What's Everyone Reading
- Thread starter steve williams
- Start date
carolkoh
[Industry Expert] Member Sponsor
I tend to read more than one book at a time. Currently, I'm rereading the Brother Cadfael series by Edith Pargeter writing as Ellis Peters &
This is an experimental novel, and it is vastly different from any book I have ever read. I am not sure if the story is the story, or if the novel itself is the story. The difference between the two is becoming increasingly blurred.
Maybe the reader is the story, or maybe there is no story.
After you read that, try April 1865 by Jay Winik, one of my favorites. Despite the revisionism of today’s world, the book demonstrates just how magnanimous Grant was during Lee’s surrender and how Lee, as a result of his dignity, love for his troops and desire for unity at The War’s end, more than anyone, prevented the continuation of the Civil War through a more prolonged guerilla war. Lee unfortunately, in today’s world has gotten a really bad wrap.
I’m now reading “Lincoln’s Last Trial” and enjoying it immensely.
That sounds interesting.
Not to get into a political debate (which this question isn’t), but doesn’t the fact that Lee led the group trying to secede make him, by definition, a traitor which is the worst offender of a sovereign nation? I get the fact that the confederacy is part of the south’s history but I have struggled with the concept of honoring those who fought against the North.
Actually not an easy answer. In today's context yes. However, back then many, especially in the south (but in the north as well) people felt much more connected to their state and it's government than the Federal government, which most still were not totally in acceptance of. Remember, it it was less than 100 years since the Constitution when the Civil War broke out. Federalism still reigned supreme by a large margin (hence the rise of Anti-Federalists that literally reigned supreme since the election of Jefferson). Our Framers knew that to deal with the issue of slavery at the time of composing the Constitution would mean the "union" would never happen. Plus, more than not, people of the "union" did not trust a Federal standing army, supported state militia more than any centralized army and trust in the state was much greater than trust in the Central Government.
I say that because many great people from the South, Lee being the best, felt more of an allegiance to Virginia than to the Union. His good byes to his fellow brethren from West Point was with amazing trepidation as he understood what his choice meant; as did all military leaders on both sides. For him it was not about protecting slavery as much as it was defending his "great Virginia". So by today's context yes, he was a traitor but in the context of his time he was more loyal to Virginia than the union. The era was a complex one and yes, there were many nefarious individuals, particularly in the Government of the South as well as many military leaders, but Lee was not one of them.
He was also the first, in his destroyed church in Richmond, to lead a black man to the altar in front as well as welcomed him to sit next to him. It was a great symbolic gesture that wasn't lost on the people of Richmond, or others of the south for that matter.
Without Lee, the Civil War would have been much more protracted, continued as a guerrilla war as has many civil wars did in other countries that split countries apart forever.
Again context is everything.
Last edited:
LMAO. You just love to spew propaganda. Try reading just a little about Lee and try reading real history instead of revisionist history.
As to Grant, you do realize, with General Order # 11, it was the only time in America until FDR, that any citizens were under expulsion from their homsteads. He ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky. It was ONLY the intervention by Lincoln as a result of some of the head Rabbis from Cincinnati pleading to Lincoln, did Lincoln step in and reverse the order. However, the dastardly deed was done and few ever regained their homestead.
Grant was no angel. He had the utmost respect for Lee the man, regardless of what he felt for the cause he was fighting for. Try reading more about the history of the time to understand the reality. When he surrendered at Appomattox he ordered him men to give him a heroes welcome which he and all of them did.
As to your claim that he was "reviled by Northerners and was hated so much that the Northerners literally buried their dead on his plantation" I have to laugh. The denial of Lee to his homestead happened years earlier, was a political victory, not because of the confiscated land from the General of Northern Virginian Army but because of it's symbolism. It wasn't until years later, after the North lost so many soldiers that they needed to expand their burial grounds outside of Washington and Alexandria and decided on Lee's confiscated land as it was high up beyond flood plains, close to the other burial grounds and was of a pleasing location for the brave soldiers internment. Get your history straight pal. You do know that the Union also occupied Monticello and because of the respect for the man Jefferson, despite his lineage and representation, left his homestead and amazing library intact, similar to the preservation of the Lee mansion.
Also, if you want to read a really good book about the Lincoln Assassination, try Manhunt The 12 day hunt for Lincoln's killer. I have read many books on the massacre, IMHO, this is the best.
However, my real love for American history, lies with the tumultuous years leading up to the Revolution to the years of and just beyond the framing of the Constitution, with a special love for Lewis and Clark. Some amazing books on those years as well as some amazing first editions. As I told you in another post, context is everything, try reading about Washington, Marshall's Life of Washington. I have the first edition with all the maps and is a fascinating read.
Like I said, LMAO as to your lack of any knowledge and your inserting nonsense into my poignant comments. So you read "A" book and are an expert now? In your petty and petulant desire to refute my insightful comments you try to insert from "the one book" you read that I am talking about state rights versus slavery?? LMAO. You are too easy and foolish and way out of your league on this one.
I done with you pertaining to any topic.
