"Navy Renaming USS Chancellorsville" Topic

These things belong in museums. They don't represent what we stand for as one nation, all men created equal. They can be given full context in a museum setting.

Yes, they as Tort said … Again … we can't forget our history. The good, the bad and the ugly.

Statues of the CSA GENS, etc. should also be treated the same way … Not torn down, defaced, etc. by those that know little about what those statues, etc. actually represented, etc. And those who did those things should have been arrested, charged, etc.

Plus, if a statue fell on one of them, they'd sue, etc. LEOs "Protect & Serve" even to protect some from being misguided idiots. But their leaders would not let them do it. As they didn't want to be called, racist, etc. BTW – If you want a statue, etc. to be removed there is a legal way to do it.

FWIW, Chancellorsville was a town/city before the ACW. So now will no ships, etc. be named after Southern cities/towns that existed before/during the ACW ? Or even be changed ? Maybe I'm being a little too simplistic ? 🤔

I'll ask what I asked before.

It was a battle(Chancellorsville). Men on both sides fought bravely and were wounded and killed on its fields. Both sides carried it on their battle flags. The name today honors the memories of those men.

If those men who fought there are proud enough to have stitched that name on their battle flags, consecrated with their blood; who are we today to deny the honor of that name on a ship in their remembrance?

Storied Union regiments carried that name on their banners. You insult their names and their sacrifices by eliminating this honor to appease a few today who sacrificed nothing.

Honestly, that was not my intention. I have always had the deepest respect for all the rank and file soldiers from that difficult time. I would not change the name at this point as it goes out of service.

We should never have deviated from our earlier naming standards.Too many politicians. When we have picked other land battles, like CVL Belleau Wood, or more obviously CVs Yorktown, Saratoga, Lexington, they were battles where we all fought on the same side. CAs were traditionally named for cities, but Chancellorsville was clearly named for the battle, and it does not connote a united nation. But there are other ways to honor the soldiers who fought there and made the ultimate sacrifice. The ground itself, the preservation of the artifacts and the memory.

OVI +1

Tort + 1

Tort,

The ships' names you mention were all US victories. Naming a ship after a US defeat is just not a good idea.

We should never have deviated from our earlier naming standards.Too many politicians.

Case in point – USS Harvey Milk.

B

+1 Blutarski…

Brechtel, I had not really thought of that point. But I don't think I would want ships named after Civil War battles. We fought each other, it was a bitter and convulsive struggle to find ourselves. There is honor for both sides in coming through it and moving on, but in todays world we need every symbol of unity we can find.

Looking forward to the new Enterprise…

Looking forward to the new Enterprise…

Yes, I think "traditional" names for ships are best. Generally, Not POTUSs, most other politicians, etc., but historical, heroes, etc. There were a lot of ships in WWII. A lot of good names to choose from.

Ft. Pickett is now Ft. Barfoot. Barfoot won the MOH … good choice, if the CSA name has to be replaced.

link

Looking forward to the new Enterprise…

CVN 80…

link

link

She will be the 9th US ship to be named Enterprise and the third aircraft carrier of that name.

My favorite is still 'the lucky little Enterprise of the Tripolitan and War of 1812 fame…

link

There is an excellent painting of the USS Constitution and the USS Enterprise attacking by Tom Freeman:

store.tomfreemanart.com/23.html

It is entitled 'Payment in Iron.'

Part of the reason for this change of the ship's name maybe recruiting and retention. The Armed Forces have been one of the professions that is color blind. I am not saying it was right or not but I get it. I don't know the racial makeup of officers and men in the Navy but I am saying that it may have had something to do with it.

I think mostly it has to do with woke, CRT, etc. Much more than recruiting. That may not even be in the equation. By changing all the CSA names to something more "neutral". As the CSA supported slavery. So, anything that has to with it may offend some, etc. As they may have had ancestors that were slaves.

E.g. just like in some cases wanting to rename schools, etc. because the Founding Fathers mostly were slave owners. So, they shouldn't have a school named after them. Again, IMO more woke, CRT, etc.

I think that is called "presentism". Putting today's standards, on what happened in the past. E.g. the Founding Fathers had slaves and that is bad … especially by today's standards.

Many here if they lived back in those times e.g. AWI, ACW would probably have had slave or two. Or in some cases many more. That was the standard then. For those that could afford them. But yes, it is very wrong by today's standards but not those back then. However, we know better today.

Some say, and I agree to a point. No one here owned/owns slave(s). And no one here was a slave(s).

Trying to right a wrong that happened of 150 years ago. Some see that as a good idea. Others see it as presentism. … While others even see it as some should look at the calendar more often …

Looking forward to the new Enterprise…

I thought we were talking about one with warp drive, phasers, photon torpedoes, and part of Space Force….

Someday…. And that might bring in some recruits!

Many here if they lived back in those times e.g. AWI, ACW would probably have had slave or two. Or in some cases many more. That was the standard then. For those that could afford them. But yes, it is very wrong by today's standards but not those back then. However, we know better today.

Slavery was the US standard? Really?

Slavery was the US standard? Really?

I am a missing something ? Many in the USA had slaves before, during and after the AWI. As well as up until 1865. So yes, it was not rare for many to own slaves, even if only one or two. Again, that was a standard during those times. I.e. not rare … Albeit many in the US didn't own slaves … However, most of the Northern States did not have a large number of slaves verses the agricultural South.

From a PBS article-

And how many of these 10.7 million Africans were shipped directly to North America? Only about 388,000. That's right: a tiny percentage.

link

So, many must have owned those 388,000 slaves in the USA. Mostly in the agrarian South. Up until 1865 at the end of the ACW.

'Not rare' doesn't equal 'a standard.'

Perhaps you might have a reference to look at?

And it should be noted that the US outlawed the slave trade, ie the importation of slaves' in 1808 along with Great Britain.

The British and French oulawed slavery in the West Indies around 1834.

Perhaps you could furnish information on the number of African slaves by colony in the Revolution or shortly thereafter and compare that with the number ca 1808 when the slave trade was outlawed, and then in 1860 by state.

This may be of assistance:

link

link

link

link

Based on this material, perhaps you could revise your use of the term 'many'?

Has anyone read Bruce Catton's excellent This Hallowed Ground? It was rated as 'The best single-volume treatment of the Civil War…A classic work' by the Chicago Sun-Times when it was published in 1955.

This is an excerpt from pages 307-308:

'…slavery was doomed, and the war was passing sentence upon it…Of all societies, that of the South was least fitted to stand the shock of revolution, and the war was revolutionary.'

'For secession had been an attempt to perpetuate the past: to enable a society based on slavery to live on, as an out-of date survival in the modern world. Slavery was above all else a primitive mechanism, and the society that relied on it could survive, in the long run, only if the outside world propped it up.'

'But the southern society was not itself primitive at all. It needed all of the things the rest of the world needed…yet it clung to the peculiar institution that prevented it from producing these things itself…'

It was Catton who wrote about the courage and humanity of the everyday soldiers on both sides. The Army of the Potomac trilogy is the most inspiring work I have ever read on the war, a classic story of darkest hours, rites of passage, and ultimate triumph.

Catton, speaking in 1961, said that slavery was underneath everything about the war. It touched every attempt to make the cause be about something else.

"Freedom is indivisible. Winning it for the Negro, we won it also for all of the people who then were or ever would become Americans—for the man who has fled from oppression, misery and discrimination overseas as well as for the fugitive from the American slave pen and auction block. We can never have, permanently, a second-class citizenship in this country; because of the Civil War, we are no longer that kind of country."

And it should be noted that the US outlawed the slave trade, ie the importation of slaves' in 1808 along with Great Britain.

The British and French oulawed slavery in the West Indies around 1834.

Already know that …

Perhaps you might have a reference to look at?

There are a number of links I read a number of online about Slavery in America and in ACW journals, articles, etc.

Based on this material, perhaps you could revise your use of the term 'many'?

So now we are talking about levels of slave owners in America. Many, many, books, documentaries, etc., etc., about the ACW always talks about slavery. As I said, based on the article I referenced – So, many must have owned those 388,000 slaves in the USA. Mostly in the agrarian South. Up until 1865 at the end of the ACW.

As I posted, Many here if they lived back in those times e.g. AWI, ACW would probably have had slave or two. Or in some cases many more. That was the standard then. For those that could afford them.

Again, If you could afford slaves you probably could have one or two. Even small farms, etc. had slaves. Grant had one slave to help him on his farm before the ACW. Where in bigger plantations, etc. they could of have 50, 60, 100, etc. slaves …

It was a standard in many places but as I posted – However, most of the Northern States did not have a large number of slaves verses the agricultural South. So again it was a standard in many places in America. And not rare, especially in the South. However, before and during the AWI, some Northerns, in e.g. the New England states had slaves … but very few in numbers vs. the agrarian South.

