Civil War: John Kelly Praises Robert E.Lee and Won't Blame the Slave-Owning Confederacy for the Conflict (KKK, rating)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Travel to the South. Show me how many former concentration camps, complete with gas chambers, you find.
I am well aware of the Nuremburg trials and all that followed the defeat of Nazi Germany. This situation was entirely different from what occurred after Appomattox.
Yes, I know about Andersonville. Yes, slavery was atrocious. Yes, the South should never have seceded. Yes, the Civil War was a great tragedy for our nation.
But the Confederacy never had a policy of exterminating anyone or any group of people, for any reason. Even the cruelest of slaveholders had no intention of completely - or, it should go without saying, even partially - eliminating the black race. Why would they shoot themselves in the economic foot?
The majority of those who were imprisoned and/or died in the death camps of Nazi Germany were civilians. All were innocent. All were persecuted for their religion, ethnicity, nationality, race, disability, political views, or sexual orientation. They were killed or allowed to die after being "sorted" to eliminate the young, the old, the weak, the disabled - the rest were worked to death before dying or being brutally murdered.
Slavery, horrible as it was, does not begin to compare. Those who were enslaved did not face a government policy of deliberate torture and extermination, and if a slaveholder was found to engage in such behavior, he or she would have been prosecuted. Yes, justice was limited for those who were enslaved, but slaveholders were not allowed to kill those they enslaved at random, without consequences.
Slaves were viewed as an economic investment as well as a work force. Why, then, would any typical slaveholder deliberately torture, kill, damage or fail to care for his "investment"? Read the newspapers and diaries and journals of the day - those who did such things were viewed with horror and shunned by their fellow citizens, and frequently (though not often enough) prosecuted. No, most slaves were not cosseted and experienced much fear, sorrow and tragedy in their lives - but they were not systematically murdered for the supposed crime of being who they were, unlike the millions who died in the death camps.
Your comparison is invalid.
BTW, Jefferson Davis was imprisoned after the war. You might want to look into it before claiming otherwise.
I'm not going to defend General Kelly - his clueless comments seem to reveal a lack of nuanced knowledge of the past, and I don't care for some of his other statements about contemporary matters. I'm not even going to defend Robert E. Lee, other than to say the obvious: he was a complex, contradictory man, with much that was good and much that was not in his character. But your blanket condemnation of the South as equating with Nazi Germany is extremely revisionist and more than inaccurate. It just isn't the case, and never was.
All Gen Kelly said was "Lee was an honorable man." How is that a clueless comment?
Lee's decision to surrender with total honor and his personal imploring to his men to cease fighting staved off generations of guerrilla warfare and a country divided like so many here on earth. He expected to be hanged, yet he preached unity in his defeat.
There are two types of honor, horizontal honor and vertical honor
Horizontal honor = mutual respect.
The existence of horizontal honor is premised on three elements:
First one
A code of honor. A code of honor lays out the standards that must be reached in order for a person to receive respect within a group. (a group of warriors, war fighters, and soldiers) These rules outline what it takes to obtain honor (or respect), and how it may be lost. That last stipulation is paramount: honor that cannot be lost is not honor.
So for a lot of men who have seen combat, Lee could be viewed as a man with honor because he expected to be hanged, yet he preached unity in his defeat. That is honor, isn't that?
You can't defend your ancestors and at the same time, calling Gen Kelly a clueless man. sheesh
...
Slavery, horrible as it was, does not begin to compare. Those who were enslaved did not face a government policy of deliberate torture and extermination, and if a slaveholder was found to engage in such behavior, he or she would have been prosecuted. Yes, justice was limited for those who were enslaved, but slaveholders were not allowed to kill those they enslaved at random, without consequences.
Slaves were viewed as an economic investment as well as a work force. Why, then, would any typical slaveholder deliberately torture, kill, damage or fail to care for his "investment"? Read the newspapers and diaries and journals of the day - those who did such things were viewed with horror and shunned by their fellow citizens, and frequently (though not often enough) prosecuted. No, most slaves were not cosseted and experienced much fear, sorrow and tragedy in their lives - but they were not systematically murdered for the supposed crime of being who they were, unlike the millions who died in the death camps.
To say that slaveholders were not allowed to kill those they enslaved without consequences is a stretch.
I could only find two instances.
In South Carolina, Martin Posey was convicted and hung for murdering a slave named App. He had ordered App to murder his wife, then murdered App to cover his tracks. Whether he would have been convicted for "merely" murdering just App is questionable.
Souther, a Virginia slave owner who tortured a slave to death in front of several witnesses was convicted of murder, but sentenced only to five years in prison. This was after he had whipped, beat, and twice burned alive victims in front of witnesses without any punishment.
There were attempts to bring slave owners to trial but prosecutors tired of bringing cases they had no chances of winning.
Maybe slave owners suffered economic consequences for mistreating slaves, but cases of slaveholders being brought to trial and convicted for murdering a slave, or starving them, or whipping them, or raping them, or ... were few and far between.
Nor were these slaveholders viewed with horror or shunned by the community. Read some of the accounts of how Lee treated the slaves he owned. He certainly wasn't shunned. I doubt many slaveholders shunned others, didn't attend their their balls, their picnics, etc. over how they treated their slaves.
"Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”
To argue that we should excuse slaveholders because they weren't as bad as Nazis, didn't kill as many of their "investments," may not have "cosseted" them, ...
All Gen Kelly said was "Lee was an honorable man." How is that a clueless comment?
Lee's decision to surrender with total honor and his personal imploring to his men to cease fighting staved off generations of guerrilla warfare and a country divided like so many here on earth. He expected to be hanged, yet he preached unity in his defeat.
There are two types of honor, horizontal honor and vertical honor
Horizontal honor = mutual respect.
The existence of horizontal honor is premised on three elements:
First one
A code of honor. A code of honor lays out the standards that must be reached in order for a person to receive respect within a group. (a group of warriors, war fighters, and soldiers) These rules outline what it takes to obtain honor (or respect), and how it may be lost. That last stipulation is paramount: honor that cannot be lost is not honor.
So for a lot of men who have seen combat, Lee could be viewed as a man with honor because he expected to be hanged, yet he preached unity in his defeat. That is honor, isn't that? You can't defend your ancestors and at the same time, calling Gen Kelly a clueless man. sheesh
I referred to Kelly's timing and his audience. He is welcome to his opinions, of course, but politically speaking, stating them publicly as he did was not too astute.
General Kelly has nothing to do with my ancestors and my accounts of them. I didn't defend either, btw - just stated what happened in two branches of my own family during and immediately after the Civil War. I did state that both those branches included honorable people - in some cases, honorable people who were tragically wrong - but just as importantly, admitted it and went on to live constructive lives.
Remember that Confederate Major g-g-grandfather of mine who fought with Pickett at Gettysburg? After the war, he became a community leader, held office at the state level, and when asked by my then young father to tell about his war experiences, just shook his head and responded, "It was all a big mistake".
He did not glorify himself, his experiences, the Confederacy, or anyone associated with it. He DID continue to express concern for the men who had served under him and their families and remained in contact with many of them. He served his community and his state. To me, those are the actions of an honorable person.
Let's see - Flynn...we KNOW he sold us out in addition to his crazy conspiracy theories.
Petraus - hmmm.....didn't he commit some kind of crime for a bit of puzzy?
I don't give a dang how many stars they have. I'd rather have an honest Sergeant than a corrupt General.
And, speaking of Generals, how did Petraeus do sitting there in the A/C of Tampa and partying every night? Did we win the conflict and leave? Isn't that their job?
The Slaveholding South is a stain on our history and everyone knows it. It's fact.
As far as borders, immigration, etc - you'll have to talk to your "right wing" libertarian friends (GOP - like the Kochs, etc.) who believe in open borders. That stuff is beyond my pay grade.
All I can say about your rant is that it proves the old maxim - "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - that is, throwing out name-calling and making up new definitions of patriotism (not paying taxes, colluding with Russians, losing wars).......is a perfect example.
