Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

To the neo-confederate white supremacists inhabiting this thread:

All your democratic southern brethren who fought that war are dead now...I'm sure even some of them, from on high, are whispering, through the clouds: "Let it go."

You've lost the argument. Goodbye.

You see? That's what makes you special.

Most people have a natural anathema to not defending people who want to own human beings as property -- but not you, nope. You just trudge right along, proud as the day is long to defend slavers.

Stand proud for your love of the Slaveholding "Country."

<insert Confed battle flag here>

I just remembered how to make trolls disappear.

-click-

Permanent ignore.

 

[bodecea]

Tariffs had been declining prior to the Civil War, due primarily to Southern opposition. They went up when the South seceded.

How could tariffs be increased if they couldn't pass through the Senate?

Wrong question. You're claiming that the South had no legitimate gripe and just decided to secede for no reason. Since that idiocy came from you, it's up to you to defend it.

Are we still talking about those traitors? They were lucky they weren't lined up against a wall and shot. The leaders at the least.

Wanting to leave is treason? That's all they did was leave. Treason was Herr Lincoln Über Alles drawing up 75,000 troops and invading those states. He should have been shot.

Oh wait....he was!

It wasn't the leaving.....it was the starting a war. If they had PEACEFULLY left, we would not be having this conversation....but no. They had to be tough guys and fire on a federal installation.

 

[Toro]

You're doing a whole lot of guessing, and ignorantly too. The South had already began to establish it's own international trade contracts with Great Britain sans tariffs. In fact, not much would have changed because the one of the North's largest industries was building ships and operating the slave trade. Yeah, Leftists, the North did that. Even as separate countries, they would have resumed business relations as many warring countries do after hostilities have ceased.

I studied economic history in university for an honours designation for my major in economics, though I have to admit, I had to drag out my old textbooks to refresh myself on the tariff structure at the time. Tariffs had been falling since the 1820s before the Morrill Tariff was enacted.

I am speculating on a counter-factual, it's true, so who knows what would have happened. However, the South was an agrarian economy and had little manufacturing. Great Britain wanted free trade with the South to feed the mills of the Midlands, and the financiers of London and traders of Liverpool benefited greatly from the flow of trade that sent arms to Africa, slaves to the South, and cotton from America. There is little to suggest that manufacturing would have sprung up in the South, since there were few cities of population density necessary to make the economics work, at least for the first 100 years after the Civil War. But since the South would have been reliant upon world markets, and given the reaction to South Africa, its likely that the South would have eventually been shut out of markets for their products as occurred with South Africa. The manufacturing and population migration from the unionized northeast most likely would have been diverted from the South to the Southwest since the laws in the Southwest were similar to the South.

 

[paperview]

To the neo-confederate white supremacists inhabiting this thread:

All your democratic southern brethren who fought that war are dead now...I'm sure even some of them, from on high, are whispering, through the clouds: "Let it go."

You've lost the argument. Goodbye.

You see? That's what makes you special.

Most people have a natural anathema to not defending people who want to own human beings as property -- but not you, nope. You just trudge right along, proud as the day is long to defend slavers.

Stand proud for your love of the Slaveholding "Country."

<insert Confed battle flag here>

I just remembered how to make trolls disappear.

-click-

Permanent ignore.

To be put on ignore by a White Supremacist who loves the idea of assassinating a president is a badge of honor.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Oh God, not that crap again.

All one has to do is read the justifications for secession written by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. These 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

I have read those justifications as well as the Constitution of the Confederacy.......protecting slavery was prominent

Whatever the confederate states stated as their reason for seceding, the fact is that Lincoln invaded them, not the other way around, and his motive was to enforce the Morrill Tariff.

Who started the hostilities? Sure wasn't Lincoln and if the south had not who knows what might have happened.

The truth is the south did secede. Then they attacked the Federal government and war between the two countries was on. The south lost and the victorious north was very generous with their concurred land. If the numskull southerners would not have murdered Lincoln I am thinking it would have ended up even better for the south.

Lincoln deserved to be shot for the same reason that an arsonist deserves to die in a fire he started. Lincoln started a war of Americans killing Americans, so there's no injustice whatsoever when one of those Americans comes gunning for him. In fact, it's morally neutral, a natural vicissitude of war. He killed 600,000 Americans, hell yeah shoot him! Twice!!

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You're doing a whole lot of guessing, and ignorantly too. The South had already began to establish it's own international trade contracts with Great Britain sans tariffs. In fact, not much would have changed because the one of the North's largest industries was building ships and operating the slave trade. Yeah, Leftists, the North did that. Even as separate countries, they would have resumed business relations as many warring countries do after hostilities have ceased.

I studied economic history in university for an honours designation for my major in economics, though I have to admit, I had to drag out my old textbooks to refresh myself on the tariff structure at the time. Tariffs had been falling since the 1820s before the Morrill Tariff was enacted.

I am speculating on a counter-factual, it's true, so who knows what would have happened. However, the South was an agrarian economy and had little manufacturing. Great Britain wanted free trade with the South to feed the mills of the Midlands, and the financiers of London and traders of Liverpool benefited greatly from the flow of trade that sent arms to Africa, slaves to the South, and cotton from America. There is little to suggest that manufacturing would have sprung up in the South, since there were few cities of population density necessary to make the economics work, at least for the first 100 years after the Civil War. But since the South would have been reliant upon world markets, and given the reaction to South Africa, its likely that the South would have eventually been shut out of markets for their products as occurred with South Africa. The manufacturing and population migration from the unionized northeast most likely would have been diverted from the South to the Southwest since the laws in the Southwest were similar to the South.

