"Eisenhower on Robert E. Lee" Topic

link

It is an offense against history to impose present understandings on men in the past who reasonably understood things differently. And (INDEED!) our PRESENT understanding of sovereignty and the federal system would have been quite different had the outcome of the war been different.

(Btw, I'm glad the Union held together, and very glad slavery is abolished. But I'm also proud of my Confederate ancestors.)

link

I found the Eisenhower link here, which makes several additional points.

Oh gosh, now they are gonna go after Ike. No historical figure is safe

My father always believed that politics in the USA was like a clock pendulum: moving from one extreme down to the middle and then the the other extreme and then back again. It could be said history is that way. Remember, history is written by the winners and then when enough time has passed, those who dig into the facts and feel a more honest presentation should be made, revise what was given as history early on. Long term, things all even out to somewhat the truth. At least that is what history shows us and I continue to hope for.

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

- U. S. Grant.

Often paraphrased as "No better man served a worse cause."

rusty, my Dad said the same thing.

Funny thing about pendulums. When it's held back on one side, and then released, it goes all the way to the other side before coming to rest in the middle.

Let's talk about his "traitors" accusation. General Milley is swinging after the bell on this one. He's judging these officers by today's standards. He's accusing them of a crime that not even everyone in the North agreed they had committed.

True, but enough did think they were 'traitors' to prosecute the Civil War and "Save the Union."

What most Americans today keep ignoring, or more likely just don't know, is that the states severally, were the focus and power back then. The Federal government was put in place as a servant of the people and the states, not the reverse.

This is a poor, poor reading of the Federal Government detailed in the Constitution, particularly when you compare it to the Articles of Confederation that it replaced AND was then used as the template for the Confederate States.

Most people in the mid 1800's remembered that. They also understood that secession wasn't the cut and dried thing that some today believe it is. General Milley should certainly understand that.

Obviously, it isn't 'cut and dried' today. So what else is new?

Remember that it was the Confederates attacking Ft. Sumter that actually started the war.

Definition of Traitor: "Traitors betray the trust of those who have faith in them or believe their promises. Traitor also applies to a person who betrays his country by committing treason: turning against his own government."

Definition of a Rebel: "A person who rises in opposition or armed resistance against an established government or ruler."

John the G.'s Grant quote lays it out. We can admire the bravery exhibited by the South, but is that enough to raise statues to them, name military bases after when they fought for a cause which was "one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."

How do we separate those two aspects…can we and is it wise to do so?

We have never raised statues or named military bases after the brave Tory heroes of the American Revolution, Americans who also suffered much, and their moral justifications for fighting were far, far more admirable.

The US very deliberately did NOT try Jefferson Davis for treason. He expected it and prepared a lengthy defense. Finally he published it as a book. The issue was settled by war, not by law.

+1 McLaddie. Recommend that this forum stick to wargaming issues. :)

" Remember that it was the Confederates attacking Ft. Sumter that actually started the war."
That is not true, Lincoln promised the state that the fort would not be resupplied and then evacuated, as others were. When the Federal supply ships showed up at Ft. Sumter, that's when it was bombarded.

+1 PJ ONeill

but long before Sumter, Southern states were take over Federal Arsenals and forts.

history is written by the winners

Look at the historiography of the ACW. From the 1890's to the 1950's, the great preponderance of historians (as opposed to memoirists) were at least mildly and often rabidly pro-Confederate. Bruce Catton was the first to counter that trend, and many of his academic peers damned him for it.

That is not true, Lincoln promised the state that the fort would not be resupplied and then evacuated, as others were. When the Federal supply ships showed up at Ft. Sumter, that's when it was bombarded.

That isn't the sequence of events at all. The one supply and reinforcement ship to show up in December 1860 was fired upon and driven away. The Fort was fired upon AFTER Anderson had told the Confederates he would surrender on April 15,[when supplies ran out]. Anderson was hoping to see a relief ship before then.

Beauregard decided to fire on the fort several days before Anderson said he would surrender or any supply ship showed up. Lincoln had sent a supply ship, but there was no reason to believe it wouldn't have been driven off too.

The several meetings between April 1st and April 4 with Unionists about the situation produced conflicting accounts of what was said by the groups and Lincoln. Lincoln never said anything about surrendering Sumter and certainly wouldn't have sent a supply ship if that was his decision.

Men in South Carolina took the first step toward war, and on April 12, 1861, before, the Virginia convention's delegation could confer with Lincoln about his policies toward the seceded states, Confederate artillerists in Charleston opened fire on Fort Sumter.

Lincoln brilliantly maneuvered SC into firing the first shot, which united the north. Lincoln's call for 300,000 volunteers then unified the south.

