• remotelove@lemmy.ca
    19·
    5 months ago

    I am confused. It’s photoshopped, but I don’t know the significance or why. (The pic I attached here has been jpg’d much more, so I suspect it’s the fake.)

  • yesman@lemmy.world
    14·
    5 months ago

    Jackson had the good fortune to be killed early on. He’d have shown himself to be another incompetent confederate had he gotten the chance.

    • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      101·
      5 months ago

      Jackson I actually have a strange kind of (limited) respect for. On one hand, absolutely, he was a traitor serving one of the most abominable causes known to man. On the other hand, of all the traitors, him and Longstreet are the only ones with any sort of competence or humanity in them.

      Jackson was a religious fanatic, but to the point of breaking law and custom to teach slaves how to read, and was never a major supporter of slavery himself. He also was a legitimately daring cavalry commander. Ignore this, I made a dumb mistake.

      Tear his statues down, certainly. No traitor nor supporter of that abominable cause ought to be honored. But I’ll freely admit he’s not as bad as his fellow traitors.

      • thisbenzingring@lemmy.sdf.orgEnglish
        41·
        5 months ago

        Fuck Jackson with a pole. Still have to admire his fucking guile and bravado. What he did to my blood and our nation is unforgivable and he his ideals can rot in hell for all I care. Still he was a warrior that faced their enemy in arms so I give them acknowledgment.

        • PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          2·
          5 months ago

          Fuck, no, I just made a mistake. I mixed him up with his subordinate, JEB Stuart. The bit about the religiousity still stands.

          • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
            2·
            5 months ago

            He was an absolute religious fanatic who also not only rationalized slavery into his world view, but used religion to do so.

            I won’t besmirch his talents as a military general, but I certainly would not put him on the same level as Longstreet in terms of overall respectability.

  • Hegar@fedia.io
    11·
    5 months ago

    I was really hoping this was going to be a meme about Ramesis III tearing down statues of those failed Shekelesh snowflakes.

    • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
      2·
      5 months ago

      I’m no expert on Civil War figures, but the guy in the statue has a different hairline than every picture of Sherman that I’ve ever seen. Statue guy has the widow’s peak/M-shape, but Sherman was never painted or photographed with a pronounced widow’s peak or receding hair on the edges like that.

        • hydrospanner@lemmy.world
          2·
          5 months ago

          I think the more likely scenario is that you have simply encountered a civil war buff.

          And like most all other civil war buffs, they’ve seen plenty of pictures of generals, certainly enough to know what they look like.

          To me, Sherman has always sort of stood out for having a fairly modern look. Like…if dressed in normal clothes for 2024, his hair and overall appearance wouldn’t seem especially out of place or anachronistic. This as opposed to say, Longstreet or Stuart with their enormous beards, or Burnside with his…well…sideburns.

          • elliot_crane@lemmy.world
            3·
            5 months ago

            Haha nah I wouldn’t consider myself a Civil War buff. I just think Sherman was pretty dope for… well, going full Sherman on the confederates. So it stands to reason that I can easily ID him in pictures.