PDA

View Full Version : A southerner speaks



Aquinian
08-26-2017, 09:00 AM
I don't have much time for Dreher usually, but this is worth a read: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/duty-and-dishonor-the-south-trump/

Chris Coose
08-26-2017, 09:16 AM
Good one from the article.


After President Trump’s foul, self-aggrandizing tirade the other night in Phoenix, I thought about how in the hell it was that a culture — Southern culture — that professes to honor the character traits embodied in Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the rest, can embrace as its champion a vain, fat-mouthing Yankee con man who is a respecter of nothing. Trump has exactly one classic Southern character trait: a willingness to fight. But then, absent the rest of them, that makes him no different than a trashy barroom brawler.

Canoeyawl
08-26-2017, 09:22 AM
"Good one from the article"


After President Trump’s foul, self-aggrandizing tirade the other night in Phoenix, I thought about how in the hell it was that a culture — Southern culture — that professes to honor the character traits embodied in Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the rest, can embrace as its champion a vain, fat-mouthing Yankee con man who is a respecter of nothing. Trump has exactly one classic Southern character trait: a willingness to fight. But then, absent the rest of them, that makes him no different than a trashy barroom brawler.




The willingness to pay someone to fight for him seems closer to reality, making him no different than a low level mafisto thug.

Norman Bernstein
08-26-2017, 09:28 AM
I don't have much time for Dreher usually, but this is worth a read: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/duty-and-dishonor-the-south-trump/

Interesting article.... but it really explains itself in the last paragraph:


I should add here that if there were no Confederate monuments today, I would not support building any. But the fact that they do exist means that at some point in our history, for good or for ill, people ó or at least the power-holding majority ó believed that what those men fought for should be honored. I am not 100 percent opposed to removing statues, but I think it should not be done rashly, out of a mobís passion. How could we be certain that statues we erect today, to honor the people and the causes we believe to be honorable, wonít be ripped down tomorrow when our descendants judge us?

Perhaps the author misses the point. Successive generations SHOULD judge the previous ones, because our notions of honor, decency, morality, ethics, and compassion DO change with the times... as they should.

But even more to the point: the author's rationalization for the resistance to pulling down the statues:


Point is, I believe itís a mistake to assume that white support for leaving the monuments is about defending white supremacy. It probably has more to do with fear of dispossession. As I wrote in my Samuel Huntington post on iconoclasm (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/iconoclasm-violence-statues/), citing the political scientist Carol Swain ó an African-American who has written on white nativism ó a variety of powerful forces are coalescing now to raise and to concentrate white racial consciousness. Among them is a sense among a certain class of whites that they have no roots ó a conviction that leads them to find identity in victimization.

It is impossible for a people not to want to cling to 'pride', and there are many things one could be proud of.

For Southerners, there is much to be proud of, especially relating to culture. One can be proud of their region's reputation for hospitality.... their cuisine, unique in the country... their music... their long history of agriculture and fishing... and so many more things.

But what pride is there in the political movement which fomented the Civil War? Does anyone REALLY think that the so-called 'very fine people' that Trump talked about, as part of the Charlottesville demonstration, were there to represent Southern pride in the cultural aspects I just described?

I've known just a little about Robert E. Lee, and do recognize that, as a complex character, he had many fine attributes.... mixed in with other attributes that would not inspire pride. So it goes, with nearly ALL national leaders, even the ones we more universally venerate... even Lincoln had some rather despicable attitudes towards the blacks he was willing to risk the Nation's unity for, to liberate.

No, I don't find much reason to empathize with the right wing elements in the Charlottesville violence. I do NOT believe that what they were there to support had ANYTHING to do with noble sentiments. I don't particularly care, one way or the other, about the existence of monuments to Lee, and other 'heros' of the civil war, because I could easily point to the shortcomings of character in many other historical figures that few, if any, would want to protest... we ALL have feet of clay.... but neither would I be willing to defend them.

oznabrag
08-26-2017, 09:49 AM
Interesting article.... but it really explains itself in the last paragraph:


I should add here that if there were no Confederate monuments today, I would not support building any. But the fact that they do exist means that at some point in our history, for good or for ill, people — or at least the power-holding majority — believed that what those men fought for should be honored. I am not 100 percent opposed to removing statues, but I think it should not be done rashly, out of a mob’s passion. How could we be certain that statues we erect today, to honor the people and the causes we believe to be honorable, won’t be ripped down tomorrow when our descendants judge us?





