Kentucky Confederate monument to be removed after 120 years

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Kentucky Confederate monument to be removed after 120 years

Dylan Lovan, Associated Press

Updated 8:52 pm, Saturday, April 30, 2016

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — A Confederate monument will be removed from a spot near the University of Louisville campus where it has stood since 1895.

The stone monument honoring Kentuckians who died for the Confederacy in the Civil War will be moved to another location, University President James Ramsey and Louisville Mayor Greg Fischer said during a surprise announcement Friday. The monument is capped with a statue of a Confederate soldier.

"It's time for us to move this monument to a more appropriate place," Ramsey said while standing in front of the stone memorial, which sits next to the university's gleaming Speed Art museum that just completed a $60 million renovation.

Governments and universities across the country have re-evaluated displays of Confederate symbols following the racially motivated slayings last summer of nine black parishioners at the Emanuel AME church in Charleston, South Carolina.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Kentucky-Confederate-monument-to-be-removed-after-7386002.php

[merrily]

1. Growing up in the Northeast, I cannot remember having seen a single Civil War monument.

And the north was, at least in theory, fighting to save the Union and not fighting to extend slavery to the territories. And the north was, at least in theory, the victor.

I can't recall, either, observing any day dedicated specifically to the Civil War, or any Civil War reenactments, although I think some came into existence after I reached adulthood.

I am not sure what, if anything that says. However, that sharp difference strikes me from time to time, when I read or hear about the veneration of the antebellum South and those who fought to preserve it,

[Skinner]

3. I think this might explain it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Cause_of_the_Confederacy

[merrily]

4. Good morning and thank you, but it is only a partial explanation.

It is certainly more than evident that the South and others saw their cause as heroic, romantic, etc. And, I've heard the "states' rights" rationale and also read the Articles of Secession that could not be clearer. However, that doesn't explain what most was about, namely that those in the North made so comparatively little--almost nothing-- of their sacrifices and their cause--and the north didn't have to make up stuff about what their cause was.

[Skinner]

5. I think there are two main reasons for that:

1) The North won the war, so the victory itself is sufficient evidence of the righteousness of their cause, and acts as a powerful memorial to their sacrifice.

2) The southern cause (slavery and white supremacy) was in fact immoral, so some in the South felt it necessary to create a counter-narrative that painted the cause as righteous.

[merrily]

6. Thank you again. I had no idea this was of such interest to you. However, we also won the

Revolutionary War, War I and World War II and I did grow up with celebrations and observances of those things, as well as with memorials in the form of statues, etc. So, I am not sure winning explains all of it.

Maybe one thing is that the battles (most of them) were fought in the South and things were razed. The economic system was gone (thank heaven). So, much of the South was so physically and economically devastated and never totally came back, while the North was able to move on and only wanted to bury the horror of a "brother killing brother" war?

I bet Ken Burns would know!

[Yupster]

24. Let me give you guys another reason there are so many Confederate monunuments

especially in county squares all over the south while there are not similar monuments in county squares of the north.

The first reason is that other than Native American tribes, no group of Americans ever mobilized more fully or absorbed the losses that the Confederacy did. By the end of the war, 75 % of all adult white men in the south served in the Confederate armed forces. This is an amazing number which the USA never came anywhere close to duplicating. Also by the end of the war one fourth of the adult white men in the south were dead and another one fourth were seriously wounded.

The north lost about the same number of men the south did, but they had a population that was so much larger that it was easier to absorb. Also, a significant number of union soldiers were immigrants, sometimes right off the boat who had less ties to their communities in America. Just for example, in 1848 there was a revolution against the German emperor which was crushed. Many of the German revolutionaries ran to America. some with death sentences on their heads for being Prussian Army officers who deserted to the revolutionaries. These officers were used by the union to organize German speaking units, often right off the boat paid as draft replacements. There are some funny stories from these German soldiers in the south.

Another reason there are so many monuments in southern counties but not northern ones is how the two armies were organized. In the south the companies were formed by counties. Basically, every able bodied adult man aged 16 - 40 and later 15- 55 marched off to war together. They elected their own leaders, usually the preacher or the mayor and they fought together as a unit. This had some real advantages. The troops generally fought bravely and kept up each other's morale under terrible conditions. After all, you were fighting arm in arm with your father, brothers, cousins and neighbors. General Lee thought that he had the best infantry the world had ever seen.

