It’s mystifying to me why you folks get so bent out of shape over such as this. “He was a slave, not a soldier” you all insist. So? I don’t care what he was called. It seems clear to me that what’s being honored is his service to the Confederate Army, regardless of what status he held while said service was rendered.Levin replied to me:
Confederates — and you Confederacy bashers — understood/understand the differences between a slave and a soldier? I can, too. But what I can also do, that you folks seem unwilling or incapable of doing, is to discern service to the Army, and to the Confederacy, regardless of whether it was done by a soldier or a slave.
I don’t care what he was called.
Yes, we know you don’t care about getting the history right.And James Epperson replied to me:
But what I can also do, that you folks seem unwilling or incapable of doing, is to discern service to the Army, and to the Confederacy, regardless of whether it was done by a soldier or a slave.
Stover didn’t serve the Confederacy, he served his master. This is what happens when you don’t care about getting the history right. My advice is to stick with making book trailers.
So, Ms. Chastain would have no problem if the Japanese erected a monument to honor the British and Australian POWs who “served” the Empire by building the Rangoon railway? The point that she appears to miss is that Robert Stover was *compelled* to work for the Confederate Army by virtue of his being a slave.And Levin commented to Epperson:
This is a distinction that Connie will never acknowledge, though I find it hard to believe that she doesn’t understand it. The problem is that she views everything through the lens of an assault on Confederate heritage/history. It’s a Holy War. :-)I responded, but of course, Levin childishly refused to post my response, so here 'tis:
Not caring what one who served was called is not the same thing as not caring about accurate history. By serving his master, who was, after all, serving the Confederacy, Stover served the Confederacy. BTW, I don't take advice from you.Levin knows what I said here is true; that's one reason why he didn't post it. But there's another reason, as well. He will allow a post from a critic, just so he can get his digs in with his reply. But when a critic respond to his insults and misstatements, he refuses to let the second reply through.
The situation of the POWs you mention, Mr. Epperson, is not comparable to Stover's situation. Yes, some slaves were compelled but being a slave doesn't automatically mean serving is against one's will. People who are drafted into the army in my generation's war, Vietnam, were compelled, too. Does that mean their service is worthless and should not be acknowledged and honored?
From the slave narrative of James Gill:"Us was Confedrits all de while, leastwise I means my mammy an’ my pappy and me an’ all de res’ of de chillun ’cause ole mars was and Mars Jeff would er fit ’em too and me wid him iffen we had been ole enough."From the slave narrative of Charlie Aarons:When the Master's son John Harris went to war, Charlie went with him as his body guard, and when asked what his duties were, he replied:The problem with you anti-Confederates is your de-humanizing slaves. Considering how you write about them, one has to assume you think being in slavery removed from slaves all their human characteristics except misery. This is necessary because you all seem to think that white evil exists in exact inverse proportion to slave misery, so if your purpose is to evilize white Southerners, the best way to do it is to showcase slave misery.
"I looked after Marster John, tended the horses and the tents. I recalls well, Madam, the siege of Vicksburg."
The writer then asked him if he wasn't afraid of the shot and shell all around him.
"No, Madam," he replied, "I kept way in the back where the camp was, for I didn't like to feel the earth trembling 'neath my feet, but you see, Madam, I loved young Marster John, and he loved me, and I just had to watch over that boy, and he came through all right."
Levin is also committed to bashing Southern heritage and its supporters. Hence, the "intellectually challenged" reference in his subject. I've blogged numerous times about the flogger love of denigrating the intelligence of people they don't like -- people who don't see eye to eye with them about history. Here are just a couple of posts about it:
What's Behind Flogger Name-calling
I Told You So
All the floggers exhibit this insufferable need to denigrate the intelligence of those they disagree with, at one time or another, to one degree or another -- especially Southern heritage folks. You have to wonder, if they're certain of their stances and arguments, why is it necessary to denigrate the intelligence of those who disagree with them (not to mention censor their comments)? Is it really a lack of confidence in their own beliefs? Or is it simply a character flaw, a need to wield the put-down to stroke their own egos?