Talk:Confederate monuments and memorials/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Spirit of the Confederacy + Dick Dowling (sculpture)

Resolved

Should Spirit of the Confederacy be added to the list? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, Dick Dowling (sculpture) has been mentioned in the ongoing discussions re: Confederate monuments. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:47, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

City renamed his street Emancipation Street in Jan 2017. Evidently noticing he was a Confederate. There are several items here to be added to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_W._Dowling#Memorials_and_Monuments Legacypac (talk) 03:54, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Both articles are now linked here, so I am marking this section as resolved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:28, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Dick Dowling (sculpture)

Unresolved

Related to the above discussion, should Dick Dowling (sculpture) be added to Category:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 23:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Confederate Armory Site

Should this be added to the list please? It's not really a monument, but there is the 'Confederate' word.Zigzig20s (talk) 07:46, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I would say no. The name is merely descriptive of the site and is not meant as a memorial. Much like White House of the Confederacy, which shouldn't be included either. Mojoworker (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Disputed Symbols

Fort Bragg (CA)

There needs to be some consensus on how to go about dealing with disputed confederacy symbols. Especially when some have sources which show that they were not in honour or are memorializing confederacy at all. I will bring up one example, but am sure over such a controversial topic as this, there will be others. Fort Bragg, CA is a great example for several reasons. All of this is already well documented on its own Fort Bragg, California page. This original army garrison was named in honor for a US Army individual prior to Civil War and CSA. It clearly was not named nor honoring the confederacy in any way. However, this person it was named for later did leave the US Army and became part of the confederacy. Even though this location was not named specifically in honor of confederacy, nor anthing to do with it, unlike the current military base Fort Bragg, NC which was named in honor for Bragg long after the Civil War and especially named during one of the 2 time periods specifically named after other Confederates. I still do see some value of still having it mentioned somehow though for at least 2 reasons:

• Especially as residents of this city itself questioned about keeping the name due to the association of this persons later actions, which even has resources provided on this page. While this particular case definitely shows it is not a memorial, it still obviously can raise and bring out questionable connotations of one.
• Without any specific consensus on how to go about dealing with such disputed cases, and without any mention of it, others will potentially later simply add it thinking it was overlooked. Resulting in a constant see-saw battle.

I originally simply deleted it from this list and later regreted it and was going to put it back but with some sort of note. In the meantime, someone else simply reverted my edit (which was fine). I am removing it from the list, since this location was clearly not labeled in honour of the confederacy, but leaving a note about it at bottom of municipalities list until there is some consensus on how to go about dealing with such issues in a more effective manner. ~Kevin Fisher 49.183.58.78 (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Some editors earlier discussed the situation. While the Fort was named prior to the civil war, the town was named well after the civil war with full knowledge of the fact it's (indirect) namesake was a CSA General. The fact members of the State legislature found the town name objectionable enough to request a name change adds to the relevence for this list. This list does not make value judgements over the appropriateness of memorials and names, it just tries to reflect reality. Listing should stay. Legacypac (talk) 15:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

The listing should stay for the reasons stated above by Legacypac. Fluous (talk) 15:38, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

First, neither of those remarks addresses the whole point I brought this up. How to deal with any such future issues? Is there going to simply be a fight back and forth, or should we attempt to try to come up with some sort of consensus to hopefully avoid this. Second as to example specifically, I do agree with the importance of it being mentioned somehow. WHile I agree this list should not make judgements, it still should reflect actual confederacy symbols, and ones that can be proven to have been honouring confederacy in some form and not include ones that have proof it was named prior. But just because the town was not officially established until after and had continued to use the same name being used for this location the entire time, does not make it a symbol to confederacy. While the actual fort was abandoned, people continued to inhabit and be around this area (ranches and lumber mills) and appears to have simply kept referring to this location as it was already known. There are no sources provided to even suggest anything different, or to suggest this location was specifically kept the name knowing on purpose it would be memorializing confederacy or even if they were even aware at the time. But meh, if no one cares about accuracy, I will gladly keep my info and mosy on elsewhere. (not intended as threat, just do not want to put time in effort where it is not wanted). I still highly recommend the issue at hand is addressed, over highly controversial topic like this especially. ~Kevin Fisher 49.183.58.78 (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

