US Army War College to take down Confederate

[Drayno]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/17/robert-e-lee-and-stonewall-jackson-tributes-face-a/?page=1

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

“I do know at least one person has questioned why we would honor individuals who were enemies of the United States Army,” Ms. Kerr said. “There will be a dialogue when we develop the idea of what do we want the hallway to represent.”

She said one faculty member took down the portraits of Lee and Jackson and put them on the floor as part of the inventory process. That gave rise to rumors that the paintings had been removed.

“This person was struck by the fact we have quite a few Confederate images,” she said, adding that the portraits were rehung on a third-floor hallway. “[Lee] was certainly not good for the nation. This is the guy we faced on the battlefield whose entire purpose in life was to destroy the nation as it was then conceived. … This is all part of an informed discussion.”

I'll take the position of defending both Stonewall and Lee.

Both opposed Slavery in their personal views.

Both were tactical geniuses and should be viewed as shining examples of American-produced field officers.

I think they should be honored; they didn't fight for Slavery, they fought for States' Rights.

[Agent0range]

They most certainly should be honored. The civil war and these men are a very important part of our history. They may have fought against the "winning" side, but they were Americans who fought for what they believed in, and that should be respected.

[+OverSword]

By this logic the descedants of the southern states are all the descendants of traitors.

[spartan max2]

what??? not stonewall

[Lilly]

This is not a good idea IMO. History is what it is, people in the past did what they felt was right and honorable. To take down the portraits of Lee and Jackson diminishes the history of our country.

[Keel M.]

Well sure let's just rewrite the parts of history we disagree with and pretend they never happened.Then again, history is always written and rewritten by the victors, so it's not surprising that the North wants to do this.

Edited December 18, 2013 by Child of Bast

[Taun]

Both Lee and Jackson had exemplary military carears prior to the civil war - in fact at the very beginning Lee was offered the command of the Army of the Potomac...

Neither men conducted a war of terror or mass destruction - both strived to limit civilian damage, and both continued to hold the admiration and respect of their

enemies through out the war...

Neither fought to destroy the United States ... The US would have continued had the Confederates won independance... There is more justification in vilifiying

General Sherman for his "March to the Sea" (and his later treatment of Native Americans) than there is to vilifying either Lee or Jackson...

Edited December 18, 2013 by Taun

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

I was going to say "bet Sherman's not been taken down, despite being responsible for more civilian deaths then some natural disasters",

[MiskatonicGrad]

It sounds like this Ms. Kerr needs to sit in on some of the classes the teach at the Army war college instead of trying to bad mouth two of the most respected Generals ever produced by West Point. destroy the nation? the north invaded the south! What a idiot. If they wanted to do some good they should take Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan down and burn them on the front lawn. their introduction of "Total War" has damaged society far more than anything Lee or Stonewall did.

[Rafterman]

Should we also dig up all of the Confederate graves and tear down the statue at Arlington National Cemetary?

They are a part of military history in the United States. Their tactics are still studied at the AWC.

[Taun]

Should we also dig up all of the Confederate graves and tear down the statue at Arlington National Cemetary?

They are a part of military history in the United States. Their tactics are still studied at the AWC.

Jackson was a Professor of Tactics at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI - which is also a Prep school for West Point) prior to the Civil War and his material is still taught as

essential tactical studies... Extremely few tacticians prior to the 20th century are still required study material.... This individual who wants them 'removed' clearly has absolutely

no grasp of the overall situation...

Edited December 19, 2013 by Taun

[Drayno]

Jackson was a Professor of Tactics at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI - which is also a Prep school for West Point) prior to the Civil War and his material is still taught as

essential tactical studies... Extremely few tacticians prior to the 20th century are still required study material.... This individual who wants them 'removed' clearly has absolutely

no grasp of the overall situation...

This is true. My grandfather graduated from VMI in 57' and studied Stonewall's tactics used in the Shenandoah Campaign.

[Yamato]

Maybe they should be honored but why must enemies of the US Army be honored in the US Army War College? Taking down portraits isn't taking down history. These men's roles are cemented permanently in US history and will never be forgotten. Their images are carved into the side of a mountain. I think we're safe.

[Taun]

Maybe they should be honored but why must enemies of the US Army be honored in the US Army War College? Taking down portraits isn't taking down history. These men's roles are cemented permanently in US history and will never be forgotten. Their images are carved into the side of a mountain. I think we're safe.

The true question is were they really enemies?... Up until that point the US was referred to as "These United States" (Plural) following the war it is "The United States" (singular).... These men were

fighting for many reasons but the chief reason for many of them was the question were they Citizens of their respective States? Or of the US? Up until then the general population saw the states as

sovereign states in an economic/cultural union... They saw themselves as "Virginians" or "New Yorkers" more often than they saw themselves as citizens of the "United States" - rather like todays EU

I guess...... When they offered the command of the Union Army to Lee he said "As Virginia goes, I shall go"...

