Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Patrick Bateman said:

Washington had similar misgivings of slavery and emancipated all of his slaves upon his death.  I understand taking down Confederate statues as most of them are dog whistles for white power and supremacy for men who were engaged as traitors against the United States.  The Founding Fathers are almost a century earlier and engaged in something much different from our perspective.  I see no reason to remove them.  There's no country without those arrogant, rich, entitled SOBs.... 

 

Is it really that honorable to wait to free your slaves upon your death? “You can be free once I don’t have need of you.” And Washington was considered one of the wealthiest Americans, so if anyone could have afforded to free them during his lifetime it was him. Not to mention that he said they would be freed but Martha only reluctantly freed some of the family slaves later on. It was her choice not his. Others were passed on to her children when she died. What an ugly legacy she and we have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Or just toss them in a big pile outside of their respective state capitols as a reminder, kind of like the shoes at the Holocaust museum.

No, I don't agree with that. They're a legitimate part of our history, whether you like them or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We need to remove every founding fathers name from history books, street names, city names, their statues, and their ancestral homes, take them off our currency, throw the constitution out the window (it was created by racists).

 We need to erase every memory of them. It's really for the best.....  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

That's powerful. I wonder how many know of that situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Asithappens said:

If that helps you sleep at night, then go for it.

I get it, you and others find Lee to be a noble character. And maybe he was. 

My point is that he was a noble traitor to his country. I'm not a fan of traitors. You are. Is that black and white enough for ya?

Lee was not noble.  This is a vestige of the lost cause.  His papers show him to a an agressive proponent of slavery, as well as a violent owner.

His decision to join the confederacy likely influenced several other southern generals and extended the war by years, as he was almost certainly the most accomplished antebellum leader. It wasn’t until Grant and Sherman envisioned the future of warfare and harnessing the North’s true industrial might did the war begin the turn.  
 

I was raised in the tradition of Gentle Bob Lee as well.  It’s a testament to how pernicious And intentional the Lost Cause myth pervades our history and society.  
 

Why don’t we see statutes to Thaddeus Stevens?  A man who dedicated his life to abolition, expropriating the land and capital of post war slave owners for redistribution, and advocated for a true equal and multiracial society? 
 

You want to honor a radical? Put up a statute to John Brown. 

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee was not noble.  This is a vestige of the lost cause.  His papers show him to a an agressive proponent of slavery, as well as a violent owner.
His decision to join the confederacy likely influenced several other southern generals and extended the war by years, as he was almost certainly the most accomplished antebellum leader. It wasn’t until Grant and Sherman envisioned the future of warfare and harnessing the North’s true industrial might did the war begin the turn.  
 
I was raised in the tradition of Gentle Bob Lee as well.  It’s a testament to how pernicious And intentional the Lost Cause myth pervades our history and society.  
 
Why don’t we see statutes to Thaddeus Stevens?  A man who dedicated his life to abolition, expropriating the land and capital of post war slave owners for redistribution, and advocated for a true equal and multiracial society? 
 
You want to honor a radical? Put up a statute to John Brown. 

Or if you must have a southerner, James Longstreet. He was a great military leader, but after the was completely dedicated himself to reconciliation between North and South and was a dedicated civil servant for Grant. The prodigal southern son. There’s a reason why no one put up Longstreet statues in the South.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


Or if you must have a southerner, James Longstreet. He was a great military leader, but after the was completely dedicated himself to reconciliation between North and South and was a dedicated civil servant for Grant. The prodigal southern son. There’s a reason why no one put up Longstreet statues in the South.

Lee did pretty much the same thing. 

Had Lee accepted Scotts offer of taking command of all union forces in 1861, there is every possibility the war would have ended before 1863 and there would never have been an emancipation  proclamation .   Slavery would've probably gone on for another decade potentially. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We need to remove every founding fathers name from history books, street names, city names, their statues, and their ancestral homes, take them off our currency, throw the constitution out the window (it was created by racists).
 We need to erase every memory of them. It's really for the best.....  


Constitution already got thrown out the window

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lee did pretty much the same thing. 
Had Lee accepted Scotts offer of taking command of all union forces in 1861, there is every possibility the war would have ended before 1863 and there would never have been an emancipation  proclamation .   Slavery would've probably gone on for another decade potentially. 

Lee didn’t lead African American soldiers against white anti-reconstructionists. That’s a significant difference. There are others but that’s probably better debated elsewhere.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Chad Fuck said:


Lee didn’t lead African American soldiers against white anti-reconstructionists. That’s a significant difference. There are others but that’s probably better debated elsewhere.

No, but he was the first congragent of St. Johns church in Richmond to welcome a black member to worship there right after the war.  He did say he was opposed to statues, and memorials because they would only serve to keep old divisions alive. He had a constant stream of members of both Union, and confederate armies of the war come to him seeking advice after the war.

Lee was certainly a product of his times, and most certainly had slaves.  He was no more racist than 90% of the officers, and enlisted men in the Union army               (SEE:  W.T. Sherman as one example, and I think Sherman was the 3rd or 4th best general in the war).   Mr. Lincoln himself didn't change his views on the black mans alleged inferiority until later in life.  Senator Byrd of WVA was a grand wizard, but professed to change his spots later in life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one needs a statue to learn history, especially when statues are typically meant to honor the immortalized individual. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

No one needs a statue to learn history, especially when statues are typically meant to honor the immortalized individual. 

True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You should read The Atlantic article above. Lee was not progressive for his time and he was a notably violent slave owner who ended a family tradition of not breaking up and selling families. Our “positive” view of Lee is entirely a mythical creation of the Dunning school.  The reason Lee quietly acquiesced to Northern victory was more of a desire to maintain the existing social and capital order of the pre war south than any heart felt desire to do the right thing. 
 

Longstreet actually understood the error of his ways. There’s a reason why he was vilified for decades after, yet was also an casket bearer for Grant.  He did the right thing for the right reason.
 

There was a concerted effort among many Southern leaders to settle after the war in order to drive a racial wedge between the Radical Republicans and The more moderate  wing. “Look, Bob Lee is okay and took the oath,  perhaps we don’t need to break the south.  Fighting with Andrew Johnson just seems so distasteful.  Let’s let bygones be bygones.”

Also, Shelby Foote can rot in hell.

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

 

Longstreet actually understood the error of his ways. There’s a reason why he was vilified for decades after, yet was also an casket bearer for Grant.  He did the right thing for the right reason.
 

Well that and the fact that he wanted to win at Gettysburg...can't have anyone disagree with Granny Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

You should read The Atlantic article above. Lee was not progressive for his time and he was a notably violent slave owner who ended a family tradition of not breaking up and selling families. Our “positive” view of Lee is entirely a mythical creation of the Dunning school.  The reason Lee quietly acquiesced to Northern victory was more of a desire to maintain the existing social and capital order of the pre war south than any heart felt desire to do the right thing. 
 

Longstreet actually understood the error of his ways. There’s a reason why he was vilified for decades after, yet was also an casket bearer for Grant.  He did the right thing for the right reason.
 

There was a concerted effort among many Southern leaders to settle after the war in order to drive a racial wedge between the Radical Republicans and The more moderate  wing. “Look, Bob Lee is okay and took the oath,  perhaps we don’t need to break the south.  Fighting with Andrew Johnson just seems so distasteful.  Let’s let bygones be bygones.”

Also, Shelby Foote can rot in hell.

Longstreet was also vilified in the South because he constantly blamed Lee for the decimation of his corps at Gettysburg. He was correct that Lee Waterlooed Gettysburg, But you just didn't criticize Lee in the south.  No one was calling Lee progressive, he was a typical southerner who shared the cultural trait of racsim with most people in the north whether they owned slaves or not.

