(08-18-2017 01:08 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 06:25 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Everybody involved with the war did what they had to do. That's all that's worth saying.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore...e-Memorial

Not for fame or reward 
Not for place or for rank 
Not lured by ambition 
Or goaded by necessity 
But in simple 
Obedience to duty 
As they understood it 
These men suffered all 
Sacrificed all 
Dared all-and died

Now I don't believe most of that, but I understand the point.

While I don't sympathize with the confederate cause at all and I would've tried to burn them down myself, the issue is too complicated to say that either side made the wrong moves. The war had to happen IMO and everyone was put in a tough position.

It wasn't inevitable. But the Dred Scott decision and John Y. Brown coupled with Buchanan's incompetence led to it. If a different person from Lexington other than the one whose statue they are trying to remove (John C. Breckinridge) was Vice-President under Buchanan, maybe it would have been averted. Henry Clay had managed to stop war twice.

Lincoln's election was the start of the war in my opinion. There was no stopping it after that.

But without John Y. Brown, there may have been.

The North supporting a slave uprising was terrifying as the slaves were a majority in many areas and even in a couple of states. The first 7 states to secede were new arrival Texas and 6 high slave population states. % slave:
South Carolina 57%
Mississippi 55%
Louisiana 47%
Alabama 45%
Georgia 44%
Florida 44%
Texas 30%

The 4 to secede only after Lincoln called for raising an army:
North Carolina 33%
Virginia 31%
Arkansas 26%
Tennessee 25%

The 4 who didn't secede:
Kentucky 20%
Maryland 13%
Missouri 10%
Delaware 2%

There were also a handful of slaves in Kansas and Nebraska.

(08-18-2017 01:08 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 06:25 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Everybody involved with the war did what they had to do. That's all that's worth saying.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore...e-Memorial

Not for fame or reward 
Not for place or for rank 
Not lured by ambition 
Or goaded by necessity 
But in simple 
Obedience to duty 
As they understood it 
These men suffered all 
Sacrificed all 
Dared all-and died

Now I don't believe most of that, but I understand the point.

While I don't sympathize with the confederate cause at all and I would've tried to burn them down myself, the issue is too complicated to say that either side made the wrong moves. The war had to happen IMO and everyone was put in a tough position.

It wasn't inevitable. But the Dred Scott decision and John Y. Brown coupled with Buchanan's incompetence led to it. If a different person from Lexington other than the one whose statue they are trying to remove (John C. Breckinridge) was Vice-President under Buchanan, maybe it would have been averted. Henry Clay had managed to stop war twice.

Lincoln's election was the start of the war in my opinion. There was no stopping it after that.

Nah, the war started during the Nullification Crisis when the north tried to economically ruin the south. It just took 30 years for the first shots to be fired.

(08-17-2017 11:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Everybody involved with the war did what they had to do. That's all that's worth saying.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore...e-Memorial

Not for fame or reward 
Not for place or for rank 
Not lured by ambition 
Or goaded by necessity 
But in simple 
Obedience to duty 
As they understood it 
These men suffered all 
Sacrificed all 
Dared all-and died

Now I don't believe most of that, but I understand the point.

While I don't sympathize with the confederate cause at all and I would've tried to burn them down myself, the issue is too complicated to say that either side made the wrong moves. The war had to happen IMO and everyone was put in a tough position.

All Ill say is the slavery ended everywhere else(mostly because technology) with out 1.5 million men losing their lives over it(and that in itself is debatable). Slavery is an abomination..but..so is war. Lincoln was put in a tough spot but made IMO the single worst decision of any POTUS ever..... To take up arms against his own people.

Everyone needs to visit Gettysburg one time. You will come away with a new outlook on this issue. The needless slaughter is right there in front of you and it makes you very uncomfortable.

(08-18-2017 02:53 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:45 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:27 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 11:21 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  Everybody involved with the war did what they had to do. That's all that's worth saying.

http://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore...e-Memorial

Not for fame or reward 
Not for place or for rank 
Not lured by ambition 
Or goaded by necessity 
But in simple 
Obedience to duty 
As they understood it 
These men suffered all 
Sacrificed all 
Dared all-and died

Now I don't believe most of that, but I understand the point.

