Grant Remastered

[icenine]

Now that I think about it everyone has always dismissed him with the word corrupt, making him the Ford Pinto of Presidents. Not so fast:


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ulysses-s-grant-died-130-years-ago-today-racists-hated-him-but-historians-no-longer-do_55afe547e4b0a9b948535f6e?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000 592

[Pio1980]

Apparently, treatment similar to "lost cause" myth revisionism to salvage honor from a dishonerable cause.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[donquixote99]

Grant was snookered by corrupt men whom he trusted. Not letting that happen is part of the chief's job, so he must be marked down for it.

[donquixote99]

This is not to say that the revisionist picture of 'drunken and incompetent' was ever worth a damn. In hindsight, reconstruction might have been handled better, but Grant did what he could and was, as the piece says, 'on the right side of history.'

[Boreas]

Apparently, treatment similar to "lost cause" myth revisionism to salvage honor from a dishonerable cause.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

The myth of Grant as corrupt, incompetent and drunk id an integral part of the "Lost Cause" myth.

[Pio1980]

I still can't grasp Lee as "a man of honor" going with a defense of slavery vs preserving the union.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

[icenine]

Not to be obtuse but Ken Stampp did a major revision of Reconstruction history in the 1960s where he completely debunks the idea that Reconstruction was a bad thing; the theme of scalliwags and carpetbaggers was a major foundation of lost cause historiography.

Here is one wooden stake the Lost Cause vampires try to shun:

http://www.amazon.com/Era-Reconstruction-1865-1877-Kenneth-Stampp/dp/039470388X/ref=sr_1_4/178-2584075-7128066?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437666430&sr=1-4&keywords=kenneth+stampp

[nailer]

Not to be obtuse but Ken Stampp did a major revision of Reconstruction history in the 1960s where he completely debunks the idea that Reconstruction was a bad thing; the theme of scalliwags and carpetbaggers was a major foundation of lost cause historiography.

Here is one wooden stake the Lost Cause vampires try to shun:

http://www.amazon.com/Era-Reconstruction-1865-1877-Kenneth-Stampp/dp/039470388X/ref=sr_1_4/178-2584075-7128066?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1437666430&sr=1-4&keywords=kenneth+stampp

Stampp's Reconstruction history is on my to read list. His And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-1861 is an excellent read.

[icenine]

Stampp's Reconstruction history is on my to read list. His And the War Came: The North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-1861 is an excellent read.

You just moved up a notch on my cool meter Nailer.......to 1 ;)

[nailer]

You just moved up a notch on my cool meter Nailer.......to 1 ;)

I'm currently working my way through White Terror: The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction by Allen W. Trelease.

Worthy of another notch perhaps? :D

[Boreas]

I still can't grasp Lee as "a man of honor" going with a defense of slavery vs preserving the union.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

My take on it is that Lee, personally, did indeed have conflicting loyalties but I don't think that slavery per se entered into it. What I believe is that Lee considered himself first and foremost a Virginian. When his state seceded, he felt that it was his duty, as a Virginian, to pledge himself to their cause.

So, he was, by his own lights, a "man of honor" but his loyalty was seriously misplaced.

In other words, he was a traitor and should have been hanged.

[nailer]

My take on it is that Lee ... he was a traitor and should have been hanged.

I see you're still channeling the Lost Cause abolitionist. :cool: :)

[Boreas]

I see you're still channeling the Lost Cause abolitionist. :cool: :)

Would you care to explain? (Are you even capable of explaining?)

[nailer]

Would you care to explain? (Are you even capable of explaining?)

I would if not for your parenthetical question. :rolleyes:

[BlueStreak]

Yep. The portrayal of the Confederacy, it's leaders and what they did as something "honorable" has always been a damned lie, meant to help Southern whites feel good about their past. Appease them to avoid upsetting them.

I think General Sherman had the right idea.

[BlueStreak]

My take on it is that Lee, personally, did indeed have conflicting loyalties but I don't think that slavery per se entered into it. What I believe is that Lee considered himself first and foremost a Virginian. When his state seceded, he felt that it was his duty, as a Virginian, to pledge himself to their cause.

So, he was, by his own lights, a "man of honor" but his loyalty was seriously misplaced.

In other words, he was a traitor and should have been hanged.

Pissed on, then hanged. And, I'm trying to be nice.