The pre war south was dead after 1865.  Once the slaves were freed the foundations of the southern economy were no more  Lee said we need to let the war end, and heal the wounds between the north and south. I've said/asked it many times,  but if Lee was such an ardent slave master, why after the war was he the first man to personally welcome a black man to worship at his church ?  

The bigger myth is that the US was an avenging nation bent on the removal of slavery from the outset of the war. That is simply not true, the war was originally fourth to "preserve the union" end of story. Slavery would have been left intact had the south laid down its arms before 1863, and Mr. Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation.   That way the US could focus on killing more Indians....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Longstreet was also vilified in the South because he constantly blamed Lee for the decimation of his corps at Gettysburg. He was correct that Lee Waterlooed Gettysburg, But you just didn't criticize Lee in the south.  No one was calling Lee progressive, he was a typical southerner who shared the cultural trait of racsim with most people in the north whether they owned slaves or not.

The pre war south was dead after 1865.  Once the slaves were freed the foundations of the southern economy were no more  Lee said we need to let the war end, and heal the wounds between the north and south. I've said/asked it many times,  but if Lee was such an ardent slave master, why after the war was he the first man to personally welcome a black man to worship at his church ?  

The bigger myth is that the US was an avenging nation bent on the removal of slavery from the outset of the war. That is simply not true, the war was originally fourth to "preserve the union" end of story. Slavery would have been left intact had the south laid down its arms before 1863, and Mr. Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation.   That way the US could focus on killing more Indians....

Well, he literally had a slave revolt due to his harsh management when he overtook his father in law’s estate and was ardent in his pursuit of escaped slaves.  He also failed to speak up for the rights of freedman, wrote extensively that former slaves should not have the right to vote, and is on record saying African-Americans were not capable of caring for themselves. He supported Johnson’s attempts to end the Reconstruction prematurely.

Longstreet’s criticism of Lee’s military acumen have proven correct over and over again.  Lee is the gentle, bearded face of the South. Just because he had an occasional moment of kindness doesn’t absolve him of the weight of history. 
 

You do you, but he is an indefensible figure. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Pig Bellmont said:

No one needs a statue to learn history, especially when statues are typically meant to honor the immortalized individual. 

Statues also highlight the ideals of the immortalized individual. It would be nice if we had more statues that focused on things like education and enlightenment...things we could use more of in this country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Woland said:

Statues also highlight the ideals of the immortalized individual. It would be nice if we had more statues that focused on things like education and enlightenment...things we could use more of in this country.

there isn't the United Daughters of Educators out there that pushed for new statues for 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Well, he literally had a slave revolt due to his harsh management when he overtook his father in law’s estate and was ardent in his pursuit of escaped slaves.  He also failed to speak up for the rights of freedman, wrote extensively that former slaves should not have the right to vote, and is on record saying African-Americans were not capable of caring for themselves. He supported Johnson’s attempts to end the Reconstruction prematurely.

Longstreet’s criticism of Lee’s military acumen have proven correct over and over again.  Lee is the gentle, bearded face of the South. Just because he had an occasional moment of kindness doesn’t absolve him of the weight of history. 
 

You do you, but he is an indefensible figure. 

I haven't done anything to say he was above criticism or to lay blame at his feet.  You seem to want to paint him in the worst light possible, I go towards the other end of the spectrum, but recognize he has issues.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Personally I believe statues of specific people should be a thing of the past.  If you want statues, make them innocuous pieces of art and history to reflect values or remembrance.  Specific people are flawed. 
 

The Iwo Jima statue is a good example of what statues should be about.  You can’t name one person but you know what it represents.

Statue of Liberty, also cool.

Edited by Hugo Stiglitz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Well, he literally had a slave revolt due to his harsh management when he overtook his father in law’s estate and was ardent in his pursuit of escaped slaves.  He also failed to speak up for the rights of freedman, wrote extensively that former slaves should not have the right to vote, and is on record saying African-Americans were not capable of caring for themselves. He supported Johnson’s attempts to end the Reconstruction prematurely.

Longstreet’s criticism of Lee’s military acumen have proven correct over and over again.  Lee is the gentle, bearded face of the South. Just because he had an occasional moment of kindness doesn’t absolve him of the weight of history. 
 

You do you, but he is an indefensible figure. 

His army also captured free black men in the north and enslaved them during the war.

Edited by wildcat09

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Personally I believe statues of specific people should be a thing of the past.  If you want statues, make them innocuous pieces of art and history to reflect values or remembrance.  Specific people are flawed. 
 

The Iwo Jima statue is a good example of what statues should be about.  You can’t name one person but you know what it represents.

Statue of Liberty, also cool.

Ira Hayes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

We need to remove every founding fathers name from history books, street names, city names, their statues, and their ancestral homes, take them off our currency, throw the constitution out the window (it was created by racists).

 We need to erase every memory of them. It's really for the best.....  

Yes this is exactly what everyone is saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, formermav43 said:

Ira Hayes?

Yeah, mea culpa on this one. My point remains the same even though I could have used a better example.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Yes this is exactly what everyone is saying.

 Never said everyone was saying it but it is something that people are saying and I have been saying for about 10 years now  exaggerative sarcasm brah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Also, Shelby Foote can rot in hell.

I have enjoyed reading the discussions in this thread. However, I'm only a casual reader of history w/respect to the Civil War so my background is limited to HS, the basic core class in college, and the Ken Burns documentary which is where I saw the person above. What's the story?

 

 

Also, apparently the Sullivan Ross (sp?) statue at Texas A&M was defaced last night and those folks are NOT happy and they really don't like the President of the University, John Sharp, and a whole bunch of other things. I seem to remember a number of years ago reading an article in the paper about students there wanting to erect a statue of an African-American legislator who supported A&M and they couldn't ever raise enough money or get any support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I have enjoyed reading the discussions in this thread. However, I'm only a casual reader of history w/respect to the Civil War so my background is limited to HS, the basic core class in college, and the Ken Burns documentary which is where I saw the person above. What's the story?

 

 

Also, apparently the Sullivan Ross (sp?) statue at Texas A&M was defaced last night and those folks are NOT happy and they really don't like the President of the University, John Sharp, and a whole bunch of other things. I seem to remember a number of years ago reading an article in the paper about students there wanting to erect a statue of an African-American legislator who supported A&M and they couldn't ever raise enough money or get any support.

Rot in hell is probably a little harsh.  Foote was an amateur historian and his coverage of the military aspects of the war was masterful.  But he was an ardent apologist for Nathanial Bedford Forrest and he revived a lot of the Lost Cause mythology that serious historians had spent decades dispensing. 
 

It really falls on Burns for perpetuating a lot of the Lost Cause mythology. But a lot has changed in the last 30 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ghost of LL said:

Well, let me just ask you this--if raping one's slaves was not considered morally repugnant by society at the time, then why did Thomas Jefferson and his allies prosecute Azel Backus for criminal defamation when he alleged it (before having the charges dropped when it became clear that Backus could prove the veracity of the charge)?

This is fascinating. Can you imagine living in a time where the "humanitarian" stance is "well, at least i don't rape my slaves".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

I have enjoyed reading the discussions in this thread. However, I'm only a casual reader of history w/respect to the Civil War so my background is limited to HS, the basic core class in college, and the Ken Burns documentary which is where I saw the person above. What's the story?

 

 

Also, apparently the Sullivan Ross (sp?) statue at Texas A&M was defaced last night and those folks are NOT happy and they really don't like the President of the University, John Sharp, and a whole bunch of other things. I seem to remember a number of years ago reading an article in the paper about students there wanting to erect a statue of an African-American legislator who supported A&M and they couldn't ever raise enough money or get any support.

Sharp has made previous comments that Ross' statue will remain there forever. Really stupid to dig your heels in a cultural issue but I'm sure A&M will post a 24-hr guard around it now. Nothing says an open learning environment liked armed guards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Rot in hell is probably a little harsh.  Foote was an amateur historian and his coverage of the military aspects of the war was masterful.  But he was an ardent apologist for Nathanial Bedford Forrest and he revived a lot of the Lost Cause mythology that serious historians had spent decades dispensing. 
 

