Army War College may remove Confederate images
Rowan Scarborough at the Washington Times writes that someone had a bright idea to remove images of Confederate Generals like Lee and Jackson from the Army War College,and the idea may spread to other military institutions;
“I do know at least one person has questioned why we would honor individuals who were enemies of the United States Army,” Ms. Kerr said. “There will be a dialogue when we develop the idea of what do we want the hallway to represent.”
She said one faculty member took down the portraits of Gen. Lee and Gen. Jackson, and put them on the floor as part of the inventory process. That gave rise to rumors that the paintings had been removed.
“This person was struck by the fact we have quite a few Confederate images,” she said, adding that the pictures were put back on a 3rd floor hallway.
“He [Gen. Lee] was certainly not good for the nation. This is the guy we faced on the battlefield whose entire purpose in life was to destroy the nation as it was then conceived…This is all part of an informed discussion.”
It is the kind of historical cleansing that could spark a debate Army-wide. Gen. Lee’s portrait adorns the walls of other military installations and government buildings.
Yeah, well, apart from the discussion we could have about the politics that led to the Civil War, we could talk about the things they should be talking about at a place called “The War College” namely “war”. Lee and Jackson knew a little bit about war and rewrote the book on maneuver and the use of artillery, the lessons they taught us are still taught today. Taking down their portraits and tearing down their statues, we might as well erase them from the books, too.
I guess they could replace the pictures and statues of Jackson and Lee with some Union generals like George MacClellan who only provides lessons in regards to what not to do when it comes to modern warfare.
Category: Big Army
Robert E Lee West Point Class of 1829. Stonewall Jackson West Point Class of 1846. I guess they hate West Pointers?
Nah, they don’t hate West Pointers they just hate f#cking traitorous b4stards who take up arms against the United States….
VOV: prior to the Civil War, whether or not a state could withdraw voluntarily from the Union was an open question. And the concept of state sovereignty (and loyalty to one’s state) was much stronger than today. For many, allegiance to their state (and home) came first; allegiance to the “fools in Washington” came second. That might sound a bit familiar even today, actually. And it certainly did in your part of the nation in Dec 1814, as evidenced by the Hartford Convention and a secret mission sent by the Governor of MA to explore a separate peace with Great Britain.
The Civil War definitively settled the secession question. Can you make a case that every Confederate soldier was a traitor? Yes. And yes, the Union could have imposed victor’s justice as you describe.
However, the result would likely have been an ongoing guerilla war in parts of the former Confederacy. And IMO, that conflict would quite possibly still be ongoing today in places – if the US hadn’t come apart at the seams before now and devolved into multiple nations.
As Clausewitz observed, wars are always fought to further a political objective. The political purpose of the Civil War was to restore the Union – not to create an ongoing multi-generational insurrection.
Okay, Hondo, with the number of secessionist movements currently in place in various states, how does that fit into the ‘non secession’ parameter?
While you may think it’s unlikely, stranger things have happened.
@High School Sophomore; The South started abandoning slavery in 1864. The South had black Soldiers. As a matter of fact, unlike the North, the South paid their black Soldiers the same as their white ones. Four slave States stayed in the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation only applied to the slaves in the South. The four slave States that stayed in the Union kept their slaves until 1868. Lee also owned no slaves and there have been rumors that he was an abolitionist as well.
Let me get this straight, the South seceded, the north marched an Army into their states to wage war, to preserve the Union and you call them terrorists VOV? I’m glad the union was saved and all but I sure wouldn’t consider southerners “terrorists” or General Lee a war criminal. Probably the most criminal aspect of the war was Sherman’s march but we sure don’t call him a terrorist (which I suppose his march was all about) or a war criminal. Full discloser, I had numerous ancestors fight on the side of the Union during the civil war.
“The Civil War definitively settled the secession question.”
I beg to differ. Kind of like our currency, our success as a united nation is only as assured as our combined faith in its intrinsic value.
I do not believe this country has another 100 years in it as the country we all here recognize or desire.
Ex-PH2, Jacobite: the Civil War confirmed, relatively emphatically, that a state cannot unilaterally secede from the United States.
In doing this, the Civil War merely confirmed prior historical and legal precedent. This historical precedent is established explicitly in the Articles of Confederation and is also strongly supported by the language of Article 4 of the Constitution.
The Articles of Confederation established a “perpetual” union – e.g., once in, no exit (except, presumably, via mutual agreement). Those who drafted the Constitution presumably knew and accepted this principle. Support for this position is shown by the fact that Article 4, Section 3 of the Constitution provides for a way to admit new states – but provides absolutely no method for a state to leave once admitted. This argues persuasively that the authors of the Constitution envisioned a permanent union without the possibility of unilateral secession. If that were not the case, the method for a state leaving the Union voluntarily would be specified. The Founding Fathers were anything but fools; such an omission is IMO telling.
A state could presumably secede today if that secession was approved via Congress (or perhaps via Constitutional Amendment). But the question of unilateral secession is now considered settled, and has been for the past 148 years. (smile)
Twist: careful. Although Lee owned no slaves in his own name, his wife inherited a rather large number (nearly 200) of slaves on the death of his father-in-law in 1857. They weren’t freed until 1 Jan 1863 (under the terms of his father-in-law’s will, they were to be freed within 5 years of his death).
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2007/06/24/the-private-thoughts-of-robert-e-lee
Thanks, Hondo. The History Channel lied to me (smile). I also read somewhere that the Confederate Constitution gave the States the ability to abolish slavery in their State at any time they decided to.
Twist: depending on when the History Channel documentary you saw was filmed, perhaps not deliberately. The documents on which the 2007 US News article I cited is based weren’t discovered until 2002. Don’t know when the info was first published, but I think it wasn’t much before the US News Article was written.
Regarding abolition in the Confederacty – I’m not sure about that. And even if done, it would have been fairly toothless. The CSA Constitution explicitly recognized slavery and protected it nationwide – see Article IV Section 2(1) and Article IV Section 3(3) here:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States_of_America
From what I’ve read, Robert E. Lee also wanted to see slavery abolished, he was also offered command of the Union Army, but joined the Confederacy because he said he couldn’t force himself to raise his sword against a fellow Virginian. Also, a fair share of Civil War aficionados I’ve known are sure that States’ rights were the main issue as to why the South tried to secede.
Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson both served the in the US Army with distinction prior to the Civil War. Did they make a mistake siding with the Confederacy? Yes they did! Were they traitors? I don’t believe they were. They both resigned their commissions prior to putting on the Confederate uniform and since the stated goal of the Confederacy was independence from the United States of America, it could be argued that by siding with the Confederacy and serving in it’s army, they had voluntarily given up their citizenship and became citizens of another sovereign, all be it short-lived, nation. Perhaps it the War College might consider commissioning new paintings of Lee and Jackson, with them wearing their US Army Uniforms with the ranks they held prior to the Civil War? They could do that with all Confederate officers whose portraits are displayed that served in the US Army prior to the Civil War. I actually think that would be quite appropriate. I would venture to guess that those officers would also find it appropriate as well.
“The Articles of Confederation established a “perpetual” union”
Well Hondo, if you were to have asked any red-blooded Englishman in the early 1700’s by what right the King ruled he would have likely replied it was a divine right.
How exactly did that, or any other legal or philosophical precedent, help England hang on to her American colonies? Oh ya, it didn’t.
I’m not sure about PH, but I’m not talking about whether or not any State would have the right to secede under our current laws, laws are written by victors after all.
The ‘Right of Revolution’ is a legal precedent that can be traced back to our own Declaration of Independence, further back to the Magna Carta, and possibly furthest back, to the Zhou Dynasty in China.
A State most certainly can unilaterally secede from the United States, the real question is whether or not they could do so successfully. THAT is a question answered by arms and political will, not by law.
Historical revisionism in hindsight…. double plus ungood.
They have pictures of the NVA Commander Nguyen Huu An, as well as the Japanese Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto adorning the halls of said war college.
Jacobite: a state can unilaterally declare its intent to secede from the Union. However, until that condition is formally accepted, the secession is not valid.
The Civil War reinforced the existing principle that states may not unilaterally secede from the Union. Successful completion of secession (e.g., formalization of the new state’s independence) requires either acquiescence by the Federal government to the departure or victory in armed conflict.
So far, the latter has been tried – without success – at least once. The former has happened a number of times, albeit with US territories vice states, when the US granted former US territories independence (e.g., Cuba and the Philippines).
