Image 01 Image 03

In 9-0 Ruling, Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Confederate Monument Law

In 9-0 Ruling, Alabama Supreme Court Upholds Confederate Monument Law

Alabama AG: “The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for the Alabama law which seeks to protect historical monuments.”

Confederate monuments came under attack from the radical left several years ago.  In 2017, the SPLC joined the fray and published a list of places and monuments with “Confederate names” that they claimed had the potential to act as “catalysts” to “unleash more turmoil and bloodshed.”

The city of Birmingham, Alabama, decided that it would be a great idea to hide a Confederate monument behind plywood screens after the state sued the city more than two years ago.

This week, the Alabama Supreme Court unanimously ruled that this action violated state law.

NPR reports:

Alabama’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously Wednesday that the city of Birmingham broke state law when it ordered plywood screens be placed around the base of a Confederate monument in 2017.

The 9-0 ruling by Alabama’s high court reversed a ruling by a lower court that was favorable to the city.

The Jefferson Circuit Court ruled in January that Alabama’s law protecting historical monuments was ambiguous and that it also violated the city of Birmingham’s right to free speech.

The Alabama Supreme Court said the lower court erred when it ruled that the municipality had constitutional rights to free speech. In its ruling, the high court ordered the circuit judge to “enter an order declaring that the [city’s] actions constitute a violation” and also imposed a fine of $25,000 against Birmingham.

Alabama’s Attorney General Steve Marshall (R) explained in a 2017 press conference why the state filed a suit against the city of Birmingham.


In response to the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision, Marshall said that the ruling was a victory.

NPR continues:

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall said in a statement that the Supreme Court ruling was “the correct conclusion,” adding: “The Supreme Court’s ruling is a victory for the Alabama law which seeks to protect historical monuments. The City of Birmingham acted unlawfully when it erected barriers to obstruct the view of the 114-year-old Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument in Linn Park.”

The suit and subsequent ruling is rooted in the 2017 law passed by Alabama’s state legislature and signed into law by Governor Kay Ivey (R). reports:

The Legislature passed the Alabama Memorial Preservation Act in 2017 in response to removals and calls for removal of Confederate monuments on public property.

The law prohibits local governments from moving, altering, renaming, or otherwise disturbing monuments that have been in place 40 years or more.

The stone base of the Confederate Soldiers and Sailors Monument has been in Linn Park since 1894. The marble shaft was added in 1905, when the Pelham Chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy dedicated the monument.

Former Birmingham Mayor William Bell ordered the covering of the monument. Bell took that step after a city councilman asked that the monument be removed.

Attorney General Steve Marshall filed a lawsuit asking the court to declare the covering of the monument violated the Memorial Preservation Act.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


In 2017, the SPLC joined the fray and published a list of places and monuments with “Confederate names”

2017. I wonder if SPLC was getting support from Chick-fil-A back then.

I’m glad to see a court rule against Stalinist-Maoists. Doesn’t seem to happen very often.

That said – I don’t like how Southerners fete traitors and traitorous behavior with statues and imbue them with myths. I’m not talking about conscripted rebel infantryman who suffered through bloody combat. I’m talking about well educated southern men who ought to have known better – especially the seditius West Pointers. They deserve nothing but our contempt. I care not a bit about their fabled and ballyhooed military abilities – or for the myth created after the fact – that they only rebelled to preserve states rights – a myth that looks to clothe and veil traitorous behavoir as honorable service. Horseshit served as apple dumplings.

I see the same sort of Myth building around men like Rommel. What if Rommel routed and wholly defeated Montgomery? Or Guderain defeated … Zhukov (spelling) on the Russian front?

    Tiki in reply to Tiki. | November 29, 2019 at 5:07 pm

    What if we end up in civil war tomorrow? And after many bloody battles we pro-constitutialists defeat the Stalinist-Maoist resistance?

    Do we allow them space to erect monuments glorifying resistance leaders like Pelosi in San Franscico? AoC in Manhattan? Kennedy in Boston?

      tom_swift in reply to Tiki. | November 29, 2019 at 8:45 pm

      If we still have a 1st Amendment, then there’s no mechanism to prevent them from putting up statues to the seven princes of Hell if they want.

    drednicolson in reply to Tiki. | November 29, 2019 at 5:48 pm

    We must not use the Ring to fight Sauron.

    Reducing history to a finger-wagging morality tale is what the leftists do. The human motivations that set events of the past in motion were just as nuanced as our own. We can’t learn from history if we won’t see ourselves in our forebears.

      Tom Servo in reply to drednicolson. | November 29, 2019 at 6:04 pm

      What’s the difference between George Washington and Robert E. Lee – other than the fact that Washington won and Lee lost?

      If Washington had the right to lead an Army against the Colonial Government, why was it evil for Lee to lead an army against the Federal Government?

        tom_swift in reply to Tom Servo. | November 29, 2019 at 8:50 pm

        Evaluations of “good” or “evil” are irrelevant to the issue at hand. These events happened; they’re historical fact. The conflict right now is with people who are intent on erasing historical memory . . . just one facet of an ambitious program of thought control.

        Even if, say, research reveals that George Washington ate babies, nobody but a Stalinist or Maoist would consider that reason to pretend that he never existed.

          Milhouse in reply to tom_swift. | November 30, 2019 at 8:38 pm

          Nobody pretends the confederates never existed. Taking down statues and taking their names off places is not pretending they never existed, it’s a decision to stop honoring them. If we were somehow to find out today that Washington was really a monster, we should take down his statues, take him off the money, and rename everything named in his honor.

          gospace in reply to tom_swift. | December 1, 2019 at 1:41 am

          Milhouse, as a bit of interesting history, one of the chapels at the United States Military Academy at West Point has plaques around it for each of the generals who served during the was and was essential to our eventual victory.

          One of them says: “Major General” and has no name. If you know Revolutionary War history, you know whose plaque it is.

    gospace in reply to Tiki. | November 29, 2019 at 6:05 pm

    Well, I somewhat sympathize with your view. But, pre 1861 when the brouhaha started was not post 1865 when it ended. Before the war, the average citizen considered themselves citizens of their state, not The United States. The war, for all it’s horror, melded us into one country, not a bunch of smaller squabbling nation-states. The people who wrote the Constitution weren’t dumb people. The Articles of Confederation, which is the actual founding document, referred top the United States as a perpetual Union, and included ways for a state to enter the union, but not to leave- else it’s not a perpetual union. The Constitution includes ways for a state to enter the union, be subdivided, switch territory with another state, of to merge with another state. But no way for a state to exit the union.

    The founding fathers also foresaw in their writings that the United States could never survive being half slave and half free. I don’t think they foresaw a Civil War would be needed to end slavery, but the leaders of the South made it necessary.
    The Confederate line up at Gettysburg, late in the war. Note- not a single unit is listed as Confederate States Army.
    The Union line up. Note– lots of state units, but many, particularly artillery, United States units.

    The people of the South were, for the most part, fighting for their state. They didn’t view it as treason. And in a courtroom, at the time, it would actually have been difficult to make a case for it. And a lot of the Southern military heroes were, indeed, heroes. For the wrong cause, but that’s because winners write history.

    Very few in the South were ever charged with treason. Largely due to General U.S. Grant. And eventually it was realized that prosecuting the rebellion leaders would likely mean an end to the already uneasy peace.

    txvet2 in reply to Tiki. | November 29, 2019 at 6:23 pm

    Southerners found ample support in the 9th, 10th, and 11th Amendments to withdraw from what was originally a voluntary union. Meanwhile, don’t forget that the Emancipation Proclamation only “freed” slaves in the South, and it was done to sow dissension and economic ruination, not out of altruism. Lincoln cheerfully exempted slaveholders in the Northern states. Sort of puts a little tarnish on reputation.

      gospace in reply to txvet2. | November 29, 2019 at 6:36 pm

      The Emancipation Proclamation was superb propaganda. No doubt about it. And worded the way it was to keep some of the border states (like KY) in the Union. Also, as of the time of the proclamation – slaves were legally property. Amendment 5: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The South was in rebellion, their property could be seized. The border states weren’t.

      That the CSA states found support for their withdrawal from the Union in the 9th, 10th, and 11th Amendments doesn’t negate a simple fact – there is no provision in the Constitution or it’s amendments for a state to leave the Union once entered. It’s a one way street, and appears to have been purposely designed as such.

        CorkyAgain in reply to gospace. | November 29, 2019 at 7:57 pm

        Sorta like the European Union, huh?

          gospace in reply to CorkyAgain. | November 29, 2019 at 8:02 pm

          Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) states that “Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements”.

          Or short answer: No.

        txvet2 in reply to gospace. | November 30, 2019 at 12:24 am

        But then, of course, there was no also no provision that prevented them from doing so. That was determined by force of arms.

    warwal in reply to Tiki. | November 29, 2019 at 6:28 pm

    When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them….

    That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

    The British thought we were traitors too for wanting to set our own course. 2nd war for independence lost, created empire, Hotel California: you can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave.

      gospace in reply to warwal. | November 29, 2019 at 6:44 pm

      Ah, the pesky old Declaration of Independence. CSA doesn’t have one. there’s list of facts and charges following the words To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

      The Southern states withdrew from the Union before Lincoln took office. IOW, nothing had had yet changed. There was no oppression, no legislatures were suspended, no coastal towns ravaged. In fact, the opening shots were fired by the South on Fort Sumter to precipitate the war. Which they honestly thought would be short and ed with an easy victory for them.

      They were wrong.

        gospace in reply to gospace. | November 29, 2019 at 6:57 pm

        As for what the average Southerner thought,
        The Brooklyn Daily Eagle
        Brooklyn, New York
        02 Mar 1863, Mon • Page 7

        My 4th Cousin 3X removed. Brilliant propaganda move by the North to release this interview, which was published in many, many Northern newspapers. War over in 30 days? Probably steeled the resolve of a lot to keep the war going until the North was victorious.

        Edward in reply to gospace. | November 29, 2019 at 11:16 pm

        Just another damnedyankee stirring the pot. Your opinion is as good, or worthless, as anyone else’s. You know the saying.

    CommoChief in reply to Tiki. | November 29, 2019 at 9:59 pm

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion but opinions vary. See Abraham Lincoln second inaugural address.
    ‘With malice towards none with charity towards all…. let us
    …bind up the nation’s wounds and care for him who shall have borne the battle… to do all which shall achieve a just and lasting peace among ourselves…’

    I am profoundly grateful that I never faced the horrible choice faced by Lee; to fight against the U.S. or to fight against the people of his State; his family, friends and neighbors.

    The American Civil War ended in 1865. The simple existence of the various monuments to the Confederate dead are not grounds to reignite a tragic conflict.

      Like any good Leftist, you’re confusing the symptom of removing the monuments with the disease of totalitarian thought control.

        CommoChief in reply to SDN. | November 30, 2019 at 1:13 pm


        Is this leftist trope directed at me? If so you couldn’t be more wrong.

        The fact of the matter is whatever right of a State to secession may have possessed was decided over the course of a civil war. The question is moot.

        The former Confederate States were defeated and occupied by Federal troops in one form or another for nearly a dozen years. The reconstruction period created a great deal of animosity that still exists to a much lesser degree today. Removal of the monuments is ‘spiking the football’. Very stupid and unnecessary provocation of the still mostly Scotch/Irish population of the South who are very Jacksonian in outlook. That’s why they voted for Trump.

        My advice is don’t provoke folks unless you are willing to pay the price. We are divided enough as a nation, there is no need to create another by trying to re-fight the Civil War, or as we call it ‘the War of Northern Aggression’.

The progressive fascists are just like ISIS in attacking historical monuments that they don’t like.

Also, with respect to who was “virtuous” or not in that war; W. T. Sherman was far more ruthless in his drive through Georgia than any Confederate Officer ever was, perhaps with the exception of Quantrill. Same goes for Phil Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley.

