Posted on 03/13/2009 6:02:11 PM PDT by Davy Buck
We often hear how Southerners promoted "Lost Cause mythology" after the war in defending their history (which all Nations involved in war do to one extent or another). But how often do we hear those same critics discuss "Holy Cause mythology" and how many Northerners embellished Lincoln's record and glorified his persona in defense of their history. . .
(Excerpt) Read more at oldvirginiablog.blogspot.com ...
Oh, Boy. Here we go... ;)
Countdown 3,2,1, lol
Turns out the short piece didn’t say anything at all and since this is a hit and run poster he won’t be contributing to any discussions.
For this, a Virginia Partisan makes it into a point of Northern unjustified adoration of Lincoln. The logic trail fails me. I sympathize that all the participants of that dread time were human and not gods but this was a very thin reed to criticize.
Hence, my initial comment. ;)
Vindicating Lincoln: Defending the Politics of Our Greatest President by Thomas L. Krannawitter.
To those familiar with the debate, the point will be obvious. Yes, the example is anecdotal, but it is but one example among hundreds that could be cited. Those who see Lincoln as our saviour, love to look down their noses at Southerners who find admirable character traits in men like Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, and accuse Southerners of embellishing and distorting the truth - all the while they do this very thing with Lincoln.
This watchmaker, at the time of his inscription, made no mention of slavery - it was all about “the government”. But, after the war and Lincoln’s assassination, he made the focus slavery. Just a bad memory. Right.
A “Virginia Partisan”? Thank you for the compliment. That’s the nicest thing I’ve been called all day.
“When I speak of my country, I mean the Commonwealth of Virginia.” ~ John Randolph
I've followed and sometimes participated in these WBTS threads for years.
I don't think I have ever seen any pro-Union participant claim that Lee and Jackson didn't have admirable character traits. Especially Lee, who just about everyone at the time and since has agreed was a great and noble man, notably including his opponents. Jackson, OTOH, while obviously a great though occasionally uneven general, was a very odd duck in a lot of ways.
In fact, I have not seen (around here, anyway) the motives and character of those who fought for the Confederacy defamed with anything like the enthusiasm showed by some in attacking the motives and character of those who fought for the Union.
“I don’t think I have ever seen any pro-Union participant claim that Lee and Jackson didn’t have admirable character traits. Especially Lee, who just about everyone at the time and since has agreed was a great and noble man, notably including his opponents.”
I’ve seen plenty. Most of the guilty like to describe these men as traitors. Granted, not all Northerners feel that way, but some of the threads and discussions I’ve participated in most definitely have that element.
Legally, Lee was a traitor. If a lifelong US Army officer leading troops against the US armies doesn’t meet the constitutional definition of treason, it’s difficult to see what would.
Morally, of course, he was trapped in a conflict of loyalties. When forced to choose, he placed his loyalty to his state above that to his nation. As with most of the Union soldiers of the time, I accept that he behaved honorably abd does not deserve the accusation of treason in the moral sense.
Other southerners, notably George Thomas, one of the best Union generals, chose to remain loyal to the nation. They were universally reviled as traitors by those who went with the South.
It looks good, I read the reviews at amazon and I will look for it at the library.
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.