Revisionist history hits US Army over Confederate portraits

Revisionist history is rearing its ugly head once again. An unnamed official at the US Army War College in Carlisle Barracks in Pennsylvania is questioning whether the portraits of Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, “enemies” who fought against the United States should be displayed.

As the Washington Times reports:

The U.S. Army War College, which molds future field generals, has begun discussing whether it should remove its portraits of Confederate generals — including those of Robert E. Lee and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson.

Nestled in rural Pennsylvania on the 500-acre Carlisle Barracks, the war college is conducting an inventory of all its paintings and photographs with an eye for rehanging them in historical themes to tell a particular Army story.

During the inventory, an unidentified official — not the commandant — asked the administration why the college honors two generals who fought against the United States, college spokeswoman Carol Kerr said.

Obviously, this “official” fails to understand these two honorable men were commissioned US Army officers – as many of the Confederate commanders were and had served this nation in the Mexican War.

They chose to fight for their homes as they perceived Washington had become an onerous and invasive threat to their way of life. Luckily the Union forces prevailed and the heinous practice of slavery was ended.

It was President Lincoln’s desire to reunite America — and even in surrender, General Lee was rendered honors. These two men were exceptional leaders and their memory should not be cast aside.

If there were a portrait of Nathan Bedford Forest, I would have a different assessment, since he was instrumental — along with Democrats, lest we forget — in establishing the Ku Klux Klan. I would much rather have portraits of Lee and Jackson, who are prominently featured on the face of Stone Mountain in Georgia, than that of Rep. Charlie Rangel which hangs in the House Ways and Means committee room.

473 COMMENTS

      • I’ve controlled the armadillo population around the house with a shotgun and the front tires of my pickup, but we’re gonna need to call in Cook’s Pest Control to deal with the infestation in Washington!

    • Sorry to tell you this Roger but there will always be idiots waiting in the wings. All of this didn’t start with Obama and this group of progressives. It has been brewing for many years. Try and remember when the first time was that you heard of political correctness and remember that it began even before that. It is easily blamed on the current group because they are so blatently open about their goals.

      • Actually if you look at the numbers of the sheer volume of idiots like this and Obamas election, just like the number of mass shootings, it has indeed sky rocketed.

      • You are correct but it is the result of what has been done over many years of political correctness and dumbing down or putting to sleep the electorate, besides the ones who have been bought and paid for with “welfare”.

  1. Holy Cow! The life history of R.E.Lee’s sense of honor and duty…his intellect, demeanor, self-discipline…to take down his picture??? Unbelievable!…well not to a liberal with no honor, duty, or discipline…

  2. So we should also hang a photo of Arnold Benedict if your only reason was that they were good leaders who fought for what they trusted in. But I doubt you would do that. Also, it isn’t like they are changing history.

  3. I believe this could be the continuation of the Democrats plan to divide the country. They have tried to pit religions, race and lifestyles against each other but that did not cause enough reaction to merit Government action. Now they are attacking the old South. That too will backfire. We Southerners got past the Northern Aggression over 100 years ago but we have not forgotten our History that shaped who we are today. This latest show of Government stupidity will only increase our resolve to vote the Democrat party out.

  4. I live not far from Carlisle Barracks, and this is just stupid. When will people recognize that understanding our history is not agreeing with every decision made during it?

    Those generals were honorable men, called upon by their states to take action in a time of great strife against a strong central federal government that was seen to be exerting too much control over states. While I agree with the resolution of the civil war, and the abolishment of slavery, and every stride we have made since then to abolish the practice of racial discrimination, these men are still central figures in our nation’s history and need to be remembered.

    I’d like to see this guy’s reasoning for not taking down every reference to or picture of Hitler or the swastika in a WWII exhibit. Or even better, hear him try to argue for just that.

  5. Well if the biggest traitor in American history (mr. obama) can still be president then why can’t these two stay in American history. Besides that they are part of our history, we may not like it but there it is. We will have to live with obama in our history, and he is more of a traitor. These two fought for what they believed in; right or wrong. obama literally sleeps with the enemy, an outside enemy, one who wants to see ALL AMERICANS, North, South, Black and White die. So, give me a break folks let’s get the traitor in the white house gone, then we can deal with all this petty BS.

  6. You should rethink your statement of Forrest……..he was not the racist monster he is made out to be….thats just another half truth the liberal want people to believe to push their agenda.

  7. Look this is history you can’t change it these men are part of it .i would rather stand with these men than some today.

  8. To be honest Im not sure that traiters should have honor. Hey its one way to look at it.
    No, Im not an Odumbo worshipper and I never voted for him or any one who thinks like him.

    • Traitors???? Look up Secession and tell me how many times NORTHERNERS met to discuss Secession BEFORE 1861. The fact that it was discussed indicates that it was believed to be a viable solution to issues that arose.

  9. If they don’t want the paintings they can drop them off here. They were some of the best generals of the war. At that time everybody respected them on both sides of the conflict. If it wasn’t for the issue of slavery I would probably have been on their side. The worse the state of the affairs of this Union, the more you can appreciate their position of old. How often have many of us thought it would be nice to just set aside NY and Washington DC aside and let them be their own country and law. Let them have their silly pointless Anti-gun laws and see how it works out for them. Then let those with common sense govern the rest of the states. How nice it would be if it could be so simple.

  10. Mr West, First I hope you do run for Presidency, you have my vote. You, along with most of America have been wrongly educated pertaining the War Between The States, (was not a Civil War). Lets be correct on Mr Lincoln, he was a Republican, not Democrat, and like Obama, he wasn’t trying to abolish slavery, as a matter of Congressional records, he said he didn’t think it was his place to tell slave owners what to do with their slaves, and before anyone goes down that road, I hate slavery and Obama has brought us right back to a slave state. Next, the Emancipation Proclamation was about abolishing slavery, but if you will read the first few lines, you will see that it was about punishing the states that seceded from the Union, it did nothing to the slave holding states that did not secede.. Next, Lincoln pushed America into war by his actions, and Obama has done, almost identical, maneuvers, 1 yr before the War between the States started, Lincoln forced all gun manufacturers to move their operations to the Northern states, (UNCONSTITUTIONAL), Obama buys up billions of rounds of ammo, Lincoln takes all the money reserves (in the millions) and redistributes the money to the Northern states, (also Unconstitutional). The purpose of the post is not to stir up trouble but to point out that, even you have been blinded by incorrect historians. Obama is doing exactly as he said he would, and likes to be compared to Lincoln…….. if we are to bring up history, at least keep it honest…..

  11. The
    American Civil War DID NOT have to happen. Over 650,000 people
    needlessly died. Slavery could have been eliminated peacefully. It was
    peacefully removed in Europe in all the nations there.

    It
    was about the “volunteer” union that the southern states wanted to
    voluntarily leave. The south was the richer states and after the war,
    they became the poorest states.

    It
    was all about economics. After the war, the Constitution was rewritten
    and the money turned over to the Rothschild banks because Lincoln used
    up all the money fighting the war.

    It
    was just like today, the US invading another nation for selfish reasons
    because the southern states produced the raw material which was used
    for manufacturing in the north and they decided that they could also
    manufacture too. Lincoln didn’t like that, so it was literally a war of
    extortion.

  12. I have no tolerance for idiots and we seem to have many since obtaining a fraudulent CIC. The idiots are crawling out of the woodwork……..

  13. who were these men before the Civil War? These men are deemed traitors because the south lost, and because the north decided that the south could not secede from the whole of the nation. Robert E. Lee did not fade into the background after the Civil War. These men are part of our history you cannot remove them from existence! They are a very important part of U.S. history! POINT BLANK PERIOD!

  14. Lee and Jackson were graduates of West Point, if I remember correctly. They stood up for their beliefs which involved States Rights. Who is rewriting history?

  15. we should ressurect Geo C Scott and have him reshoot the scene where he, as Patton, is called to “the greatest General since Stonewall Jackson”.

  16. Leave the pictures where they are.
    They served the U.S. with honor until they saw the U.S. as being a tyrant and in having too much power.

    Our ( So-Called ) Government is out of control today. We effectively live in a Police State right now.
    Just because someone doesn’t like history the way it is, doesn’t mean they can change it.
    Hell, OBAMA is the WORST person to EVER inhabit the White House but I would not change that history.

  17. all they need to do is replace these with the portrait of Jackson as a lieutenant in the Mexican War which still hangs at VMI and West Point, and Lee’s portrait as Superintendent of West Point

  18. “An Un-Named Official” from the US Army War College is the culprit that is questioning whether the Portraits of Southern Generals should be Displayed…..hmmm, I wonder why this Coward is not sharing his name with everyone if he’s So Proud of his statement or Idea, seems to me he should back up his statement and come out for everyone to see….I don’t put much credence in a person that’s too Cowardly to show his face to everyone after making such a statement as this…..he must be a Northerner…..

  19. Oh my, looked we honored someone so many years ago, now since he was against the establishment, lets make him disappear. There is a lot of guts in this idea.

  20. Mr. West, I admire what you do and your stand for the American people tremendously, however, please do your historical research before perpetuating a lie. Nathan Bedford Forrest made a lot of money selling slaves before the war, and at the time it was legal. The moral and ethical argument of slavery can be debated forever, but he did not break the law. There is NO evidence that N.B. Forrest was ever IN the KKK, but he was associated with people that were. This is easily found online, without much effort. History is written by the victors, and things are made to fit their viewpoint. He may not have been the ideal man, but MOST of what you read about him simply is not true. MOST of what you read about A. Lincoln is not true. He NEVER wanted to free the slaves, tried unsuccessfully several times to ship all the black population to Africa, Argentina, Brazil, Haiti, and several other countries. He absolutely did not want them in the North, and even tried to block the black population from entering the new territories that were about to become states. Always has, and always will be a subject of great debate. Keep up the good work!

    • He was the first Grand Dragon. The KKK first started by 3 former confeds who were bored and decided to don crazy outfits and start a clubhouse. They started out by scaring and playing around with former slaves. then other groups started in the County. But the murdering hooded ‘chapter’ stuck and finally they were banned. Lincoln was anti-slavery but when the South broke away from the Union (committing treason against the Republic) that was a more pressing issue and the abolishing of slavery would be forthcoming. He DID, in fact, issue the Proclamation, did he not? He was elected to run by abolitionists. He gave former slaves a CHOICE to either remain here or be taken back to Africa or anywhere they chose. Haitians are descendants of those former slaves. They HAD A CHOICE. Please study true history before typing out misinformation. Lincoln never tried to block former slaves from going anywhere they chose to go.

      • Yes he did issue the Proclamation. However, it could not be enforced because the war was in full swing. He did not issue the Proclamation out of pity for the slaves, but to try to preserve the Union by keeping England and France out of the war on the South’s side. If they had entered the war on the side of the South, there would be a CSA today. That is unless the two countries at some point had decided to reunite.

      • The debate of N.B. Forrest being the leader of the KKK can be debated forever. There is as much evidence that says he was not, as there is saying he was. But if you think Lincoln was anti-slavery…you are in serious need of study!!!! 1. Treason…no. Constitutionally legal to secede, and still is. Read your Constitution. 2. Eman. Proclamation….what a joke. It was all politics, and ONLY freed the slaves in the South, but the north ABSOLUTELY KEPT their slaves until Dec. 1865…after the WBTS was over. Grant didn’t free his slaves until then. http://pre.docdat.com/docs/index-169904.html I included that so you can read it yourself. New Orleans, as one example was under U.S. control, and they kept slavery throughout the war. 3. Choice?? There was no choice, because he couldn’t get the money together he needed for the ships, but he had no plans of asking….it was his intent to ship them all back. 4. Finally to prove my point of your war criminal you call hero….here’s a quote from Lincoln at one of his inaugural addresses (please feel free to verify yourself…)…”I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races – that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.” ….Oh…and read about Kansas, when it was a territory about to become a state. Lincoln tried to make that a complete “white” state and make it illegal for a negro to pass through it’s borders, regardless of the reason. Choice? I think not…

  21. Let’s not forget that Robert Lee was a Major in the US Army and was an instructor at West Point when the war broke out. The band of brothers who were the serving cadre of the US Army at the time, Academy graduates all, called the corps of cadets into formation on the quad and offered the gentlemen of the South the opportunity to march out with their weapons and gear. They were led out my Major Lee who returned to fight for his home state Virginia. He was not a slave holder but a professional soldier.

  22. May I ask for Col West’s opinion on the following- before the civil war, many in the south were beginning to speak out against slavery and were beginning to call for an end to the practice; Stonewall Jackson himself did not like the practice of slavery and wanted it abolished. It may have taken some years longer, perhaps a couple decades more, for the south to put an end to slavery but could it have been possible for former slaves to have experienced a better transition period if the north would have stayed out of it and had waited for the south to put an end to slavery all on their own. All the north seemed to accomplish with the civil war was extreme poverty, ruin and refugees; much of which we have yet to recover from even today.

    • After the war, blacks were declared having rights to vote and hold office. All former slaves were Republican and therefore ran, and voted as, Republicans. The KKK/democrats, threatened former slaves with death if they didn’t vote democrat but the blacks voted Republican. There were more black Republican in the South than white but the KKK also murdered white Republicans so to answer your question, there would not have been a transition at all. The South ignored many laws to integrate former slaves into the mainstream after the war so in hindsight we see that the intervention of the Union Army was completely necessary.

      • Democrats did not support the right for blacks to vote and wrote the Jim Crow laws that prevented blacks from having civil rights. In a different manner they are still doing it!

      • If tyrant anarchists had not kidnapped, sold and bought slaves, there would be no issue. There was an atmosphere in the South at the time of immorality against humanity and is still manifest in the democrat party today. The anarchists began calling themselves democrats after the first demoncrat,, President Andrew Jackson, declared himself one. Remember him, who ordered the removal of all Native tribes from the east and who was responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands men, women and children? After that, democrats have been the party of inhumanity and today they are aligned with the communist party usa. that is what they call progressive.

  23. It’s easy for so-called “moderns” to try to pass judgement on people such as Lee and Jackson. These men, however were bound to those 3 concepts of “duty, honor and country.” and above all of these was the concept of honor. Honor was seen in following the dictates of a man’s duty, as he saw fit. If a man’s sense of duty lay in defending his native state from invasion of the newly mustering Army of the Potomac, then honor dictated that that man had to take no action at odds with the highest duty, to one’s native state. While Lee, Jackson and other Virginians felt that their duty lay in the defense of their state, other Virginians such as Generals Winfield Scott and George Henry Thomas, the “Rock of Chickamauga” felt that honor dictated that their highest allegiance was to the United States. As long as men and women were seen to be following the dictates of conscience, following their duty as they saw fit, only an infinitesimal number of people from North or South condemned these men for their choices. These choices had a price, Thomas’s own family took his photo and turned it backwards on the wall of their family home. Someone such as Lee would say that he could “not fight against my native country,” and that country was, in his mind, the Sovereign Commonwealth and State of “Old Virginia.” Both Lee and Jackson decried slavery. Jackson paid for a sunday school for black children in his county. Neither of these men were fighting for the preservation of the vile institution of slavery. I suggest that would-be critics of southern soldiers take a look at the just how divided and “sectional” the country was in 1861. The very term, “The United States of America” was considered a plural word. The newspapers of that eraa would describe a new ambassador being sent to France as, “The United States are sending THEIR new minister to France.” Lee and hundreds of thousands of Confederate soldiers and sailors were welcomed back into the Union at the conclusion of the Civil War. Many took loyalty oaths. Some even served in Congress. Lee’s “old warhorse,” Longstreet served as a paid federal employee. Noted former Confederate cavalry commander, “Fighting Joe” Wheeler, after serving in Congress, led the cavalry division of Shafter’s Corps in the Spanish-American War. One of the regiments in the 2d brigade of that division was the 1st US Volunteer Cavalry, the “Rough Riders,” eventually commanded by future US President, Theodore Roosevelt. T.R.’s own mother was a southerner and his uncle, James Bulloch led the Confederate Secret Service. T.R. would later say that even though an ardent unionist who, as a 4 year old boy prayed that God would “Grind the Rebels into powder” before his horrified mother, “I consider myself equally a southerner as a northerner. Calling men such as Lee, Jackson, Longstreet, Wheeler and every other Confederate soldier and sailor traitors is to call them what even most Unionists of their time would never dare say. And why? Because the vast majority of these men were men of honor, men following the right as they saw it to be. The Civil War has been called the “great unnecessary but inevitable tragedy.” It think its equally tragic to try to pass judgement on anyone of that age or this age who is honestly following the dictates of their conscience, of duty, honor and country. These concepts remain as valid today as they were then. Study the “life and times” of that era and you may come to the same conclusion, hopefully.

    • The States never should have violated the Constitution by sedition and revert back to pre-Constitution. That was a declaration of war against the Republic. There is no honor in that. There is no conscience in that. The Confederacy was all about keeping a democrat monopoly in the South. They swore if a Republican, (a threat to that monopoly) was elected then they would secede. It had nothing to do with States’ rights. States have powers, people have rights. I’m a South Carolinian, born and reared, and thank God that the democrats lost to the Republicans.

      • There was enough connivance manipulation treachery and deceit on both sides.
        Northern Republicans had complete control of CON-gress immediately when Southern Democrats seceded. They used that power to pass legislation concerning taxes and tariffs, not slavery.
        Southern States legislatures enacted “Articles of Secession” which ALL mentioned slavery in the first or second paragraph, yet the war was not about slavery.
        Both sides were deceiving themselves and their voters. Well over a million fine young men died for those lies.

      • You are ignorant on history. South Carolina had already issued a warning before any Republican was elected that if a Republican won they would secede. What you are citing is the democrats’ altered version of that history they conjured up during reconstruction and you rebs fall for it. There are 2 separate issues. Secession was about democrats keeping sole control over the south and much of the north because Republicans stood for everything opposite of what the dems stood for. The war was about bringing all the States back together because as Lincoln stated, a house divided cannot stand. One cannot celebrate both the confederacy and the Republic, two opposing ideologies, for the heart will divide itself, fragment the truth and weaken the spirit.

  24. Come on Mr. West. Facts. General Nathan Bedford Forrest founded the KKK as a protective unit against the looters, carpetbaggers, and general malfeasance that was the federal view of the south. They disbanded, mission accomplished, prior to the hood wearing racist morons that adopted the same name.

    • Nathan Bedford Forrest (July 13, 1821 – October 29, 1877) was a lieutenant general in the Confederate Army during the American Civil War. He is remembered both as a self-educated, innovative cavalry leader during the war and as a leading southern advocate in the postwar years. He served as the first Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, but later distanced himself from the organization.[3]

      A cavalry and military commander in the war, Forrest is one of the war’s most unusual figures. Less educated than many of his fellow officers, Forrest had already amassed a fortune as a planter, real estate investor, and slave trader before the war. He was one of the few officers in either army to enlist as a private and be promoted to general officer and division commander by the end of the war. Although Forrest lacked formal military education, he had a gift for strategy and tactics. He created and established new doctrines for mobile forces, earning the nickname The Wizard of the Saddle.[4]

      Forrest was accused of war crimes at the Battle of Fort Pillow for allowing forces under his command to conduct a massacre upon hundreds of black Union Army and white Southern Unionist prisoners. Union Major General William T. Sherman investigated the allegations and did not charge Forrest with any improprieties. In their postwar writings, Confederate President Jefferson Davis and General Robert E. Lee both expressed their belief that the Confederate high command had failed to fully utilize Forrest’s talents.’

      • Dena, I am happy you are interested to learn more! May I suggest a few books to start with as copying and pasting the internet is no way to learn facts. Message me, I’ve got a list of good factual data on this issue, and Fort Pillow.

      • Could you please cite a source for your assertion that “Union Major General William T. Sherman investigated the allegations and did not charge Forrest with any improprieties.”

        I have read several accounts of the Fort Pillow massacre, but never have I had the fortune to review Gen Sherman’s reports. I would enjoy reading such material.
        Below are a few of my own readings which I hope you have time to enjoy.

        http://www.civilwarhome.com/hurlbutftpillowor.htm
        Reports of Maj. Gen. Stephen A. Hurlbut, U.S. Army

        http://www.civilwarhome.com/forrest.htm
        Report of Maj. Gen. Nathan B. Forrest, C. S. Army

      • MEMOIRS OF
        GENERAL WILLIAM T. SHERMAN.

        VOLUME II.

        CHAPTER XVI.

        ATLANTA CAMPAIGN-NASHVILLE AND CHATTANOOGA TO BENEBAW.

        MARCH, APRIL, AND MAY, 1864.

        “About this time, viz., the early part of April, I was much disturbed by a bold raid made by the rebel General Forrest up between the Mississippi and Tennessee Rivers. He reached the Ohio River at Paducah, but was handsomely repulsed by Colonel Hicks. He then swung down toward Memphis, assaulted and carried Fort Pillow, massacring a part of its garrison, composed wholly of negro troops. At first I discredited the story of the massacre, because, in preparing for the Meridian campaign, I had ordered Fort Pillow to be evacuated, but it transpired afterward that General Hurlbut had retained a small garrison at Fort Pillow to encourage the enlistment of the blacks as soldiers, which was a favorite political policy at that day. The massacre at Fort Pillow occurred April 12, 1864, and has been the subject of congressional inquiry. No doubt Forrest’s men acted like a set of barbarians, shooting down the helpless negro garrison after the fort was in their possession; but I am told that Forrest personally disclaims any active participation in the assault, and that he stopped the firing as soon as he could. I also take it for granted that Forrest did not lead the assault in person, and consequently that he was to the rear, out of sight if not of hearing at the time, and I was told by hundreds of our men, who were at various times prisoners in Forrest’s possession, that he was usually very kind to them. He had a desperate set of fellows under him, and at that very time there is no doubt the feeling of the Southern people was fearfully savage on this very point of our making soldiers out of their late slaves, and Forrest may have shared the feeling.”

    • Thank you so much. I thought I was the only one who knew the history of the original (1866-77) Klan. I can’t get some of my fellow patriots to see what they fought against; a corrupt, all powerful government which sided with certain protected persons against others.

  25. Every slave law was written by and for the USA, and enforced by said country. Grant was still a slave holder even after the war. I believe Grant said that if he thought the war was about slavery, then he would have fought for the South.

  26. I am a Northerner, my great grandfather fought for the Union during the Civil War. But what I know about America is that “We the People” are the country. That does not exclude our southern population. The idea of freedom, the ending of slavary and the battle for civil rights was won by Americans and lost by Americans. It is our history and it should not be changed to suit some. No part of it should be replaced or skimmed over or hidden in closets. It should be presented in a way that allows the individual to learn the facts and to form their oppinion with out condemnation. We “The People” should always be allowed to be free thinkers, and free to debate the issues respectfully and with out shaming. Our laws should serve us in protecting us from undue physical harm or invasion of privacy but not from ideas and the freedom of speech.

  27. The unnamed official must be a believer in the outcome of the Andersonville trial (Morals and images are dependant on who wins and who loses). Thus the two generals in question are not to be judged by their beliefs, but as members of the losing side. Making their good qualities (in many cases more fair and just than those of many union generals) subject to ’Andersonville’ type judgment. Actually, Thomas Jackson saw it as his responsibility to improve the lives of slaves. He and his wife were guilty of the crime of teaching slaves to read. They also educated them in religious and secular subjects. He saw to it that both black and white were allowed to worship at his Presbyterian church (separately) , where he served as a deacon. He and his wife taught the all black congregation. He is often cited as one of the more influential people in the early history of black churches in America. Several of the men he and his wife taught became some of the first black ministers in America after the war. On several occasions he is quoted as saying he wished the Virginia Legislature would outlaw slavery.

    While Lee prejudicially supposed that “… blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically,” he also spoke of slavery as an evil for everyone involved, “I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former.”

    Many Union generals agreed with Lincoln’s famous Emancipation Proclamation — which didn’t “free” a single Black person from chattel slavery. These generals were pleased to have southern slaves proclaimed as free so that they could fight against their masters, knowing that that same document made sure that slavery was not disturbed where it existed in the North.

    • The Emancipation Proclamation was more about heading off European intervention on the side of the CSA than it was about freeing slaves.

  28. enough with the crap!!! NAME this “unnamed official!!! stand up for what’s right for once instead of just talking about it. who is he???

    • I agree, we hear so much of this “unnamed official”, and even in the Obama administration, a “highly respected, top official….” wanted or said….
      It’s not like protection of the press, who need to protect their source, these are people being “supported” and making real suggestions/changes.
      Name them.

  29. Wow, just like the Nazis burning books, and Stalin destroying busts and statues of previous leaders, these people think that by destroying the past they can create a utopia. We will never learn from history.

  30. Why shouldn’t they be displayed? Both are graduates of West Point and when the Civil War broke out, both were asked to join the Union Army. But both because of where they were from, they decided to go with their respected states. In fact President Lincoln asked Gen. Robert E. Lee to be overall Commanding General of the Union Army. These are men of honor. They should remain and be respected.

  31. One lesson we SHOULD have learned from other repressed countries, is NOT to re-write history. Keep our history the way it was, warts and all. To do otherwise is sheer hyprocrisy!

  32. I retired from the USAF in 1988 and I simply do not understand the military of today. It is way too liberal, way too PC. The portraits of these two great men should remain in place.

  33. There comes a time when people have to stop nic picking over the little things. Jackson and Lee both played a hugh part of what makes our country great. This is our past, let it go and live for the future. I’m so tired of hearing the word politically correct. To the ones that can’t let it go, all I have to say is BLESS YOUR HEART!

    • Thank you Chris. I think you and I are the only ones who know General Forrest wasn’t a monster who spent his time gleefully hunting blacks.

  34. what is this great nation coming to? they want to take the pictures down of lee and Jackson? that’s history we cant change that!! we learn from our history!! why do people pass judgement on others when the person or persons are just as guilty or do things that are and were just as bad. I like what the bible says about that ” let the person without sin cast the first stone” .

  35. Interesting, one way to de-value the descendants of slavery, and all their complaints, is to create a new history whereby the Civil War was just a bi-line in history, or perhaps, in the future, never existed.

  36. do what the libs do: when someone proposes to change or remove an idea, thought, image, or writing, just call them a racist radical

  37. Robert E. Lee owned no slaves…but I understand that Ulysses S Grant (Union) did. The Civil War was fought over states rights, not slavery ! The same issues we are looking at today with an over reaching federal government unconstitutionally infringing on state’s freedoms!
    Abraham Lincoln was as prejudiced as they come…he supported separation of those of African heritage, he wanted to end slavery in order to remove them from American society completely !

    • The State’s Right was the ownership by one person of another person and their labor. Slavery was the right in question, and every declaration of secession specified that right.

      U.S. Grant apparently owned one slave. The only evidence being a document he signed in 1859 freeing one, William Jones. However, Grant certainly had some control over and use of slaves his father-in-law gave his wife.

      Robert E, Lee most certainly owned slaves, otherwise he could not have freed his slaves 10 years before the outbreak of the Civil War. One of those slave, William Mack Lee, born on the Lee plantation, Arlington, now known as Arlington National Cemetary. William Mack Lee remained in the service of Marse Robert throughout the war as the general’s body servant. Upon Lee’s death, WM Lee was bequeathed $360 to “educate himself” which he did becoming a preacher.

      • Robert E. Lee’s family owned slaves, when he inherited the estate he freed them. There was much more than slavery at issue and Lincoln was as bigotted as they come.
        Here is a statement of Abraham Lincoln:

        ” I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people.

        He continued:

        I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

      • WOW, Great history lesson. I don’t agree with Lincolns Position at all on that issue or almost any other issue, but it is very odd how our media and taught history today has been so totally twisted. My great grandfather fought in the civil war, and my family is mostly from Mississippi. Our oral history is that the north was trying to tax out exports to europe and couldnt figure out how to get us to pay taxes so they seized control of our states to take over all of our natural resources. It had nothing to do with slavery!!!

      • Okay, I had to look up Jimmy the Greek was…the point I was making in quoting Abraham Lincoln was that he was a bigot not a saint!

      • I suggest that he changed his position on this over the course of the war, having been influenced by the likes of Frederick Douglas and others. Slavery and slaves were remote to those in the North, so it was easier to harbor notions of others that were not true. I suspect except for those under the influence of Douglas and a few oher intellectual black freeman, most northerners held an opinion of unjust superiority.

    • No State has authority to turn away from the Republic. That is sedition and treason. By the way, States have powers. Only people have rights.

      • Not so. States have rights to govern themselves under the 10 Amendment. Powers are what they use to enforce those rights. To deny the states the right to secede is as tyrannical as the relationship between the colonies and Great Britain. States must stay together of their own free will or separate. No power on earth, short of bondage or subjugation can make men associate. If it is treason to secede then that would have been cited as treason in the COTUS. It is not. Those that became the Founders would never have conceded to a bond that would have tied their states to the others in a potential suicide pact for their people. Go back to the Federalist Papers and learn something.

      • Are natural rights not given to mankind by GOD? Who then gave States the same RIGHTS? The problem with you rebels is that you confuse rights with powers. There was no suicide pact for the States. The south just didn’t want their democrat monopoly and anarchic lifestyle interrupted by a Republican who threatened that monopoly and lifestyle. I have read the Federalist papers and is how I KNOW that the States are prohibited from breaking the Union.

      • GOD??? Whom are you referring to? You pick the word “God” out of thin air as some kind of justification for what you are proclaiming?? You are emoting again…….

      • Besides that, the Federalist Papers are NOT, I repeat, NOT the US Constitution. The country is NOT governed by the Federalist Papers – it is supposedly governed by The Constitution. This must be new to you.

      • You are irrational. Why in God’s name would the Founders make a pact for their states that would cause theirs to follow the rest into oblivious if they so chose? What would the Federal government do if Iowa decided to put up a fence around it, and threw every federal entity outside its borders and ignored every federal law, and their leaders had the moral and physical support of their citizens? Do you really think that the federal government would arrest everyone in that state. No, the states went into the pact called the U.S. freely, so they should be permitted to leave freely.

      • Please state where this misleading information can be found. Simply because you say so and are emoting over this does not make it so. Learn some real history for a change.

      • Secession is not treason.
        Merriam Webster’s dictionary definition of ‘state’s rights’ , note the date is 1839. -Superiority fail!

        Main Entry: states’ rights
        Function: noun plural
        Date: 1839
        : all rights not vested by the United States Constitution in the federal government nor forbidden by it to the separate states

      • Again rights are given to PEOPLE not entities. The PEOPLE gave powers to the Federal and State Governments. Webster failed. The wording should be POWERS not RIGHTS. Southern States agreed to the terms of the US Constitution which established the UNITED STATES and all the States together is called UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. A person loyal to the confederate is anti-Republic.

  38. It’s “unnamed officials” that are trying to erase our history and portray it in a light that is not correct. Why is this “official” unnamed? Let us know who he is. Both of these Generals were extremely fine Generals, both heavily influenced our history and should be remembered and honored for who they were and what they stood for and what they did. While our history is full of things that we would just as soon forget about, but remembering history just as it occurred is what makes us who we are. We need to stop trying to sweep things under the rug, The Civil War happened, Slavery Happened, WWI and WWII happened. These things and more make America what it is.

