Posted on 03/21/2009 6:26:13 AM PDT by cowboyway
ATLANTA — In a cultural war that has pitted Old South against new, defenders of the Confederate legacy have opened a fresh front in their campaign to polish an image tarnished, they said, by people who do not respect Southern values.
With the 150th anniversary of the War Between the States in 2011, efforts are under way in statehouses, small towns and counties across the South to push for proclamations or legislation promoting Confederate history.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
” ‘Sherman is not only a great soldier, but a great man. He is one of the very great men in our country’s history. He is an orator with few superiors. As a writer he is among the first. As a general I know of no man I would put above him. Above all - he has a fine character - so frank, so sincere, so outspoken, so genuine. There is not a false line in Sherman’s character - nothing to regret.’ - Ulysses S. Grant, 1879 “
Ahhhhh, yes...great words...coming from a drunk and one of the most imcompetent presidents we ever had.
“That he is an excellent judge of character, at least where generals are concerned”
Grant??? How could he be such a great judge of characters where generals are concerned, and such a terrible judge of character of many of the appointments in his administration?
The fact that that incompetent drunk beat the hell out of every confederate general sent up against him, up to and including the sainted Bobby Lee, must really bug you.
He knew warriors better than politicians.
I actually think that Grant was a good general and a great strategist. I do not think that he was better than Lee, even if he did beat Lee. If you had put the 2 in a battle where they had the same number of men, and same supplies...I believe Lee would have toasted him. JMO
Why do you call it “yankee porn” when it is *you* that covets it?
You sure have us yanks figured out. Have you ever considered that many Southerners also think Lincoln was one of our greatest national heroes?
Perhaps Grant was reading from an old New York Times. Here is what the Times had to say on February 22, 1865:
Sherman's Treatment of South Carolina
The March of General Sherman through South Carolina is attended with none of the ravage predicted by all the rebels and hoped for by many loyal men. So far as can be gathered from the few general facts that have reached us, our army is displaying no vindictive spirit whatever. ...
... We may set it down that General Sherman wrote from a sound head, as well as a good heart, in his letter which we published yesterday: "I do not think a human being could feel more kindly than I do to the people of the South ..."
From what I can gather, the Times and other New York papers were blindly accepting what the government released about Sherman in South Carolina. I could find nothing in the papers about the February 17th burning and looting of Columbia in the New York papers I checked. They reported that Sherman had occupied Columbia and the next thing we read is that he had left Columbia headed upstate. Nothing about the burning in later issues. Their own correspondents must have been mum or the papers afraid of publishing anything that shed bad light on the government's waging of the war given Lincoln's treatment of the press. However, I did find some articles in 1873 that mentioned the burning of Columbia. New Yorkers must have been surprised to learn that Columbia had been ravaged years before.
In South Carolina, respected journalist and author William Gilmore Simms gathered eye witness accounts of the actions by Sherman's troops after the destruction and looting of the city and published them in the Columbia Phoenix newspaper in March and April 1865. Simms original articles documenting what the Federals did have been published in the book, "A City Laid Waste, The Capture, Sack, and Destruction of the City of Columbia," edited by David Aiken and published by the University of South Carolina Press in 2005. I recommend it for your edification.
Besides ignoring the burning and looting of Columbia, the New York Times ignored the destruction of other South Carolina towns and villages along Sherman's path.
On the other hand, there's another ignorant group who talks of heritage, but is really more in love with the heritage of 1955 than that of 1865. I've got no use for "in your face" redneck use of the reb flag either. There's a middle ground. To me, there's nothing at all racist for private use of the flag to honor those poor brave guys who did their best for what they thought the right course. I do wish more people would see the difference between the noble reb private and the sorry, power-mad Confederate political leadership and secessionists.
I was certainly wrong the other day when I suggested that your relative got a big laugh out of that medal. After what i know now, I'd say he sure earned that cross of honor.
Good morning, losers.
That's what they deserve for voting to leave the Union 7132 to 5. In fact the whole sorry performance of the SEC this year may be a reward for the rebellion.
Actually I think that if you had given Lee the Army of the Potomac and Grant the Army of Northern Virginia then I don't think that Lee would have finished any better.
Lee lost to lesser generals, McClellan and Meade. Grant did not. Once Grant moved south in the spring of 1864 Lee never once held the initiative. He was constantly reacting rather than acting, and that was due to Grant's leadership and strategy rather than mere numbers.
Many thanks.
Or how the South has deified Lee and Jackson and Davis?
I think even Lee’s horse has a monument somewhere.
Washington and Lee University. Buried in Lee Chapel next to the old boy himself.
I think one of the most ridiculous things I ever came across was a novel by Richard Adams back in the 1980's. It's historical fiction, on the Civil War, told from the viewpoint of Lee's horse. How weird is that?
I wonder if the horse ever spilled the beans on whatever happened to General Lee's daughter Annie?
Obviously Sherman killed her, probably raped her first then burned down the spa. </sarcasm>
What's the story? She died of typhoid during the war, I thought. Or maybe you mean what happened to the Annie's portrait at Arlington. It was stolen by a soldier early in the war and returned to Arlington in the 1930s. See: Annie Lee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.