While I don't sympathize with the confederate cause at all and I would've tried to burn them down myself, the issue is too complicated to say that either side made the wrong moves. The war had to happen IMO and everyone was put in a tough position.

All Ill say is the slavery ended everywhere else(mostly because technology) with out 1.5 million men losing their lives over it(and that in itself is debatable). Slavery is an abomination..but..so is war. Lincoln was put in a tough spot but made IMO the single worst decision of any POTUS ever..... To take up arms against his own people.

Everyone needs to visit Gettysburg one time. You will come away with a new outlook on this issue. The needless slaughter is right there in front of you and it makes you very uncomfortable.

Bad decision or good decision, it had to happen once the states split. The confederate states knew it and that's why a few were very late to join.

(08-18-2017 06:22 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 09:36 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 09:20 PM)Love and Honor Wrote:  The terminology of the Civil War has always been off imo, that implies that internal forces were struggling for control of the nation between the established United States versus a group dedicated to a complete overthrow and regime change. I think the whole "War of Northern Aggression" wording is off too, something like "he War of Confederate Secession would've been more appropriate, if not less catchy.

I always wonder what would've happened if Lincoln had been 10 or more years younger and wasn't poised to become president like he was in real life. It's hard to imagine the union staying together if someone like James Buchanan was still in office during the war, for all his faults Lincoln was a political genius with an incredible EQ, and even then it was extremely difficult for him to execute a successful war effort and pass some of the legislation he got through during his term.

It sorta did happen with Henry Clay in 1820 and 1833.

There was a Mississippi Senator who said that if there had been one Senator like Henry Clay in 1860, the Civil War would have been avoided as Clay helped do with the compromise of 1850. But in 1860, Henry Clay and Daniel Webster had died.

It's very possible, but I don't see it by that point. Dred Scott, the Fugitive Slave Act, the John Brown incidents, all of that was building up to a climax around 1860 imo.

(08-17-2017 05:00 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:30 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  I disagree with you for one simple reason. Lincoln didn't free the slaves until war was well under way. The South decided to leave before he even took office.

Lincoln's positions were clearly defined before he took office. The Republican Party was less than 10 years old!!! It was formed EXPLICITLY for abolition. Lincoln was their nominee. His positions were clear. South Carolina seceded on December 20, 1860. Lincoln was elected months earlier, and only won because the country was so bitterly divided there were FOUR candidates who received electoral votes. A LARGE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY DIDN'T VOTE FOR LINCOLN.

Abraham Lincoln Republican 180 1,866,452
John C. Breckinridge Southern Democratic 72 847,953
Stephen A. Douglas Democratic 12 1,380,202
John Bell Constitutional Union 39 590,901

Check. Your move.

Lincoln never said during his campaign that he was going to free the slaves so his position was never clear.

We now have a president who said he was going to build a wall and ban Muslims and that never happened.

Even in 1860, regardless of what a POTUS said, it had nothing to do with he would actually do.

How come youse guys are still fighting the Civil War? You don't see me fighting the Mexican American War? It's OVER, get over it. That's why we're in the place we're in now with these protestors. Those that don't want the statues to come down and are Christian are just practicing idolatry in my eyes. The AltLeft knows it'll rile those people and that's what they want. Tear them down, who cares, it's just marble or metal. If you want to see what these people on busts and statues look like go to a history book, I'm sure you'll find any you want.

(08-19-2017 11:44 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  How come youse guys are still fighting the Civil War? You don't see me fighting the Mexican American War? It's OVER, get over it. That's why we're in the place we're in now with these protestors. Those that don't want the statues to come down and are Christian are just practicing idolatry in my eyes. The AltLeft knows it'll rile those people and that's what they want. Tear them down, who cares, it's just marble or metal. If you want to see what these people on busts and statues look like go to a history book, I'm sure you'll find any you want.

If you want to get to the bottom of what this is all about and who is trying to rile whom, look into the history of those statues and why they were erected. I assure you it wasn't to honor the Confederacy.

