It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Revisionists want to Remove Gen Lee and Jackson from the Halls of Military College

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:22 AM
link   

beezzer
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


When you remove parts of history, "white-wash" history, you are denying the oppourtunity to learn.

I find this distasteful and disturbing.



Yes considering its a military college and they study every military person or army that had succsess.....as a pure military endeavor.

In their day Napoleon was the number one studied military guy, his men, their tactics by both northern and southern american officers. Many of them were classmates!

So all that one is studying when they study Lee and Jackson are variations and adaptations of tactics used by Napoleons generals and other European generals.
edit on 18-12-2013 by Logarock because: n




posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:25 AM
link   

sirskity
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


The article states that one person questioned the paintings. I believe that the Washington Times reporter went a bit overboard with their article title. Especially when nothing in their actual article backs up their headline.


This is ATS where people take a single persons question and declare the Goverment is evil. That is just sort of how it works here.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:38 AM
link   

MrSpad

sirskity
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


The article states that one person questioned the paintings. I believe that the Washington Times reporter went a bit overboard with their article title. Especially when nothing in their actual article backs up their headline.


This is ATS where people take a single persons question and declare the Goverment is evil. That is just sort of how it works here.


you think our government is not evil? drone attacking weddings in the middle east, kill 1,000s of kids, call it Collateral damage. Inflate your dollar to nothing, forcing you into a soft slavery serf. Day by day taking away your natural born rights in the name of fairness.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
If this is going to be a serious discussion at the War College then count me as among the sickened and disgusted.
Lee didn't fight against his country - he fought for Virginia, his home.
Anyone who wouldn't fight for their home is well, a pussy.
I suppose they want more of those these days, types easily malleable to whatever political demands are made of them and who can ignore things like honor, duty, sacrifice.
Lee was a US soldier for almost 40 years, he fought for the Confederacy for 4.

Since Lincoln declared the war an "Insurrection" so at no point could they have been accused of being part of a foreign nation - thus they were still Americans by Lincoln's own pronouncement.
Both Generals showed uncommon courage, valor, intelligence and adaptability on the battlefield against overwhelming odds.
Both were true gentlemen who understood and respected the limits of warfare and never preyed on innocent civilians even while invading Pennsylvania.

Should they have their portraits removed perhaps there are some far more deserving of having theirs taken down as well for their part in wholesale destruction of and deaths of civilians:
William Tecumseh Sherman
Phillip Sheridan
Burning down towns and cities was never part of ethical warfare,
Starving an enemy into submission wasn't either since civilians suffered equally with the troops.
Both made such practices part of modern warfare.

The War College should be ashamed for even contemplating such a move.
Didn't George Washington fight against his country too?
Don't open this ridiculous can of worms.
edit on 18-12-2013 by Asktheanimals because: addded comment



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Sherman’s march to the sea, leaving no town standing, burning crops, destroying rail lines, Decimating families and property, leaving nothing but starvation and hopelessness. History calls him a good guy.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by sirskity
 


Then the only question left is why WT wold want to start such a controversy over nothing?


edit on 18-12-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:01 PM
link   

camaro68ss
reply to post by Asktheanimals
 


Sherman’s march to the sea, leaving no town standing, burning crops, destroying rail lines, Decimating families and property, leaving nothing but starvation and hopelessness. History calls him a good guy.


The only thing to observe with his tactics was that he was given orders from the puppet master for the redistribution of the South. and the best way to do that is to destroy and level for rebuilding. Rome did this when they conquered certain parts of their empire.


edit on 18-12-2013 by ChesterJohn because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


uhm...maybe because flashy headlines sell more papers? The article clearly states one person asked about having them removed and never really mentions a controversy. The majority of the article is a biography of Lee.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


What most people have never heard about it how the Shenandoah valley got the same treatment from Front Royal to Lexington (which Sheridan burned down being Jacksons' school at VMI). Every mill, barn, agricultural warehouse burned in the fall of '64 to starve out the Confederates dug in around Richmond and Petersburg.

Funny how history books don't like to highlight those kind of atrocities, isn't it?
Sheridan was also later involved in the plains wars and Indian removals in the West.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:31 PM
link   

camaro68ss
This makes me sick and my blood boil!!!!

Who is the brainless drone quoted as saying Lee fought against the US Army and school, meaning West Point. REALLY!

The civil war is extremely more complex than just the north vs south. Lee was not fighting to keep slaves in southern states. Heck, at that time, and this has magically been erased from the history books, 4 northern states had the rights to hold slaves during the war, slavery was not the reason. if slavery was the reason, those 4 northern states would have joined the south as well. thats not the case.

The civil war was about states rights. Lee was fighting under the constitution of the united states of America. He was fighting against an oppressive government. A government whose northern states imposed its will on the southern states via majority vote, being as it is, northern states held most of the population in America at the time and still do.

I have a family member who is one of the largest collectors of civil war artifacts. In the collection are history books written 110-120+ years ago. The truth is in those books, books that I have read, written by eye witnesses of the time.

edit on 18-12-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Round objects. Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, made a speech in 1861 saying that the entire point of the Confederacy was to save slavery. It was the Cornerstone Speech and it's quite famous. Saying that it was all about States' Rights is rubbish.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   
For some reason history is one of those things that can never be erased, is part of who we are and what we have become, as civilized people, it teaches how to deal with the future so we do not make the mistakes of the past.

Sadly America has become so political correct that now we have vocal minorities trying to erase anything they do not agree with, they can try but they can never truly take it away.

Look how holidays are targeted, yes they want to celebrate something but under a different name.

like celebrating the "holidays without Christmas", sadly if the vocal majority do not come out and put a stop the stupidity, those small vocal minority will get away with anything.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:35 PM
link   

roadgravel
People have debated for years whether the 'right' side in the civil war actually won. Look at the country today and what the federal government has become. Their thinking might be that it is best we not let future military leaders look at the past for a reason.

edit on 12/18/2013 by roadgravel because: typo

edit on 12/18/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)


Don't be ridiculous, of course the right side won. They ended slavery in the United States, remember?



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

sirskity
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


The article states that one person questioned the paintings. I believe that the Washington Times reporter went a bit overboard with their article title. Especially when nothing in their actual article backs up their headline.


Yes, well spotted. The headline is not quite what the story says!



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 04:08 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg

sirskity
reply to post by ChesterJohn
 


The article states that one person questioned the paintings. I believe that the Washington Times reporter went a bit overboard with their article title. Especially when nothing in their actual article backs up their headline.


Yes, well spotted. The headline is not quite what the story says!


It could also be that the reporter was letting out more than was allowed because it is not official yet. Time will tell.



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg

camaro68ss
This makes me sick and my blood boil!!!!

Who is the brainless drone quoted as saying Lee fought against the US Army and school, meaning West Point. REALLY!

The civil war is extremely more complex than just the north vs south. Lee was not fighting to keep slaves in southern states. Heck, at that time, and this has magically been erased from the history books, 4 northern states had the rights to hold slaves during the war, slavery was not the reason. if slavery was the reason, those 4 northern states would have joined the south as well. thats not the case.

The civil war was about states rights. Lee was fighting under the constitution of the united states of America. He was fighting against an oppressive government. A government whose northern states imposed its will on the southern states via majority vote, being as it is, northern states held most of the population in America at the time and still do.

I have a family member who is one of the largest collectors of civil war artifacts. In the collection are history books written 110-120+ years ago. The truth is in those books, books that I have read, written by eye witnesses of the time.

edit on 18-12-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

edit on 18-12-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Round objects. Alexander Stephens, the Vice-President of the Confederacy, made a speech in 1861 saying that the entire point of the Confederacy was to save slavery. It was the Cornerstone Speech and it's quite famous. Saying that it was all about States' Rights is rubbish.


some quotes we can kick around.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. –Abraham Lincoln

"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it." – Abraham Lincoln

seems like no one really cared about slavery back then.
edit on 18-12-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2013 @ 04:19 PM
link   

camaro68ss

some quotes we can kick around.

I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything. –Abraham Lincoln

"My paramount objective in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it." – Abraham Lincoln

seems like no one really cared about slavery back then.
edit on 18-12-2013 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)


Yes, but then he still ended slavery. The Civil War started because the South had a giant hissy fit at the thought of an abolitionist in the White House. Holding Lincoln to modern standards is a joke. Of course he wouldn't fit into modern say society because of his views on race. Well guess what, we wouldn't fit into his society either.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:29 PM
link   
Astonishing how quiet this place went after I mentioned that speech.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:40 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg
Astonishing how quiet this place went after I mentioned that speech.


There is no point in arguing with you about it.

You attempt to use one sides speech as damning evidence, but claim that an equally damning speech from the other side is of negligible importance.

As a side, you are both incorrect. The civil war was fought over money. If you have any doubt about that, go an review the Federal ledgers from 1820-1920.

You will see why it was fought, who won, and what was won.



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 01:53 PM
link   

peck420

AngryCymraeg
Astonishing how quiet this place went after I mentioned that speech.


There is no point in arguing with you about it.

You attempt to use one sides speech as damning evidence, but claim that an equally damning speech from the other side is of negligible importance.

As a side, you are both incorrect. The civil war was fought over money. If you have any doubt about that, go an review the Federal ledgers from 1820-1920.

You will see why it was fought, who won, and what was won.


???? I quote from a speech by the Vice President of the Confederacy. The response was a quote from Lincoln that showed that he didn't believe in racial equality. Few did in those days, so the quote is useless. And despite what he thought/said, Lincoln still freed the slaves and the South still split away because of slavery.
There. Happy?



posted on Dec, 19 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   

AngryCymraeg
???? I quote from a speech by the Vice President of the Confederacy. The response was a quote from Lincoln that showed that he didn't believe in racial equality. Few did in those days, so the quote is useless. And despite what he thought/said, Lincoln still freed the slaves and the South still split away because of slavery.
There. Happy?


Happy? Not really, as you have failed to address your mistake.

A) The corner stone speech was made after the major powers of the South had already separated, thereby making it largely inconsequential to the actual separation causes. South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and then Texas had all separated weeks prior.

B) Abolition had already been accepted by the majority of the US population prior to Lincoln ever getting elected and prior to the war even starting. Even in the Southern states! So, your belief that equality was a rare occurrence is false.

I see two politicians saying and doing what they think will keep them in power. All of it inconsequential to the war, and to the aftermath.

Your mistake is adhering to the fallacy that the war was about slavery, when by all accounts, slavery was already well into decline long before talks of war even started.

This was a no more then power play over the US's burgeoning monetary supply, nothing more, nothing less.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join