@42-Lee was hoping to win a decisive battle against the North on their soil, but he had more concrete goals in the form of taking Harrisburg and moving the strain of providing for his army away from the South by living off Union land. Before Gettysburg, he sent two divisions under Ewell’s II Corps and another under Jubal Early to attack Harrisburg. However, they were unable to occupy it after fighting Union forces entrenched around the city under Darius Couch. Early was going to command a second attack, but Lee ordered him to pull back to the main body of the ANV near the South Mountain Range after he found out he was closer to the Army of the Potomac than he had thought. This action culminated in Gettysburg. I don’t think any of us would disagree that Stuart was grossly egotistical and did not d his duty at Gettysburg. However, I was referring the the broader context of Lee’s campaign. On a fundamental level, it just seems to for failure in hindsight. The difference between ANV and AoP is that AoP always had the forces to take advantage of their victories by occupying territory and establishing supply lines. With that in mind, I still say Lee just didn’t have what it took to fight an extended campaign of set-piece battles on Northern land. He won his battles by fighting defensively on familiar home ground with established logistical routes. It’s worth noting that every time he sacrificed these advantages and headed north, he failed in his goals. His second time on Northern territory, with the Union not knowing exactly where he was, he was able to campaign for about a month. However, the Union had the home team advantage to balance Lee’s genius. Many Union generals were cautious, some like McClellan overly so, but this becomes an advantage in a defensive campaign. All of this meant that the advantages Lee enjoyed in Virginia would have been removed or greatly reduced. His only hope was the complete destruction of the Army of the Potomac. With the Union armies increasingly well-led and… Read more »
Someone has been paying attention in AP American history…
@69-Nah I’m just a big reader of lit on my own time. Can’t take AP US History until junior year 🙂
@63 Tim McVeigh was a decorated veteran as well, but we view him as a terrorist. I doubt anybody is thinking about a picture of him with his medals and uniform for a spot on the War College walls… At their time perhaps state sovereignty was not perfectly established, neither were the rights of blacks or native americans for that matter. It was acceptable to kill the red savages as needed to take their land for expansion of the US. In retrospect we believe that the near genocide of native peoples was probably not our best moment of interaction with those people. But at the time it was acceptable, just because at the time it might have been acceptable to consider seceding, doesn’t make it any more right today than the slaughter of the native american tribes to further our westward expansion. That’s revisionist history perhaps or perhaps it’s a view that what used to be acceptable is no longer so, such as having blacks ride in the back of public transportation. That’s my point, maybe Lee and the rest thought they were doing something acceptable, to me today I disagree. In much the same way I disagree that murdering tens of thousands of native americans was necessary or acceptable. Were their tactics useful as study aids today? Of course they are, so are Rommel’s and Napoleon’s and a host of others. Having their pictures in the war college for that reason is acceptable, but they were no more honored enemies than the current residents of Gitmo. Your enemies are seldom honorable, they are your enemy bent on your destruction until you prevent them from doing so and once prevented you can discuss how to deal with them and what to call them but they remain former enemies and it’s wise not to attribute too much beyond that to those people who for whatever reason thought taking up arms against us is acceptable. F@ck General Lee and the rest of the southern traitors, they attempted to ruin the young nation to maintain a disgusting and reprehensible lifestyle at the expense… Read more »
I am with VOV on this one. There is a fine line between admiring skillful opponents and teaching their lessons to future generations and honoring American heroes. If the with the Confederates holds out, we could put Genghis Khan, Erwin Rommel, or Vasily Zhukov on that wall. After all, they were incredibly skillful warriors, and that last one was even a US ally. I admire Jackson, Longstreet, Forest, Stuart, Lee, and the others as warriors and generals, but honoring them as Americans is a different thing entirely. Nothing changes the fact that their finest hours came fighting the US government for a morally reprehensible cause. Some might say that they stood for what they felt was right, but then so did the SS (though they were far worse than the Confederacy; just pointing out where that path of thought leads). The important thing to remember is that political correctness does have a place. At an acceptable level, it’s just a respect for gender, race, history, etc. I think we treated Lee and his the right way after the war, if only to keep them from becoming martyrs, but the “malice towards none” means that we forgive the South and welcome the Confederates back to the fold if they do not continue rebelling, not that we should venerate their lost cause.
OH, no, Hondo, the secessionist movement I was referring to was not seceding from the USA, but rather one part of a state seceding from the rest of the state, e.g., one part of Colorado wanting to secede from another part of Colorado.
And for that matter, since Puerto Rico is a protectorate and not a state, does PR have the right to withdraw from US protection if it chooses to do so? Creo que ellos pueden votar en las elecciones, pero no tienen representación en el Congreso.
Ex-PH2: residents of Puerto Rico and other US territories (and DC) have nonvoting representatives in Congress. They can vote in Federal elections for these nonvoting officials. They do not have electoral votes, so therefore do not vote for President in any meaningful way.
Historical precedent indicates that a unilateral declaration of independence for Puerto Rico would not be successful. To my knowledge, all previous US territories that have become independent nations have done so via mutual agreement.
@71 and 72: I am sure, after the progressives in this country finally run over our Rights to form that most perfect of socialist workers Paradise, abolishing States’ rights in preference to the centralized power they so desperately want, taking away our freedom of speech and our right to bear arms along with any other rights they don’t like, with pictures of their Beloved Leader on every wall and their mantra sung and chanted at every gathering…they’ll say the same thing about YOU. YOU are the one demanding your inalienable rights. YOU are the one standing in the way of aliens becoming citizens. YOU are the one demanding to keep your paychecks and not have them used for welfare programs. YOU are the traitor, standing in the way of their vision for this country. And if — and very possibly, WHEN — they beat us all the way down to the ground, and force that yoke upon our necks, they will say, as you did above, “F@ck…the traitors…they attempted…to maintain a reprehensible lifestyle at the cost of other humans around them.” Because the winner is always right, isn’t he?
Huge differences between Lee, Jackson, other Confederates and other Generals The US fought. First off they were “Native Americans” who decided that the states they resided in had a right to break away from a Federal Government they considered overeaching.
There is not one documented shred of evidence that Confederate leaders wished to “destroy” The United States. Their objective was to severe the bonds between the Federal Government and states that had seceded. Any military action was done with only that in mind. If the Yankees have sued for peace in 1864 The ANV would not have not continued to advance north, burn Washington, annex Maryland and Pa and execute Lincoln.
HS Sophomore: recognizing skill and ability is not the same thing as approving either a cause or an individual.
Further, an institution that studies only its own past successes is doing little more than patting itself on it’s back. There’s a term for that in current military circles: “self-licking ice cream cone”. It’s not exactly praise.
If your business is war, you study war. And you study those who were successful to learn why and how, regardless of the side on which they fought.
What you don’t do is re-write history to make it conform to your desires. I believe Orwell called that “rectifying” history.
http://www.carlisle.army.mil/banner/article.cfm?id=3289
Just in case anyone has not seen the official statement from the commander of the school. Basically for the TL;DR crowd here, someone acting above their authority took a bunch of pictures of the CSA vs Federals down from a hallway. Happened over a weekend and nobody told somebody about it so when everybody asked there was no answers so somebody went anon to the papers saying the civil war is being re-fought.
Funny how at the beginning of the war President Lincoln was not protecting people(IE slaves) and their freedoms, he was protecting assets(federal property, post offices, etc.) The South even attempted to pay restitution for assets seized when the seceded from the Union. This fell on President Lincolns deaf ears and refused to take monetary payment because he was against the secession(not slavery.) While some can see the South as traitors, it was an attempt similar than the secession of colonial rule during the late 18th century (circa 1770.) Would be ones to call the founding fathers traitors as well?
Additionally, comparing the Native American slaughters to the Civil war is logically flawed. One was an abuse of human rights(the right to live) and the other is an abuse of States rights (the right to secede.) The south may have been treating slaves inhumanely (those that could afford slaves that is.) However, they were not slaughtering them in droves to acquire land or property. The slavery issue was not even a defining factor until 1863 when the Proclamation was announced. Conversely, the Proclamation did not free all slaves anyways; only released slaves in the south(granted there were alot more slaves in the agricultural south than the industrial north, but I digress.) Slave owners in the north were allowed to keep slaves well after the Proclamation. It was a power play to reduce the legitimacy of the CSA as a seperate country.
Additionally, The truth does conquer all things.
Cheers.
@77-I understand and completely agree. All military successes, no matter what cause they were in the service of, should be studied. As has been said, those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it. However, my understanding of this wall is that it is intended to honor good American generals and senior officers who have done their duty well. While many of the Confederacy’s generals are worthy of study, honoring them as great Americans is a different game. IMHO, they have done nothing to be worthy of such an honor. Study, yes. Veneration, no.
