I'm not sure I understand who this "vendetta" is being conducted against. Given that the Confederate States of America no longer exists, it can't be them. Given that not all Southerners today believed in what the CSA did, it can't be them either.

As for those who were defeated and "became part of the Union again" I must have studied another Civil War, since that doesn't describe most of those wedded to the "lost cause" who were far more numerous than those preaching reconciliation. I would recommend reading Caroline Janney or David Blight to see just how far from being a "part of the Union" many were.

Best
Rob

The "vendetta" that I was referring to is what is being waged AGAINST the Confederate cause of yesteryear by those today who feel obliged to bring it up again whenever they have the chance - or run out of other things to preach about ad nauseum.

Maybe we all need to do something meaningful for posterity instead of condemning people who have been dead for over a century. Maybe reading the books by Dr. Ben Carson, who applies the past to improve the future, would be more helpful?

My point was, when stating that they became part of the Union again, was that they assimilated back into a country that was facing a long, painful process of Reconstruction. I'm sure that wasn't easy, but they were again part of the U.S. That period is a study in itself. I think the words "a new birth of freedom" mark what would be the beginning of molding the U.S. into something much different than it was in 1861.

To say that not all Southerners today believed in what the CSA did implies that we have to beat this dead horse until everyone agrees that all Southerners were evil, slave raping and beating heathens, which is simply untrue. We don't have to agree with the mores of the time, we have to view them in the context of the beliefs of those who lived in them. They lived in a different world and to apply what we think is right to them and extinguish any reference to valiant men who served their country with distinction because it doesn't jive with certain ideologies is just wrong.

Thank you, Joe, for phrasing that in a simple and understandable way without having to fall back on books written by PhDs in order to get the point across. I'll never accuse you of being a "damn Yankee" again! How does "smart Yankee" sound to you?

As I've never said all Southerners were " evil, slave raping and beating heathens" then I will agree it's untrue to say otherwise. But can I not agree with those who disparaged slavery in the 19th century that it was wrong and not be applying 21st century mores? Certainly not everyone at that time believed slavery to be OK?

Best
Rob

(12-19-2013 05:52 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I'll never accuse you of being a "damn Yankee" again!

There it is, folks! Engraved on the internet forever! (Boy, am I gonna wring some mileage out of this one....)

Oh lawsy, Miss Scarlett, what have I done...? Here comes my Reconstruction!

(12-19-2013 06:01 PM)Rob Wick Wrote:  As I've never said all Southerners were " evil, slave raping and beating heathens" then I will agree it's untrue to say otherwise.
Best
Rob

Well, there's a start...

Yes, Rob, you can agree with those who disparaged slavery as wrong in the 19th century and at the same time you would be applying 21 st century mores, but those mores had a start with the Abolishionist movement in the 1850's and are universal today. Not all the people felt that way and that's what I try to understand. Lincoln himself didn't look at blacks as his equals. Partially equal? Yes, but there was a lot of struggle yet to come before that became a standard.

The intial gist of this post was is it wrong to clean the slate of history from mention of these men, simply because their views are different than those held now? In my opinion, yes, it is. These men were good Americans. They fought honorably and valiantly for their country before this conflict and when it arose, picked a side, as all of us do. If anyone today thinks slavery is a good thing, I'd question their sanity, but in 1861, we were still a very rural nation.

And, in 1861, a nation largely composed of states who were not truly united. Citizens pledged more allegiance to their home states than to the United States. And that held true whether we study Maine, California, or Alabama, and states in between. I also feel safe in saying that there are a good number of states right now who hold the idea that their right to govern themselves is paramount on many issues.

I had a conversation with another forum member recently and we discussed, with such a small percentage of the Southerners being slaveholders, (I've heard as low as 3% to as high as 10%), why Southern men fought. The consensus was simple - The Yankees came down here fighting and we gave it back to them.

Read this.

Best
Rob

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

I did. It's full of fire and brimstone, which I don't believe all Southerners embraced, but I don't doubt for a minute that that wasn't a view that was disseminated by many in the South. The initial focus of this thread was in regards to Lee and Jackson being purged from our national memory as being unfit to be remembered as great Americans. Here's another view of Gen. Lee that is often overlooked. Read this.

http://www.nps.gov/arho/historyculture/slavery.htm

If we're going to assign evil to the whole issue of slavery, we can't forget to include their own people, who rounded them up and sold them for profit, or the Northerners who made fortunes in the trade. Here's another view to ponder when assigning evil to the issue of slavery -

"The shameful history of some traditional leaders remains an awkward subject on which many politicians prefer to maintain silence. One exception was in 1998 when Yoweri Museveni, the president of Uganda, told an audience including Bill Clinton: "African chiefs were the ones waging war on each other and capturing their own people and selling them. If anyone should apologise it should be the African chiefs. We still have those traitors here even today."

Again - we all know slavery was wrong, but passing 21st. century judgement on those who lived in a different time is also wrong.

No, it isn't wrong.

A well-treated slave is a slave nonetheless. I can't see how giving someone opportunities and not freedom is any more benevolent.

Brooks Simpson, a highly respected Civil War historian in Arizona, wrote the other day on his blog about the questions surrounding slavery. Brooks has an ongoing issue with a rather obtuse person and is not one to suffer any fools gladly, so he can be somewhat acerbic. Yet that doesn't mean he's wrong.

https://cwcrossroads.wordpress.com/2013/...n-slavery/

Changing minds on this is futile, so I'm through on this topic.

Best
Rob

The U.S. Constitution guaranteed the non-exclusion of slavery in the territories before statehood, which Lincoln opposed. That is why the South seceded. How slavery was to be eradicated if not Unconstitutionally, I don't know. But it could be said that the South was fighting for its Constitutional rights, and Lincoln's policies were in violation of those rights. Maybe it would have been best to never have made any concessions to slavery in the Constitution, and let the slave states go their own way and form their own country.

Rob, very informative article on the Civil War Trust site. I enjoyed the part "What the Churches Were Saying".

In spite of our political and social problems today, I'm glad I didn't live back then.