Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[paperview]

First, start with this:

Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:

"Congress shall have the Power …. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of Particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings."

 

[paperview]

For those wanting to read more on it:

"[T]he specific case of Fort Sumter, in 1827:

Secretary of War John C. Calhoun had approved the construction of a new fort in the harbor. The first appropriations were made by Congress in 1828 and construction started on the harbor shoal. In November, 1834, after the United States had expended roughly $200,000, one Major William Laval, Esq., claimed title to the "land" which included the under-construction fort.

A South Carolina statute passed in 1791 established a method by which the state disposed of its vacant lands (we tend to forget that much of the territory of the states was empty in the Nineteenth Century: in the original thirteen states, this land was held by the states; in the remaining part of the country, it was held by the Federal government, except in Texas, where the public lands were retained by the state when it was admitted). Laval used the law to claim title to the land - but he described it in a vague manner and given the lack of decent maps of any of the country, his vagueness hid the exact location of the tract he claimed.

When Laval appeared on the scene, the Corps of Engineers stopped work and asked for instructions. It appeared that Laval had filed a proper claim for the land - except that the "land" was below low tide and therefore exempt from purchase.
Well South Carolina was aghast! They did not want to lose the fort to protect themselves, nor the payrolls that would come with the completed fort.

The result was a state law:

Committee on Federal RelationsIn the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836


"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.

"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.

"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836

"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.

Poor Maj. Laval lost his scheme to blackmail the United States!
For those wishing to further pursue the ownership of Fort Sumter, et. al, most major libraries will have American State Papers: Documents Legislative and Executive of the Congress of the United States, Military Affairs, vol. 5, Twenty-third Congress, Second Session, No. 591, "The Construction of Fort Sumter, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina," pp. 463-472.

The War Department became concerned in the 1890s that they might not have clear title to all of their various installations, so they had a civilian attorney in the Judge Advocate General's office research the chain of title. Fortunately for us, not only were the various National Cemeteries still War Department properties, but so were most of the forts used in the early Republic, the Civil War and the Indian Wars"

http://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

 

[rightwinger]

Lincoln can't invade his own country

It was the traitors taking up arms against their country

Virginia was not part of the United States after it seceded. If you insist that it was, then you are agreeing that Lincoln slaughtered hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens. He ordered his troops to rape them, loot their property, burn their homes to the ground and execute them without a trial.

Insurgents were citizens who rebelled against the law. People who do that get hurt, bripat. Duh.

If they were citizens, then Lincoln slaughtered them wholesale and violated their rights in ways too many to count.

They were citizen criminals in rebellion against their country

Criminals have constitutional rights. The government can't execute them without a trial, rape them, take their property or burn it to the ground.

War is Hell: William T Sherman

 

[reconmark]

We know Lee fought against the Union, thus fought for slavery.

stmike talking about history is similar to a hamster eating the pages of a history book.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Says revisionist who think everyone else failed third grade history like them...

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Virginia was not part of the United States after it seceded. If you insist that it was, then you are agreeing that Lincoln slaughtered hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens. He ordered his troops to rape them, loot their property, burn their homes to the ground and execute them without a trial.

Insurgents were citizens who rebelled against the law. People who do that get hurt, bripat. Duh.

If they were citizens, then Lincoln slaughtered them wholesale and violated their rights in ways too many to count.

They were citizen criminals in rebellion against their country

Criminals have constitutional rights. The government can't execute them without a trial, rape them, take their property or burn it to the ground.

War is Hell: William T Sherman

It's a sheer waste of time to debate the Civil War. We cannot in this day of instant video, live coverage and the internet trust what happens on a battlefield.
This is sort of like quoting the Bible for me: too much history rewritten and misinterpreted anyway.

 

[mgh80]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

 

[reconmark]

It's racist to celebrate anyone who fought for slavery.

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

You're a moron who doesn't know history. Almost nobody on the confederate side was fighting for slavery because very few even owned slaves or had a stake in slavery.

The war was fought because 11 states seceded over issues that had nothing to do with slavery and Herr Lincoln Über Alles used illegal force to dragoon them back into the union.

Do you even know why Fort Sumter was fired upon? Of course you don't because you're an ignoramus who has no clue what the issues were leading up to the war.

Are you an idiot or just pretending to be one????
Many southerners that were too poor and ignorant to purchase slaves fought because they could not stomach the idea that slaves would be elevated to a social status equal to theirs.
White Trash would no longer have someone else to look down their nose at.

 

[paperview]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

Lee owned slaves, hated abolitionists, and thought the answer was to wait for God to sort it out.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

We know Lee fought against the Union, thus fought for slavery.

stmike talking about history is similar to a hamster eating the pages of a history book.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Says revisionist who think everyone else failed third grade history like them...

I don't, in the sum of things, think it was fought over slavery, either. America's top industry in the mid-1800s was the textile mills in the North. They needed the cotton from the South because our greatest importer was the U.K., they couldn't grow cotton there. Still can't. Too cold. So this was a hot, hot commodity. They were getting itchy after centuries of wool.

So, as Deep Throat once said, "Follow the money". It's always about money. People in the northern U.S. didn't give a phlying phuck about slaves.

 

[rightwinger]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

His wife owned quite a few slaves.

He married a woman who believed blacks were her property

 

[mgh80]

We know Lee fought against the Union, thus fought for slavery.

stmike talking about history is similar to a hamster eating the pages of a history book.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Says revisionist who think everyone else failed third grade history like them...

The Civil War was NOT fought over slavery. Lincoln (wisely) used it to condone the war to get more support.

Why did the Underground Railroad end in Canada and NOT the North?

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

Lee owned slaves, hated abolitionists, and thought the answer was to wait for God to sort it out.

Lazy guy.

 

[mgh80]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

His wife owned quite a few slaves.

He married a woman who believed blacks were her property

She inherited the slaves from her father.

I'm sure if you have a spouse you disagree on several (big) issues with them.

As I said Lee never owned a slave a day in his life and WAS against it. He wrote letters to his wife expressing anti-slavery beliefs.

 

[paperview]

It's racist to celebrate anyone who fought for slavery.

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

You're a moron who doesn't know history. Almost nobody on the confederate side was fighting for slavery because very few even owned slaves or had a stake in slavery.

The war was fought because 11 states seceded over issues that had nothing to do with slavery and Herr Lincoln Über Alles used illegal force to dragoon them back into the union.

Do you even know why Fort Sumter was fired upon? Of course you don't because you're an ignoramus who has no clue what the issues were leading up to the war.

Are you an idiot or just pretending to be one????
Many southerners that were too poor and ignorant to purchase slaves fought because they could not stomach the idea that slaves would be elevated to a social status equal to theirs.
White Trash would no longer have someone else to look down their nose at.

Nearly a third of Southern families owned Slaves.

It was a point of pride to own a slave or two back then, and most of the slaveowners owned less than ten slaves, most just a couple (the idea of it all being large plantation owners is a myth) - and not just a point of pride - A duty!

For an interesting perspective on how it was viewed, listen to this Southerner Methodist preacher named Peter Cartwright.

He was born in 1785, and raised in Kentucky.

He wrote an autobiography in 1856 - Full title: Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, the backwoods preacher: The birth, fortunes, general experiences of the oldest American Methodist travelling preacher --

His commentary goes a great deal to what he saw happening in the South and compared what it was like in 1816 up to 1856. It went from denouncement to "duty" (and also what he saw plainly on the horizon):

“….it is a notorious fact, that all the preachers from the slaveholding states denounced slavery as a moral evil….I do not recollect a single Methodist preacher, at that day, that justified slavery. But O, how have times changed!

