Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

brtmchl · 06-10-2013, 12:51 PM

(06-09-2013 09:54 PM)Gene C Wrote: Liz, I just don't get your point, in my mind there is no comparison (warning - the images below are very graphic)

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/vi...hspart=att

(06-09-2013 09:07 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote: My point in making the comparison between Lee-and-Emancipation and Hitler-and-Israel was, I think, apt, even if slavery didn't involve genocide. Both were crimes against humanity. Both were enabled by fear, hatred and indifference. Both involved unimaginable suffering. So I'll stick with my analogy. (Although, in general, as TBlunk pointed out, my main motivation here was to compare implausibilities.)

Reading this thread I think the point of the original post is being overlooked. In my oppinion it was to be ironic. Lee's actions as a brilliant military leader, postponed the end of the war. Even turning a defeat into possible hope of victory. It was this shift in the war that nudged Lincoln into issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

We can argue that it was a political act, or moral act. In my oppinion I think both. David Blight had once talked about the greatness of Lincoln. His ability to recognize that people can change. Even himself. I think the mark of a truly brilliant person is to know that you don't know everything. Whether Lincoln wanted to end slavery in the beginning of his political career or not is moot. There was a definite shift in his beliefs. You can plainly see it in his writings and quotes. There are also signs of abolishinist mentality in earlier debates. Lincoln today would be chastised by political opponents as a flip - flopper. But, with out flip - flopping there would have been no Emancipation or 13th Ammendment.

Comparing Lee to Hitler. I don't believe anyone was suggestiong that Lee belongs in the same category as a psychopathic, power hungry, murdering unpleasant person. At least I hope not. I believe the comment was to point out the Irony of the original topic.

While Lee and a huge number of Confederate Officers and Enlisted may not have been fighting for slavery. The Confederacy as a whole was. We can argue states rights and everything else as being the main cause, but most arguments still include, or come back to,the slave laber system that the South relied heavily upon.

There is a huge difference between a slavery system in the 19th century and the overall annihilation of a race. But in todays era, slavery has a new meaning and you can place the two side by side in degrees of awfulness. Obviously Mass Genocide ranking at the top.

To me the comparison is fine, if pointing out the irony that something good sprang from something bad and crediting the bad as the reason for the good. And that is simply that.

The comparison is obviouly not existant if comparing the two men.
I believe that everyone knows the difference.

Hitler is better compared to: Mao, Stalin, Milosevic, Genghis Khan, The Akazu in Rwanda, and Kim ll-Sung to name a few monsters. Lee was not a monster, and neither side considered him one.

Lee was a good man. And slavery in this era existed, in fact had been in existence and legal throughout our nations timeline to this point.

There were great, honorable men on both sides of this conflict. Which is why the Civil War has a place in our hearts the way no other conflict does. There was no real horrible villain or enemy. The Governments might have hated each other, but the men still loved each other. They were friends, relatives and colleagues. Driven by their honor and devotion to their communities, ideals,defense of their homes, pro- slave, anti-slave, greed, power, idividuality, union, state's rights, etc. This conflict meant something else to just about everyone, which makes it truly fascinating.
.