Skip to comments.Robert E. Lee Boy Scout Council, Richmond, VA, to be Renamed. More PC for the Boy Scouts...
Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70
click here to read article
The rebels were no better than common thieves.
South Carolina ceded all claims to Fort Sumter in 1841. The feds refused to build the fort unless clear title were conveyed.
It is a travesty to call these people heroes.
They are blind, that's why.
As I scan my memory and look at the framed Council Shoulder Patches on the wall of my office, I see that few Councils are named after individuals. Most are geographic.
Those named after individuals that come to my mind are named after individuals who assisting the Scouting movement. Why name a Council after a CSA military officer? By the way, there is no Martin Luther King, Jr. Council either.
Gee I thought Newspeak would be applied to the ones running around rewriting history. How are you so smart to claim that the civil war was all about HATE? They were ALL Americans. HATE is just your way of demonizing. I'm not from the South but my wife is and the "civil war" museums and historical markers are a part of our HISTORY, would you just rewrite it to suit your PC views. Historical context is important. Of course slavery was a stain on America, one that we are still paying for, but WE ended it, a fact we should feel good about.
The liberals have proven that they will change the fabric of American life - gays in the scouts, removing the POA, the American flag, etc....what next, no bibles?
I'll take my stand.
For any one side to be "right" to disavow the outcome of an election., you'd have to show intolerable abuse of the system.
The problem for the "heritage" defenders is that in 1860, there had been no such abuse. The rebels tried to break up the government -they- had controlled for decades simply because a free election, held in accordance with the rules agreed to by all, had not gone the way they wanted.
You need to think about that, and -then- see if you can consider Lee, Jackson, or -any- of the rebels as heroes. If you do consider the real events in their proper context, you won't call Lee a hero any more.
Because of this:
"... a North Carolina mountaineer wrote to governor Zebulon Vance a letter that expressed the non-slave holder's view perfectly Believing that some able-bodied men ought to stay at home to preserve order, this man set forth his feelings: "We have but little interest in the value of slaves, but there is one matter in this connection about which we have a very deep interest. We are opposed to Negro equality. To prevent this we are willing to spare the last man, down to the point where women and children begin to suffer for food and clothing; when these begin to suffer and die, rather than see them equalized with an inferior race we will die with them. Everything, even life itself, stands pledged to to the cause; but that our greatest strength may be employed to the best advantage and the struggle prolonged let us not sacrifice at once the object for which we are fighting."
-- "The Coming Fury" p. 202-203 by Bruce Catton.
"Though I protest against the false and degrading standard to which Northern orators and statesmen have reduced the measure of patriotism, which is to be expected from a free and enlightened people, and in the name of the non-slaveholders of the South, fling back the insolent charge that they are only bound to their country by the consideration of its "loaves and fishes," and would be found derelict in honor and principle, and public virtue, in proportion as they were needy in circumstances, I think it but easy to show that the interest of the poorest non-slaveholder among us is to make common cause with, and die in the last trenches, in defence of the slave property of his more favored neighbor.
"The non-slaveholders of the South may be classed as either such as desire and are incapable of purchasing slaves, or such as have the means to purchase and do not, because of the absence of the motive-preferring to hire or employ cheaper white labor. A class conscientiously objecting to the ownership of slave property does not exist at the South: for all such scruples have long since been silenced by the profound and unanswerable arguments to which Yankee controversy has driven our statesmen, popular orators, and clergy. Upon the sure testimony of God's Holy Book, and upon the principles of universal polity, they have defended and justified the institution! The exceptions, which embrace recent importations in Virginia, and in some of the Southern cities, from the free States of the North, and some of the crazy, socialistic Germans in Texas, are too unimportant to affect the truth of the proposition." --J.E.B. DeBow, 1860
DeBow was the taker of the 1850 census.
The heritage CLEARLY was and IS hatred.
To take as a theme "heritage, not hate" is to deny the historical record as surely as the Nazis did when they blamed the Jews for World War One.
The record is clear on this.
yes, so did the north till sometime AFTER the war.
It was that way under the Articles of Confederation.
Under the Constitution, the power shifted from the states to the people -- because it had to. The Articles were a failure. The Constitution has been a success.
You are mistaken.
Most people in the north wanted a soft peace. This is surprising when you consider how barbarously the rebels acted in treating Union POW's and loyal Union men, who were murdered by the hundred and hanged by the dozen respectively, but it is still true.
There are no "gays" allowed in BSA Scouting and religion is a base tenant of the program.
You must have us confused with the Girl Scouts which IMHO have gone PC.
BSA took our case to the Supreme Court regarding Gay's and Atheists and won....can't be either and be a Scout or Scout Leader....
Just under one-third of Southern families owned slaves. In South Carolina and Mississippi, almost half owned slaves.
Sometimes a person, or an institution, does something that is so horrific that it overrides all virtue the person or institution may otherwise have. John Wayne Gacy may have been a nice guy, but he murdered a couple of dozen boys. Hitler may have loved his dog, and Joan Crawford may have given money to charity when she wasn't beating her daughter with a clothes hanger.
Slavery was horrific, and if people didn't recognize that in 1791 (date of the Constitution), then they realized that over the next 70 years.
I normally would stand beside my neighbor and defend his home against federal intervention regarding how he raised his children, like if he wanted to homeschool. However, if he had his children in shackles, or abused them, or claimed to own them and be able to sell them, then at that point he lost the right to his own "sovereignity" over his family.
The South lost that right with slavery (and we can argue all day about what portion of the cause of the Civil War was slavery, because we all know there were other elements).
Even if States had not left the Union and joined the CSA, at some point the government should have forced the Southern states to abandon slavery.
I don't understand how anyone can support military action by the US against other countries in the interest of "freeing" people from oppressive governments and not understand that the concept of OWNING another human being is so contrary to the concept of basic, God-given freedom.
Lincoln gets a MUCH better press than he desreves
I can only assume that you are a victim of the neo-reb propaganda, or you are willingly pushing an interpretation based on skewed information.
You should consider what President Lincoln wrote later in life. He came to believe that blacks deserved all the blessings under the flag they fought so nobly to defend.
In 1862 Generals Hunter and Butler issued emancipation documents of varying force. Lincoln had them revoked.
He knew that sentiment in the north was such that it was too soon to go for emancipation. But when he played the compensated emancipation and colonization cards, border state leaders and black leaders were cold to that. The very next day after he met with border state representatives, July 12, 1862, he decided on emancipation as a war measure. And he took that step --when-- he took it --because-- his political sense told him that the north would accept it, this within days after the bloodbath at Antietam.
This is why Frederick Douglass said that Lincoln was "swift, radical, zealous and determined."
Lincoln also used his great --political-- skills to assess when and if voting rights for blacks be acceptable to the great mass of whites -- at least in the north. The attempt to legitimize blacks as Americans can be seen in these letters he wrote :
Washington D.C. April 1, 1863
My dear Sir:
I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force at Jacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as is to be expected. It is mportant to the enemy that such a force shall not take shape, and grow, and thrive, in the south; and in precisely the same proportion, it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost caution and viglilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra efforts to destroy them; and we should do the same to preserve and increase them.
Hon. Andrew Johnson
My dear Sir:
Washington, March 26. 1863.
I am told you have at least thought of raising a negro military force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing so much as some man of your ability, and position, to go to this work. When I speak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave-state, and himself a slave- holder. The colored population is the great available and yet unavailed of, force for restoring the Union. The bare sight of fifty thousand armed, and drilled black soldiers on the banks of the Mississippi, would end the rebellion at once. And who doubts that we can present that sight, if we but take hold in earnest? If you have been thinking of it please do not dismiss the thought. Yours truly
Hon Soc of War
July 21, 1863
My Dear Sir:
I desire that a renewed and vigorous effort be made to raise colored forces along the shores of the Missippi [sic]. Please consult the General-in-chief; and if it is perceived that any acceleration of the matter can be effected, let it be done. I think the evidence is nearly conclusive that Gen. Thomas is one of the best, if not the very best, instruments for this service.
