John Kelly calls Robert E. Lee an "honorable man"

[The Derp]

/——/ Yeah those rich Democrat slave owners were greedy alright.

So you need to make up your mind...were the Democrats during the Civil War honorable men, or were they bad men? Becuase you keep jumping from position-to-position.

 

[g5000]

By the pseudocons' own standards, Lee was a terrorist.

The real terrorist of the era was John Brown, the abolitionist, whose effect on Southern sentiments for secession had a much more profound effect than what is generally taught in basic Civil war history.

John Brown attacked a federal installation, making him a terrorist.

The Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter, a federal installation, making them terrorists and traitors.

 

[The Derp]

lol, see? As soon as they're triggered by the word 'Democrat', even Robert E. Lee goes under the bus.

Conservatives have proven they have no principles or integrity by defending collusion between Trump and Russia. Becuase they've been losers their entire life, they can "win" vicariously through Trump. Fuckin' pathetic.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——/ Yeah those rich Democrat slave owners were greedy alright.

So you need to make up your mind...were the Democrats during the Civil War honorable men, or were they bad men? Becuase you keep jumping from position-to-position.

/——/ only you are confused. Slave owners were evil.

 

[easyt65]

The DNC is melting down and the snowflakes are trying to distract with a thread about Kelly's opinion of Robert E. Lee.

Bwuhahahahaha.....

 

[Correll]

My point did not require additional credibility beyond the fact that your hatred of the Confederacy is WAY out of proportion for something that happened before your grandfather was born.You are pretending outrage over this to justify what a dick you are to those who disagree with you on this historical issue.

My hatred of traitors is just as strong now as it would have been 150 years ago. Confederates were traitors and anyone celebrating them are traitors too. And once again, you whine like a little bitch that I'm being mean to you by shutting down you shitty arguments. How about you get the fuck over yourself? Why is that not an option here? Are you not capable of that? You don't seem very capable of much.

I actually don't believe that you do hate traitors. You seem to hate America.

YOur hatred is not credible. That war was over long before your grandfather was born.

Pretty much all of it. You are a liar and an anti-American asshole.

Robert E. Lee was anti-American. That's why he's a traitor. Did the South not lose the Civil War? What history am I missing? The South seceded, lost, and 150 years later the inbred descendants of traitors are arguing that being a traitor is a good thing. LOL. [/QUOTE]


He did rebel. He fought against America and lost and surrendered, and then became reaffirmed his loyalty to America and worked for reconciliation the rest of his life.

THe South today is not supporting treason. They are proud of their heritage and that includes a period of failed rebellion.


Only an anti-American ass would say there was anything wrong with that.

You dishonest idiocy is noted, and dismissed.My point stands.The history I learned in a norther public school was that Lee was a national war hero, who fought for his home state and lost.

LOL! Now I know you're a Russian troll for sure. Lee fought to keep slaves because that's how he got rich. Maybe he was a racist, maybe he wasn't. One thing's for sure; he didn't have a problem with slavery. He wasn't fighting "for Virginia" he was fighting "for Virginia to keep slaves".[/QUOTE]



1. Your idiocy about "russian troll" is noted and laughed at. YOu are the troll here, asshole.

2. I see that you have reasserted your claim. I also see that you have still failed to offer any support for you self serving assumption. YOu lose. My point stands.


Lee fought to protect his homeland.

The point was about your hatred being way too strong for something that happened before your grandfather was born.

I'll remember this the next time one of you shitheads starts whining about Jesus and the Bible. To have such strong emotions for a guy who lived 2000 years ago doesn't seem justifiable to me. Why get so uppity about it? Hmmm?[/QUOTE]



Wow, that failed. Try again.

You are the divisive one here, spreading hatred and trying to turn Americans against each other.

Ah, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument. A staple among inexperienced internet trolls. Spreading hate is your full time job. It's what Putin contracted you to do. [/QUOTE]


This nation had a policy of reconciliation after the Civil War. The idea was to heal the wounds of the war. This policy was wildly successful.

i support that unity.

You are the one that want to marginalize anyone in the South with the slightest shred of regional pride.


That is exactly the type of action to reopen or cause anew old wounds.


You are the one trying to tear this nation aparty, you lefty asshole.

It is absurd for you to pretend that it is not believable that my father served in WWII.

I find the whole thing suspicious. Why would you invoke something you know you cannot prove on the internet message boards? Simple; to lend your shitty argument credibility it doesn't have. [/QUOTE]

1. I explained why. HIs lack of hatred for enemies he actually fought, put your fake outrage in stark contrast, really driving home how absurd it is.

2 But in no way is that point reliant on the contrast between the two. Your strong emotions over something that happened well before your grandfather was born, is simply not credible.

3. Also, you are an asshole for calling me a liar. Fuck you.

Your hysterics and overly dramatic assertions aside, all you are doing it making excuses for your inability to make any point, without basing it on some form of logical fallacy.Also, you are an asshole. FUck you.

Now you're just spitting out random words in no particular order, in the hopes it'll fatigue the conversation and I'll just give up. Guess what? I won't.[/QUOTE]



You've done nothing to support your claims that is not a logical fallacy.


