« I Sat Upon the Moonlit Night | Joe Wood's Blog | How Obama Can Relate To The Potential Islamic Extremist »

Obama and the Confederate Memorial


I attended as a teenager a military academy here in St. Louis.  In naval science class, we not only learned the history of people like John Paul Jones and Admiral Nimitz, we also learned the history of how Robert E. Lee helped save the St. Louis riverfront while in the US Army Corps of Engineers. 

I was a strange cadet at the Cleveland Jr. Naval Academy; a lapsed Catholic Fine Artist who belonged to both the ACLU, Southern Poverty Law Center, as well as the Sons of Confederate Veterans.  I believed in gun control, knew from experience that gun shows were a huge black market for straw purchases--yet by age 15 owned a .303 Enfield, a 8mm Mauser, a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, a 7.62x54R Mosin-Nagant, as well as 6 other vintage WWII era bolt action rifles. 

I was proud of this collection.  Yet I knew the tragic history.  The Enfield was used in WWI by the British tommies.  The German mauser killed allies in WWII.  The Carcano was also WWII, and a similar model to the one that allegedly assassinated an American President.  The Mosin Nagant saw action in Vietnam.

Yet I was basically a pacifist.  I hated fighting, and couldn't hurt a fly.  I listened to records of Woodstock, Jim Morrison, John Lennon. 

I had relatives and friends that were proud racists, and yet I was openly proud to be in an interracial relationship.

One of my best friends had a father who joked on MLK day, "Boy I tell ya--I wish they'd kill another one, so I can get another day off work."  One boyhood friend grew up to become the head of the White Knights in Overland, Mo.

Many people can't do that.  I believed that any American was redeemable, if they honestly believed in something.  If they couldn't have a friend like me, they'd never have a opportunity to see another POV.  Maybe wrong could one day be brought right. 

There were things that we both could cling to: love of history, battle,love for country, and of audacity. 

I remember seeing the widely acclaimed movie Malcolm X.  I had read The Autobiography of Malcolm X by that time, as well as other books which demonstrated how a man, despite personal tragedy, loss, and hate, can change and with audacity, be redeemed.  I remember the world that movie was born onto; the LA Riots, Rodney King, O.J. and the dragging of James Byrd Jr.  We were struggling with the Civil War still.  But it seemed that movie made many of my white friends respect a side of history they hadn't properly understood.

Another film was that of John Singleton, Higher Learning.  Then came American History X.

These were great films, at a time when we needed to think outside the box.  American History X went further beyond anything I had seen up to that time, and coincided with not only the crossover appeal of rap and r&b to a traditionally white pop/alternative cullture--but also with the political battles over southern culture and the Confederate flag.

This slow progression towards tolerance has evolved my entire lifetime.  Just as I have, as have many of my friends and family.  It is not uncommon to see the Confederate Flag displayed in a Dirty South rap video, to have African-American bikers at traditionally exclusive white biker rally, nor to see more interracial couples with children out at the store than racially exclusive ones.  I wonder what it means to now have an African-American president, leaving a wreath at a Confederate Memorial.  I wonder not only what it means to African-Americans who could never have done so, nor to Obama himself, but what it means for those Sons of Confederate Americans, to those White Knights of the KKK, and what it means to those people who hate this man because he is not white. 

This is in my view the greatness of America.  It takes a great man to decide, to decide--to respect men who fought and died so that he would never be President.  To honor your enemies, or former enemies, for giving their lives for a cause--is a pretty audacious thing, something I believe Robert E. Lee could respect, and even be moved by.

That is why Dr. Martin Luther King was so powerful, and so sucessful.  He was able to melt, to warm, to cool, de-escalate, win over, impress, and move people.  Move them from where they felt safe and secure, to a newer, better place, where also they could feel safer, and better.

Obama did two meaningful gestures of note today.  He sent a wreath, as other Predients have, to the Confederate memorial.  He also did something else, he sent a wreath to the African-American Civil War Memorial, in a largely black Washington neighborhood.  Something we haven't seen before.

The first to me is more admirable.  Why?  Because it was probably harder for him to do.

It took balls for Obama to not cave in to pressure, to not pander, or play to his base--and to instead show respect, honor, moxy, and character--and for those who disagree with him totally.

Some see cowardice, politics, fear, and compromise--but I see strength, nobility for our American character; his personal reckoning of what and where this country has been, in relationship to where it is going.   It showed compassion, and incluson, even towards those who in the past have shown little.  He could have said, "We're not going to this year.  Today are looking forward."  But he didn't do that. 

Instead, a black man laid a wreath of honor and respect for fallen soldiers of the Confederacy.  And a President laid a wreath at an African American Civil War Memorial also, for the first time.  Two notable occurences, the first I believe more notable as a man.

It reminded me of a story, that illustrates to me that every person who ever was known was a locket full of contradictions, and not as Shelby Foote once said "easy to pin down."

The story goes to the effect that when a dying Robert E. Lee was no longer a General, but a president of Washington College, he went to church one Sunday where amidst a congregation of stoic, uncomfortable white faces, there knelt a young black student, whom no one dared to sit near to.  Lee strode up the aisle, and knelt directly next to the young black man, and began to likewise pray in silence.  No one dared criticize nor chastize the old general, but sat instead quietly in awe. 

Not unlike Malcolm X, or Robert E. Lee, many Americans arent easy to pin down, nor are they the same person their entire lives. 

America has in it's past not just Abu-Ghraib, not just Gitmo--but the Trail of Tears, Slavery, Custer's Last Stand and yes, the Confederacy.  There are proud Americans who honor all descendants, on all sides, of all of these American legacies. 

