Avatar feed
Responses: 12
PO3 Steven Sherrill
12
12
0
Edited 7 y ago
SSG Warren Swan I would say instead of taking down the confederate statues, add monuments to the other side of the equation. Start with leaders of the underground railroad. The problem is that by sterilizing history, it can lead to a repeat. For example when I was growing up we learned about slavery, the civil war, and the horrors involved in it. We didn't learn about Japanese Internment camps in WWII. I didn't learn about those until much later, and I was horrified by it. We cannot sterilize our history. If we do, there will come a time when it is forgotten. Once it is forgotten, it can be repeated.
Additionally, slavery still exists. Even in the United States. They have given it the name Human Trafficing, but it is slavery. When young girls are brought to this country and forced to work in prostitution under threat of death, or Chinese pay a fortune to be smuggled into the country only to be forced to work off the remainder of their debt, slavery still exists. It has been sterilized and swept under the carpet. Until their is a major bust that forces it into the public eye.
(12)
Comment
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SSG Warren Swan
7 y
I'd agree with that too, BUT to show the double standard, you've had museums dedicated to the south from the Civil War for how long, both state and federal...now when did the African American Museum finally get finished? The lowest no name local CSA unit was recognized LONG before the Tuskegee Airmen or Buffalo Soldiers were considered equal citizens. I'm a fan of history, not HIStory, and in this that is exactly what we're doing. One side over another. Harriet Tubman has to wait to 2020 to get on the $20? Why? Who raised the most hell, and why? "PC gone amok"? Or is it what was seen as another "glass ceiling" regulated to certain men, a certain demographic, and ANY minority was NOT welcome finally broke through? Now tell me who stopped that change to the 20?

I'm100% with you on the second paragraph. But we can't go after them being many of them are "welcomed" into the country as major investors. What does an inconsequential life mean to the bigger picture?
(4)
Reply
(0)
PO3 Steven Sherrill
PO3 Steven Sherrill
7 y
SSG Warren Swan - It is hypocrisy at its finest. Race, color, creed, religion, and other superficial characteristics have nothing to do with honor. I have great respect for the Tuskeegee Airmen. To do what they did with everyone around them hoping they would fail (which is more ridiculous in wartime) is amazing to me.
As for the welcoming of shitbag investors, it is sad how right you are.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
SGT AH-64 Attack Helicopter Repairer
9
9
0
Edited 7 y ago
PFC Jonathan Albano SSG Warren Swan I was actually going to post this, but was working on my thoughts to keyboard on this as it is a touchy subject and as one who loves history a bit of a personal debate.

SSG Swan I agree with you wholeheartedly in many respects and PFC Albano I agree with you in some.

1. The Civil War was more than just about State Rights when you add in that those "States Rights" included the right to own slaves. Lets not confuse or delude ourselves into thinking those rights were something other than what they really were.

2. The Civil War was also about economics as the Southern States was built on the backbone of Slave-Economics- so if you took away the slaves (so to speak) then you had the potential for a crumbling economy, thus a loss of economic and financial power. Mind you though, that a lot of this economic power did fuel the "industrial Northern States" in a manner of speaking.

3. Concerning Slavery in the Northern States.....slavery for the most part was Self-Abolished due to many of the effects of the revolutionary war over a period of times leading up to the Civil War....though not in the numbers as in the South, slavery was still present, but on a much smaller scale and dwindling under its own accord, so the Emancipation Proclamation would not have been needed per se for these states.

4. The Southern States were a rebellious bunch and the monuments being torn down, while an important part of our history, belong in a museum., never to be forgotten, ever present, but not an in your face reminder of what they really represent to those past and present affected by the antics of the Southern States.

5. I do not believe we should cleanse our history, nor do I believe the civil war and its intricate components should be averted from discussions in any manner or form. We must preserve our history as history should be preserved, not by glorifying those on the losing side......since when do we celebrate losers of a failed war? Case in point- look at Nazi Germany- the Nazis are still discussed, but all monuments, pictures, etc are not on public display to say hey isn't this portion of our history great? NO. It is where is belongs, in museums, history books and the like. Such should be the way of Slavery and that portion of American history, for if we keep celebrating those who sought to keep the status quo, we shall never move forward as a united nation.

6. Do I believe there should be monuments to slaves? That is a question I wrestle with constantly as from a personal standpoint, I believe that the descents of slaves are the perfect monuments and reminders (good or bad), while a the same time, I believe that the African-American museum is a great monument in itself. All in all, if a singular monument was made to commemorate those brought into bondage and all it entailed, I could support that, but not one in every state- that would be way too much and a slap in the face for many on either side of the argument.