From this link:
link

The legal institution of human chattel slavery, comprising the enslavement primarily of Africans and African Americans, was prevalent in the United States of America from its founding in 1776 until 1865, predominantly in the South. Slavery was established throughout European colonization in the Americas. From 1526, during early colonial days, it was practiced in what became Britain's colonies, including the Thirteen Colonies that formed the United States. Under the law, an enslaved person was treated as property that could be bought, sold, or given away. Slavery lasted in about half of U.S. states until abolition. In the decades after the end of Reconstruction, many of slavery's economic and social functions were continued through segregation, sharecropping, and convict leasing.

By the time of the American Revolutionary War (1775–1783), the status of enslaved people had been institutionalized as a racial caste associated with African ancestry.[1] During and immediately following the Revolution, abolitionist laws were passed in most Northern states and a movement developed to abolish slavery

Note the term "institutionalized" …

One of Washington's top spies Abe Woodhull of the famed Cupler Spy ring owned 2 slaves … And he lived in the North … Setauket, NY.
link

Slaves transported to the British colonies and United States:[51]

1620–1700……21,000
1701–1760….189,000
1761–1770……63,000
1771–1790……56,000
1791–1800……79,000
1801–1810….124,000[52]
1810–1865……51,000
Total ………….597,000

From your linked reference. As the slave trade had been outlawed in 1808, I wonder where the numbers came from between 1808 and 1865?

It should be noted that Wikipedia is not a reliable source…and perhaps you could define what you mean by 'many.'

…the famed Cupler Spy ring…

Your reference, again Wikipedia, states that it was the Culper sspy ring…

Yes, I misspelled Culper … you spelled spy will two ss. Was there going to be a spelling quiz today ?

So Wikipedia is not up to your standards … My 388,000 figure came from PBS link.

Maybe you tell me what "many" should mean ?

388,000 or 597,000 that sounds like a lot of slaves to me.

Slavery was in most states, but the majority in the South. There were "many" slaves in the South, more than in the North.

From your linked reference. As the slave trade had been outlawed in 1808, I wonder where the numbers came from between 1808 and 1865?

Are you doing this on purpose ?

Here is a History Channel link … I understood this before … I figured you would … link

As cash crops like tobacco, cotton and sugar became pillars of the colonial economy, slavery became its engine. Though the slave trade was outlawed in 1807, chattel slavery and the plantation economy it made possible flourished in the South. The 1860 census found that there were 3,953,760 enslaved people in the United States, making up roughly 13 percent of the total population.

Do you know the definition of 'woke'?

Alert to injustice and discrimination in society, especially racism.

Unfortunately, most people who are "woke" are utterly oblivious to the injustice inherent in their own behavior.

How do you identify who are 'woke' and who are not?

And to which 'behavior' are you referring?

The link shows the number of slaves in the US in 1860/1861 by state:

link

Perhaps if you could show how many people actually 'owned' slaves, the idea of 'many' could be determined.

There were 393,975 slaveholders in the US in 1860.

There were 3,950,546 slaves in the US in 1860.

The US population in 1860 was 31,443,322.

The population of the Confederacy in 1861 was 8.6 million.

Comparing the numbers and subsequent percentages I cannot assume or determine that 'many' Americans owned slaves, nor was it normal to do so in 1860-1861.

Perhaps if you could show how many people actually 'owned' slaves, the idea of 'many' could be determined.

Sounds like you are being acting "petty" over my choice of words …

So, this is about me saying "many" people owned slaves … The figure in one of the links said slaves made up about 13% of the US population.

Comparing the numbers and subsequent percentages I cannot assume or determine that 'many' Americans owned slaves, nor was it normal to do so in 1860-1861.

Again sounds petty, argumentative, etc., …

Again, you seem to be sounding petty over my choice of words. Many in the South did own slaves. I didn't say all. But many did … Which again the figure of 13% of the US population were slaves is mentioned.

It is one of the main topics in many ACW documentaries, books, articles, journals, etc. Not that Hollywood is a standard on almost any topic. But pretty much almost all ACW
movies, shows, etc. Slavery is mentioned or is the main topic.

So, IMO if 13% is accurate, and sounds like it is to me. E.g. only 12-13% of the US population are African-Americans today.

So yes, 13% or or :

There were 393,975 slaveholders in the US in 1860.

There were 3,950,546 slaves in the US in 1860.

That is "many" to me, much too many actually. Slaves & owners … It was a standard, it was in many places in the South, was not that rare, but much less in the North.

What is your point ? There were not enough slaves in the US during those years ? Or you are being petty, argumentative, etc. to demonstrate you are smarter(?) than me ? Who cares ? But it seems you are determined to criticize my choice of the words – standard, many, or not rare.

Are you trying to say there were only a few slaves in the US ? IMO 1 was too many. But that was the way things were in those years. Before during and after the AWI thru the end of the ACW. But numbers seem to be around 13% of slaves were part of the US population probably in the 19th Century until the end of the ACW. Seems to me that 12-13% today, most are very active, involved, contributing, etc. and that is a large number to me.

My Rifle Plt in the 101 was mostly African-Americans then Hispanics. Most units I served in had a similar breakdown. Even as a Mech Co. Cdr. These young men [and women] in almost all cases served their country honorably. Regardless of race. They volunteered for whatever reasons. Contributed to their nation's defense. So, I will not have anyone belittle, marginalized, the vast majority of that 12-13% …

Be petty and argumentative, all you want. This has little to nothing to do with the original topic. But again, you are determined to question my use of my choice of words. And in a rude, condescending, etc., manner, IMO.

…I will not have anyone belittle, marginalized, the vast majority of that 12-13% …

No one here did…Seems to me that you're creating a strawman argument.

My point is that you're not providing the information on slavery that would be helpful.

And stating that slavery was the US standard is incorrect. That was the statement you made that I took issue with.

Are you trying to say there were only a few slaves in the US ?

That comment is completely puzzling as I posted the number of African slaves in the US in 1860 at almost 4 million.

And as a footnote, in 1860 dollars they were 'valued' at almost 2 billion dollars.

No one here did…Seems to me that you're creating a strawman argument.

No I'm stating how I feel on the topic … no strawman.

And stating that slavery was the US standard is incorrect. That was the statement you made that I took issue with.

Slavery was a fact especially in the South. In many places in the South it was a "standard" …

That comment is completely puzzling as I posted the number of African slaves in the US in 1860 at almost 4 million.

I was trying to see what your point was.

If you have a problem with the words I use, standard, not rare, etc. And you have made that clear. Fine … you are trying to say those words are inaccurate. Based on your terms that may be. But the entire ACW history, lore, etc. revolves around slavery. 4 million is a large number, regardless, if it is e.g. 13% of the population.

My point is that you're not providing the information on slavery that would be helpful.

I provided a lot of information, from authors much more knowledgeable than I on the subject. And dare I say you …

The US had 4 million slaves … that is enough IMO to state it was a standard in many places in the USA at that time. With most slaves being in the South …

So, I don't get why you are so obsessed with my comments. You can disagree with me. BUT slavery was a major institution in the USA at that time. To say anything otherwise makes no sense to me.

Lincoln's main quest was to keep all the states in the Union. And slavery being such a large institution in many places in those states that left the Union was all part of the bigger picture that was the ACW …

To say only 4 million slaves seems to be ignoring that huge number and the legacy of slavery in the USA. Especially during the ACW.

And to which 'behavior' are you referring?

I could probably come up with a definition if I needed too but I think it would much easier for me to catalogue behaviors and attitudes that qualify as woke. One example would be the attempt by some recently to rename the Audubon Society because its namesake, John Audubon, owned slaves. Woke attempts to define historical people by current social mores and reduces, denies or cancels their accomplishments because of this. This kind of reductionism turns complex personalities into caricatures that are then easily reviled. Woke tends to embrace the CRT narrative that race is the critical feature of human identity. We see it full view in how people today (and on TMP) are often interpreting the CSA and the people who supported it.

Lincoln's main quest was to keep all the states in the Union. And slavery being such a large institution in many places in those states that left the Union was all part of the bigger picture that was the ACW …

I agree with your observations. Where I part company with some is that I don't think it fully explains the South's decision to withdraw from the Union. Southern nationalism in 1860 is bigger than slavery and the fact is that the vast majority of Southern soldiers fought for the CSA for reasons other than slavery (as did Northern soldiers fight for the Union for reasons other than being against slavery.)