We can never know all of the motivations that caused the Civil War, or casued a Confederacy, nor caused the young and old to defend the South, and not the North.  But what we should be able to do is to honor all people who fight for what they believe in, even if we believe them wrong.  We should teach tolerance for diverse points of view.  General Grant could do that.  Robert E. Lee could do that.  Abraham Lincoln could do that.  Martin Luther King could do that.

Perhaps Obama can too.

The movie American History X ends with a beautiful scene of a beach overlooking the ocean.  It could be near Mt. Vernon, Charleston Harbor, Manhattan, or Omaha Beach at Normandy.

The narrator quotes Lincoln's 1st inaugural:

 We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

 

 


77 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

It may have taken balls for Obama to decide to honor the confederate dead, but to me it is the same as Reagan laying the wreath at Bitburg. It also would have taken balls, and more balls at that, for him to decline to honor those that took up arms against the USA. Instead, he chose to honor those who dishonored themselves.

You can view it however you like of course. I view it as totally inappropriate at a very minimum.

user-pic

Who are you; Desidero's evil twin in the looking glass?

There were many members of the Confederate military that did not believe they were fighting against the end to slavery, and were instead defending states' rights against tyrannical encroachment by the Federal Government. They were deceived, because the states' right in question, was the right to own humans as chattel.

The depiction of Confederate soldiers as rebels fighting for the dissolution of The Union is false too. The majority of Confederate soldiers enlisted or were called up from their local militias after the Battle of Fort Sumter. From their perspective, The Union had already been dissolved. For many, their motivation to fight was a matter of standing with Kith and Kin.

Here's some advice from someone who grew up West of The Rockies, and descended from post-Civil war American immigrants: Damn Yankees and Johnny Rebs, just get the fuck over it, ok?

user-pic

It doesn't matter what they "think" they were fighting for or why they chose treason. What they fought for, in fact, was the preservation of slavery and the destruction of the USA. I'm sure there were SS officers who thought they were fighting for something other than German world dominance and genocide against the Jews, but that doesn't excuse them does it?

user-pic

Bullshit.

user-pic

Bullshit squared.

You're dismissing with polemic a complex moral and philosophical dilemma that is at the core of the American experience. I had the same observation in Jade's post yesterday.

user-pic

The SS analogy is false. They were specially chosen for ruthlessness. Wehrmacht is the proper analogy, and yet, members of the Wehrmacht deserve to be honored if they were honorable in their acts as soldiers.

user-pic

There is a school of thought that suggests the financial motivation was related to states' rights. The North had industrial cotton mills that wanted the South's cotton cheap. The British could pay more for the cotton, so the Congress passed tariffs on the exported cotton to leverage the South selling their cotton to the North. It wasn't exactly a free market. The states were more numerous and populous then the South so the South had no defense against this tactic.

user-pic

Second.

user-pic

Kind of like holding "detainees" indefinitely at GITMO, sans torture, for taking up arms against the USA and dishonored themselves and their religion?

Moral flexibility and situational ethics are not just a liability for the right.

user-pic

No. It is not at all like that. There is nothing analagous about the two situations at all.

user-pic

You're saying we must have two different standards for the same offense - taking up arms against the USA. Confederate soldiers deserved no quarter yet GITMO detainees do? You are consistently inconsistent in the application of your ideals.

user-pic

Again, that isnt' it at all. The issue is whether to pay homage to the graves of traitors. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything relating to GITMO or anything else. It's a very specific thing.

user-pic

Still seems like a call for empathy on the one hand and a call for condemnation on the other, both groups having committed the same essential crime, despite their differing motives.

user-pic

Again, you fail to comprehend.

This isn't about empathy or condemnation. It's simply about whether it is appropriate to honor the graves of traitors on the part of officials of the government they attempted to destroy. I don't think it is. You can have a different opinion on it if you wish, but your analogy is simply not applicable to the point.

user-pic

Your failure to understand that honoring someone's tragic death with a wreath and honoring a terrorist with Constitutional rights doesn't mean I don't understand your point. I comprehend your point perfectly.

It is the same attitude you have for anyone who self-identifies as a conservative. It is the same attitude you have for "centrists" who are sufficiently angry or revolutionary for your tastes. It is an ideological disdain (many times resembling hatred) of that with which you don't agree. It is corrosive to our national debate and symptomatic of something we must change if we actually want to build the progressive society most of us around here tend to describe as being an ideal America.

It's a hypocritical and inconsistent position for a self-proclaimed liberal to take, given the marketing literature I have read, but it is very easy to understand.

user-pic

You are a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

user-pic

Spoken like a true ideologue, accusing me of using your tactics.

user-pic

I repeat:

Dunning-Kruger effect

user-pic

I repeat: Pot meet kettle.

user-pic

This is exactly what Lincoln was afraid of, Oleeb, and what he tried to prevent with the surrender terms - no humiliations, no punishments, no vengeance or blame - just that they would put down their arms and return home. It wasn't the war that defined us as a nation, but the terms for peace.

user-pic

Lincoln did not honor the Confederate dead at Gettysburg. The occasion for the speech was the dedication of the national cemetery for the union soldiers who died there. Their bodies were moved from shallow graves to the cemetery honoring them. The dead from the other side were not. Those bodies were later moved to a variety of locations in the southern states. He honored US soldiers only.

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."

"Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this."

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."

user-pic

I think Lincoln made it clear in all his writings, before, during and after the war that hatred, retribution and vengeance were the very things that caused war. He noted in his second inaugural address that this was war was visited upon both the south and the north, by the same God whom both sides were claiming was on their side.

