Ruth: Slavery's reality contradicts Sons of Confederate Veterans, Civil War revisionists

Tampa Bay Times ^ | January 20, 2014 | Danial Ruth

[rockrr]

It seems fitting that the de facto anthem of the Confederacy during the Civil War, which some people might still be shocked to learn the North won, turned out to be "Dixie."

After all, since Gen. Robert E. Lee surrendered at Appomattox there's been no shortage of looking away, looking away at the reality of history when it comes to the Civil War.

Nowhere is that full flower of denial more apparent than among the followers of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, which is upset about a proposal to erect a monument to Union soldiers who died in the Battle of Olustee, regarded by historians as the largest and deadliest engagement in Florida during the "wowrah." Related News/Archive

Next month marks the 150th anniversary of the Battle of Olustee, about 45 miles west of Jacksonville. Some 2,000 Union troops died in the conflict, while 1,000 Confederate soldiers also perished in an engagement that did not substantially alter the course of the Civil War.

The 3-acre Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park includes three monuments honoring the Confederate troops who fought and died in the encounter. But when the Sons of Union Veterans of the Civil War pushed for a memorial on the site to pay homage to the sacrifices of their forbearers, hostilities ensued. So did illiterate silliness.

[Sherman Logan]

If you have a reference for this claim, I’d like to see it.

I’ve read Grant’s Memoirs. While he recognizes in it the right of any people to revolution, that is very different from claiming a legal right to secession. AFAIK, he didn’t make any such concession.

He certainly might have made some comment to this effect in earlier life, but I haven’t seen it.

Also, while one may in theory claim a state has a “right” to secede, it’s difficult to see how that extends to it having a “right” to wage war on the Union without retaliation.

[Sherman Logan]

They have a re-enactment every year on the anniversary. Pretty interesting.

[dmz]

Virtually none of the battles fought after Gettysburg were going to turn the tide for the South. The writing was on the wall. Lee Read it, Grant knew it.

<><><<

And Grant was where the rubber really hit the road, Vicksburg.

A serious argument can be made that Vicksburg was a considerable greater loss for the CSA than was the battle at Gettysburg. They lost a lot more than troops at Vicksburg, they lost the river that cleaved the Confederacy in two.

But let’s face it, Gettysburg was near the population centers and Vicksburg was flyover country, 1860s style.

[dmz]

Well, would not northerners be upset if someone tried to erect a monument to confederate soldiers somewhere in the north? Look at how they feel about the Confederate flag or celebrating Lee’s birthday.

<><><><

Clearly you’ve never been to Gettysburg.

[dmz]

Hey Sherm would it make you happy if we carve a whiskey bottle on Stone Mountain in honor of General Grant? I could live with it. :-)

<><><><

How much does it hurt that the guy who commanded the troops that led to the Confederacy’s surrender was a drunk?

Remember - you started this one :-)

[dmz]

Well, to my mind, if you really want to make peace with someone, you don’t go putting monuments to yourself in their backyard, so to speak.

<><><><

OK. That’s just funny.

How long til y’all get past it?

I’m pretty sure Lee’s sword was handed over to Chamberlain some 148 years ago.

For the record, both dad and stepdad (after dad passed) were state’s righters and this Maryland boy always came home wearing gray.

[jeffc]

My posts refer to today. Not some attempt by the north to placate southern sensibilities immediately following the war.

[dmz]

http://www.nps.gov/anti/historyculture/mnt-md-dements.htm

Dedicated in 1961. In Maryland at Antietam. Hardly placating southern sensibilities.

Wanna try again?

[Sherman Logan]

Virtually none of the battles fought after Gettysburg were going to turn the tide for the South.

There are some interesting counter-factuals here.

Let us assume Johnson was able to severely defeat Sherman in GA and Lee whipped Grant/Meade in VA, prior to the election. Lincoln loses, as he expected in summer of 64, and McClellan is elected.

Both sides now want peace. The problem is the terms.

Can anybody seriously imagine the Union agreeing to retreat from the immense areas it had paid hard cash to conquer, including the entire Mississippi Valley? Or West Virginia? Or Tennessee?

Can anybody imagine the CSA being willing to settle for boundaries less than those of their states before the war? Heck, the CSA claimed both MO and KY as states. Would they have demanded their cession, or possibly referenda? Would the shrunken CSA at summer 1864 have even been a viable nation?

The moral of the story, IMO, is that a person or group should be cautious about starting a war. They aren't always as easy to wind up as would seem to be the case, even when both sides desperately want peace.

[jimt]

I’ll stack that single fact up against any number of attempts to blacken the name of a great American soldier.

You've heard the phrase "like Grant took Richmond" ? Not exactly referring to his "great" behavior, is it.

[rockrr]

Not exactly referring to his "great" behavior, is it.

“Like Grant took Richmond” is a phrase that means a forceful, impressive, decisive victory. Sounds like great behavior to me.

[Sherman Logan]

“Like Grant took Richmond” is a phrase that means a forceful, impressive, decisive victory. Circus entertainers, musicians, and baseball players often said that they would conquer the next city (not necessarily a southern city) “like Grant took Richmond.”

Sounds like action that might be accomplished by a great soldier.

http://www.barrypopik.com/index.php/new_york_city/entry/like_grant_took_richmond

[Sherman Logan]

I do not think that word (well, phrase) means what you think it means.

[Sherman Logan]

I’m pretty sure Lee’s sword was handed over to Chamberlain some 148 years ago.

Don't think so. Accordingly to Chamberlain himself, no CSA officer, including Lee, was required to surrender his private property sidearms.

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/the-last-salute-of-the-army.html

[wardaddy]

Meaker

Call home.

[wardaddy]

Clint Eastwood and I are SCV

[central_va]

The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.

U. S. Grant

Seems pretty clear to me.

[rockrr]

I’ve heard that there are ointments that can help with flareups of that.

[wardaddy]

You’re not dealing with reasonable people in that bunch

They all have personal vendettas

My great great grandpa raped their octoroon ancestor mammy or flogged their male ancestor

Or killed their ancestor at some battle

Its about something that gnaws at them

But study their posting histories

Most all of them post only on this and race or anti Semitism

And time and again slip up and say lib social crap and get zotted
one of their more insane members recently droned on making vile sport of Christ

Don Meaker

he caught Robinsons attention and got the bolt

After years of said behavior

These few ass clowns here are alls left

They are dwindling

[Pelham]

It’s bad manners to argue with a lady. But then you are a yankee..