A note/suggestion to Kevin reflecting only my personal opinion. . Would you please register as a user. I can discuss stuff with people, but not so much with numbers. Yes, I see that you've included your name but it is not the same. It's free, relatively painless, brings no extra baggage. Do consider it. Carptrash (talk) 18:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

we care, which is why we discuss edge cases like this one and why the Fort Bragg listing is so detailed. Someone found it on a list of places named for a CSA officer. Then someone else pointed out the fort was named pre-civil war. Then I sorted out the various dates amd someone added that there was a letter requesting the rename and the mayor said no. We should present the data and let readers form their own opinions based on all relevent facts. Legacypac (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Fort Davis (TX)

another somewhat similar case is Fort Davis, Texas/Davis Mountains State Park/Davis Mountains/Jeff Davis County, Texas which we have handled the same way. The original fort was named for Davis when he was a US Army officer before the Civil War and other things were named similarly after the war. Legacypac (talk) 19:47, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

@Carptrash: Noted. Normally only do small grammar edits or occasional neglected page. I am ending up contributing more than thought I would so yes maybe it is time to bother registering.

Well at least sounds like things are being handled consistently, as long as it continues to be. Even though I disagree and feel this is more anything that could be associated as list or viewed as list, but it is not just about what I think. I was just hoping to comprise a list of definite symbols (with burden of proof to show it clearly was done as such if debatable or questioned), but maybe I am taking too much 'innocent til proven as quilty' motto (applied loosely, no reading into it). At any rate, this partly explains consensus about dealing with Disputed Symbols, it already has been addressed. ~Kevin Fisher 49.183.58.78 (talk) 21:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Okay, so one more answer to a number. I have sworn to stop editing this page because I have what I consider to be "doctrinal differences" with what appears to be a majority opinion here. However as I turn up "obvious" (another of the words or phrases that mean "in my opinion") examples, mostly of pictures I've taken, I have been adding them because I actually believe in wikipeda even when I don't agree with it. Carptrash (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Well finally registered new account, and since this will be more of a complete list of everything / everyone associated with CSA, will be softening up some of the more biased opinions. Especially some of the content at top of the page taken from the clearly biased SPLC to counteract it with some opposite opinions. Plus to reflect that some on this list may or may not be in honour for CSA. Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Apple

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

I am so tempted to include under other public monuments in Lexington:

• Apples on grave of Lee's horse: Apples are periodically placed in honour to the horse of confederate Robert E. Lee's burial place.

It fits under definitions of this list being used, both Lee and his horse were confederates who are being honoured, in this case with apples. (yes I am being cheeky but sometimes I just wonder at some of these other inclusions all merely cause there is association, regardless of any other achievements or significance) Kevin "Hawk" Fisher (talk) 19:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

@Kevin "Hawk" Fisher: Hey Kevin, thanks for registering! That actually sounds pretty good. Part of the argument for inclusion, in my mind, is that it shows the incredible scope, breadth, and extent of Confederate memorialization. An entry for Traveler's grave, with additional detail about the apple custom would be great! In fact, I've just added it.Fluous (talk) 23:32, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I'd noticed that memorial but got distracted and did not add it. Very good. Legacypac (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Context

• 1961 to date overview of the debate over Rebels team namein South Burlington Vermont. [1] complete with old news clipings - watch the video too. Legacypac (talk) 03:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

• An interactive map for Mississippi http://m.msnewsnow.com/msnewsnow/db_345526/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=1uuvuEGS *Article by W. Fitzhugh Brundage, the William B. Umstead Professor of History at the Univ North Carolina at Chapal Hill well worth reading, maybe adding in a quote [www.vox.com/platform/amp/the-big-idea/2017/8/18/16165160/confederate-monuments-history-charlottesville-white-supremacy] Legacypac (talk) 23:25, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

What's a "public monument"

The Confederate Memorial of the Wind, in Orange, Texas, is being built by private funds on private land. Is it correct to put it in the category of Public Monuments? deisenbe (talk) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If it's built on private land, then it's a private monument. Like, if you've got a shrine of Robert E. Lee in the backyard of the local Confederate Cult Worshippers Club, then that's gonna be private. The distinction between public and private is important. People can do whatever the heck they want on their own land. But there's a real debate about whether Confederate symbols should be on public land. Hence all the discussion in the news about taking down monuments and renaming memorials. Fluous (talk) 13:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

What should the heading be? Private monuments? deisenbe (talk) 14:30, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

See also

@Legacypac: We should really keep this section as expansive and broad as possible. The criteria for inclusion requires that See Also listings only be tangentially related. In my mind, things like "List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves," which you removed, is, at the very least, tangentially related. Removing memorials for Presidents who owned slaves is often mentioned in the same breath as removing memorials for Confederate leaders. In my mind, many people will find that listing useful. Fluous (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

If you look at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_monuments_and_memorials_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America&diff=798873359&oldid=798873046 you'll find that he has removed several others which in my view should also be in there. deisenbe (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I saw that. He also removed my Reparations for slavery debate in the United States listing. I admit that that article is a bit more of a stretch. But it's related, in my view. Instead of memorializing a bunch of racists and their racist dystopian state, we should be talking about how to rectify 500 years of slavery. At any rate, my view is that people should be given latitude on the See Also section. Fluous (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I just found the list really long. Why Lincoln? He is universally regarded as a great leader, is this because he was President during the Civil War? Anyway I'm not hung up about it. Legacypac (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: See why I bailed out? Carptrash (talk) 17:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: I'm not arguing for Lincoln's inclusion (yet). I'm saying that List of Presidents of the United States who owned slaves is pretty darn useful information, in my view. The controversy surrounding monuments and memorials for Presidents who owned slaves is not only tangentially related; it's directly implicated here. It's in the conversation. It's something people will find useful. Do you really feel strongly against inclusion of that specific article? Fluous (talk) 01:19, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes the pro-Confederate's incl Trump often bring up the fact some Pres owned slaves and suggest removing monuments to Lee will lead to removing monuments to Pres Jackson etc. I disagree with that logic, but i'm noylt opposed to including the link. Just axed the least directly related pages. Legacypac (talk) 01:30, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Cross reference lists

See List_of_U.S._counties_named_after_prominent_Confederate_historical_figures Legacypac (talk) 22:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Davis Peak

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

1859 and a survey party was already trying to rename Jeff Davis Peak in Nevada to Union Peak. It is now Wheeler Peak, but a subsidiary peak still carries Jeff Davis's name. [2] Legacypac (talk) 22:21, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: What happened to the Nevada listing for Jeff Davis Peak? Did someone remove it? EDIT: Ah ok, it's in a national park. Sounds good! Fluous (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I also found a Jeff Davis Peak and another CSA general peak in California. Legacypac (talk) 05:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How to deal with monuments etc. removed

Under Texas these are in a separate section at the end. I think this is a bad idea, but if it's done for Texas it should be done for all. deisenbe (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: Former monuments and memorials have their own section in each state. It is done the same way for all. Did we miss some? Fluous (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Ohio Kansas Montana Maine Alabama (one school). I stopped at the m's. deisenbe (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There is definately inconsistencies between States:

• A) in "former" section vs inline notes (I'm undecided on this)
• B) how we deal with City: Monument Name vs City Monument Name (I prefer the : system as it makes multiple items in a city easier to list)
• C) dates in brackets (1912) vs "established in 1912" (I prefer the bracketed dates for less words and easy scanning to see when most were established, since that is an important point)

Legacypac (talk) 20:30, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

National Park Service

I started checking every NPS site (400+) for CS connections. Some of the battlefields have scores of monuments to this and that Confederal General and regiment. Sites like Arlington definitely should be listed. There are some Union sites though that never saw Confederate action. Please leave them in for now, as I think a List of National Park Service sites related to the American Civil War would be a good spin out, and then just link to that page from here.

If we're going to include battlefield monuments, they definitely be set out in a separate subheading under Monuments called something like "Battlefield monuments" Fluous (talk) 15:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it depends if there is a CSA marker or not at the site. If there isn't, please leave it out.Zigzig20s (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

There are already battlefield monuments here – Gettysburg has been in there since before the 25th edit to this article, and I added some for Vicksburg. If we're making a new list, why just NPS sites? What about monuments in other battlefields such as Port Hudson State Historic Site or the privately owned Mill Springs Battlefield and the General Felix K. Zollicoffer Monument there marking the place of his death? I like the suggestion from Fluous of a "Battlefield monuments" section, but a should this be an overall section or a subsection of each state? Seems a better alternative than to remove historical markers here with an explanation of what this list covers, and a {{Main}} to List of historical monuments and memorials of the Confederate States of America, then abandon this list to the Lost Cause monuments (however determining what goes where would likely be an acrimonious WP:SYNTH-storm. Mojoworker (talk) 18:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)