Posted on 08/14/2008 7:42:06 AM PDT by Rebeleye
...The decision comes with no guarantee of where or whether the statue might be displayed or how it is interpreted.
(Excerpt) Read more at inrich.com ...
But this one might be treated differently from other tributes.
The American Civil War Center announced yesterday that it would accept a life-size bronze statue of Davis from the Sons of Confederate Veterans. A final decision rests with NewMarket Corp. as owner of the museum site at Tredegar Iron Works.
Under the museum's collections policy, the decision comes with no guarantee of where or whether the statue might be displayed or how it is interpreted.
Officials said the statue would help fulfill the museum's mission to tell the story of the Civil War and its causes, conduct and legacies from the Union, Confederate and African-American perspectives.
A spokesman for NewMarket, parent company of Ethyl Corp., said the firm had not yet been briefed on the statue proposal and could not say when a decision would be made.
Christy S. Coleman, museum president, said the statue could be used to show how the Civil War is remembered. The museum includes a gallery that focuses on that, examining such popular cultural influences as "Gone With the Wind" and "The Dukes of Hazzard" television show.
"We are committed to telling the story. Are we committed to propaganda? No," Coleman said.
For now, the decision is good enough for the Sons of Confederate Veterans. Group members were angered in 2003, when a statue of Abraham Lincoln was placed on the Tredegar property by the National Park Service.
Brag Bowling, a Richmond resident and board member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, said he's delighted by the museum's decision. He hopes to meet with museum officials soon to discuss how the piece may be used.
"The statue is not meant to be put in a basement, that's for sure," he said. "It's a tool that will help their program. . . . I think it's a great monument for Richmond."
The statue is being prepared by Lexington sculptor Gary Casteel, and it depicts the Confederate leader standing with his son Joe and with Jim Limber, a mixed-race orphan who was taken in by the Davis family. The sculpture is expected to be completed by late fall at a cost of more than $100,000.
Coleman said the statue is interesting because it depicts Davis as a paternal figure and was offered by the Sons of Confederate Veterans. "This really became more of an opportunity [to show] how people choose to remember."
Museum officials expect some backlash. "To a certain degree, that would have come regardless of the decision," Coleman said.
King Salim Khalfani, executive director of the Virginia State Conference of the NAACP, called the museum's decision disappointing but understandable, given the criticism that likely would have come if the statue had been declined. He said Davis and the Confederacy are offensive to African-Americans because they represent a cause that was based on enslaving blacks.
"Now, it depends on how it's being deployed," Khalfani said, suggesting the statue be placed in permanent storage. "If it has a place of significance in the museum . . . we'll have to see."
Museum officials would not disclose the board's vote but Coleman said it wasn't unanimous.
"The board has made its decision," she said. "Bottom line, we can make this work to look at some pretty good legacy issues."
"We are committed to telling the story. Are we committed to propaganda? No political correctness? Yes," Coleman said.
There. Fixed it.
Any mention of how Yankees troops kidnapped the boy after the war and the Davis' never saw him again?
Goodness, to think that anyone would protest a statute of Jefferson Davis in a Civil War center is baffling even in this politically correct world. It is high time the PC Marxists be ridiculed and dismissed.
You'll have to see?
I don't even know why we try to deal with these people.
I say put up the statue of Davis - it's of historic interest in itself as the latest attempt to revise Davis' legacy.
Of course, it's a bit silly to say that Limber was Davis' "adopted son" - the closest modern analogy would be to say that Limber was a foster child whom the Davises allowed to stay with them in the company of their household slaves.
I guess "King Salim" wants to just pretend the Confederate side never existed. Just another radical waiting to be offended by something. It's a Civil War museum for gosh sakes, I don't care what "King Salim" thinks about it.
BTW, I was actually born in Jefferson Davis Hospital so I should have more of a say in this, lol.
Dixie ping!
...I’d be surprised if this statue sees the light of day...political power in Richmond is in the hands of African-American Democrats...a group not known for welcoming CSA memories.
