West Point Removing History

Discussing Army Black Knights football, basketball and more. United States Military Academy sports forum. West Point athletics discussion board.
Constant69
Warrior
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:11 am
x 15
x 5
Contact:

Re: West Point Removing History

Post by Constant69 »

Wait a minute, Lee was considered a traitor back in 1865 and was only spared prosecution and punishment because the Lincoln administration thought it might reignite fighting. Many of us consider him a traitor today. How is that using modern conventions to judge conduct in the past?
0 x
Dude69
Warrior
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2016 7:25 pm
x 19
Contact:

Re: West Point Removing History

Post by Dude69 »

Smokey73 wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:02 pm I would caution all who choose to judge past actions in the context of current conventions to be very cautious. You may not like the results if applied evenly. We can debate those actions, understanding the conventions of the time in which they occurred and we can, and should, learn from the consequences of those action.

If we are to judge military commanders by current conventions then certainly Sheridan, Grant, and probably Lincoln himself, would be considered war criminals. Grant's orders to Sheridan for the Shennandoah campaign, condoned by Lincoln, were to use all the food, livestock and supplies his troops needed (common practice of the time) and then to destroy all that remained such that a "crow would have to carry its own provisions" to survive. The orders were to lay waste to the land and destroy all stored and growing grain, slaughter all animals that Sheridan's forces could not immediatly use and to destroy all means of food production. True, they did not target homes (except in some isolated cases as retribution) but the intent was to starve the civilians to destroy their will to support the cause. Today many are accusing Russian President Putin of being a war criminal by using food and destroying power infrastructure for the same reason. If you don't believe me, study the Shennandoah Campaign waged by General Sheridan under the direct orders of General Grant. Interstingly, Lee cautioned his battlefield commanders against such actions although I am sure there were many who did not heed those admonitions and autrocities occurred on both sides.
Very important and very true first paragraph. Trying to interpret and judge history as well as the prominent and influential individuals that shaped history in the context of today’s societal “norms” is a great mistake. Any serious historian/author of history will attest to that fact.

I would add William Tecumseh Sherman to your list. A great man that ordered his Army to commit what are today considered obvious and heinous war crimes. And after the war he was one of the founders of what is today known as Howard University in D.C. He like Lee was a man of deep faith.

And Lincoln himself had to tell Mary Todd to pipe down when complaining about the Confederates and told her that she would be doing the same thing if she were in their position.

Again, history is circular not linear. The circumference of the circle is determined by how much we accurately study, learn, and ultimately remember about history.
3 x
User avatar
kfan12
Warrior
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:33 am
x 2
x 70
Contact:

Re: West Point Removing History

Post by kfan12 »

Constant69 wrote: Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:34 pm Wait a minute, Lee was considered a traitor back in 1865 and was only spared prosecution and punishment because the Lincoln administration thought it might reignite fighting. Many of us consider him a traitor today. How is that using modern conventions to judge conduct in the past?
First, Lee was considered a traitor, by some, back in 1865. Most of what is needed to answer your question is revealed by what is missing in your first sentence.
1 x
BG
Constant69
Warrior
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Oct 02, 2018 10:11 am
x 15
x 5
Contact:

You mean . . .

Post by Constant69 »

Lee was only considered a traitor by the victorious Union, but not by the defeated Confederacy population? You got me there partner.
1 x
hiangle6
Warrior
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:47 pm
x 10
x 17
Contact:

Re: You mean . . .

Post by hiangle6 »

Constant69 wrote: Tue Jan 10, 2023 7:54 pm Lee was only considered a traitor by the victorious Union, but not by the defeated Confederacy population? You got me there partner.
I swear to God this veneration of men who are responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers is mindboggling.
2 x
User avatar
kfan12
Warrior
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:33 am
x 2
x 70
Contact:

Re: West Point Removing History

Post by kfan12 »

That's the issue then isn't it? People can't quite understand why people in the past did what they did, yet many feel fully capable of relitigating their feelings and actions 150 years later. We live in a changed world where the federal government has slowly, inexorably, gained greater and greater influence over almost every facet of life. Our environment impacts how we view these situations, so it is incumbent on us to try to at least understand the dynamics of the time they lived in.

The fact is that Soldiers in the early 1860s were provided to the federal government by the state militias, not as individual volunteers or conscripts to the Federal government. When the states seceded, it is understandable that their militias would return to them. People downplay the role that state's "rights" played in the secession decision, but the state was paramount.

The political decisions made in the North and South are not owned by the Soldiers. Their Service was and should be examined in the light of their diligence, tenacity, skill and ferocity in fighting for the government they saw as legitimate, be it confederate or the United States. At the end of the day, whether confederate or United, they were all Americans, should we not venerate anyone who fought in the civil war? History is replete with great and venerated warriors who were born into citizenship of governments that fought illegitimate and immoral wars.
1 x
BG
User avatar
webdude
Warrior
Posts: 406
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 3:05 pm
x 3
x 5
Contact:

Re: West Point Removing History

Post by webdude »

The Civil War was a family squabble. The blame for that war can't be pinned on the North or South. It should be our founding fathers that are the blame for the war. They didn't include an exit clause in the Constitution or at least specified that once in, you can't leave. I believe that had the Civil War not been fought, the South would have eventually freed the slaves. Probably by 1900 due to international pressure.. and over 600,000 lives would have been saved.

Southerners, forced at gunpoint to stay in this union, will forever be vilified for once having slavery. Even though no one currently living in that section of the country ever legally owned a slave. No mention is made of the fact that slavery existed for decades in the North. When the first shots were fired at Fort Sumter, there were slaves in the North.

As for the monuments, Southern soldiers' first priority was protecting their homes and families. Many were also drafted into the military and had no choice.

What the U.S. government is doing with the monuments today is similar to what the communist government of Vietnam is doing to families of deceased former South Vietnamese military members. Those families are not allowed to visit the graves of their loved ones who fell in the war.

I think that currently, our country is just as divisive as it was in the years leading up to the Civil War. It's very concerning and I hope our democracy can be saved and another Civil War avoided. (this one won't be North vs. South, it'll be left vs. right)
2 x
User avatar
RABBLE
Warrior
Posts: 31024
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2016 8:30 pm
x 78
Contact:

Re: West Point Removing History

Post by RABBLE »

I guess we can compare this civil war statue situation to the one that is contained in the College Football Hall of Fame.
It is he 9- foot statue of Earl Blaik with the of all his All-America player's names on it including those of the cribbing scandal of 1951.
Some grads wanted the names, others did not . I would assume the naysayers won because it still sits in Atlanta instead of Michie Stadium.
Man, I would love for that statue to be back home where I think it belongs, names or no names. I have no dog in that fight as a non-grad of course, but I still would love to see it on the hallowed grounds and maybe put in the new east stands when completed. As a simple old fan, it would be a great memorial to a very great man and coach.
1 x
hiangle6
Warrior
Posts: 124
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:47 pm
x 10
x 17
Contact:

Re: West Point Removing History

Post by hiangle6 »

RABBLE wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:44 pm I guess we can compare this civil war statue situation to the one that is contained in the College Football Hall of Fame.
It is he 9- foot statue of Earl Blaik with the of all his All-America player's names on it including those of the cribbing scandal of 1951.
Some grads wanted the names, others did not . I would assume the naysayers won because it still sits in Atlanta instead of Michie Stadium.
Man, I would love for that statue to be back home where I think it belongs, names or no names. I have no dog in that fight as a non-grad of course, but I still would love to see it on the hallowed grounds and maybe put in the new east stands when completed. As a simple old fan, it would be a great memorial to a very great man and coach.
Rab, I love your support for Army football, but there is absolutely no comparison between 20 year-olds that cheated in school and grown ass officers in the United States Army that violated an oath to support and defend.
1 x
User avatar
kfan12
Warrior
Posts: 826
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2016 12:33 am
x 2
x 70
Contact:

Re: West Point Removing History

Post by kfan12 »

hiangle6 wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:54 am
RABBLE wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 8:44 pm I guess we can compare this civil war statue situation to the one that is contained in the College Football Hall of Fame.
It is he 9- foot statue of Earl Blaik with the of all his All-America player's names on it including those of the cribbing scandal of 1951.
Some grads wanted the names, others did not . I would assume the naysayers won because it still sits in Atlanta instead of Michie Stadium.
Man, I would love for that statue to be back home where I think it belongs, names or no names. I have no dog in that fight as a non-grad of course, but I still would love to see it on the hallowed grounds and maybe put in the new east stands when completed. As a simple old fan, it would be a great memorial to a very great man and coach.
Rab, I love your support for Army football, but there is absolutely no comparison between 20 year-olds that cheated in school and grown ass officers in the United States Army that violated an oath to support and defend.
20 year olds cheating is comparable to grown ass men who, through ignorance or willfull acts, mislead people. Support and defend was not in their oath.

The officers of the Armies of the United States took an oath to serve the states, not the central government: ""I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." Note the word "them" in this oath, which IMO became null when their states seceded.

Part of the reason Lee wasn't tried for treason is that if he were found not guilty, the jury in essence would have concluded the states had a right to secede, which is neither prohibited, nor recognized, in the Constitution.
0 x
BG
Post Reply Previous topicNext topic

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DoubleNuts, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], LoneStarPhan, thedoc85 and 324 guests