You've insulted a lot. YOu've made some comments on slavery re: it's economic importance in the South.

But really, you haven't really made an actual argument.


Your being, or pretending to be, upset is not a replacement for you having a point.

 

[Correll]

So, you got anything to support your claim that he was motivated by money in his decision to turn down command of the Union army and instead take command of the Army of Virginia?

Ummm, other than the fact that he personally profited off slavery?

Your assumption that money was his motivating factor is noted.

Can you support that with anything? Maybe a letter where he states that that is why he turned down lincoln's offer of command?


Because otherwise, it's just a self serving assumption on your part.

 

[Correll]

Slavery was not Lee's motivation, that was clear.

Of fucking course it was! How do you think he became a rich man? By exploiting free labor (aka slavery).

So, you got anything to support your claim that he was motivated by money in his decision to turn down command of the Union army and instead take command of the Army of Virginia?


lol!!!

That was a joke, I know that supporting your arguments is not for you. YOu are just a partisan hack who just says shit.

In short, he appears to have been a patriotic Virginian, as opposed to being a patriotic American.

Considering that he struggled with the decision on which way to go, I imagine he was both and quite torn about it.


But certainly MORE of a patriotic Virginian, than a patriotic American.

 

[Correll]

Nothing in your post supported your claim.

You're the ones who make the argument about economics of pre-Civil War America. You're the ones who say it wasn't fair and that Southern plantation owners should be allowed to have slaves in order to compete economically with the industrial north. So it's not my claim that there was an economic issue at the heart of it...that's your claim. How exactly am I "race-baiting"? Explain. I think you just vomited out that phrase because you had nothing intelligent to say.

Nothing in there, seems to relate to anything I have ever said.

I am not responsible for the voices in your head.

Trump won based on his Trade and Immigration policies.

No, he won because Russian propagandists were successful in manipulating weak-minded Conservatives in three key states; WI, MI, PA. That's why y'all directed most of your Russian trolling efforts in the final two weeks of the campaign specifically to those on Facebook and Twitter in those states. Trump didn't have a trade policy. He didn't have a real Immigration policy either. He just had rhetoric and nonsense. BTW - how are those NAFTA negotiations going?[/QUOTE]



Your conspiracy theories and red baiting in noted and laughed at.

lol!!

My point stands.


Trump won based on his Trade and Immigration policies.

Wanting better jobs and wages is a pretty normal voter interest.

Too bad Conservatives don't want any of that. Conservatives want wages competitive with the rest of the world...which means US workers take a pay cut so that they can compete with workers in Third World Countries. That's why Conservatives want to abolish the minimum wage...they want American workers to have the same living standards as those in China, where Trump makes his products. Conservatives have absolutely no idea how to create jobs. The last Conservative President we had, Bush the Dumber, ended up losing net private sector jobs...~460,000 from 2001-2009.[/QUOTE]


Trump ran on it and crushed a field of 16 other republicans. It seems you are a little confused about what conservative voters want.

That this offends you, is just you being an asshole.So, fuck off and die, piece of shit.

What offends me is that you feel you have to make up shit about yourself that no one can verify just to lend your argument credibility it doesn't have.[/QUOTE]


That was not about me, I was referring to what the voters wanted.

ie better jobs and wages.


That is not me making up shit.


TRY TO BE LESS STUPID AND DISHONEST.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln had chosen Lee because the both of them had the same view or opinion on slavery.

That's stupid.

" Each states was like a country. Lee did not want to abandoned the state that he loved, Virginia."

No, we were the UNITED States, and though loyalty to state was stronger in the earlier years, they all recognized they were not sovereign entities.

Nope. In all authority not mandated to the federal government by the Constitution or denied to the states, the states were and now remain sovereign.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Right there. ^ Not sovereign.

And here:

U. S. Constitution Article 1 section 10:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

^ Prohibiting States from actions that any Sovereign, independent State has the right to engage in.

To add: Supremacy Clause.

Shall I go on?

Only if you wish to further confirm your ignorance.

What a piss poor, crippled response.

 

[flacaltenn]

Who cares about his motives . He took up arms against the us and killed 100,000s troops.Who’s worse ? Bowe berghdal or Lee??

Of course slavery was his motivation. Lee owned slaves and was wealthy because he owned slaves. When you don't have to pay labor, you get rich pretty quick.

You're not real familar with Lee's life. Never substantially ran his own slave operation. In fact, spent most of his adult PRE-war life in the NORTH.. He took over a family plantation only to settle the estate for the family... Was focused on education both before and after the War. Has a University named after him.

As hard as it it for you to comprehend, the North/South had different economies and cultures. And there were clashes over Import duties and taxes that precipitated the bad blood. The North wanted the South to pay for booming infrastructure that the South didn't have and didn't need. Lots of frustrations caused clashes in Congress prior to the outbreak.

 

[NYcarbineer]

By the pseudocons' own standards, Lee was a terrorist.

The real terrorist of the era was John Brown, the abolitionist, whose effect on Southern sentiments for secession had a much more profound effect than what is generally taught in basic Civil war history.

John Brown attacked a federal installation, making him a terrorist.

The Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter, a federal installation, making them terrorists and traitors.

By the pseudocons' own standards, Lee was a terrorist.

The real terrorist of the era was John Brown, the abolitionist, whose effect on Southern sentiments for secession had a much more profound effect than what is generally taught in basic Civil war history.

John Brown attacked a federal installation, making him a terrorist.

The Confederacy attacked Fort Sumter, a federal installation, making them terrorists and traitors.

John Brown's raid, which was ultimately intended to start an armed slave rebellion throughout the South, panicked Southerners. They were further enflamed by the election of Lincoln, who they believed would be nothing more than a rubber stamp for the radical abolitionists in the GOP.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

27 pages of

"Waaa Kelly has an unapproved opinion. Waaaa"

 

[The Derp]

You're not real familar with Lee's life. Never substantially ran his own slave operation.

Right, because that's what slave masters were for, duh. No one said Lee was on the back of a horse, whipping his slaves himself. That's what his slave masters did so he didn't have to get his hands dirty as he increased his wealth by not paying his labor.

As hard as it it for you to comprehend, the North/South had different economies and cultures. And there were clashes over Import duties and taxes that precipitated the bad blood. The North wanted the South to pay for booming infrastructure that the South didn't have and didn't need. Lots of frustrations caused clashes in Congress prior to the outbreak.

All of which is related to slavery.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're not real familar with Lee's life. Never substantially ran his own slave operation.

Right, because that's what slave masters were for, duh. No one said Lee was on the back of a horse, whipping his slaves himself. That's what his slave masters did so he didn't have to get his hands dirty as he increased his wealth by not paying his labor.

As hard as it it for you to comprehend, the North/South had different economies and cultures. And there were clashes over Import duties and taxes that precipitated the bad blood. The North wanted the South to pay for booming infrastructure that the South didn't have and didn't need. Lots of frustrations caused clashes in Congress prior to the outbreak.

All of which is related to slavery.

No.. You're not really getting this. He was NOT a farmer. His heart was in education. Did not HAVE plantation operations. He was a military ENGINEER in the NORTH for 30 years. He HATED the only plantation experience that he received when he stepped up to settle a family estate. Knew very little about dealing with the "help"...

Hate to burst your simple bubble here. But he was not a simple man...

 

[The Derp]

No.. You're not really getting this. He was NOT a farmer. His heart was in education. Did not HAVE plantation operations. He was a military ENGINEER in the NORTH for 30 years. He HATED the only plantation experience that he received when he stepped up to settle a family estate. Knew very little about dealing with the "help"...Hate to burst your simple bubble here. But he was not a simple man...

Again, that's why he had slave masters. His family's wealth was built on the backs of free labor (aka slaves). So it's no surprise that he fought to keep slavery because that's how his family (*and how he) got to be so rich.

 

[paperview]

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

<snip>
Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.”

The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

The trauma of rupturing families lasted lifetimes for the enslaved—
...

Lee’s heavy hand on the Arlington plantation, Pryor writes, nearly led to a slave revolt, in part because the enslaved had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death, and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property, one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to "lay it on well." Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

 

[The Derp]

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

<snip>
Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.”

The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

The trauma of rupturing families lasted lifetimes for the enslaved—
...

Lee’s heavy hand on the Arlington plantation, Pryor writes, nearly led to a slave revolt, in part because the enslaved had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death, and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property, one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to "lay it on well." Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

They're one step away from saying Hitler was a good guy because he was nice to his dogs.

 

[flacaltenn]

You're not real familar with Lee's life. Never substantially ran his own slave operation.

Right, because that's what slave masters were for, duh. No one said Lee was on the back of a horse, whipping his slaves himself. That's what his slave masters did so he didn't have to get his hands dirty as he increased his wealth by not paying his labor.

As hard as it it for you to comprehend, the North/South had different economies and cultures. And there were clashes over Import duties and taxes that precipitated the bad blood. The North wanted the South to pay for booming infrastructure that the South didn't have and didn't need. Lots of frustrations caused clashes in Congress prior to the outbreak.

All of which is related to slavery.

Actually, it is all related to the more rural, society conscious, traditional agricultural ways of the South. Didn't have the population to develop like the North. It was a true cultural/economic clash. Folks at the time might have BELIEVED that Southern life couldn't exist beyond slavery, but only a miniscule number of Southerners were responsible for MOST of slaves. The fact is -- after the Civil War, agriculture in the South did JUST FINE without slavery. And STILL dominated the economy for at least 5 or 6 decades. Most all those men who died for the Confederacy would have had substantially the same life prospects, with or without slavery..

 

[flacaltenn]

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

<snip>
Lee’s cruelty as a slavemaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.”

The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

The trauma of rupturing families lasted lifetimes for the enslaved—
...

Lee’s heavy hand on the Arlington plantation, Pryor writes, nearly led to a slave revolt, in part because the enslaved had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death, and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property, one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to "lay it on well." Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

He was hiring them off to other plantations, because it was HIS JOB -- to dissolve THAT plantation. Family wasn't interested in farming anymore. What you're biased piece doesn't say -- is that he FREED many of them in the process as well.. BEFORE the Civil War.