"God says you are wrong" might not convince everyone but perhaps a good quote for court evangelicals to ponder.
 

Even if you acknowledge slavery as malum in se, the Civil War (like all wars) was still caused by a failure to compromise.

As Carl von Clausewitz observed: War is not an independent phenomenon, but the continuation of politics by different means.

Political compromises had prevented war during the antebellum period.

In 1861, the South seceded to maintain their "peculiar institution" and Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. If either or both had backed down from their positions, the Civil War may well have been avoided again.

Your quote was a very eloquent justification for waging that war, not a rebuttal of Lee's valid point.
 

It is hardly surprising that a general would see a fellow general as a "man of honor," guild solidarity and all that. But whenever someone says a compromise might have avoided the Civil War, I have to ask Lincoln's Cooper Union speech question: "What will satisfy the South?" Specifics, please.
 

Neither the Missouri Compromise nor the Compromise of 1850 was able to resolve the dispute. Someone, Seward I think, called the Civil War an irreconcilable conflict. Lincoln did not run on an abolitionist ticket. He would have let slavery continue in the states where it already existed, but all new states had to be free. The South would not accept that. It saw this would tip the balance of power at the national level in favor of the North.
 

I enjoyed the Cooper Union speech and it's helpful that we have video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ2De8VcSLw
 

I think you're being way too hard on poor Kelly. I'm reliably informed that he was interrupted before he could continue, "so are they all, all honorable men".
 

Note how Kelly has compromised his reputation by being copied by Trump rather than challenging Trump.

Perhaps we should look at all the "wars" the US has engaged in and note for each one, as SPAM suggests, that each was caused by the failure to compromise. Here's what SPAM said:

" ... the Civil War (like all wars) was still caused by a failure to compromise."

SPAM gets even more cockamamie with:

"In 1861, the South seceded to maintain their 'peculiar institution' and Lincoln went to war to preserve the Union. If either or both had backed down from their positions, the Civil War may well have been avoided again."

Why not apply that to all "wars" the US has engaged in? Recall Elaine on Seinfeld discussing the original title for"War and Peace" was "War, What Is It Good For?" "Absolutely nothing" said Elaine.

 

Shag:

What part of "all wars" in my post did you not understand?
 

If a Republican senator were to reach a compromise with Democrats on something like OHSA law reforms Bart would label them a RINO forever and never forgive them, yet when it comes actual mass human slavery he questions if Lincoln didn't do enough to compromise with the Slave Power to avoid war. This is the moral paucity of modern American conservativism.

This isn't complicated for anyone who doesn't have a broken moral compass.

1. The Confederacy's cause was evil.
2. We shouldn't memoralize evil causes.
3. Therefore, we shouldn't memorialize the Confederacy's cause.

Modern American conservatism, in the thrall of Southern tribalism, can't see this, or, holding nothing but political victory sacred and realizing their base is the American, South, won't see this. Both are despicable.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

I think there is something to "compromise" thing.

The Constitution was a realistic compromise with slavery given its position in the country at the time. Over time, the people made various compromises with slavery, including Lincoln (who early on voiced his distaste & argued Douglas' "don't care" platform wrong -- see, e.g., his Cooper Union speech). Ta-Nehisi Coates had a long thread on Twitter providing details on compromises.

Lincoln opposed the spreading of slavery, but accepted as a basic fact that it could not be banned by the federal government in the states where it already existed. He finally, mid-war, accepted emancipation as a war measure, even there giving the South months heads-up. In effect, the Emancipation Proclamation followed the battlefield & "Juneteenth" in effect was in honor of the Union troops controlling Texas, which took until the end of the war.

Antebellum, control of the central government leaned slavery, and federal power bent over backwards at times to favor it beyond what was necessary [e.g., allowing Southern states to block the mails to keep out abolitionist tracts]. But, 1860 was the sign things were changing there. Still, the basic compromises continued. In fact, Lincoln accepted a "13th Amendment" to expressly hold that slavery was protected in the current states where it existed.

Certain states rejected the compromises in place, wanting more (such as a national slave code expressly protecting slavery in territories, rejecting the Douglas popular sovereignty principle). The problem was not lack of compromise but wanting more than was tbh deserved. This includes the idea that "we the people" should let some states on their own to leave without the nation as a whole deciding the matter (put aside the interests of the blacks in said areas), at least [Sandy Levinson once argued this was key point] for the reason cited.
 

Judging from SPAM's comment at 10:33 AM in defense of Kelly confirms to me that SPAM in his military service was a bootlicker.

Slave states started seceding from the Union before Lincoln assumed the presidency. I'm not aware the seceding states put anything on the table that might be the subject of compromise. After Lincoln assumed the presidency more slave states seceded. The Confederacy engaged in insurrection by firing upon US property. The Union engaged in self-defense by responding to this insurrection. The Confederacy did not back down from with its secession or its insurrection. What was there for the Union to compromise?

SPAM demonstrates once again he's a 'Rhoidless wonder.

SPAM's concept might be extended to: "All fistfights are caused by a failure to compromise." Or, "All sexual assaults are caused by a failure to compromise." Perhaps compromise sometimes includes surrender, according to SPAM.

Recall how SPAM was a bootlicker for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003.
 

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], during the 2016 campaign Trump stated that he was smarter than the Generals. First he outsmarted Gen McMaster, now Gen. Kelly. Is Gen. Mad Dog next?
 

Mr. W:

What part of "If either or both had backed down from their positions, the Civil War may well have been avoided again" were you unable to understand?

Just because there can be no moral compromise on issues of malum in se, does not mean an immoral compromise cannot be reached which averts war. In that case, you have to choose between two evils - the immoral compromise and the death and destruction of war.

Anyone who believes this is an easy decision "for anyone who doesn't have a broken moral compass" has never been to war.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

It's hard to improve on Ta-Nehisi Coates' response on Twitter:

Ta-Nehisi Coates ✔@tanehisicoates
Regarding John Kelly's creationist theorizing on Lee and the Civil War, its worth pointing out a few things.
5:12 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Notion that Civil War resulted from a lack of compromise is belied by all the compromises made on enslavement from America's founding.
5:15 AM - Oct 31, 2017


I mean, like, it's called The three fifths compromise for a reason. But it doesn't stand alone. Missouri Compromise. Kansas-Nebraska Act.
5:16 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Lincoln's own platform was a compromise. Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He proposed to limit slavery's expansion, not end it.
5:17 AM - Oct 31, 2017

During the Civil War, Lincoln repeatedly sought to compromise by paying reparations--to slaveholders--and shipping blacks out the country.
5:19 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Explicit compromises don't even get at it. Historian James McPherson points to implicit compromises with slavery.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ …
5:23 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Spirit of "compromise" continued--Lincoln asked only 10 percent of voters in rebel states to sign loyalty oath for readmission to Union.
5:25 AM - Oct 31, 2017

"Compromise" continued long after Lincoln's death. Compromise of 1877 led to explicit White Supremacist rule in the South for a century.
5:26 AM - Oct 31, 2017

As historian David Blight pointed out "compromise" with white supremacy was how the country achieved reunion.
5:27 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Shocking that someone charged with defending their country, in some profound way, does not comprehend the country they claim to defend.
5:29 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Replying to @tanehisicoates
Notion that we are putting today's standards on the past is, in itself, racist--implies only white, slave-holding, opinions matter.
5:30 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Majority of people living in Mississippi in 1860 were black. They knew, in their own time, that enslavement was wrong.
5:32 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Half the people living in states like Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama enslaved--knew full well that enslavement was dead wrong.