Sherman, Grant and Scott all noted in their memiors that in the last meeting they had with Lincoln prior to the conclusion of the war, that Lincoln made very clear that there were to be no acts of humiliation, no triumphs or punishments. Sherman and Grant said that at that meeting, the general terms of surrender were discussed with Lincoln providing the general outlines of the terms of surrender, that the southern troops were to lay down their arms and return home leaving the particulars of those surrenders to the Generals and Admiral Scott. Lincoln's surrender terms were both humane and practical, his goal afterall, was to reunite both sides in a common cause of union.

What Lincoln was trying to tell us in the Gettysburg address was that the sacrifice of human lives was to mean something to us and it can only be meaningful if it gives our nation a "a new birth of freedom" and he did not qualify that with any word or phrase that would exclude or isolate the south.

What made Lincoln one of our greatest, if not the greatest, was his immense capacity for forgiveness and compassion, his understanding of human weakness and at the same time his willingness to strive to overcome that weakness. It was his strong belief that we could be better humans, better citizens, better examples to the world, that kept this nation together. War is won not when both sides stop hostilities and lay down their weapons, but when both sides achieve a livable peace.

user-pic

I agree wholeheartedly. Reading the Second Inaugural, one can see Lincoln's sensitivity and where his compassion was, for all.

That speech shows Lincoln's supernatural ability to step outside of the moment, the polls, the parties--and seek to understand what was guiding and provident about what every side had done, and what reckoning the country must endure, and how all could move forward towards a better country.

I suggest often that speeches are one thing, actions are another. But there is a special place reserved for speeches like the one Lincoln delivered at Gettysburg, and the one delivered on the steps of the Capitol in March 1865.

It is beyond time and ideology, and speaks directly to hearts of all people to come. It is the same honest, abstract, high minded ideas which all should aspire to devote energy to.

user-pic

You seem to be confusing the issues. Paying tribute at the graves of enemy soldiers is not retribution. It's inappropriate for US government officials. Lincoln did not do it. He didn't even mention the thousands of dead at Gettysburg. It's entirely separate from the larger issue of magnanimity in victory.

user-pic

No, I understand the issue. I don't think that the gesture is tribute to their treason, but in the spirit of Lincoln's hope that we would find common ground and forgiveness for each other. Gettysburg didn't define that war and the fact that Lincoln didn't mention those confederate soldiers isn't evidence of contempt for those men. Of all people, Lincoln understood the duality of that conflict - we were fighting an enemy, but that enemy was also a brother. Lincoln's own family was divided by that war as was his wife's and he unfailingly offered them compassion and empathy even to the point of offering refuge in the White House for his wife's relatives. That doesn't seem to me to be an indication of his contempt and hatred for them, in fact, it is quite the opposite.

Lincoln understood why the south was fighting that war, he understood their side and their arguments - he certainly disagreed with them, but he understood them.

user-pic

But what you write doesn't indicate you understand. I don't think we will agree on this, but I'm simply saying it's inappropriate for our government officials to honor the dead soldiers who tried to destroy our government and who killed so many US soldiers. Period. It isn't either pro or con with respect to forgiveness or magnanimity. It is just inappropriate for our government officials to honor them in the same way it was inappropriate for Reagan to honor SS soldiers at Bitburg. Simply not taking part in the homage is not an act of malice.

user-pic

Lee, his Generals, and his men returned home, left with their sidearms, and their horses which they were allowed to keep. When he surrendered, one of the first things Grant did was to get plenty for them to eat. Generous terms. Many of them including Lee signed loyalty oaths back into the United States. The way Lincoln handled that "malice toward none" mindset really helped everyone heal, and might have even won over a few ex-confederates too.

Most people don't realize that half the Confederacy was ex-congressmen, that all the Confederate generals were at West Point, and that almost none of the common army of Viginia nor hardly any troops for that matter owned slaves.

user-pic

I'm aware of this, but that doesn't really impact whether or not to honor the confederate dead. Lincoln intended magnanimity, Grant showed it---often and long before Lee's surrender. That's different.

user-pic

This reminds me of a debate we often hear in diverse areas, whether it be the John Wilkes Booth banners in DC which show the tourist to assassination sites, or to Sitting Bull and the Native Americans who slaughtered General Custer and the American soldiers at Little Big Horn.

In America, there seems to be a natural practice or inclination of forgiveness not seen other places, a national step by step program we follow after a tragedy, usually by one of our own. There are countless schools in the south for example that proudly celebrate their names of Beauregard, Jackson, and the like. There was even a discussion about whether to put Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold's names at a Columbine School memorial.

When enough time is passed, there are always attempts by Americans to explain and to understand the motives of those who went before and have been judged. Some good ones come out bad. Some bad ones come out looking more human.
That's just our way.

I can't explain it.

user-pic

Well, that practice if properly done and not overdone has it's place. We are talking here about whether it is appropriate to honor a particular set of dead people, not about the general idea of magnanimity toward the south---which they received plenty of and I raise no objections to. My objection here is very specific. I don't think it is appropriate for US officials to honor those who took up arms against the nation. That's all.

It wasn't Lincoln's terms of surrender by the way. The surrender terms were always dictated by the victorious generals. Grant, from the very beginning, was always generous in his dealings with the enemy upon their surrender though he never negotiated any terms other than unconditional surrender. After they would surrender unconditionally, Grant always dealt with them very fairly and respectfully as did his officers and enlisted men. They were never humiliated. I don't advocate humiliating them now. I'm just saying it's inappropriate to pay homage to them. That's all.

user-pic

Why exactly is it inappropriate?

This was a rare and extraordinary set ofcircumstances where you iterally had people on both sides in each family. There were US congressmen before the war, left and became part of the Confederate government, and after it was over, some regained their old seats, as though it never heppened.
There were people like Lee who were Mexican War heroes, people who believed in our forefathers, and some who believed it was the second Revolution. Some like Lee thought the institution of Slavery wicked, yet said "How can raise my sword against my native state?" Thn, after it was all over, bcame productive citizens in their own right, and loyal Americans--just proud of their wartime service. We honor them because those states they fought for really never left the United States. Enough American-born people who were descendents of those wwho fought at Bunker Hill and Concord--fought at Antietam, Cold Harbor, and Gettysburg. Those who seem to think that we should not honor Americans who fought for the Confederacy I don't believe understand that the Civil War is a family tragedy, a family story. You never leave your family, no matter what horrible things you do. And they welcome you back with open arms.

To say a hundred and 50 years later, with the distant judgements of hindsight--"Well, they were obviously wrong. How dare we honor people who defended slavery." is dismissive, when you realize how many of our greatest men also failed to speak up, or oppose it, and many who owned slaves themselves. Do we pick and choose through the William Clark's and George Washington's and Thomas Jefferson's to find those who are not worthy of honor?

If you look, you will find skeleton's in America's closet at every turn. We already honor a host of people who served this country in one capacity or another, who may have done certain offense to it or have not lived up to the standard upheld by us in 2009. But those men who fought for the Confederacy died for many reasons, and are worthy of honor and respect not for their ideology, but because they put duty and honor above their own private happiness and safety. Many who served in Vietnam or Korea now honor their former foes as well, and these foes were not at any time American. It is very human t do that.

user-pic

Not to mention the Vietnam vets who have gone back to Vietnam and met with some of the Viet Cong.

When all is said and done, the peace from the Civil War "worked" to the extent that it did, because of the generosity of the terms of that peace. We did not repeat that practice after WWI and it led directly to WWII, or that is commonly argued. The peace after WWII? Well, that speaks for itself.

user-pic

It is extraordinarily obvious why some would consider it inappropriate. I see your point and simply disagree. Decorating their graves is not the same as showing magnanimity generally. Are you unable to see why officials of the US government honoring those died trying to destroy it and who were directly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of loyal citizens might be inappropriate? Come on!

user-pic

But, see.. I don't read the history as the Confederacy threatening to defeat or destroy the United States, and neither did Lincoln. He treated it as "the insurrection." The same way the U.S. government in 1859 treated John Brown, as an insurrection. Language was important at the beginning. To go further would mean Lincoln could no longer say or do certain things; if they were outside the laws of the United States.

They were trying to separate, and establish their own U.S., which did not respond to Washington, nor abolitionist politics, and were outside of the reach of Lincoln. That is why they took over Fort Sumpter. But, when they did not receive foreign recognition, that was the death knell for anyone to claim the confederacy was a foreign nation.

So I disagree when you say the Confederates died trying "to destroy' the United States.

But I do see your point. There were many on both sides who refused to forget what the other side cost them after 4 years of loss. I think it was George Thomas, I can't remember, but one of the Union Generals who seized R.E. Lee's house at Arlington. He had lost a son, and blamed his former classmate at West Point. So he ordered that the new National Cemetery be right on Lee's front lawn, so he could never live in the house again.

user-pic

You are entitled to your opinion, but not all opinions are equal. You choose to ignore the facts and the truth. The official name of the Civil War, after all, is The War of the Rebellion. An armed uprising against one's government is the definition of treason. War came as a result of a well funded, organized, armed conspiracy on the part of those who profited from slavery to destroy the union of the states. They initiated armed violence against the United States for the sole purpose of perpetuating slavery. You can choose to see that as a tea party or some other trifle if you wish, but it was treason and dissolution of the union would have been destruction of the USA. There wasn't any doubt in people's minds of that. Lincoln's diplomatic use of words does not immunize those who turned against the US from the truth. He was conciliatory in the face of the ongoing putrid attacks directed at him but he was under no illusion about the nature of the enemy or what the purpose of the enemy was. And, by the way, Lincoln was not the only person representing the US or majority sentiment in the nation and few at the time were anywhere near as diplomatic as he was. That is not to say many were not also magnanimous in victory towards the rebels, but everyone on both sides knew what was at stake and it was the survival of slavery or the survival of the union, aka The United States.

One of the most popular songs of the time went like this:

"Oh we'll rally round the flag boys, rally once again, shouting the battle cry of freedom!

The Union forever! Harah boys! Harah!

Down with the traitors and up with the stars!

For we'll rally round the flag boys rally once again, shouting the battle cry of freedom!"

You can choose to ignore the facts, you can hold your own personal opinion about it, you can buff and polish and try to dress up the effort to destroy the union and thus, the USA but you cannot change the fact that that is exactly what it was. The people of the time had no doubt about what it was. It is really a dishonor to the truth to paint it otherwise.

And by the way, it seems to me extremely cavalier for anyone to suggest that the slave power was somehow "merely" trying to separate from the other states as though they weren't trying to do so with nearly 4 million hostages under their wing and in chains! They intended to keep those people and all their offspring eternally in hereditary slavery. That was what made treason worth a try to those creeps. If you were black would you not be offended by how so many whites simply ignore what was truly at stake, particularly for their ancestors, as though it were some kind of secondary issue when it was, in fact, the primary issue from start to finish?

You are free to cling to whatever fantasy and/or romantic image you want to conjure up about what was going on then, but the facts demonstrate conclusively otherwise. All the excuses, elaborate distractions and details about this or that motivation for some individual or small group of people to support the south are nothing but obfuscation of the fact that all such issues are secondary to slavery and the only way to preserve it, in the eyes of the slave powers who profited from it, was by breaking up the union of states. These are basic and unquesionable facts. Without slavery as an issue there never would have been any motivation whatsoever, let alone attempt, to break from the union and there isn't the slightest scintilla of evidence to demonstrate otherwise.