Perhaps the author misses the point. Successive generations SHOULD judge the previous ones, because our notions of honor, decency, morality, ethics, and compassion DO change with the times... as they should.
. . .

Excellent response, Norman, and the thing about successive generations judging their forebears is a central truth of civilization, IMO, but I think YOU may have missed the point!

:D

For most of those statues, the power-holding majority believed that if everyone ELSE believed that what those men fought for should be honored, their hold on that power and their path to further dominance would be secure.

So, despite the facts and the crushing defeat, they invented the 'Lost Cause' with a flood of propaganda, passed Jim Crow, and proceeded to lynch any black person who squeaked about it.

Those statues do not represent a warrior's valor OR the cause he actually fought for. They represent the unwillingness of the Federal Government to protect millions of its citizens from the murder, rape, torture and dispossession that was enforced upon them by Jim Crow.

The whole 'valiant warrior' thing is a distraction.

Aquinian
08-26-2017, 09:53 AM
Hang around and watch Roosevelt reduced to his true status as a serial failure and thoroughly insincere and selfish pretender. That's coming within the next fifty years. One can see the genesis of it already.

Paul Pless
08-26-2017, 09:55 AM
Hang around and watch Roosevelt reduced to his true status as a serial failure and thoroughly insincere and selfish pretender. That's coming within the next fifty years. One can see the genesis of it already.

whatever

oznabrag
08-26-2017, 10:07 AM
Hang around and watch Trump reduced to his true status as a serial failure and thoroughly insincere and selfish pretender. That's coming within the next two years. One can see the genesis of it already.

Gotta agree with that one.

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 10:07 AM
Hang around and watch Roosevelt reduced to his true status as a serial failure and thoroughly insincere and selfish pretender. That's coming within the next fifty years. One can see the genesis of it already.

Except that Lee, Jackson and the rest were traitors to the nation and fought to keep millions enslaved while Roosevelt actually did work to keep the country strong, safe, and free while trying to provide a better standard of living for everyone.

Other than that,.....

Aquinian
08-26-2017, 10:13 AM
The civil war clearly wasn't fought to free the slaves for moral reasons. Freeing the slaves was a means to an end, viz. weakening the economy of the South. The sequel proves it. So do the recorded attitudes of the prominent northern figures responsible for the policy.

Aquinian
08-26-2017, 10:16 AM
And read what Ike said about secession. You may not agree, but you can try and realise that your own views are not apodictic truths, dropped like dew from the heavens.

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 10:17 AM
The civil war clearly wasn't fought to free the slaves for moral reasons. Freeing the slaves was a means to an end, viz. weakening the economy of the South. The sequel proves it. So do the recorded attitudes of the prominent northern figures responsible for the policy.

You're wrong. There was a growing and very prominent abolition movement in the decades before the Civil War. Northern politicians got into the war primarily to save the Union, but the abolition movement grew during the war. Was it a tactic? Sure. But it is disingenuous to claim it wasn't a major motivator from long before the first shots were fired.

Aquinian
08-26-2017, 10:18 AM
Mr Smith, I think we sufficiently agree.

Aquinian
08-26-2017, 10:21 AM
I should add, I think that saving the Union was a noble and sufficient casus belli in itself. Doesn't stop me thinking that Abe was a bit of a shyster and Lee a real man, and a gentleman to boot.

Norman Bernstein
08-26-2017, 10:51 AM
Hang around and watch Roosevelt reduced to his true status as a serial failure and thoroughly insincere and selfish pretender. That's coming within the next fifty years. One can see the genesis of it already.

Ohhh, good grief!

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 11:09 AM
You're wrong. There was a growing and very prominent abolition movement in the decades before the Civil War.

Before the Constitution. Before the revolution. Objections to England's imposing of the slave trade on the colonies were written into the Declaration of Independence by Thomas mutha freakin Jefferson the slave owner. It was Congress that deleted them.

Boater14
08-26-2017, 11:21 AM
Perhaps the author ought to google up the graph in the NYT that charts the erection of monuments and the ascendency of Jim Crow. The dots on the graph are identical. Now let me start trolling about Australias shameful treatment of its indigenous people. I'm an expert.

Paul Pless
08-26-2017, 11:24 AM
No ****! It's that Aquinian!!! I forget what was the huff he left the bilge over last time???