  39. Please do some research into General Forrest, he wasn’t the monster history revisionists have made him out to be. He was actually censured by the Freedmen’s Bureau for paying the freed blacks he employed TOO MUCH, and for allowing them to purchase arms.

    • Adam, I agree with your statement regarding Nathan Bedford Forrest. Few realize that it was Forrest who called for the dissolution of the KKK when it morphed into a terrorist organization. He worked hard to promote employment for black Southerners and was a well-respected citizen by both blacks and whites alike. The Independent Order of Pole-Bearers Association (which some suggest was the predecessor to the NAACP) was organized by Southern blacks after the war to promote black voting rights and champion other causes for the Freedmen. One of their early conventions was held in Memphis and Forrest was invited to be the guest speaker, the first white man ever to be invited to speak to the Association. His July 5, 1875 speech to this group (I encourage those following this thread to Google it) indicates that he was far from the racist that many portray. Another example can be found in his speech to the Memphis Board of Aldermen where he articulated that there was no reason blacks could not be doctors, store clerks, bankers, or to hold any other job equal to whites. – James W. Kelton, Lieutenant Colonel, US Army, Retired

  40. I love you, LTC West, but I’ve got to disagree with you on this. NO “honorable men” fought for the Confederacy. The fact that these traitors fought honorably, prior to their treason, does not give them a pass for later evil. General Benedict Arnold had a GLOWING career in America’s service prior to the West Point betrayal, but, he’s still a traitor. These Confederate swine fought for FAR WORSE EVIL than Benedict Arnold ever did. If anything, their previously honorable service makes their treason even MORE reprehensible.

    • Wrong. There is nothing in the constitution that denies any state the right to secede Do they not teach you civility or history at the academy. I’m sure you are an embarrassment to your associates.

      • Wrong….those men who swore an oath the to the Unites States broke that oath. Then they took up arms against the United States and killed United States civilian and military personal. That my friend is treason by definition. I would still vote for LTC West at the drop of a hat. David Allen Stanton thank you for your service, you are right sir.

      • Sorry, but you are perverting history. It was actually the other way around. Do some research for a change, and quit voting your emotions.

      • Wrong….those men who swore an oath to the Unites States broke that oath. Then they took up arms against the United States and killed United States civilian and military personal. That my friend is treason by definition. I would still vote for LTC West at the drop of a hat. David Allen Stanton thank you for your service, you are right sir.

      • Sorry, Tim, but you are wrong. Confederate military personnel were given strict instructions not to harass or target northern civilians or their property. Unfortunately, the North was far less nice in the treatment of our civilians as they ordered the direct targeting of homes, farms, etc. to starve the local populations of the South. Ultimately, that was the only reason they won the war.

        And secondly, most of the men in the South swore oaths to their States and the Constitution, not the federal government. Their allegiance was with their homes, and when they were ordered to invade and target their neighbors, they honorably chose the harder path and said no to tyranny. God bless every one of them.

      • Wait a minute. Southern states SEIZED federal property throughout the south including Harpers Ferry, the Navy Yard at Norfolk, Army posts in Texas and plenty of other places as well. These southern states STOLE property belonging to the National government and sometimes with the help of southern-sympathizing post and garrison commanders!

      • OK – then HOW do you explain the decision of native Virginians, Generals Scott and Thomas to side with the National government and against their native states? When it came down to it, it was ALWAYS a personal decision made after much soul-searching by honorable men who did their duty as they saw fit.

      • Where did you get that nonsense you just typed? Ku Klux Klan University? The atrocities of both sides are well documented. Ever read the constitution of the confederate states of america? Maybe you should get a copy and hand it out to our black countrymen and see what they think of it. Let me try to make this simple for you. When you made the commitment to were the uniform of the Unites States military and the obligations that came with that commitment. Then in the middle of that commitment you take off that uniform and put on the uniform of another country(confederate states of america) and then take up arms against the military you just deserted….That is treason period. No sugar coating it with family or state loyalty changes that. As far as losing the war goes there are many tactical and strategic reasons the confederate traitors lost. The biggest reason though…..THEY WE WRONG.

      • Tim West – Wrong. They were exercising their 2nd Amendment right. A well regulated militia is what they were. Just because they lost doesn’t make them traitors. They are still our countrymen and woman.

      • Whether there is a provision against secession or not, fighting a war to the prevent it is self defeating for both sides.

      • The States had already seceded before the war started so it wasn’t to prevent it but to restore the Republic.

      • You mean you have no access to the Preamble? The entire Constitution prohibits States from seceding. States are guaranteed a REPUBLIC FORM OF GOVERNMENT, not a confederacy.

      • You did not quote it – only stated your opinion. The Constitution still does not prohibit secession. 10th Amendment in particular.
        Oh, and what was the Confederation of States?

      • I saw something that said that even though the Federal Government had the Confederate President Jefferson Davis in custody they later released him without any charges because they didn’t want a court case to go to the Supreme Court. They feared they might lose if they argued that the states had no right to freely withdraw from something they had freely joined to begin with. (Oh, and technically it wasn’t a ‘Civil War’. It was a War of Secession.)

      • A ‘civil war’ is a war where the intent of the opposition is to overthrow the current government. The south had no wish to overthrow anyone. They just wanted to be free to establish their OWN government. Therefore it was not a ‘civil’ war but a war to secede.

      • Why don’t you study true history instead of propaganda. Davis was pardoned so that the nation could heal and the Government was never afraid that they’d lose in court. That is stupid. States have no right to secede. It was a war between ideologies.

      • And exactly what history book did you read that propaganda out of? And no one has said it WASN’T a war between ideologies. All of your statements are stupid.

      • The “Official” US Government name for the “Civil War” as it is known in the north and the “War Between the States” is the “War of the Rebellion.”

      • We also called it the ‘Vietnam War’. But, Jane Fonda couldn’t be prosecuted for treason because it wasn’t officially a ‘war’ it was a ‘police action’. They didn’t call it World War ONE either!

    • Your Job is definitely safe in this current administrations military. You might even make it to Admiral. Your thoughts are flawed. The federal Gov’t started a war then very much like the one that is beginning to brew again. Our founding fathers never intended for the federal govt to supersede states rights. You need a history lesson. These guys agreed with the founding fathers and their state was under attack by the US govt. You will make a very nice commander puppet for Obama’s radical take over.

      • People have rights and States have powers but no State had any justified moral or legal ground to rebel against the Republic. Our founders started off the Constitution with the Preamble that put the States TOGETHER, to form a more PERFECT UNION. So that is opposite from stating the Constitution gave its blessings for States to violate that constitution to commit treason.

      • Really? Are you making this up as you go along? The Constitution is silent on secession. Do some research for a change.

      • The COTUS is silent because there is no mechanism with which to enforce the association of states against their will. I suspect that the Founders would have been aghast at the idea of a civil war.

      • Learn to discern. Before the Constitution and the establishment of a REPUBLIC, there was the confederation, which was 13 colonies, 13 separate governments. Our founders, including those from the south, replaced that confederacy with a central government and 13 States as a UNION. Read also the Federalist Papers. They tell what should happen if the Federal Government violates the Constitution and turns against the people. We are to abolish the offending form, such as we have today, and restore the Republic form, which has been overthrown by commiecrats. We do that by overthrowing those in violations of the Constitution. We are not supposed to run away from the Republic like cowards but to fight for it in order to restore it to its intent. But the dem infested south during the civil war hated the republic as much as the commiecrats today hates it.

      • In case you haven’t figured it out and are still clinging to myth, the federalist papers along with the constitution are meaningless in today’s world as they were back then and only used when convenient.

    • Be careful when making that judgement, friend. By your definition, the founders committed the FAR WORSE EVIL when they committed treason against Great Britain, and treason they did commit. If you serve a state honorably and that state orders you to make war on your neighbors, would it be honorable to follow your orders? The Soviets might think so, but I certainly don’t and neither did the honorable men of the South. Simply because the South practiced slavery, an institution that was born, developed, and perpetuated by the North, does not change the fact that the South saw themselves as the successors to the Founders and were simply carrying on the tradition of 1775.

      Oh yeah, I almost forgot. The North invaded the South. Boiling down the argument to the bones, the South simply wanted to govern themselves as they saw fit. The North didn’t particularly like that. Honorable, huh?

      • You err. Britain committed treason against Natural Law. Whenever any form of Government becomes tyrannical it is the right and duty of the people to abolish it and institute NEW Government with the people’s natural rights in mind. Slavery was an institution in other countries long before this one was discovered. The South had a democrat monopoly and a Republican President jeopardized that monopoly and is the reason why the scumpond rebels committed treason against the Republic.

      • And everyone has their own standard as to the extent of their loyalty to a power that would abuse them.

      • Lincoln destroyed the Constitution during his reign. 1st Amendment Rights were the first to go, then others followed. Would you say then that Lincoln was a traitor?

      • And the South would have argued that the North had violated that natural law. The laws of the day time and time again benefited northern merchants and screwed southern planters. The national debt was almost entirely paid by southern exports. One of the huge reasons for secession was that Lincoln was elected without winning a single southern state. The south felt that they were not represented in government and thus seceded. That’s not a monopoly, friend. That is “taxation without representation.”

      • No, the south had violated natural law and the Republic US had a just cause for going to war. Natural laws are timeless and universal. Again, the south was a democrat monopoly so yeah, they wouldn’t want a Republican winning and jeopardizing that monopoly. the south was governed by anarchic inhumane democrats only and that is a monopoly.

    • Sir, I have to disagree with you. The Oath of Office sworn by all Officers is “I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God”

      At the time of the Civil War there was no clause regarding the secession of a State, Slavery was not ended. While both are disagreeable and the latter is abhorrent neither of them can qualify them as traitors.

      As pointed General Lee was honored in the post war as part of the unification efforts by the North to hold us together not apart. What these Generals did was pick the wrong side of a bad argument but they upheld their oath. To them the ability to secede was Constitutional and for that they fought, and lost.

      Do not let that tarnish their distinguished records. If at its most fragile and most fervent time in history the Nation could rise above and honor these men, we should be able to honor them for their good acts while still highlighting their ill.

      • I must offer a slight correction. The Oath that Generals Jackson and Lee would have taken is this.

        “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.”

        I pulled this from http://www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html

        In this case the would have been traitors outright. What is still an issue is the leaders of the time saw wisdom in honoring them instead. This effort by those who lived through the time seems much more wise to follow rather to reject 150 years later.

    • The founding fathers never intended the power of the federal govt to supersede states authority. Both of these men were affiliated with the VMI and their allegiance was fist to the state of Virginia and then to the US. The US military forcefully invaded the state of Virginia and that is exactly why These two great generals are patriots NOT turncoats. They were great leaders and after all both North and South are part of the United States, however I wish that it wasn’t. The civil war was not about slavery it was about taxation, and the federal govt today is continuing to push us in that direction again. The slavery issue was created to bolster support and a righteous purpose to continue the fight. Most of your past posts would lead me to think that a man like you would understand this. I still would like to say that I appreciate your service to this once great nation and may God Bless You and your family this Christmas.

    • I only looked at the DDG-2 class of ships because I served on two of them. The USS Buchanan DDG-14, the USS Semmes DDG-18, and the USS Waddell DDG-24 were named after Confederate naval officers. Your logic must explain why the one of those three I served on sucked so bad.

    • Mr Stanton, I’m sure your education has been tutored by those that were tutored by those that were tutored, by someone that failed to TEACH true history. BTW, when I enlisted in the US Navy, I swore an Oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and obey all legal orders given me by those appointed over me…… not to any specific government, and that is the same oath all military takes,,,my question to you, based on your comments above, if so ordered, will you fire on American citizens? Your idiotic statement fails to mention the Red Legs and the atrocities they committed under a commission and federal funding.

    • My young friend David Allen
      Stanton, I’m sure that your heart is in the right place but unfortunately your conclusions
      are far off the mark. There were great men on both sides of the conflict as
      well as men of questionable character. Since at my age I can afford to be
      politically incorrect especially when armed with the true facts and the
      documentation in both state and federal archival records, the only traitors
      during the war for Southern Independence were the 15th and 16th presidents
      along with the secretary of war and a few low level federal military officers.
      Those that conspired to intentionally violate the armistice between the United
      States and the state of South Carolina. The Civil War would’ve never become an
      armed conflict if not for that conspiracy. The problem was that two thirds of
      the revenue being collected by the federal government was from tariffs imposed
      in four southern states. The thought of losing that revenue was more than a few
      in Washington could accept. As representatives from South Carolina and from the
      United States government were engaged in negotiating a settlement for payment
      to the federal government for federal assets in the state of South Carolina president
      James Buchanan, President-elect Abraham Lincoln and others plotted to violate
      the armistice that had been negotiated with South Carolina by ordering
      reinforcements in men and supplies to Fort Sumter. This was a direct violation
      of the armistice. It was specifically prohibited in the text of the document
      and at the time of its occurrence federal assessors had already arrived at Fort
      Sumter to assess the value for the Fort to be paid by South Carolina. The
      conspirators also intentionally violated an agreement with the state of
      Florida. The purpose of the conspiracy was to force a military conflict with
      the states. The United States Constitution was specifically drafted in a way to
      allow states and territories to withdraw from the union and essentially that
      has not changed even to this day. The difference between 2013 and 1861 is that
      there was no mass media, television, or Internet in 1861. If there had been I’m
      sure that the war would’ve never happened or at the very least our 15th and
      16th presidents along with the Secretary of War and a few others would have
      been prosecuted for treason, extortion and murder. Many feel that the war
      between the states was fought over slavery. The fact remains that a number of
      northern states were slaves states right up until the adoption of the 13th
      amendment to the Constitution. The largest slave owner on the American
      continent during the Civil War was the United States government. The
      Confederate states essentially outlawed slavery through attrition within the
      Confederate states when the Confederate Constitution was ratified by the
      original five Confederate states. If one actually reads the text of the
      Emancipation Proclamation and the related executive orders issued by Abraham
      Lincoln you will find that it actually freed no slaves, only outlawed slavery
      in states engaged in armed conflict with the national government and
      specifically exempted northern states, territories, York County Virginia and
      Elizabeth city County Virginia which later became the city of Hampton. Lincoln
      thought that it be important not to interfere with the contraband slave program
      in effect at fortress Monroe Virginia since it was clear that it was an
      important mechanism to ensure that the United States government’s slave labor
      force would remain intact. There were definitely traitors in 1861 through 1865.
      The fact remains that none were on the Confederate side. That was the primary
      reason that president Jefferson Davis was never prosecuted and ultimately
      released from incarceration at fortress Monroe. Information that would have
      come to light during a public trial of Jefferson Davis would have been
      devastating to the United States government and could have potentially
      jeopardized the continuation of the union. World leaders, US Senators and
      Congressmen, state governors and many others would have been extremely
      interested in the trial and it would have been impossible for even the military
      during a tribunal to have kept the true facts from becoming public knowledge.
      History is history, there are some that may choose to try to rewrite it in
      history books but you simply can’t change it. It is what it is. Lieut. Col.
      West is correct in his opinion and I salute him for his stand.

  41. Kind of relimds me of Japan trying to keep what they did out of there history books. After hanging there for what about 150 years someone wants his 15 minutes of fame. Lee was not a traitor. he fought for his country, just a different side of it. Was every confederate soldier a trader, I think not. If the south would have won, would all the north be traitors, no. They deserve to be where they are no matter what your feels about them personally are. For those that say he did terrible thing, you think the north didn’t do just as bad. wake up.

      • Not likely. Gen’l Hunter burned VMI in June 1864. Gen’l Stuart burned Carlisle Barracks in June 1863 just days before the Battle of Gettysburg. You may want to review your namesake as well as temporal mechanics.

      • Yankees like Pope and Hunter were burning much more before then, including homes and slaughtering livestock. I wonder if tat counts as well? Hunter and those of his ilk were a war criminals – period. That was the point I was making. Which army was the invader here?