It really falls on Burns for perpetuating a lot of the Lost Cause mythology. But a lot has changed in the last 30 years.

The bolded can't be said enough when it comes to Foote. I've used him as my avatar for years because he's interesting, but people put too much emphasis on him as a historian when really he's more of an author. On the Burns doc I've seen more criticism lately on how it was the white people's history of the Civil War instead of perpetuating the Lost Cause. We're certainly due for another in depth documentary, but I guess that's what we have McPherson and Faust for and the general public will just miss out.

Edited by SimonBolivar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Sharp has made previous comments that Ross' statue will remain there forever. Really stupid to dig your heels in a cultural issue but I'm sure A&M will post a 24-hr guard around it now. Nothing says an open learning environment liked armed guards.

The corps will treat it like the tomb of the unknown soldier. It will become the newest and greatest tradition. Whoop!! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Rot in hell is probably a little harsh.  Foote was an amateur historian and his coverage of the military aspects of the war was masterful.  But he was an ardent apologist for Nathanial Bedford Forrest and he revived a lot of the Lost Cause mythology that serious historians had spent decades dispensing. 
 

It really falls on Burns for perpetuating a lot of the Lost Cause mythology. But a lot has changed in the last 30 years.

Please show your work here. I'll be interested to know how he perpetuated the southern cause mythology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

there isn't the United Daughters of Educators out there that pushed for new statues for 100 years.

You may be on to something, here.  Honestly, this seems like a great idea.  If you had what was in essence, "The Supporters of those who do great things in our community club," it would go a long way to refocus people walking around today on the shoulders they're actually standing on.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

Lee was not noble.  This is a vestige of the lost cause.  His papers show him to a an agressive proponent of slavery, as well as a violent owner.

His decision to join the confederacy likely influenced several other southern generals and extended the war by years, as he was almost certainly the most accomplished antebellum leader. It wasn’t until Grant and Sherman envisioned the future of warfare and harnessing the North’s true industrial might did the war begin the turn.  
 

I was raised in the tradition of Gentle Bob Lee as well.  It’s a testament to how pernicious And intentional the Lost Cause myth pervades our history and society.  
 

Why don’t we see statutes to Thaddeus Stevens?  A man who dedicated his life to abolition, expropriating the land and capital of post war slave owners for redistribution, and advocated for a true equal and multiracial society? 
 

You want to honor a radical? Put up a statute to John Brown. 

Lee was a war criminal.  Let's not undersell that.  When his army captured black Union soldiers, those prisoners of war were routinely tortured and executed on Lee's direct orders.  Lee refused to include black Union soliders in prisoner exchanges, which ensured that rebel soldiers remained in Union prison camps and on Union prison hulks.

And on the two times that Lee invaded the North--and in particular during the Gettysburg campaign--he kidnapped free blacks and took them into slavery.

By any measure of the laws of war as they existed at the time, Lee was a war criminal.  He was a traitor.  He should've been shot.

 

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Longstreet was also vilified in the South because he constantly blamed Lee for the decimation of his corps at Gettysburg. He was correct that Lee Waterlooed Gettysburg, But you just didn't criticize Lee in the south.  No one was calling Lee progressive, he was a typical southerner who shared the cultural trait of racsim with most people in the north whether they owned slaves or not.

The pre war south was dead after 1865.  Once the slaves were freed the foundations of the southern economy were no more  Lee said we need to let the war end, and heal the wounds between the north and south. I've said/asked it many times,  but if Lee was such an ardent slave master, why after the war was he the first man to personally welcome a black man to worship at his church ?  

The bigger myth is that the US was an avenging nation bent on the removal of slavery from the outset of the war. That is simply not true, the war was originally fourth to "preserve the union" end of story. Slavery would have been left intact had the south laid down its arms before 1863, and Mr. Lincolns Emancipation Proclamation.   That way the US could focus on killing more Indians....