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 11:29 AM
Before the Constitution. Before the revolution. Objections to England's imposing of the slave trade on the colonies were written into the Declaration of Independence by Thomas mutha freakin Jefferson the slave owner. It was Congress that deleted them.

What a complicated man! He knew the evils of slavery, but could never break with it.

Osborne Russell
08-26-2017, 11:47 AM
What a complicated man! He knew the evils of slavery, but could never break with it.

Neither could the Continental Congress. Pretty simple, really. Unite or die -> defer the question. He broke with the evils but was constrained by the politics.

SKIP KILPATRICK
08-26-2017, 11:56 AM
Hang around and watch Roosevelt reduced to his true status as a serial failure and thoroughly insincere and selfish pretender. That's coming within the next fifty years. One can see the genesis of it already.


It's interesting to hear about the American experience from someone who has none. Championing Gen. Lee as a "real man" begs to question what is and isn't in your definition of that term. Apparently humanity, fidelity,and keeping of one's oath are not a key ingredients in a real man.

Chip-skiff
08-26-2017, 12:44 PM
Trump Tower, Mississippi:

https://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/trailer-trash.jpg?w=1400&h=9999

mmd
08-26-2017, 12:46 PM
I think that picture was posted in the Bilge a few years ago, Chip. I thought it was pretty cool, in a trailer-trash sort of way.

ahp
08-26-2017, 02:11 PM
Let us suppose that the Confederacy won, or more accurately became an independent, recognized, sovereign nation. What happened next?

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 02:37 PM
Let us suppose that the Confederacy won, or more accurately became an independent, recognized, sovereign nation. What happened next?

WWII might have ended very differently.

oznabrag
08-26-2017, 03:52 PM
Let us suppose that the Confederacy won, or more accurately became an independent, recognized, sovereign nation. What happened next?

I haven't thought of this in years:





IF GRANT HAD BEEN DRINKING AT APPOMATTOX -James Thurber ("Scribner's" magazine is publishing a series of three articles: "If Booth Had Missed Lincoln," "If Lee Had Won the Battle of Gettysburg," and "If Napoleon Had Escaped to America." This is the fourth.) The morning of the ninth of April, 1865, dawned beautifully. General Meade was up with the first streaks of crimson in the sky. General Hooker and General Burnside were up and had breakfasted, by a quarter after eight. The day continued beautiful. It drew on. toward eleven o'clock. General Ulysses S. Grant was still not up. He was asleep in his famous old navy hammock, swung high above the floor of his headquarters' bedroom. Headquarters was distressingly disarranged: papers were strewn on the floor; confidential notes from spies scurried here and there in the breeze from an open window; the dregs of an overturned bottle of wine flowed pinkly across an important military map.
Corporal Shultz, of the Sixty-fifth Ohio Volunteer Infantry, aide to General Grant, came into the outer room, looked around him, and sighed. He entered the bedroom and shook the General's hammock roughly. General Ulysses S. Grant opened one eye.
"Pardon, sir," said Corporal Shultz, "but this is the day of surrender. You ought to be up, sir."
"Don't swing me," said Grant, sharply, for his aide was making the hammock sway gently. "I feel terrible," he added, and he turned over and closed his eye again.
"General Lee will be here any minute now," said the Corporal firmly, swinging the hammock again.
"Will you cut that out?" roared Grant. "D'ya want to make me sick, or what?" Shultz clicked his heels and saluted. "What's he coming here for?" asked the General.
"This is the day of surrender, sir," said Shultz. Grant grunted bitterly.
"Three hundred and fifty generals in the Northern armies," said Grant, "and he has to come to me about this. What time is it?". "You're the Commander-in-Chief, that's why," said Corporal Shultz. "It's eleven twenty, sir."
"Don't be crazy," said Grant. "Lincoln is the Commander-in-Chief. Nobody in the history of the world ever surrendered before lunch. Doesn't he know that an army surrenders on its stomach?" He pulled a blanket up over his head and settled himself again.
"The generals of the Confederacy will be here any minute now," said the Corporal. "You really ought to be up, sir." Grant stretched his arms above his head and yawned. "All right, all right," he said. He rose to a sitting position and stared about the room. "This place looks awful," he growled. "You must have had quite a time of it last night, sir," ventured Shultz. "Yeh," said General Grant, looking around for his clothes. "I was wrassling some general. Some general with a beard."
Shultz helped the commander of the Northern armies in the field to find his clothes. "Where's my other sock?" demanded Grant. Shultz began to look around for it. The General walked uncertainly to a table and poured a drink from a bottle. "I don't think it wise to drink, sir," said Shultz. Nev' mind about me," said Grant, helping himself to a second, "I can take it or let it alone. Didn' ya ever hear the story about the fella went to. Lincoln to complain about me drinking too much? 'So-and-So says Grant drinks too much,' this fella said. 'So-and-So is a fool,' said Lincoln. So this fella went to What's-His-Name and told him what Lincoln said and he came roarin' to Lincoln about it. 'Did you tell So-and-So was a fool?' he said. 'No,' said Lincoln, 'I thought he knew it.'" The'General smiled, reminiscently, and had another drink. ""That's how I stand with Lincoln," he said, proudly,
The soft thudding sound of horses' hooves came through the open window. Shultz hurriedly walked over and looked out. "Hoof steps," said Grant, with a curious chortle. "It is General Lee and his staff," said Shultz. "Show him in," said the General, taking another drink. "And see what the boys in the back room will have." Shultz walked smartly over to the door, opened it, saluted, and stood aside.
General Lee, dignified against the blue of the April sky, magnificent in his dress uniform, stood for a moment framed in the doorway. He walked in, followed by his staff. They bowed, and stood silent. General Grant stared at them. He only had one boot on and his jacket was unbuttoned.
"I know who you are," said Grant.'You're Robert Browning, the poet." "This is General Robert E. Lee," said one of his staff, coldly. "Oh," said Grant. "I thought he was Robert Browning. He certainly looks like Robert Browning. There was a poet for you. Lee: Browning. Did ya ever read 'How They Brought the Good News from Ghent to Aix'? 'Up Derek, to saddle, up Derek, away; up Dunder, up Blitzen, up, Prancer, up Dancer, up Bouncer, up Vixen, up -'".
"Shall we proceed at once to the matter in hand?" asked General Lee, his eyes disdainfully taking in the disordered room. "Some of the boys was wrassling here last night," explained Grant. "I threw Sherman, or some general a whole lot like Sherman. It was pretty dark." He handed a bottle of Scotch to the commanding officer of the Southern armies, who stood holding it, in amazement and discomfiture. "Get a glass, somebody," said Grant, .looking straight at General Longstreet. "Didn't I meet you at Cold Harbor?" he asked. General Longstreet did not answer.
"I should like to have this over with as soon as possible," said Lee. Grant looked vaguely at Shultz, who walked up close to him , frowning. "The surrender, sir, the surrender," said Corporal Shultz in a whisper. "Oh sure, sure," said Grant. He took another drink. "All right," he said. "Here we go." Slowly, sadly, he unbuckled his sword. Then he handed it to the astonished Lee. "There you are. General," said Grant. "We dam' near licked you. If I'd been feeling better we would of licked you."




If you reached this page from a search engine, my compendium of humor classics and classic English and American poetry is Here (http://02dddd4.netsolhost.com/poemredirect.html)

LeeG
08-26-2017, 04:00 PM
Trump Tower, Mississippi:

https://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/trailer-trash.jpg?w=1400&h=9999

I would like that but with arching parawing like awnings

Chip-skiff
08-26-2017, 05:16 PM
One of my forebears was a Union general, Grant's adjutant. Here's a statue:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Statue_at_Rawlins_Park.jpg

The story I heard is that he could out-drink Grant, and took on the task of trying to keep his commanding officer semi-sober. He could also out-cuss anyone in the Union Army.

The winners are not always the nicest guys.

Chris Smith porter maine
08-26-2017, 05:46 PM
I'm trying to wrap my mind around how the white men of the South feel victimization, by who blacks that's hard for me to believe, white yankee's? There home boy Sam Walton? Lee was a talented general, but also a traitor to the Union he should be given all the respect of bennidict Arnold, no more.

CWSmith
08-26-2017, 06:01 PM
Lee was a talented general, but also a traitor to the Union he should be given all the respect of bennidict Arnold, no more.

On a whim I went to the Wikipedia page that claims to list all the monuments at West Point.

Lee graduated at the top of his class, but his name was not on the list. The word "Confederate" also did not appear.

I am guessing that they agree with you.