In the interest of disclosure, one of my ancestors was a Staff Officer in Sherman’s HQ during the march through Georgia. Those were the guys who actually wrote out the daily orders for all of the units, dispatched from HQ.

    Dathurtz in reply to Tom Servo. | November 29, 2019 at 7:49 pm

    I have two ancestors buried in what was then, and is still, a small farm yard about two miles south of Sherman’s chevauchee. They died in their own beds having fought against that monster burning their neighbor’s lands and homes. I guess memory runs deep, because almost everybody I know has a similar family memory.

      gospace in reply to Dathurtz. | November 29, 2019 at 8:05 pm

      When I visited distant relatives in North Augusta SC in the early 1970s the older women talked about Sherman’s March to the Sea as if it had happened firsthand to them.

      It’s also when I discovered that “Damnyankee” is one word, not two.

        Dathurtz in reply to gospace. | November 29, 2019 at 9:35 pm

        It runs deep. And, sadly, is a bias I find myself fighting. Thinking about “The War of Northern Aggression” still provokes a little bit of rationality-clouding anger. Only other thing that does that to me in the same way is reviewing the memory of watching the 9/11 attacks.

        I find it interesting how that seems to so easily carry on. My ancestor who lost two of his brothers was 7 generations before me.

    The Livewire in reply to Tom Servo. | November 30, 2019 at 9:01 am

    Sherman and Sheridan were brutal, and *effective*. They also were known to care for their own troops, even after the war.

    Both men also knew hat to save the lives of their soldiers, killing the other guy’s soldiers were not enough.

    “I am satisfied, and have been all the time, that the problem of this war consists in the awful fact that the present class of men who rule the South must be killed outright rather than in the conquest of territory.” – Letter to Sheridan (November 1864)

    My disclaimer, I went to Sheridan High School, grew up in Little Phil’s home town, about 20 miles from Sherman’s. So yeah, both influenced my life and outlook.

      There is absolutely no doubt of the effectiveness of brutality in war. If it happened today, then we would universally consider it a war crime and vilify the men responsible as well as the men who carried it out. As it happened then, I got the pleasure of attending Sheridan High School in Grant county while growing up in the rural south.

I care not a bit about their fabled and ballyhooed military abilities – or for the myth created after the fact – that they only rebelled to preserve states rights – a myth that looks to clothe and veil traitorous behavoir as honorable service. Horseshit served as apple dumplings.

you are utterly and completely full of shyte

my ancestors came to the new world in 1620 to what is now the state of virginia–some of them migrated here shortly before the war began–they fought on both sides in the conflict–officers in the army of the potomac and infantrymen/cavalrymen on the other side–they were indeed fighting for state’s rights to decide what was to happen in their own locales–enraged that a distant government in washington was to decide the fate of their communities–and on the other side, enraged that anyone would dare attempt to dissolve the union which many of their immediate ancestors had fought the british to establish

slavery was never the point or the reason for the conflict–have read much of the personal correspondence/journals of my ancestors(many now archived in state repositories)and the ” peculiar institution ” is rarely mentioned, if at all

even lincoln admitted that the war was never about slavery–lee himself maintained it never was–davis the same
and many,many others

lincoln could have ended the war and prevented the atrocities perpetrated on american citizens by union soldiers but, of course, he did not–and he paid for that enormous mistake with his life and rightfully so

    Georgia Secession Document second sentence: For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slaveholding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery.

    South Carolina Secession Document: The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows:
    “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.”
    This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River.

    Mississippi Secession Declaration 2nd paragraph: Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product, which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

    Alabama in it’s Ordinance of Secession: And as it is the desire and purpose of the people of Alabama to meet the slaveholding States of the South, who may approve such purpose, in order to frame a provisional as well as permanent Government upon the principles of the Constitution of the United States,

    Texas, in their Ordinance of Secession :WHEREAS, The recent developments in Federal affairs make it evident that the power of the Federal Government is sought to be made a weapon with which to strike down the interests and property of the people of Texas, and her sister slave-holding States, instead of permitting it to be, as was intended, and their Declaration of Secession: She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery – the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits – a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time.

    Virginia, in their Ordinance of Secession: and the Federal Government having perverted said powers not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slave-holding States:

    That’s 6 of the 13 CSA states which pretty clearly state the whole brouhaha was about slavery.

    I could go on to quote Confederate leaders, like, for example, Jefferson Davis.

      TheOldZombie in reply to gospace. | November 30, 2019 at 1:14 pm

      Exactly. The Civil War was over slavery. The Southern states got scared when Lincoln became president and thought he would end slavery. So they seceded from the union before he even took the oath of office.

      Not only the stuff you listed is important but so is the Confederate States Constitution. They made sure to spell it out clearly that slavery was the law of the land in the Confederate States of America.

      When people claim the war wasn’t over slavery all one has to do is point them to the Confederate States Constitution.

      “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.” – Alexander Hamilton Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States (1861-1865)

        “Exactly. The Civil War was over slavery. The Southern states got scared when Lincoln became president and thought he would end slavery. So they seceded from the union before he even took the oath of office.”

        7 of the 11 seceding state did so, but the last 4 only after the battle of Fort Sumter. Lincoln had already made it clear he intended to suck every dollar out of the states…

        “Not only the stuff you listed is important but so is the Confederate States Constitution. They made sure to spell it out clearly that slavery was the law of the land in the Confederate States of America.”

        You have read, I’m quite certain, The US Constitution that also made slavery “the law of the land” in the United States of America.

        “When people claim the war wasn’t over slavery all one has to do is point them to the Confederate States Constitution.
        “Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.” – Alexander Hamilton Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederate States (1861-1865)”

        The confederate constitution was modeled after the United States constitution, even relying upon supreme court precedent. They clarified and change some wording to more clearly state the legality of slavery, something which the US Constitution also made legal.

        The Civil War was fought over money and power like most wars. The propaganda that both sides used to get men to go to war should not be confused with the reasons for war. The northern money men decoded to extract more from the south and the south said no.

        85% of the federal budget was funded by the south. They got back about 15%. Lincoln was for raising tariffs even higher, killing the southern economy.

        If you want the truth, study the period European writings on the civil war.

          TheOldZombie in reply to Barry. | November 30, 2019 at 4:41 pm

          Sir, you can twist things any which way you want but the fact will always be that the southern states tried to secede from the Union because they believed that Lincoln would work to end slavery.

          The Civil War was about slavery.

          gospace in reply to Barry. | November 30, 2019 at 7:24 pm

          Show me where the word “slave” or “slavery” appears in the original Constitution of the United States.

          It doesn’t.

          If it had been put in there to legalize slavery – the free states would never have signed on.

          If it had been put in to outlaw slavery – the slave states would never have signed on.

          It was kept ambiguous for a reason – to united the colonies in a revolution against the existing government.

          Article 1 Section 9 is the only reference to slavery – and it doesn’t reference slavery directly: 1: The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

          First appearance- 13th amendment, outlawing slavery EXCEPT as punishment for a crime. And then in the 14th, where the U.S. will not accept claims for economic losses due to emancipation. Both passed post civil war.

          The Constitution was written to end the slave trade. And it did.

          The Slave Trade Act of 1794 made it unlawful for American Flagged ships to engage in the slave trade. The British followed suit in 1807. The Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves was passed in 1807, and took effect in 1808 as per the Constitution. The British outlawed slavery in the British Empire in 1833.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | December 1, 2019 at 10:50 am

          Gospace, I’m aware of the way the constitution was written as a compromise, one that allowed, made legal, slavery. The civil war was not until 1861 – surely you are not suggesting the states allowed the constitution to be violated all those years, or that the amendment (13th) that was passed outlawing slavery was unnecessary?

          OldZombie, I twisted nothing. It is a fact that the federal budget was funded by the southern states by near 85% and that near 15% was returned, the rest remaining in the north. It is a fact that contemporary European writing about the American civil war supports the view the war was an economic war. One exception as I recall was Dickens, but the predominant view of the outsiders was the economic one.

          A few fun facts:

          A president and general were the last to own slaves – Which side?

