There Goes My Hero. Watch Him As He Goes.

Jerseybart can clarify when he gets here - I might have it hind side of four. Wouldn't be the first time!
He could prove me wrong by posting his hero. I might be imagining I know his thinking because we are both from NJ, and well my friends and family from there are both cynical and sarcastic - which could run amuck with having heroes. - Also the thread title.
 
Reminds me of the guy asking God why didnt he save him? and the answer, first I sent the boat, but you said you were waiting for God....
Well first I sent the abolitionist...
“I think it however a greater evil to the white than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.”


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/#o1LwFJi2qEWLmU51.99
 
That mindset is troubling to you because it's your mindset not Lee's.

Anyway, we're supposed to discuss somebody for a couple days then go to somebody else. @JerseyBart , do I have that right?

What do you think about Lincoln? Good hero material or not?
Yes, we discuss one for up to a week and then move to a new figure. Lincoln will be up soon.
 
You are right in that, I'm a Yankee through and through.

As I see the definition of hero it can be anyone as long as they have a group of people who see them as a hero. As I said I think people pick one small aspect of a person to admire and are naturally forced to overlook affairs, slave ownership or what have you.

I think Jerseybarts goal is to tear down all heroes is it not? And well Im sure we can find some bad aspect of a life for everyone.
My goal is simply respectful debate and discussion about what makes someone a hero to some and an anti-hero to others.
 
He could prove me wrong by posting his hero. I might be imagining I know his thinking because we are both from NJ, and well my friends and family from there are both cynical and sarcastic - which could run amuck with having heroes. - Also the thread title.
My heroes are my deceased father and grandfather and my very alive uncle and they were/are flawed too. I don't hero-worship public figures...unless you put me in front of a cast member from The Office...then I'll squeal like the young ladies at a Beatles concert.
 
Frederick Douglass' thoughts on the matter.
After Lee’s death in 1870, Frederick Douglass, the former fugitive slave who had become the nation’s most prominent African-American, wrote, “We can scarcely take up a newspaper . . . that is not filled with nauseating flatteries” of Lee, from which “it would seem . . . that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven.”​


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/#o1LwFJi2qEWLmU51.99
 
Frederick Douglass' thoughts on the matter.
After Lee’s death in 1870, Frederick Douglass, the former fugitive slave who had become the nation’s most prominent African-American, wrote, “We can scarcely take up a newspaper . . . that is not filled with nauseating flatteries” of Lee, from which “it would seem . . . that the soldier who kills the most men in battle, even in a bad cause, is the greatest Christian, and entitled to the highest place in heaven.”​


Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/making-sense-of-robert-e-lee-85017563/#o1LwFJi2qEWLmU51.99
That is a quote that makes sense coming from Douglass or any abolitionist, escaped/freed slave: about a slave owner, who fought and led an army out to win the independence of rebellious states for the purpose of continuing slavery while he, Douglass, has fought against the institution.
 
I said I think people pick one small aspect of a person to admire and are naturally forced to overlook affairs, slave ownership or what have you.

Or like John Brown? You know, his murders, hostage taking, Attacking a United States Facility?


Respectfully,
William
Justice is Blind.JPG
 
Or like John Brown? You know, his murders, hostage taking, Attacking a United States Facility?


Respectfully,
William
View attachment 139663
Yes, but that was the debate we were having in the John Brown thread. Which is more right, to follow laws and get things done slowly over a hundred years, as happened with reconstruction. Or is it more right that if something is so awful, as slavery and redemption were, do you just go in guns blazing and disregard all laws. It seems like a lose lose as far as history remembering you is concerned. You can say John Brown was bad for killing people and you can say Lincoln was bad for saying he cant touch slavery where it is.
 
We're talking Lee right now. Lincoln, Brown and plenty more will be coming soon, but I appreciate the early interest and enthusiasm on this thread. We start with a new figure Sunday.
 
Okay, here again is the same theme, your inner self and ideas of right and wrong should be repressed. An idea that appears to be the opposite of Transcendentalism.

