tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post5662450178975769712..comments2024-03-18T17:28:44.693-07:00Comments on Rondam Ramblings: Supporting Robert E. Lee is no longer an acceptable positionRonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comBlogger35125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-14488166282368410252017-10-06T18:55:09.875-07:002017-10-06T18:55:09.875-07:00Robert E Lee inspired the Lost Cause with his Fare...Robert E Lee inspired the Lost Cause with his Farewell Order to the Army of Northern Virginia. The Lost Cause re-imagines the Confederate cause as a heroic one against great odds despite its defeat. Gone With The Wind is the great Lost Cause epic and Birth Of A Nation is its film. Utter shite.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06586334509553334314noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-78691954215525639702017-09-15T13:36:23.996-07:002017-09-15T13:36:23.996-07:00@Ron: "I meant that it should be *socially* u...@Ron: "I meant that it should be *socially* unacceptable, not that it should be *illegal*"<br /><br />Fair enough. If someone who supports Robert E. Lee is not welcome in your house, for the reasons you've given, of course I have no problem with that. It's your house. And if 99.999999% of the population feels the same way you do about who they will and won't let into their Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-72347414758189095832017-09-15T10:10:26.423-07:002017-09-15T10:10:26.423-07:00> You said that supporting Robert E. Lee--just ...> You said that supporting Robert E. Lee--just expressing the viewpoint that he did deserve to be commemorated--was no longer an acceptable position.<br /><br />That's right. But I meant that it should be *socially* unacceptable, not that it should be *illegal*.<br /><br />> The problem with that is that we're supposed to live in a country that has freedom of speech, and that Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-76859272464901880952017-09-14T19:04:35.620-07:002017-09-14T19:04:35.620-07:00@Ron: "There were certainly moral (and legal)...@Ron: "There were certainly moral (and legal) failures in the North as well, but I don't see how that's relevant to the question of whether Robert E. Lee deserves to be commemorated."<br /><br />You didn't just say Robert E. Lee didn't deserve to be commemorated. You said that supporting Robert E. Lee--just expressing the viewpoint that he did deserve to be commemorated-Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-72521012243915196462017-09-14T18:17:57.271-07:002017-09-14T18:17:57.271-07:00> I simply don't see the Northern cause as...> I simply don't see the Northern cause as having the moral high ground, as you appear to.<br /><br />I don't believe I ever said that the Union had the moral high ground. I think the Union was on higher moral ground than the Confederacy, but that's a pretty low bar. In fact, my whole point here is that that it's about as low a bar as it gets. There were certainly moral (Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-84306851130527426322017-09-14T16:29:00.086-07:002017-09-14T16:29:00.086-07:00@Ron: "I really don't see much room for n...@Ron: "I really don't see much room for nuance there."<br /><br />You're leaving out a lot. Let me add some things:<br /><br />On one side the perspective was that the power of the Federal government should be expanded to do things that, at least arguably, the Constitution does not allow it to do; that the desire to do something that somebody thought was a good idea was Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-59854936779069444422017-09-14T13:48:37.662-07:002017-09-14T13:48:37.662-07:00> You're picking out one particular set of ...> You're picking out one particular set of words<br /><br />Yes, that's true. But I'm not picking them arbitrarily. I'm picking the words that the Confederacy formally published as their rationale for going to war. I think it's fair to judge them by those words, just as I think it's fair to judge the Nazis on the basis of what is written in Mein Kampf.<br /><br />>Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-50665701258257720902017-09-14T12:49:40.923-07:002017-09-14T12:49:40.923-07:00@Ron: "All I'm doing is taking them at th...@Ron: "All I'm doing is taking them at their word."<br /><br />You're picking out one particular set of words, written, as I said, after decades of both sides hardening their positions and refusing to see the other side's perspectives. Yes, that means both sides, during those decades, were ignoring complexities and nuances; but you're doing it too, by ignoring that wholePeter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-70791637356341152332017-09-14T08:12:40.163-07:002017-09-14T08:12:40.163-07:00> But that just means you're ignoring all ...> But that just means you're ignoring all the complexities and nuances.<br /><br />No. It means *they* were ignoring all the complexities and nuances. *They* said that they were going to war primarily to defend the white man's inalienable right to hold negro slaves as property. This is not speculation on my part; they wrote it down. They enshrined it in their constitution. All I&Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-67518422457786642732017-09-13T17:53:22.794-07:002017-09-13T17:53:22.794-07:00@Ron: "Do you not see the irony here?"
