Jump to content

General Kelly and the Civil War


homersapien

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, aujeff11 said:

To keep going, sometimes I think we need to view this peculiar time period in context of the 19th century social norms, not 21st century norms. It was a completely different world back then and it’s not fair to judge them by today’s standards. Overseas, I experienced culture shock seeing an Afghan policeman slap a woman for not covering her face. That was surreal to me. In two hundred years, their behaviors may eventually dawn on them that they were in the wrong, but until then, their behavior is as normal as squatting beside the road, and wiping with their left hand. Heck, unless I misread, having whipping boys is culturally fine to some as well. 

Although  Lee and Stonewall Jackson held backwards views, both weren’t exactly slavery defenders. They didn’t go out of their way to limit slavery, but both did seem to try and raise the position of their slaves. Is it not true that Stonewall Jackson would send money home during the war just to make sure the white and black kids learned how to read and were given bible school? Is it fair to wash out their circumstance and histories in favor of appearing PC? The present circumstances are not so extravagant that we must be wary of possibly finding any good or redeemable qualities in the Condederate soldiers. We are not tasked with ensuring the protection of the integrity of mankind, after all. Is it so important that we refuse to realize (ignore) that many of the Confeferate soldiers that risked their lives are automatically considered a disgrace even though many (if not most of them) didn’t own slaves?  We don’t have to absolve the war, defend slavery, or give Lee an official holiday, but damn, it would be nice if the history books could go back to giving the facts, and not have to worry about offending others. Knowing that imprisonment, torture, and slavery was the result of the times doesn’t make the pill any easier to swallow, but it provides a basis for understanding without demonizing the inhabitants within. 

Yes, I think Lee was just as honorable as the rotation of Union Generals that were constantly fired on the job for being incompetent, and it’s a shame that his legacy is still being skewed and cherry-picked 200 years after the fact over the sins of the land back in the day. After all, his confederate qualities didn’t make him a great General. He was Superintendent of Westpoint before he decided to join the state of Virginia cause. Maybe one of these days ESPN won’t have to call off an Asian basketball reporter from calling a game just because his name so happens to be the same name of a Confederate General almost two hundred years ago. Just maybe, someday the people will have enough gonads to appreciate the historical perspective of the past not only for the finite knowledge that it provides, but also for the teachable experience and precedent that luminates the path going forward.

Slap yourself, Itchy

Most college courses do just that, at least the ones past 1000 level freshman bs.

 

Most schools water down everything. My kids were JUST taught about the Civil War last month. It boiled down to; Southerners wanted to own slaves, Lincoln defeated them and freed slaves. Generals mentioned were left to only Lee, Jackson, Sherman, and Grant... of those only Grant was spoken of at a length of more than a sentence or two.... and that's because he went on to be president. They do that because the kids are young and having to go through many different subjects daily... but what ends up happening is kids make up or do a quick google search for the missing parts of their history, which leads to erroneous beliefs.

 

BTW, you spelling confederate as condederate and confeferate made me laugh, and made my morning better. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites





2 hours ago, Mims44 said:

Most college courses do just that, at least the ones past 1000 level freshman bs.

 

Most schools water down everything. My kids were JUST taught about the Civil War last month. It boiled down to; Southerners wanted to own slaves, Lincoln defeated them and freed slaves. Generals mentioned were left to only Lee, Jackson, Sherman, and Grant... of those only Grant was spoken of at a length of more than a sentence or two.... and that's because he went on to be president. They do that because the kids are young and having to go through many different subjects daily... but what ends up happening is kids make up or do a quick google search for the missing parts of their history, which leads to erroneous beliefs.

 

BTW, you spelling confederate as condederate and confeferate made me laugh, and made my morning better. :)

Schools have to "water-down" history.  That's all they have time to do.  One learns history pretty much on their "own" time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how some here would put revisionist history over Kelly's comments. That takes a huge ego. As a student at West Point he studies every battle ever fought by an American army and  learns the strategies, why they won or lost, etc. He gets it right....the Civil War DID NOT start over slavery. It started over state's rights but slavery soon became the focus issue.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Funny how some here would put revisionist history over Kelly's comments. That takes a huge ego. As a student at West Point he studies every battle ever fought by an American army and  learns the strategies, why they won or lost, etc. He gets it right....the Civil War DID NOT start over slavery. It started over state's rights but slavery soon became the focus issue.

 

 

 

Good Grief. :no:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Funny how some here would put revisionist history over Kelly's comments. That takes a huge ego. As a student at West Point he studies every battle ever fought by an American army and  learns the strategies, why they won or lost, etc. He gets it right....the Civil War DID NOT start over slavery. It started over state's rights but slavery soon became the focus issue.

 

 

 

States Rights = Slavery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, AUUSN said:

States Rights = Any right not specifically delegated to the Federal Government as per the 10th amendment.

Until the 13th and 14th amendments kick in and actually requires the states to honor their constituents rights, that is. So obviously, rights such as slavery that don’t gurantee equal protection will be squashed and cannot be considered a state right. 

You're welcome, fam.

Other states rights issues:

Commerce related, Gay Marriage, Abortion, ACA, Policing, Prisons, Drinking Age, etc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We affirm that these ends, for which this government was instituted, have been defeated, and the government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding states. Those states have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the states and recognized by the constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted the open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other states. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes, and those who remain have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common government. Observing the forms of the constitution, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the executive department the means of subverting the constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common government, because he has declared that that “government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the subversion of the constitution, has been aided in some of the states by elevating to citizenship, persons, who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety.

On the 4th of March next this party will take possession of the government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory; that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease through-out the United States.

The guaranties of the constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the states will be lost. The slaveholding states will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the federal government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our delegates, in convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the union heretofore existing between this state and the other states of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent state, with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/two-papers-regarding-the-justifying-causes-of-secession/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.atlantahistorycenter.com/assets/documents/SCarolina-Secession-p1-13.pdf

It’s pretty apparent that it was about both slavery and states rights. The later is the means, the former is the end. Just like how states claim states should create their own necessary bathroom laws. You’re not going to say, “this isn’t about state rights, this is about you being a bigot.”Doesn’t have to be exclusively one over the other. To say otherwise is just misrepresenting the truth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...