|
Post by millring on Aug 18, 2017 21:25:33 GMT -5
I before E except AFTER C.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 18, 2017 22:08:53 GMT -5
I'll see your i.e. and raise you an e.g., a viz., and an op.cit.
Q.E.D.
(I'll accept an IOU.)
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Aug 19, 2017 15:55:22 GMT -5
Here's a sweet little hand grenade that's been tossed into the debate over Southern statues by a Facebook friend, writer Lawrence Leamer: What do we do about Gettysburg? Statues of Confederates and federals are freely intermixed on the battlefield, all on ground owned by the U.S. government. Removing the Southerners certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of the Gettysburg Address, with its tone of reconciliation. Maybe all the land should be returned to private historical and preservation societies such as those that originally donated or sold them to the government.
Say, this thing could get complicated.
|
|
|
Post by Village Idiot on Aug 19, 2017 17:24:26 GMT -5
Keep the Confederate statues there. That is a place where they should be, standing in historical context. It is an appropriate placement.
|
|
|
Post by Russell Letson on Aug 19, 2017 17:38:53 GMT -5
Battlefields are one thing. Courthouse and state capitol grounds are another. (And recreational parks are probably another other.) Context matters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 19, 2017 18:52:06 GMT -5
But is it only Confederates or will anyone who ever did anything repellent, illegal or immoral (by today's standards not the times when it happened), sexist, racist, homophobic, Islamophobic, transphobic etc. (by today's standards not the times when it happened) be subject to having their history eradicated and monuments removed? Street names changed? Parks? Lakes, rivers and streams?
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 19, 2017 22:09:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Aug 19, 2017 22:19:48 GMT -5
Here's a sweet little hand grenade that's been tossed into the debate over Southern statues by a Facebook friend, writer Lawrence Leamer: What do we do about Gettysburg? Statues of Confederates and federals are freely intermixed on the battlefield, all on ground owned by the U.S. government. Removing the Southerners certainly wouldn't be in the spirit of the Gettysburg Address, with its tone of reconciliation. Maybe all the land should be returned to private historical and preservation societies such as those that originally donated or sold them to the government. Say, this thing could get complicated. Fortuneately there are adults involved in the running of Gettysburg and they've already shut that nonsense down.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2017 7:32:37 GMT -5
Strange that Trump is being excoriated for saying virtually the same thing Obama said after riots in Ferguson. So it goes.
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Aug 20, 2017 11:44:48 GMT -5
FWIW, I don't have a problem with his rational for having them removed. If I were a black resident of New Orleans, I wouldn't want to look at them either. But as I might have mentioned before, now that they are down, all the problems in that city continue to grow and fester and they will probably find another external symbol or individual upon which to fixate their blame/ire/frustrations/resentments. I might have agreed with Mitch in this instance but I'm pretty sure we won't agree on the root causes of their problems (i.e. I'm not "woke").
|
|
|
Post by chicagobob on Aug 20, 2017 13:47:41 GMT -5
As a sign of love, let's take down the Statue of Liberty. It may make the rest of the world feel like they are not free.
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Aug 20, 2017 13:53:02 GMT -5
The Civil War, you will find, if you take time to study it, was rather complicated. Even today, there are those who argue about the motivation of the South. States’ Rights is mentioned quite a bit as a way of saying the war was not about slavery. Of course, the number one state right that was being argued then was the right to own slaves. Others mention the idea of The Lost Cause and the nobility that somehow suggests. One major problem that seems to exist today, and this is just my opinion, is that people don’t really know a lot of facts about that war. They base what they think upon their own political views, what little they learned in school and a lot of movies and TV shows. The truth is a lot more complex and, probably, a bit more boring because a person might have to slog through several thousands of pages to get to it. I do strongly recommend the 3 volume history by historian Shelby Foote (a Southerner, himself) as a source of a lot of information. Ken Burns used a great amount of Foote’s writing and research as a basis for his PBS series, which did, in itself, trigger a renewed interest in the war.
As far as the statues are concerned, if you look at the historical context of when the great majority of them were erected, they correspond to the resurgence of the Klan, the introduction of Jim Crow laws in the South, or to the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950’s and 1960’s. They were not put up to honor the lost souls of the Confederacy as much to send a message of where the South stood during these events. And, no, I am not saying everyone in the South was a racist who wanted to keep minorities under their thumb. I am just saying there is a direct historical connection between the statues and these events. I think the statue to Nathan Bedford Forrest had a great deal more to do with his founding of the KKK than his exploits in the war. It is my opinion, but it is based on what I know about the guy.
As far as Lee is concerned, there is argument among Civil War historians about whether he was as skilled a general as he is portrayed or if the opposition (McClellan) was just too timid and incompetent to meet his challenge. Lee’s defeat at Gettysburg when he faced Meade and his inexcusable blunder in calling for Pickett to make his ill-fated charge, are arguments in favor of his less than stellar talents as a general. I don’t have an opinion on this. I just find the argument interesting. It is an historical fact, though, that Pickett never forgave Lee and blamed him for the deaths of his men. “That old man had my division massacred at Gettysburg.”
I have spent some time on Civil War Battlefields in the South. I find the monuments there to be moving and appropriate to what happened there. Gettysburg, if you have not been there, is a solemn place filled with monuments to Confederate and Union soldiers alike—although it did take quite a while before the battlefield allowed Confederate monuments to be erected. The 1st Maryland Battalion put up one in 1884. Virginia put up the 1st state monument in 1917 and Tennessee did not dedicate one until 1982. Again, it is totally appropriate that they be there, even though there were strong feelings against any Confederate monuments being allowed.
There is a monument to Confederate soldiers in the Oak Woods Cemetery in the Chicago area. I am always surprised at how many people in this area don’t know about it. It is situated on the largest mass grave in the Western Hemisphere. There are over 4,000 Confederate soldiers buried there and all of them were inmates at the infamous POW camp Fort Douglas. It is 30 feet high and has the names of the soldiers inscribed on bass plates. There are also as few unknowns and, I have read, 10 or so Union soldiers. It belongs there and should be preserved.
Those monuments are different than the ones in town squares and are there for different reasons. I know there are those who might not see the differences, but I think they should.
And, yes, Washington owned slaves. He did everything he could to keep them, too. Sally Henning was not Jefferson’s mistress. She was his property. So why do I feel their statues are more appropriate than that of Forrest? It has to do with their role in establishing the Republic and Forrest’s role in trying to destroy it. It is an imperfect argument, I suppose, but I think it is valid and it is my opinion.
I think it is important to know what is being honored and why it is being honored and what many believe to be the reason for those town square statues going up in the first place is not entirely accurate.
|
|
|
Post by james on Aug 20, 2017 14:01:34 GMT -5
From an old newspaper archive. Summary: The paper prints Robert E. Lee's note declining an invitation to join officers on the battlefield of Gettysburg to mark troop positions for posterity. Lee and a number of Democratic newspapers believe that the battle of Gettysburg and the strife accompanying the Civil War are best left forgotten. Full Text of Article: The widely heralded meeting of the officers, (U.S and Confederate,) who took part in the battle of Gettysburg, to mark the operations of both armies on the field, by enduring memorials of granite, has proven, as many expected a great farce. But few of the prominent Northern officers were present and only two Confederate officers of minor grades. The Hotel man did not make as much as he expected, when he got up the idea. Gen. Lee was invited and forwarded the following reply: Lexington, VA., August 5, 1869. Dear Sir--Absence from Lexington has prevented my receiving until to-day your letter of the 26th ult., inclosing an invitation from the Gettysburg Battle-field Memorial Association, to attend a meeting of the officers engaged in that battle at Gettysburg, for the purpose of marking upon the ground by enduring memorials of granite the positions and movements of the armies on the field. My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered. Very respectfully, Your obedient servant, R. E. Lee. The New York Herald and other Northern papers were down on perpetuating the memory of Gettysburg. The Democratic Watchman, (Pa.) expresses their sentiments in short, which for its succinctness and pith, we copy below: "Another big fuss at Gettysburg. A lot of officers are there for the purpose of fixing definitely the positions occupied by the troops on the first day's battle. Better take Gen. Lee's advise and let the darned thing die out of remembrance." www2.vcdh.virginia.edu/saxon/servlet/SaxonServlet?source=%2Fxml_docs%2Fvalley_news%2Fnewspaper_catalog.xml&style=%2Fxml_docs%2Fvalley_news%2Fnews_cat.xsl&level=edition&paper=rv&year=1869&month=09&day=03&edition=rv1869%2Fva.au.rv.1869.09.03.xml
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 20, 2017 17:37:42 GMT -5
General Tidbits. -Just before, during, and after, Gettysburg, General Lee was, by some accounts, so sick he was barely able to stay astride his horse. He had a bad heart and some speculate that he may have had a heart attack or some type of heart issue. I, of course, don't know. Nothing but nothing could have saved the day for the South (only delayed the inevitable), but, it is interesting that in the tides of war, disease often raised more hell than than bullets (or swords or rocks). -McClellan is almost universally berated or ridiculed as a general. There is a minority opinion that views him differently (and suspects that at least part of his fall in stature lies in his opposition to Lincoln and losing the "battle of history" to the revered Lincoln. But, in this view, McClellan's "hesitancy" in engaging the Confederate army was because he was opposed to Lincoln's all-out war policy. McClellan believed it possible that cooler heads could still prevail and the South could be brought to the negotiating table and that the discord could be cooled and settled by means other than bloody battles (economic blockades, reason, ). I am not arguing that McClellan was right or wrong, but I am suggesting that McClellan may have reasons other than cowardice and timidity to account for his hesitancy in engaging in what proved to be unbelievably horrific battles. Maybe he thought they could be avoided and given time and some other approach may have come to the fore. The best generals don't always engage. Some delay, stall, and buy time. Sometimes, time is all that is needed. But, you don't cross Lincoln, then or now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 18:48:36 GMT -5
