Chuck Baldwin: Praise for Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson

By Chuck Baldwin
ChuckBaldwinLive.com

January is often referred to as “Generals Month” since no less than four famous Confederate Generals claimed January as their birth month: James Longstreet (Jan. 8, 1821), Robert E. Lee (Jan. 19, 1807), Thomas Jonathan “Stonewall” Jackson (Jan. 21, 1824), and George Pickett (Jan. 28, 1825). Two of these men, Lee and Jackson, are particularly noteworthy.

Without question, Robert E. Lee and “Stonewall” Jackson were two of the greatest military leaders of all time. Even more, many military historians regard the Lee and Jackson tandem as perhaps the greatest battlefield duo in the history of warfare. If Jackson had survived the battle of Chancellorsville, it is very possible that the South would have prevailed at Gettysburg and perhaps would even have won the War Between the States.

In fact, it was Lord Roberts, commander-in-chief of the British armies in the early twentieth century, who said, “In my opinion, Stonewall Jackson was one of the greatest natural military geniuses the world ever saw. I will go even further than that–as a campaigner in the field, he never had a superior. In some respects, I doubt whether he ever had an equal.”

While the strategies and circumstances of the War of Northern Aggression can (and will) be debated by professionals and laymen alike, one fact is undeniable: Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson were two of the finest Christian gentlemen this country has ever produced. Both their character and their conduct were beyond reproach.

Unlike his northern counterpart, Ulysses S. Grant, General Lee never sanctioned or condoned slavery. Upon inheriting slaves from his deceased father-in-law, Lee immediately freed them. And according to historians, Jackson enjoyed a familial relationship with those few slaves that were in his home. In addition, unlike Abraham Lincoln and U.S. Grant, there is no record of either Lee or Jackson ever speaking disparagingly of the black race.

As those who are familiar with history know, General Grant and his wife held personal slaves before and during the War Between the States, and, contrary to popular opinion, even Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation did not free the slaves of the North. They were not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed after the conclusion of the war. Grant’s excuse for not freeing his slaves was that “good help is so hard to come by these days.”

Furthermore, it is well established that Jackson regularly conducted a Sunday School class for black children. This was a ministry he took very seriously. As a result, he was dearly loved and appreciated by the children and their parents.

In addition, both Jackson and Lee emphatically supported the abolition of slavery. In fact, Lee called slavery “a moral and political evil.” He also said “the best men in the South” opposed it and welcomed its demise. Jackson said he wished to see “the shackles struck from every slave.”

To think that Lee and Jackson (and the vast majority of Confederate soldiers) would fight and die to preserve an institution they considered evil and abhorrent–and that they were already working to dismantle–is the height of absurdity. It is equally repugnant to impugn and denigrate the memory of these remarkable Christian gentlemen.

In fact, after refusing Abraham Lincoln’s offer to command the Union Army in 1861, Robert E. Lee wrote to his sister on April 20 of that year to explain his decision. In the letter he wrote, “With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the army and save in defense of my native state, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed . . .”

Lee’s decision to resign his commission with the Union Army must have been the most difficult decision of his life. Remember that Lee’s direct ancestors had fought in America’s War For Independence. His father, “Light Horse Harry” Henry Lee, was a Revolutionary War hero, Governor of Virginia, and member of Congress. In addition, members of his family were signatories to the Declaration of Independence.

Remember, too, that not only did Robert E. Lee graduate from West Point “at the head of his class” (according to Benjamin Hallowell), he is yet today one of only six cadets to graduate from that prestigious academy without a single demerit.

However, Lee knew that Lincoln’s decision to invade the South in order to prevent its secession was both immoral and unconstitutional. As a man of honor and integrity, the only thing Lee could do was that which his father had done: fight for freedom and independence. And that is exactly what he did.

Instead of allowing a politically correct culture to sully the memory of Robert E. Lee and Thomas J. Jackson, all Americans should hold them in a place of highest honor and respect. Anything less is a disservice to history and a disgrace to the principles of truth and integrity.

Accordingly, it was more than appropriate that the late President Gerald Ford, on August 5, 1975, signed Senate Joint Resolution 23, “restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee.” According to President Ford, “This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history.” He further said, “General Lee’s character has been an example to succeeding generations . . .”

