Current Events > in all seriousness, why are key members of the confederate side praised?

(+) Yeah! (+)

from the civil war...

like , they turned their back on America (union) and then later took an L to the union. so why are they honestly praised?

they didn't make the country any better (purposely) or the state's they repped. and they lost the war. so its not like they have the war it self to back them up.

I don't get why people would fight so hard for a Robert Lee statue to stay up.
---

They were traitors to america they shouldnt be praised the south just wont let it go
---

As white supremacists retook power in the South in the late 19th century, there was a conscious effort to paint the Civil War from the southern perspective as a "lost cause," a noble effort against long odds in defense of state's rights and the "Southern way of life." This was occurring even while the war was fresh in people's minds, and often coming from the same people who had openly declared the central nature of slavery to the South and the conflict.
---

The military leadership of the Confederacy tended to be much more competent and skilled than the Union's. It was the South's material inferiority that doomed them. That being said, regardless of Robert E. Lee's military genius, he used it in service of a hostile power that instigated the bloodiest war in American history, which is reason enough to remove the various state sponsored memorials to him.
---

Fuck Robert E Lee
---

racism
---

bump.

CW_McGraw posted...

The military leadership of the Confederacy tended to be much more competent and skilled than the Union's. It was the South's material inferiority that doomed them. That being said, regardless of Robert E. Lee's military genius, he used it in service of a hostile power that instigated the bloodiest war in American history, which is reason enough to remove the various state sponsored memorials to him.

as I typed that I remembered that lee was regarded as a military god or etc. which for the right side would warrant statues. but in the case of how he used it and the impeding L he took, yea....

_Near_ posted...

racism

I was trying to see if there was any other reason beside this
---

Antifar posted...

As white supremacists retook power in the South in the late 19th century, there was a conscious effort to paint the Civil War from the southern perspective as a "lost cause," a noble effort against long odds in defense of state's rights and the "Southern way of life." This was occurring even while the war was fresh in people's minds, and often coming from the same people who had openly declared the central nature of slavery to the South and the conflict.

The War of Northern Aggression
---

XT3M3 posted...

I was trying to see if there was any other reason beside this

It's pretty much the main one.
---

Didnt they have the right to leave the union if they wanted?
---

Antifar posted...

As white supremacists retook power in the South in the late 19th century, there was a conscious effort to paint the Civil War from the southern perspective as a "lost cause," a noble effort against long odds in defense of state's rights and the "Southern way of life." This was occurring even while the war was fresh in people's minds, and often coming from the same people who had openly declared the central nature of slavery to the South and the conflict.

Pretty much this.

@XT3M3
Look up (Google or Wikipedia) the Lost Cause myth
---

Foppe posted...

Didnt they have the right to leave the union if they wanted?

The supreme court said no.The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.
---

ScazarMeltex posted...

Foppe posted...

Didnt they have the right to leave the union if they wanted?

The supreme court said no.The United States Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1869) that unilateral secession was unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

That sounds like dictatorship.
---

iosifsvoboda posted...

Fuck Robert E Lee

Why? He thought long and hard about what he should do as the Civil war was starting to break out. Ultimately, his personal honor required him to fight for his state though he'd have much preferred it if the south had not tried to leave the Union. After the war, he became president of Washington College(now Washington and Lee University) and did a very good job there. It is likely the school would not exist today if it wasn't for him.
---

what is to be respected of a man who chose personal honor over loyalty? His motivation does not matter. He was a traitor and he should have been treated as one.
---

iosifsvoboda posted...

what is to be respected of a man who chose personal honor over loyalty? His motivation does not matter. He was a traitor and he should have been treated as one.

Yes he should have left his state and killed his friends and family, such loyalty
---

Antifar posted...

As white supremacists retook power in the South in the late 19th century, there was a conscious effort to paint the Civil War from the southern perspective as a "lost cause," a noble effort against long odds in defense of state's rights and the "Southern way of life." This was occurring even while the war was fresh in people's minds, and often coming from the same people who had openly declared the central nature of slavery to the South and the conflict.

this
---

DarthAragorn posted...

iosifsvoboda posted...

what is to be respected of a man who chose personal honor over loyalty? His motivation does not matter. He was a traitor and he should have been treated as one.

Yes he should have left his state and killed his friends and family, such loyalty

He just betrayed different friends and family by siding with slave owners. No matter which side he chose he was going to betray people. And the more I think about it the more his honor is stained by siding with racist traitors
---

ThyCorndog posted...

Antifar posted...

As white supremacists retook power in the South in the late 19th century, there was a conscious effort to paint the Civil War from the southern perspective as a "lost cause," a noble effort against long odds in defense of state's rights and the "Southern way of life." This was occurring even while the war was fresh in people's minds, and often coming from the same people who had openly declared the central nature of slavery to the South and the conflict.

this

Racism to keep black people down as much as possible.
---

iosifsvoboda posted...

what is to be respected of a man who chose personal honor over loyalty? His motivation does not matter. He was a traitor and he should have been treated as one.

Holy hell this is a stupid post.

If it was up to iosidsvoboda we'd all still be brits.
---

iosifsvoboda posted...

DarthAragorn posted...

iosifsvoboda posted...

what is to be respected of a man who chose personal honor over loyalty? His motivation does not matter. He was a traitor and he should have been treated as one.

Yes he should have left his state and killed his friends and family, such loyalty

He just betrayed different friends and family by siding with slave owners. No matter which side he chose he was going to betray people. And the more I think about it the more his honor is stained by siding with racist traitors

Fuckin lol
---

muh HISTORY
muh HERITAGE
---

Zeeak4444 posted...

iosifsvoboda posted...

what is to be respected of a man who chose personal honor over loyalty? His motivation does not matter. He was a traitor and he should have been treated as one.

Holy hell this is a stupid post.

If it was up to iosidsvoboda we'd all still be brits.

holy hell this is a stupid post and you are disgusting

conflating a war for freedom from monarchical oppressors and a coup put into motion so as to protect institutional slavery is wrong, lazy, and frankly, vile.
---

Robert E. Lee wasn't just any confederate, he was actually President Lincoln's first choice to be Commander of the Union Army. The only reason he turned down the offer was because he couldn't fight the people in his home state, who had succeeded the Union. Context matters in these situations.
---

There's an article about Lee on The Atlantic today
---

Foppe posted...

Didnt they have the right to leave the union if they wanted?

No, because legalized cession is not how any country works.
---

Lee is regarded as an actual smart general.

Him turing on his countrymen is another matter.

but also a good chunk of people who praise those guys just want an excuse to wave their confederate flag
---