The disadvantage is obvious too though. If your regiment was chosen to lead a charge, your county could suffer horribly. Just a few examples are the 26th North Carolina which suffered the largest loss of any regiment, north or south throughout the war. It was formed from 10 companies from rural counties in N Carolina. The first company came from Moore County, (largest city Pinehurst) which was then a small town and even today only has 13,000 people. The unit fought in many huge battles from the Seven Days all through to Appomattox. Just imagine being on the homefront wondering what's happening to every adult male you are related to and know, and imagine when the reports come back of a battle with casualty lists. Imagine the day in Pinehurst when the news came from Gettysburg. The regiment lost 72 % of its members killed or wounded in that one battle. Don't be surprised if you go to Moore County NC and see a monument on the county square. And the 26th NC wasn't unique. The 1st Texas lost 82 % at the one day battle of Antietem, and the 21st Georgia lost 76 % of its members at Second Manassas.

Sorry so long. Old history teacher.

[Coventina]

29. Fascinating! Thanks!! n/t

[happyslug]

34. The North also raised their troops by county

It was rare to have a state wide raised unit. Companies were raised at the County Level and then grouped with Companies raised in other counties. The main difference between the North and South was how they did replacements. In the South it was the practice to fill in existing units with replacements. In the North, the tendency was NOT to fill in existing units but to make new ones.

A side affect of this was that when a Northern Regiment was first form, it would be joined with another Regiment into a Brigade of about 2000 men. As the Regiment lost personal for various reasons, it would be group with other similar size regiments into brigades of about 2000 men. Thus a Northern Brigade could have as few as two regiments and as many as six, but the total men in the brigade would be about 2000 men. When the unit become so small it could no longer be combined with other units, it was sent home to act as cadre for new Regiments (i.e. the enlisted ranks would be the NCOs of the new Regiments). All Troops were raised at the State level during the Civil War (except for the 45,000 men in the Regular Army, 45,000 men out of a one million man Army by 1865). Each State tended to raise troops at the county level for it was the easiest way to recruit such people in the days before rural mail service. Even the Draft of 1863 tended to raise troops at the county level.

Side Note: The Draft of 1863 permitted people to pay for replacements. This sounds weird today, but the reason for it was quite clear. In 1861, many northern commanders received their commission on the basis they could raise the troops themselves, many thus gave bonuses to enlist in their regiment. By 1863 this source of bonuses to enlist was gone, but the Army wanted Soldiers who had seen combat and whose enlistments had expired to reenlist. Such soldiers would only enlist if they was an enlistment bonus and by 1863 those bonuses were not longer being given out by officers. Thus the 1863 Draft permitted people to substitute for them, and the people the army wanted were veterans whose enlistment had expired. Lincoln himself paid for a replacement (and he was exempt from the Draft) and others followed his lead, this produced the bonuses needed to get veterans to reenlist. According to some records no one was actually drafted under the Draft act of 1863, even in New York City a system was developed for people to avoid having to be drafted, but forming groups who came up with money to pay for replacements (this was after the 1863 New York City Draft Riots, and the solution helped end the fear of the new immigrants to being drafted).

Northern Participation in the Civil War was almost as high as the South, but given the North's larger population AND that most of the fighting was in the South, more Southerns served, through some only as Militia raised for a short time period during an attack by Union Forces. Northern losses were as high as the South's but the North could absorb such losses while the South could not.

It also did not help the South that over 1/4 of its population were an "Internal Security Problem" i.e. the slaves. Slaves in any Slave culture have always defected to any attack force thus are what today would be called an "Internal Security Problem". Thus if you own 20 or more slaves you were exempt from the Southern Draft (Which was much more like the Draft used by the US during WWI, WWII and Vietnam) for someone had to watch your slave so they did not defect to the enemy. Thus Slavery itself tied up troops, by the end of the War, ex- Slaves made up almost 20% of the Union Army (and even higher percentage in the Union Navy). This not only undermined the Southern Economy by removing food producers, it strengthen the Union Forces when they invaded any part of the South for the local African Americans (and American Indians in North Carolina) would support the invading Union Forces against Southern Forces.