      • As I recall, correctly I will add, it was Southern forces that fired upon Ft Sumter, a Federal property. As for invasion, that can only happen if the land is preeminently independent which the Southern States certainly were – that was the goal of the secession and conflict. The Confederate States of America had to win the war to be independent and only if that had happened could one then claim the Federal forces were invaders. The South lost the war, failed there claim to independence, and lost the right to claim invasion. The North won the war, retained control of the country it already controlled, obviating any charge of invasion – it was US land before and after.

        The ultimate result of the Confederacy is that the Federal government extended lawful control into areas of American citizen’s lives, culture, and business that had not existed before the war. Thay legacy has come down to us today with the Federal gov’t defining who can and cannot marry, what we can and cannot grow and eat on our own land, what insurances we must buy under penalty of law, what our children must learn and our teachers must teach in schools, how clean our environment must be, and what temperature that environment must be even if reaching that ideal destroys the country and economy. In short, the Confederacy ultimately brought about calamities and calumnies never dreamt possible by the Founders. So, thank you, Jeff Davis, Bobby Lee, Tom Jackson, and all those who defend the “Southern Cause” and “that peculiar institution” today. Thank you so much, bless your hearts.

      • If you knew true history, you would know that Lincoln maneuvered and provoked the battery at Charleston to fire on Sumter, after the Union forces were warned not to sail warships into the harbor. This is an old trick we still use today in order to justify invasion. Example: Gulf of Tonkin.
        The war was all about consolidation of power, money and dominion. The Southern States were forced back into the union at bayonet’s point. The Constitution is silent concerning secession, so it had to be settled on the battlefield by the industrial north. Lincoln paved the way for “big” government and consolidation of power as we know it today, and not Lee, Jackson and Davis. Your comments reflect that you are voting your emotions.

      • And the rebel forces had the option to not fire. No one reached into their heads and pushed the “fire” button. It was entirely possible to let the fort be resupplied as Washington City had the right and obligation to do, as it was scheduled to be and not trigger a civil war. It was entirely the rebels decision to trigger the war they so much wanted and so obviously could not win.

        True, the Constitution is silent concerning secession and that silence speaks loudly that it was a right reserved for the states and the people. However, the reverse of that argument is that any and all governments instituted as a union of states has the inherent right of self-preservation and self-defense. That was Lincoln’s argument, and it carried the day. Rebel and face the consequences. As they say, “When you shoot at the king, be sure you kill him.” The rebels were unprepared for war, especially the eventual all-out modern warfare of Grant and Sherman. Chivalrous warfare had died on the fields of France, but the southern gentlemen of a military mind didn’t get the memo. They lost, their argument lost, and the Union was preserved as it had a right to be.

        On the contrary, your knee jerk defense of the defenseless position that the peculiar institution was right, honorable, and was in any way justifiable reflects that you are voting with your emotions rather than the facts that were so plainly obvious even in 1860. Slavery was the cause. Slavery was and remains indefensible.

        I do hope I haven’t caused you to get your petticoats in to big a knot.

      • Actually, in case you missed it, Lincoln got the war he wanted. Raising 75,000 troops to invade thru Virginia is pure evidence of that. Virginia was still in the Union at that point. Neither side was prepared for war, and thought it would be over rather quickly. What is “all out modern war” in your terminology? This type of “all out ‘modern’ warfare” is no longer practiced today for reasons you may not understand. And does your preferred form of all out modern warfare include the burning of cities, killing of innocent civilians and
        shipping the survivors away from their homeland, destruction of food supplies and farmland? That is the type of warfare raged by war criminals like Sherman and Sheridan, who by the way, went on to commit partial genocide against the Native Americans. Bravo!!! (with your choice of words)!!! This genocide was also an ongoing affair during Lincoln’s reign of terror.
        Obviously, you still believe in fairy tales and myths. No knee jerk reaction on my part, I just delve into the deeper part of history that you are unfamiliar with and ignore. So I hope I didn’t get your knickers in a knot over some real facts, and throw some hard reality into the mix.

      • Oh, my! Still with the temporal mechanics problem. Lincoln raised the troops AFTER the rebels attacked Ft Sumter.

        Although it’s called “modern warfare,” Sherman used the same tactics as Julius Ceasar.

        Genocide, though not called so at the time, was regularly practiced by the Indians (the preferred collective term) long before Europeans ever reached the shores of the continent and continued long after. That style of warfare was the primary reason it was adopted against the Indians. Have you ever heard of the Erie and what happened to them? Probably not.

        There is no such thing as “real facts” as facts are, ipso facto, real. “Real facts” implies there are false facts which, if indeed false, cannot be facts by definition.

  42. Their cause was flawed, however the men weren’t. It was a very difficult time in our history, and one should ask themselves if they were born in that time, had the credentials and found they were born in the geographic location these generals did, which “side” of America would they fight for. I am sure in my heart that most who were honorable had the most difficult decision to make, to leave one oath of office and take up arms against their country of birth for another that they found to be right according to their up-bringing. Hard choices by honorable men. It is what makes all men stand back and ponder their futures and fates. Thank God I don’t have to make that kind of decision. Peace be with you during our country’s time.

    • The people of the time did not think of the United States of America as their country of birth nor the country to which they owed allegiance. Each persons country was the State – Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Tennesee, New York, Massachusetts, Maryland, etc – not the greater landmass we call home. As Ken Burns explained in his series “The Civil War”, before the war Americans said, “The United States are…,” after the war Americans said, ” the United States is.” E pluribus unum – From the many, one.

      • I disagree. There were many celbrations, North and South, on the occasion of the 4th of July, and presidential elections were a big issue. If the people didn’t feel affection towards the idea of united states, this would not be so. The War Between the States was a war of ideas and a defense of the 10th Amerndement. Slavery just happened to be the bone of contention at the time but it could just as well have been any other feeral usurpation of power that happened to exist at the time, slavery being the most contentious. Even today we take issue with the federal government’s destruction of state’s sovereignty. The fact that our federal government has destroyed the concept that its powers are few and enumerated is something that could very well put us at loggerheads once again.

  43. As of yesterday the people of Jacksonville, Florida voted to remove R. B. Forrest as their High School Name. This was decided by the people of that particular district.

    The school is real old and unfortunately people were not thinking when deciding on a name. Happy they solved this problem.

  44. its truly amazing how ignorent many people are concerning the american civil war, and the reasons behind it…i guess they should also tear the statue off the top of the white house as Mr. Jefferson Davis had quite a lot to do with it being up there if not mistaken…slavery, as an important issue, was only brought to the forefront after mr lincoln realized that without some type crutch to stand on he would surely lose a re-election…he said as much in a biography concerning him, that he reviewed himself before publication…the South was fighting for states rights, against the very things that today have enslaved most of the population…this act was in no way dishonorable, and is covered well by the constitutions, both of them..of course the Confederate Constitution is merely, for most, now just a wall decoration in Alabama now….the men this article speaks of were great men, no matter who they fought for…Lee’s Tactics are studied to this day in military schools throughout the states…he could, and did on several occasions, very effectively take 5000 under armed, under fed, and under clothed soldiers, and not only whip well over 5 to 10 times his number, that were well armed, well fed, etc,, but literally run them from the fields of battle…That is greatness..That should be honored..not some b/s you learned {wrongly} in school, you know, just like we traded beads and coins for this whole country….hogwash

    • Lincoln was always opposed to slavery he did what he could when he could ibut it took 650,000 lives to end slavery no one man could have done it. It took a war to end it Lincoln was a great man and a great president

      • Learn your history and get away from the Lincoln myth. The war was not fought over slavery. It was fought, in Lincoln’s own words, to preserve the union, regardless of whether slaves were freed or not. Read some real history for a change.

  45. While we are on the issue of revisionist history the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t free the slaves, it says that all slaves in the North are free men (all women were considered property until 1876), but if the South would cease hostilities against the North slavery would continue in the South, but not West of Missouri as per The Compromise of 1850.

  46. Gezzzzzzz, Give it a break already, It’s been over 150yrs. All Southern Generals ect were welcomed back to the union if they wished. The Northern State’s weren’t lily white when it came to slavery and there acting Holier than thou about the history of the war of the aggression ( The Civil War) to those state’s in the Northern Climate’s, Slave ship’s were built in the north,not the south. In fact, the first slave owner on the Northern American Continent was a man named ANTHONEY JOHNSTON from AFERICA. his case was adjudicated in 1655 UNDER THE BRITISH FLAG. Stating that yes one man could OWN another man. That said,I do believe that the military tactic used by Gen. N. Schwarzkoph during Desert storm came from the War of Aggression.
    That said I do believe that the Job of the Army war Collage is to study war, Not condemn past general’s from another SOCIETY of our past history. NO CIVILISATION is Free of mistakes. we hopefully learn from those mistakes and move on troop.
    May God Bless America
    Delta
    There are still things worth fighting for,There are still things worth dieing for and one of those things is,
    FREEDOM Gen. N. Schwarzkoph

  47. There was a 6th Century Buddha in Afghanistan until Moslems blew it up because it didn’t fit in with notions of how the world should bel

  48. Politics aside Rep. Charles Rangel did serve his country in uniform. He earned the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. While he would never see the day I would vote for him or defend his politics I appreciate his service to our country and respect him for that as I appreciate and respect you for yours. I would not be offended to see a portrait of him in uniform be displayed anywhere. If I were Speaker of the House I might have a yard sale with his portrait as a politician front and center.

  49. This is an awesome post, my forefathers brothers, born in Virginia, lost his life in Andersonville, Georgia and another in near Harpers Ferry, Va. fighting the South. We should try to respect our military officers, that once served this great nation.

  50. Lee was offered the position of commander of the army of Lincoln and turned it down. Not because he disagreed in principle, but because he felt a higher loyalty to Virginia. That being said, he was the military genius of his time with Jackson a close second. For their pictures to hand in the college is a statement of the college’s ability, and not the generals beliefs

    • Except, Ray, the constitution was written to ensure that loyalties did not lie with a strong federal govvy, but with strong individual states. And that was what the war was about – the south contributed 70% of the U.S. revenues, yet the north was cramming law after law down their throats. They took the constitutional option to leave – completely legal, as noted by the best legal minds of the day. The entire war was fought to ensure the south was completely enslaved to the north, and to ensure that we would suffer forever under a centralized government bent on stealing and destroying our liberty and freedom. They have done a great job of just that since 1865.

      • You are so correct. To paraphrase the COTUS, the federal government’s powers are few and enumerated. The idea of a large government ruling all others and acting against their will is a modern concept, and a false one.

    • No sir, Mr. King, Mr. Rangel did not. Now I do not care one bit for Mr. Rangel’s politics or other issues, but he is a decorated combat veteran of the Korean war, trapped in the worst of the fighting there was. I have two friends, one living, one deceased, that were there from the beginning at Khe Sahn(I hope I spelled that right) to being trapped at the Chosin Reservoir and trying to survive the worst winter weather seen there in hundreds of years, while fighting off wave after wave of North Koreans, and later the Red Chinese Army as Russia fed them supplies, guns, ammo, jets, fighters, pilots, fuel and other war equipment. My friends told me that it was so cold that when a man got shot his blood would freeze before they hit the ground, and that they crawled over more piles of dead bodies than they care to remember. Mr. Rangel was there too, for that he has my respect. Those men made it through Hell, please don’t excoriate him for that. MacAurthur was right, should’ve nuked them.

  51. This is ridiculous. Generals Lee and Jackson were great military men who did themselves proud. They stood by their principles and General Jackson died in defense of those principles. Of course their portraits should be displayed.

    • What! Robert E. Lee did not die during the civil war, therefore to say he died in defense of his principles is a grossly incorrect statement.

      • Please reread the post you commented on, nothing was said about General Jackson dying for his principles.

      • True, and Ty if you study the war you will see the tremendous sacrifice made by Lee and countless others, that gave their strength, their lives and everything they owned to the war effort. Lee died shortly after the war, and I can understand how the war probably effected his life afterwards. It’s hard for us to imagine today what it must have been like to lose your home, your farms, your treasure, your family, your health and your future. I’d say he paid a huge price to serve his Virginia. (And if Gettysburg had been successful for him, Gen Lee’s picture might have been hanging in the White House!)

      • I actually have studied the war, and continue studying it often. As is the case with not just this war, but most wars, there is a winner and a loser. The confederate army lost in this case. But to be quite honest, many hundreds of thousands of people lost everything they owned, including their lives. It’s unfortunate that it lasted as long as it did. there were a number of times the union army could have ended the war, but General Mcclellan dragged his feet and would not charge Lees army for lack of confidence. Had General Grant been in charge, the entire conflict would’ve ended two years earlier. Col. Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain deserves as much praise as any general during the was as well.

      • Yes Ty, and it really sickens me that Lincoln could also have ended the war before the destruction of the South but chose to wait until after the votes on the 13th Amendment. The blood of thousands are on his hands for this alone. It was a wicked war and intentionally punished the South well beyond reason, which led to Booth’s actions. The South had a right to separate from the North. Today I wonder what would have been the outcome in history if the war had not happened.

      • I did reread your comment, and I stand corrected. Jackson did die during the war, but so did hundreds of thousands of others for their principles on both sides.

  52. I respect you but even you Colonel Allen do not know our country’s history well enough. The South did not go to war to preserve slavery. Nor did the North, especially the murder Lincoln fight the war for the end of slavery. Lincoln killed over 650,000 military Americans, over 100,000 of civilian southerners (Old men, women and children) and more than 1.5 million horses and mules. Four Southern states paid 90% of the nations taxes of 35 states. Andrew Jackson backed down when South Carolina threatened to leave the Union. Much like the state of Massachusetts threatened to do at the end of the War of 1812. They did not want to help repay the war debt. Please read the Emancipation Proclamation. You obviously have not. It did not stop slavery in northern states. It brought the moral issue of slavery into the works when England and France were about to aid the South. Europe backed out. What happened to the northern ranks when the soldiers read the Emancipation Proclamation? They left in large numbers. What about the race riots in New York City. They ran out of empty street pole. So many innocent black were murdered, by hangings, by the “Slave Hating” citizens of NYC! Lee freed his slaves. Jackson NEVER had any slaves. Jackson sent money back to Lexington VA to support the black Sunday school and Church programs he started when a resident of Lexington. Teaching at VMI. Nathan Bedford Forrest DID NOT start or was ever a part of the KKK. One senile man at the age of 80 ‘remembered’ seeing General Forrest with members of the klan when he was younger. The Klan are terribly misusing my ancestors flag of GOD & Country for hate. I wished I could stop them. They fly the US Flag too. That too an injustice. General Sherman owned seventeen slaves. Hated blacks. Wrote his wife it is better to kill all southern citizens and repopulate the south. Read “War Crimes Against Southern Civilians”. Research the Stephen Douglas Dishonest Abe Lincoln debates to see how little Lincoln felt for the blacks. If Lincoln freed the slaves, why did it take so many years for blacks to legally live in the state of Illinois? GOD Bless Martin Luther King but WHY??? DID it have to take so long that a great man like him have to bring to light the injustice this country.

    • He HAS to say that. He’s a Republican. That’s Something Else BAD about this ‘Party’ Crap. The Republicans of NOW… Always Liken ‘Slavery’to The Democrats. But in TRUTH… The Republicans Of That Day…Most of them DID NOT care for Black people. The WAR WASN’T Started to Free slaves. It was Started to ‘Force the South Back into the Union’! The North Made Money off of the South,and Taxed the hell out of them also. But All of the Republican Politicians,ALWAY s use slavery to put down Democrats. The Truth is… Back THEN,was a Different time. As Deplorable as Slavery was,You Can’t Compare it to People and times of today. There NEVER should have Been a war. There’s NO WAY it was Worth 1 million American deaths! I(f the Yankees were sincere…they should have been willing to wait,and Negotiate. These NEW DAY,politicians (Especially Republicans) Need to READ,what Really Happened,and See That it was INDEED Unconstitutional And UnLawful…to do what they did to the South.

