Reply to Confederate female memorial being moved from Arlington County

Forum Index » Metropolitan DC Local Politics

Reply to "Confederate female memorial being moved from Arlington County"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]If the confederate monuments had gone up at the time of the war maybe I'd have some sympathy for them but most were put up post 1900 by apologist groups trying to rewrite history with some Lost Cause propaganda. And for PP above worried about these monuments to the losers of the Civil War, don't worry -- Youngkin & others are keeping these monuments, they just will no longer get prime real estate with our actual war heroes. Not sorry that insurrectionists are not being honored in Arlington anymore. [/quote]

Except that's not what happened. [b]In 1900 the South was slowly recovering from the effects of war[/b], and people were still mourning and remembering their war dead. But with the advent of Spanish-American War, there was a greater need for the government to foster unity. Before this, families of confederate soldiers weren't allowed entry into Arlington to place flowers on the graves of their loved ones. There was a push to remove all the buried confederates to a Southern location, but the Confederate section and memorial were proposed as a compromise. This monument was integral to the reconciliation process, and in recognizing the humanity and losses faced by the "other" side.   [/quote]

The statue was dedicated in 1914, 49 years after the end of the Civil War, and 16 years after the Spanish-American War.

You can go admire it somewhere else.[/quote]

The south literally had no money after the war. Many regions did not start recovering until the 1940s and WWII.[/quote]

Rich white southerners were rich again within a few decades.
[b]
The nullification of slave wealth after the U.S. Civil War (1861-65) was one of the largest episodes of wealth compressions in history. We document that white Southern households holding more slave assets in 1860 lost substantially more wealth by 1870, relative to households that had been equally wealthy before the war. Yet, the sons of former slaveholders recovered relative to comparable sons by 1900, and grandsons surpassed their counterparts in educational and occupational attainment by 1940. We find that social networks facilitated this recovery, with sons marrying into other former slaveholding families. Transmission of entrepreneurship and skills appear less central. [/b]

https://www.nber.org/papers/w25700

But yes, you're right, Jim Crow was a system intentionally designed to keep large numbers of people poor and powerless, and it was effective. In fact, here we are, almost 160 years later, and 11 of the 15 states with the lowest per capita income are former Jim Crow states: Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Missouri, North Carolina, Florida. (The other 4 are West Virginia, New Mexico, Ohio, and Indiana.)[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics