Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[bripat9643]

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

You're disagreeing with Lee himself. D'Oh!

IDIOT!!!! Lee himself applied for a pardon. He was a confessed criminal and traitor:

One minor error: it reports that when Lee applied for a Presidential Pardon, he failed to include the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. A few years ago the oath turned up, misfiled, perhaps deliberately by someone who did not want to see Lee pardoned. Bob Huddleston

Pardon of Robert E. Lee

---​

On a spring day 140 years ago, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee met face to face in the parlor of Wilmer McLean's house in Appomattox Court House, Virginia. On that historic occasion, April 9, 1865, the two generals formalized the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, thus bringing an end to four years of fighting between North and South.

After agreeing upon terms of the surrender, the generals each selected three officers to oversee the surrender and parole of Lee's army. Later that day, Lee and six of his staff signed a document granting their parole.

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President.

Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.​

General Robert E. Lee s Parole and Citizenship


Confederate Pardons - Genealogy Today​

That proves nothing. No one in the confederacy was ever charged with anything, so why would they need a pardon? Here is another flagrant example of the federal government violating the Constitution.

Oh? You sure about that?

Yeah, I know a prison camp commander was charged with war crimes. That's hardly relevant.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

This has been explained repeatedly, and you still don't get it. You're obviously too fucking stupid to bother arguing with.

You sticking up for a failed rebellion repeatedly doesn't make you right...doesn't make it right either.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

Prior to Lincoln "federal property" didn't carry the weight it does now.
All the power belonged to the States

It wouldn't matter because "federal property" in another country is still the territory of that country and subject to its laws. After it seceded SC was a foreign country.

No it isn't.

 

[bodecea]

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

You're disagreeing with Lee himself. D'Oh!

IDIOT!!!! Lee himself applied for a pardon. He was a confessed criminal and traitor:

One minor error: it reports that when Lee applied for a Presidential Pardon, he failed to include the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. A few years ago the oath turned up, misfiled, perhaps deliberately by someone who did not want to see Lee pardoned. Bob Huddleston

Pardon of Robert E. Lee

---​

On a spring day 140 years ago, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee met face to face in the parlor of Wilmer McLean's house in Appomattox Court House, Virginia. On that historic occasion, April 9, 1865, the two generals formalized the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, thus bringing an end to four years of fighting between North and South.

After agreeing upon terms of the surrender, the generals each selected three officers to oversee the surrender and parole of Lee's army. Later that day, Lee and six of his staff signed a document granting their parole.

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President.

Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.​

General Robert E. Lee s Parole and Citizenship


Confederate Pardons - Genealogy Today​

That proves nothing. No one in the confederacy was ever charged with anything, so why would they need a pardon? Here is another flagrant example of the federal government violating the Constitution.

Oh? You sure about that?

Yeah, I know a prison camp commander was charged with war crimes. That's hardly relevant.

You said "no one in the confederacy was ever charged with anything"...So now you admit that you were wrong. And Jefferson Davis was imprisoned for a while. It was due to the kindness of the winners that he was not charged and hung. Simply that. Maybe the South would not have been such dicks for 100 years if some were hanging from trees.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

This has been explained repeatedly, and you still don't get it. You're obviously too fucking stupid to bother arguing with.

You sticking up for a failed rebellion repeatedly doesn't make you right...doesn't make it right either.

The facts are what make it right.

 

[bripat9643]

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

You're disagreeing with Lee himself. D'Oh!

IDIOT!!!! Lee himself applied for a pardon. He was a confessed criminal and traitor:

One minor error: it reports that when Lee applied for a Presidential Pardon, he failed to include the Oath of Allegiance as required by law. A few years ago the oath turned up, misfiled, perhaps deliberately by someone who did not want to see Lee pardoned. Bob Huddleston

Pardon of Robert E. Lee

---​

On a spring day 140 years ago, Union Gen. Ulysses S. Grant and Confederate Gen. Robert E. Lee met face to face in the parlor of Wilmer McLean's house in Appomattox Court House, Virginia. On that historic occasion, April 9, 1865, the two generals formalized the surrender of Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, thus bringing an end to four years of fighting between North and South.