  53. Too bad Mr. West misunderstands history, as usual. The war was not about slavery, did not “end” slavery, sir. But thank you for speaking out against the stupidity and ignorance of these clowns aiming to remove the portraits of America’s true heroes. They were the last ones to fight for the freedom and liberty our constitution once enshrined and protected. Not any more, not since the Confederate States of America were illegally invaded and forced into submission by an oppressive and vengeful U.S.A.

    • The South would not have seceded had it been for the slavery (in America as a state sanctioned & codified institution) issue.

  54. What a bunch of idiots…trashing a person for their beliefs…wait isn’t that what the GLBT’s are always whining about?

  55. The Civil War has been called “The American Iliad” it was a tragedy. But there were brave men and honorable men on both sides.

  56. The New Military won’t need to know history, better if they don’t. All they’ll need is a willingness to gun down all who won’t bow to Obama.

    • Don’t despair, Wm556; I have found after my years of service, that our young fighting men (and women) will know when America is in trouble and they will stand shoulder to shoulder in her defense. In so many “emergencies” I have witnessed our young military men (from different branches), put aside the petty bickering and work to overcome the “danger”. It was GREAT to see ! BUT Wm, THAT’S WHO WE ARE.. God bless you and yours. Have a Merry Christmas.

      • Ken, I’m retired Navy, my son-in-law is active duty. He and I are of the opinion that if the SHTF, the vast majority of active duty people will do what they’re told. I can see how that could happen…

  57. Those of you who believe that secession would have been a positive thing for this county should realize that the South was an agrarian society, incapable of defending itself from efforts of reposession by the British. The full industrial and warmaking might of the British Empire might well have tempted them to re-take half of this nation, had the South prevailed in their effort to secede.

    • If those in the South had succeeded in keeping the Union army at bay, it seems unlikely that they’d have then succumbed to the British, whose logistics would have been much more difficult and expensive. And during this era the UK was already withdrawing from North America, in that Canada was peacefully becoming functionally independent. So the Confederacy and the UK would have ended up in a close trading relationship, and perhaps even an alliance, but that’s all.

      • The British navy and their merchant fleet were far superior in size to ours, and considering their empire was at its peak, extending all the way to India and China, with colonial and domestic armies to subdue their adversaries, I suggest that the South could have succumbed, if the British had been inclined to take them on. A weak and agrarian South would have been a tempting target, and way to satisfy any lingering resentments to losing the colonies. Strangely, ss late as WWI the British still had contingency go-to-war plans that included the U.S. as an adversary. Fortunately, despite their inclination to side with the South, good sense prevailed in the end.

  58. I could see having a problem with Nathan Bedford Forrest, given he formed the first incarnation of the KKK, but definitely not the two mentioned above or any other Confederate military leader that comes to mind.

    • Forrest also disbanded the Klan AND did this:
      The Independent Order of Pole Bearers Association (a forerunner of the NAACP), invited General Forrest, the first white man ever invited, to speak at their convention on July 5, 1875. During his speech, too much applause, Bedford said: “I came here with the jeers of some white people, who think that I am doing wrong. I believe I can exert some influence, and do much to assist the people in strengthening fraternal relations, and shall do all in my power to elevate every man – to depress none. (Applause.) I want to elevate you to take positions in law offices, in stores, on farms, and wherever you are capable of going.” Forrest went on to say, “I came to meet you as friends, and welcome you to the white people. I want you to come nearer to us. When I can serve you I will do so. We have but one flag, one country; let us stand together. We may differ in color, but not in sentiment. Many things have been said about me which are wrong, and which white and black persons here, who stood by me through the war, can contradict. Go to work, be industrious, live honestly and act truly, and when you are oppressed I’ll come to your relief.”

  59. Erasing people is what the libs do. They find it soothing and beneficial to rewrite history to their view of how things need to be remembered – even if things did not happen the way they want them remembered. Taking out significant Confederate leaders within a war is just plain stupid. Would Rommel be removed from history because he fought for a bad cause? Would we only see those who fought on our side and only know those attributes that are ascribed to the leaders who we choose to honour? If so, then we are doomed to the flavour of the month club view of history and will have no bitter to offset sweet, no salt to offset bland. It will all be bland, and weak vanilla. And we will all think alike. And it will become Orwellian 1984.

  60. lets stop trying to change civil war history and leave as is and lets bring back the confederate flag history im sick of people who tries to change history

  61. Col. West, you are right on point. Both of these men were godly men who sought to do the right thing in a horrible situation. Lee was very much opposed to slavery and lobbied for slaves to be recruited into the army and given their freedom. He spoke against slavery at the highest levels of the Confederate government. While Jackson did not speak out against slavery, and owned slaves, he made no statement in favor of it either. What is certain is that, as a Christian, he understood that he had an obligation to treat his slaves with dignity and respect. In fact, he treated them so well, that two slaves sought him out and ask that he buy them. He granted both requests. Neither man was evil and a war criminal like Forest was,

  62. Revision of history serves only to point out how deluded those are that would attempt to revise something that happened nearly 150 years ago, instead of learning the lesson of history offered them. Same mentality as deny it and it therefore does not exist.

  63. We after all this time cannot judge the turmoil that both of these men may have felt. Both were respected leaders in our military that had to make a difficult choice to leave an institution that they loved and return to their states. The union in 1861 was not as strong as it is today. Leave these great leaders alone and appreciate that they loved their country but followed their conscious…..it may have been wrong but they were men of integrity…..something lacking in today’s politicians

  64. Lee also led federal troops against John Brown when he took over Harpers Ferry. He fought with the USA in the war against Mexico. He graduated #1 in his class at West Point and was the only person to graduate with NO demerits. That is unheard of. Jackson was just amazing. They fought with their states. Who would fight with the federal government against their home state..?? Really? They were men of incredible honor.

    • Jackson was also an artillery officer in the Mexican War. He also saw service in Florida, and found his chosen religion in New York.

  65. We also, early in WWII used a tank called the General Lee. There are forts all over the country named for Confederate generals. We also had a Stuart tank…

  66. Why shouldn’t an alumni picture be displayed? (R E Lee) Interesting. It is history regardless of the thoughts of modern man. It is interesting that you brought that up. I had been researching ‘chivalry’ the true meaning.. Dr. Abels (USN Academy) wrote why “Stonewall” Jackson was hired. Lee felt that gentlemen could only spar against gentlemen. He didn’t feel that Sherman was a gentleman so in came Stonewall. Grant and Lee were gentlemen and could spar only with each other. The in history Sherman advised the Germans warfare etc… and so on.

  67. In all respect to Allen West, Nathan Bedford Forrest did not join the Klan to terrorize black people and when it began it’s reign of terror, he did his best to disband the Klan. In fact, he not only attempted to disband the Klan, but he later in life advocated suffrage for black Americans. You can find the speech on several Southern web sites and if you doubt it’s existence, the New York Times obituary for Forrest mentions his bold call to reconciliation and equality. These are historical facts, though depending on your interpretation of Fort Pillow, you could view him as a war criminal. Let’s be honest though, our nation’s history is not squeaky clean. We need to see the good, the bad, and the ugly.

  68. As conservatives we fight as fragments of states subordinated to the will of the Masters of the Universe who rule an powerful central government. If we don’t achieve what we want today political means, our successors will have to do it tomorrow by Clausevitz way.

  69. “Luckily the Union forces prevailed and the heinous practice of slavery was ended.” Excuse me, Mr. West, but perhaps you should study a bit more history yourself. The war was over economics and the size and scope of government. The wrong side obviously one. Just take a look around you and see the results.

    • I suggest you read the articles on slavenorth.com by a yankee in PA who discovered the North’s role in slavery. the war was fought to keep the Union together. Lincoln didn’t care if slaves were freed or not if it saved the Union. If you do not know this you are definitely ignorant or have not studied the War for Southern Independence. Also free blacks fought for the Confederacy see Ricardo Rodriguez book Black Confederates in the Civil War, a list of all their records.

      • Along this line about Lincoln…Lincoln was actually trying to get the Congress to raise a million dollars to repatriate the slaves in the south back to Africa. One of the things he said was, “If I could save the Union by freeing some of the slaves I would…If I could save it by freeing all of the slaves I would…If I could save it by freeing none of the slaves, I would do that too.” In many books written by Union soldiers referring to their time in service, many didn’t give a “tinker’s da** about the Negros.”
        Again, I’m not trying to offend anyone…just relaying a little history. These quotes are well documented. Also, in reference to your fact that Blacks also fought for the Confederacy, many were freed men, others went to war with their owners to “watch their back” so to speak, and to help take care of them. Many a slave held a genuine sense of duty to go to war, because they felt like it was their country too. Many of these black men were also Plantation owners and slave owners themselves. I know…you will all scoff at the notion, but all you have to do is a little research and you’ll find it. Some authors to check out would be Shelby Foote, Rice C. Bull, (Real Soldiering)…many others.

      • By the third year of the war, President Lincoln was certain that the slaves had to be freed, and many of a were allowed to fight for the union. Lincoln had been a virtual slave of his father, who sold him out as a worker for money he could not keep. He had also seen a slave auction in the south and felt it one of the worst things he’d ever seen. Blacks were sold as if they were animals, and Lincoln knew it. His wife Mary was the daughter of a Kentucky slaveholder. While it took several years for Lincoln to verbalize his feelings about slavery, he abhorred it.

      • Lincoln hated slavery is correct. He also thought whites were superior than blacks. Read the Lincoln-Douglas debates. He stated he did not believe blacks should have equal rights. He wanted to ship them out. Better read Thomas di Lorenzo’s books that give the real portait of Lincoln.

    • I disagree most heartily in your discussion of “the wrong side…won” Biggest bit of nonsense I’ve ever heard. There were states like Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin that produced many commodities for the entire country. They were bought at auction by everyone who was interested. Scope of government was never an issue. The biggest issue was States Rights, and it remains so!

  70. The civil war was fought to keep salves by the northern states . The south had already given salves freedom . The north want to keep them enslaved for free labor for their companies . Right or wrong ? I think the constitution and the bill of right come from the federalist papers ?

    • Total lie and obfuscation on your part. Pull your head out of your fourth point of contact and get some education.

      The civil war was fought when, first, South Carolina declared secession from the Union based on the fact that Abraham Lincoln was elected president. Their declaration specifically states that they were leaving the union because of the slave issue. They signed the papers on 24 December, 1860. Several other states followed right after.

      The rise of the Republican Party was a grass roots effort of abolitionists. After Senator Charles Sumner was beaten nearly to death by Representative Preston Brooks on 22 May, 1856. Brooks was never arrested or indicted, which caused much outrage. The Whig party, which was the predecessor of the Republican Party, would soon be lost to history because of its lack of backbone.

      There is much more in the background of the civil war and what lead up to it to really post here. It wasn’t about economics as some are stating elsewhere, but specifically about slavery. Read the actual documents.

      • No doubt slavery was an issue, but not the primary issue. Around1850, the Southern tier of states produced about 80% of the revenue for the U.S., in the form of cotton, tobacco, and other forms of agriculture. Only about 10% of the southern population owned slaves, and the majority of slave owners didn’t beat their slaves…it would be counter productive. During the war, in the city of Mobile, it was against the law to beat a slave. Meaning no offense to anyone, and not in defense of the practice, but these people were kept to keep the farm producing, and you can bet your bottom dollar that the U.S. government profited from their use.

      • I’ve read quite a few of the documents, and it seems almost universal that any given person will have things twisted somewhere in a major fashion. For instance, there were three major documents in the secession of South Carolina. The title “Immediate Causes” clearly speaks to the existence of multiple causes. Northern states and the federal government were harassing the southern states in various ways to pressure them on the slave issue, just as our open borders, in violation of constitutional mandate, are being used for political manipulation today. The northern states harbored accused murderers and encouraged insurrection. There were plenty of barefoot, backwoods men poor as dirt that could never hope to afford a slave- and many having been slaves themselves- that went to war on the side of the south- not for the cause of slavery, but for the cause of freedom. Yes, slavery was a travesty- even willing indentured servitude. The dissolution of the union was tragic, but they saw no alternative. The compact forming the union had been abused for one-sided use. Men fighting shoulder to shoulder had varied reasons for the fight, on both sides. As Lincoln was in the habit of doing whatever he wanted, including ignoring the judicial branch altogether and stacking the courts, what recourse was there? Lincoln said himself he did not care about the slave issue except in the territories. Should Frederick Douglass be dismissed as incompetent when he announced, mid-war, that the war must be made about slavery? Was Lincoln justified in the execution of tens of thousands of conscientious objectors? This was no one-sided moral slam dunk. It was a complex issue. As shocking as it may seem to some, this was a big deal for the indigenous peoples as well. The nation was not neatly divided among saintly to the north and evil incarnate to the south. The blatant racism on shows like The Jeffersons and Archie Bunker wasn’t based in Mississippi. Laws forbidding non-white ownership of land or migration were not forced upon northern states by the south. It’s time people north and south, black, white, native and otherwise, wake up and realize they’ve been manipulated for political reasons by people that have been dead for more than a century! The hate needs to stop!

      • If you take the word Lincoln out of your discussion and insert Obama, most of your comments would be true today.

      • You are the one who needs to stop buying into liberal, neo-conservative malarky about what you call the Civil War. Only 7 States seceded when Lincoln was elected. The other 4 Virginia, N Carolina, Arkansas, and Tennessee seceded after Ft. Sumter because they would not send troops to invade the other States. That’s the start of what info you’re lacking.

      • Yes, the first seven States decided to leave for what reason…? Slavery. The follow-on to that from the other four States is based off of their own internal political and philosophical ideals. For Tennessee, the request by Lincoln for troops did agitate the people, even Unionists, with the fear of a federal invasion of its fellow Southern States.

        There were other slave-states that did not secede. There were a lot of factors that were involved that just in this forum, can’t be thoroughly discussed, as I noted.

        I found this site to be of good use:

        http://www.civilwar.org/

      • Don’t toot yer horn too fast. If the war was about slavery explain West Virginia. West Virginia seceded(which the North said was illegal) and joined the Union as a slave state in June 1863. The Emancipation Proclamation went into effect in January 1863, when W. VA. was part of Virginia. Therefore by Lincoln’s decree W. VA. slaves should have been freed.

        Sure slavery was a major factor but it was not the reason the Union started the war. None of us Southrons deny our role in the horrible institution of slavery, but the North needs to fess
        up to their role. Go see slavenorth.com and let us have a healthy balanced discussion.

    • Michael, have you actually studied the period of heinous slave owning in the USA? I would think not, if you believe the slaves were kept by Northerners.
      While it is true that throughout the 1700s some Northerners kept a few slaves, the REAL slave owners were the southern plantation owners, especially those who owned lands planted with cotton and sugar cane. These poor slaves were
      owned by the hundreds, usually by whites who worked them to death, starting at the age of 6-12 years. Please do yourself a favor and take a look at an encyclopedia to study slavery under the letter “S”. At the very beginning of this country white “indentured servants” also were “owned” by other whites to work off certain debts. Although these whites were technically “free”, after they worked off their debt, they too were poorly treated.

      • this is simply not true, there were more slave in the state of Massachusetts in 1860 than in the entire Confederacy. Northern slaves were forced to work in factories. The civil war was about states rights.

      • Please notice I never spoke of Virginia at all. It was practically a northern state. I have no argument over slavery in the North, prior to 1800, obviously slaves were there, as I discussed. Gen. Robt. E. Lee was a wonderful Army strategic officer who knew how to handle men in many situations, and his men loved him. He was a Godly, honorable man who simply could not fight against his “countrymen”. I admire him greatly, even though his wife owned several slaves, they were not mistreated, even though they remained slaves. Frankly I doubt the numbers of slaves in Massachusetts were anywhere near that in the whole south, as I find no record of this at 1860. Earlier, perhaps.

      • Also, the Mills in Massachusetts wove cotton produced in the south by slave owners. By 1800, Mass. was busy enslaving the white children for about ten cents a day.

      • Technically, you’re correct, a BLANKET INDICTMENT, like your first post on this thread can in no way be compared to an attack on an individual. That doesn’t make you any less of a troll. And I really dislike trolls-they’ve taken a term for my favorite form of fishing, and converted it into a term of disparagement.

      • If you are speaking of the CSA you are speaking of Virginia, and she never was a Northern state.

      • Ms. Mercury, one source for your information may be sufficient for an 8th grade 1 1/2 page homework theme, but it is hardly sufficient for intellectual discussion. While slaves started work at an early age, many white children were put to work as well because their parents needed help to run the farm. Again, I would suggest that the majority of slaves were decently (not famously) taken care of, because if they were sick, they couldn’t work. They were provided shelter, (no, not like the big house) and a small plot to have their own gardens. Many whites of the period didn’t have it near as well.

      • When I enter a discussion, it is to discuss something. I am a college graduate who has a great interest in US history. Unless you are a professor of US History, don’t judge me by your own standards. You can’t even spell Leprechan!! When you put down someone else, it merely shows your own ignorance.

      • You missed the point…but college grad or not, I doubt that any constructive information I might submit would make any difference in your opinion of the subject matter anyway. Your first post begins with negativity…again, missing the point of the discussion. I would also submit that whatever I am ignorant about with regard to this subject, I do know that my Lepricahn is an incorrect spelling, as is yours. It’s actually spelled Leprechaun, that is, unless you are willing to debate Mr. Webster about his perceived ignorance.

      • Not at all, I just didn’t bother to look up a word I don’t care about.
        But go ahead and denigrate those of us who disagree with your points. It doesn’t mean you are correct, just a boor.

      • If you don’t care about a word.Then why would you use it to try and come back on someone? At least make sure your comeback is properly covered so people don’t take you as a boor!

      • Not at all, I just didn’t bother to look up a word I don’t care about.
        HUMMMMMMMMM – so much for accuracy when refuting arguments and insulting people.

      • Neither did I, I’m just of Irish descent. I would like to point out that YOU were the one who started the whole denigration thing…..

      • When did being a college graduate mean you are smarter than someone else? College is a means to learn it has little to do with your intellectual levels.

      • Neither can you you. It is L-E-P-R-E-C-H-A-U-N, not LEPRECHAN. The college you went to should have taught you how to spell. P.S. I’m a college dropout. Got bored with academe, and went to see the world.

      • Naturally white children worked at an early age in the family farm, and they still do. My own Dad was splitting wood by the age of six, and taking care of the smokehouse by age 10. On the farm all children work, unless there is a special reason they can’t. My own grandchildren began taking care of the chickens at age nine.
        Responsibility is good for children.

    • You are partially correct, in that slaves were still held in captivity in the states of Maryland, and Delaware. Ohio did not even permit blacks to live in the state. Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation actually freed NO ONE. The statement, concerning all slaves in bondage within the states of rebellion are now and forever free, had no teeth, as the Confederate states were a separate country where Lincoln had no jurisdiction over any one, or anything, except by way of forced tyranny. The south had concluded it would most likely end slavery if they had won their objectives. However, the fact that they hadn’t yet, convinced England not to intervene on the side of the south. N.B. Forrest was actually honored by the NAACPs predecessor, The Independent Order of Pole Bearers in 1875. http://livinghisstoryministries.blogspot.com/2012/01/nathan-bedford-forrests-speech-to.html This may shed a little light on the idea that he was a venomous Klan leader looking for the heads of ex-slaves.

      • And that so called freedom document also specifically by name exempted the counties and parishes in the south then under federal control. How anyone who actually ever read it sould say it was a freedom document is beyond me.

  71. Thank you congressman for this We at the Sons of Confederate Veterans appreciate your contribution. Be it known that we have many black Americans who are also members of the SCV. It was SCV member Mr. Nelson Winbush, a black American whose testimony encouraged me to join and be proud of my Confederate ancestors.

    • It seems now everything is about political correctness! But I am sure that a southern museum would love to have the pictures of Robert E. Lee & of Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson! Why would a war college object to the pictures of two General’s in American history is beyond me!

  72. I would like to point out that while Nathan Bedford Forrest started the KKK soon after the war was over that it was originally to protect the slaves from the plantation owners as he testified to the U.S. Senate. He disassociated hinself from the KKK when they turned against blacks.

  73. Maybe if a few people actually knew the word of a God they could demonstrate a degree of intelligence … 1 Corinthians 6:9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

  74. I think this is awesome. Look at all these Americans gaining or attempting to gain knowledge about our history. Great forum Mr. West.

  75. it’s important to note that Robert E Lee freed all of his slaves before the war, and Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, a devout Presbyterian, never owned any.

    • Actually, Lee’s slaves were owned by his wife and her family, and they were not many. Truthfully they were freed when the Northern Army came through Virginia, although I’m certain that they would have been freed by he and his wife, in time.

      • yeah and Ulysses s grant’s wife owned slaves too, but didn’t release them until Lincoln issued the emancipation proclamation. i think we can all agree slavery wasn’t the main cause of the civil war like it is was portrayed by the union.

      • Actually Lee freed them himself. And as I posted earlier go to slavenorth.com if you’re not afraid to see the truth about you yankees trying to erase your slave owning, slave trading, free black abusing past. Why do you think the Underground railroad ended in Canada?

      • Yeah, free blacks were used everywhere in the North as scabs (strikebreakers). That’s why they had the NY draft riots.

    • And a Northern General stole the HOME OF ROBERT E. LEE, with the full backing of the President! Arlington House in Arlington National Cemetery was the home of Robert E. Lee which had been owned by his wife Anna Lee! But when the Northern General wanted to get even with Robert E. Lee they took over the property to bury soldiers that were poor. Arlington National Cemetery started out as a potter’s field!

  76. Stonewall Jackson was anti-slavery The largest percentage off slave owners to the population of the south was less than 1%. Slavery may have been why some went to war, but slavery doesn’t consider the 99% who fought like tigers against overwhelming odds , military occupation, boycotts, shortages of food medicine, ammunition and blockades, against a far richer power with an endless supply of soldiers. We were share-croppers and workers who had more in common with slaves than the slave owners. Let’s never forget that.

    • I find it most interesting that those here of “southern” origin, seem to want the Civil War to be about anything BUT slavery and slave owners. You folks are mighty sensitive for someone who never owned another person in their lives. I have a cousin whose mother’s side of the family owned slaves during the 1800s and she isn’t the least bit sensitive about it. I myself was born in Illinois, the state where BHO hales from most recently, and I don’t care about that. I also was a resident of Cook County, where Democrat Mayor Daily stuffed the ballot boxes for Jack Kennedy in 1962, but I’m not the least bit sensitive about it. You folks really need to get over it, the Civil War has been done for 150 years. No one is blaming you personally.

      • It is not sensitivity to the history, it is sensitivity to the way history is twisted and lied about that upsets folks. Tell a lie often enough and it will soon be taken as the truth….

      • THE CIVIL WAR WAS NOT ABOUT SLAVERY! In the beginning it had nothing to do with slavery! The federal government was getting too big, just LIKE IT IS NOW, telling everyone what to do & the states resented being told what to do in their own states! The Democrats are the crooked one’s in America! And the election for Jack Kennedy was in 1960! Learn history before you start talking about history! Oh by the way I am not a SOUTHERNER!

      • Have you even read the Declarations of Secession? If you had you could never say it had nothing to do with slavery. Almost all of them list slavery as the reason for their leaving the Union. In fact, they talk about little else. South Carolina, the first to secede, objected to the provisions in the Constitution that interfered with the states’ right to slavery. That was the big gov’t they objected to. Mississippi didn’t even hide behind states rights rhetoric and said, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery – the greatest material interest of the world.” Once the states seceded the war began over the right to secede, which I do believe they had the right to do, although the war I think was much more complicated than that. However, to say it had nothing to do with slavery is disingenuous.

      • Patriots get “sensitive” whenever history is rewritten to suit a political agenda. History is history, period. It is not open to revision due to interpretation.

      • Of course they are. What do you think the reparations movement is all about?? Why do they keep claiming all white people owe them because slaves” built America”and all our wealth is stolen??

        Yes – the liberals still blame us – any white southerner – 150+ years later.

  77. Hello? Lincoln waited until there was a meaningful Northern victory, at Gettysburg, before making slavery an issue, and that was chiefly to keep France from supporting the South. Slavery was not the defining issue causing the American civil war.

  78. And they STILL are claim it was about slavery! Slavery was not an issue until 1863, half-way thru the war! The war began over State’s rights, you idiots! Keep telling these lies. It won’t change the facts.

  79. If the War College doesn’t want the pictures of Robert E. Lee & Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson hanging in their school, I am sure a southern Museum would gladly take them to display in the South! How about the Museum of History in Atlanta? But they were still apart of the United States, they were called the Confederate States of America!

    • The” traitorous actions of BA, selling out his country in secret to the enemy and the open and lawful resignations of Lee, Stonewall, et al, who then openly and with honor joined the services of another country are in no way comparable. Only one who has not studied or thought seriously about that war and the characters of the men involved would make such a claim.(or one with an agenda to erase from all American memory the contributions of brave and Christian men like Lee and Jackson).

    • As I understand it there is a bust of Benedict Arnold near West Point. It is of his boot since as the saying goes it is the only part of him that remained loyal but he was honored. The difference in your statement is that Benedict Arnold was a traitor. He did not openly resign his commission to go and fight for a cause he believed in, he instead plotted to turn over West Point to the British through treachery.

    • There is an aspect of Benedict Arnold that has always bothered me. When fighting for us he was always out gunned, out manned and with the inferior position and he won every time. Then he went over to the British where he had the advantage in men, arms and position and every time he lost. Was Benedict Arnold a traitor or an uber patriot.

      • Benedict Arnold had a ego that demanded theat he be “in charge” maybe not of the whole Continental Army, but of a major command where he would earn glory and receive recognition. He considered his re-assignment as the commandant of West Point as a major step down in prestige and he showed his displeasure by selling out to the British. He demanded a General’s commission in the British Army, but was never accepted as an equal and lived out his miserable life in England, a very unhappy man. had he accepted his assignment graiously abnd done his best, he would be considered a hero of the revolution

  80. I think I would really have to reach deep, deep down inside of myself to be able to touch any kind of offensiveness over these portraits. And as I write this comment, I still haven’t gotten there yet….lol

  81. Want to know what started the war? The democrats had a monopoly in the south and the northern democrats were sympathetic. Christian abolitionists got together, after the US Supreme Court ruled that slavery was legal, and decided to start their own anti-slavery party. They nominated Lincoln, who was anti-slavery. This was a threat to the democrat party’s monopoly on the south. South Carolina warned that if Lincoln (a threat) won the Presidency, then they would secede from the Union. Lincoln won, SC seceded. Gradually, all other southern States followed suit. They breached the US Constitution and divided the nation. They reverted back to pre-Constitution Confederacy which amounted to sedition against the Republic, a treasonous act. The US had no choice but to declare war, after giving warning, so that all the States may be restored under the REPUBLIC. The south issued a Proclamation that all black and white soldiers who donned the Union uniform would be executed. Southern men fought for the Union and some northern men fought for the south, father against son, brother against brother. It was not a North vs. South war, but a war of ideologies, the south being a corrupt, inhumane and anarchic ideology. THAT is what the civil war was about. As a South Carolinian, born and bred, I thank God the Union was restored and that blacks were freed and gone on to serve in the State and Federal Governments as REPUBLICANS.

    • Lincoln wanted to abolish slavery only as step one of his ultimate goal….because he couldn’t get rid of “blacks” by “colonization”( sending them to another continent) while they were property of American citizens!

      • Lincoln gave them the choice to stay or leave. After all, their ancestors were kidnapped and sold and many chose to leave. Lincoln had black soldiers in the Union Army. Peddle your propaganda somewhere else. No man or woman is EVER the property of another. Do you understand that?

      • Woman you are full of hot air. The law said the slaves were property. Lincoln used whatever served his ultimate goal of preventing as he said “amalgamation” of white and black races by segregating the darker to another continent…Do YOU understand? I posted his own words…you apparently prefer the fairytale version of history!

      • What law? There is no man-made law greater than natural law. You are anti-Republic, obviously. It was democrats who separated the races and Republicans who freed and established that ALL people have the same basic natural rights on this earth. There is no way Lincoln or anyone else could even look upon every black person in this nation, much less sort them out by shade of their skin. You are an imbecile propagandist.

      • What is “natural law” and where can one find it?? Is that like the “law of the jungle?”
        You have oral fecal discharge.

      • You referenced the’natural law’ quote so am I correct in assuming you were replying to Dena above …not me?

      • I am not upset over your ignorance. That is YOUR business. But when you use propaganda bs in your posts, you deserve public shame.

  82. I think & believe those American Generals ARE just that ! Jackson & Lee were NO DIFFERENT back then, than some Senior Field & Staff Officers of our past & that we have now & the Politicians themselves, who viciously attack each other for what they BELIEVE IN ! Leave them be where they belong. A PART OF OUR HISTORY ! They DID THEIR JOB as they saw themselves being needed to for the good of The Country at the time, & DID IT AS AMERICAN GENERALS ! If I lived closer I would tell them that in person. Who are THEY to decide anyway ????

  83. Robert E. Lee was a visionary from a military standpoint. His defense of Richmond was what would become the major focal point of WWI(trench warfare). To rewrite him from the history books would be dishonest. Remember both served in the Union army in the Mexican-American war before the south seceding from the Union. I would consider both to be patriots and good leaders.

    Besides, isn’t it said that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it’s mistakes?

  84. Five reasons that the civil war was about

    1. The election of Abraham Lincoln.

    2. Growth of the Abolition Movement.

    3. States versus federal rights

    4. Economic and social differences between the North and the South

    5. The fight between Slave and Non-Slave State Proponents.

    ..

    It is said that the fight was started between Kansas and Missouri.

    The first shot fired was in S. Carolina. Lee and Stonewall Jackson in many bio books state they fought for the the third and 4th reason. Slavery became a propaganda late in the war. I say keep the pictures in place. Lee and Jackson were U.S commissioned generals before the war along with U.S. Grant.

  85. Nathan Bedford Forest was one of the best cavalry officers ever. Yes he started the KKK, as a social club. When it began to morph into a terror group he ordered it disbanded and would have nothing to do with them. Nathan Bedford Forest has gotten a bad rap on this.

  86. Robert E. Lee was the Commandant of West Point prior to the War of Northern Aggression. He was asked to be the Commanding General of the Northern Army , but resigned so as not to have to fight against his home state of Virginia. Stonewall Jackson’s Valley Campaign is still studied in War Colleges around the world today as one of the most brilliant strategies ever conceived. Both attended West Point. So I don’t understand what the person at the War College is upset about.

      • That an “official” complained says it all. Not an officer. The War College ought to tell his civilian , bureaucratic, ass to “shut up, and quit wasting our time”.

  87. These two men were absolutely more American that many of the people we now have in our government leadership. They, and others, deserve to be remembered.

  88. If they are going to get rid of Confederate stuff, why not the statue in front of the U.S. Justice Department of Confederate One-Star General George Pike? He could not even follow orders. Lee and Jackson were honorable men who served their country. They should not be penalized for defending their home states.

