Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

J. Beckert · 12-20-2013, 07:25 AM

(12-19-2013 09:43 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: No, it isn't wrong.

That says it all for me, then. If you can give Nelson Mandela a pass for atrocities like condoning the hacking of his countrymen to death with machetes, setting them on fire and cutting their noses off and you can't see holding anyone who fought for the South in nothing less than utter contempt, there's nothing more to say. Our views are too far apart to reconcile on this. Merry Christmas, Rob.

Rsmyth · 12-20-2013, 08:39 AM

Hi all! I enjoy reading all the posts but unfortunately have been too busy to respond very often. The rebuttals get me thinking of the "what ifs," the comparisons and playing devils advocate. It really is a mind excersise to come up with reasons to agree or not. With most of the subjects here it is impossible to remain on the fence. Listening to the arguments put forth I heard that Lee was a loyal American prior to the war joined the army before becoming disillusioned with what he perceived as meddling of the government in affairs that did not concern them. He then took up arms against that government. Reading those responses the name of a person popped into my head and I would like to hear what those on this forum have to say. That person? Timothy McVeigh.

J. Beckert · 12-20-2013, 08:53 AM

Mc Veigh was a vile, mentally twisted coward, Rich. He killed innocents (including many helpless children). I don't know if you're comparing him to Lee, but to me, there are no comparisons. Being a slaveholder didn't make Lee different from others who did, but how he treated them was light years ahead of his contemporaries. He educated them and freed them on his own. When asked what would happen to the slaves after emancipation, Lincoln's words were "Root hog or die". Quite a contrast, wouldn't you say?

The point of this thread was removing mention of Lee and Jackson from the War College. It's wrong, in my opinion.

L Verge · (This post was last modified: 12-20-2013 10:20 AM by L Verge.)

The thought that we would even consider comparing Lee and Jackson to the likes of McVeigh or the Boston bombers and other terrorists is ludicrous. Actually, Mandela in his revolutionary days was more akin to them.

Joe makes a good point that it is ridiculous that we can "forgive" modern atrocities while continuing to condemn those of 150+ years ago. I am reminded of the old cartoon of the ancient Confederate standing with the battle flag in hand and the words "Forget, hell!" that has been around my entire lifetime. Judging by some of the comments that I have read on this thread, maybe we should change that to a modern Union man still holding the Confederate flag and saying, "Forget, hell!" It appears that hatred still runs deep on both sides?

It might interest some of you to know that I happen to admire Ulysses S. Grant because he knew what it took (as did Lincoln and Stanton) to win the war. I don't know if his portrait hangs in either the Citadel or VMI, but if it did and was taken down because of his actions against his fellow Americans, I would be upset.

(12-19-2013 08:44 PM)Rob Wick Wrote: Read this.

Best
Rob

http://www.civilwar.org/education/histor...lding.html

Good article, but nothing new. I was reading similar texts back in college days and comparing them in class with abolitionist statements. Too bad that Mr. Rhea did not write a companion article on the Northern viewpoint to show that propaganda was rampant on both sides.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 12-20-2013 10:06 AM by Gene C.)

I do not hold our Southern ancestors in contempt.

(I may have misunderstood Joe - sorry Joe)

So there is no confusion, I will delete my post.

" Poof ", it's gone!

L Verge · 12-20-2013, 10:18 AM

Thanks, Gene. I was pretty sure that you didn't mean it the way it sounded. I shall rephrase my comment.

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 12-20-2013 10:56 AM by Gene C.)

(12-20-2013 10:18 AM)L Verge Wrote: Thanks, Gene. I was pretty sure that you didn't mean it the way it sounded. I shall rephrase my comment.

that edit and delete button.

Rsmyth · 12-20-2013, 02:10 PM

Joe, I am not comparing anyone. I abhor war and killing in any shape or form. There is never enough discussion by governments before declaring war and sending soldiers and many time civilians as collateral damage to their deaths. How many civilians (including children) were killed during the Civil War by both sides? It is hard to tell but any is too many. Even today with bombing and drones innocents (including children) are still being killed. Historians portray Lee as one of the wars most successful generals and strategists. What if he had not sided with the confederacy but remained loyal? Would the war have dragged on? Would as many soldiers on both sides died and as collateral damage - civilians? I would venture to say the war would have ended within two years and possibly half the casualties avoided. And why are questions termed "ludicrous" whenever slavery or a confederate general is mentioned? We should stop looking at these subjects through gone with the wind colored glasses. Slavery may have been one of the most vile episodes in this countries history that effected many helpless children and anyone that championed prolonging the institutions was a vile human being. And yes I am judging by todays standards but do not think my opinion would have been changed if I lived 150 years ago.

J. Beckert · (This post was last modified: 12-20-2013 03:12 PM by J. Beckert.)

I agree with most of what you said, Rich. It's interesting to ponder if the war would have ended sooner had Lee been a Union General. I also agree slavery was a vile institution. What I don't agree with is judging ways of life that were the norm 150 years ago. Like I stated in another thread, this was an age when soldiers were shot dead for merely falling asleep on picket duty. They could also be branded with a hot iron for military rule infractions. Extreme discipline that we can't imagine today was the norm then. Attitudes were very different.

Blacks in that era were probably regarded by some as little better than farm animals. Something else we can't imagine or condone, but it's the truth. I personally don't blame anyone of that era for their ignorance with regard to race relations. It was a different time and they were ignorant of many things that are now social norms. Some folks blood just boils that we didn't realize back then how blacks were our equals - but they weren't - at least on their social scale. That's the way they thought. This "they should have known better" attitude doesn't wash with me.

We've met twice before, Rich and I do think you're a very personable and nice man. I know nothing of your personal leanings, but it seems to be a constant that liberal white guilt comes to the surface whenever slavery is mentioned and I think that's a shame. I don't have any, don't understand it and don't want any. I treat everyone with respect and expect the same. I think hard work and education is what will allow any of us to advance and we all deserve the same chances at success. I think programs like affirmative action are descriminatory and racist. The sins of the past are still there - in the past. To try and whitewash our history and apologize to everyone we've wronged is counterproductive to me.

L Verge · 12-20-2013, 03:47 PM

It's hard to follow those comments by Joe because they hit right to the core of this whole matter.

My GWTW glasses got broken a long time ago - long before I was born. I'm allergic to magnolias and moonlight 'cause I'm a realist that lives with dandelions and moonshine. I come from Southern Maryland, but I have to go back four generations to find any ancestors who owned slaves; and one part of my heritage held no slaves, but had two brothers who fought against each other - both surviving the war and never speaking to each other again.

That said, I do not condone slavery whether then or now. But I do find it "ludicrous" and offensive that certain groups among us still want to throw the race card out there in order to achieve their agendas and political goals. Find some other more modern trouble to vent your anger on for Pete's sake and work to cure today's ills instead of dwelling on the past. Understand that it is the past and start worrying about the future. That is what education (and history) is all about.

Gene C · 12-20-2013, 03:59 PM

For Laurie, it took me a while, but I found them

http://www.amazon.com/Gone-Wind-Glass-Bo...B0040IWSVC

L Verge · 12-20-2013, 04:39 PM

Bless you, Gene! Now those are glasses I can use. Pour me some Jack and Ginger - or better yet, since I have been stereotyped as an unReconstructed Southerner - make that Southern Comfort and Ginger...

Linda Anderson · (This post was last modified: 12-20-2013 06:51 PM by Linda Anderson.)

(12-20-2013 08:53 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: Being a slaveholder didn't make Lee different from others who did, but how he treated them was light years ahead of his contemporaries. He educated them and freed them on his own. When asked what would happen to the slaves after emancipation, Lincoln's words were "Root hog or die". Quite a contrast, wouldn't you say?

"Root, hog, or die" is an interesting expression, Joe, so I looked it up. This is from Wikipedia.

"'Root, hog, or die' is a common American catch-phrase dating from well before 1834.[1] Coming from the early colonial practice of turning pigs loose in the woods to fend for themselves, the term is an idiomatic expression for self-reliance."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Root_hog,_or_die

Lincoln recounted to Francis Carpenter that at the Hampton Roads Conference on Feb. 3, 1865 "Mr. Hunter said, substantially,... if the South should consent to peace on the basis of the Emancipation Proclamation, [the freed slaves] would precipitate not only themselves but the entire southern society into irremediable ruin. No work would be done, nothing would be cultivated, and both black and whites would starve."

So Lincoln was talking about both Southern blacks and whites.

http://books.google.com/books?id=L1FyFWc...ln&f=false

Gene C · (This post was last modified: 12-20-2013 05:39 PM by Gene C.)

That reminds me of a song

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwnF2eMVpo4

Rob Wick · 12-20-2013, 05:42 PM

(12-20-2013 03:47 PM)L Verge Wrote: It's hard to follow those comments by Joe because they hit right to the core of this whole matter.

My GWTW glasses got broken a long time ago - long before I was born. I'm allergic to magnolias and moonlight 'cause I'm a realist that lives with dandelions and moonshine. I come from Southern Maryland, but I have to go back four generations to find any ancestors who owned slaves; and one part of my heritage held no slaves, but had two brothers who fought against each other - both surviving the war and never speaking to each other again.

That said, I do not condone slavery whether then or now. But I do find it "ludicrous" and offensive that certain groups among us still want to throw the race card out there in order to achieve their agendas and political goals. Find some other more modern trouble to vent your anger on for Pete's sake and work to cure today's ills instead of dwelling on the past. Understand that it is the past and start worrying about the future. That is what education (and history) is all about.

So, does racism no longer exist in America?

Best
Rob