The Briefing Room
General Category => Military/Defense News => Topic started by: rangerrebew on July 02, 2020, 09:55:31 am
-
What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
Jimmy Byrn and Gabe Royal | June 22, 2020
In spite of the sight of the Stars and Bars flying from the radio masts of occasional automobiles coming out of Dixie, few fair-minded men can feel today that the issues which divided the North and South in 1861 have any real meaning to our present generation.
Those were the words spoken by famous World War II general Maxwell Taylor in 1952, at the dedication of Gen. Robert E. Lee’s portrait in the West Point library. This portrait has since become the topic of controversy from many who question the reverence for Lee at West Point in the form of a barracks, a gate, and multiple paintings.
Articles exploring this veneration and petitions calling for the removal of displays of Lee at West Point often fall short in addressing exactly how the Confederate leader became ingrained in academy culture. Lee’s return to a place of honor at West Point occurred as a result of a reconciliation process that downplayed the Confederacy’s treason as the primary transgression for which southern officers required forgiveness, papered over the issue of slavery, and ignored the underrepresented black officers of the US Army. The reverence shown, though, is no longer unchallenged by the diverse, twenty-first-century officer corps, and as a result, West Point now faces a decision: What should it do with displays of Lee’s person and his name? And more broadly, what place should this controversial figure—and former academy superintendent—occupy at the academy?
https://mwi.usma.edu/west-point-robert-e-lee-problem/
-
>sigh<
The word "treason" is easy to bandy about in a time when it has been largely forgotten that our Federal Government was not a National Government prior to 1865. That distinction may be lost on many, but here goes.
These United States were a federation of individual sovereign and several States, (State being another word for "nation".) You were a citizen of your State, and by agreement, also a citizen of the United States, which had come together under Articles of Confederation first, and later a mutually agreed upon Constitution that reserved most power to those States, and to the People. The duties of that Federal Government were limited in scope, Constitutionally, and power was granted to it for the express purpose of carrying out those duties. All else was reserved, as noted, to the States, and the People. Each State (or Commonwealth, as the case may be), had its own legislature, executive branch, Constitution, Laws, and Bill of Rights, Secretary of State, Judiciary, and even an Army. Although the current forces retained by those States are a pittance compared to what they were then, and can be Federalized, that was not the case then.
Prior to the War Mr. Lincoln engaged in, not to free slaves, but to bring those states which decided the compact no longer worked for them back into the Federation, by Conquest, at gunpoint, anyone served in the Federal Army as a separate entity, the one army which would be the basis for the common defense mentioned in the Constitution, from 'marauding savages' on the frontiers, to the avaricious aims of the adjacent French colonies to the West (later purchased) and North or the Spaniards to the South. State Militias (Armies) would add to that effort as they saw fit. These conflicts had happened or would take place. The other duty of the Federal Army was to prevent the squabbles between the States from erupting into all out warfare, or from any State seizing (militarily) territory from another. That was discussed in the Federalist before the ratification of the Constitution.
Robert E. Lee served in that army, not so much a National Army, but the Federal Army, which existed for the purposes above. His home State (the Commonwealth of Virginia) had an Army, too.
When his State decided to no longer abide by the compact that was the US Constitution, it, like many others before it, seceded politically from the Federation known as the United States. There was nothing in that Constitution which said a State could not leave that Federation or those who so jealously guarded and prized their freedom from the chains of British rule would never have ratified it. It was predicated on the concept that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That consent was withdrawn by the legislatures of 11 States, and others were Militarily occupied by what amounted to be foreign troops (from other States, under a growing penumbra of Federal Power, something which changed even the reference to the union) before they could consider if they, too, wanted to leave.
Lee's choice, especially when offered command of the Army of the Potomac for the Federal Army, was one of leading Federal and other troops against those from his home State, his countrymen, of being at the head of the Army which was to be used to defend the Federal Capital and subjugate his fellow Virginians, or to choose lead the army which would defend his home State, his own lands, and his fellow Virginians from that invasion which was sure to come, despite all hopes of being left alone.
Not much choice, imho. Under those circumstances, I would have also resigned my Commission and gone home, rather than be reviled in perpetuity by my neighbors, family and friends, and out of loyalty to my country (Virginia).
It is easy to forget, after the invasion and subjugation of the South, the many distortions if looked at through the lens of the present that even the structure of our government has been so fundamentally altered, not just since 1865, but again and again in the intervening years. Judging history by a standard which did not exist when the events unfolded is easy, but historically lazy and grossly inaccurate.
As an example, even recently, the Supreme Court decided "sex" meant not the male or female nature of a person, but the practices they engage in, for the purpose of eliminating 'discrimination'. (When I was a child, discrimination (making careful, informed, choices) was a virtue, not a racial (etc.) thing to be despised.) If, in those few decades, something that fundamental can become so twisted from its original meaning, imagine what has happened in the 160 years since Lee made his choice.
So for those who think Lee a "traitor", proceed, show your ignorance of history. I have little doubt the man did not lightly leave a highly promising career in the Federal Army, nor was his departure one of casual hatred for the Federation his country had departed, but rather his decision was one of love for the land his roots were firmly in: Virginia.
If one wants to look for treason, there is plenty around, in a more modern context, and perhaps it would be more worthwhile to turn our national focus on that.
-
@Smokin Joe
:hands: :hands: :hands:
-
>sigh<
The word "treason" is easy to bandy about in a time when it has been largely forgotten that our Federal Government was not a National Government prior to 1865. That distinction may be lost on many, but here goes.
If one wants to look for treason, there is plenty around, in a more modern context, and perhaps it would be more worthwhile to turn our national focus on that.
Perfectly stated and totally accurate :patriot:
-
MLK had ties and took money from Communists in the height of the Cold War. Where's the same outrage.
Calling R. E. Lee treasonous rings hollow to me.
-
It frustrates me to no end the number of people who view all things related to the Civil War as an either/or, black or white, good or evil. Like all things there are multiple shades of gray.
