TakeYouToTasker Posted January 21, 2016 Share Posted January 21, 2016 (edited) General John Bell Hood doubtless turning in his grave. To my mind its a national disgrace when men of stature and accomplishment are pilloried and sacrificed on the alter of contemporary political correctness by entirely secondary men and women. Is it impossible to arrive at a rational understanding of these things and to instruct all of our children accordingly? Manfred Baron Richthofen and Field Marshal Rommel were our enemies, but they were nevertheless respected and admired by the very people whose job it was to kill them. Does that mean that Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery and Winston Churchill were somehow moral imbeciles? Their cause was perhaps bad (certainly Rommel's was) but history seems capable of evaluating them as professional military men and as human beings independently of the accidents of time and place. You'll find that some here, as you've undoubtably found elsewhere, insist on judging historical figures and times backwards through the lens of 2016 American progressive moral structures. Edited January 22, 2016 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 You're relying on his actions to divine his intent, even though his own statements contradict you? You're actually claiming to know Lee's feelings better than Lee? I know he choose to ignore the oath he swore to defend the United States and to actually take up arms against the United States and lead an invasion of it. Traitor. Other Virginians actually choose not to betray their oaths, actually people in his own family. Actions do speak louder than words He was an old Conservative man who knew slavery was the driving issue in the Southern rebellion and choose to go along with his feelings for slavery and the attempted destruction of the Union. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 General John Bell Hood doubtless turning in his grave. To my mind its a national disgrace when men of stature and accomplishment are pilloried and sacrificed on the alter of contemporary political correctness by entirely secondary men and women. Is it impossible to arrive at a rational understanding of these things and to instruct all of our children accordingly? Manfred Baron Richthofen and Field Marshal Rommel were our enemies, but they were nevertheless respected and admired by the very people whose job it was to kill them. Does that mean that Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery and Winston Churchill were somehow moral imbeciles? Their cause was perhaps bad (certainly Rommel's was) but history seems capable of evaluating them as professional military men and as human beings independently of the accidents of time and place. Hitler was a man of stature and accomplishment in a whole bunch of people's eyes. You think there should be a statue of him in Germany? People fighting to dissolve the Union to create a competing pro-slavery empire in America are not condemned today simply out of "political correctness"--to use your simplistic term--but because they really were traitors and were fighting for something we consider morally repugnant, slavery and the destruction of our government. Yes, we also hate them. That part is emotional, and there is a desire to smear these cretins in the eyes of posterity, but our hate is pretty well grounded in rational thought, facts and deeds committed by the Confederates. Lee and Rommel were great generals, and its great we can look at their record from that point of view and respect their ability to kill American soldiers, but that does not mean we should honor them to the point of erecting monuments to them. You'll find that some here, as you've undoubtably found elsewhere, insist on judging historical figures and times backwards through the lens of 2016 American progressive moral structures. And what did mean old Mr. Lincoln do to make the South secede? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 (edited) I know he choose to ignore the oath he swore to defend the United States and to actually take up arms against the United States and lead an invasion of it. Traitor. Other Virginians actually choose not to betray their oaths, actually people in his own family. Actions do speak louder than words But do you know why he chose that? He was an old Conservative man who knew slavery was the driving issue in the Southern rebellion and choose to go along with his feelings for slavery and the attempted destruction of the Union. Wrong. Edited January 22, 2016 by DC Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 So? That was the law. Fugitive slaves were property, they weren't free. In the North and South. In fact, McClellan supported that, as he believed an individual couldn't be deprived of their property without due process, so the very harboring of fugitive slaves was unconstitutional. Who? By 1863 McClellan was a civilian and a former general who had failed to win the war. He was getting ready to rally the racists up north for a run at the Presidency. How'd that turn out for him? And since that was 1863, you think the EP was unconstitutional? But do you know why he chose that? Wrong. Why he choose to betray his oath? He was a Conservative old man who was pro-slavery Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Who? By 1863 McClellan was a civilian and a former general who had failed to win the war. He was getting ready to rally the racists up north for a run at the Presidency. How'd that turn out for him? And since that was 1863, you think the EP was unconstitutional? Why he choose to betray his oath? He was a Conservative old man who was pro-slavery What do you think Lee meant when he said "secession is nothing but revolution"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 What do you think Lee meant when he said "secession is nothing but revolution"? I'll answer, but give me your take first Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 There is an unusually high amount of stupid in this thread, even for gator. I'll never understand why he chooses to act like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 There is an unusually high amount of stupid in this thread, even for gator. I'll never understand why he chooses to act like this. You are funny. You can't answer your own point about how a non-office holding president elect destroyed the country so you just resort to calling me stupid. You are a light weight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 Hey!! Tom's little minion is here!! Did you wipe Tom's rear end today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 I'll answer, but give me your take first Sorry my son that's not how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 JAMES LILEKS: “This is the Minneapolis Institute of Art’s website…‘How can we bring equality to history?’” The sentiments behind the thought were so self-evidently correct that no one stopped to think how bizarre that sounds. At the most facile reading, it suggests that history should be rearranged to reflect not what happened, but what should have happened if modern values were transposed on the past. Every generation interprets the past through their own values, of course, but there is still general agreement that certain dates, people, events, inventions, and artistic creations were seminal (sorry) and influential, and while you can argue about their effect, you can’t deny that they happened. You can, however, diminish their importance in favor of other dates, people, events, inventions, and artistic creations. In some cases this is wish-fulfillment. In most cases this is a graduate thesis. It may be a contrary argument whose appeal rests in its fashionable vestments, but if it has the Proper Modern Values, it becomes a new gospel simply because it rebels against those things the spirit of the times require we rebel against. It’s like playing a shell game and insisting that the pea was really under the middle shell because that’s what you chose. But it was under this one. I know but it should have been under that one. Read the whole thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted January 22, 2016 Author Share Posted January 22, 2016 Sorry my son that's not how it works. You can't have a debate, I forgot. And why you calling me son? Frustrated by your inability to have a discussion? Because you are unable to have a discussion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 You can't have a debate, I forgot. And why you calling me son? Frustrated by your inability to have a discussion? Because you are unable to have a discussion Discussion: People ask a question and you answer the question. If you want them to answer they same question you put it back to them AFTER you've answered their question. Dude you don't even know how to have a proper discussion hence the name son. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 You are funny. You can't answer your own point about how a non-office holding president elect destroyed the country so you just resort to calling me stupid. You are a light weight Again, why do you act like this? There are people here, myself included, who have read more about the Civil War, it's causes, economics, outcomes, and participants than you will ever do in your lifetime. Your entire purpose here is to revise history, with a current agenda. It's one of the least intellectually honest things I've ever encountered here, and you are a worse person for it. Knock it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Knock it off. Good luck with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
....lybob Posted January 22, 2016 Share Posted January 22, 2016 “He who fights with Asshats should look to it that he himself does not become a Asshat . . . when you gaze long into the ass the ass also gazes into you” This advice is unfortunately too late for Deranged Rhino. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts