U.S war college mulls removing portraits of Confederate Generals....

[pcgeek11]

Not only were they enemies of the state, they were losers. The south lost the war. Some say Grant was inept and owned slaves himself. That Lincoln had to micromanage the war. The south having all the food, the exports, the gentle weather and yet good ol' Abe whooped the traitors ass.

Its like that Twain quote "Why are we honoring this man, have ran out of people!?"

You obviously have never read anything about the Civil War.

 

[cuafpr]

No. Slavery was by far the most important cause of secession. Even a cursory understanding of the history shows this.

no it really wasn't.....

A state had and still has IMO every right to leave the union if desired and its the states land not the fed's so if they go so be it.

as for the paintings they were still US Citizen's after the war and treated as such, some continued to serve while others retired. They should stay up.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

I mean sure Rommel fought for Nazism...

Pretty sure he was never a Nazi, disagreed publicly with Nazi officials, and was forced to commit suicide by the Nazis.

 

[CanOWorms]

The reason Lincoln fought to preserve the union is in 1860 the South produced almost 75 percent of all U.S. exports.

If it wasn't for the money the North and Lincoln would not have given two shits if the south seceded or not.

The South seceded because of the federal government sticking their fingers in the states self determination ( states rights ). A lot like they are now. Yes that did involve slavery plus many other things including taxation ... The actual causes go back to the 1830's or so.

I am not defending slavery in any way shape or form. It was the way it was back then and it is over. But the misconceptions of my Northern Friends is staggering.

That's just PC nonsense.

 

[pcgeek11]

You are retarded.

 

[Nebor]

The war college shouldn't disregard any generals that have displayed excellent leadership, management, planning or staffing, whether they're confederates, Nazis or Russians.

 

[fskimospy]

The war college shouldn't disregard any generals that have displayed excellent leadership, management, planning or staffing, whether they're confederates, Nazis or Russians.

They don't disregard them, there just aren't necessarily paintings hung of them.

 

[fskimospy]

no it really wasn't.....

A state had and still has IMO every right to leave the union if desired and its the states land not the fed's so if they go so be it.

as for the paintings they were still US Citizen's after the war and treated as such, some continued to serve while others retired. They should stay up.

I strongly urge you to read the history behind the civil war from a reputable source. Then go read the ordinances of secession written by the seceding states themselves. You will see that slavery was by far the largest cause.

Also, by settled US law secession is illegal.

 

[Exterous]

Also, by settled US law secession is illegal.

Source? I am not aware of any ruling or law that goes against the 1869 USSC ruling:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States

Its not illegal just really difficult.

 

[fskimospy]

Source? I am not aware of any ruling or law that goes against the 1869 USSC ruling:


Its not illegal just really difficult.

True, I meant secession in the way the south seceded.

 

[nehalem256]

True, I meant secession in the way the south seceded.

Well I believe you argued that Obama could do whatever he wanted until the SCOTUS ruled it to be illegal.

So by that logic the South could succeed until 1869 when the SCOTUS ruled it to be illegal.

So long as no successionist acts were committed after 1869 logically neither Jackson nor Lee were traitors ()

 

[fskimospy]

Well I believe you argued that Obama could do whatever he wanted until the SCOTUS ruled it to be illegal.

So by that logic the South could succeed until 1869 when the SCOTUS ruled it to be illegal.

So long as no successionist acts were committed after 1869 logically neither Jackson nor Lee were traitors ()

They did do whatever they wanted, and they paid the price.

Also, it's 'secede', not 'succeed'. Idiot.

 

[nehalem256]

They did do whatever they wanted, and they paid the price.

Obviously the south did pay a price.

However, by your own logic, they would only be traitors if the continued seceding after the SCOTUS ruled it to be unconstitutional.

 

[fskimospy]

Obviously the south did pay a price.

However, by your own logic, they would only be traitors if the continued seceding after the SCOTUS ruled it to be unconstitutional.

Your ignorance of the law is truly staggering. If Obama acts until it is determined to be illegal/unconstitutional that doesn't mean that only his actions going forward were illegal or unconstitutional, it means his prior actions were too.

Nobody is this stupid.

 

[Nintendesert]

I'm not a huge fan of all that Southern pride shit, but if we as a nation decided to reconcile after the Civil War then we have to accept the South back along with its fighters and move forward as a reunified nation.

I think their portraits should be hung as a reminder for every officer coming through that no matter how great you are if you fuck with the Federal government they will grind you to dust.

 

[schmuckley]

Would you rather have Sherman there?
He was very successful.
(at raping,looting,burning,and pillaging civilians.)
Lee fought and won some very large and difficult battles;against soldiers, even.

 

[berzerker60]

If anyone wants to read what professional historians actually read/believe about the causes of the Civil War (ie that it was absolutely about slavery), grab one or more of the books from the appropriate section of the following pages:

http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files...ory/pdf/gradstudents/Sarah_Nytroe_19th-c..pdf
http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files...ory/pdf/gradstudents/Malanson_American_Hi.pdf
http://www.bc.edu/content/dam/files/schools/cas_sites/history/pdf/Delahanty-Quigley_Ph.pdf
http://history.rutgers.edu/component/docman/doc_download/683-readings-in-american-history-ii

These are lists of books PhD students in American history have to read before their oral exams prior to writing their dissertations. You could find plenty more by googling 'orals list american history' in case you think these are somehow selective. This is also generally a good way to figure out which history books are actually respected by experts in any history field, by the way.

Go a little further into the 'Reconstruction' sections (especially the book by Foner, which is well written and assigned almost universally among US history PhD programs and in loads of undergrad courses) and you'll see how understanding of the war was purposefully warped to create the myths of the Southern 'Lost Cause' of 'state's rights' narrative that so many people believe today.

 

[Nebor]

They don't disregard them, there just aren't necessarily paintings hung of them.

How could you learn about them without paintings?

 

[Remobz]

I'm not a huge fan of all that Southern pride shit, but if we as a nation decided to reconcile after the Civil War then we have to accept the South back along with its fighters and move forward as a reunified nation.

I think their portraits should be hung as a reminder for every officer coming through that no matter how great you are if you fuck with the Federal government they will grind you to dust.

I never understood that Southern pride thing either. They lost the war so shut up and move on please!

 

[CanOWorms]

I never understood that Southern pride thing either. They lost the war so shut up and move on please!

A lot of it is related to white supremacy. They've been coddled with political correctness for so long that it's hard for them to accept defeat.

 

[her209]

Considering Lee and Jackson are known for their 'superior war/battlefield tactics' as enemies of the United States, by your logic we should have a painting of Rommel up there. Maybe Marshal Zhukov or Atilla the Hun. I mean sure Rommel fought for Nazism, Zhukov was a butcher, and Atilla the Hun was one of the most notorious slaughterers in world history, but we wouldn't want to honor people on some PC based criteria.

I love how choosing not to honor traitors who fought for a country dedicated to the cause of preserving mass, race based human enslavement is 'politically correct'. How about we just call it 'not being shitty'.

What about Pol Pot? It takes leadership to lead people to eliminate 25% of your country's own population.

 

[Sunburn74]

A state had and still has IMO every right to leave the union if desired and its the states land not the fed's so if they go so be it.

I'm not really sure this is true...

Regarding the topic on hand, I favor taking the portraits down. Those men fought violently against the ideals we consider critical to our understanding of a modern united states. Many of these ideals revolved around fundamental human rights. I don't see any value in glorifying such a person.

 

[Victorian Gray]

How could you learn about them without paintings?

Ever heard of something called a history book?

 

[lotus503]

Is this fair to alter history and so late?

removing a monument doesn't alter history.