WT: Southern Discomfort: U.S. Army seeks removal of Lee, ‘Stonewall’ Jackson honors

[DaGoonie55]

But that's where I draw a distinction between, say, studying the battles of Lee or Rommel or Napoleon or Caesar, and hanging portraits in their honor.

One is recognizing their skills as a COMMANDER. The other is honoring THE MEN.

(That's one of the things I admire about the military, in general. The ability to respect, even worship, the SKILLS of the people who are your sworn enemies.)

 

Draw the distinction, absolutely.  I'm with you there.  It's all about how it is presented.  Celebrate their victories, not the men.

 

How to do that is at the heart of what is in question,  and since there is no current answer, it seems, the easy way out is to remove their images.

[twa]

Funny how your post chose to use the word "state". A word which is often used to refer to a nation, but in this case was exactly the opposite.

Also curious how you chose to portray declaring war on your country as "defending", and sending US troops into US territory to resist said declaration of war as "invading".

 

State meant much more then when we were presumed united States by assent rather than force and subjugation

 

you seem confused on just who invaded who 

[burgundyrush]

Jobs created for the folks to 'remove' the carving on Stone Mountain? LOL

will never happen...

“…Some might argue that this monument honors so-called heroes of the Civil War, but in reality it is a monument that perpetuates the perception of Georgia as an icon of racism, slavery and oppression.”

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/local/stone-mountain-petition-on-rocky-ground/nXckW/

[sacase]

To me this is stupid, these men were great American generals. We have honored them for decades, why change now because some idiot wants to think to hard about things. The Army has recognized many people

 

So if you are going to talk about removing portrains let's talk about more important things

 

Ft. Lee,  Virgnia

Ft. Jackson South Carolina

Ft. Stewart, Georgia

Ft. Polk, Luisiana

Ft. AP Hill, Virginia

Ft. Hood, Texas

Ft. Bragg, North Carolina

 

Not to mention all of the streets on Army bases named after general like Longstreet and Beauregard.

 

Next let's talk about how we have honored our enemies in the US Army. Many of our helicopters and named after American Indians

 

OH-6 Cayuse
UH-1 Iroquois
UH-72 Lakota
AH-64 Apache
UH-60 Black Hawk
MH-47 Chinook
OH-58 Kiowa
TH-67 Creek
 

 

once again we honor our American Indian enemies. To me I see this as the Army's way of bringing the nation together. We (The Army) are honoring our honorable enemies by bringing them into the fold and honoring their history and greatness helping unify this nation. Nothing wrong with honoring those who are apart of us.

[Predicto]

I keep forgetting that the Civil War isn't part of American history and should be burned from our memories. These two generals were great tacticians and leaders. The very ideals you are trying to instill in soldiers at the War College. Does anyone think they are displayed to inspire treason?

 

No, but I do suspect they were put there by confederate apologists to try to validate the Lost Cause mythology.

[JMS]

As I stated previously, General George Washington, of the newly formed America, fought against the crown.  He fought for his state,

 

Perhaps that's a bit too far.  Washington didn't actually fight for his state.   His first official act was to travel to Boston with a small group from Virginia and take over the seige of that New England city.    The vast majority of the folks under Washington's command were new Englanders in that fight.    Subsequently Washington fought in New York,  Pensylvania,  Deleware...  He never returned to Virginia until the very end of the war to trap Cornwallis.   

 

When the Souths resistance fell on rocky shores and they were in desperate need of a Leader...  Washington didn't say,  I fight for Virginia and return home...   Continental Congress assigned General Gates over George Washington's objections to defend the south..

When Gates forces were routed at the Battle of Camden ( South Carolina )...   Again Washington didn't come home to fight..   Washington ( who this time was listened too by Congress )  sent Nathanael Green of Rhode Island South.

 

So if as you say Washington fought for his state it's odd that he didn't fight in his state,  or with other Virginian's,  nor did he return to his state when given the opportunity..   

 

But you are still more right than wrong for most Colonials...   There loyalties were to their states.   If asked where they were from they would say respond with their states.   One reason Washington is so revered as the father of the country was he could see the bigger picture..   Washington was loyal to the country,  not the state.   But then to your point,  Washington was an exception.

[JMS]

No, but I do suspect they were put there by confederate apologists to try to validate the Lost Cause mythology.

 

By confederate apologists I'm guessing you are speaking of about half the population of the country who had to be reintegrated into the Union after the war and were given an equal vote into the order of things?.   Or are you talking about every sitting President of the United States to achieve office post Civil War through President Wilson 1913?   Since every successful presidential candidate after the civil war made the pilgrimage to Charlotte North Carolina to meet with, shake hands, and sought the endorsement of Mary Anna Jackson,  The widow of the confederacy....   Stonewall Jackson's widow.    Damned Confederate Apologists....

 

which dovetails nicely with my favorite piece of Civil war trivia...   who was the last widow of the civil wars great generals and when did she die?

 

  [ the "Fighting Lady", Helen Dortch Longstreet - 1962,  Hottie!!  General Longstreet married her in 1897 when she was just 34 and he was 76. She was widowed in 1904, ]

 

 

In Eisenhower's autobiography I remember story which impressed me about how strong feelings were in the country about Lee.   When Ike was President,  General Montgomery came for a visit.   Ike loved and would retire in Gettysburg Pa.  so he took Monty to Gettysburg to tour the battlefield.    On surveying Pickett's charge Monty had some choice words about General Lee.   atrocious, stupid, insane,  Monstrous!!!...He even said Lee was the worst commander at Gettysburg!!!..  This shocked the newspaper men who quickly turned to Ike asking his opinion..   Ike turned red,  He told the reporters.. Monty can say what he likes,  Look man,  I have to live here.  I represent both North and South.   Ike was so angry at Monty over this he never invited him back to the white house.   Kind of is the synopsis of who Monty was.  A bright man,  free thinker, arrogant and politically oblivious..

 

Found this clip of the event..

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=d4AwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=kYoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=5701%2C3490185

[Larry]

By confederate apologists I'm guessing you are speaking of about half the population of the country who had to be reintegrated into the Union after the war.   Or are you talking about every sitting President of the United States to achieve office post Civil War through President Wilson?  . . . . . . .

 

Well, I'm not sure who he's referring to.  I suspect he's thinking more along the lines of those people who to this day are trying to paint the Confederacy as people who were legally justified, moral citizens, defending their homes from the treasonous conquering armies of subjugation rained down on them without provocation by the greedy conquering Yankees.  

 

Perhaps we should ask him, instead of trying to put words in his mouth. 

[nonniey]

Good. Always been a pet peeve of mine. Why celebrate traitors? They might have been great generals and even great men (though that's debatable), but the bottom line, above all else, is that they were traitors. Don't see how you could argue otherwise.

Let's put it this way. These portraits began to be hung during a time where the people they fought were still alive and mostly running things, and yet they found it to be appropriate.

[DaGoonie55]

Perhaps that's a bit too far.  Washington didn't actually fight for his state.   His first official act was to travel to Boston with a small group from Virginia and take over the seige of that New England city.    The vast majority of the folks under Washington's command were new Englanders in that fight.    Subsequently Washington fought in New York,  Pensylvania,  Deleware...  He never returned to Virginia until the very end of the war to trap Cornwallis.   

 

When the Souths resistance fell on rocky shores and they were in desperate need of a Leader...  Washington didn't say,  I fight for Virginia and return home...   Continental Congress assigned General Gates over George Washington's objections to defend the south..

When Gates forces were routed at the Battle of Camden ( South Carolina )...   Again Washington didn't come home to fight..   Washington ( who this time was listened too by Congress )  sent Nathanael Green of Rhode Island South.

 

So if as you say Washington fought for his state it's odd that he didn't fight in his state,  or with other Virginian's,  nor did he return to his state when given the opportunity..   

 

But you are still more right than wrong for most Colonials...   There loyalties were to their states.   If asked where they were from they would say respond with their states.   One reason Washington is so revered as the father of the country was he could see the bigger picture..   Washington was loyal to the country,  not the state.   But then to your point,  Washington was an exception.

 Actually I completely agree with you.  The 'state' reference is the best representation, at the time of my writing, of what the fledgling US was.  I should have used another word for it.  Thought it was better than 'colonies'.

 

Great post!

 

.

[Larry]

Let's put it this way. These portraits began to be hung during a time where the people they fought were still alive and mostly running things, and yet they found it to be appropriate.

 

Assuming that that's true, (and I don't see any reason to assume otherwise), I think that's a valid point. 

 

Kinda like Native Americans not being offended by the Redskins name.  There's an element of "well, if they don't think it's offensive, then who the heck are you?" 

[JMS]

Well, I'm not sure who he's referring to.  I suspect he's thinking more along the lines of those people who to this day are trying to paint the Confederacy as people who were legally justified, moral citizens, defending their homes from the treasonous conquering armies of subjugation rained down on them without provocation by the greedy conquering Yankees.  

 

Perhaps we should ask him, instead of trying to put words in his mouth. 

 

Yes I wasn't so much trying to put words in his mouth as trying to use a rhetorical flourish.   Fact is Half the country succeeded from the union.   And those people did believe their choice was an honorable one at the time.    After the war  that opinion of why they left the union was incorporated into this country when the country was stitched back together.    The strength of that stitching grew stronger as Civil War Hero's on both sides of that conflict were honored by the stronger union which rose from the ashes of that war.

 

So it's kind of silly to indulge the sophomoric critics who want to reopen the wounds of yesteryear for petty reasons given how hard it must have been for the generations who were much closer to this bloody conflict to put all the hatred aside and forge this new union.

 

Haters going to hate.  LARRY...

[Larry]

I understand that they thought they were right, at the time. 

 

Nowdays, however, our opinion of slavery has changed a bit.  (Many people believe, for the better.) 

 

I have no doubt that at least some of the segregationists of the 60s thought they were in the right, too. 

 

Doesn't mean I approve of people attempting to alter history to try to claim, today, that they were right. 

[zoony]

Of course, one could also argue they were traitors had they sided with the North. I'm glad this is so cut and dry to so many of you.

And Rommel wouldn't be honored because he was never an American to my knowledge. Not sure that's the greatest analogy.

On the other side of this debate, Lee and Jackson can be remembered and admired without having their place on Federal Property. The two are not exclusive

[Larry]

Haters going to hate.  LARRY...

BTW, sure glad to see that we aren't so much putting words into other people's mouths, or anything, too.

[nonniey]

Assuming that that's true, (and I don't see any reason to assume otherwise), I think that's a valid point. 

 

Kinda like Native Americans not being offended by the Redskins name.  There's an element of "well, if they don't think it's offensive, then who the heck are you?" 

As an analogy somewhat close but in this case the adjustment I'd make is that the Redskins would have been founded  by American Indians who then gave the team the name Redskins.

[Larry]

Of course, one could also argue they were traitors had they sided with the North. I'm glad this is so cut and dry to so many of you.

I suppose one could.

If one were to attempt to argue that the two sides were both equally right, on the matter of slavery.

(I suspect that, now days, there's a pretty strong consensus on that matter, though.)

[zoony]

I suppose one could.If one were to attempt to argue that the two sides were both equally right, on the matter of slavery.(I suspect that, now days, there's a pretty strong consensus on that matter, though.)

Looks like you've established the moral high ground. Congrats

[JMS]

I understand that they thought they were right, at the time. 

 

Nowdays, however, our opinion of slavery has changed a bit.  (Many people believe, for the better.) 

 

I have no doubt that at least some of the segregationists of the 60s thought they were in the right, too. 

 

Doesn't mean I approve of people attempting to alter history to try to claim, today, that they were right. 

Two thoughts....

 

(1) You and your contemporary revisionists would be surprised to find that most southerners didn't fight to preserve slavery; and most northerners didn't fight to eradicate slavery.

 

Lincoln sold the emancipation proclamation to the North as a way to harm the south's war effort.   The north wasn't interested in freeing the slaves.   The Emancipation Proclamation didn't even free the slaves in the border states,  just the southern states in rebellion.

 

(2)  Why does your clock of moral outrage start so late in the country's history?  So all the founding fathers except one John Adams at one time or another owned slaves.   Why would you use slavery as a club to smear the south while sparing them?   4 of the first 5 Presidents were slaveholders... where is your condemnation of them?...  Why aren't you clamoring to take their pictures down?  

 

Slavery has nothing to do with you ****ing about southern hero's.   It has everything to do with your own upbringing and your inability to rise above it.   Perhaps there is justice in you living in Florida and hating all things southern!!   Grasp the complex argument Larry.   The south doesn't have to be evil to have been wrong, nor did all their people have to have seceded for (1) reason.... and the North didn't have to be good to be right;  and the majority of the people everywhere in the country didn't have to agree for the Lincoln to do the right thing on slavery.

[Larry]

Two thoughts....

 

(1) You and your contemporary revisionists would be surprised to find that most southerners didn't fight to preserve slavery;

Four confederate states, when they seceded, chose to set forth, in writing, the reasons why they were seceding.

Slavery was the only reason listed. By all four of them. (Well, Texas's reasons were along the lines of "slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, federal troops to protect us from Indians and Mexicans, slavery, slavery, and slavery".)

Tell me, which one of us is revising history?

(Here's a link to the documents, from all four states.)

Or is this the "well, the individual solder had what he thought was a moral reason" attempt to justify the actions of the Confederate states?

 

----------

 

I'll be happy to discuss the rest of your attempts to tell me what my feelings and positions are, when you demonstrate a grasp of the fact that you're ignorant as to both. 

 

[JMS]

BTW, sure glad to see that we aren't so much putting words into other people's mouths, or anything, too.

 

I found your following characterization in post #37 as hateful.   You were describing people you hate...  and your over the top, offensive mischaracterization of their argument demonstrates that hatred.

 

I suspect he's thinking more along the lines of those people who to this day are trying to paint the Confederacy as people who were legally justified, moral citizens, defending their homes from the treasonous conquering armies of subjugation rained down on them without provocation by the greedy conquering Yankees.

[Larry]

Looks like you've established the moral high ground. Congrats

 

I believe somebody once asserted that we, later, don't have the power to establish the moral high ground.  That people who went before us had already done so. 

 

(That pompous and bombastic and delusion of grandeur enough?  )

[JMS]

Four confederate states, when they seceded, chose to set forth, in writing, the reasons why they were seceding.

Slavery was the only reason listed. By all four of them. (Well, Texas's reasons were along the lines of "slavery, slavery, slavery, slavery, federal troops to protect us from Indians and Mexicans, slavery, slavery, and slavery".)

Tell me, which one of us is revising history?

 

Does that mean six southern states when they seceded didn't mention slavery?  4 <  6..   Now reread my statement..

 

 

most southerners didn't fight to preserve slavery;

 

 

Look Larry I don't disagree with you that the Civil war was about slavery.   Not even that the leaders of the secessionist states succeeded due to issues relating to the abolition of slavery as they saw it.   Why is it so hard for you to grasp that that is not how the leaders of the South sold the war to their citizens?

 

We just lived through the first gulf war.   That war was absolutely about oil.   Most Americans who supported that war did not do so for oil.   We did so for higher reasons such as liberating Kuwait;  or protecting babies from evil Saddam.   Very few soldiers or citizen supporters said to themselves I support the Iraq war because it's going to knock 1$ off a gallon of gas,  someday...

[Larry]

Does that mean six southern states when they seceded didn't mention slavery?  4 <  6..   Now reread my statement..

 

It means that six confederate states chose not to mention any reasons at all. 

 

Far as I'm aware, I linked you to the documents listing the reason for secession, of every single state which chose to list their reason. 

 

You read them? 

[Larry]

I found your following characterization in post #37 as hateful.   You were describing people you hate...  and your made up offensive characterization of their argument demonstrates that hatred.

 

Then you came to the wrong conclusion. 

 

And my "made up offensive characterization of their argument"? 

 

Yeah, I ladled it on really thick.  Intentionally so, to make it very clear that it was intentional exaggeration. 

 

Sometimes, I prefer to intentionally exaggerate things, to the point where I assume that it's obvious to everybody that I'm doing so.  And assume that the readers will detect that it's sarcasm, without it being explicitly labeled as such. 

 

Sometimes my assumption is incorrect.

 

But, do you really want me to pull up the posts, in this very thread, where what I describe (in intentionally exaggerated language) is in fact being pushed? 

 

Or have you already read them, and you know the ones I'm referring to?