Civil War Re-enactors Weigh in on Confederate Monuments Controversy
Вставка
- Опубліковано 25 сер 2024
- The U.S. Civil War ended more than 150 years ago, but some Americans gather on old battlefields to re-enact this historic era in great detail today. They buy uniforms, authentic weapons, gather food typical of that era and sleep in tents on their ancestors' battlefields. These re-enactments come at a time when many Americans are debating the future of monuments to the losing Confederate side. VOA's Anush Avetisyan visited camps set up by the recreated "armies" of both sides.
Originally published at - www.voanews.co...
Alas. We've never healed. People still argue about the war now.
We’re more split on this war now than we were in WW1
This comment has aged like fine wine
Because people are trying to justify what the confederates dis
It's a fact that the war was for slavery and that preserving monuments honoring the people who fought for slavery for feelings is a dumbass idea
In 1957 the us recognized all confederate soldiers as us veterans
Would you destroy an American veteran statue
If it glorifies the people whom fought to keep my family enslaved, I'm fighting to have it taken down.
@@bigkwhit You gotta remember not everyone in the south was a plantation owner or slave owner if you were drafted you didnt have a choice to serve unless you were rich or had a certain amount of slaves
@john Mullholand - The csa seceded because they could no longer dominate USA national government as they had from the beginning of the USA Constitution. That domination of the USA national government was enabled by the Electoral College, and the 3/5ths rule.
Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. kkk are terrorists. Jim Crow is terrorism.
Terrorists deserve no honor. Terrorists deserve no statue or memorial.
If you want to piss and moan about "pissin' an' moanin'".....
....WHY are there no gigantic statues of Gen. Sherman in the old terrorist South?
"Heritage OF Hate!"
@john Mullholand - Typical bullshit csa/kkk propaganda. Chew on some truth for a bit:
When someone repeats csa/kkk propaganda, I will point that out. The USA Constitution, and USA history, prove you wrong. I'll try to be brief.
The Electoral College (+ the 3/5ths rule) was written by terrorists(slavers) to give themselves and other USA terrorists a welfare benefit. What was the welfare benefit? Excessive representation in the USA Congress. Excessive representation in the Electoral College. The terrorists received "free stuff" from the USA Government. The "founding fathers" were the USA's first bunch of "welfare queens". This condition caused the expansion of slaver terrorism in the USA. The USA's founding fathers were just greedy "welfare queens".
This "welfare benefit" allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The abolition movement and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories removed much of the terrorists welfare benefit. This is the roots of that slaver/racist bullshit propaganda, "we don't want to be ruled by the coasts" and other lame propaganda. (The terrorists had no problem with the federal government when they dominated the USA.) The slaver terrorists had their "feelings" hurt because they lost their "free stuff". ( What happened then?
The terrorists' hurt "feelings", and GREED, compelled them to make a lame attempt to form a separate country based solely on terrorism, the csa.
Read the USA Constitution and look at events in USA history. This isn't some bullshit I've imagined, it is USA history.
TERRORISTS DESERVE NO HONOR!
@john Mullholand - We're taking up a collection for a statue of a civil war "hero", General Sherman. This statue will be erected in the center of Atlanta. Please contribute. Your assistance will be memorialized on a plaque attached to the statue.
This will be the first of many Gen. Sherman statues throughout the terroristic south. I'm sure you'll agree that Gen. Sherman is very under-represented on the south.
Has everyone forgot that the "confederate flag" is Robert E. Lee's battle flag and did not truly become the confederate flag, but instead became to be know that because of piss poor teaching.
Still a symbol of slavery though. Its about context and how neo confederates use it.
@@ethandew1768 neo confederates suck
@@ethandew1768 irrelevant. 1st amendment.
@@humansvd3269 First Amendment also give me the right to tell neo-confederates how incredibly stupid they are.
Yea but his battle flag was also used in slightly different forms as many other southern armies battle flags. And an almost identical flag was used by the confederate privateers that sailed across the world especially the UK and France so that flag became very associated with the CSA. I don’t think it’s poor teaching
The Soldiers that fought against each other had one bond and that was Respect. Even tho they fought against each other in battle, each earned the others Respect. I think you see that here and it was witnessed at the 50th Anniversary of the Battle of Gettysburg Reunion where old Union & old Confederate Veterans shook hands. If these guys can shake hands, why can't we today. Please leave the monuments of both sides alone. Let history be and lets show each Veteran the Respect they've earned.
It's sad, all vets from both sides are probably rolling in their graves over what America has become today, how we are still divided despite the accomplishments they made over150 years ago
Gary Daniel So you can be held accountable for over 3 million people you've never met before. Sure..
Gary Daniel Gary Daniel Im pretty sure you know what i'm talking about. Its war, people are going to die, sacrifices will be made by both sides to get through, so get over it. Tell any person of color that the only thing that came from the American Civil War was that a bunch of civilians died and see what they think. Reconstruction wasn't a cakewalk either, but you should think about how much America has changed for the best because of it.
Gary Daniel So you mean to tell me that there should never had been a need for unification? If the war ended in favor of the CSA then slavery would had continued well into the 20th century until the Confederacy's inevitable collapse, resulting in MORE hardship. It would had happened anyways. Plus, a crapload of Americans like me probably wouldn't have been born if history turned out differently.
Gary Daniel I don't blame the CSA for doing what they did. They were fighting for a cause that they thought was holy and true. I was born in the south and I keep a CSA battle-flag hanging in my room. They will always have my respect. A noble cause, but I just know that history would have turned out better with a union victory.
In Lincoln's first inaugural address he said that he had no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with slavery and had no inclination to do so. He went on in the same address and offered an amendment which would have enshrined the protection of slavery in the constitution forever, and said he'd favor making that clause irrevocable. In the fall of 1862 he announced his emancipation proclamation and gave the States 100 days to rejoin the union in which case it would not apply to them, and they could keep their slaves. In the early months of 1865 he met with Confederate emissaries and Seward advised them that if they would rejoin the union and submit to federal control, they would have the votes to defeat the 13th Amendment and could retain their slaves. Three times Lincoln offered slavery to the Confederate government in exchange for rejoining the union, and three times they refused. There's a reason for this- they were vying for independence......not slavery and the record is absolute irrefutable of this fact. Now, if the north was not fighting to end slavery, and the South was not fighting to keep it, what relation do Confederate monuments have to that institution? I believe what we have here is motivated by vast ignorance perpetuated by a failed education system with regards to basic history.
So what were they fighting about? What was the reason the South wanted to secede so badly if not to maintain and expand slavery?
@@tom4705 My response to the answer is multi-faceted-
1) If one reads the secession documents, ALL of them, they would find that in "some" States, yes, slavery, was a factor in secession. If one reads deeper, these documents tell them WHY it was a factor- because slavery was constitutional and the North was threatening not to abide by the constitution. The Southern States reasoned that if they could ignore the constitution on this issue, then they could do likewise on others. In fact they had done so, and slavery was more or less the final straw. The North had tried to levy unfair taxes, to admit States such as Missouri on unequal footing with the original thirteen, enforce "implied" powers, and generally wrangle the balance of power to their advantage on multiple issues. The secession documents of five States do in fact mention slavery as a cause of secession- they also point out the constitutional problems with Northern assaults on the institution in violation of the constitution. South Carolina passed TWO secession documents- one detailing Northern assaults on slavery and the second, detailing Northern violation of the constitution and assaults on the Southern economy. Most supporters of the "righteous Cause" myth do not even know that the second secession document exists!
2) The position that "the secession documents" vilifies the South assumes that secession is a cause of war. This is asinine to the point of stupidity. If secession is an act of war, then the entire fabric on which "America" was built is a lie. The Colonists seceded from England, formed a union first under the Articles of Confederation, then SECEDED from that union in order to adopt the present day constitution of 1787. There is nothing more "American" than the right of secession, and far from being an "act of war", it is in fact "an act of peace." Better to peacefully separate than to remain in a hostile union which would inevitably lead to internal strife and war, right? Lincoln's wholly unconstitutional actions aside, the South's decision to secede was an attempt to take the more peaceful approach to solving the internal disagreements between the various sections and States.
3) As I said, yes five States mentioned slavery directly as an impetus for secession, but others did not. Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas specifically decided NOT to secede over slavery, and then held additional conventions AFTER Lincoln's decision to invade, wherein they seceded for that reason- the president had no power to call for troops, and no authority to unilaterally launch an invasion under the constitution. These four States were incensed over this tyrannical action, and seceded because of it.
4) When one discusses "slavery", we must recognize that in the North the word was a euphemism for "power". Advocates of the "righteous Cause" myth would like you to believe that the North and its politicians were on some altruistic and humanitarian venture to "bring about equality." this is utter horse crap. Most Northern States wanted blacks confined to the South and adopted "black codes" that prevented them from even entering their States. The aim of the Lincoln's actions against slavery was to prevent its spread into the new territories which, as he said, "we want for free, white labor." It was a protection racket designed to prevent slave labor from coming into competition with compensated labor.
5) Moreover, by confining slavery to the South this would ensure that the economies of the new States coming into the union would not be agrarian in their economies......which would neutralize Southern representation in congress and negate Southern influence.
"Slavery" was a code word for "power". Simple as that.
The various secession documents can be interpreted in any number of ways. They were more than anything else a response to decades of violent abolitionist propaganda. But the best response is that slavery was a legal, constitutionally sanctioned component of the southern economy. There was simply no way it could simply be abandoned without severe economic devastation across the south. The poverty of formerly middle class southern families following the war, many of whom had owned no slaves, before the war, is proof of that.
There are a handful on here who keep making an artificial distinction between revolution and secession, blindly and ignorantly forgetting that the practical outcomes (if those endeavors are successful) either way is a political separation, the forming of a separate independent body politic. For practical purposes it doesn't matter whether it's "legal" or not, the result is (again, if successful) still a seperation, a severing of political ties and the establishing of a new, independent state. The final result is still the same whether it's by a violent war or a peaceful parting of ways. The real question to be asking is "are either of those actions legally justified in the particular case involving our country"? Is it lawful/legal and by WHAT LAW, considering both "Natural Law" and the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and Bill of Rights? I think the reason they insist that their is no relation is because they must believe that the Revolutionary War was legally justified in order to be loyal, patriotic US citizens. But they, because of their very different view from that of the Founders (and that generation) combined with their view of Lincoln and his administration, cannot allow for the legality of secession by any state for any reason (full scale revolution is fine and dandy though). So they, if I may use an analogy, cannot admit to the "taxonomic" relatedness of the Revolutionary War with the South's secession as a member of the same "genus". The object is the same, political separation.
The Declaration of Independence states the foundational principles clearly. The Founders believed in a concept of "law" founded upon a higher authority than any man or any organized group of men. They believed rights were/are "unalienable" because they are given in trust by that higher authority to individual men and by extension to any organized group of men, forming a compact to preserve those rights to the individual and by extension (in the "Federal" form intended by the Founders and codified in the Constitution) to preserve those rights to the states. They explicitly penned language recognizing another catagory of unalienable right, to "alter or abolish" any government destructive of those same rights. They understood the principle that lawful government governs by the "consent of the governed". The Federal government was intended to "serve" the states. These principles that were expressly and clearly enunciated in the Declaration (our charter) were enshrined in the language of the Constitution.
The South's secession was an act of separation as was the winning of the Revolutionary war was for their patriot predecessors and exemplars.
@@tom4705 It was about the fact the north and the federal govt kept placing the most burdensome taxes on the south, who had a third of tge population and new states were being created to keep them slave free, meaning the south would continue to lose political power amd essentially have no representation.
The republican party was founded upon the abolition of slavery as one of its cornerstone in their platform. Lincoln was elected as president not long after the dred scott decision which deemed black people as non-citizens in the us. At that point in time political parties was already divided among sectional lines in terms of slavery. The country as whole was racist at the time hence Lincoln had to placate towards them in order to preserve his political capital because endorsing racial equality would've been political suicide which ironically is what happened to Lincoln when he was assassinated not long after publicly endorsing black suffrage after the Civil War.
In regards towards slavery, Lincoln was an aboltionist but sought to contain in the south and initially spoke of preserving slavery as it currently stood in the south because it was seen as a "constitutional right" at the time even given the paradox of that concept alone. However his inauguration address and the proposed corwin ammendment ( which i insinuate you are referring to) was just a thin veneer to prevent the secession crisis since the south didn't believe lincoln at all and with good reason considering that his stance on slavery following the douglas-lincoln debates. The corwin ammendment is vague in nature of "domestic institutions" and while it relates to preserving slavery, this ammendment only applies to states where it currently exists and not expansion to the territories. This was no different than the other long list of comprises such as the Missouri which also sought to contain slavery.
I ask you this question, if lincoln didn't care about slavery then why didn't he sign or advocate for the crittenden compromise in December of 1860? This compromise would've enshrined slavery in the constituon, protected interstate slave trading, promote its expansion to the territories, and prohibit congress from making any future ammendments in regards towards prohibiting slavery. Unlike the corwin ammendment, this compromise lists slavery of the African race by name and specificity as opposed to "domestic institutions".
Also you are correct that some confederate states didn't list slavery on their ordinance of secession but that is because they didn't even bother to provide a detailed justification for secession like other states did. Hence, it's ambiguous to assume their full position on secession in terms of ordinances. What is an undisputed fact that the confederacy itself enshrine slavery into its constituon by written name and the institution of slavery was further endorsed by Alexander stephans cornerstone speech. Also its interesting to note that the emancipation proclamation applied to states in rebellion because Lincoln didn't want to instigate further secession by the border states.
Furthermore the states rights argument seem to stem from their belief that they reserve the right to own slaves as property. Really this was just rhetoric to preserve slavery. Slaves as property is counter intuitive because these slave holders wanted to initially count slaves as part of the population for representation in congress but prohibit their ability to vote. This would effectively place slave owners significant power in congress. The three fifths compromise inadvertently also makes the case that black people or slaves aren't subjected to fix terms as property because that would mean that my cats and dogs would give more seats in congress as well. Also add in the fact that the black codes held slaves to a higher standard than whites and wasn't enforced on livestock seems to further divest from the argument that the slave as a property was indifferent from livestock. The fugitive slave act of 1794 applies to escape fugitives held in labor or in service in the US. I can see how this applies to conscription or contracts but fails in face of slavery. Slaves lack the ability to negotiate their contract or lack thereof. If anything it was forced labor not unlike impressment of US sailors in the British navy. Also under what sane logic would a contract apply to a child still in the womb to be enslaved. It is impossible for a newborn to even write the consent, let alone walk on 2 legs after birth. The point is that even the southern perspective of slavery falls flat on its face in terms of constitutionality.
Now let's talk about the confederate monuments, these statues were put in place as propaganda for the lost cause and further monuments were put in place during the Civil Rights Era. The dixiecrats even formed to oppose desegregation due to states rights. Which also popularized the confederate battle flag. If these monuments and forts were named to honor confederate veterans and their supposed "illustrious performance" then why was Gen. Longstreet so neglected until recently, I mean he was a far better general than either Gen. Hood or Gen. Brag. The these 2 guys cost the confederacy the war in the western theater unlike Longstreet who was just as troublesome to the union as Robert E. Lee. The only possible reason is that he worked with Grant after the Civil War and tried to stop the insurrection of liberty place which was cuased by white supremacist and liberty place. There are many argument to be made about confederate monuments.
In regard to confederate veterans, I don't mind simple grave markers to remember them by or flying confederate flags on private property. I do however believe that all confederate monuments should be removed for the propaganda they represent and their actions. We can find courage, valor, and sacrifice on both sides of the Civil War. However we can't forget that it was the confederates who took up arms against our republic and our soldiers who took up arms to protect it. In this regard confederate monuments have no place in our country.
That's a funny statement because he was an abolitionist.
Thanks from Egypt I love USA USA
I know you commented on this months ago, but thank you for supporting the USA. People like you and the Turkish man from the video are just as much American as me.
Trump says you nor your family can visit till he figures out what's going on though.....
Jon Medic ?
@@jonmedic6953 Egypt wasnt included in the travel ban.
“Freedoms in our states” to do WHAT
Not having federal troops come in and impose their will and burn down homes and steal stuff, which they did. A lincoln helped author the Corwin amendment, which would have made it permanently legal for slavey. It was all about money, and the north didn't really care about the slaves.
@@humansvd3269 Lincoln pushed the Corwin Amendment after the states already seceded. Both sides agreed it didn't actually solve the "problem", which was that the constitution didn't protect slavery from being banned in the Territories. Lincoln couldn't ban slavery where it existed without an amendment, but he could ban it for new states, and in doing so, could garner enough support to ban it with an amendment more democratically. The South saw this coming, which is why they pointed it out in their secession documents and their responses to the Corwin Amendment. It was 1000% about slavery, without question.
The Confederacy wasn’t fighting just for slaves, but to preserve a way of life, that they saw as being unconstitutionally stripped from them. What’s really got to be understood is the Union was fighting for 1. Hegemony and 2. A right that they believed everybody on the planet deserved, and in the South’s defense, all of their money was made off the backs of slaves, which is wrong by modern morals, but in the 1860’s was still seen as somewhat normal in a good portion of the world. By the North stripping their slaves away, they were stripping away their very livelihood, and it’s not like the North wasn’t prejudiced, they were nearly as racist as most southerners, they just didn’t believe in slavery. So it’s the Democratic ideal of personal freedom, that Benjamin Franklin so instilled in many Americans, that drove the south to secede, it wasn’t pure racism, if modern tractors existed in 1860, the south wouldn’t have needed slaves, but at the time they did to preserve their way of life. Taking down monuments isn’t doing any good, all it’s doing is making people unnecessarily angry, and disrespecting those who have their life to a cause that they believed in, even if it was astray by the standards of today. Their dead, now let them rest and be remembered, people won’t forget, their memories will only be further damned, something that very, very few deserve in death.
Way of life involved slaves and thw war was about keeping the us United even tho that went to crap
Slavery was their way of life.
I agree with you totally, my opinion on this subject goes to def ears these days because let’s face it, today’s society simply has no respect. How can we even possibly compare a way of life that is over 150 years ago… It’s easy for these people to say you’re racist or supporting a slavery way of life, but have absolutely no knowledge of the past… Any nation that forgets its history is doomed to repeat it, plain and simple…. And what people REFUSE to believe is that was not what the south was fighting for…. Plain and simple, when the south surrendered in 1865, they became veterans… So by removing monuments in there memory your not only disrespecting them, but your disrespecting the very history that made our country it is today…
Some people try to change history by removing things they don't like, or understand. Fun fact. General Grant did own slaves, while General Lee did not.
Fun fact removing statues doesn't change or erase history, there are no statues of Hitler but everyone knows who he is
@@liptongreentea3296 I'm not a huge fan of commies but I still say let those monuments stay that are still standing. And Hitler is no where near the same thing ass some confederate generals. You cant even compare the two.
@@riissanen93 if you're referring to that Lenin statute it's on private property's, and even if the owner got rid of it that wouldn't erase Lenin from history, also I'm not saying the Nazis and the Confederates are the same I'm saying the removing a statue which is meant to romanticizes history won't erase history
@@liptongreentea3296 No I'm not refering to that spesific statue. I'm refering to the Bronze Soldier of Tallinn. And many of like those. I'm just saying if some certain group start to look at some statues as a problem then we are all going to behave like those who destoyed idols that depicted gods of other cultures. Take for example the staues of budhha in afghanistan. Taking down confederate memorials is no sane thing.
@@riissanen93 the bronze soldier isn't in America it's in Estonia, statues of confeaderate generals are not comparable to religious ones, most confeaderate statues went up at the same time Jim crow laws were enacted and the second wave of the kkk rose these statues served to put blacks down and perpetuate the lost cause myth
We need to preserve and protect history. No bias just the hard full truth. We shouldn't be politically correct for things like history. Sometimes the truth can be hurtful or can be relieving. I'm not a ignorant person I know what I'm talking about.
ElectroSalvo Even if you believe it was treason that doesn't mean we should take down monuments. History isn't something to twist or lie about or even be politically correct. Teaching history helps generations about what happened on this planet and to learn from history.
ok so you would support a moument of adolf hitler or osama bin laden because its history right monuments are used to preserve good men and women forever not be a historic artifact if you want history go to a museum but i should not have to walk around a city and look up at a statue of someone who took up arms against the united states
Monuments are reminders, so future generations can learn from the past.
@Gary Daniel considering most confederate veterans didnt consider themselves Americans i dont think we should have mounuments of them and as for jefferson and washington yes they owned slaves but they also hated it speaking against it numerous times and they also created the nation but what did general lee do for this nation nothing he took up arms against and preceded to lead men in killing americans confederates didnt consider themselves american they wanted their own country they are not americans and did nothing for america
@Gary Daniel they're are plenty of monuments of slaves and other african Americans who helped build this nations
Very odd hearing this with a foreigner speaking in whatever accent !!
Burton Kephart Many of the people the Union sent into battle were right off the boat.
It's French English
The United States had slaves far longer than the South had them. the Original 13 Colonies had them Used them as labor too.
@Gary Daniel - You forgot to mention the terrorism against the freed slaves and their descendants for 100 years.
@delusionalCSA - Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. kkk are terrorists. Jim Crow is terrorism.
Somebody in the old terrorist south is taking up a collection to erect a giant Gen. Sherman statue. Have you made your generous contribution to the statue fund?
@Gary Daniel - Yes. The USA was filled with terrorists even before the Constitution was signed. Which terrorists still cling to their "Heritage OF Hate!"?
Why no giant statues of Sherman in the old terrorist south? He definitely was part of your "heritage".
@Gary Daniel - I'm sure he called them worse names than that. 🤣🤔🤔🤔😞
That statement doesn’t mean a whole lot. The south had slaves hundreds of years before the confederacy was created. Slavery was never widespread in the North at any point, and most Northern states had abolished it by 1810
I’ve never agreed with a man wearing a blue uniform so much. I had enough of my ancestors fall to say it’s a shame to disrespect them by defacing a monument that never hurt anyone...
@decatur davis. you're assuming that monuments never hurt anyone. This is not the case.
@Pragmaticist If you, your loved ones or your ancestors had been denied their liberty, abused, violated, murdered. by an individual or a regime which continued to be celebrated in public monuments in the town where you live, you might find this deeply hurtful. The presence of those monuments would also legitimise attitudes and behaviours which might lead to more direct forms of harm to you or others.
@Garfield's Minion First off “blacks?” No sir. Black people or African Americans. Learn the history of those statues. Those statues were built by Daughters of the confederacy post civil war during the civil rights movement. They were built in very public places so that civil rights protesters had to march in the shadows of men who fought for their ancestors enslavement. Those statues were built with the sole purpose of terrorizing people. If you go to Germany you will not see one Nazi statue outside of a museum because a statues purpose is to commemorate. Germany realizes that making a statue of Nazis would be very disrespectful to the memories of the 6 million Jewish people who died and their descendants. 60 million African Slaves died on the boat ride over here and millions more died in bondage now how disrespectful to the memories of those people and their descendants is it to commemorate men who fought to keep them enslaved?
"I’ve never agreed with a man wearing a blue uniform so much."
Men wearing blue uniforms: "We should end slavery."
You sure about that chief? Why should I be surprised?
Confederate monuments deserve to be at the bottom of a river. Your ancestors fell defending the "rights" to own other people. What they fought and died for was a disgrace to humanity. It was a time when slavery was dying out, but they wanted to not only keep it, but expand it. There is no greater disrespect, than what they fought for. No participation trophies.
And yes, the vast majority of Confederate soldiers were fighting to subjugate black people. You can read it in the many, many diaries of soldiers that are still readable to this day. And it's a good thing they are, so the shit stain your ancestors left on the fabric of this nation is visible for all the world to see.
Bro garfield really defending statues of victim playing inbred racists huh
This is OUR history. Why be ashamed of it? We can't change it, we can't alter it. It is what it is. We need to have some pride that someone somewhere even in the past tried doing the right thing in their beliefs. Isn't that worth learning about and understanding? Destroying monuments is irresponsible and irrational. I can't stand this generation of human beings. Destroying America and what it stands for is just shameful to me.
I wonder what Robert E Lee thought about erecting monuments to the Confederacy? If only there were some written record of his opinion of them...
Since they didn't start putting up monuments until 1874, four years after Lee's death, and the first ones were erected in the North, it really wasn't a pertinent issue to Lee. Confederate Monuments didn't happen until the 1890's.
@@galndixie
"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated; my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."
- R E Lee
Not pertinent? He had an opinion of it none the less.
@@forestappalachia6047 "The present condition of the country" in 1865 to 1877 was A) the South was under Martial Law of the Federal Government. Hurt feelings were strong, oppression of the South was applied for any perceived 'slight' a Southerner might commit. B) The South was financially and physically in ruins, everything had to be rebuilt from scratch, there were no assets, and the Federal government was not helping out in any way. Aside from the war debt, the Southern States had to pay for expensive policies and procedures the North was implementing in their states. These are the the 'difficulties' to which Lee referred, and he did not say 'ever', he said in the present.
@@galndixie So you read his letter and you think, "Yeah he would have wanted a giant statue of himself in front of the courthouse of every small town in the South"?
The statues are divisive where they are being disputed or toppled. I don't condone vigilante removal but we have to think about the image we are portraying. A well-respect contemporary saw how devisive the monuments could be before they were ever built. And he was right. We are still arguing over them today.
Should have gotten someone with an accent you can understand to narrate the video.
To Removers of Monuments
Ode to Confederate Monuments
Those impassive, silent guardians - will their gaze no longer shame you?
Have they been forever banished? Are you sure?
Can you finally stroll down hometown streets bereft of all reminders?
Is their valor gone, as if it never were?
Spiteful children! Did it gall you that someone so loved, respected these,
Enough to raise their monuments on high -
And you know you’ve never earned respect, and likely never will,
And your blog will be deleted when you die -
“Ingrate, vandal, ignoramus - meddler, coward, bully, fool” -
Those are titles that your pedestal might bear,
Were your legacy preserved, beyond the web and your own minds -
But I doubt it will last too long - even there.
@Knight l concur.The liberals of this country are some of the most misguided individuals l have ever heard or seen on tv,videos or radio.They have been brainwashed by the teachers,professors and parents.Reminds me of '' lemmings over the cliff ''.
Answer me this one question. What did these Confederates ever do for black people that should garner their respect? I am all for supporting America but what did Robert E. Lee do for me that garners my respect? If you can't answer this question then these Confederate generals only helped white people, and it prevents integration. George Washington and the other founders were slave owners, but they also formed the country. Black people benefit from it today. Confederates fought against unity and at the end of the day did not support Lincoln, who ended slavery. How do I benefit from that?
@@tkking6481 would you like to hear some stories about how some of the blue coats burned thru the south killing family's and some even raping women including blacks and Indians. Nice people that were in the wrong place wrong time. Don't assume you know how things were from the "history" books you get in school.
hello, nightwatchman. may i use some of this for my podcast Mike the Mime? my next episode takes on a group who wants to dump a Confederate monument. please, let me know as soon as you can as the episode will go up in july 2019. thank you.
Don't forget: USA slavers and their defenders were/are "conservatives".
Perverted, greedy "conservatives".
People who tear down monuments are ignorant and childish and should be punished accordingly
How about instead of monuments to the Confederacy honoring the cause, honor their fight? No statues on battlefields should be taken down. In fact, we should continue to preserve and strengthen the battlefields across America in memory of both sides, rather than keep statues
Why not keep both🤷♂️
How does false history and false honor benefit the USA? Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. kkk, and their ilk, are terrorists. Jim Crow is terrorism. Terrorists and terrorism deserve only infamy and dishonor.
