Started By
Message
re: Judge rules against opponents of removing Confederate memorials ...
Posted on 2/8/16 at 12:30 pm to Mullet Flap
Posted on 2/8/16 at 12:30 pm to Mullet Flap
quote:
I still fail to see how any of this takes away from the fact that the soldiers that people glorify in the form of a statue were traitors and fought AGAINST what the United States stands for
What makes you more qualified to pronounce them traitors than the people who actually fought against them? Those people decided they where worthy of the same honors due those that fought under the Union banner.
1
Posted on 2/8/16 at 12:35 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
What makes you more qualified to pronounce them traitors than the people who actually fought against them?
Never said I was. But the perspective has changed over a couple of hundred years of just how despicable an ideology slavery is.
Point being, and I feel like a broken record here..that these were folks who fought FOR, whether directly or indirectly, the right to own another human being..and more importantly, against what the United States of America stands for. So it follows that we would not pay homage to these icons, no matter how honorable their lives may have been to those around them. If you want to appreciate their impacts on the war, you can do so by viewing that at a museum, not in the form of a statue or flag(soon to be taken down in MS) that glorifies them and is not representative of our country at all.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 12:40 pm to Mullet Flap
quote:
Mullet Flap
So should we burn and destroy the statues and honors of Sam Houston, George Washington, and countless others based off your definition of being a traitor?
What do we call Roosevelt then?
Then if not, how do we treat Crazy Horse, Sitting Bull, etc.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 12:47 pm
Posted on 2/8/16 at 12:51 pm to Tiger Live2
quote:
All 3 were United States Veterans, before the Civil War.
I will never fault a man, fighting to protect HIS home.
Remember Lee, was asked by Lincoln to lead the Union, but he would NOT fight against his home.(Virginia)
I sure as hell would never actively fight/war against Louisiana.
How many Texans would fight ag
I'm mostly just embarassed Beauregard is the best Louisiana had to offer the Confederacy. I'll tear his statue down myself.
Lee was one of the best generals in American history. He deserves a monument somewhere.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:01 pm to Mullet Flap
quote:
Never said I was. But the perspective has changed over a couple of hundred years of just how despicable an ideology slavery is.
Point being, and I feel like a broken record here..that these were folks who fought FOR, whether directly or indirectly, the right to own another human being..and more importantly, against what the United States of America stands for. So it follows that we would not pay homage to these icons, no matter how honorable their lives may have been to those around them. If you want to appreciate their impacts on the war, you can do so by viewing that at a museum, not in the form of a statue or flag(soon to be taken down in MS) that glorifies them and is not representative of our country at all.
See, that's the thing - Slavery IS an abhorrent, indefensible institution. Viewed 150 years later, even considering the idea is ridiculous but you're headed down a path that leads to the destruction of many things other than those statues (again, for emphasis, I have 0 issue with locating them at museums).
Way, way upthread I posted a statue of a Buffalo Solider. Those troops played an important role in the integration of the peacetime US Army. They were also instrumental in the destruction of the Native American tribes of the American West. They were on the winning side, so there's no talk of destroying that statue and there shouldn't be any - they played an important role in the development of our nation and should be recognized, honored, remembered for it even if the cause and the actions taken in support of that cause were sometimes less than honorable.
I've been here:
The name may not mean anything to those outside Alabama, but he was a leader during the Creek Indian wars and was a leader during the massacre of 500 men, women, and children at Fort Mims. His grave is a public park, his exploits are (or at least were when I was in school) taught in school, and I wouldn't have it any other way. His actions would be considered the worst of atrocities today but they shaped our state, to a certain extent our nation, and should be recognized for that - warts and all.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 1:02 pm
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:06 pm to Mullet Flap
quote:
I still fail to see how any of this takes away from the fact that the soldiers that people glorify in the form of a statue were traitors and fought AGAINST what the United States stands for
Their loyalty to their family, to their neighbors, and to their state, it trumped their affection for the Federal Government in Washington DC.
Is that so strange?
quote:
Point being, and I feel like a broken record here..that these were folks who fought FOR, whether directly or indirectly, the right to own another human being..and more importantly, against what the United States of America stands for
The Union fought for for Union - not to end slavery. Emancipation, when it came, was a military tool and it was generally unpopular in the north. The last thing northerners wanted was ex-slaves moving north.
That's the curious thing about the time. Northerners believed free labor was morally superior, but they still held deeply racist views about African-Americans. They were also quite willing to tolerate slavery, provide it did not expand any further westward.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 1:12 pm
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:18 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
The Union fought for for Union - not to end slavery. Emancipation, when it came, was a military tool and it was generally unpopular in the north. The last thing northerners wanted was ex-slaves moving north.
That's the curious thing about the time. Northerners believed free labor was morally superior, but they still held deeply racist views about African-Americans. They were also quite willing to tolerate slavery, provide it did not expand any further westward.
Someone downvoted you, but what you posted is quite accurate. Most people don't know that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion and that, while slavery ended in the south at the end of the war in April 1865, it didn't end in the north until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:23 pm to JustGetItRight
Quit bringing facts into a historical discussion, people may get confused.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:28 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
Most people don't know that the Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the states in rebellion and that, while slavery ended in the south at the end of the war in April 1865, it didn't end in the north until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in December of 1865.
This is true.
And Lincoln didn't particularly want to do it. It was a political move--he's not the savior that some make him out to be, that's for sure.
Also, if I recall correctly, the EP applied mainly to those of fighting age in the rebelling states, with the thinking that they'd be encouraged to arise against their confederate counterparts. In effect, the Union wanted to "homegrow" a fighting force.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:41 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
This is true.
And Lincoln didn't particularly want to do it. It was a political move--he's not the savior that some make him out to be, that's for sure.
Also, if I recall correctly, the EP applied mainly to those of fighting age in the rebelling states, with the thinking that they'd be encouraged to arise against their confederate counterparts. In effect, the Union wanted to "homegrow" a fighting force.
It was a move designed to cause trouble in the south and it was considered a very big political risk - so much so that Lincoln waited until Lee's first invasion of the north had been repulsed to issue it.
I'm going to disagree on the notion of Lincoln not being the savior. Like the things I've been criticizing other for doing to the CSA solider memorials, I don't think it is fair at all to judge Lincoln in the light of 21st century morals. He was personally against slavery and he had a steadfast will to preserve the union. Without either of those, the outcome of secession could have been very different - particularly in the first years of the war when things went very poorly for the Union.
IMO, his assassination after the war was won was the worst thing that could have ever happened to the country. He was pure and simply a leader. Had he not been killed, some of the divides that still haunt us today may have been greatly lessened or even avoided entirely.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 1:49 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
It was a move designed to cause trouble in the south and it was considered a very big political risk - so much so that Lincoln waited until Lee's first invasion of the north had been repulsed to issue it.
Indeed. It was, in effect, his last resort.
quote:
I'm going to disagree on the notion of Lincoln not being the savior. Like the things I've been criticizing other for doing to the CSA solider memorials, I don't think it is fair at all to judge Lincoln in the light of 21st century morals. He was personally against slavery and he had a steadfast will to preserve the union.
I think the bolded is key. He wasn't keen on the idea of acting upon his personal druthers against slavery if it came with the price of dissolving the union, IMO. And I don't say that with the intention of tarnishing his legacy at all.
That explains the the timing and content of the EP, more than anything.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 1:53 pm
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:07 pm to TbirdSpur2010
quote:
I think the bolded is key. He wasn't keen on the idea of acting upon his personal druthers against slavery if it came with the price of dissolving the union, IMO. And I don't say that with the intention of tarnishing his legacy at all.
That explains the the timing and content of the EP, more than anything.
I guess it is a matter of the 'chicken or the egg'.
If he doesn't preserve the Union, there's no end to slavery at all and the state of the Union in 1862 and early 1863 was tenuous at best. Washington, DC was surrounded by slave states. If Delaware, Kentucky, or Maryland - particularly Maryland - left the union then DC was untenable. Maryland didn't secede but also wanted to remain neutral and wanted the federal army out - it was in fact occupied territory and many of its leaders jailed without charge for the duration. There were draft riots in New York City in 1863. A great many northerners were of the opinion that the north should 'let their arses go'.
Lincoln's steadfast unwillingness to adopt that position eventually led to the transformation of the cause from being one of simply preserving the Union to one of both preserving the Union and ending slavery but if he tries to make that the cause in 1862 he quite possibly loses the war outright through further defections.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:23 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
I guess it is a matter of the 'chicken or the egg'.
Yeah, pretty much
quote:
A great many northerners were of the opinion that the north should 'let their arses go'.
Lincoln's steadfast unwillingness to adopt that position eventually led to the transformation of the cause from being one of simply preserving the Union to one of both preserving the Union and ending slavery but if he tries to make that the cause in 1862 he quite possibly loses the war outright through further defections.
Yup, rock and a hard place, for sure.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:46 pm to wadewilson
quote:
I'm mostly just embarassed Beauregard is the best Louisiana had to offer the Confederacy. I'll tear his statue down myself.
Why?
Posted on 2/8/16 at 2:57 pm to JustGetItRight
I think the EP, was also a political ploy to keep England and France from helping the South. IIRC.
If we started applying 21st century morals, to historical figures. We may as well tear down any monument for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. May as well change the name of my Parish too. Since Jefferson owned slaves.
quote:
ike the things I've been criticizing other for doing to the CSA solider memorials, I don't think it is fair at all to judge Lincoln in the light of 21st century morals.
If we started applying 21st century morals, to historical figures. We may as well tear down any monument for George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. May as well change the name of my Parish too. Since Jefferson owned slaves.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 3:07 pm to Tiger Live2
He was a pretty weak man.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 3:09 pm to wadewilson
Do you mind expanding on that? Going to school in TN and VA, you didn't learn much about him.
Posted on 2/8/16 at 4:25 pm to Tiger Live2
quote:
Do you mind expanding on that?
I can't speak for wadewilson, but as a battlefield commander, PTG Beauregard was pretty inept.
For starters, the decision to fire on Sumter was decidedly ill-advised. The fort's ability to threaten Charleston could have been eliminated at any time. By attacking the fort, he brought on armed conflict when a negotiated settlement might still have been possible.
After that, he nearly lost Manassas and then failed to follow up his victory.
He was pretty much personally responsible for losing Shiloh by first not having a cohesive plan and then once again not pressing his advantage after he'd utterly smashed Grant's forces on the first day.
He had a good strategic mind and would have been far better served in a role like today's joint chiefs instead of as a battlefield commander.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 2/8/16 at 5:53 pm to JustGetItRight
quote:
Someone downvoted you, but what you posted is quite accurate.
I spent four years reading personal letters and old periodicals. I can't say I know the period like a proper scholar, but I think I have a decent read on what people felt - and what they were fighting for.
-
History often says more about the period it was written in than it does about the time it portrays. I think that, and the need by Union veterans to give the conflict meaning, helps explain why the war became the glorious crusade to free the slaves. It resonates in a way that Union! does not.
quote:
I can't speak for wadewilson, but as a battlefield commander, PTG Beauregard was pretty inept.
Agreed.
This post was edited on 2/8/16 at 6:04 pm
Posted on 2/8/16 at 6:24 pm to Lima Whiskey
quote:
I think that, and the need by Union veterans to give the conflict meaning, helps explain why the war became the glorious crusade to free the slaves. It resonates in a way that Union! does not.
I believe this is true to an extent.
Although I believe that Union! SHOULD be more than enough to fight for, in a perfect world. The North was less convinced of their reasons for fighting than the South, though, particularly at the outset of the armed conflict.
As is typically the case with civil wars, the overarching objectives on both sides were buttressed by various, somewhat malleable positions, depending on the subject.
In hindsight, it's a fricking miracle the USA continued as a unit, even after the resolution of the war.
Page 13 of 14
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News