Erasing Southern Pride: U.S. Army War College Removing Confederate Generals Portraits

[paperview]

lol. The Daughters of the daughters of the Confederacy doesn't count.

I have in my archives and have passed through my hands more original documents and letters than you or the reb there could ever hope to see or touch.

Most of my knowledge and perspective comes from touching, owning, archiving, transcribing and researching literally thousands and thousands of pieces of original Civil War history - letters, diaries, journals and documents, some of which are now residing in museums and Historical Societies. A few in the National Archives and Library of Congress. They made their way there because of me. Books have been written based on some of my original archives.

I also spend a great time reading the original source pamphlets, magazines, newspapers and books, written AT THE TIME OF THE WAR. Most all of my material is original source material. And yes, slavery is a topic in many of them.

I have had original documents and letters of nearly every President and most Founders pass through my hands; works signed by confederate generals, union generals; letters, diaries, journals of the common folk, north and south, all the way down to the lowly private - by the thousands - all giving me what I think is a rather unique perspective.

History is not just a hobby for me, it is literally my life. I eat, drink, live and breath it. Every day. Original works. It sometimes literally gives me shivers how close I am to the actual human that wrote this or that piece 150 or 250 years ago.
I live a truly blessed existence.

I would love to find out where you work, I would report you to your employer about your political views. I wonder how many "historians" have the liberal bias that you have. You are the type of person that would misplace or documents, delete words that would not support your view.

Better be careful man. This one ^^^ is going to tattle on you.

He'll have to tattle to me. I'm the president of my own company.


Heh.

 

[Unkotare]

They were betraying no one, as they had left the Union, in their view.

Firing upon a federal fort was an act of war. Betraying the Union was an act of treason. The selfish, short-sighted fools in 'the Confederacy' wanted war and war they got. Despite the benefit of some of the finest military minds in the country, they foolishly instigated a war they could never hope to win. Their folly would cost more American lives than all other American wars.

And levying a tariff by force on the ships of a foreign nation is also an act of war.

You have no familiarity with any of that, do you?

You're just another revisionist clinging to the idea that the rebellious states constituted a legitimate 'nation' unto themselves. They did not. The Union did not recognize them as such and, despite the best efforts of 'confederate' diplomats, neither did the European powers. This latter point was the traitors only real hope of making their act of betrayal permanent and it failed. The arrogant, selfish fools in the rebellious states sacrificed many good men on both sides of the field for the sake of their pride and their obstinacy.

 

[JakeStarkey]

We see the southern revisionists today using the same hackneyed nonsense as did their forebears 150 years ago.

And they can't see that it can only end in the same fashion.

 

[Unkotare]

If the south gets out of line again I will be there to enforce it....again Thats [sic] who I am.

Shut up you jackass. You personally would do nothing but post about it on the internet. Stop making more of a fool of yourself by playing the tough-guy. It does't suit you.

 

[rightwinger]

bigreb is a simple boob, not dangerous to anyone, on the board or in life.

But he is armed and belongs to a militia

 

[Unkotare]

Paperview I have a question for you, historian to historian.

You're not an historian.

 

[rightwinger]

We see the southern revisionists today using the same hackneyed nonsense as did their forebears 150 years ago.

And they can't see that it can only end in the same fashion.

The same ones who argued god intended them to own slaves

 

[Unkotare]

They werent allowed to do that. Thats why they got their asses kicked. I'm Asclepias and I approve of the ass kicking. If the south gets out of line again I will be there to enforce it....again Thats who I am.

Tough guy on the interweb.
All I can say is this, if any any time you feel froggy jump on down here

I know thats all you can say. Youre safe behind a keyboard.

Two wannabe tough guys!

Ok ladies, purses at ten paces!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Paperview I have a question for you, historian to historian.

You're not an historian.

Yes I am

 

[Asclepias]

Never saw this before.

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition

Stephens' March 1861 speech declared that African slavery was the "immediate cause" of secession, and that the Confederate Constitution had put to rest the "agitating questions" as to the "proper status of the negro in our form of civilization".

Cornerstone Speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good to know for all the hill billies claiming it was economics.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I would love to find out where you work, I would report you to your employer about your political views. I wonder how many "historians" have the liberal bias that you have. You are the type of person that would misplace or documents, delete words that would not support your view.

Better be careful man. This one ^^^ is going to tattle on you.

He'll have to tattle to me. I'm the president of my own company.


Heh.

President of your company? sure you are.

 

[Kondor3]

Another attack on White History as well as American history. Fox News is reporting the US Army War College is considering removing portraits of Confederate Generals. An unidentified administrator is wondering why we honor these Americans.

Please, call or write to the US Army War College to voice why these portraits are a part of American History and should be preserved (be kind and considerate and just voice your concern).

US Army War College considers removing prints depicting Robert E. Lee, Confederate generals | Fox News

Good.

Traitors to their uniforms and THIS nation do not deserve this honor.

Disagree.

If memory serves correctly, most Southern officers in Union military service at the outbreak of the war simply resigned their commissions and openly renounced their former oaths of loyalty, so, I am guessing that it would be inappropriate to collectively label them as 'traitors to their uniforms' - both literally and figuratively.

It is true they committed treason.

But, from an ethical perspective, I perceive two forms of treason:

1. bringing harm to your nation and countrymen but leaving the country intact.

2. trying to break away from your nation to establish your own country.

This is admittedly not a distinction At-Law...

But I believe it to be a distinction Of-Ethics, which objective people of goodwill may recognize...

Our own Founding Fathers engaged in (2) in the 1775-1783 timeframe and were successful.

These Southerners engaged in (2) in the 1861-1865 timeframe and failed.

On the other hand, Benedict Arnold engaged in (1)... Aaron Burr engaged in (1)... Julius and Ethel Rosenberg may have engaged in (1)... a different and more devious and terrible sort of betrayal...

At least a 'Breaking Away' kind of 'treason' is done in a manly fashion, out in the open, for all the world to see, and devil take the hindmost...

But, continuing my modest and amateurish summary-level (opinion-caliber) comparison between the Founding Fathers and the Southern Cause...

Both fought for the right to Self-Determination, and both defended Slavery on some level.

In the case of the Founding Fathers, they fought for economic autonomy, which included a very strong Slavery component, even though the War was not fought around the Slavery issue.

Hell, a good many of our Founding Fathers (early Congresses) were Slave Owners themselves and we still continue to revere them as demigods and do not dishonor their memories.

We merely concede that those Founding Fathers did a wrong thing (holding Slaves) but that they 'did not know any better', in the main, and possessed mindsets that did not admit or realize that Africans and other dark-skinned peoples held the same potential within them that the White Euros did; a racial arrogance that took centuries to reduce in practice.

Why is it that we hold-up Slave Owners of the 1776-1783 era as heroes and demigods...

But some of us try to demonize and excoriate the Slave Owners of the 1861-1865 era?

Does this not strike anyone else as a rather grotesque hypocrisy?

Southerners committed Treason Flavor No. 2 (above) - the Breaking-Away Kind.

The Northerners of the time were pissed at the outbreak of the Civil War, and flocked to the Union banner for two main reasons...

1. to preserve the Union

2. to end Slavery

But, of course, both formally, and largely in-practice, (2) was not the dominant reason for men to flock to the Union banner, to join the Union Army - at least during the early-to-middle going, during the course of the War.

And, over time, the very men who fought against the South - the Union Army rank-and-file, and its leadership, came to respect their Adversaries as men of considerable martial ardor and ability, and, collectively, as men of honor - Americans still, albeit misguided, or born on the wrong side of the Mason-Dixon line, and obliged to defend their homes and lands.

We need to keep in-mind the generous surrender terms granted by major US commanders in the field, as they took the surrender of the larger-scale Confederate military formations in the closing days and weeks of the War; not to mention several notable renderings-of-honors... fighting men to fighting men... accorded by the victors to the defeated, as they lay down or stacked their arms.

There was a reason for those generous terms and renderings-of-honors.

The very men in Blue who fought and bled in combat against these Southerners, and their Union Army leadership and their Commander in Chief and many other Northern political leaders, wished to heal the nation as quickly as possible, and recognized their Southern adversaries as Worthies and as Honorable Men in their own right, and both the rank-and-file and the leadership of the North quickly, in the first days of Peace, and gradually, in the several years following the War, moved to erase the taint of Treason from their Southern countrymen and to allow them and their descendants to pay homage to Southern bravery and skill and sacrifice and heroism, while celebrating this as Americans and members of a rejoined and healed larger nation and society.

There is no reason why we should not allow or tolerate or refrain from disparaging the continuation of such traditions, and the heroic perceptions of figures such as Lee and Jackson, as we have all along, for most of the past 148 years since Appomattox. These old-timer Southerners are part of our traditions. The Civil War, and its participants on both sides, are an integral and central element of American history and the American soul, and I think that we do a disservice to ourselves and our posterity to hypocritically lionize one set of Slaveholders (Founding Fathers, from the South) and to demonizee another set of Slaveholders (the leadership of the Confederacy).

