National Parks Traveler

Lincoln led Republicans controlled both houses of the 37th Congress. One of their select committees was the "Committee on Emancipation and Colonization." The following resolution from that committee explains exactly what motivated Northern "anti-slavery." Anti-slavery meant nothing more than "anti-black;" and to rid the country of an "inferior race" to prevent amalgamation. It was this kind of immoral racism that led to Southern secession in the first place. Is it any wonder that the MISSISSIPPI Declaration of Secession laments that the North "seeks not to elevate or to support the slave, but to destroy his present condition without providing a better." If this is why the South was "pro-slavery," in order to protect their black neighbors from Northern racism, what else are we not being told about the cause of secession and war?

37th Congess. 

No. 148. REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON EMANCIPATION AND COLONIZATION,In the House of Resentatives, July 16, 1862:

"It is useless, now, to enter upon any philosophical inquiry whether nature has or has not made the negro inferior to the Caucasian. The belief is indelibly fixed upon the public mind that such inequality does exist. There are irreconcilable differences between the two races which separate them, 

as with a wall of fire. The home for the African must not be within the limits of the present territory of the Union. The Anglo- American looks upon every acre of our present domain as intended for him, and not for the negro. A home, therefore, must be sought for the African beyond our own limits and in those warmer regions to which his constitution is better adapted than to our own climate,and which doubtless the Almighty intended the colored races should inhabit and cultivate.

Much of the objection to emancipation arises from the opposition of a large portion of our people to the intermixture of the races, and from the association of white and black labor. The committee would do nothing to favor such a policy; apart from the antipathy which nature has ordained, the presence of a race among us who cannot, and ought not to be admitted to our social and political privileges, will be a perpetual source of injury and inquietude to both. This is a question of color, and is unaffected by the relation of master and slave.

The introduction of the negro, whether bond or free, into the same field of labor with the white man, is the opprobrium of the latter... We wish to disabuse our laboring countrymen, and the whole Caucasian race who may seek a home here, of this error... The committee conclude that the highest interests of the white race, whether Anglo-Saxon, Celt, or Scandinavian, require that the whole country should be held and occupied by those races."

General Lee exclaimed:"The best men in the South have long desired to do away with the institution of slavery, and are quite willing to see it abolished. UNLESS SOME HUMANE COURSE, BASED ON WISDOM AND CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES IS ADOPTED, you do them great injustice in setting them free." 

CSA Governor Henry W Allen Jan 1865

"To the English philanthropist who professes to feel so much for the slave, I would say, come and see the sad and cruel workings the scheme.--Come and see the negro in the hands of his Yankee liberators. See the utter degradation--the ragged want--the squalid poverty. These false, pretended friends treat him with criminal neglect. William H. Wilder, He says the negroes have died like sheep with the rot. In the Parish of Iberville, out of six hundred and ten slaves, three hundred and ten have perished. Tiger Island, at Berwicks Bay, is one solid grave yard. At New Orleans, Thibodaux, Donaldsonville, Plaquemine, Baton Rouge, Port Hudson, Morganza, Vidalia, Young's Point and Goodrich's Landing, the acres of the silent dead will ever be the monuments of Yankee cruelty to these unhappy wretches. Under published orders from General Banks, The men on plantations were to be paid from six to eight dollars per month, In these orders the poor creatures after being promised this miserable pittance, were bound by every catch and saving clause that a lawyer could invent. For every disobedience their wages were docked. For every absence from labor they were again docked. In the hands of the grasping Yankee overseer, the oppressed slave has been forced to toil free of cost to his new master. I saw a half-starved slave who had escaped from one of the Yankee plantations, he said "that he had worked hard for the Yankees for six long months--that they had 'dockered' him all the time, and had never paid him one cent!" The negro has only changed masters, and very much for the worse! And now, without present reward or hope for the future, he is dying in misery and want. Look at this picture ye negro worshippers, and weep, if you have tears to shed over the poor down-trodden murdered children of Africa."

No Confederate committed treason. The US became singlar instead of plural on July 1 1862. The North wanted to be free of Blacks not free for Blacks. Lincoln invaded for cotton and tariffs not to do Blacks any favors and he didn't. One million Freedmen starved to death under Union Contraband Policy before Confederates were allowed to vote in 1870.

General Robert E. Lee was offered the command of the US Army at the beginning of the Civil War but turn down the offer . He could not fight against his State: Virginia. At that time Loyalty was to your State not to the USA. Leave the monuments stay so that all future generations can learn from our past history. Like it or not, many races and ethnic groups fought for both sides. 

Did you grow up in the south? Did you grow up hearing about the atrocities committed to the people of Vicksburg? Do you have family who fought in the war? I do, and did to all of these questions. I'm from the Mississippi delta and grew up looking for cannon balls in fields by levee. Grew up on stories of Holt Collier and his amazing loyalty to what y'all are trying to condemn. Do you know who he is? Were you or a member of your family a slave? I doubt it, but if so then celebrate their accomplishments. Just as I celebrate my families history in the war. My family is from the hills of Mississippi originally and Tennessee. They were poor so they didn't own slaves but yet they went to war with the north. This is where you are probably thinking "yea cause they was racist too". I can't answer that but what I can answer is the stories I was told was because my family didn't want people invading their lands and destroying their homes. That is why my family fought the Yankees and that is why I honor them as I hope you do your family. Slavery was wrong, we all agree on that, but did you ever think about the fact that almost all of the industrial revolution was taking place in the north? There was no industry except agriculture in the south. Not to mention all the taxed agriculture money went to the north. We was left with nothing but the plantation as a way of life. Destroying history isn't going to make anything better for anyone. Because none of us were them people. But it's seems like today's so called movement wishes to act as if all black people were just freed!! Get over your hate and let freedom ring or this isn't America anymore.

I just wish we would allow each locality to vote on whether to keep or remove their monument and let the majority of votes make that decision. I don't think people realize that in most cases these men had their United States citizenship restored and all rights that go's with it. Some were elected to local,State and Federal Offices.

They a art that was paid for with blood and if they go everything will go black memorial  union memorial  and all others if we don't have all history we need none and no in not racist I have black people in my family too so it's not black or white its history 

Lee wasn't a slaveowner. Lee ended the war and saved thousands of lives. He was one of the greatest generals of our country's history, along side George Washington and Patton. This talk about the south being the epitome of racism at that time is misconstrued. The north was just as racist and only cared for their own power, using that desired power to put tariffs on the South. Read into the Corwin Amendment, it is possibly the most heinous and racist legislation ever brought to Congress and was perpetrated by Northern politicians and was given inaugural approval by Lincoln. The reason people want to deface history and reshape it all as racist, which doesn't end with the civil war and the confederacy, is because it gets rid of the idea of state rights to decide their future and introduces the concept of tyrannical governments dictating our lives as a justified end, despite the means. 

Dear Sir or Madam

It is difficult to know which inaccuracy in this story to address first.

First, let me begin with the slander against Robert E. Lee. There is simply no evidence that General Lee was a "brutal slaveowner." There is a story unearthed within the last several years that Lee instructed a sheriff to whip one of the Arlington House slaves. As you know, corporal punishment in the mid-19th century was common in both civil law and, especially, within the military. As an Army officer, there is no doubt that General Lee ordered soldiers to be punished with corporal punishment. Punishment by flogging was not as common in the United States Army as in the United States Navy, but it was used by both branches of service.

I believe that placing General Lee's actions concerning the punishment of this slave within a mid-19th century perspective is vitally important. How can we judge men and women of the 19th century by the standards of the 21st Century? This slander against General Lee can be clarified by reading any of the many standard biographies. 

Second, if Robert E. Lee was a traitor, then so was George Washington and every leader of the American Revolution. All of the men and women whom we revere as leaders of the Revolution were considered to be traitors to Great Britian and the King. The British Colonial administration considered everyone who took up arms against the King to be a traitor. Indeed, the Sons of Liberty and other groups were considered to be terrorists by British administrators and the British military.

Third, had the Civil War never taken place, Robert E. Lee would still be remembered one of the finest officers who ever served in the United States Army. His military record prior to the War was nothing short of brilliant. His feats of engineering were remarkable, including changing the direction of the Mississippi River at St. Louis. He made valuable contributions to the American victory in the War with Mexico and was recognized for his bravery. He served a superindent of the United States Military Academy. By the way, Lee graduated second in his class and the only student without a demerit. General Winfield Scott called Lee the finest soldier he had ever known.

Again, any standard biography will reveal that General Lee was not, by 19th Century standards, a traitor. He opposed secession and only resigned from the United States Army after his native state of Virginia had seceeded. He could not take up arms against his own state and his own people. 

Therefore, if Robert E. Lee was a traitor against his national government, so was George Washington. 

Fourth, let us set aside General Lee's brilliant leadership during the War. He is widely acknowledged as one of the great military leaders of all time. Instead of debating his military prowness, let us consider his years after the War. As president of Washington College, General Lee sought to rebuild the South by educating the young men of the South. He developed a highly creative and remarkably practical curriculum. He led the college with distinction and quelled student protests against Federal authority. 

Fifth, General Lee could have chosen not to surrender at Appomattox Court House. He could have disbanded the Army of Northern Virginia and fought a guerrilla war. This may have caused the horrors of the War to last for several more years. That he chose to surrender is an important turning point in American history.

Finally, concerning the placement of most Confederate monuments in the last decade of the 19th Century and the first two decades of the 10th Century. Certainly, these were decades of racial segregation not just in the South, but across the nation. White Supremacy was a reality across the nation and it was reflected not only in the treatment of African Americans, but also in the genocide of Native Americans, and the bitter prejudice against Chinese immigrants and other ethnic groups. 

After four years of brutal combat fought largely within the Southern States, much of the South was in ruins. The task of rebuilding the South into a viable part of the nation took decades. Many Northern monuments were erected as early as the late 1860s and the 1870s. More were erected in the next three decades. Not only was the South impoverished, but the primary focus of remembrance in the first twenty years after the War was the discovery and the reinterrment of Confederate dead. While the activity to honor Union dead was led by Clara Barton and funded with Federal money, in the South this effort was led by the Confederate Memorial societies formed by the ladies of the South. Thousands of Confederate dead were discovered and properly buried. This was a vitally important effort. 

The erection of Confederate monuments and memorials served the same purpose of monuments and memorials decaded to Union heroes and regiments. That purpose was to remember the tragedy of the War and the courage of the men who fought. Confederate monuments were erected in the early decades of the 20th Century because it took that long for the various memorial associations and local governments to raise the money necessary to erect said monuments.

Develop ways to place both Union and Confederate monuments within their historical context. Removing Confederate monuments from the National Parks System will be a costly process that will take years. Years of litigation will follow the attempt to remove such monuments because most were erected by Confederate memorial societies. The descendant organizations of the memorial societies, such as the UDC, will use every legal means to prevent their removal. The answer is not removal, but placing Confederate monuments within their historial context.

Jeffrey C. Lowe