In the North African American Units were given "US Colored Regiments" designations, but raised by state and county. Most were raised in Southern States that were in open Rebellion, but as Union fores marched through those areas (Other were raised into regiments as their escaped but again the tendency was to form them into Regiments from the same area). The 54th Massachusetts ware the only African American Regiment given a State designation.

The real fun is reading US and Canadian historians discuss Canadian participation in the Civil War. This was almost exclusively for the North, even while England was supporting the South. It became so bad in Canada that they reorganized their Militia Twice, one in 1862 and again in 1864. The reason was a growing belief that the majority of Canadians would support a US invasion of Canada if England intervened in the US Civil War. In 1861, the Canadian Militia was very similar to the US militia of that time period, poorly trained and more a place for men to get together and get drunk then an actual fighting unit. The South's Militia was much better for it had always been part of the system to regulate slavery, and thus was the most effective militia in North America in 1861 (but no where near the New England Militia of Colonial American till about 1820, when with the defeat of the Native Americans the New England Militia went into a steep decline, such decline in Militia is normal when the threat that caused them to be formed no longer exists, thus Clausewitz talks highly of the American Militia, but that is the New England Militia prior to about 1820, not the Militia of the South nor the US and Canadian Militia after about 1820).

Anyway, in 1862, Canada reformed its Militia into two types of Militia, a "Volunteer" Militia that was armed, paid and equipped by the Canadians Government and a Reserve Militia of every other male over age 18. In 1864 Canada gave up on the Reserve Militia and expanded its "Volunteer" militia. Thus the debate between American and Canadian Historians about which army during the US Civil War had more Canadians, the Militia of Canada OR the Union Army? If we go by the Militia of 1861, it is clearly Canada, but if we go by the Volunteer Militia of 1864, more Canadians were serving in the Union Army then in the Volunteer Militia. The Canadians like attacking the numbering of Canadians serving in the US Army during the Civil war, given the problems with paper records of the time period how can the US claim the exact number of Canadians as the US did publish? The Answer to that is simple, it is subject to error like any such calculation but you do NOT correct for such errors by rounding the number up or down and the Canadians said should be done given the errors in the paperwork of the time period. The problem is, when it actually came time to decide to actually fight, more Canadians volunteered to join the Union Army as oppose to joining the Volunteer Militia of Canada which was a colony of Britain and thus a de Facto ally of the South. This was also one of the reasons Britain gave Canada Confederation Status in 1867, Britain accepted that if the US wanted Canada, the US could take Canada any time the US wanted Canada (and most Canadians would accept the annexation, thus Granting Confederation Status was an attempt to built up some opposition to US annexation of Canada in Canada).

I bring up Canada, for like the Ex-Slaves in the South, was a huge additional source of troops for the North. It was clear by 1862 that if Britain intervened in the US, it would be a mess. Canada would join the US for all practical purposes and Britain would not only have to deal with the US Navy, but the Russian Navy which starting in 1862 had settled into Boston and New York City. In fact very few Russian Naval Vessels stayed in the Baltic Sea during the US Civil War, they were mostly in Boston and New York City with standing orders to put themselves under US Navy Command if Britain attacked the US. The Russian Navy was no were near the Size of the British Navy, but with US monitors able to hold onto most coastal areas (The Monitors were terrible open seas, thus the need for the Russia Fleet and its deep sea capacity) the Russian Fleet could sail out, do a hit on the British Fleet and then retreat to the safety of New York City or Boston and their Monitors.

The US relied on Russia to offset British Support for the American South during the Civil War. The support for the North among Canadians meant the US did not have to worry to much about its Northern Border and the Russian Fleet in New York City meant the US Navy could send most of its ships to the south and keep no ships to protect its northern ports. This freed even more men to serve in the Union Army to suppress the South.

The South's only hope was frustrated by the Russian understanding with the US (it was NOT an alliance but an understanding, which had included smuggling supplies into Sevastopol during the Crimea War of 1854 and US officers getting to watch the Charge of the Light Bridge from the Russian Lines during that War). The South's Hope for a British attack from Canada, was frustrated by the fact that the Canadian people supported the North (The South did launch a raid from Canada, but once it was done, it caused so much problems in Canada itself that any further effort to do such raid was stopped by the Canadian Government let it lead to a revolution in Canada, Canada also put on pressure on US recruitment efforts in Canada after that raid but again it appears to be an effort to avoid an US Invasion).

The US Civil War had wide international implications, it tied up US resources but also show the limits of power to both Britain and France. France did intervene into Mexico during the US Civil War, but once the war was over France left Mexico before the US would invade Mexico and drive out the French. France also intervened in South East Asia in the 1860s, tying up its resources. Britain and France was involved not only in supporting the American South, but rebels in Poland against Russia AND was suppressing rebels against the Empire of China (and I will NOT go into the move by both countries in the "Race for Africa" which was already underway in the 1860s).

Thus the North had resources outside of the North it could pull on (including German support which was already against France by the 1860s) while the South could not really rely on any outside support except for some money from France and Britain (but no troops). This access to resources made it easier for the North to Fight the Civil War as oppose to the South.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

35. "If your regiment was chosen to lead a charge, your county could suffer horribly."

I was reminded of an incident from World War II, with which you are surely aware (I mean the incident, not WWII).

The Wikipedia entry National D-Day Memorial came up with this link:

A Virginia town remembers the Bedford Boys, who gave their lives on D-day

June 5, 2015, 7:30 AM

There is perhaps no place more appropriate in which to remember the magnitude of the sacrifice of those who stormed ashore on D-day than Bedford, Va., a town of 6,000 that’s 200 miles southwest of Washington, D.C.

If you’ve heard of Bedford, it’s likely because of the Bedford Boys, 30 National Guard soldiers from Bedford who landed on France’s Normandy beaches on June 6, 1944.

By day’s end, 19 Bedford soldiers were dead. Four more died later in the Normandy campaign.

Proportionately, the town of Bedford, then about 3,200 residents, suffered the nation’s most severe D-day losses.

[sulphurdunn]

11. Another explanation

is that while the South surrendered militarily it never surrendered politically and that the War never really ended. A few scholars have suggested that the history of the US is a continuation of the English Civil Wars. Whatever the reason, I thought you might enjoy this article.

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/13/the_south_is_holding_america_hostage/

[merrily]

12. Thank you! Interesting theory. I will bookmark that article.

[Igel]

15. A similar point has been made about WWI and WWII.

Those who lost on the German side never accepted their defeat. I think that's missing part of the point, but it's accurate enough.

The same has been said for various ME conflicts, so there's a desire on the part of the losers to say they never really lost. They were sabotaged from within, they were simply outgunned and that was unfair. It serves to keep the humiliation and hope of revenge alive and makes conflicts generational, personal, and hateful.

Same for Russian attitudes these days. All the theories as to why the USSR collapsed and Russian (no longer "Soviet&quot greatness and glory were lost are conspiratorial, so it wasn't *realy* a loss or at fair fight. It also licenses a lot of uncivilized behavior.

We think of this as aberrant, but it's really quite normal. It's educated Western culture that says it's okay to accept a defeat or a wrong and move past it. We've convinced some to do likewise, often by showing that the defeat wasn't a humiliation but a chance to do things better--Japan comes to mind for that. Mostly we've convinced others by *not* insisting on following up defeat with humiliation, but treating them as people (which is precisely what didn't happen after the Civil War or WWI). It helps if treating people respectfully follows on the heels of a resounding loss, not a milquetoast loss. Even in those cultures we've influenced there's still an undertow of "we've been dishonored and must get revenge." Less educated and some regional American cultures never accepted the "move past it" personal, intrinsic view of honor but stuck with the kind of honor that inevitably leads to duels, and as they rise again America's reverting to being like much of the rest of the world. (Sadly, today's duels do not follow the traditional rules, with both sides having a reasonable chance to win; but we don't think of a lot of homicides as the mangled, low-class duels to restore or protect honor that they are.)