(08-19-2017 12:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 11:44 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  How come youse guys are still fighting the Civil War? You don't see me fighting the Mexican American War? It's OVER, get over it. That's why we're in the place we're in now with these protestors. Those that don't want the statues to come down and are Christian are just practicing idolatry in my eyes. The AltLeft knows it'll rile those people and that's what they want. Tear them down, who cares, it's just marble or metal. If you want to see what these people on busts and statues look like go to a history book, I'm sure you'll find any you want.

If you want to get to the bottom of what this is all about and who is trying to rile whom, look into the history of those statues and why they were erected. I assure you it wasn't to honor the Confederacy.

Most of them were built to honor friends and family who died or suffered during the war, not to honor the "Confederacy."

Admittedly, some were built to let the "Coloreds" know their place.

(08-18-2017 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  The North supporting a slave uprising was terrifying as the slaves were a majority in many areas and even in a couple of states. The first 7 states to secede were new arrival Texas and 6 high slave population states. % slave:
South Carolina 57%
Mississippi 55%
Louisiana 47%
Alabama 45%
Georgia 44%
Florida 44%
Texas 30%

The 4 to secede only after Lincoln called for raising an army:
North Carolina 33%
Virginia 31%
Arkansas 26%
Tennessee 25%

The 4 who didn't secede:
Kentucky 20%
Maryland 13%
Missouri 10%
Delaware 2%

There were also a handful of slaves in Kansas and Nebraska.

North supporting slave uprising? I don't recall that ever happening. Do you have a link?

(08-19-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 12:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 11:44 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  How come youse guys are still fighting the Civil War? You don't see me fighting the Mexican American War? It's OVER, get over it. That's why we're in the place we're in now with these protestors. Those that don't want the statues to come down and are Christian are just practicing idolatry in my eyes. The AltLeft knows it'll rile those people and that's what they want. Tear them down, who cares, it's just marble or metal. If you want to see what these people on busts and statues look like go to a history book, I'm sure you'll find any you want.

If you want to get to the bottom of what this is all about and who is trying to rile whom, look into the history of those statues and why they were erected. I assure you it wasn't to honor the Confederacy.

Most of them were built to honor friends and family who died or suffered during the war, not to honor the "Confederacy."

Admittedly, some were built to let the "Coloreds" know their place.

I wouldn't say that. Somebody turned me on to a book a while back (I'll find the name later). The author divided Confederate reverence into eras: Early, Middle, and Late.

At first, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were on battlefields or in cemeteries. You didn't see many statues honoring specific heroes. The commemorations were kept very simple. If there was a sculpture it was usually just an obelisk and was expressly funerary. The author stated that 90% of them were erected in that fashion and 70% were in graveyards. The erectors were usually memorial organizations.

After that we begin to see people erecting statues in prominent places in the cities once reconstruction ends. This is when you start to see the rise of the soldier statue. 40% were erected in a funerary fashion, over 55% featured soldiers, and just half were in cemeteries. These were put up by veterans orgs. The 'honoring of friends and family' was dying and 'The Rise of the South's Mythology' was coming into play.

(08-19-2017 12:51 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:47 PM)bullet Wrote:  The North supporting a slave uprising was terrifying as the slaves were a majority in many areas and even in a couple of states. The first 7 states to secede were new arrival Texas and 6 high slave population states. % slave:
South Carolina 57%
Mississippi 55%
Louisiana 47%
Alabama 45%
Georgia 44%
Florida 44%
Texas 30%

The 4 to secede only after Lincoln called for raising an army:
North Carolina 33%
Virginia 31%
Arkansas 26%
Tennessee 25%

The 4 who didn't secede:
Kentucky 20%
Maryland 13%
Missouri 10%
Delaware 2%

There were also a handful of slaves in Kansas and Nebraska.

North supporting slave uprising? I don't recall that ever happening. Do you have a link?

Read up on John Y. Brown and Harper's Ferry. He raided the federal arsenal at Harper's Ferry, Va. to get guns to start a slave uprising in the South, like Nate Turner's rebellion. Robert E. Lee went into Harper's Ferry and captured Brown and his men. They were subsequently hanged, but treated as heroes and martyrs throughout the North. It would be like the South applauding the 9/11 attackers because they hit New York City.

(08-19-2017 10:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 12:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 11:44 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  How come youse guys are still fighting the Civil War? You don't see me fighting the Mexican American War? It's OVER, get over it. That's why we're in the place we're in now with these protestors. Those that don't want the statues to come down and are Christian are just practicing idolatry in my eyes. The AltLeft knows it'll rile those people and that's what they want. Tear them down, who cares, it's just marble or metal. If you want to see what these people on busts and statues look like go to a history book, I'm sure you'll find any you want.

If you want to get to the bottom of what this is all about and who is trying to rile whom, look into the history of those statues and why they were erected. I assure you it wasn't to honor the Confederacy.

Most of them were built to honor friends and family who died or suffered during the war, not to honor the "Confederacy."

Admittedly, some were built to let the "Coloreds" know their place.

I wouldn't say that. Somebody turned me on to a book a while back (I'll find the name later). The author divided Confederate reverence into eras: Early, Middle, and Late.

At first, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were on battlefields or in cemeteries. You didn't see many statues honoring specific heroes. The commemorations were kept very simple. If there was a sculpture it was usually just an obelisk and was expressly funerary. The author stated that 90% of them were erected in that fashion and 70% were in graveyards. The erectors were usually memorial organizations.

After that we begin to see people erecting statues in prominent places in the cities once reconstruction ends. This is when you start to see the rise of the soldier statue. 40% were erected in a funerary fashion, over 55% featured soldiers, and just half were in cemeteries. These were put up by veterans orgs. The 'honoring of friends and family' was dying and 'The Rise of the South's Mythology' was coming into play.

The South was poor at the start. Also, people started to get reflective as they got older. Look at the pattern of monuments of the Revolutionary War. I bet you would find the same pattern. Last time I was in New England, I was struck by how many were long after the Revolution and how unimpressive the early monuments were.

Even in Texas, they pretty much ignored the Alamo for decades. It was only in 1903 that the Daughters of the Texas Revolution got involved and saved the structure and property. There was renewed interest with the centennial in 1936. They lost the mass grave where the burned bodies of the Texans were buried by the Mexicans after the battle. Nobody knows where it was now, although they did back in the 1830s. The San Jacinto monument, commemorating the battle of San Jacinto, which won the Texas Revolution, wasn't authorized until 1936.

So the fact that many of the monuments were long after the Civil War demonstrates nothing as regards the motive.

(08-20-2017 12:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 10:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 12:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 11:44 AM)olliebaba Wrote:  How come youse guys are still fighting the Civil War? You don't see me fighting the Mexican American War? It's OVER, get over it. That's why we're in the place we're in now with these protestors. Those that don't want the statues to come down and are Christian are just practicing idolatry in my eyes. The AltLeft knows it'll rile those people and that's what they want. Tear them down, who cares, it's just marble or metal. If you want to see what these people on busts and statues look like go to a history book, I'm sure you'll find any you want.

If you want to get to the bottom of what this is all about and who is trying to rile whom, look into the history of those statues and why they were erected. I assure you it wasn't to honor the Confederacy.

Most of them were built to honor friends and family who died or suffered during the war, not to honor the "Confederacy."

Admittedly, some were built to let the "Coloreds" know their place.

I wouldn't say that. Somebody turned me on to a book a while back (I'll find the name later). The author divided Confederate reverence into eras: Early, Middle, and Late.

At first, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were on battlefields or in cemeteries. You didn't see many statues honoring specific heroes. The commemorations were kept very simple. If there was a sculpture it was usually just an obelisk and was expressly funerary. The author stated that 90% of them were erected in that fashion and 70% were in graveyards. The erectors were usually memorial organizations.

After that we begin to see people erecting statues in prominent places in the cities once reconstruction ends. This is when you start to see the rise of the soldier statue. 40% were erected in a funerary fashion, over 55% featured soldiers, and just half were in cemeteries. These were put up by veterans orgs. The 'honoring of friends and family' was dying and 'The Rise of the South's Mythology' was coming into play.

The South was poor at the start. Also, people started to get reflective as they got older. Look at the pattern of monuments of the Revolutionary War. I bet you would find the same pattern. Last time I was in New England, I was struck by how many were long after the Revolution and how unimpressive the early monuments were.

Even in Texas, they pretty much ignored the Alamo for decades. It was only in 1903 that the Daughters of the Texas Revolution got involved and saved the structure and property. There was renewed interest with the centennial in 1936. They lost the mass grave where the burned bodies of the Texans were buried by the Mexicans after the battle. Nobody knows where it was now, although they did back in the 1830s. The San Jacinto monument, commemorating the battle of San Jacinto, which won the Texas Revolution, wasn't authorized until 1936.

So the fact that many of the monuments were long after the Civil War demonstrates nothing as regards the motive.

I think it does demonstrate a difference in the motives because the type of memorials changed. The organizations that put them up later were in the Lost Cause movement. They were bringing back leaders and turned them into mythological figures. They were writing their own revisionist histories and putting them into revisionist museums. They were making slavery "benevolent".

I read that Lincoln had a plan to buy the slaves and ship them to Jamaica. He did not like black people he just thought slavery was wrong.

When it comes to these monuments and the recent protest.
A lot of white people who are not racist are tired of hearing about something they can't fix the past.
They want black people to move on and stop dwelling on something that ended long before they were born.
About taking the monuments from government owned land.
The group fighting for them and the group against should work together.
Buy them and move them to private land.
Hard to get over something when it is staring you in the face like a big statue at a government building. You have no choice about wether you go to the court house or not.


Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

(08-20-2017 08:16 AM)MJG Wrote:  I read that Lincoln had a plan to buy the slaves and ship them to Jamaica. He did not like black people he just thought slavery was wrong.

When it comes to these monuments and the recent protest.
A lot of white people who are not racist are tired of hearing about something they can't fix the past.
They want black people to move on and stop dwelling on something that ended long before they were born.
About taking the monuments from government owned land.
The group fighting for them and the group against should work together.
Buy them and move them to private land.
Hard to get over something when it is staring you in the face like a big statue at a government building. You have no choice about wether you go to the court house or not.


Sent from my SM-J700T using CSNbbs mobile app

Actually they did send a large number of slaves to Liberia. That group ruled Liberia until recently.

(08-20-2017 01:15 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-20-2017 12:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 10:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 12:11 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  If you want to get to the bottom of what this is all about and who is trying to rile whom, look into the history of those statues and why they were erected. I assure you it wasn't to honor the Confederacy.

Most of them were built to honor friends and family who died or suffered during the war, not to honor the "Confederacy."

Admittedly, some were built to let the "Coloreds" know their place.

I wouldn't say that. Somebody turned me on to a book a while back (I'll find the name later). The author divided Confederate reverence into eras: Early, Middle, and Late.

At first, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were on battlefields or in cemeteries. You didn't see many statues honoring specific heroes. The commemorations were kept very simple. If there was a sculpture it was usually just an obelisk and was expressly funerary. The author stated that 90% of them were erected in that fashion and 70% were in graveyards. The erectors were usually memorial organizations.

After that we begin to see people erecting statues in prominent places in the cities once reconstruction ends. This is when you start to see the rise of the soldier statue. 40% were erected in a funerary fashion, over 55% featured soldiers, and just half were in cemeteries. These were put up by veterans orgs. The 'honoring of friends and family' was dying and 'The Rise of the South's Mythology' was coming into play.

The South was poor at the start. Also, people started to get reflective as they got older. Look at the pattern of monuments of the Revolutionary War. I bet you would find the same pattern. Last time I was in New England, I was struck by how many were long after the Revolution and how unimpressive the early monuments were.

