“Stonewall Jackson is Down”

Spraypainted StonewallWe had bushwhacked our way from the 17th Michigan Monument along Burnside Drive up through the woods to Heth’s Salient—a lesser-known part of the Spotsylvania Battlefield but one worth seeing. Doug Crenshaw and Bert Dunkerly had come up from Richmond for the afternoon to pound around in the brush with me and see such out-of-the-way spots. As we trekked, the humidity and mid-80-temps took their toll, so at the apex of Heth’s Salient, we took a break. Bert checked his phone. Doug and I took a seat on a fallen tree and fell into conversation about James Lane’s brigade, which had a rough morning on May 12, 1864, at the Mule Show, then more tough fighting that afternoon at Heth’s Salient.

“Great brigade,” I said, “but they never got much credit because they were the ones who shot Stonewall Jackson, and they could never shake that specter.”

“Stonewall Jackson is down,” Bert said.

I thought he was referring to his wounding at Chancellorsville, but he wasn’t.

Bert held the screen of his phone toward us. “They took down the Jackson statue in Richmond this afternoon,” he said.

On social media last night, someone had circulated an urgent S.O.S. about statues on Monument Avenue facing imminent, middle-of-the-night removal. The state law that authorized it didn’t go into effect until July 1, so if anything was coming down, it had to be after midnight, although I didn’t think a municipality could unilaterally decide to just take a statue down without public comment and a 60-day waiting period.

When I woke this morning, I texted my friend Rob Orrison to see if anything had happened. (Rob’s superpower is that he knows everyone in Virginia and the inside scoop on everything.) The statues, Rob said, remained up. (For more on the history of the statue, see “Statues of Stonewall: Monument Avenue.”)

This afternoon, shortly after Bert discovered the news on his phone, Rob texted me a link to the live TV coverage of the statue’s removal. I didn’t have cell coverage as good as Bert’s, so I couldn’t watch it then, but I knew I’d have to check it out ASAP.

As soon as the three of us finished our tour, I called Rob.

“They cut off his legs, man!” Rob said.

“Jackson’s?” I asked. “Or the horse’s?”

“The horse’s.” Apparently, the public works crew couldn’t get the statue off the pedestal, so they had to remove it by cutting through the legs of the statue’s horse. Rob laughed.  “Jackson wasn’t going anywhere.”

“Standing there like a stone wall,” I noted.

“Well, at least he’s still standing like that at Manassas,” Rob said, adding an ominous, “For now.” Rob hints at a sentiment I’ve heard elsewhere, that the mass demonstrations will next target statues at national battlefields—or even the battlefields themselves. The Manassas Jackson itself was a target of vandalism in 2017. (And no sooner did I wrote those words that I learned he’d been the target of vandalism again this evening.) Their pessimism is justified, I suppose, although I think National Parks provide the perfect context for such statues and monuments, which should be left alone there.

In removing the Monument Avenue Jackson statue, which occupies city-owned land, Richmond Mayor Levar Stoney evoked his emergency powers to circumvent the legally prescribed 60-day waiting period. “Failing to remove the statues now poses a severe, immediate and growing threat to public safety,” he said.

According to Bert, volunteers showed up to clean the Monument Avenue statues the other day surrounded by members of an armed militia. With some of the protesters occupying Monument Avenue also carrying weapons, the mix seemed like a brew of real trouble. Stoney also said he worried protesters might hurt themselves trying to pull down the statues themselves, citing a similar incident in Portsmouth.

I’ve maintained all along that communities have the right to decide what they want to do with their monuments, although I’ve also advocated public processes for making those decisions (see here for more on that). While I understand Stoney’s concerns about public safety, and I wholeheartedly support the calls for greater racial justice at the heart of the protests, I felt disappointed by Richmond’s rip-off-the-band-aid approach. At a time when we all need to listen to each other more, this seemed like a rush job.

The city’s other monuments are also slated for removal. The Lee statue, owned by the state, remains in legal limbo following a court challenge to its announced removal. It’s a fast-moving story, so stay tuned for details.

95 Responses to “Stonewall Jackson is Down”

  1. Mob Rule Prevails. Next up, “the crowds cheer as land excavators clear the battlefield to make way for the new Walmart Super Center…..” and we’ll say we told you so. Because after all, what was it Dr Mack? – “F History” as so elegantly spray painted on Fontaine’s monument? CVBT and ABT if not concerned, should be. Defunding options are a popular choice these days. I’m sure NPS sites that have anything that could be remotely considered offensive to anyone are also next

    “A people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots.” – Marcus Garvey

    1. Wish I found this as amusing as the blog author – but I don’t. I was on Monument Ave this afternoon – the workers incompetently destroyed Jackson’s statute (that was commissioned and paid for). The mayor circumvented even the VA Democratic Legislature rules for removal – with impunity and absolutely no accountability. The only place you saw any police today was tying up traffic on Boulevard – and giving thumbs up to the crowd. And mayor came up with some real twisted illegitimate logic to rationalize! *Scientific fact that statues are 100% safe (same as trees) unless you’re trying to pull one down – in your direction.* Hey, maybe the mayor will get his own statue now – for acting so “bravely” outside the law. Why even bother anymore with “rule of law”? Listening takes two – and right now only the irrational side is being heeded.Time to follow Old Testament rules! “Do unto others…” isn’t working anymore.

      1. FWIW, I just saw a picture of the statue, off of its pedestal, and the horse’s feet look fine to me. Overall the statue looked OK. Now it can be moved to a place where it can get the respect it deserves.

    2. I’ve heard conflicting reports but haven’t been able to investigate yet for myself because of other obligations. That’s on my list for next week.

  2. A un AMERICAN disgrace. They are out to topple govt. Not monuments wake up America

  3. The preservation of History acts as both enrichment of Society, and cautionary tale. You erase History at your peril…
    So PLEASE, City of Richmond, Do NOT paint over a single bit of Graffiti or F-bomb. We all need to remember Richmond as it was… in June 2020. We’ll check back in a few years and see how your tourism industry is performing… as we pass through on our way to someplace else.

  4. These monuments represent a period in American History, that tells the false and erroneous history of the Civil War, and praises the “Lost Cause”. They are monuments to White Supremacy, since they were erected in a time of “Jim Crow”, where the Afro-American population was denied the right to vote, in violation of the 15th Amendment to the US Constitution.

    By removing these monuments to the Lost Cause and to rebels, perhaps the United States can embrace its real history.

    1. Only you and yours see these statues in that light in 2020. Are complex histories too much to grasp?

      1. Erroneous and false history has been perpetuated long enough.These statues were a reminder of White Supremacy, that lasted more than 100 yers after the rebels were defeated.

    2. White supremacy is most definitely American history. We should not forget it. These statues speak to the people who put them up, and not us.

    3. You can’t erase history my friend. Stonewall was a man of God. Read about him. Also an outstanding General. Lucky for the North he died “by accident at the hands of Southern pickets”. Imagine if he was at Gettysburg. Lee lost his right hand. This is history not white supremacy. God bless the USA.