So were they enemies of the Union or were they honorable citizens of their sovereign states?... Yes they fought against Union troops so by that definition they were "enemies", but were they "enemies"

or more along the lines of "belligerents"?

As to honoring Enemies of the US Army in the Army War college... The purpose of the College is not to honor or to dishonor military persons regardless of nation... But to study their Tactics,

strategies and their Logistics methods...

The bit I am posting below is from the US Army War College web site and is an excerpt from Maj Gen Tony Cucolo, the commandant of the War College, hopefully that will answer every ones questions:

"Response to discussion about Confederate artwork --

A Sincere note to our Alumni, friends, and all concerned regarding questions about Confederate art:

Major General Tony Cucolo here, Commandant of the US Army War College. I’d like to address an issue that has come up based on a Washington Times web posting and article in its paper of 18 December 2013.

Even though last night's posting had a photo at the top of that article showing a picture of one of our entry gates with huge statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson mounted on horseback on either side of the sign, and today's posting showed a dignified photo of Robert E. Lee at the top of the article, it might be misleading as to what is in question. For what it is worth, I must tell you there is only one outside statue on Carlisle Barracks and that is of Frederick the Great. There is no statue of Lee, there is no statue of Jackson; that picture is photo-shopped – I assume to attract attention to the article. We do however have many small monuments, mostly stone with bronze plaques, but those are for a variety of reasons. There are small memorials to the service of British units (during the French and Indian War), memorials of Army schools that had been based at Carlisle Barracks over the last two-plus centuries, memorials to Carlisle Indian Industrial School students and significant personalities of that period from 1879 – 1918, a memorial for US Army War College graduates killed in action since 2001 and more. We do not have any public memorials to the Confederacy, but we do have signs on the walking tour of the base that will tell you for a few days during the Civil War, three North Carolina Brigades camped on the parade ground and then burned down the post (save one building) as they departed on July 1st, 1863, to rejoin Lee’s forces at Gettysburg. We also do not have any large stand-alone portraits of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson.

So, no statues or big portraits, but a recent event here sparked the reporter’s and other public interest in the topic of the article, which I find makes a good point – for topics like this, have a thoughtful conversation before making a decision."

(bolding and underlining done by me for emphasis- Taun)

http://www.carlisle....cle.cfm?id=3289

Edited December 22, 2013 by Taun

[Drayno]

As Taun stated very eloquently, being so soon after America's inception, many of the states saw themselves as members of a voluntary union. As a Virginian, I see myself as a Virginian first, American second. Perhaps that's because I have a strong connection with this land, as my ancestors arrived here in the early 1700's. Lee, whom I am related to (My great-great-Aunt's grandfather was Lee's first cousin and was his body double in his portraits), saw himself as a Virginian first. Lincoln offered him to lead the Union forces as he distinguished himself in the Mexican-American war and knew his tactical prowess. As Taun stated, Lee was heavily conflicted - his father, Light Horse Harry Lee was a founding father, and he knew a civil war would tear the fabric of the country apart. He decided to stand by his principles, as what else could you do when you hear the land you love, your family, and friends, are all going to be targeted by an invading force made up of your own countrymen?

This country was founded upon the studying of 2,000 years of political science and history. Many of the founding fathers knew how easily governments could become despotic. That was why, in the Declaration of Independence, they pointed it sometimes it was necessary to abolish the bonds one has with a destructive government. Although you can take a Federalist or Anti-Federalist stance (I agree with many Federalist principles proposed by Alexander Hamilton), both agreed on the nature of government. Even Alexander Hamilton, a staunch Federalist, viewed the Second Amendment and militia as instruments to battle a despotic government with over-reaching power. The Confederacy was the embodiment of the old United States - the principle of voluntarily seceding from a government viewed to be destructive. Since, at the time, there was the debate on whether or the newer states being added, as more and more territories were acquired, should be free states or slave states - it is clear the Civil War doesn't have to do with slavery - as many progressives would assert - it has to do with the right of a state to have its own regional government (which is what a federal government is - enterprising regional governments combining to create a central government), govern its own people, and pass its own laws, and to have a degree of sovereignty; to be able to leave and join a federal union voluntarily.

Both Stonewall and Lee did what they could with the beliefs they held, and obviously chose a course of action that led them to be held in contempt and infamy in the North in the reconstruction period. However, many people in the North viewed Lee as a respectful figure for standing by his principles and for his unmatched leadership - as he often would be fighting on the front lines in the same vain George Washington did. Nonetheless, history is written by the victor.