Not for long Brutus. And what people were fighting for and what they thought they were fighting for are not always the same thing. There is nothing CRT or woke about reading the various articles of secession or the Cornerstone speech and drawing a conclusion.They are just there, staring us in the face. There are no alternative facts for them.

Southern nationalism in 1860 is bigger than slavery and the fact is that the vast majority of Southern soldiers fought for the CSA for reasons other than slavery (as did Northern soldiers fight for the Union for reasons other than being against slavery.)

Very true, and as we know many Southerners didn't own any. But many did, and in many places in the South it was a standard. States' Rights was what many have said was one of the main reasons the South seceded. States' Rights included to keep slaves, but it was not the only one.

Of course, many felt the Union invaded the South. Which in fact they did, but as we know to maintain the US as one nation. As with many things the South breaking away from the Union had many reasons, etc.

And yes, many in the Union Army/Navy, population, etc. didn't really care about slavery. Plus, some just did not like Blacks. By today's standards that would/could be considered racist. As it is … But again, one cannot put today's standards, morals, beliefs, etc. on something that happened over 150 years ago.

By your own numbers slaveholders constituted 1.2% of the population of the USA, not a huge number.
I would be remiss if I didn't point out that that number doesn't include all who benefited from slavery, including hired hands and family of the owners etc.

The idea of 'southern nationalism' is part of the Lost Cause mythology and the refusal to name slavery as the cause of the Civil War. Every other problem was ancillary to that.

'The greatest danger to American survival at midcentury, however, was neither class tension nor ethnic division. Rather it was the sectional conflict between North and South over the furture of slavery.' Battle Cry of Freedom by James McPherson, 7.

'To many Americans, human bondage seemed incompatible with the founding ideals of the Republic…The generation that fought the Revolution abolished slavery in states north of the Mason-Dixon line; the new states north of the Ohio River came into the Union without bondage. South of those boundaries, however, slavery became essential to the region's economy and culture.'-McPherson, 7-8.

The idea of 'southern nationalism' is part of the Lost Cause mythology and the refusal to name slavery as the cause of the Civil War. Every other problem was ancillary to that.

You do realize that the Lost Cause as you use it is a made up set of propositions. It embraces circular thinking and is really a lazy approach to understanding both the ACW and its interpretation. I would suggest saying something like "slavery as the cause of the Civil War" represents simply an unfortunate narrowing of historical analysis.

And while I appreciate James McPherson's scholarship, having read several of his volumes and watched many of his lectures on Youtube, he is definitely in the what I would call the "Just Cause" camp of ACW scholarship that interprets the causes of the ACW and the North and South's motives in fairly narrow terms. I think he is a product of the times as much as any of us are.

Not for long Brutus. And what people were fighting for and what they thought they were fighting for are not always the same thing. There is nothing CRT or woke about reading the various articles of secession or the Cornerstone speech and drawing a conclusion.They are just there, staring us in the face. There are no alternative facts for them.

I remember the Kelleyanne Conway interview with Chuck Todd on MTP many years ago when she coined the phrase "alternate facts." It was unfortunate phraseology because what she was really arguing for was an alternative way of interpreting the facts. Or perhaps the inclusion of more data in an analysis. We are all capable of using or ignoring the data to substantiate our point of view. I find Chuck Todd particularly egregious in this matter in his sometimes misleading ways of constructing a point so there is an irony in all this. We should be very careful in pointing the finger at others Tort about alternative facts.

Murvihill and Brechtel … I generally have to agree with what you both posted. However, slavery even if both the numbers of slave holders and slaves are not that large. The institution of slavery is a major part of the discussion of the ACW. And US history.

And let's admit it … the slaves did not want to be enslaved, and in many cases, they were very poorly treated. A scar on the USA's history. That must not be forgotten and accurately remembered in our history. IMO what we see today in many cases is not really accurate, skewed, biased, etc.

If the figures are accurate with e.g. only 13% of the US being slaves and 1.2% slave owners. Those seems to be accurate. Those low numbers do not reflect the massive tragedy of slavery in America. And to the casual observer slavery was bigger than the numbers reflect.

Again, slavery was a standard in some places in the South. The huge plantations, farms, etc. with many slaves were an indication of how the numbers of slaves, played even larger in US history.

Slavery is wrong … but it was a everywhere in the world for thousands of years. It even is still occurring in some place in the Mid-East, etc.

