Posted on 05/15/2003 5:16:03 AM PDT by sheltonmac
All through American history, brave Southerners have taken up the reins of leadership when their countrymen needed them most. More than just obscure footnotes in the pages of a public school textbook, these names have become synonymous with leadership.
George Washington, perhaps the most famous of all Southern leaders, stood up to a king and his imperial army. He faced overwhelming odds during the American Revolution, yet survived to see the birth of a new nation.
Washingtons sense of duty throughout the war carried over into his role as our nation's first president. Unlike most modern politicians, he was a man of principle, and more than anything he wanted to ensure that America's desperate struggle for independence had not been in vain.
His death in 1799 brought grief to freedom lovers everywhere. All of America mourned, but the pain of his loss was felt as far away as Europe. Such was the extent of his influence as a champion of liberty.
Robert E. Lee, like Washington, rose up as a leader to defend his homeland against a powerful foe. When he accepted command of the Army of Northern Virginia, he did so with a gracious spirit, and went on to win the admiration of thousands on both sides of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Even after his surrender on April 9, 1865, Lee remained the epitome of true leadership. Having witnessed the renewed assaults on the South in the years following the War Between the States, he wrote:
"If I had foreseen the use that those people designed to make of their victory, there would have been no surrender at Appomattox courthouse. No sir, not by me. Had I foreseen these results of subjugation, I would have preferred to die at Appomattox with my men, my sword in my right hand."
For men like Washington and Lee, freedom itself was merely an abstract concept; it was what that freedom secured that gave them the courage to fight. They fought not only for liberty and independence, but for everything they held dear: their homes, their families, their heritage.
Despite their fierceness on the battlefield, both men remained humble, never forgetting that they served their fellow citizensand they did so with a passionate loyalty rarely seen today. The South is in need of such leaders again.
In this age of political correctness, attacks on Southern heritage are being carried out with increasing frequency and ferocity. Everything has become fair game for the social fascists seeking to erase from our national consciousness anything even remotely connected to the Confederacy.
In South Carolina, political pressure resulted in the removal of the Confederate battle flag from atop the state capitol. Georgia has just undergone its second flag change in as many years. In Kentucky, people are demanding that a statue of Jefferson Davis be removed from the grounds of the state capitol because it is considered "offensive" to a handful of malcontents with little else to occupy their time.
Naturally, anti-Southern bigotry is not limited to the political arena. Groups that pretend to promote "tolerance" and "diversity" consistently threaten economic boycotts of businesses and other organizations that fail to take decisive action against popular Confederate icons. Most recently, Boy Scouts in the Richmond area of Virginia were forced to remove Robert E. Lee's name from their uniforms in order to avoid offending the less tolerant.
Fortunately, there have been small victories along the way. In 2001, when presented with the chance to adopt a new state flag or keep the old one, Mississippi votersby a margin of 2-to-1chose to keep the 1894 flag emblazoned with the Southern Cross.
But such victories are few and far between. If its culture of courage and independence is going to survive, the South needs brave men and women to stand on the front lines against the onslaught of PC warriors. The South is once again in need of leaders like George Washington and Robert E. Lee: loyal, virtuous, strong, principled and uncompromising. I know they are out there, but enemies of Southern heritage like the NAACP seem to have a monopoly on name recognition and media coverage.
This is not a battle simply to win the right to wave a Confederate flag without being called a racist. It is a fight for the very heart and soul of the South. It is a fight to preserve what's left of a very important part of our history. After all, the South's heritage is America's heritage as well.
These men were citizen-statesmen. I believe many of our problems now stem from the fact that we have a professional class of politicians, not citizen-statesmen. It was to be a sacrifice to serve in congress, not a road to wealth and power.
I think you nailed it. Today, even Southern politicians seem to have little respect for the heritage of the people they "represent."
DiLorenzo is a lousy source.
I found this:
"Lee had expressed his view of this duty many times in his letters and in his conversations. In writing a former governor of Virginia, he declared, "...The duty of [the Souths] citizens, then, appears to me too plain to admit of doubt. All should unite in honest efforts to obliterate the effects of the war and to restore the blessing of peace."46 He repeated this same sentiment in many letters, and his son later wrote that Lee had "repeatedly" given "similar advice" to other Southerners, friends and strangers alike.47 Now he faced the difficult task of instilling the same understanding of duty into former Confederate soldiers and angry young Southern gentlemen."
See this site for a lot more of the same:
http://www.lee-jackson.org/essay.html
Walt
Can't say if God is using you on FR, but you are the quintessence of the "jawbone of an ass".
Davis definitely wanted guerilla war. Lee and Johnston both refused.
Walt
DiLOrenzo is a big user of out of context quotes. He is not at all objective or fair.
Walt
He repeated that in a message to Congress in 1862: "I cannot make it any better known than it already is that I strongly favor colonization." Like you said, that's not what we learned in the history books in school."
But here's a letter Lincoln wrote in 1864 to the governor of Massachusetts:
John A Andrew
Executive Mansion,
Washington, February 18. 1864.
Yours of the 12th was received yesterday. If I were to judge from the letter, without any external knowledge, I should suppose that all the colored people South of Washington were struggling to get to Massachusetts; that Massachusetts was anxious to receive and retain the whole of them as permament citizens; and that the United States Government here was interposing and preventing this. But I suppose these are neither really the facts, nor meant to be asserted as true by you. Coming down to what I suppose to be the real facts, you are engaged in trying to raise colored troops for the U. S. and wish to take recruits from Virginia, through Washington, to Massachusetts for that object; and the loyal Governor of Virginia, also trying to raise troops for us, objects to you taking his material away; while we, having to care for all, and being responsible alike to all, have to do as much for him, as we would have to do for you, if he was, by our authority, taking men from Massachusetts to fill up Virginia regiments. No more than this has been intended by me; nor, as I think, by the Secretary of War. There may have been some abuses of this, as a rule, which, if known, should be prevented in future.
If, however, it be really true that Massachusetts wishes to afford a permanent home within her borders, for all, or even a large number of colored persons who will come to her, I shall be only too glad to know it. It would give relief in a very difficult point; and I would not for a moment hinder from going, any person who is free by the terms of the proclamation or any of the acts of Congress."
A. Lincoln
DiLorenzo is pushing an agenda that does not admit of a fair reading of the record.
Walt
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.