LaxPower Back-Up Stick

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves.

Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves.

Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:34 am The M3 was in use in WW2, and the M5 later in that war and shortly thereafter. So you are talking about a machine that is 1940s vintage with updates. Maybe the Army started, sometime after that, to focus on the morality, rather than the strict legality, of the person for whom the machines and posts were named. This whole "slavery was legal" thing is really silly. Try learning; it's fun.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:34 am The M3 was in use in WW2, and the M5 later in that war and shortly thereafter. So you are talking about a machine that is 1940s vintage with updates. Maybe the Army started, sometime after that, to focus on the morality, rather than the strict legality, of the person for whom the machines and posts were named. This whole "slavery was legal" thing is really silly. Try learning; it's fun.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:46 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:34 am The M3 was in use in WW2, and the M5 later in that war and shortly thereafter. So you are talking about a machine that is 1940s vintage with updates. Maybe the Army started, sometime after that, to focus on the morality, rather than the strict legality, of the person for whom the machines and posts were named. This whole "slavery was legal" thing is really silly. Try learning; it's fun.

So slavery was not legal when the civil war started? Damn I did not know that. How is that simple fact silly Mr Coaster? Who was the M3/M5 tank named in honor of? Was there some other Gen named Stuart that I am unaware of? I know who the M4 Sherman was named after. Was that okay by you? After all.. war is hell ain't it.

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:41 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:34 am The M3 was in use in WW2, and the M5 later in that war and shortly thereafter. So you are talking about a machine that is 1940s vintage with updates. Maybe the Army started, sometime after that, to focus on the morality, rather than the strict legality, of the person for whom the machines and posts were named. This whole "slavery was legal" thing is really silly. Try learning; it's fun.

Yep. Back in the time when the U.S. military was segregated. Those were the days.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:39 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves.

Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

If you don't remember your history then chew on this. Erwin Rommel was the grandfather of all things related to armored warfare. You name for me MD any US senior general in WW2 that did not read his book. Patton did and refered to him as a magnificent genius. Did Patton give a chit who Rommel was? Did Lincoln give a chit that Grant was a drunken heathen who he would never have been seen in the same room with. If you brought your moral compass with you and allowed it to be your guiding light on the field of battle you would make George McClellan resemble Patton. Great little organizer who did not know when or how to fight a battle.

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:49 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:46 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:34 am The M3 was in use in WW2, and the M5 later in that war and shortly thereafter. So you are talking about a machine that is 1940s vintage with updates. Maybe the Army started, sometime after that, to focus on the morality, rather than the strict legality, of the person for whom the machines and posts were named. This whole "slavery was legal" thing is really silly. Try learning; it's fun.

So slavery was not legal when the civil war started? Damn I did not know that. How is that simple fact silly Mr Coaster? Who was the M3/M5 tank named in honor of? Was there some other Gen named Stuart that I am unaware of? I know who the M4 Sherman was named after. Was that okay by you? After all.. war is hell ain't it.

Irrelevancies are silly, particularly when you make them in a debate with focused, relatively informed people. I think the Oxford Union term for it is "blather."

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:54 am It seems you all are talking past each other.

Currently, we all know, that racial inequality is really-really stupid and frowned upon, why? Well, because we have moved on, grown up, are much more civilized and educated. We now realize, thanks to a select few in our history that recognized this and fought to right a moral wrong. But at the time, it was second nature....it was what the entire work did, dating back to the barbary coast where Jefferson fought.

Point being, it seems many are attempting to apply hindsight to an era of people that were really just recent graduates of Neanderthals. Slavery was status quo, then America grew up, to which we should be thankful.

Insert Rodney King quote here.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:50 am

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:41 am

seacoaster wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:34 am The M3 was in use in WW2, and the M5 later in that war and shortly thereafter. So you are talking about a machine that is 1940s vintage with updates. Maybe the Army started, sometime after that, to focus on the morality, rather than the strict legality, of the person for whom the machines and posts were named. This whole "slavery was legal" thing is really silly. Try learning; it's fun.

Yep. Back in the time when the U.S. military was segregated. Those were the days.

Enlighten me as to what branch of the US military ended segregation in its ranks?? The US government was more than happy to allow black soldiers to go to the front lines and become cannon fodder... Party time...

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:52 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:39 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves.

Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

If you don't remember your history then chew on this. Erwin Rommel was the grandfather of all things related to armored warfare. You name for me MD any US senior general in WW2 that did not read his book. Patton did and refered to him as a magnificent genius. Did Patton give a chit who Rommel was? Did Lincoln give a chit that Grant was a drunken heathen who he would never have been seen in the same room with. If you brought your moral compass with you and allowed it to be your guiding light on the field of battle you would make George McClellan resemble Patton. Great little organizer who did not know when or how to fight a battle.

You're making a good point here, cradle. Precisely why ALL Americans should be up in arms over Texas removing MLK from their schools' curriculum, and why Abbott's a fool.

No one is questioning Stuart's military abilities or a confederate soldier's bravery and alliance to the side they fought for. What is in dispute, but shouldn't be, is the continued honor placed on leaders who fought against this country and the reason the south went to war against the U.S.

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:52 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:39 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves.

Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

If you don't remember your history then chew on this. Erwin Rommel was the grandfather of all things related to armored warfare. You name for me MD any US senior general in WW2 that did not read his book. Patton did and refered to him as a magnificent genius. Did Patton give a chit who Rommel was? Did Lincoln give a chit that Grant was a drunken heathen who he would never have been seen in the same room with. If you brought your moral compass with you and allowed it to be your guiding light on the field of battle you would make George McClellan resemble Patton. Great little organizer who did not know when or how to fight a battle.

You're making a good point here, cradle. Precisely why ALL Americans should be up in arms over Texas removing MLK from their schools' curriculum, and why Abbott's a fool.

No one is questioning Stuart's military abilities or a confederate soldier's bravery and alliance to the side they fought for. What is in dispute, but shouldn't be, is the continued honor placed on leaders who fought against this country and the reason the south went to war against the U.S.

youthathletics wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:54 am It seems you all are talking past each other.

Currently, we all know, that racial inequality is really-really stupid and frowned upon, why? Well, because we have moved on, grown up, are much more civilized and educated. We now realize, thanks to a select few in our history that recognized this and fought to right a moral wrong. But at the time, it was second nature....it was what the entire work did, dating back to the barbary coast where Jefferson fought.

Point being, it seems many are attempting to apply hindsight to an era of people that were really just recent graduates of Neanderthals. Slavery was status quo, then America grew up, to which we should be thankful.

Insert Rodney King quote here.

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:52 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:39 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves.

Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

If you don't remember your history then chew on this. Erwin Rommel was the grandfather of all things related to armored warfare. You name for me MD any US senior general in WW2 that did not read his book. Patton did and refered to him as a magnificent genius. Did Patton give a chit who Rommel was? Did Lincoln give a chit that Grant was a drunken heathen who he would never have been seen in the same room with. If you brought your moral compass with you and allowed it to be your guiding light on the field of battle you would make George McClellan resemble Patton. Great little organizer who did not know when or how to fight a battle.

You're making a good point here, cradle. Precisely why ALL Americans should be up in arms over Texas removing MLK from their schools' curriculum, and why Abbott's a fool.

No one is questioning Stuart's military abilities or a confederate soldier's bravery and alliance to the side they fought for. What is in dispute, but shouldn't be, is the continued honor placed on leaders who fought against this country and the reason the south went to war against the U.S.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:10 am

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:52 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:39 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves.

Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

If you don't remember your history then chew on this. Erwin Rommel was the grandfather of all things related to armored warfare. You name for me MD any US senior general in WW2 that did not read his book. Patton did and refered to him as a magnificent genius. Did Patton give a chit who Rommel was? Did Lincoln give a chit that Grant was a drunken heathen who he would never have been seen in the same room with. If you brought your moral compass with you and allowed it to be your guiding light on the field of battle you would make George McClellan resemble Patton. Great little organizer who did not know when or how to fight a battle.

You're making a good point here, cradle. Precisely why ALL Americans should be up in arms over Texas removing MLK from their schools' curriculum, and why Abbott's a fool.

No one is questioning Stuart's military abilities or a confederate soldier's bravery and alliance to the side they fought for. What is in dispute, but shouldn't be, is the continued honor placed on leaders who fought against this country and the reason the south went to war against the U.S.

Why would a plethora of very respected US generals still study and admire the military tactics of Field Marshall Rommel? He was a Nazi officer after all. Sometimes you have to separate the man from the ideology. Common sense might say.. eff Rommel what should we care about him? Just like Sherman's march to the sea the same tactics of some very brilliant and talented Confederate generals will always be studied and taught to future generations of combat leaders. Ironically and long forgotten is that many of these southern generals graduated from some place called west point.

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:52 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 10:39 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 9:09 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 5:55 am

MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 9:36 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 5:28 pm

SCLaxAttack wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 4:49 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 1:06 pm

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 12:09 pm

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Thu Jul 22, 2021 11:58 amI would call it an over simplication of a very complex issue. The civil war has often been referred to as a war fought between brothers and families. It all depended where your loyalties resided.

It's a post, not an exhaustive novel so, yes, it's a simplification. And yes to the rest, too. And, still, none of this refutes what GG is saying. GG, excellent post.

No it is far from a great post. A large number of confederates fought because they despised the leadership of the government in DC. They were led by elitist southern plantation owners but they had no dog in the fight over slavery one way or another. Your lumping the rebellion by the south in one neat little category that is not correct.

From https://socialequity.duke.edu/wp-conten ... .10.20.pdf

"according to the Census of 1860, 30.8 percent of the free families in the confederacy owned slaves. That means that every third white person in those states had a direct commitment to slavery." (That's from the article. Then add in relatives and friends who might not own slaves but didn't want "every third white person" to have to sacrifice if they had to lose their slave/s.)