Praising Bobby Lee as an honorable man is just sad. Like some kid insisting his deadbeat dad is actually a secret agent away on a mission.
5:35 AM - Oct 31, 2017

As @AdamSerwer points out Lee wasn't some agnostic pressed into War. He was a dude who thought torture was cool.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ …
5:40 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Lee didn't prosecute the war with no regard for White supremacy, his army that kidnapped free blacks and sold them into slavery.
5:42 AM - Oct 31, 2017

You do have to get these guys were the worst of America.
5:46 AM - Oct 31, 2017

They did not merely want to preserve the right to own people, they wanted to expand that right.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/ …
5:48 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Been a lot of hemming and hawing over the term "white supremacist." Fools who won't be satisfied until Trump literally lynches someone.
5:49 AM - Oct 31, 2017

But, like, when the "adult in the room" believes a war for slavery was honorable...
5:50 AM - Oct 31, 2017

Believes that the torturer of humans, vendor of people, who led that war was honorable...
5:51 AM - Oct 31, 2017

When that dude portrays a sitting member of Congress as some shucking and jiving hustler...
5:51 AM - Oct 31, 2017

When he sticks by that portrayal of a black women, in the face of clear video evidence, when he has so descended into the dream...
5:52 AM - Oct 31, 2017

You really do see the effect of white supremacy.
5:53 AM - Oct 31, 2017
 

Of course SPAM knows about compromise, like plea deals for DUI defendant clients who don't have the bread for a full trial. These plea deals provide SPAM with time for his trolling duties at this Blog and tending to his own Citizen Pampersteer blog (bring your own Charmin).
 

"Just because there can be no moral compromise on issues of malum in se, does not mean an immoral compromise cannot be reached which averts war. "

This might make sense if you were defending someone who was defending Lincoln, but Kelly was defending *Lee.* It's like saying, "I will tell you that Hermann Goring was an honorable man. The lack of an ability to compromise led to World War II, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand." An overall good man can be criticized for compromising with an evil cause rather than have to war with it, but the man that was the evil cause? Not so much.

"Recall how SPAM was a bootlicker for the US invasion of Iraq in 2003."

Remember when conservatives mocked appeasement of evil? That was so yesterday!



 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

""Notion that we are putting today's standards on the past is, in itself, racist--implies only white, slave-holding, opinions matter."

That's not a bad point, but we should also realize that Lee's failing is so much the worse because there were actually many white people in his time, including Southerners, Virginians and members of Lee's own family who did not join him in treason in the defense of slavery.
 

BD: "Just because there can be no moral compromise on issues of malum in se, does not mean an immoral compromise cannot be reached which averts war. "

Mr. W: This might make sense if you were defending someone who was defending Lincoln, but Kelly was defending *Lee.*

Doesn’t matter who Kelly was defending, the truth is the truth.
 

SPAM comes up with other gem: " ... the truth is the truth." SPAM speaketh with many tined tongue.
 

There is a common mistake I see in discussions like this: Running all virtues together in one muddled mass. So, because Lee did not have all virtues, he cannot have any. He can’t have been honorable because he was lacking in some other regards.

This is a remarkably common mistake these days, driving the urge to erase history. Because nobody in the past was perfect by our standards, nobody in the past had any worth at all to merit being memorialized.

This reasoning has no stopping point.
 

"Doesn’t matter who Kelly was defending, the truth is the truth."

So is what I said about Goring 'the truth?'
 

Brett's comments are particularly ridiculous. It's amazing to see conservatives, who are usually the most rigidly moralistic prigs, transform themselves into moral relativists that would make leftist academics blush in order to appease their tribalism.

No one is saying anyone must be perfect to be memorialized. What they are saying is that it is possible (in fact necessary) to make an overall, informed judgement of a person. Ask yourself, would Brett say we can't denounce Hitler because while he did bad things he also did good things (he surely loved his dog, seemed to love his family, certainly was patriotic)? No. We can say that while Hitler surely had some virtues that these are outweighed by the fact that he lead a cause which murdered, tortured, looted, etc., millions. Likewise, Lee may have acted with lots of manners and read his Bible faithfully, but he, unlike many of his neighbors, comrades and family members, consciously decided to lead a cause which was primarily about the maintenance and promotion of enslaving millions of other human beings. A person who cannot look at that balance and say, if not this was a bad man, then at least this is not a man to be memorialized is morally retarded.

"erase history"

This is a profoundly stupid phrase in this debate. What we have here is one side that wants to take one incredibly narrow aspect of Lee's life-that he was a brave and dedicated soldier-and then have everything else about him-that he owned slaves, that he broke his oath to his country, that he consciously fought and bent all of his efforts to maintain and promote the worst evil stain on our history-ignored, swept under the rug. When people finally look past this narrow hagiography and see the hitherto hidden and ignored facts about his life, they say 'holy crap, we're memorializing this guy?' And *then* people start talking about 'erasing history?' It's too stupid for words.


 

Even to say that Lee fought to defend slavery and treason is to understate it. He commanded soldiers who themselves died under his orders, and who at his order killed hundreds of thousands of loyal Americans while wounding many more. His death toll is by far the worst on American soil and, until the 20th C, would have put him in the category of history's worst monsters.
 

Well said Mark.

Lee commanded forces that killed over 300,000 U.S. troops. That is 42 times the number killed by the 'radical Islamists' that Brett and Bart want no punches pulled in fighting.

Osama bin Laden has all kinds of virtues. He's a deeply religious man who left a life of wealthy and luxury to fight for a cause he believed in against a much stronger foe. So I guess Bart and Brett think some statutory memorializing him is order? After all, if we say that Osama is an evil, despicable man who deserved death not lionization, then we are, according to Brett 'Running all virtues together in one muddled mass. We are guilty of thinking 'he can’t have been honorable because he was lacking in some other regards.' Indeed, to not focus on bin Laden's virtues and ignore the fact that he was a murderous, evil bastard is for Brett to 'erase history.'

As for Bart, certainly he would say that the conflict with bin Laden is just because we didn't compromise with him.
 

