ComradeMilton Posted September 8, 2017 Share Posted September 8, 2017 9 hours ago, Edwardidk said: Tell that to the families whose ancestors were these people. You're basically taking a priceless heirloom away from them. On the contrary, we could give them the statue to display in any private property they elect to choose. What is considered "moral" also changes with time. 50 years ago, giving your kid a beating for screwing up was commonplace. Now? Not unless you want your kid to get taken by child services. If these statues are removed, why don't we remove Washington? He owned slaves, and he also caused thousands of deaths by leading the fighting. Who knows? Maybe in a hundred years he'll be immoral too. You can't judge the past using today's standards. I certainly can. If it's necessaryto remove a monument to Washington to avoid making decisions regarding who is depicted in statuary I support that. Lee was never pro-slavery, even though he owned slaves. He was bunched together with the pro-slavery Confederates because He never actually condemned slavery. He fought for the South because most of his holdings/property were there. Lee fought for his country, which is basically what Washington did. The only difference was that one won, while the other lost.. 12 hours ago, Buorhann said: >tfw people are still replying to Milton What's the harm in replying? 13 hours ago, Rozalia said: Wow... did I just see Milton defend Muhammed by saying that the Quran is not an accurate account so there is no evidence he had sex with a child. Wow, talk about pathetic. No, I offered no defense. I simply said that just like the bible a book of that age is likely to not be entirely accurate so it's unclear what, if anything, is incorrectly included dues to an error from the authors or not. I like how Islam reveals how cowardly you sorts are. Just completely craven. One mention of Islam and you cower and get on your knees. Weak. Being respectful and not bigoted against someone of another religion is cowardly? I'm replying to someone who wants to rub them out in roads, museums, inns, whatever. Context please. You start with the statues, rub them out elsewhere, and then you don't teach about what they may have done. Just a caricatured version. How do statues being removed alter the many, many existi?ng and future texts that contain the full history? There is a different for glorifying people for the good things they did and glorying them for the bad. No one honours Edward I for kicking out Jews. They honour him for the good he did. There was a serial killer in Utah that requested an execution method that preserved his organs for post-execution donation. Should he get a statue for doing good or not receive one for the number of people he killed? Excuse me? How can you say I misunderstand America when you have said such a blatantly incorrect statement? Robert E. Lee was not in charge of the Confederacy. Correct, Lee was one of the senior military officials in the Confederate military, allowing him to issue orders as Caecus said. As far as I know he was also very limited in regards to the developed situation that lead to the succession and then inevitable war (like the Union really cared for slaves. They cared about losing all that land and treasure). The primary issue was a continuation of the argument between those who wanted a weak federal government and strong state governments versus those who wantd a strong central government as a federal grouping of the states. The CSA tried to force this issue to avoid abolitionists succeeding in ending slavery in the United States as well as a lot more state power and tried to secede from the Union. Cession of a state from the Union was not permitted so when those favoring a reversal of the vivtory of strong federal, central government over states with reduced power, attempted to leave the Union to do so and began fighting their country it included slavery as an issue even without it being the primary disliked first American system of government before the Constitution was brought into effect in 1789 as the present governmental structure we use took initial and lasting effect. That so? Is that why I've so often heard Washington (the slave owner and racist) honoured in martial matters? You know, the first president of America. He was not the first president of the United States: President of Congress Office Start Office Exit Samuel Huntington March 1, 1781 July 9, 1781 Thomas McKean July 10, 1781 November 4, 1781 John Hanson November 5, 1781 November 3, 1782 Elias Boudinot November 4, 1782 November 2, 1783 Thomas Mifflin November 3, 1783 October 31, 1784 Richard Henry Lee November 30, 1784 November 6, 1785 John Hancock November 23, 1785 May 29, 1786 Nathaniel Gorham June 6, 1786 November 5, 1786 Arthur St. Clair February 2, 1787 November 4, 1787 Cyrus Griffin January 22, 1788 November 2, 1788 As you can see Washington was our eleventh president. "The term America's Critical Period refers to the period of United States history in the 1780s after the American Revolution and prior to the ratification of the United States Constitution. In 1781, the United States ratified the Articles of Confederation and prevailed in the Battle of Yorktown, the last major land battle between British and American forces in the American Revolutionary War. American independence was confirmed with the 1783 signing of the Treaty of Paris. The fledgling United States faced several challenges, many of which stemmed from the lack of a strong national government and unified political culture. The period ended in 1789 following the ratification of the United States Constitution, which established a new, more powerful, national government." Sorry for the double post, but I included a couple of erroneous statements and wanted to correct them, but IPB denied editing due too much time having passed by to permit an edit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 8, 2017 Author Share Posted September 8, 2017 8 hours ago, Rozalia said: You seem to think I am saying that tearing down some statues magically wipes them from the history books. No. To begin with it goes beyond just statues as all sorts of things are named after people and as I said, how people are taught is affected by this reputation they can gain. Lets talk writers for example. You think these diseased schools they have over in your country are going to teach the works of a man who they deem is racist and most not be honoured in any way? No. They'll stop and perhaps teach some modern guff by some very special snowflake instead. Giving in to these people only means they will push harder and then more and more people become fair game. Already Lincoln and others are being attacked and it'll only grow. These are things inherent in all people. People admire those who as weak as they may be do well. I didn't say Americans didn't know who the guy was, of course they do. I talked of his prowess. You love trying to make out that people are saying that we only know history form statues don't you? I'm simply going to ignore the nonsense you put up as it was a non response to what I said. The point of what I said is being deemed in this manner leads to ignorance. People build a caricatured view of the person with all the bad stuff, and don't know the good stuff they did. Yeah, that's what most people are arguing these days, and it's stupid. I seem to recall historians debating whether or not Shakespeare was an anti-Semite, and yet I hear everyone still reads his shit plays. It sounds like you don't have any faith in the public education system (a logical and sound conclusion). I still don't see how statues would enhance anyone's education. I seem to recall people today generally think slavery is morally wrong, so I don't see why anyone would sympathize with the underdog that fought to keep slavery unless they didn't know the South fought to keep slavery. The only people who would admire the South would be people borne of the terrible education system you so rightly fear. So, if we have firmly established that statues don't contribute to the historical record in any way, what is your remaining defense of keeping up statues for Lee? Do you just have the slippery slope argument? Also, since we have firmly established that statues don't contribute tot he historical record in any way, how is it that statues can help people know the "good stuff" they did? Also, again, what in god's name are the "good things" that Lee did? 1 Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardidk Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 13 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: On the contrary, we could give them the statue to display in any private property they elect to choose. That's one solution, but is this really feasible considering modern-day politics? 13 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: I certainly can. If it's necessaryto remove a monument to Washington to avoid making decisions regarding who is depicted in statuary I support that. I stated earlier that Washington owned slaves and technically also caused the deaths of thousands. With your logic, I'd say that we should remove his statues. 13 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: No, Lee fought against his country. He lived in the South, he fought for the South. The Confederacy seceded, which basically makes them a separate country. 10 hours ago, Caecus said: Yeah, that's what most people are arguing these days, and it's stupid. I seem to recall historians debating whether or not Shakespeare was an anti-Semite, and yet I hear everyone still reads his shit plays. It sounds like you don't have any faith in the public education system (a logical and sound conclusion). I still don't see how statues would enhance anyone's education. I seem to recall people today generally think slavery is morally wrong, so I don't see why anyone would sympathize with the underdog that fought to keep slavery unless they didn't know the South fought to keep slavery. The only people who would admire the South would be people borne of the terrible education system you so rightly fear. So, if we have firmly established that statues don't contribute to the historical record in any way, what is your remaining defense of keeping up statues for Lee? Do you just have the slippery slope argument? Also, since we have firmly established that statues don't contribute tot he historical record in any way, how is it that statues can help people know the "good stuff" they did? Also, again, what in god's name are the "good things" that Lee did? Well said, though I have one one point to counter. Statues definitely motivate people to study their past/why the statue is there; I know this from real life experience because I have friends that have researched histories over statues all over my city. You're gonna have to concede the slippery slope argument, because it definitely can be applied to many figures that we currently accept as good leaders. The slippery slope could cause us to remove statues and then regret it, but by then the damage would've been done and it would be irreparable. Quote Cheers! If it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 9, 2017 Author Share Posted September 9, 2017 1 hour ago, Edwardidk said: Well said, though I have one one point to counter. Statues definitely motivate people to study their past/why the statue is there; I know this from real life experience because I have friends that have researched histories over statues all over my city. You're gonna have to concede the slippery slope argument, because it definitely can be applied to many figures that we currently accept as good leaders. The slippery slope could cause us to remove statues and then regret it, but by then the damage would've been done and it would be irreparable. Welp, I can't speak for other people. If some people find motivation in studying historical figures by looking at a statue, nothing much could be said there. Nonetheless, I still think that statues in America must embody our fundamental ideals. Lady Liberty isn't a real individual, but the caricature is nonetheless important because it represents the ideals of the new world taking in the exiles of the old. That being said, it is true, I think I must concede the slippery slope argument, simply because it is a possibility. There is a possibility that one day, 100 years from now, Washington and Jefferson will be seen as slave owners and racists, a historical irony that blatantly clashes with "all men are created equal." However! As I have said before, if that day does come, Washington and Jefferson (unlike Lee) are defensible. Washington stepped away from power, promoted dialogue as the medium of discourse in democratic rule over violence and revolution, and set the example for all pitiful mortal men with faults to strive towards. Jefferson, as much as he was the walking talking hypocrite, nonetheless wrote down the revolutionary idea that the common man could become a leader by virtue of being. These characters are not perfect, but they are defensible. Perhaps one day Jefferson's hypocrisy catches up with him. Perhaps one day we will forget Washington's foresight and idealism in believing that moderation and radical factionalism should not trump sound debate and discourse. Lee's statues should be removed, not because we want to erase his memory and damn him into historical oblivion, but because Lee is not a character worth glorifying next to the great characters such as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. His choices destroyed an entire generation, tore a nation apart, and betrayed every moral principle that this country champions against the tidal wave of oppression and violence that plagued too much of human history. If we are to glorify him because he sided with his "country," we must remember he did so knowing that it would eventually lead to violence instead of democratic debate. 1 Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 3 hours ago, Edwardidk said: That's one solution, but is this really feasible considering modern-day politics? Yes. Alabama keeps violating a US Supreme Court ruling by continuously adding a sculpture related to Christianity that is subsequently removed. I stated earlier that Washington owned slaves and technically also caused the deaths of thousands. With your logic, I'd say that we should remove his statues. I'm not really sure what "logic" I'm using. I did already agree that if removal of his statues are necessary, so be it. He lived in the South, he fought for the South. The Confederacy seceded, which basically makes them a separate country. It tried to be its own country; it failed and he remained an American so he fought his own country. Well said, though I have one one point to counter. Statues definitely motivate people to study their past/why the statue is there; I know this from real life experience because I have friends that have researched histories over statues all over my city. You're gonna have to concede the slippery slope argument, because it definitely can be applied to many figures that we currently accept as good leaders. The slippery slope could cause us to remove statues and then regret it, but by then the damage would've been done and it would be irreparable. I have and have said that if removal of all public statues is necessary to do some pruning of the offensive statuary I support doing so. 2 hours ago, Caecus said: Lee's statues should be removed, not because we want to erase his memory and damn him into historical oblivion, but because Lee is not a character worth glorifying next to the great characters such as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. His choices destroyed an entire generation, tore a nation apart, and betrayed every moral principle that this country champions against the tidal wave of oppression and violence that plagued too much of human history. If we are to glorify him because he sided with his "country," we must remember he did so knowing that it would eventually lead to violence instead of democratic debate. This is also an excellent idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 The insanity of Milton denying Washington's status as the first president of the United States... 15 hours ago, Caecus said: Yeah, that's what most people are arguing these days, and it's stupid. I seem to recall historians debating whether or not Shakespeare was an anti-Semite, and yet I hear everyone still reads his shit plays. It sounds like you don't have any faith in the public education system (a logical and sound conclusion). I still don't see how statues would enhance anyone's education. I seem to recall people today generally think slavery is morally wrong, so I don't see why anyone would sympathize with the underdog that fought to keep slavery unless they didn't know the South fought to keep slavery. The only people who would admire the South would be people borne of the terrible education system you so rightly fear. So, if we have firmly established that statues don't contribute to the historical record in any way, what is your remaining defense of keeping up statues for Lee? Do you just have the slippery slope argument? Also, since we have firmly established that statues don't contribute tot he historical record in any way, how is it that statues can help people know the "good stuff" they did? Also, again, what in god's name are the "good things" that Lee did? His time will come, perhaps thankfully as I've always disliked his works. A joke. I don't see why you ask these questions when it seems quite clear you are aware of the answers. In my example I list Liu Bei, the biggest traitor of his time who was glorified as a bastion or morality with no one more noble. Lee you say fought for slavery but ask any of the people who like him and they'll you that he fought for state rights and if not for loyalty to his state he'd have fought for the Union more than likely. When you look at it like that it gives Lee a noble vibe. Sure he was still racist and all the rest, so was basically everyone so quite irrelevant. I forget who it was but I recall a famous guy of the past who attacked statues as completely useless eyesores. An argument can be made that statues are completely useless nonsense certainly (do you need that statue of liberty? Does Liberty vanish if it goes?). 3 hours ago, Caecus said: That being said, it is true, I think I must concede the slippery slope argument, simply because it is a possibility. There is a possibility that one day, 100 years from now, Washington and Jefferson will be seen as slave owners and racists, a historical irony that blatantly clashes with "all men are created equal." However! As I have said before, if that day does come, Washington and Jefferson (unlike Lee) are defensible. Washington stepped away from power, promoted dialogue as the medium of discourse in democratic rule over violence and revolution, and set the example for all pitiful mortal men with faults to strive towards. Jefferson, as much as he was the walking talking hypocrite, nonetheless wrote down the revolutionary idea that the common man could become a leader by virtue of being. These characters are not perfect, but they are defensible. Perhaps one day Jefferson's hypocrisy catches up with him. Perhaps one day we will forget Washington's foresight and idealism in believing that moderation and radical factionalism should not trump sound debate and discourse. Lee's statues should be removed, not because we want to erase his memory and damn him into historical oblivion, but because Lee is not a character worth glorifying next to the great characters such as Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln. His choices destroyed an entire generation, tore a nation apart, and betrayed every moral principle that this country champions against the tidal wave of oppression and violence that plagued too much of human history. If we are to glorify him because he sided with his "country," we must remember he did so knowing that it would eventually lead to violence instead of democratic debate. No need to wait 100 years mate. The future is today. I'm very much going to enjoy when they get bored of the Confederates and start really biting into the rest instead of these isolated attacks... oh it will be so much fun to watch. Uh... Lee could have become a monk and retreated into the countryside and little would have changed. Perhaps the Confederacy would have done a bit worse leading to a quicker war or perhaps someone who could perform better would have taken command of the army he had. Who knows. If anything that statement you made of tearing a nation apart and so on can more accurately be laid at the feet of Lincoln rather than Lee who was just a general whose involvement of said tearing apart was all of zero. Not that I would make such a statement but it would certainly be more accurate then saying it about Lee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 11 minutes ago, Rozalia said: The insanity of Milton denying Washington's status as the first president of the United States... By showing you the first ten presidents of the United States? Uh... Lee could have become a monk and retreated into the countryside and little would have changed. Perhaps the Confederacy would have done a bit worse leading to a quicker war or perhaps someone who could perform better would have taken command of the army he had. Who knows. If anything that statement you made of tearing a nation apart and so on can more accurately be laid at the feet of Lincoln rather than Lee who was just a general whose involvement of said tearing apart was all of zero. Not that I would make such a statement but it would certainly be more accurate then saying it about Lee. Lee could've moved North and assisted the Union forces. He elected to make war against his country instead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardidk Posted September 9, 2017 Share Posted September 9, 2017 10 hours ago, ComradeMilton said: Lee could've moved North and assisted the Union forces. He elected to make war against his country instead. Mhm... put yourself in his shoes. His family, his work, his land, everything he had worked for in his life was there. Also, he was against the war, and wanted to keep the country intact. Please do your research. Quote Cheers! If it's stupid but it works, it's not stupid. ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 9, 2017 Author Share Posted September 9, 2017 15 hours ago, Rozalia said: His time will come, perhaps thankfully as I've always disliked his works. A joke. Because !@#$ Shakespeare. 15 hours ago, Rozalia said: I don't see why you ask these questions when it seems quite clear you are aware of the answers. In my example I list Liu Bei, the biggest traitor of his time who was glorified as a bastion or morality with no one more noble. Lee you say fought for slavery but ask any of the people who like him and they'll you that he fought for state rights and if not for loyalty to his state he'd have fought for the Union more than likely. When you look at it like that it gives Lee a noble vibe. Sure he was still racist and all the rest, so was basically everyone so quite irrelevant. The so-called "state's rights" he fought for was for the state's right to allow slavery. The civil war was about slavery, from the secession of the Southern states before Lincoln's inauguration down to the last shots fired in the deep south following Lee's surrender in Virginia. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is either ignorant of the vast primary source literature on the motivations of the South or has their own agenda to calling it by a euphemism. 15 hours ago, Rozalia said: I forget who it was but I recall a famous guy of the past who attacked statues as completely useless eyesores. An argument can be made that statues are completely useless nonsense certainly (do you need that statue of liberty? Does Liberty vanish if it goes?). No need to wait 100 years mate. The future is today. I'm very much going to enjoy when they get bored of the Confederates and start really biting into the rest instead of these isolated attacks... oh it will be so much fun to watch. Well, he does make a compelling argument. Building statues is kind of a waste of materials since it's only role is to sit somewhere and literally watch the time go by. Nonetheless, human tendency to make and create a figure that could inspire awe or cult-like worship is a well-recorded phenomenon that seems to transcend culture and nationality. As Peter the Great said about those useless !@#$ing church bells, "MELT THEM DOWN INTO CANNON SO WE CAN KILL MORE SWEDES!" I meant widely. There isn't overwhelming support to take down Lincoln's statue. There is overwhelming support to take down Lee's though. 15 hours ago, Rozalia said: Uh... Lee could have become a monk and retreated into the countryside and little would have changed. Perhaps the Confederacy would have done a bit worse leading to a quicker war or perhaps someone who could perform better would have taken command of the army he had. Who knows. If anything that statement you made of tearing a nation apart and so on can more accurately be laid at the feet of Lincoln rather than Lee who was just a general whose involvement of said tearing apart was all of zero. Not that I would make such a statement but it would certainly be more accurate then saying it about Lee. I disagree. From the onset of the war, the Confederacy had superior generals and staff officers, down to the junior officers and NCOs. The "soft" Northerners never had the sort of wild, back-country, me-and-my-rifle lifestyle that the gentrified Southern aristocracy had. The North's generals were all shit too. Grant was famous for being at the bottom of his class in West Point. The only reason why the north won was because of a larger wartime population, a stronger and more diverse economy, superior communications and logistics, and a !@#$ ton of horses. If the North had superior leadership at the onset of the war, it wouldn't have gone on for 4 bloody years. But that's ifs and maybes. We will never know. But let's assume that you are correct in saying that Lee could have been a monk and retreated to the countryside and little would have changed. Why didn't he? The 1860 election was an electoral upset for the South, but that was no reason to declare active rebellion against the US and violently tear away from the country. That's similar to talk of California seceding from the Union because Trump was elected in 2016. And despite me despising Trump for being a fat, orange, incompetent, on-the-toilet-tweeting, Nazi-fellating, stupid dipshit who prostituted himself out to the Russians for a couple of extra dollars he will never get to spend (further highlighting his boundless incompetence and stupidity), if California seceded from the Union and its "militia" launched an artillery strike on Camp Pendleton, I'll be the first in line at the recruiting station to shoot me some liberal cucktard Hollywood traitors. When the South seceded, Lee did the opposite. Instead of doing nothing like he and everyone else who claimed to disagree with slavery in the south always did before, Lee chose to reject Lincoln's offer to command the Army of the Potomac (which, by the way, up until Grant, all the generals were incompetent and passive. Grant was just incompetent) and instead chose to take up the commission offered by the Confederacy. Lee and his staff's competency was the only thing that won them the battle of Manassas Junction (that, and the fact that the Union commanders were incompetent). Lee's invasions of the north prolonged the war outside of its first year. Lee is literally the only reason why the Confederacy wasn't squished in its infancy and is directly responsible for the lives of at least 200,000 Americans, both north and south, in the most pointless blood-letting that only in the circumstances of utter exhaustion and excessive hemorrhaging did he surrender. If he won, it would have meant that he was responsible for bringing about the renewed existence and persistence of slavery in the western world into the 20th century and beyond (despite ROMANOV BACKWARDASS !@#$ing RUSSIA abolished serfdom in 1861). If he lost, all the lives he commanded to die would have been pointless. His choice was a lose-lose, and yet he made it anyway, perhaps because he thought one of those choices was a win. Actions speak louder than words. The silent graves of 200,000 Americans speak volumes about Lee. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 2 hours ago, Caecus said: Because !@#$ Shakespeare. The so-called "state's rights" he fought for was for the state's right to allow slavery. The civil war was about slavery, from the secession of the Southern states before Lincoln's inauguration down to the last shots fired in the deep south following Lee's surrender in Virginia. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is either ignorant of the vast primary source literature on the motivations of the South or has their own agenda to calling it by a euphemism. Well, he does make a compelling argument. Building statues is kind of a waste of materials since it's only role is to sit somewhere and literally watch the time go by. Nonetheless, human tendency to make and create a figure that could inspire awe or cult-like worship is a well-recorded phenomenon that seems to transcend culture and nationality. As Peter the Great said about those useless !@#$ing church bells, "MELT THEM DOWN INTO CANNON SO WE CAN KILL MORE SWEDES!" I meant widely. There isn't overwhelming support to take down Lincoln's statue. There is overwhelming support to take down Lee's though. I disagree. From the onset of the war, the Confederacy had superior generals and staff officers, down to the junior officers and NCOs. The "soft" Northerners never had the sort of wild, back-country, me-and-my-rifle lifestyle that the gentrified Southern aristocracy had. The North's generals were all shit too. Grant was famous for being at the bottom of his class in West Point. The only reason why the north won was because of a larger wartime population, a stronger and more diverse economy, superior communications and logistics, and a !@#$ ton of horses. If the North had superior leadership at the onset of the war, it wouldn't have gone on for 4 bloody years. But that's ifs and maybes. We will never know. But let's assume that you are correct in saying that Lee could have been a monk and retreated to the countryside and little would have changed. Why didn't he? The 1860 election was an electoral upset for the South, but that was no reason to declare active rebellion against the US and violently tear away from the country. That's similar to talk of California seceding from the Union because Trump was elected in 2016. And despite me despising Trump for being a fat, orange, incompetent, on-the-toilet-tweeting, Nazi-fellating, stupid dipshit who prostituted himself out to the Russians for a couple of extra dollars he will never get to spend (further highlighting his boundless incompetence and stupidity), if California seceded from the Union and its "militia" launched an artillery strike on Camp Pendleton, I'll be the first in line at the recruiting station to shoot me some liberal cucktard Hollywood traitors. When the South seceded, Lee did the opposite. Instead of doing nothing like he and everyone else who claimed to disagree with slavery in the south always did before, Lee chose to reject Lincoln's offer to command the Army of the Potomac (which, by the way, up until Grant, all the generals were incompetent and passive. Grant was just incompetent) and instead chose to take up the commission offered by the Confederacy. Lee and his staff's competency was the only thing that won them the battle of Manassas Junction (that, and the fact that the Union commanders were incompetent). Lee's invasions of the north prolonged the war outside of its first year. Lee is literally the only reason why the Confederacy wasn't squished in its infancy and is directly responsible for the lives of at least 200,000 Americans, both north and south, in the most pointless blood-letting that only in the circumstances of utter exhaustion and excessive hemorrhaging did he surrender. If he won, it would have meant that he was responsible for bringing about the renewed existence and persistence of slavery in the western world into the 20th century and beyond (despite ROMANOV BACKWARDASS !@#$ing RUSSIA abolished serfdom in 1861). If he lost, all the lives he commanded to die would have been pointless. His choice was a lose-lose, and yet he made it anyway, perhaps because he thought one of those choices was a win. Actions speak louder than words. The silent graves of 200,000 Americans speak volumes about Lee. I am aware of this of course. I've seen Nazis use such an argument to defend him and other Confederates so it is quite clear that to many that angle is simply one to downplay the bad regarding him. However it does have some merit regardless. Forgive as obviously due to my circumstances I was not taught Civil War history (not that from what I hear it'd have done much good hehehe) so what I know is from pieces and some minor research done here and there. However a quick check turns up: "The commanding general of the Union Army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee accepted a promotion to colonel on March 28.[91] He had earlier been asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."[92] Meanwhile, Lee ignored an offer of command from the Confederate States of America. After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede. Lee on April 18 was offered by presidential advisor Francis P. Blair a role as major general to command the defense of Washington. He replied: Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?[93]" This states the opposite in that he accepted a promotion in the Union (not the big one you mention though yes) and ignored offers from the Confederacy until it became obvious that Virginia would stand with the Confederates. As far as I am aware while over time it has degraded, the whole attachment to states was very much a big deal back in those days. His early involvement also speaks of him failing and being ridiculed for measures which late into the war would prove very much effective. He only also took command and gained his fame due to his commander being wounded by Union forces. He was not in command to begin with. With the uselessness of the Union commanders also you can hardly state that Lee was solely the reason the Confederacy survived that opening stage of the war. From the numbers the Union suffered less casualties on that campaign and began with a slightly larger force to begin with so it seems likely to me that even if someone else (which as you say were of higher calibre than their Union counterparts) had taken over and done a little worse than Lee, the Union forces under McClellan would have still retreated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 9 hours ago, Edwardidk said: Mhm... put yourself in his shoes. His family, his work, his land, everything he had worked for in his life was there. He could've elected not to fight, then There are a lot of alternatives to what he did that weren't attacking his own country and from all of those he selected the worst option and now he'll be known for the results of that poor decision for as long as it takes until the Civil War stops being studied in a couple of centuries. Also, he was against the war, and wanted to keep the country intact. Please do your research. Odd attitude to have and then go onto leading a war on his country 4 hours ago, Caecus said: Because !@#$ Shakespeare. The so-called "state's rights" he fought for was for the state's right to allow slavery. The civil war was about slavery, from the secession of the Southern states before Lincoln's inauguration down to the last shots fired in the deep south following Lee's surrender in Virginia. Anyone trying to convince you otherwise is either ignorant of the vast primary source literature on the motivations of the South or has their own agenda to calling it by a euphemism. Not to dispute it, but there is an additional part of this which resulted from the strong-federal model of government prevailing and the strong-state model the CSA would've preferred. State's rights continued to be a dog whistle reference to black people and being able to discriminate against them well into the last century. I meant widely. There isn't overwhelming support to take down Lincoln's statue. There is overwhelming support to take down Lee's though. I wasn't even referring to the statue, I meant the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, DC. But if we're forced to choose between honoring traitors and criminals in public and it requires removing the Lincoln Memorial, I'd support that. I disagree. From the onset of the war, the Confederacy had superior generals and staff officers, down to the junior officers and NCOs. The "soft" Northerners never had the sort of wild, back-country, me-and-my-rifle lifestyle that the gentrified Southern aristocracy had. The North's generals were all shit too. Grant was famous for being at the bottom of his class in West Point. The only reason why the north won was because of a larger wartime population, a stronger and more diverse economy, superior communications and logistics, and a !@#$ ton of horses. If the North had superior leadership at the onset of the war, it wouldn't have gone on for 4 bloody years. But that's ifs and maybes. We will never know. But let's assume that you are correct in saying that Lee could have been a monk and retreated to the countryside and little would have changed. Why didn't he? The 1860 election was an electoral upset for the South, but that was no reason to declare active rebellion against the US and violently tear away from the country. That's similar to talk of California seceding from the Union because Trump was elected in 2016. And despite me despising Trump for being a fat, orange, incompetent, on-the-toilet-tweeting, Nazi-fellating, stupid dipshit who prostituted himself out to the Russians for a couple of extra dollars he will never get to spend (further highlighting his boundless incompetence and stupidity), if California seceded from the Union and its "militia" launched an artillery strike on Camp Pendleton, I'll be the first in line at the recruiting station to shoot me some liberal cucktard Hollywood traitors. When the South seceded, Lee did the opposite. Instead of doing nothing like he and everyone else who claimed to disagree with slavery in the south always did before, Lee chose to reject Lincoln's offer to command the Army of the Potomac (which, by the way, up until Grant, all the generals were incompetent and passive. Grant was just incompetent) and instead chose to take up the commission offered by the Confederacy. Lee and his staff's competency was the only thing that won them the battle of Manassas Junction (that, and the fact that the Union commanders were incompetent). Lee's invasions of the north prolonged the war outside of its first year. Lee is literally the only reason why the Confederacy wasn't squished in its infancy and is directly responsible for the lives of at least 200,000 Americans, both north and south, in the most pointless blood-letting that only in the circumstances of utter exhaustion and excessive hemorrhaging did he surrender. If he won, it would have meant that he was responsible for bringing about the renewed existence and persistence of slavery in the western world into the 20th century and beyond (despite ROMANOV BACKWARDASS !