Ohioan: ** “...posters on various of the historic debate threads who have viciously denounced Robert E. Lee and other Confederate heroes.
Of course some of those denounced were heroes to all traditional Americans.
Lee certainly was.” **
First, no one ever starts denouncing, say, RE Lee, until somebody from the pro-Confederate side launches some cockamamie nonsense against, say, Lincoln or Grant.
Even then, the only real knock on Lee I’ve seen amounts to, “he’s overrated”.
It’s pretty mild stuff, compared to the crap they routinely throw at Union leaders.
Regardless, Pelham’s quote on Lee from President Eisenhower should settle the matter.
Ohioan: ** “I was really startled, the first time I encountered a verbal assault on Robert E. Lee on Free Republic. Having gone to Oberlin... “ **
So, you’re a snowflake, can’t stand hard truths?
I don’t know what set you off, but was it true or false?
If it was false, then correct it, if true you might want to contextualize it, or support it with more data.
Regardless, I can almost guarantee that “attack” on Lee was in response to some earlier attack on Union leaders.
Ohioan: ** “I was certainly acquainted with Abolitionist venom—just not used to seeing it in Conservative circles. “ **
“Abolitionist venom” I have no idea what that means, but pro-Confederate venom against Northerners in general, or specific leaders, is on display in every CW thread.
At the same time nobody admits to supporting slavery, all say they are glad it’s gone now, so everyone here is a self-professed abolitionist, and yet they cannot stop themselves from condemning those who actually abolished slavery.
Ohioan: ** “the quotation marks were in recognition of the fact that American slavery did not involve Slavic people; and, as such might have been as well or better referenced by different terms for bondage.” **
“Slaves” and “slavery” are historical terms used universally throughout the period, so there’s no need to put them in quotation marks as if such words are somehow false.
But slave “owner” is a false term since nobody really owns another.
The term “slaveholder” was used then and now more accurately.
Ohioan: ** “ Another example of our misconnection was in your comment suggesting that the Booker T. Washington address was about freed slaves voluntarily returning to slavery.
The linked address... “ **
Your link didn’t work for me, but regardless my response was appropriate, since your point was that *some* slaves were better off than *some* freed workers.
My point is that while many slaves escaped to freedom, none to my knowledge went the other way voluntarily.
Ohioan: ** “Granting ex-slaves the suffrage, letting them be exploited as voters by those preaching a form of dependence on big government, was hardly a useful education, for those not seeking political office.” **
*Republicans* in 1865 or later did not teach “dependence on big government”, progressive *Democrats* did that.
What post-war Republicans did was enforce emancipation, the 13th, 14th & 15th amendments.
*Democrats* after the 1876 election compromises undid much Republican work.
Ohioan: ** “The present disaster in inner city high school education is too obvious for anyone to try to defend.” **
Brought to you by *Democrats* not Republicans.
My point here throughout is that comparing the two, Republicans have always been your friends, Democrats are responsible for every bad political outcome.
And you disagree, why exactly?
You notice that they never had a southbound "underground railroad" ;'}
The inconvenient truth for many of these LCL's is that their ancestors supported the very dhimmicrats that brought us this mess.
Robert E. Lee has been a roll model for Conservative American youth, North & South since his days at West Point, well before the War in the 1860s. The threads, where I have challenged those insulting him, were on the subjects of a cultural war against the heritage of our Southern compatriots. The subject was the ongoing attack on the old South. How does that provide an excuse for retaliating against Lee, Davis, etc., simply because someone said something you did not like about Lincoln. Hurling playground insults is not the way to score points in a debate over heritage.
Now, Lincoln & Lee are both fair game, if you want to challenge their judgment. My anger goes only to the gratuitous attack on Lee's honor, which has been a model for American youth for almost two centuries. If you are really interested in my position on the war on the southern heritage, here you may view it in depth: Civil War, Reconstruction & Creating Hate In America
Secondly, you are completely confused about the "Abolitionists." Their tactics were vicious. Even Daniel Webster distanced himself from them in his classic address on the Compromise of 1850. (Webster Address.)
And here is another link to Booker T. Washington Address.
My familiarity with Abolitionist tactics is based not only on the testimony of witnesses like Edgar Allan Poe, but on shelve full of their obsession filled propaganda in the stacks of the Oberlin College Library. (Incidentally, if you think I exaggerate the Oberlin role, the Anti -Saloon League, which put Prohibition over in 1919, was founded in the Oberlin College Library in 1896. You perhaps remember that the Abolitionists actually had three major projects, Abolition, Feminism & Prohibition. Oberlin was the Western anchor of the movement.)
Finally, you have confused where the parties stood in different eras. The Democrats were the more Conservative Party in the 1850s & 1860s--indeed until they were taken over by the Free Silver crowd after the Panic of 1893. The Republicans really only became the clearly more Conservative Party, after Strom Thurmond changed parties in 1964, to better support Barry Goldwater. That started an avalanche of Conservative Southerners switching parties over the next decade or so, and made possible the election of Ronald Reagan.
Lincoln was a moderate; but there was already a radical wing of the new Republican Party, in 1860, when Lincoln was elected because of the split in the Democratic Party. But both the Douglas & Buchanan wings of the Democrats were more Conservative. The Republicans led by Thad Stevens, after the War, were as far Left as the French Jacobins. (And I believe Stevens had friendly correspondence with Karl Marx. Though I am not sure which of the fanatic egalitarians initiated it.)
As for dependence on big government! From promises of "40 acres and a mule" to the big government authorizations in the 14th Amendment--which is the authorization, among other things, for the "Anchor Baby" phenomenon, Court ordered abortion rights, purging Religion from public institutions, and Judicial Activism in general; it is all part of the harvest from "Reconstruction." Indeed, it is difficult to imagine anything further from the symmetry of the Founders' vision, than the very idea of a Central Government "reconstructing" the once sovereign States.
And, if you are so great a defender of Lincoln, how can you possibly support the wholesale repudiation of his "With Malice Towards None" Address, with the arrogant punishments incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment?