Monuments James Robertson speaks

[Bee]

Is Levin accurate on the following points?

Here we go:

You can pick and choose from the presentation and thereby isolate that which is possibly/probably offensive to some or all....and disregard the rest.

I challenge that unless one sits through the whole 80 minutes, he/she is not qualified to discuss the contents of the speech (I am convinced that Levin has watched the whole thing)

In regards to your question: in the two or three paragraphs that Levin has chosen to write about specific points and inaccuracies, he brings up valid issues.

 

[CMWinkler]

Could fall into the definition of rant. Synonyms: tirade, diatribe, broadside. It is very hard to summarize a rant and there seems to be no summaries of this presentation. Is the beauty just in the presentation?

noun

1. 1.
   a spell of ranting; a tirade.
   "his rants against organized religion"
   synonyms: tirade, diatribe, broadside;

Frankly, I don't see his presentation as a "rant." The term rant is pejorative and dismissive equating his talk with a temper tantrum. I certainly do not believe it was that.

Is Levin accurate on the following points?
http://cwmemory.com/2018/07/31/james-i-robertsons-monument-rant/#more-34567

Let me be clear, Robertson is entitled to take any position on this debate that he wants. That is not my concern here. What disappointed me was his inability to provide a coherent argument in support of his position. Along the way he made a number of suspect claims after insisting that Americans today know less than generations past – a claim that is often repeated, but unsupported by the evidence.​

I have addressed this. It was a keynote address, introducing the topic to the conference. I share Dr. Robertson's views on the state of history education in the current society and its affects on both remembrance and on the society as a whole. Mr. Levin claims that assertion is unsupported by evidence, yet offers to evidence that might refute it, either. An interesting lack for someone disputing a claim.

Robertson insists that slavery was dying a natural death by 1860. In his usual routine of waxing poetic about Robert E. Lee he suggested that Americans were more connected to their respective states as opposed to the nation. So much for trying to understand West Point graduates from the South who refused to resign their commissions in the United States army. According to Robertson, the Postal Service was the only way that the federal government directly impacted individual Americans.

As to whether slavery was dying or not, I honestly don't know. There was little land into which slavery might expend which would have been suitable for either cotton or tobacco, but whether that foretold its death, I don't know. Dr. Robertson expressed an opinion about attachment to states, which I think was far more true in 1860 than today, but clearly not universal. I think most folks in that era had very little contact with the federal government.

Much more problematic, however, was the failure to acknowledge the long history of controversy surrounding these monuments, especially stemming from within the African-American community. In a room with an audience of older white people this was an especially disappointing oversight. Black Americans don't exist in his understanding of the relevant history and in the context of the current debate.

His final sentence is an opinion masquerading as a statement of fact. I suppose race is unavoidable in this conversation, but why ought to be the centerpiece of the discussion? Mr. Levin chides Dr. Robertson for failing to genuflect toward the modern notion that people must be protected from things with which they disagree or by those things by which they ought to find offending.

Mr. Levin is certainly as free to his views as is Dr. Robertson. One might see his response to itself be a rant.

 

[jgoodguy]

Here we go:

You can pick and choose from the presentation and thereby isolate that which is possibly/probably offensive to some or all....and disregard the rest.

I challenge that unless one sits through the whole 80 minutes, he/she is not qualified to discuss the contents of the speech (I am convinced that Levin has watched the whole thing)

In regards to your question: in the two or three paragraphs that Levin has chosen to write about specific points and inaccuracies, he brings up valid issues.

Remember the last time you challenged me to read an entire work. It was not pretty when I got through with it. I suggest you reserve your challenges to lesser beings.

 

[cash]

Could fall into the definition of rant. Synonyms: tirade, diatribe, broadside. It is very hard to summarize a rant and there seems to be no summaries of this presentation. Is the beauty just in the presentation?

noun

1. 1.
   a spell of ranting; a tirade.
   "his rants against organized religion"
   synonyms: tirade, diatribe, broadside;

Is Levin accurate on the following points?
http://cwmemory.com/2018/07/31/james-i-robertsons-monument-rant/#more-34567

Let me be clear, Robertson is entitled to take any position on this debate that he wants. That is not my concern here. What disappointed me was his inability to provide a coherent argument in support of his position. Along the way he made a number of suspect claims after insisting that Americans today know less than generations past – a claim that is often repeated, but unsupported by the evidence.

Robertson insists that slavery was dying a natural death by 1860. In his usual routine of waxing poetic about Robert E. Lee he suggested that Americans were more connected to their respective states as opposed to the nation. So much for trying to understand West Point graduates from the South who refused to resign their commissions in the United States army. According to Robertson, the Postal Service was the only way that the federal government directly impacted individual Americans.

Much more problematic, however, was the failure to acknowledge the long history of controversy surrounding these monuments, especially stemming from within the African-American community. In a room with an audience of older white people this was an especially disappointing oversight. Black Americans don't exist in his understanding of the relevant history and in the context of the current debate.​

I agree with many of Kevin's points and disagree with others. Professor Robertson spoke from the heart about his emotional feelings regarding the topic, and unfortunately he got a little carried away. Slavery was not dying out in 1860, as current scholarship has shown. Professor Robertson somewhat, but only somewhat, resurrected the "blundering generation" interpretation in his talk, which held sway for a number of years in the early 20th Century but has since been abandoned by historians. Monuments are not history but are artifacts of the generation that erected them, and they do not teach history. Rather, they make a statement of who or what is worthy of honor, and in several cases they promote a false version of history. Confederate veterans were never made American veterans by the U.S. government.

Kevin misinterprets, however, what Professor Robertson was saying regarding localism. "Dr. Bud," as we former students of his refer to him, was talking about Lee's perspective, not making a comment about all Americans. I think he was right about Lee's perspective. Lee the American was more a localist than a nationalist, though he did rapidly become a confederate nationalist. Dr. Bud clearly identified slavery as the root cause of the conflict, and his prescription for monuments mirrors that of the majority of historians as far as I can tell, based on what I have read of a cross section of opinion. In the Q&A Dr. Bud gave a shout-out to Christy Coleman for the work of the Monument Avenue Commission, agreeing completely with their recommendation to remove the Jefferson Davis statue. He clearly denounces "those who wander in the dream world under the name ****s, skinheads, neoconfederates, Southern Legion, and the like. They have no knowledge of and hence they have no respect for the principles embodied in Robert E. Lee. And further the pure and holy Confederate states they envision never existed. Those groups did not gather in Charlottesville or Richmond to honor Lee. If they had with genuine intent they would have done so unarmed, and their efforts would have focused more on reconciliation and less on incitement to riot." He said, "Lee certainly would have no forbearance with this new wave of Confederate feeling and neither do I."

I had lunch with John Coski during the conference, and I believe he correctly labeled Dr. Bud's talk in just two words: "traditional interpretation." That's what it was. It was a very traditional interpretation of the Civil War, which means it leaves out the most current scholarship's findings. The man is 88 years old, so I think it's understandable that he isn't reading the most current interpretations. He does have a sentimental view of R. E. Lee. I don't think there's any doubt about that. There are many admirable things about Lee; however, an overly sentimental view can blind us to Lee's all-too-human flaws, and every human being has flaws. An overly sentimental view can inspire us and can give us a model by which we can live, but it doesn't lead to an enhanced understanding of the man behind the model.

 

[jgoodguy]

I am reminded of asking folks about the Sunday sermon on Wednesday. It was great they'd say. What was it about? What points were made? What scripture was presented? I'd get a blank look and was told

Frankly, I don't see his presentation as a "rant." The term rant is pejorative and dismissive equating his talk with a temper tantrum. I certainly do not believe it was that.

I have addressed this. It was a keynote address, introducing the topic to the conference. I share Dr. Robertson's views on the state of history education in the current society and its affects on both remembrance and on the society as a whole. Mr. Levin claims that assertion is unsupported by evidence, yet offers to evidence that might refute it, either. An interesting lack for someone disputing a claim.



As to whether slavery was dying or not, I honestly don't know. There was little land into which slavery might expend which would have been suitable for either cotton or tobacco, but whether that foretold its death, I don't know. Dr. Robertson expressed an opinion about attachment to states, which I think was far more true in 1860 than today, but clearly not universal. I think most folks in that era had very little contact with the federal government.

​

His final sentence is an opinion masquerading as a statement of fact. I suppose race is unavoidable in this conversation, but why ought to be the centerpiece of the discussion? Mr. Levin chides Dr. Robertson for failing to genuflect toward the modern notion that people must be protected from things with which they disagree or by those things by which they ought to find offending.

Mr. Levin is certainly as free to his views as is Dr. Robertson. One might see his response to itself be a rant.

Thanks for your response. Levin likely used rant as literary license puffery. IMHO Levin is looking for evidence and not finding any, is disappointed. I am also disappointed by that lack. The monument debate is already full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

 

[Bee]

Remember the last time you challenged me to read an entire work. It was not pretty when I got through with it. I suggest you reserve your challenges to lesser beings.

Nope. I mean you and everyone else, equally. One cannot judge this presentation by another's critique of it.

PS not sure who the "lesser beings" are around here, but I try to give everyone a fair shake.

 

[jgoodguy]

I agree with many of Kevin's points and disagree with others. Professor Robertson spoke from the heart about his emotional feelings regarding the topic, and unfortunately he got a little carried away. Slavery was not dying out in 1860, as current scholarship has shown. Professor Robertson somewhat, but only somewhat, resurrected the "blundering generation" interpretation in his talk, which held sway for a number of years in the early 20th Century but has since been abandoned by historians. Monuments are not history but are artifacts of the generation that erected them, and they do not teach history. Rather, they make a statement of who or what is worthy of honor, and in several cases they promote a false version of history. Confederate veterans were never made American veterans by the U.S. government.

Kevin misinterprets, however, what Professor Robertson was saying regarding localism. "Dr. Bud," as we former students of his refer to him, was talking about Lee's perspective, not making a comment about all Americans. I think he was right about Lee's perspective. Lee the American was more a localist than a nationalist, though he did rapidly become a confederate nationalist. Dr. Bud clearly identified slavery as the root cause of the conflict, and his prescription for monuments mirrors that of the majority of historians as far as I can tell, based on what I have read of a cross section of opinion. In the Q&A Dr. Bud gave a shout-out to Christy Coleman for the work of the Monument Avenue Commission, agreeing completely with their recommendation to remove the Jefferson Davis statue. He clearly denounces "those who wander in the dream world under the name ****s, skinheads, neoconfederates, Southern Legion, and the like. They have no knowledge of and hence they have no respect for the principles embodied in Robert E. Lee. And further the pure and holy Confederate states they envision never existed. Those groups did not gather in Charlottesville or Richmond to honor Lee. If they had with genuine intent they would have done so unarmed, and their efforts would have focused more on reconciliation and less on incitement to riot." He said, "Lee certainly would have no forbearance with this new wave of Confederate feeling and neither do I."

I had lunch with John Coski during the conference, and I believe he correctly labeled Dr. Bud's talk in just two words: "traditional interpretation." That's what it was. It was a very traditional interpretation of the Civil War, which means it leaves out the most current scholarship's findings. The man is 88 years old, so I think it's understandable that he isn't reading the most current interpretations. He does have a sentimental view of R. E. Lee. I don't think there's any doubt about that. There are many admirable things about Lee; however, an overly sentimental view can blind us to Lee's all-too-human flaws, and every human being has flaws. An overly sentimental view can inspire us and can give us a model by which we can live, but it doesn't lead to an enhanced understanding of the man behind the model.

Thanks, that helps me understand the presentation in a more positive light.

 

[cash]

I am reminded of asking folks about the Sunday sermon on Wednesday. It was great they'd say. What was it about?

Sin.

What points were made?

He was against it.

[apologies to Calvin Coolidge]

 

[jgoodguy]

Nope. I mean you and everyone else, equally. One cannot judge this presentation by another's critique of it.

I seem to recall a book review where critiques by experts of it ruled while read the book advocates were astonished at what the experts found.

 

[Bee]

I seem to recall a book review where critiques of it ruled.

If I recall, you were trying to critique a book that it "appeared" that you had not read (part of some bizarre game as to admit whether you had read it or not) I asked several times, in the process of your evaluation if you had read the book. You would not answer the question...now

Back to the Topic at Hand

Watch the video, folks, before passing final judgement.

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

I pretty much agree with all your points @cash. I would love to ask Dr. Robertson some questions - in private (and am not going to go into here) - and he is a traditionalist - an Elder Statesman if you will of the Civil War - an Esteemed Elder Statesmen.

He is one of the cornerstones of scholarship for further studies and I'm sure that's what every good scholar wants for his students.

Personally, I want to have enhanced understandings of the major figures of the CW besides just the traditional interpretations I've learned.

But I sure get distressed to see someone that does not have anywhere near the scholarship and standing kick the old man when he is down, to be just that blunt.

Edited: I didn't mean you @cash! I meant Levin's blog.

 

[Bee]

I seem to recall a book review where critiques by experts of it ruled while read the book advocates were astonished at what the experts found.

Back to the Topic at Hand

Dr. Bud's Speech

 

[cash]

I pretty much agree with all your points @cash. I would love to ask Dr. Robertson some questions - in private (and am not going to go into here) - and he is a traditionalist - an Elder Statesman if you will of the Civil War - an Esteemed Elder Statesmen.

He is one of the cornerstones of scholarship for further studies and I'm sure that's what every good scholar wants for his students.

Personally, I want to have enhanced understandings of the major figures of the CW besides just the traditional interpretations I've learned.

But I sure get distressed to see someone that does not have anywhere near the scholarship and standing kick the old man when he is down, to be just that blunt.

Edited: I didn't mean you @cash! I meant Levin's blog.

Dr. Robertson is a very generous scholar. He's willing to sit down and talk with anyone and everyone, so all you need to do is show up where he is, and if there is some time he will be happy to talk with you. He's a very courtly and polite Southern gentleman in every sense of the word. He's very approachable and will gladly answer your questions.

[I knew exactly who you meant. ]

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

It's just hard to do from NH! If you think he would answer an email than PM me and please give me an introduction.

 

[cash]

It's just hard to do from NH! If you think he would answer an email than PM me and please give me an introduction.

He's not a computer guy, unfortunately, and has little time to learn, so he really doesn't do email.

 

[Belle Montgomery]

https://www.c-span.org/video/?448679-5/history-confederate-monuments#

Thank you!

 

[Jimklag]

That's #2 fan in the Bud Robertson fan club cause I'm #1

I'm #1A

 

[cash]

I'm #1A

 

[Jimklag]

View attachment 198888

Hey, Al. Where'd you go to school?

 

[Bee]

View attachment 198888

I wanted to get my picture taken with Dr. Bud, but it would have shattered the moment and interrupted the conversation. It seemed too trivial at the moment, but now I regret not asking