With the confederate flag and civil war coming into discussion these are some things I've noticed.

1. People who would get angry at the suggestion that you are sympathetic to hardcore Islamic regimes because you don't like US foreign policy in the middle east will suggest you are racist if you think the Civil War was unjustified or that Lincoln was out of line or have any sympathy for the confederacy.

2. People who are pacifists and believe in non-violence think Lincoln, who presided over a very sloppily-waged war that cost 600,000 American lives, is a hero.

3. People who are generally war cynics and say wars are fought for interests rather than ideals abruptly make an exception for the US Civil War. There was no profit motive of any kind, it was just a comic book tale of good versus evil.

Are these people really objective when talking about the issues of the US Civil War and the Confederate Flag?

For someone claiming people are not doing a good job at making objective post, it's a bit ironic that you would make a post that isn't very objective either.

(06-23-2015 02:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  For someone claiming people are not doing a good job at making objective post, it's a bit ironic that you would make a post that isn't very objective either.

I was kind of thinking the same thing.

(06-23-2015 02:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  For someone claiming people are not doing a good job at making objective post, it's a bit ironic that you would make a post that isn't very objective either.

Not sure what your point is...I'm not talking about discussions here…just in general.

(06-23-2015 02:22 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:17 PM)john01992 Wrote:  For someone claiming people are not doing a good job at making objective post, it's a bit ironic that you would make a post that isn't very objective either.

Not sure what your point is...I'm not talking about discussions here…just in general.

My point is that your "objective" post takes a one sided view and relies on generalizing people. Do you really think that is what an objective post is?

Actually EigenEagle made no claim that his op was objective. He was just describing general behaviors that he has noticed.

(06-23-2015 02:41 PM)blunderbuss Wrote:  Actually EigenEagle made no claim that his op was objective. He was just describing general behaviors that he has noticed.

He doesn't have to make an affirmative claim that his post is objective for it to be hypocritical to complain about the objectivity of others. For instance, if I make a post calling you an idiot, and then complain about your use of ad hominems, that is still hypocritical even if I never affirmatively stated that my post was free of ad hominems.

There's no one who was alive then (or now) who could have run the war better than Lincoln did.

The Union was cursed with poor military leadership until Grant and Sherman rose to the top late in the war.

Actually Lee lost the war. If he had never attacked at Gettysburg, the South would have won.

(06-23-2015 08:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Actually Lee lost the war. If he had never attacked at Gettysburg, the South would have won.

The loss of Vicksburg was a greater loss than the "draw" at Gettysburg.

J. E. B. Stuart was responsible for the demise at Gettysburg.

A civil war was going to happen one day, justified or not. Got it out of the way.

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  With the confederate flag and civil war coming into discussion these are some things I've noticed.

1. People who would get angry at the suggestion that you are sympathetic to hardcore Islamic regimes because you don't like US foreign policy in the middle east will suggest you are racist if you think the Civil War was unjustified or that Lincoln was out of line or have any sympathy for the confederacy.

2. People who are pacifists and believe in non-violence think Lincoln, who presided over a very sloppily-waged war that cost 600,000 American lives, is a hero.

3. People who are generally war cynics and say wars are fought for interests rather than ideals abruptly make an exception for the US Civil War. There was no profit motive of any kind, it was just a comic book tale of good versus evil.

Are these people really objective when talking about the issues of the US Civil War and the Confederate Flag?

Interesting, your comment on "a comic book tale of good versus evil".

The majority of people taking a side on this issue aren't exactly Civil War experts. A "comic book" version is about what we are dealing with most of the time.

The Civil War was the most complex political and social eruption in US history. It was estimated about 10 years ago that more than 50,000 books had been written on the subject.

I have read maybe 200 of those books and I find something to adjust my perception of some aspect of the war and its aftermath in nearly every one of them.

My Facebook, and all the message boards I read, are full of people screaming at each other that their 30-second pre-packaged retail explanation of the war is all encompassing, morally superior, and complete. Agree or you are either racist traitor or scalawag....or I guess both.

Really, I'm just sad that the people on both sides are...today...acting out the disunity, dogmatism, inability to compromise, and talking past one another that resulted in the war...then. Fire-eaters one and all. A pox on both your houses.