For the perpetuation of slavery they tried to destroy the USA. Slavery was what was important to them and nothing else. And so they chose treason. And that's why, in my opinion, it is inappropriate to honor those who took up arms against their own country when the honor should be solely on those who defended it.

user-pic

Actually, I didn't think Lincoln had broad support for most of what he said.

Yes, I know the song, I have played it on my piano.

I know many others too. My favorite is probably All Quiet Along the Potomac Tonight, or Johnny Has Gone For A Soldier.

I also know the separate seemingly isolated events that for years and decades led up to this great war. The Missouri Compromise, Bleeding Kansas, the attack on Sen. Ch. Sumner, Nat Turner, John Brown's raid, Lincoln's election, etc. I know that underlying all the arguments on either side, the issue of slavery was somehow the cause underlying each.

So we don't differ on obvious truths such as this.

I also don't hesitate to commend you on your observation that white historians often seem oblivious to the plight of even freed men of that era. I am quite aware of the racism that pervaded every aspect of daily life and culture, political thought, news media, laws, and the military of the time.

That is why I chose to take Black History courses in college, write a book on the subject, and still read whatever I can get my hands on, as well as study at LOC and American Memory, where there are letters, photos, etc...

The difference between you and I may be as simple as this--I separate what may be in the minds and the hearts of the politicians from what is in the minds and hearts of the men who fight and die.

I don't know what military experience you have had, but I assure you--ask most and they have their own personal opinions about why they are fighting, along with what their commanders decide it is.

I don't cast all who fought for the south in the same mold, with the same thoughts, fighting for the same things. You seem to, but I refuse to.

I just think you are so busy trying to make this simple, you are oversimplifying a complicated series of events, which made different people make diverse choices for varying reasons.
(sorry, that itself was exhausting...)

I don't make excuses for the Confederacy. I say that there are valid reasons there are still Americans who have no problem honoring their service in the Civil War. You talk about the southern soldiers as if they were nazis or the KKK, and that simply is prejudiced and not supported by source materials that are in abundance.

We just disagree. I still love you.

user-pic

Yeah, I get your point and it just doesn't wash. Nobody would, even for a minute, entertain the same excuses for Nazi's or SS men who had some other, personal reason for fighting as they did. Tough shit and no sympathy for them. Whatever was in their hearts and minds is not exculpatory and didn't make a damned bit of difference on the battlefield. They fought on the side of and on behalf of evil---the slave powers. There is no excuse for that. They knew damn well what they were doing. How they rationalized it is really a very minor detail. They committed treason. And that is why I find it inappropriate to pay homage to the graves of those same people who were responsible for bringing such carnage and destruction to our country and who were responsible for killing so many US soldiers.

And I wasn't referring to historians I was referring to white people like yourself and others who discuss everything having to do with the issue of the civil war, "southerners", their motivations and so forth with little or no mention, let alone any apparent awareness, concern or interest in the plight of the slaves, what the slaves thought, how they felt about all this, except as a very secondary matter, a footnote. And then to top it all off these same white people quite often deny slavery is the cause of the war to boot. The insensitivity and egocentrism of whites in these sorts of explorations of what interests them is astounding to me.

user-pic

Oleeb. Imagine the North & South in the Union, the North against slavery, and the South pro-slavery. But that the population growth - and votes - had been reversed. So pro-slavery was the clear majority, and a growing one, likely to become permanent. And they had decided to extend slavery into your free states.

Would you have supported secession from the Union, if all your legislative and court challenges had run dry?

For me, the answer is yes. Secession - and the label "treason" - carries little negative weight for me. Slavery was the disease, the moral issue, the thing worth living, fighting and dying over. Secession was just the way it happened to play out. So people forever melt them together. But in other countries, with different arrangements, the politics played out differently - even ones with pro-slavery regions and cities.

And if slavery is the issue which trumps all others - and secession much smaller - then the question becomes not who was in the Southern states at the moment of hostilities... but slightly wider, deeper, longer. Namely, "Who supported, aided, abetted, sat silently by, and/or fought for slavery - through its whole existence."

And any answer clearly finds the Southern Slave Power, during the War years, absolutely represented at the pinnacle. And many of their troops also counted on that side. But. It also shows the shadow. The roots. The tendrils that crept into many hearts. And which helped recreate the damned thing - after the Victory - in the South, and some lesser form, in the Northern cities, Midwestern countryside, in LA and the Northwest and so on.

user-pic

This is an imaginary situation that has nothing to do with the real world. If you are trying to ask whether it would have been worth it to break up the union if slavery had not been abolished that's kind of a straw man, but the answer is no, because the antislavery forces would not want to have less influence in the future which is what they would have if broken away from your mythical majority.

user-pic

Hey this is way off the subject. But I wondered.

Did you ever stop to consider the probability that if we had not had a Civil War, slavery wouldn't have ended? Maybe down the road, but not at that moment in 1865.

Just like if there had not been an Emmett Till, a George Wallace, An Edmund Pettis Bridge, a Birmingham with Bull Connor, etc.. that the outrage and "urgency of now" might not have surfaced the way it did?

I wonder how long, and how far behind each would have been, even today.

What made me think about it is the quote JFK reportedly made after the March on Washington, when some Civil Rights leader was talking about Bull Connor. JFK said, well we shouldn't be too hard on Bull Connor; after all, he has done more for the cause of Civil Rights than anyone else.

What do you think, though way off subject?

user-pic

It's impossible to speculate on that.

There was a movie out a couple of years ago and the premise was if the south had won the war and what society would look like today. Not a great movie, but an instructive one.

user-pic

"War of Rebellion" is the official name for the Civil War? In whose textbooks? I've always heard it referred to as "The War Between the States".

user-pic

"The War of the Rebellion" is the official name given in the official US History of the war.

user-pic

Great blog, Joe. This sort of historical perspective about our underlying dichotomies as a nation really helps move the ball forward, in my opinion.