I had ancestors fight on both sides
Past should stay in the past. History should stay in a book and in a museum.
The Civil War had more to do with tariffs than slavery.
If by "tariffs", you mean "slaves", then yes.
@@TighelanderII Ah no, it actually had to do a lot with tariffs, slaves were also a smaller part of it. Nice try.
@@Thirtiesguy You can believe what ever fairy tales that let you sleep at night, but the truth is different.
@@TighelanderII Lol, projecting on to me will not work, but nice try anyway. =)
It's not that hard. When the statues were originally erected it could be seen as from a place of hate. But today we need to keep them as reminders of the past, for education. It's like they said in the video, they won't tear down Auschwitz because it serves as a reminder of what happened. We cannot forget the past or else we are doomed to repeat it.
Its not role-playing and its not 1862 they are at Gettysburg
to the union larper. no one can disrespect the nation as much as the confederacy did.
The South never stopped fighting.
Imagine the usa being the csa.
lmao at the confederates in the comments being like
"IT WASNT ABOUT SLAVERY IT WAS ABOUT STATES RIGHTS"
State's rights to do what again? Oh right, keep slavery.
Thank you!
A little off topic but I find it so sad that the freed slaves when sent back to Africa (Sierra Leone) . The first thing they did was implement slavery on their own people. After suffering from it themselves why go back to Africa and do it to your own people?
I think thats some sort of complex
Because people were fucking insane back then.
Because its natural to want to have power.
Kinda like how the Israelis treat the Palestinians as if it's the Warsaw Ghetto.
Sounds like how abused children become child abusers.
why ask only union reenactors?
Bud Bros they didn’t?
They didn’t
"Southern Hospitality" ????
I guess you can be gracious hosts when you've got free labor to do the chores.
The war was not over slavery entirely or mostly. If they wanted to save slavery, they would have simply laid down their arms and Joined the union again.
Gary Daniel there were other powers working to divide the country as well. There’s a video called “the true history of America’s founding” its an author, Arthur Thompson, speaking about his book “To the victor go the myths & monuments” its a 50 minute video. I recommend you watch it. I can get you the link. I’ve watched it twice in the past two days. The man urges you to not take his word for it and write down what you have questions on and what you may not believe and do the research yourself. It is extremely eye opening. He talks about the war between the states towards the last quarter but watch the whole thing because he skims through a whole lot.
Gary Daniel
ua-cam.com/video/364cxeR5EAg/v-deo.html sorry, I was wrong on the title of the video but here’s the link.
@Dave Alan - Bullshit. Why are you repeating csa/kkk bullshit terrorist propaganda?
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
You are correct. The civil war was only 99.9% about slavery. I forgot what the other 0.1% was about.
@@ScotchIrishHoundsman - I watched that video. It is bullshit.
Hopefully since now Texas can legally do so, I hope they succeed and other states follow as the US is going to crap and we need a country where you can support whatever you want without censorship, everyone has a right to their own opinion, whether it’s bad or good.
Ah yes u should succeed because ur politician didn’t win, great reason.
@@LuCa8_ I could careless whether Trump lost or not, I'm fine with Biden, I just don't agree on his administration's policies. However Biden is not the reason I would want secession, it's much more deeper than that, there are so many bad and corrupt people, both Democrat and Republican, in all the branches of government which are wanting to remove or restrict our rights severely and want a more socialist society. And if not secession, overthrowing is another good idea, we need a smaller federal government.
@@Elksman small federal governments also end up terribly at times but ok. There should be more of a balance of Pierre between federal and state, but other countries that we’ve seen with small federal governments have had lots of more problems than ones with larger governments. And in comparison to other countries we’re not as corrupt as u may think. Nothing on the levels of Russia or China. And more socialist societies aren’t bad either lmao. If u would like free health care that’s a socialist ideal. Overthrowing or succession is just stupid and way out of bounds for problems to be fixed.
@@LuCa8_ No I do not agree with free healthcare, that's not fair to doctors or people. And I would prefer small government because our rights keep coming with more and more restrictions on them, especially the 2nd Amendment, most attachments should be banned and no guns should be banned as long as proper permit is provided. And our government is just like China, they spit out propaganda as they slowly strip away our rights, even people from China are saying the US is in the process of becoming just like the CCP
@@Elksman that’s one of the most ridiculous statements I’ve ever heard “I don’t agree with free healthcare, that’s not fair to doctors or people” the fuck you meannnn that’s so backwards it doesn’t even make any sense. Do you just disagree for the hell of it. And I don’t think anyone from China is saying the US is becoming like China lmao. For 1 if they were comparing how bad China was to the US they would be dead so no ones saying that lmao. Also the second amendment is being diminished because of organizations like the nra corrupting politicians. It would be better if less people had things like silencers, military grade shotguns, firearm mufflers, etc. because literally alll of those screammmmm mass shootings. Look at Australia literally all they’re mass shootings are gone because of their laws on guns. Not saying we should take it that far, but there’s really weapons that’s people own that they do.
The U.S. Constitution protected slavery all the way until two years after the war. The C.S. Constitution had already started to phase out slavery by banding slavery imports.
Slave importation was banned in the US as of 1 January 1808.
You have it the wrong way around
Where in the hell did you get this information from?
The 13th Amendment was added in January of 1865. Several months before the end of the war. Many states in the North had already banned it. The CSA constitution made it illegal to outlaw slavery (so much for "States Rights").
Everything you stated is a complete fabrication. How did you form this fantasy in your head, and believe it? All the information you need on this stuff is at your finger tips.
