Goodbye to Dixie Highway?

[ibagli]

The belief that the highway's name has an unsavory meaning has worked in the other direction as well. In 1927, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a group closely linked to the KKK, thought the name justified the placement of a monument to Robert E. Lee alongside the highway in Warren County, Ohio, a location not known for its association with the general. When it was removed in 2017, the "history" crowd protested (what history they believed was being erased, I could not discern) and it was given to a local fraternal group to display on their property.

[silveradoman298]

The belief that the highway's name has an unsavory meaning has worked in the other direction as well. In 1927, the United Daughters of the Confederacy, a group closely linked to the KKK, thought the name justified the placement of a monument to Robert E. Lee alongside the highway in Warren County, Ohio, a location not known for its association with the general. When it was removed in 2017, the "history" crowd protested (what history they believed was being erased, I could not discern) and it was given to a local fraternal group to display on their property.

I acknowledge your argument, however the monument was rather a rock with a plaque dedicated to both Robert E Lee and the Route of the Dixie Highway. Robert E Lee memorials can be interpreted as people wish, however most are not aware at the lengths Robert E Lee went to to help heal the wounds of the Civil War. The fact that the United Daughters of the Confederacy placed this marker in 1927 is history itself, as is the fact the United Daughters of the Confederacy has strived to implement changes to its creed and belief system to distance itself from pro-slavery and Jim Crow views. As recently as 2019 it has removed the words slave and slavery from its website. How can next generations learn of the push and pull of historical views, even those on slavery, and see how views evolved over time, if historical monuments are removed. My argument is this: At what point to we draw the line on what to keep and what to remove, and who to denounce and not? Those that suppressed women's suffrage, FDR not eliminated Jim Crow laws, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson being slave owners, the later having fathered children with Sally Hemmings. Ben Franklin even owned slaves before evolving into an abolitionist. Yet both Washington and Franklin are on our money and Jefferson lauded as one of the great founding fathers. It's my belief that even the existence of monuments is historical in nature because views have evolved and the fact that views have evolved is historical in itself. We can't rid our selves of these truths. With any fact, there are extreme views on both sides, but as time marches on, views evolve, can't we have physical objects that remind us of our history? Such as a plaque on a rock that was sponsored by the UDC in Ohio of all places.

[hotdogPi]

If the location is actually relevant, such as the site of a battle or a place where an important figure lived, it can stay. Most of the Confederate statues are not in such locations, and they need to go.

[kphoger]

If the location is actually relevant, such as the site of a battle or a place where an important figure lived, it can stay. Most of the Confederate statues are not in such locations, and they need to go.

Then the same should be true of all other such statues as well.

[oscar]

The Washington Post (might be paywalled) has a reminder that online mapping services are, uh, uneven in catching up to street and highway name changes, including for some streets in south Florida once named for Confederate generals.

[Beltway]

The Gettysburg, PA battlefield has hundreds of monuments and memorials, about half of which are Confederate.

[Rothman]

I find the comparison of Robert E. Lee to the Founding Fathers to be inappropriate.  Although the Founding Fathers owned slaves, none of them fought against the United States.  Robert E. Lee was a general for a wannabe country that fought against the U.S.A.

Race relations are problematic to this day, but thank goodness slavery was finally abolished when Robert E. Lee and the other Confederates were defeated and the U.S.A. united again.

It is therefore hard to see how the statues differ from monuments to traitors.  It is also hard to see how keeping statues erected mostly as symbols of white supremacy (literally to remind all who see them that the values defended by the Confederates were not dead) is defensible given their intention.

There's a better idea (from that "Southin' Off" guy) where more statues should have been erected to Southern abolitionists and supporters of the U.S.A. (as opposed to the C.S.A).

All that said, I don't know if Dixie Highway should be renamed, but the reverence displayed towards Confederates that fought against the U.S.A. is misplaced.

[Max Rockatansky]

But the Lee Highway is relevant to the conversation with getting rid of the Dixie Highway due to concerns over racism.  There are lots of Lee Highway segments that still floating around and signed on street blades.  I would tend to associate a Confederate General with racism over the Dixie Highway. 

[Beltway]

I find the comparison of Robert E. Lee to the Founding Fathers to be inappropriate.  Although the Founding Fathers owned slaves, none of them fought against the United States.  Robert E. Lee was a general for a wannabe country that fought against the U.S.A.

The North invaded the South.  If that hadn't happened then there wouldn't be these monuments and people that you don't like. 

The industrial revolution was already making slavery uneconomical and as industrialism advanced, within 20 years or so slavery would have ceased, and the two countries could have worked out their differences and reunited peacefully, and almost certainly would have.  Lincoln's tyranny and blunders shortcircuited that process.

[Rothman]

I find the comparison of Robert E. Lee to the Founding Fathers to be inappropriate.  Although the Founding Fathers owned slaves, none of them fought against the United States.  Robert E. Lee was a general for a wannabe country that fought against the U.S.A.

The North invaded the South.  If that hadn't happened then there wouldn't be these monuments and people that you don't like. 

The industrial revolution was already making slavery uneconomical and as industrialism advanced, within 20 years or so slavery would have ceased, and the two countries could have worked out their differences and reunited peacefully, and almost certainly would have.  Lincoln's tyranny and blunders shortcircuited that process.

So, you're a secessionist holding the torch to the much discredited Lost Cause view of history.  Got it.

Erecting those statues wasn't about just honoring the noble defenders of the CSA (how can one claim to be a patriot of the USA while being nostalgic for the CSA?), but also honoring the immoral and racist values of the CSA.

[Beltway]

I find the comparison of Robert E. Lee to the Founding Fathers to be inappropriate.  Although the Founding Fathers owned slaves, none of them fought against the United States.  Robert E. Lee was a general for a wannabe country that fought against the U.S.A.

The North invaded the South.  If that hadn't happened then there wouldn't be these monuments and people that you don't like. 
The industrial revolution was already making slavery uneconomical and as industrialism advanced, within 20 years or so slavery would have ceased, and the two countries could have worked out their differences and reunited peacefully, and almost certainly would have.  Lincoln's tyranny and blunders shortcircuited that process.

So, you're a secessionist holding the torch to the much discredited Lost Cause view of history.  Got it.
Erecting those statues wasn't about just honoring the noble defenders of the CSA (how can one claim to be a patriot of the USA while being nostalgic for the CSA?), but also honoring the immoral and racist values of the CSA.

No, it was about how to resolve things peacefully and not killing over 700,000 people out of a population of 35 million. 

It would have been resolved (back to one country) even before my grandparents immigrated to this country, like resolved back in the 1800s.

[Rothman]

I find the comparison of Robert E. Lee to the Founding Fathers to be inappropriate.  Although the Founding Fathers owned slaves, none of them fought against the United States.  Robert E. Lee was a general for a wannabe country that fought against the U.S.A.

The North invaded the South.  If that hadn't happened then there wouldn't be these monuments and people that you don't like. 
The industrial revolution was already making slavery uneconomical and as industrialism advanced, within 20 years or so slavery would have ceased, and the two countries could have worked out their differences and reunited peacefully, and almost certainly would have.  Lincoln's tyranny and blunders shortcircuited that process.

So, you're a secessionist holding the torch to the much discredited Lost Cause view of history.  Got it.
Erecting those statues wasn't about just honoring the noble defenders of the CSA (how can one claim to be a patriot of the USA while being nostalgic for the CSA?), but also honoring the immoral and racist values of the CSA.

No, it was about how to resolve things peacefully and not killing over 700,000 people out of a population of 35 million. 

It would have been resolved (back to one country) even before my grandparents immigrated to this country, like resolved back in the 1800s.

Your speculation is based upon a flawed view of history.

If slavery was on its way out economically and the South was willing to let it die that slow death, then the South would not have been willing to fight a war over it.  I also think there were non-economic reasons to keep slavery -- to keep black people "in their place."  Too many variables for you to conclude how things would have turned out in your alternative universe.

It's also morally repugnant to justify slavery on the basis of economics, anyway.

[Beltway]

No, it was about how to resolve things peacefully and not killing over 700,000 people out of a population of 35 million. 
It would have been resolved (back to one country) even before my grandparents immigrated to this country, like resolved back in the 1800s.

Your speculation is based upon a flawed view of history.
If slavery was on its way out economically and the South was willing to let it die that slow death, then the South would not have been willing to fight a war over it.

The South fought a war because they were being invaded by tens of thousands of troops bent on killing and destruction and overthrow of government.

I also think there were non-economic reasons to keep slavery -- to keep black people "in their place."  Too many variables for you to conclude how things would have turned out in your alternative universe.  It's also morally repugnant to justify slavery on the basis of economics, anyway.

The North was full and active participants in that economy even in 1860, they helped set it up and helped it to run for almost 200 years.  It was 1825 before they stopped importing slaves thru their harbors.  They really didn't care about slavery existing as it was boosting their economy, or so they thought.

Look at a map of the size of the 11 states that the North was losing.  That is why they invaded the South, they didn't want to lose the territory and its resources.

[skluth]

No, it was about how to resolve things peacefully and not killing over 700,000 people out of a population of 35 million. 
It would have been resolved (back to one country) even before my grandparents immigrated to this country, like resolved back in the 1800s.

Your speculation is based upon a flawed view of history.
If slavery was on its way out economically and the South was willing to let it die that slow death, then the South would not have been willing to fight a war over it.

The South fought a war because they were being invaded by tens of thousands of troops bent on killing and destruction and overthrow of government.

They were "invaded" for seceding from the Union so they could keep their slaves. The Union was rescuing enslaved African-Americans who did not choose to secede. Lincoln's party was committed to freeing all slaves when slavery was the only reason the South's economy functioned. If you think it could eventually have been solved peacefully, you're incredibly naive. Not to mention the estimated four million slaves would still be suffering every day during that time; resolving it by the 1880s (your claim) would still leave actual human beings enslaved for a minimum of 20 more years. Feel free to be a slave for 20 years to see if only twenty more years would be tolerable.

Your claim that the North participated is also incorrect. The North was overwhelmingly opposed to slavery by the time of the Missouri Compromise of 1820. They would happily have closed all ports to the slave trade with the exception of a few powerful (well-financed by slavery dollars) business interests well before 1825. Several of the North's founding fathers wanted to ban all slavery at Independence, but needed the armies of Virginia and the Carolinas to win the war.

Confederate monuments are akin to Nazi monuments, memorials to a morally corrupt system. They all need to go. I don't want an Erwin Rommel Highway from Berlin to Hamburg either.

[Rothman]

To Beltway:

No, the invasion was made only after the South seceded due to their desire to keep slavery legal.

I am sure the Union wanted to keep the country as one for economic reasons as well, but the fact is that the war would have been unnecessary had the South not been so adamant about its racist position to defend slavery -- so adamant to risk a war they were sure to lose and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in the upmost contempt for the Constitution.

[TheHighwayMan3561]

1. Belway is wrong.

2. The reality is it was far more complicated than just slavery/states' rights. Lincoln was no saint, and Northerners were and continue to be racists.

3. In before lock/mass delete.

[Finrod]

Confederate monuments are akin to Nazi monuments, memorials to a morally corrupt system. They all need to go. I don't want an Erwin Rommel Highway from Berlin to Hamburg either.

This is dumb.  The Confederacy didn't murder millions of its own citizens.  And if Germany wants an Erwin Rommel highway from Berlin to Hamburg, that's their right and we don't and shouldn't have a say in it.

[Beltway]

To Beltway:
No, the invasion was made only after the South seceded due to their desire to keep slavery legal.

False premise, false logic.  The North didn't make a demand before secession occurred that slavery be made illegal.

Not a casus belli for the Northern war any way you want to look at it.

I look at this as mainly from a matter of alternative history theorizing, which is an interest of mine.

I already posted an alternate history.  The historical track and outcome is about the worst alternative imaginable.

Think about in 2021, for example, Donald Trump is reelected.  California, Oregon and Washington decide to secede if he doesn't resign in Jan. 2021.  Using the same population weighting, 6.7 million people on both sides will die when the rest of the country tries (not knowing whether they will even be successful) to use military force to bring those states back.

Knowing what we know now, there would be little if any support for such a war. 

The rest of the country should instead say, "Blessings upon you!  Enjoy your new country!"

[TheHighwayMan3561]

Confederate monuments are akin to Nazi monuments, memorials to a morally corrupt system. They all need to go. I don't want an Erwin Rommel Highway from Berlin to Hamburg either.

This is dumb.  The Confederacy didn't murder millions of its own citizens.

They did kill plenty of slaves.

[ozarkman417]

[Max Rockatansky]

So is there some sort of consensus on whether or not the Dixie Highway or the word "Dixie"  is somehow synonymous with the Confederacy?   Seems like the last dozen or so posts have been more about the American Civil War and it's causes. 

[Beltway]

So is there some sort of consensus on whether or not the Dixie Highway or the word "Dixie"  is somehow synonymous with the Confederacy?   Seems like the last dozen or so posts have been more about the American Civil War and it's causes. 

I already posted my analysis --

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26300.msg2472683#msg2472683

[Scott5114]

How can next generations learn of the push and pull of historical views, even those on slavery, and see how views evolved over time, if historical monuments are removed.

By reading a fucking book? Do you think history teachers load their students onto a bus, drive to a statue, read the plaque out loud, and then get everyone back on the bus and drive to the next one?

[mgk920]

The first shots that were fired in anger were from the South at Fort Sumpter, SC.  IIRC, there were no injuries.

Mike

[Beltway]

The first shots that were fired in anger were from the South at Fort Sumter, SC.  IIRC, there were no injuries.

Because the garrison there refused to leave after they were asked to several times.  They were occupying a harbor fort that had strategic importance to protecting the city from foreign invaders, which also could be used as a base for someone planning an invasion.