Until we can look back over the totality of the American experiment, we will continue to make these huge pendulum swings as if every generation confronts evil and ennui anew, when we have actually confronted these same challenges over and over again throughout this 230 year trek.

Each new generation is standing on the shoulders of giants, though we are not smart enough or sophisticated to realize that fact. I am generally optimistic that we may see a change in that because of the Internet and its permanent memory. As access becomes more wide-spread, as information is democratized, I suspect the evolution of our common narrative will happen at a speed that seems impossible today.

user-pic

I always listen to angry voices, both on the left, and on the right--and I wonder if their so-called "enemies" on the other side are disposable, or redeemable to them.

user-pic

Or if the enemies, in fact, define their own self-identity?

user-pic

Well, yeah--if your'e Adolf Hitler and totally amoral and indifferent to human suffering.

Instead, we are dealing with people who made a poor choice, and misled themselves into following a society they had grown comfortable with, instead of recognizing needed change for a minority of the population. They saw the election of Lincoln and the John Brown revolt as signs of a gathering in Washington which threatened their livlihood. It's not like, "Hey I love abusing my slaves, Please don't make me stop!" ws a rallying cry. There were exceptions of course; the Fort Pillow massacre, but then there was Sherman's march to the sea as well.

Some peoplee act as though racism and slavery began with the confederacy. No, rather they were simply the extension of it, at a time when a man opposed to it became elected President, and when people feared a true end to their convenient way of life. As president Grant later put it, "I felt like anything but rejoicing over the downfall of an army who fought so nobly for a cause, though I believe for one of the worst causes ever fought."

user-pic

It's not like, "Hey I love abusing my slaves, Please don't make me stop!" ws a rallying cry."

The hell it wasn't. They didn't literally say that, but they came damn close.

You are just simply wrong about this and grasping at all kinds of shiny distractions in order to avoid the obvious. They didn't just make a mistake. The slave power was cold and calculating and perfectly happy to keep their "property" (almost 4 million human beings) enslaved so they could remain wealthy. It really doesn't get much more evil than that when you are that cold blooded. The Nazis managed to top the slave owners in cold blooded pursuit of their crimes, but few others have. To make the arguments you make without acknowledging that the entire conflict revolved around the insistence of the slave power to continue in existence forever was the motivating force does an injustice to the truth.

user-pic

But you seem to use confederates interchangeably with slaveholders. I don't.

From 1619 to 1865, there was not a confederate army. Slavery thrived, built Monticello and the White House, and supported the lifestyle of both the south and a few up north. Throughout the entire 1850's, the spread of slavery was a huge debate before there ever were militia's, vigilance committees, or an Army of Northern Virginia at war with the United States.

Col. R. E. Lee actually arrested John Brown for the the United States military, a mere two years before the Civil War started. According to him, had he been born in New York, instead of Virginia--he might have led the Army of the Potomac instead.

He also freed his inherited slaves before the United States freed theirs, by about 3 years I believe.

He also advised Davis to free slaves in 1864, and then to employ them as troops for the Confederacy.

Since he was one of the two principals in the Confederacy, I find his example a good start to answer you. There are more.

user-pic

No, I most certainly do not use those terms interchangably. I refer to slavery and the slave power that profited from it and those who fought on their behalf. I couldn't be clearer in the usage of those terms. You misinterpret what is being conveyed because that is the only glue your argument has to hold together. If you would quit interchanging terms and mixing up one thing for another you might begin to understand what I'm saying. And no, there is no excusing fighting on behalf of the slave power regardless of any trumped up, after the fact reasons. None whatsoever. I don't care how noble Lee appears to be or any of the rest of them. He was a traitor. He took up arms against his own government and willfully. And the effort he took up arms on behalf of was the preservation of slavery and he knew it as well as everyone else at the time knew it.

user-pic

I disagree. Maybe that's what you see, but then I guess you don't believe Lee was telling the truth when he told basically everyone why he was doing so. He made clear on several occasions his views on slavery as evil, and wishing it did not exist. But specifically, he said he left because when Virginia decided to secede, he decided that out of duty and honor he could not draw his sword against his native state. What would that involve? Leaving his home instead of defending it, abandoning his neighbors instead of protecting them. Attacking places that had been integral in his life and the lives of his own family.

All politics is local.

user-pic

But he could draw his sword against his native country? Bah!

No. I don't at all believe Lee's melodramatic excuse for his treason. Never did and never will. He knew what he did was wrong but hoped for his own glory if the rebellion was successful. He didn't have to take up arms against the US and he knew it.

The idea that Lee was a grand and elegant character and all that is so overblown it's ridiculous. Makes for a nice story but gives a traitor far too much leeway (pardon the pun) for his perfidy and his crimes against his country. It's the same sort of hokum that makes Jessie James a romantic and somehow noble character when all he really was, was a two bit bank robber. But the legend is oh so much more appealing than the reality.

user-pic

But I thought Jesse James was a hero!!?

Yes, Jesse James was a hero, and Bob Ford a dirty little coward, because he shot Mr. Howard.
(in the back.)

Oleeb, why the comments above about the "white people" like me? I have never said anything that should make you think I am white.
I am, but that should not change the validity of my opinion, which is all it is.
Anyone who thinks otherwise judges by the group.
I don't.

That has been part of my point; I can't say I know what was in the minds of confederates who laid down their lives for some cause. Their cause could have been as I said, to protect their home. I don't know, and neither do you.

You have been taught that a confederate flag represents segregation, lynching, KKK, racism.
To others, it represents great great grandpa. To some, it is a moment before they lost everything, and right or wrong they enjoy that moment in history. Some too, it is simply a childish type of adoration, like that of cowboys and indians. And for others, it is simply a rebel flag, that signifies their disdain for authority.

I am not a defender of these people. I just acknowledge that they exist, so include them in your analysis.

I don't speak for the people you take issue with.

I was not there. You weren't either. Our respective races don't give any more validity to our arguments than my living in Missouri had to do with Jesse James heroism or lack thereof.

But I do sense that personal feeling has affected your responses on things that are generally accepted by most historians, and are supported by years of research, and journals, letters, and published works.

I do find it interesting that you deny Lee his own personal feelings, have branded me and others as "white people," and have totally changed the discussion towards your personal angst and disgust for people who have a different take on the Civil War than you do.

I never said that the confederates were right. I said that there are valid reasons why over the years they have been recognized and honored on Memorial Day, as have all other American veterans who died in war.

user-pic

Look, you and other white people speak of these issues like the slaves were nothing and didn't matter is my point. If you can't see that I will never be able to show you or explain to you how offensive and egocentric that is.

Well, as far as most historians are concerned I think there is a real possibility they have gotten it wrong for a whole variety of reasons including a nearly irrational romanticization of the era and some of it's characters most especially Robert E. Lee. Much of this is rooted in the revisionist historical efforts begun over a century ago in a historical profession dominated by southerners.

user-pic

I don't deny your last comments about how almost immediately, the hero worship and lost cause mythology began. I agree because I have read the BS too. I am a collector. So I have seen this.

But for you to tell me that I feel or have said the "slaves were nothing" and don't count, or that I somehow fail to recognize them and their stories, experiences, and contributions in BS too.

That is not true. I of anyone I know realize the opposite of that statement, and don't need lectures on how I am insensitive to these issues, especially of race. You don't know me, but if you had time, I'd tell you everything I know and have experienced.

But more to the point, you are making judgement calls about someone who has always been more interested in African-American culture, music, history, achievement, and participation in the Civil War--than in those of his own race. I don't know why, or what that makes me, but it is certainly not a bigot, or an insensitive person.

You can ask my wife, who is an African American, my two children who are both bi-racial, and my own family, some of whom I have helped realize over the years the futility of racism and fear.

Now, that doesn't mean I can ever appreciate why you see me this way, nor can it ever help me to see what an African-Amereican man would go through in my place--but at least I have always been myself, and tried to learn as much as possible, and not be fake.

If you can't respect that I just told you way more about myself than I usually ever do, hopefully you can at least see I am trying to help you to understand who you are dealing with.

We just disagree. That you might be African-American doesn't make you right. My being white doesn't mean I'm wrong, or tainted.

I can't think of any other ways to explain that.
You should give me the benefit of the doubt, and not just label me as a "white" person.

user-pic

Santanaya was wrong - it isn't those who forget history who are condemned to repeat it, it is those who cannot forgive history who are condemned.

user-pic

I was actually quite taken by this post Joe.

"Obama did two meaningful gestures of note today. He sent a wreath, as other Presidents have, to the Confederate memorial. He also did something else, he sent a wreath to the African-American Civil War Memorial, in a largely black Washington neighborhood. Something we haven't seen before."

I was not aware of this. You really put somethings together here for me.

Thank you.

user-pic

Thanks, Dickday

user-pic

I think it says alot also when you take into account how many former foes became friends after the war. When you look at the common sense of pride between both sides, and look at the regular re-enactments of battles, the parades, and re-unions on battlefields that until the 1920's were highly regarded and embraced popularly by both sides--when you read the sentiments of Joshua lawrence Chamberlain, of Joseph E.Johnston, of Sam Watkins, of people who lived then at the time, and forgave those who had fought so hard against them--it seems ridiculous and foolhardy for a far observer from the future to scold or judge or criticize them for doing that. We weren't there, my friend. They were. They handled it very well, in my view.

user-pic

This goes right to another comment on another thread, which I am sure I cannot find, where the Commenter suggested it was those who never fought in wars that were the most eager to pursue them, i.e. Dubya and Dick, and the rest of the GOP for that matter.

user-pic

"Mistakes Were Made"

And now, let us all praise the passive voice in American history.

user-pic

"It was worse than a crime, it was a mistake..."

user-pic

A little info on blacks serving in the civil war on both sides of the conflict can be found here: Wikipedia African Americans in the Civil War

and this on Arlington National Cemetary:

"Arlington National Cemetery, in Arlington, Virginia is a military cemetery in the United States, established during the American Civil War on the grounds of Arlington House, formerly the estate of the family of Robert E. Lee's wife Mary Anna (Custis) Lee, a descendant of Martha Washington.

"The federal government dedicated a model community for freed slaves, Freedman's Village, near the current Memorial Amphitheater, December 4, 1863. More than 1,100 freed slaves were given land by the government, where they farmed and lived during and after the Civil War. They were turned out in 1890 when the estate was repurchased by the government and dedicated as a military installation.

In Section 27, there are buried more than 3,800 former slaves, called "Contrabands" during the Civil War. Their headstones are designated with the word "Civilian" or "Citizen".

Also, in the cemetery, there is a Confederate section with graves of soldiers of the Confederate States of America and a Confederate Memorial.[7]


user-pic

Thanks for adding this to the post. Great information in this context.

user-pic

Many have said that we went to War in Iraq for Oil. Does that mean that all of the soldiers who fought and died there did so because they fought for oil? I don't think so.

It is said that we went there to rid them of WMD. But I know many, many soldiers who fought there because of 9/11, and the false links that were made by politicians they believed in. They thought they were fighting for those who died on September 11th.

So you can see my reluctance to paint confederates as unworthy of honor; as racist, slaveowning hatemongers. Some may have wanted to protect their homes, their families. Some were lied to. Some did so because they felt it was in the spirit of George Washington. Some did so because their state had already voted to secede. And there were some who simply followed their generals with questioning motive. Now you can add those who fought for preserving slavery, or who felt African Americans were inferior, or hated Abraham Lincoln and did not want him as their President.

We don't know what the pie chart would have worked out to. I don't assume to.

But as was said above, these were not just an enemy on the battlefield, but former friends, classmates, fellow soldiers, generals, and uncles, fathers, and brothers. Thus the rub.

Look at the actual headstones. Go to the cemetary at Arlington. You will see states such as Alabama, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Missouri on the tombstones of the Confederate officers and men.

These are men who since the end of the war are considered Americans. That point has to be made.

user-pic

.

Excellent piece Joe . . .

I highly recommend it. Although I have one question of note. It has to do with this short sentence.

It took balls for Obama to not cave in to pressure, to not pander, or play to his base.

Please explain Obama's base. Not your interpretation of what you may think his base is, but what Obama truly sees as his base from the position of President of the United States.

I know what it comprises, from his own words.

Thanks again for the great post.

~OGD~

user-pic

Actually, I am making an assumption. I assume, and may be quite wrong, that the liberal to moderate view of honoring the Confederate dead would range from being against this practice in the future, to believing it should be abandoned as practice immediately, and the memorials should come down.

user-pic

I see his base as people whom largely in my mind do not agree with such a practice, to be quite simple about it. Maybe I didn't choose the best word there--base--since their feelings can run the gammit on this one issue, nor does this issue explain in any way who they are.

This assumption may be wrong, but I bet if I took a poll, more conservatives would understand why this practice has become tradition, and more moderates and liberals would abhor the practice altogether.

Not based on anything but my gut feel.

Sorry if I didn't answer the way you meant.
Thanks.

user-pic

I have no idea who he sees his base as--maybe it is a cross-section of all. That would be interesting.

I know it is not the "left" alone. I know too many that are center, and a few right of center as well who supported him, and still do.

user-pic

.

Well ... Joe . . .

This is what I heard from his lips to my ear:

"We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

I'd say that's pretty inclusive of all the people.

That is Obama's base!

~OGD~

user-pic

And as each man's flesh
tiiimmmmbirrrrrrrrrrrrrrrred!!!! back
into the flannel-shirted
arms of good ole piney-scented
yeah\a good ole lumberjack-handed friend
he is
death

then the secret of life r
POPped
from ther Southern places 'n n n other
nether regions
where it'd been
hitherto hid n n n
\\secreted
mongst/midst
thedark places
downin ther pants (n pantalons\\

but now
spr Outed
it sent out runners
DAMN
lookit them runrunrurunrurnrurnrunrurnrnriurnrurners
go

1.st round ta the heart
then up past the lungs
sqezd pst Adm's Apls
onward secret, onward! GIVE 'ER BOY!!!! COME ONTO HER! CHUCK THE BERRIES TO 'ER! MAKE THE TIRES LAUGH SON! GO ON, GIVE 'ER! YOU GOTTA STORY TO TELL!

secret's bustin' moves n blowin smoke
roarin' up the throat
gotta be told
gotta tell this one
almost there kid almo
\ready now? Ready??
secret's in their mouth
skating cross their lil pink liar
n out twixt the lil pink lovers
her he/she comes
burstinto blOOO0000OOOOm
the secret of
life
r

right there
. ____ .

Secret Message Delivered, O Cap'n
my captin.
Say Amen, child.

and the secret meaning of lifer
made 'em all
giggle

to think
they'd missed it
by just so
sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much

and been such calves
poltroons
compleat idjits
such... such... whats the word... dammit... goddamit... such...

adults.

user-pic

Amen, child... Ginsberg... Cummings... Pound? Who let the TPM Tourettes Kid out of his cage tonight?

user-pic

No kidding Miguel. But let us ponder this. We should award Q the Dayly Poem of the Day Award, for this here TPMCafe Site given to all of him from all of us.

However, why do you not render it to him in this instance.

He seems a little too unstable for my tastes!!!

user-pic

Holly Molly, Q, this is good...!
THE ENDr!

user-pic

I shall never forget,
The secret lifer in his pants....

user-pic



Ha ha . . .

I realize this is quite a late comment. But every once in awhile, while searching the data base, I come across some interesting dialog, as this one above.

Nice to see Mister Bluster proverbially get his asteroid-orifice handed to him. Although, as usual it did no good and he never realized it anyway.

As pointed out in Dealing With Impossible People:

Impossible people do not listen to reason. They can't (and even if they could, they wouldn't). You can't convince them that they have any responsibility for the problems between you. They don't recognize (or if they did, wouldn't try to improve) their flaws for a very logical reason; they don't have any flaws.

~OGD~

user-pic



Oops ... Notice . . .

My comment above is in reference to this sub-thread found here.

~OGD~

Leave a comment

Joe Wood

user-pic

Following: 0
Followers: 32

Posts
Comments & Recommends


  • Website: josephwood0.tripod.com
  • Location Upper Louisiana Territory--St. Louis
  • Party Independant
  • Politics Whatever changes the miserable conditions that exist on this planet.

Favorites

  • Favorite Blogs Since you don't ask me about my "favorite movies," I'll just tell you. "Grapes of Wrath," "On the Waterfront," and "Paths of Glory."
  • Favorite Books Bartleby the Scrivener, Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
  • Favorite Quotes This Machine Kills Facists -BY Woody Guthrie Money don't matter, when you' free Bend yourself towards Justice -Both of them by me

Bio

Professor M. M. Quimby began in 1952 his program for elementary uses for Thermos Technology, and became the sole inventor of No. 5 Electronic Skin Salve. Joe Wood, however, is an artist/author in St. Louis, MO.

All Reader Posts
How to use myTPM

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address