Sherman got it, even in his rage. He wanted to make the South's loss so crushing it could never recover. Then again, he was pro-slavery and fought the North out of a sense of honor. It explains what we'd now consider a long series of war crimes, and the sense of superiority allows us to think those war crimes were great. Also historical relativism, which we invoke only when it serves our psychological wants.

[Botany]

8. We had one on my college campus (Ohio U aka Harvard on the Hocking)

[merrily]

9. Ohio is not considered the Northeast, but it was certainly part of "the North" in that war.

[Botany]

10. How about Maine?

[paleotn]

26. Maine seems covered with them. n/t

[Botany]

28. They are all over the place

here is one from PA


Phil Sheridan in Sumerset OH

From Iowa & Minnesota and east to the Atlantic countless small towns have statues and monuments
to the Union Army and its generals. Google any state that was in the union and type in the Civil War
monuments and you will find a huge list of them.

[onehandle]

13. Giant one in Philadelphia.

Home of the Revolution and the upcoming DNC Convention:

[img][/img]

THIS
MONUMENTAL MEMORIAL
PRESENTED BY
RICHARD SMITH
TYPE FOUNDER
OF PHILADELPHIA –
IN MEMORY OF
PENNSYLVANIANS WHO
TOOK PART IN THE CIVIL WAR
THEIR STRIFE WAS NOT FOR
AGGRANDIZEMENT AND WHEN
CONFLICT CEASED THE NORTH
WITH THE SOUTH UNITED AGAIN
TO ENJOY THE COMMON HERITAGE
LEFT BY THE FATHERS OF OUR
COUNTRY RESOLVING THAT
THEREAFTER ALL OUR PEOPLE
SHOULD DWELL TOGETHER
IN UNITY.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_Memorial_Arch

[dflprincess]

32. There are a lot of Civil War monuments around Minnesota

The First Minnesota Infantry paid a high price at Gettysburg and many of the monuments are for them and the state prides itself on sending the first volunteers to the war.

[happyslug]

33. Why not the DC Civil War Memorial, the one outside the Capital Building

It is to the rear of the Capital, Facing both the George Washington and Lincoln Memorial across the National Mall.



It is best known for its ends, a Charging group of Calvarymen and a Charging Group of Horse Arillery. :





With Grant in the Middle:



https://www.flickr.com/photos/wallyg/3665121938

When New, was bright Bronze, with modern Polyurethane could polished to bright bronze and coated with Polyurethane and stay bright bronze for years, but it is a forgotten memorial. In fact it was late, started in 1902 but not finished till the 1920s. It was viewed from the start to be opposite side of the Lincoln Memorial, with the Washington Memorial center between the two.

Side note: The National Mall was suppose to be an open Green Area, but since it was used for protests starting with the Bonus Army of 1932 (and used extensively in the 1960s during the Anti-War protests of that time period) it was decided to turn it into a "Reflective Pool" to "Reflect" The memorials around it, but in reality to remove the green area somewhere were protests could be held. I live the three memorials on the mall, the Washington, Lincoln and Grant Memorials, but the reflective pools have to go, for the Mall is where we should hold protests at and to do that it should be an open grass area.

[Igel]

14. Where I grew up we had War of 1812 monuments.

And if you didn't know to look for them, you'd never notice them.

Where I went to college there were monuments. I have no idea why they were there or who they were. Heck, in the little berg I grew up in of 3000 people there was a monument in front of the VFW post and I think there was another one down the street. Don't know what they were to. Didn't care, didn't notice. Only remember them because when we had parades--yes, we had the occasional 4th of July parade when I was a pre-teen--they were convenient markers. "If we get separated, meet there."

However, I did see a lot of civil war monuments as a teen, but I visited Antietam and Gettysburg. In the areas around there there were also monuments. Which I mostly ignored.

I didn't see any Revolutionary War monuments. I remember a Spanish-American war memorial in Los Angeles.

I would point out that there are several different kinds of monuments. There's the "great man" monument. They're often political, whether they're Lincoln, MLK, or Lee. They're often symbols and aren't people, and they're treated as symbols.

