Topic: The Legacy of General Lee

[Ratty]

please no

i live here and my family tree's full of appalachian rednecks and i must admit a part of me does love some of that twangy bluegrass goodness but please no

Well, it's not as bad as Johnny Rebel. 

"Two Thousand Maniacs!" (1964) is probably THE original killer/cannibal redneck movie. (Though it has a Brigadoon inspired plot that's obviously not as imitated as the mold set by 1974's "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and others.) It was the second goresploitation film from the original "Godfather of Gore" Herschell Gordon Lewis following "Blood Feast" (1963). I've not seen it personally because I'm more a creature feature guy. But like all horror fans I like to know about the milestones of the genre so just take it from the expert on drive-in movies Joe Bob Briggs.

[Flame]

The heroic view of Lee is not quite correct, but neither is the villainous one. I think people forget that historical figures were human too. Lee was only a man.

That said, he did not support the civil war, he had no real desire for it. He was a graduate of West Point, just like Grant. It is true however, that he only joined the confederacy because it was his home state. he did not want to fight against his home state, so he decided to fight with it. And when he was enlisted as a general, he did his job. Consider: to the CSA, the Federal Govt in washington was illegitimate and THEY were the legitimate government. So when they had set themselves up, they created a military and filled positions. Lee was chosen as a General in the confederate army, just like Grant was in the Union army.

As for Lee's personal life, If I recall correctly, he was not born into wealth, I think he may have inherited a few slaves, but he was a military man, so for most of his life i don't think he cared much about it one way or another. He DID marry into a wealthy slave owning family though, and the word is he was pretty rough in his discipline of them.

After the war, he was given special pardon, as were most confederate soldiers and military personnel, in the sake of reconciliation and reunification. He was an advocate for the North's re-constructionist efforts, and if I'm remembering properly, he didn't want any statues or special commemoration.

So in a way, it's the Andrew Jackson irony, of a controversial figure who really didn't want specific commemoration, getting it posthumously anyway.

But I think these days people are way too eager to bury the past.

These days, over time the confederacy was sort of flanderized from a bloody and horrible civil war that pitted brother against brother, into a sort of rebellion and rivalry between the north and the south, with little historical or cultural context, since the 1800's are pretty far removed in every way from modern day. The Confederate flag is a prime example. The south has ALWAYS been a very different place from the North culturally, for better and for worse, for one reason or another, and that will never change. since the civil war, the south sort of prided itself in being the rebellious part of the US. as a matter of preserving dignity. Otherwise, what is there to be proud of when you seceded from the union over slavery? The south over time convinced itself that there were other reasons, and to be fair, it's true. Slavery was not the only dividing factor in the secession. Though it was the biggest.

And that just became a part of the southern fiber. That "rebellious streak". Texas own unique history leads them ESPECIALLY to be independent and rebellious.

But to just overnight try to quash what has been a part of southern culture for decades, is pretty ignorant. Though then again, these are the same people who want to get rid of the Columbus statue in NY, so ignorance is basically the order of the day.

Personally, I think leave the statues be. This kind of replacement of confederate statues and such needs to come about organically. It cannot be this mandate imposed on the states from up on high, or it becomes exactly the kind of "aggression" that the south always claims. people are becoming exactly the kind of boogeyman that conservative southerners especially- always complain about, but what's worse is it's done without a hint of irony or self awareness.

Not to mention, the removal of the statues is part of a bigger problem, which is the current trend of historical revisionism and censorship. The idea of erasing and destroying any part of history that could be offensive or unpleasant. (Especially when it fulfills political agendas and ideology) And that is the bigger problem here than just the one statue.

Those who do not learn from history, and in fact actively try to suppress it, are doomed to repeat it. There's a reason political ideology tends to be like a pendulum. one side goes to extremes, and there is pushback to the other direction, et infinitum.

[Dracula9]

just wanna go on record here to clarify that me liking certain posts in this thread are because i agree with the moral or historical alignment of them

case in point, flame's post here echoes a lot of my previous sentiments about seeing the whole rather than focusing on the parts, repeating the vicious cycle, etc. etc.

the only thing i disagree with him on is the "leave statues be", but as previously noted i'm very much against blatant destruction--stick that shit in a museum where it can be more readily kept safe from harm and can also be studied and stipulated in proper context

but a specific point i like very much:

This kind of replacement of confederate statues and such needs to come about organically. It cannot be this mandate imposed on the states from up on high, or it becomes exactly the kind of "aggression" that the south always claims. people are becoming exactly the kind of boogeyman that conservative southerners especially- always complain about, but what's worse is it's done without a hint of irony or self awareness.

as a southern-state dweller with extensive experience with the conservative south, this statement is completely correct

you go around ripping down statues that the south (especially older generations) considers part of their history (regardless of whether or not they even AGREE with what those statues represent), and all you do is confirm long-held suspicions of the "damn yanks comin' to destroy our history" and that just repeats the cycle

worst-case hypothetical speaking, it's not unlike the shit we see ISIS doing blowing up ancient mosques and structures that existed long before them or their agenda (and BEAR WITH the comparison here, it's NOT literal)

it pisses off the people to whom those structures' history belongs and just confirms in their minds that ISIS are just mad destroyers, and while the "tear down confederate monuments" crowd isn't quite on-par with a highprofile terrorist cell (yet)...they have the potential to be seen that way by the people whose history they're destroying

it doesn't even matter if there are southerners who ARE still racist cunts who need a serious reality check

you act the part of the destroyer, you confirm their propaganda and give them an excuse to rally against you

you don't educate and change people's minds by destroying and ripping down things they value, no matter how unpleasant those things might be

tearing-down should come after the edifice "owners" have been educated and made knowledgeable with the alternative, you do it too soon and you're just perpetuating the "FUCK THEM TRYNA ERASE OUR HISTORY" cycle that started the damn civil war in the first place

[Belmontoya]

It's not about burying history. It's about choosing what parts of history we celebrate.

This man fought against the United States to protect slavery. We don't put statues of generals from opposing armies on our public grounds and certainly not those who propagate slavery and racism. These statues belong in museums, not on pedestals in public spaces.

To suggest that taking the statues off public grounds "erases" the history is insane. The civil war is incredibly well documented and we won't be forgetting who the losers of that war were and what they stood for any time soon.

And the way this happened, with the people having enough of this racist tolerance bullshit standing up and doing something about it.. That's how things happen organically.

They belong in a museum, not as part of our celebrated history. Take them down and replace them with memorials to commemorate those who suffered under slavery.

[theANdROId]

I'm certain that even the greatest of us have/had flaws, and even the worst of us have/had strengths.  Wherever the statues are (and I do think they should be somehow preserved -- where they are or in a museum I don't think I care) we should see them and learn from both the good and the bad.  Emulate the good while reforming from the bad.

Instead, it seems like we're just making this something else to argue and fight about instead of learning a lesson and responding more intelligently and diplomatically.

[Dracula9]

It's not about burying history. It's about choosing what parts of history we celebrate.

This man fought against the United States to protect slavery. We don't put statues of generals from opposing armies on our public grounds and certainly not those who propagate slavery and racism. These statues belong in museums, not on pedestals in public spaces.

To suggest that taking the statues off public grounds "erases" the history is insane. The civil war is incredibly well documented and we won't be forgetting who the losers of that war were and what they stood for any time soon.

And the way this happened, with the people having enough of this racist tolerance bullshit standing up and doing something about it.. That's how things happen organically.

They belong in a museum, not as part of our celebrated history. Take them down and replace them with memorials to commemorate those who suffered under slavery.

Upon closer inspection, I believe it's possible Flame may be coming from a point where the big-time "how to get 'em out of the public" method on everyone's minds are angry crowds ripping them down and destroying them, since that's still recent news.

Could be wrong, though.

[Flame]

no no, that's partially what I was on about.

that kind of change needs to come naturally from the community, and not from a place of anger and hatred and politics as it is today.

I advocate for keeping them there now, because it has become such a politicized issue to take them down, and taking them down would be capitulating to the mob of protesters and historical revisionists.

Before this, I might not have cared one way or another, (I don't live in the south so it's not really a part of my culture) but as things stand now, the best thing to do is keep them there.

There is also, again, the matter of culture to be discussed. This is many southerners culture. And while you can say many things about honoring other Confederates, a statue of a career general who was mostly apolitical about his part in the war, isn't the worst one out there.

The civil war is a very complicated thing politically and legally, because after the war, most of the confederate army was pardoned for the sake of reunification.

Confederate veterans were considered American veterans with all the same legal rights as a union veteran.

As far as technicalities go, General Lee is not considered a traitor or dissident or anything like that. He received special pardon, as did most high ranking brass. (as in, they needed to specifically apply for a pardon, unlike the rank and file who got a blanket pardon proclamation) And is basically considered just another American General, even if he was in the Confederate Army. There's also something to be said for his efforts in aiding and promoting the north's reconstruction policies after the war.

So if nothing else, Lee is a very interesting historical character from the Civil War, for whom a statue isn't as offensive as you might think, and can serve a very good purpose educationally. Because if we start taking down statues based solely on who was a slave owner, that becomes a very slippery slope.

I don't know where I'm going with all this, but that's that.

[TheouAegis]

I'm only opposed to them tearing down statues of Lee because my mom's descended from him.

[Flame]

Hey that's pretty neat.

Small world eh?