To compare the life of a poor white person in the south with a slave is absolutely ridiculous. I'd rather be a poor white farm worker in the south in 1860.
- I wouldn't be legally allowed to be brutally beaten by an employer.
- My employer wouldn't have the right to remove my wife or children from my home to sell them so that I might never see them again.
- Nobody would be legally entitled to kill me if they wished. (Granted few slaveowners would kill their slaves as it would be a foolish waste of their "investment" and the loss of a worker.

The south fought the Civil War for slavery. Period. Full stop. States rights my rump. If the confederacy were for states rights they would have included in their constitution the MANDATORY REQUIREMENT that no confederate state be allowed to have laws that would restrict slave ownership.

Disagree one hundred percent. What many of these poor and uneducated confederates had in common was a loyalty to their state and their home towns. There was a large number of union soldiers that were not fighting to free the slaves. Many of these soldiers were as racist as their confederate counterparts. I do know a soldier fights without patriotic fever one way or another. A soldier, any soldier fights for the soldier standing next to him. You ask any dogfaced grunt that humped all over Vietnam if he was fighting for apple pie and the good old American way. The only thing they were fighting for was their buddy next to them. I may not know a lot SC but I did my time in the infantry. The attitude of soldiers does not change over the course of decades or centuries. I may have had that flicker of love of country but that left me by the time I left the Army. I served for my fellow soldiers. I think I can say with much confidence that the soldiers in blue and gray felt the same way. I do know those southern boys I served with were proud that great, great grandpappy served under Jeb Stuart in the cavalry. That is their heritage. I disagreed with their cause all day long. No way in hell I would have inferred to them that great, great grandpappy was a racist SOB. Unless I am misunderstanding you that is what you are trying to say.

no one is debating whether the grunt in the trench is fighting for the grunt next to him.

That's irrelevant to which grunts you chose to be a part of, the only question at stake is whether the secession and Civil War were about slavery. Some chose one side, some chose the other and decided they no longer wished to be part of the United States...so that they could be part of a slave owning system, regardless of whether they themselves owned slaves or not.

And yeah, Jeb was a racist, slave owning SOB. Fact.
Not exactly a conversation starter in the trench you found yourself in, cradle, but nevertheless true.

You never actually went to war, right?

I wonder what your black brothers at arms "in the trench" thought about old Jeb...

I could have asked them while we were marching down Longstreet Rd to get to Normandy DZ. Hell just being stationed at Ft Bragg should have been an insult to every black soldier that was ever stationed there. No I never went to war MD. i was lucky enough to be trained and led by a group of NCOs that did. FTR they were black, white and Puerto Rican. On a side note George S Patton was a wealthy, arrogant elitist a hole. His soldiers in the 3rd army loved him like a father. I bet what stands out from your perspective MD is the general slapped a soldier. I suppose in another 100 years Patton will also be redefined by the popular culture as a bad person and you would be right there to second the motion. Do you understand enough about the history of the civil war to understand why Jeb Stuart was such an icon of the average confederate soldier? He was not fighting to be a popular figure among union leaders. He had more respect from his soldiers than that dim witted idiot George McClellan ever would have hope for. It is okay to be incompetent as long as you didn't own slaves.

Patton? squirrel?

Yes, Ft Bragg was certainly an "insult".
I don't blame you a bit for not discussing or debating the issue with your fellow grunts.

Jeb Stuart was a highly effective cavalry commander and flamboyant leader, fighting for slavery. A slaveowner fighting for perpetuation of slavery. Critiqued by Lee at Gettysburg, but otherwise very effective tactician.

As a kid, I remember this comic lionizing Jeb. No mention of what Stuart was actually fighting for. Part of the way the Lost Cause whitewashed history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haunted_Tank

Historians are clear on which generals, on both sides, were effective leaders and strategists. Lincoln was quite frustrated with the Union generals, for instance. Finally Grant (who was flawed in his own ways and plenty of critique has been written on him).

But being a brave or brilliant traitor, does not make one less of a traitor. It does get you in the history books, though.
And fighting for the immorality of slavery should never be whitewashed away.

If you don't remember your history then chew on this. Erwin Rommel was the grandfather of all things related to armored warfare. You name for me MD any US senior general in WW2 that did not read his book. Patton did and refered to him as a magnificent genius. Did Patton give a chit who Rommel was? Did Lincoln give a chit that Grant was a drunken heathen who he would never have been seen in the same room with. If you brought your moral compass with you and allowed it to be your guiding light on the field of battle you would make George McClellan resemble Patton. Great little organizer who did not know when or how to fight a battle.

You're making a good point here, cradle. Precisely why ALL Americans should be up in arms over Texas removing MLK from their schools' curriculum, and why Abbott's a fool.

No one is questioning Stuart's military abilities or a confederate soldier's bravery and alliance to the side they fought for. What is in dispute, but shouldn't be, is the continued honor placed on leaders who fought against this country and the reason the south went to war against the U.S.

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:22 amYou can't have a city named after a dude who use to own slaves.

Matnum PI wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:36 am

cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Fri Jul 23, 2021 11:22 amYou can't have a city named after a dude who use to own slaves.

City names change. So why not? Definitely sends a strong message to future generations within america. Like you, cradle, my kneejerk reaction is, What?! But after I take a couple deep breaths, why not?