Robert E. Lee - Hero?

6 views
Skip to first unread message

slotrot

unread,
Apr 26, 2011, 10:54:20 AM4/26/11
to
Message has been deleted

slotrot

unread,
Apr 27, 2011, 7:34:57 AM4/27/11
to
On Apr 27, 6:31 am, Bad Jim <jc...@csa.gov> wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 10:54:20 -0400, slotrot wrote
> (in article
> <c9bc67cf-12fc-4bca-b9b0-b94481b74...@y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>):
>
>
>
> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/04/26/2011-04-
> 26_robert_e_lee_symbol_
>
>
>
> > of_the_souths_greatest_mistake_its_time_to_disown_him.html- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 27, 2011, 9:50:25 AM4/27/11
to

Why do people complain about Lee venerators?

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 27, 2011, 10:44:26 AM4/27/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/04/26/2011-04-26_robert_e_lee_symbol_of_the_souths_greatest_mistake_its_time_to_disown_him.html


My understanding of the symbolism of Lee and the ante-bellum south was
shaped by Gaines Foster's Ghosts of the Confederacy: Defeat, the Lost
Cause, and the Emergence of the New South, 1865-1913, a book I strongly
for those interested in learning about the south.

IIRC Foster distinguishes between those ex-rebels who opposed
reconciliation with the Yankees, and those who favored it. You could
tell who was who by their attitude toward join encampments with
US vets. Reconcilers were for this. Irreconcilables, against.

Along with favoring reconciliation came a special way of portraying the
Old South and the rebel undertaking--as the lost cause, something long
ago and far away, to be venerated but not to be restored. This special
way of putting the Old South in never-never-land was the project of
those who wanted thd south to modernize, to reconcile, and to imitate
Northern success in the economic domain, to do in other words what Lee
recommended in his public statements recommended, work out a way to seek
happines and prosperity in the US, while leaving behind the project of
an separate nation.

Foster judged that the CSA-Old-South exponents were not any more racist
than others in that era, and that the intensified racism of the early
20th century was not their special project.

I don't venerate Confederate leaders, but I have spent some time trying to
understand those who do. Most of them think that attacks on Lee are
instances of the larger project of south-bashing. So they adopt a
"consider the source" attitude toward pieces like the one cited
above. (IMO)

I don't venerate Union leaders either. To me they are objects of
historical study, like Flora MacDonald, Garibaldi, Bismarck, etc. But I
won't try to discourage Lincoln veneration, which is a vastly larger
enterprise than Lee veneration. If thinking about honest Abe makes
you all soft and gooey inside, that's your concern.


HL


slotrot

unread,
Apr 27, 2011, 12:25:13 PM4/27/11
to
On Apr 27, 9:50 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do people complain about Lee venerators?

Why do people complain about people who complain about Lee
venerators? It probably means he/she is expressing an opinion.

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 27, 2011, 4:16:17 PM4/27/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

As I said in another post, many of those who complain about people who
complain about Lee venerators do it because they think it's another
instance of south-bashing, and they don't like that.

HL

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 27, 2011, 6:43:25 PM4/27/11
to
Hugh Lawson <hu.l...@gmail.com> writes:

one of the things I noticed in the op-ed piece was a
Nazi comparison.

Nazi comparisons are the Gold Standard of demonization.

HL

MITO MINISTER

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 3:00:04 AM4/28/11
to
On Apr 27, 10:50 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do people complain about Lee venerators?

Probably because "Lee venerators" are white supremacists who refuse to
admit that the South took up arms and engaged in terrorism in order to
defend slavery. That's why.

slotrot

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 6:31:40 AM4/28/11
to
On Apr 27, 6:43 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

Nazi comparison? Not really. A comparison of generals yes, albeit
Rommel did fight for Germany.

slotrot

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 6:32:14 AM4/28/11
to

Good response.

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 8:16:58 AM4/28/11
to
MITO MINISTER <cigarm...@gmail.com> writes:

What good does the complaining do? The white supremacists are unlikely
to be influenced by by the complaining.

Any Lee-venerators who are not white supremacists will be annoyed by
having been called white supremacists.

So, what is the purpose of the complaining?

HL

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 8:25:57 AM4/28/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:


Here's the sentence slotrot:

"Lee is an American Rommel, the German general who fought brilliantly,
but for Hitler."

Hitler-supporter comparisons (aka Nazi comparisons) are the Gold
Standard of Demonization.

Grownups don't expect that such comparisons will influence Lee
venerators. So who is the target audience of such statements? And what
is the purpose of making them?


HL


slotrot

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 8:58:38 AM4/28/11
to
On Apr 28, 8:25 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sorry, I still don't see the Nazi comparison. Rommel was a good
general, perhaps Lee was as well, but the comparison is between the
two men, not their ideology. Was Rommel a Nazi? I don't believe he
was but he was a German soldier.
Did he attempt to kill Hitler?

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 9:58:23 AM4/28/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:


> Good response.

I understand Slotrot that you are just tossing out this op-ed for
discussion. It's the tradition in this group to do this.

There's nothing wrong with that.

And of course, I am just discussing.

HL

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 10:01:06 AM4/28/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:


> Sorry, I still don't see the Nazi comparison.

Well, that's your problem, not mine.

HL


slotrot

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 11:39:39 AM4/28/11
to
On Apr 28, 10:01 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't think it's a problem. Your opinion is yours, mine is mine.

I don't interpret the article in the same sense you do. I don't see
Nazis around every corner.

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 12:28:40 PM4/28/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

> I don't interpret the article in the same sense you do.

So you do. But it's not my job to fix up your thinking.

Unless forced by crisis, I don't try to correct the incorrigible.

I'm satisfied to state my viewpoint, and see if there is competent
criticism.

HL


slotrot

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 12:48:46 PM4/28/11
to
On Apr 28, 12:28 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

"Fix up my thinking"??? Isn't that rather arrogant of you? Just
how would you "force" me to think differently? Now, if there ever was
a "comparison", I could probably make on now. No??
I guess competent criticism is like beauty, it's in the eye of the
beholder.

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 2:44:36 PM4/28/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:

> On Apr 28, 12:28 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> slotrot <rtaub...@rogers.com> writes:
>> > I don't interpret the article in the same sense you do.
>>
>> So you do. But it's not my job to fix up your thinking.
>>
>> Unless forced by crisis, I don't try to correct the incorrigible.
>>
>> I'm satisfied to state my viewpoint, and see if there is competent
>> criticism.  
>>
>> HL
>
> "Fix up my thinking"??? Isn't that rather arrogant of you?

I think you are wrong on the point; I think your thinking
needs revision. What's arrogant about that?

> Just
> how would you "force" me to think differently?

I can't, and I'm not going to try. I judge you've already made up your
mind.

[ snip of seeming rhetorical question]

> I guess competent criticism is like beauty, it's in the eye of the
> beholder.

For awcusa, this statement is correct.


HL

slotrot

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 3:46:39 PM4/28/11
to

Well, your argument, or lack of supporting information, leaves me to
believe you don't have anything to offer that would change my opinion.
You have simply stated your opinion. Because there is mention of
Rommel, Germany, and Hitler, you have immediately jumped to the Nazi
argument.
I believe you are wrong because the comparison was between two
generals, not to their ideology. Rommel was not a Nazi, he was a
German soldier.

Judge not lest ye be judged.

Ray O'Hara

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 4:28:01 PM4/28/11
to

"Hugh Lawson" <hu.l...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:87liyus...@gmail.com...


so you don't think enslaving people is wrong, interesting Hugh.


Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 8:32:55 PM4/28/11
to
"Ray O'Hara" <raymon...@hotmail.com> writes:


> so you don't think enslaving people is wrong, interesting Hugh.

What nonsense.

HL

Hugh Lawson

unread,
Apr 28, 2011, 8:38:56 PM4/28/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:


> Judge not lest ye be judged.

Judge away. And so shall I.


HL

Danny

unread,
May 22, 2011, 9:54:17 AM5/22/11
to
On Apr 26, 10:54 am, slotrot <rtaub...@rogers.com> wrote:
> http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2011/04/26/2011-04-26_robert_e_le...

Lee's "leadership" at Gettysburg on Day 3 should have sealed his fate
forever as a poor general.

MITO MINISTER

unread,
May 24, 2011, 5:59:34 AM5/24/11
to
On Apr 28, 9:16 pm, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

To shut you up along with all the other unreconstructed White Boys!

MITO MINISTER

unread,
May 24, 2011, 6:02:04 AM5/24/11
to
On Apr 29, 9:32 am, Hugh Lawson <hu.law...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Ray O'Hara" <raymond-oh...@hotmail.com> writes:
> > so you don't think enslaving people is wrong, interesting Hugh.
>
> What nonsense.
>
> HL

Lawson: Condemn Jim Crow or Shut The Fuck Up!

And condemn your felow White Southerners for doing NOTHING about Civil
Rights.

You were silent in the 60s as your friends, neighbours and family
members SPAT on Blacks trying to go to school.

slotrot

unread,
May 24, 2011, 9:33:08 AM5/24/11
to

I don't see the necessity for the "F" bomb. You are about a month
late responding, so what's the point of such vitriol after such and
long pause?

Hugh Lawson

unread,
May 25, 2011, 8:36:53 AM5/25/11
to
slotrot <rtau...@rogers.com> writes:


> I don't see the necessity for the "F" bomb. You are about a month
> late responding, so what's the point of such vitriol after such and
> long pause?


Although the majority of white southerners surely opposed
desegregation, it is false to say that all of them did.

See David Chappell's _Inside Agitators_, for an account of white
southerners who supported the civil rights movement.

You can read about the book here:

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-Agitators-Southerners-Rights-Movement/dp/080185234X

--
Hugh Lawson
hu.l...@gmail.com

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages