The questions you posed are not what this thread's about, at least in my opinion.

I, too, am damned angry and frustrated at the "political correctness" movement which pressures to remove or alter the memorials to Southern tradition, courage and sacrifice. My blood boils when I read about some race-baiting shill demonize Nathan Bedford Forrest -- perhaps the greatest, most brilliant cavalry tactician this country ever produced -- and try to get his name erased from parks and monuments. The thing is, George, those outrages are happening now, on my watch. It's something I can take action to oppose (or at least go down fighting against).

But the Civil War has been over and done with for a nearly century and a half. There's no way to change the outcome. That was our ancestors' fight, not ours. We have our own fight on our hands, one that our ancestors (with their notions of free speech and self-determination) could not have imagined -- an attempt to impose a cultural dictatorship.

George, you and I are in complete agreement on this issue.

I think what some people misunderstand about my posts is that I am greatly concerned about the increasing use of history as a platform to spew forth hate and demogoguery. In my mind, and in the minds of many, there is no difference between Southerners who hurl invective against an injustice committed against long-dead people they never knew, and blacks who constantly moan about the enslavement of their long-dead ancestors. Both of these groups are playing the game of victimization. It's a loser's philosophy. I am embarassed for my fellow Southerners when they allow themselves to succomb to the weakling's tactic.

Further, it plays into the hands of those very people who make a living out of mocking and marginalizing us. Every time some Southerner shrieks "War Criminal!" the Ivy League types cluck their tongues and make patronizing remarks about "ignorant rednecks." "They're such children, don't you know."

My grandpa used to tell me that we should have pride, but should not be prideful. That's a traditional Southern (or at least Ozark) value, and took me a long time to figure out what he meant.

Finally, I firmly believe that history should be -- must be -- neutral in its narrative of people, places and events. History written with passion is propaganda.

To say, as a matter of fact, that Abraham Lincoln was a war criminal, is propaganda. The man was never tried and found guilty by any tribunal, so he cannot be accurately labeled as a criminal. One can, however, express the opinion that his some of his actions were violations of the law. That opinion should be supported by specific charges, citing the actions involved and the statutes they allegedly violated. Then a treatise dealing with the issue can be studied, debated, refuted, confirmed, etc. That's history. Just saying, "Lincoln stinks", isn't. I do wish, though, that people would devote more time to posts about Lincoln's war cabinet. In my opinion, picking the scab off of that august body of men would yield far more questionable actions than rehashing Lincoln's record.

I'm sorry if this sounds like a lecture, George. I do tend to go on sometimes. But I hope this gives you a clearer idea of what my position in this discussion is all about. You may still disagree with me, but I hope you'll see that my heart's in what I sincerely believe is the right place.