Charlottesville

[HerbS]

I agree-there are professional protesters out there-take a look a the 60's-much worse in many ways-our history has shown that-very sad commentary about our society then and now-but-we are lucky to have the 1st amendment in our constitution!

[Gene C]

- I wonder if there are OSHA guidelines for protestors. Seems like a hazardous occupation to me. Lets bog them down with government red tape.

- Then there is all that trash and debris during & after the protests. Bottles being thrown at each other. There must be some kind of EPA regulations, public health and safety codes, laws about littering.

- If schools and fine dining restaurants have dress codes, why can't a municipality require one for protestors?

- Because of free speech, they have the right to protest, but how about a city charging an attendance fee to come hear them speak to help cover the cost of increased police & fire protection, emergency medical expenses, clean up costs, and other expenses.

[L Verge]

Kate - I have posed that question myself...

Gene - Tongue-in-cheek points, but very good ones. There was an instance in Durham, North Carolina, over the weekend of a woman climbing one of the statues and yanking the head off. It got very little press time. I wondered if there isn't some law somewhere about damaging and defacing such public property. Maybe the press didn't want to get involved in that one? If they find the person who vandalized the Lincoln Memorial, will he/she be prosecuted?

The mayor of Baltimore had four statues removed in the cover of darkness the other day with very little notice (wise decision on her part to avoid these protests, perhaps), but isn't there a chain of command in various locales as to who really has the power to make such decisions on subjects that have been in place for at least fifty years?

I also understand that Statuary Hall at the Capitol will be having changes made. On the other side of the coin, I hope that the NPS is taking special care in protecting the new MLK statue.

This rampant "stupidity" (can't think of another appropriate word) has to stop. First thing this past Monday morning, I received a call from higher-ups wanting to make sure that we had no Confederate monuments here. They later asked if I knew of any such things in our county. Wikipedia actually has a site that lists all states and how many memorials they have and where. Maryland had four in Baltimore (until this week) and one on the Eastern Shore. Our county, Prince George's, has never had such a memorial -- even though it had the largest slave population in Maryland in 1860.

[BettyO]

VERY strong move underway via the City Council and Mayor to remove all Confederate monuments on Monument Avenue in Richmond VA - and it seems it may come to fruitation....

[L Verge]

There had to be legislation way-back-when that allowed the creation and placement of these monuments (not just those on Monument Avenue). Does anyone bother to look at the history of that? Were there stipulations in the original legislation/agreements/contracts, etc. that have legal aspects that must be addressed if, at some point down the road, there should occur "uprisings" such as this? Does the power rest in the hands of the few elected officials who happen to be in power when the "uprisings" occur?

[JJamiekinder]

I wanted to reach out to a forum of smart, intelligent folks who also have a real sense of history and I knew my fellow Lincoln assassination community would have a true dialogue concerning the events of the past week in Charlottesville and around the country. What seems to be missing in all of this is just that; a true conversation between people who can peacefully exchange views and perspectives. As some of you know from meeting me at the assassination conference, I have been a middle and high school social studies teacher, so anytime the conversation of “teaching history” or “discussing our past” comes to the forefront of the national conversation I think teachers should join in the dialogue whenever possible. I must admit that I have mixed emotions concerning the taking down of Confederate symbols, statues and the “cleansing” of our history.
On one side, I completely understand that the African-American community and others want these statues in public places taken down, as it can appear as though it actually glorifies what the Confederacy stood for. And to their point I agree with Susan Higginbotham that if my ancestors came over in chains I would probably want them down as well. To that end, I think that if they upset people that much then they should take them down in public squares and public spaces and move them to places where they are within the correct historical context such as a battlefield or museum (Could you imagine Gettysburg and Picket’s Charge with no Southern statues?). But in many ways, this debate actually signals a greater problem in our country, which is that we as an American society do not actually understand our past.
I am of the belief that most simply think the only cause of the Civil War was entirely based upon slavery and nothing else. But to simplify it in that manner is to completely miss the true mark of causation. There is no doubt that the biggest underlying cause of the conflict was slavery, but there were social, political and economic threads intertwined within that cause as well. In Lincoln’s first inaugural address, he essentially stated that he would not veto legislation currently in congress (Corwin Amendment) that would have constitutionally guaranteed slavery where it existed. Most do not know this and most histories do not address it because it does not go with the deity personifications of the Lincoln who is our American hero. Americans like their heroes clean and without refute. But to pass over the reality that Lincoln was a nationalist first and an emancipationist second is to not fully understand the man and the times he lived and governed in.
Civil War professor James I. Robertson from Virginia Tech points out in Tenting Tonight that less than 6 % of the South owned slaves and that the majority of the volunteer army did not own slaves. This is why those that took up arms against the North usually saw it as a “"a rich man's war and a poor man's fight." These men fought for various reasons such as upholding state sovereignty or simply a regional duty they felt, much aligned with Robert E. Lee’s reasons for taking up arms.
The reasoning behind the pure belief that Lincoln was a tyrant and the industrial North was usurping their power to infringe upon the South what THEY believed to be right (Remember that slavery was constitutionally protected) was a very strong and real perspective below the Mason Dixon line and slavery was very much involved in that. But to disregard the fact that to many this was the Second American Revolution, and they felt they legally had the right to break the contract is to minimalize the context of the times.
Slavery was an evil and vile institution left behind by the American founders for this new generation of Americans to solve but one that would have its answer intertwined into the financial well being of a whole society. Morally, the question could never be asked, but constitutionally and legally it can.
Although, the concept and practice of slavery in America was in contradiction from the founder’s true ideals of “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, the American South was in its complete and legal right to leave the agreement it had made with their Northern brethren. The Confederate States who seceded from the Union and rebelled against the existing and contemporary American Constitution, with all its flaws, were completely within their legal right to do so.
The Declaration of Independence, although not a legal document, was referenced and used as an example of the very rights the founders had made for exercising their own departure from England. As the document states; “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security”. In their eyes it was their duty to revolt, to lash back at what was threatening their homes, their property and their way of life. They believed it was not only an obligation but also their right to “institute” what they considered a “new Government”. Southern states understood that the time had come “for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another”.
The Constitution of the United States of America had no article or amendment that prohibited or outlawed any state from seceding from the union. Unfortunately, the document does not have one that affirms the right for a state to secede from the Union. But the Constitution of the United States does have the 10th Amendment that states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
If there was no constitutional law prohibiting secession then the onus fell upon the states to decide their own fate as the 10th Amendment left this power ‘reserved to the States respectively’ This in effect, spells out the legal right of southern secession regardless of their reasoning for revolt.
My whole point in this is that I teach my students that there are no real “right” or “wrong” answers to history, there is only opinion of what happened backed and supported by evidence from proper sources. It is up to us as an American society to take our past, warts and all and place it within the proper context and place from which to remember and learn from it. Remember, the majority of Confederate statues came into place after the turn of the century by societies such as the Daughters of the Confederacy when the notion of the “Lost Cause” helped to ease tensions between North and South but also solidify the failure of reconstruction and help issue-in Jim Crow laws. This point should not be taken for granted when considering the statues in downtowns across the South.
All we have is our history and not learning from it could be our biggest mistake as a society. My only point is that we may just have to “move the classroom” a bit so everyone can truly understand where we came from and how we got here.

[Rick Smith]

(08-17-2017 11:41 AM)L Verge Wrote:  Kate - I have posed that question myself...

Gene - Tongue-in-cheek points, but very good ones. There was an instance in Durham, North Carolina, over the weekend of a woman climbing one of the statues and yanking the head off. It got very little press time. I wondered if there isn't some law somewhere about damaging and defacing such public property. Maybe the press didn't want to get involved in that one? If they find the person who vandalized the Lincoln Memorial, will he/she be prosecuted?

The mayor of Baltimore had four statues removed in the cover of darkness the other day with very little notice (wise decision on her part to avoid these protests, perhaps), but isn't there a chain of command in various locales as to who really has the power to make such decisions on subjects that have been in place for at least fifty years?

I also understand that Statuary Hall at the Capitol will be having changes made. On the other side of the coin, I hope that the NPS is taking special care in protecting the new MLK statue.

This rampant "stupidity" (can't think of another appropriate word) has to stop. First thing this past Monday morning, I received a call from higher-ups wanting to make sure that we had no Confederate monuments here. They later asked if I knew of any such things in our county. Wikipedia actually has a site that lists all states and how many memorials they have and where. Maryland had four in Baltimore (until this week) and one on the Eastern Shore. Our county, Prince George's, has never had such a memorial -- even though it had the largest slave population in Maryland in 1860.

Laurie,

Unfortunately, "rampant stupidity" rules at the moment, fueled by the media.

I wonder if Thomas Jones' headstone qualifies as a Confederate monument? This is in Charles County, not Prince George's. Of course, ignorance knows no borders.

Rick

[brtmchl]

Abraham Lincoln bust set on fire.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/chicago-politics/674297/

[Rsmyth]

I struggled to articulate my feelings on this topic and the responses I knew were to follow. How in one post...can you argue the wrongs in this country that have been perpetuated for hundreds of years against minorities culminating in the divisiveness that is now tearing us apart. Thankfully I do not have to try. Please read Boothiebarn.
Dave - my sentiments exactly! Stop buying in to the lost cause, gone with the wind myth.

[Rick Smith]

Too bad that Dave is not allowing responses to his statement.

[L Verge]

(08-18-2017 08:56 AM)Rsmyth Wrote:  I struggled to articulate my feelings on this topic and the responses I knew were to follow. How in one post...can you argue the wrongs in this country that have been perpetuated for hundreds of years against minorities culminating in the divisiveness that is now tearing us apart. Thankfully I do not have to try. Please read Boothiebarn.
Dave - my sentiments exactly! Stop buying in to the lost cause, gone with the wind myth.

I have expressed my thoughts previously, but I would beg Rich Smyth to please let go of that ancient premise that all the hub-bub is about the "lost cause - gone with the wind myth." That misconception was dropped many long years ago by dedicated historians who know how to handle both sides of an issue.

Rich - when you posted the topic originally, I knew what your feelings were on this topic. I was getting worried that you would not express those feelings after having asked for others to post theirs. Thank you for doing so - even though I think you should have been more specific and up-to-date than just falling back on moonlight and magnolias.

I arrived at work this morning to a lengthy email from a longtime Life Member of the Surratt Society that I have known for forty years - a decade before I became director of Surratt House. He is an excellent researcher and historian on the CW era and appreciates the opportunity to consider both sides of an issue.

In this case, he was very upset at Dave's decision to print his personal views and then close the topic for discussion from others. I have asked for his permission to edit his comments down to the pertinent historical points and post it here. I do not believe that he is a member (yet) of this forum. His email to me includes one of the legal points that I questioned in a post here yesterday.

I would also like to thank Roger for allowing us to express our opinions here, and I thank our posters for staying reasonably civil in their postings.

[Gene C]

(08-18-2017 10:15 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I would also like to thank Roger for allowing us to express our opinions here, and I thank our posters for staying reasonably civil in their postings.

And it hasn't been easy.
I'm all out of Xanax and chocolate

[brtmchl]

This issue about Confederate monuments has already cascaded. I believe once we have categorized every inanimate object depicting the Confederacy that is part of our History, albeit some of our darker days, as racist we open the door to every symbol of our country prior to the 13th Amendment as racist depictions.

Once we delegitimize our forefathers, don't we delegitimize our country and our constitution as well? I see the protests already spiraling in the Chicago area. We have a pastor advocating for the removal off a George Washington statue. A Lincoln bust was set ablaze yesterday, and I have heard there are suggestions of "blowing up" Mt. Rushmore.

ESPN has officially apologizing for having a fantasy football mock draft that was criticized and compared to a slave auction? This is infuriating. The Equation of Fantasy Football and Slavery demeans the horror of Slavery and America's fight that abolished it and these fly by night comparisons disgust me.

