WGBH takes a look at the Confederate memorial on Georges Island; reports Gov. Baker would rather have the thing put somewhere else.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:
WGBH takes a look at the Confederate memorial on Georges Island; reports Gov. Baker would rather have the thing put somewhere else.
Like the job UHub is doing? Consider a contribution. Thanks!
Ad:Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
“The marker doesn’t really
By Steeve
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 9:40am
“The marker doesn’t really engage in any kind of justification for the war itself, or the Confederate cause”
...
"The Confederate memorial on Georges Island was placed by the United Daughters of the Confederacy"
Sure. Yeah. Whatever you say.
what's that saying about slopes?...
By Roztonian
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 9:48am
First a suggestion for a name change at Faneuil Hall, then this gem by Ty Burr:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/2017/06/03/taken-...
So at what point do National Historical Sites like Gettysburg or Bull Run go on the chopping block? All of these sacred places have memorials to states and the armies that fought there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monuments_of...
Many of them are large and often decorated with the stars and bars.
I give a few months before someone starts a petition for removal.
I am certainly not for celebrating the horrible institution of slavery in any way - however, I do think war memorials hold an important place in the history of our country and should be respected.
What's being memorialized?
By lbb
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 10:46am
What exactly is being memorialized? That's the question. There's this...and then there's this. How do you memorialize those who died serving a vile cause without, at the very least, failing to condemn that cause?
same answer..
By Roztonian
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 10:58am
Like I wrote - we are memorializing our war dead.
When we honor the sacrifice of our countrymen with memorials, it's wrong to remove them in an effort to re-write/wipe away history. These men sacrificed their lives. If Arizona erected a monument to the south, in the wake of desegregation, and they decide to remove it, so be it.
My concern is that monuments on hallowed ground, honoring an individual's sacrifice, will get swept away.
It's not right.
When we honor the sacrifice
By Nick L
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 3:27pm
But these NOBLE SACRIFICING INDIVIDUALS were all
a) traitors and not my countrymen
b) vicious war criminals
c) not to mention that they were slavers
I have yet to see a single statue memorializing Benedict Arnold or any of the Unionists who died in the Revolutionary War. I fail to see why the Confederacy should be different: if anything, the Confederacy is far far worse than the colonial-era British. And, unlike Robert E. Lee, Benedict Arnold wasn't a vicious war criminal.
If you can coherently explain to me why we should memorialize Robert E. Lee but not Benedict Arnold, please let me know. I'm guessing you can't. because the only explanations are "I love the Confederacy" or "I am predisposed to disagree with liberals on anything, no matter how sensible."
a) traitors and not my
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 4:17pm
a) traitors and not my countrymen
b) vicious war criminals
c) not to mention that they were slavers
A) If they are not your countrymen what is the justification for the war in the first place? Lincoln would quite strongly disagree.
B) Most that died for the confederacy were just like most that died for the union, young men trapped in their circumstance.
C) Again most that died were young men that never owned a slave.
Nick, thanks for confirming that you caps lock is working...
By Roztonian
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 4:42pm
and for teeing up those two brainy explanation options for me - but I'll give my own, thanks.
First - Robert E Lee didn't die in the war - last time I checked. So he wouldn't fall under the "honoring our war dead" - which was the entire point of my previous posts.
Also, I never mentioned anything about celebrating Robert E Lee.
I mentioned honoring those who gave their lives - and not trying to strike it from the collective memory of our country - which is where I see this leading.
Coherent enough?
We should always honor those Americans who gave their lives in battle - remember their sacrifice, and the historical lessons we can learn from them.
You know, like Lincoln said we should do in a little speech of his - "...that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion - that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain - that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom - and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
and BTW, he was talking about ALL of the war dead.
As somebody asked, where's the Benedict Arnold statue?
By adamg
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 4:50pm
Like Lee, he, too, fought for his country.
Why is he considered a traitor for turning on his country, but Lee isn't? Lee made a choice: He chose treason. His actions led to the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans - 13,000 of them in just one Southern concentration camp.
Those people you want to honor were not Americans. Like the generals they followed, they were equally traitors. Let their families mourn their deaths. The rest of us? Not on your life.
Whether any Confederates
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 6:04pm
Whether any Confederates should be tried for treason was debated after the Civil War... none were charged but Jefferson Davis. it was unclear whether the gov't could make the treason charges stick in the Courts. Davis was arrested for conspiracy in Lincoln's murder and then later charged with treason and then later pardoned by Andrew Johnson along with all other Confederates.
In any case, at that time, some Republicans were more concerned with reconciliation and the survival of the still emerging "government of the people, by the people and for the people"
They had a reason to be concerned because many democratic or near democratic experiments mostly in Europe had already failed.
Nonetheless I get your point..... BTW Benedict Arnold's monument is in the Saratoga Battlefield National Park.
So it seems I was right...
By Rostonian
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 7:01am
"let their families mourn their death" ??
Took a few posts but it would seem I was correct in my original assumption that (sadly) some people would be in favor of removing memorials to southern war dead at places like Gettysburg.
Is that what you are saying Adam?
If it were up to me ...
By adamg
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 9:23am
Maybe.
But we're not talking about a battlefield. We're talking about a prison where some traitors were held. How would you feel about putting up a memorial to the Julius Rosenberg in Ossining, NY? For that matter, what about a pylon for the Japanese sailors in submarines who died in the attack on Pearl Harbor?
A better comparison
By Waquiot
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 9:47am
If a group of Japanese wanted to put up a monument at the site of a PoW camp in the United States, would it have this amount of controversy?
There are monuments to dead British soldiers ...
By Ron Newman
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 11:45pm
... all along the Battle Road.
No Confederate was a
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 3:50pm
No Confederate was a countryman. They were an enemy nation.
Because the vast majority of
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:04am
Because the vast majority of those that died had no real choice in the matter perhaps?
Really?
By whyaduck
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:13am
The vast majority? Um, I don't think so my friend.
Young men rarely have the
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:44am
Young men rarely have the luxury of choice when their entire community goes to war. Whether they were drafted or 'volunteered' the did so under duress.
This is a pretty timeless reality of unrestricted warfare.
Are you going to act to protect your community or are you going to let your homes be looted women raped, land ravaged?
Hm
By lbb
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:56am
The Confederacy did have a (very controversial) draft, with spotty application.
That sounds identical to the post-war justifications for many lynchings. Intentional on your part?
An invading army is not a
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 12:37pm
An invading army is not a subjugated population that you irrationally fear (or quite 'rationally' present as harmful in order to continue subjugating). Invading armies do quite literally just that.
Good try with the extremely stretching attempt at calling me a racist tho. Do better next time.
Invading army?
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:06pm
Um. No. The US Army was not an invading army.
You are literally debating
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:14pm
You are literally debating grammar instead of the point made.
They were an Army that threatened (and did) to destroy your land and your home and rape the women of your community. Was the union army justified in invading in an outsiders view? Of course, but if it is your home, your loved ones and your land being destroyed the choice is simple enough. Without framing the conversation of volunteering in the eyes of those 'volunteering' the discussion is meaningless.
True
By dmcboston
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:36pm
"The Confederacy did have a (very controversial) draft, with spotty application."
Lincoln had his own draft problems. He had to pull men off the battlefield to quell draft riots in New York.
Most were officers
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:24am
They were treated well. They would have died in the south, probably faster.
Well the
By anon²
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:42am
It's a good thing their seditious leaders were held accountable then, right?
Oh wait.
This is dreck. Go read the letters of succession the Confederate states entered into history. People knew exactly what they were fighting for.
Keeping their economy based on the slavery of other humans.
You aware of the reason
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:37am
You aware of the reason behind putting integration in front of punishment right?
"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."
-Lincoln
Sure
By anon²
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:46am
And it still earned him a bullet to the head. Reconciliation was a huge mistake. The US is still dealing with it's demons of reconciliation and Jim Crow terrorism 150 years later.
"Reconciliation was a huge
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 12:36pm
"Reconciliation was a huge mistake."
Easy enough to post, but to call the alternative a hypothetical would be understating how unknown the results would be. Regardless of whether or not it was the right call it was the call that was made.
What is being memorialized?
By lbb
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:59am
Did you read what I wrote? What, exactly, is being memorialized? It matters.
According to the article the
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 12:31pm
According to the article the 13 POWs who died at the fort.
Cant find a picture of the memorial tho.
Uncropped one.
By dmcboston
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:33pm
Interesting, this story has been popping up all over the place.
Suddenly.
As if on cue...
[img]http://i.imgur.com/LKZhm9h.jpg[/img]
How in the world is that
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:54pm
How in the world is that controversial?
There's an agenda
By dmcboston
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 2:06pm
Also, of a thousand men, thirteen died.
Probably better than the civilian population at the time, and certainly better than other Civil War camps, north or south.
'Just over 12% of the captives in Northern prisons died, compared to 15.5% for Southern prisons.[1]'
Wiki
They had 1/10 the death rate of the northern camps. OTOH, it was a small camp.
Listing names of soldiers who were
By roadman
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 3:59pm
imprisoned in a POW camp during a war is somehow promoting an agenda how?
Oh right- because it has that totally vile word "Confederate" tagged to it. Pro tip - stay away from the Kool-Aid.
When visiting Gettysburg you
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:27am
When visiting Gettysburg you can visit the Union cemetery where Lincoln gave his famous address. By today's standards, the Union dead buried there most of the hundreds of thousands of Union soldiers buried in other cemeteries, who died in battle and from disease to preserve the Union and end slavery were probably racists.
History is messy
By dmcboston
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 9:49am
History is messy sometimes. It does not come wrapped up in neat colorful bows. It is full of unsafe spaces. I probably know as much about the history of the fort (without using google) as any armchair historian. It's not a happy place, it's a somber and melancholy place, as it should be.
I do hope that the Federal status of the monuments there prevent the tampering of the site by those that wish to alter history.
Edward Rowe Snow wrote extensively of the history of Fort Warren.
Okay then
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 10:59am
How about memorials to all the slaves who were treated horribly wherever slavery was permitted to spread?
How about a memorial to the native americans who were brutalized in a violent genocidal land grab?
What about labor strikers murdered by corrupt cops?
Every black person murdered by corrupt cops?
A memorial for the victims of the rabid racism that culminated in the city of Boston taking no action to fix a clear injustice and a frustrated judge ordering busing?
Yes. History is messy.
Next statue for removal
By dmcboston
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:43pm
,
"Appropriation of Native culture"
[img]http://i.imgur.com/XuQWr2a.jpg[/img]
Counterpoint
By anon²
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:31am
The United Daughters of the Confederacy are a neo-Confederate hate group tracked by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-...
How about we remove this and replace it with something more meaningful and accurate of the history directly from the city/state then the chapter of a hate group with very obvious ends and goals.
What is inaccurate about the
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:53pm
What is inaccurate about the memorial?
it is pictured above.
Reasons...
By dmcboston
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:54pm
1. I don't trust you.
2. You cite the SPLC. Maybe years ago, when they were taking the KKK's clubhouse to give to the mother of a kid that was grabbed off the street and hung, but since then, they've become a caricature of the old SPLC. Hell, they probably list the Boy Scouts of America as a hate group. They have lost all claim to legitimacy.
3. I'll bet that until this popped up, no one ever considered the possibility that the Daughters of the Confederacy had a Boston chapter.
I think this is quite an interesting concept. Historically, it appears to be an anomaly. If it wasn't for this monument, it might go unrecalled at all. The monument is over fifty years old. Its mere presence invites the historian to look further into the subject. So, to preserve historical accuracy and to avoid people with an agenda from dropping it down the memory hole, keep it where it is.
4. You want to move it? Where to? A landfill?
Not as bad as the Lee statue
By Lunchbox
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 9:50am
The marker ( https://boston.curbed.com/2017/6/9/15767950/massac... ) is memorializing the death of 13 men at the fort. That’s not so objectionable. I’ll wager these weren’t evil people, just young men caught up in a war that they didn’t start.
They were rebels, but if they were still Americans, and if they had survived past 1865 would have been our countrymen, just like their brothers in arms.
It’s important to remember the horrors of war. The story I get from this is that 150 years ago, these 13 people rotted to death in a cold dank prison off the coast of Boston.
By contrast, statues of Lee or other generals are glorifying the men who started or prolonged the rebellion. That’s not ok.