@#$ing RUSSIA abolished serfdom in 1861). If he lost, all the lives he commanded to die would have been pointless. His choice was a lose-lose, and yet he made it anyway, perhaps because he thought one of those choices was a win. Actions speak louder than words. The silent graves of 200,000 Americans speak volumes about Lee. Lots and lots of options that aren't making war on your country. Elect not to fight. Move to the North and fight for the country. He selected the traitor one and as a result will remain being discussed in that way until we stop needing to care about the Civil War in a few centuries. 1 hour ago, Rozalia said: From the numbers the Union suffered less casualties on that campaign and began with a slightly larger force to begin with so it seems likely to me that even if someone else (which as you say were of higher calibre than their Union counterparts) had taken over and done a little worse than Lee, the Union forces under McClellan would have still retreated. Instead of fighting for the country and being remembered as a military commander of extreme skill in being key to putting down the illegal attempts to secede by fighting with the Union forces and would be known to be a minor hero in American history he opted to be a traitor and will remain so until he stops being a topic of historical study in the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Aren't you one of those open borders one world globalists? How can such a person talk of loyalty? The words of a traitor have little value on the matter of treason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Nope. It's a new addition to what you've claimed my politics are. I don't and will not lead an attack on my country to try to revive slavery, if that's what you're getting at. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share Posted September 10, 2017 18 hours ago, Rozalia said: Forgive as obviously due to my circumstances I was not taught Civil War history (not that from what I hear it'd have done much good hehehe) so what I know is from pieces and some minor research done here and there. However a quick check turns up: "The commanding general of the Union Army, Winfield Scott, told Lincoln he wanted Lee for a top command. Lee accepted a promotion to colonel on March 28.[91] He had earlier been asked by one of his lieutenants if he intended to fight for the Confederacy or the Union, to which Lee replied, "I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."[92] Meanwhile, Lee ignored an offer of command from the Confederate States of America. After Lincoln's call for troops to put down the rebellion, it was obvious that Virginia would quickly secede. Lee on April 18 was offered by presidential advisor Francis P. Blair a role as major general to command the defense of Washington. He replied: Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy. If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?[93]" This states the opposite in that he accepted a promotion in the Union (not the big one you mention though yes) and ignored offers from the Confederacy until it became obvious that Virginia would stand with the Confederates. As far as I am aware while over time it has degraded, the whole attachment to states was very much a big deal back in those days. His early involvement also speaks of him failing and being ridiculed for measures which late into the war would prove very much effective. He only also took command and gained his fame due to his commander being wounded by Union forces. He was not in command to begin with. With the uselessness of the Union commanders also you can hardly state that Lee was solely the reason the Confederacy survived that opening stage of the war. From the numbers the Union suffered less casualties on that campaign and began with a slightly larger force to begin with so it seems likely to me that even if someone else (which as you say were of higher calibre than their Union counterparts) had taken over and done a little worse than Lee, the Union forces under McClellan would have still retreated. The key aspect to this rests in how sectionalism/statism came about in the first place. Lee's attachment to his native home state should not be seen as noble, but rather misguided since he put his state over the well-being of the country. I say it's misguided because the rise of sectionalism in the early 19th century was entirely the fault of slavery. If the compromises of the three decades before the Civil War were of any indication, the North and South were split along those lines because of slavery and any new state entering into the Union had to be divided along those lines to maintain the South's hold on slavery. Lee's attachment to his home state, while he did call out slavery to save the Union, is ironically because of slavery itself. Lee could have wished all he want to own all the slaves in the south and set them free to avoid the war, but his actions tell the story of a man who prolonged a futile conflict in the effort that preserve slavery if he succeeded or bleed his home state dry if he failed. No, I am almost certain of it, if Lee was not in command of the Virginian army at Second Bull Run (Manassas, w/e) and Chancellorsville, the Confederacy would have collapsed. Furthermore, while Lee was relatively inexperienced field commander, he had one aspect that was deficient in almost all of the major field commanders at the time: aggression and risk-taking. Every time McClellan/Grant amassed troops to invade Virginia with overwhelming force and take Richmond, Lee would either invade the north, fight at a superior tactical position, or harass supply lines which prolonged the war. The capture of either the federal or confederate capitols would have likely ended the war, or at least shorten it considerably. Lee understood that the only means to defeat the materially, technologically, and numerically superior north was by going on the offensive and outmaneuvering the large, unwieldy armies of the north, a sentiment that was not shared among the southern commanders until him. If the army of Northern Virginia stayed inert and sat on their earthworks for the defense of Richmond, even McClellan (as incompetent and passive as he was) would have eventually took it due to overwhelming force, and that's what Grant did in 1865 after grinding down Lee's army to the bone. Few can deny Lee's martial prowess in stark contrast with all other generals of the war, but Lee's "defense" of Virginia ironically killed more of its sons and burned more of its cities than if he did nothing or even took command of the Union army. I still stand by my statement that Lee is unworthy to be put on a pedestal in the same way Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson are and should not be glorified for any morally sound reason. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 10, 2017 Share Posted September 10, 2017 Except you know Milton, you have championed open borders just days ago and talked about letting them all in and rewarding them. Perhaps you are one of those types who says they aren't globalists... but support all the major globalist policies. Oh hey, I just remembered you support all the interventions too. Yeah, certainly a globalist. A globalist cannot talk of loyalty to a country. They are by definition "citizens of the world" and traitors to their country. 3 hours ago, Caecus said: The key aspect to this rests in how sectionalism/statism came about in the first place. Lee's attachment to his native home state should not be seen as noble, but rather misguided since he put his state over the well-being of the country. I say it's misguided because the rise of sectionalism in the early 19th century was entirely the fault of slavery. If the compromises of the three decades before the Civil War were of any indication, the North and South were split along those lines because of slavery and any new state entering into the Union had to be divided along those lines to maintain the South's hold on slavery. Lee's attachment to his home state, while he did call out slavery to save the Union, is ironically because of slavery itself. Lee could have wished all he want to own all the slaves in the south and set them free to avoid the war, but his actions tell the story of a man who prolonged a futile conflict in the effort that preserve slavery if he succeeded or bleed his home state dry if he failed. No, I am almost certain of it, if Lee was not in command of the Virginian army at Second Bull Run (Manassas, w/e) and Chancellorsville, the Confederacy would have collapsed. Furthermore, while Lee was relatively inexperienced field commander, he had one aspect that was deficient in almost all of the major field commanders at the time: aggression and risk-taking. Every time McClellan/Grant amassed troops to invade Virginia with overwhelming force and take Richmond, Lee would either invade the north, fight at a superior tactical position, or harass supply lines which prolonged the war. The capture of either the federal or confederate capitols would have likely ended the war, or at least shorten it considerably. Lee understood that the only means to defeat the materially, technologically, and numerically superior north was by going on the offensive and outmaneuvering the large, unwieldy armies of the north, a sentiment that was not shared among the southern commanders until him. If the army of Northern Virginia stayed inert and sat on their earthworks for the defense of Richmond, even McClellan (as incompetent and passive as he was) would have eventually took it due to overwhelming force, and that's what Grant did in 1865 after grinding down Lee's army to the bone. Few can deny Lee's martial prowess in stark contrast with all other generals of the war, but Lee's "defense" of Virginia ironically killed more of its sons and burned more of its cities than if he did nothing or even took command of the Union army. I still stand by my statement that Lee is unworthy to be put on a pedestal in the same way Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson are and should not be glorified for any morally sound reason. I don't know if perhaps you just don't have your ears open for what others say, but the loyalty to his state making him noble is something I've certainly seen often said. It is seen positively by many today and I imagine back in Lee's time it was seen even more so. "My country right or wrong" as it goes, with his country being his state and not the USA. As noted his commander was one of those types yes, but if Lee wasn't there then someone would have taken charge and we have no way to tell on how it would have went. As for his defense killing more than not... such a statement is in no way fair nor provable. For all we know without Lee the Union army could have broke the Confederate Army and lead to a total slaughter. You can stand by it but you have to recognise you are purposely being unfair to push the narrative that his monuments should be destroyed but others shouldn't. You call Lee disloyal, a traitor, and in addition have stated that keeping slavery was why Lee fought. His writing instead show an extreme loyalty to his state, what could be defined as his homeland instead to the point that he was ready to give up his slaves with no issue if it came to it. In addition it is completely at odds with your defense of the founders of America. They too were traitors by your own logic, in fact even more so, as they betrayed their country. You can't have it both ways. Outside of those mentioned were traitors to their country, a charge you have levelled at Lee. Lincoln can have levelled at him the charge of tearing America apart, something you have thrown at Lee who was quite irrelevant in the matter. Why the double standard? Because they were "good"? They were racists, and most you defend were slave owners who raped their female slaves too so rapists on top of it. Racist slave owning rapists? These people you defend but Lee you cannot? I've searched Lee's treatment of his slaves and it mentions his act of splitting up slave families and of course the beatings but nothing from what I can see on rape. You have no idea what your types support of this Progressive rabble is going to usher in. You think perhaps that they are reasonable and if it devolves into ugliness it will be in a 100 years time. Come now, you should not be so naive. Out of interest what Confederates would you allow statues of anyway? Longstreet put in a lot of good work after the war from what I've read. Even the likes of Forrest later in life apparently renounced certain ugly views after the KKK membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 As far as I remember, you've indicated i'm a communist, a socialist, a neo-conservative, alt-left (which is fictional) and now globalist. None are really accurate. Lee opted to fight against his country and his legacy reflects that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 15 hours ago, Rozalia said: I don't know if perhaps you just don't have your ears open for what others say, but the loyalty to his state making him noble is something I've certainly seen often said. It is seen positively by many today and I imagine back in Lee's time it was seen even more so. "My country right or wrong" as it goes, with his country being his state and not the USA. As noted his commander was one of those types yes, but if Lee wasn't there then someone would have taken charge and we have no way to tell on how it would have went. As for his defense killing more than not... such a statement is in no way fair nor provable. For all we know without Lee the Union army could have broke the Confederate Army and lead to a total slaughter. You can stand by it but you have to recognise you are purposely being unfair to push the narrative that his monuments should be destroyed but others shouldn't. You call Lee disloyal, a traitor, and in addition have stated that keeping slavery was why Lee fought. His writing instead show an extreme loyalty to his state, what could be defined as his homeland instead to the point that he was ready to give up his slaves with no issue if it came to it. In addition it is completely at odds with your defense of the founders of America. They too were traitors by your own logic, in fact even more so, as they betrayed their country. You can't have it both ways. No, I have read your statement quite clearly. A state is not a country, and the fact that Lee thought his home state of Virginia was a country was because of slavery. As I have said before, statism/sectionalism developed because of slavery. If California seceded today and shelled Camp Pendleton, would I be considered noble if I joined the California militia to "defend California, my real country" against Federal troops? At least when California secedes, it's not because they wanted to keep black people in chains. You can't deny that his actions prolonged the war. By all accounts (and by Grant demonstrating it in 1865), if Lee did not tie down Union forces by invading the north, Richmond would have eventually been captured by overwhelming force. McClellan, as incompetent and passive as he was, would have eventually marched on Richmond. Even my cat would have eventually marched on Richmond. The only case where that wouldn't have happened is if Lee (or someone like Lee) was in charge. Lee was unique in his offensive strategy, no other confederate commander came to the same conclusion before he did. There is a strict difference between the American revolution and the Civil War. One broke away from a ruling body because it did not have proper representation in its governing council and sought to create a new state that would change that fact. The other broke away from a ruling body NOT because it did not have proper representation in its governing council, but because they wanted to keep people in chains, not set them free. I don't know what it's like in Britain, but in America, the basic, fundamental role of the government is to ensure "naturally endowed" rights of the people. America started off on the wrong footing when slavery was incorporated into the constitution, but it was decidedly a necessary evil (believed to eventually die off) to keep the southern states in the union. The south seceded because they knew the democratic majority would have eventually broken the chains of slavery, and instead of preparing for the inevitable and compromising in the meantime, they chose to wage war and rebellion. 15 hours ago, Rozalia said: Outside of those mentioned were traitors to their country, a charge you have levelled at Lee. Lincoln can have levelled at him the charge of tearing America apart, something you have thrown at Lee who was quite irrelevant in the matter. Why the double standard? Because they were "good"? They were racists, and most you defend were slave owners who raped their female slaves too so rapists on top of it. Racist slave owning rapists? These people you defend but Lee you cannot? I've searched Lee's treatment of his slaves and it mentions his act of splitting up slave families and of course the beatings but nothing from what I can see on rape. You have no idea what your types support of this Progressive rabble is going to usher in. You think perhaps that they are reasonable and if it devolves into ugliness it will be in a 100 years time. Come now, you should not be so naive. Out of interest what Confederates would you allow statues of anyway? Longstreet put in a lot of good work after the war from what I've read. Even the likes of Forrest later in life apparently renounced certain ugly views after the KKK membership. I'm sure many Confederate sympathizers levelled the charge of tearing America apart at Lincoln, but they are wrong as they are stupid. The southern states had already seceded by the time Lincoln was inaugurated. Are you saying that Lincoln is to blame because he got elected? That's like saying Trump is at fault if California seceded from the Union. Again, Lee is indefensible. Jefferson can be defended. Washington can be defended. Lincoln even more so. But Lee is an amoral traitor trying to paint himself a hero while standing over the corpses of a quarter million Americans. Lee fought for a cause that was against the very ideals of our nation. None of them. The Confederate cause was as dead literally as it was morally. To laud anyone who chose violence, oppression, and division over democratic debate, freedom, and unity is against our nation's beliefs. And if it weren't against our nation's ideals, I would have lined all those traitors up and shot them myself. According to British tradition in those days, you guys would have done a lot worse. Disembowelment while hanging? I'm surprised you didn't make them choke on pig shit too. If England had a civil war that killed a million people, you can be sure that some Cromwell character would come in and genocide the Scots and Irish for it (presuming that the Scots and Irish were in rebellion), there would be no statues of their leaders. I don't know, is there? I also assume that there isn't really morally equivalency there either, since the Scots and Irish were rebelling to free themselves from England, not trying to keep slavery alive in their own independent country. Edited September 11, 2017 by Caecus Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Caecus said: I'm sure many Confederate sympathizers levelled the charge of tearing America apart at Lincoln, but they are wrong as they are stupid. The southern states had already seceded by the time Lincoln was inaugurated. Are you saying that Lincoln is to blame because he got elected? That's like saying Trump is at fault if California seceded from the Union. Again, Lee is indefensible. Jefferson can be defended. Washington can be defended. Lincoln even more so. But Lee is an amoral traitor trying to paint himself a hero while standing over the corpses of a quarter million Americans. Lee fought for a cause that was against the very ideals of our nation. I know of absolutely no member of the CSA deserving a statue in tribute to their hard work in trying to conquer the territory such a statue would likely be placed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 6 hours ago, Caecus said: None of them. The Confederate cause was as dead literally as it was morally. To laud anyone who chose violence, oppression, and division over democratic debate, freedom, and unity is against our nation's beliefs. And if it weren't against our nation's ideals, I would have lined all those traitors up and shot them myself. According to British tradition in those days, you guys would have done a lot worse. Disembowelment while hanging? I'm surprised you didn't make them choke on pig shit too. If England had a civil war that killed a million people, you can be sure that some Cromwell character would come in and genocide the Scots and Irish for it (presuming that the Scots and Irish were in rebellion), there would be no statues of their leaders. I don't know, is there? I also assume that there isn't really morally equivalency there either, since the Scots and Irish were rebelling to free themselves from England, not trying to keep slavery alive in their own independent country. I don't want to keep repeating on the other points. They have been made and you clearly disagree which is fine though I would say you heavily downplay just what it means to oppose your own homeland. You expect those Confederates to rebel against their homeland and travel north to join the Union Army? Really? Considering the difference between the Union lands and Confederate lands it'd be like a civil war in England where you'd expect some northerner to travel south to join the London army in retaking the north. Just not something that is going to happen to any real degree. In regards to the Confederates... really? So if someone was bad at some point then they deserve being stricken forever... ummm, about that. Forrest later in life: Quote In July 1875, Forrest demonstrated that his personal sentiments on the issue of race now differed from those of the Klan, when he was invited to give a speech before an organization of black Southerners advocating racial reconciliation, called the Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association. At this, his last public appearance, he made what the New York Times described as a "friendly speech"[12] during which, when offered a bouquet of flowers by a black woman, he accepted them as a token of reconciliation between the races and espoused a radical agenda (for the time) of equality and harmony between black and white Americans.[68] His speech was as follows: Ladies and Gentlemen I accept the flowers as a memento of reconciliation between the white and colored races of the southern states. I accept it more particularly as it comes from a colored lady, for if there is any one on God's earth who loves the ladies I believe it is myself. (Immense applause and laughter.) This day is a day that is proud to me, having occupied the position that I did for the past twelve years, and been misunderstood by your race. This is the first opportunity I have had during that time to say that I am your friend. I am here a representative of the southern people, one more slandered and maligned than any man in the nation. I will say to you and to the colored race that men who bore arms and followed the flag of the Confederacy are, with very few exceptions, your friends. I have an opportunity of saying what I have always felt – that I am your friend, for my interests are your interests, and your interests are my interests. We were born on the same soil, breathe the same air, and live in the same land. Why, then, can we not live as brothers? I will say that when the war broke out I felt it my duty to stand by my people. When the time came I did the best I could, and I don't believe I flickered. I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe that I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to bring about peace. It has always been my motto to elevate every man- to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going. I have not said anything about politics today. I don't propose to say anything about politics. You have a right to elect whom you please; vote for the man you think best, and I think, when that is done, that you and I are freemen. Do as you consider right and honest in electing men for office. I did not come here to make you a long speech, although invited to do so by you. I am not much of a speaker, and my business prevented me from preparing myself. I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Use your best judgment in selecting men for office and vote as you think right. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. I have been in the heat of battle when colored men, asked me to protect them. I have placed myself between them and the bullets of my men, and told them they should be kept unharmed. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I'll come to your relief. I thank you, ladies and gentlemen, for this opportunity you have afforded me to be with you, and to assure you that I am with you in heart and in hand" (Prolonged applause.) In response to that Pole-Bearers speech, the Cavalry Survivors Association of Augusta, the first Confederate organization formed after the war, called a meeting in which Captain F. Edgeworth Eve gave a speech expressing unmitigated disapproval of Forrest's remarks promoting inter-ethnic harmony, by ridiculing his faculties and judgment and berating the woman who gifted Forrest flowers as "a mulatto wench". The association voted unanimously to amend its constitution to expressly forbid publicly advocating for or hinting at any association of white women and girls as being in the same classes as "females of the negro race".[69][70] The Macon Weekly Telegraph newspaper also condemned Forrest for his speech, describing the event as "the recent disgusting exhibition of himself at the negro [sic.] jamboree", and quoting part of a Charlotte, North Carolina Observer article which read "We have infinitely more respect for Longstreet, who fraternizes with negro men on public occasions, with the pay for the treason to his race in his pocket, than with Forrest and Pillow, who equalize with the negro women, with only 'futures' in payment".[71][72] As for Longstreet who as mentioned above also became very hated by the Confederate types (still very much is today I hear). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place Quote The Battle of Liberty Place, or Battle of Canal Street, was an attempted insurrection by the Crescent City White League against the Reconstruction Era Louisiana state government on September 14, 1874, in New Orleans, which was the capital of Louisiana at the time. Five thousand members of the White League, a paramilitary organization of the Democratic Party, made up largely of Confederate veterans, fought against the outnumbered New Orleans Metropolitan Police and state militia. So Longstreet lead a defensive force with black men in it against a larger force of white racists from the Democratic Party and got shot in the process. This fact doesn't matter? Speaking of being tarred forever... why do you suffer the Democratic party to continue to exist when it has a massive racist history? I mean they haven't even really changed considering they are still race hustlers, they just hustle the minorities instead of whites now. As for talk of Cromwell. When he won he sold the statue of Charles I to a metalworks but the statue was kept as it was and later put back up after Cromwell died. Cromwell himself later got a statue (and then some more after) when for all that he had done he was recognised for his contributions to Parliamentary Democracy in Britain by establishing the first (and only) British Commonwealth and defeating Charles I thereby stopping his abuses of power. For all the bad Cromwell may have done, and he was a mean and miserable guy also lets not forget, he did achieve some good things too. Simon de Montfort is in a similar sort of boat as he too was a rebel who rose up against the King (though unlike Cromwell he lived to see his defeat on the battlefield). However again his efforts helped check the abusive monarchy and he also allowed the poorer folk to participate in politics which hadn't occurred before him. In short if we talk Britain it is unlikely that such people would get statues in the next 100 years after their death, but in time they would. I don't recall anyone that has been stricken down as to never be honoured. King John recently got a statue, King John who is often called the worst ruler the country has ever had. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/articles/king-john-trail-kings-lynn-the-wash/ http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/king-john-statue-unveiled-in-king-s-lynn-town-centre-this-morning-1-4732441 The closest I can think of is attempts to import American cultural garbage and take down the Cecil Rhodes statue which failed and has been made clear will not be happening. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 43 minutes ago, Rozalia said: I don't want to keep repeating on the other points. They have been made and you clearly disagree which is fine though I would say you heavily downplay just what it means to oppose your own homeland. You expect those Confederates to rebel against their homeland and travel north to join the Union Army? Really? Considering the difference between the Union lands and Confederate lands it'd be like a civil war in England where you'd expect some northerner to travel south to join the London army in retaking the north. Just not something that is going to happen to any real degree. That's my line, I don't want to keep repeating my points. Their "homeland" is the United !@#$ing States. Their country is the United !@#$ing States. Also, people who lived in Virginia who traveled north to fight for the Union isn't unheard of. That's why they call this the brother's war, since it was literally brother killing brother on the field. They didn't "defend" their homeland, they destroyed their country. It sounds like you have no conceptual idea of what it means to be a state in a federal republic. I think you have a hard time understanding, so let me try and explain it in modern terms. It's like if California seceded from the Union and launched an artillery strike on a naval base somewhere because Trump was against child pornography and Hollywood was making a shit ton of money off it. And in this alternate reality, Schwarzenegger was a military genius and was being actively recruited by the Pentagon. If Schwarzenegger then said to everyone "Oh, I'm siding with my home state because I want to defend my country. If I were somehow able to release all the children from Hollywood, I would to save the Union! But I have to defend my country," but has a documented history of himself in child pornography, is he noble? Would we be erecting statues of him after the army burned California and all her useless, dirty-ass cities? I don't understand how you can't see what an amoral shithole Lee is without entirely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY AS THE CAUSE OF THE !@#$ing CIVIL WAR. 43 minutes ago, Rozalia said: In regards to the Confederates... really? So if someone was bad at some point then they deserve being stricken forever... ummm, about that. Forrest later in life: As for Longstreet who as mentioned above also became very hated by the Confederate types (still very much is today I hear). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Liberty_Place So Longstreet lead a defensive force with black men in it against a larger force of white racists from the Democratic Party and got shot in the process. This fact doesn't matter? Speaking of being tarred forever... why do you suffer the Democratic party to continue to exist when it has a massive racist history? I mean they haven't even really changed considering they are still race hustlers, they just hustle the minorities instead of whites now. As for talk of Cromwell. When he won he sold the statue of Charles I to a metalworks but the statue was kept as it was and later put back up after Cromwell died. Cromwell himself later got a statue (and then some more after) when for all that he had done he was recognised for his contributions to Parliamentary Democracy in Britain by establishing the first (and only) British Commonwealth and defeating Charles I thereby stopping his abuses of power. For all the bad Cromwell may have done, and he was a mean and miserable guy also lets not forget, he did achieve some good things too. Simon de Montfort is in a similar sort of boat as he too was a rebel who rose up against the King (though unlike Cromwell he lived to see his defeat on the battlefield). However again his efforts helped check the abusive monarchy and he also allowed the poorer folk to participate in politics which hadn't occurred before him. In short if we talk Britain it is unlikely that such people would get statues in the next 100 years after their death, but in time they would. I don't recall anyone that has been stricken down as to never be honoured. King John recently got a statue, King John who is often called the worst ruler the country has ever had. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/destinations/europe/united-kingdom/articles/king-john-trail-kings-lynn-the-wash/ http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/king-john-statue-unveiled-in-king-s-lynn-town-centre-this-morning-1-4732441 The closest I can think of is attempts to import American cultural garbage and take down the Cecil Rhodes statue which failed and has been made clear will not be happening. Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't realize Hillary !@#$ing Clinton seceded from the Union and killed 200,000 Americans. !@#$ Clinton, she should hang as a traitor. "Bad" is a god damn understatement. The fact that you somehow think there is any moral equivalency is ignorant as it is stupid. How many Americans did Clinton kill? At best, using some conspiracy bullshit that Alex Jones touts? Like 10? 20? Maybe that number is a little higher if you count her putting chemicals in the water to make all the frogs gay. I haven't been in 1st grade for a while, but last I checked, 200,000 is a lot !@#$ing bigger than 20. As for Forrest/Longstreet/w-e later in life, I don't give a shit. Ask the half a million Americans who died in the war if they give a shit. Ask anyone who isn't trying to whitewash Confederate history if they give a shit. There isn't exactly a lot of ways to morally redeem yourself for starting a war to keep slavery and killing 500,000 Americans to do it. Also, you're right, it was my mistake to talk about the British. You all literally don't matter. Maybe I was trying to connect with you by pointing out how !@#$ing stupid it is to have statues of rebels and celebrate the fact that they threatened the very existence of the country and would have wanted to keep literally the only thing not worse than genocide still in existence. I'm just trying to say that if the British were facing the Confederate rebellion, Lee/Longstreet/Davis/w-e would all be hanging by their entrails, their memory eternally damned, and their ashes scattered into some forgotten spot in the ocean because you Brits were brutally medieval about this shit up until the 20th century. Edited September 11, 2017 by Caecus Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 11, 2017 Share Posted September 11, 2017 17 minutes ago, Caecus said: That's my line, I don't want to keep repeating my points. Their "homeland" is the United !@#$ing States. Their country is the United !@#$ing States. Also, people who lived in Virginia who traveled north to fight for the Union isn't unheard of. That's why they call this the brother's war, since it was literally brother killing brother on the field. They didn't "defend" their homeland, they destroyed their country. It sounds like you have no conceptual idea of what it means to be a state in a federal republic. I think you have a hard time understanding, so let me try and explain it in modern terms. It's like if California seceded from the Union and launched an artillery strike on a naval base somewhere because Trump was against child pornography and Hollywood was making a shit ton of money off it. And in this alternate reality, Schwarzenegger was a military genius and was being actively recruited by the Pentagon. If Schwarzenegger then said to everyone "Oh, I'm siding with my home state because I want to defend my country. If I were somehow able to release all the children from Hollywood, I would to save the Union! But I have to defend my country," but has a documented history of himself in child pornography, is he noble? Would we be erecting statues of him after the army burned California and all her useless, dirty-ass cities? I don't understand how you can't see what an amoral shithole Lee is without entirely ignoring the fact that SLAVERY AS THE CAUSE OF THE !@#$ing CIVIL WAR. Oh, I'm sorry! I didn't realize Hillary !@#$ing Clinton seceded from the Union and killed 200,000 Americans. !@#$ Clinton, she should hang as a traitor. "Bad" is a god damn understatement. The fact that you somehow think there is any moral equivalency is ignorant as it is stupid. How many Americans did Clinton kill? At best, using some conspiracy bullshit that Alex Jones touts? Like 10? 20? Maybe that number is a little higher if you count her putting chemicals in the water to make all the frogs gay. I haven't been in 1st grade for a while, but last I checked, 200,000 is a lot !@#$ing bigger than 20. As for Forrest/Longstreet/w-e later in life, I don't give a shit. Ask the half a million Americans who died in the war if they give a shit. Ask anyone who isn't trying to whitewash Confederate history if they give a shit. There isn't exactly a lot of ways to morally redeem yourself for starting a war to keep slavery and killing 500,000 Americans to do it. Also, you're right, it was my mistake to talk about the British. You all literally don't matter. Maybe I was trying to connect with you by pointing out how !@#$ing stupid it is to have statues of rebels and celebrate the fact that they threatened the very existence of the country and would have wanted to keep literally the only thing not worse than genocide still in existence. I'm just trying to say that if the British were facing the Confederate rebellion, Lee/Longstreet/Davis/w-e would all be hanging by their entrails, their memory eternally damned, and their ashes scattered into some forgotten spot in the ocean. Then... why repeat them again? I've heard very different from yourself on how America used to be and still is to some people. States were considered very important and I do not believe you can deny this. Your example while worth a chuckle does not have much worth. I certainly wouldn't condemn the Progressives trying to defend California from LITERALLY HITLER and all that. Especially as I'd then get to enjoy Progressives being wiped out not just in America but across the west. You either missed the point or do not wish to see it. Robert Byrd was a KKK member, a racist, and so on. He was Hillary's mentor and talked fondly about by many other democrats, even has a statue. The defense of him is that yes, he was a KKK member, but things were different back in the day and he changed and why should we condemn people for mistakes earlier in life. Why is he afforded such a defense but it ain't applied to others the Democrats don't like? Your rant on Clinton/Alex Jones is tiresome to look at as I never even talked about Clinton. So what you're saying is that bad deeds in the past mark you forever then. That is fine. Then with that logic all those you have defended such as Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, so on are similarly marked. Their bad deeds mark them as evil forever. Who cares what good they may have done after? How they may have later developed. All quite irrelevant as once you do a bad thing you're to be condemned forever for it. Please just get to the point I have made and actually answer it with some fairness. So you bring it up, get shown wrong, and then deem it irrelevant. Right. We have statues to Irish rebels, to the rebel Cromwell, to the rebel Simon De Montfort, Charles Stuart the Jacobite pretender, and more. King John widely considered the worst ruler of Britain now has a statue, Mary who burned religious enemies to death has a statue. Sorry but the rest of the world doesn't follow your American cultural garbage. As for this British Confederacy... uh... mate, Britain does not have the history of slavery within it's borders that America has. Closest thing would be the workhouses used to work to the bone white British people so there is no way such a Confederacy could develop... wait a second... ummm, rebels who want slavery... you mean like the colonies in America? Well then you're in luck mate as we can just see if there are any statues to these rebels today in Britain... ummms, lets see. Location: London. Seems Britain had no problem allowing a statue to a slave owning racist rebel. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 11, 2017 Author Share Posted September 11, 2017 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Rozalia said: Then... why repeat them again? I've heard very different from yourself on how America used to be and still is to some people. States were considered very important and I do not believe you can deny this. Your example while worth a chuckle does not have much worth. I certainly wouldn't condemn the Progressives trying to defend California from LITERALLY HITLER and all that. Especially as I'd then get to enjoy Progressives being wiped out not just in America but across the west. You either missed the point or do not wish to see it. Robert Byrd was a KKK member, a racist, and so on. He was Hillary's mentor and talked fondly about by many other democrats, even has a statue. The defense of him is that yes, he was a KKK member, but things were different back in the day and he changed and why should we condemn people for mistakes earlier in life. Why is he afforded such a defense but it ain't applied to others the Democrats don't like? Your rant on Clinton/Alex Jones is tiresome to look at as I never even talked about Clinton. So what you're saying is that bad deeds in the past mark you forever then. That is fine. Then with that logic all those you have defended such as Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson, so on are similarly marked. Their bad deeds mark them as evil forever. Who cares what good they may have done after? How they may have later developed. All quite irrelevant as once you do a bad thing you're to be condemned forever for it. Please just get to the point I have made and actually answer it with some fairness. So you bring it up, get shown wrong, and then deem it irrelevant. Right. We have statues to Irish rebels, to the rebel Cromwell, to the rebel Simon De Montfort, Charles Stuart the Jacobite pretender, and more. King John widely considered the worst ruler of Britain now has a statue, Mary who burned religious enemies to death has a statue. Sorry but the rest of the world doesn't follow your American cultural garbage. As for this British Confederacy... uh... mate, Britain does not have the history of slavery within it's borders that America has. Closest thing would be the workhouses used to work to the bone white British people so there is no way such a Confederacy could develop... wait a second... ummm, rebels who want slavery... you mean like the colonies in America? Well then you're in luck mate as we can just see if there are any statues to these rebels today in Britain... ummms, lets see. Why isn't my example not worth much? Child pornography is more or less as detestable as slavery. Sure, Lee wasn't governor of Virginia, but my point was trying to find someone you might actually know about. Again, is a noble thing to actively participate in a rebellion to keep the institution of slavery? Laugh all you want at my example, but you haven't told me why its not a similar comparison. You are missing my point: there is no moral redemption for that shit. I'm sure Hitler would have opened up a nice kitten orphanage if he didn't shoot himself after killing 60 million people, should we put up a statue of his dumbass? There isn't any equivalency between some random KKK guy and Lee (and if the man had any modesty, his worthless ass would agree). Do you just not think that Lee's role in the Civil War was not important? Do you just not understand how !@#$ing terrible the Civil War was? How morally bankrupt the entire affair was? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the KKK guy didn't kill anyone. If it were a sin to be a dumbass, 32% of our country would have their own statues. And as I was saying, yes, Washington and Jefferson are racist slave owners who did unspeakable and hypocritical things. I really do wonder how Jefferson slept at night when he wrote "all men are created equal" and then went home to beat his property. But Jefferson didn't kill half a million Americans to keep slavery. As I have said time and time again, JEFFERSON AND WASHINGTON ARE DEFENSIBLE. YOU CAN MAKE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS THAT THESE MEN CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR COUNTRY IN POSITIVE ASPECTS. LEE DID THE COMPLETE !@#$ing OPPOSITE, HE'S A PIECE OF SHIT THAT NEARLY DESTROYED HIS COUNTRY. Lee didn't live in the Confederate States of America for almost all his life, he lived in the United !@#$ing States of America, and he betrayed his country to keep black people in chains. Edited September 11, 2017 by Caecus Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rozalia Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 12 hours ago, Caecus said: Why isn't my example not worth much? Child pornography is more or less as detestable as slavery. Sure, Lee wasn't governor of Virginia, but my point was trying to find someone you might actually know about. Again, is a noble thing to actively participate in a rebellion to keep the institution of slavery? Laugh all you want at my example, but you haven't told me why its not a similar comparison. You are missing my point: there is no moral redemption for that shit. I'm sure Hitler would have opened up a nice kitten orphanage if he didn't shoot himself after killing 60 million people, should we put up a statue of his dumbass? There isn't any equivalency between some random KKK guy and Lee (and if the man had any modesty, his worthless ass would agree). Do you just not think that Lee's role in the Civil War was not important? Do you just not understand how !@#$ing terrible the Civil War was? How morally bankrupt the entire affair was? Correct me if I'm wrong, but the KKK guy didn't kill anyone. If it were a sin to be a dumbass, 32% of our country would have their own statues. And as I was saying, yes, Washington and Jefferson are racist slave owners who did unspeakable and hypocritical things. I really do wonder how Jefferson slept at night when he wrote "all men are created equal" and then went home to beat his property. But Jefferson didn't kill half a million Americans to keep slavery. As I have said time and time again, JEFFERSON AND WASHINGTON ARE DEFENSIBLE. YOU CAN MAKE LOGICAL ARGUMENTS THAT THESE MEN CONTRIBUTED TO THEIR COUNTRY IN POSITIVE ASPECTS. LEE DID THE COMPLETE !@#$ing OPPOSITE, HE'S A PIECE OF SHIT THAT NEARLY DESTROYED HIS COUNTRY. Lee didn't live in the Confederate States of America for almost all his life, he lived in the United !@#$ing States of America, and he betrayed his country to keep black people in chains. Fine lets talk about your example briefly. Schwarzenegger, a foreigner turned American who looked to be siding with the Union but instead joined California, his state as they decided to rebel. Also a movie star turned real by leading troops in the field. OF COURSE THEY'D BUILD STATUES TO HIM in California. He'd be lauded as an example of a good foreigner who integrates and stood up against a stronger power for his state. The likes of Forrest was a guy who enlisted as a private and worked his way up. You seem to love to make out that all these Confederates were at the forefront of things and made the war happen. They weren't guys who decided to fight for their state or anything, they weren't people conscripted or anything. They were all Jefferson Davis or something. You love missing the point don't you? With your own logic that tars the likes of Washington forever too, as it also does the more modern people like Robert Byrd who used to be in the KKK. Lets count up those racist points for Jefferson shall we? Jefferson owned a large amount of slaves which he beat and raped. He was also very much a racist who for all his talk could only give excuses when it came to black slaves not being free. There is a statement of his out there where he sounds as if he is against slavery but the reality of it is... slavery was bad apparently as it was harmful to the white man (who he cared about). He also believed that if blacks were to released then they had to deported, sorry, made to colonise "black places". What did he do later in life to help black people exactly? I don't see anything. Now lets talk Longstreet. A man who owned a small amount of slaves and whose racism isn't exactly well documented, nor any cases it seems of him beating or raping them. After the war he went on to support the Republican party when they were "the party for the negro". He got shot defending black civil rights from white supremacist Democrats. For this the angry racist Democrats hated him, blaming him for their defeat in the war. Perhaps the Washington post of all places will convince you? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-forgotten-confederate-general-who-would-make-a-better-subject-for-monuments/2016/01/27/f09bad42-c536-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.c89652655717 Quote Born in 1821 in South Carolina, James Longstreet graduated from West Point in 1842 and served with distinction in the Mexican War. As the officer corps split along sectional lines, he joined the Confederacy in 1861, eventually rising to join Gen. Robert E. Lee’s inner circle. But it was after Appomattox that Longstreet truly distinguished himself — as the rare ex-Rebel to accept the South’s defeat, and its consequences. He urged fellow white Southerners to support the federal government and help rebuild their region on the basis of greater racial equality. He joined Abraham Lincoln’s Republican Party. In the 1870s, he commanded a biracial state militia loyal to Louisiana’s Reconstruction government, aggravating an old war wound while fighting alongside his troops against violent white supremacists in the streets of New Orleans. Today, this illustrious American is famous only to Civil War buffs. He remains obscure, even as the country struggles anew with the legacy of the Civil War and Reconstruction — from the removal of the Confederate battle flag at South Carolina’s state capitol, to this week’s flap over Hillary Clinton’s remark implying Lincoln’s successors were too “rancorous” toward the defeated South. Yet ending Longstreet’s obscurity, and properly honoring him, can and should be a part of the discussion. Indeed, it’s hard to imagine a full and fair reckoning with the past in which such a personality gets no more than a footnote. The historical-reckoning hot spot at the moment is New Orleans, where the Democratic mayor, Mitch Landrieu, and the city council have decided to remove four monuments on public property honoring Confederates or, in one case, Reconstruction-era white supremacists. On Tuesday, a federal judge ruled against various groups trying to preserve the monuments, which include a 12-foot statue of Lee, atop a 60-foot Doric column, that has towered over a downtown traffic circle since 1884. This is not uncomplicated; a case can be made that such statuary has been around so long that it has itself acquired educational value in the great outdoor museum that is the Crescent City. Yet Landrieu emotionally, and accurately, argued that the Lee statue and the others had been built not as historical landmarks, but as ideological devices. They were integral to past efforts by Southern white supremacists to “put the ‘lost cause’ of the Confederacy on a pedestal.” Nor were Southern apologetics confined to the South; by the middle of the 20th century, mainstream academic consensus held that Reconstruction had been a misguided project that collapsed due not to white Southern resistance, often violent, but to a purportedly vindictive and extreme federal government led by “radical” Republicans. This is the tale that high school textbooks still told until historians revised it during the civil rights movement — and which Clinton, probably unthinkingly, fished out of her 68-year-old memory. Under fire from journalist Ta-Nehisi Coates and others, her team issued a follow-up statement more reflective of historical truth and, the campaign said, her own beliefs. Longstreet played a key part in the Lost Cause myth — as villain. White ex-Confederates could never forgive his postwar racial and political treason, so they set about tarnishing his wartime military record. In particular, they scapegoated Longstreet for the Rebel defeat at Gettysburg, though the true story was complex and included the fact that Longstreet warned Lee, in vain, not to attempt the disastrous Pickett’s Charge. Longstreet had to be smeared so Lee could occupy his pedestal — metaphorically and, in New Orleans and elsewhere, literally. As it happens, one monument that the city proposes to remove celebrates the very same white supremacist uprising against which Longstreet commanded African American militia on Sept. 14, 1874. Ostracized by former comrades, Longstreet died in 1904 in Gainesville, Ga.; the large block on his grave there was the only monument to him until supporters managed to get a modest equestrian statue installed at the Gettysburg battlefield in 1998, along with plaques recording his Confederate military service (not his postwar activity in New Orleans). If New Orleans, and the country, wants to correct the balance of honor in public spaces, it will have to do more than subtract Lee and company. We should also repopulate cityscapes with underappreciated Civil War-era figures such as Longstreet, whose Reconstruction-era service has never properly been recognized. Here’s a thought: If and when New Orleans does take Robert E. Lee off that pedestal, it should put a statue of Longstreet on it. The James Longstreet Monument would not only help make certain specific points about what really happened in the 19th century, it would also prompt reflection on broader truths. Longstreet risked his life for the worst cause Americans ever espoused, then for the best one. In short, he epitomized this nation’s saving grace, and humanity’s: the capacity to learn from our mistakes, and to change. Ain't it funny how you attack people you see as racists for supporting Lee (some certainly are) and yet Longstreet who those people largely hate you want taken down also? I'd advise you edit your stance to not come off as a complete progressive loony. Taking down Lee's statue in New Orleans to put up a new Longstreet one (he settled in New Orleans later in life) I think sounds like a pretty good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caecus Posted September 12, 2017 Author Share Posted September 12, 2017 10 minutes ago, Rozalia said: Fine lets talk about your example briefly. Schwarzenegger, a foreigner turned American who looked to be siding with the Union but instead joined California, his state as they decided to rebel. Also a movie star turned real by leading troops in the field. OF COURSE THEY'D BUILD STATUES TO HIM in California. He'd be lauded as an example of a good foreigner who integrates and stood up against a stronger power for his state. The likes of Forrest was a guy who enlisted as a private and worked his way up. You seem to love to make out that all these Confederates were at the forefront of things and made the war happen. They weren't guys who decided to fight for their state or anything, they weren't people conscripted or anything. They were all Jefferson Davis or something. You love missing the point don't you? With your own logic that tars the likes of Washington forever too, as it also does the more modern people like Robert Byrd who used to be in the KKK. Lets count up those racist points for Jefferson shall we? Jefferson owned a large amount of slaves which he beat and raped. He was also very much a racist who for all his talk could only give excuses when it came to black slaves not being free. There is a statement of his out there where he sounds as if he is against slavery but the reality of it is... slavery was bad apparently as it was harmful to the white man (who he cared about). He also believed that if blacks were to released then they had to deported, sorry, made to colonise "black places". What did he do later in life to help black people exactly? I don't see anything. Now lets talk Longstreet. A man who owned a small amount of slaves and whose racism isn't exactly well documented, nor any cases it seems of him beating or raping them. After the war he went on to support the Republican party when they were "the party for the negro". He got shot defending black civil rights from white supremacist Democrats. For this the angry racist Democrats hated him, blaming him for their defeat in the war. Perhaps the Washington post of all places will convince you? https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-forgotten-confederate-general-who-would-make-a-better-subject-for-monuments/2016/01/27/f09bad42-c536-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.c89652655717 Ain't it funny how you attack people you see as racists for supporting Lee (some certainly are) and yet Longstreet who those people largely hate you want taken down also? I'd advise you edit your stance to not come off as a complete progressive loony. Taking down Lee's statue in New Orleans to put up a new Longstreet one (he settled in New Orleans later in life) I think sounds like a pretty good idea. See, this is why I don't think you understand. You deliberately leave out the amoral cause of the war as if it wasn't significant, even in the Schwarzenegger example. Siding with Virginia meant siding with the preservation of slavery, even Lee wasn't stupid enough to deny that. Forrest was a volunteer. All Confederate cavalry were volunteers, because the Confederate army didn't have a horse breeding program and relied on recruits supplying their own horses (or stealing Union breeds). If you volunteer for an army, you are volunteering for the cause. Remind me, what is the cause of the Civil War again? That's my line. It's like you don't have a concept of degrees. How many Americans did Jefferson kill to preserve slavery? How many times did he almost destroy the nation he built in order to preserve slavery? I'm not denying he's a little racist shit, I'm just trying to point out that he didn't kill 200,000 Americans. Are you seriously going to sit here and say that what Jefferson did and what Lee did are equivalent in size and degree? Last time I checked my American history, Jefferson raped and beat his slaves, but he didn't kill 200,000 Americans to do it. Jefferson helped build our country, he can be defended on those grounds. Lee tried to tear apart ours, he is indefensible. So then why did Longstreet fight in the Civil War on the Confederate side? Are you suggesting that Longstreet was simply too damn stupid to know that the army he fought for was the one that would preserve slavery if it won? And you honestly think we should put up a statue of a person who fought on that side of the war but "redeemed" himself after the fact? Does England have statues of Rudolf Hess too? Let's get this fact straight. The Confederate army was fighting for one thing, and one thing only: the preservation of slavery. The north knew it, the south knew it. Everyone knew it. The Confederates, unlike their Union counterparts, were almost entirely volunteers. If you volunteered to fight for the South, you were fighting for the preservation of slavery, and you were willing to kill Americans for it. That has little or no moral redemption, let alone deserving of glorification on a pedestal. Quote It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComradeMilton Posted September 12, 2017 Share Posted September 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Rozalia said: Fine lets talk about your example briefly. Schwarzenegger, a foreigner turned American who looked to be siding with the Union but instead joined California, his state as they decided to rebel. Also a movie star turned real by leading troops in the field. OF COURSE THEY'D BUILD STATUES TO HIM in California. He'd be lauded as an example of a good foreigner who integrates and stood up against a stronger power for his state. He'd be in Florence if he did that, if not Terre Haute. Basically this paragraph is a collective grouping of bullshit. The likes of Forrest was a guy who enlisted as a private and worked his way up. You seem to love to make out that all these Confederates were at the forefront of things and made the war happen. They weren't guys who decided to fight for their state or anything, they weren't people conscripted or anything. They were all Jefferson Davis or something. Of course they decided to do it. If you actually conscript that many people you're about as freely able to head to the Union forces and join up as it can possibly be. You love missing the point don't you? With your own logic that tars the likes of Washington forever too, as it also does the more modern people like Robert Byrd who used to be in the KKK. Lets count up those racist points for Jefferson shall we? Jefferson owned a large amount of slaves which he beat and raped. He was also very much a racist who for all his talk could only give excuses when it came to black slaves not being free. There is a statement of his out there where he sounds as if he is against slavery but the reality of it is... slavery was bad apparently as it was harmful to the white man (who he cared about). He also believed that if blacks were to released then they had to deported, sorry, made to colonise "black places". What did he do later in life to help black people exactly? I don't see anything. Founded Liberia Now lets talk Longstreet. A man who owned a small amount of slaves and whose racism isn't exactly well documented, nor any cases it seems of him beating or raping them. After the war he went on to support the Republican party when they were "the party for the negro". He got shot defending black civil rights from white supremacist Democrats. For this the angry racist Democrats hated him, blaming him for their defeat in the war. Perhaps the Washington post of all places will convince you? I really hope at some point you learn how American politics works. It's exhausting correcting you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-forgotten-confederate-general-who-would-make-a-better-subject-for-monuments/2016/01/27/f09bad42-c536-11e5-8965-0607e0e265ce_story.html?utm_term=.c89652655717 Ain't it funny how you attack people you see as racists for supporting Lee (some certainly are) and yet Longstreet who those people largely hate you want taken down also? I'd advise you edit your stance to not come off as a complete progressive loony. Taking down Lee's statue in New Orleans to put up a new Longstreet one (he settled in New Orleans later in life) I think sounds like a pretty good idea. You don't matter as you're not an American. Thus no one gives a shit what you prefer or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.