I believe that would be the total death toll. He only became the general-in-chief in 1865. So there's that.
 

Pedantic, but fair enough. He was the commander for some fraction of that death toll, still exponentially higher than bin Laden's.
 

Could it be said that the Revengeclicals (fka Evangelicals) have erased their own history in supporting America's first PG (cite: Hollywood Access tapes) President? H/T Brett.

Brett probably is influenced by "Waiting for the Robert E. Lee" in Blackface about positive memories of Lee in song. "Hear them shuffling' along .... " (Try the Judy Garland version or the Al Jolson.)


 

Query: Does SPAM know the difference between opinion and truth?
 

Mark Field said...Even to say that Lee fought to defend slavery and treason is to understate it. He commanded soldiers who themselves died under his orders, and who at his order killed hundreds of thousands of loyal Americans while wounding many more. His death toll is by far the worst on American soil and, until the 20th C, would have put him in the category of history's worst monsters.

Be careful with the secession as treason argument. Remember this nation was established by traitors.

Our nation seceded from England and Sandy is currently cheerleading blue state secession movements. Washington commanded an army of secession, who killed and died under his command. Are Washington, our armed revolutionary founders and Levinson in your category of historical monsters?

During our Revolution and Civil War, Washington and Lee's secessionist armies never attempted to conquer the mother nation, but rather fought and died defending their own territory. Its was the British and to a far larger extent the US Army which laid waste to the seceding states to compel them to return to the union.
 

It's people like Bart that treat treason as the worst thing in the world one minute (heck, they think kneeling during the national anthem is the worst thing in the world) and the next dismiss it as no big deal. Treason, like federalism or any other 'high principle' is just a propaganda tool, to be invoked for momentary partisan gain, nothing more. So, guy not rising for national anthem, totally horrible and the worst! Guy actually overseeing the killing of thousands of US troops in order to maintain and promote slavery, hey, who are we to judge?

As with anything, the easy answer to Bart's analogy is: motive matters. To commit treason against a nation which denies you the right to have a say in your governance is one thing, to commit treason against a nation because it might not let you maintain and promote your enslavement of your fellow nation members is quite another.
 

During our Revolution and Civil War, Washington and Lee's secessionist armies never attempted to conquer the mother nation, but rather fought and died defending their own territory. Its was the British and to a far larger extent the US Army which laid waste to the seceding states to compel them to return to the union.

So many things wrong with this. Lee's Gettysburg campaign, was that defending Confederate territory? No, it was an attempt to conquer part of the non-secessionist United States, and by-the-by to kidnap and sell free black farmers back into slavery.

The cry of the colonists was "No taxation without representation." The Confederates had a plethora of representation but it wasn't enough to ensure that they would always have control.

If Mr. DePalma cannot perceive a difference between the rebels of 1776 and the secessionists of 1861, then his sophistry has truly lost him.
 

Once again SPAM is being backed into a corner and like Trump attempts to strike back with anti-history. SPAM once again demonstrates his limited horizon. Recall that off and on he reverts to his anarcho libertarian mode. SPAM ignores that a failed insurrection is treason. The Constitution addresses insurrection and treason. As SPAM is backed into a corner because of his ignorance, he shifts from praise of the Founders/Framers to accusations of bad intent. The revolting revolutionaries won. Slavery was not the issue between the revolutionaries and the motherland. The motherland was intricately involved with slavery, although to its credit the motherland declared slavery unlawful before America did, most likely for economic reasons. But Robert E. Lee wanted the slaves to keep shuffling' along. And one doesn't have to read between SPAM's lines that SPAM is once again whistling Dixie.

The Confederacy did not merely secede from the Union, it attacked the Union. If the Confederacy had not attacked the Union, perhaps there could have been further discussions about the evil institution of slavery and how to resolve it. But the Confederacy surely had in mind US territories into which the evil institution of slavery could be expanded with the Confederacy's insurrection against the Union. What if the Confederacy had won the Civil War? What would America look like today?

Yes, SPAM is childlike carrying on his tantrum as he lives in the past, with hate on his horizon. SPAM can join up with the Bundy Bros. with his glock in his jock, in insurrection, thinking he is fighting tyranny. But if SPAM doesn't win, it's insurrection and treason. SPAM is an empty barrel on his rural mountaintop community, as his neighbors say, just another pisshole in the snow.
 

Here's some of what Kelly, the Trump co-opted general, on Laura Lies Interview:

***

“I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man,” Kelly said during the interview.

“He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which, 150 years ago, was more important than country,” he added. “It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it’s different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War. And men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had to make their stand.”

***

Query: Today, with the political dysfunction exacerbated by Trump with his divisiveness, is it so clear as Kelly says? It seems that in the former Confederacy states, loyalty to those states is more important than to country. While Kelly grew up in Boston, he apparently knows little about the history of the abolition movement here. Imagine the "consciences" of slaveowners and supporters of slavery and "good faith."

But SPAM, bootlicker that he is, defends Kelly. Perhaps we may soon be hearing a current day version of "Has Anybody Here Seen Kelly?" The lyrics are here:

http://www.lyricsreg.com/lyrics/nora+bayes/Has+Anybody+Here+Seen+Kelly/

for those who want to work on a parody.


 

“He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which, 150 years ago, was more important than country,” he added. “It was always loyalty to state first back in those days."

Samuel Philips Lee, Robert E Lee's cousin and fellow Virginian, served with distinction with the Union rising to become an admiral. When asked about his loyalty, Lee famously replied "When I find the word Virginia in my commission I will join the Confederacy."

Strangely, I can find no monuments to this historical Virginian or Southerner in Virginia or the South.

Erasing history indeed....
 

Mr. W:

You are correct - motive matters, which is why I noted you need to be careful blanket categorizing secessionists as historical monsters. Tom Jefferson pretty well summed up the proper motive for rebellion in the Declaration of Independence - dissolving a government which abridges the rights of the people. Confederate and blue state secession does not meet that standard, although supporters of both think they are protecting their rights.

Once again, we are back to slavery and the decision whether to accept an immoral compromise or engage in a bloody and destructive war, which is the ongoing point of my discussions on this thread.

Shag:

ALL inurrection is treason. The traitors who win get to write the history.

The Confederacy did not attack the Union. The US Army invaded the seceding states.

Larry:

Lee’s Gettysburg campaign was meant to draw the Army of the Poromac into a decisive battle and win the war, not to add PA into the Confederacy.
 

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that when he looks back on this post years from now, Professor Magliocca will be ashamed.
 

"you need to be careful blanket categorizing secessionists as historical monsters"

I am not, I am blanket categorizing secessionists who seceded because they wanted to maintain and promote human slavery as historical monsters. Monuments should not be raised or maintained to such monsters, this is not morally complex.

"Confederate and blue state secession does not meet that standard, although supporters of both think they are protecting their rights."