General Tidbits. -Just before, during, and after, Gettysburg, General Lee was, by some accounts, so sick he was barely able to stay astride his horse. He had a bad heart and some speculate that he may have had a heart attack or some type of heart issue. I, of course, don't know. Nothing but nothing could have saved the day for the South (only delayed the inevitable), but, it is interesting that in the tides of war, disease often raised more hell than than bullets (or swords or rocks). -McClellan is almost universally berated or ridiculed as a general. There is a minority opinion that views him differently (and suspects that at least part of his fall in stature lies in his opposition to Lincoln and losing the "battle of history" to the revered Lincoln. But, in this view, McClellan's "hesitancy" in engaging the Confederate army was because he was opposed to Lincoln's all-out war policy. McClellan believed it possible that cooler heads could still prevail and the South could be brought to the negotiating table and that the discord could be cooled and settled by means other than bloody battles (economic blockades, reason, ). I am not arguing that McClellan was right or wrong, but I am suggesting that McClellan may have reasons other than cowardice and timidity to account for his hesitancy in engaging in what proved to be unbelievably horrific battles. Maybe he thought they could be avoided and given time and some other approach may have come to the fore. The best generals don't always engage. Some delay, stall, and buy time. Sometimes, time is all that is needed. But, you don't cross Lincoln, then or now. You could be right and the brave generals of WW1, apparently having learned nothing from the battlefields of Gettysburg and Antietam, thought nothing of throwing masses of men against well dug in defenders armed with even better weapons and artillery. So it goes. Although, come to think of it, wasn't McClellan the Union general at Antietam?
|
|
|
Post by drlj on Aug 21, 2017 19:02:57 GMT -5
Yes. 6 Generals died in that battle--3 from each side.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Aug 21, 2017 19:10:11 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2017 19:15:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by AlanC on Aug 21, 2017 19:54:04 GMT -5
They didn't learn anything there either as they did the same thing at the Hurtgen Forest in WWII. Didn't look to tough on the map in their villa. Should have been cake.
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Aug 21, 2017 22:56:07 GMT -5
There are some holes in my McClellan defense. There are always holes. As Trump would say, there are good holes on both sides. But, there is one thing that has always given me pause in these “Generals of the Civil War” histories and discussions. How is it that all the dumb generals ended up on the Union side and all the clever ones were with the Confederates? I mean, what were the odds?
Specifically, every top dog General of the Army of the Potomac, with the lone exception of Bulldog Grant, is generally considered by the post-game analysts to have been overly cautious or incompetent, and all were huge disappointments to Lincoln (that master of military strategy). Maybe they all were as they seem to have been, and maybe the top Confederate Generals were the bold and clever ones, or maybe …
Both McClellan and Meade, for example, are generally criticized for having held back too many troops from action and failing to aggressively pursue a retreating and vulnerable enemy when it appeared they had the opportunity to do so, especially in the two biggest battles each is associated with, Antietam and Gettysburg. Maybe they were cautious. Was there a reason they were cautious while those clever Confederates were so bold? Other than the competency and vision and good Generalism thing?
Consider a championship chess match between two Grand Masters. Grand Master North has a two game lead with only two games left to play. All North has to do is play for a couple draws. All he has to do is avoid making a dumb, risky move and the match is in the bag. South, on the other hand, has to gamble, be bold and take risks. These are two Grand Masters of great skill. But their respective situations require them to adopt very different strategies.
Consider two Olympic wrestlers going for the gold. It is the final period. Wrestler North has a 9 point lead. All he has to do is avoid being pinned. He can hunker down on all fours and stall out the clock. No dumb, risky move, and the match is his. Wrestler South, on the other hand, has to gamble, shoot the moon, take every chance in the books and out of the books. Both wrestlers are supremely talented Olympic finalists, but their respective situations require them to adopt strategies that are polar opposites.
Well, there’s our generals. The material advantage the North had in the Civil war was overwhelming. All the North Generals had to do to win was avoid risk. Avoid the huge mistake. While the Confederate Generals had to roll the dice, take the chance, be bold.
McClellan could have thrown General Porter’s brigade into action at Antietam, but, that brigade was the reserve, the extra safety, the two guys standing in front of the goal. McClellan didn’t have to win, he just had to avoid disaster and allow an attack on DC. What if the Confederates actually had the number to troops someone told him they might have? The smart move was the safe move.
Meade could have pursued Lee aggressively after Gettysburg. But the battle had just ended Lee’s ability to wage war in the North. Why risk allowing Lee to pull off some type of miraculous reversal by charging into the unknown when doing nothing guaranteed the cook job?
Now, in each and every case, the opposite of what I have argued could be equally argued, A strong move early and maybe the North ends the war early and countless lives are saved. Or, maybe the South follows Joe Johnston’s advice and adopts a cautious defensive strategy and drags the war on and on till the North tires of it and negotiates.
Who knows. Regardless, I have become skeptical of the “The North had the dumb Generals and the South had the clever ones” line. The Generals were probably about the same, it was everything else that was different.
(and what where was it again that Dante placed the second guessers?)
|
|