Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > World History Forum > American History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

American History American History Forum - United States, Canada, Mexico, Central and South America


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old July 12th, 2018, 11:53 AM   #61

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,266

Quote:
Originally Posted by frogsofwar View Post
They were Americans again after the war. Not only was amnesty granted, but Lee himself was instrumental in getting Confederates to accept defeat.

I can only imagine if Great Briton was still carrying the torch 150 years after the American Revolution. Thankfully, they did not, and there is a statue of George Washington in Trafalgar Square. A statue of one of the most successfull traitors in British history stands in the shrine of Britain's greatest naval hero.

Like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, George Washington was a white, slave-owning racist who betrayed his country. Except Lee was probably a better general than Washington, and Jackson certainly was.
The rebels in the American Revolution did commit treason. All rebels do, since no government permits armed insurrection against itself. The only thing that matters, other than whether or not a rebellion succeeds, is whether the rebellion was morally justified. The Confederate insurrection not only failed but was the single worst cause any American ever went to war for.

Washington was a slave owner but his war was not about slavery. He wasn't involved in a rebellion to found a slave republic, as slavery would not be outlawed across the British Empire until 1833, 50 years after the United States gained independence and three decades after Washington's death. His rebellion was also not against the United States, and he did not fight against the U.S. Army.

Whatever statues Brits put up on Trafalgar Square is irrelevant to whether or not U.S. Army bases should be named for Confederate generals who were responsible for the deaths of U.S. Army soldiers in their failed attempt to found a slave republic on United States territory.
Scaeva is offline  
Remove Ads
Old July 12th, 2018, 12:02 PM   #62

frogsofwar's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: May 2018
From: Michigan
Posts: 80

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
The rebels in the American Revolution did commit treason. All rebels do, since no government permits armed insurrection against itself. The only thing that matters, other than whether or not a rebellion succeeds, is whether the rebellion was morally justified. The Confederate insurrection not only failed but was the single worst cause any American ever went to war for.

Washington was a slave owner but his war was not about slavery. He wasn't involved in a rebellion to found a slave republic, as slavery would not be outlawed across the British Empire until 1833, 50 years after the United States gained independence and three decades after Washington's death. His rebellion was also not against the United States, and he did not fight against the U.S. Army.

Whatever statues Brits put up on Trafalgar Square is irrelevant to whether or not U.S. Army bases should be named for Confederate generals who were responsible for the deaths of U.S. Army soldiers in their failed attempt to found a slave republic on United States territory.
The people who actually put down that revolution felt differently. While your opinion regarding former Confederates is valid, I'm inclined to offer the same goodwill as the actual U.S. Army Soldiers who faced the Confederacy in battle. Such as Chamberlain's salute at Appomattox.

But I'm sure your feelings regarding former Confederates are more valid than those who actually shed blood fighting them.
frogsofwar is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 12:09 PM   #63

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,266

Quote:
Originally Posted by frogsofwar View Post
The people who actually put down that revolution felt differently. While your opinion regarding former Confederates is valid, I'm inclined to offer the same goodwill as the actual U.S. Army Soldiers who faced the Confederacy in battle. Such as Chamberlain's salute at Appomattox.

But I'm sure your feelings regarding former Confederates are more valid than those who actually shed blood fighting them.
Firstly, your argument is based on the appeal to authority fallacy. Furthermore it is not supported by fact.

Some Union veterans might have had conciliatory attitudes toward their former foes, or didn't mind Confederate monuments, but certainly not all. Elijah Hunt Rhodes, the Union veteran I quoted earlier in the thread, was not too thrilled about the Confederate monuments he saw.

When the memorialization of the Gettysburg battlefield began in the late 1800s, many Union veterans were quite vehemently opposed to monuments of Confederate regiments being erected there. It wasn't until the 20th Century that most of the Confederate monuments went up in part because of that opposition. The GAR (Grand Army of the Republic), a politically influential fraternal organization for Union veterans, even opposed the decoration of Confederate graves at Arlington. Union veterans, like any other very large group of people, were not a monolithic entity that shared a single opinion.

Opposition to Confederate monuments is not modern.

Last edited by Scaeva; July 12th, 2018 at 12:31 PM.
Scaeva is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 01:21 PM   #64

frogsofwar's Avatar
Academician
 
Joined: May 2018
From: Michigan
Posts: 80

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
Firstly, your argument is based on the appeal to authority fallacy. Furthermore it is not supported by fact.