Even in Texas, they pretty much ignored the Alamo for decades. It was only in 1903 that the Daughters of the Texas Revolution got involved and saved the structure and property. There was renewed interest with the centennial in 1936. They lost the mass grave where the burned bodies of the Texans were buried by the Mexicans after the battle. Nobody knows where it was now, although they did back in the 1830s. The San Jacinto monument, commemorating the battle of San Jacinto, which won the Texas Revolution, wasn't authorized until 1936.

So the fact that many of the monuments were long after the Civil War demonstrates nothing as regards the motive.

I think it does demonstrate a difference in the motives because the type of memorials changed. The organizations that put them up later were in the Lost Cause movement. They were bringing back leaders and turned them into mythological figures. They were writing their own revisionist histories and putting them into revisionist museums. They were making slavery "benevolent".

Again, how is the mythology different than the American Revolution or Texas Revolution? George Washington and the cherry tree? I've read that it was generally accepted up until the centennial that Davey Crockett and a handful of others surrendered at the Alamo and were executed in the aftermath. But then it became almost a sacrilege to suggest that everyone didn't fight to his last breath.

For that matter, how about the mythology surrounding Abraham Lincoln or even JFK? Abraham Lincoln was a very complex man. JFK was a lousy president who cheated on his wife, but he has been built up with a Camelot mythology.

(08-20-2017 08:56 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-20-2017 01:15 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-20-2017 12:38 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 10:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(08-19-2017 12:15 PM)bullet Wrote:  Most of them were built to honor friends and family who died or suffered during the war, not to honor the "Confederacy."

Admittedly, some were built to let the "Coloreds" know their place.

I wouldn't say that. Somebody turned me on to a book a while back (I'll find the name later). The author divided Confederate reverence into eras: Early, Middle, and Late.

At first, the vast majority of Confederate monuments were on battlefields or in cemeteries. You didn't see many statues honoring specific heroes. The commemorations were kept very simple. If there was a sculpture it was usually just an obelisk and was expressly funerary. The author stated that 90% of them were erected in that fashion and 70% were in graveyards. The erectors were usually memorial organizations.

After that we begin to see people erecting statues in prominent places in the cities once reconstruction ends. This is when you start to see the rise of the soldier statue. 40% were erected in a funerary fashion, over 55% featured soldiers, and just half were in cemeteries. These were put up by veterans orgs. The 'honoring of friends and family' was dying and 'The Rise of the South's Mythology' was coming into play.

The South was poor at the start. Also, people started to get reflective as they got older. Look at the pattern of monuments of the Revolutionary War. I bet you would find the same pattern. Last time I was in New England, I was struck by how many were long after the Revolution and how unimpressive the early monuments were.

Even in Texas, they pretty much ignored the Alamo for decades. It was only in 1903 that the Daughters of the Texas Revolution got involved and saved the structure and property. There was renewed interest with the centennial in 1936. They lost the mass grave where the burned bodies of the Texans were buried by the Mexicans after the battle. Nobody knows where it was now, although they did back in the 1830s. The San Jacinto monument, commemorating the battle of San Jacinto, which won the Texas Revolution, wasn't authorized until 1936.

So the fact that many of the monuments were long after the Civil War demonstrates nothing as regards the motive.

I think it does demonstrate a difference in the motives because the type of memorials changed. The organizations that put them up later were in the Lost Cause movement. They were bringing back leaders and turned them into mythological figures. They were writing their own revisionist histories and putting them into revisionist museums. They were making slavery "benevolent".

Again, how is the mythology different than the American Revolution or Texas Revolution? George Washington and the cherry tree? I've read that it was generally accepted up until the centennial that Davey Crockett and a handful of others surrendered at the Alamo and were executed in the aftermath. But then it became almost a sacrilege to suggest that everyone didn't fight to his last breath.

For that matter, how about the mythology surrounding Abraham Lincoln or even JFK? Abraham Lincoln was a very complex man. JFK was a lousy president who cheated on his wife, but he has been built up with a Camelot mythology.

Not very much different when you strip it bare. The problem lies in the fact that it was used to establish the dominance of the white man in the South and succeeded for a long time. Through the movement that involved the monuments, Jim Crow was justified. Disenfranchisement was justified.