I'm pretty sure that I have heard more opinions on the statue issue from African Americans than you have, Rich. I think you might be surprised at how many of the older generation (who lived through the civil rights struggles) and the well-educated, intelligent, and progressive among the citizens find this a media circus and uncalled for. They know that tearing down statues is not going to improve the situation for those who are still being left behind.

For several weeks this past year, I had the wonderful experience of having a middle-aged black carpenter from St. Louis visit Surratt House and then come into my office to ask questions. Over the course of his stay on a job here in the DC area, he dropped by about 3-4 times, and we had great, open discussions about the racial situation.

His views were very similar to my views, and he flat out said that those who were still claiming poverty and blaming slavery were doing nothing to pull themselves out of it - either in St. Louis or among the ones he had met in DC. He blamed the media for creating tensions for the sake of ratings, and he blamed the local, state, and national governments that were not monitoring the supposedly beneficial programs that had been started under Lyndon Johnson. There was more abuse than benefits.

One comment that he made really stuck with me. He referred to the generation of blacks that had raised him as always ready to support and educate the younger generations. Today's parents, however, he thinks fails in doing this. They may have achieved some degree of wealth, own nice homes and cars, and wear fancy clothes to a mega-church each Sunday; but they don't know where their children are half the time, who they are with, and what they are doing -- and really don't care. He also feels that many of those parents are spending their money on themselves and not assuring the future education of their children. I did admit to him that I thought this same trait was present in many white families also.

It was very refreshing to discuss black/white history, civil rights issues, and the such with someone who was reasonable, logical, and truly caring about what is again creating a schism in our country. We have several African American volunteers at our museum who are equally as accessible to talk with. When the monument issue was at its peak, one such gentleman said to me, "Don't worry, Laurie, this too shall pass."

I found this interesting, and I don't usually watch CNN. This seemed as good a place to share it than any other

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2018/0...ed-shades/

(06-09-2018 06:55 AM)Gene C Wrote:  I found this interesting, and I don't usually watch CNN. This seemed as good a place to share it than any other

https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2018/0...ed-shades/

Great piece, Gene. Thanks for posting the link. It reminds me of all the history that surrounds the original black churches which still exist today in my area. The churches (most of them AME) were the cornerstones for emerging black communities as soon as emancipation came, and this is where many of the leaders of the community got their start. I can point to at least 5-6 within a close radius of us, and one has actually been saved by the gov't. agency that owns Surratt House, and it is restored and open for tours by appointment - as well as weddings and baptisms for future generations.

One church near my former home held Freedom Day parades in the fall to commemorate the emancipation of Maryland's slaves in November of 1864, after the passage of a new state constitution that outlawed slavery -- almost two years after Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect. There were usually camp meetings or tent meetings in our village several times a year, and one particular church held "chit'lin" dinners that you could smell a half-mile away!

In the early-1900s, there was one particular family that had so many members that they practically filled their little country church each Sunday. They were also very active in the Republican Party and did a lot of campaigning. In the 1950s and 60s, when my family took me along to the polls, I would always see the Moores staked out across from the elementary school polls in a white church parking lot soliciting votes. I also recall a lot of handshakes, which I now suspect included exchanges of incentives, and some trips to the car where the men circled around. Pass the bottle anyone? Above all, however, it was sedate and proper. Great memories...

I was not aware of this CNN program, but was surprised to see its name: United Shades of America. Last year, I gave a training talk (outside the realm of just Surratt House) on valuing diversity in the work place, and I began by telling folks to toss out America's old nickname of "The Melting Pot." Many now use the "United Shades" reference or another that is rather clever -- The American Salad Bowl, where each ethnicity retains its own special features and heritage while working towards a unified country. Now, if we can just make that work.

Nothing gets this site buzzing like a perceived attack on the confederacy!
Laurie, Unfortunately the south was nothing like what was pictured in Gone with the Wind with its benevolent slaves.
You will never convince me that there is any justification for a stature on the village green of Nathan Bedford Forest who was a slave holder, slave trader, racist who murdered hundreds of Black soldiers after they had surrendered and a leader of the KKK or Stone Mountain, the largest symbol of the confederacy built on KKK sacred land, donated by a KKK member where KKK meetings and cross burnings were held.
Please tell me how either of these monuments does anything to heal the rift between Blacks and Whites in the country? And Laurie I believe you are living in a fantasy world where the majority of Blacks you have spoken to find no reason to remove these symbols.

Just so there is no misunderstanding, for clarification purposes, Nathan Bedford Forrest image is not on Stone Mountain. And, Rsmyth never said he was.
Stone Mountain is the most visited destination in Georgia.

When the state of Georgia completed the purchase in 1960, it condemned the property to remove Venable's (previous owners) agreement to allow the Klan perpetual right to hold meetings on the premises.

Stone Mountain is much more than a confederate memorial.
https://www.stonemountainpark.com

There has been talk about building and actual plans for a memorial to Martin Luther King on Stone Mountain, but there has been some difficulty raising funds.

And this about Forrest from Wikipedia (consider the source)

"In the last years of his life, Forrest publicly denounced the violence and racism practiced by the Klan, insisted he had never been a member, and made repeated public speeches in favor of racial harmony.[22] As an effort of reconciliation, during a meeting with African Americans in 1875, Forrest took flowers from a black woman, something that was considered abhorrent in the South during Reconstruction. Although scholars admire Forrest as a military strategist, he has remained a highly controversial figure in Southern history, especially for his role in the attack on Fort Pillow, his 1867–1869 leadership of the Ku Klux Klan, and his political influence as a Tennessee delegate at the 1868 Democratic National Convention."

"After the lynch mob murder of four blacks, arrested for defending themselves at a barbecue, Forrest wrote to Tennessee Governor John C. Brown in August 1874 and "volunteered to help ‘exterminate’ those men responsible for the continued violence against the blacks", offering "to exterminate the white marauders who disgrace their race by this cowardly murder of Negroes"

"On July 5, 1875, Forrest demonstrated that his personal sentiments on the issue of race now differed from those of the Klan when he was invited to give a speech before the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association, a post-war organization of black Southerners advocating to improve the economic condition of blacks and to gain equal rights for all citizens. At this, his last public appearance, he made what The New York Times described as a "friendly speech"[172] during which, when offered a bouquet of flowers by a young black woman, he accepted them,[173] thanked her and kissed her on the cheek as a token of reconciliation between the races. Forrest ignored his critics and spoke in encouragement of black advancement and of endeavoring to be a proponent for espousing peace and harmony between black and white Americans going forward.[174]"

I'm not a fan of Forrest, but it appears from this on Wikipedia, that later in life, he had a change of heart.
The entire article on Forrest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest

(06-11-2018 03:10 PM)Rsmyth Wrote:  Nothing gets this site buzzing like a perceived attack on the confederacy!
Laurie, Unfortunately the south was nothing like what was pictured in Gone with the Wind with its benevolent slaves.
You will never convince me that there is any justification for a stature on the village green of Nathan Bedford Forest who was a slave holder, slave trader, racist who murdered hundreds of Black soldiers after they had surrendered and a leader of the KKK or Stone Mountain, the largest symbol of the confederacy built on KKK sacred land, donated by a KKK member where KKK meetings and cross burnings were held.
Please tell me how either of these monuments does anything to heal the rift between Blacks and Whites in the country? And Laurie I believe you are living in a fantasy world where the majority of Blacks you have spoken to find no reason to remove these symbols.

Perhaps the site gets buzzing when unsubstantiated and derogatory remarks are made about our history (and not just the Confederacy) by folks who only see one side of the story?

During my studies for two degrees in the field of history, I have read and heard lectures on both sides. I have had several courses just on the Civil War, and more importantly, I have had courses on black history in America taught by African American professors who saw both sides of the story -- and at Surratt House, I deal with black history and slavery every day and also work with the Black History Program in our county, which is headed by a young, African American man with a doctorate in the field and the opinion that it is time to look ahead and focus on current issues and what does lead to progress.

Our museum is under the Natural and Historical Resources Division of our county's Department of Parks and Recreation, and our new assistant division chief (who will be my supervisor) is also a young African American male with a doctorate. Luckily for me, both of them (and others that I work with) are well aware that I don't live by the Gone With The Wind or Moonlight and Magnolias syndrome. That's just another old canard that is thrown out by liberals to reinforce the race card.

Do you have a number of African American contacts that you work with on a daily or monthly basis and really have discussions of this type with? I know the demographics of your home town. Are you well-read and trained on black history? Do you support programs designed to lift up African American causes, or just ones designed to tear down Confederate symbols? Or, do you listen to liberal talk shows and read social media and post on forums to see if you can create a buzz?

And don't accuse me or other good historians on this site of living in a fantasy world about racial issues. The one racial issue that frightens me is the possibility that things like the monument debate will get out of hand and the uneducated on both sides will lead us into a race war. And, my African American friends fear the same thing.

In a recent post, I mentioned the early black churches that remain as symbols of unifying the African American communities after emancipation. One of those that I listed was Dorsey Chapel that was saved through the efforts of the congregation and The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, the agency which owns Surratt House.

Southern Living magazine includes Dorsey Chapel in this article in the current issue.

https://www.southernliving.com/travel/so...ian-church

Sorry but I just cannot resist adding my comments:
I guess all those statues of that notorious slave owner George Washington are going to be removed? And I wonder how all Americans manage to cope with those $1 notes with his image on them. Just wonderin'

As an aside here in Australia we are having heated discussions about a political electorate named after John Batman who more or less created Melbourne. He was also a very cruel man who cheated the local Aboriginal people.

I bet Mount Vernon and Montecello already have emergency plans prepared in case of a take-over! Here's a list of all the slave-holding Presidents whose monuments, memorials, and outhouses need to be protected:

Presidents who owned slaves
No. President Approximate number of slaves held While in office? Notes
1 George Washington 317 Yes (1789–97) Washington was a major slaveholder before, during, and after his presidency. His will freed his slaves pending the death of his widow, though she freed his slaves within a year of his death. See George Washington and slavery for more details.
3 Thomas Jefferson 600+ Yes (1801–09) Jefferson was a major slaveholder but opposed the institution throughout his life and promoted legislation to free slaves. Because of overwhelming debt he only freed a few of his slaves in his will. Most historians believe Jefferson fathered multiple children with his slave Sally Hemings, the half-sister of late wife Martha Wayles Skelton. See Thomas Jefferson and slavery for more details.
4 James Madison 100+ Yes (1809–17) Madison proposed the Three-Fifths Compromise, which counted slaves as three fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and legislative representation. He did not free his slaves in his will. Paul Jennings, one of Madison's slaves, served him during his presidency and later published the first memoir of life in the White House.
5 James Monroe 75 Yes (1817–25) Monroe was critical of slavery despite owning slaves himself. He supported sending freed slaves to the new country of Liberia; its capital, Monrovia, is named after him. See James Monroe#Slavery for more details.
7 Andrew Jackson <200 Yes (1829–37) Jackson owned many slaves and faced several controversies related to slavery during his presidency. During his campaign for the presidency, he faced criticism for being a slave trader. He did not free his slaves in his will.
8 Martin Van Buren 1 No Van Buren's father owned six slaves. The only slave he personally owned, Tom, escaped in 1814. When Tom was found in Massachusetts, Van Buren tentatively agreed to sell him to the finder, but terms were not agreed and Tom remained free. Later in life, Van Buren belonged to the Free Soil Party, which opposed the expansion of slavery into the Western territories without advocating for abolitionism outright.
9 William Henry Harrison 11 No Harrison inherited several slaves. As the first governor of the Indiana Territory, he unsuccessfully lobbied Congress to legalize slavery in Indiana. President Jefferson opposed these efforts despite being himself a slave owner.
10 John Tyler 70 Yes (1841–45) Tyler considered slavery evil, but he never freed any of his slaves and consistently supported slavery and its expansion during his time in political office.
11 James K. Polk 25 Yes (1845–49) Polk became the Democratic nominee for president in 1844 partially because of his tolerance of slavery, in contrast to Van Buren. He generally supported slavery as president. His will provided for the freeing of his slaves after the death of his wife, though the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution ended up freeing them long before her death in 1891.
12 Zachary Taylor <150 Yes (1849–50) Although Taylor owned slaves throughout his life, he generally resisted attempts to expand slavery in the territories. After his death, there were rumors that slavery advocates had poisoned him; tests of his body over 100 years later have been inconclusive.
17 Andrew Johnson 8 No Johnson owned a few slaves and was supportive of James K. Polk's slavery policies. As military governor of Tennessee, he convinced Abraham Lincoln to exempt that area from the Emancipation Proclamation.
18 Ulysses S. Grant 5 No Although he later served as a general in the Union Army, Grant had control of slaves owned by his wife.[1] He is known to have personally owned only one slave, William Jones, from 1857 to 1859.[2] Grant freed Jones rather than selling him, despite financial need.

Sorry, this was in a neater chart form when I cut and pasted.

... and I think we can leave out the list of Founding Fathers who owned slaves.

Goodness, are we (as in the modern world) going to remove all statues of people of whom we no longer approve? Are we going to remove all the names of such people from the town and streets? Good luck with that.
(there are many disgusting racist names of outback towns and creeks in Australia)

Or is it correct and, yes, good to remember the errors and crimes committed in the past? To acknowledge that humans can be both great and also have weaknesses and sometimes make decisions which are simply wrong and even immoral? Is it so wrong to believe that many people who fought for the South were brave and courageous?
That they placed duty and honour as more important than life itself? That they were willing to leave their homes and families to fight and suffer for their belief in what they regarded as their heritage?

I guess it depends upon what each of us thinks when we look at those statues and read those names. Do we recall slavery with its horror, the KKK and Jim Crow? Or do we think of bravery and courage and honour? Or is it possible to think of them all?

I think it would be useful to read George Orwell's 1984 and the deletion of inconvenient details from official histories.

Here is an interesting political cartoon published only two days before Lincoln's inauguration.

Titled - No Communion With Slaveholders,
This cartoon depicts several American historical figures communing in a church. Standing at the pulpit with a Communion chalice is Henry Ward Beecher who is refusing to serve Communion to George Washington (kneeling).

Published by Harpers Weekly only two days before Lincoln's inauguration, this depiction colors the incoming administration as being inline with radical abolitionist elements to the point that they would even disavow a Founding Father such as Washington.

https://gettysburg.contentdm.oclc.org/di...2/id/1715/

Thank you, Mick and Gene, for showing how hypocritical some people are and were. As for Orwell, I can't tell you how many times his name has been cited over the past ten years or so. And we thought it would never happen... Good lord, deliver us.

"Do you support programs designed to lift up African American causes, or just ones designed to tear down Confederate symbols?"

Excellent question, Laurie. I have a follow-up question to that.

Democrats/liberals favor the removal of the Confederate statues much more heavily than Republicans/conservatives, and according to at least one poll, a majority of blacks are in favor of keeping the statues in place.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/08/17/poll-m...s-removed/

So, if attitude toward Confederate statues is any indication of racism or the lack thereof, why do liberals hate President Trump, whose policies are responsible for record low unemployment among blacks (and Hispanics), and idolize Obama, who did nothing for blacks?

And some other opinions. Many of you will be familiar with Harold Holzer who adds his opinion in the 4th paragraph.

Most of the Confederate monuments concerned were built in periods of racial conflict, such as when Jim Crow laws were being introduced in the late 19th century and at the start of the 20th century or during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s. These two periods also coincided with the 50th anniversary and the American Civil War Centennial The peak in construction of Civil War Monuments occurred between the late 1890s up to 1920, with a second, smaller peak in the late 1950s to mid 1960s.

According to historian Jane Dailey from University of Chicago, in many cases the purpose of the monuments was not to celebrate the past but rather to promote a "white supremacist future".[18] Another historian, Karyn Cox, from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, has written that the monuments are "a legacy of the brutally racist Jim Crow era". A historian from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, James Leloudis, stated that "The funders and backers of these monuments are very explicit that they are requiring a political education and a legitimacy for the Jim Crow era and the right of white men to rule."

In an August 2017 statement on the monuments controversy, the American Historical Association (AHA) said that to remove a monument "is not to erase history, but rather to alter or call attention to a previous interpretation of history." The AHA noted that most monuments were erected "without anything resembling a democratic process," and recommended that it was "time to reconsider these decisions." According to the AHA, most Confederate monuments were erected during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and this undertaking was "part and parcel of the initiation of legally mandated segregation and widespread disenfranchisement across the South." According to the AHA, memorials to the Confederacy erected during this period "were intended, in part, to obscure the terrorism required to overthrow Reconstruction, and to intimidate African Americans politically and isolate them from the mainstream of public life." A later wave of monument building coincided with the civil rights movement, and according to the AHA "these symbols of white supremacy are still being invoked for similar purposes."

According to historian Adam Goodheart, the statues were meant to be symbols of white supremacy and the rallying around them by white supremacists will likely hasten their demise. Elijah Anderson, a professor of sociology at Yale University, said the statues "really impacts the psyche of black people." Harold Holzer, the director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute at Hunter College, agreed that the statues were designed to belittle African Americans. Dell Upton, chair of the Department of Art History at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote that "the monuments were not intended as public art," but rather were installed "as affirmations that the American polity was a white polity," and that because of their explicitly white supremacist intent, their removal from civic spaces was a matter "of justice, equity, and civic values."

According to Civil War historian Judith Giesberg, professor of history at Villanova University, "White supremacy is really what these statues represent."

Herold Holzer presented a brilliant address at the Gettysburg’s Remembrance Day, November 19, 2017, during which he discussed issues related to various monuments.

I have included a link to the text of his remarks. I think his presentation has been discussed previously on this forum.

Bob


http://www.historynet.com/lincoln-monume...ddress.htm