The significance of the lives of Generals Lee and Jackson cannot be overvalued. While the character and influence of most of us will barely be remembered two hundred days after our departure, the sterling character of these men has endured for two hundred years. What a shame that so many of America’s youth are being robbed of knowing and studying the virtue and integrity of the great General Robert E. Lee and General Thomas J. “Stonewall” Jackson.

Posted to IPR by Paulie

52 thoughts on “Chuck Baldwin: Praise for Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson

  1. Trent Hill

    I think it’s unfair to overlook Generals Longstreet, Hill, or Pickett–all men were gallant.

    But he’s right, Lee and Jacksonm were exemplary.

  2. Steven Druckenmiller

    War of Northern Aggression

    God, what a lunatic. I must have missed that day in history class when the North preemptively attacked Fort Sumter.

  3. Trent Hill

    Steven,

    I think trying to rename it the War of Northern Aggression is stupid–but the Civil War is just as ludicrous of a name. Civil War’s occur when two factions are fighting over the entirety of a nation, the South did not want to conquer the North–just to secede. I think the War for Southern Independence is a fair name to both sides.

  4. Ayn R. Key

    It is well known that the United States uses a tactic of “push them until they hit first”. There were Union Troops on Confederate Soil. They refused to leave upon the order of the government of the CSA. That itself is an act of war. If you come home to find a burglar in your house, you are allowed to shoot first because you are defending your home from a home inavder, even if he hasn’t shot first.

  5. Trent Hill

    Ayn,

    The fort was “federal” property, not state property. So when South Carolina seceded, the property that Fort Sumter sits on technically was property of the Federal government, and therefore the Union.

    With that said, when half of the country secedes–they ought to have some recourse to take that Federal property with them.
    And, if im not mistaken, the South gave the Union the ability to vacate Fort Sumter.

  6. Red Phillips

    Trent, I have to disagree. When South Carolina seceded Fort Sumter logically came with it. If Wyoming seceded would Yellowstone National Park remain federal property? If North Carolina seceded would Ft. Bragg remain federal property?

  7. Trent Hill

    Red,

    Of course. Federal land is just that—it belongs to the Federal government. The South Carolinians did not take over the Federal government or seek to abolish that government–they simply detached themselves from it.

  8. Ross Levin

    Um… I don’t really like praising the Confederacy because they were fighting for the preservation of slavery, regardless of who started the war. I mean, they seceded because of loss of political power, but the core issues was the preservation of slavery. And that is as far as noble or honorable you can get.

  9. Trent Hill

    Ross,

    First of all–Baldwin didnt praise the Confederacy, he praised Lee and Jackson.

    Second of all–the North was not threatening to eliminate the institution of slavery. In fact slavery existed in Northern states, four of them, during and after the Civil War.

    Thirdly–while many in the South did own slavery (about 1/3 of white landowners), very few Confederate soldiers considered the war to be about the preservation of slavery. Furthermore, very few Union soldiers considered their war a crusade against slavery. Because it wasnt. Not until the Emancipation Proclomation (which freed not one slave) did the War take on an abolitionist slant–and then only in the South.

    Did you know, Ross, that previous to 1850 there were more Anti-Slavery Societies in the South than in the North…almost twice as many.

  10. Red Phillips

    Trent, your position makes secession untenable. Then the State would secede but could have pockets of Federal land completely enclosed within? Assuming the unfortunate event that the secession was not peaceful, you could have a fortress of the enemy within your own land.

  11. Jane Doe

    If CA were to secede or any other state they are basically not recognizing the US Govt anymore there any land consider US Govt property would not be recognized.

  12. Ross Levin

    Trent – I did know that. And if Baldwin is praising some of the top generals of the Confederacy, it’s really just a technicality that I said “praising the Confederacy.”

    Why was there sectional tension between them in the first place? The issue of slavery. The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Civil War were all products of the Southern aristocracy fearing that the loss of power would result in the loss of their slaves. Even if that wasn’t why many soldiers went to fight, it caused the fighting. And fear of the elimination of slavery in the South also turned into fear of the Southern lifestyle at the time being lost (which certainly included the oppression of blacks as its main, or one of its main, tenet).

