18 December 2013

Wiping Out The Memory Of Lee & Jackson

This entire nation has long recognized the outstanding virtues of courage, patriotism and selfless devotion to duty of General R.E. Lee.
Yes, until the canting ideologues of academia indoctrinated our collective minds. Anyone surprised? The slope gets slippery from here . . .

More here at the Washington Times.

Update: Robert Moore alerted me to another side of the story here.


D. Hill said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joel Taylor said...

This kind of politically correct, revisionist ignorance has been around for a long time. Further proof that reconstruction and the assault on the Southern mind and culture is long from over.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Reconciliation served the Nation well for the 10 - 11 decades it was in play. We built the most powerful nation and won wars due, in large part, to reconciliation. Now that the elites have extracted what they wanted/needed - it's time to discard those memories and sacrifices.

Chaps said...

Perhaps the Army would prefer that future combat leaders take inspiration instead from Burnside, Hooker, and McClellan.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Or Sheridan and Sherman . . . ;-)

Good to hear from you Chaps - hope all is well - Merry Christmas!

ropelight said...

Reconstruction was one thing and Radical Reconstruction quite another. Both were imposed at the point of a gun on the Southern States and neither of which should be conflated with the voluntary act of Reconciliation which remains a related, only partially fulfilled, and altogether different goal. One which is not shared by many of today's myopic crop of conspicuously divisive academic historians.

In fact, the forced imposition of Reconciliation was the greatest barrier to both early and current good faith attempts to reunify the nation, and it failed miserably.

Following Lincoln's death and Andrew Johnson's loss of control over a Congress bent on revenge, the use of US troops to enforce the radical reconstruction of Confederate States' governments resulted in depriving surviving Southerners of the right to hold office and even the right to vote.

Carpetbaggers and Scalawags ruled Southern State governments, arbitrarily suppressed the rights of whites (especially Confederate soldiers and former office holders), and pushed newly freed former slaves into positions they were entirely unprepared for.

As a result of Radical Reconstruction the Southern States became even more internally and externally divided, more racially antagonistic, and more poverty stricken. President Grant's animosity toward the land of his former opponents and his blatant personal and political corruption, in addition to Congress' radical reconstruction policies combined to produced the regional reaction that led directly to the Era of Jim Crow.

Historian Eric Foner summed it up, What remains certain is that Reconstruction failed, and that for blacks its failure was a disaster whose magnitude cannot be obscured by the genuine accomplishments that did ensue.

ropelight said...

My second paragraph should read, In fact, the forced imposition of Reconstruction not Reconciliation.

I apologize for the error. How easy it is to spot an embarrassing oversight when not distracted by rushing to make it to an appointment on time.

ropelight said...

Additionally, I don't accept Major General Cucolo's linked explanation. It doesn't begin to square with the elements detailed in Scarborough's WT report, especially those attributed to the college's spokeswoman, Carol Kerr.

Now, while it's not unusual at all for a new occupant to personalize his office on moving in, the notion that individual prerogative extends out and into the public areas and along the walls of the hallway is more than brass assumption, it's over-reach smacking of a cheeky arrogance and an unseemly presumption.

Everyone knows a reliable way for a recently promoted (and as yet unidentified) leader to get off on the wrong foot is to overstep his authority, be seen throwing his weight around, and thumbing his nose at long standing tradition.

Southerners, proud men and women, volunteer to serve in our nation's armed forces to a much greater extent than Americans from other regions, and Southerners are especially prevalent in front line combat roles, and have been since before WW-I.

If the purpose of the Army's War College is to educate future field generals in the techniques of armed conflict, the lessons to be learned from Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson are essential.

To remove their portraits from honored places in the Army War College is to betray the institution's very purpose, it marks the perpetrators as unfit to continue in place.

In 1975, when President Gerald Ford signed the Congressional Resolution reinstating General Lee's citizenship, he said: As a soldier, General Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox.

After the war, and after he'd sworn allegiance to the USA, General Lee wrote to a fellow Confederate soldier, I believe it to be the duty of everyone to unite in the restoration of the country and the reestablishment of peace and harmony.

I wish the same could be said of the War College's leaders.

Richard G. Williams, Jr. said...

Rope - good points. Unfortunately, due to the fact we live in an era of "canting ideologues", moves like this one are, sadly, suspect from the get go. There will be I'm sure, in the coming years, moves to rename army bases just as there have been to rename roads and schools.