Confederacy fought for an evil economic model

AbrahamLincoln did the right thing to “let ’em up easy” regarding the Confederacy supporters after the Civil War (“The Fabric of America,” Sept. 3 Forum). Some of their descendants, however, have abused Lincoln’s magnanimous gesture by presenting alternative facts focusing on nobility and struggle for independence instead of the clear truth that the Confederacy fought for theright to own other people.

Whether Confederate statues stay or are “let down easy” does not change this truth because they are just statues with no voice. But the Southern historians who give real voice to the alternative facts cannot be “let down easy” and must be taken to task because their warped view of history can hide the truth if it becomes widespread.

The South before the war was the capitalists’ dream: free land and resources taken from NativeAmericans and free labor on the backs of slaves. The land and resources issue applies to the U.S. as a whole — and by itself is a shameful part of our history that we are all collectively ignoring. The truth is that the foundation of our economic power todaywas not earned but stolen.

The South doubled down by adding the free labor aspect and believed had it won the war and formed a separate country that this model would provide its economic power going forward. Its independence would have depended on continued slavery for others.Nothing noble about that. BRIAN RAMPOLLA

Whitehall Herself,” Sept. 3): Is Ms. Meloy serious? Doesn’t she realize that all theadjectives she piled on Hillary Clinton are more fitting when ascribedto Donald Trump?

I voted for Ms. Clinton but was not blind to her faults. Just once I wanted her to go at Mr. Trump in the same way that he squawked about her!

Sour grapes ... undignified name-calling ... self-pitying ... crude language? Isn’t Ms. Meloy really talking about Mr. Trump? While he performed in his usual boorish manner throughout the campaign — examples too numerous to go into — Ms. Clinton maintained that diplomatic “cool detachment” that real adults display in public. Diversion ... low level of discourse ... facts not on your side? Then smear... chronic victimhood.

C’mon, Ms. Meloy, put the adjectives where they belong: on Donald Trump! DIANE YUHAS Castle Shannon

Regarding Mary Ann Meloy’s piece “The Candidate Reveals Herself” (Sept. 3): She took the opportunity presented by Hillary Clinton’s new book being released to attack Ms. Clinton’s character. Ms. Clinton lost the election, and she is unlikely ever to run for office again, but Ms. Meloy’s obsessive fear of the Clintons inspires her to desecrate Ms. Clinton’s political grave.

Ms. Meloy didn’t say much about the book but argued that Ms. Clinton calling Donald Trump a “creep” for hovering behind her while she talked (though that pretty much defines creepy behavior) was an appalling use of “crude language”

We welcome your opinion

and that Ms. Clinton’s description of a portion of Mr. Trump’s supporters as “deplorables” demonstrated a “predisposition to descend to name-calling.”Given Mr. Trump’s defense of the KKK/neo-Nazi marchers in Charlottesville, Va., who clearly support Mr. Trump, it is clear that Ms. Clinton’s description of that portion of Mr. Trump’s base was accurate. As for name-calling, which candidate had a derogatory name for almost every opponent? Does “lying Hillary” ring a bell, and “lying Ted”? (Evidently, creativity is not Mr. Trump’s strong suit.)

As a Bernie Sanders supporter, I am well aware of Ms. Clinton’s flaws as a candidate, but they pale in relation to Mr. Trump’s behavior as president. And to suggest that Ms. Clinton’s book “confirm[s] the soundness of the American people’s verdict on Nov. 8” would be hilarious if we didn’t have to live through the consequences. KENT JAMES East Washington