  13. Steven Druckenmiller

    Mr. Hill – I see you have gone into auto-Confederate-apologist mode.

    Like it or don’t, but Mr. Levin is 100% correct. The reason the South seceded was due to the loss of their influence in the government, and with that loss came a rise in the fear that the North would ban slavery.

    I know that you can bring up a bunch of racist quotes from Lincoln, but the fact of the matter is the South viewed him as an abolitionist and seceded as a result of his election.

  14. Red Phillips

    Steven, why the South seceded is not the issue. What matters is why the Union went to war to stop the secession. They manifestly did not go to war to free the slaves. Period.

  15. paulie cannoli Post author

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo104.html

    On July 19 the Associated Press and Reuter’s reported an “amazing find” at a museum in Allentown, Pennsylvania: A copy of a letter dated March 16, 1861, and signed by Abraham Lincoln imploring the governor of Florida to rally political support for a constitutional amendment that would have legally enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution.

    Actually, the letter is not at all “amazing” to anyone familiar with the real Lincoln. It was a copy of a letter that was sent to the governor of every state urging them all to support the amendment, which had already passed the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, that would have made southern slavery constitutionally “irrevocable,” to use the word that Lincoln used in his first inaugural address. The amendment passed after the lower South had seceded, suggesting that it was passed with almost exclusively Northern votes. Lincoln and the entire North were perfectly willing to enshrine slavery forever in the Constitution. This is one reason why the great Massachusetts libertarian abolitionist Lysander Spooner, author of The Unconstitutionality of Slavery, hated and despised Lincoln and his entire gang.

    Lincoln’s slavery forever amendment read as follows:

    “No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State. (See U.S. House of Representatives, 106th Congress, 2nd Session, The Constitution of the United States of America: Unratified Amendments, Doc. No. 106-214).

  16. paulie cannoli Post author

    The reasons for southern secession were complicated.

    Southern revisionist historians are correct to point out that protective tariffs were a major issue, with the northern states desiring high tariffs to keep a monopoly on southern cotton for their own factories rather than those of Europe.

    On the other hand, they tend to overstate their case in claiming that slavery had little or nothing to do with the motives for secession. If that had been the case, the confederacy would have read the handwriting on the wall and abolished slavery straight away upon seceding. Had they done so, much of Europe would have joined the war on their side, and they likely would have succeeded in winning their independence.

    To have failed to do so was a monumental blunder. Had they thought rationally, they should have realized that without the cooperation of the USA in enforcing the fugitive slave laws, they would not long be able to maintain slavery in any case. Yet, they persisted in protecting it, leading to their loss.

  17. Steve Newton

    I keep wondering why anybody really cares to engage this piece. Baldwin commits multiple factual errors throughout, distorting both Lee and Jackson in terms of their record and their views.

    The cherry-picked quotation from Lee condemning slavery is from an 1856 letter in which virtually ever other sentence in the letter defends slavery’s harsh practical necessity as a transtion period for savage Africans to civilization.

    This quote is just plain wrong:

    Remember, too, that not only did Robert E. Lee graduate from West Point “at the head of his class” (according to Benjamin Hallowell), he is yet today one of only six cadets to graduate from that prestigious academy without a single demerit.

    Lee finished #2 in his class, and the only reason he finished without demerits is not that he did not acquire any, but that he attended West Point during a few years when cadets were allowed to “walk off” their demerits. This practice stopped a few years after Lee’s 1829 graduation, so it is hardly a fair comparison to all other cadets.

    The supposed offer by Lincoln of command of the Union Army to Lee is a tale that has never been verified either by documentary evidence or first-hand reports. It is doubtful that Lincoln had ever even heard of Lee when he was inaugurated, although it is known that Winfield Scott thought highly of Lee. Scott may have privately and informally told Lee he would recommend him for such a position, but there is no actual record–by either Scott or Lee–of such a conversation.

    Jackson holding Sunday School for his slaves is hardly a piece of evidence to make him out to be anti-slavery. Many slave-owners did the same, some out of a strong belief that Christianity was one of the better control mechanisms to keep the servile class docile.

    Perhaps if Chuck Baldwin really needs to memorialize a Virginia General of character and integrity from the period, he should investigate George Thomas, who was willing to accept being disowned by his family to honor his oath of service and to do what he thought was right in 1861.

  18. Prospective Advertiser

    The argument that federal property remains federal property without the consent of the state involved flies directly in the face of the article one section eight limitation on how the federal government may acquire property. It can only do so with the consent of the state involved. The argument that re-supplying Fort Sumter by invading the territorial waters of South Carolina for the purpose was anything other than a deliberate, contrived, and carefully measured act of war is simply silly. Moreover, the notion that the South wanted peace is also silly.

    Both Lincoln and Davis wanted war, and war is what they got. Both of them maneuvered and maneuvered until war was the only way forward. Davis very much wanted to go to war so that Virginia and other states would secede – you can look it up.

    By any name, it was a brutal war.

    I do find it interesting that as we begin the three-day weekend for the celebration of the birth and life of Martin Luther King, Jr., we find the presidential nominee of the Constitution Party extolling the virtues of two Confederate Generals. The timing cannot possibly be regarded as incidental.

    The amusing conceit of Lincoln as a great emancipator is also very clearly false. His bigotry and racism is well documented. He was for the union, not for freedom, and union if it required emancipating slaves or enslaving free men. As it turns out, he did quite a bit of both, as the draft riots of the time were intended to point out.

    It was a brutal war, an ugly war, still the war in which the most Americans have died in combat, still the war with the most American military casualties, still the war with the most American civilian casualties. You can equivocate night and day about the causes of the war, the rationale for secession, divide the tariff and the power of secession from the matter of human chattel slavery, and talk about the sincerity and courage of those who fought on each side, but it was till a stupid, fucking, brutal, evil, hellish, nightmare of war.

    And in case the last twelve thousand years of human history is a lacuna for you, it would be well to understand that all wars are stupid, fucking, brutal, evil, hellish nightmares.

  19. Steven Druckenmiller

    Steven, why the South seceded is not the issue.

    If it’s not the issue, one wonders why the Confederate apologists constantly feel the need to downplay the issue. If you want to state that slavery is somehow irrelevant to the Civil War, or a side issue, go ahead, but don’t soft-pedal slavery to do it.

  20. Trent Hill

    “Trent – I did know that. And if Baldwin is praising some of the top generals of the Confederacy, it’s really just a technicality that I said “praising the Confederacy.””

    Ummm,in what world does that make any sense whatsoever? If I praise Erwin Rommell it means im praising the Nazi Regime? If I praise Sun Tzu, im endorsing the regime he worked to build? No.

  21. Trent Hill

    “Trent, your position makes secession untenable. Then the State would secede but could have pockets of Federal land completely enclosed within? Assuming the unfortunate event that the secession was not peaceful, you could have a fortress of the enemy within your own land.”

    If it wasnt peaceful, then that federal government would be an enemy. Besides, what would be the point of having a small pocket of land sourrounded by another country? Take your example about North Carolina having a small federal base somewhere in its interior. North Carolina can offer a sum of cash for the plot, if the Feds reject the deal…North Carolina can simply cut off trade or travel routes in and out of the pocket.

  22. Trent Hill

    “Why was there sectional tension between them in the first place? The issue of slavery. The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1850, and the Civil War were all products of the Southern aristocracy fearing that the loss of power would result in the loss of their slaves. Even if that wasn’t why many soldiers went to fight, it caused the fighting. And fear of the elimination of slavery in the South also turned into fear of the Southern lifestyle at the time being lost (which certainly included the oppression of blacks as its main, or one of its main, tenet).”

    This is for sure, the Civil War would not have occured if slavery had not been an issue. But this doesnt mean that the civil war was fought OVER the issue of slavery. Slavery was simply the issue that brought the two regimes to a boil.
    For example, the events that led to WWII can be attributed to German Nationalism–but WWII wasnt foguht OVER nationalism (because both the allies and axis’ persued a strategy of nationalism, just as both the Union and South wanted to preserve the institution of slavery)–it was fought over expansionism on behalf of Hitler.

  23. Trent Hill

    “And fear of the elimination of slavery in the South also turned into fear of the Southern lifestyle at the time being lost (which certainly included the oppression of blacks as its main, or one of its main, tenet).”

    This is stupid. Blacks were oppressed in the North too, where racism was JUST as prevalent and slavery was legal in 5 states.

  24. Trent Hill

    “Mr. Hill – I see you have gone into auto-Confederate-apologist mode.

    Like it or don’t, but Mr. Levin is 100% correct. The reason the South seceded was due to the loss of their influence in the government, and with that loss came a rise in the fear that the North would ban slavery.”

    I dont apologize for the Confederacy. It had its faults, slavery and the draft amongst the foremost. The North had those same faults, slavery and the draft, plus some.

    And Ross Levin is PARTIALLY correct. There were many reasons the Civil War was fought. People these days concentrate on the “Slave-Power Theory”, but completely ignore the economic fights, the fight of federalism or centralism, and the unfortunate details that the Union wanted to preserve slavery too.

  25. Trent Hill

    “Steven, why the South seceded is not the issue. What matters is why the Union went to war to stop the secession. They manifestly did not go to war to free the slaves. Period.”

    Bingo-bango.

  26. Trent Hill

    “The argument that federal property remains federal property without the consent of the state involved flies directly in the face of the article one section eight limitation on how the federal government may acquire property. It can only do so with the consent of the state involved. ”

    Exactly, you’ve proven my point quite well. South Carolina allowed the US to build a fort there. Thus they had the “consent of the legislature” to “purchase” the land. By my recollection, any such purchase or agreement is a contract and has to be honored until both participants no longer want it to be.

  27. Trent Hill

    “The timing cannot possibly be regarded as incidental.”

    Incidental? No, it isnt incidental. Baldwin printed the article on General Lee’s 202nd Birthday…a day which is celebrated by many southerners.

  28. Trent Hill

    “Trent, not only that, but you are a left libertarian. I bet you did not know that, LOL”

    Dondero has called me leftwing before–it’s a complete joke.

  29. Trent Hill

    “Customs house was at issue.”

    Point stands. The US could not have built the fort without the consent of South Carolina.

    As I’ve said there, there are ways of curing this blemish. The first and easiest is to NOT allow the federal governemnt to buy land.

  30. inDglass

    You would never guess from reading this that Chuck Baldwin was born and raised in the North, in La Porte, Indiana.

    I usually enjoy reading his columns, but this one surprised and disappointed me with the facts he neglected.

  31. Donald Raymond Lake

    New Lib/ Libertarian Lite site: The Endless Debate, ‘Much Ado over Nothing’………

    No wonder after four decades and Harry Browne’s passing no one takes you seriously……………

  32. Rocky Eades

    What Baldwin should have written is an objection to the whole notion of a “general’s month” which glorifies the high level government bureaucrats who have proven their loyalty and service to the state over a long career. Piss on their graves; don’t celebrate their birthdays.

  33. Red Phillips

    “If it’s not the issue, one wonders why the Confederate apologists constantly feel the need to downplay the issue. If you want to state that slavery is somehow irrelevant to the Civil War, or a side issue, go ahead, but don’t soft-pedal slavery to do it.”

    I never said slavery wasn’t an issue, nor do I downplay it. It was clearly one reason the South seceded. My point is that you can’t make the War into a moral crusade if that is not the reason the North was fighting it. They were fighting to save the Union. That is not a moral objective.

  34. Snaggle-Tooth Jones

    Steven Drunkenmiller writes,

    “God, what a lunatic. I must have missed that day in history class when the North preemptively attacked Fort Sumter.”

    What you missed, sir, are the historical facts leading up to the attack on Ft Sumter, which show that the South had every legitimate reason to do it. It’s in Foote’s history, for example. Why don’t you start there?

  35. Steven Druckenmiller

    It’s “Druckenmiller”. Copy and paste, if you must, please.

    I’m aware of the historical facts, but you cannot just baldly assert that “the South had every legitimate reason” – that’s a evaluative, normative judgment on your part, and appealing to Foote is logically illegitimate. You think the South had “every legitimate reason”? You back it up and tell me why.

    Regardless, the much-venerated Articles of Confederation provided solid legal footing for Lincoln to prosecute the war. I have yet to see that assertion somehow demolished.

  36. Steven R Linnabary

    Regardless, the much-venerated Articles of Confederation provided solid legal footing for Lincoln to prosecute the war. I have yet to see that assertion somehow demolished.

    And just what exactly does the US first Constitution have to do with the unfortunate war? The Articles of Confederation were abolished a full 65 years before the war ever started.

    PEACE

  37. Steven Druckenmiller

    You should know that Article XIII held the Articles to be a binding, nonvioable contract. When the Constitution was drafted, it was felt that including this was not necessary because everyone knew it already. Hence why Lincoln said “a more perfect union”.

    You can look it up: Perpetual Union.

  38. Snaggle-Tooth Jones

    If you were aware of the historical facts (and weren’t an irrational Yankee besides), Mr. Drunkenmiller, you wouldn’t have written what you did in the first place.

    BTW, two and possibly three states who ratified the Constitution did so with the reservation of the right of secession.

    And then there are, from the Unionist point of view, all that dicta from Jefferson et al. about the right of secession.

    Oh, did I mention “et al.”:

    “Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government and to form one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may make their own of such territory as they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingling with or near them who oppose their movement. ” (Abraham Lincoln, 1848)

    Save your umbragefor the historically uninformed.

  39. Snaggle-Tooth Jones

    Sorry about the unclear nature of the third paragraph. I meant to make a certain point, switched around midstream, and failed to go back and edit it.

    I’ve been celebrating Robert E. Lee today, and the Rebel Yell whiskey has affected my editorial skills.

    Strike “from the Union point of view.”

  40. Snaggle-Tooth Jones

    In fact, ALWAYS stike “from the Union point of view”, world without end, Amen. That’s precisely the fundamental problem, is it not? At least as far as those of us who value liberty are concerned?

  41. Snaggle-Tooth Jones

    Sorry, one more and then I’m done:

    I believe the libertarian historian/econmist Jefferey Hummel makes the same point about Ft. Sumter, Mr. Drunkenmiller. Is he “logically illegitimate” too?

    BTW, I’m not sure what “logically illegitimate” means, since this is a question of fact, not logic. Perhaps you’ll elaborate.

  42. Danny S

    “””Did you know, Ross, that previous to 1850 there were more Anti-Slavery Societies in the South than in the North…almost twice as many.”””

    It is extemely important to note that that quote would be more proper to say prior to 1830, not 1850. The South became highly defensive of slavery after nat Turner led his rebellion that sowed hysteria across the south and most acutely in Virginia. In 1831-1832 the Virginia legislature debated the last emancipation proposals in the South, which were defeated when many who had been ambivalent to slavery were swung by this occurence. Furthermore, two other events happened at the same time to cement the South’s pro-slavery rhetoric. William Lloyd Garrison began publishing The Liberator around that point in time, which caused the South to believe the North supported radical abolition(which wasn’t largely the case). Furthermore, more physically Jackson’s strong-arming South Carolina in the Nullification Crisis and the Force Acts to enforce federal law by the use of the military caused fear the same principle could be expanded from tariffs to slavery.

    It is important to note that without these events, Virginia may have emancipated slavery sooner. Virginia was part of the Old South, where slavery had less perception of economic necessity beyond the actual industry of exporting slaves to new cotton states in the Southwest.

    Lee and Stonewall Jackson were personally good, but to deny the South fought for slavery is not quite accurate. It would be better to say the South fought for the right to have slavery, not necessarily on the instititution itself. Many poor whites who were low on the social ladder dreamed of moving up to the planter aristocracy.

    About Ft. Sumter, the North I see as having a right to retain its property. The South while having no right to it should not be indicted for this, as it is a small bloodless offense. Some other method of recourse should have been followed.

    Personally, I see the Civil War as a war between two loser sets of ideals- even if certain actors on both sides had the right idea, the mob mindset of the masses had only relative strains of morality.

  43. Pingback: Chuck Baldwin praises Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson again | Independent Political Report

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *