gozer wrote:it may come down to the extent to which it is a memorial to the soldiers themselves . . . after all, just like any other war, powerful people sent others into battle to fight for one thing or another, not always in the best interest of every single person who bore arms in the conflict . . . there was conscription on both sides of this, right? it stands to reason that not all of the confederate states of america soldiers were slave owners who enthusiastically rushed on to the battlefield to defend the right of others to own other people, correct? i could be wrong, of course . . .jonnygothispen wrote:Stu Levitan wrote:
The cenotaph was not a reflection of the heritage of the South. It was paid for by United Daughters of Confederacy at the express request of Madison friends of Alice Whiting Watermen, men who had been Union generals,each of whom lost an arm in battle. Whatever else UDC was doing elsewhere to advance the "Lost Cause" myth, this wasn't part of it.
I think that it could fall under consensus of interpretation. As the meanings of words have changed depending on how they're used, so goes symbolism as well.
The decedent were assuredly not slave owners. They were young and poor, mainly Irish indentured servants, conscripted to fight just as the poor have always been.