  89. It is a sign of poor character to turn one’s back on history. We can no more ignore the facts of history than we can ignore our own human nature.
    It is that very human nature that liberals fail to understand. We can never have equality because life is a struggle. Some will struggle better than others. They may choose to have charity and lift up the losing generals. In so doing, the winners may prove to have great character as well as great strategy.

      • Try reading it! The bible say’s, ” and God created man”. It does not specify a location per say. Just the Garden of Eden, I’m supposed to be tolerant of an atheist belief, but you not mine?

      • Gotta love it when people who’ve never opened the book want to give it a review. I suspect that guy is one of the “hired” guns by the Libs to troll conservative sites. Pay him no mind.

      • You now are afforded the opportunity to defend and prove your good book but you can’t do it because the bible is nothing but a book of jewish fairy tales.

      • But Phil quoted from the bible to bash gays and he was hiding behind your “divine” hypocritical pages. You people will never learn. Watch “in search of the bible”…a doc from PBS or National Geo.

      • Ahhh, of course! You get your information from television because we all know that if it’s on TV, it must be true. And PBS, really?! Guess I shouldn’t too surprised – Pop Tart, Cookie Monster – there’s a similarity.

      • Never said anything about the number of Bibles written, PopTart. You’re pulling droppings out of your ass again.

      • Wow….Did you forget that you stated duckman quoted the bible? Go read your words on that other thread while I stick a fork in your lying A$$.

      • Never said anything about the number of Bibles written, PopTart. You’re pulling droppings out of your ass again.

        This is how you claim your debate victories, isn’t it Poop Tart. Leave droppings all over the place and when no one wants to play with you and you get bored playing with yourself, you declare you’re ever so smart that no one could win the debate over you. You’re not debating, Pop Tart. You’re trolling to aggravate commenters just as you stated.

        Misspelling words doesn’t help you case. It’s ASS, not A$$.

      • Duckman bashed gays directly in 2010 and in the GQ interview.

        Duckman quoted the bible as his source.

        prove this incorrect.

      • Duckman did quote exact phrases… You are the one who said he quoted the bible, not me. But that was on the other thread when you were spinning the idea that duckman said nothing wrong and was “simply quoting scripture”. Can’t have it both ways dumbass.

      • No, I didn’t say he was quoting, Pop Top. I did the quoting. You do the prevarication.

        Whether or not there were quotes, the Bible does say what you are saying it says, and that is what you’re afraid of.

      • Wrong again….and my point is duckman is hiding behind his religion. I don’t care if he got his words from a comic book or the bible. His words were hateful and was in fact gay bashing. You lost again.

      • He’s not hiding. If he were, you wouldn’t be trying to trash him for some perceived slight. It’s quite apparent Poop Shoot, that the Bible is the source, not a comic book, as you continually refer to the Bible rather than a comic book.

        Face it, Pop Tart. You don’t like the fact that the Bible exists, and people believe what it has to say and you particularly don’t like being told you are a sinner who’s going to Hell. Why does that bother you so much?

      • No, Phil didn’t quote Romans. I quoted Romans. Look it up. Phil paraphrased several parts of the Bible, but didn’t quote.

        Last word.

      • wrong Buckwheat….the YT video proves Phil said it. Why do you have to lie about everything? You sound like you have the makings of a sociopath.

      • The Bible doesn’t say how old the earth is, Pop Gun. If it does, please tells us all chapter and verse because we would all like to know. Go ahead, Pop Gun, without changing the subject, tell all the world where the Bible says how old the earth is.

      • “Romans 1:25-30

        New International Version (NIV)

        25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
        26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones.
        27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.
        28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
        30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;”

        Just randomly picked a chapter and some verses, did ya? Good job, Dim Sum. But, where in this description of your life does Romans 1, 25-30 say how old the earth is? All you did Tip Top is attempt to change the subject. Go back to your Bible and find where it says how old the earth is. Go upstairs and consult your mom if you have to.

      • not random at all….that passage was quoted by Phil Robertson ( duckman) and he framed it such that the wonderful “christian” bashed the gays and A &E suspended him. You bible thumpers are a special breed of hypocrite.

      • No, Pop Tart, Phil Robertson did not quote the passage. He referenced the passage, but never quoted nor did he specify the passage. You really should learn to read original sources. Neither did he bash gays. He was asked a direct question about what he thought was sin, and he answered by paraphrasing Corinthians.

        “What, in your mind, is sinful?

        “Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.” ”

        But, that’s still changing the subject, Pop Top. The challenge to you was to show where the Bible says Earth is 600,000 years old. You still haven’t done that.

        Incidentally, I’m not a Bible thumper. In fact, I’m an Athiest. Nor am I a fan of Duck whatever and until this kerfuffle, had never heard of Phil Robertson.

        So endeth the lesson.

      • Wow, Pop Tart. You’re really reaching for that.Chicago Tribune says nothing about your claims. The youtube video again paraphrases, and again never specifies that he’s talking about gays, but rather sin rampant in America as he sees it. I think you are far too sensitive even in your flannel onesie.

        And you still have yet to identify where the Bible says Earth is 600,000 years old.

        Here’s another question for you, Hop on Pop – what does any of this have to do with the US Army War College in Carlisle Barracks wanting to remove pictures of Tom Jackson and Bob Lee?

      • “They (homosexuals) committed indecent acts with one another,” said Robertson, clad in his usual camouflage, in the video posted on the church’s YouTube page, which has drawn fresh attention in the wake of Robertson’s suspension from one of the most-watched shows on cable television.

        “And they received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion,” he added. “They’re full of murder, envy, strife, hatred. They are insolent, arrogant God haters. They are heartless. They are faithless. They are senseless. They are ruthless. They invent ways of doing evil.”

        When duckman talks about women being with women and men with men, he is talking about homosexual behavior…duh

      • you really are a piece of work…
        and you wonder how we became believers…
        we were many of us just like you, thank the Good Lord we have been removed forevermore from that perversion of the mind

      • wrong! Duckman quoted 3 verses from Romans 1. It’s on video.

        That is what is wrong with Phil and the jerks like him. They take the bible for it’s literal value and end up making false statements that are easy to debunk with facts and science.

      • And that’s what’s wrong with Liberal jerks like Pop Tart. Everyone is talking about the GQ interview and Pop Tart pulls something else from his ass, can’t stay on topic, refuses to recognize the topic for comment is the Carlisle decision to remove portraits os Lee and Jackson, but wants to change to subject to homosexual rantings.

  90. They should absolutely be included. The War of Northern Aggression was all about state’s rights. We’ll be seeing more of this continuing conflict soon…

    • You are taking advantage of your employers by being scattered. Put all those tho’ts in one post or two. Give them “value” for money.

      • prove Noah’s ark was real…waiting

        the bible says the earth is but 600,000 years old and we know that is a lie

      • The Bible doesn’t say any such thing, Pop Gun. The writers of the Bible had no idea of 600,000 years old dated from the 21st Century.

      • where does the Bible say that?
        you mean by measuring the lengths of time that the descendants of Abram (Abraham) adds up to?
        and yet there is no mention of the wives.. and some of the descendants have neither father nor son
        also Adam was the first, not Abram
        the ‘young earthers’ are but little better than the evolutionists, they twist The Word of God to their own foolish ends
        you think us all to be such fools as you little gun, but I believe most of us here know the Word of God a good deal greater than yourself

      • were does the bible say it 6000 years old.the way i read it it says in the begging God created the hevens and the earth period,then it goes on to tell what was created the 1st 2nd and so on .if you read in Job God is talking to him and he is mad at Job and he ask him who created the behemoth with a tail as big as the trees cedars of lebanon,no aninal has a tail as big as a tree accept a dinosaurs

      • Correct the bible does not specifically identify the age of the earth but we can scrutinize the words of creation and many biblical scholars come up with numbers from 6000 -50,000 years old. The fact is the earth’s age can be documented as at least 551,000,000,000 years old and the bible’s take is so far off no thinking person considers it valid. The bible does reference the earth to be flat and we know that to be false. You want to believe the bible…your choice but the bible is fiction.

    • Thank you, Pop Gun. Merry Christmas to you. (You’re probably melting like the wicked witch in Oz because I wrote Merry Christmas.)

  91. I agree with you. Enough is too much. History can not be hidden, erased or misrepresented to satisfy the liberals or the present administration. History should never be forgotten so there is ever a change to repeat it. Once is enough so let history be history right or wrong it did happen once upon a time. It is about time history in all its glory or sadness is taught in the schools the proper way without any exceptions.

    • and history proves Bush a liar per the run up to the Iraq war, check the findings of the 2008 Senate Intelligence Committee’s report.

      • The BS is that the US Army never lost a battle during Viet Nam. We lost the war because a DEMOCRTIC House refused funding to keep the Army there and support the South Viet Nam Government. Yes I served five years during that era and luckily only lost one classmate from my hospitaman pharmacy class. My step father was not so fortunate having served three tours with the army on the ground. And if he were alive today he could tell a lost about faith in God. He was a believer and more dedicated than I and obviously you.

      • Sorry don…we lost many battles in Nam..Thon La Chu..Hamberger Hill..Lam Son 719…Firebase Ripcord..

        we lost 70 battles >
        http://www.g2mil.com/lost_vietnam.htm

        58,000 troops can home in boxes..not sure the number wounded. I supported the de-funding of that war. It was a waste. The same for Iraq but now we face the same never ending nonsense in Afghanistan. I wrote to Obama when I heard he wanted to extend that mess to 2025 ( and beyond). Afghanistan is our longest war ever and I want out now and no more BS extensions…13 years is long enough.

      • the US is only there for the opuim,and lithium has beenfound there ,this war on terror is crap,they want to scare the people so they can spy on us and take rights away like they have with NDAA and the TSA.when has the TSA ever caught a terrorist

      • Yes,the wars are crap. Afghanistan is rich in many minerals. We do not fight for their freedom…we fight at the behest of big corp and Israel.

      • Don3346, You are correct! Our troops fought well in Vietnam; the media and the politicians snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory. But those who died in Vietnam did not die in vain. They bought America and the Free World time, a decade during which the Communist advance was contained. And then, during the Reagan Administration, the Communist world could not maintain its military machine, and it fell apart. The collapse of the Soviet Union is a direct result of our holding the line in Vietnam.

      • If you only had 3 who were lost to that war you had fewer than most who fought in Vietnam. Dixie Chicks are trash. They fit right there with Jane Fonda.

      • So runnindeer…..tell me …what did we win in Nam? and after you finish splainin that one, move on to what we won in Iraq? You may proceed, young soldier.

  92. By using generational bible passages one can calculate the earth to be a mere 6,000 years old. According to other biblical scholars, they calculate 50,000 years old. But remember the bible is just a book of jewish fairy tales as the earth is some 4,500,000,000 years old. The bible contradicts itself many times in terms of facts. Religions are but cults gone mainstream. The believers in the bible will be forced to rewrite their 40 bibles when will find life on another planet, and that will happen. When man learns that just a personal relationship with our Creator is all that in needed, man will graduate closer to God and truth.

    • Get over it. One person takes something out of context that is said by a politician some years ago and now the world believes that lie that those who believe the Bible don’t know beans about time or how the Earth was made. The Bible does NOT contradict itself. that is another lie that is too often said by the people who do not know the Bible and have not really studied it. There are many pastors who will differ in their translations in being they will give their own words to what they have discerned from a passage. But the Bible is filled with more truths and more that is helpful in everyone’s day to day life more than any other book ever written. You can take your personal opinion about Christians and religions in general and shove it up your backside ! A personal relationship with our creator is definitely what is needed but that comes from hearing and hearing by the word of GOD. Study to show thyself approved of GOD. I don’t care how you try to slice it Top Gun , wisdom is found in the pages of the Bible but some people are just not inclined to get wisdom.

      • of course, believe as you wish…that’s what I fought for…but the bible is full of contradictions. It is an interesting read and provides a good road map per conducting one’s life but it is all man made. Watch the PBS doc. “In Search of the bible” sometime. Merry Christmas and happy holidays to you.

      • Top Gun, the Bible was written from the memories of those who knew Jesus, or knew someone who did. For example, Luke interviewed many friends of Jesus. I have read where the Bible contradicts itself because at the Sermon on the Mount one author says Jesus walked up the mountain, and the other author says Jesus walked down the mountain. What a petty argument. Those people tried to remember from their memory and the memory of those who were there. What’s important is the teachings of Jesus, not the historiography.

      • I am not saying the bible is not a good book and I am happy it’s there as a guide for man. But I am a realist and I want proof . The fact is the bible is an account of a Jesus’s life, no doubt a great prophet and wise man but not the son of God. If you believe God is immortal and sent His son here to die on a cross for our sins, then answer me this…How do you kill an immortal? Think about that before you respond. Death to an immortal can not occur thus Jesus’s death is moot per any reason as He can not die. The story is meant to tug at us mortal’s hearts but it’s no big deal for an immortal. It doesn’t stack up to logic and religion/s call my words blasphemy when in fact religions are peddling the farce because their words don’t make sense to a rational thinking person. Your choice but my idea of our Creator is more complicated than stories from some book written 2000 years ago. It’s hard to erase 2000 years of programming but the truth will set you free.

      • The Bible does NOT contradict itself. People contradict because they interpret it differently . That is all!

      • Christians are godless scum and meek cowards. That’s why: (1) after ww2 all mainline Christian churches signed on that jews are Gods chosen people
        (2) In the pas few years most Christian mainline churches have signed on covert agreements with the moslems that posits Islam as America’s caliphate future. Now those treacherous ageeements are being approved by state governors like the commie republican gov of Tennessee.

      • You are a complete fool if you believe Christians are all weaklings because they are Christians. The word Meek means Teachable. NOT WEAK. “Signed on”. You are obviously another person who hates Jews and side with Islam. All people of Islam are not radical killers but the radical Muslims are all terrorist and those Muslims who refuse to take a real stand and instead deny it is their place to do so and deny that radical Islam is of the Devil are the real cowards.As for “commie Republican ” that is just stupid and deserves no reply. You are a f-uped man!

    • If the Bible is just Jewish fairy tales why can archaeologists and others use the Bible as a map to find sites mentioned in the Bible. The archaeological evidence is overwhelming proof that the stories in the Bible are not fiction.

      • The fairy tales were/are written by man. Yes parts of the bible mention towns, villages and other landmarks that be found today but that is no proof that miracles took place there. We have yet to find any evidence of Noah’s ark but we do know it is impossible to gather and float 2 species of everything because we now discover 5 new species a week.

        Faith is the temporary suspension of rationale thought. The bible will have to be re-written( thrown out) when we find life in outer space…and that will happen before ” Christ returns to earth”.

    • Ah yes, little green mn on another planet….let me guess, all you need is enough time and chance and poof, you have little green men…..no contradiction in terms of facts there.

  93. There has been an on going agenda to erase Americas real History and especially that of the war between the states, other wise known as the civil war. It is even hard to find fiction books written about that time in history and when you do find them , the North is glorified and the South is vilified as being tyrants and in human people. This is just one more attempt by the liberal left to erase truth and to destroy our heritage. It has to end! It must. These men were honorable and both served this country.

      • No body wins in wars, your simply uneducated if you think that any one side “won” anything. Countless lives were lost over money, and nothing else, in the Civil War. Slavery was just a “easy scapegoat” for the North. Slaves didn’t cost as much as hired hands, the North having more income from trades and fields could afford to hire people. The South knew it would cripple them if they weren’t allowed slaves. They fought because they felt their government was doing something that a vast majority of people agreed with. That is NOT traitorous in ANY sense of the word. Something a lot of people are forgetting about is our 2nd Amendment. The South was a well-regulated Militia if EVER I saw one. They put up a damn good fight and at the very least, they can say they fought with blood, swear and tears for what they died believing in.

      • What a beautiful job of deflection. Our goal in Nam was to stop Chinese Communism.( now China is our best bud and buys our bonds) Our goal in Iraq was to stop non-existent WMD’s. You may proceed…

      • Yes. Wars always have winner and the winners are frequently the real evil.

        In Civil War II we will not lose.

      • It wasn’t the military’s fault we didn’t win the Vietnam war. We got rid of Hussein, a brutual dictator,who was killing his own people. It’s not the military’s fault that Iraq is a mess, any failure falls at the feet of the idiot politicians.

      • wrong….you can’t force feed democracy to people..they have to want it…They ( Nam/Iraq/Afghanistan)have to fight for like we did in 1776. You have a gladiator mentality and it’s unnecessary. Obama got rid of a brutal dictator without putting any boots on the ground in 9 months. Compare that with a 10 year war costing us 4,486 brave troops lives. I bet you are a right wing nutjob.

      • The communists have force fed “Democratic socialism” (communism) to the white majority. So they have reason to believe that they can cram it down the throats of other people. It is your IQ that is in jeopardy of being sensationally exposed.

      • We pay more for our military than the other top 13 contries COMBINED..and those
        13 are our allies. We have 860 military bases outside our continental borders not to speak of 11 aircraft carriers ( floating bases of 5000 +jets) and 142 other war ships…and add in an Air Force that dominates any on earth. Result= overkill to pacify the fear mongrels.

      • You sound like you love to spout cooked media statistics. The truth is much worse than you know…or care.

      • You were told the media’s version of Hussein but the media covered up the real truth about Hussein Obama. Wake up she male.

    • I agree except that I am totally against yankees and the police state that they advanced. Are you not aware of the abolitionist (commies circa 1850-1870) reconstruction of the south??

  94. both these generals were american.the dems got so bad Nathan forrest left the KKK.the north talked about how bad the prison camps in the south were but it was there on fault ,they wouldn’t do prisonor exchanges after a couple years so the prisons became crowded and another thing the southern troops didn’t kill and blow up northern civillans ,ther towns and farms,the way the north did

    • It was war and the military is used for blowing up things and killing the enemy to win the war and stop the blowing up of things and the killing. Grow up man.

      • The Luftwaffe accidentally bombed a civilian target in WW II. Up to that time all targets were military or industrial. Churchill took the incident as an opportunity to begin the carpet bombing of German population centers. The allies consistently targeted German civilians. The Germans responded in kind but could not do the damage that we and the British did to cities like Hamburg and Dresden… and most others. We always excuse our actions while pointing out the atrocities of others. NOW… I am in no way trying to excuse the racial policies of Nazi Germany but what we did was wrong too. The Germans spent most of their energy fighting against communism, which was our enemy too. We practiced a genocide in America against the Native Americans and still we keep most of them on “reservations”… at least we are not attacking and killing their women and children any more.
        I hope no one takes this the wrong way, I don’t mean to defend evil, I just hate the self righteous patriotic hypocrisy of the way we look at history. To my thinking, I try to read diaries and other accounts written by soldiers who fought in wars to see what they were fighting for because there is ALWAYS a difference between what the politician thinks and what the average man or woman thinks. In the American Civil War the confederate soldier was, in his mind, fighting for his state’s rights. The yankee (or “federal”) was generally fighting to preserve the union. Lincold’s motivation was MONEY because the confederate constitution forbade tariffs and all European imports would have started to come into southern ports and the USA (the industrial north) would have suffered. In WW II the German soldier, both the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht were fighting against communism, in their minds and could not understand why the US didn’t fight communism alongside them. Some knew about the holocaust, most did not. We of course, lump the Waffen SS in with the Totenkopf SS that ran the death camps and tried them all after the war as if they were the same. The Waffen SS were front line troops.
        I guess my point is that we are all guilty, it is a messed up mess of a world but let’s not pretend to be morally superior. We are living on the benefits of some very nasty business by others in times past. It is the way of the world and we are very lucky to have had the relative peace that we have enjoyed for the last 70 or so years.
        It seems that most people today think that we fought the Native Americans because they attacked us… no, we wanted to live where they lived and kept pushing them.
        Most people today think the War Between the States was fought over slavery, it didn’t enter the war until 1863. It was a battle between the states and the federal government.
        Most people think we fought WW II to free persecuted people, no.. we fought to come out on top as a world power, as THE world power. It was pretty much the end for the British empire. Lines were re drawn, power shifted and WE, the USA, filled the power void… at the expense of millions.
        Yes, I know that there is a lot more to the story, especially of WW II, there is imperial Japan enslaving people but we didn’t care about that until their power encroached on our power and they made the stupid move of bombing us. We didn’t really care about the persecuted in Europe until we came face to face with it. We, (the government) cared about POWER, world power. The soldier was drafted, brainwashed to hate a lesser more evil people and fought to stay alive.
        War sucks but war is always about power or more to the point (money)… wealth, resources at least to those who make the plans and then send others out to die and send bombs to destroy 10s of thousands of civilians in order to achieve their goal. War always gets out of control and we have been very fortunate here in that we have not had a ground war in the USA for a little over 150 years.
        Well… just think about it. There are those who start things and then there are the soldiers who kill and die for different reasons, then their are the elderly, the mothers, and the children at home who become targets and that is evil no matter how you look at it.
        I’m not saying we have not done what people do, we have. We have done what people in this world have to do, but lets not pretend that we didn’t, that the other guy did all the bad stuff.
        The winner always writes the history but if you dig a little you can find the flip side.

      • You are correct. But I sense you drifting towards being a media drone. Snap out of it and find men to associate with.

      • You are an honorary woman and protected as an un natural resource by feminism. Of course, your thoughts being incredibly stupid, reflect your “status.”.

  95. I’m not sure why you think it was fortunate that the north won the war of northern aggression. The emancipation proclamation pretended to free slaves in the south, where Abe did not have control, and did NOT free slaves in Delaware where he did. The southern constitution pretty much followed the US constitution, and they seemed to follow it, unlike the current residents of DC.

  96. Why is this man not in DC, where we need Americans of his honesty and intelligence? Allen West not being in Congress is a huge loss for America.

  97. Well written, thank you for posting this, and for your ending qualification differentiating between people who laid down their arms and lived in peace, and those who terrorized our citizens.

  98. Nathan Bedford Forrest had 50 of his slaves serving in his unit, mostly as wagon drivers but about 12 as fighters. None of them deserted. Six months before the war ended, he gave all of them freedom because as combat was going badly and he had already been wounded several times, he wanted them to be free and clear for their faithful service. Several Union states still had legal slavery.
    Reconstruction was Union tyranny and the KKK was established to combat abuses… but the KKK also quickly became abusive, whereupon Forrest resigned from the organization.
    Forrest was a remarkable man and exceptional combat leader who exhibited great integrity before and after the War Against Southern Independence.

    • You are right about Forrest but WRING about any black taking up arms as a formal combatant in Forrest’s units. In fact you talk like a Sin if Confederate or as you call it “Sons of Confederates”. You are lying and mixing it with truth. Therefore you fit the definition of “an allowable sheep testimonial witness” by the media communist propagandist’s council of political correctness.

      • Dude, my thesis in college was on black fighters in the Confederate army..they existed..and juding by your comment you have no real understanding of history as Lee and Jackson were against slavery and viewed it as an evil. Forrest was, in the late 1800s, even invited to speack at a black convention where he advocated the reconsiliation of the races. Even if blacks didnt fight with Forrest, in March of 1865 the Confederate congress authorized the raising of black units. At least two regiments were raised. It is said these units didnt see action but in reality it is noted that they defedned wagon trains outside Richmond during Lee’s retreat, as well Union officers noting black troops among the Confederates at vicksburg. Like it or not..it happened and thankfully it did..not in high numbers..but even one is enough…Teddy Rosevelts hunting guide on one of his trips was a black confederate veteran. Get your history right and your above comments are not helping the liberal left and NAACP from demonizing my ancestors and I for one take offense to that. God Bless LTC West for standing up to for our leaders. Oh..and before you run down the US Military maybe you should put on the uniform and go to war beside the heros that it is my honor to lead and serve with every single day.

      • Dude you are a lying sack of wigger crap. My Phd was in history and there were no black confederate FIGHTERS. You are a lying commie propagandist and you dont fool anybody, you ignorant, lie-spreading zombie.My masters on Psychology tells me that. You have made up your entire load of crap and yet I am the only to point out what a Lying dog that you are!

      • I am a combat veteran, airborne, ranger, CIB, you sniveling cretin, of the US Army. (What was your glorious service, marching in a leftist picket line outside the gate? Or did you fag yourself in.)But my service (which I rue) didn’t make me blind to the Clintonista takeover and the concomitant slide towards communism taken by the command apparatus. Any fools that believe service in the modern US military is moral, should read what my friends have written, veterans, all in dozens of books. But you and your catch phrase craphole buddies, are no things who are merely disciples of US media propaganda.

        I will pit my record and intellect against you moronic carpies any day or night!~

    • You are partially right about Forrest. Forrest was not the sentimentalist that you parade. Such tom-foolery only illustrates the half-measure of effeminacy. You are wrong about the KKK. Do research from sources that are not biased and then form a learned opinion.

  99. I don’t want any confederate officer to be depicted at any facility of the immoral-homosexual, effeminate, black racist, pro-moslem US military. It is an insult to our leaders to be depicted alongside the vicious cut-throats of the Union and the Obama nation. You Allen West, are a toady, a black-racist infiltrator, who has fooled so many stupid and black butt liucking white sheep in this country (like all the mental derelicts whose comments are nothing more than effusive adulations of your black skin, lays like puke on this site. They are collectively black racists like you are.). They are grooming you as a presidential contender. Since the GOP is a stooge and servomechanism of the democrat-communist party, this deceitful one party communist system will run a black under each heading as they argue over which party is the greatest black racist lickspittle.. So you minority parasites, professional racists and murderous scum will be inb cultural control of the 80% white majority for eternity. Of course obama will be dictator until he is dead. But the one party, pretending to be two parties will continue to strangle us until it is destroyed too. I come not to grovel before your blackjness like Ross MacDonald and those traitorous Sins if Confederates do. There are millions of us who are waiting for Civil War II.How dare you insult General Forest you phony afrocentric doofus.

  100. Allen West you can fool all of these republican misanthropes with your africa gibberish about honor and patriotism. Your patrioism sucks because its de facto support of obama and the current leftist US Army with its black cultural dominance and homosexualism gaining daily. The US military farces are supervised by many black and white incompetent political/sodomistic generals who are turning the military into the enemy of the white majority. Your afrocrap which always includes exceptions to your racist patriotism , for example your hatred of Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest . ( Foresst is MY hero.) Such simplistic pseudo-sentimental rhetoric of the she-male variety, fools these stupid GOP tools of the communist democrats, who wiggle like so many worms trying to crawl up your ass, but one fact remains. You are bering bacvked by traitorously phony patriots that want another black president. These racist scum only care if you are black skinned and will mutter a few republican cliches. America is a one-party dictatorship and you and the rest of the republicans are zombies controlled by the communist democrats. Damn you and the many gibbering yard apes, black and white, that grin like chimps as you realize how stupid and ignorant and naiever so many renegade white people really are! God, I pray, as a veteran who now sees everything he fought against , in control of the USA, that we meet in battle in Civil War II, a war without quarter or rules of engagement.

  101. War Against White Male Youth

    Now the war against white males is a major schwehrpunkt of the afrocentric communist cultural war. Not content with subverting every moral institution of America
    according to the obama manifesto, the two chief forms of propaganda in the
    obamanation (the media and “education”) are wreaking havoc with the psyches of
    white men and boys. Girls and women were SUPPOSEDLY once second-class citizens in the nation’s schools. Leftist and media-zombie Americans responded with
    concerted efforts to give girls and women the attention and assistance that was
    long overdue. Now, after two major waves of feminism and decades of policy
    reform, women have made massive strides in education. Today they outperform men
    in nearly every measure of social, academic, and vocational well-being.
    Christina Hoff Sommers contends that it’s time to take a hard look at present-day realities and recognize that white boys need help. Called “provocative and controversial . . . impassioned and articulate” (The Christian Science Monitor), this edition of The War Against Boys offers a new preface and six radically revised
    chapters, plus updates on the current status of boys throughout the book.
    Sommers argues that the problem of male underachievement is persistent and worsening. Among the new topics Sommers tackles: how the war against boys is harming our economic future, and how boy-averse trends such as the decline of recess and zero-tolerance disciplinary policies have turned our schools into hostile environments for boys. As our schools become more feelings-centered, risk-averse, competition-free, and sedentary, they move further and further from the characteristic needs of boys. She offers realistic, achievable solutions to these problems that include boy-friendly pedagogy, character and vocational education, and the choice of single-sex classrooms.
    The War Against Boys is an incisive, rigorous, and heartfelt argument in favor of recognizing and confronting a new reality: boys are languishing in education and the price of continued neglect is economically and socially prohibitive.
    War Against White Male Adults
    Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young argue that white men have routinely been portrayed as evil, inadequate, or as honorary women in media-controlled
    popular culture since the 1990s. These stereotypes are profoundly disturbing,
    the authors argue, for they both reflect and create a hatred and thus further
    fracture an already fractured society. In “Spreading Misandry,” they show that creating a workable society in the twenty-first century requires us to rethink feminist and other assumptions about men. The first in an eventual three part series, “Spreading Misandry” offers an impressive array of evidence from everyday life – case studies from movies, televisionprograms, novels, comic strips, and even greeting cards – to identify a phenomenon that is just now being recognized as a serious cultural problem. Discussing misandry – the afrofeminist-sexist counterpart of misogyny – the authors make clear that this form of hatred must not be confused with reverse sexism or anger and should neither be trivialized nor excused. They break new ground by discussing misandry in moral terms rather than purely psychological or sociological ones and refer critically not only to feminism but to political
    ideologies on both the left and the right. They also illuminate the larger context of this problem, showing that it reflects the enduring conflict between the Enlightenment and romanticism, inherent flaws in postmodernism, and the dualistic (‘us’ versus ‘them’) mentality that has influenced Western thought since ancient times. A groundbreaking study, “Spreading Misandry” raises serious questions about justice and identity in an increasingly polarized society. It is important for anyone in interested in ethics, gender, popular culture, or are just concerned about the society we are creating.Spreading Misandry …does make a convincing argument that, since the 1990s, …Men, have become society’s official scapegoats and held responsible
    for all evil …Women are society’s official victims and held responsible for
    all good.’
    Do not Fail to Confront The Liars of the Afrocentric-Left!

  102. I bet 38 people that Obama would beat Rmoney in 2012. I have asked those 38 ” conservatives” if they want to bet on 2016 as I feel confident Hillary will win and put my money where my mouth is.

    None of these 38 want to bet on 2016. NONE! You can back down any right winger with this challenge. Just ask them to put some of their own skin in the game and they fold like a cheap tent. Their ideology sucks, they have no leadership and they are losers. Just take their money and laugh all the way to your bank. Try this, they all cut & run when the rubber meets the road.

  103. I bet 38 people that Obama would beat Rmoney in 2012. I have asked those 38 ” conservatives” if they want to bet on 2016 as I feel confident Hillary will win and put my money where my mouth is.

    None of these 38 want to bet on 2016. NONE! You can back down any right winger with this challenge. Just ask them to put some of their own skin in the game and they fold like a cheap tent. Their ideology sucks, they have no leadership and they are losers. Just take their money and laugh all the way to your bank. Try this, they all cut & run when the rubber meets the road.

    I am dead serious. This shuts them up right quick. It’s called reality. They all back down. My bet is anything from 50-1000 and I take on all comers.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here