Posted on 12/27/2002 6:50:38 AM PST by yankeedame
Apparently Lincoln thought it important enough to be present in person, with his son, very shortly after the military action.
Take it up with him, or get over it.
I don't see the problem: 'Kandahar' is named after 'Al Kandhar'--Alexander the Great. Leningrad was named after Lenin when the Bolsheviks won and then re-renamed Petrograd (IIRC) after the Nationalists won. We renamed a lot of America with european names in lieu of the original indian names....
At least they didn't rename Richmond 'Lincolnistan' or Lincolnstinia....
I assume based on your view on the Lincoln statue that you support 'Native American' causes for the same reasons?
After all, America is as much the indians as the south is confederate....
In the end, it was a great trauma to our national psyche. It is affecting the way we feel and the way we act even to this day. Is that a surprise? Arabs can feel slighted over something that happened to them in the 13th Century.
We simply need to treat each other with respect. Whites should respect what Blacks think about the causes of the war and Northerners should respect how Southerners feel towards their brave ancestors. Be open-minded. Don't defend your position like you are trying desperately to hold onto Little Round Top.
'Kay... They have casinos and white-man's clothes and schools on the indian reservations now...
America now belongs to the indians about as much as the South does the Confederacy. The indians aren't happy about it either I suppose....
I made one a little while ago. It should be down to the treatment plant in about an hour, which coincidentally enough, is about half a mile down river from where they are planning on putting the statue. When the wind comes from the east, the aroma will be very noticable to the statue's visitors. I somehow find that appropriate.
'Cuz he never occupied Washington the way Lincoln and his troops did Richmond.
They certainly did put up statues in 'Ho Chi Minh City' (formerly Saigon).
Do you think the NVA should have refrained from re-naming Saigon in lieu of the 'feeeeeeelings' of the southern Vietnamese and Americans?
Goldwater is the reason why the South is now Republican territory. Who do you think did it? Nelson Rockefeller?
Before Nixon, Goldwater and Reagan revitalized the Republican Party it had far more Chafees and Jeffordses than it had Santorums or Roves.
To pretend that the Republican Party today is the logical heir of the pro-tariff, big-government, Midwestern party of 1860 is as sensible as pretending that the Democrats are the agrarian, localist freetrade party they were in 1860.
Times have changed.
Aside from the obvious insane hatred you have due to your fractured Lost Cause fable of history, if Booth had done as you suggest, the "South" would have ceased to exist in 1865. All of your Confederate heroes from Davis on down to the lowest officer would have been hung, your states broken to pieces and treated as territories not reconstructed and re-admitted as if a war had never happened. "Southern Culture" would have been as completely and totally eradicated.
Killing Lincoln was the worst thing that could have happened to the south in 1865, but the outcome would have been much worse if it had happened earlier before Lincoln gave orders that there would be no reprisals and before he proposed his plans for national reconciliation that allowed the Southern states to stay intact. He correctly predicted at the time that some small-minded white men would never get over losing the war and their “social status” but the work ahead was about healing wounds and fulfilling the promises of the Declaration, not nurturing grudges.
So go put up a statue of Custer on the reservation nearest you and tell them to like it, by order of the Federal Government.
You argument is chasing after its tail.
FACT: the statue is being erected to make a political point - i.e. you guys were defeated, nyah, nyah, nyah.
FACT: Lincoln visited Richmond to a make a very different political point - I come in peace as your fellow American to help rebuild.
Lincoln came in order to try and salve fresh wounds. The statue was put up in order to reopen old ones.
I'm a Northerner who thinks Lincoln's attitude in coming to Richmond was healthy and mature. That's why I oppose his statue as disruptive and childish.
Disgusting comment, in my opinion...
AppyPappy...I've read a lot of your stuff and have liked it. What was stated here by Whiskey Papa was his opinion. And then he backed those opinions up with some interesting fact...The quote from the Govenor of South Carolina.
You calling it "Trol like behavior" IS "Troll like behavior" in my opinion...You're trying to dismiss this rational posts by calling him a "Troll". That is dusgusting. And I'm very surprised that you have tried it.
No. Custer lost his ass like Lee did. I would have no problem to putting up a statue of Sitting Bull at the site of the Little Bighorn.
Of course, your statement kinda proves my point that some Southerners view themselves in the same weird separtist way as the conquered natives of North America.
Is the south nothing more that a 'Res' for white guys?
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the idea of states rights, a certain amount of sympathy for succession as a state right, and have quite a bit of sympathy for many of the Constitutional complaints about things done during and after the war by the North.
That said, nostalgia for the Confederacy frankly does start to look like racism when the issue of whether the South was on the right or wrong side of the issue of slavery never gets discussed. It does start to look like people wish that the Confederacy had won to preserve slavery or, at the very least, to keep blacks "in their place".
To give you an analogy (that I'm sure will offend some people) I'm sure that many German soldiers fought for noble reasons in World War II and had no idea that people were being murdered in death camps. And I'm sure that many Japanese fought for noble reasons in World War II and never took part in a Bataan or a Nanking. But Americans still often get the gut feeling that something just isn't right when a German or Japanese leader honors their war dead, regardless of how noble the soldiers being honored were. Why? Because no matter how many good points their side had during the war (e.g., German complaints about the bad deal they got at the end of WW2, Japanese complaints about European and American colonialism in Asia, etc.), the Germans and Japanese governments were promoting horrible racist policies and committed horrible atrocities on people under their control. That just can't be ignored. To honor a German or Japanese soldier from that war, especially without recognizing the fatal errors of their side, feels like an act of honoring their fight and, by extension, to suggest that their might have been something good or noble if their side had won. I think most Americans find that sort of thing hard to stomach, since those sides was so clearly in the wrong and, indeed, I've seen people in the American press and here on Free Republic complain when the Japanese Emperor goes to their war shrine to honor their war dead, without mentioning any of the Japanese problems during the war.
Similarly, the problem with honoring those who fought for the Confederacy is that it suggests that things might have been good if the Confederacy had won. Without addressing the influence that being a part of the Union had on both slavery and civil rights for blacks, this sure looks like, at best, indifference to the fate of blacks and, at worst, nostalgia for a social order where blacks were slaves or a permanent underclass that could be treated horribly. The only way to separate the states rights (and Constitutional) issues from the slavery issue is for people to address what it would have meant for blacks had the Confederacy won and whether that would have been better or worse than what really happened. And the only reasonable way to suggest that a Southern victory might have been good would be to provide a plausible scenario where slavery would have ended anyway and where racism would be no worse in the South than it is today.
Failure to talk about the implications of slavery reminds me of an old (on topic) joke I heard:
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
In the case of the Civil War, the sentiment seems to be:
Other than that, how was the war?
In both cases, the "that" is just too big to ignore and trying to ignore it only makes it loom larger over the picture (because ignoring the issue makes people wonder what that says about the person ignoring it, much as Japanese silence on their WW2 attrocities only makes people wonder what they really think about the war). I you want to discuss the states rights implications of the Civil War or the bad things that the North did, first you need to address how you feel about slavery and if you want to contemplate the roads not taken (a peaceful Confederate succession or a Confederate victory, for example), you need to address the implications of that road not taken with respect to slavery and civil rights. These are not trivial concerns to be swept under the rug.
So it's not actually about history and historicity, it's about feeeeeelings, whooooa, whoooooa whoooooaaaaa feeeeeeeelings...
and self-esteem.
'Course why should they be teachin about that slave-owner Geo Washington if it makes the black kids feel bad?
Wrong again there Big Government Left Wing Federalist. Custer and Lincoln both got their brains splattered by the enemy, but were on the winning side.
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.