...@Ron: "Do you not see the irony here?"<br /><br />It might look that way on the surface, but notice that I didn't say Nazi Germany was evil, and I didn't say the South was evil. I just said that particular things they did were wrong. Do you not see the key distinction here?<br />Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-35011168708060417442017-09-13T17:47:20.229-07:002017-09-13T17:47:20.229-07:00@Ron: "many historical questions are complex ...@Ron: "many historical questions are complex and nuanced. But not this one."<br /><br />I guess we'll just have to disagree. I think all historical questions are complex and nuanced. Yes, slavery is much more wrong than shoplifting; but as I said before, it wasn't just about slavery. Yes, if you read what the Confederates wrote in 1860--after decades of both sides hardening Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-3764288551334784282017-09-13T16:08:30.777-07:002017-09-13T16:08:30.777-07:00@Peter:
> I don't see things in ... black ...@Peter:<br /><br />> I don't see things in ... black and white<br /><br />> The Holocaust was wrong. Slavery was wrong.<br /><br />Do you not see the irony here?<br /><br />It is not that I see things as black and white. It is the exact opposite in fact. Shoplifting is wrong, but that doesn't mean that you can draw a moral equivalency between shoplifting and slavery despite the Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-23404552052783667442017-09-13T13:46:57.248-07:002017-09-13T13:46:57.248-07:00@Ron: "Exhibit A is the election of Abraham L...@Ron: "Exhibit A is the election of Abraham Lincoln"<br /><br />I don't think it's valid to pick out one event which was peaceful and democratic, while saying that all the other things that went on that contributed to that event happening are "irrelevant". Peaceful and democratic processes "worked" in the election of 1860 because of the history of Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-29157531560075805882017-09-10T10:57:26.180-07:002017-09-10T10:57:26.180-07:00@Peter
I really did mean "peaceful and democ...@Peter<br /><br />I really did mean "peaceful and democratic." But if you're going to focus on that, then you need to go back and re-read the context in which I used that phrase.<br /><br />"The South shot first. And they did it because the peaceful, democratic political solutions were working!"<br /><br />You countered by pointing out that there was violence and Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-57318778086177268892017-09-09T19:05:07.456-07:002017-09-09T19:05:07.456-07:00@Ron: "Do you really think quibbling over ter...@Ron: "Do you really think quibbling over terminology is going to be productive?"<br /><br />It's your terminology. If you didn't mean "peaceful and democratic", why did you use those terms?<br /><br />Basically, it looks like you want to be able to take advantage of the positive connotations of certain terms when it suits you, without having to defend them when Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-45141783034424126712017-09-09T16:23:46.566-07:002017-09-09T16:23:46.566-07:00> I just think my standard for what counts as ...> I just think my standard for what counts as "peaceful and democratic" is stricter than yours.<br /><br />Do you really think quibbling over terminology is going to be productive? Suppose I concede that it was not "peaceful and democratic." Then what? I don't see how that changes anything.<br />Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-42945696939108111852017-09-09T14:41:15.393-07:002017-09-09T14:41:15.393-07:00@Ron: "there were *individuals* who engaged i...@Ron: "there were *individuals* who engaged in civil disobedience and failed to repatriate slaves, and even smuggle them out of the country. But that is not at all the same as the *government* violating the Constitution."<br /><br />So all of the Northern state governments that passed laws violating the Fugitive Slave provision in the Constitution, and all of the Northern state courts Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-35548578861594958712017-09-09T14:36:59.992-07:002017-09-09T14:36:59.992-07:00> Just to be clear, you didn't title this p...> Just to be clear, you didn't title this post "Supporting the Confederacy is no longer an acceptable position". You titled it "Supporting Robert E. Lee is no longer an acceptable position".<br /><br />That's true, and maybe if I had to do over again I'd change the title. But that seems to me to be splitting a fine hair. Maybe Lee shouldn't be vilified as Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-9357206934331827282017-09-09T14:31:01.031-07:002017-09-09T14:31:01.031-07:00> The actual solution, for decades leading up t...> The actual solution, for decades leading up to the Civil War, was to violate that provision of the Constitution, and the laws enacted to uphold it.<br /><br />Hogwash. Yes, there were *individuals* who engaged in civil disobedience and failed to repatriate slaves, and even smuggle them out of the country. But that is not at all the same as the *government* violating the Constitution. To Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-51485923354912205952017-09-09T13:29:16.552-07:002017-09-09T13:29:16.552-07:00@Ron: "The idea that there was something hono...@Ron: "The idea that there was something honorable about the Confederacy"<br /><br />Just to be clear, you didn't title this post "Supporting the Confederacy is no longer an acceptable position". You titled it "Supporting Robert E. Lee is no longer an acceptable position". A key point I am making (I think Publius is too, but I'll let him speak for himself) isPeter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-34212879891021819962017-09-09T13:19:44.405-07:002017-09-09T13:19:44.405-07:00@Ron: "the peaceful, democratic political sol...@Ron: "the peaceful, democratic political solutions were working!"<br /><br />Only if violating the law and the Constitution is a "peaceful, democratic solution". The Constitution had an explicit provision requiring fugitive slaves to be restored to their owners. The peaceful, democratic solution to that would have been to amend the Constitution--but that wasn't done untilPeter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-26253392019615912072017-09-09T08:46:54.289-07:002017-09-09T08:46:54.289-07:00> Peter is discussing the solution to ending s...> Peter is discussing the solution to ending slavery in the United States. Was war the only solution?<br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Sumter" rel="nofollow">The South shot first.</a> And they did it because the peaceful, democratic political solutions <i>were working!</i> No, war was not the only solution. But the Confederacy forced the hand of the United States of Ronhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11752242624438232184noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-11632128501228412862017-09-09T00:34:32.610-07:002017-09-09T00:34:32.610-07:00Alternate History 2
@Peter:
>>> The most...<b>Alternate History 2</b><br /><br />@Peter:<br />>>> The most dangerous distortion of history that I see happening today is the delusion that one side is right and one side is wrong, period.<br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>>About the issue of slavery one side was definitely right and the other was definitely wrong.<br /><br />Do you seriously want to dispute that?</i><br /><br />I don'Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-51550339313883116112017-09-09T00:23:36.718-07:002017-09-09T00:23:36.718-07:00Alternate History 1
@Ron:
> And Hitler did fix...<b>Alternate History 1</b><br /><br />@Ron:<br /><i>> And Hitler did fix it, in no small measure because he had the brass to tell the allies to take their disarmament treaty and stuff it.</i><br /><br />Eh, he didn't re-arm to improve the domestic economy. Spending on military equipment and forces has an inflationary effect, as it creates goods and services that the public can't Publiushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00647613579979908182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5592542.post-9729844312319195302017-09-08T20:30:36.587-07:002017-09-08T20:30:36.587-07:00@Ron: "It's hard to find a good WWII anal...@Ron: "It's hard to find a good WWII analogy. Hirohito maybe?"<br /><br />I would say he comes closest, but I'm not sure there really is a good WWII analogy. I don't think the kind of surrender that Lee made at Appomatox was really on the table for either Germany or Japan in WWII. (And the measures that were taken to "cleanse" Germany and Japan after WWII make Peter Donishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09122769947782402203noreply@blogger.com