Some Union veterans might have had conciliatory attitudes toward their former foes, or didn't mind Confederate monuments, but certainly not all. Elijah Hunt Rhodes, the Union veteran I quoted earlier in the thread, was not too thrilled about the Confederate monuments he saw.

When the memorialization of the Gettysburg battlefield began in the late 1800s, many Union veterans were quite vehemently opposed to monuments of Confederate regiments being erected there. It wasn't until the 20th Century that most of the Confederate monuments went up in part because of that opposition. The GAR (Grand Army of the Republic), a politically influential fraternal organization for Union veterans, even opposed the decoration of Confederate graves at Arlington. Union veterans, like any other very large group of people, were not a monolithic entity that shared a single opinion.

Opposition to Confederate monuments is not modern.
You are wrong: the Union and Confederate veterans who met on the anniversary of Gettysburg were quite conciliatory. There is surviving footage of them hugging and crying, some of which was shown in the Ken Burns documentary. If they can get over it, so can you.

Further, the Union veterans who were not conciliatory were part of the problem: Lincoln's plan for reconciliation was ruined by the Radical Republicans.

You claim appeal to authority, then appeal to the authority of Elijah Hunt Rhodes. I recommend avoiding the fallacies you accuse others of.

If a town, county or state wants a monument to Robert E. Lee, let the people who will actually live with the statue/memorial/monument decide. If people in LA want a statue honoring Harvey Milk or Jane Fonda, the residents of Mobile, Alabama don't really rate a substantive "say" in the matter.
frogsofwar is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 02:52 PM   #65
Historian
 
Joined: Apr 2017
From: Las Vegas, NV USA
Posts: 1,896

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scaeva View Post
I'd say they were Americans but only because the Confederacy lost. The civil war was after all an attempt to secede from the United States and found a new country.
I'm no friend of the former confederacy, but its official name was The Confederate States of America.
stevev is online now  
Old July 12th, 2018, 05:38 PM   #66

Scaeva's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,266

Quote:
Originally Posted by frogsofwar View Post
You are wrong: the Union and Confederate veterans who met on the anniversary of Gettysburg were quite conciliatory. There is surviving footage of them hugging and crying, some of which was shown in the Ken Burns documentary. If they can get over it, so can you.
I never suggested Union veterans were a monolithic group with a single opinion. You did.

You're also making that mistake with the mention of the reunion at Gettysburg, as if it somehow refutes that there was opposition to Confederate memorials at Gettysburg or that the GAR opposed decoration of Confederate graves at Arlington. The Gettysburg reunion is another example of how the opinions of surviving veterans weren't uniform. While many elderly veterans from both sides did meet and shake hands on the Gettysburg battlefield, others (north & south) refused to attend and voiced discontent in newspaper editorials or veterans periodicals. There was at least one physical altercation as well at Gettysburg between elderly Union and Confederate veterans.

The notion that the veterans of both sides uniformly forgot "the late unpleasantness" and embraced their former enemies is patriotic myth.

Quote:
Further, the Union veterans who were not conciliatory were part of the problem: Lincoln's plan for reconciliation was ruined by the Radical Republicans.
Reconstruction failed not because of the radical Republicans, but because white supremacists in the south vehemently opposed the freedmen being given equal rights as citizens, often violently, and because many white northerners were more than willing to throw the freedmen under the bus for the sake of national reconciliation. Racism and conciliatory attitudes were the problem.


Quote:
You claim appeal to authority, then appeal to the authority of Elijah Hunt Rhodes. I recommend avoiding the fallacies you accuse others of.
I did no such thing. You've gone from Appeal to Authority to the Strawman fallacy.

I presented EH Rhodes as an example of how objection to Confederate monuments was not entirely modern, and nothing more.


Quote:
If a town, county or state wants a monument to Robert E. Lee, let the people who will actually live with the statue/memorial/monument decide. If people in LA want a statue honoring Harvey Milk or Jane Fonda, the residents of Mobile, Alabama don't really rate a substantive "say" in the matter.
Are we still discussing military bases? Local people should have no say in the naming of military bases, since those bases are homes to people from all over the country, not recruits from the town outside the gates.

A U.S. Army base being named for someone like Stonewall Jackson is fairly ridiculous when Jackson was an enemy of the United States Army, and was responsible for the deaths of thousands of U.S. Army soldiers. Furthermore he's hardly a role model for soldiers who ancestors might have fought against him, or African-American soldiers whose ancestors Jackson was fighting to keep enslaved.