There are monuments to what happened there. So one 1812 War monument on the way to my junior high was at the location where the two young men who shot the British general at the Battle of North Point were rumored to have been located. They were brave. Now, at least one died. It's not the defeat that's remembered, it's the bravery, and that could be honored if the battle was won or if it was lost. (It was won, by the way.) The memorial wasn't just to those two men, and while it mentioned them and the fallen it also memorialized the battle itself. Sort of a 20-foot tall sculptured informational plaque.

There are memorials to the fallen, and those are always okay. They're like collective tombstones, and we see efforts to restore tombstones, to remember our dead, and it's only a problem when those tombstones become symbols. "The reason that there aren't any tombstones is ________, and to fight __________ we're going to put the tombstones back." The dead aren't people any more at that point, they're symbols. It's not about the dead, it's about fighting the present and the dead are just tools to say something about the people fighting for them.

Some cultures love honoring their shame. It's a way of memorializing it, of making it a part of their psyche so that perhaps their descendants can restore their honor. Often all they do is pass their PDST on to their great-great-grandchildren. That's not memorials to the dead as such, but to the dead as symbols, making honoring the dead into a political tool for the present. It's not about them, it's about us.

For those in the latter camp, everything's about them and symbolizing what they emote. Memorials to the dead often spring up when those remembering them are older and the memory of the dead will soon pass, when they have more power so they can manage to get the memorials they've always wanted put up, when time has passed to allow for fundraising and the immediacy of the pain and the cause to pass.

The Span-Am war memorial was put up about 30 years after the war. The Battle of North Point memorial put up just before the Civil War. Sometimes they're earlier, not often later. Neither had any great anit-anything sentiment. Same for the Civil War monuments I remember. Lots of dead. Lots of people to put up memorials to.

It's harder to defend a memorial to Jefferson Davis than it is to fallen soldiers, esp. when the fallen soldier one pops up at the time you'd expect it to. Even the descendants of Confederate soldiers shouldn't, as some seem to think, be expected to dishonor their dead to serve the politics of those living. It's like asking African-Americans today to dishonor their dead for being losers, or asking the mother of some drug dealer shot down or a bank robber shot dead to say, "Rejoice for society, lady, because your scum of a son isn't around to bother people." We may think it, but in a civil society you don't say it.

[paleotn]

25. Plenty of them in small towns...

all across New England.



http://www.yankeemagazine.com/article/features/the-single-soldier-monument-civil-war-memorial


Same setup as many small town squares down here in the South, except the guy at the top is dressed a little differently. My wife's New England relatives thought it interesting that we did the same down here.

[GummyBearz]

30. Well, DC has Arlington

I know it holds veterans of other wars and statesmen as well, but look at how it started.

[JoFerret]

2. Excellent news

Kentucky will go for Hillary in November.

[Fritz Walter]

7. I lived in Louisville for many years

In my 30+ years there, I never once saw any memorial ceremony or even a wreath laid at the base of the monument.
On a daily basis, I used to have to navigate around this monument on a busy thoroughfare. It's situated where two-way traffic splits into two one-way streets: northbound flows to 2nd Street, southbound flows from 3rd Street. I mention this because most drivers ignore it for safety reasons.

So, when this story broke on my Google News feed, I read the article and comments on the Fox station website (the only available report at the time). Quite a few racists' hair is on fire. Some are demanding recall/firing of the mayor and UofL president.

For a state that remained neutral during the Civil War, there are still a lot of traitor-sympathizers living there. Don't get me wrong: most Louisvillians are decent, honest, caring people. But then again, this is the state that not only brought Mitch McTurtle and (Ayn) Rand Paul to the US Senate, but also recently elected a rabid Tea-Bagger as governor, whose first priority was to dismantle one of the best state markets for health insurance, KyNect.

[Igel]

16. That's most of the battle.

It's not over monuments. It's over present-day humiliation and posturing over present-day issues.

If not for present tensions, those monuments would have as much symbolic importance as a monument to the Revolutionary War in the US or Britain. We don't have any great issues with Britain, we don't feel slighted and they don't, so nobody would care either way. It's only when you decide to relive the past and make it personal that they matter.