The real separation in the USA is between people who know things and those who don't. People who read and those who watch TV instead. People who actually accomplish things and those who spend their spare time high or drunk.
The democratic party ,your group is responsible for the KKK And the Jim Crow laws banning blacks. The were losing power and needed to gain power so LBJ expanded welfare. His strategy worked. LBJ was a racist and said. "I will have those ni***rs voting democrat for the next two hundred years. ". Pretty disgusting to make such a statement but the worst part it came true.
[/b]I referred to Kelly's timing and his audience. He is welcome to his opinions, of course, but politically speaking, stating them publicly as he did was not too astute.
General Kelly has nothing to do with my ancestors and my accounts of them. I didn't defend either, btw - just stated what happened in two branches of my own family during and immediately after the Civil War. I did state that both those branches included honorable people - in some cases, honorable people who were tragically wrong - but just as importantly, admitted it and went on to live constructive lives.
Remember that Confederate Major g-g-grandfather of mine who fought with Pickett at Gettysburg? After the war, he became a community leader, held office at the state level, and when asked by my then young father to tell about his war experiences, just shook his head and responded, "It was all a big mistake".
He did not glorify himself, his experiences, the Confederacy, or anyone associated with it. He DID continue to express concern for the men who had served under him and their families and remained in contact with many of them. He served his community and his state. To me, those are the actions of an honorable person.
Lee expected to be hanged, yet he preached unity in his defeat. That is honor too.
Plus, Lee Wanted the Confederate Flag Gone Gone Gone.
It's time for voices of reason.
After the war, Confederate sympathizers urged him to encourage a guerrilla war, which would have lasted years but Lee rejected the idea and instead focused on reuniting the country.
When asked by one woman what she should do with a Confederate flag after the war ended, Lee stated: "Fold it up and put it away."
So I can see why many combat soldiers could have viewed Lee as a man with honor. It has nothing to do with slavery and racism. I just can't see why saying Lee was a man with honor is such a horrible thing to do.
To say that slaveholders were not allowed to kill those they enslaved without consequences is a stretch.
I could only find two instances.
In South Carolina, Martin Posey was convicted and hung for murdering a slave named App. He had ordered App to murder his wife, then murdered App to cover his tracks. Whether he would have been convicted for "merely" murdering just App is questionable.
Souther, a Virginia slave owner who tortured a slave to death in front of several witnesses was convicted of murder, but sentenced only to five years in prison. This was after he had whipped, beat, and twice burned alive victims in front of witnesses without any punishment.
There were attempts to bring slave owners to trial but prosecutors tired of bringing cases they had no chances of winning.
Maybe slave owners suffered economic consequences for mistreating slaves, but cases of slaveholders being brought to trial and convicted for murdering a slave, or starving them, or whipping them, or raping them, or ... were few and far between.
Nor were these slaveholders viewed with horror or shunned by the community. Read some of the accounts of how Lee treated the slaves he owned. He certainly wasn't shunned. I doubt many slaveholders shunned others, didn't attend their their balls, their picnics, etc. over how they treated their slaves.
"Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”
To argue that we should excuse slaveholders because they weren't as bad as Nazis, didn't kill as many of their "investments," may not have "cosseted" them, ...
Words fail.
Yet you go on writing.
You just stated that the Confederacy was the equivalent of Nazi Germany - now you say it was not. Which is it? NO ONE is "excusing slaveholders", contrary to your accusation. It was an atrocious system, cruel, brutal and evil.
You, not I, brought up the "what about" of Nazi Germany, by making the original comparison, which is entirely invalid. I pointed out why your equating the two is a false equivalency, at which point you accuse me of excusing slaveholders because they were not at bad as Nazis.
That is not what I said and not what I believe. I don't excuse anything. But I do try to understand.
NO ONE here is defending slavery or slaveholders. But it's important to understand what led to this "system", and no one gets off the hook. There is plenty of guilt to go around, and not just among Southerners of the time.
The South was agrarian - cotton ruled. And where did that cotton go? Who purchased it? England - and New Englanders, for their mills. Where did that cotton grow? On plantations and farms. Who picked that cotton? Slaves.
Why did the cotton market boom in the early 19th century? Because of Eli Whitney's cotton gin, which led to lower prices and increased demand for the fabric. Increased demand for the product caused increased demand for labor - both in the mills, and in the cotton fields. Were those mill owners concerned about the source of their raw material? Were they concerned about the well-being of those who picked that cotton? Were they concerned that their business practices led to the increase and spread of slavery? Or were they concerned about their profits?
Who profited most by the slave ships? New Englanders, who owned and sailed them - as previously recommended, look up the Triangle Trade.
So - if you equate the South with Nazi Germany, would those Yankee mill owners and slave traders be the equivalent of Mussolini's Italy, or perhaps imperial Japan during the 1930s and 1940s? No? But you just claimed that the Confederacy was similar to Nazi Germany...what is the difference?
Lee expected to be hanged, yet he preached unity in his defeat. That is honor too.
Plus, Lee Wanted the Confederate Flag Gone Gone Gone.
It's time for voices of reason.
After the war, Confederate sympathizers urged him to encourage a guerrilla war, which would have lasted years but Lee rejected the idea and instead focused on reuniting the country.
When asked by one woman what she should do with a Confederate flag after the war ended, Lee stated: "Fold it up and put it away."
So I can see why many combat soldiers could have viewed Lee as a man with honor. It has nothing to do with slavery and racism. I just can't see why saying Lee was a man with honor is such a horrible thing to do.
Lee was neither all good nor all bad. He was a complex man who kept tight control of his emotions, which probably contributed to his explosive anger - and terrible acts - on occasion. His behavior immediately after the war was exemplary, I do agree. And he was unquestionably revered by many Confederate soldiers and veterans, both during and after the war. He did strive for peace and reconciliation afterwards and was a significant force in moving forward productively, and deserves recognition for this.
I think Kelly is entitled to his opinion, as are you, of course. But my criticism of him was for his poor judgment in stating his views in a limited fashion, without expounding on them as you have done. He provided fodder for those who would take his words out of context - actually, there was little context in what I saw quoted from him - and use them for their own purposes.
That shows bad judgment and little insight or sensitivity on Kelly's part. Had he qualified his views, noted that Lee was a nuanced, complex, often contradictory figure who did many things wrong but some significant things right, we would not be having this controversy, or at least, not to this degree, and some might even be moved to check things out for themselves, referring to documents of the time as primary sources in addition to more recent material.
Lee was neither all good nor all bad. He was a complex man who kept tight control of his emotions, which probably contributed to his explosive anger - and terrible acts - on occasion. His behavior immediately after the war was exemplary, I do agree. And he was unquestionably revered by many Confederate soldiers and veterans, both during and after the war. He did strive for peace and reconciliation afterwards and was a significant force in moving forward productively, and deserves recognition for this.
I think Kelly is entitled to his opinion, as are you, of course. But my criticism of him was for his poor judgment in stating his views in a limited fashion, without expounding on them as you have done. He provided fodder for those who would take his words out of context - actually, there was little context in what I saw quoted from him - and use them for their own purposes.
That shows bad judgment and little insight or sensitivity on Kelly's part. Had he qualified his views, noted that Lee was a nuanced, complex, often contradictory figure who did many things wrong but some significant things right, we would notbe having this controversy, or at least, not to this degree, and some might even be moved to check things out for themselves, referring to documents of the time as primary sources in addition to more recent material.
Yeah, this is fair and i agree.
Gen Kelly is a former Marine, I think this has something to do with the way he talks and thinks. I agree with you post 100% by the way.
Leftists also seem to not know that the northern states had slavery as well and some of those, namely New Jersey were the LAST states in the nation to give up slavery even after it was so called abolished. New Jersey hung onto it right up until the Amendment went into the Constitution and they were forced to abandoned it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