If we're discussing Confederate memorials in general I agree that the local people should determine whether or not they want them. That is why Confederate memorials are now being taken down across some parts in the south. The locals are deciding that the statues no longer reflect their values, and the manufactured "outrage" is coming from people who live outside the communities where the statues were erected. (see New Orleans)

Last edited by Scaeva; July 12th, 2018 at 05:50 PM.
Scaeva is offline  
Old July 12th, 2018, 08:51 PM   #67

Pruitt's Avatar
Scholar
 
Joined: Sep 2012
From: Spring, Texas
Posts: 782

Not all Union Army veterans disliked the South. My GrandDad's Grandfather was a Union Army Veteran that not only settled in Virginia, he married a local Irish girl! His name was Heywood and came from New York. Lots of Southern family trees have a Yankee skeleton hanging from them.



Pruitt
Pruitt is offline  
Old July 13th, 2018, 12:18 AM   #68
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Here
Posts: 4,321
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by frogsofwar View Post
You are wrong: the Union and Confederate veterans who met on the anniversary of Gettysburg were quite conciliatory. There is surviving footage of them hugging and crying, some of which was shown in the Ken Burns documentary.
Thinking that the Union veterans at the Gettysburg reunion get the last word on the monuments is ridiculous. There were about 40,000 Union vets there. There were 350,000 U.S. soldiers in their graves by the end of the war. How many of the widows and children of the dead men did you consult on their feelings about the monuments? Did you hold a huge seance to find out how all the dead soldiers felt? There is no reason that small number of those remaining vets should stop anyone from stopping this neo-confederate nonsense. That's as ridiculous as claiming that we should keep Confederate statues up because the British have one to George Washington. Why should we care what the British do? Even George Washington thought the British could be wrong now and then. :-)

Reconciliation ("let's put this behind this") and making heroes out of those that started and led the war are two different things. And neo-Confederates spouting this nonsense are dishonest. Where is the calls for monuments of praise to James Longstreet? Why aren't the statue lovers eager to reconcile with him? Oh, that's right. They didn't like his post-war politics so they denied his contribution to the Confederate cause. What a bunch of hypocrites.

Quote:
If a town, county or state wants a monument to Robert E. Lee, let the people who will actually live with the statue/memorial/monument decide. If people in LA want a statue honoring Harvey Milk or Jane Fonda, the residents of Mobile, Alabama don't really rate a substantive "say" in the matter.
No one is arguing against that. Three years ago the school board of Jacksonville, Fl where I live renamed Nathan Bedford Forrest High School" to "Westside High School." That is how its being done, by changing public opinion by educating people on what the Confederacy was really about.

Quote:
If they can get over it, so can you.
The statues are already coming down just like the Confederate flag has been removed from nearly every ex-Confederate state's state flag. And it is not going to stop there. More and more they will be disappearing, new ones will not be going up. The same thing will eventually happen to military bases and ships.

It is you who is going to have to "get over it."

Last edited by Jax Historian; July 13th, 2018 at 12:23 AM.
Jax Historian is offline  
Old July 13th, 2018, 12:24 AM   #69
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: Here
Posts: 4,321
Blog Entries: 9

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pruitt View Post
Not all Union Army veterans disliked the South. My GrandDad's Grandfather was a Union Army Veteran that not only settled in Virginia, he married a local Irish girl! His name was Heywood and came from New York. Lots of Southern family trees have a Yankee skeleton hanging from them.
Even Sherman didn't dislike the South. So what?
Jax Historian is offline  
Old July 13th, 2018, 03:39 AM   #70

Triceratops's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Dec 2011
From: Late Cretaceous
Posts: 2,744
Blog Entries: 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dentatus View Post
Took a number of German officers with her I understand, as well as the gates to the only Atlantic Coast dry dock that could hold the Tirpitz.

Oh, I missed USS Ingraham DD111, and possibly some others. Of course most of these men served with distinction in the US Navy prior to 1860.

Oddly, I also forgot USS Robert E Lee (SSBN601) USS Stonewall Jackson (SSBN634) and USS Dixon (AS37).

Thanks again, Dentatus
Triceratops is offline  
Reply

  Historum > World History Forum > American History

Tags
army, bases, baseswtf



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
US worlwide network of military bases and other powers Frank81 War and Military History 3 October 8th, 2016 01:10 PM
Hello - Polish bases 10 and 11 Italy - also Stanmore leonie New Users 0 May 15th, 2016 06:06 AM
What if Germany made bases in Afghanistan pre WW2? Matiullah Speculative History 8 January 4th, 2014 04:43 PM
Why does America have so many military bases worldwide? Mohammed the Persian General History 67 February 20th, 2012 02:28 AM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.