Did the southern STATES secede due to slavery? Yes. Did the political leaders of those states push for secession due to slavery? Yes. But even that has shades of gray. Wrapped up in the discussion of slavery is taxation, property rights (to their mind), representation in Congress, etc. Do all those stem from the evil of slavery? Again, yes. But that still is viewing that institution thru the glasses of today.
Now step back from the political and governmental decisions, and contemplate the individual soldier...be it Gen. Lee or Pvt. Smith....do they automatically support and defend slavery simply by virtue of their fighting for the Confederacy? And are they demonstrably evil for that choice? Or could their be multiple shades of gray? Things like: I will not draw my sword against my home of Virginia. Or: Lincoln has no right to compel us to stay in the Union. Or: We have the right to choose our own course. Or even: I am an 18 y.o., full of piss and vinegar, I’m gonna get off of this god forsaken farm, get away from my father and go join the glorious contest of my day!
My point is that there are myriad reasons, all good and honorable, that a man may have taken up his sword and rifle for the Confederacy that have not a thing to do with the slavery. Much like today, soldiers serve at the whims of their political leaders, with little knowledge of “the real†reasons they are called to war. Why do we assume it was so different then?
Here’s a question to consider:
Should we now denigrate and reduce to ignominy General Tommy Franks for leading the war in Iraq because there were no WMDs found?
-
@Axeslinger How was Tommy Franks to know Saddam had used them up against the Iranians and the Kurds? (The ones the Russians didn't haul out, anyway.)
-
It frustrates me to no end the number of people who view all things related to the Civil War as an either/or, black or white, good or evil. Like all things there are multiple shades of gray.
Here is a 1861 time line to put in perspective..
SC secedes- December 20, 1860
GA, MS, AL, LA, TX, FL secede- January 9 to February 1, 1861
Sumpter fired upon - April 12, 1861 No causalties
Lincoln asks for 75,000 volunteers to quell rebellion- April 15, 1861
Virginia secedes- April 17, 1861
Lee is offered command of Union Forces- April 18,1861
Lee turns down that offer- April 20,1861, and soon gets commission to lead Confederate Army
Now think about it. Plausibly does Lee march 75,000 troops into his own state and homeland as an invading aggressor?
Doesn't sound much like a traitor to me.
-
Here is a 1861 time line to put in perspective..
SC secedes- December 20, 1860
GA, MS, AL, LA, TX, FL secede- January 9 to February 1, 1861
Sumpter fired upon - April 12, 1861 No causalties
Lincoln asks for 75,000 volunteers to quell rebellion- April 15, 1861
Virginia secedes- April 17, 1861
Lee is offered command of Union Forces- April 18,1861
Lee turns down that offer- April 20,1861, and soon gets commission to lead Confederate Army
Now think about it. Plausibly does Lee march 75,000 troops into his own state and homeland as an invading aggressor?
Doesn't sound much like a traitor to me.
April 19, 1861 Citizens of Baltimore MD attack invading troops from Mass. on Pratt Street in Baltimore, resulting in 4 soldiers killed, 36 wounded, and 12 dead civilians. This was the first lethal engagement of the war, later enshrined in the words of the State Song, "Avenge the patriotic gore / That flecked the streets of Baltimore".
Whether word of that protest and confrontation had reached Lee or could have is unknown.
By April 20, the buildup of invading troops in Maryland made it clear that invasion of the States in secession was indeed inevitable.
-
April 19, 1861 Citizens of Baltimore MD attack invading troops from Mass. on Pratt Street in Baltimore, resulting in 4 soldiers killed, 36 wounded, and 12 dead civilians. This was the first lethal engagement of the war, later enshrined in the words of the State Song, "Avenge the patriotic gore / That flecked the streets of Baltimore".
Whether word of that protest and confrontation had reached Lee or could have is unknown.
By April 20, the buildup of invading troops in Maryland made it clear that invasion of the States in secession was indeed inevitable.
I have a newspapers. com subscription and have filtered literally through 1000's of pages of 18th and 19th century papers doing genealogical reasearch.
By the 1860's with telegraph, and runners (boys who ran between telegraph offices and newspapers), A major event of the news like the one would have spread fast. A quick check of my account indicates that this event made the news on April 20th in several dozens cities, and the furthest location I could find was in Davenport, Iowa. So I would bet money Lee knew of this event before making his decison.
-
I have a newspapers. com subscription and have filtered literally through 1000's of pages of 18th and 19th century papers doing genealogical reasearch.
By the 1860's with telegraph, and runners (boys who ran between telegraph offices and newspapers), A major event of the news like the one would have spread fast. A quick check of my account indicates that this event made the news on April 20th in several dozens cities, and the furthest location I could find was in Davenport, Iowa. So I would bet money Lee knew of this event before making his decison.
Then it is likely he knew there would be war. By April 26th the State Capital (Annapolis) was occupied by Northern troops.
Mayor Brown and Maryland Governor Hicks implored President Lincoln to send no further troops through Maryland to avoid further confrontations. However, as Lincoln remarked to a peace delegation from the Young Men's Christian Association, Union soldiers were neither birds to fly over Maryland, nor moles to burrow under it.
On the evening of April 20 Hicks also authorized Brown to dispatch the Maryland state militia for the purpose of disabling the railroad bridges into the city—an act he would later deny. One of the militia leaders was John Merryman, who was arrested one month later, and held in defiance of a writ of habeas corpus, which led to the case of Ex parte Merryman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861)
-
>sigh<
The word "treason" is easy to bandy about in a time when it has been largely forgotten that our Federal Government was not a National Government prior to 1865. That distinction may be lost on many, but here goes.
These United States were a federation of individual sovereign and several States, (State being another word for "nation".) You were a citizen of your State, and by agreement, also a citizen of the United States, which had come together under Articles of Confederation first, and later a mutually agreed upon Constitution that reserved most power to those States, and to the People. The duties of that Federal Government were limited in scope, Constitutionally, and power was granted to it for the express purpose of carrying out those duties. All else was reserved, as noted, to the States, and the People. Each State (or Commonwealth, as the case may be), had its own legislature, executive branch, Constitution, Laws, and Bill of Rights, Secretary of State, Judiciary, and even an Army. Although the current forces retained by those States are a pittance compared to what they were then, and can be Federalized, that was not the case then.
