Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The men who actually fought and defeated them did not have contempt for them. Why do you think that was the case?Treasonous war criminals who fought to destroy America and keep enslaved Americans in bondage are not ‘heroes’ – they deserve nothing but contempt.
According to you! Here, now they are traitors to the nation.The men who actually fought and defeated them did not have contempt for them. Why do you think that was the case?
And, while we're at it, what do you think of the New York City Council's honoring of the Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg?
According to you! Here, now they are traitors to the natiNoon.
No, not 'according to me'. According to the men who fought them, they were not traitors. According to the men who came after them, for over a hundred years ... men who fought in other wars ... they were not traitors.According to you! Here, now they are traitors to the nation.
Treasonous war criminals who fought to destroy America and keep enslaved Americans in bondage are not ‘heroes’ – they deserve nothing but contempt.
It wasn't right, because there were always people in that society that preached about how wrong it was. Both from within that society and outside of it.It was socially acceptable back then so FOR that society even though it was evil it was in fact right.
So we should honor Indigenous people who fought the United States? They were an enemy.Why honor enemies of our nation?
Should we honor the Japanese that attacked Peral Harbor?
Who gives a flying fuck. This is now and that's cracker racist shit.No, not 'according to me'. According to the men who fought them, they were not traitors. According to the men who came after them, for over a hundred years ... men who fought in other wars ... they were not traitors.
But now, suddenly, coming from a group of people who honor Soviet spies, who wouldn't know one end of a rifle from the other, who burn the American flag ... they are traitors!
I know that there are genuine, old-fashioned liberals who are not happy about all this stuff. Shame on them for remaining silent, while these 'woke' pygmies frighten you into destroying your nation.
This thread is a hoot. Butthurt Democrats hating on their Democrat ancestors for asserting their state's rights and defying a Republican President.
Nope.Mexico is considered part of central America.
Joshua, not Joseph.Of course, the site of America-hating Leftists suddenly discovering 'patriotism' to condemn the Confederacy is ... well, one wavers between laughter and anger.
I'm glad the Union won. Even if the South had not had slavery, and tried to secede, I would be glad the Union won. ... but that's another argument. The fact is, the war was over slavery, not tarrifs or some abstract idea of states' rights. Slavery was an abomination, abolished in Christian Europe a thousand years ago, but then... due to economic temptation, taken from Africa (the only cultural institution we did take, there being no others worth having) so that the Europeans could have their non-temperate zone conquests worked. (The slaves had the status of inhabitants of socialist countries, except with better living standards. And plenty of Lefties in the past celebrated 'socialist slavery'.)
Now ... we see these contemptable white middle-class rabble judging the men of the Confederacy, the great majority of whom were not slave-owners.
I prefer to judge them as the men who fought against them judged them. Here's an example.
You need to know who Joseph Chamberlain was -- a college professor who volunteered to fight, and ended up commanding the 20th Maine, which held the extreme left of the Union line, on Little Roudn Top -- had they failed, the Union line would have been rolled up, and Gettysburg would have been a Confederate victory.
They were repeatedly charged by the Confederates, and after 90 minutes of combat, were running out of ammo. The Confederates began forming up for another charge ... so Chamberlain ordered them to ... fix bayonets ... and charge! Which they did, and scattered the Rebels. [20th Maine Infantry Regiment - Wikipedia]
Those were real men. Can you imagine the riff-raff of AntiFa doing anything like that?
Chamberlain was chosen to command the Union troops at Lee's surrender at Appomattox. Here's what he thought of the Southern "traitors":
" For my personal part I…have been in five battles…twice wounded myself—my horse shot—in the front line when the flag of truce came through from Lee—had the last shot + the last man killed, in their campaign; + yesterday was designated to receive the surrender of the arms of Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia.
"The ceremony itself deeply moved Chamberlain, who would later write:
Instructions had been given; and when the head of each division column comes opposite our group, our bugle sounds the signal and instantly our whole line from right to left, regiment by regiment in succession, gives the soldier’s salutation, from the “order arms” to the old “carry”— the marching salute. Gordon at the head of the column, riding with heavy spirit and downcast face, catches the sound of shifting arms, looks up, and, taking the meaning, wheels superbly…with profound salutation as he drops the point of his sword to the boot toe; then facing to his own command, gives word for his successive brigades to pass us with the same position of the manual, honor answering honor."
[ Honor Answering Honor: “Bloody Chamberlain” and the Surrender at Appomattox – The Campaign for the National Museum of the United States Army ]
Honor answering honor. That's what the Left lacks: honor. They cannot even conceive of it. But both the men of the Union and of the Confederacy had it, and recognized it in each other.
It's not that they don't have their heroes, though. The liberal New York City Council recently honored one, someone who helped Stalin get the atomic bomb.
[ The City Council’s ‘heroes’ from hell ]
[ City Council honors Ethel Rosenberg for ‘great bravery’ ]
[ ‘60 Minutes’ pushing Ethel Rosenberg pardon — don’t buy it ]
You really couldn't make this stuff up.
By the way, an excellent novel about the Battle of Gettysburg is Michael Shaara's The Killer Angels. (I'd post an Amazon link but it is apparently not allowed here.) (Hollywood made an untypically-accurate movie about it, called Gettysburg. )
This book is highly recommended. An acquaintance told me he was assigned it at Army War College. It gives you an insight into the thinking of the men on both sides, and also correctly (in my opinion) shows what the stakes were, and why the South had to be defeated.
(In a nutshell: the successful seccession of the South would have opened centrifigal currents in the remaining rump of the Union, and other regions might have done likewise. We would have ended up with three or four small democratic republics, instead of one big strong one. And in the 20th Century, we needed a big strong one. We're losing it now, but that can't be helped.)
Whoa! When I looked at the Wiki entry on him, I saw my mistake. (I kept coming up with a famous British politician named Joseph Chamberlain.) But I forgot to correct my mistake. Thanks.Joshua, not Joseph.
It's always interesting to me how the Left thinks it's intellectually superior to the Right. And then Lefties come on to public forums and prove the opposite.Who gives a flying fuck. This is now and that's cracker racist shit.
"Fifty miles farther south is the haunting field of Saratoga. It was very still and lonely when I found it, on the last stage of my pilgrimage, only birdsong and crickets disturbing the silence of the woodland and long grass, dotted with little memorials.
Here it was that "Gentleman Johnny" Burgoyne retreated with his harassed army, which had seemed only weeks before to be scattering the rebels; here that on October 17, 1777, he surrendered, in what was not only the turning point of the war but also one of the most desperate defeats in British history.
Here I sat and thought about the struggle. The War of Independence was a heroic conflict, but what one made of it depended on who one was: English, American, French, Indian (the French and Indian War was just a decade past when the new war began), black slave.
This point was in effect made at the time by the greatest of all English Tories, Samuel Johnson. There was no more bitter critic of the American rebels in the 1770s than Johnson, who deplored their disloyalty to their rightful King. But with his hatred of slavery and of the oppression of the weak by the strong, Johnson had more to say than that. He had already written, in 1759, what is I think the greatest of all anti-colonial essays. Johnson imagined an Indian chief watching an English army passing toward Quebec to fight the French, remembering the days when his people were masters of woods and lakes, before "a new race of men entered our country from the great ocean."
""Those invaders ranged over the continent, slaughtering in their rage those that resisted, and those that submitted, in their mirth ... and when ... [they] have destroyed the natives, they supply their place by human beings of another colour, brought from some distant country to perish here under toil and torture ... They have a written law among them, of which they boast as derived from him who made the earth and sea ... Why is not this law communicated to us? It is concealed because it is violated. For how can they preach it to an Indian nation, when I am told that one of its first precepts forbids them to do to others what they would not that others should do to them.""
That was written some sixteen years before the Declaration of Independence listed among its grievances that the King had encouraged "the merciless Indian Savages."
And it was Johnson also who saw the great canker at the heart of the American cause: "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of negroes?" That isn't something you will find in more old-fashioned American accounts of the war, although the exhibits I visited were admirably fair-minded to all sides. It was gratifying to learn that Gage gave orders not to "plunder the inhabitants"and that Pitcairn stopped his troops from bayoneting Minutemen.
In Concord one of the memorials is to those who fell in "The War of the Late Rebellion"—a phrase that a Tory might have used for the War of Independence but that here means the Civil War. Two more are for the great world wars of the twentieth century, and one is for the Vietnam War, in which five Concord men died, one of them called Emerson.
With almost any of these wars it is too easy to say that men on one side died "to keep the past upon its throne"—or that this is always the wrong thing to do. In his 1999 book Five Days in London, May 1940, which details the time when Winston Churchill had to decide whether to negotiate with Adolf Hitler or continue the war, John Lukacs contrasts Hitler, who was "not a traditionalist" but rather "the greatest revolutionary of the twentieth century," with Churchill, whose own great asset that epic spring was "the deep-seated conservatism of the British people," who were mutely determined not to yield to that horrible new tyranny. Wasn't "the past" the right side then?
Visiting these beautiful, poignant battlefields made me think of that. And of something else: what I. F. Stone said when some pip-squeak, politically correct avant la lettre, asked him how he could admire the notorious slave owner Thomas Jefferson. His response stands as an epitaph for that war from which the American nation was born: "Because history is a tragedy and not a melodrama."
Those who attempt to defend treasonous war criminals who fought to destroy America and keep enslaved Americans in bondage likewise deserve nothing but contempt.The men who actually fought and defeated them did not have contempt for them. Why do you think that was the case?
And, while we're at it, what do you think of the New York City Council's honoring of the Soviet spy Ethel Rosenberg?
Third time for the Bill. Looks like it has garnered support from the Mexican American Caucus this time. A compromise could be to make it the Civil War Heroes Day instead. Just a thought.
:watermark(cdn.texastribune.org/media/watermarks/2023.png,-0,30,0)/static.texastribune.org/media/files/8586467ec20aea0936b798a2a27bda7a/Terrys_Texas_Ranger_Confederate_Statue_1910_State_Capitol_MG_TT.jpg)
Texas lawmakers want to end state holiday commemorating Confederate veterans
For the third straight legislative session, state Rep. Jarvis Johnson, D-Houston, has filed a bill to end Confederate Heroes Day as a state holiday.www.texastribune.org
Or just forgotten about outside of history books.Those who attempt to defend treasonous war criminals who fought to destroy America and keep enslaved Americans in bondage likewise deserve nothing but contempt.
But they were Texans.Neither were the confederates.
Nobody is forcing you. Feel free to sit it out.Why would we celebrate traitors to our nation who murdered hundreds of thousands of American soldiers to preserve tyranny?
UT had a statue of Robert Lee. He was no Texan.But they were Texans.
Nobody's forcing you ... feel free to sit it out.Now lets go back to the topic-why are we celebrating Traitors and not Heroes of the Union? Care to guess?