          The Emancipation Proclamation started the war, true or false?

          The Emancipation Proclamation freed all the slaves, true or false?

          Lincoln declared the Emancipation Proclamation was intended to end slavery, true or false?

          The underground railroad ended on the northern side of the Mason-Dixon line, true or false?

          All northern states welcomed freed slaves prior to the war, true or false?

          I’m sorry you have all been misled, as was I, to believe the civil war was a noble effort to free the slaves. It was not. Lincoln started the war to reward the $$$ interests in the north. read his writings on the war and not the references to tax rebellions.

          The winners get to write the history it is said. And this is true. It does not mean you have to swallow.

          Barry in reply to Barry. | December 1, 2019 at 10:52 am

          note the references to tax rebellions.

“My policy sought only to collect the Revenue (a 40 percent federal sales tax on imports to Southern States under the Morrill Tariff Act of 1861).” reads paragraph 5 of Lincoln’s First Message to the U.S. Congress, penned July 4, 1861.

“I have no purpose, directly or in-directly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so,” Lincoln said it his first inaugural on March 4 of the same year.

could paste probably fifty or so more–as said above, slavery(the institution itself)was never the cause of the war

    From someone who didn’t start the war. Let’s go back to the secession documents which give the reasons for secession – and the reasons were, the perpetuation of slavery.

    For political reasons, if no other, Lincoln had to fight the war “to preserve the union”, while the South was, with their own documents justifying secession, fighting to preserve slavery. Doesn’t matter what Robert E. Lee (a distant relative of my wife) said, the Virginia Ordinance of Secession, the state Lee was fighting for, said it was about slavery. Two sides can have wholly different reasons for fighting a war, nonetheless, the war can still exist. And if the side initiating the war, which in this case was the CSA, gives a reason, that’s the reason for the war.

I know there are a number of military veterans who read here. For them, and particularly the ground combat vets, I just wanted to bring something to your attention.

I have been thinking about the controversy over the Confederate Memorials and wanted to make a point.

I am not interested in debating the causes or morality of the Civil War. I want to make a point about something far simpler and frankly, to me, amazing.

My family on my mother’s side have lived in N. Florida since before it was a state. They fought for the South in the Civil War as members of the 5th Florida Infantry Regiment.

The Regiment was raised in Tallahassee, FL (where I now live), in 1862 and mustered 1,000 men. The Regiment was grouped with the 2nd and 8th Florida to make up the Florida Brigade that served in the Army of Northern Virginia.

They fought at 2nd Bull Run, Sharpsburg, Antietam, Fredricksburg, and Chancellorsville.

They were a part of Picket’s Division at Gettysburg, and took part in Picket’s Charge.

After Gettysburg, they fought at The Wilderness, Spotsylvania, Cold Harbor and Petersburg.

When the 5th Florida surrendered at Appomattox Courthouse, there were 53 men left.

Over a 3 year (+/-) period, they suffered 95% casualties. And still they stayed, and still they fought.

The most amazing thing is that the 5th Florida was not anything out of the ordinary. At the surrender, the 2nd Florida had 68 men and the 8th Florida had 32.

I would bet that most other Regiments, Union and Confederate, had the same story.

Amazing. Absolutely amazing.

The number surrendering is the number surrendering. Quite a number were deaths. Likely even more were discharged for injuries or illness then died. And estimates range between 10 and 33% of Southern soldiers deserted.

No one knows the true desertion numbers for either side.

    That’s true. But it it also true that some men were wounded, recovered and went back to the line.

    So between 67% and 90% did not desert. And again, this was over 3(+/-) years.

    I believe that it is widely accepted that a casualty rate of between 10% – 24% makes a unit combat ineffective.

    I also made the point that I wasn’t just speaking of Confederate Units. I believe the same was true of Northern Units, and said so.

    It must be very unpleasant to go through life with a TOTAL inability to remove your head from the rectal defilade.

      DCP in reply to DCP. | November 29, 2019 at 9:21 pm

      Also, over that same 3 (+/-) years, many additional men would have become age eligible and joined the Regiment. So the total number serving over the course of the war was probably much higher than 1000.

      gospace in reply to DCP. | November 29, 2019 at 9:37 pm

      Wow. I stated a fact, you went straight to insults. So I presume you’re a Democrat.

    Tom Servo in reply to gospace. | November 30, 2019 at 11:41 am

    I found your post quite enlightening! North and South both had severe desertion problems; for the South, often it was because law and order were breaking down back home and men’s families were suffering without them. Also, after defeats, a significant number of men would decide “I’ve had enough of this” and just disappear.

    On the Northern side, one of the biggest causes of desertion was the Enlistment Bounty paid to volunteers; $100 in 1861, rising to $300 by 1863. A huge amount in those days, and quite a few men were executed for enlisting, collecting the bonus, deserting and traveling 100 miles or so, and then re-enlisting. (ID was not very reliable in 1860’s – you were who you said you were) Some men who were executed had reportedly done this 11 or 12 times, and undoubtedly a lot of grifters did it and got away with it.

JusticeDelivered | November 29, 2019 at 9:32 pm

Regardless of one’s opinion of history, historical artifacts should be left in place and vandalism of our collective heritage should be harshly addressed.

Lee personally supported abolition (primary source: his pre-war correspondence), but ultimately he considered himself a Virginian more than an American. He refused command of the Army of the Potomac and formed the Army of Northern Virginia.

An old and failing General Winfield Scott allegedly said, “You’re making the greatest mistake of your life.” as Lee left his office.

Understanding the Roots of the War on History

“Our first contribution is one of omission. The time-honored stories of exploration and the biographies of heroes are left out.” Charles A. and Mary Beard, The History of the United States (1921)

In the early 20th century, a group of historians connected with the progressive movement declared war on traditional history. In 1921, husband and wife Charles A. and Mary R. Beard co-authored a high school textbook simply titled The History of the United States, a work that detailed the progressive movement’s plan to revolutionize teaching history. An online version of this important work can be found here. The volume’s introduction stated: “If the study of history cannot be made truly progressive [or organized] like the study of mathematics, science, and languages, then the historians assume a grave responsibility in adding their subject to the already overloaded curriculum.” Their approach expunged “The time-honored stories of exploration and biographies of heroes” and “all descriptions of battles” as unnecessary and even detrimental.

The Beards listed seven changes to the traditional narrative approach to history. First, their curriculum was topic-based.

Regardless of one’s views on who was good and who was evil, one simple truism is extant. Pretending that history didn’t happen doesn’t make it so.

Thank you all for your reflections above — quite an education for me and well worth the read. My comment here does not pertain to the statues, but to the issue of states’ rights and slavery as a cause for the war.

I must say that I can not cite any primary sources — for example, gospace’s admirable exposition of the secession docs — nor have I read Vice-President Stephens’ Cornerstone Speech. But for the little it may be worth, if I may add something here as a non-specialist.

If I understand him correctly, the late historian and political philosopher Harry V. Jaffa argues in his essay “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow” that Vice President Stephens in his Cornerstone Speech “. . . hailed the advent of the Confederacy as the first government in the world founded upon what Stephens asserted was a recent scientific discovery: that the inferiority of the Negro race, and of the alleged scientific fact that in chattel slavery lay the optimal possible relationship for both races.”

Jaffa goes on further to argue that “That the Southern Democrats used an appeal to scientific racism as a philosophical and moral foundation for the birth of an entire nation and culture places them historically as a vanguard 70 years in advance German National Socialism.” Now progressivist statism is not unknown for its appeals to “science.” Here, Jaffa considers “liberal progressivism” an “offshoot” of “scientific racism” — for instance, the American eugenics movement. (Roosevelt, Sanger, Holmes.) Such “scientific” racism was later brought to a horrific application in Hitler’s national socialism. Jaffa’s intellectual output is most impressive (Crisis of the House Divided). To me, his observation here is quite an eye-brow raiser.

So, if in the future SJWs determine that the Vietnam War was immoral, should we let them tear down the Vietnam Memorial in DC?