"It has come to this" Topic

Unfortunately, I think with the current PC crowd you could see this coming……
link

politics?????????????????????????????????????????????????

No, military history and tradition.

This is a non-story. One person asked a legitimate question. To me the answer to that question is 'no', but that doesn't mean the question is not a valid one to ask.

Duncan

Traitors are traitors. In most nations, they would have been hung and erased from all honors. Here, however, we were more concerned with making political deals with the white power structure, stuck one in 1876, ended reconstruction, and condemned the black population to another 90 years of oppression. Were they great generals? Absolutely, but for what cause did they use their talents?
Are there portraits of Cornwallis, Ludendorff or Guderian hanging in the war college?

General Lee was arguably America's greatest general. Confederate soldiers were never considered traitors because they weren't. There weren't any political deals with the South.

The General is a ticket puncher, he is trying to score brownie points with the civilian leadership in the Pentagon.

General Lee was arguably America's greatest general.

I would certainly "argue" about that! I would nominate Winfield Scott, but Scott called Grant our greatest general, and he certainly was up to 1865 anyway. Others may favor some of the WW2 generals.

It does irk me that men who not only turned their backs on this country but actually fought against it should be honored by our military or any part of our government. Should we really have military installations named after the likes of A. P. Hill, Benning, and/or Breckinridge?

They certainly were considered traitors by some people (such as Stanton and Johnson) at the time. All former Confederate officers from the rank of colonel on up were disqualified from voting in Federal elections.

The political deal in 1876 was between the 2 parties, not the 2 sections, but it amounted to the same thing.

There weren't any political deals with the South.

Although the Democratic Party was popular in the North and the South, very few people in the South outside of Freedmen and a handful of Northern carpetbaggers voted for the Republicans in 1876. I'd call the deal that ended Reconstruction in exchange for a Republican presidential victory a political deal.

That war was, in many different ways, a clash of old versus new. Many – most? – Americans didn't view themselves as "Americans" in the same sense we do today.

The idea of "turning their backs on the country" was somewhat different with a state-centric worldview, particularly if they view their country as "The South" (which was already something of a cultural identity) or their home state.

That's why so many people referred to the United States as plural prior to the war. As a cognitive construct, it was not an "it" so much as a "them" still.

The Civil War was a transition between the Early Modern and Late Modern culture, and it played out violently. The losers, by and large, felt this on the back end of it, and folks like Lee, Longstreet, and many others took their oaths of allegiance in recognition of it, and urged others move on as loyal citizens.

Now? Our cultural identity has changed significantly since the antebellum period. A revolt or separatist movement would be viewed rather differently now by a larger segment of the population. At the time, however, it was murkier for a lot people.

But besides, President Ford restored Lee's citizenship, so we're all good now.

They were American Generals.
Pretty much sums it up right there.

Next question?

DS6151,

So was Benedict Arnold.

Well, of course it was political. It certainly wasn't a record deal. but for the south to agree to allow a Republican President, they wanted the Federal troops out, and reconstruction terminated. What happened to balcks afterwards is well known.

As Duncan notes, this is a non-story. The body of the article DOES NOT SUPPORT what the headline shouts. "The US Army" is NOT planning or even debating whether to remove portraits of Confederate generals from its walls. It's the tabloid press equivalent of sabre-rattling.

Exactly ONE "unidentified official" asked why the college honors two generals who fought against the United States.

[T]he war college is conducting an inventory of all its paintings and photographs with an eye for rehanging them in historical themes to tell a particular Army story. . . one faculty member took down the portraits of Lee and Jackson and put them on the floor as part of the inventory process. That gave rise to rumors that the paintings had been removed.

READING COMPREHENSION, people.

Wow. John Murtha, a veteran and longtime supporter of the military, declared a nonperson here because he did not agree with the Iraq war.

What I am sure of is that you despise Mr. Murtha. He served. I served. Did you?
And one person's war criminal is another's hero.

Traitors are executed. I don't think if Benedict Arnold returned to the U.S. he would have gotten barred from voting in federal elections. ;)

I'm sorry, I still don't see any kind of political deal with the "white power structure" of the south. After reconstruction the south was a huge Democrat voting block for decades.