You missed my larger point that the South would not have been cut off from business dealings with the United States. In fact, if the North had ceased aggression, business would have resumed like it had before, sans tariffs. There was just too much money to be made from the slave trade, which New York and Massechusettes operated. You have the unenviable task of demonstrating that much would have changed simply because there were two countries instead of one. Just like we resumed trade very quickly with Britain after the revolutionary war, the same would have occurred between the United States and the new Confederation of States. Good luck demonstrating otherwise.

 

[hortysir]

Lincoln apologists will excuse him anything.
That's why they have no problem with Obama's overreach

 

[paperview]

Sorry fucknuts, you don't get to just take Federal property.

 

[ScienceRocks]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

 

[Nutz]

To the neo-confederate white supremacists inhabiting this thread:

All your democratic southern brethren who fought that war are dead now...I'm sure even some of them, from on high, are whispering, through the clouds: "Let it go."

You've lost the argument. Goodbye.

You see? That's what makes you special.

Most people have a natural anathema to not defending people who want to own human beings as property -- but not you, nope. You just trudge right along, proud as the day is long to defend slavers.

Stand proud for your love of the Slaveholding "Country."

<insert Confed battle flag here>

I just remembered how to make trolls disappear.

-click-

Permanent ignore.

To be put on ignore by a White Supremacist who loves the idea of assassinating a president is a badge of honor.

He is an idiot. He worships the Pope and fantasizes about fucking the virgin Mary.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

 

[bodecea]

I have read those justifications as well as the Constitution of the Confederacy.......protecting slavery was prominent

Whatever the confederate states stated as their reason for seceding, the fact is that Lincoln invaded them, not the other way around, and his motive was to enforce the Morrill Tariff.

Who started the hostilities? Sure wasn't Lincoln and if the south had not who knows what might have happened.

The truth is the south did secede. Then they attacked the Federal government and war between the two countries was on. The south lost and the victorious north was very generous with their concurred land. If the numskull southerners would not have murdered Lincoln I am thinking it would have ended up even better for the south.

Lincoln deserved to be shot for the same reason that an arsonist deserves to die in a fire he started. Lincoln started a war of Americans killing Americans, so there's no injustice whatsoever when one of those Americans comes gunning for him. In fact, it's morally neutral, a natural vicissitude of war. He killed 600,000 Americans, hell yeah shoot him! Twice!!

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

out of context again? geesh

 

[bodecea]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

As was Jefferson Davis, who got caught trying to run away in a woman's dress.

 

[Nutz]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

Just think of what they wanted to do with gimps. Talk about righteous ideas.

 

[ScienceRocks]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

out of context again? geesh

Why do you think Liberia exists?

 

[bodecea]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

out of context again? geesh

Why do you think Liberia exists?

Yes...as the Ivory Coast. But does it make sense to send people to Africa that were born and raised in the U.S.?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Whatever the confederate states stated as their reason for seceding, the fact is that Lincoln invaded them, not the other way around, and his motive was to enforce the Morrill Tariff.

Who started the hostilities? Sure wasn't Lincoln and if the south had not who knows what might have happened.

The truth is the south did secede. Then they attacked the Federal government and war between the two countries was on. The south lost and the victorious north was very generous with their concurred land. If the numskull southerners would not have murdered Lincoln I am thinking it would have ended up even better for the south.

Lincoln deserved to be shot for the same reason that an arsonist deserves to die in a fire he started. Lincoln started a war of Americans killing Americans, so there's no injustice whatsoever when one of those Americans comes gunning for him. In fact, it's morally neutral, a natural vicissitude of war. He killed 600,000 Americans, hell yeah shoot him! Twice!!

The South shot first...firing on a Federal Installation. They deserved all they got and more....there should be a manditory holiday for Tecumseh Sherman.

Actually, the fort was in a state that had already seceded and had formed no treaty with the United States to have a base there. But more than that, the commanding officer was given the offer to surrender peacefully and didn't do so, so force was used. Once South Carolina became an independent state, it was their prerogative to do what they want with their own territory.

The fort was a federal fort as is all federal property in the U.S. even today. It did not belong to the "state" before they declared secession, it most certainly did not afterwards. The U.S. government was not surrender monkeys....but neither were they aggressors. That was the South. Doesn't surprise me....when you brutalize other people, you turn into bullies.

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States. For this reason they were asked peacefully to surrender but refused to do so. You can argue until you're blue in the fact that South Carolina had no right to secede, but in fact the right of secession was established even before the Constitution was ratified, Virginia asserting it's right to do so as a condition of ratification. New York and Rhode Island did this too. So South Carolina was not part of the United States, and short of a treaty, the United States had no right to erect military bases in a foreign country. Logic defies you, as usual.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

out of context again? geesh

Why do you think Liberia exists?

Context

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

As was Jefferson Davis, who got caught trying to run away in a woman's dress.

Wrong again and as usual. Jefferson Davis when fleeing could not find his overcoat, so he threw his wife's raglan on his shoulders and ran. That's a far cry from cross dressing. Why do you have to distort the truth?