What to do with Bobby Lee and Stonewall...?

show me where I was being absurd.

And, point of fact, the poster was not being sarcastic in the least—nobody says “answer the ****ing question” to something they are being sarcastic about, so very epic fail at sarcasm detection there.

Absurd you claim to know how northerners viewed southerners because of a claim to know your ancestor. But I guess you gotta do something when history books fail you eh?

Your absurdity is further compounded by lack of logic. It is absurd to think northerners viewed southerners as world conquerors like the nazis or in any other way similar. The comparison is illogical, so basically you’re suggesting your ancestor and those he fought with were illogical. Not very nice of you, nor supported by historical analysis.

 

Incredibly broad brush you’re using, to the point where your point is no more complex than:

nazis were bad + confederates were bad = they’re the same

That’s some great kindergarten logic you’re using there.

 

Dynamite them.

 

It's obvious they betrayed their country, so I guess you figure there may be something lower than betraying their oath. What would that be? Diddling children?

 

Can't have Sherman. He killed too many Native Americans after the Civil War.

 

I completely agree. Relocation is always the best solution, but there should be no acceptance of vandalism or destruction. History - both good and bad - should never be forgotten.

 

You think that Rommel and Lee were not both enemies of the USA in the wars they fought against us? The Confederacy was a separate nation from the USA by its own declaration during the ACW and every bit as hostile to us as was Nazi Germany in WWII.


How are my emotions not in control in the posts you point out? I do sometimes employ profanity for emphasis I will admit, but we are all adults here and this is far from a formal venue. Nonetheless, I apologize if I offended your sensibilities and will endeavor to be more circumspect should I ever deal with you in the future

 

If you and I enter into an agreement and we both willfully sign a contract that defines our rights and responsibilities under said agreement.

Years later I come back and say, “You know I never liked this part of our agreement because I consider it to be immoral. As such I’m no longer going to uphold that portion of our contract whether you like it or not.” You respond and say, “That’s fine. If you want to unilaterally alter our agreement without my consent then I want out of our partnership.”

Who is the traitor? You or I?

If I then come back and say, “No. No, you’re not leaving our partnership and if I have to murder your men, women and children to stop you then that’s what I’m going to do.”

Who is in right and who is in the wrong? Furthermore if placed in that position would you not fight back?

 

Besides, too many Southerners would crap themselves if they saw a Shermanzilla, quite a few Northerners too

 

Lol you realize Sherman spent his campaign avoiding southern troops and targeting civilians because his army was getting their asses handed to them by a kill ratio of 4:1 by an opponent whom Sherman and the North outgunned, outsupplied and outnumbered nearly 3:1.

They were getting their asses handed to them so hard that they had to change tactics to TERRORISM by targeting innocent civilians and population centers.

 

Individual people are not nations and there is no real comparison. You are bound by your nation's laws even more tightly than by any agreement you make and you cannot simply "opt-out" of them as long as your remain part of your nation.

 

Sherman is credited with founding Total War, just as Lee is credited with originating Trench Warfare around Petersburg.

 

This is what's called a false dichotomy. The circumstances were entirely different in WWII(foreign nations at war with each other) and the civil war. And as @ImNotOliver points out, we deal with the current vices of the conflict to this very day. I was born in the North(Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) and what we today describe as the Democratic Party(largely coastal states like CA, PA, Mass, etc.). is largely of the Northern Coalition.

However, I dissent in my sympathies towards the South as Lincoln's War of Aggression led to the casualties of over half a million Americans. That would be Americans on both sides. And whereas the Confederates sought to negotiate, Lincoln at every turn refused to negotiate.

While Lincoln somewhat felt remorseful for the conflict and wanted to engage the Reconstruction Era, he was assassinated and the Northerners(as you can tell by Oliver's sentiment) were not interested in truly rebuilding the South. Reconstruction ended up suppressing the South, and the South would remain impoverished until 2018! This of course weakened our Union in the long run.

Northern-Liberal arrogance is the cause of a lot of our pain. How they look down on the South and yet I don't see the industrialists investing in the South. The moral righteousness of the war as a way to paint over the costs of the war.

As a Nationalist, the only way we can unify our union is to put an end to Northern arrogance towards the Southern states.

 

Rommel, a German from another country, fought a war of aggression in an attempt at Nazi world domination

that is completely different than Lee, an American, who fought a defensive war for CSA independence.

Nobody puts up statues of other country’s generals.

the ACW was a war between Americans. It was fought honorably by both sides and is referred to quite accurately as a tragedy.

quite frankly how dare you presume to equate someone like Lee who was forced to make a terrible decision between fighting his own state as well as family or fight against his country.

you ever had to make that decision? No? Didn’t think so. God forbid you have the wherewithal or humility to check your disgusting judgement at the door when you’ve never had to make the same decisions as they did.

Use of language, how you use them and In conjunction with a complete lack of logic all indicate emotion-based viewpoints.

 

I would put forth they were no longer Americans. They left the union as you might recall.

 

So there was a clause forever linking the States to the US(Plural)? That would only come later, after US VS Texas. That is, the Supreme Court had to clean up Lincoln's war legally, because as the Court then noted if they were to interpret as is, it would make the US the invader of Texas(which is what it was.). Basically, you can sum the Civil War up like this:

"We'll all sign this Declaration of Independence, and the States will be assured via the 10th Amendment that no one will overrule the other"
Northern States: "Abolition or else!"

Yep, quite a reversal in less than a century. And the irony is, is that the civil war wasn't necessary for the abolition side. Slavery was ending around the world and continued to end throughout the 19th century. Even Lincoln noted it as a "moral failing". They could've saved 600,000 lives, let it die a tortured death to an eventual Southern Uprising and the union would've been stronger.

Nope, have to be moral supremacists. It was Lincoln's war, and he might have triumphed but the nation suffered.

 

Indeed. It sounds like the difference between antifa and the trump cult.

 

False. You cannot refuse to uphold your obligations under an agreement and then demand through threat of violence that the other side continues to uphold theirs.

That is patently absurd.

 

Targeting innocent civilians and population centers is not warfare. It’s terrorism.

He literally sent soldiers into peoples homes to steal their goods, burn their homes and farms to the ground, salt the earth and leave the women, children and elderly to starve to death over the winter. That’s not warfare. That’s terrorism.

If he committed those same acts today he would be hung for war crimes.

 

Did you miss WWII in history class?

 

Guess he never heard of firebombing? Or Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Carpet bombing?
Must of been sick that week?

 

Outside of the nuclear bomb, we did not target civilians and population centers. We targeted military targets and supply lines.

We didn’t send soldiers into Germans homes to rape and murder their women and children and the ones they didn’t rape or murder have their homes and farms burnt to the ground leaving them to starve when there wasn’t a soldier in sight.

 

Read up on Hamburg and Dresden.

Though I have to admit I laughed out loud with your "outside of the Nukes" comment.

 

Well even then you could argue we targeted a military installation... there just happened to be a ton of collateral damage.

And I’m not saying there weren’t instances of atrocities committed in WWII because there were. But that’s different than making a strategy of the purposeful targeting of civilians with the intent to terrify the population into submitting because you’re getting your ass handed to you on a silver platter by a far less well equipped and outnumbered “inferior” foe.

That’s not war. That’s terrorism by any measure of the word.

 

Going back to a theme from someone above, they were not seen as atrocities back then, they were a normal part of war.