[Yamato]

The true question is were they really enemies?... Up until that point the US was referred to as "These United States" (Plural) following the war it is "The United States" (singular).... These men were

fighting for many reasons but the chief reason for many of them was the question were they Citizens of their respective States? Or of the US? Up until then the general population saw the states as

sovereign states in an economic/cultural union... They saw themselves as "Virginians" or "New Yorkers" more often than they saw themselves as citizens of the "United States" - rather like todays EU

I guess...... When they offered the command of the Union Army to Lee he said "As Virginia goes, I shall go"...

So were they enemies of the Union or were they honorable citizens of their sovereign states?... Yes they fought against Union troops so by that definition they were "enemies", but were they "enemies"

or more along the lines of "belligerents"?

As to honoring Enemies of the US Army in the Army War college... The purpose of the College is not to honor or to dishonor military persons regardless of nation... But to study their Tactics,

strategies and their Logistics methods...

The bit I am posting below is from the US Army War College web site and is an excerpt from Maj Gen Tony Cucolo, the commandant of the War College, hopefully that will answer every ones questions:

"Response to discussion about Confederate artwork --

A Sincere note to our Alumni, friends, and all concerned regarding questions about Confederate art:

Major General Tony Cucolo here, Commandant of the US Army War College. I’d like to address an issue that has come up based on a Washington Times web posting and article in its paper of 18 December 2013.

Even though last night's posting had a photo at the top of that article showing a picture of one of our entry gates with huge statues of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson mounted on horseback on either side of the sign, and today's posting showed a dignified photo of Robert E. Lee at the top of the article, it might be misleading as to what is in question. For what it is worth, I must tell you there is only one outside statue on Carlisle Barracks and that is of Frederick the Great. There is no statue of Lee, there is no statue of Jackson; that picture is photo-shopped – I assume to attract attention to the article. We do however have many small monuments, mostly stone with bronze plaques, but those are for a variety of reasons. There are small memorials to the service of British units (during the French and Indian War), memorials of Army schools that had been based at Carlisle Barracks over the last two-plus centuries, memorials to Carlisle Indian Industrial School students and significant personalities of that period from 1879 – 1918, a memorial for US Army War College graduates killed in action since 2001 and more. We do not have any public memorials to the Confederacy, but we do have signs on the walking tour of the base that will tell you for a few days during the Civil War, three North Carolina Brigades camped on the parade ground and then burned down the post (save one building) as they departed on July 1st, 1863, to rejoin Lee’s forces at Gettysburg. We also do not have any large stand-alone portraits of Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson.

So, no statues or big portraits, but a recent event here sparked the reporter’s and other public interest in the topic of the article, which I find makes a good point – for topics like this, have a thoughtful conversation before making a decision."

(bolding and underlining done by me for emphasis- Taun)

http://www.carlisle....cle.cfm?id=3289

I'm all for honoring our finest generals Taun and these men qualify, I just don't get the outrage and the insistence that a few portraits must continue being displayed in the same building. Since there was no information about the destination of these portraits, maybe the patriotic implication we're making here is that they're going to be thrown away. I'd be outraged about that, believe me. But they're not, and this all seems rather sensational. I can understand the rationale for taking them down and I can think of plenty of better places to display these paintings as well. Virginia or elsewhere South would pay handsomely for them and keep them in good hands. I just don't see what the problem is about this; though it's an opportunity to pause from our busy lives and remember our most beloved generals.

It'd be real interesting to see how many salutes a 21st century Lee or Jackson would get from fellow UMers after he broke from the USA and eventually opened fire on the US military. I think the patriotism would dry up real quick. It's easy to make hay over a painting. That's not much of a litmus test.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Yamato

[Taun]

I'm all for honoring our finest generals Taun and these men qualify, I just don't get the outrage and the insistence that a few portraits must continue being displayed in the same building. Since there was no information about the destination of these portraits, maybe the patriotic implication we're making here is that they're going to be thrown away. I'd be outraged about that, believe me. But they're not, and this all seems rather sensational. I can understand the rationale for taking them down and I can think of plenty of better places to display these paintings as well. Virginia or elsewhere South would pay handsomely for them and keep them in good hands. I just don't see what the problem is about this; though it's an opportunity to pause from our busy lives and remember our most beloved generals.

It'd be real interesting to see how many salutes a 21st century Lee or Jackson would get from fellow UMers after he broke from the USA and eventually opened fire on the US military. I think the patriotism would dry up real quick. It's easy to make hay over a painting. That's not much of a litmus test.

It could be argued that this is the perfect place to display these portraits... A place frequented by their professional peers, not the general public... Interesting point about a modern day Lee or Jackson... Of course the situations are different today than

back then as I mentioned - so anyone breaking away today would be doing so in 100% violation of law, custom and personal oath, rather than the 'murkiness' of the mid 19th century situation...

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

It'd be real interesting to see how many salutes a 21st century Lee or Jackson would get from fellow UMers after he broke from the USA and eventually opened fire on the US military. I think the patriotism would dry up real quick. It's easy to make hay over a painting. That's not much of a litmus test.