Lincoln also proposed --privately-- to the new governor of Louisiana that the new state constiution include voting rights for blacks. A year later, in April, 1865 he came out --publicly-- for the suffrage for black soldiers, because his great --political-- skill told him that the time was right.
It was a direct result of this speech, and this position, that Booth shot him.
President Lincoln, besides ordering the army (note that this is only a few months after the EP) to use black soldiers more vigorously, made many public speeches to prepare the people for the idea of black suffrage.
"But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose that you do not. ....peace does not appear as distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, and come to stay; and so come as to worth the keeping in all future time. It will have then been proved that, among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet; and that they who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost. And then, there will be some black men, who can remember that, with silent tongue, and clenched teeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet they have helped mankind on to this great consumation; while, I fear, there will be some white ones, unable to forget that, with malignant heart, and deceitful speech, have strove to hinder it. Still let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy final triumph. Let us be quite sober. Let us dilligently apply the means, never doubting that a just God, in his own good time, will give us the rightful result."
"When you give the Negro these rights," he [Lincoln] said, "when you put a gun in his hands, it prophesies something more: it foretells that he is to have the full enjoyment of his liberty and his manhood...By the close of the war, Lincoln was reccomending commissioning black officers in the regiments, and one actually rose to become a major before it was over. At the end of 1863, more than a hundred thousand had enlisted in the United States Colored Troops, and in his message to Congress the president reported, "So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any." When some suggested in August 1864 that the Union ought to offer to help return runaway slaves to their masters as a condition for the South's laying down its arms, Lincoln refused even to consider the question.
"Why should they give their lives for us, with full notice of our purpose to betray them?" he retorted. "Drive back to the support of the rebellion the physical force which the colored people now give, and promise us, and neither the present, or any incoming administration can save the Union." To others he said it even more emphatically. "This is not a question of sentiment or taste, but one of physical force which may be measured and estimated. Keep it and you can save the Union. Throw it away, and the Union goes with it."
--"Lincoln's Men" pp 163-64 by William C. Davis
Lincoln's sense of fairness made him seek to extend the blessings of citizenship to everyone who served under the flag.
His great political skill made him realize that blacks --were--not-- leaving -- he played that card and no one was biting, black or white. That being the case, he knew he had to prepare for the future, and that future involved full rights for blacks.
From what you posted in your #120,,,,where do you get the hate meaning????????????????????
Hitler never had plans beyond securing the "lebansraum" in the east. He got sidtracked some, but he never considered world conquest.
I think if I was back in the days of the Civil War I might have been a "yank", but then, I don't know...it's hard to say. I base that on what I know today, had I lived then I might have had different feelings.
The point is, Robert E. Lee is a historical figure and there is no shame in naming a scout council after him.
My father was involved in scouting for MANY years, earning the "Silver Beaver" award (those of you in scouting will know what that means). My brother was an Eagle Scout, my mom was involved in the Cub Scouts and my sisters and I were all Girl Scouts (after being Brownies of course).
It's sad to see an institution like the Boy Scouts be turned into another political organization....that was NEVER the intent of that organization. Way to go adults, ruin another great institution for teaching values in our kids by turning it into your political puppet/propaganda/example!!
As an ex-Anglican, I am well aware of the incident during reconstruction when freed slaves first attended the same Episcopalian parish as Lee. When some went forward and knelt at the altar rail, the whites hung back until Lee went forward and knelt beside a black man.
This incident should be trumpetted to the PC nitwits and the sheep who are following them in dishonoring the great man's memory. (And I'm a born and bred Yankee.)
There were slaves in the north also. Hate is a strong word, lack of respect for the humanity of blacks would fit better. Remember the US Constitution said they were 3/5"s of a person, OBVIOUSLY wrong, but Hate, I"m not so sure, doesn't historical context mean anything, or did Washington and Jefferson HATE blacks too?
Why do you think that North Carolinian opposed negro equality?
Of course not. If they did they would be admitting they were as guilty as they say we were. :)