It isn't a non-story if someone from the PC crowd picks this up and runs with it based on the issue being raised.

Ooh, the scary PC crowd!

Here's a clue: It ain't the PC crowd that picked up this non-story and ran with it in the first place. The story was clearly intended to stir up exactly this kind of divisiveness and argument.

It's funny. the people who actually fought against Lee and Jackson admired them greatly, only the civilians who never heard a shot fired in anger, and the new PC crowd hate him.

By the way,I served, meaning I fought and had friends wounded and killed in combat, and I find Murtha to be reprehensible.

So was Benedict Arnold.

Assuming that isn't just a , the personally disgruntled Arnold turned coat for cash, conspiring with a foreign power while under arms. Had he, like many others in the colonies, openly supported the King and joined the British army in 1775 (as others did), it wouldn't even be an issue.

The men who left the US Army when their states seceded, rightly or wrongly, did so under very different circumstances, as was recognized by their former comrades.

Again, I'm not saying it was the right call or anything, but one that made sense in context.

only the civilians who never heard a shot fired in anger, and the new PC crowd hate him

True. And oh-so typical.

What I find interesting is that the people who cry the most about "political correctness" tend to be peope who are upset about being called bigots for saying bigoted things. Just as people who precede a statement with "I'm not racist, but…" tend to say incredibly racist things.

I'm sorry, I still don't see any kind of political deal with the "white power structure" of the south. After reconstruction the south was a huge Democrat voting block for decades.

That is because the groups interested in voting Republican were denied the ability to vote by Jim Crow laws set in place. By accepting a short-term political gain (the presidential election of 1876), the Federal government withdrew the civil and military administrations. Without their oversight the Southern states were able to put in place laws that would deny former slaves most of their rights. Had Reconstruction continued, the South would not be solidly Democrat because the freedmen would still have the right to vote, and they solidly voted for the party that freed them instead of the party that enslaved them.

They cherry picked their oaths so that they could resign with "honor" and then fight against the government they'd sworn to defend.

The oath had to be re-written to account for their actions and claims of not having broken their oaths.

They defended a movement to enforce and expand slavery, while they fought Americans who volunteered to defend the Union. There is a reason that the "Yankees" of the time called it "The War of the Rebellion".

Your choice of what they were.

Dan

It's politics…
If you fight for a cause, no matter how much you deny that you were not really 'of the cause' you are tainted by it.
Lee and Jackson were traitors.They fought against their legitimate elected Government that they had taken an oath to defend. They defended a slave holding economy. They were part of a military system that casually murdered legitimate soldiers of the opposing army, and that, as a matter of economy (and probably policy, treated some prisoners despicably.
Of course Lee didnt. Not Lee. He was a fine 'Southern Gentleman',Lee was.
Its not politically correct to state the bleedin' obvious!

What I find interesting is that the people who cry the most about "political correctness" tend to be peope who are upset about being called bigots for saying bigoted things.

I love your circular reasoning. I am so sick of this bul argument. Please back it up with facts or .

CPBelt- To get the proof you need, for a couple nights.

Didn't our country start by betraying our mother country and starting a revolution? Does that make Washington and others traitors? It's all just a matter of perspective…

I should elaborate so I don't offend anyone. What I am getting at is there were people who fought in the Civil War who had relatives that fought on both sides of the American Revolution. Those that rose up against the lawful mother country at the time (Great Britian) thought of themselves as patriots. I am sure there were many who also fought for southern independence also thought of themselves as patriots and not as traitors. Again it is all just a matter of perspective…

Didn't our country start by betraying our mother country and starting a revolution? Does that make Washington and others traitors? It's all just a matter of perspective…

Woah woah woah, slow down there, buddy, don't try to interject reason into this argument.

Like I said, it was period where old and new paradigms were coming in conflict. Many of the prominent figures of the Civil War were children of prominent figures in the (first) revolution, and were no doubt raised on the principals of liberty and independence against central authority – an ongoing debate that was more contentious than current American politics could ever compare to.

Again, I'm not saying they were "right" (and certainly the ultimate cause was anything but right or just), but it wasn't necessarily treason in the context we would put it today.

And now I've (again) placed myself between the extremists on both sides: the "lynch Confederates as traitors!" crowd and the "lynch anyone who says the Lost Cause was not right and just!" :p

CPBelt, to keep it related to the topic at hand, just look at the people complaining about the efforts to remove Forrest's name from schools and parks. It is "political correctness", for some reason, to not want a slave trader/war criminal/founding member of the KKK to be associated with areas with high proportions of African American populations. And they hem and haw about the Fort Pillow Massacre and the enslavement and slaughter of black POWs and try to claim both sides being bad instead of recognizing the systemic problem of black POWs being treated as escaped slaves and not free men like the white POWs. And groups like the SCV push a narrative of Northern Racism and imaginary thousands of Black Confederates, in order to keep people from remembering the primary cause of the war, which was the expansion of slavery to new territories and the overall issue of slavery.

P.C. Madness … History is what happened … right or wrong … And whether you like it or not, both sides in the ACW were Americans …

Does that make Washington and others traitors? It's all just a matter of perspective…

To the British, yes.
Which is why you don't see their portraits being honored by the British military establishment.
Perspective, you see.

STOP ONE MOMENT GENTLEMEN!!!!

Sorry to shout.

You have been the victim of media hype, here is what the Commandant of the US Army War College has to say on the matter.

link

It appears that if the function of the original story was to stir up a certain proportion of the American population it has succeeded admirably.

The moral of this is sorry tale, please check your sources before coming out from under your bridge in a state of agitation.

No one (or rarely) talks about the hundreds or thousands of blacks, freemen or escaped, who Lee's army kidnapped and forced south to be sold as slaves during his 1863 Gettysburg campaign.

Lee never claimed to be a saint, too bad others have tried to do so since his death.

Dan

So is Cromwell considered a traitor in Britain?

No one (or rarely) talks about the hundreds or thousands of blacks, freemen or escaped, who Lee's army kidnapped and forced south to be sold as slaves during his 1863 Gettysburg campaign.

Lee never claimed to be a saint, too bad others have tried to do so since his death.

Indeed.

Joseph Wheeler, would they bury a traitor in Arlington?

link

How does this fit your world view?

Well, he did return to the US Army after the war, and did pretty well in Cuba and the Philippines despite illness. So his grave site is not shocking. But then again my world-view is based on studying actual history and not simply reading things that make me feel better.

So is Cromwell considered a traitor in Britain?

Not by me. Not so popular in Ireland though!

Like a rash on my Bottom. Read all the comments I'd gladly give you a portrait of some of those lame northern generals (who were mostly political appointees anyway) for a portrait of Lee or Jackson any day, at least they had conviction. But this is just all hot air.138SquadronRAF called it, as for you lot with the "slave question" old and stale dudes old and stale.

As my friend, a US ARMY LTC(ret.) who works at Carlisle Barracks said, many forget Lee was a hero in the Mexican-American War too … And he basically alluded to nothing will probably come of this …

WOW!

(And I thought the Benedict Arnold thread was "busy"!)

Charlie

They buried him at Arlington because he was the owner I believe

General in WARS and CIVIL WARS need to be judged by there actions, not by an uninformed chattering class.

The President of the United States issued a blanket pardon to all combatants who would pledge renewed allegiance to the Union. This has historically been considered to be extended to those who were no longer able to do so because they had died previous to the offer.

None of us did very kind things during he war and we all participated. Given the amnesty… "the rebels are our countrymen again."

Cheers,

The Bandit

I agree the Generals and officers who turned their backs on America and their oath to defend the Constitution are Traitors in my opinion, and they helped cause the death of thousands of Americans, nothing should be named for them, nor should anyone be allowed to fly the rebel flag.

One can admire and respect the skills, the gallantry, even the personal honor in many cases, of an opponent (think of Rommel for example), but that does not mean one has to pretend that they elevated the cause they fought for.

