Opportunity to see civil war history

Moonstruck said:

I can see how you can think that, but there were extenuating circumstances. You see both Grant and Sherman were fighters. Grant loved Sherman and sent him through Georgia on a scorched earth policy. It was really a form of unrestricted warfare. Grant and Sherman wanted the civilian population to suffer so horribly that they would cry for surrender. Back then there were no "rules of engagement" so to speak.

When Sherman left Chattanooga to head for Atlanta there were a few skirmishes along the way. Then he laid siege to Atlanta, captured it, and burned the whole city. That's when he started his infamous march to the sea through Georgia. Their policy was to loot the homes of all valuables, steal the live stock, and burn the crops in the field. They even burned several homes. The point was that they would starve the population into submission. Sherman did this all the way through Macon and on to Savannah. He reached Savannah by Christmas. He was so taken with the beauty of the city that he ordered it not be burned. He set up his headquarters on one of the beautiful squares, and sent a message to President Lincoln. It said something like Mr. President I give you Savannah for Christmas.

Then Sherman left Savannah heading into the Carolinas with the same policy. That's when the 5th GA Cav took off after his army. So, you see many, many of the Southern troops had nothing to go home to but what was left of family.

I'm not passing judgement on if what Grant and Sherman did was wrong. They were fighters, and wanted to end the war as soon as possible. They were also amazing generals. Robert E. Lee was too much of a gentleman to do something like that, but Grant and Sherman were street fighters---not gentlemen in any way. The South did take some food to feed their troops when above the Mason-Dixon Line, but left food for the populace.

I think of Grant and Sherman in the same way of Patton. They loved the fight.

Now, let's go back to the start of the war. Lincoln had McClellan for the Union Army commander. McClellan would not fight for fear of losing. That would ruin his political aspirations. He frustrated Lincoln so badly that Lincoln wanted to fire him. Politically McClellan was the fair haired boy. He had so many political friends that Lincoln dared not fire him. The war was going badly in the East. One of the shining stars for Lincoln was Grant in the West. Grant came down to Nashville then on to Shiloh. Shiloh was a bloody battle with 10,000 casualties in one day. Grant made the South retreat for the first time. Grant went down through Mississippi and prevailed at Vicksburg. Then Lincoln fired McCellan and you know the rest of the story.

Click to expand...

That's all well and good, but the other way to look at this is, your relative committed treason. He was a US citizen, living in the USA but fighting the government. Not a lot different than what we call "terrorists" today.

Did the north "punish the south? Yep, pretty much so. Not a lot different than if you pick a fight with someone and lose.

The war is over and has been for more than 150 years, but unfortunately, some folks are still fighting it. Not with guns, but with attitude and more subtle talk and actions.

WesK said:

The Pyramids and most of the historic buildings in the middle east and Europe were built by slaves.

Click to expand...

Thread hijack alert! I'm going with the, "aliens built the pyramids" theory.

Moonstruck- I really enjoy and appreciate your review of Southern history and the history of the Civil War as it was taught to me and confirmed later as an adult reading historical data and tomes of the war's history by THOSE WHO were there. I'd like to add a small bit of history on General Lee and his family ties along with the philosophy he believed in. Is it true? I will accept is as such pending verification that it is not.
Al-Ketchikan












Your history lesson for the day.............




Robert E Lee was married to George Washington's granddaughter.

Lee worked with Grant during the Mexican-American war and became a
decorated war hero defending this country.
He believed slavery was a great evil and his wife broke the law by
teaching slaves to read and write. After the civil war he worked with Andrew
Johnson's program of reconstruction. He became very popular with the northern
states and the Barracks at West Point were named in his honor in 1962. He was a
great man who served this country his entire life in some form or other.

His memorial is now being called a blight.

No American military veteran should be treated as such. People
keep yelling, "You can't change history." Sadly you can. This is no
better than book burnings.

ISIS tried rewriting history by destroying historical
artifacts. Is that really who we want to emulate?

As they tear down this "blight" keep these few
historical facts in your mind. No military veteran and highly decorated war
hero should ever be treated as such.

This is not Iraq and that is not a statue of Sadam.



IN ADDITION:: Lee was also very torn about the prospect of the
South leaving the Union. His wife's grandfather George Washington was a huge
influence on him. He believed that ultimately, states rights trumped the
federal government and chose to lead the Southern army. His estate, Arlington,
near Washington DC was his home and while away fighting the war, the federal
government demanded that Lee himself pay his taxes in person. He sent his wife
but the money was not accepted from a woman. When he could not pay the taxes,
the government began burying dead Union soldiers on his land. The government is
still burying people there today.



It
is now called Arlington National Cemetery.



DO
THEY WANT TO TEAR THAT UP ALSO ??







Also the Confederate Soldiers buried in Arlington have different shaped tombstones than the Union Soldiers. The Confederate Soldiers tombstones are pointed at the top whereas the Union Soldiers tombstones are rounded. The Confederate Army did not want the Union Soldier's relatives to sit their butts on their Soldier's tombstones....there is a difference...... if you have been there and noticed.

Just saw this, and thought it may apply here. You may think it does or maybe not, but it is a thoughtful presentation.

https://www.ted.com/talks/caitlin_q...nscript?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=so

Al said:

Moonstruck- I really enjoy and appreciate your review of Southern history and the history of the Civil War as it was taught to me and confirmed later as an adult reading historical data and tomes of the war's history by THOSE WHO were there. I'd like to add a small bit of history on General Lee and his family ties along with the philosophy he believed in. Is it true? I will accept is as such pending verification that it is not.
Al-Ketchikan












Your history lesson for the day.............




Robert E Lee was married to George Washington's granddaughter.

Lee worked with Grant during the Mexican-American war and became a
decorated war hero defending this country.
He believed slavery was a great evil and his wife broke the law by
teaching slaves to read and write. After the civil war he worked with Andrew
Johnson's program of reconstruction. He became very popular with the northern
states and the Barracks at West Point were named in his honor in 1962. He was a
great man who served this country his entire life in some form or other.

His memorial is now being called a blight.

No American military veteran should be treated as such. People
keep yelling, "You can't change history." Sadly you can. This is no
better than book burnings.

ISIS tried rewriting history by destroying historical
artifacts. Is that really who we want to emulate?

As they tear down this "blight" keep these few
historical facts in your mind. No military veteran and highly decorated war
hero should ever be treated as such.

This is not Iraq and that is not a statue of Sadam.



IN ADDITION:: Lee was also very torn about the prospect of the
South leaving the Union. His wife's grandfather George Washington was a huge
influence on him. He believed that ultimately, states rights trumped the
federal government and chose to lead the Southern army. His estate, Arlington,
near Washington DC was his home and while away fighting the war, the federal
government demanded that Lee himself pay his taxes in person. He sent his wife
but the money was not accepted from a woman. When he could not pay the taxes,
the government began burying dead Union soldiers on his land. The government is
still burying people there today.



It
is now called Arlington National Cemetery.



DO
THEY WANT TO TEAR THAT UP ALSO ??







Also the Confederate Soldiers buried in Arlington have different shaped tombstones than the Union Soldiers. The Confederate Soldiers tombstones are pointed at the top whereas the Union Soldiers tombstones are rounded. The Confederate Army did not want the Union Soldier's relatives to sit their butts on their Soldier's tombstones....there is a difference...... if you have been there and noticed.

Click to expand...

Another great American general, right up till he went to the other side: Benedict Arnold.

America’s Monument to Its Most Infamous Traitor, Benedict Arnold - Neatorama

Don't mean or want to change the direction, accept this as a sidebar:

Talking about civil war. Somewhere early on this day I read the following, Maybe on the forum-

"Folks keep talking about another civil war. One side has 8 trillion bullets. The other side doesn't know which bathroom to use."

WesK said:

Until certain groups have it changed to suit their political views.

It has been said that a civilization that ignores its history is bound to repeat it. That's something to think about.

Click to expand...

BUMP

Cottontop said:

Lee, Jackson and Davis were enemies of the United States of America.

Click to expand...

WesK said:

That's all well and good, but the other way to look at this is, your relative committed treason. He was a US citizen, living in the USA but fighting the government. Not a lot different than what we call "terrorists" today.

Click to expand...

Interesting turns of phrase.

I expect depends on how one might view the Constitutional question about "the right of secession"...

If one believes one has been granted from the git-go the Constitutional right to secede from the previous Union, being an "enemy" of the U.S.A. or the word "treason" might become irrelevent...

Depends on the eye of the beholder, I expect. Or the pen of the definer.

-Chris

angus99 said:

History is history and the idea that removing statues changes it is nonsense.

Have you considered that the current view of history many embrace was, itself, changed to suit the political views of the early and mid-20th century, when denying equal rights to blacks was taken for granted? It's often been said that the south lost the war, but won the PR battle to interpret it. The idea of the "lost cause" of the confederacy was post-Civil War revisionism -- an invention of southern states in the days of Jim Crow and reinforced during the 50s and 60s desegregation battles. Lee, himself, did not want any statues built to commemorate him, but argued that the war should be put behind us to heal the nation's wounds.

I was raised in the south and believe it should be up to local communities to determine what statues appear in their public squares, particularly those places where people of all races go to receive justice. I can understand why a banner that was used to enslave millions would be offensive to their ancestors, just as a swastika is to others. Finally, the argument that removing -- or relocating -- monuments to those who led an armed insurrection to preserve slavery will lead to removing statues of founders who owned slaves is yet another false equivalence. Washington and Jefferson owned slaves but did not take up arms against the United States. Would you build statues today to commemorate militia leaders that violently seek to overthrow the government?

Click to expand...

The South wasn't trying to take over the United States. They were trying to leave.While the former might be legitimately viewed as treason, I don't know how you call it that in a reprentative democracy when the elected leaders voted to leave.

And, the war was about slavery. But, about other things more important to the north as well. There was no income tax back then. Federal revenue came through tariffs, 75 per cent of which were generated in southern ports. The north simply could not afford financially to let the South leave.Taking all of that together, the Civil War was over money and power, like just about every other war before or since.

And, I think it has been well proven at this point, that forcing people to stay in a Union that they didn't want to be in by killing a few hundred thousand of them, is not exactly the greatest recipe for a United country. You can make someone submit to just about anything with enough physical force, but it doesn't mean you are going to make them like it. And, if you think it is strange that the South still holds a grudge, go visit some defeated and conquered people in other countries and see how long those feelings can last.

ranger42c said:

Interesting turns of phrase.

I expect depends on how one might view the Constitutional question about "the right of secession"...

If one believes one has been granted from the git-go the Constitutional right to secede from the previous Union, being an "enemy" of the U.S.A. or the word "treason" might become irrelevent...

Depends on the eye of the beholder, I expect. Or the pen of the definer.

-Chris

Click to expand...

The winners of a war always get to write the history. Read old Soviet history on why they were justified in conquering half of Europe post WW2. They made their case well.

Group9 said:

The South wasn't trying to take over the United States. They were trying to leave.While the former might be legitimately viewed as treason, I don't know how you call it that in a reprentative democracy when the elected leaders voted to leave.

And, the war was about slavery. But, about other things more important to the north as well. There was no income tax back then. Federal revenue came through tariffs, 75 per cent of which were generated in southern ports. The north simply could not afford financially to let the South leave.Taking all of that together, the Civil War was over money and power, like just about every other war before or since.

And, I think it has been well proven at this point, that forcing people to stay in a Union that they didn't want to be in by killing a few hundred thousand of them, is not exactly the greatest recipe for a United country. You can make someone submit to just about anything with enough physical force, but it doesn't mean you are going to make them like it. And, if you think it is strange that the South still holds a grudge, go visit some defeated and conquered people in other countries and see how long those feelings can last.

Click to expand...

Historians overwhelmingly agree that the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. Below is a discussion among some of them. They discuss the 169 signers of the South Carolina declaration to secede who listed preserving slavery as their major justification. Economics were far down the list.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/bb/military-jan-june11-civilwar_04-12

The Articles of Confederation preceding the Constitution state that the Union is "perpetual" and there is little doubt that the states later ratifying the Constitution's "more perfect union," including the Southern states, failed to understand that. The only time it was tested in the 1800s, the Supreme Court declared secession illegal.

There are also questions about the percentage of Southerners who actually favored immediate secession (many favored a wait and see approach prior to the firing on Sumter). Some estimate that only a slim majority -- and some believe a minority -- favored outright secession prior to the commencement of hostilities. Southern states actually sent 100,000 troops to fight with the Union.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/how-many-southerners-favored-secession.23264/

I must disagree that the winners prevailed in writing the dominant history of the Civil War. There have been competing narratives since the late 1800s but southern revisionists have been by far more successful in promoting their version. The idea that the war was over states rights was ardently promoted and romanticized by, among others, the Daughters of the Confederacy, who published endless books and pamphlets on the myth of the "lost cause." Many of these were taught to school children as a way of rationalizing their elders' actions during the war. We found one in the basement of our old house in Chattanooga and it was pure--but highly effective--propaganda about how well their slaves were treated until the northern aggressors destroyed the south's idyllic way of life.

angus99 said:

Historians overwhelmingly agree that the primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. Below is a discussion among some of them. They discuss the 169 signers of the South Carolina declaration to secede who listed preserving slavery as their major justification. Economics were far down the list.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/bb/military-jan-june11-civilwar_04-12

The Articles of Confederation preceding the Constitution state that the Union is "perpetual" and there is little doubt that the states later ratifying the Constitution's "more perfect union," including the Southern states, failed to understand that. The only time it was tested in the 1800s, the Supreme Court declared secession illegal.

There are also questions about the percentage of Southerners who actually favored immediate secession (many favored a wait and see approach prior to the firing on Sumter). Some estimate that only a slim majority -- and some believe a minority -- favored outright secession prior to the commencement of hostilities. Southern states actually sent 100,000 troops to fight with the Union.

https://civilwartalk.com/threads/how-many-southerners-favored-secession.23264/

I must disagree that the winners prevailed in writing the dominant history of the Civil War. There have been competing narratives since the late 1800s but southern revisionists have been by far more successful in promoting their version. The idea that the war was over states rights was ardently promoted and romanticized by, among others, the Daughters of the Confederacy, who published endless books and pamphlets on the myth of the "lost cause." Many of these were taught to school children as a way of rationalizing their elders' actions during the war. We found one in the basement of our old house in Chattanooga and it was pure--but highly effective--propaganda about how well their slaves were treated until the northern aggressors destroyed the south's idyllic way of life.

Click to expand...

Well, I certainly realize that that is the Yankee viewpoint. It just doesn't get much traction down here. If you are willing to kill enough people in an area, you can always force the rest of the people there to do what you want. But, you can't force them to think what you want.

Do you really think the Constitution would have been ratified, if during the deliberations, one state's representative had stood up and asked, "Well, what happens if we decide this union isn't working for us and we want to leave?" and, the head of the convention answered, "Oh, we will just send troops in, and destroy your towns and property, and keep killing your citizens until they change their mind and want to stay in again."?

You really think anyone would have voluntarily signed up for that program? People who had just gone through that with the British a few years before? I don't.

History was altered in schools in much of the south. In the 50's and 60's, the teaching of US History was that the Civil War was not about slavery but was over States' rights. This was at the same time segregation continued throughout society and NC was one of the more moderate southern states. Well, the truth is that the Civil War was 100% about only one state right and that was the right to own slaves.

Oh and we deluded ourselves with another false premise as we said we had separate but equal. We never had that. So, in 1960, we had the first sit-in strikes in Greensboro. Peaceful demonstrations by blacks just wanting to be able to eat at the same lunch counters as whites. Then 11 years later we had the first court ordered busing as part of desegregation. Gradually some progress made in school integration but little made in other aspects of life.

Once again, people settled into a comfort zone, lying to themselves that the inequalities of race had been solved and that we truly did have equal opportunity within our society.

Now, if racism was truly just a part of our past history and not part of the present then all would have been well perhaps. However, that's not the case. It still exists to an extent that was as a country should be ashamed of. While the great majority of law enforcement does their job properly we had several cases of blacks being murdered by white policemen. We continued with a society where a black man was far more likely to be stopped on the roads, in the same car, in the same neighborhood.

We hadn't learned from the history because we lied to ourselves about the truth of both the history and progress since. A Charlottesville, VA city councilwoman wondered whether the city should discuss removing the confederate statues. She received death threats as a result simply of asking the question.

In 2016, a high school student petitioned the city council which appointed a special commission, which recommended the city could either relocate the Lee statue or transform it with the inclusion of new accurate historical information. The city council voted in February to remove the statue.

However, here's where we find out what the statue truly stands for. Not for history, or historians would have been the ones protesting it's possible removal. No, white supremacists carrying swastika's and waving confederate flags, were the ones marching and yelling vile racist slogans. The opposition to the removal made it clear what they stand for. They made it clear the same attitudes as those embraced by the KKK still exist. They made it clear that racism and bigotry are still very much alive in our society. They made it clear by their actions that the statues are symbols, not just to blacks, but to them of racism and of white supremacy.

There are cities that have relocated statues to historical facilities or areas and put them in place as part of history. However, those who led the protests in Charlottesville weren't viewing them as history but as a sign of white supremacy and a racism they wanted to continue.

We've tried long enough to claim we're not a country that had slaves and continue today with racism and inequality. Now, one who protests peacefully is labeled as unpatriotic and yet those waving confederate flags are not in many places.

Racism and bigotry are at the highest level I'm known during my lifetime. I'm proud to live in South Florida where they are at a minimum compared to my home state and many other areas. We've had politicians who have made hate and bigotry ok again and it's carried over into every level of society. The issues seen in the schools have increased significantly with kids openly saying things now they hid before. We have decided it's ok to hate based on race, ok to hate based on national origin, ok to hate based on religion, ok to hate based on sexual orientation, ok to hate based on ethnicity. We've shown clearly that we don't consider Puerto Ricans equals.

And much of this we do under the label of patriotism. Yet, our country was established based on all men being created equal.

The confederate flag always bothered me. It's holding on to something that should have died a century and half ago. The statues didn't bother me. There are many statues around the country I don't like that have nothing to do with the Civil War. However, they do bother me now. They bother me because the marchers in Charlottesville made it clear what they represent today. They represent the worst of us and our society. They represent groups that still refuse to recognize and treat others as equals. See, it's not those against the statues who have made it clear what they stand for. No, it's those fighting to save them who have done so.

Grant and Lee should be history. However, you saw in Charlottesville what the Lee statue represents and it's very ugly. It's not history. I wish it was. I'm white and not Jewish, but don't dare wave a confederate flag or a swastika in front of me.

I wish this country was truly the one we claim the flag stands for. Until it is, I will continue to fight as much as one man can to make it that. Perhaps I stand no better chance than Don Quixote did but I will continue as in Man of La Mancha with:

To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go
To right the unrightable wrong
To love pure and chaste from afar
To try when your arms are too weary
To reach the unreachable star

This is my quest
To follow that star
No matter how hopeless
No matter how far

To fight for the right
Without question or pause
To be willing to march into Hell
For a heavenly cause

And I know if I'll only be true
To this glorious quest
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest

And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star

I guess it's really inconvenient and awkward when a defeated people just won't stay defeated. But, that's always been the problem with war and killing people to achieve a political end. It usually doesn't fix anything so much as it just postpones it for a while.

Group9 said:

I guess it's really inconvenient and awkward when a defeated people just won't stay defeated. But, that's always been the problem with war and killing people to achieve a political end. It usually doesn't fix anything so much as it just postpones it for a while.

Click to expand...

People who think that way are defeating themselves with mindless devotion to a past that never existed. I've lived in the South for over 50 years . . . many southerners understand that the confederacy was a dead end and have moved on with their lives. Even Lee urged his former followers to put the war behind them and be Americans:

"Madam, don't bring up your sons to detest the United States government. Recollect that we form one country now. Abandon all these local animosities, and make your sons Americans."

angus99 said:

People who think that way are defeating themselves with mindless devotion to a past that never existed. I've lived in the South for over 50 years . . . many southerners understand that the confederacy was a dead end and have moved on with their lives. Even Lee urged his former followers to put the war behind them and be Americans:

"Madam, don't bring up your sons to detest the United States government. Recollect that we form one country now. Abandon all these local animosities, and make your sons Americans."

Click to expand...

.
Robert E. Lee whose statutes are being torn down by the winners who have forgotten about the war and moved on? That Robert E. Lee?
Yeah, that's why we're such a united country right now, with half thinking our President is the greatest thing since canned beer, and the other half thinking he is a crazy devil.

That you can't kill your way to peace and unity, is a lesson that some people never learn.

Group9 said:

.
Robert E. Lee whose statutes are being torn down by the winners who have forgotten about the war and moved on? That Robert E. Lee?
Yeah, that's why we're such a united country right now, with half thinking our President is the greatest thing since canned beer, and the other half thinking he is a crazy devil.

That you can't kill your way to peace and unity, is a lesson that some people never learn.

Click to expand...

Yes, the Robert E. Lee who, in accordance with his own wishes, some local communities have decided to no longer have a statue erected in his honor—often in the most conspicuous public places, like court houses where justice for all is supposed to be dispensed. How, exactly, is it disrespecting Lee to agree to his own publicly stated desire not to have statues commemorating him or the Confederacy?


(FWIW, I think Lee was an honorable man who came to loathe slavery but allowed himself to be caught up in a dishonorable cause that wealthy plantation owners rammed down the throats of the southern states.)

To help understand why statues of Confederate leaders are opposed in many communities, maybe it would be helpful to look at it through the eyes of people whose ancestors were slaves. People who, after the war, were lynched if they were deemed too uppity in their interactions with whites. So how about if I decided to erect statues to Gen. William T. Sherman outside of every courthouse in every town he burned on his march to the sea? Would you sign on to this effort to preserve history?

As for killing your way to peace and unity, I agree with you. Try reading “1861” by Adam Goodheart to see the list of steps that Congress tried to keep the South in the Union before the Confederacy bombarded Fort Sumter. The sticking point, as always, came down to the expansion of slavery.

Quote: B&B ( I'm white and not Jewish, but don't dare wave a confederate flag in front of me. Quote)

I dare-now what?

(I fly the confederate flag on my bow staff)

Al said:

Quote: B&B ( I'm white and not Jewish, but don't dare wave a confederate flag or a swastika in front of me. Quote)

I dare-now what?

Click to expand...

Amazing how proud you seem to be to do so.

And, no, even in person I would do nothing physical to harm you. I don't physically attempt to fight white supremacists, Nazis, racists, or bigots. I just reject their hatred for fellow human beings.

angus99 said:

Yes, the Robert E. Lee who, in accordance with his own wishes, some local communities have decided to no longer have a statue erected in his honor—often in the most conspicuous public places, like court houses where justice for all is supposed to be dispensed. How, exactly, is it disrespecting Lee to agree to his own publicly stated desire not to have statues commemorating him or the Confederacy?

According to historian Jonathan Horn, Lee was often consulted in his lifetime about proposals to erect monuments to Confederate Gen. Stonewall Jackson and others.

In a 1866 letter to fellow Confederate Gen. Thomas L. Rosser, Lee wrote, "As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated, my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt ... would have the effect of ... continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."

Three years later, Lee was invited to a meeting of Union and Confederate officers to mark the placing of a memorial honoring those who took part in the battle of Gettysburg.

"I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered," he wrote in a letter declining the invitation.​

(FWIW, I think Lee was an honorable man who came to loathe slavery but allowed himself to be caught up in a dishonorable cause that wealthy plantation owners rammed down the throats of the southern states.)

To help understand why statues of Confederate leaders are opposed in many communities, maybe it would be helpful to look at it through the eyes of people whose ancestors were slaves. People who, after the war, were lynched if they were deemed too uppity in their interactions with whites. So how about if I decided to erect statues to Gen. William T. Sherman outside of every courthouse in every town he burned on his march to the sea? Would you sign on to this effort to preserve history?

As for killing your way to peace and unity, I agree with you. Try reading “1861” by Adam Goodheart to see the list of steps that Congress tried to keep the South in the Union before the Confederacy bombarded Fort Sumter. The sticking point, as always, came down to the expansion of slavery.

Click to expand...

Look, I get that you think the reason I don't agree with you is that you think you know more, have read more, and have thought more, about this than me. I really do.

BandB said:

Amazing how proud you seem to be to do so.

And, no, even in person I would do nothing physical to harm you. I don't physically attempt to fight white supremacists, Nazis, racists, or bigots. I just reject their hatred for fellow human beings.

Click to expand...

The way I roll, reject away!!

Group9 said:

Look, I get that you think the reason I don't agree with you is that you think you know more, have read more, and have thought more, about this than me. I really do.

Click to expand...

Not at all, sir. I respect your right to your opinions. But what’s wrong with having read about, thought about and reconsidered some of the facts behind the myths? It’s easy to be outraged over a statue of Lee being removed or relocated from a public space due to a local community decision until you read what Lee himself thought about statues. In any case, what right do any of us have to tell a particular community what statue they have to keep or discard? We are not talking about desecrating graves or sacred relics . . . they’re statues, many of which were erected in the Jim Crow era to keep blacks in their place. Keeping or losing them should be a community decision.

I have watched many members of my family rethink beliefs about the Confederacy that they grew up with, never questioning. I’ve done so as well. It wasn’t easy to challenge myself on those beliefs but for me it was necessary to go where the truth led. One truth is that the world is changing and the symbols of the Confederacy are being used today by some who are the scum of the earth to promote the vilest possible divisions in our country. Lee would have been the first to oppose this. I also believe that anyone who loves the South or longs for unity—as I believe you do—should protest it.