Well given that they manumitted him and raised him with their own children I wouldn't call it silly. And what modern households have slaves?
Kidnapped?
He was fostered by the Saxton family as he had been by the Davis family.
Where should he have gone to stay? Davis' prison cell?
The Saxtons put Limber through school (which would have been illegal in Confederate Virginia).
As a free man after the war, he could have gone to visit the Davises whom he had briefly stayed with any time he liked.
He never chose to go.
Heaven forfend that Jefferson Davis or Varina Davis ever stooped so low as to go and pay him a visit.
Dixie ping
Putiing Lincoln's statue in Richmond is just another poke in the eye or agitation or bowing to political correctness or Yankee/NAACP arrogance.
Which I know when it comes to race or the South suits you but most us reject it.
Soon enough though, you can have Richmond. Like most formerly grand AND SAFE southern cities, it's got it's share of problems and folks like this psuedo African compadre of your's whining about Davis's PC statue are now running the henhouse ands the results are just dandy wouldn't ya say?
Why not just put up Mugabe, some Mau Maus, Marcus Garvey and Malcolm X too while we're at it.
marking for a later read.
They never owned him in the first place and therefore did not have standing to manumit him. Basically, they "kidnapped" him from whomever did own him, and that owner never came looking for him.
He only lived with them for a year - saying they "raides him" is a bit much. They took him in, let him live in their house and - as was common - let him play with their son who was the same age.
I wouldn't call it silly
I would. He wasn't adopted. Tehre was no legal way to adopt him in Confederate Virginia anyway, and he was never legally named Davis, nor was he an heir to the Davis estate. Limber was not adopted by the Davises. He was briefly fostered by them.
And what modern households have slaves?
None in the US, despite the Davises' strenuous efforts to the contrary.
Yes kidnapped. From the article in Black History Month...
As the Union soldiers came to forcibly take young Jim, he put up a great struggle and tried to hold onto his family as they to him. Jim and his family cried uncontrollably as the child was taken. His family would never again see him or know what happened to him. The Davis' tried in later years to locate Jim but were unsuccessful. They prayed that he grew to manhood and did well in life.
Varina didn't go to prison and none of the Davis' other children were taken.
If questioned on the subject, of course, you would claim to have no racial animus whatever.
Abraham Lincoln was a famous American patriot and Jefferson Davis is a famous American patriot who turned traitor.
They are both essential personages in the history of this republic whose legacies should be of continuing interest to all Americans.
What Mugabe, the Mau Maus or Marcus Garvey have to do with essential US history is a mystery you apparently know the answer to.
I'm unfamiliar with this publication. Do you have a link to source it?
As the Union soldiers came to forcibly take young Jim, he put up a great struggle and tried to hold onto his family as they to him. Jim and his family cried uncontrollably as the child was taken. His family would never again see him or know what happened to him. The Davis' tried in later years to locate Jim but were unsuccessful. They prayed that he grew to manhood and did well in life.
Hmmm. Googling this text doesn't lead me to any publication called Black History Month - but to the website of "The Southern Party Of Georgia", which is apparently a disloyal separatist organization.
Again, Limber was not one of their children and legally could not be under the regime that Davis himself operated.
You're splitting hairs. They executed a legal custody arrangement through the court. The kid ate at their table and had his own room in the Confederate White House. You don't want to call that "adoption"? OK call it what you like. But I think the point being made by the sculpture stands.
It’s a shameful disservice to such a large population of our country to have revisionist politicians and academics defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazificaation of the Confederacy. Their way of thinking goes something like this: Slavery was evil. The soldiers of the Confederacy fought for a system that wished to preserve it. Therefore they were evil as well, and any attempt to honor their service is a veiled effort to glorify the cause of slavery.
It’s a blatant use of the “race card” in a seemingly endless game . And it dishonors hundreds of thousands of men who can defend themselves only through the voices of their descendants.
Every serious historical publication about the Civil War - and hundreds are published every year in an unending stream - attest again and again to the bravery, decency and idealism of the average Confederate soldier in the ranks.
Almost every movie about the Civil War - from Gone With The Wind to Cold Mountain portrays at least one Confederate soldier as a noble figure.
The most-watched television programs about the Civil War - both fictional and documentary - follow the same pattern.
The average Confederate soldier in the ranks believed that slavery was just and was a cultural institution worth fighting for - but his main reason for fighting on had more to do with a sense of personal honor and of home than a conscious defense of slavery.
I don't care a bit about Jeff Davis or his children, but if they go to slandering "The Duke Boys", we just may have to throw down.
'Preciate it!
Now, you may abhor some of the reasons for the South seeking independence, but that is another issue. It should be obvious that the better forms of government are those that impose the fewest restrictions on its populace. Succession from the union is the ultimate defense of state citizens against federal tyranny.
And what were the motives of the average Yankee soldier in the ranks? After all, they were the aggressors.
..more to do with a sense of personal honor and of home than a conscious defense of slavery.
The war was a defense of independence and self government. That was what was in the minds of the average confederate soldier.
They should erect the statue of Jefferson Davis not only with his adopted son but also with statues of the Slaves that he owned.
Certainly not here, at least so far on this thread, but on the national scene it is cloaked in the argument over the public display of the Confederacy battle flag. If one puts a Confederate battle flag sticker on his pickup window, the guy behind him automatically without question thinks he's racist. That goes without saying.
....”Soon enough though, you can have Richmond. Like most formerly grand AND SAFE southern cities,....”
....Atlanta,NewOrleans,Richmond,Birmingham,Memphis,Jackson,Charleston and Little Rock....all in the top 25 most dangerous cities in America.
At some point time, in your town, there will be statues of Jefferson Davis’ distant cousin, Barack H. Obama.
A terrible analogy.
In the case of Washington et al., we have men who were betrayed by a government that guaranteed them the rights of Englishmen and then refused them those rights.
In the case of Davis et al., we have men if full possession of their rights betraying the very government that was upholding and guaranteeing them.
Washington and Davis were diametric opposites.
The South wanted independence from the Union, not to conquer or control it.
Not exactly true. The South wanted to conquer and control federal territory belonging to the Union.
And, at that point in time, the nation was only approximately 80 years old and the colonies had been in existence much longer.
It wouldn't really matter if the colonies had been colonies for 1000 years and the Constitution had only been operative for one.
The Constitution was the supreme law of the land solemnly adopted by the people of the United States.
It would be natural and logical for the states to have more allegiance to their state than to the federal government. I cannot see how the Confederates could be labeled traitors, except by those with “politically correct” views.
The traitors were regarded as traitors by millions of Americans, including many Southerners, who had never heard of yet-to-be-invented political correctness. Patriots understood that the US was their country, and that there never would have been an Alabama or a Missouri without the US.
Now, you may abhor some of the reasons for the South seeking independence, but that is another issue.
Perhaps.
It should be obvious that the better forms of government are those that impose the fewest restrictions on its populace.
So a form of government that is based on keeping 40% of its population in chattel slavery would then be a worse form of government.
Succession from the union is the ultimate defense of state citizens against federal tyranny.
While that is decidedly not how our Constitution works, it is a moot point - since the seceding states were not faced with even the slightest hint of anything that could be described as "federal tyranny."
” I suppose such leftists will only be satisfied when it becomes obvious to all that “the white man is the devil.”
..... the future of the South is an African American majority that will legally sieze power via the ballot box...they will then tell racial history the way they want.
why stop there TD?
let’s have a huge statue that could be say a few hundred acres and include:
Davis and his slaves.
Lee and his.
Lincoln’s family and their’s.
Stonewall’s none.
Union General Butler’s slaves he was a mite slow in letting them know they were emancipated.
Grant’s wife’s little black darlings.
