Praise For Lee And Jackson

Praise For Lee And Jackson

There are 32 comments on the www.newswithviews.com story from Jan 15, 2009, titled Praise For Lee And Jackson. In it, www.newswithviews.com reports that:

January is often referred to as "Generals Month" since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at www.newswithviews.com.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last

“"I'm A Great American!"”

Since: Sep 08

Obama Nation! USA! USA!

#24 Jan 16, 2009
GAPatriot65 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah - so by your logic
The Soviets deserve respect because they were victorious in creating an empire during the late 40's and 50's by beating down and threatening their neighbors.
The Nazis, had things gone a different path, would have been given your respect.
Communist China's Mao deserves our respect for being victorious in his bloody take over of China and the crushing fist he held over its citizens for decades for any dissent.
I see - onlky the victorious deserves respect, respect cannot be given anyone of character and honor, no matter the fact they fought on an opposing side.
Jackson and Lee deserve respect for the men they were, not for the uniform the wore.
Even though Grant was victorious - it was only because Lee was a gentleman and a patriot, and decided it would be best for his men and country to surrender then, rather than drag it out in a guerrilla war for another 10 years or more, which would have devastated both sides.
Grant may have been elected President, mainly due to his win of the Civil war, but he was no man of character, nor of honor. His presidency was rife with problems, corruption, and more.
There was much of Lincoln to be honored but he was not the shining man of integrity that history has painted him. His choice to free slaves had nothing to do with a "personal belief to free the negro", but was more of him doing what he felt was needed to win the war. He stated as much in the early days of the war.
He stated that if he could win the war without freeing a single Negro - he would. If he could win the war by freeing some and not others, he would. It was about winning, not right or wrong.
That's the point here - you are giving glory for something that was not real and didn't exist.
You really want to do this? OK.

1) Lincoln's top priority was keeping the nation intact. He was also strongly opposed to slavery, but freeing slaves was not his top priority. Freeing slaves ended up a tactic to serve his number one objective.

Still he got Emancipation done. And we collectively are better off for being one nation since 1865. So Lincoln prevailing was a big plus.

2) Your fantasy journey into hypothetical Soviet and Nazi glory misses the point. Lincoln's vision was that the Union survive as one nation. And we are blessed indeed his vision prevailed.

Confronting the enemies we faced in the 100 years following Lincoln (three of which you cited) was much easier because there was one United States, not two or more nations on this continent.

3) Holding up leaders as somehow superior for "Christian" virtues is always a curious exercise.

Lee and Stonewall Jackson might well have held heartfelt spiritual beliefs. But you don't become a general of an army being an altar boy.

In the 19th century, the United States had a reprehensible policy of treating native Americans justly, forcing them from their land and repeatedly breaking treaties. The US armies were the muscle behind oppressing the Indians. Lee and Jackson were a party to that.

They might have been the two best moral examples among top leadership in their day. But their morality was, at best, cafeteria style. There's no record I'm aware of that either of them spoke up on behalf of merely living up to the treaties the US signed.

This injustice escalated after your two Generals left the stage. But it was ongoing throughout the century; shove the Indians away whenever expedient.

Nobody called U.S. Grant an altar boy, but he never claimed to be. The lack of hypocrisy around his legacy is a refreshing contrast to the more "religious" figures of the era.

“more cowbell”

Since: Oct 08

Dallas, TX

#25 Jan 16, 2009
wardog wrote:
im from the south the way i see it is both sides lost. it was war between brothers fathers sons both sides made mistakes. the south was not evil the north was not evil its just things were the truth is though. it was just a war started by politcions on both sides.
Truer words were never spoken. Both sides lost in that damned war.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#26 Jan 16, 2009
PooPoo Platter wrote:
<quoted text>
You really want to do this? OK.
Show me where prior to the war he stated he opposed slavery - one statement by him.

Even after the Emancipation was done, slaves in the North were not freed till after the war, and the passing of the 14th amendment.

His way of winning caused huge divisive turns in the country that lasted decades, that held back some of the advancement that could have occured had war not taken place. There were more diplomatic solutions that could have occurred that historians have taken note, but he chose to take the path of war, when secession was a legitimate and legal path.

Your saying I missed the point simply ignores the point I was making - but of course you wouldn't want to answer that.

Saying that only the victorious deserves our respect is closed minded and stupid.

The points I made regarding the Soviets and the Chinese show how that mindset is stupid.

There's no telling how history would have been written, or the seccession would have been permanent in creating two countries. So your assessment is flawed.

I love how you try to roll over to the Native American situation since you know the slavery issue is mute in regards to these two men (Jackson and Lee) and Lincoln and Grant have dirty hands in that.

Jackson himself never fought in or in nrelation to any skirmish or action against Native Americans. Prior to the Civil War, he first attended West Point, and then out of that, he served in the Mexican American War where he first meets Lee. After that, he was a teacher at VMI.

Lees only service that had anything to do with Natives was when he was promoted to Colonel, and briefly served in Texas, where is regiment served as a protection to Texas settlers that were being attacked by Apache and Commanche. That time was not long, and he certainly did not push for any raids on villages, simply fought back attacks on settlers.

I find it humorous that you would equate todays morality and Christiandom upon the norms of over a century ago. The same goes with the character and morality of a soldier then.

Officers of Lee's and Jackson's kind took their integrity and honor, their morality, as things held precious. It was because of the respect from their men, their integrity, their moral code, that got them where they were, not by their viciousness or politicking.

Now we look at Grant, his career outside of the early Mexican-American War, was pretty pathetic, and he quit. He was vastly unsuccessful, and tended to drink alot. He wandered from job to job, and it took the patronage of some people with ties high up, to get him back in the Army.

Yeah - I can see why he's a hero to you.
FYI

Chapel Hill, TN

#27 Jan 16, 2009
GAPatriot65 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me where prior to the war he stated he opposed slavery - one statement by him.
Even after the Emancipation was done, slaves in the North were not freed till after the war, and the passing of the 14th amendment.
His way of winning caused huge divisive turns in the country that lasted decades, that held back some of the advancement that could have occured had war not taken place. There were more diplomatic solutions that could have occurred that historians have taken note, but he chose to take the path of war, when secession was a legitimate and legal path.
Your saying I missed the point simply ignores the point I was making - but of course you wouldn't want to answer that.
Saying that only the victorious deserves our respect is closed minded and stupid.
The points I made regarding the Soviets and the Chinese show how that mindset is stupid.
There's no telling how history would have been written, or the seccession would have been permanent in creating two countries. So your assessment is flawed.
I love how you try to roll over to the Native American situation since you know the slavery issue is mute in regards to these two men (Jackson and Lee) and Lincoln and Grant have dirty hands in that.
Jackson himself never fought in or in nrelation to any skirmish or action against Native Americans. Prior to the Civil War, he first attended West Point, and then out of that, he served in the Mexican American War where he first meets Lee. After that, he was a teacher at VMI.
Lees only service that had anything to do with Natives was when he was promoted to Colonel, and briefly served in Texas, where is regiment served as a protection to Texas settlers that were being attacked by Apache and Commanche. That time was not long, and he certainly did not push for any raids on villages, simply fought back attacks on settlers.
I find it humorous that you would equate todays morality and Christiandom upon the norms of over a century ago. The same goes with the character and morality of a soldier then.
Officers of Lee's and Jackson's kind took their integrity and honor, their morality, as things held precious. It was because of the respect from their men, their integrity, their moral code, that got them where they were, not by their viciousness or politicking.
Now we look at Grant, his career outside of the early Mexican-American War, was pretty pathetic, and he quit. He was vastly unsuccessful, and tended to drink alot. He wandered from job to job, and it took the patronage of some people with ties high up, to get him back in the Army.
Yeah - I can see why he's a hero to you.
Integrity and honor cannot be explained to those that are lacking in integrity and honor. You are wasting your time. We have elected too many politicians to the oval office that lacked those characteristics.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#28 Jan 16, 2009
FYI wrote:
<quoted text>
Integrity and honor cannot be explained to those that are lacking in integrity and honor. You are wasting your time. We have elected too many politicians to the oval office that lacked those characteristics.
Too True

“Immorality is no "civil right"”

Since: Sep 08

Normal Town USA

#35 Jan 16, 2009
On MLK Day, I will be celebrating real men of character, honor, and worth like Jackson and Lee rather than that womanizing, false prophet of a Marxist.

When the Confederacy lost, America lost; and today we see the bitter fruit of what was really lost when the pro-Federalist triumphed over the the Constitutional Republic.

Lincoln had no real love for the Slaves; he simply hated State Sovereignty.

“more cowbell”

Since: Oct 08

Grand Prairie, TX

#37 Jan 16, 2009
Libbo_Whacker wrote:
On MLK Day, I will be celebrating real men of character, honor, and worth like Jackson and Lee rather than that womanizing, false prophet of a Marxist.
When the Confederacy lost, America lost; and today we see the bitter fruit of what was really lost when the pro-Federalist triumphed over the the Constitutional Republic.
Lincoln had no real love for the Slaves; he simply hated State Sovereignty.
No, he just wanted to preserve the Union. Geeez! You harbor resentment like a Confederate widow! Are you gonna give your slaves Martin Luther King Day off? Or will you still sit there, drinking mint julips on the front porch of your plantation, watching your negros at work?

“THE BRAVE ONLY DIE ONCE”

Since: Sep 08

RED STATES

#38 Jan 17, 2009
thebabbster wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he just wanted to preserve the Union. Geeez! You harbor resentment like a Confederate widow! Are you gonna give your slaves Martin Luther King Day off? Or will you still sit there, drinking mint julips on the front porch of your plantation, watching your negros at work?
you're about 144 years late with that assessment, dude. That trying to link slavery and southern pride is just a bullying tactic. You want some respect? go tell Rev Wright to stop "G'Ding America" In fact, Chicago would be a good location for you to relocate to. then you spend all your waking hours on your hands and knees licking, sucking, begging and groveling for PC brownie points.

“Immorality is no "civil right"”

Since: Sep 08

Normal Town USA

#39 Jan 17, 2009
thebabbster wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he just wanted to preserve the Union...
"Preserve the Union"! It was Lincoln's anti-Constitutional actions which brought the South to secede!
As for your other IGNORANT remarks... you've obviously never read the Lincoln - Douglas Debates: Lincoln was no friend to the Blacks.
And my Family was here before there was a "United States", and never kept slaves.

I advise you to shut your mouth before speaking without very definite knowledge of to Whom, and of What you are speaking.
FYI

Nolensville, TN

#42 Jan 17, 2009
Libbo_Whacker wrote:
<quoted text>
"Preserve the Union"! It was Lincoln's anti-Constitutional actions which brought the South to secede!
As for your other IGNORANT remarks... you've obviously never read the Lincoln - Douglas Debates: Lincoln was no friend to the Blacks.
And my Family was here before there was a "United States", and never kept slaves.
I advise you to shut your mouth before speaking without very definite knowledge of to Whom, and of What you are speaking.
I've read his posts on another forum. You will never convince him of anything differing from his opinion. He is a closed minded bigot in masquerade as an open minded liberal. He is not open to accepting anything that doesn't support his theories. You are wasting your time trying to enlighten him.
FYI

Nolensville, TN

#43 Jan 17, 2009
The above post is in reference to this poster.
thebabbster wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he just wanted to preserve the Union. Geeez! You harbor resentment like a Confederate widow! Are you gonna give your slaves Martin Luther King Day off? Or will you still sit there, drinking mint julips on the front porch of your plantation, watching your negros at work?

“Immorality is no "civil right"”

Since: Sep 08

Normal Town USA

#44 Jan 17, 2009
FYI wrote:
<quoted text>
I've read his posts on another forum. You will never convince him of anything differing from his opinion. He is a closed minded bigot in masquerade as an open minded liberal. He is not open to accepting anything that doesn't support his theories. You are wasting your time trying to enlighten him.
I see. Well thank you. I do hate "casting pearls before swine", to quote the Good Book.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Stonewall Jackson Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Robert E. Lee: Remembering An American Legend (Jan '11) Jan '12 FACE the FACTS 263
News Grand Ole Opry singer claims age discrimination... (Feb '07) Dec '10 James Fox 16
News Collector donates historic rifles, pistols to V... (Sep '10) Sep '10 beentheredonethat 1
News Older country stars feel slighted at Grand Ole ... (Mar '07) May '09 Casey James Putnam 17
News Would a newly named holiday be as reverent? (Jan '09) Feb '09 Communist Clam 19
News Remembering Robert E. Lee's 202nd Birthday (Jan '09) Jan '09 bappie 14
News Stonewall Jackson, Grand Ole Opry settle lawsuit (Nov '08) Nov '08 Georgia Cherokee 1
More from around the web