This is like saying the guy who tears the 'do not remove under penalty of law' tag from a mattress and Himmler were both criminals.

"The Confederacy did not attack the Union."

Those troops fired upon in Fort Sumter were sure as heck Union (US) troops.
 

mls, I picture you out on that limb with a saw, making your prediction asinine. Apparently your knowledge of history is similar to SPAM's and Brett's. Kelly was not a West Pointer. I understand that American history, especially military history, is well taught at West Point. Kelly is a Mass alum. So much has been made available disputing Kelly's Civil War Compromise schtick on the Laura Lies Fox Show.

Point of Order, mls, you should be ashamed of your 8:43 AM post, which I am copying below in case you decide to delete it:

***

mls said...
I am going to go out on a limb and predict that when he looks back on this post years from now, Professor Magliocca will be ashamed.

8:43 AM

***


 

Sorry, TextEdit got me again. Kelly is a UMASS alum.
 

BD: "you need to be careful blanket categorizing secessionists as historical monsters"

Mr. W: I am not

I was discussing Marks' post, which you affirmed.

BD: "Confederate and blue state secession does not meet that standard, although supporters of both think they are protecting their rights."

This is like saying the guy who tears the 'do not remove under penalty of law' tag from a mattress and Himmler were both criminals.

The better comparison was between two sets of traitors, one group who reduced foreigners to slavery and the other who wish to reduce everyone to serfs. Neither are seeking to restore liberty denied by the United States.

BD: "The Confederacy did not attack the Union."

Mr. W: Those troops fired upon in Fort Sumter were sure as heck Union (US) troops.

Fort Sumter was in Confederate territory and the Union troops there refused to leave. From the Confederate POV, this was a union invasion.

 

"Kelly was not a West Pointer."

At this point, that may count in his favor. The guy graduated even though his instructors were aware of his anti-American views. There is something deeply sick at West Point, and depending on how long this has been going on, in the officer corps.
 

"The better comparison"

No, your second one is as morally obtuse as the first.

"From the Confederate POV, this was a union invasion."

Sophistry. Those US troops were where they'd been for years and the Confederate troops fired upon them (not vice versa).
 

Brett is into navel gazing on West Point. Next the Naval Academy? As to the "officer corps," perhaps he is basing this on SPAM's claim as a "Intelligence Officer."

And SPAM's:

"Fort Sumter was in Confederate territory and the Union troops there refused to leave. From the Confederate POV, this was a union invasion."

confirms that SPAM's defense of Kelly is based upon the "Confederacy POv." More whistling Dixie by SPAM. If SPAM were a Union troop at Fort Sumter, he probably would have left to join the Confederate forces. That would be desertion under fire. That corner SPAM is backed into is getting tighter and tighter.
 

I am going to go out on a limb and predict that when he looks back on this post years from now, Professor Magliocca will be ashamed.

I don't.

West Point did once upon a time become a place full with "anti-American views," given the number of Confederates that arose from there, but finding someone who is a communist sympathizer doesn't tell me much. If you are going to say there is "something deeply sick" [a serious claim] at a specific institution, you need to find more evidence of that than finding that article. Pick a school, you will find people with various distasteful sympathies.

BTW, can I have a list of forbidden beliefs for those who go to U.S. military academies? How "anti-American" must the person be?
 

"his instructors were aware of his anti-American views"

Where did it say that in the linked article?
 

BD: "From the Confederate POV, this was a union invasion."

Mr. W: Sophistry. Those US troops were where they'd been for years and the Confederate troops fired upon them (not vice versa).

History. You can make the same observations concerning Washington's campaign to drive the British from Boston.

 

"Sophistry. Those US troops were where they'd been for years and the Confederate troops fired upon them (not vice versa)."

Not exactly. Ft. Sumter was under construction, it wasn't actually occupied when S.C. seceded. It was then occupied by Union troops who moved into it after the secession, because the fort in Charleston they were stationed in was indefensible. But they moved into it secretly in the dead of night, and had very little in the way of munitions or other supplies.

S.C. naturally responded by putting the fort under naval embargo, so it couldn't be supplied and further armed, and the actual battle occurred when the Union attempted to supply the fort with munitions so as to place a key S.C. waterway under Union control.

So, no, those troops hadn't actually been there for years. And S.C. retook the fort without any Union casualties except for a couple of guys who died when one of their own cannon exploded during the surrender ceremony. Man, that was a lot of powder to put in a cannon for a ceremonial firing; Wonder if they had more than ceremony in mind?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

As an immigrant to S.C., I'm kind of having to learn the local history...
 

Fort Sumter was in Confederate territory and the Union troops there refused to leave.

There was no such thing as "Confederate territory." That was what the war was all about.
 

Before settling in S.C., Brett grew up in a racist portion of Northern Michigus that resented African-American "immigrants" to Detroit for economic reasons, potentially taking away good paying manufacturing jobs from white Michiganders. In his youth Brett with his small hands found it difficult competing with Mexican farm laborers pulling radishes. Eventually in S.C. Brett sired a mixed race child, as he kinda learned the local history. Brett seems to glory in the local history.
 

BD: Fort Sumter was in Confederate territory and the Union troops there refused to leave.

CJ: There was no such thing as "Confederate territory." That was what the war was all about.

This is like arguing there was no such thing as the United States of America, that is what the Revolutionary War was all about.

The reality is there was a Confederate States of America and the United States spent four very bloody years retaking it.
 

I've already commented adequately on Shag's determination to call anyone who disagrees with him a 'racist'. It's rather pathetic, but he is getting on in years, the old noggin isn't working like it used to. I'm getting up there, too, and may someday end up as demented, hopefully in a more pleasant way.


Yes, CJC, that was what the war was about, whether the Confederacy could remain independent, or would be forcibly reunited with the rest of America. But, of course the Confederacy had territory, and Fort Sumter was within it.
 

U.S. control of Charleston fortifications went back some time and construction in Fort Sumter itself started in the 1820s. We can be "pedantic" and debate what specifically was under control as compared to full occupation (if it was under construction, someone probably was there) here, of course.

https://www.nps.gov/fosu/learn/historyculture/upload/ls_exhibit_text.pdf

South Carolina did not only want to stop "munitions" -- the federal troops also was running of basic supplies, particularly food.

Either way, the forts were federal territory, and it underlines how unilaterally seceding is problematic. This country is a united whole and specific areas leaving affects everyone. And, this would include federal enclaves, down to post offices, as well as interconnected states in general both fiscally and otherwise.

Thus, a sound approach is for any secession as a constitutional matter to be decided by the nation as a whole, probably by an amendment to the Constitution agreed upon by Article V mechanisms.
 

"remain independent"

To be pedantic, the war would decide if they were actually "independent" in the first place as a legal matter. The U.S. declared independence in 1776 but it took the peace treaty to really stick.
 

