They Died For Their Country (1 Viewer)

"It's really hard to have any kind of discussion with you heritage types on this Forum"

Well, it's probably because your arrogance is exceeded by your ignorance. I'm standing with Mr. Reid on this one.

I'm not a hardcore "heritage type", but I sure get tired of those that disparage the Confederate soldier and his sacrifice, which you have done on several threads just this week. I know that it is hard for some non-Southerners to understand, but we still honor our Confederate heritage, despite the nature of the cause or the outcome of the struggle. We do this to preserve the memory of those Confederate soldiers who fought for their cause as honorably as any other soldiers in American history. Each day the memory of their sacrifice dims and their service is forgotten by most Americans. Some of us are unwilling to accept that.

The Confederate soldier is either scorned as a war criminal or pitied as a dupe or a fool by many Americans today. Those soldiers were none of that, but they have few defenders in our universities or in the halls of government. They must not be forgotten by our citizens or disparaged by those ignorant of their service to their county. If we ignore or condemn the Confederates now, will future generations see fit to forget those Americans that fought in Vietnam or Iraq because the causes they fought for were unpopular or embarrassing?

We don't seek to elevate Confederate memory by disparaging those who fought for the Union - we just want to make sure that the Confederate soldier is given his due in our history. With that in mind, here a few quotes for you to ponder:

Robert E Lee, who brought out all the best qualities in his soldiers, probably said it best when he stated that:

“There were never such men in an Army before. They will go anywhere and do anything if properly led.”

Apparently, his adversaries had reason to agree with him... this observation from an unknown Northern newspaper, reprinted in The Messenger of Livingston, Alabama, June 9, 1864:

“There they are, somewhere near Spotsylvania Court House, a set of the most excellent and dirtiest wretches that ever breathed the breath of life. Within two weeks, they have killed or wounded 50,000 to 60,000 of our northern brethren. Their hands are full of blood and their breeches full of mud. We doubt whether there is a clean shirt in the army. We dare say that many of them have left their toothbrushes behind them, a miserable set, truly. Yet there they are, ready to kill 50,000 more Yankees, to keep on sleeping in the mud, to suffer anything, get up at any hour of the night, march anywhere, eat all they can get, or eat nothing at all. What is to be done with such people?"

Joshua Chamberlain, who fought them and saw those "most excellent and dirtiest wretches" at close range, recalled Lee’s men at Appomattox:

“They were the embodiment of manhood, men whom neither toils and sufferings, not the fear of death, nor disaster, nor hopelessness could bend from their resolve.”

Bruce Catton summed it up well:

“There is no other legend quite like the Confederate fighting man. He reached the end of his haunted road long ago. He fought for a star-crossed cause and in the end he was beaten, but as he carried his slashed red battle flag into the dusky twilight of the Lost Cause, he marched straight into a legend that will live as long as the American people care to remember anything about the American past.”

In the future, I’d appreciate it if you give it some thought before you tell us about Confederates, their service or their cause.

At your service,
Oddball
 
Sorry but you've got the wrong person. I did post four times in the other thread this past week but none that could be considered offensive to the soldiers of the South. No one argues about their fighting ability or service but as you yourself pointed out -- "despite the nature of their cause" -- or as Grant said, theirs was not a cause to which I would subscribe.

If you want to honor them, be my guest, but as for me, I'll honor the people who suffered under their yoke, the slaves who were killed, raped, overworked or kept ignorant.
 
Sorry but you've got the wrong person. I did post four times in the other thread this past week but none that could be considered offensive to the soldiers of the South. No one argues about their fighting ability or service but as you yourself pointed out -- "despite the nature of their cause" -- or as Grant said, theirs was not a cause to which I would subscribe.

If you want to honor them, be my guest, but as for me, I'll honor the people who suffered under their yoke, the slaves who were killed, raped, overworked or kept ignorant.



Pity that it was the northern ships and northern traders who brought those africans and sold them ( very expensive) to the southern planters.

Also, the " rebels" fought for their freedom, and not for defending " the peculiar institution", and the Union didn't attack the south to free the slaves, but to keep the southern states which secede into the Union. So the " cause" was the independece of the southern states.
 