The elected US politicians and military men who went "south" to lead the Confederacy, cannot be described as men of conscience or integrity. They meant to break this country and contributed to the death of upwards of a million fellow Americans.

Let's not ever pretend otherwise. The war damaged this nation in ways that are still being played out today. The south took nearly a century to recover financially and can still be said to be recovering, while the political ramifications are still unwinding.

Pretending that the oath that they claimed not to be in effect just because they'd resigned their commissions, is silly. Below are the oaths taken from the start of the US military, until the changes made in 1862.

Although the enlisted oath remained unchanged until 1950, the officer oath has undergone substantial minor modification since 1789.

A change in about 1830 read: "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

Under an act of 2 July 1862 the oath became: "I, A.B., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I have never borne arms against the United States since I have been a citizen thereof; that I have voluntarily given no aid, countenance, counsel, or encouragement to persons engaged in armed hostility thereto; that I have neither sought nor accepted nor attempted to exercise the functions of any office whatsoever under any authority or pretended authority in hostility to the United States; that I have not yielded voluntary support to any pretended government, authority, power, or constitution within the United States, hostile or inimical thereto. And I do further swear (or affirm) that, to the best of my knowledge and ability, I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God."

Dan

Irish Marine and others,

I posit this as a point of reflection:

As the men who fought and died and ordered the death of each other, could respect those they fought and call them countrymen, then how can we, 150 years later claim to be so much more righteous in our stance that we are unable to do what they, who had participated in the tragic events, could find way to do. None of us is that righteous.

Cheers,

The Bandit

I can respect both sides to the argument, but truely I fail to see a valid reason for the removal of the portraits. They were brilliant military commanders and are a part of our nation's fabric. To say the war was about slavery or about state rights is wrong. It was both and many others. Before the war even started, my ancestors were forced to Oklahoma because people wanted their land. Irish immigrants were treated very poorly and it could be argued that ginger, Irish Catholics had it very bad. Often the Irish were victimized worse by those that came before. Native Americans fought on both sides and their own, just for a chance to regain their lands. Brother vs brother; father vs son…. when the federal Maryland regt met the rebel regt, by all accounts it was nasty. Turns out we can do more harm to family than a stranger.
I'd say the ACW was not the rebels fault, but the nation's leaders. They lost track of the people they were supposed to represent and let extremists on BOTH sides shorten and ignite the fuse. If you were to read the journals of the ACW leaders, most did not want the fight and wanted it over quickly. Most chose the side they were on due to where their homestate went.
The antagonists have been pardened. Some by fighting my ancestral cousins out west. I fail to see how discarding brilliant commanders can help. Col Rogers formed the famed Rogers Rangers that is considered the forebear of our very own Rangers today. He remained a Loyalist in the Revolution. If we discarded his service in the French and Indian Wars and locked him out as a traitor; our rangers would not exist today. Instead he is honored and included in the Rangers Creed.

Didn't our country start by betraying our mother country and starting a revolution? Does that make Washington and others traitors? It's all just a matter of perspective…

Yes. The difference is, Washington et al won. Lee et al lost and were (should have been) thus subject to the winners' point of view, not the losers'.

Lee wrote to his son, Custis, during the secession crisis, that secession was revolution. He know what he was getting himself into, but did it anyway. Others like George Thomas, John Gibbon and David Farragut had the guts to remain loyal to their oaths, despite what their home states (or the cliques ruling those states) did.

The difference is, Washington et al won.

The gets dangerously close to a 'might makes right' argument.

Lee et al lost and were (should have been) thus subject to the winners' point of view, not the losers'.

Though they were, and the winners said they "are our countrymen again".

…had the guts to remain loyal to their oaths, despite what their home states (or the cliques ruling those states) did.

I don't think Lee left the Union because he didn't have guts.

Cheers,

The Bandit

They were American Generals.
Pretty much sums it up right there.

Next question?

It seems the term American is used a lot when U.S. American is meant.

Why not include Bolivar if all American generals are considered eligible.

Druzhina
Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers