The Civil War Redux?

[DMcFadden]

A new exhibit on Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant opened in the New York area. Here is how the Weekly Standard describes it:

Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, two of American history’s most enigmatic and controversial figures, are receiving a thorough, and thoroughly stunning, reappraisal at the New-York Historical Society in a blockbuster exhibition that will delight the public and inflame the partisans—particularly those who most revere the gentleman in grey. Originally conceived as separate shows, this monumental project is a joint effort of the New York society and its counterpart in Richmond (the Virginia Historical Society), where the show opened late last year.

Evidently Lee emerges slightly diminished by the penumbra of the mythic Grant, at least at the hands of the hagiographic historians behind the exhibit. Even the comparison of their marriages (Grant's treated as a love affair and Lee's viewed as little more than an endless ordeal) favor Grant. Anyone in the New York area see it yet???

 

[Blueridge Believer]

A new exhibit on Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant opened in the New York area. Here is how the Weekly Standard describes it:

Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, two of American history’s most enigmatic and controversial figures, are receiving a thorough, and thoroughly stunning, reappraisal at the New-York Historical Society in a blockbuster exhibition that will delight the public and inflame the partisans—particularly those who most revere the gentleman in grey. Originally conceived as separate shows, this monumental project is a joint effort of the New York society and its counterpart in Richmond (the Virginia Historical Society), where the show opened late last year.

Evidently Lee emerges slightly diminished by the penumbra of the mythic Grant, at least at the hands of the hagiographic historians behind the exhibit. Even the comparison of their marriages (Grant's treated as a love affair and Lee's viewed as little more than an endless ordeal) favor Grant. Anyone in the New York area see it yet???

Will it ever stop. Lee was a God honoring christian man, so he must be smeared. Grant was a drunken war criminal, so he must be built up. To the victor go the spoils. Since, by the law, the south was right, paragmatic reasons must be found to justify the criminal behaviour of the Union and it's leaders.

 

[Pergamum]

Grant was a war criminal?


Were those cigars Cuban despite the Communist blockade?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

A new exhibit on Robert E. Lee and U.S. Grant opened in the New York area. Here is how the Weekly Standard describes it:

Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee, two of American history’s most enigmatic and controversial figures, are receiving a thorough, and thoroughly stunning, reappraisal at the New-York Historical Society in a blockbuster exhibition that will delight the public and inflame the partisans—particularly those who most revere the gentleman in grey. Originally conceived as separate shows, this monumental project is a joint effort of the New York society and its counterpart in Richmond (the Virginia Historical Society), where the show opened late last year.

Evidently Lee emerges slightly diminished by the penumbra of the mythic Grant, at least at the hands of the hagiographic historians behind the exhibit. Even the comparison of their marriages (Grant's treated as a love affair and Lee's viewed as little more than an endless ordeal) favor Grant. Anyone in the New York area see it yet???

I'll go soon - maybe this weekend - and report back...

 

[jwithnell]

Many of the northern officers went on to create and defend Indian policy in the west -- the idea of killing off the buffalo to starve the Indians out came from our good buddy Sherman.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Many of the northern officers went on to create and defend Indian policy in the west -- the idea of killing off the buffalo to starve the Indians out came from our good buddy Sherman.

Yep...genocide by war criminals...add all the nuclear tests that have drastically raised cancer rates near NDN lands in the west...

And the gov wants to do away with their rightful sovereignty on what's left of their lands....wonder what the gov is afraid of...

 

[Hawaiian Puritan]

I "don't have a dog in this fight," as they say (being from Hawaii), but weren't there also godly men on the side of the North, such as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain? Here's the "last note" he wrote to his wife, when informed he was mortally wounded (he actually survived):

"My darling wife, I am lying mortally wounded the doctors think, but my mind & heart are at peace. Jesus Christ is my all-sufficient savior. I go to him. God bless & keep & comfort you, precious one, you have been a precious wife to me. . . . Do not grieve too much for me. We shall all soon meet. Live for the children. . . Oh how happy to feel yourself forgiven. God bless you evermore . . . Ever yours, Lawrence."

 

[brianeschen]

I "don't have a dog in this fight," as they say (being from Hawaii), but weren't there also godly men on the side of the North, such as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain?

I think the main point is that Grant was not one of those godly men, not that the North was devoid of godly men.

 

[Whitefield]

I think the main point is that Grant was not one of those godly men, not that the North was devoid of godly men.

And in the big picture:

Lee was a godly man fighting for a morally indefensible cause.
Grant was an ungodly man fighting for a morally defensible cause.

Such is the irony of life.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Many of the northern officers went on to create and defend Indian policy in the west -- the idea of killing off the buffalo to starve the Indians out came from our good buddy Sherman.

Yes, that was a good idea.

Numbers estimate that at one time over 40,000,000 buffalo roamed the plains - that is approximately how many deer exist in the wild now. And deer do a LOT of damage yet they are a fraction of the size of buffalo. When you add the factors of their size, numbers, and their bad temper, buffalo in those numbers could not peacefully coexist with man. They had to be subdued.

And as far as tactics go - cutting off food supplies is a legitimate means to bring an enemy to their knees.

** Deleted inciting comment **

 

[Pergamum]

This talk about the buffali (plural) reminds me of a Simpsons' episode where they killed off all the buffali.

D'OH!




I am still looking for proof that Grant was a "war criminal."

 

[SolaScriptura]

I am still looking for proof that Grant was a "war criminal."

I think they mean that he was a "war criminal" because he demoralized the enemy.

 

[Zenas]

I don't think that Grant was a war criminal, and as I understand it, if Gen. Lee were living today he wouldn't stand for you calling him one either.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 10:43:15 EST-----

I am still looking for proof that Grant was a "war criminal."

I think they mean that he was a "war criminal" because he demoralized the enemy.

Mr. Ben I am beginning to suspect you're a Yankee sympathizer.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Many of the northern officers went on to create and defend Indian policy in the west -- the idea of killing off the buffalo to starve the Indians out came from our good buddy Sherman.

Yes, that was a good idea.

Numbers estimate that at one time over 40,000,000 buffalo roamed the plains - that is approximately how many deer exist in the wild now. And deer do a LOT of damage yet they are a fraction of the size of buffalo. When you add the factors of their size, numbers, and their bad temper, buffalo in those numbers could not peacefully coexist with man. They had to be subdued.

And as far as tactics go - cutting off food supplies is a legitimate means to bring an enemy to their knees.

So all of you commie loving hippies can go put that in your peace pipe and smoke it!

Some of those "enemies" were trying to defend THEIR land and THEIR home. Some of those "enemies" were converts to Christianity and interacted with the rest of the population. Some of those "enemies" kept ignorant white people from starving and adopted women and children when needed. And still, even a POTUS went against the Supreme Court, stole their lands, caused the death of many of them, took children out of their homes even into the 1950's and forbid them from speaking their own language.

Natives are not "commies"...they are run much the way our churches are, by an eldership...and much by the way our country is supposed to be run, by votes. Hippie, sure in the sense that I believe we should be somewhat responsible with our resources. Peacepipe? I'm certain that you didn't mean that in the way you flung it out there.

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I am still looking for proof that Grant was a "war criminal."

I think they mean that he was a "war criminal" because he demoralized the enemy.

He was a war criminal for commanding an army that attacked civilians, burned thier homes and stole thier food.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 10:55:02 EST-----

I think the main point is that Grant was not one of those godly men, not that the North was devoid of godly men.

And in the big picture:

Lee was a godly man fighting for a morally indefensible cause.
Grant was an ungodly man fighting for a morally defensible cause.

Such is the irony of life.

What morally defensible cause did Grant have? He was a slave owner until after the war and the Union had four slave states in it during the war and admitted a 5th state(WV) to the Union as a slave state in the middle of the war(1863). If the union was fighting to free slaves in the south wouldn't it have made sense to free thier own first? Whatever you may give Grant as to his cause, it certianly was not to free slaves.

 

[SolaScriptura]

Some of those "enemies" were trying to defend THEIR land and THEIR home. Some of those "enemies" were converts to Christianity and interacted with the rest of the population. Some of those "enemies" kept ignorant white people from starving and adopted women and children when needed. And still, even a POTUS went against the Supreme Court, stole their lands, caused the death of many of them, took children out of their homes even into the 1950's and forbid them from speaking their own language.

You're right, "some" of those enemies were noble. Just like "some" of the German soldiers in WWII were unfortunately caught up in something over which they had no control. But many of those enemies were every bit as treacherous as you're making the "evil white devils" out to be.

Regardless of who was "more bad," none of that negates the fact that as a tactic of warfare, depleting an enemies food supply is a legitimate method... which is what I was addressing in my post about the buffalo.

 

[Pergamum]

James:

If Grant was a war criminal for some of his soldiers committing atrocities that were not ordered, then General Lee was a war criminal for the criminal negligence of Andersonville where many union soldiers died. But we know that Lee did not know about Andersonville, and I see no record of Grant ordering the killing of innocent civilains (spies, yes, and he also requisitioned food from civilians, but the charge of war crimes for Grant, please prove further).

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 11:05:20 EST-----

I am still looking for proof that Grant was a "war criminal."

I think they mean that he was a "war criminal" because he demoralized the enemy.

He was a war criminal for commanding an army that attacked civilians, burned thier homes and stole thier food.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 10:55:02 EST-----

I think the main point is that Grant was not one of those godly men, not that the North was devoid of godly men.

And in the big picture:

Lee was a godly man fighting for a morally indefensible cause.
Grant was an ungodly man fighting for a morally defensible cause.

Such is the irony of life.

What morally defensible cause did Grant have? He was a slave owner until after the war and the Union had four slave states in it during the war and admitted a 5th state(WV) to the Union as a slave state in the middle of the war(1863). If the union was fighting to free slaves in the south wouldn't it have made sense to free thier own first? Whatever you may give Grant as to his cause, it certianly was not to free slaves.

IF Grant were "merely" fighting to preserve the Union that would have been good enough of a cause.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I deleted this post. It was sarcastic and snotty. I apologize.

 

[Whitefield]

What morally defensible cause did Grant have? He was a slave owner until after the war

You've got to be kidding! Who told you that? That is a most original piece of fiction. Grant never owned slaves.

 

[LadyFlynt]

I never called Native Americans commies. I'm refering to those in this country who love the American way, but instead of being thankful they sit around doing nothing but attacking who we are and how we came to be.
And by "hippies," I was referring to, well...
And by peacepipe... I meant the thing that Native Americans would puff on to get high. You know, a peace pipe. Is it illegal or immoral for me to make reference to a pagan ritual? Or just un-PC?

Well, I personally AM thankful. I can see both sides. But I think it's wrong to believe that all this was done for the best or in the best ways. You have to admit that the main idea was to settle lands and remove those that were considered "inferior".

I think I know what you mean by hippies...however, there are new kinds and they don't resemble the 60's or 70's.

The manner that you used peacepipe in the type of conversation this is, could have been taken as racist (I don't view you to be that way). It also sounds as though you have a very limited understanding of what a peace pipe is or the purpose of it's use.

-----Added 3/4/2009 at 11:25:41 EST-----

What morally defensible cause did Grant have? He was a slave owner until after the war

You've got to be kidding! Who told you that? That is a most original piece of fiction. Grant never owned slaves.

Which U.S. Presidents Owned Slaves?

18. Ulysses S. Grant
1869-1877
OH
Yes. The only evidence that USG owned slaves is a document he signed in 1859 freeing one, William Jones. However, Grant certainly had some control over and use of slaves his father-in-law gave his wife.(Simon, p347)

 

[Whitefield]

Which U.S. Presidents Owned Slaves?

18. Ulysses S. Grant
1869-1877
OH
Yes. The only evidence that USG owned slaves is a document he signed in 1859 freeing one, William Jones. However, Grant certainly had some control over and use of slaves his father-in-law gave his wife.(Simon, p347)

I appreciate the link, however a website does not constitute historical evidence. If you could provide reliable references I would investigate. BTW the ownership of slaves in Ohio was prohibited in the 1803 charter. But really that is beside the point, because we all agree he was an ungodly man. The cause of the north did not depend on the quirks of someone like Grant. When I said he was fighting for a morally defensible cause, I did not mean "his" cause, but the cause to eliminate that evil practice of enslaving human beings. If he did own or control slaves, at least he was fighting to take away from himself that ability.

 

[LadyFlynt]

Which U.S. Presidents Owned Slaves?

18. Ulysses S. Grant
1869-1877
OH
Yes. The only evidence that USG owned slaves is a document he signed in 1859 freeing one, William Jones. However, Grant certainly had some control over and use of slaves his father-in-law gave his wife.(Simon, p347)

I appreciate the link, however a website does not constitute historical evidence. If you could provide reliable references I would investigate. BTW the ownership of slaves in Ohio was prohibited in the 1803 charter. But really that is beside the point, because we all agree he was an ungodly man. The cause of the north did not depend on the quirks of someone like Grant. When I said he was fighting for a morally defensible cause, I did not mean "his" cause, but the cause to eliminate that evil practice of enslaving human beings. If he did own or control slaves, at least he was fighting to take away from himself that ability.

Lance, the website provides the source as does my quote of it (Simon pg347) Now, if you are talking Holographic evidence, then you run into problems with the lost of religious documents in Church history and yet accepting certain things.