(For those interested in History) Was the start of the Battle of Gettysburg, which lasted for three days, and was the bloodiest battle of the Civil War. And probably its turning point. Just watched a story (PBS) about it, and recommend it to all.
LOL! But I did take a tour of Gettysburg about 15 years ago and was really impressed and inspired. I've also been to Normandy, and came away with similar feelings. With the US Army I landed in Germany on D-Day plus 16. Fortunately for me that was 16 years and not days.
Thanks for the reminder, 59. Gettysburg and Antietam were the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. It's amazing to read about the heroics of Joshua Chamberlain and the massacre that was Pickett's Charge.
While my ancestors fought for the Union, I am very disturbed by the destruction and removal of Civil War statues in what has been my home since leaving Iona in 1973, the Commonwealth of Virginia. I object to trying to erase history. When I used to go to court in downtown DC on a regular basis I would look at the statues around the National Archives Museum. There was one on the Pennsylvania Ave side of an old man which is inscribed at its base, "Study the past" and another on the Constitution Avenue side of a young man which is inscribed at its base, “The heritage of the past is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future”.
I think that this country is closer to Civil War than we have been since 1865. It's time for moderates in our country to get things in order and drum out the extremists on the left and right.
Thanks for the reminder, 59. Gettysburg and Antietam were the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. It's amazing to read about the heroics of Joshua Chamberlain and the massacre that was Pickett's Charge.
While my ancestors fought for the Union, I am very disturbed by the destruction and removal of Civil War statues in what has been my home since leaving Iona in 1973, the Commonwealth of Virginia. I object to trying to erase history. When I used to go to court in downtown DC on a regular basis I would look at the statues around the National Archives Museum. There was one on the Pennsylvania Ave side of an old man which is inscribed at its base, "Study the past" and another on the Constitution Avenue side of a young man which is inscribed at its base, “The heritage of the past is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future”.
I think that this country is closer to Civil War than we have been since 1865. It's time for moderates in our country to get things in order and drum out the extremists on the left and right.
Oh, and Go Gaels!!!
Well said, Z.
Psycho's to the left and psycho's to the right. How the hell are they the ones driving the bus?
Moderates need to step up on both sides, it's the only way anything will get back to normal.
Thanks for the reminder, 59. Gettysburg and Antietam were the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. It's amazing to read about the heroics of Joshua Chamberlain and the massacre that was Pickett's Charge.
While my ancestors fought for the Union, I am very disturbed by the destruction and removal of Civil War statues in what has been my home since leaving Iona in 1973, the Commonwealth of Virginia. I object to trying to erase history. When I used to go to court in downtown DC on a regular basis I would look at the statues around the National Archives Museum. There was one on the Pennsylvania Ave side of an old man which is inscribed at its base, "Study the past" and another on the Constitution Avenue side of a young man which is inscribed at its base, “The heritage of the past is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future”.
I think that this country is closer to Civil War than we have been since 1865. It's time for moderates in our country to get things in order and drum out the extremists on the left and right.
Oh, and Go Gaels!!!
Hell yea! What happened to all those Hitler monuments in Germany?
greg, sometimes I am not sure whether to take your posts seriously. This is one of those times.
I am guessing that your posts about Hitler and Satan are sarcasm. After all, no one can seriously equate the statues that have been defaced, demolished, torn down, or removed over the past year in this country to either Hitler or Satan. The statues that have come down over the past year have included Columbus, Lincoln, R.E. Lee, abolitionists, Fr. Junipero Serra, etc. Hardly people who have killed millions of innocents, started world wars, or rule the netherworld. The removal of these statues are reminiscent of the purge of Stalin or Mao by people who wish to erase our history and re-write it.
As to your question about what happened to the Hitler monuments in Germany, I don't give a rats ass what the German government or the German people do in their country. I'm only concerned with what happens in this country.
Clearly, some of the actions by Columbus against the native people or R.E. Lee being a slave owner who took up arms against the United States are wrong and despicable. But these facts are a part of our history. Our history - good and bad - needs to be taught in our schools, not this 1619 or CRT bullshit. If local citizens want the statues removed, let them vote on it. Tearing them down is anarchy.
As to your question about whether Satan is a part of our history, I may have cut class or slept in (due to being hung over from staying at George's too late the night before) when Br. Dunkak or Dr. Guidorizzi lectured on Satan's role in American history;but as far as I know Lucifer is not a part of American history. I'm thinking that just as the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from erecting a statue to Jesus, it would prohibit erecting a statue to Satan as there is a church of Satan.
greg, sometimes I am not sure whether to take your posts seriously. This is one of those times.
I am guessing that your posts about Hitler and Satan are sarcasm. After all, no one can seriously equate the statues that have been defaced, demolished, torn down, or removed over the past year in this country to either Hitler or Satan. The statues that have come down over the past year have included Columbus, Lincoln, R.E. Lee, abolitionists, Fr. Junipero Serra, etc. Hardly people who have killed millions of innocents, started world wars, or rule the netherworld. The removal of these statues are reminiscent of the purge of Stalin or Mao by people who wish to erase our history and re-write it.
As to your question about what happened to the Hitler monuments in Germany, I don't give a rats ass what the German government or the German people do in their country. I'm only concerned with what happens in this country.
Clearly, some of the actions by Columbus against the native people or R.E. Lee being a slave owner who took up arms against the United States are wrong and despicable. But these facts are a part of our history. Our history - good and bad - needs to be taught in our schools, not this 1619 or CRT bullshit. If local citizens want the statues removed, let them vote on it. Tearing them down is anarchy.
As to your question about whether Satan is a part of our history, I may have cut class or slept in (due to being hung over from staying at George's too late the night before) when Br. Dunkak or Dr. Guidorizzi lectured on Satan's role in American history;but as far as I know Lucifer is not a part of American history. I'm thinking that just as the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from erecting a statue to Jesus, it would prohibit erecting a statue to Satan as there is a church of Satan.
Learning about and from the characters of our past is one thing; putting those characters on the podium is a very different level. Further, I think there is a large segment of our population (some of that segment beloved here) that put R. E. Lee on the podium with Hitler and Satan. They may only award him a bronze.
greg, sometimes I am not sure whether to take your posts seriously. This is one of those times.
I am guessing that your posts about Hitler and Satan are sarcasm. After all, no one can seriously equate the statues that have been defaced, demolished, torn down, or removed over the past year in this country to either Hitler or Satan. The statues that have come down over the past year have included Columbus, Lincoln, R.E. Lee, abolitionists, Fr. Junipero Serra, etc. Hardly people who have killed millions of innocents, started world wars, or rule the netherworld. The removal of these statues are reminiscent of the purge of Stalin or Mao by people who wish to erase our history and re-write it.
As to your question about what happened to the Hitler monuments in Germany, I don't give a rats ass what the German government or the German people do in their country. I'm only concerned with what happens in this country.
Clearly, some of the actions by Columbus against the native people or R.E. Lee being a slave owner who took up arms against the United States are wrong and despicable. But these facts are a part of our history. Our history - good and bad - needs to be taught in our schools, not this 1619 or CRT bullshit. If local citizens want the statues removed, let them vote on it. Tearing them down is anarchy.
As to your question about whether Satan is a part of our history, I may have cut class or slept in (due to being hung over from staying at George's too late the night before) when Br. Dunkak or Dr. Guidorizzi lectured on Satan's role in American history;but as far as I know Lucifer is not a part of American history. I'm thinking that just as the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from erecting a statue to Jesus, it would prohibit erecting a statue to Satan as there is a church of Satan.
Learning about and from the characters of our past is one thing; putting those characters on the podium is a very different level. Further, I think there is a large segment of our population (some of that segment beloved here) that put R. E. Lee on the podium with Hitler and Satan. They may only award him a bronze.
Thank you SLG. I'm all for teaching about the atrocities these people commited. Putting up a statue or leaving a statue or monument up is a whole different thing. You are delusional Z-73 if you don't think a majority of the people that visit these monuments don't long for those simpler days when these people were in power. Those monuments were never placed there to teach us about history.
greg, sometimes I am not sure whether to take your posts seriously. This is one of those times.
I am guessing that your posts about Hitler and Satan are sarcasm. After all, no one can seriously equate the statues that have been defaced, demolished, torn down, or removed over the past year in this country to either Hitler or Satan. The statues that have come down over the past year have included Columbus, Lincoln, R.E. Lee, abolitionists, Fr. Junipero Serra, etc. Hardly people who have killed millions of innocents, started world wars, or rule the netherworld. The removal of these statues are reminiscent of the purge of Stalin or Mao by people who wish to erase our history and re-write it.
As to your question about what happened to the Hitler monuments in Germany, I don't give a rats ass what the German government or the German people do in their country. I'm only concerned with what happens in this country.
Clearly, some of the actions by Columbus against the native people or R.E. Lee being a slave owner who took up arms against the United States are wrong and despicable. But these facts are a part of our history. Our history - good and bad - needs to be taught in our schools, not this 1619 or CRT bullshit. If local citizens want the statues removed, let them vote on it. Tearing them down is anarchy.
As to your question about whether Satan is a part of our history, I may have cut class or slept in (due to being hung over from staying at George's too late the night before) when Br. Dunkak or Dr. Guidorizzi lectured on Satan's role in American history;but as far as I know Lucifer is not a part of American history. I'm thinking that just as the Establishment Clause prohibits the government from erecting a statue to Jesus, it would prohibit erecting a statue to Satan as there is a church of Satan.
Dr Guidorizzi was the best. Could use more like him
Thanks for the reminder, 59. Gettysburg and Antietam were the bloodiest battles of the Civil War. It's amazing to read about the heroics of Joshua Chamberlain and the massacre that was Pickett's Charge.
While my ancestors fought for the Union, I am very disturbed by the destruction and removal of Civil War statues in what has been my home since leaving Iona in 1973, the Commonwealth of Virginia. I object to trying to erase history. When I used to go to court in downtown DC on a regular basis I would look at the statues around the National Archives Museum. There was one on the Pennsylvania Ave side of an old man which is inscribed at its base, "Study the past" and another on the Constitution Avenue side of a young man which is inscribed at its base, “The heritage of the past is the seed that brings forth the harvest of the future”.
I think that this country is closer to Civil War than we have been since 1865. It's time for moderates in our country to get things in order and drum out the extremists on the left and right.
Oh, and Go Gaels!!!
Hell yea! What happened to all those Hitler monuments in Germany?
Well said. Why honor traitors with statues? Makes no sense to me.
SLG, I understand that some people may be offended by the statues that have been torn down such as R.E. Lee, U.S. Grant, Lincoln, the abolitionist, Junipero Serra, and the like. In this country we have no right not to be offended. I am offended by some of the people to whom statues and monuments have been erected, but I am not going to go out and deface or destroy public property. As I said earlier, if people want statues to come down, vote on it. Tearing them down is simple anarchy and the offenders should be prosecuted. You are probably correct that some people on this board may want to give Lee a bronze in that triumvirate. People are entitled to think whatever they wish to think. I find him to be an honorable man who deserves a statue. Was slavery wrong? Yes. Was rebellion wrong? As a person who thinks the Union should have been preserved at all costs, Yes. Lee pledged his allegiance to the US after the war. I do not think it is proper to judge the mores and customs of the times of Columbus or the 1800s by today's.
gregcrow, most of the confederate statues that I have seen are outside of courthouses here in Virginia. It's not like they are set up like they are set up like Columbus Circle. And I agree that they were not set up for educational purposes. They were erected by people who descended from the people that the statues represent - they are usually not to one person, but to the Confederate soldier. I have no problem with that. Again, if people want statues of former traitors; explorers; abolitionists, presidents, priests, etc to come down - vote on it. There are statues to people who offend me - I have no right to destroy public property any more than the people who have destroyed or defaced statues of Lee, Lincoln, Columbus, etc. While you may want to call me delusional for not agreeing with you, how many people do you know who have visited a statute of Lee or Columbus who have told you that they long for the days when those people were in power? Generalizations are dangerous. I doubt either of us will change the other's mind. I believe that reasonable people can disagree on this issue and respect your view and right to express it.
ionagrad83, yes, I was a big fan of Dr. Guidorizzi. He was a tough grader, though.
ic1983, as I said above everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
SLG, I understand that some people may be offended by the statues that have been torn down such as R.E. Lee, U.S. Grant, Lincoln, the abolitionist, Junipero Serra, and the like. In this country we have no right not to be offended. I am offended by some of the people to whom statues and monuments have been erected, but I am not going to go out and deface or destroy public property. As I said earlier, if people want statues to come down, vote on it. Tearing them down is simple anarchy and the offenders should be prosecuted. You are probably correct that some people on this board may want to give Lee a bronze in that triumvirate. People are entitled to think whatever they wish to think. I find him to be an honorable man who deserves a statue. Was slavery wrong? Yes. Was rebellion wrong? As a person who thinks the Union should have been preserved at all costs, Yes. Lee pledged his allegiance to the US after the war. I do not think it is proper to judge the mores and customs of the times of Columbus or the 1800s by today's.
gregcrow, most of the confederate statues that I have seen are outside of courthouses here in Virginia. It's not like they are set up like they are set up like Columbus Circle. And I agree that they were not set up for educational purposes. They were erected by people who descended from the people that the statues represent - they are usually not to one person, but to the Confederate soldier. I have no problem with that. Again, if people want statues of former traitors; explorers; abolitionists, presidents, priests, etc to come down - vote on it. There are statues to people who offend me - I have no right to destroy public property any more than the people who have destroyed or defaced statues of Lee, Lincoln, Columbus, etc. While you may want to call me delusional for not agreeing with you, how many people do you know who have visited a statute of Lee or Columbus who have told you that they long for the days when those people were in power? Generalizations are dangerous. I doubt either of us will change the other's mind. I believe that reasonable people can disagree on this issue and respect your view and right to express it.
ionagrad83, yes, I was a big fan of Dr. Guidorizzi. He was a tough grader, though.
ic1983, as I said above everyone is entitled to his/her opinion.