You mean after his home state legally and constitutionally voted to tell the Union to get stuffed and was then invaded by the army of the Union in order to bully them into getting into line?

I think there'd be a lot of people here cheering him on, especially if the army he was fighting used some of the same tactics (burn it all to the ground) against them.

[+DieChecker]

I agree with those saying this is a bad idea. These men were Americans before they were Confederates, and there were some Confederate officers, I believe, who went on to continue in the US military after the war. Some generals continued to serve as late as the Spanish-American War.

I don't believe that all the major officers, such as Lee and Jackson, were executed after the War. They again became US citizens.

[coolguy]

This is bull leave them up its history for crying out loud

[Yamato]

You mean after his home state legally and constitutionally voted to tell the Union to get stuffed and was then invaded by the army of the Union in order to bully them into getting into line?

I think there'd be a lot of people here cheering him on, especially if the army he was fighting used some of the same tactics (burn it all to the ground) against them.

So it's human nature to cheer on the raising of arms against those "raze it to the ground" types. I couldn't agree more.

I believe that States should have been allowed to secede without receiving a war for it. If our illustrious leaders weren't smart enough to build new bridges and work it out, what's wrong with them?

[Drayno]

It could be argued that this is the perfect place to display these portraits... A place frequented by their professional peers, not the general public... Interesting point about a modern day Lee or Jackson... Of course the situations are different today than

back then as I mentioned - so anyone breaking away today would be doing so in 100% violation of law, custom and personal oath, rather than the 'murkiness' of the mid 19th century situation...

Officers of today should know the history of their predecessors - especially the politics surrounding the tactics.

You mean after his home state legally and constitutionally voted to tell the Union to get stuffed and was then invaded by the army of the Union in order to bully them into getting into line?

I think there'd be a lot of people here cheering him on, especially if the army he was fighting used some of the same tactics (burn it all to the ground) against them.

You're referring to the Virginia Convention of 1861.

http://www.lva.virginia.gov/public/guides/Civil-War/Secession.htm

I agree with those saying this is a bad idea. These men were Americans before they were Confederates, and there were some Confederate officers, I believe, who went on to continue in the US military after the war. Some generals continued to serve as late as the Spanish-American War.

I don't believe that all the major officers, such as Lee and Jackson, were executed after the War. They again became US citizens.

There was a lot of flak towards Confederate soldiers in the Reconstruction era, but many of them eventually got full pardons.

So it's human nature to cheer on the raising of arms against those "raze it to the ground" types. I couldn't agree more.

I believe that States should have been allowed to secede without receiving a war for it. If our illustrious leaders weren't smart enough to build new bridges and work it out, what's wrong with them?

That in the conflicting of ideas, there's always going to be a call to arms by the impatient.

[Taun]

I agree with those saying this is a bad idea. These men were Americans before they were Confederates, and there were some Confederate officers, I believe, who went on to continue in the US military after the war. Some generals continued to serve as late as the Spanish-American War.

I don't believe that all the major officers, such as Lee and Jackson, were executed after the War. They again became US citizens.

If I remember correctly the only Confederate Officer to be executed for action during the war was the Commandant of Andersonville Prison, where most Union POWs were kept... I can't recall the man's name

and while the conditions at Andersonville were horrid beyond belief, he did get sort of railroaded at his trial, and the similar conditions at Union POW camps was totally overlooked...

[Jeremiah65]

Hello folks...haven't been around in awhile.

I am reviewing the subjects and letting them inspire thought and then I see this one...it doesn't inspire thought, it provokes it.

History is being systematically "smudged" in my opinion. Things that are not exactly true being written and published as factual history...and lets just remove and discard the parts we don't like.

A couple things that irk me...

The civil war was fought over slavery...huge BS...this is not the case at all if you know "true"history. Slavery was an "add on" after the fact.

Andrew Jackson was an evil monster...also not true. "Old Hickory" had his flaws and made his mistakes...like any man...the "Trail of tears" being one of them. But he also fought against the Banksters and defended this country like few other ever have.

History must be as it is...."those that do not remember history are condemned to repeat their mistakes."

[Kowalski]

If I remember correctly the only Confederate Officer to be executed for action during the war was the Commandant of Andersonville Prison, where most Union POWs were kept... I can't recall the man's name

and while the conditions at Andersonville were horrid beyond belief, he did get sort of railroaded at his trial, and the similar conditions at Union POW camps was totally overlooked...

I believe his name was Henry Wirz, and I completely agree with you, on this. The conditions of the Union POW camps was horrible. My third great grandfather, who fought in John Bell Hood's brigade was taken prisoner, and sent to Fort Delaware. The living conditions there were appalling. I honestly don't know how these men dealt with it. I know Andersonville was bad, but it was no worse than any of the Union Camps.