      1. You can’t revise history, my friend.

        Sorry….but Stonewall didn’t put up any monuments. Those monuments were erected to perpetuate the myth of the “Lost Cause”, that the War was fought for States Rights, that the slaves were happy on the Plantation, and that the North only won because of greater industrial strength. Placing the monuments in front of Court Houses reminded Afro-American citizens of a White Supremacy….that was defeated on the battlefield.

      2. Just a quick correction, Steve: Jackson was shot by troops in his main battle line, not his picket line. He didn’t advance as far as his pickets.

        I am trying to make sense of other parts of your post, and so I ask this NOT to pick a fight but to see if you could please explain. You ask us to imagine if he was at Gettysburg. Do you imply that would have led to a Confederate victory? If you see that as a good thing, then how do I make sense of “God bless the USA”? The Confederacy was trying to destroy the Union and the Federals trying to preserve it. I’m seeing mixed signals. Again, I’m not trying to pick a fight, just trying to understand.

  5. A shameful, dishonest action by the Mayor of Richmond – all that rain was Mother Virginia crying in sorrow…

  6. What “communities” have the right to demolish without proper legal process? Even the fool mayor is bound by the rule of law. Aren’t these the same individuals who criticize the Confederates as “traitors” to the law? And since when do we define the concept of community as static? Erect new statues to reflect new heroes. But only children destroy to get a sense of empowerment.

    1. I agree, John, that the violation of process here is extremely troubling. The mayor talked about “healing,” but I think doing this will only harden some people against that. I also think there are some people who might’ve been resigned to the removal of the statues, as much as they didn’t like it, so long as they felt like there was due process, but without that process, the whole thing looks unfair. There are others (like me) who are worried that this is basically a validation of mob rule.

  7. The mayor of Richmond has never been concerned with public opinion or 60-day waiting periods regarding those statues. He has wanted them down by any means necessary and not even worried about keeping them intact for display elsewhere.This is why the riots were probably allowed to go on unchecked for as long as they did. It’s almost as if the mayor had his own agenda, which he claims all white had when they erected the statues a century ago. He could never see that the statues may have been erected by love of their own fathers, husbands, and sons who fought in the war and love of the great leaders who kept them alive during those 4 years.

    Anyone who tried to stop this destruction has quickly been labeled a racist to negate any logical argument they may have. But, it’s done now. And don’t think it will stop at Monument Avenue or other statues on courthouse grounds. Vandals have already destroyed a Confederate statue at Mt. Olivet Cemetery in Frederick, Maryland. It was always thought that cemeteries would be “safe zones” for the courthouse monuments nobody wanted anymore. I’m sure the battlefields and museums will be steamrolled next. I guess no place is safe anymore and any objections will be quickly dismissed as racist.

    But, isn’t this wanton destruction also hate-filled and racist?

  8. What’s actually funny is that Richmond is actively engaged in removing virtually any reason for people to visit there. It is a fair question for any city to decide what they will display, and where. The easiest solution, to me anyways, would have made Monument Avenue a designated ‘display zone’ for the ‘Lost Cause’. Many of those statues and monuments were paid for by the actual soldiers who served under those leaders. Thus their acts of love and respect are now trashed by degenerate mobs who are not just attacking Confederate symbols, but those of anyone and anything represented by such symbols. Boston is removing a statute of Abe Lincoln that was paid for by FREED SLAVES!

    These acts of destruction/removal have nothing, NOTING, to do with ‘justice’ or ‘fairness’. They are expressions of open hatred directed at the political opponents of today’s Democrat Party. Because of mob rule, the excuse for doing so is the same one used for why a dog licks himself: because he can. Whatever problems are being used as the basis for assailing these markers will NOT be solved by these actions, and solving them is not the intent. It is deflection FROM those problems. I gotta give the Democrats this: they have taken THEIR complicity as far as THEIR role in slavery and the Civil War that ensued and have made those of us who want history to be served to defend them. But let’s look at why THAT is. The argument has been presented as ‘removing the statues and monuments to museums or other locations where they can still be displayed and their service to history can be preserved’. But obviously, that what was NEVER to be. Their destruction is the ONLY ‘option’ that ahs ever been considered. This was a done deal some time ago, and it is all being acted on and carried out NOW!. And we’ve all been LIED to about moving them. This is a wanton act of destruction of historical artifacts for the SOLE purpose of trying to revise history.

    Who knows? Maybe we will all live long enough to (ahem) ‘learn’ that the Civil War never happened. And (GASP0, there was thus never a slave trade here in the USA!. Stay tuned!

    1. Good point. Richmond made some pretty good money from Civil War tourism. Now, I don’t see the need for Civil War tourists to actually go into the city. Yes, there are some museums there—but for how long?

  9. Monument Avenue in Richmond was on my Civil War bucket list – and not just for the Civil War monuments. Sigh …

  10. After “Charlottesville”….I drove down Monument Avenue. It felt like saying “goodbye” to an old friend. Has anyone heard of any serious dialogue about relocating any monuments to a battlefield or museum? From Baltimore to New Orleans, they sit in a conex-box or parking-lot with an unknown fate like a death-row inmate. Are they destined to go to an undisclosed warehouse & locked in a crate next to the Ark of the Covenant? The only item I’ve heard of that actually had a plan is the slave-auction block in Fredericksburg, Va. It’s future will be an exhibit in the Fredericksburg Area Museum. As far as the Jackson monument….NPS Tour Stop #8 on the Chancellorsville battlefield, the “Flank-Attack” would be an appropriate spot.

  11. This is a total disgrace. This is our history. I guess what the Mob rule wants it gets. These people need to be addressed head on. I live in New York City and I have had enough. The NYPD has it’s hands tied. They , BLM and Antifa low lives are disgusting and disrespectful to the rule of Law. The Mayor of NY is a loser. We have to get it together before it’s too late. Protect Stonewall at The Citadel. That’s next. Wake up Biden, let’s hear your opinion. Yeah he’s the answer. God help the U.S.A.

    1. By removing the monuments, the US is finally correcting the revision of history that was perpetuated by the White Supremacists who gave us “Jim Crow” laws, and “separate but equal”

      Instead of Stonewall, we should be erecting monuments to Rosa Parks.

      1. Excuse me here, but ‘monuments to Rosa Parks’ and others of her era and movement have been erected, and continue to be. Remember also that those ‘white supremacists’ you mention that indeed gave ‘us’ Jim Crow as well as the KKK and other repressive antics and laws are the same ones ordering their mobs today to destroy these HISTORICAL artifacts that are testaments to THEIR complicity and evil as far as ownership of other human beings and fighting wars to preserve that! History is history. period. It’s not always ‘pretty’, or ‘sexy’. It is often controversial, and complex, and complicated. And UGLY. But it is also there to LEARN from.

        We’re supposed to be a nation of laws, yet, established legal processes have not been followed in any manner when it comes to these historical markers. They were to be MOVED, not destroyed. So it’s all been a big lie from the get-go. You appear to approve the means employed. One of the reasons given for assailing these historical markers is that the Confederates were “all traitors”, and that they were engaged in ‘open revolt’ against the US government, and that they led an ‘insurrection’. Well lo and behold, those same terms are being used by the very ones carrying out the present mayhem directed at these statues, as well as the rioting and looting in our nation’s cities. Soooo, if the ORIGINAL Confederacy are all traitors, isn’t this NEW ONE thus the same? Shouldn’t all of those who support what’s going on now be viewed as traitors and all vestiges of what they stand for removed by whatever means necessary? Hmmm?