(06-23-2015 08:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Actually Lee lost the war. If he had never attacked at Gettysburg, the South would have won.

I believe that the only way the South could have won that war was a brutal guerrilla war/insurgency after occupation. Something that Lee was unwilling to see happen.

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  With the confederate flag and civil war coming into discussion these are some things I've noticed.

1. People who would get angry at the suggestion that you are sympathetic to hardcore Islamic regimes because you don't like US foreign policy in the middle east will suggest you are racist if you think the Civil War was unjustified or that Lincoln was out of line or have any sympathy for the confederacy.

2. People who are pacifists and believe in non-violence think Lincoln, who presided over a very sloppily-waged war that cost 600,000 American lives, is a hero.

3. People who are generally war cynics and say wars are fought for interests rather than ideals abruptly make an exception for the US Civil War. There was no profit motive of any kind, it was just a comic book tale of good versus evil.

Are these people really objective when talking about the issues of the US Civil War and the Confederate Flag?

I don't think the label pacifist applies, but I think I break all of your observations here.

(06-23-2015 06:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  There's no one who was alive then (or now) who could have run the war better than Lincoln did.

The Union was cursed with poor military leadership until Grant and Sherman rose to the top late in the war.

I love how Grant is considered some champion or genius. Look up Cold Harbor. Two or three more of those and the Union manpower advantage would have vanished.

(06-23-2015 11:56 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 08:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Actually Lee lost the war. If he had never attacked at Gettysburg, the South would have won.

I believe that the only way the South could have won that war was a brutal guerrilla war/insurgency after occupation. Something that Lee was unwilling to see happen.

All Lee had to do was defend the South. He was successful for years by simply doing that. A bit longer and European countries would begin to help them in return for trade. Lee's major flaw was his regard for the lives of his soldiers. Something Grant didn't have and the reason why grant ultimately wore him down.

(06-24-2015 01:31 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 06:24 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  There's no one who was alive then (or now) who could have run the war better than Lincoln did.

The Union was cursed with poor military leadership until Grant and Sherman rose to the top late in the war.

I love how Grant is considered some champion or genius. Look up Cold Harbor. Two or three more of those and the Union manpower advantage would have vanished.

When you have your enemy severely outmanned its pretty smart not to do ballet with him.

(06-24-2015 11:17 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 11:56 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 08:55 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  Actually Lee lost the war. If he had never attacked at Gettysburg, the South would have won.

I believe that the only way the South could have won that war was a brutal guerrilla war/insurgency after occupation. Something that Lee was unwilling to see happen.

All Lee had to do was defend the South. He was successful for years by simply doing that. A bit longer and European countries would begin to help them in return for trade. Lee's major flaw was his regard for the lives of his soldiers. Something Grant didn't have and the reason why grant ultimately wore him down.

I actually agree with you, althoguh I don't really consider Lee's concern for his army's health a "flaw".

Saw this morning where it was suggested renaming Fort Hood, Fort Bragg, etc.

Hillsborough, NC is considering removing the words Confederate Memorial from the Confederate Memorial.

And in related news, ISIS blew up historical shrines in Palmyra, Syria.

(06-24-2015 01:29 AM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  

(06-23-2015 02:10 PM)EigenEagle Wrote:  With the confederate flag and civil war coming into discussion these are some things I've noticed.

1. People who would get angry at the suggestion that you are sympathetic to hardcore Islamic regimes because you don't like US foreign policy in the middle east will suggest you are racist if you think the Civil War was unjustified or that Lincoln was out of line or have any sympathy for the confederacy.

2. People who are pacifists and believe in non-violence think Lincoln, who presided over a very sloppily-waged war that cost 600,000 American lives, is a hero.

3. People who are generally war cynics and say wars are fought for interests rather than ideals abruptly make an exception for the US Civil War. There was no profit motive of any kind, it was just a comic book tale of good versus evil.

Are these people really objective when talking about the issues of the US Civil War and the Confederate Flag?

I don't think the label pacifist applies, but I think I break all of your observations here.

I would not expect libertarian-esque war cynics to be as described. Mostly the liberal types. And no, I don't think all liberals are like that.