I also think it highly hypocritical and entirely wrong-headed to undertake such demonization now - as a matter of Liberal Political Correctness, just because it offends - in varying degrees - a large percentage of our Black neighbors and friends in our own modern age - when, the TRUE stakeholders in this matter (the Northerners and Union Army veterans of that era), after the War, worked so hard to re-unite the Nation and to extend forgiveness and to go out of their way to allow celebrations of Southern war-heritage, in order to provide one section and faction of the country with a generous accommodation enabling the South to retain its pride while acknowledging our unity.

If Union Army men, and if President Lincoln himself, could forgive, and let-up on the South, and if subsequent political leadership, and Union Army veterans, could permit and actually support such celebrations of Southern Pride in a new and more unifying context, why can we not do the same?

As a lifelong Northerner (and Union Man, in sympathies, at a distance of more than a century), I find these latter-day Liberal Political-Correctness Revisionist tantrums over Southern heritage celebrations (such as the Lee-Jackson blip on the scope) to be disturbing and wrong-headed, but, that's just a matter of personal opinion.

So, purely as a matter of personal opinion...

Leave the damned busts and statues be, in the War College...

Ol' Bobby and Ol' Tom earned their place...

It's also quite probably what President Lincoln would have wanted from us...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No one has ever said blacks did not fight on the side of the South. A few did among the 2,000,000 Southerners who picked up weapons in treason against their nation.

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History

The vice-president of the CSA said clearly that slavery was the primary cause of the war and that the assumption of the equality of races was error.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”

I've already told him this I don't know how many times now. There were a few who did fight...something like a few hundred. Maybe as much as 500. Tops/ BigReb here thinks in was upwards of 80,000. lol

There is no getting through illogic like that.

He calls himself a "historian" but what he does is play dress-up and perpetuate falsehoods in a confederate uniform with a head too tiny for his dime-store grays parading around as a "bigreb" at Lost Cause graveyards and messageboards.

Yes, plenty of slaves served in the CW. They served as teamsters, cooks. laborers, personal body servants, etc as slaves. Not as armed soldiers.

He needs to let this nugget to sink in:

It was illegal for blacks, slave and free, to own a gun in all the confederate states.

Were there some? Yes. But not man, not many at all.

His bullsheet about the Mexican/Texas war and rev war is just a way to divert, distract and play monkey games so he can jump all around blazing history in some roller coaster history of time and a way to *squirrel!!* look over there/

He also keeps riffing on the "black Confederate soldiers" as a way to assuage guilt over a war that was fought to own human beings to imagine those same human beings, not allowed citizenship or representation, would fight to the death to remain enslaved.

Still waiting internet historian
While you're at it why don't you address this?
Are you going to run away again?
Blacks fighting for the south?
blacks fighting for the republic of Texas war with Mexico non slave holding country
Blacks fighting for the colonies war with England promised slaves they would be granted freedom if they fought for the crown

And those confederate Black POWS why imprison them if they are considered slaves, teamsters, cooks musicians? Why didn't them classify them as contraband.

You said it was illegal for black to own guns, but then you contradict yourself? It either is illegal or it wasn't illegal.

 

[Unkotare]

Paperview I have a question for you, historian to historian.

You're not an historian.

Yes I am

You have admitted that you have no formal education in the subject. Playing LARPER does not make one an historian. It just makes you look ridiculous.

 

[paperview]

Here's a fun one for those who hold up the Southern rebels as some brave Constitutionalists, interested in the ideals of that document:

South Carolina Asks That Non-Slaveholding States Make Abolitionist Societies Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835

The Gathering Storm

South Carolina Asks That Non-Slaveholding States Make Abolitionist Societies Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835 South Carolina Asks Non-Slaveholding States to Make Abolitionist Societies Illegal, Dec. 16, 1835

From Acts and Resolutions of South Carolina, Dec. 1835, 26-28, from “State Documents on Federal Relations: The States and the United States, No. V. Slavery and the Constitution, 1789-1845,” edited by Herman V. Ames, published by The Department of History of the University of Pennsylvania, 1906.

From this resolution you can see that South Carolina has little interest in the states' rights of non-slaveholding states.

<Snip>

3. Resolved, That the Legislature of South Carolina, having every confidence in the justice and friendship of the non-slave*holding states, announces to her co-states her confident expectation, and she earnestly requests that the governments of these states will promptly and effectually suppress all those associations within their respective limits, purporting to be abolition societies, and that they will make it highly penal to print, publish and distribute newspapers, pamphlets, tracts and pictorial representations calculated and having an obvious tendency to excite the slaves of the southern states to insurrection and revolt.

Never mind in the Southern states they prohibited Free Speech and a Free Press, and disallowed even talking, printing and publishing anything discussing abolition.

Then we can bring up the gag rule they placed in Congress -- preventing the petitions (in 1837-38 there were over 130,000 petitions to Congress asking for the abolition of slavery) on slavery even from being discussed in Congress!

Imagine the haughtiness of those Southrons - on the floor of Congress, they made it a rule to not even allow it to be discussed.

That's just a tiny bit of what the 'Constitutionalists" who were so woodied about "restoring the Constitution" to its origins did to perpetuate the brutality of owning human beings, more than one third of their population.

Every bit the Tyrants they claimed the North to be.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're not an historian.

Yes I am

You have admitted that you have no formal education in the subject. Playing LARPER does not make one an historian. It just makes you look ridiculous.

Yes I am an historian I am the best their is without that puffy pedigree piece of paper.
And by far better than paperslit.

 

[rightwinger]

yes i am

you have admitted that you have no formal education in the subject. Playing larper does not make one an historian. It just makes you look ridiculous.

yes i am an historian i am the best their is without that puffy pedigree piece of paper.
And by far better than paperslit.

lol

 

[Asclepias]

No one has ever said blacks did not fight on the side of the South. A few did among the 2,000,000 Southerners who picked up weapons in treason against their nation.

?Corner Stone? Speech | Teaching American History

The vice-president of the CSA said clearly that slavery was the primary cause of the war and that the assumption of the equality of races was error.

But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the &#8220;rock upon which the old Union would split.&#8221; He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the &#8220;storm came and the wind blew.&#8221;

I've already told him this I don't know how many times now. There were a few who did fight...something like a few hundred. Maybe as much as 500. Tops/ BigReb here thinks in was upwards of 80,000. lol

There is no getting through illogic like that.

He calls himself a "historian" but what he does is play dress-up and perpetuate falsehoods in a confederate uniform with a head too tiny for his dime-store grays parading around as a "bigreb" at Lost Cause graveyards and messageboards.

Yes, plenty of slaves served in the CW. They served as teamsters, cooks. laborers, personal body servants, etc as slaves. Not as armed soldiers.

He needs to let this nugget to sink in:

It was illegal for blacks, slave and free, to own a gun in all the confederate states.

Were there some? Yes. But not man, not many at all.

His bullsheet about the Mexican/Texas war and rev war is just a way to divert, distract and play monkey games so he can jump all around blazing history in some roller coaster history of time and a way to *squirrel!!* look over there/

He also keeps riffing on the "black Confederate soldiers" as a way to assuage guilt over a war that was fought to own human beings to imagine those same human beings, not allowed citizenship or representation, would fight to the death to remain enslaved.

Still waiting internet historian
While you're at it why don't you address this?
Are you going to run away again?
Blacks fighting for the south?
blacks fighting for the republic of Texas war with Mexico non slave holding country
Blacks fighting for the colonies war with England promised slaves they would be granted freedom if they fought for the crown

And those confederate Black POWS why imprison them if they are considered slaves, teamsters, cooks musicians? Why didn't them classify them as contraband.

You said it was illegal for black to own guns, but then you contradict yourself? It either is illegal or it wasn't illegal.

That was a photo op by the Confederacy. You got fooled too I see.

http://people.virginia.edu/~jh3v/retouchinghistory/essay.html

The actual 1st Louisiana Native Guards, [9] consisting of Afro-Creoles, was formed of about 1,500 men in April 1861 and was formally accepted as part of the Louisiana militia in May 1862. The Native Guards unit (one of three all-black companies) never saw combat while in Confederate service, and was largely kept at arm&#8217;s length by city and state officials; in fact, it often lacked proper uniforms and equipment. &#8220;The Confederate authorities,&#8221; James Hollandsworth has written, &#8220;never intended to use black troops for any mission of real importance. If the Native Guards were good for anything, it was for public display; free blacks fighting for Southern rights made good copy for the newspapers.&#8221;

 

[Unkotare]

It should also be remembered that many southerners living in rebel-held territory remained loyal to the Union. Some left their native region when the war began, but others stayed and found ways to support the Union. With the exception of South Carolina, entire regiments were formed in every Confederate state to fight for the Union. In all, more than 100,000 men from southern states fought against the Confederacy during the war.

 

[Unkotare]

Yes I am

You have admitted that you have no formal education in the subject. Playing LARPER does not make one an historian. It just makes you look ridiculous.

Yes I am an historian I am the best their [sic] is without that puffy pedigree piece of paper.

No, what you are is an overgrown child playing dress-up. That does NOT make you an historian, it makes you an embarrassment. You should work on your basic English before pretending to be an historian.