  12. One statue to Rose Parks, in Montgomery Alabama, and one in Statuary Hall in DC. 2 versus the hundreds to the rebels.

    Revisionist history needs to be removed, where-ever it exists. The “Lost Cause” is not American History…but the defeated rebels trying to maintain their dominance.

    As I recall, Afro-Americans were denied the right to vote, so those monuments to the rebels really didn’t reflect the attitude of the citizens….just the attitude of the defeated rebels.

    Seems to me…those tactics used by the KKK to intimidate Afro-Americans are the same ones being used by peaceful protestors…..bottom rail on top now.

    1. Revisionist history is being implemented, not removed. I agree that there were efforts by some to deny blacks the right to vote. That didn’t have anything to do with statues. Yes, there was, and no doubt still is, that ‘Lost Cause’. And that ‘lost cause’ is as much a part of our history as is anything else. It should be pointed out, and learned about, and ;earned from. Whose fault is it that there aren’t more statues of Rosa Parks? Many if not most of these Confederate statues under assault were paid for by the soldiers who served under them. I also truly believe that quite a few of them represent more of a great big middle finger directed at Washington, DC, than anything else, a sentiment I personally whole-heartedly endorse.

      “Seems to me…those tactics used by the KKK to intimidate Afro-Americans are the same ones being used by peaceful protestors…..bottom rail on top now.”

      Mt head is spinning. In what universe is anyone ‘peaceful’ if the are engaged in terrorist activities? BLM the message is just fine, BLM the terrorist group is nothing but the Klan-with-a-tan. Wow, what an admission, that the KKK and BLM and the other anarchists are kindred spirits. All involved really ARE the new Confederacy.. Who knew?

      1. ” I agree that there were efforts by some to deny blacks the right to vote.”…some? ….some? Then why did we need to pass the 24th Amendment to the US Constitution? maybe…just maybe the efforts were more pervasive and effective?

        The “Lost Cause”is nothing more than revisionist history, pure and simple. And the people who put them up, were nothing but traitors. And if so, that just proves my point…the defeated soldiers still had to show that White Supremacy ruled the South.

        I guess the Boston Tea Party was just that….a dignified tea party? In reality, the mob has always influenced American History….from the era when the Mob demonstrated on Guy Fawkes Day, then turned around to demonstrate on Pop’e Day.

      2. The 24th Amendment is proof that wrongs ARE addressed within ‘the system’ here in the USA. Sometimes things take time. Women didn’t have the right to vote until early in the 20th Century or so. Gays couldn’t marry until recently. But that same ‘system’ allows for the redressing of grievances. Somebody not getting their way does not mean someone else is guilty of being some sort of “ist” or that they are committing some sort of “ism”, which the terminally aggrieved and perpetually victimized try to have us believe.

        And it is amazing how the plot thickens with you. Now the Boston Tea Party is the very same as the KKK and BLM? In what manner? Try reading up on that sometime. Concerning your Marxist-inspired BLM (and they ADMIT to that by the way!), what exactly IS their ‘message’ now? Indiscriminate targeting of ANYTHING that constitutes a statue, or a monument, or a historical marker, is meant to address what grievance? They are well beyond the original Confederate monuments (I use the term “original” because they themselves are now literally the creators and hence traitors of a NEW Confederacy using their OWN criteria) in that they are intent on destroying EVERYTHING. The ‘demonstrations’ and ‘protests’ and riots and looting are nothing but another anti-white prolonged rant ordered by the usual suspects. What happens if all the monuments are allowed to be destroyed? They will be directed at something else, because no real problem is being fixed by this. It’s all a deflection. Maybe generations of blacks voting for the same political party that makes the same promises every election and yet everything remains the same for them is the REAL PROBLEM, ‘ya think? Get back with me on that if you will!

  13. What was the wrong that the 24th Amendment corrected? Denying citizens the right to vote? Evidently only the defeated White Supremacists thought that Blacks did not have the right to vote.. The only states which were affected by the 24th Amendment, were those States which made up the Confederacy.

    Sorry…but you need to study American History a bit more….the KKK was anti-Black, in addition to being Anti-Catholic and Anti- Semetic. Where is it said that BLM is anti-Catholic? and anti-Semitic.

    BLM is just protesting an injustice, just like the Patriots protested during the Boston tea Party…recall taxation with out representation…right? Right!

    Try reading up on that sometime.

    Actually, Blacks in this country voted Republican in over-whelming numbers, since the Republican Party and Lincoln abolished slavery…..but they did nothing to prevent the KKK from terrorizing the Black population. They did not confront the South regarding the KKK and denying the Backs the right to vote. That was the real problem. How many Blacks were lynched in the South?

    Blacks only started voting Democratic in 1932, when FDR offered a vision for all Americans. And that voted was solidified in 1948 when Truman de-segregated the Armed Forces. And that vote was further solidified by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, passed by Johnson…a Democrat.

    American History 101.

    1. YOU are the one who has made the assertion that the KKK and BLM are one and the same in what they do and stand for. YOU! No one else. Again, your ignorance of actual history here is astounding in the lengths you go to in defending the Democrat Party. Grant’s efforts at addressing the KKK are well known. While some blacks did indeed start voting Democrat earlier in the 20th Century, they wholesale abandoned the GOP in the 1960s. The Voting Rights Act and other Civil Rights legislation were indeed good things, opposed by far more Democrats than Republicans. But the ‘Great Society’ programs came along at roughly the same time, which accomplished in a little more than a decade what the Democrats creations the KKK and Jim Crow couldn’t do over several generations, and that is utterly destroy the black family unit. Yeah, that ‘History 101’ on full display again, at least when it comes to REAL history.

      Your rants concerning the 24th Amendment don’t change facts. Tell me, what year are we living in? Hmmm? Has anyone said injustices haven’t taken place in this life? Again, hmmm? YOU brought the 24th up, yet YOU don’t seem to be able to grasp that it is indeed in place to address some specific wrongs. It’s griping for the sake of griping, and nothing else.

      BLM is most definitely anti-white, and anti-Semetic, and anti-American. What do statues have to do with George Floyd, the latest excuse to commit their organized, coordinated, orchestrated mayhem?

      The Boston Tea Party lasted THREE HOURS! It was targeted at a specific entity, it was not a national mob that destroyed everything it could get away with. The Tea Party could explain why they were doing what they did, and the change they sought (to a TAX!). BLM has NOTHING in common with them. Only the truly vapid would try to equate them with legit protests and movements and causes of the past. But when one has no argument, I reckon they are forced to embrace such nonsense, ‘ya think?

      1. Douglas….you mentioned it…here are your words…”Remember also that those ‘white supremacists’ you mention that indeed gave ‘us’ Jim Crow as well as the KKK and other repressive antics and laws are the same ones ordering their mobs today to destroy these HISTORICAL artifacts that are testaments to THEIR complicity and evil as far as ownership of other human beings and fighting wars to preserve that!”

        If you knew the history of the KKK, you would have known that the KKK has had 3 recrudescences in American History…..each time with the onset of Civil Rights for Afro-Americans.

        Jim Crow and White Supremacists did more to destroy the Black family unit, than the Democratic Party could ever do…..Fact.

        Recall the the Supreme Court did away with provisions of the Civil Rights act…and Immediately, states of the old Confederacy started with restricting the right to vote….review Shelby County v Holder.

        If you knew your American History, you would have known that the Boston Tea Party was the culmination of a series of protests and mob violence against British rule….recall the protests against the Stamp Act and the Townsend Act……recall the boycotts….recall the Boston Massacre…recall the tarring and feathering of Stamp Act agents, recall the destruction of the Massachusetts Governor’s home.

        As far as the Democratic Party is concerned….recall that at the time of the Civil War…slavery, all by itself, split churches, and the social fabric of America in half….and it also split the Democratic Party….recall that the Southern Democrats twice left the Democratic Party convention in 1860, and nominated their own cadidate for President..John C Breckenridge.

        As far as the Great Society is concerned….here are some facts …When Johnson left office, the official poverty rate had fallen from 22 percent in 1960 to 13 percent – which is where the poverty rate remains today. AFDC payments had risen to $577 (in 1980 dollars). Infant mortality among the poor, which had barely declined between 1950 and 1965, fell by one-third in the decade after 1965 as a result of the expansion of federal medical and nutritional programs. Before the implementation of Medicaid and Medicare, 20 percent of the poor had never been examined by a physician; when Johnson retired as president the figure had been cut to 8 percent. The proportion of families living in substandard housing–that is, housing lacking indoor plumbing – also declined steeply, from 20 percent in 1960 to 11 percent a decade later..

        Nice try though at cherry-picking facts.

      2. Those ‘white supremacists’ are the Democrat Party, and I made that clear! Well, obviously YOU didn’t get that, but oh well! I don’t argue that your Democrat Party was comprised of such types, and given where black America is NOW, it appears that your party has never lost those traits. They have merely, but successfully, changed their stripes. The Klan is easy to identify, and hence fear, and hate. Lynchings, burning crosses, there’s no hiding that. But wrapping the very same aims of the Klan in legislation that targets blacks in particular is exactly what transpired via the ‘Great Society’. Gotta give you Dems some ‘due’ you completely destroyed the black family unit, made many of them totally dependent on government from generation-to-generation, and yet secured their votes in the process. That’s like Hitler surviving WWII to run for office in post-war Germany and he overwhelmingly wins the Jewish vote!

        One more time, the Boston Tea Party was not directed at America. America was but ONE ‘colony’ that the British had throughout the world. There was NOT ‘wide spread’ unrest, certainly not in the way of your beloved BLM riots of today. Most of what did transpire was in Boston and in the north. Yes, there were incidents, spread out over several YEARS. It was NOTHING like the open rebellion your present day ‘Confederacy’ as epitomized by BLM and their allies Antifa are presently engaged in.

        And I marvel at how KKK-like YOUR acceptance of the Great Society is. So it’s perfectly acceptable to you that black families were utterly destroyed, no doubt intentionally. by that, to maintain a poverty rate that has, with few, VERY few, exceptions has remained essentially unchanged since it was implemented? Woe, what a legacy. So yes, let’s talk about ‘cherry-picking facts and data.

  14. Doug…..The KKK was formed in the post-Civil War during reconstruction, when former Confederate soldiers formed it, and they named Nathan Bedford Forest as their first leadership….nothing to do with the Democratic Party. Recall, what I said earlier, the Democratic Party split before the Civil War….and Southern Democrats, after leaving the Democratic convention not once but twice….nominated John C Breckenridge as their candidate. In 1876, the Republican Party abandoned the Afro-American to secure the White House, and ended reconstruction. Thats when the GOP became the Party of Big Business. The Democratic Party continued ti be the Party of the Immigrant..the Irish ( mostly Catholic) and theGermans (Mostly Catholic) and of the Jewish immigrants….basically ethnic groups….The KKK was anti-Black…anti-Catholic…anti-Immigrant…and anti-semitic. And the KKK has retained that image to this day.

    The Democratic Party of 1860 is NOT the Democratic Party of today….and the Party of Lincoln, is no longer the Party of 1860.

    Plantation owners , by splitting families by selling slaves….did more to split slave families apart.

    Actually during Colonial times, there were Committees of Correspondence, so all the Colonies were told of what was going on in Boston. In fact, they rallied behind Massachusetts when the British imposed the Intolerable Acts.

    The Great Society raised people from poverty…Blacks and the elderly. I guess you forgot about how JFK opened up the University of Mississippi and the University of Alabama ?

    Do I need to school you on any more American History?

    1. Amazing… so the REP and DEM parties switched sides in 1876; and the DEMs inherited the Freedom of the Slaves, while the REPs became the party of the KKK. And then, in 2020 to make sure there were no further misunderstandings, the pre-1876 Democrat-supporting leaders of the Confederacy had to have their statues removed.
      It all becomes clear. Thank You, ny Giant 1952.

      1. No problem Mike…glad to be of help.

        In 1876, they didn’t really switch sides, but they started to evolve into the 2 Partys, we recognize today.

        The GOP started to support tariffs the gold standard, and took advantage of the Rum, Romanism and Rebellion often associated with the Democratic Party. They. abandoned the Afro-American in 1876, securing the White House in exchange for ending Reconstruction in the South.They were anti-New Deal.

        The Democratic Party embraced Progressive-ism with Wilson, giving women the right to vote, and FDR with his New Deal legislation combating the Great Depression with regulation of the banks and finance sectors of the economy,

        The only thing I have to correct about your comment….there were no Democratic Party members of the Confederacy…their candidate, John Breckenridge was not President of the Confederacy. And the monuments being taken down, are to those who were traitors to the United States….traitors don’t really have a political party. If they did have a political Party, they would have worked within the system. See, they South left because they feared that slavery would be abolished, changing their way of life…nothing to do at all with political party.

        You ‘re welcome Mike!

    2. The Confederacy was overwhelmingly comprised of Democrats. So any outgrowth of the Confederacy was most certainly an outgrowth of the Democrat Party then. The KKK is often referred to as “the terrorist arm of the Democrat Party”.

      JFK had nothing to do with the Great Society. His actions visa vis a few colleges were preceded by the Eisenhower admin. You keep deflecting from the actual conversation.

      To hear or read how many folks believe, the 2 parties magically, and mysteriously, switched sides on fine day. Or was it one fine night? Who knows, and who cares? Researching the truth takes too much work. They’ve been ‘taught’, in supposed schools, that the Republicans took off their shirts and handed them to the Democrats who promptly took off THEIR hoods and robes and gave them to those Republicans. It has become that stupid, yet it it also accepted as fact and truth. There are many, MANY reasons why the South went from being a Democrat to a Republican stronghold, and while some did ‘switch sides’, many more didn’t.

      So ramble on with your revisionist history diatribes here ‘Giant’, I am powerless to stop you. If you ever want to learn what REALLY transpired, I will be here for you. That’s what I do.

      1. Who knows how many Southerners were Democrats. From what I have read, most fought because the South was invaded by the North.

        As far as the KKK is concerned…please give me a citation where the KKK was the “terrorist” arm of the Democratic Party. Maybe it was terrorist arm for White Supremacists in the South as the Northern faction of the Democratic Party had no dealings with the KKK.

        JFK opened up college education for Blacks in Mississippi and Alabama…good thing since their football teams were defeated all the time by teams with Black team-mates. Notre Dame for instance took apart Alabama for the National Championship…and Sam “the Bam ” Cunningham ran through the Alabama line like a knife through butter

        Figures, researching the truth is too much for you. I apologize for having to force you to research the truth.

        BTW…the Dixiecrats were the 1st to leave the Democratic Party in 1948.

        Anything else I can educate you on? I can educate you and school you on American History.

      2. It all becomes clear. Thank You, nyGiant1952:

        John C. Calhoun Democrat VP South Carolina;
        Jefferson Davis Democrat Senator Mississippi;
        Judah Benjamin Democrat Senator Louisiana;
        John C. Breckinridge Democrat Senator Kentucky;
        David Levy Yulee Democrat Senator Florida;
        Claiborne Jackson Democrat Governor Missouri;
        Louis Wigfall Democrat Senator Texas;
        James Chesnut Democrat Senator South Carolina;
        David R. Atchison Democrat Senator Missouri;
        Robert Barnwell Democrat Senator South Carolina;
        Stephen Mallory Democrat Senator Florida;
        Madison S. Perry Democrat Governor Florida;
        R. M. T. Hunter Democrat Senator Virginia;
        Jacob Thompson Democrat Cabinet Mississippi;
        John Floyd Democrat Cabinet Virginia;
        Howell Cobb Democrat Cabinet Georgia;
        Alexander Stephens CUP Politician Georgia;
        William L. Yancey Democrat Politician Alabama.

      3. It doesn’t matter how many among the populace considered themselves Democrats or what ever else. The fact is that they overwhelmingly chose Democrat politicians to hold their elective offices.

        And now you deflect to football? Seriously? Bear Bryant finally succeeding in getting Alabama to allow black players had nothing to do with JFK or any confrontation at a school, it had to do with losing. Hmmm, I’m surprised THAT isn’t held up as an example of ‘racism’, in that schools couldn’t win without BLACK players. Of course, the day ain’t over with yet.

        Yes, there were Dixecrats. So what? There were liberal Republicans. Again, SO WHAT?

        And YES, the KKK was the terrorist arm of the white supremacists, who happened to be the Democrats. Duh! They had official sanction from the Democrat Party. Lots of Klan supported and supporting elected officials have held office. Robert Byrd anyone? Keep drinking their Kool Aid and regurgitating their revisionist history-based talking points.

  15. There is a lot to consider both in the post and in the comments, but one thing above all should be kept in mind. Levar Stoney’s removal of Jackson, without the legal process involved, is normal. If a person in power wants to get something done, they will find the excuse and push ahead. The idea that legalities will protect you is immaterial. In a “state of emergency” the law is always ignored. For those defending statues, they are only just learning that the powers that be not only do not agree with them, but will use extralegal means against their causes.

    Either way, the law is merely window dressing. Enforcement is what matters. When they come for Jefferson, Washington, and the rest the law will not matter, only the will to enforce law will matter.

  16. Mike, Mike Mike…did you forget that Lincoln wasn’t on the ballot in 1860?

    All that was left were Democrats, no matter how few, to form a government…and they weren’t really Democrats since they walked out of the Democratic Convention not once but twice,…so..they were really they were not Democrats.

    Out of 9 million, you can find only 18 Democrats…it now becomes clear…Thank you Mike!
    Nice try though…glad I could help

    1. Lincoln… not on the Ballot? Can’t win the 1860 election without being on the ballot.
      Or do you mean the deliberate exclusion of Lincoln’s name from the ballot in many Southern states? Giving the citizens of those states no opportunity to “make a mistake” and vote for the unapproved candidate?
      It appears the four-way race for the Presidency in 1860 may have been one of the “opportunities” presented to concerned Secessionists, seeking a way to avoid a Republican election: with likelihood of NO ONE receiving sufficient electoral votes, the winner would be decided by the House of Representatives (where horse-trading could have seen Breckinridge installed as President.)

  17. Dougie….so far we have identified 18 Democrats….one was dead by the time of the Civil War. ..Out of a population of 9 million.

    If you care to look t the returns…the Constitutional Union candidate, received quite a few votes….which means not everyone was a Democrat.

    Show me where the Democratic Party endorsed the KKK. Do some research and find out. BTW,,,Byrd said joining the KKK was the worst thing he ever did.

    Nice try though. I’ll wait your citation about the KKK being endorsed by the Democrats.

    1. Citation? From where and who? Modern media is working overtime to perpetuate the revisionist history you and your party are currently engaged in. For instance, USA Today offers an article from just a few days ago where they try to debunk the FACT that the Democrats are responsible for the Klan’s creation and actions. Do you know who they site as an ‘expert’ on this? A freaking comedian named Trevor Noah. And HIS ‘source’ for proclaiming that it never happened? The pablum that the parties just magically ‘switched sides’ on a moment’s notice. Heck, even those trying to defend the Democrats indefensible actions pertaining to the Klan state unequivocally that the Klan was opposed to REPUBLICAN efforts in the South, and thus targeted blacks especially because it was blacks the Republicans viewed as a source for votes, and your Democrats opposed all that.

      Who are those making the assertions that the Democrats did NOT start the Civil War, or create the Klan, or Jim Crow? The very same media entities that are firmly in bed with the Democrat Party. Duh! And while that might allow the likes of you and yours an opportunity to ‘cite’ a source, that source isn’t believable. Hate me all you want, that’s just the way it is.

      Oh, and Byrd said he was ‘sorry’. If David Duke came forth and said the same thing, would you be going out of YOUR way to give him cover? The KKK was formed by DEMOCRATS to advance the interests of the DEMOCRATS. And yes, the ONE thing you have right in all this is that they were indeed ‘white supremacists’. And given the destruction of the black family unit visa vis the ‘Great Society’ and other legislation, it is more than apparent that the Klan STILL has a hallowed place within the DEMOCRAT Party.

      Your turn..

  18. Sorry… missed a few:
    Isham G. Harris Democrat Governor Tennessee;
    William H. Gist Democrat Governor South Carolina;
    J. D. B. De Bow Democrat Publisher New Orleans;
    Thomas O. Moore Democrat Governor Louisiana;
    Andrew Moore Democrat Governor Alabama;
    Henry Rector Democrat Governor Arkansas;
    Francis W. Pickens Democrat Governor South Carolina;
    John Letcher Democrat Governor Virginia;
    John W. Ellis Democrat Governor North Carolina;
    John Slidell Democrat Politician Louisiana;
    James M. Mason Democrat Politician Virginia;
    Preston Brooks Democrat Politician South Carolina…
    And yes… John C. Calhoun was a Democrat. Although dead when the Secession Crisis erupted in 1860, his impact and legacy contributed mightily to the States’ Rights Movement… which ultimately resulted in Civil War. Preston Brooks was also dead; but his encounter with Charles Sumner is considered one of the stepping stones to the Crisis of 1860.

  19. Mike….so far, out of a population of 9 million people…you found 30 Democrats. And if you care to look at the returns in the 1860 election….thousands didn’t vote Democrat. So…that puts to rest any notion that the South was totally democratic.

    As far as Lincoln was concerned….In ten southern slave states, no citizen would publicly pledge to vote for Abraham Lincoln, so citizens there had no legal means to vote for the Republican nominee. In most of Virginia, no publisher would print ballots for Lincoln’s pledged electors.

    See…it had nothing to do with approved candidates…nor did the Democratic Party have any sway.

    1. There is no one claiming “The South voted totally Democrat.” The point being made is this: “Significant members of the Confederate Political and Military leadership were members of the Democrat Party prior to abandoning the United States and embarking on the Confederate experiment.” As I have reviewed lists of prominent men (from 1860/61) who became leaders in the Confederacy I have no difficulty finding members of the Democrat Party. And of the three other leaders encountered thus far: PGT Beauregard had no party affiliation when he ran for Mayor of New Orleans; Edmund Ruffin never revealed his party affiliation; and Alexander Stephens last claimed his party as Constitutional Union (though he adopted the Democrat Party after the war.)
      And as for “rigging the ballot” …voter fraud is voter fraud; and voter intimidation is despicable, however it is disguised.
      A few more significant Democrats:
      Richard D. Baugh Democrat Mayor Memphis;
      Humphrey Marshall Democrat MHR Kentucky;
      John McRae Democrat MHR Mississippi;
      William W. Avery Democrat Politician North Carolina;
      Zebulon Vance Democrat MHR North Carolina;
      Roger Pryor Democrat MHR Virginia;
      Thomas Clingman Democrat Senator North Carolina;
      Andrew Noble Democrat Mayor Montgomery;
      Clement C. Clay Democrat Senator Alabama;
      Robert Toombs Democrat Senator Georgia;
      Albert G. Brown Democrat Senator Mississippi;
      Thomas Bragg Democrat Senator North Carolina…

      1. Mike….look at the returns in the 1860 Presidential election from the South….Thousands didn’t vote the Democratic Party ticket.

      2. Again… the issue is not “There were ONLY Democrat voters,” but “Significant members of the Confederate Political and Military leadership were members of the Democrat Party prior to abandoning the United States and embarking on the Confederate experiment.”
        I have looked at voter rolls; and I am aware there were many WHIGs, Know-Nothings, and Constitutional Unionists among the electorate. But via research for my book on Pensacola, I am also aware of the intimidation exerted by members of another “unofficial” arm of the Democrat Party in the South: the Minute-Men. And there was NO voter privacy: anyone could see how a vote was cast.
        However, when provided the opportunity to vote for Confederate Congress members in late 1863, many non-Democrats were voted into the Second Confederate Congress (although President Jefferson Davis maintained his majority support.)
        Here are a few more pre-war Democrats:
        Alfred Nicholson Democrat Senator Tennessee;
        John Hemphill Democrat Senator Texas;
        Charles MacBeth Democrat Mayor Charleston;
        Martin J. Crawford Democrat MHR Georgia;
        Lucius J. Gartrell Democrat MHR Georgia;
        George S. Hawkins Democrat MHR Florida;
        R. B. Cheatham Democrat Mayor Nashville…

  20. Mike…realize that the Democrats you are talking about…ABANDONED the Democratic Party …they walked out of 2 Democratic National Conventionsin 1860, and split the Party, because they didn’t like the Northern Democrats nominating Stephen Douglas….so…to call them ‘democrats”…isn’t exactly correct.

    Slavery split the Democratic Party as it split the social fabric o and split churches…some to this day!

    1. A few more antebellum Democrats:
      John J. Jones Democrat MHR Georgia;
      Jabez L. Curry Democrat MHR Alabama;
      John W. Underwood Democrat MHR Georgia;
      Charles C. Jones Democrat Mayor Savannah;
      Joseph C. Mayo Democrat Mayor Richmond…
      David Clopton Democrat MHR Alabama;
      Williamson R.W. Cobb Democrat MHR Alabama…

      1. actually Mike…all those people you mention…except the dead ones…were traitors.

      2. nyGiant1952
        I cannot prove they were traitors; they were not tried for Treason.
        But I can PROVE they were Democrats…

      3. With a few exceptions, ALL Confederate soldiers were pardoned by Andrew Johnson in December 1868, even though the vast majority of them, as individuals, were not charged with anything. Isn’t it interesting how those who readily throw the term ‘traitors’ around so lustily defend the actions and antics and CRIMES of the anarchists and terrorists who are engaged in the very same kinds of activities TODAY that they so willingly assign that term ‘traitors’ to?


  21. I was hoping that this web site would be a “neutral”site concerning the military history of that awful war, but the comments above concerning the meaning of monuments in a Democratic/Republican political era leave me a bit disappointed. Yes, all points of vew should be listened to, but I do not think we need to dilute emergingcivilwar’s educational goals about the war itself.

    1. Nice comment M Winn.

      As Clausewitz said….war is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument.

      So, if we are going to debate military history, we naturally can debate political history.

      Anyway, its a nice conversation and an exchange of ideas.

  22. actually Mike….recall that these”Democrats” left the Democratic Party 2 times….and they nominated their own candidate for President, John C Breckinridge….who ran as a Southern Democrat.
    Thats a different Party, that nominated Stephen Douglas…They were the Democrats who remained in the Party, and were Loyal to the US Government.
    So…the facts are…all those men you mention…they weren’t Democrats…but traitors

    If they were loyal to the US then why did Lincoln pardon so many who fought against the Government? They had to be traitors.

    If they were loyal to the US, then why did Johnson….In a final proclamation on December 25, 1868, Johnson declared “unconditionally, and without reservation, … a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws ..?

    That’s why these monuments are being torn down…they were erected to praise traitors.

  23. Dougie…this is what Johnson said….In a final proclamation on December 25, 1868, Johnson declared “unconditionally, and without reservation, … a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws

    Johnson believed the Rebels had committed treason.

    1. Again, none of those soldiers had been personally CHARGED with such a crime. That Johnson issued a blanket announcement to cover any contingencies doesn’t change that. And REGARDLESS, they were PARDONED, and ACCEPTED back into the USA fold as citizens. Can’t have it both ways. I see now why you hide behind a fake name.


      1. Sorry Doug…by why pardon them if they had not committed treason against the United States?

        Fact is….they were charged with treason, since they could not vote or participate in any state or US Government capacity.

        Under the 14th?Amendment, which was adopted in 1868, Confederate politicians and soldiers who had taken an oath to uphold the Constitution before the Civil War would be unable to hold public office in the future.

        Overall, the government believed treason had been committed during the Civil War


      2. But, once they are pardoned they are no longer traitors. And since pardon occurred in 1868 and earliest statue on Monument Avenue wasn’t erected til 1907, they would be US citizens again and NOT traitors, even if they had performed traitorous acts in the past.

      3. Show me where they were charged with treason. Take your time, I’ll wait. Former Confederates were most certainly able to vote and run for public offices. Some succeeded. Other former Confederates were able to join the US military. I can name you some ex-Confederates who did alright in post CW America. Below is a link, from the US Senate itself, about one such individual.



  24. To take arms and fight against your country…is treason and those that did it..were traitors

    Anyway, those monuments were erected by White Supremacists, in order to perpetuate the ‘Lost Cause”, an erroneous interpretation of the Civil War.

    1. Amnesty – “a general pardon for offenses, especially political offenses, against a government, often granted before any trial or conviction.”

      So, no longer traitors. And, IF these monuments were only built to intimidate blacks into submission, how do you explain the Maury monument? He wasn’t a soldier, he was a man of Science. How would anything he did intimidate anyone? Could it actually be that the people building the monuments actually did it out of their love for fathers, husbands, brothers, or sons and the leaders that led them through 4 years of war and they weren’t thinking at all about what black people would think about them over 100 years later?

      1. actually, they erected those monuments to traitors, during the time of Jim Crow legislation, the time of White Supremacy in the South, the time of separate but equal, to intimidate Afro-Americans and remind them of that peculiar institution, known as slavery.

        In 1907, that described the South, when those monuments were erected.

        Remember, those leaders actually led them to defeat…and those monuments were another reminder of the “Lost Cause”, an erroneous and false interpretation of the Civil War.

        Oh..they were thinking, all right. Voter suppression, separate but equal, poll taxes, Jim Crow…all to intimidate American citizens.

      1. Dougie…the protestors haven’t committed treason, like the Southerners did…..and they haven’t suppressed any votes.

        All they want are White Supremacy monuments to traitors, removed.

        We are. NOT making the Southerners …2nd class citizens, like White Supremacists did to Afro-Americans.


      2. Your beloved ‘protesters’ are most definitely in open rebellion against this country. They are taking and illegally and unlawfully occupying territory that they have no right to. And those who commit open rebellion should be HANGED for their ‘treason’, right? Fair is fair.

        Those traitors have moved way beyond Confederate statues. They are targeting everything regardless of who it is or what it represents. And I’ll take bets they soon target the museums they were supposedly demanding that the statutes be moved to. You might want to contact the DNC and see if someone there can conjure up some better talking points. Take your time, I’ll be here..


  25. Debra….Maury resigned his commission in the US Navy, and joined the Virginia Navy, which was consolidated into the Confederate States Navy, where he held the rank of Commander….so he is just as much a traitor as Jackson and Lee, and all those other US Army officers who left the Army to fight against their country.

    His monument , however, was only partially de-constructed…the statue was removed, the globe which represents Maury’s role as an oceanographer…remains.

  26. Dougie…..you must have missed this…I’l repeat it….In a final proclamation on December 25, 1868, Johnson declared “unconditionally, and without reservation, … a full pardon and amnesty for the offence of treason against the United States, or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws

    Johnson believed the Rebels had committed treason

    What the Southern soldiers idd…fight against the Federal Government…was treason…And Johnson gave them a full pardon. Fact;

    Take your time understanding it…I can wait.

    Pesky thing those pesky facts!

    1. And one more time genius, pardons were issued, and those who fought were able to rejoin this country. Many if not most among the American people were OK with that. It’s called ‘healing’. Seeing how you obviously believe that they should have all been hanged, that should apply to the traitors you so lovingly defend today, right? Remember, this is YOUR criteria we’re talking about. But again, that hypocrisy of yours keeps tripping you up.


      1. Thats right! Pardons were issued because these men were traitors to the United States!! You got it!

        Now try and understand this…..healing does not mean keep ex-slaves in bondage. White Supremacists erecting statues to traitors who fought against the United States, during the period of Jim Crow, of dis-enfranchising Blacks, of separate but equal, of lynching Blacks without due process guaranteed to thereby the US Constitution is NOT healing. Keeping the erroneous and false history of the Lost Cause is NOT American History.

        Black Americans were NOT OK with that…but they had no recourse.

        It is intimidation….pure and simple.

        Anything else I can school you on,……”genius’?

      2. Ex-slaves held in bondage was done by the Democrats, who were those white supremacists you have posted about ad nauseum. The ones who created the terrorist group the KKK to advance the Democrat agenda visa vis keeping blacks from voting and hence trying to keep the Republican Party from making inroads in the South. and as we’ve seen from the actions of recent weeks, the fact that the statues are of Confederates means NOTHING. Your traitorous rabble has proven that in their criminal antics directed at other landmarks and monuments. And they WILL come after the museums all the whiners demanded that the statues be moved to. Why does that undeniable truth frighten you so?


  27. Dougie…btw….thanks for acknowledging that I was absolutely correct that the Democratic Party had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the formation of the KKK.

    I am glad I could open your eyes to this and correct your mis-understanding.

    1. If you’re truly that ignorant about the undeniable fact that the KKK was created on behalf of the Democrats and is something you must continue to lie about, have at it. You’ve been exposed, and all your revisionist history efforts can’t change that. All you’re doing is carrying out your party’s orders. They do keep tight control on those they own.


  28. It’s not constructive to make comparisons between today’s political parties and their 1860s’ counterparts. That’s just another form of presentism. Both parties have changed dramatically since then. Furthermore, today’s liberal/conservative designations didn’t apply to parties then as they do now (a Reagan-era development, actually). So, finger-pointing at the past to somehow provide a “gotcha” for the present doesn’t make a lot of historical or logical sense.

    1. Maybe Chris, but it is also undeniable that history is used by today’s parties to advance their agendas of today. You are indeed right about ‘presentism’, something I have mentioned on various threads posted over time on this site.To claim ‘the parties aren’t the same nowdays as they were then’ doesn’t hold up when one of those parties is actively engaged TODAY in changing their role in that history. Hence the use of ‘white supremacists’ in place of ‘DEMOCRATS’ when talking about things like the KKK, yet ‘white supremacists’ is also used routinely to identify anyone today’s Democrats oppose, specifically Republicans. None of that is an accident.

      1. ‘Giant’, besides your weak and exposed attempts at revisionist history, let’s also add questions about your comprehension skills. The USA Today article, which is the one I referenced in an earlier post, makes MY point about the extremes YOUR side are going through to try to revise known history. The DNC-allied media of today is engaged in a coordinated blitz (as the dates of their ‘articles’ prove) to change the KNOWN narrative about the UNDENIABLE links between the Democrat Party and the KKK, and the sins (and crimes) committed by both. ..


    2. In 1883 while addressing the Lessons learned from the Civil War, it was acknowledged, “Neither side (Union or Rebel) was prepared; neither side had a fully-provided, well organized Army. If such had been the case, it must be admitted the Civil War would have closed within two years.” The writer, Captain Francis V. Greene, Army Corps of Engineers, continued: “As we have had but one war calling for the employment of 100,000+ men in the field, it can readily be shown that our system of “a very small, inexpensive army; and a very costly war” is cheaper in the long run than “a constantly expensive army; and a comparatively inexpensive war.”
      Captain Greene did not consider political difficulties; he did not consider serious internal division. He did not propose: “The best way to prepare for and WIN a war.” He merely considered cost… of providing for a standing army (WHATEVER the consequences of continuing the inadequate, traditional “system”).
      Lessons learned from the Civil War CAN be restricted to cost/ benefit analysis. And discussion may be restricted in other ways. But in the end, we only do ourselves a disservice.
      [Above “Improvements in the Art of War” by Captain Greene contained in Journal of the Military Service Institution of December 1883 (volume 4) pages 2 – 42.]

