"Legacy of the Confederacy on military service..." Topic
18 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't make fun of others' membernames.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the ACW Media Message Board
Areas of InterestAmerican Civil War
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleThis campaign game, begin in 2007, marches on at Gen Con!
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 29 Jul 2015 10:58 p.m. PST |
… Do "Confederates in blue" have influence?. "Robert Moore has, as he often does, posted a thought provoking piece today. Some of the present debates about the Confederate legacy in play in our present day brought Robert to think about how that intersects with notions of military service: I know how people like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson touched something within me, and inspired a sense of duty… honor… and, frankly, I knew from an early age that I was going to serve my country. It wasn't debatable (I can't help but hearing, right now, some of my old shipmates calling me a "dig'it". Lol.). So, when we see the current trend of removing the Confederate flag, discussion of moving/removing monuments, vandalizing monuments, etc. all because it "inspires hatred", and therefore, must be removed to eliminate, at least that much "inspiration" (because, certainly, there's more out there that serves as "inspiration"), I wonder just how many out there find another kind of "inspiration" in Confederate iconography… the positive kind… especially U.S. military veterans. I'm really curious as to how many have been inspired, in some way, by the legacy of Confederate leaders such as these? I've mentioned it before… some key people in WW1, like Lejeune; and in WW2, like Patton, Puller, Buckner.. and many others, are just a few examples…" From main page link Amicalement Armand |
Frederick the not so great | 30 Jul 2015 8:56 a.m. PST |
This looks like doghouse bait to me. |
Inkpaduta | 30 Jul 2015 11:26 a.m. PST |
Bark, Bark, Bark. Here Fido… |
doug redshirt | 30 Jul 2015 10:27 p.m. PST |
Sorry never saw those traitors as anything but traitors to my nation. They didn't invite respect only scorn. |
Tango01 | 30 Jul 2015 10:28 p.m. PST |
Seems not… (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Weasel | 31 Jul 2015 1:22 p.m. PST |
My wife's family would disagree, being stout Vermonters with ancestors who marched off to do their duty in the civil war. |
Tango01 | 01 Aug 2015 11:36 a.m. PST |
Interesting… Amicalement Armand |
CharlesRollinsWare | 03 Aug 2015 7:17 a.m. PST |
Doug & Weasel The 13 colonies seceded from, and waged war against England from 1775 to 1781 (which, BTW, included the land mass and people of Vermont) … First US states to consider secession from the US: Massachusetts and Connecticut upset by the affect of the War of 1812 on their largely seaborne economy convened a convention to secede in Hartford CT [my birthplace and the state in which I have resided for all of my 60 years] on 15 December 1814 an effort ended before implementation by the end of the War some months later Second states to consider secession all of New England in the 1830s (I am too lazy to look up the date) Read ANY northern newspaper discussing secession in 1860 to very early 1861 particularly Boston, Hartford, and New York (the ones I have looked in those states State Libraries up.) Every editorial "shouts" how great it is that the South is leaving and good riddance. The War of Northern Aggression was prosecuted beginning in 1861 ONLY when the states remaining in the Union discovered that their "nation" was now broke and could not implement a budget because the industrializing northern states were, in fact, broke and in the red. The nations economy was funded by the Southern cotton crop ONLY THEN did the northern states suddenly become interested in retaining the entire union. In other words, those abolitionist states were demanding the funds of the new Southern Confederacy States while at the same time demanding the instant abolishment (sp?) of the institution of slavery which is/was the only way at the time (significant reinvestment in machines, which had already started years earlier being undo-able in the short or even intermediate term due to the significant time necessary to turn the significant financial investment in slaves into the cash necessary to buy the machines. , the great masses have NO CLUE of what they "believe" about the slavery issue and the fact that the "Separate but Equal" laws in the "South" did not exist until the northern carpetbaggers instituted those laws when they seized control of the Southern States after they participated in passing the 13th Amendment but defeated with significant participation of Northern States (23 no's, 11 South, 12 North) under the Reconstruction Act wherein the indoctrination of the citizenry of the USA began. Those that do not know TRUE history are doomed to servitude by the lie they live … Mark |
Inkpaduta | 03 Aug 2015 10:20 a.m. PST |
Charles, Don't even know where to start to respond. I don't know where you have gotten your information but Wow it is ever out there. Just no proof of what you where saying. If the North was so broke how did they not only pay for the war AND become one of the top industrialized nations in the world during the war? The North also outproduced the South agriculturally in every area except tobacco and cotton. Also, isn't one of the points the pro-south people like to make it how the North won because of its industry and economic power? Yet, somehow it needed the South to stay out of debt. Right. Could say so much more but why bother. Funny how the "War of Northern Aggression" started when certain southern states voted to leave the Union and then fired upon a United States military post. Glad the South wasn't aggressive! It could have led to a Civil War so something. Finally, it was only after the attack on that fort that Northern rose in support of a war to defeat the rebellion. |
Weasel | 04 Aug 2015 11:46 a.m. PST |
|
ochoin | 04 Aug 2015 1:10 p.m. PST |
A naοve person might think extremist view points are only found on the UM boards. |
Weasel | 04 Aug 2015 1:54 p.m. PST |
To be fair, a lot of the talk about the civil war is basically present day politics, painfully transposed unto a conflict 150some years ago. |
jpattern2 | 04 Aug 2015 4:27 p.m. PST |
|
ochoin | 05 Aug 2015 3:27 a.m. PST |
a lot of the talk about the civil war is basically present day politics, painfully transposed unto a conflict 150some years ago. I guess that's no stranger than the Naps board where modern German/French/British nationalism infects the "historical", or maybe "hysterical" discussion there. |
GoodOldRebel | 05 Aug 2015 3:39 p.m. PST |
|
Weasel | 06 Aug 2015 10:30 a.m. PST |
English and French people arguing over Napoleon is pretty funny, I must admit :) Old habits die hard I suppose. |
WARSTEVE | 11 Aug 2015 1:04 p.m. PST |
I love it when Pro-Confederate,s talk of Lee and Jackson and honor. Yet both men had sworn to defend and uphold the Constitution when they were Officers in the US army. If the US ah not paid for their education at West Point both would have grown up as poor farmers or middle class merchants at best |
|