I have mixed feelings about these monuments. For example the removal of Roger B. Taney's statue I applaud, but at the same time I believe it has it's place as part of our history and should never be forgotten. This notion that these will all be removed and placed in a museum or a Park seems far fetched. Once we label these as Hate they will have to be lost to society.

I am afraid at how quickly this has become so politicized. The demand from a former Speaker of the House that the current Congress MUST remove all statues from Congress cries BS to me. Why now? This former Speaker had Eight years while holding that position with majorities in both the House and the Senate to do something. The idea that someone who thinks that our History should be preserved is attacked as a racist is scary and dangerous.

I also believe it is wrong that city officials are deciding to remove in "the cover of night" statues and monuments without even the considering the will of their constituents. Shouldn't there be at least a "civil" dialogue before instant removal.

I see our History and look upon these relics and applaud how far we have come as a Nation in such a short time.

I thought Dave's post on Boothie Barn was excellent and applaud him for not shying away from his opinion. I understand there are many different views on this subject and I respect that not everyone shares my own. I am happy that there are places were people can have an open and honest debate. There are not that many around anymore. Certainly not on Social Media.

[L Verge]

(08-18-2017 11:02 AM)Gene C Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 10:15 AM)L Verge Wrote:  I would also like to thank Roger for allowing us to express our opinions here, and I thank our posters for staying reasonably civil in their postings.

And it hasn't been easy.
I'm all out of Xanax and chocolate

I'll send you some of my stock, Gene. I now buy those items in bulk!

---

"I have mixed feelings about these monuments. For example the removal of Roger B. Taney's statue I applaud, but at the same time I believe it has it's place as part of our history and should never be forgotten. This notion that these will all be removed and placed in a museum or a Park seems far fetched. Once we label these as Hate they will have to be lost to society."

I am a disgruntled Marylander this morning after the removal of the Taney statue from the grounds of the Maryland State House. About 25 years ago, I watched as they took his name off of a middle school here in my county and replaced it with another Justice's name. My dismay, anger, confusion, whatever you want to call it derives from the ignorance of Taney's full history.

"The evil that men do lives after them. The good is often interred with their bones." Remember that statement from Marc Antony (not the modern singer, btw)? Well, I consider that Taney is a victim of just this sort of thing. Those currently "in power" in the decision-making of who stays and who goes are completely ignoring the good sides of those that they consider "evil."

Roger Brooke Taney was a Marylander and grew up about 25 miles from Surratt House. He was an outstanding student and lawyer -- and up until a few decades ago, was considered by knowledgeable people to be one of the finest Constitutional jurists in our history. He served as both Jackson's Attorney General and then as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1836 until his death in 1864 (ironically on October 12 of that year, the same day that the Maryland electorate voted in the new state constitution outlawing slavery in our state as of November 1 of 1864).

Taney was married to the sister of Francis Scott Key; he also inherited slaves from his father and then promptly manumitted them. Our current protesters, who claim to know so much history, have failed to note that Taney's actions in the Dred Scott decision were based on the entire Supreme Court's opinions, not his alone -- and that the Court interpreted the Constitution as it then stood, in the form that the original Constitutional Convention and signers had created it.

These historians also fail to mention that Taney's Court also heard the 1840 La Amistade case (remember the movie?). In that case, which involved international issues as well, the Court ruled in favor of the African captives who rebelled against the Spanish crew who intended to sell them into slavery. Taney's Court's decision gave a big boost to the abolitionist movement. To me, that shows that Chief Justice Taney and Associate Justices on both the Scott decision and the Amistade decision worked with Constitutional principles as they were interpreted at that time to arrive at decisions that upheld the laws of our land.

If history were taught professionally and scholarly, we might have citizens that were more attuned to what has gone on in our country and the world. And, they might not be inclined to fall for these staged protests.

[brtmchl]

Thanks for the History Laurie. My knowledge of Taney comes mostly from the Dredd Scott decision i'm afraid. This is a perfect example of why there should be more information posted at or around these sights for people to learn more about them. Seems that with technology, a simple bar code on a placard and a person with a smart phone could educate themselves pretty quickly.