I can hold both of those thoughts in my head at the same time... a)Forrest sucked; and b)later in his life he realized he sucked and admitted as much... and still come to the conclusion that I don't want Forrest statutes. I don't know why Sherman needs to come into that conversation though...Hey, this superbad guy with superbad ideas changed his mind.
I say replace them with statues of George Carlin and Groucho Marx.....How do you propose we go about that? Wouldn't it be easier to just demolish those statues and replace them with statues of, like, Nat Turner or John Brown?
Slavery was the only issue? Didn't the US almost go to war over tariffs just a few decades earlier? Then again, I suppose even the economic disagreements circle back to slavery given how central it was to the southern states' economies.The only issue for the cause of the war was slavery. Slavery apologists like to claim otherwise. The quote you have is out of context. Lincoln didn't enter the war because of slavery; Lincoln entered the war because the South started a war to protect slavery.
*sigh*Wow, a European white supremacist claiming the US Civil War was not about slavery, will wonders never cease?
So what I'm gathering from this thread is that if I can find a single instance of Sherman saying "aw, jeez, whoops", then all of his crimes are washed away as if by John the Baptist himself.
As if baptism and redemption narratives don't go hand-in-hand?Farm Boy's post #41 disabused me of this interpretation of what he was saying.
As if baptism and redemption narratives aren't closely linked?
Didn't the US almost go to war over tariffs just a few decades earlier?
The only non-moral usage of "redeemed" that I'm familiar with refers to, like, coupons.Because he's not saying Forrest was redeemed in some moral sense.
The only non-moral usage of "redeemed" that I'm familiar with refers to, like, coupons.
Well, okay. But saying "aw, dang, my bad, y'all" years after the event does not clearly repay the debts accrued by a career of massacres and terrorism, so again I'm lead to believe that we're talking about "redemption" in a conventional moral sense.
First of all, if you had any reading comprehension, you'd see that I explicitly stated that slavery was one of the reasons. Second, judging by your standards, the US civil war was fought between Nazis and more Nazis
The first modern general is the first modern general.
Certainly, he was not the first warleader to target civilians as the means and goal of war. But we called them other things. Raiders. Vikings. Beasts. In Sherman, it becomes righteous and appropriate alltogether.
Slavery was the only issue? Didn't the US almost go to war over tariffs just a few decades earlier? Then again, I suppose even the economic disagreements circle back to slavery given how central it was to the southern states' economies.
I don't know that I've ever read a more righteously noble lesson. A moral fit for a king!
Would you walk up to a man bigger than you are and punch him in the balls and then complain that he was such a bad person for beating you bloody?