View single post by pender
 Posted: Fri Jul 15th, 2011 11:06 pm
 PM  Quote  Reply  Full Topic 
pender
Member


Joined: Wed Jun 8th, 2011
Location: North Carolina USA
Posts: 148
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 

  back to top

How does the surrounding paragraphs support your interpretation of the emboldened sentence?

Hank, How does it not? Grant is telling of the past state of the north and south during the war. I see nothing that would presuade me to believe that grant does not mean anything other than the Confederacy. If we look at the context of the emboldened sentence."In the south no opposition was allowed to the government which had been set up and which would have become real and respected if the rebellion had been successful."1. In the south. From this we know it is not the union government, because the union government is in the north. 2. Opposition or union sentiment. We know there where pro union sentiment in the south as well as pro confederate sentiment in the north. But Grant is addressing neither one. Look at the context" no opposition was allowed to the government which had been set up" So we have no opposition in this statement. 3." And which would have become real and respected" Note that in this statement it is the government that would have become real and respected" In the beginning of this statement Grant say's in the south. So the context has to be the government in the south. What government was there in the south except the southern Confederacy?4." If the rebellion had been successful" This is based on the premise if the rebellion had been successful. It could benefit no one else, but the Confederacy. How could it benefit any union sentiment or the United State's government for the rebellion to be successful? That is why I see no other option, but to say Grant is indeed saying the Confederate government would have become real and respected if the rebellion had been successful. I do not understand why that is so hard to except. As I showed before, though the men of the union, and the men of the confederate armies fought a war with each other. I believe history show's alot respected each other. Consider my earlier post on Grant's memoir on Appomattox. Why would Grant not think the Confederacy would have become real and respected? Was he not a fighting to bring these same men back into the union? Was it not also some of the descendants in the south, that thier ancestors help frame the original United States constitution? The bill of right's and the Declaration of Independence? 5.Also in the surrounding paragraphs Grant is dealing with a time of war. If the rebellion would have been succesful, his context would have been placed in a time of peace. I tried looking up commentary on this section of Grant's memoir, but all I found was A Confederate Catechism by Lyon Gardiner Tyler. On question 15 in his book, Had the south gained it's Independence, would it have proved a failure? He use's Grant's memoir as a source that the Confederacy would have become real and respected. Which I found intersting, that at least he saw it the same way as me. Hank, If I am wrong on this subject of Grant's memoir, I will be the first one to admit it. I would also admit I was wrong in using it in the context of an earlier post. The memoir would not change any of my views on the lost cause in any shape or form. Just that Grant did not mean what he said. Maybe another member will jump in and give thier opinion on this memoir as we have gave ours. In closing I would like to call attention to the latter part of the closing paragraph where Grant stated," While the able-bodied white men were at the front fighting for a cause destined to defeat." Sound's alot like Early and Gordon on the lost cause. But that is another subject.

Pender

,

 Close Window