cajunrevenge
Well-known member
Wasnt the war hugely unpopular in the North with most people just wanting to let them leave? If anything it's was Lincolns determination to keep the union whole that led to all the bloodshed.
So honoring the kkk today is worse than owning slaves in the 1700’s?
People should be allowed to honor whomever they want, you don’t have to join them. Satanist, kkk, NAMBLA who cares. You have a right to look away and ignore them
So honoring the kkk today is worse than owning slaves in the 1700’s?
People should be allowed to honor whomever they want, you don’t have to join them. Satanist, kkk, NAMBLA who cares. You have a right to look away and ignore them
this is such a dumb statement to think, much less type out and then have click post reply
WTF are all of your posts then?
I don't really think there should be anything after "Sherman created some horrifying atrocities." I don't think there really should be any attempt to justify what he did. If anything, he should be used as an example of how not to conduct war.
War is going to cost civilian lives. It's unavoidable. But there's a huge difference between intentional targeting of civilians and civilians being the collateral damage of a legitimate target. The intentional targeting of civilians in war is evil and cannot be justified. That's what Sherman did.
And it's not like he was following the standards of the day. Lincoln issued the Lieber Code not long before Sherman's campaign. Sherman pretty much ignored it. The atrocities Sherman committed were also decried in the North as well as the South.
I'm not for whitewashing history. I think it warps the lessons history can teach us. I find Forrest getting honored to be ridiculous. The guy was a trash person. The same goes for Jefferson Davis. But I find the veneration of people like Lincoln and Sherman to be silly as well. Those guys did some really evil stuff as well which gets ignored. When it is discussed people try to justify it. I find that troubling.
troubled that liberals have double standards?
You say you're not for whitewashing history but you are spinning something fierce. Did Sherman target civilians, yup. He did it as a method of total war. But what were the civilian casualties of his march to the sea? THe number I see is that there were 3100 casualties, 2100 of which were union troops. Compare that to Jefferson Davis's order to burn Richmond as the Civil War was coming to an end that lead to many casualties. ANd then he gets a monument or 2 in Richmond itself.
ANyway, I don't want to drone on. You're a southern born and raised dude as I recall. I know from a few friends that how they teach the civil war in the south is very different than how it's teached elsewhere.Why does Lee and other confederate generals often get passes and a lot more monuments and a lot less criticism than Sherman, when during the invasion of Pennsylvania confederates captured free black men and conscripted them to slavery. But they get a free pass it seems.
Again, war is hell. What Sherman did was in his mind deemed necessary by the resilience of the confederacy. Akin to dropping the Nukes in WWII, there is a debate of is what he did that bad? Is destroying swaths of property and resources that bad if it lead to the war coming to a close quicker? These are things that have to be looked at with a critical lens because the world isn't black and white. It has all different kinds of grey in it. And remember looking at the modern world, we see lots of critiques of Sherman, Grant, Sheridan, etc. but rarely see them for Lee, a man who viewed union black soldiers as property not people.
A lot of people did a lot of evil things during the CIvil War, it was an ugly war, one fought hard between people who used to be allies. The reason that Lincoln is venerated is because he preserved the union. ANd did so despite heavy opposition in his own country. What Lincoln did was a damned near miracle. And if the South Won. The south lost and Jefferson Davis is venerated in the South.
I believe I called Jefferson Davis a trash person in an earlier post. I have no respect for the guy and don't think he should have been venerated at any point.
There's a difference between war causing collateral damage and the intentional targeting of civilians. WWII is a good example. There were plenty of cases where the Allied's actions caused civilian deaths as a by product of trying to attack legitimate targets. Then there were those times where civilians were either intentionally targeted or no attempt was made to avoid civilian casualties when there could have been. Dresden is probably the most egregious example of the Allied's crossing that line to me.
Sherman crossed that line. It wasn't an accident or even a momentary lapse in judgment. His plan was to intentionally target civilians. Sherman was a trash person as well and should not be venerated.
Ultimately my point is probably that we venerate people incorrectly. We want to take someone who did something great and hold them out as an ideal human. A paragon of perfection. Reality is messier and we ignore the ugly truths of history to our own peril.
Lincoln kept the union together and effectively ended slavery in the US. However, he also was a racist that suspended the writ of habeus corpus. I would like to see the latter taught along side the former. Show him as a man that had his faults.
Sherman's campaign shattered confederate resistance but at what cost to the country's soul?
Lee was a peerless general and had the respect of both sides in the war. People even point to his more progressive (for the time and especially for a Virginia slave owner) writings on slavery and race. However, that can't change the fact that he was a slave owner who fought for the side in favor of slavery and who also in his writings went through mental gymnastics to try to rationalize his owning of slaves as moral.
Every person in history has had flaws. Even the greatest historical heroes. I think acknowledging their flaws alongside their triumphs is important.
Under Tennessee law, governors are required to proclaim six dates as "days of special observance" including July 13 as "Nathan Bedford Forrest Day"; June 3 as "Memorial Day" or "Confederate Decoration Day"; and January 19 as "Robert E. Lee Day."
Idiotic law
Striker, I think you’re wrong on just about every count about Lee, and as such are doing precisely what you’re arguing against. He wasn’t a peerless general, and he certainly wasn’t a “progressive” slave owner. He personally oversaw or participated in torture of slaves who attempted to escape, he—contrary to tradition in his holdings—separated slave families, armies under his direct command enslaved free black citizens and massacred black Union prisoners. No myth is more pernicious than the one that’s grown up around Lee.
I’m all for including the entire historical record wrt Sherman and Lincoln. But the same standard has to apply to Confederate leaders. And nothing either man did, frankly, even approached what any leader or general of the CSA did simply by taking up arms against the Union.
I'm always wanting to learn more about history. If I have a wrong impression I welcome new information.
For Lee's views on slavery, I'm going largely by his own writings. They came across as a guy who clearly knew what he was doing was wrong and enjoyed the idea that it would eventually end. He was on the progressive end for a slave owner in those views. Granted, that's not saying a whole lot. However, his personal prosperity depended on slaves and so he tried to justify its necessity and the harsh tactics he used.
Ultimately he seemed to choose the Thomas Jefferson path of hypocrisy on slavery. High minded in word but low in deed.
And as a battlefield strategist, Lee was truly exceptional. That's not the myth that's grown up around him, it's a reputation he earned at the time. There's a reason he could have been the head of the Union army had he chose to remain loyal to the Union.
Lee took a far smaller, far more poorly equipped force and actually scored victories. Chancellorsville was absolutely brilliant battlefield strategy. His biggest issue as a general is that he was a product of his training. The South had no chance of going toe to toe with the North long term but this is what Lee (and pretty much every other Southern general) did.
Here's an interesting thought experiment. If Lee was born and raised in Maryland instead of Virginia, how is he viewed today? An American hero that is vilified in the south? Quite possibly.
Chancellorsville is like saying a baseball manager had a good game in May
He did order Pickett's charge -- same guy ?
Having spent a day at Arlington the number one thought was "what a waste"
Lee like your man Forrest he was no hero --- he was a traitor --- took up arms against his country.
Shoulda been hung.
it sure would have saved a lot of trouble down the road
........
Lee wasnt born in Maryland he was born in the United States.
Probably an interesting thought experiment should you subscribe to that states rights BS
Of the many things I fault Obama for , not turning over Bush and Cheney to the Hague for trial pretty much sits atop the list.
I think a Nuremburg-esque inquisition was called for after the Civil War.
It galls me to ride through the south and see the confederacy celebrated.
I am left to wonder the rage citizens of color feel .
No, ask a person of color that has been profiled about the history/ lessons of the Civil War rather than frame the discussion around a monument to the founder of a terrorist organization.
Yeah striker, you argued for his monument, he is your boy.
And I'm so glad you're not in a position of political power.