“War Between the States,” a
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 9:59am
When did "War Between the States" become controversial? That label is still recognized by the US government. Or are they confusing it with "War of Northern Aggression".
How about ...
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 10:54am
The War of Treason in Defense of Chattel Slavery?
That IS what it was.
Reread the line you quoted.
By whyaduck
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:19am
especially "a phrase favored by defenders of the Confederacy..." This is correct. "War Between the States" was used by the Southern United States exclusively and thus the statement you originally quoted is correct.
And that is why it also appears on the document you linked to. It has nothing to do with being controversial in this instance.
I would not remove it
By Ron Newman
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 10:01am
If thirteen Confederate POWs died on Georges Island, isn't that worth noting in some way? It is history that people who visit the island should learn.
See my comment above
By anon²
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 11:33am
We can replace the plaque and properly memorialize everything that happened at the fort without letting the UDoC softening propaganda to stay.
I see no issue with replacing
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 12:46pm
I see no issue with replacing the plaque with another. But I have not yet seen what is inappropriate about this one, is there an image somewhere?
See my comment above, or
By Lunchbox
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:08pm
https://boston.curbed.com/2017/6/9/15767950/massac...
It's pretty anodyne.
It acknowledges that Confederate soldiers
By roadman
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:24pm
were imprisoned at the fort, and that 13 of them died. Stating they were Confederate soldiers is a FACT, not a political statement regarding the Civil - er - War between The States**.
**h/t to Jay Ward for the correction - see
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXJcM8SV2Ck[/youtube]
I retract my removal and
By DPM
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:57pm
I retract my removal and replacement suggestion, it should stay as it is.
So you're afraid you'll be
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 1:00pm
So you're afraid you'll be convinced by the propaganda if you walk by and stop to look?
Yeah, that needs to be
By anon
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 10:03am
Yeah, that needs to be removed.
Glad to see
By erik g
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 10:23am
that Betteridge's Law is alive and well over at WGBH. I don't want anything having to do with the Daughters of the Confederacy on public display in Massachusetts, full stop.
streisand
By Refugee
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 12:12pm
Keeping the memorial in place should attract more tourists to the harbor islands. People will take their picture in front of it and post it on Twitter. That's something.
I have a weird take on this
By Waquiot
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 4:01pm
My mother-in-law was a member of the Daughters of the Confederacy. She was born in the suburbs of Chicago and died in Washington State. Her grandfather was from a part of Virginia where there was little slavery (compared to tidewater Virginia, or parts of Maryland for that matter) but had a duty to serve in defense of the Commonwealth. The in-laws are no more racist than other white people I know. Heck, some are a lot more liberal than I am.
This is a monument to the dead. There is no political statement to it. Removing the plaque removes history.
I have no problem removing monuments to the leaders of the treasonous movement, but the average soldier was doing their job.
If anyone would enjoy a good read this summer
By Bill O.
Fri, 06/09/2017 - 7:16pm
I suggest "Better Off Without 'em" by Chuck Thompson. As a son of a rebel Virginia father and a Boston-bred mother, I can tell you of growing up in a culture-clashing household. My father always told me "Boy- the South will rise again", and after the evens of the last 12 months in this country, I'm convinced they're coming for us. This book gives a great argument as to why we should've let them secede and how they've positioned themselves so that we couldn't get rid of them if we wanted to. Check it out.
The Confederate States wanted the entire West,,,,
By Michael Kerpan
Sat, 06/10/2017 - 3:17pm
Slavery in the existing slave states was pretty much untouchable (for several more generations, at least). What the CSA wanted to do was to impose slavery on as much additional territory as possible, regardless of the opinion of the persons actually living in the various territories. Ultimately, the envisioned taking control over everything west of the Mississippi -- and also gradually using a stranglehold over commerce along the Mississippi to "convince" the midwestern states east of the Mississippi that it would be a good idea to ditch the USA and join the CSA. The CSA did not start a war in order to protect itself -- they needed a war (against what they saw as a pathetically weak and inept Lincoln) to allow territorial expansion which would (in turn) allow expansion of slave territory --more and more necessary due to ever-worsening soil depletion in the Deep South (due to extremely poor agricultural practices).
Add comment