Posted on 01/24/2014 8:00:53 AM PST by rockrr
It seems fitting that the de facto anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War, which some people might still be shocked to learn the North won, turned out to be "Dixie."
After all, since Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox there's been no shortage of looking away, looking away at the reality of history when it comes to the Civil War.
Nowhere is that full flower of denial more apparent than among the followers of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which is upset about a proposal to erect a monument to Union soldiers who died in the Battle of Olustee, regarded by historians as the largest and deadliest engagement in Florida during the "wowrah." Related News/Archive
Next month marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Olustee, about 45 miles west of Jacksonville. Some 2,000 Union troops died in the conflict, while 1,000 Confederate soldiers also perished in an engagement that did not substantially alter the course of the Civil War.
The 3-acre Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park includes three monuments honoring the Confederate troops who fought and died in the encounter. But when the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War pushed for a memorial on the site to pay homage to the sacrifices of their forbearers, hostilities ensued. So did illiterate silliness.
(Excerpt) Read more at tampabay.com ...
Correction: “probably” should have said “possibly”.
Well, would not northerners be upset if someone tried to erect a monument to confederate soldiers somewhere in the north? Look at how they feel about the Confederate flag or celebrating Lee’s birthday.
Show that pic to your yankee friends. Maybe it will deter anymore of them from moving to GA and then voting to try to turn us into the Yankee chithole they left. :-)
Not really accurate.
Here's a link to the percentage of slaveowning families in southern states per the 1860 census. MS was 49% and SC 46%.
http://civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm
The claim that only 6% (or whatever) of southerners owned slaves is technically accurate, in that title was usually vested in the head of the house, thus wife and children were not technically slaveowners. The problem with this is that by this definition Scarlett O'Hara would not be considered a slaveowner, since her father probably had title to the slaves in his name. But that certainly isn't how Scarlett would have thought of herself.
Here's another link to a discussion of slave owning among CSA soldiers. Slaveowners (in their own name) were in a decided majority among officers.
Fewer enlisted men, being on average considerably less prosperous, owned slaves in their own name, but more than one in three came from slaveowning families.
http://deadconfederates.com/2011/04/28/ninety-eight-percent-of-texas-confederate-soldiers-never-owned-a-slave/
I don't know what you classify as "very few," but to my mind more than one in three to more than one in two doesn't qualify.
BTW, this correction aside, I agree with your post.
At least the bandleader Harry James had two first names that were both male. This guy? Hmmmmm.
Well, there are at least a couple dozen at Gettysburg, PA.
http://www.gettysburg.stonesentinels.com/Confederate.php
Erected over a period of 1884 to 1982.
Here's a memorial to Confederate dead at the Battle of Westport, in what is now Kansas City. I grew up not far from here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Westport#Memorials
Since almost all the battles were fought in Confederate states, there isn't a lot of opportunity to erect memorials to CSA dead in the North.
Speaking as a northerner, though presently living in an ex-Confederate state, I would not object to a memorial to brave men who fought and died for their beliefs.
And only lonely coyotes “wile” away their hours. Most folks would prefer to “while” them away.
The article was a bit rambling, not well written - probably only proofread once or twice, but do I understand this correctly: A group tried to get a Confederate monument erected and now it looks like they'll erect a Union monument?
Hey Sherm would it make you happy if we carve a whiskey bottle on Stone Mountain in honor of General Grant? I could live with it. :-)
That was something. Thanks for posting.
Most of the poor schmucks who had to do the heavy lifting in the war on both sides didn’t have a lot of animosity between themselves afterwards, and frequently even during it.
All of the friends of mine that hale from northen regions are unanimous that any type of “CWII” that comes about isn’t going to be a “north v south” thing, it’s going to be a “progressives v patriots” or “producers v parasites” conflict...
In many of those poorer families, it was more akin to buying an extra son to help work the farm, than in owning a “Slave”.
And many became sharecroppers, later in life.
LOL, no kidding. Yankees moving south = inevitable deterioration of the place where they come to roost. This is true in a political sense, of course. But it's also true that the standards of manners and politeness suffer, as well.
Yankees largely are an overwrought, fuming bunch of people.
If their cousin owned slaves, I presume that they were from a slave owning family?
I would have to question the stats you presented based on the fact taht if 6% (individuals) is technically correct and 49% (families) is also correct, then the term family is being used to refer to entire clans.
Given that ~40% of the southern population were slaves, slavery was common, yet not as broad based as you suggest. Slaves were expensive and you had to have significant land/work for it to make any financial sense.
I look at it this way. How many people employ someone, compared to how many people have someone in their extended family that employs someone.
Of southern white families (momma, papa, and chill’n:
1% owned 100 or more slaves
17% owned 3-10 slaves
4% owned 1-2 slaves
77% owned no slaves
(99% total due to rounding)
“it’s going to be a “progressives v patriots” or “producers v parasites” conflict...”
History shows us that the “progressive parasites” almost always win these type of conflicts, then violently suppress any dissent. It’s only after the “Progressives” show their true nature through deadly suppression that the productive sheeple finally wake up. Egypt would be but one recent example of this.
Dissent simply isn’t tolerated when the dissenters take charge.
You got all that from a single article about SCV intransigence?
Any beliefs?
I think it was a little more complicated and a little more simple. First there was the culture clash. On the issues in question, both sides were right, and both sides were wrong.
Lee is also more complicated. As a tactician, he seemed to be brilliant, but, then he was going up against idiots, and how much of a factor Stonewall Jackson was is open to debate. but when Lee was opposed by Meade, who seemed to be a competent field commander, it was a disaster for Lee.
What is not generally known is that Meade was in command of the Army of the Potomac until the end of the war, and that Grant was General-in-Chief. In Grant, the North found someone who could win battles, and, even more important, someone who understood modern theater warfare, which was a particular weakness in Southern commanders. A good question is whether Lee was infected by that weakness, or if he was not free to act as a theater commander until the war was almost over.
You are aware that there are dozens of monuments to Confederates at Gettysburg aren't you? Plus several former Confederate leaders, military and civilian, are included in Statuary Hall in the Capitol.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.