After agreeing upon terms of the surrender, the generals each selected three officers to oversee the surrender and parole of Lee's army. Later that day, Lee and six of his staff signed a document granting their parole.

On May 29, 1865, President Andrew Johnson issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon to persons who had participated in the rebellion against the United States. There were fourteen excepted classes, though, and members of those classes had to make special application to the President.

Lee sent an application to Grant and wrote to President Johnson on June 13, 1865:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.​

General Robert E. Lee s Parole and Citizenship


Confederate Pardons - Genealogy Today​

That proves nothing. No one in the confederacy was ever charged with anything, so why would they need a pardon? Here is another flagrant example of the federal government violating the Constitution.

Oh? You sure about that?

Yeah, I know a prison camp commander was charged with war crimes. That's hardly relevant.

You said "no one in the confederacy was ever charged with anything"...So now you admit that you were wrong. And Jefferson Davis was imprisoned for a while. It was due to the kindness of the winners that he was not charged and hung. Simply that. Maybe the South would not have been such dicks for 100 years if some were hanging from trees.

In other words, they didn't let the Constitution get in the way. I can't imagine any statement more incriminating than that.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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!

But during the revolutionary war, wanting to separate from the British was an entirely different story, right moonbats? Those fucks were treasonous traitors that should have been hanged.

The hypocrisy rears its ugly head again on modern liberals.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

When you're out of ammunition, there is always these last gurgles. Cling tightly, friend. Real tight.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The onus is on the apologists for the racist Confederacy to explain why the United States would have treated the Confederacy differently than any other country.

I'm sorry. I thought we were having a rational discussion. I won't allow you to waste any more of my time.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln was a great man. Lincoln was a god

I know you believe Lincoln was a god. The reality is that he was a despicable mass murdering tyrant. That's the god you worship. He is Baal.

Exactly. But you're talking to people who have themselves supported the murder of 50 million innocent babies, to the point we are no longer replacing our numbers. What's another 600,000 to them? The Left is populated by murderous assholes who think Southerners deserved to die because they're racists...never mind that most of the racism towards blacks actually occurred in the North, both before and after the war.

You aren't dealing with people who have a conscience. They are just as evil as Herr Lincoln Über Alles was.

 

[paperview]

Most people would be ashamed to defend slavers, but not you conservatives -- Carry On! With Pride!

 

[Toro]

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.

I never said that trade wouldn't have resumed. It would have. It's not about trade. It's about capital flows and economic development. Since the South wouldn't have been part of the United States, the manufacturing base wouldn't have migrated south for at least a generation since there would have been no population migration and the cost of doing so would have been high due to the tariffs on manufactured goods that were falling but still significant. The South would have been subject to international trade laws that all other countries are subject. And given the disapproval of racist countries, it's likely that the South would have been shut out of global markets like South Africa.

The onus is on the apologists for the racist Confederacy to explain why the United States would have treated the Confederacy differently than any other country.

What a load of horseshit. There isn't a shred of evidence to support any of the swill in your post. After the war it took far longer than a generation for any "manufacturing base" to migrate South. It took 4 or generations. What population migration has to do with it is beyond me. The Confederacy reduced it's tariffs to almost zero, which is one of the main reasons the federal government declared war on it. Northern manufacturers were used to having a captive customer base, and without those tariffs Southerners would have been free to get all their manufactured goods from Europe rather than the weasels in the Northern states.

What are these "international trade laws" that would have prevented the South from buying finished goods from Europe as they had been doing for decades?

You clearly don't understand the argument, which isn't suprising.