Methodist preachers in those days made it a matter of conscience not to hold their fellow-creatures in bondage, if it was practicable to emancipate them, conformably to the laws of the state in which they lived.

Methodism increased and spread; and many Methodist preachers, taken from comparative poverty, not able to own a negro, and who preached loudly against it, improved, and became popular among slaveholders; and many of them married into those slaveholding families, and became personally interested in slave property, (as it is called.)

Then they began to apologize for the evil; then to justify it, on legal principles; then on Bible principles; till lo and behold! it is not an evil, but a good! it is not a curse, but a blessing! till really you would think, to hear them tell the story, if you had the means, and did not buy a good lot of them, you would go to the devil for not enjoying the labor, toil, and sweat of this degraded race, and all this without rendering them any equivalent whatever!

….If agitation must succeed agitation, strife succeed strife, compromise succeed compromise, it will end in a dissolution of this blessed Union, civil war will follow, and rivers of human blood stain the soil of our happy country.
'

The backwoods preacher an autobiography - Peter Cartwright - Google Books

 

[rightwinger]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

His wife owned quite a few slaves.

He married a woman who believed blacks were her property

She inherited the slaves from her father.

I'm sure if you have a spouse you disagree on several (big) issues with them.

As I said Lee never owned a slave a day in his life and WAS against it. He wrote letters to his wife expressing anti-slavery beliefs.

My wife and I have had quite a few arguments

Never had one on whether people were property.

 

[mgh80]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

Lee owned slaves, hated abolitionists, and thought the answer was to wait for God to sort it out.

Prove it.

 

[reconmark]

Oh God, not that crap again.

All one has to do is read he justifications for secession written by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. There were the direct words of the people who started the civil war, and the reasons they gave for doing that. Only a revisionist moron accepts contemporary spin about it.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Lincoln started the Civil War, dumbshit. He invaded Virginia. It wasn't the other way around.

On April 12, 1861, General P.G.T. Beauregard, in command of the Confederate forces around Charleston Harbor, opened fire on the Union garrison holding Fort Sumter. At 2:30pm on April 13 Major Robert Anderson, garrison commander, surrendered the fort and was evacuated the next day.

Fort Sumter was South Carolina territory. Firing on your own territory isn't an act of war.

The Fort was federal territory......still is

Wrong, it was South Carolina territory. Is Subic Bay U.S. territory? Guantanamo?

 

[mgh80]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

His wife owned quite a few slaves.

He married a woman who believed blacks were her property

She inherited the slaves from her father.

I'm sure if you have a spouse you disagree on several (big) issues with them.

As I said Lee never owned a slave a day in his life and WAS against it. He wrote letters to his wife expressing anti-slavery beliefs.

My wife and I have had quite a few arguments

Never had one on whether people were property.

That is because you're viewing the issue through the eyes of a person in the 21st century and not the 19th. It wasn't abnormal for people to own slaves at that time. Even if his wife did own slaves (she did), that still doesn't mean that Lee was "ok" with that.

As I stated there are letters that Lee wrote to his wife expressing his anti-slavery beliefs. That's evidence that he was NOT ok with it. If you can find any evidence showing that Lee (and not his wife) was pro-slavery I'd be very interested to hear it.

 

[paperview]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

Lee owned slaves, hated abolitionists, and thought the answer was to wait for God to sort it out.

Prove it.

Posted earlier in the thread. Look it up yourself, you lazy bum.

 

[mgh80]

So, Lee will be 208 years old on Monday. All blacks should have a paid holiday. Lee was a loser...

You do know that Lee did NOT own slaves and was anti-slavery right?

Lee owned slaves, hated abolitionists, and thought the answer was to wait for God to sort it out.

Prove it.

Posted earlier in the thread. Look it up yourself, you lazy bum.

You made a statement. I asked you to prove it. You resorted to a personal attack. Good job!!!!!!

If you don't want to prove your points-don't expect to be taken seriously by anybody. That includes people who may agree with you.