Protesters topple Silent Sam Confederate statue at UNC

President Davis biggest mistake according to Gen. Robert E. Lee was ordering Lee's Army of Northern Virginia into Pennsylvania.

England was just about to recognize the sovereignty of the CSA but backed off because now the Confederacy looked like the aggressor.

 

I could impersonate a left winger with ease and argue better than the genuine article.

 

Most of the time, the point can be made without even mentioning left or right.

We could match epithet or epithet--"Neocon," "the right," "fascist," "racist," "war monger" etc.

Influence over leftwingers, the predominant ilk of student? Tell them their ideas are great while having a background that suggests you have a backgound on the other side. I'm not impressed.

 

Lee also goofed with Pickett's Charge.

No, the UK made is absolutely clear it would not recognize the CSA unless it dropped slavery.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_American_Civil_War

 

"Cultural-imperialism" is constipated nonsense.

 

Wikipedia isn't a reliable source and should only be used as a starting point for further research.

About six or so years ago Wikipedia officially adopted cultural-marxism revisionist history.

Example:
Google "philippine insurrection."

What do you see for Wikipedia ?

Go into any public library in America and every freaking book about America's most politically incorrect war ever fought by America says "Philippine Insurrection" not the PC term that some white beard scratching liberal decided it should be called.
https://www.google.com/search?q=phi....69i57j0l5.12012j1j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Yes, the Lincoln administration and the British were talking to each other and Lincoln appeased the British so they wouldn't recognize the CSA.

But who armed the CSA with all of those British muskets ?

Who was supplying the Confederacy with saltpeter so the South could make gunpowder ?

Who built the most famous merchant raider in history the "Sloop of War" the CSS Alabama ?

Who gunned the CSS Alabama ?

Who provided the enlisted sailors to serve on the CSS Alabama ?

ENGLAND did.

Gets better...

Who financed the abolitionist movement in America ? The same people in London who were encouraging the Southern cotton producing states to secede from the Union. English cotton merchants in London.

 

Lincoln had every legal right to suppress the rebellion. He was not invading anything because the South had been, was, and remains part of the United States.

An utterly unimpressive argument.

Who says they get no thanks?

What are you suggesting could have been done? Buy the slaves from slave owners?

 

How important in the history of all mankind is Sherman taking Atlanta when he did?

 

Sherman didn't take Atalanta, he burned Atlanta.
Pretty sure Sherman troops raped more than a few black women as Atlanta burned.

 

Mr.LangleyMan, under the international laws of war, General William Tecumseh Sherman committed war crimes.

More than a few memorials have been erected honoring Gen. Sherman like this one.

As an American and despising Gen. Sherman, I would shed my own blood defending any monument honoring Gen. Sherman from being vandalized or toppled by the leftist taliban.

Sherman is part of America's history and the monuments are art.

 

So?

OMG.

So? The North supplied them with lots of wheat.

You would do well to look at the internal discussion in the UK around slavery.

 

Took, burned, ruined... Sherman conducted a brilliant campaign that culminated in his taking Atlanta.

If you want to study how he did it...

https://www.amazon.com/Sherman-American-B-Liddell-Hart/dp/0306805073/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1535425230&sr=8-4&keywords=sherman​

He was the right guy in the right place at the right time.

 

Try to set aside your biases.

 

I play golf early and listen to Rushbo on the way back from the course.

 

He saved the country by taking Atlanta when he did and helping Lincoln win reelection.

If leftists turned on Sherman it would be over his fighting Native Americans after the Civil War.

The reason to put statues to CSA "heroes" and notables in Civil War museums, in battlefield monuments, and museums is to remind ourselves that taking up arms against this country was wrong. We can forgive, but we should not forget.

Statues of CSA notables should not be vandalized. The perps should be prosecuted.

 

Gen. Sherman established how wars would be fought in the future.
More civilians will be killed in the crossfire of war than soldiers on the battlefield.

The Soviet Union studied Sherman tactics and would adopt Sherman's scorched earth tactics during WW ll, raping, pillaging across Eastern Europe as they advanced upon Berlin.

Are you aware that on August 10th, 1942 that U.S. Marines would no longer take prisoners during combat even if Japs were waving a white flag ?
No prisoners. "KILL or be KILLED"

That the U.S. Army committed more war crimes in the European theatre of war than the German Wehrmacht.

The bombing of Dresden was a war crime.

 

I have no biases against time.


There is a eight year difference between 1861 and 1869.

 

I have no problem with you spending your crumbs on golf greens fees.

I myself spend my crumbs on women. beer, scotch, guns and ammunition.

 

Same with the Democrats and Hillary, Trump won, time to move on and let him do his job.

 

Ever hear of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) ?

 

I don't understand what your second sentence means. Perhaps you haven't heard of Howard Zinn, in which case, we'll have to argue about this later, when I can explain why I asked.

 

Again, I don't see the connection between what I said, and Sherman and Atlanta. It was necessary to keep the Union together, for the reasons I said: we don't live in a world in which we are all Swiss -- as that poor naive couple cycling through Tajikistan found out. So I'm glad that we don't have a half-dozen Switzerlands on the North American continent -- if we did, we might be in the 90th year of the Thousand Year Reich, or some equivalent.

To defeat the South it was necessary to wage war. War is hell. From our armchairs and at a distance of 150 years we can perhaps see how it could have been waged more humanely, but we're in our armchairs because certain men got out of them and did what they thought was necessary at the time.

History, as Engels said, pulls her chariot forward over mountains of human corpses.

 

Hmmmm.... I hate to argue with a Jarhead about the USMC, and I doubt that at any time they acted like the graduate students of the Harvard Department of Social Work [by which mean they were probably much better behaved] , but ... as I read it, the Marines originally did try to take Japanese prisoners, but changed their minds after several of apparently-surrendering prisoners pulled out concealed grenades and killed themselves and their captors.

And the American Army in Europe was less liberal about taking prisoners when they found, after the Battle of the Bulge, executed American soldiers with their hands bound behind their back. It was the SS who did it, but the whole German army got the blame.

In general, if your enemy will surrender, it's much better to let him do so, knowing he'll be treated fairly, so that he doesn't fight to the death and take some of you with him. And S2 usually wants people to interrogate. This is again anecdotal, but during the invasion of Europe, apparently the Wehrmacht soldiers far preferred to surrender to the 'Amis' and the Brits than to, of all things, the Canadians. But I just read that somewhere. As for surrendering to the Russians ...

 

I'm going to assume that you don't actually know anything about Political Correctness, and how it acts to stifle thought and debate.
It's basically the idea that nothing that could hurt the feelings of any designated 'victim group' should be written or said. Some PC types
take this further: no such things should be allowed to be written or said, and if anyone tries to write or say them, they should be suppressed.
This means breaking up meetings on campuses where the PC Left has the power to do so, as has recently happened. Some liberals are
a bit squeamish about doing this, but they will usually go along, and provide apologies for the violent ones.

As for 'disdain for educated thought' ... I wonder if you've read, or even heard about, any of the literally hundreds of conservative thinkers
who have written about economics, society, history ... some of them Nobel Prize winners. I suppose this sounds like I'm insulting you,
but it's a genuine question. For instance, have you ever heard of -- I won't ask if you've read her -- Deirdre McCloskey? Admittedly, she,
formerly he, doesn't describe herself as a conservative, but rather as a 'Christian Libertarian', but most conservatives I hang out with
think highly of her books, even if they're critical of aspects of her thought. Here's a review of one in the conservative Claremont Review of Books.

But maybe we right-wingers are all uneducated. Sometimes I worry that I am. For instance, for the life of me, I cannot understand this
very popular, prominent Leftwing thinker, Judith Butler, described by one leftist professor as "possibly one of the ten smartest people on
the planet." (The following quote is taken from an article by her written in 1999 in the journal Diacritics.)

Perhaps you could explain to this poor old uneducated rightwinger what she means:

I don't "remotely" understand this, and even have .... "rightwing disdain" for it, as just gobbledegook designed to intimidate and impress empty-headed young Lefties, full of themselves about their superior understanding of the world, but actually driven mainly by emotion. But I may be wrong, so as presumably an educated Leftist with no disdain for such educated thought, you could
help me out here.

What does the lady mean? American taxpayers pay her salary ... what are they getting for their money?

 

As an aside, people who are really interested in Southern history, especially with respect to its racial aspects, need to read The Strange Career of Jim Crow, by the late C. Vann Woodward.

Here are some customer reviews of the book.

=====================================================================================================================================================
Very readable history of race relations in the U.S.
September 2, 2015

I've lived in Atlanta all 76 years of my life, saw the Civil Rights movement close up, heard all the hype all sides. And there were more than two sides. This is the most readable book about the history of race relations in the U.S. I've ever seen. Woodward gives a careful, wise account in lay terms. He begins with the pre-Civil War background, the effects of the war on the South, the various attempts to deal with the many jobless ex-slaves, the commerce-focused conservatives, the extremist radicals, and the populists, the roots of prejudices, economical, societal, etc. He shows motives for and reactions to the Jim Crow laws instituted around the turn of the century 1900. Much, much more. It's packed with information, and you can read it in a couple of afternoons.

=======================================================================================================================================================
Changed My View On Our Country's History
March 27, 2017

This book completely changed my perspective on racial politics and U.S. History. This is not what I learned in AP History. Although the book was originally published in 1955, the author took pains a decade later to update and revise the original work in order to prevent it from feeling too "dated". What resulted is a masterpiece of cultural history that feels remarkably timeless as a survey of the sociopolitical factors and events that allowed for the rise and fall of Jim Crow segregation, starting (really) in the Reconstruction Era and leading into the Civil Rights Movement of the 60s. Woodward's writing is wry, engaging, and honest in its depiction of the political motivations that caused states like South Carolina to shift from an ostensibly earnest embrace of racial integration during Reconstruction to the tyrannical practices of segregation and discrimination the South ultimately became known for. The book also serves as a decent overview of the interplay between the various and equally important factors that contribute to social progress: popular cultural sentiment, legislative intervention, Supreme Court rulings, and civil protest, to name the four that come to my mind. I believe that if all Americans had the facts outlined in this book fresh in their minds as they discussed the role of government in the pursuit of true equality in our nation, we might be able to come to consensus on a great many more things.

One last comment: While I believe this book truly is a timeless classic, it does of course only cover so much of history. I think Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow" might rightly be considered its unofficial sequel, covering the decades following Civil Rights and offering an honest (albeit bleak) explanation of where exactly Jim Crow went after the abolition of segregation laws. Spoiler: It wasn't the grave.
=======================================================================================================================================================

A book that plants the seeds for factual inquiry
September 30, 2016

The Strange Career of Jim Crow filled in the blanks of history, not taught in academia by revisionist historians, whose pedagogical thrust leads to erroneous conclusions by students who accept lectures and instructions, as gospel truth, without questioning and independently researching for factual information. I took painstaking time to corroborate the information presented in this first time published 1955 book, and found total accuracy .
A book that should be required reading by all to confirm the statement by Martin Luther King, Jr that it- The Strange Career of Jim Crow- should be "The historical bible of the civil rights movement."
===========================================================================================================================================================

Vann Woodward himself was a very interesting character -- from his Wiki entry:

But read further, and you wonder if he would survive in the PC atmosphere of today's American academia.