The South was an agrarian economy. It was significantly poorer than the North and its manufacturing base. However, standards of living between the north and the south began to narrow when manufacturing and population began to shift from the Northeast to the South. That shift wouldn't have happened as it did since Southern manufactured goods would have been subject to tariffs to which all other countries were subject. Also, attitudes towards racist states began to change in the 1970s and 1980s, with South Africa being shut out of some global markets. That probably would have happened to the Confederacy as well. There is no reason to think that the Confederacy would be treated by the United States any differently than any other country.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln was a great man. Lincoln was a god

I know you believe Lincoln was a god. The reality is that he was a despicable mass murdering tyrant. That's the god you worship. He is Baal.

Far from a God.Well deserving of his place on Mt. Rushmore as one of our greatest Presidents.

It would have been better if they included the bullet hole in his face.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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.

Fort Sumter was a federal installation...we have military bases around here and they are NOT state property, they are federal property. You obviously know nothing about federal property and military installations.

I'll wager I've served on more military installations than you have. South Carolina wasn't a state, it was a sovereign nation. I can't dumb it down any further for you.

 

[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?

Riiiiiight...that's his story and he was sticking to it.

No, that's what happened. You Leftists really have a problem with the absolute nature of truth, don't you?

 

[paperview]

Exactly. But you're talking to people who have themselves supported the murder of 50 million innocent babies....

Like you ever gave two shits about the millions who were classified as farm animals.
You've been outed.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fellow, we kicked your ass in the 1860's, we can do so again. One nation, indivisable. Then and now.

 

[Freewill]

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.

How many times does this have to be explained before you Lincoln worshipping retards get it right? Whether it was federal "property" is beside the issue. It was not federal territory after SC seceded.

You're right, it belonged to the American Indians....

Actually that isn't right either, the NAs lost it through conquest, just like they took land.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Fellow, we kicked your ass in the 1860's, we can do so again. One nation, indivisable. Then and now.

"We"? Just how old are you, fuckwad?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

I never said that trade wouldn't have resumed. It would have. It's not about trade. It's about capital flows and economic development. Since the South wouldn't have been part of the United States, the manufacturing base wouldn't have migrated south for at least a generation since there would have been no population migration and the cost of doing so would have been high due to the tariffs on manufactured goods that were falling but still significant. The South would have been subject to international trade laws that all other countries are subject. And given the disapproval of racist countries, it's likely that the South would have been shut out of global markets like South Africa.

The onus is on the apologists for the racist Confederacy to explain why the United States would have treated the Confederacy differently than any other country.

What a load of horseshit. There isn't a shred of evidence to support any of the swill in your post. After the war it took far longer than a generation for any "manufacturing base" to migrate South. It took 4 or generations. What population migration has to do with it is beyond me. The Confederacy reduced it's tariffs to almost zero, which is one of the main reasons the federal government declared war on it. Northern manufacturers were used to having a captive customer base, and without those tariffs Southerners would have been free to get all their manufactured goods from Europe rather than the weasels in the Northern states.

What are these "international trade laws" that would have prevented the South from buying finished goods from Europe as they had been doing for decades?

You clearly don't understand the argument, which isn't suprising.

The South was an agrarian economy. It was significantly poorer than the North and its manufacturing base. However, standards of living between the north and the south began to narrow when manufacturing and population began to shift from the Northeast to the South. That shift wouldn't have happened as it did since Southern manufactured goods would have been subject to tariffs to which all other countries were subject. Also, attitudes towards racist states began to change in the 1970s and 1980s, with South Africa being shut out of some global markets. That probably would have happened to the Confederacy as well. There is no reason to think that the Confederacy would be treated by the United States any differently than any other country.

Your belief that the South could have only exported manufactured goods to the Union is laughable, to say the least. Furthermore, slavery would have ended rapidly in the South if they had been allowed to secede because slaves could easily have escaped to the Union. It's hard to keep slaves when they get away so easily. Your belief that everything would have been the same until 1980 is almost comical. If there wasn't a Civil War, then the U.S. would never have entered WW I, it if ever occurred, and there probably wouldn't have been a WW II. The world would be so different today that it's hard to imagine.

In short, your theory is groundless caca.