@79-there is a fundamental difference between the American Revolution and the ACW. When the 13 colonies rebelled, they had no political representation in London, had never been offered a different choice (to avoid any comparisons to US territories), and they were being occupied by government troops from far away who were forcefully discouraging dissent. As such, the colonies had no meaningful way to solve their problems other than revolution. The South had none of those problems. They rebelled because the nation had democratically elected a leader most of them didn’t like in a free and fair election. That is a completely different animal.
However, I would tend to agree that the secession is not comparable to the Indian Wars for the same reasons as you.
I disagree on slavery as a motive for the war, though. The 13th amendment outlawing it completely was passed in January 1865. The Emancipation Proclamation only affected Southern states in rebellion, but Abraham Lincoln and Congress were always serious about ending it once and for all. I also think it is only half true to say that the ACW was about protecting assets and reestablishing federal authority. It’s a chicken or egg argument. The war was fought to pacify the South and reestablish control, but the south seceded in the first place because they didn’t want slavery abolished. Ergo, I would say the war was very much about slavery and that it was an issue from the beginning.
The Emperor is the duly elected chief executive. If he ought to be impeached for failing to execute the laws faithfully, for failing to uphold the Constitution by, among other things, usurping congressional authority by effectively legislating through regulation and executive order, but the political miscreants in Congress did nothing, and there were a call to arms that was answered, those who answered, I suppose, would be traitorous bastards. Hmmm.
@75-Geez, talk about a red herring argument. So-are you saying that seceding to protect slavery as an institution is NOT a reprehensible cause? The two causes of guarding against an entitlement state and slavery and institutionalized racism are not one and the same.
@82-Except Lincoln didn’t do any of those things. There is a legal process for changing the Constitution. He never did or said he would do anything that was illegal before the South seceded and the war began. The argument here isn’t against revolutions or the concept of armed rebellion against a tyrannical government in general. It’s on a case by case basis. Some reasons to rebel are good; some bad. I believe the Confederacy is in the wrong for the aforementioned reasons and that its leaders should not be venerated. But that’s just me.
@23 Hondo — regarding JEB Stuart, once during the Peninsula Campaign and again during the Maryland Campaign Stuart, with several thousand men, rode around the Union Army. That is what I was referring to. He didn’t “win the battle” but he seriously embarrassed the Union Army and that story was widely printed in Union newspapers. That was probably more valuable. They were fighting the political battle in the minds of people living in the Union homeland. Think about the news stories printed in the US between 1966 and 1972. Regarding JEB Stuart at Gettysburg, I think that Stuart might have been where Lee wanted him to be. On the third day, Stuart attacked the Union at East Cavalry Field and was repulsed by Custer. If that attack had been successful he would have hit the Union flank at Culps Hill. He might have pushed into the rear of the Union forces on Cemetery Ridge. In that case, the Union army, attacked from the front and rear, would have scattered and Lee would have been able to march down the road and threaten Washington. As pointed out elsewhere, Lee never had the material resources to overcome the Union. At the strategic level, his only practical goal was survival. Like all other insurgencies, survival IS winning. That is as true today in Afghanistan and Iraq as it was throughout history. It is true that calling the Civil War an insurgency requires some literary license but look at it this way. If the war ended and the Confederacy existed as a separate country, they won. They didn’t have to win on the battlefield, defeat Grant or any of the other Union generals. If the Union stopped attacking them and made a truce, they won. Is that like WW1 or WW2 or even Vietnam? In order to win Lee didn’t have to win the battles, he merely had to avoid losing the war. The South had convinced the Union electorate that the war was too expensive and not worth fighting, they might have gotten their truce. Winning at Gettysburg would have helped that cause… Read more »
Oh drat. “The South had convinced the Union electorate that the war was too expensive and not worth fighting, they might have gotten their truce” should have said, “IF the South had convinced …”
@22.
If I am not mistaken, back in the old days at the Pentagon, they had a “Hall of Heroes” alcove that listed every Confederate MOH (along with all of the others)with the designation “CSA” besides it.
Now, they could have been the CSA equivalent as you mention, but it seems that I recall somewhere they were recognized as equivalents after the war being that all combatants (or at least most) were US citizens.
As I said, I could be wrong. The Center for Military History at Ft. McNair, if it still there, would know.
@81 I will concede with your point on the ACW vs AR. Different motives, and my point wasnt very well displayed in my posts.
On the slavery, I wasnt saying it wasnt a point for the beginning of the war, I was simply stating that it wasnt the defining point until after the Proclamation. It definitely was an issue but, it was not THE issue, in the beginning at least. The south definitely did not want to lose slavery for a multitude of reasons; one being cheap labor, as well as hands to farm, work, etc. all the while disagreeing that President Lincoln was the man who can skillfully and honorably run the country(while crippling the south with freeing the cheap labor.) [note: it was not free labor as the slaves were paid, albeit small] As with most wars, it was fought over money (or religion but I dont think anyone believes the ACW was because of religion.)
A chicken and the egg argument, indeed it is. 🙂
Personal opinion: I think it quite ridiculous to call those who fought for the south “traitors.” It seems more ad hominem to invoke emotions into the argument. All in all, We all know that slavery is wrong, morally and ethically. To call those traitors because they seceded seems a little harsh or bitter because of the slave issue.
Cheers.
I always like how the North V South thing has never really ended for anyone in the nation…..it never ceases to amuse….by the way MrFace it’s not a logical flaw to compare the forced relocation and massacre of the native americans with the forced relocation and breeding programs of slavery….in both instances inhumanity to a different race was an acceptable part of the lifestyle and culture of the time. Something which we find deplorable in modern times.
As my argument was to the changing of opinion over time as to past behavior being acceptable or not acceptable they are quite similar as an analogous example to my point.
To your point about the revolution, yes the British did indeed feel that the founding fathers and the revolutionaries were traitors to the crown, you know that fact already I assume. Had the crown maintained the colonies the leaders of the revolution would have been treated far differently than General Lee and the rest of the traitors from the south. The south was treated as a whole far differently than the colonies would have been treated under a British victory. There are many documents that make that clear.
Consequently your argument makes my point, the revolution was started by traitors to the crown who won and the civil war was started by traitors to the union who lost….since the winners usually declare the terms and write the history one could argue that it was political correctness as practiced in 1865 kept General Lee from swinging by his neck until dead along with the other traitors. This was done to make the transition back to a unified nation easier, and as is clear from this long thread it’s long term ramifications are still deeply felt by both those in the north and the south more than 140 years after the fact.
Once again my point was to political correctness, it’s always been here, it always will be.
Frankly, I do not agree or like this talk of Confederate Generals being traitors that should have hung. They all resigned their commissions as officers in the U.S. Army prior to taking up arms for the Confederacy. That many of them were innovators and tactically above the curve is beyond dispute. If the Confederate leadership had been hung out of hand at the conclusion of the Civil War, I think we would have a very different country today or maybe not have a country at all.
The question has been posed should our military officers at our advanced warfighting schools learn from those whose personal or political philosophy they might disagree with. I think we would have to agree that skills as a general do not necessarily make one a great human being. We are talking about ability to grasp the operational art, and our officers should be allowed to learn from history, despite the fact that the practitioners may not have been stellar humans.
Political correctness is a bitch. And it takes a toll. We cannot allow it to infringe on our military leaders or we should at least see that they are as shielded from it as possible.
“There is a legal process for changing the Constitution.” I guess I missed that in law school. Thanks.
@90 What if someone resigns their commission and joins AQ? Are they a traitor?
Resigning your commission to fight with the enemy is by definition the act of a traitor. The south was the enemy of the union, period. To pretend otherwise is to pretend that a lie is the truth. If anyone takes arms against their nation they are a traitor, regardless of the motive. To those in the south at the time I have no doubt that their soldiers were freedom fighter to their thinking, I understand that view point. There are many muslims who feel hezbollah and AQ are freedom fighters attempting to rid the holy lands of infidels…
My point is that the south was an enemy to the union, and you are correct that their generals were good at their job and should be studied for being so good at their jobs at a war college.
That makes perfect sense, however their actions do not make them honorable Americans. They wanted to be honorable confederates in a new republic, that is how they should be remembered as men who turned their back on the Union to become the founding fathers of the confederate rebellion.
And once again I must say thank you for providing an intelligent series of posts on this subject matter, I truly enjoy discussing this with all of you.
I hope you know I respect your words and consider their meaning at length, I will review my thoughts on this post for many days and consider where I am wrong in my thinking or in my presentation.
This is an extremely enjoyable conversation for me, a couple of beers and some barbecue would make it perfect.
While they are at it, change the name of Ft. Bragg to…?
So, VOV – you’re willing to declare at least one former Governor of Massachusettes a traitor? As well as most of the delegates to the Hartford Convention in 1814? And many of the legislators of New England during the War of 1812?
After all, at the Hartford Convention, many delegates were openly discussing secession. Many New England states were withholding financial support for the War of 1812. And the Governor of Massachusetts not only refused to provide troops to fight in the war under Federal command, but actually went so far as to contact the British Governor of Nova Scotia in an attempt to make a separate peace.
@95 He should have been hung for acting in such a fashion, traitors are traitors….the larger point was that political correctness and political expediency of the time were used to keep the larger peace.
That’s been my point, political correctness of the time always outweighs what’s accurate under the law even when it changes what has been acceptable to the point of the new policy or change.
If the greater good is served by allowing our former enemies to carry on post conflict unmolested I understand that, it does not however change the definitions or reality of their actions.
Hondo I would call those legislators traitors, that were in Massachusetts does not surprise me at all. This state has a long history of state legislators who commit criminal acts, often without punishment. It still doesn’t make it right.
Breaking the Union would have deprived the world of one the brightest spots in the history of mankind, those who fought against the Union wherever they were from were traitors and enemies. Keeping the Union intact has made not only this nation a stronger, better place but the entire world. Misguided souls who thought to secede or fight against that Union were traitors to that union.
So yes another legislator from Massachusetts and those conventioneers in Hartford were most certainly discussing traitorous acts and engaging in treason against the Union.
UPDATE BREAKING NEWS – NEWPORT, RHODE ISLAND
As “all items, artifacts, nautical thingies, representations, references, documents, history, and notions” of anything related to water were being removed today from the Naval War College, lightning struck and killed all those involved in the decision. Moments later a rouge wave crested over Coasters Harbor Island the location of the Naval War College and the bodies were washed out to sea!
Al Queda is a completely foreign entity with the intent of not only destroying non-islamic culture within the mid-east, but spreading radical islam through-out the world. The Confederacy was about seperating from the U.S.
Why weren’t Confederate leaders and officers jailed or executed? Because it would have ended up causing insurgent warfare to explode throughout the South. The occupation of the South and admission of states back to the Union would have taken much longer and the North had already been worn out by war to the point that the people would not have tolerated another hundred thousand casualties trying to oppress and punish the South. The North was close to calling it quits near election time in 1864. If Lincoln had lost they would have sued for peace. An 1868 Election held with Union Soldiers being ambushed, shot and lynched in the back roads and by-ways of the South by men avenging the murder of their leaders and backed by a hostile populace would have been a disaster for Lincoln’s party.
Lincoln made the correct call by recognizing that Southerners had much more in common than not with the North, and needed to be bought back without retribution.
Um, HS Sophomore . . . you might want to look up Lincoln’s actions regarding suspension of the writ of habeas corpus at the beginning of the Civil War. Federal courts (one headed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, no less, while acting as a circuit judge) ruled that an unlawful exercise of power. Lincoln ignored that decision, and his Attorney General refused to enforce the court’s orders.
Prisoners taken into custody after the first suspensions were released after a few months. However, Lincoln did the same thing again a few months later, in September 1862.
Federal law giving Lincoln the legal authority to suspend habeas corpus didn’t become effective until March 1863. And even that law was questionable; it was later effectively eviscerated by the SCOTUS for areas with a functioning court system in ex parte Milligan, and with respect to US citizens appears to have been invalidated altogether in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Lincoln was IMO our greatest President, but he didn’t always act 100% lawfully. You can argue compelling need, and I’d buy that. But facts remain facts.
richard: regarding Stuart being where Lee wanted him to be: both military tactics of the day and the following argue differently.
http://www.raabcollection.com/robert-e-lee-autograph-jeb-stuart
Lee clearly expected Stuart to be his eyes and ears during the Gettysburg campaign. He wasn’t. He was out seeking glory and publicity (as well as salve for his wounded pride and reputation after the near-debacle at Brandy Station) by trying to “ride around the Union Army” a second time.
I won’t argue that Stuart wasn’t where Lee wanted him on Day 3 of Gettysburg. But the fact is, he was MIA (some would say, AWOL) on Days -6 through 2 of the battle. And it was during that period (Days -6 through 2) that Lee lost his chance for victory at Gettysburg.