"Destroying monuments destroys links to the past?"
Bet Hitler would use the same argument, but I don't think the Allied Powers would listen.
Suggest it to Germany....I'd be interested to see how far it gets.
They won't follow through, because Hitler was known as a horrible person, and Germany constantly tries to forget that past. We won't do that. Those statues and monuments will remain, and that is just how it is.
look up the morill tariff man that was a huge cause of the fort sumter attack. can you even tell me where the attack was or when the morilll tarrif was without a google search?
Some legacies, they were meant to be pissed on.
Some cap here🤔🧐 but you gotta dig for the truth..✌️
At least most of these re-enacted actors don’t have ridiculous beer bellies, most. Confederate statues stay, USA most be represented, warts and all.
I think they would be better presented in a museums. Either way I think it should be up to the local populace how they deal with their statues.
Who was the dunce who decided it would be a good idea to have someone with a heavy Russian accent narrate this?
A broadcast in English should be done in clear, unaccented English.
This VOA News' youtube channel, This is from Voice of America, the U.S multimedia broadcasting entity that do their work outside of the U.S and do their work by having affiliate Broadcasting Companies outside of United States to cooperate with them, much like the Deutsche Welle.
Their job is to spread awareness of US social and cultural aspects to audience *Outside* of the US and their contributor reporters, which come from dozens of Non-English speaking countries as exhibit provided; mainly reports inside the US as their own Nation's TV Station's reporter.
So its common for their reporters to have a strong accent, because they don't come from English Speaking countries
@@aribantala Thanks for the well thought out response.
You welcome, and don't mention it. Glad to help :)
Omg so far off from actual history, very saddened the truth was rewritten.
What's the actual history?
There will be another civil war,this time between races and it will be because of political correctness,I was fortunate enough to be born 60 years ago,in a different time when things weren’t so pc,leave the monuments and flags alone,those who forget history are doomed to repeat it,besides the mistreated in this were and are the first Americans,ever seen an Indian reservation,it’s worse than a ghetto,start worrying about important things poverty,covid 19,etc.
It’s not like we are burning history books man. The reason many people want to take down the statues is because these statues specifically venerate confederates.
The past was not good for all! If people are proud their families own slaves in my eyes they would want to have some also.
It was fought so the South could keep their slaves.
Today, this is the only thing that would make Southern Conservative racists truly happy.
The Alamo is famous for the same reason. Mexico didn't want people owning slaves in their country. Mexico was also mad that the people in Texas weren't paying their taxes.
Smoking on that Santa Anna pack 🚬
Monuments are historical leave them the hell alone .
Mari Reynolds Why Not convert the memorials of the evil people into museum sites?
That explains all those statues of Hitler and Goehring in Germany. It’s also why Iraqis kept Saddam Hussein’s statues in place, because, you know, Germans and Iraqis respect their history.
Agreed
Kaddywompous Nah they took down many of the statues
Red russian kinzer Monuments are more than historical they are a conscious veneration of history. They are a statement by the community that says, “This figure is admirable and represents our ideals.” Confederate figures aren’t admirable and don’t represent our ideals. They are, in fact, a middle finger in the face of black Americans. They are a legacy of white supremacy and can’t be held up as exemplars if we ever want to have hope of healing the wounds that led to their creation in the first place. Take them the fuck down.
Keep the confederacy alive. They were brave men
The only law about flag burning there should be, is that if you see a confederate flag, you have to burn it.
@@TighelanderII The south were very brave men, fighting for a good cause! Just imagine how nice our inner cities would be if the south had won! Also all are sports teams would be white, like they were in the 40's and 50's
@@MrJimmy1437 You've insulted yourself more effectively than I could ever do.
@@TighelanderII I stand by what i said about the south and also what i said about sports, and our inner cities!
That confederate reenactor is such a lost causer.
But no matter what they did slavery would stay if conferet won just because they are not fighting for slavery but they are at the same time look as soon as you sign up to be a trader you are from now on fighting to keep your slaves
Funny how Brazil had more slaves than the Confederacy, yet it was peacefully phased out decades later.....
@@humansvd3269 funny i made this comment a year ago and people are making fun of it
@@humansvd3269 also i should mention my opinion changed on both sides they are both equally morons
@@TCB405 And? My point still stands.
@@humansvd3269 oh i wasn't trying to destroy your point its a good point
I mean looking at ur average confederate soldier lots did believe in slavery lmao. In their biographies and memoirs we see that a lot. And monuments aren’t how we record history, primary sources and books are. If u tear dowm monuments ur really not erasing history lmao. And lots of monuments were representative of racism and supposed to intimidate blacks, and lots of them were used for white nationalist meetings, which should sum up a lot about these traitor statues already lmao.
Tear down the Robert Byrd statues, he was not part of history, he was part of the modern day KKK !!!
Kurt Elliott Just move them to a museum
One of my grandpa came from North Carolina, not sure about the rest but he said we must have American Indian in us since there were not many white women in this country in the 1600's, I guess a slave saved one of my ancestors life, his arm was caught in a farming machine and was pulling him in and the slave grabbed him and saved him. Out here in the west we do not see statutes based on the civil war so I never seen one in real life, you would have a better chance of seeing a statue of a Spanish explorer out here...
If I ever see a statue of Hitlery or Obummer I and going to piss on it!
How about we take down both Roberts Byrd statues and confederate statues.
john Mullholand
Im not trying to rewrite history, the south did fight for slavery. If you say it didn’t, then your very wrong and if you try to portray it as fact then your rewriting history.
Most historians agree that the civil war was about Slavery. And many southern politicians talked about slavery in their secessionist speeches.
These re-enactors have it wrong. Their opinions lie on the assumption that public monuments teach history. They do not. Instead, they glorify the acts, of traitors and rebels. Most were put up by groups like the United Daughters of the Confederacy, who did have ties to the KKK, during the Era of Jim Crow and the 1960's Civil Rights Movement. Rather, the reason they were put up was to signify to the African Americans living in the South that the people's descendants who fought to keep them in bondage were still in power and wanted them to know they were inferior to the White man. That one Union Re-enactor mentioned Lincoln's second Inaugural for his reasoning to keep the statues up, and I would like to counter that with a letter written by General Robert E. Lee on the issue of putting Confederate Monuments up. On the proposal of erecting a Confederate Memorial at Gettysburg, Lee wrote, "I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to fallow those nations examples who endeavored to obliterate the marks of Civil Strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered." On the topic of morality, almost all of the monuments that have been taken down in the past 7 years were by city council votes which were met by backlash from the majority conservative states. One example would be from Tennessee. A county got around a law preventing the destruction of public monuments by selling a monument to a private owner who took it down. The state then cut funding to the city which members of both sides viewed as punitive for the statue removal. As I see it, what is the state or nation's authority to prohibit a local communities legal write to take something down of theirs if they do not like. History Books that provide context and artifacts in museums are what teach history, not a statue of Johnny Reb in the middle of a public space that encourages a godlike worship around it. I stand with the more than a century old opinion from Post 88 of the Grand Army of the Republic that we should not commemorate the acts of those who actively fought against the US government in the Causus Belli of preserving Slavery, but we should "Make treason odious."
They do teach history. And the whole nation is founded upon treason you moron.
I like team confederate
So you like to sore loser team?
@@crystallakeclips2047
Is it really a loss if you get to extinguish from the Earth almost 400k Northern pigs?
I WISH I WAS IN THE LAND OF COTTEN OL TIMES THERE ARE NOT FORRGOTEN LOOK AWAY LOOK AWAY LOOK AWAY DIXIE LAND OH I WISH I WAS IN DIXE AWAY AWAY OH I WISH I WAS DIXIE LAND OH I WISH I WAS IN DIXIE AWAY AWAY OH WAY DOWN SOUTH IN DIXIE.
AWAY DOWN SOUTH IN THE LAND OF TRAITORS RATTLESNAKE’S AND ALLIGATORS
@@crystallakeclips2047 ok Yankee
Honestly they should remove all the Confederate monuments and replace them with Union monuments to Union generals, captains, or soliders.
Why?
@@ar-1571 Because the confederates committed treason against the United States Government. Not very patriotic is it? Lol 😂
Cute voice on her lol.
"Heritage OF Hate!"
What?
@PreTSD - Slavers are terrorists. Slavery is terrorism. The csa was a lame attempt to form a separate country based solely on terrorism. Terrorists and their defenders deserve NO honor. Why do you worship terrorists?
@Kyle Clark - I can tell you have your head embedded firmly and deeply in QAnus. Why do you fly a shitrag flag of terrorism?
Here are some facts about USA history, the Electoral College, and the civil war. The sources of this information are the USA Constitution and actual events in USA history:
The Electoral College was written by terrorists(slavers) to be nothing more than a "welfare benefit" for themselves and other terrorists. The E C (+ the 3/5ths clause) awards excessive national governmental power to terrorists(slavers). The Electoral College encouraged and rewarded the terrorism of slavery. The Electoral College allowed terrorists to dominate the USA national government until around 1850-1860. The USA's "founding fathers" were the USA's first group of "welfare queens". Ten of the first twelve presidents were terrorists.
What happened around 1860 when abolition and the prohibition of slaver terrorism in the new territories greatly reduced the "free stuff" to which the terrorists had become so accustomed?
One of the biggest blows to the "terrorist welfare queens" was the prohibition of slaver terrorism in Western territories. That's one of the reasons you hear that old csa/kkk terrorist propaganda phrase, "WE DON'T WANT TO BE RULED BY THE COASTS!".
What happened when the terrorist "welfare queens" lost their "free stuff" from the USA government?
The csa/kkk was just a MS-13-type gang of butthurt "welfare queens".
After causing the civil war, the Electoral College became a "welfare benefit" for states which suppress voting. I wonder which states LOVE to suppress voting .......... might they be the former terrorist states and terrorist sympathizer states?
Give it a rest.
RB you are literally repeating yourself everywhere. What are you trying to get out of constantly forcing your view into other people’s faces?
2:20 Robert e lee literally said he didn’t want any statues or memorials he just wanted to put this whole thing behind everyone.
Publius Maximus Manlius no it wasn't I bet your not even American
halo lover I bleed red American. I’m planning on joining the marines once I’m 18. I was born in Chicago Illinois.
halo lover ye who loves a foreign flag raises its arms against the united states of America and values of America. How can you call yourself American
Chicago that's all we needed to know
Steve Buchanan Your from Mississippi’s, I’m guessing.
Back to your trailer park, from whence you came Billy boy.
Or else I’ll rain on your old Kentucky Home.
Or
Shack??
Trailer???
A symbol of secession. How is it not treasonous? Also, people died on both sides FOR A REASON. Along with celebrating treason, your diluting the cause by thinking dead confederate soldiers are as trivial as you. They are not standing with you as soar losers, they fought and died and want to Rest In Peace knowing what got them killed in the first place was corrected. You’re also disrespecting the American soldiers that fought and died and the country that survived a war. If you think the flag is “symbolizing your country roots”, you are trivializing it and need to open a book. If you fly the flag with every intention of the confederacy in your heart, you are obviously not welcome to live in America, the country you wish to secede from.