When a young mother sought Lee’s advice for raising her infant son, Lee replied, “Teach him he must deny himself.” Or how about this: “Duty…is the sublimest word in our language. Do your duty in all things…. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.”

Lee always put others first; he believed that to lead is to serve; he believed that the “forbearing use of power does not only form the touchstone, but the manner … of a true gentleman…. A true gentleman of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.”

Today, Self seems to be the great god of most people. They bow before the presumed truth that happiness lies in self-esteem and “self-actualization” — a very self-flattering way of affirming that one’s “inner self” is always right, and the source of all truth. Self-denial, unless it is in the form of a diet (to make us feel better about ourselves), is not much in vogue.

https://spectator.org/45875_robert-e-lee-icon-south-and-american-hero/
Dare I say it, but in the north I guess they'd call that “inner self” a divine spark,

A core belief of transcendentalism is in the inherent goodness of people and nature. Adherents believe that society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, and they have faith that people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent.

Transcendentalism emphasizes subjective intuition over objective empiricism. Adherents believe that individuals are capable of generating completely original insights with as little attention and deference to past masters as possible.

Maybe this is why so many new religions sprang up in the North, in the North they feel that you should let your inner sense of right and wrong guide you even if it goes against the crowd.
 
Last edited:
" Transcendentalism was based largely on the idea that God is an internal force and that, as His creations, every person and everything has within it a divine spark or an “inner light.” The ultimate goal of the human experience, therefore, was to connect to that inner light, and therefore to the so-called “Over-Soul”—that part of God which unifies all living things. "

https://sites.google.com/site/colle...nce-between-romanticism-and-transcendentalism
 
I am seriously lost, here. I am not sure who is being identified as a Transcidentalist, who should be, or who is not. Is Shaara in on it?

Might be too much Humanities for a science major :wink:
 
I am seriously lost, here. I am not sure who is being identified as a Transcidentalist, who should be, or who is not. Is Shaara in on it?

Might be too much Humanities for a science major :wink:
One person who found Lee to be a hero said that Lee denied his own ideas of right and wrong and looked to the group, he said the opposite person to this would declare. "that one’s “inner self” is always right, and the source of all truth"

So the opposite kind of thought to Lee is a Transcendentalist, a person who looks to their inner "divine spark" to tell them right from wrong. And Shaara, if you have the movie Gettysburg memorized, happened to through divine spark in there, whether he did it because of some deep knowledge that Yankees were transcendentalists or just for fun I dont know.

I don't really have data on percentage of Transcendentalist leanings North and South. (So I must avoid generalizing.) But it might be safe to say how much you value people following their inner voice or intuition may effect how you see Lee as a hero.
 
Thank you for taking the time to clarify your thoughts. This is an interesting discussion, albeit, one that is quite a bit outside my prevue.
 
Thank you Foo Fighters for titling my thread for me.

The recent debate over John Brown's moral fiber gave me an idea. Both civil war era sides have men and women who they consider their heroes. Why not debate them here? I could post a civil war figure to discuss for a day to a week or more and then close the discussion on him/her or like my video discussion chats we could just debate a bunch of them at once and over top of each other. Don't fear. If you haven't been in on a discussion, it actually works.

Why do you and/or others consider________a hero? Why not? You can take one side, the other or both. Evidence, sources, history and personal opinion work just fine.

But what I will say is that the debate will be civil. This is my thread on my forum and I'm a moderator. Debate and discuss respectfully and within the CWT rules and regulations or you're gone. Three strikes and you're out.

So, where goes your hero?
I admire Robert E. Lee. I understand why many- particularly Southerners- consider him a hero.
However, for me, he was no hero. Nor was Grant, nor Meade. None of the senior commanders with the possible exception of Hood qualify. Hood only because he put himself in the thick of things, exposed himself to enemy fire, was wounded several times and after each came back to fight again.
No, for me, the true heroes were the 'grunts' on both sides who did their duty faithfully, under terrible conditions, often in the face of murderous fire. All too many lost limbs or life.
"It is foolish and wrong to mourn the men who died. Rather we should thank God that such men lived." --- George S. Patton, Jr. (November 11, 1885 – December 21, 1945), American Military Leader.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top