I think of it as cultural PTSD.

[mountain grammy]

17. Monuments to war, monuments to a lost cause..

Really, aren't cemeteries enough?

[snappyturtle]

18. Obviously not. OTOH I think we err in removing monuments.

It's like forgetting where we came from....maybe it's just best we hide our dirty little secrets out of sight (and mind?) for future generations.

[paleotn]

27. my thoughts exactly. n/t

[uhnope]

19. that's good news

I'll have more, please

[iandhr]

20. There is the Grand Army Arch in Brooklyn for Union soldiers and sailors.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soldiers%27_and_Sailors%27_Arch

[happyslug]

21. The lack of Union monuments had to do with 1877

In the general strike of 1877, Civil War Cannons from the Civil War, which had been made war memorials after the Civil War, were used by strikers after National Guardsmen had fired on the strikers. During the strike soldiers hiding out in the Pennsylvania Railroad round house had to keep firing on a cannon the strikers had pulled off a Civil War Memorial. The Strikers tried to use the Cannon to into the Roundhouse. In 1892 the strikers at Homestead also took down a Civil War Cannon, that had has been a war memorial, and used it against the boat bringing in Pinkerton agents to the mill.

The lesson learned in both cases was to remove all such cannon from urban areas war memorials. They were OK in small towns and OK in rural area, but in any area of urban unrest they were removed. Please note urban unrest from 1865 till the 1960s (outside the South) meant unionization efforts.

Given most Northern war memorials of the time period, were like most WWII memorials, examples of what soldiers fought with, the removal of the cannons removed the memorials.

Statutes were left alone and in small town American they were near the county courthouse and always faced south. Two stories relate to this direction. First it was to look after their fallen comrades who died in the South, the Second was to keep an eye on the South let it revolt again. Given most urban areas only really expanded AFTER the Civil War, it is no surprise most statutes are in rural county seats. Urban areas went for the Cannons and 1877 and 1892 saw them removed. Please remember it is only with the 1920 Census that more Americans were living in Urban Areas then in Rural Areas.

The Southern War Memorials did not spring up till after 1905 and the rise of the Second KKK. That is 40 years after the war, when most veterans were dead or over age 60. It would be like a mass rush for Vietnam war memorials today, more than 40 years after the end of the war. Most Civil War Memorials at Civil War battlefields and Northern Courthouses were made in the 1870s and 1880s, not the 1910s. The reason for this was such memorials are done when the participates were still relatively young enough to participate in dedicating the memorial. The memorials after 1905 had a different agenda then honoring the men who fought. That agenda was white supremacy and segregation, thus few cannons but a lot of statutes of "Great Leaders" of the South during the Civil War.

[MisterP]

22. a Border States monument wouldn't be particularly popular, either

[kyburbonkid]

23. It needed to go

Last edited Sun May 1, 2016, 09:21 PM - Edit history (1)

I've passed by this monument many time. It's a very pretty monument and as kids we thought it was kind of *cool* because it had bronze life-size solders on it. When I went to school at UofL, it really did seem out of place on the university campus. It didn't fit with what UofL was doing nor what the city was doing. We are the city of Mohamed Ali you know. We are working hard to strengthen and improve our race relations and make Louisville better than "can we all just get along." We are all one community. While the monument has historic significance, it really belongs in a confederate solder's grave yard. Any cemetery would be proud to have such a beautiful monument to honor the fathers, sons and brothers that fell for their confederacy. America has moved on from that shame, and it's right to have it moved to location more appropriate for it's context. I'm glad to see it go. It's just one more needed step.

[kyburbonkid]

31. Just when you thought it was all cool.

I was just about to give our city a +6 for doing the right thing when I read on the WDRB 41 (our local fox affiliate) website that a restraining order has being filed against the removal of the confederate monument. It was filed by a republican candidate running for congress in Ky 3rd district, currently held by John Yarmuth (D). Yep, a typical republican smooth move. I encourage anyone with an interest to visit the WDRB website.

http://www.wdrb.com/story/31860886/a-restraining-order-is-being-filed-against-the-removal-of-confederate-veterans-monument