US Army War College Considers Removing Paintings of Lee & Jackson and that is a good thing.

[silenus]

Of course. Lincoln lied all the time.

[QUOTE=Capt Kirk]
So the guy who only declines an offer to lead the Union Armies only when he knows that he has to invade his home State,

Goes through the process, during the war, of Manumission and frees all of his recently inherited slaves,

Educates those same slaves, which is against Virginia law,

Refuses to conduct guerrilla warfare when ordered to by Jeff Davis,

Repeatedly reminds his fellow combatants that they are back in the Union and urges them to act as such after the War,

Brings Northern students to Washington College(Washington and Lee University) to foster harmony,

Vocally advocates for the education of Black Americans(though sadly not the right to vote, yet),

That Man is worth of our praise and adoration, he helped heal a Nation broken by Civil War, was a brilliant tactician and an honest a forthright Gentleman.

Bless you Robert E. Lee, may you rest in peace, your Nation thanks you (not the cause you fought for)

We have a statue in the Capitol of you BTW
[/QUOTE]

Who killed more American soldiers than any other general in history. That kinda outweighs anything else you could put on the scale.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Nitpick: the US lost far more men in the European WWII theater than in the Civil War, particularly when you consider that most Civil War deaths were not from battle wounds.

[madmonk28]

@LinusK

Except, of course, that Lincoln said it was not.

Was he lying?

Can you provide the quote to which you are referring?

[Bridget_Burke]

@LinusK

Except, of course, that Lincoln said it was not.

Was he lying?

From Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it… Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

(Really, it’s worthwhile to read the whole thing.)

[lance_strongarm]

@LinusK

Anytime you use modern paradigms rather than trying to understand history from the point of view of the people who lived it you risk misunderstanding what actually happened.

I consider this a dodge to the question. Tell us what the difference is between a Nazi turncoat and a Confederate one, if you think there is a difference. What “actually happened?”

And WWII ended 68 years ago, it’s not quite a “modern” paradigm.

[ElvisL1ves]

@LinusK

Except, of course, that Lincoln said it was not.

He did? When/where?

And was Stephens lying?

[lance_strongarm]

Ah, we’re on the “what was the Civil War about?” thing.

The problem with that question is that it is state wrong. Different parties - states, commanders, individual soldiers - have different reasons for fighting a war.

Lincoln didn’t wage war just to free the slaves, at least not at first. Most Northern soldiers didn’t sign up to die just to free some negroes they’d never met either. For most Northerners, the war was about preserving the union and keeping their country from becoming small and weak and vulnerable to foreign takeover, which was still a very real concern in those days.

Though the North didn’t fight primarily to end slavery, that doesn’t mean that the South didn’t fight to preserve it. The evidence is overwhelming and clear that the southern states seceded, and fought to preserve their new Confederacy, primarily to keep slavery. Period.

Again, that doesn’t mean every southern commander or soldier was on a crusade for slavery. But it was the South’s cause. It was the reason for the Confederacy’s existence.

[lance_strongarm]

@Bridget_Burke

From Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address.

Yes, by this time Lincoln felt confident in invoking the end of slavery as a goal of the war. He was, after all, an abolitionist. But he would have preferred to keep slavery around for a long time rather than break up the Union or fight a war to keep it whole. His own plan called for gradual emancipation that wouldn’t have fully ended slavery until 1950. He famously said, in an 1862 letter, that he would pick preserving the Union over freeing the slaves:

"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. "

Lincoln understood that if the Confederacy went on its own, it would end any chance to free its slaves anyway. And it would weaken the North and it’s ability to resist foreign powers - the British were just to our north in Canada and would have loved to take their colony back, the French had just taken over Mexico and might want California back, or more, etc.

[Human_Action]

He was also correct to note, in his first inaugural address:

If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new Union, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

In addition to foreign threats to the new, smaller Union, allowing the secession of the Confederacy to stand unopposed as a precedent would lead to more secessions, from both the Union and Confederacy, to the ruin of all.

[Kobal2]

Wait, Lincoln himself did the slippery slope thing ?

[Human_Action]

@Kobal2

Wait, Lincoln himself did the slippery slope thing ?

Yep. Remember, it’s only a fallacy if it ignores the possibility of a middle ground, or assumes that the transition from A to B is inevitable once A occurs without proving this to be so.

In this case, it wasn’t a fallacy. Even if the Union passed an anti-secession amendment, secession being fairly extralegal by its nature, if there was a precedent that the Union wouldn’t go to war to stop secessions, they would still occur.

[ElvisL1ves]

True. F’rinstance, New York mayor Fernando Wood proposed that the city should secede from both the state and the country, and become a free port for cotton shipments.

[lance_strongarm]

@ElvisL1ves

True. F’rinstance, New York mayor Fernando Wood proposed that the city should secede from both the state and the country, and become a free port for cotton shipments.

And France took over Mexico in 1863, while the British were expanding Canada west. The Europeans hadn’t given up on North America yet.

[Human_Action]

Don’t let 'em fool you, they still haven’t.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

The British Empire shall rise again!

[ElvisL1ves]

@zoid

Keep the portraits up and either drape them over with black cloth or turn them to face the wall.

Put them in time-out until they’ve learned their lesson? I think we’re beyond that point.

[lance_strongarm]

Is it too late to let Britain have South Carolina back? They can have it.

[Kobal2]

If you’re going to let the Brits have South Carolina, then by the same token you gotta let us French have Louisiana and Flor… on second thought, never you mind. Carry on.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

It would be pretty awesome to have Prisunic instead of Publix. Also, everyone smoking Rizlas and drinking wine.

[ElvisL1ves]

I thought it was Gitanes and absinthe. Or am I a couple of generations behind?