One last thing- lets not gloss over he fact that slavery and bondage still exits in our country and in our states from human trafficking to some of the very laws (especially southern states) we fight (or have fought) to protect as a nation. The good thing is that for better or for worse, we are slowly growing, changing and becoming better as a nation despite the many missteps along the way.
(9)
Comment
(0)
PFC Jonathan Albano
PFC Jonathan Albano
7 y
I agree with a lot of the points you are making. In regards to #3, yes, the Northern states by and large did not have slaves, however, there were still a few slave states that were loyal to the North who, due to how the Emancipation Proclamation was written, wouldn't have been affected by it. If any places had surrendered before the date on the proclamation, they also wouldn't have been affected. In essence, all that the Emancipation Proclamation was meant to be the Government seizing the "property" of people residing in areas not under Northern control after the deadline passed. It wasn't an abolition measure in and of itself though it did give the impression to both the south and foreign powers. It's something that, to this day, many people still interpret as Abraham Lincoln being anti slavery even though he was only against the spread of slavery into the western territories. The real person to free the slaves was his 2nd term VP Andrew Johnson who, after Lincoln was assassinated, played a key role in the ratification of the 13th amendment.
(2)
Reply
(0)
SGT AH-64 Attack Helicopter Repairer
SGT (Join to see)
7 y
I am not arguing the finer points of the EP per se, except to note that we both seem to agree that the EP was the start of a bigger picture outcome. You make some valid points and yes, the EP was a targeted proclamation which fueled a mindset in both Slave owner and Slave... just like the Brits did during the American Revolution.
(3)
Reply
(0)
PFC Jonathan Albano
PFC Jonathan Albano
7 y
I definitely agree with you on that. The EP, for sure, was inspiration for greater things and played a key role in abolition. I just feel that, when people say the civil war was about slavery, we are losing sight of some other big picture issues that were being fought over. It was an issue, yes but it wasn't the sole issue. I think that it does everyone of the time an injustice to only look at the period from a certain perspective. I'm not even outright saying to leave the monuments where they are, however, we can't just bury aspects of History and pretend they didn't happen and that's what many people seem to be trying to do. I'm fine with them being put in a museum or relocated but not outright destroyed. It comes down to "Those who do not know History are doomed to repeat it." -Unknown
(2)
Reply
(0)
SCPO Morris Ramsey
SCPO Morris Ramsey
7 y
A little know fact, both Sherman and Grant travel with their slaves during most of their Civil War campaigns.
(1)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small
COL Jean (John) F. B.
8
8
0
I certainly do not agree with the suggestion that people who remove Confederate monuments should be lynched, although I also don't agree that they should be removed. Like it or not, they are a part of our history and, just because a particular group is allegedly offended about them, that does not justify their removal. If we remove everything that offends someone, we would have nothing left to remove. What needs to happen to those who cause such historical artifacts to be removed? They should meet the same fate and be removed from public office and replaced by people who actually use common sense and not bow down to offended liberal snowflakes who think their opinions take priority over everybody else.

I like what Alabama did ... Pass laws that protect monuments from being moved or destroyed because of "political correctness'.

What comes to mind when "lynching" is mentioned? For me, it is the Old West and the lynching of cattle rustlers, murderers, etc. I don't automatically associate it as a racial comment, although I certainly understand it could be construed as that, especially by people who look at everything from a racist point of view.
(8)
Comment
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
COL Jean (John) F. B.
7 y
1stSgt Nelson Kerr - I don't ignore facts, however, I do question whether somebody's assertion of a "fact" is accurate or not. For example, while it is true that the Confederates were "enemies of the United States", I don't consider them traitors. The Confederate States of America seceded from the United States and formed their own independent country. They were fighting for their own country, against a country that refused to acknowledge their independence. I consider them no more traitors than I consider George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and the other founders of our country traitors (although the Brits might).

My belief is that the individual states had every right to secede and form their own country and, then, after doing it, fight to defend it. While it is an unfortunate part of our history, it is nonetheless a part of it. The statues being taken down are statues of heroes of that country, who, by the way, were recognized as US veterans by the Congress of the United States. If it is OK to remove monuments and statues of people who are offensive to some, the same would hold true for Grant, Sherman, and other Union generals. (Especially Sherman, who was a domestic terrorist who should have been hanged for his crimes).

This whole thing is idiocy and only morons would think it a good idea to destroy our history (good or bad). Those who supported this action should meet the same fate as the monuments they removed.
(3)
Reply
(0)
CW3 Harvey K.
CW3 Harvey K.
>1 y
It is shameful that we --- Americans of a generation so far removed from the terrible conflict of our Civil War, rip the nation's wounds open once more.

How is it that we fail to seek the goal that Abraham Lincoln wished to pursue:

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.“
(1)
Reply
(0)
CWO2 Richard Rose
CWO2 Richard Rose
>1 y
COL Jean (John) F. B. -
I am four generations from the "War of Northern Aggression," As such I remember my great grandmother talk about the Occupation aka Reconstruction that did not end until 1876. The South was punished and occupied more than any enemy of the United States. I am from Arkansas and Sherman did not invent the total war concept. It was done in the spring of 1862 here and the United States Army and her officers at the time were not gentlemen in any way shape or form. Today they would have been charged with war crimes. As with most Southerners I am proud of my heritage. My family has served in every conflict this nation has participated in since some point in the 1600s. It was not illegal to secede back when it happened. The history I was taught was different than that is taught today. The books I have written shortly after the war by former officers of the CSA and US prior to going with their homes. The best comment I can think of as to why the vast majority of Southerners fought so hard was, "Because they are here."
(2)
Reply
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
COL Jean (John) F. B.
>1 y
CWO2 Richard Rose - I am right there with you, brother. Several generations of proud Southerners, many of whom fought in the War of Northern Aggression for the Confederacy.
(2)
Reply
(0)
Avatar small

Join nearly 2 million former and current members of the US military, just like you.

close