A plethora of African rulers and the millions of their brothers they sold to American slave traders from such high and mighty places like Baltimore, Wilmington, Boston, Philadelphia, New York and Providence. We could have little replica barracoons with negro slave masters trading and torturing their vanquished negro brothers and sisters....for profit and pleasure
and while we’re at it....don’t forget to include a statue to Yankee black codes laws the North immediately put on the books to deal with all those slaves they were proud to have just freed from the nasty Southerner..
or the NY draft riots and subsequent lynchings
and let’s go modern....let’s build a Yankee ghetto like Cabrini Green right next to a Sugar Ditch Mississippi shotgun shack so folks can compare which they’d rather be poor in?
I am starting to envison a big Disney type park to address racial injustice in America.
Wideawakes can be cultural director for one side and my the League of the South for the Southerners..
this is gonna be fun.
i love candor don’t you?
Initially that they were fighting to preserve the nation their ancestors bequeathed them from the rebels and traitors that were trying to destroy it.
After all, they were the aggressors.
You've really never heard of Fort Sumter? Really?
Enough with this "the North were the aggressors" myth.
The war was a defense of independence and self government. That was what was in the minds of the average confederate soldier.
Correct that to "white independence and white self-government" and the claim becomes more accurate than it was. Their letters reveal a rich variety of motives. Some fought for money, Some fought for slavery. Some fought out of pride. Some fought for political principles. But the sentiments that rise up again and again as motivations are: "all my friends here are fighting and I will fight with them" and "I'll be damned if I run from a Yankee."
In other words, they fought for the same reasons that most soldiers fight - whatever the reason most soldiers are inspired to take up arms in the first place, the reasons why they still keep fighting months and years later comes down to camaraderie and unit pride.
Deal with it.
That's ultimately because it is impossible - and dishonest - to separate the Confederate fighting man entirely from the laws and policies of the Confederate government.
What Patterson Hood calls: "The duality of the Southern thing."
To assume that someone is a racist for displaying the Confederate battle flag is to jump to a conclusion, just as claiming that the Confederate battle flag has nothing to do with racism at all is to jump to another conclusion.
It is a tragic symbol for a number of reasons.
It would be nice if you didn’t make up your own headline. Makes it hard to eliminate duplicate posts.
No, I imagine they're trying to stick with the truth.
Wouldn't 'foster slave' be more accurate?
I have racial animus towards those who direct the same to me.
Otherwise, I prefer to treat folks who deserve it respectfully as I was raised.
You Yankees have no business lecturing we Southerners on blacks
Your track record is actually worse and more dishonest. Look around you.
If ya'll are so damned high and mighty, benevolent and colorblind then why do blacks outside Dixie still live predominately segregated and poor?
Worse yet, most of ya'll have little contact with them since they are a smaller part of your community mostly isolated aside from some "Cosbys" here and there or there are so few it doesn't matter.
Down here parts of the South are like Africa. Largely black, 80-90% like Holmes County Mississippi just as an example.
If you're white in that environment then you have to deal with race..not just talk platitudes about it.
Self aggrandizing finger pointing which you are so wont to indulge in is just cheap preening. Come down here and live in my environment where I was raised and let's see how long it takes your rose lens to dim.
These statue fights are about the imposition of political will ,nothing else....everyone here can see the peculiar friends you have on your side. That sort of divergence from traditional conservatism is sad. Politically correct psuedoconservatism is not conservatism even if you do like Bush and the war.
' btw....your namesake site is back up I hear
Every historical figure that owned slaves, and has a statue of him erected in his honor should also have a mention on the statue that he in fact owned slaves.
We cannot bury the dark points in our history and we have to show all our children how we have progressed over time.
The best evidence is that Jim Limber was voluntarily given to the care of a Union General who was a family friend of the Davises. This was done because they felt that they no longer could care for him. He seems to have lived a good life thereafter, although little is known of his whereabouts or ultimate occupation.
See: http://oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com/2008/06/jim-limber-and-davis-family.html
If you do not see the federal tyranny then and especially now, you must have little respect for our federalism and small government and the right of individuals to select their own form of government. And, I would venture to guess that you are politically left of most on this board. Just curious, did you support McCain in the primaries?
How could Davis manumit him if he didn't also own him? Wouldn't the law frown on someone freeing someone elses property?
While Stonewall Jackson's slaves were technically owned by his wife, it's a bit silly to characterize Jackson as a non-slaveholder.
For Blacks in the confederacy wasn't that called a 'Bill of Sale'?
Jackson was a slave owner much his adult life. At one point he owned as many as nine. Lincoln and his family owned none, neither did Ben Butler.
Great Britain did not have a federal government.
Davis did not live under an oppressive government, though he himself did rule one.
The South had been oppressed in a variety of ways, including the massive tariffs that were imposed on foreign goods.
Just tariffs? I thought there was a variety.
Were Southern voters allowed to vote on tariffs? Yes. Therefore, they could not rationally claim to be oppressed.
This taxation, while not without representation, was effectively the same when the Southern citizens were unable to resist.
Really? So tariffs were halved in the 1840s by magic?
At that time, there was considerable support in the north for a stronger federal government.
You'll need to document such a sweeping claim, especially since it's false.
It is no coincidence that size and scope of federal government increased dramatically after the Civil War, destroying the vision of America's founding fathers.
After the Civil War the federal government pretty much returned to its prewar scope until the New Deal.
And the New Deal was only possibly because the states of the old Confederacy voted overwhelmingly in a landslide for Roosevelt. He won the old Confederacy by margins of literally 70%. The only states where he lost were in states that had been staunch parts of the Union.
If you do not see the federal tyranny then and especially now, you must have little respect for our federalism and small government and the right of individuals to select their own form of government.
There was no tyranny then and there is none now, because every law we have on the books was passed by a representative body chosen by an electorate guaranteed its right to vote.
Are there plenty of bad laws that should never have been passed? Absolutely. Were they, however, passed? Sadly, yes.
And, I would venture to guess that you are politically left of most on this board.
That's a pretty bad guess.
Just curious, did you support McCain in the primaries?
No. I wasn't a huge fan of any of the primary contenders. I found myself most often in agreement with Duncan Hunter, and I thought Thompson represented the most palatable compromise candidate.
What progress?
My hometown is now a wasteland inside the city proper and with corruption and violence rivaling Zimbabwe.
We were all for granting constitutional freedoms for blacks but I will be honest enough to admit here in front of all of you that now that that time has passed and blacks control almost every city in the Deep South and all the blackbelt counties that it has been a bitter fruit and the practical results have been horrible for the most part.
a poor choice....keep blacks down and segregated and limited political power and keep your cities safe, illegitimacy low, and corruption lower, and simple governmental services adequate or
total freedom like now and even victimhood class and record financial redress and have near total collapse of a society that however flawed once actually functioned
the overtly racist whites in the South 60 years ago feared precisely what has come to pass....right nor wrong
are blacks truly better off aside from some professionals, Oprah and some hip hop stars or ball players?
there is no doubt whatsoever that the cities they run are dying and rotten
I'm not sure it's fixable anymore
but be assured...we were all for it.....my family took serious risks to help blacks in Mississippi in the 50s and 60s and I ran in a circle that included folks like Pat Derian, Hodding Carter, Charlie Evers etc.
Now....very few whites down here are true believers anymore...especially those older like me.
and folks like Evers and blacks who actually lived the Civil Rights era never cared one tinker's damn about Confederate statues etc....it simply was not on the menu. Voting and property rights, freedom from the Klan and night riders....real clear and present shit was the topic. and they were grateful for any help and loved their Southernness same as us....now, it's Gone Again With the Wind...same as the original..lol...replaced by a black Clockwork Orange reality
I am not optimistic.
Whites outside the south are broken mostly over guilt and fear about honesty about race
You say for us to deal with it. We do. Every state down south where blacks are sizable and vote as they do at 90% plus have the most conservative white electorate in the nation besides Utah. It's not by accident...it's about survival.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.