For those who bother to dig, Robert E. Lee was one of America's true heroes!
Amazingly, there are those who continue to equate the War Between the States as a war about slavery. In reality, the argument revolved around an altogether different topic.
Still, when you watch the riots that recently took place in Charlottesville, Virginia and understand that removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee was the center point issue, most ask, "was Lee that offensive? And it so, to who?"
Few know that Robert E. Lee proposed and pushed through adoption of black slaves fighting for the Confederate army. The measure was adopted April 2nd, 1865. The significance of this gesture was simple: "Blacks were seen as Southerners." This action insured future inclusion.
When viewed from this prospective, you can easily place Robert E. Lee along side Martin Luther King, as a prime advocate for the rights of African Americans.
Behind this craze over revisionist history is "political correctness." As referenced in a previous post, "P.C." is "cultural Marxism." It contends that "if you do not agree with me, you are a racist, fascist, bigot, essentially a deplorable." To not oppose the removal of a statue of Robert E. Lee, on the assumption that Lee was the leader in a racist cause called the "Civil War," is fodder for the weak minded.
The "War Between the States" was not a Civil war. In a true Civil war, the president would have closed the ports. Abraham Lincoln blockaded them. In doing so, he recognized the Southern states as a hostile nation. Thus, if accuracy is one's cup of tea, the conflict must be called for what it was: "The War Between the States."
Why does this matter?
There were more Americans killed in this war than all other wars combined. Sadly the entire conflict could have been avoided; had the will to avoid the war been there. It wasn't! The Northeastern states sought to use the Federal Government to gain advantage over the Southern states. The South simply wanted out.
Over the years, the perception of the war has changed. Rather than reveal the true causes of the war, forces of "Secular, Global Socialism" seek to use it as their "case in point!" If you don't agree that the statues come down, then you are a "racist, fascist, bigot, deplorable or all of the above!"
The question becomes, "where is the line drawn?"
As seen in Charlottesville, Virginians and other Southerners proud of their heritage, took exception to P.C. and it's cultural Marxist position. Expect to see the same in Lexington, Kentucky when Lexington's gay mayor, Jim Gray tries to move the statues of John Hunt Morgan and John Breckinridge from the lawn of the old court house.
Perhaps this preference for revisionist history, symbolized by the statue removals hints at the true divide in America. The nation has not been so divided since 1861. Unlike 1861 however, the divide is ideological, not sectional.
One one side, we have "Judeo-Christian Nationalists." Most supported Donald Trump for the Presidency.
On the other side we have "Secular, Globalist-Socialists." Virtually all supported Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders.
Caught the middle are the "Neo-Cons," who in it for themselves, primarily. They favor the status quot. The last thing they want is an interruption of business as usual.
A conflict of this magnitude would forever change the political landscape. Contemporary political elites and D.C. insiders, now being referred to as "the deep state," would find themselves "instant anachronisms." Time would have simply bypassed them.
For this reason, it would appear likely that Neo-Cons will ultimately find their way into the Trump camp. Most are Globalists, and as much as they may loathe Trump's National Populism, the alternative is less forgiving.
It begins with positioning. When revisionist historians are labeled "Cultural Marxists,"promoting secularism,globalism and Socialism," the battle lines will have been drawn.