Last edited:
This was a problem that was national in scope. This was not exclusively southern nor northern. No one had clean hands. At one time NY had more slaves than some Southern states. However, any attempts to emancipate or set the country on the path to gradual emancipation were fought tooth and nail. It was probably susceptible to solution but one could never be found. I'm sure that if roles had been reversed, the North would have acted the same, as Lincoln said.
 
This was not meant to be a big issue. I saw this posted at Civil War Memory and thought it would be interesting to post because I have always found statues and memorials to be interesting because it is all part of memory and how we remember certain events.

These men died defending their country and to preserve the Union and squash the Rebellion. So, please don't use this as an opportunity to give historical theories. We have sufficient other threads to do that.


Statues and memorials are always fascinating for the insight they provide concerning what a society chooses to remember and what it chooses to forget. I used to take students on a tour of a large and old (by European Australian standards) campus and then later into Brisbane to do a walk around the monuments as a starting point for a discussion of Australian history. It was always interesting to look at the word's origin from the Latin monere 'to remind or warn' (perhaps Sandor might be a better authority on Latin than me) and as a starting point we would often ask 'what is this stature or mounument reminding or warning us about' and compare and contrast it with the often far different issue of 'what was it meant to communicate when it was constructed'. Apart from statues of people like Queen Victoria, Australian cities and towns are far more given to generic figures in statues - 'first settler' or 'digger' tend to be quite popular. Statues of specific people seem to be a newer addition and they tend to be military or sporting figures.

I have always liked the story behind the Vietnam Memorial and the controversy behind its construction and the addition of the soldier statues as a more traditional monument. Two of the entries in the design competition always make me smile - a large helmet was one and a large pair of boots was the other! I have just finished an article on the new National History Curriculum which has been hijacked by both sides of politics and came across an interesting observation by the English historian RH Tawney who wrote that 'there is truth in the paradox that all history is a history of the present; and for this reason each generation must write history for itself'. Australians are very sensitive about our history so I am pleased at one level that it is not a quality we have a monopoly on!
 
may have been better to say ''some Australians are sensitive about their history'' as some English and some Americans Germans etc etc could be sensitive. Most people don't through their rattles around with the overt emotion they display when their country is reminded it either has little history or, has done something or things that are not exactly right in its past. Emotion and History should be kept apart just like emotion and the law. Its probably not the history that is sensitive but the individual/s and how they choose to use it.
Mitch


Statues and memorials are always fascinating for the insight they provide concerning what a society chooses to remember and what it chooses to forget. I used to take students on a tour of a large and old (by European Australian standards) campus and then later into Brisbane to do a walk around the monuments as a starting point for a discussion of Australian history. It was always interesting to look at the word's origin from the Latin monere 'to remind or warn' (perhaps Sandor might be a better authority on Latin than me) and as a starting point we would often ask 'what is this stature or mounument reminding or warning us about' and compare and contrast it with the often far different issue of 'what was it meant to communicate when it was constructed'. Apart from statues of people like Queen Victoria, Australian cities and towns are far more given to generic figures in statues - 'first settler' or 'digger' tend to be quite popular. Statues of specific people seem to be a newer addition and they tend to be military or sporting figures.

I have always liked the story behind the Vietnam Memorial and the controversy behind its construction and the addition of the soldier statues as a more traditional monument. Two of the entries in the design competition always make me smile - a large helmet was one and a large pair of boots was the other! I have just finished an article on the new National History Curriculum which has been hijacked by both sides of politics and came across an interesting observation by the English historian RH Tawney who wrote that 'there is truth in the paradox that all history is a history of the present; and for this reason each generation must write history for itself'. Australians are very sensitive about our history so I am pleased at one level that it is not a quality we have a monopoly on!
 
may have been better to say ''some Australians are sensitive about their history'' as some English and some Americans Germans etc etc could be sensitive. Most people don't through their rattles around with the overt emotion they display when their country is reminded it either has little history or, has done something or things that are not exactly right in its past. Emotion and History should be kept apart just like emotion and the law. Its probably not the history that is sensitive but the individual/s and how they choose to use it.
Mitch

Mitch

I can only assume you know different Australians than me if you have found some who aren't sensitive!{sm4}{sm4} One of the problems for us is that our foundation story was not at our founding - Settlement in 1788, Federation in 1901, but Gallipoli in 1915 as part of another country's army. I can say Robin Hood is a myth and not give offence because an Englishman is unlikely to say 'My garndfather was one of the merry men' whereas every Australain seemingly has someone from the 1st AIF. It is an emotional thing - your comment about having little history is one of the sore points, although I suspect you did not mean it to be taken that way. We used to call it the cultural cringe in that Australians did not rate their own culture as much as they did other people's. As for separating history and emotion - cannot be done. It all in the interpretation as any discussion on this forum can attest. If it is not possible to remove the emotion from a question like 'Who makes the best value toy soldiers' it will be hard to do it in a discussion of 'Who was to blame for WW1', 'Was the IRA a terrorist organisation', 'Should our forces be in the Middle East' or 'Would soccer be more interesting if they made the goals wider'?

Jack
 
Lots of good points in this thread and potshots too so to speak. That said, I do think "Heritage, Not Hate" should be a mantra for both sides, I am on the border and fall on both sides of this proverbial argument. I am sure my avatar of Bedford Forrest offends some, that is too bad. Take the time to study the guy before you tar and feather him! There are always two sides to every story as well as don't believe everything you read. The Civil War is something that should be studied and appreciated, not pilloried or one sided.

Just my 2 cents

TD
 
The figure I have heard for years about the civil war is that for every soldier killed in battle, 3 actually died of some other cause trying to get there or as a result of wounds after he left the field. Not sure if the battle records take these into account or not. Jazz is right tho the death toll is actually much higher than officially stated on both sides.
 
Mitch

I can only assume you know different Australians than me if you have found some who aren't sensitive!{sm4}{sm4} One of the problems for us is that our foundation story was not at our founding - Settlement in 1788, Federation in 1901, but Gallipoli in 1915 as part of another country's army. I can say Robin Hood is a myth and not give offence because an Englishman is unlikely to say 'My garndfather was one of the merry men' whereas every Australain seemingly has someone from the 1st AIF. It is an emotional thing - your comment about having little history is one of the sore points, although I suspect you did not mean it to be taken that way. We used to call it the cultural cringe in that Australians did not rate their own culture as much as they did other people's. As for separating history and emotion - cannot be done. It all in the interpretation as any discussion on this forum can attest. If it is not possible to remove the emotion from a question like 'Who makes the best value toy soldiers' it will be hard to do it in a discussion of 'Who was to blame for WW1', 'Was the IRA a terrorist organisation', 'Should our forces be in the Middle East' or 'Would soccer be more interesting if they made the goals wider'?

Jack

Soccer? Oh you mean Football!:)
 
In answer to one of your other questions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22625104

RIP Anthony Daly, Lieutenant, 23, married three weeks, and Falcon (both died) Roy Bright, Staff Corporal (SQMC), 36 and Waterford (both died) Jeffery Young, Lance Corporal, 20 and Rochester (both died) Simon Tipper, Trooper, 19, married four weeks, Cedric, Epaulette, Yeastvite and Zara.
 

Attachments

  • bomb.jpg
    bomb.jpg
    21.5 KB · Views: 58
In answer to one of your other questions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22625104

RIP Anthony Daly, Lieutenant, 23, married three weeks, and Falcon (both died) Roy Bright, Staff Corporal (SQMC), 36 and Waterford (both died) Jeffery Young, Lance Corporal, 20 and Rochester (both died) Simon Tipper, Trooper, 19, married four weeks, Cedric, Epaulette, Yeastvite and Zara.

Martin

We both arrived at the same answer many years ago. Some things are self evident. Comrades of yours I suspect?

Regards

Jack
 
In answer to one of your other questions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22625104

RIP Anthony Daly, Lieutenant, 23, married three weeks, and Falcon (both died) Roy Bright, Staff Corporal (SQMC), 36 and Waterford (both died) Jeffery Young, Lance Corporal, 20 and Rochester (both died) Simon Tipper, Trooper, 19, married four weeks, Cedric, Epaulette, Yeastvite and Zara.

Hi Martin

Breaking news on the BBC News

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22625104

Cheers

Martyn:)
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top