Avenue, Richmond Virginia, September 9, 2021)
This video was recorded in July 2021.
speakers: Dr. Sarah Beetham and Dr. Beth Harris
One widely publicized incident during the American Civil War was attributed to a Union soldier as related to Brig. Gen. A. L. Long of the Confederacy and Brigadier General Marcus Wright of the Federal Army,
"I was at the Battle of Gettysburg myself, and an incident occurred there which largely changed my views of the Southern people. I had been a most bitter anti-South man, and fought and cursed the Confederacy desperately. I could see nothing good in any of them. The last day of the fight I was badly wounded. A ball shattered my left leg. I lay on the ground not far from Cemetery Ridge, and as Gen. Lee ordered his retreat he and his officers rode near me. As they came along I recognized him, and, though faint from exposure and loss of blood, I raised up my hands, looked Lee in the face, and shouted as loud as I could, 'Hurrah for the Union!' The general heard me, looked, stopped his horse, dismounted, and came toward me. I must confess that I at first thought he mean't to kill me. But as he came up he looked at me with such a sad expression on his face that all fear left me, and I wondered what he was about. He extended his hand to me, grasping mine firmly, and looking right into my eyes said, 'My son, I hope you will soon be well.'
If I live a thousand years I shall never forget the expression on Lee's face. There he was defeated, retiring from the field that had cost him and his cause almost their last hope, and yet he stopped to say words like those to a wounded soldier of the opposition who had taunted him as he passed by! As soon as the general had left me I cried myself to sleep there upon the bloody ground."
Source: My Brother's Keeper; Union and Confederate Acts of Mercy During the Civil War.
That is not correct. Wright was not "of the Federal Army." Both Armistead Lindsay Long and Marcus Joseph Wright were actually Confederate generals (the book you cite gets this important fact wrong, see his grave here: www.findagrave.com/memorial/11115/marcus-joseph-wright), The story offered might conceivably be true but is very likely a fabrication as it is recounted (long before My Brother's Keeper was written) in the Memoirs of Robert E. Lee, His Military and Personal History from 1886 authored by these same two former CSA generals. The book states on pages 301 and 302 that the story is based only on a newspaper column that they do not cite, and for which no specific reference is made, and no footnote is offered. The story gained traction in the late 19th and early 20th century when Jim Crow was at its height and when this memorial to Lee was constructed. This is the myth of the Lost Cause.
@@smarthistory-art-historywhat in the hell?
“AcTUAlLy…”
How can you miss the point so clearly? And way to crowbar black people into this just like a good boy! The story is the personification of Lee and whether it happened this way or not at all is totally moot.
This statue was unveiled in 1890. What the hell does that have to do with segregation? Obviously nothing, it just shows you the level of indoctrination and propaganda and how effective it’s been. The number of Righteous Causers that just burp out these buzzwords like good little boys is unreal.
This giant, amazing masterpiece was no doubt a spurious attempt to honor Lee, took no thought or dedication, and in fact was secretly aimed at…discouraging? humiliating? black people instead. No wonder only 110 thousand people came to its unveiling in their horse drawn carriages. Ignore what they say too. This guy knows the real reasons.
I can’t tell you how many statues I’ve erected in order to put down my foes!
What did Robert E Lee urge Southerners to do after the war ended?
In 1865, Lee signed an amnesty oath, asking once again to become a citizen of the United States. He did so as an active encouragement for confederate soldiers to rejoin the United States.
That's supposed to make up for all the treason?
@@rogerwilco5918clearly you don’t understand the concept of treason and are repeating something you heard someone say…
I’m sure your view is well versed and definitely not influenced by “the current thing.” You’re clueless and don’t actually care…just keep spooning in that propaganda like a good boy.
@@brianschumacher5914 then how do you explain the pardon for treason in the Library of Congress for future generations to view?
Looks to me like those Confederate monuments to treason and slavery are defective if you people aren't actually learning history.
Whatever you think of the subject, the statue is an important work of late 19th century sculpture and needs repairing [from when it was cut into pieces following its removal] and then preserving.
What excactly makes this statue important?
This statue is pure kitsch, including the pyramidal design.
Are you kidding or what? This is a very rigid example of neoclassicism rendered well after the movement was in vogue. It brings nothing new aside from it's sole purpose of glorifying a slaver's fight to continue slaving. Better executed & more interesting work has been binned for far less.
@@c7261Why are you people so stupid? Robert e Lee spoke out against slavery, 70% of the south weren’t slave owners, the union had 8 slave states in 1864, Ulysses Grant was a slave owner, and the reason why Lee was respected for over a century was because he was a great soldier and United States hero. He fought for the us in the Mexican American war and defended his home in the civil war. It’s literally no different than William Wallace
Beautiful, thank you 🙏
Notice that the mythologizing was part of a land speculation.
I think it is a shame it was taken down. Forgetting history is never a good idea. Understanding the past is needed to not repeat it.
I agree, let’s build a statue of Osama Bin Ladin. How else will anybody remember him?
Actually, we have books for that.. nobody will forget the treason, slavery, or surrender.
You and other statue defenders seem to misunderstand what "forgetting history" is. Removing a statue glorifying a general that fought against the United States and for slavery is not forgetting history. History books, history classes, and museums will not suddenly erase Robert E. Lee from existence because a statue was removed in a city which 95% of the US population will never visit.
It is like you want to find any reason to justify this obvious right wing stance and using "history" as a thinly veiled excuse.
Pick up a book you dont need statues of monsters
If the Civil War was all about slavery, why did Abraham Lincoln in his inaugural address offer to give the institution of slavery more protection than ever before? He promised to enforce the fugitive slave law and was willing to support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would protect the institution, but the Southern States seceded anyway.
Historians overwhelming agree that the protection of slavery was the primary motivation for the rebellion of the Southern States. For clear evidence of this, all one needs to do is to read the Cornerstone Speech given by Alexander Stephens, the Vice President of the CSA in Savannah in March 1861. By the time Lincoln was inaugurated, the South had already seceded and formed a government. The two events are connected of course, South Carolina left the union because Lincoln had been elected and his antislavery position was clear. That he sought to placate the South with his speech isn't useful in understanding why the CSA was formed.
That doesn’t make sense…
So he didn’t mean it and the south knew he didn’t mean it because seems like based on your righteous causer theory that this woulda settled the score…rebellion over folks.
They totally seceded and created a new government in total anticipation of what they thought Lincoln might be able to do regarding slavery.
Nobody says it was a nonissue. That’s ridiculous, but it’s not as ridiculous as pretending it was the sole issue, the only thing that mattered to the 90% of folks that didn’t own slaves…
You know academics these days are a joke and a consensus of those clowns is a guarantee of its invalidity.
Maybe blacks aren’t that important nor valuable to anyone…just a thought to blow your mind. Since this weird fetish is driving your brain.
A bad example is the best teacher
The base has become something of a work of art itself, with its emotion filled meta-scrawl.
Perhaps THAT should be left in place (with an explanation) for the next 131 years as a commemoration of our times.
Part of me is inclined to agree with you, but when I think of the (potentially hateful, ignorant, misguided) messages depicted on the base, I think it's best it all go. I'd rather not substitute one kind of prejudicial message for another, personally.
@@Sasha0927 I think you're right.
Thank you .
The column of Trajan in Rome depicts the defeat and enslavement of the Dacians during his campaigns along the Danube. Should we remove the monument for offense to modern Romanians (i.e. Thracians)? This iconoclasm will only lead to more to come. Thank you for your impartial lecture. I am only glad the South lost the war, but am sad to see these well executed historical monuments vandalized.
The difference is that no one today defends or makes up excuses for the enslavement of the Dacians. So the message of Trajan's Column is impotent in today's world because no one takes it to heart. On the other hand, there are many people today who defend or make up excuses for CSA. So the message of this statue still motivates people, and we have to fight against it.
You can't seriously compare Trajan's column with this insignificant, unoriginal and kitsch sculpture.
@@vidarfemost defenders of confederate statues aren’t trying to defend slavery. In fact not even most people who built the statues had that intention. You are intentionally misrepresenting the other side
Shame to dismantle History.
You can read and talk all about Robert E. Lee, and look at his portrait. Heroic monuments on large squares are not for people whose main achievement was waging war for slavery.
I was amazed to see the graffiti covering the statue's base and even more amazed by the note at the end of the video (which I found relieving). The removal of the statue sends a more powerful message than its presence ever would have - a kind of artistry in its own right. :)
This statue should never have gone up on public land. Yes, Lee was a tremendous battlefield commander; even when he lost, his opponents knew that they had been in a terrible, costly fight. That said, his battles were fought against the Union, which prevailed on the battlefield, but showed little enthusiasm for the long work of Reconstruction that was necessary, and ignored the very well crafted Resistance movement that the remnants of the Confederacy waged after their defeat to rehabilitate the "Lost Cause" and ennoble those who had waged war defending Slavery, Secession and White Supremacy. And statues like this, together with other memorials like them, are rallying points for modern racists and recidivists who not only want to rewrite history but use that rewritten history to preserve and revive much of the lingering evil that Lee chose to so ably defend. And it is because of the success this resistance movement that statues like this need to go. If the Civil War is ever to finally end, the defeated have to be denied publicly approved glorification of the rebel leaders and their cause. Removing such memorials is not destroying or rewriting history, it's the appropriate response to a long lasting and ongoing battle for the mind of the nation that did not end when Lee surrendered, and continues to this day. Ignoring the current importance of these statues which function as a sign of continued resistance and provocation can only perpetuate the wrongs the Civil War sought to end,
I believe it was private land donated for the purpose or a similar purpose.
@@scottreeves1226 That was a legal ruse. It worked this way: The Confederate Widows or similar private association would buy the land and pay for the memorial and gift the memorial to the government; in return the state or municipal government would agree to accept the memorial and offer perpetual care. Because that seems like a contract
with both sides giving valid consideration it could not legally be altered
by some succeeding administration less friendly to the project because of the Contract Clause to the Constitution. It also made it difficult for the Federal Government to object or intervene, since until the gift was actually made it was a private memorial. And once the gift was accepted
by the state or local government the Contract Clause would kick in making it very difficult for the Federal Government to legally object. I suspect that this was a sort of sweetheart contract between the local/state government and the Confederate Widows Association worked out well in advance. Theoretically, at least, the Assn: would claim breach of contract and damages.
Good riddance. As a resident of the greater Richmond area, and a transplant from outside the Southern influence, I always wondered when and how these monuments to the defeated would finally come down.