Z: You articulate your position well. By the way, what I learned about American History in my entire formal educational journey; I learned from Dr. Guidorizzi and from Dr. Sumner Powell. My earlier education was not in U.S. Having said that, I am constantly amazed at the lack of knowledge and appreciation for U.S history by those on both fringes - even those who are "well educated". (This is not unique to the U.S. What I have since learned and am continuing to learn is that much of the history taught by the two good Doctors was laundered - not by them. This is also not unique to U.S. Let me give a non-controversial (to this board, I hope) example.
In my early education, the person most responsible for negotiating freedom in 1922 from 300 years of British repression - Michael Collins- was barely mentioned in our history curriculum. Even though he waged a withering urban guerrilla campaign against the British; he was the most respected negotiator at the table by the British. Upon agreeing to the treaty, he said "I may have just signed my own death warrant". He was right! He was also laundered out of the school curriculum. Why? He realized that the treaty he negotiated provided "not the freedom that all nations desire and develop to, but the freedom to achieve it."
It is only recently that I have studied and learned to appreciate this man's incredible insight. Despite his passion and activities on the fringes; he knew when he hit the "wall". "I signed it (treaty) because I would not be one of those to commit the Irish people to war without the Irish people committing themselves to war."
Back to our current situation, I am interested in your take on our current situation.
How well do you think the Union was preserved on January 6th?
Thank you for your post, SLG. I do not think that there is any question that "history" is laundered or slanted in some way. Despite the most ardent efforts of the recorder to be impartial, human biases come into play. And, the "history" is written by the winners.
With regard to January 6, I am of the opinion that anyone who wrongfully entered The Capitol should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. What concerns me is that the people who have been arrested have been kept in jail without any hearing or possibility of bond since their arrest. While some of those arrested most likely are white supremacists who threatened harm to elected officials, a greater number contend that they were exercising their 1st amendment right to protest in "the people's" (their) house. While some of these people committed stupid and criminal acts (sitting in the Speaker's chair, standing at the President of the Senate's place, sitting at Pelosi's desk, etc) some of the video I saw showed protestors telling others to be calm, peaceful, and follow the instruction of Capitol police. No Capitol police were killed during the protest (despite the early rumors that the officer who died of a stroke was as a casualty of the protest - autopsy by the District of Columbia dispelled that story and most of the press recanted the position). It appears that the only fatality was that of an unarmed woman, an Air Force veteran who was shot and killed in the Capitol.
But, as I said, if any person committed a crime on January 6, he/she should be prosecuted.
This is in contrast to what the District of Columbia has done with respect to the people who committed horrible acts of destruction following the Floyd death. The mayor has decided that those who destroyed millions of dollars in property will not be prosecuted. I am tired of the double standard.
I note that you emphasized my words that I thought the Union should be preserved at all costs. While I am not convinced that what happened on January 6 was an attempted coup, if that is proven to be the fact, I consider it treason, punishable by death. We will see what the committee the House finds. I am not confident that it will give a fair and impartial review (most of the committee were the leaders of the failed impeachments of DJT so I question their impartiality). I am interested in how (and if) they will address the fact that the FBI knew of this threat more than a day before January 6; Pelosi and the chief of the Capitol police turned down an offer to have the National Guard present; and there is video footage of a young man placing explosives near the Capitol on January 5.
I also think that the actions of January 6 regarding the preservation of the Union pales in comparison to what was done to the country resulting from the prosecution of DJT. Members of congress and members of the press were calling for his impeachment shortly after his election. 19 minutes after DJT was inaugurated the washington post wrote it's first article on impeachment. For four years there were stories about the Steele dossier, which turned out to be a political trick more vile than Watergate. As far as I am concerned, what happened during the Trump years was an attack on the Republic. If DJT had done what he was accused of doing in rigging the election, why not charge him with that rather than with the "vanilla" abuse of power and obstruction of congress? It was because it could not be proven. It was a waste of time and money and distracted both branches of government as COVID began to hit. So, to the extent that January 6 may be shown to be an attack on the stability of our Union, I believe the events over DJT's term in office were a greater attack on the country's stability.
Again, I am sure that many, perhaps even you, disagree with my position. That's fine. I respect other people's positions. I am very concerned that in our country today (and I am talking about the extremes on both sides) we have gotten to the point where we cannot argue with words, but must use violence. This is truly sad.
Happy Independence Day to all. I am hoping for saner times and a great Iona season.