Prior to the War Mr. Lincoln engaged in, not to free slaves, but to bring those states which decided the compact no longer worked for them back into the Federation, by Conquest, at gunpoint, anyone served in the Federal Army as a separate entity, the one army which would be the basis for the common defense mentioned in the Constitution, from 'marauding savages' on the frontiers, to the avaricious aims of the adjacent French colonies to the West (later purchased) and North or the Spaniards to the South. State Militias (Armies) would add to that effort as they saw fit. These conflicts had happened or would take place. The other duty of the Federal Army was to prevent the squabbles between the States from erupting into all out warfare, or from any State seizing (militarily) territory from another. That was discussed in the Federalist before the ratification of the Constitution.
Robert E. Lee served in that army, not so much a National Army, but the Federal Army, which existed for the purposes above. His home State (the Commonwealth of Virginia) had an Army, too.
When his State decided to no longer abide by the compact that was the US Constitution, it, like many others before it, seceded politically from the Federation known as the United States. There was nothing in that Constitution which said a State could not leave that Federation or those who so jealously guarded and prized their freedom from the chains of British rule would never have ratified it. It was predicated on the concept that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That consent was withdrawn by the legislatures of 11 States, and others were Militarily occupied by what amounted to be foreign troops (from other States, under a growing penumbra of Federal Power, something which changed even the reference to the union) before they could consider if they, too, wanted to leave.
Lee's choice, especially when offered command of the Army of the Potomac for the Federal Army, was one of leading Federal and other troops against those from his home State, his countrymen, of being at the head of the Army which was to be used to defend the Federal Capital and subjugate his fellow Virginians, or to choose lead the army which would defend his home State, his own lands, and his fellow Virginians from that invasion which was sure to come, despite all hopes of being left alone.
Not much choice, imho. Under those circumstances, I would have also resigned my Commission and gone home, rather than be reviled in perpetuity by my neighbors, family and friends, and out of loyalty to my country (Virginia).
It is easy to forget, after the invasion and subjugation of the South, the many distortions if looked at through the lens of the present that even the structure of our government has been so fundamentally altered, not just since 1865, but again and again in the intervening years. Judging history by a standard which did not exist when the events unfolded is easy, but historically lazy and grossly inaccurate.
As an example, even recently, the Supreme Court decided "sex" meant not the male or female nature of a person, but the practices they engage in, for the purpose of eliminating 'discrimination'. (When I was a child, discrimination (making careful, informed, choices) was a virtue, not a racial (etc.) thing to be despised.) If, in those few decades, something that fundamental can become so twisted from its original meaning, imagine what has happened in the 160 years since Lee made his choice.
So for those who think Lee a "traitor", proceed, show your ignorance of history. I have little doubt the man did not lightly leave a highly promising career in the Federal Army, nor was his departure one of casual hatred for the Federation his country had departed, but rather his decision was one of love for the land his roots were firmly in: Virginia.
If one wants to look for treason, there is plenty around, in a more modern context, and perhaps it would be more worthwhile to turn our national focus on that.
@Smokin Joe
VERY precise and educational posting,but facts are inconvenient things that can get in the way of today's agenda,so they will be ignored. Hell,probably 30 percent or more of the people you would try to educate with these historic facts can't even read,and the ones that can will dismiss it as "white man's history".
-
160 years later they're still trying to stick a bayonet into the Heart of Dixie.
The Last Waltz (1978) - The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down Scene
Error 404 (Not Found)!!1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6dDbnwQlCek#)
-
@Axeslinger How was Tommy Franks to know Saddam had used them up against the Iranians and the Kurds? (The ones the Russians didn't haul out, anyway.)
@Smokin Joe
He absolutely wasn’t. And it wouldn’t have mattered anyhow. My point was that he was ordered by his civilian leadership to execute a mission. He wasn’t asked his personal opinion on the existence of WMD. How tragic would it be for him to get excoriated 150yearw from now for executing that (in hindsight, faulty) mission?
-
The authors of this piece graduated from USMA in 2012 with history degrees. Too bad they didn't actually learn history (on a par with AOC's economics degree).
-
@Smokin Joe
He absolutely wasn’t. And it wouldn’t have mattered anyhow. My point was that he was ordered by his civilian leadership to execute a mission. He wasn’t asked his personal opinion on the existence of WMD. How tragic would it be for him to get excoriated 150yearw from now for executing that (in hindsight, faulty) mission?
Like many events in history, "studied" only in superficiality, that is a possibility, even though it is his sworn duty to carry out the mission set forth by his civilian commanders.
See also: Korea, Vietnam.
Unfortunately, the civilians running the show snatched defeat from the jaws of victory there also, and in every major conflict since.
-
[quote author=Smokin Joe link=topic=407103.msg2241308#msg2241308 date=1593689419
The word "treason" is easy to bandy about in a time when it has been largely forgotten that our Federal Government was not a National Government prior to 1865. That distinction may be lost on many, but here goes.
These United States were a federation of individual sovereign and several States, (State being another word for "nation".) You were a citizen of your State, and by agreement, also a citizen of the United States, which had come together under Articles of Confederation first, and later a mutually agreed upon Constitution that reserved most power to those States, and to the People. The duties of that Federal Government were limited in scope, Constitutionally, and power was granted to it for the express purpose of carrying out those duties. All else was reserved, as noted, to the States, and the People. Each State (or Commonwealth, as the case may be), had its own legislature, executive branch, Constitution, Laws, and Bill of Rights, Secretary of State, Judiciary, and even an Army. Although the current forces retained by those States are a pittance compared to what they were then, and can be Federalized, that was not the case then.