I agree on all points, just pointing out that slave ownership while numerous wasn't endemic in the south. BTW, slave holders were also high in political offices thus very influential in the political process. Despite being small in number they did shape policy in the antebellum south.

As for a "Just Cause" narrative, I suppose you could call it that. People seem to lose sight of the fact that when we speak of "the UNION" we mean "the United States." My country.

I find your comment ironic Don because there were a group of Americans who did not want to be part of your country. Yet they were forced to do be so through violent means.
I have been thinking about your point several months back that it was the South that started the war. And that is true. The South fired the first shot. But suppose in the fall of 1861 the South had apologized to the United States and offered financial compensation for the attack. Would the United States have accepted the apology and the money and brought the conflict to an end? I hardly think so. Lincoln had adroitly set up the Fort Sumter scenario and was looking for an excuse to rally the nation against the seceded states. Most wars have a cause but most wars are also resolved through a negotiated peace. It is hard for me to believe that the North would have accepted anything short of complete victory (ie. there would be no real negotiation.)

Ironic? Leaders who didn't want to be in the USA to keep slavery alive that didn't just try to leave it, tried to break it up, walked out on their ancestors commitments without even any additional negotiation nor willingness to find an appropriate solution with in the framework of the constitution, all to protect their use of blacks to further their own sense of well being culturally, emotionally, financially, perhaps more. And whether such statistics on negotiated peace exist or not, peace was negotiated between Grant and Lee, although there are some who kept and keep fighting, one way or another. States rights for what? The ability for the upper class who ruled over balcks, those who led the Confederacy, to continue to subjugate blacks to their will. In a way, it doesn't seem to matter wether Don's comments are ironic or not.

And then there's this …

Lincoln's main quest was to keep all the states in the Union. And slavery being such a large institution in many places in those states that left the Union was all part of the bigger picture that was the ACW …

I agree with your observations. Where I part company with some is that I don't think it fully explains the South's decision to withdraw from the Union. Southern nationalism in 1860 is bigger than slavery and the fact is that the vast majority of Southern soldiers fought for the CSA for reasons other than slavery (as did Northern soldiers fight for the Union for reasons other than being against slavery.)

It's good to see you're now using the words "southern nationalism", congrats! It and slavery were the primary reasons. Where I part company is this idea that some how the soldiers various reasons for fighting were the reasons for the war, and the irony there is that none of them would have had reasons had it not been for slavery and the southern nationalism that was driven by the leaders of the Confederacy, and who went beyond the frame work of the constitution to achieve their goals.

- – – – – – - – - – - -

At the same time, there goes that "slippery slope" talk again, which can be answered on a sensible case by case basis, even if sometimes there will be a situation that gets answered inappropriately. Instead of constantly bringing up "slippery slope", deal with the case at hand, and not side with those who claim changing Chancellorsville is about it being a southern city/town. Has someone suggested such? That's not "too simplistic", and instead it's at a minimum inaccurate. Being a southern city/town isn't the reason for having the name of the ship changed.

And while we're at it, if that story on this thread about how the ship obtained its name at the last minute is accurate, that by itself is enough of a reason for it to have a new name.

(GP … you've brought the topic back around to the original post, oh my.)

Yep, the folk that keeping screaming "slippery slope" have been slipping themselves, which isn't really surprising.

The ability for the upper class who ruled over balcks, those who led the Confederacy, to continue to subjugate blacks to their will.

Very much so …

Being a southern city/town isn't the reason for having the name of the ship changed.

Yes, it is a Southern city but as many things it goes beyond that. The ship was named after a CSA victory. Which is as times changed was recently controversial. Regardless many names of ships, Forts, etc. have been deemed to be change. That being said again, we can't forget the good, bad and ugly of our past. But again it can't be skewed, biased, inaccurate, etc. based on narratives and agendas.

All that being said I like some of the name changes so far. However, removed statues, etc., should be placed in a museum setting with historical markers clearly and accurately telling the story of that statue. We can't forget our history because of DEI, some may be offended, wokeness, etc. Time travel does not exist, so we can't do back and change what happened decades or more ago.

FWIW – on the ancillary topic of reparations. People who never owned slaves giving $ to people who never were slaves(?). Makes no sense. Sounds more like being politically, DEI, woke motivated than anything else. And some African-Americans and others feel that way.

Leaders who didn't want to be in the USA to keep slavery alive that didn't just try to leave it, tried to break it up, walked out on their ancestors commitments without even any additional negotiation nor willingness to find an appropriate solution with in the framework of the constitution, all to protect their use of blacks to further their own sense of well being culturally, emotionally, financially, perhaps more.

Even if I agreed with your premise it still doesn't explain why hundreds of thousands of young men, most who were not slave owners, went off to war and risked their lives in battle. These young men had very little to gain and much to lose in fighting for slavery. I think a better explanation has to be found to account for their willingness to die for their country. And obviously these young Southern men saw the CSA as their country.

I would ask how one section of a country has the right, by use of force, to compel another part of the country to stay in a constitutional compact that the latter no longer finds desirable. The Declaration of Independence lays out the basic principle that people have the right to self determination and that the exercise of that right is essentially morally incontestable. Whether you think the South had good or bad reasons to leave is beside the point. It is not your decision to make. And if I took the principle articulated above and applied it to personal relationships it would mean that one spouse could legitimately use force or coercion to keep the other spouse from leaving the marriage. I hope you would agree that morally that this is indefensible today.

The US Constitution provides for the redress of grievances. Rebellion based on a morally indefensible system is not self-determination but an intent to destroy the country with no valid or legal reason.

And resorting to armed force in order to 'validate' that intended separation allows for armed force to reduce or stamp out the rebellion.

Didn't Washington stamp out the Whisky Rebellion? Many of with those rebels fought in the AWI against the Crown.

Rebellion based on a morally indefensible system is not self-determination but an intent to destroy the country with no valid or legal reason.

Your phraseology falls exactly within what I call the Just Cause narrative that casts the war in the moral frame of slavery and the fight against it. Had that been the case I would probably be more sympathetic to the Union's cause. Unfortunately, the historical facts simply get in the way of this narrative. The Union did not go to war to end slavery. It went to war to impose a constitutional order upon a people who chose freely to leave it.

And, you do realize that the British Crown used language similar to yours in its rhetorical opposition to the rebellion of the 13 colonies

Young blokes seek 'adventure'and 'getting away'… soon realise that it might not be such a good thing!

British Crown rhetoric… yep… But Govt was not all that bothered… France and Spain were 'enemy'… and India / W Indies more lucrative for Trade, and strapped for cash… I find it rather strange… but… time was.

Crown and Persons of importance… most DID NOT WANT an Empire! FINE for prestige. But,VERY EXPENSIVE! What they wanted was Returns on Financial investments from Trade. Sound Familiar?

My feeling is that young men who fought against the Union were fighting for slavery whether they knew it or not. They may or may not have seen it that way, but it was in evidence as a way of life. It was the issue around which everything else connected. Also, to imply there was little or no concern about slavery in the Union army at the start of the war is presumptuous, IMO. If the Union came first, it did not mean that slavery was not an issue for at least some.

States rights meant the right to own slaves, the secession articles proclaim it. The founders of the Confederacy were clear on this. Slavery had dominated political debate for a generation. The future of slavery was a major concern for both sides. It was the economic engine of the South, and at least some of those young men in the army might have considered owning slaves something aspirational as a means to a better life.

If they were completely disconnected from the concept as a way of life,I would be surprised. Lees army routinely marched and camped with thousands of slaves and everyday soldiers sometimes pooled resources to lease a slave for camp work. And they were ordered to round them up as contraband during the 1863 attack on the north. Lees correspondence and orders to his officers dances delicately around this topic, bit it appears to have been a policy. I would certainly have drawn some conclusions about what I was fighting for at that point. It may have been a fight for the homeland, but slavery was the foundation, and hard not to notice.

Catton talked to Union veterans when he was young and his work describes how their perspective began to change as the war dragged on. Of course there was racism on both sides, but slavery was another matter. Lincoln also underwent a similar change of views.

We continue to have different views on this matter, and I accept that we are entitled to them and may never change. It remains the most difficult period in our history.

Slavery was 'part of life'… for many. Like a Horse, or a Pick up Truck. Emotive, now… but not then. NOW, we see things different. Grandfather Loved his horses… but if they were worked out… just 'way of things'.

Whole Slavery 'issue', just annoys me… long time ago, in GB / USA… but still going on, in some countries. JUMP on THEM!
But blokes going to get killed… so verbal S**t!

Glatthaar' s statistical work, using primary sources, is an interesting window into Lees army, slavery, and the war. Here's a quick article.

link