There's been a lot of talk recently about Confederate monuments and whether they should stay where they are. I never really paid attention to them growing up. Yes, if you visit places in the south you're going to see statues of Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee. It has been normal. No one ever questioned the appropriateness of those statues until now. You never stopped to think that these guys were traitors to the United States. Aside from that, they lost the war. Typically the victors are the ones who erect statues. No statues for losers. Of course all the statues are in the south. You're not going to find a statue of Jefferson Davis in Boston. And not only did they put up statues, they even named US military bases after these guys. You don't have any military bases in the United States named after General Cornwallis, or Field Marshal Rommel. But I'm getting sidetracked. My personal belief is that those statues belong in Civil War Battleground Parks, like Vicksburg and Gettysburg. They do not have a place in the town square. So if you've never been to Stone Mountain, you may not realize that it is the granddaddy of all Confederate monuments.
I hesitated to go this time. Again, until recently, I hadn't given much thought to Confederate monuments or the people who wanted to keep the spirit of the Confederacy alive. Even though I grew up in Ohio, there was no shortage of people claiming southern roots. At one time, I had a set of beach towels, one looked like a Union flag and the other a Confederate flag. I thought nothing of it. But amidst all the cries of "it's our heritage" and "it's our history" in regard to eliminating monuments to Confederate soldiers, I'm not sure what is going on. Most of these monuments weren't even put up until the 1920s - over 50 years after the war ended.
It's s interesting. Our heritage and our history. Just what is the heritage of the Confederacy.? A willingness to fight to the death for the right to own another human being. The idea that you could own a human being, just like you own a horse or a dog. And you can treat them like livestock and no one can say a word.
So how about the history? I've been trying to think back to what I was taught in school. (I know, it was a very long time ago.) At least I was typically one of the kids who was actually paying attention and there are only a few things I remember.
In elementary school we were taught about the Merrimac and the Monitor, a famous Civil War sea battle. I don't remember them saying much about the war, but I do remember that battle. I also remember being taught about Harriet Beecher Stowe, who wrote Uncle Tom's Cabin but I don't remember actually reading it, although I probably did. We also learned the Battle Hymn of the Republic. And we learned that the South lost and Lincoln freed the slaves.
I think it was junior high when we read The Red Badge of Courage. Can't remember much else about what we might have been taught. But that was Ohio history and it would only have been discussed from a state history perspective.
In high school they started teaching about the causes. Up until then, I think I must have assumed that slavery was the sole cause of the war. And if you look closely, it was. Trying to blame economics isn't going to work because the plantation economy depended on slave labor. The two are tied. But everything was glossed over and presented in a very "matter-of-fact" way. Plantation owners couldn't afford to pay people to work in their fields or houses. Slavery was essential. And abolitionists were painted with the crazy brush.
In college they wanted to make it all about state's rights. But still, what it comes down to is a state's right to allow it's citizens to own other human beings. We're seeing some of this states rights stuff rear it's ugly head again as some states want to be able to limit voting rights and feel that it's their right to do so.
We were told that most of the slave owners were benevolent masters - providing food, clothing, and housing for all their slaves, as well as education for some. They didn't mention that families could be split up on a whim. It wasn't considered rape if you owned her and any children born to her were yours. People could be beaten nearly to death (and in some cases were beaten to death) to set an example. These are things that most of us find repugnant, but there are those people out there who want to preserve their "heritage" and their "history" and the right to own a person and exercise complete control over them figures predominantly in this heritage and history.
I've been struggling with writing this since July. It's now November. In the end, I recognize that no one actually cares what I think about any of this. So I'm just going to go on record and publish it.
The "heroes" of the Confederacy were traitors to the United States and should not have statues put up in town squares. Leave them to Gettysburg and Vicksburg. You're not going to find a statue of Benedict Arnold anywhere in this country. Why should you find one of Robert E. Lee?