Prior to the War Mr. Lincoln engaged in, not to free slaves, but to bring those states which decided the compact no longer worked for them back into the Federation, by Conquest, at gunpoint, anyone served in the Federal Army as a separate entity, the one army which would be the basis for the common defense mentioned in the Constitution, from 'marauding savages' on the frontiers, to the avaricious aims of the adjacent French colonies to the West (later purchased) and North or the Spaniards to the South. State Militias (Armies) would add to that effort as they saw fit. These conflicts had happened or would take place. The other duty of the Federal Army was to prevent the squabbles between the States from erupting into all out warfare, or from any State seizing (militarily) territory from another. That was discussed in the Federalist before the ratification of the Constitution.
Robert E. Lee served in that army, not so much a National Army, but the Federal Army, which existed for the purposes above. His home State (the Commonwealth of Virginia) had an Army, too.
When his State decided to no longer abide by the compact that was the US Constitution, it, like many others before it, seceded politically from the Federation known as the United States. There was nothing in that Constitution which said a State could not leave that Federation or those who so jealously guarded and prized their freedom from the chains of British rule would never have ratified it. It was predicated on the concept that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That consent was withdrawn by the legislatures of 11 States, and others were Militarily occupied by what amounted to be foreign troops (from other States, under a growing penumbra of Federal Power, something which changed even the reference to the union) before they could consider if they, too, wanted to leave.
Lee's choice, especially when offered command of the Army of the Potomac for the Federal Army, was one of leading Federal and other troops against those from his home State, his countrymen, of being at the head of the Army which was to be used to defend the Federal Capital and subjugate his fellow Virginians, or to choose lead the army which would defend his home State, his own lands, and his fellow Virginians from that invasion which was sure to come, despite all hopes of being left alone.
Not much choice, imho. Under those circumstances, I would have also resigned my Commission and gone home, rather than be reviled in perpetuity by my neighbors, family and friends, and out of loyalty to my country (Virginia).
It is easy to forget, after the invasion and subjugation of the South, the many distortions if looked at through the lens of the present that even the structure of our government has been so fundamentally altered, not just since 1865, but again and again in the intervening years. Judging history by a standard which did not exist when the events unfolded is easy, but historically lazy and grossly inaccurate.
As an example, even recently, the Supreme Court decided "sex" meant not the male or female nature of a person, but the practices they engage in, for the purpose of eliminating 'discrimination'. (When I was a child, discrimination (making careful, informed, choices) was a virtue, not a racial (etc.) thing to be despised.) If, in those few decades, something that fundamental can become so twisted from its original meaning, imagine what has happened in the 160 years since Lee made his choice.
So for those who think Lee a "traitor", proceed, show your ignorance of history. I have little doubt the man did not lightly leave a highly promising career in the Federal Army, nor was his departure one of casual hatred for the Federation his country had departed, but rather his decision was one of love for the land his roots were firmly in: Virginia.
If one wants to look for treason, there is plenty around, in a more modern context, and perhaps it would be more worthwhile to turn our national focus on that.
[/quote]
-----------------------------
Smokin, outstanding post! Well done.
Permit me to add a related/supporting comment.
Sadly, so few are aware that many of our Founding Fathers were Southerners,
among them Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, Agrarian and Rural Democrats of
our only principled conservative party.
Their guiding precepts included the independence and sovereignty of the States
(States Rights), a precept paramount in our Articles of Confederation of 1777;
and some 250 years later, a notion sadly forgotten and ignored.
-
I would be willing to bet that the folks at WP never realized they ever had a R. E. Lee problem...
-
@Smokin Joe
In his final speech to southern troops, Lee told his troops them to go home and be as good a citizen and they were soldiers which went a long way toward reconciliation of the two sides. He was also one of the first white southerners to kneel next to a black man to receive communion in a Virginia church, no small occurrence. While he, no doubt, was bitter at losing the war, he exhibited the qualities of reconciliation he had encouraged his troops to do. He was a leader by example.
-
It frustrates me to no end the number of people who view all things related to the Civil War as an either/or, black or white, good or evil. Like all things there are multiple shades of gray.
My favorite way of pointing out the nuances of the Civil War it to note that for each side, the primary issue was the opposite of what the latter-day partisans of the two sides say it was. For the South the issue was slavery, and the Confederacy was formed to defend that institution. For the North the issue was states rights, the Union going to war to vindicate the position that states do no have the right to secede uniliaterally.
-
My favorite way of pointing out the nuances of the Civil War it to note that for each side, the primary issue was the opposite of what the latter-day partisans of the two sides say it was. For the South the issue was slavery, and the Confederacy was formed to defend that institution. For the North the issue was states rights, the Union going to war to vindicate the position that states do no have the right to secede uniliaterally.
Life is simple when your choices are binary
-
What problem? Robert E. Lee is likely the most principled man ever to attend that place so I don't see any problem.
-
My favorite way of pointing out the nuances of the Civil War it to note that for each side, the primary issue was the opposite of what the latter-day partisans of the two sides say it was. For the South the issue was slavery, and the Confederacy was formed to defend that institution. For the North the issue was states rights, the Union going to war to vindicate the position that states do no have the right to secede uniliaterally.
@The_Reader_David
Yeah,but,no. Not even close. It was about MONEY.
The entire southern economy at that time was based on agriculture,and farming was entirely dependent on manual labor. If you wanted to expand your farm much beyond the bare substance level,you either had to pump out a LOT of kids really quickly,or hire farm laborers.
There was no such thing as farm laborers to hire back then. People back then,just like people of today,needed jobs that were daily jobs,not seasonal jobs.
The answer,was slaves. Nobody in the south captured and enslaved anyone,with ONE exception. That exception was a black man named Johnson who came to America like every other immigrant at that time who didn't have a title and wasn't in the military. He came here as an indentured servant,and once he worked off the expense of his passage,food,shelter,housing,as a laborer,he became a free man and was given acreage to create a farm.
He "hired" another indentured servant to help him by paying his passage to America,and when the man he hired (also a black man) had worked his time out,Johnson went to court to prevent him from being freed. He won the court battle,and slavery became legal in the original colony of Virginia. Which meant it became legal everywhere in America at that time.
Anyhow,the entire economy of the south revolved around slave labor at that time.
Guess who else profited from slavery. Can you say "Northern Bankers"? ALL of whom were based in NYC. Still are,AFATG.
THEY profited because they not only lent money to the plantation owners to buy seeds,tools,SLAVES,etc,etc,etc,
they also brokered all the foreign sales of tobacco,corn,and the other crops the southern plantation owners sold internationally. This was because all the banking houses at that time were owned by European banking families with financial ties to Royalty,and let's not forget this started prior to 1607. These were the same banking families that lent the English the money to come to America and create the original colony on Roanoke Island in what is now called "The Outer Banks of NC".
200 years later the southern agricultural economy is a booming established business,and pretty much have a lock on the sale of some items to Europe,like corn and tobacco.
So the wealthy southern planters decide to cut out the middleman and sell directly to European brokers,bypassing NYC.
Which,as you may have guessed,caused the NYC bankers to start having spasms.
Yes,there WERE other factors involved,including opposition to slavery on moral grounds by people who could afford to be moral because it wasn't THEIR horse that was being gored,but it really boils down to the rich European banking families based in NYC didn't like having their fingers snatched out of the pie,and the rich plantation owners in the south (who mostly owned the local banks,also) didn't like having to pay a ransom to the NYC bankers when they now had the money and the means to do their own shipping and financing.
And,as always,everyone else got pulled into the squabble over greed and money,and we went to war. The Northern politicians tried one thing and then another,but nothing worked until they decided to cloak their aggression in religious terms,and declared slavery to be immoral. They then demanded the south outlaw slavery,knowing full-well that if they did so,their banks would fail and so would their economy.
The southern bankers resisted because they would be the ones that the most if slavery became illegal at that time. Don't forget,at that time it was ALL stoop labor. No machines. A few years later the Cotton Gin was invented,and THAT was the death knoll for slavery even if there had been no Civil War.
The northern foot soldiers were mostly ignorant,but sincere religious people who volunteered for moral reasons.
Since there weren't enough of them,the north started the first draft,which led to draft riots in NYC,with lots of black people being killed in the riots. So the north solved this little "lack of volunteers" problem by basically making enlisting in the army a requirement for new refugees at Elis Island hoping to find new homes in America. They either "volunteered" or reasons were found to reject them,and put them on boats back to Europe,losing everything they sacrificed to come here in the first place.
The typical rebel foot solider volunteered because they were Scots-Irish,and somebody told them there were Englishmen coming into the south that needed killing.
It ain't pretty,but history never is.
-
What problem? Robert E. Lee is likely the most principled man ever to attend that place so I don't see any problem.
@Bigun
That IS the problem.
-
Better yet...what happens when the rioters discover the history of Arlington Cemetery?
-
Robert E. Lee, second in his class at West Point, may have been A principled man, but he Was the reason the South lost. He held his (uniform) rank as a colonel until his meeting with Grant in April 1865.
Grant was the most principled; Lee was in danger of being held on charges of treason when Grant spoke for him.
-
My favorite way of pointing out the nuances of the Civil War it to note that for each side, the primary issue was the opposite of what the latter-day partisans of the two sides say it was. For the South the issue was slavery, and the Confederacy was formed to defend that institution. For the North the issue was states rights, the Union going to war to vindicate the position that states do no have the right to secede uniliaterally.
NO! Slavery was not the primary driving issue that compelled the secession of Southern states. It was instead the tariffs being imposed on them that forced them to buy the goods necessary for their farming enterprises from Northern industrialists instead of bartering for them in the world's markets.
Can you show me the word(s) or phrase(s) in the Constitution that prevents states from leaving a union that no longer serves them? I'll wait.
@The_Reader_David
-
NO! Slavery was not the primary driving issue that compelled the secession of Southern states. It was instead the tariffs being imposed on them that forced them to buy the goods necessary for their farming enterprises from Northern industrialists instead of bartering for them in the world's markets.
Can you show me the word(s) or phrase(s) in the Constitution that prevents states from leaving a union that no longer serves them? I'll wait.
@The_Reader_David
Exactly...
Then the north swapped Indentured Servitude for slavery
-
Robert E. Lee, second in his class at West Point, may have been A principled man, but he Was the reason the South lost. He held his (uniform) rank as a colonel until his meeting with Grant in April 1865.
Grant was the most principled; Lee was in danger of being held on charges of treason when Grant spoke for him.
Perhaps you can tell us why no Southern leader was ever prosecuted for any of their supposed crimes.
Jefferson Davis, Alexander Hamilton Stephens, Robert E. Lee, not any of them. Why?
-
Well, Lee did finish near the top of his class at West Point while Ulysses Grant was near the bottom. They were both respected by their men. But on the battlefield, Grant was the superior fighter.
Removing the statue won't change history. Only our so-called educator's and the worthless MSM will try to do that.
-
Well, Lee did finish near the top of his class at West Point while Ulysses Grant was near the bottom. They were both respected by their men. But on the battlefield, Grant was the superior fighter.
Removing the statue won't change history. Only our so-called educator's and the worthless MSM will try to do that.
Grant was the superior fighter only because Lee's principles would not allow him to use the same tactics. He was urged by many to adopt unconventional tactics but refused to do so to the bitter end.
-
My favorite way of pointing out the nuances of the Civil War it to note that for each side, the primary issue was the opposite of what the latter-day partisans of the two sides say it was. For the South the issue was slavery, and the Confederacy was formed to defend that institution. For the North the issue was states rights, the Union going to war to vindicate the position that states do no have the right to secede uniliaterally.
If the North was going to war to invalidate the idea of a State's Right to secede from the compact, alone or in groups, then State's Rights was certainly an issue.
As I have noted, if the founding governments of their respective several and sovereign States had believed for a moment that in the event their State was no longer served by the compact that they could not leave that compact, it never would have been ratified in the first place. After all,
Why was slavery an issue if only 1/4 of southerners held slaves?
First, the slaves were the tractors before the industrial age. Certainly, draft animals did the heavy work, but farming was (and to some extent still is) labor intensive. Today, machinery acts as a force multiplier, but the job is still 24/7/365 to be done right. Prior to the introduction of many of the antecedents to today's planting and harvesting machinery, planting, cultivation, harvesting were done by hand. Crops like tobacco still rely on human labor for harvesting and lest we forget, that presently demonized crop was such an essential cash crop, it was literally used as money, including for the payment of taxes. The summary elimination of the agricultural labor force upon which the South relied for the production of the very stock in trade: agricultural products would have been economically devastating. The North had different needs, and a steady influx of immigrants the South did not, enough so that it could pick and choose which European groups were treated poorly. You could starve to death as an immigrant in the North, as a slave you'd at least be fed (or the owner would lose their investment).
Speaking of that investment, the summary and total manumission the Northerners (or at least the most ardent abolitionists) sought made no provisions for compensating owners for what at the time was considered "property", to be removed from them without due process, for no crime unless a new (ex post facto) law was passed.
Consider:By the mid 19th Century, exports of raw cotton accounted for more than half of US oversees shipments. What wasn't sold abroad was sent to mills in northern states including Massachusetts and Rhode Island to be turned into fabric.
The money southern plantation owners earned couldn't be kept under mattresses or behind loose floorboards.
American banks accepted their deposits and counted enslaved people as assets when assessing a person's wealth.
In recent years, US banks have made public apologies for the role they played in slavery.
In 2005, JP Morgan Chase, currently the biggest bank in the US, admitted that two of its subsidiaries - Citizens' Bank and Canal Bank in Louisiana - accepted enslaved people as collateral for loans. If plantation owners defaulted on loan payment the banks took ownership of these slaves.
JP Morgan was not alone. The predecessors that made up Citibank, Bank of America and Wells Fargo are among a list of well-known US financial firms that benefited from the slave trade.
"Slavery was an overwhelmingly important fact of the American economy," explains Sven Beckert, Laird Bell Professor of American History at Harvard University.
source (https://www.bbc.com/news/business-49476247)
Even northern interests were involved, first in the trade, but later as counting the value of slaves held as collateral for loans, loans which were deeply involved in maintaining the production of agricultural products on which the North not only relied for trade with Europe, but for its own textile and other mills.
The economic issues were not as simple as might appear, seriously wealthy interests were involved, both from the banking and industrial standpoint,and the simple bottom line is that the mercantile and banking class could not afford to have the South trading its products with the world, rather than being heavily tied to the Northern interests. Those loans were the leverage to keep the trade on track. The threat of summarily dismissing collateral for those loans would have left notes being called in and financial ruin/confiscation of major assets.
While, for instance, manumission was gaining in popularity in States like Maryland, where the expansion of the Federal District, Annapolis, and Baltimore (a major port and trade hub) changed the crops planted in the area to produce for market, requiring fewer slaves, and leading to many being freed, the need in the deeper South was still for agricultural labor to produce the crops to service the loans often held by northern banks.
Practical cotton harvesting machinery wasn't invented until the 1920s, and tobacco is still harvested by hand.
By 1860, though, just under half of the blacks living in Maryland were free, and manumission had been steadily increasing since 1810 source (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_slavery_in_Maryland)
When the South threatened to leave (the first mutterings were as early as the 1830s) not only were the collateral holdings of the northern banks threatened, but the lock on southern materials for the markup in trade and the raw materials to feed the mills was as well. Secession was the economic (and political) reply to the brickbat of emancipation which the north had waved once too often, but the underpinnings of the issue ultimately were economic, and that economic issue boiled down to two matters: The Right of a State to make its own laws, and at its core, the relation of that to slavery.
Considering the movement was away from slavery for economic reasons, namely that the influx of immigrants, often unwelcome in urban areas except to keep a sufficient surplus of labor to keep wages low, trickled down into the South. As that labor became more available, we see things like forbidding slaves from the holds of ships being loaded, not to prevent escape so much as to protect the investment. If the cargo shifted, the slave would likely be severely injured or killed, a loss of an asset. Instead, if a hireling was sent into the hold and was killed or injured, a modest stipend might be tendered to the widow and hire another. In addition, as I have mentioned in other posts, the slave had to be provided for: food, housing, adequate clothing and medical care (such as it was), or the return on investment would be low or nonexistent. A wage earner, on the other hand, would provide such themselves out of their pay, or if housed (room and board), that could be deducted from their wages. The "Company Store" got so bad that many equated it with slavery, and no initial investment was necessary. Not all were treated thus, but it was common enough, and a system which persisted into the 20th century, in coal mining towns, especially.
If left to its economic devices, restrained to the States which practiced it, it is likely slavery would have died a natural death out of economic considerations.
The war was fought, invading the South, to preserve the Union, at least in the minds of many Northerners who made up the Army. Allegedly, Maryland was invaded for the purpose of securing the Federal District, (in actuality, with the occupation of the State Capitol, to prevent a vote on secession). There was no great cry of going forth to free people held in bondage, but to quash rebellion, in their eyes. It was no coincidence that after the emancipation proclamation there were problems in the ranks over not fighting to free slaves, and draft riots in New York City in mid 1863. Emancipation alone simply was not casus belli in the minds of Northerners, but the preservation of jobs and their economy was.
My point, however, is simply this. Slavery, as an issue, cannot be separated from the States' Rights issue, as it was the State's Rights issue which determined whether slavery would be allowed to persist. The roots of the war, of the forceful and brutal conquest of the South to make it stay in a 'voluntary' Union were by and large (as in all wars) economic.
-
@Smokin Joe
In his final speech to southern troops, Lee told his troops them to go home and be as good a citizen and they were soldiers which went a long way toward reconciliation of the two sides. He was also one of the first white southerners to kneel next to a black man to receive communion in a Virginia church, no small occurrence. While he, no doubt, was bitter at losing the war, he exhibited the qualities of reconciliation he had encouraged his troops to do. He was a leader by example.
That is a most powerful story.
-
Robert E. Lee, second in his class at West Point, may have been A principled man, but he Was the reason the South lost. He held his (uniform) rank as a colonel until his meeting with Grant in April 1865.
Grant was the most principled; Lee was in danger of being held on charges of treason when Grant spoke for him.
By no means do I see Grant as "principled". The wanton destruction of the south belies that.
-
By no means do I see Grant as "principled". The wanton destruction of the south belies that.
:yowsa: pointing-up
-
There were 16 Northerners who chose to “go southâ€. All of these were West
Point graduates who had married Southern women;
• The 162 Southern men who remained loyal to the Union were all West
Pointers, although their marital situation is less clear;
• The traditional view that most Southern officers with West Point credentials
“went south†is not supported by the Statistics. Of a total of 330 officers of
Southern origin serving in the Army in December 1860, 162 (49.1%)
remained loyal to the Union while 168 (50.9%) joined the Confederacy; and
• Only one directly commissioned officer remained loyal to the Union
compared with 129 who “went southâ€.
-
West Point produced 445 Civil War Generals, 294 fought for the Union and 151 for the Confederacy.
-
Grant was the most principled; Lee was in danger of being held on charges of treason when Grant spoke for him.
@conservativevoter
Whooooaaaa....
Not wanting to be disrespectful, but I have no idea where you are coming up with this revisionist stuff. I'd could go maybe 5 pages countering that statement, but I will leave it to a few bullet points:
1. Grant was a sub-standard officer, and was pretty much drummed out after a few assignments after the Mexican-American War. While Lee, created a sterling resume' in same war in the Engineerring Corp, and afterwards. Thusly, given first choice in 1861.
2. Grant was a drunk, and was seen that way many times i\on the battle field. Lee? A sober highly focused tactician.
3. Grant's only trait as a field general was bombastic. Many historians compare him to lucky maniac who drew a dozen 21's in a row at the black jack table. If Johnston had lived at Shiloh, Grant may have been on the dust bin of history , as one of the worst. He almost allowed his 15,000 remaining force at Pittsburg Landing to be pushed into the Tennessee River.
4. Prinicpals? Grant gave his lackey Sherman free reign to rape, murder, steal, pillage through GA and SC. During Lee's brief invasion of MD, and PA, he often instructed his officers to procure rations from the locals in a gentlemenly manner.
5. As POTUS his graft and corruption was legendary. Well documented.
6. And lastly as the God Father of Reconstruction, what was disguised a conciliatory and rebuilding exercise, ended up being 15 years of economic rape and theft.
Yes, he is honored for his bloodthirtstiness and getting the job done. But don't give me or my other southern friends the sainthood speech.
-
On another note, when Vicksburg fell on July 4th, after Grant's siege, the city didn't celebrate Independence Day for 100 years.
-
All I know is that several of my ancestors fought for Virginia, and one fought for Ohio. I refuse to vilify any of them. None owned slaves - they were way too poor for that.
-
@conservativevoter
Whooooaaaa....
Not wanting to be disrespectful, but I have no idea where you are coming up with this revisionist stuff. I'd could go maybe 5 pages countering that statement, but I will leave it to a few bullet points:
1. Grant was a sub-standard officer, and was pretty much drummed out after a few assignments after the Mexican-American War. While Lee, created a sterling resume' in same war in the Engineerring Corp, and afterwards. Thusly, given first choice in 1861.
2. Grant was a drunk, and was seen that way many times i\on the battle field. Lee? A sober highly focused tactician.
3. Grant's only trait as a field general was bombastic. Many historians compare him to lucky maniac who drew a dozen 21's in a row at the black jack table. If Johnston had lived at Shiloh, Grant may have been on the dust bin of history , as one of the worst. He almost allowed his 15,000 remaining force at Pittsburg Landing to be pushed into the Tennessee River.
4. Prinicpals? Grant gave his lackey Sherman free reign to rape, murder, steal, pillage through GA and SC. During Lee's brief invasion of MD, and PA, he often instructed his officers to procure rations from the locals in a gentlemenly manner.
5. As POTUS his graft and corruption was legendary. Well documented.
6. And lastly as the God Father of Reconstruction, what was disguised a conciliatory and rebuilding exercise, ended up being 15 years of economic rape and theft.
Yes, he is honored for his bloodthirtstiness and getting the job done. But don't give me or my other southern friends the sainthood speech.
Good post @catfish1957
Thanks for taking the time to write it.
-
@conservativevoter
Whooooaaaa....
Not wanting to be disrespectful, but I have no idea where you are coming up with this revisionist stuff. I'd could go maybe 5 pages countering that statement, but I will leave it to a few bullet points:
1. Grant was a sub-standard officer, and was pretty much drummed out after a few assignments after the Mexican-American War. While Lee, created a sterling resume' in same war in the Engineerring Corp, and afterwards. Thusly, given first choice in 1861.
2. Grant was a drunk, and was seen that way many times i\on the battle field. Lee? A sober highly focused tactician.
3. Grant's only trait as a field general was bombastic. Many historians compare him to lucky maniac who drew a dozen 21's in a row at the black jack table. If Johnston had lived at Shiloh, Grant may have been on the dust bin of history , as one of the worst. He almost allowed his 15,000 remaining force at Pittsburg Landing to be pushed into the Tennessee River.
4. Prinicpals? Grant gave his lackey Sherman free reign to rape, murder, steal, pillage through GA and SC. During Lee's brief invasion of MD, and PA, he often instructed his officers to procure rations from the locals in a gentlemenly manner.
5. As POTUS his graft and corruption was legendary. Well documented.
6. And lastly as the God Father of Reconstruction, what was disguised a conciliatory and rebuilding exercise, ended up being 15 years of economic rape and theft.
Yes, he is honored for his bloodthirtstiness and getting the job done. But don't give me or my other southern friends the sainthood speech.
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: Thank You!
-
Oh, my! The Southern Cause...… Lee was so honest that he had insisted that Pickett's OR of Gettysburg was seen by all.
Grant got drunk nearly every time he was separated from Julia.
Sherman was SUCH a scoundrel for seeing that the south paid for what happened at Sumter. (Ever hear of that war that occurred during the 1860's?) As for locals 'selling' their field animals and food to the invading troops, our local historians have a somewhat different attitude on the matter. (The confederate money offered was simply no good... including at the post office that was robbed of stamps, money, and the postmaster's uniform.)
Longstreet would have been more up to the task than Lee, but then, he warn't a Virginian, were he?
Didn't the whole reconstruction thing start under Andrew Johnson?
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
-
Oh, my! The Southern Cause...… Lee was so honest that he had insisted that Pickett's OR of Gettysburg was seen by all.
Grant got drunk nearly every time he was separated from Julia.
Sherman was SUCH a scoundrel for seeing that the south paid for what happened at Sumter. (Ever hear of that war that occurred during the 1860's?) As for locals 'selling' their field animals and food to the invading troops, our local historians have a somewhat different attitude on the matter. (The confederate money offered was simply no good... including at the post office that was robbed of stamps, money, and the postmaster's uniform.)
Longstreet would have been more up to the task than Lee, but then, he warn't a Virginian, were he?
Didn't the whole reconstruction thing start under Andrew Johnson?
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
Truth is truth and lies are lies and nothing is ever going to change that.
-
Can you show me the word(s) or phrase(s) in the Constitution that prevents states from leaving a union that no longer serves them? I'll wait.
@The_Reader_David
(http://www.quickmeme.com/img/97/97445165f7551b4ddc9981dbede5046bfd86a0c6c32037fce264f37101256b9b.jpg)
-
@conservativevoter
LMAO... Took you three days to come back and respond? You are in luck today.... I'll give you another history lesson. No charge.
Oh, my! The Southern Cause...… Lee was so honest that he had insisted that Pickett's OR of Gettysburg was seen by all.
I have no idea what you are talking about or what you are alluding to. Picketts Charge is a subset of Gettysburg. Not a "and or or" statement. Yes, Gettysburg was a failure, and Lee's worst decison of the war. But up to that time, he was whooping the heck out of a larger, better equipped army on a consistent basis. Now... the merits of Lee's timing and choice of this spot in PA have been debated to death for the last 150+ years. But the crust of it is that by the time of the Army of Northern Virginia's second incursion into U.S soil, Lee via attritution and supply line distruptons had lost enough men that successes were becoming more diffiicult, and Army was fragmented to hold defensive positions. Lee's final offfensive push (Gettysburg) was not to win, but to score enough pain on the Union, get close enough to D.C, and force a truce. Because prior to Gettysburg, there was enough dissent against Lincoln, public opion could have easily swayed Congress to force Lincoln in that direction. Of course that didn't work, and Lee was left with fighting the rest of the war on a defensive front. So bottom line, Lee really had no choice, and except would have had a better chance if Jeb Stuart would have been available for recon of a better place to fight.
Grant got drunk nearly every time he was separated from Julia.
LMAO... Which is typically when he was in command. What relevance does that have to this argument. His little bender back in April 1862 almost got 15,000 Union Soldiers needlessly killed
Sherman was SUCH a scoundrel for seeing that the south paid for what happened at Sumter. (Ever hear of that war that occurred during the 1860's?) As for locals 'selling' their field animals and food to the invading troops, our local historians have a somewhat different attitude on the matter. (The confederate money offered was simply no good... including at the post office that was robbed of stamps, money, and the postmaster's uniform.)
Longstreet would have been more up to the task than Lee, but then, he warn't a Virginian, were he?
I am not even going to indulge your ridiculous little revisionist rant. Beauregard was a Cajun Louisianan and was made head of the Western Theatre after Johnston's death in 1862. Dumb dumb dumb claim of location based bias and discrimination
Didn't the whole reconstruction thing start under Andrew Johnson?
Aww Geez.. don't you know anything about 19th century American History? Johnson (a democrat) was there for political purposes to help hold together a coalition politically to keep the Union together. After Lincoln's assasination Johnson met an onslought of accusations, and basically spent 100% of his remaining political capital surviving. Don't forget that after he was impeached he was one vote shy of a Senate conviction. He basically became a politcal enuch afterwards. Plus, by the way.... Read his terms of Reconstruction proposals, versus what was implemented during the Grant term. Johnson basically had ZERO input into it.
:patriot: :patriot: :patriot:
Come back in another three days when you are ready, and I'll give you another lesson.
-
For the record, the Commonwealth of Virginia did not choose to secede until AFTER Lincoln demanded Virginia troops to attack South Carolina.
-
For the record, the Commonwealth of Virginia did not choose to secede until AFTER Lincoln demanded Virginia troops to attack South Carolina.
Had it done so sooner, there is a solid chance that Maryland would have, as well. By the time a vote finally came, Annapolis and Baltimore had been occupied, and the vote was held with the quorum which could be mustered in Frederick, MD, which had more Northern Sentiment than the tidewater portions of the State, a vote which was influenced by the already heavy presence of Northern Armies.
-
You are a much more patient man than I @catfish1957. Maybe I'm just getting too old for nonsense.
-
You are a much more patient man than I @catfish1957. Maybe I'm just getting too old for nonsense.
@Bigun
Considering the treatment all across of anything southern or Dixie is getting, I refuse to give any quarter to any revisionist bull shit right now.
It's almost like they are allying themselves with the Antifa / BLM thuggery and taking part in the confederate statue destruction by passive endorsement.
-
@Bigun
Considering the treatment all across of anything southern or Dixie is getting, I refuse to give any quarter to any revisionist bull shit right now.
It's almost like they are allying themselves with the Antifa / BLM thuggery and taking part in the confederate statue destruction by passive endorsement.
@catfish1957
"Almost"?
-
What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
Reveal that he was Trans?
-
What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
Reveal that he was Trans?
@rustynail
Well,it WOULD take all the wind out of the left's sails.
They would still blow,though.