  29. Dougie..despite your erroneous and false attempts to revise American History, you need to read with discernment and comprehension. Your article flatly says that the Democratic Party had NOTHING to do with the formation of the KKK.

    Chris agrees with me about how the political parties changed focus since 1860. But some things remained the same.

    As a primer…let me remind you that the GOP in the 1850s accepted members of the Know-Nothing Party…accepting them for them for being abolitionists, but decrying their nativist and anti-immigrant and anti-Catholic stance. Those themes of nativism and being anti-immigrant still resonate with the GOP today. So..at least, that part of our story is 100 % accurate. The rest…not so much.

    I hope this helps you in your study of political parties.

    1. Gosh ‘Giant’, like all what you shovel on here, you can’t even be original. And your pathetic attempts to drag others into this to try to bail you out of the hole you have dug is especially pathetic, and noted. Your own words continue to expose you. The longest filibusterer in American history was staged by your Democrats opposing the Civil Rights legislation in the early 1960s!. The Great Society, another Democrat creation, destroyed the black family unit. That is fact. To say the GOP thus became the party that embraced the Klan is the epitome of revisionist history. I’m sure some number of Republicans joined the Klan after the Democrats created that hate-based terrorist group, after all, the Klan had a wide reach at one point. That doesn’t change the truth, or real history.

      If you need me to supply you with other things you to include in your drive-by quips here, just let me know. You don’t have to appropriate them on your own. OK?


      1. Gee. Dougie…I think you have your history all wrong. Democrats in both the House and the Senate voted overwhelmingly for the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

        IIRC..Strom Thurman filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act…but recall that in 1948 for President of the United States as a Dixie-crat….so..in reality, he wasn’t a Democrat. He was a pure segregationist. Recall that in 1948, the Democratic Party instituted a Civil Rights Plank into the platform..and also that Truman, a Democrat, abolished segregation in the US Armed Forces.

        Thurmond represented South Carolina in the United States Senate from 1954 until 2003, at first as a Southern Democrat and, after 1964, as a Republican…..YES…Thurmond changed party’s in 1964, because the Democratic Party had embraced Civil Rights….and as a Republican, he opposed Civil Rights.

        More evidence of the change in the Republican Party from freeing the slaves in 1865, to opposing Civil Rights for Blacks in 1964!!

        You know who also voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act…Barry Goldwater.

        The Great Society …don’t get me started!…When Johnson left office, the official poverty rate had fallen from 22 percent in 1960 to 13 percent – which is where the poverty rate remains today. AFDC payments had risen to $577 (in 1980 dollars). Infant mortality among the poor, which had barely declined between 1950 and 1965, fell by one-third in the decade after 1965 as a result of the expansion of federal medical and nutritional programs. Before the implementation of Medicaid and Medicare, 20 percent of the poor had never been examined by a physician; when Johnson retired as president the figure had been cut to 8 percent. The proportion of families living in substandard housing–that is, housing lacking indoor plumbing – also declined steeply, from 20 percent in 1960 to 11 percent a decade later.
        Quite a lot of accomplishments!

        Is there anything else I can educate you? Cause it looks to me, that you need some help. with American History…just sayin’.

      2. Well Giant, my last post that I made to you and some others have apparently disappeared, as well as at least one of yours. Imagine that. But I’ll just repeat it. One more time, Strom Thurmond was but one individual. Interesting that you hate him and some others but your love affair for the likes of Robert KKK Byrd and Lyndon Johnson remains unblemished.

        Barry Goldwater proved to be a poor candidate for the times. That he lost to LBJ by such a wide margin confirms that. Remember also that it wasn’t Goldwater’s views on race that did him in, but the portrayal of him as a ‘warmonger’ that LBJ successfully concocted. Which is truly rich, given how LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam while hamstringing the very military members he sent there. Goldwater’s opposition to the Civil Rights bills had to do with what were larded up in them, and TRULY principled disagreements about the Constitutionality of some of the components within it, like those involving what private companies would be required to do. And Goldwater’s fears did prove to be well founded as time and history would play out!

        Again, your love and admiration of the Great Society proves that the Democrats of modern times haven’t changed one bit when it comes to black America, they just changed their approach. Instead of burning crosses, they (now) write welfare checks. As I have become fond of saying, ‘some things never change’. That you and your party have no problem with destroying the black family unit in pursuit of truly spurious, and quite often negligible ‘successes’ continue to prove my points.

        Hang on, we’ll see of this disappears too!

      3. Doug…..those comments were probably removed because we were dominating the conversation. And I interpret that to mean that Chris wants us to stop.

  30. All this promotion and effort to “correct” History puts me in mind of an assistant curator at a museum a few years back, who grew tired of being surrounded by an obvious piece of incorrect History. She took it upon herself to change EVERY reference in the Civil War display from Minie ball to minnie ball…

  31. To nygiant1952
    Stonewall Jackson was shot behind the Confederate and Union front lines by his own pickets. If you know what that means. You really have a lot to say. Stonewall would have probably made a difference at Gettysburg but we will never know. And I say God Bless the USA. You have a problem with that..Trump 2020 .

    1. Hi Steve…..a few corrections…
      1. Stonewall Jackson was wounded in the area between the Union and Rebel forces….no mans land….and NOT behind Rebel Lines and NOT behind Union lines.

      2.It is debatable if Stonewall would have made a difference at Gettysburg. Ewell had performed very well on the march to Gettysburg, and his 2nd Corps caused the 11th Corps line to collapse and retreat into Gettysburg, and with only 2 of his divisions…recall that Johnson’s Division was was in Scotland and marched along Black Gap Road, to connect with the Chambersburg Pike, and then marched to Gettysburg. Recall that Ewell had an order to attack that Hill, if practicable but not to bring on a general engagement until the rest of the Army had arrived.

      3. Was that practicable? Well…Ewell send 2 divisions up the York Pike for he had heard that there were Union troops advancing. He had captured around 2000 Union soldiers, and his units were mixed up in Gettysburg. And he saw 40 Union cannon on was was to be known as Cemetery Hill. Plus he was told that he was not getting any help form AP Hill’s Corps.

      4.Plus, with no cavalry, no one knew what was on the other side of Cemetery Hill.

      5.The only thing Jackson might have done….was to cobble together a unit to try and occupy Culp’s Hill, which is on the flank of Cemetery Hill before the Union would occupy it.

      7. The ONLY correct comment you made was…Jackson being wounded by his own men.

  32. So let the word go forth that if someone posts revisionist tripe on here, and you endeavor to respond to and refute that tripe, all the ones who post that tripe have to do is whine to the admin, and YOUR posts are removed. Geezz, it’s like everyone wants to be Twitter. Disgraceful. Not this site’s finest hour by a long shot!

Please leave a comment and join the discussion!