The pre-war South didn't die in 1865.  That's the feel-good story they tell you in high school.  It's false.

The South never reconciled itself to the abolition of slavery.  And as soon as federal troops left, the South returned the former slaves to a state that closely resembled slavery.  Perhaps the former slaves upgraded their station to that of serfdom.  But they were denied their civil rights and often tied to the land as "sharecroppers," which is a status that very closely resembles the serfdom that Russia abolished in 1863.

The Southern economy's foundations weren't destroyed in 1865.  They were strengthened after the end of Reconstruction such that "King Cotton"--produced through the forced labor of black workers--remained the basis for the Southern economy well into the middle of the 20th Century.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the info; I've enjoyed the side discussion alongside the statue topic.

I've traveled enough to have seen statues/monuments everywhere and to somewhat fathom (depending on the locale) some of the circumstances regarding the significance of the personage, group or person responsible for the placement, tensions and views around the US and the world. Mostly I see them as relics of a time that was--not to be idealized and pretty much as a great place to collect bird droppings. I love the sculpture and the art, however, (okay that one in Nashville is a real wtf) and so Hugo's suggestion is intriguing-- depiction of ideals-like the statue of liberty. Given the state of affairs, I can still see some folks coming up with some wacky ideals, but it's a start. I do hope no one defaces Mount Rushmore or Crazy Horse though--those are pretty cool to visit in person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Please show your work here. I'll be interested to know how he perpetuated the southern cause mythology.

Dude, you have google. Just google Ken Burns, Lost Cause.

Here’s the first result, via the Smithsonian:

Or just watch the documentary.  There’s enough rhetorical gauze and grease on the lens to make Barbara Walters blush. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Sharp has made previous comments that Ross' statue will remain there forever. Really stupid to dig your heels in a cultural issue but I'm sure A&M will post a 24-hr guard around it now. Nothing says an open learning environment liked armed guards.

The military genius of aggy is going to be put to the test if they have to fight a two front war, defending this statue and all of the grass on campus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

Dude, you have google. Just google Ken Burns, Lost Cause.

Here’s the first result, via the Smithsonian:

Or just watch the documentary.  There’s enough rhetorical gauze and grease on the lens to make Barbara Walters blush. 

 

That article is a personal viewpoint. I never saw it for anything than it was, a documentary of the war thru the story of the war.  It was a soldiers tale, but that never moved the needle on any mythology regarding the south, that's long been done away with, for me at least.  

The south was wrong on the issue of slavery, no one doubts that unless they're just totally ignorant or such a racist they can't see fact.  There's nothing romantic about war, and I never felt Burns telling stories of individual bravery on either side made it any more so. Bravery is the physical act of a man fighting for his life, and the lives of his comrades.  The Civl War was a brutal 19th c. war fought with modern weapons, very bad medical knowledge, and a lot of 18th c. military strategy. Considered the first modern war it's no wonder it has taken on such fame or infamy depending on your point of view of war.  

Should it have been a more socially attuned series to the issue of slavery ?  That is a question for Burns.   It was a multi part series dealing with war, and the basic politics surrounding it. Slavery was a part of the series, but no it wasn't taking center stage.  I don't recall anything about southern mythology being pushed by Burns other than the discussion of it as a theme in the late 19th/ early 20th c. and the knowledge that was just a defeated "almost nation" trying to hold onto it's memories.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Lee was a war criminal.  Let's not undersell that.  When his army captured black Union soldiers, those prisoners of war were routinely tortured and executed on Lee's direct orders.  Lee refused to include black Union soliders in prisoner exchanges, which ensured that rebel soldiers remained in Union prison camps and on Union prison hulks.

And on the two times that Lee invaded the North--and in particular during the Gettysburg campaign--he kidnapped free blacks and took them into slavery.

By any measure of the laws of war as they existed at the time, Lee was a war criminal.  He was a traitor.  He should've been shot.

 

The pre-war South didn't die in 1865.  That's the feel-good story they tell you in high school.  It's false.

The South never reconciled itself to the abolition of slavery.  And as soon as federal troops left, the South returned the former slaves to a state that closely resembled slavery.  Perhaps the former slaves upgraded their station to that of serfdom.  But they were denied their civil rights and often tied to the land as "sharecroppers," which is a status that very closely resembles the serfdom that Russia abolished in 1863.

The Southern economy's foundations weren't destroyed in 1865.  They were strengthened after the end of Reconstruction such that "King Cotton"--produced through the forced labor of black workers--remained the basis for the Southern economy well into the middle of the 20th Century.

Those are all valid more in-depth answers than mine.  I agree with some of your points. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Lee was a war criminal. 

So, you're not a fan of Lee?  lol

Neither am I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

If you want to choose to see the war that way, that’s your decision, but emphasizing the martial history and heroic deeds of the war minimizes the brutal reason it was fought: Chattal Slavery. This ultimately dehumanizes the slaves themselves.  Reducing them to an esoteric discussion about states rights,  commodity crops and abolition timelines.  This is why this stain still poisons every aspect of our society.
 

Morever, it also washes the hands of the confederate generals who previously served in the US Military. They swore to protect and defend the constitution of the US and they subsequently committed full blown treason. The constitution clearly states the penalty for that: Death.  Only by the good grace and generosity of Lincoln and Grant were they not hanged.  And for this compassion,  the DAC spent 100 years shitting on the Union legacy in southern textbooks and course materials. 

 

The article I cited has numerous links to historians taking Burns to task.  The documentary made the Civil War a white person’s war for white people. 

 

Edited by Bateshorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, TexArcher said:

Yeah, but they still are above reproach to many Republicans.  They talk about the Founders as if they were some all-knowing, benevolent force that can't even be questioned, mainly because they gave us the right to own as many big dick guns as we want.  Never mind that the Founders thought owning humans was very legal and very cool, or that only white, male land-owners should be able to vote. 

This country was founded by and for white male elitists.  All this freedom and equality stuff is just window dressing.

 

Yeah the problem is that the history of the United States in marinating in slavery/racism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

If you want to choose to see the war that way, that’s your decision, but emphasizing the martial history and heroic deeds of the war minimizes the brutal reason it was fought: Chattal Slavery. This ultimately dehumanizes the slaves themselves.  Reducing them to an esoteric discussion about states rights,  commodity crops and abolition timelines.  This is why this stain still poisons every aspect of our society.
 

Morever, it also washes the hands of the confederate generals who previously served in the US Military. They swore to protect and defend the constitution of the US and they subsequently committed full blown treason. The constitution clearly states the penalty for that: Death.  Only by the good grace and generosity of Lincoln and Grant were they not hanged.  And for this compassion,  the DAC spent 100 years shitting on the Union legacy in southern textbooks and course materials. 

 

The article I cited has numerous links to historians taking Burns to task.  The documentary made the Civil War a white person’s war for white people. 

 

It's not my decision, it was burns decision to produce a series about the WAR.  Making it about the war doesn't diminish the plight of slaves in my opinion. It's probably a very good time now to produce  a multi part series about slavery, and make the war only a small role in it's telling.

Kinda hard to make it a footnote though, given that more Americans died in that war than any other conflict.

Yes the southern generals and officer corps were very fortunate to have 2 such men as Grant and Lincoln.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A guy that was a special forces trainer lived above me near the Pentagon.  I used the “more Americans died” line over beers as we were just hanging out. 
 

he replied “well, I mean, they were shooting at each other.” 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

A guy that was a special forces trainer lived above me near the Pentagon.  I used the “more Americans died” line over beers as we were just hanging out. 
 

he replied “well, I mean, they were shooting at each other.” 

Total casualties 620k + or - total, assume around half that at union forces, and that's just under the 405k of WWII.  That's a whole lot of dead people in a total population of 19c America.

 

yep I've heard that gallows humor line before 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...