McLaddie,

Your argument is well articulated and cogent. To me, today's issue is how do we acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of the Southern soldiers in a way that is not immediately attacked as racist and demeaning to black Americans? Right now, if you publicly espouse your praise for a Confederate soldier, even the common soldier in the ranks, you are opening yourself up for hateful attacks.

To me, today's issue is how do we acknowledge the bravery and sacrifice of the Southern soldiers in a way that is not immediately attacked as racist and demeaning to black Americans?

pzivh43:

That is the question, isn't it? How do you separate these brave men from what they fought for? Is such a separation, if possible, ignoring or minimizing the rebels' sacrifices or what they fought to preserve?

Many folks are feel the world is falling apart, feeling threatened and righteous in their beliefs on both the left and right, hence the immediate attacks. I had a friend 'shamed' for wearing a mask in a store. The man demanded, "Do you want to rob me?", saying that wearing the mask was a political statement and submitting to government attempts to control the population. She was just standing in the check-out line with others wearing masks. I only mention that as another, none-north/south issue where extreme actions are occurring.

I hope you haven't felt attacked on this list for acknowledging brave rebel soldiers.

My positions on these issues aren't going to keep me from sticking Confederate flags on my ACW regiments or rooting from them on the game table.

"but long before Sumter, Southern states were take over Federal Arsenals and forts."

Of course took them over. They helped pay for them after all.

McLaddie---I haven't felt attacked here--sorry if I gave that notion in my post. I'm worried that we seem to be going in the direction where a wrong thought can get a person shamed, they can lose their job, etc. Take the example of the West VA University police chief who is facing calls for termination because he had a Blue Lives Matter flag displayed in hi home (seen during a teleconference.

Game safely!

There is a monument to the kamikaze pilots in Mabalacat Town, Philippines link
The Filipinos don't seem to have a problem with acknowledging their bravery, despite the Japanese invasion and subsequent treatment of them.

The Filipinos don't seem to have a problem with acknowledging their bravery, despite the Japanese invasion and subsequent treatment of them.

The question would be who raised the statue, when and why, particularly when the Philippines didn't suffer Kamikaze attacks as far as I know.

Lincoln brilliantly maneuvered SC into firing the first shot, which united the north. Lincoln's call for 300,000 volunteers then unified the south.

The Confederate government (in the form of President Davis) ordered the firing upon Sumter, not the state government. And Lincoln's call was for 75,000 not 300,000 (that came much later).

I'm worried that we seem to be going in the direction where a wrong thought can get a person shamed, they can lose their job, etc.

pzivh43:

I'm worried too.

"..the Philippines didn't suffer Kamikaze attacks as far as I know."

No, but they were invaded and ill treated by the country of whose armed forces the kamikaze were part. So they have good reason to feel less than friendly to Imperial Japan and its forces – and one could understand if there were protests about the memorial.

That seems a rather unworthy quibble!

Not taking sides, but just to note there are lots of schools, parks, streets and political entities in the US named after prominent Loyalists who opposed American independence, including Fairfax County, Virginia..named after Thomas Fairfax, avowed loyalist and the only English peer to live in the colonies, but also a friend of George Washington. Also several sites recognizing Benedict Arnold and his service before switching sides.

I'm worried that we seem to be going in the direction where a wrong thought can get a person shamed, they can lose their job, etc.

We live in a generation of emotionally weak people. Everything has to be watered down because it's offensive, including the truth.

We live in a generation of emotionally weak people. Everything has to be watered down because it's offensive, including the truth.

I agree. OR watered down because so many have so little control over their emotions… but still a weakness.

Passions seem to be unfettered in many quarters.

Right on the money, USAFpilot! Unfortunately.

Before the 1965 centennial, the Civil War was professed to have been fought "To preserve the Union".

In 1965, with the civil rights movement in high gear, that was all put aside and it was officially proclaimed that the Civil War had been fought "To free the Slaves".

Go here and read about the Corwin Amendment -
link

Remember Napoleon's observation about the nature and validity of "History".

B

B:
Really, "Officially proclaimed?" The issue of the Federal government fighting to 'preserve the Union' and/or 'Free the Slaves' was a debated question since the Emancipation Proclamation.

Corwin's amendment was approved of by Lincoln. Why didn't the Slave states feel satisfied with that amendment/guarantee? Because Lincoln opposed the expansion of slavery into the new states. The slave states weren't willing to give up the ability to expand slavery…

Remember Napoleon's observation about the nature and validity of "History".

Yes, a real authority on fake history. Napoleon was famous for his BS 'Bulletins' about 'what happened,' rewriting history. That is why the Napoleonic French came up with the phrase "Lie like a Bulletin.' He obviously had no respect for history.