"You can make the same observations concerning Washington's campaign to drive the British from Boston."

The first shots in the Revolutionary War were Lexington and Concord. It's disputed who fired first, but of course whoever did should be said to have 'attacked.'
 

"So, no, those troops hadn't actually been there for years."

I stand corrected on the point, but it doesn't matter for my overall point. The initiation of aggression, firing, was by secessionists against US troops.
 

"This is like arguing there was no such thing as the United States of America, that is what the Revolutionary War was all about."

There's two big differences that might matter for the aptness here, the former won, the latter lost; more importantly the former was correct as a matter of natural law, the latter was not.
 

"the Confederacy had territory, and Fort Sumter was within it."

There's no doubt that secessionist, slavery traitors gained physical control of that area. But: "If a rhinoceros were to enter this restaurant now, there is no denying he would have great power here. But I should be the first to rise and assure him that he had no authority whatever.” G.K. Chesterton


 

"Either way, the forts were federal territory"

As I believe somebody just stated, that was what the war was about. It seems a bit much to demand that the Confederacy conduct itself according to the final outcome of the war at the moment it started. Sure, if you strike at the king, you'd best succeed, but does anybody strike at the king thinking they're going to fail?

No question, secession is a messy business even when undertaken with the good will of the federation you're departing. And who today is suggesting that the South *should* have seceded? Certainly not me.

But, of course, if you're seceding from a country, it's probably because relations with the rest of the country are bad enough that a nice, sensible division is already off the table. There was no way the South could have negotiated these matters with Lincoln, and you know it.
 

BD: "This is like arguing there was no such thing as the United States of America, that is what the Revolutionary War was all about."

Mr. W: There's two big differences that might matter for the aptness here, the former won, the latter lost; more importantly the former was correct as a matter of natural law, the latter was not.

That is correct and also irrelevant given the Confederate Army controlled the CSA.
 

The specific point concerned Fort Sumter itself so I wanted to make clear that overall that was of limited importance.

First, even if it was not fully occupied, it still was a federal fort. Second, the specific fort is of limited importance big picture. Finally, btw, to repeat, "munitions" wasn't the only thing at issue. SC or the alleged nation it was part of wasn't willing to have the federal troops merely get food supplies.

Anyways, what "the war" was about specifically is complicated. It is unclear that the power to secede [granting it for sake of argument] included the power to seize federal forts of that type. It is in fact reasonable to argue that they would have to be addressed specifically as compared to state territory in particular. Thus, e.g., by negotiation which as it is pending the status quo ante would hold (e.g., they can get food supplies).

Finally, some do positively state today that the South was correct to secede. Brett assures us he is not doing this. But, the question also is it had the power to do so and that (misguided or not) they should have been allowed to do so for the reasons at issue. That is, to defend slavery after the wrong person (party) won a fair election. That it would be "nice, sensible" to do that. Brett says it is.

BTW, I don't think a negotiation was possible. Thus, a constitutional approach would fail, most likely. Like in 1776, the South in actuality is better seen as revolutionaries. If with a much less nice and sensible cause.


 

Fun diversion, but still a diversion.

At any rate, my point is that you can't just dismiss Lee as not an honorable man, just because you didn't like the cause he fought for. People can fight honorably and bravely in foolish or evil causes.
 

The cause of the Civil War is part of the point of the main post. So, the wider issues seem fairly germane. Anyway, diversions occur here all the time. When it no longer is of interest or something, we can hand-wave them away, surely.

At any rate, the question is not if he "fought honorably" but a more complete one -- is he a "honorable man." Bad people can do nice things. But, that doesn't suddenly make them nice people as a whole. GM made his case here:

https://balkin.blogspot.com/2017/08/robert-e-lee-was-horrible-racist.html
 

Soon both SPAM and Brett will be arguing that the 2nd A justified the secessions of the Confederate states against the tyranny imposed by the Union against the Confederacy, for they can point to no other provision in the Constitution that supports secession. There is of course a provision in the Constitution about the central government addressing an insurrection. Some contend that the insurrection provision was a "compromise" between the free states and the slave states at the Constitutional Convention as the slave states were concerned with slave uprisings; there was also concern up North with Shays Rebellion.

Brett's 10:52 AM comment:

"As an immigrant to S.C., I'm kind of having to learn the local history..."

incorporated Trump's tweeting method with that dot, dot, dot so I merely filled in background for those visitors who may not be aware of Brett's "history" at this Blog with my 11:08 AM comment. I realize that Bwana Brett is sensitive but can he point to errors in my comment or where he elsewhere adequately responded. Brett, if you can't stand the heat under the Constitution, secede. [Sarcasm]
 

Shag, the dementia is kicking in again. Why couldn't we point to the 10th amendment? The Constitution being silent on the question of secession, it is therefore a power reserved to the states.

I'm not saying that's an argument that would win in a court appointed at the federal level. But it's certainly an argument being made. Unlike your 2nd amendment argument.
 

No matter how SPAM and Bress slice and dice in their comments, it seems clear that they are defending the Confederacy. Neither SPAM nor Brett nor I were around back at that time. To my knowledge neither SPAM nor Brett have significant roots going back to the days of the Confederacy. I have no such roots. The Civil War is over. Slavery was outlawed by constitutional amendment, despite which Jim Crow came along to diminish the freedoms of former slaves and their progeny. It was only in the second half of the 20th century that Jim Crow started to recede, slowly, as a result of the civil rights movement. Now in the 21st century, the cult of the Confederacy is attempting to make a comeback. SPAM and Brett have been serving as cheerleaders.

This post addresses statements made by Trump's Chief of Staff John Kelly on Fox, which fits into Trump's pattern following the events in Charlottesville involving neo-nazis, White supremacists and White nationalists. Kelly is obviously defending Trump, as he did when he commented earlier on a Congresswoman from FL that was erroneous based upon a video that was available of an event Kelly described.

SPAM and Brett defend Kelly. But history and common sense make clear that Kelly knew not what he was talking about. Kelly appeared on the Laura Lies Fox show. Did Laura ask tough questions? Hardly. Recall Laura declined, she claims, accepting a communications position in the Trump White House. The Trump connection to Roger Ailes and Fox is no secret. Naturally there would be no hardball questions to be asked by Laura. This was a PR effort by the Trump Administration, which has completed Trump's coopting of Kelly. Earlier it was McMaster. Will Mad Dog complete a trifecta of coopted generals?

So SPAM and Brett will continue to "Remember the Confederacy" in the manner of the Alamo as they continue to slice and dice anti-history. That's what trolls do.
 

It's hard to say that Lee "fought honorably" when he commanded his soldiers to seize black people and sell them into slavery.
 

Brett, in fairly recent threads both you and SPAM have made that 2nd A argument, it's not my argument. None of the provisions of the bill of rights, either 2nd or 10th, amended the Militia and insurrection clauses in the Constitution. A review of the Archives of this Blog will reveal Brett and SPAM's views of an absolutist 2nd A. And as to Brett's 10th A position, said Archives will reveal that both he and SPAM in a fairly recent thread rejected a right by blue states to secede; that was in one of Sandy's recent posts. I'm pleased, for the sake of Brett's son that he has the benefit of his Asian genes.
 

"People can fight honorably and bravely in foolish or evil causes."

I'd like Brett to expand on this.

The cause Lee fought for was mass slavery. It involved the *total*, government enforced, deprivation of liberty for millions of Americans. And not only blacks! Whites, too, were deprived of many basic rights that are considered fundamental (for example, whites were forbidden to teach slaves to read and write, a right the most libertarian SCOTUS ever deemed fundamental). Slavery involved mass deprivation of liberty, mass murder, mass rape and mass child rape. So, by all means Brett, tell us 1. how one fights 'honorably' for that and 2. more importantly, how one fighting 'honorably' for that moves the scales in regards to fighting for mass slavery, murder, rape and child rape such that that person should be memorialized?

Think about Brett's moral compass for a moment. He's outraged and finds sick the idea that a West Point cadet can make pro-communist statements. But when it comes to a West Point cadet who organized and led forces against US troops in order to maintain and promote mass slavery, murder, rape and child rape, he's like 'well, it's complicated, the guy read the Bible and was fair to the defeated, so he's a hero.'
 

Also, waiting for an answer on

"his instructors were aware of his anti-American views"

Where did it say that in the linked article?
 

By the Bybee [expletives deleted], a reminder that Brett's arrival "As an immigrant to S.C. ... " presumably was not in chains as did those immigrants that became chattel slaves in S.C.. Brett learned the local culture the easy way. Query: Did Brett use the word "immigrant" in coded terms?
 

"irrelevant given the Confederate Army controlled the CSA."

Yet another modern conservative who doesn't get Chesterton I see.
 

Slavery involved mass deprivation of liberty, mass murder, mass rape and mass child rape.

Also torture.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W: The cause Lee fought for was mass slavery.

The questions are instead why and how did Lee fight?

Lee refused command of the U.S. Army (something the CSA was not offering) because he refused to wage war on his own state of Virginia, not because he was hell bent on defending slavery against a Union liberation which was not then being threatened.

Lee fought more honorably and with far, far more respect for civilians than many of his Union counterparts.

Gerard documented Lee's personal sins very well, but why the general chose sides and how he fought are not among these.
 

SPAM continues to waive the Confederate flag.
 

"The questions are instead why and how did Lee fight?"

No, they're not, unless you think 'why and how' someone fought outweighs *what* one fought for when what they fought for was mass slavery, murder, rape, child rape and torture. Lee wasn't ignorant that this is what the 'domestic institutions' (as he referred to them) of his state and his Confederacy (when he became a Confederate leader he actually forcefully urged others into the Confederacy to subsume their affiliation with the specific states of the Confederacy for the Confederacy overall) he fought to defend entailed.

"with far, far more respect for civilians"

Not the millions of slaves he fought to keep enslaved. That's the thing, you can't separate the manner of what he fought for from what he fought for in weighing the moral weight of the man. Lee may have had great manners and respect for the 'rules of war,' but the fruit of his efforts, which he had to have known of, was mass slavery and murder. If that's 'honorable' then honor is the stuff of moral monsters.
 

Mr. W:

Lee defended his home and family in Virginia.

How did Lee choose the Confederacy to defend slavery when Lincoln was not proposing emancipation at the time of his decision?
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Without looking over all the remarks after my last, I'm quite willing to say that in some fashion Lee and other soldiers "fought honorably" to some degree. Slave traders in the international slave trade probably were somehow honorable. A review of how black prisoners in Eastern campaigns were treated might be informative though.

But, as a whole, I can see why GM -- a traditional conservative who is a self-labeled Republican -- might find Lee as a whole far from honorable. And, might want to avoid labeling him as honorable except with special care to use a lot of qualifiers.
 

I'm a liberal minded sort, you see. We grade generously.
 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/05/west-point-grad-behind-pro-communist-photos-reportedly-was-flagged-to-superiors-in-2015.html
 

How did Lee choose the Confederacy to defend slavery when Lincoln was not proposing emancipation at the time of his decision?
Do we have to relitigate this yet again? The whole thrust of the argument in the south before the war was that they're coming to take our slaves. The election of Lincoln, a free-soil proponent, spelled the end of slavery: when enough new free states could take the matter out of the South's hands. That was the future that any defender of the slave power was trying to forestall.

It's like asking why the Confederacy existed, as if it were for some other reason than to defend slavery; as they claimed, but only after they lost.

In Virginia's case in particular, there was also the mercantile motive: they were looking to make money selling humans to the new territories. Free soil would block this pleasantly lucrative trade in selling humans "down the river" as Mark Twain references it (albeit not from Virginia).
 

"The whole thrust of the argument in the south before the war was that they're coming to take our slaves. The election of Lincoln, a free-soil proponent, spelled the end of slavery: when enough new free states could take the matter out of the South's hands. That was the future that any defender of the slave power was trying to forestall."

Yes, I think that was clear enough: They could see that, if slavery couldn't expand, eventually there'd be enough free states that they couldn't defend slavery in Congress, and might even have faced constitutional amendments. So they left the federation rather than accept their eventual loss of slavery.

Unfortunately, just because the South seceded over slavery, doesn't mean the North conquered them and brought them back into the federation to abolish it. Lincoln was quite clear about that. It might have had that effect, but it wasn't the purpose of the war.

Secession was about slavery, but the war was about whether states had the right to leave the federation. The South could have left for any reason at all, and Lincoln would have set out to drag them back in.

See, that's why you can say that the South seceded over slavery, but didn't necessarily fight a war with the North over it. Once they'd left, the issue wasn't slavery, but whether they were entitled to leave. In fact, a few thousand of the Confederate troops were actually free blacks, and Lee had proposed a law to malamute any slave who was willing to fight in the Confederacy's army.

Real history is always a lot more complicated than the pretty stories the winners tell themselves about it.
 

Here's a paragraph from yesterday's NYTimes:

"As for Lee’s honor, while some historians argue that he held a distaste for human bondage, he nevertheless fought ferociously to preserve slavery, which he viewed as the best arrangement that could possibly exist between whites and African-Americans. During the war, his army kidnapped free blacks, returning them to chains. After the war ended, he advised acquaintances to avoid hiring free blacks — arguing that it was against white interests to do so — and suggested that free black people be forced out of his native state, Virginia."

This paragraph and the rest of the editorial provide interesting links supporting statements.

Brett's revisionist history closes with this:

"Real history is always a lot more complicated than the pretty stories the winners tell themselves about it."

Brett is confessing that he is a LOSER. And he says this in Whiteface!
 

"just because the South seceded over slavery, doesn't mean the North conquered them and brought them back into the federation to abolish it. Lincoln was quite clear about that."

This might be relevant if we were talking about whether or how much to lionize or memorialize the North and Lincoln, but the discussion is about whether to lionize or memorialize the South and its leaders. If it were determined that Churchill and England were mainly motivated by a desire to keep their Empire and not by a desire to put an end to the various horrors of Nazism that wouldn't make it any more ok to put up statues lionizing or memorializing Nazis.

Additionally, as the entire point of Brett's comment here is supposedly that history is complicated and changing, let's remember that while at the start Lincoln and the North appeared ready to make some kind of compromise to avert war that would allow slavery, eventually where they landed was ending slavery (and doing so ultimately after the war was won, and in Union territory too, so it can't have been said to have just been a war time tactic). Brett complains that people want their heroes to be perfect and then gets mad when they actually don't act like that: they realize Lincoln wasn't perfect, but he evolved in the right direction and ending up doing tremendous good in dealing a death blow to the worst evil in our national history, likewise they see that Confederate leaders may have had good manners, read the Bible faithfully and stuck to the laws of war at the time, but that ultimately that is vastly outweighed by the fact that they knowingly joined a cause devoted to mass slavery, murder, rape and torture (and, while Larry has addressed Bart's mistake accurately I can add that the Southern states released Declaration of Causes and other secessionist documents that clearly stated that the secession was motivated by a desire to preserve and promote slavery from what they anticipated was going to be Northern interference despite what Lincoln said).

Again, let's make it clear the position Bart and Brett are taking: you have people who on the one hand exhibited military virtues of bravery and adherence to the laws of battle, but on the other hand consciously chose to fight for the cause of mass slavery, murder, rape and torture, and they not only can't bring themselves to condemn those people, they think they should be called heroes. This kind of thing would make even the caricature of an academic, 'cultural marxist,' moral relativist blush.
 

According to Brett the Confederacy seceded as a matter of self-defense as the Union was threatening to take the property, the chattel slaves, of the Confederacy. Self-defense, including of one's property, is natural law. But there was no imminent threat that slavery would be ended. No, the secessions were preemptive actions, not self-defense in any sense. The 1% in the Confederacy were protecting their economic interests. Why that's similar to the Trump tax cuts, cuts, cuts bill.
 

BD: How did Lee choose the Confederacy to defend slavery when Lincoln was not proposing emancipation at the time of his decision?

LK: Do we have to relitigate this yet again? The whole thrust of the argument in the south before the war was that they're coming to take our slaves.

Lee opposed secession.

But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice every- thing but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore, that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “per- petual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the estab- lishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution. . . . . Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defense will draw my sword on none.

 

"Lee opposed secession."

By joining it and putting forward all his effort and talents to organize and lead troops in its defense.
 

Mr. W: Again, let's make it clear the position Bart and Brett are taking: you have people who on the one hand exhibited military virtues of bravery and adherence to the laws of battle, but on the other hand consciously chose to fight for the cause of mass slavery, murder, rape and torture, and they not only can't bring themselves to condemn those people, they think they should be called heroes.

While his conduct during the war was exemplary, Lee cannot and should not be considered a hero. He was a traitor.

Circumstances conspired to make Lee turn to treason. Virginia voted to secede, which Lee opposed, and Lincoln raised an army to crush the rebellion, which meant military conquest of Virginia. To Lee, home and family took precedence over country, so the colonel declined command of the US Army and returned to defend Virginia. While this decision resembles a classic tragedy, Lee still consciously chose treason.
 

"To Lee, home and family took precedence over country"

More than that, the cause of the Confederacy took the ultimate precedence, because what he did was join the Confederacy and bend all his talents and efforts in furthering it. As noted, many Virginians, including his own family members, chose not to join their state government in the cause of treason and mass slavery, murder, rape and torture.


 

Lee spoketh with forked tongue.

SPAM's closing at 8:59 AM:

"Circumstances conspired to make Lee turn to treason. Virginia voted to secede, which Lee opposed, and Lincoln raised an army to crush the rebellion, which meant military conquest of Virginia. To Lee, home and family took precedence over country, so the colonel declined command of the US Army and returned to defend Virginia. While this decision resembles a classic tragedy, Lee still consciously chose treason."

shows SPAM has come around in the course of this thread. I agree, Lee's choosing treason was not honorable. SPAM comes from a military family and recognizes this, even though he eludes to the Bundy Bros. from time to time.

Meantime, "immigrant to S.C." Brett revises revisionist history.
 

BD: "To Lee, home and family took precedence over country"

Mr. W: More than that, the cause of the Confederacy took the ultimate precedence. More than that, the cause of the Confederacy took the ultimate precedence, because what he did was join the Confederacy and bend all his talents and efforts in furthering it. As noted, many Virginians, including his own family members, chose not to join their state government in the cause of treason

And those Virginians who remained loyal to the Union and took up arms against the Confederacy participated in the devastation of their own homes and the killing and maiming of their friends and neighbors.

There are no good choices for men like Lee in civil wars.
 

Here are Lee's comments on hearing of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation: “In view of the vast increase of the forces of the enemy, of the savage and brutal policy he has proclaimed, which leaves us no alternative but success or degradation worse than death, if we would save the honor of our families from pollution, our social system from destruction, let every effort be made, every means be employed, to fill and maintain the ranks of our armies, until God, in His mercy, shall bless us with the establishment of our independence.”

This opponent of slavery, upon hearing of the order of freeing the slaves, decried it as a 'savage and brutal policy' which meant for his chosen cause that either they win and stop emancipation ('success') or face 'degradation worse than death' threatening 'our families from pollution.' In response he hoped to swell his army to fight back lest to 'save our social system from destruction.'

*These* were the words Lee took action to fulfill, working hard to organize and command troops to defend the 'social system' of the South and resist the 'savage and brutal policy' of emancipation.

This is the man Brett and Bart want monuments to.
 

Shag: ...shows SPAM has come around in the course of this thread. I agree, Lee's choosing treason was not honorable. SPAM comes from a military family and recognizes this, even though he eludes to the Bundy Bros. from time to time.

I never defended Lee's honor.

I defended General Kelly's point that the Civil War represented a failure of compromise, which it surely did.


 

"took up arms against the Confederacy participated in the devastation of their own homes and the killing and maiming of their friends and neighbors."

Let me reword that for accuracy. Better said, they participated in the devastation of the homes and the killing and maiming of their friends and neighbors who sought to use violent rebellion to destroy the Union and protect/promote the mass slavery, murder, rape and torture of millions of their other neighbors and countrymen. They ultimately save the Union and ended the mass slavery, murder, rape and torture.

Virginians like Robert's cousin Samuel Lee or George Thomas did not choose to support mass slavery, murder, rape and torture, and they also fought in 'exemplary' fashion exhibiting great martial skill. Yet there are not monuments in Virginia and the South to them, instead there are monuments essentially reserved for those who fought for the cause of mass slavery, murder, rape and torture. These are not historical markers, they are tributes to the despicable Confederate cause.
 

Mr. W: Here are Lee's comments on hearing of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation...

No, this is an excerpt from a letter written months later in 1863 and there is an ongoing debate over what Lee is referring to.

http://cwmemory.com/2011/11/18/robert-e-lee-on-robert-h-milroy-or-emancipation/

In any case, we are discussing the basis for Lee's decision to resign from the US Army and return to Virginia back in 1961.
 

"I never defended Lee's honor."

"Lee fought more honorably "
 

BD: "took up arms against the Confederacy participated in the devastation of their own homes and the killing and maiming of their friends and neighbors."

Mr. W: Let me reword that for accuracy...

...from the point of view from someone who has never been at war looking at this academically decades afterward.

You need to do some reading about what happened on the ground during the Civil War. This was the first major industrial civil war and the resulting carnage, disease, famine, war crimes, and devastation was absolutely horrific.

It is easy to say the only good rebel is a dead rebel from behind a keyboard in 2017. I would have liked to see you participate in the slaughter of your own community in 1861.
 

BD: "I never defended Lee's honor."

Mr. W: "Lee fought more honorably "

Shag and I were discussing Lee's treason, not his conduct as a military commander.
 

As usual, Bart only takes into account the well being and liberty of white people. The only side of the ledger he speaks of is the loss and damage that the war brought to them, no mention of the suffering of the blacks in the South (in many states they were a majority of the population) under a system of mass slavery, murder, rape and torture. Notice too, that he seems to think this should only weigh on the minds of those who decided to fight for the Union, not those who decided to take up arms against their own country and in promotion of a system that they fully knew included murder, torture, rape and slavery. Why is Lee's decision to join the Confederacy and make it's military stronger, prolonging the conflict, more noble than the decision of his family members and co-Virginians who decided to fight for the Union? Had they not seceded and then militarily resisted the devastation death and maiming Bart laments would not have occurred.

Again, one can understand how Lee made his decision. It's hard to do the right thing. I can understand why many Germans in Nazi Germany joined the German army and fought in their wars of conquest, heck I can understand why some of them became concentration camp guards (to feed their family, because everyone else around them was saying it was ok or necessary). The point is, these are not the people we should designate as *heroes* and monumentalize. It would have been a hard decision for Robert to do what his cousin Samuel did, of course. But that's what we do and should ask of our *heroes,* that they made the right decision when it was hard.

Again, remember, it would have been hard for Robert and for Samuel. But in the end, Samuel chose the Union we all here say we revere today, and he chose the side that ended, rather than sought to protect and preserve mass slavery and it's evils, Lee chose the later. AND IT IS ONLY LEE WHO IS MONUMENTALIZED IN THE SOUTH. What does that tell you about the purpose and function of these monuments? They are not about Virginian or Southern history, in fact the history of people like Samuel Lee is what is 'erased,' they are tributes to the Confederacy.
 

I don't think you can separate how one fights from what one fights for. For example, a polite Nazi commander who followed the Geneva Convention is still, through his efforts, furthering the horrible aims of his Nazi leaders. Likewise for a slaver like Lee.

This is another reason why Brett and other's 'erasing history' line is so profoundly stupid. Defenders of Lee are the ones that would like to erase a section of the history of Lee and instead focus only on his 'battlefield manners' while erasing what we, and he, know he was fighting for.
 

SPAM once again speaketh with many-tined tongue. Me thinketh that SPAM is concerned that the Bundy Bros. are monitoring Spam's comments.

SPAM's:

"I defended General Kelly's point that the Civil War represented a failure of compromise, which it surely did."

is a defense of the indefensible as many have pointed out. Perhaps Kelly could have pointed to during his own military career on military events that represented a failure of compromise. For example, what were such failures, if any, on the part of America's C-I-C, Congress, Generals?

 

This comment has been removed by the author.
 

Mr. W: As usual, Bart only takes into account the well being and liberty of white people.

Why are you incapable of having a reasoned discussion without slandering your correspondents?

Why is Lee's decision to join the Confederacy and make it's military stronger, prolonging the conflict, more noble than the decision of his family members and co-Virginians who decided to fight for the Union?

No one here ever made that claim.

Again, one can understand how Lee made his decision. It's hard to do the right thing. I can understand why many Germans in Nazi Germany joined the German army and fought in their wars of conquest, heck I can understand why some of them became concentration camp guards (to feed their family, because everyone else around them was saying it was ok or necessary).

Lee joined the Confederate Army to defend his home in a civil war, not to conquer Canada. The comparison of Lee to concentration camp guards is yet another slander.

The point is, these are not the people we should designate as *heroes* and monumentalize.

Strawman. We are not discussing rebel monuments. I was discussing war as the failure of political compromise and then Lee's reason for returning to Virginia.

 

Yes, there are various complications, and Brett's focus on the right to leave is a bit too simplistic. I'm not sure if the issue there is complications or wanting different simple arguments.

Those who fought for the Union had mixed motives but it is agreed that slavery was the basic cause of the war. This matters since our own nation is based on the principles of the Declaration of Independence, including the theory that for just causes, there is a right to revolution. Not for any reason at all. A nation is an interconnected whole and like marriage at the time, a "divorce" could not occur without certain reasons & even then there was a process involved. Just seizing assets etc. wasn't the way to go (ala the forts).

Slavery protection because the wrong group won after a fair election is not legitimate grounds there. If the South rebelled because the North were tyrants and/or Lincoln came into power via military coup, it might taking everything into consideration be legitimate for them to rebel. But, that didn't happen. Lincoln et. al. rightly believed that the rebellion was wrong and Art. IV kicked in:

"a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened), against domestic violence"

The people in the North very well might not have fought as diligently against the South if something else happened. They repeatedly compromised to try to avoid conflict as is. So, things are a tad more complicated, yes. The motives of the rebellion mattered there. There was always a strong anti-slavery component to those who fought the war & that grew over time. Plus, the basic injustice of rebelling for the reasons granted. Cf. Vietnam to WWII in that sense. People didn't just support equally any old war because the government said it was right. The effort required in the Civil War especially required good reasons, not any old thing.

Mr. W. is correct in respect to judging Lee. As to the other side, the complications are factored in when judging people history judged more positively. Things are taken as a whole there. Some of Brett's comments about Lincoln and the North at times warrant taking some of the history is complication lesson stuff a bit more seriously.