0
   

Michelle Obama has hated America for over 40 years?

 
 
RexRed
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 06:13 pm
I ultimately do not hate people (even if they call themselves witches) but I do hate the errant ideas and have no lack of compulsion is saying so. I am going to give it a rest today…

Thanks for even giving me the time of day hope we can learn and grow toward a somewhat mutual understanding.

Be my guest to pick apart what I have said and I will try to return and respond in good time.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 06:20 pm
RexRed wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
RexRed wrote:
An eye for an eye! I am not going to stand around silently and watch you idiots wreck this great country!

Once again, do you ever do Bible study?

The Sermon on the Mount spoke directly against "an eye for an eye."


The Sermon on the Mount AND also "The Lords Prayer" were addressed to solely "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" not the world (Jew AND Gentile). The Epistles are addressed to "the world" while the Gospels are addressed ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...

Why does it say in the Lord's Prayer to pray; "give us our daily bread" where in the Epistles it says, God has (past tense) "supplied all of our NEED though Christ Jesus"? Two thousand years ago our daily bread was supplied for us through Christ Jesus, we need only to claim it and be thankful not pray for it. Give that some thought.

Still reading the progressives Gospel?

What Gospel are you reading?

No matter who was being addressed, the Sermon on the Mount is part of the New Testament. As such, it is part of the canon for followers of Christ.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 06:24 pm
RexRed wrote:
Dag if you had Dys posting lynched blacks and you were a Yankee would that not rip you a new arse too?
Yes, quite right Mr Red, there were no blacks or italians or asians lynched in america, that's all myth created by the communist/liberal/heathen democrats. BTW Maine is not usually considered to be America; america runs for the east coast to the west and from alaska to hawaii.
0 Replies
 
dagmaraka
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 06:41 pm
RexRed wrote:
I ultimately do not hate people (even if they call themselves witches) but I do hate the errant ideas and have no lack of compulsion is saying so. I am going to give it a rest today…


you called me a witch, RexRed. All yours. I never called myself that.

I agree that you have no lack of compulsion to say great many things. You could certainly use some.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 06:51 pm
RexRed wrote:
I ultimately do not hate people (even if they call themselves witches) but I do hate the errant ideas and have no lack of compulsion is saying so. I am going to give it a rest today…

Thanks for even giving me the time of day hope we can learn and grow toward a somewhat mutual understanding.

Be my guest to pick apart what I have said and I will try to return and respond in good time.



I guess you and Michelle Obama are both feeling a bit picked on and torn apart right about now. It is too bad you don't offer her the same hope of mutual understanding and restraint of your compulsion to deny her what you seek for yourself.

She had no part in the way you are feeling. Can you say the same?
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 06:52 pm
dagmaraka wrote:
RexRed wrote:
I ultimately do not hate people (even if they call themselves witches) but I do hate the errant ideas and have no lack of compulsion is saying so. I am going to give it a rest today…


you called me a witch, RexRed. All yours. I never called myself that.

I agree that you have no lack of compulsion to say great many things. You could certainly use some.


It's some sicko nightmare to read his posts.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 07:47 pm
RexRed wrote:
I ultimately do not hate people (even if they call themselves witches) but I do hate the errant ideas and have no lack of compulsion is saying so. I am going to give it a rest today…

Thanks for even giving me the time of day hope we can learn and grow toward a somewhat mutual understanding.

Be my guest to pick apart what I have said and I will try to return and respond in good time.


Was that the sound of an other cheek turning????????
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Feb, 2008 10:58 pm
RexRed wrote:
DrewDad wrote:
RexRed wrote:
An eye for an eye! I am not going to stand around silently and watch you idiots wreck this great country!

Once again, do you ever do Bible study?

The Sermon on the Mount spoke directly against "an eye for an eye."


The Sermon on the Mount AND also "The Lords Prayer" were addressed to solely "the lost sheep of the house of Israel" not the world (Jew AND Gentile). The Epistles are addressed to "the world" while the Gospels are addressed ONLY to the lost sheep of the house of Israel...

Why does it say in the Lord's Prayer to pray; "give us our daily bread" where in the Epistles it says, God has (past tense) "supplied all of our NEED though Christ Jesus"? Two thousand years ago our daily bread was supplied for us through Christ Jesus, we need only to claim it and be thankful not pray for it. Give that some thought.

Still reading the progressives Gospel?


Quote:


I wonder if you are like this in person. I would be scared to
Know you.


Jesus was addressing Jews on the Sermon on the Mount because at the point there were not any Christians yet. However; if one takes the Bible literally then a person realizes that first the lost sheep of Israel were to be saved then the gentiles. However; in the story of when Jesus answered a Canaanite woman who wanted to Jesus to heal her sick child; they had a debate and Jesus used a metaphor about a dog in which he said that it wasn't right to take the food away from the children's mouths to give to the dogs. Then the woman said that was right but sometimes food falls from the table and the dogs do eat the scraps. Jesus answered and said the woman had faith and her child was healed. (Matthew 15:22-28) So from that we know that what applied to those listening at the Sermon on the Mount applies to everyone who believes in him.

So you are not exempt from loving your enemies and your neighbor as you love your self just because Jesus was addressing the lost sheep of Israel on the Sermon on the Mount. Jesus also answers who our neighbors are in another parable of the Good Samaritan which is everyone. (Luke 10:25-37)

(btw-the story can be found in Bible; in any of the versions)
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 05:09 am
I'm not at all suprised by Bill O'Reilly using the term "lynching" in relation to Michelle Obama. No one familiar with him and honest about what they know would be suprised. I'm a little suprised at how he's getting away with it. Especially after that ESPN golf reporter was suspended for a similar, but IMO more innocent remark about Tiger woods.


From a blog by Bob Cesca:

A cursory internet search reveals the shocking truth for those of us who weren't there: photographs depicting a variety of howling posses composed of fire-eyed redneck thugs -- terrorists, if you will -- skulking through the woods with hounds and lengths of rope; hauling with them an American citizen of African descent, and making their way to a not-so-clandestine location where a cowardly, ritualistic, vigilante execution will take place.

Sepia-toned photographs retaining in permanent clarity the faces -- the proud, grinning white "men" gathered like hyenas around the mangled corpse of a black man who had been beaten and hanged by these reactionary monsters. As if the deeds themselves weren't shameful enough, these ghoulish lynch mobs would often take away souvenirs of their homicides: body parts, clothing, hair -- and those terrible photographs.

There are too many of these images. There are too many stories -- more than enough to justify any thinking-person's reluctance to pledge unconditional pride in the entirety our national heritage -- a heritage which includes a 1922 U.S. Senate filibuster against an anti-lynching law.
This isn't ancient history. These aren't isolated incidents. Perhaps as many as 4,000 American blacks were lynched in the eight decades following the end of the Civil War.

Similar events, in practice and symbolism, occur even today. As recently as last year, nooses were used to intimidate African-Americans. The noose, it seems, has become a newsworthy issue in the fourth American century. Almost exactly ten years ago, in 1998, a black man was tied up and dragged behind a pick-up truck in Jasper, Texas until his body was so decimated it was practically unrecognizable as being the remains of a man.

So there's no reason why Bill O'Reilly should be surprised when reasonable, rational, thinking Americans want him to be summarily fired for using the word "lynching" in the context of a rant about Michelle Obama. The outrage is righteous and justified. Words matter. And history shows that these words that Bill O'Reilly invoked cast a long, sinister shadow.

You've probably read the quote here and on other websites, but I want to make sure Bill O'Reilly's bigotry is seared into the record, so I'll post it here again:

And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that's how she really feels -- that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever -- then that's legit. We'll track it down.

Lynching? Party? Unless there's evidence? So we're to understand from Bill O'Reilly that if someone might be relating a certain level of dissatisfaction with America's present status and chief executive, that they deserve to be tracked down by Bill O'Reilly's Lynch Mob?

It doesn't even matter what Michelle Obama said. We do know that FOX News repeatedly misquoted Mrs. Obama's statement and regardless of what she said, nothing -- no words, intentions or deeds justify the unhinged spike in Bill O'Reilly's bigoted, splotchy blood pressure to the point of wanting to "track it down" with his "lynching party." She could've said something like, "Bill O'Reilly is a splotchy dillweed who enjoys savory, soapy shower falafels," and it still wouldn't justify this flagrantly racist "lynching" analogy.

And if it wasn't intentional, then it has to be pegged as gross incompetence, and this asshat -- this spastic Morton Downey Jr. throwback, this serial liar -- should, in fairness, be fired anyway. But considering Bill O'Reilly's record, incompetence only explains half of it. The rest falls in line with a pattern of well-documented bigotry.

It's not just his flippant threat to "lynch" Michelle Obama. It's the Sylvia's Restaurant rant. It's the wetback remarks. It's the white power remarks. All of it. How many other reporters, personalities and celebrities need to be suspended and fired while Bill O'Reilly, time and time again, gets a pass? Instead, FOX News and Roger Ailes enable his prime time behavior because Bill O'Reilly's radio and TV shows are, of course, somewhat popular among similarly simplistic dolts.

He clearly doesn't understand the repercussions of this kind of race-baiting language. And that indicates a staggering lack of understanding about what sorts of reactionary people are dialed in. Likewise, when Malkin, Coulter and Beck (among others) use Senator Obama's middle name or deliberately mispronounce his last name as a pejorative, epithetical attack -- knowing the prejudices of their ignorant far-right orcs -- they indirectly incite violence against the senator and his family.

NBC reported that the hate mail the Obamas received last year prompted the U.S. Secret Service to offer protection earlier in the campaign than is usually the custom. We can only imagine the menacing content of the mail, and we'd be lying to ourselves if we assumed it didn't have anything to do with the race-baiting, epithets and rumor-mongering assaults from these far-right shmendriks.

But I don't think Bill O'Reilly should be fired. Don Imus was fired and eventually reappeared -- moaning for braaaaiins! on another radio network. I'm sure the same pattern would occur with O'Reilly. He'd go away for ten months or so, and then like a giant, splotchy cancer he'd reemerge on CNBC, replacing Glenn Cock -- WHOOPS! I mean, Glenn Beck. I'm sorry about that. Beck he has such an unfortunate last name.

Bill O'Reilly must resign in disgrace for the good of the nation. He should publicly apologize to the Obama family and then, on that same show, he should resign. When he leaves the FOX News building, his FOX News Goon Squad and Tubby Stalking Intern-bots should be ordered to stand down while random passers-by are asked to pelt Bill O'Reilly with eggs, tomatoes and, naturally, falafels -- live on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Then he should volunteer to walk around midtown Manhattan wearing a sandwich board that reads: "Ask Me About My History Of Racism (And Free Cell Phone Offer!)"

This is voluntary justice. This requires you, Bill O'Reilly, to own up to your racism and your incompetence and be man for once. Do you have the dignity, Mr. O'Reilly? Or will you, by not admitting to your racism and by not resigning, vindicate those of us who agree that you're nothing but a coward? Resign, Bill. After all, unlike you and your Stalking McCarthyite Schutzstaffle -- your "Lynching Party" -- we're not a mob out for vengeance. This punishment, Mr. O'Reilly, is entirely up to you.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 05:42 am
next page please, Im pissed.
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 06:12 am
Hi, Pissed.

I'm Disgusted.

Have we met before?
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 06:15 am
Set, you are stomping the memory of one of my heroes also.


1Nobody has denied the actions of others at LRT. However Rice was immediately breveted and Vicent had the misfortune of dying 3 days after Gettysburg. (As did O'Rorke, Weed,and HAzlett)Chamberlain was severely wounded also, but was lucky enough to lsurvive. The Gettysburg museum lists his (and others ) wounds and displays his (and others)bullets (all except Sickles whose leg was shipped off to another museum). Being shot in both hips as 2 of six bullet wounds is not "self promotion "in my estimation. MAybe you have a higher standard of bravery.
Youve been to Gettysburg I suppose . If you walk the Den, The Roundtops, Culps and Cemetery Hills , are all VERY SMALL spaces when considering the number of brigades that were packed within. Chamberlain and Rice were able to signal each other by eye contact (according to Boatners history.

In reality, youre merely blaming Chamberlain for having the good luck to survive his wounds while Vincent died . (Also Vincent had secured initial command because that dooch bag Sickle had abandoned the entire roundtops in direct violation of MEades orders. Also, you will recall that Chamberlain was the ADVANCE regiment of Vincents brigade so he was automatically gonna get his ass hammered and he knew it.(A little more self promotion in your mind?). Vincent cheered all his men (including Chamberlain as his advance regiment) from his stretcher .

Chamberlain was shot and recovered and was awarded a Medal of Honor (you seem to intimate that he wrote his own citation). He later served more campaigns including Petersburg, where he was again shot and wounded (HE knew how to play at self promotion by standing in front of bullets)

At Appomatox, Grant chose Chamberlain to receive the surrender.

Chamberlain wasnt "running for governor" during the war, he ws mustered out in 1866 , was drafted and then elected for 3 terms as Governor. Then he was made president of Bowdoin where he started out before joining the ARmy in 1862.

People dont "plan their political careers" in the middle of a raging battle. And if true, Chamberlain was betting that he was gonna get to be a martyr and have a library or a hiway named after him. He certainly collected a lot of lead and lost a lt of horses. PETA would have his political career stunted for having 6 horses shot from under him at one battle.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 07:02 am
So, Set writes an essay complaining about self promotion by Chamberlain in an attempt to gain higher office. Hmmm, kinda like McCain constantly reminding us he was a POW. Kinda like Kerry telling us over and over again how he served in Vietnam. I could name others, but then what's the point.

Seems that is what politicians do. They self promote. Whether 150 years ago or today, politicians haven't changed. So big deal.

Now back to the real discussion.

I don't have a problem with Mrs. Obama's comment. Yeah, it can be taken to mean she has never been proud of our country until now that her husband is close to being nominated for president. But I will give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that is not exactly what she meant. Now I realize this means I am being a bigger person than the many on here who have crucified Bush for his spoken slips, but then (shameless self promotion coming up) I think I am a much bigger person than many of you here. (see how easy that is)

Folks, people say things all the time that can be taken wrong by those listening. Running for office, or being the spouse of someone running for office, does not exempt one from misspeaking. (And, just for the record, I am not an Obama fan)
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 09:12 am
CoastalRat wrote:
So, Set writes an essay complaining about self promotion by Chamberlain in an attempt to gain higher office. Hmmm, kinda like McCain constantly reminding us he was a POW. Kinda like Kerry telling us over and over again how he served in Vietnam. I could name others, but then what's the point.

Seems that is what politicians do. They self promote. Whether 150 years ago or today, politicians haven't changed. So big deal.

Now back to the real discussion.

I don't have a problem with Mrs. Obama's comment. Yeah, it can be taken to mean she has never been proud of our country until now that her husband is close to being nominated for president. But I will give her the benefit of the doubt and believe that is not exactly what she meant. Now I realize this means I am being a bigger person than the many on here who have crucified Bush for his spoken slips, but then (shameless self promotion coming up) I think I am a much bigger person than many of you here. (see how easy that is)

Folks, people say things all the time that can be taken wrong by those listening. Running for office, or being the spouse of someone running for office, does not exempt one from misspeaking. (And, just for the record, I am not an Obama fan)




You just think you're big because of the big clown shoes.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 09:17 am
CoastalRat wrote:
So, Set writes an essay complaining about self promotion by Chamberlain in an attempt to gain higher office. Hmmm, kinda like McCain constantly reminding us he was a POW. Kinda like Kerry telling us over and over again how he served in Vietnam. I could name others, but then what's the point.

Seems that is what politicians do. They self promote. Whether 150 years ago or today, politicians haven't changed. So big deal.


Sure, that's what politicians do. Some people may refer to as "playing the war hero card." They are also criticized for it. In some cases, they are attacked for it. Have you ever heard of "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth." I wasn't around when Chamberlain ran for Governor of Maine, so i can hardly be lumped in with that type of political mud slinging. I do, however, consider Chamberlain's about the role he played to have been without merit, and very possibly to have been a lie.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 09:37 am
dlowan wrote:

You just think you're big because of the big clown shoes.


That could be it. And on another note, it sure does hurt when I put my foot in mouth. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 11:19 am
In response to FM:

I did not say or imply that Chamberlain was running for public office in 1863. In fact, i specifically pointed out that officers and men of the 20th Maine only began to question Chamberlain's version of events after he had already run for and been elected to the office of Governor of Maine. However, he did enter that office in 1867, and as a Republican when Republicans controlled the White House and the Congress, and when Republicans wielded almost all the political influence in the country north of the Ohio River.

As for the citation for the Medal of Honor, I have not claimed that it was taken from the report which Chamberlain wrote on July 6th. Below is the full text of the citation, from The United States Army Center for Military History.

Quote:
Rank and organization: Colonel, 20th Maine Infantry. Place and date: At Gettysburg, Pa., 2 July 1863. Entered service at: Brunswick, Maine. Born: 8 September 1828, Brewer Maine. Date of issue: 11 August 1893. Citation: Daring heroism and great tenacity in holding his position on the Little Round Top against repeated assaults, and carrying the advance position on the Great Round Top.


Note that the award was issued in 1893, after the controversy between Chamberlain and some of his officers and men, and Lieutenant Melcher (whose company had advanced bayonets to recover their wounded) and some the officers and men had already grown hot and had been much debated publicly. It doesn't hurt to be the Governor of a state, however, when such matters come up for consideration, especially a Republican governor who is to be awarded a citation by a Republican Congress.

The standard for the citation of this award has always seemed to be rather lower for officers than for enlisted men. I would point out that Colonel Vincent took the initiative to place his brigade on Little Round Top, and the it was Colonel Vincent who placed the regiments. However, the inferential evidence is that the 20th Maine was on the left simply as a result of the order in which the regiments of Vincent's brigade marched from the assembly area. (Your claim that the 20th Maine was the "advance" regiment is false, it was one of four regiments in a line circling the summit of Little Round Top. There was no "advance regiment.") It was Chamberlain's duty to have held the position to which his regiment was assigned, and i find it rather difficult to see that as having been "above and beyond the call of duty," rather, it was the whole of his duty. The question then turns on whether or not Chamberlain took the initiative to order a bayonet attack. Although regiments commonly "advanced bayonets" in situations such as that which occurred on July 2nd--recovering wounded--and although the best trained regiments would automatically advance bayonets if given the order "repel cavalry," it was uncommon for Americans to resort to the bayonet in any of our wars, other than during the Revolution. The only other two incidents of which i know in which a regiment was cited for "heroic" behavior in such a circumstance was when the 11th Indiana Regiment of United States Volunteer Infantry at Murfreesboro in Tennessee formed line and fixed bayonet on the order "repel cavalry." Old Joe Wheeler had gotten around the flank Rosecrans army and got among the trains. The 11th Indiana were George Thomas' field police, and they behaved with extraordinary courage and discipline throughout the war, but none of them got the Medal of Honor. Of course, George Thomas as a Virginian and a Democrat, which goes a long way to explain why he has garnered less attention than someone such as Chamberlain. The other incident was Francis Barlow's 61st New York Regiment of United States Volunteer Infantry, which i will discuss later.

Lieutenant Melcher claimed that he had asked for permission to advance bayonets to recover the wounded, and the companies flanking him responded spontaneously when they saw his company advancing. The question of Chamberlain's "heroism" hinges upon whether or not he in fact ordered, and lead the charge. Chamberlain's own accounts, especially in later years when the controversy with the officers and men of the 20th Maine and with Colonel Oates of the 15th Alabama raged vary considerably. It is worth noting, though, that neither Chamberlain nor any of his officers ever claimed that he lead the charge.

Arthur MacArthur, the father of Douglas MacArthur, was the adjutant of the 24th Wisconsin Regiment of United States Volunteers, and he was cited for the Medal of Honor, which was not issued until 1891, for his actions at the battle of Missionary Ridge, a few months after Gettysburg. His citation reads (from the same source as above):

Quote:
Rank and organization: First Lieutenant, and Adjutant, 24th Wisconsin Infantry. Place and date: At Missionary Ridge, Tenn., 25 November 1863. Entered service at: Milwaukee, Wis. Birth: Springfield, Mass. Date of issue: 30 June 1890. Citation: Seized the colors of his regiment at a critical moment and planted them on the captured works on the crest of Missionary Ridge.


There's quite a difference between holding your position, and then ordering advance bayonets (if Chamberlain ever actually did issue such an order, which is the matter disputed by the participants), and actually carrying your regiment's colors into the enemy's works.

As i have noted, the standard for "above and beyond the call of duty" is apparently lower for officer's than it is for enlisted men. It is appalling to see the number of men awarded the Medal of Honor for the Veracruz expedition in 1913, when we occupied the city and seized the custom's house (damned Mexicans). Douglas MacArthur hoped to get a Medal of Honor for a little foray he made from the city in 1913, but it was denied because he had exceeded his instructions. He did eventually get the award though, for his behavior in the Philippines:

Quote:
Rank and organization: General, U.S. Army, commanding U.S. Army Forces in the Far East. Place and date: Bataan Peninsula, Philippine Islands. Entered service at: Ashland, Wis. Birth: Little Rock, Ark. G.O. No.: 16, 1 April 1942. For conspicuous leadership in preparing the Philippine Islands to resist conquest, for gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty in action against invading Japanese forces, and for the heroic conduct of defensive and offensive operations on the Bataan Peninsula. He mobilized, trained, and led an army which has received world acclaim for its gallant defense against a tremendous superiority of enemy forces in men and arms. His utter disregard of personal danger under heavy fire and aerial bombardment, his calm judgment in each crisis, inspired his troops, galvanized the spirit of resistance of the Filipino people, and confirmed the faith of the American people in their Armed Forces. Douglas MacArthur's Father, Arthur MacArthur , was also awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for bravery during the Civil War.


It is worth noting that Jonathan Wainwright, who actually lead the troops on the Bataan peninsula, personally, and was frequently in the lines with them, and then spent four years as a prisoner of war, as awarded the medal of honor. I rather think Wainwright deserved that award more than MacArthur did.

There is only one other "father-son team" which won that award. That was Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. and his son, Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. (Don't ask my why they were both known as Theodore Roosevelt, Jr., i can't explain that.) The elder Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. received the award for his actions at Santiago in Cuba in 1898. He certainly used his status as a "war hero" to get into the Governor's mansion in New York after his return from Cuba. And certainly self-promotion was a big part of his character. This is his citation:

Quote:
Lieutenant Colonel Theodore Roosevelt distinguished himself by acts of bravery on 1 July, 1898, near Santiago de Cuba, Republic of Cuba, while leading a daring charge up San Juan Hill. Lieutenant Colonel Roosevelt, in total disregard for his personal safety, and accompanied by only four or five men, led a desperate and gallant charge up San Juan Hill, encouraging his troops to continue the assault through withering enemy fire over open countryside. Facing the enemy's heavy fire, he displayed extraordinary bravery throughout the charge, and was the frst to reach the enemy trenches, where he quickly killed one of the enemy with his pistol, allowing his men to continue the assault. His leadership and valor turned the tide in the Battle for San Juan Hill. Lieutenant Colonel Roosevelt's extraordinary heroism and devotion to duty are in keeping with the highest traditions of military service and reflect great credit upon himself, his unit, and the United States Army.


I also think that Roosevelt was simply doing his duty when he lead his regiment against the Spanish. However, in the case of Roosevelt, he cannot be said to have promoted his award. He was awarded the Medal of Honor in January, 2001, 103 years after the event. I won't list the citation, but his son won the award for his conduct during the Normandy landings, and he probably deserved his award.

Which takes us back to Chamberlain. You've offered a sneer about putting one's self in harm's way--specifically: "HE knew how to play at self promotion by standing in front of bullets." It's not as though he were the only one who played that role in that war, nor in that battle. Of course, going in harm's way was his duty. Solomon Meredith commanded the First Brigade, First Division, First Corps--known popularly as the Iron Brigade. John Reynolds, the First Corps commander (and Pennsylvania's "Favorite Son," as well as the highest ranking officer in the Army of the Potomac at the time--he had refused the command of the army, which was given to Meade), was killed while he was placing the 2nd Wisconsin Regiment of United States Volunteer Infantry (which suffered the highest casualty rate of any Federal regiment in the war). The Iron Brigade suffered more than 60% casualties overall in the battle, with the 2nd Wisconsin suffering 77% casualties, and the 24th Michigan suffering 80% casualties. Meredith was struck in the head by shrapnel during the affray, and was removed from field service as a result of his injuries. The Iron Brigade managed to stop the advance of Heth and Pender's division of the III Corps, ANV, and when finally withdrawn, marched away in good order with their colors. The stand of the Iron Brigade allowed Hancock (II Corps commander, whose troops had not yet arrived) to form a defensive line on Cemetery Hill and Cemetery Ridge.

Neither Reynolds nor Meredith received a Medal of Honor citation.

Other officers rose to high rank in that war, and with much more effort. Francis Barlow entered a New York regiment as a private soldier, and ended the war as a Major General. Barlow rose through the ranks, and commanded his regiment at Glendale during the Seven Days. He personally lead his men in a bayonet charge, and personally captured the battle flag of the Confederate regiment he routed. At Antietam, he commanded the First Brigade, First Division, Second Corps (the Corps in which he served for the rest of the war), and fought in the sunken road, taking 300 prisoners, and was struck in the face by shrapnel and in the groin by grape shot. Of his behavior, the acting division commander, John Caldwell wrote:

Quote:
Whatever praise is due to the most distinguished bravery, the utmost coolness and quickness of perception, the greatest promptitude and skill in handling troops under fire, is justly due to him. It is but simple justice to say that he has proved himself fully equal to every emergency, and I have no doubt that he would discharge the duties of a much higher command with honor to himself and benefit to the country.


Barlow commanded his brigade at Chancellorsville, but escaped the debacle when Jackson attacked. He was detached temporarily to command a division of XI corps, a group of largely German and Polish immigrants, who resented him as a martinet (he was death on stragglers, and used to follow the column on the march with a heavy cavalry sabre, wacking stragglers on the butt, and followed by a company of field police with fixed bayonets to prevent straggling). Nevertheless, at Gettysburg, his division was the only division of the XI Corps which did not break when the II Corps, ANV advanced against the town of Gettysburg. His stand on "Barlow's Knoll" was equally as responsible as the stand of the Iron Brigade giving Hancock time to form a defensive position on Cemetery Hill. His division was finally swamped by Jubal Early's division, and Barlow was again wounded, and left for dead by his troops, who were probably conducting an exercise in wishful thinking. General Gordon of Early's division found him, and sent him to a field hospital in the town of Gettysburg. He survived his wound, and the field surgeons, and was left behind in the town when the ANV retreated. He was out of service for 9 months, after which time he returned to Hancock's II Corps, and took command of First Division.

Barlow's contemporaries greatly admired him, and thought very highly of him as an officer and as a tactician. One of them stated that he "raised skirmishing to the level of an art form," and he used a technique which would not be seen again until the German 1918 offensive, of spreading his troops out to avoid casualties from mass volleys and artillery fire, and to allow the skirmishers to bypass strong points and concentrate on weak points which they "developed" in the enemy position. At Spotsylvania Court House, he put into practice Emory Upton's shock tactics, and broke through the Confederate line at "the Mule Shoe" (a salient on high ground) after 21 hours of hand-to-hand fighting, in which he participated himself. The casualties inflicted upon and the prisoners taken from Virginia's "Stonewall Brigade" were so high that that famous brigade ceased to exist from that point forward.

Barlow continued in his command, and served at Cold Harbor and before Petersburg, and in the Appomattox campaign.

Barlow was not cited for a Medal of Honor.

I suggest to you that Chamberlain's self-promotion was sufficiently successful that he was recognized for a single act of gallantry, and what may well not have been personal gallantry, which was not so recognized in others. Chamberlain was no more, by himself, the "Savior of the Army" at Gettysburg than were Reynolds, Meredith or Barlow.

You probably will, of course, disagree, and continue to admire Chamberlain. You probably will, of course, understand that i have an entirely different view of the matter, and that my opinion is not uniformed.

For several good commentaries on the battle of Gettysburg, i recommend The Gettysburg that Nobody Knows (the Gettysburg Lectures), Gabor Boritt, Ed., Oxford University Press (USA), 1997. The details of the Chamberlain controversy are discussed in detail in one of the articles.

For a good sketch of Francis Barlow (and several others), i recommend The Warrior Generals: Combat Leadership in the Civil War, Thomas Buell, Crown (the Publisher), 1997.

There are several biographies of Barlow, of which The Boy General: The Life and Careers of Francis Channing Barlow, Richard Welch, the Kent State University Press, 2003--is probably the most recent.

I admire someone like Barlow. I don't hold a high opinion of Chamberlain (which i suspect you've noticed).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 11:33 am
RexRed wrote:
Set, men have their faults often too so go ahead and hate America... Spit on the sacrifice of the north to free slaves! Be my guest see where it ultimately leaves the Jews in Israel today. Considering the Palestinian loving demagogs on the left of which Borat Osama is a kindred spirit.


What a scumbag you are. I don't hate my native land. I don't "spit on" those who gave "the last full measure of devotion" in the Civil War. As for the Jews in Israel, they have made their own bed, and i see no reason to object to them being obliged to lie in it. As for your slander of Obama on that topic, that doesn't surprise me, you get hysterical about anyone with whom you disagree all the time.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 02:09 pm
Quote:
I would point out that Colonel Vincent took the initiative to place his brigade on Little Round Top, and the it was Colonel Vincent who placed the regiments. However, the inferential evidence is that the 20th Maine was on the left simply as a result of the order in which the regiments of Vincent's brigade marched from the assembly area. (Your claim that the 20th Maine was the "advance" regiment is false,


Visit Gettysburg again and look at the arrays. There is also a State Historical marker that recounts the Sickels to Vincent and from there the positioning with Chamberlain at point. The NAt Park Service does not agree with you.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 22 Feb, 2008 02:48 pm
Sorry for stretching the page, but i had trouble finding maps online.

I wonder what sort of spin you're putting on the word "advanced." The 20th were only "advanced" if you are looking south, and Vincent was looking southwest when he deployed his brigade.

http://www.vintageviews.org/vv-tl/maps/maps/140_deployment.JPG

Source

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Little_Round_Top1.png

Source

Simply because the Alabama boys of Law's brigade attempted to "lap" the position and get on Vincent's flank doesn't mean that Vincent has posted the 20th in advance. When Vincent arrived, the enemy was advancing very nearly from the west--one could describe the axis as west by west-southwest. Vincent's deployment clearly shows that he anticipated an attack from that direction. The 20th only comes to be in an "advanced" position as Law passes more troops to his right and attempts to get around Vincent's flank.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/28/2024 at 04:14:14