Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[bripat9643]

He doesn't meet the definition of traitor according to the definition in the Constitution.

'
No such definition is in the Constitution.

Another Lincoln cult member demonstrating his ignorance, I see:

ARTICLE III, Section. 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.​

It's why I keep gleefully reminding these cultists that their god and savior was wasted by one of the thousands of men pissed off by what he did to their families and America. It really unnerves the demonic Left to be reminded that the man they worship had hot lead put into his melon.

No, it makes me quite happy that today's Republicans cheer that one of their greatest Presidents was shot dead.

It reveals to any independents left out there what ignorant, idiotic, moronic, cruel, and brainless shit stains you folks are.

It reveals that conservatives stand up to tyrants in the Republican party. Leftists never stand up to tyrants in their own party.

I marvel at the ferocity with which the Lincoln worshipping turds attack threads like this one. Such hostility can only be the result of insecurity about their beliefs. They almost never offer any real evidence to support their claims. Most of them are so ignorant they don't even know the basic facts of the period.

 

[RKMBrown]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

You mean we have to give back forts to the indians, british, mexicans, etc.? Who knew?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Puhleeze. Foreign recognition doesn't mean a damn thing. On the one hand you turds insist secession isn't allowed, and then on the other you don't give a hoot about the heinous violations of the Constitution Lincoln committed against Southerners if that claim were true.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Lincoln worshippers are the lowest kind if scum there is.

Just imagine the hate these folks must hold for the sons of liberty. I mean, what vile, treasonous fucks those guys were. Bucking the established rule.

I thought when we did that and banished the tyrants, we had won. Only come to find out that tyrants are every where. once they established their own version of the King in the "United" States, they could do whatever they please and sycophants would cheer.

I imagine those who hate confederates today must hold the same disdain fro those who fought the British. Then agin, hypocrites abound!

 

[paperview]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Puhleeze. Foreign recognition doesn't mean a damn thing. On the one hand you turds insist secession isn't allowed, and then on the other you don't give a hoot about the heinous violations of the Constitution Lincoln committed against Southerners if that claim were true.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Lincoln worshippers are the lowest kind if scum there is.

Just because you call yourself a country, doesn't make you one.

And in case you missed this one from earlier (maybe you didn't, but just had no way to reply) -

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: The Rebellion Record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/...c30779/m1/117/

Ten years earlier Southerners were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

 

[bripat9643]

"Secession is nothing but revolution.

The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will.

It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled."

- Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861

Stop Lying About Lincoln 8211 LewRockwell.com

New York Tribune editor Horace Greeley, a prominent Republican, editorialized on December 17, 1860, that if tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then "we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861." On February 5, 1861, Greeley continued on that "The Great Principle embodied by Jefferson in the Declaration is . . . that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed."​

 

[paperview]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

You mean we have to give back forts to the indians, british, mexicans, etc.? Who knew?

Newsflash: The South lost the Civil War.

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Puhleeze. Foreign recognition doesn't mean a damn thing. On the one hand you turds insist secession isn't allowed, and then on the other you don't give a hoot about the heinous violations of the Constitution Lincoln committed against Southerners if that claim were true.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Lincoln worshippers are the lowest kind if scum there is.

Just imagine the hate these folks must hold for the sons of liberty. I mean, what vile, treasonous fucks those guys were. Bucking the established rule.

I thought when we did that and banished the tyrants, we had won. Only come to find out that tyrants are every where. once they established their own version of the King in the "United" States, they could do whatever they please and sycophants would cheer.

I imagine those who hate confederates today must hold the same disdain fro those who fought the British. Then agin, hypocrites abound!

They claim they are of the same ideological heritage as the Founding Fathers but everything they post about the Civil War proves they have nothing in common with the Founding Fathers. They are a servile gang of boot-licking government toadies.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Just because you call yourself a country, doesn't make you one.

Yeah, only the British..er, the Federal, er the King er whoever is in charge gets to make that call. You're not free people, you fucks! You belong to the King Lincoln!

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Lincoln wanted war and he got it. ...

Lincoln wanted to avoid war and to preserve the Union. The traitorous fools of the 'confederacy' wanted war, and they got a small portion of what they deserved for their arrogance and evil.

Really? He was forced to invade Virginia? Who had a gun to his head...

...oh wait, we're getting ahead of ourselves. That comes later.

 

[bripat9643]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Puhleeze. Foreign recognition doesn't mean a damn thing. On the one hand you turds insist secession isn't allowed, and then on the other you don't give a hoot about the heinous violations of the Constitution Lincoln committed against Southerners if that claim were true.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Lincoln worshippers are the lowest kind if scum there is.

Just because you call yourself a country, doesn't make you one.

That's your opinion. The Founding Fathers disagreed.

And in case you missed this one from earlier (maybe you didn't, but just had no way to reply) -

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: The Rebellion Record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/...c30779/m1/117/

Ten years earlier Southerners were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

Irrelevant. Plenty of other events and people indicate that secession was perfectly legal. Note: your cite claims that secession is "unsanctioned," not illegal.

 

[Ravi]

South Carolina fired the first shots. and they did so to protect the institution of slavery:

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. "
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
- Alexander Stephens - Vice President of the Confederacy

Alexander Stephens Reinforces The Cornerstone

Irrelevant. Firing of foreign troops trespassing on your territory is not an act of war.

You turds will repeat this mantra endlessly: "they fired the first shots. They fired the first shots. They fired the first shots." You obviously don't give a damn about the facts or international law. You're spewing Lincoln propaganda, just as they did 150 years ago.

Do you ever look at what you type before you click "post reply"?

One wonders how the troops were decided to be" foreign".

They were union troops. SC was a sovereign country after it seceded.

Ft. Sumter belonged to the United States, NOT, to South Carolina. In fact, South Caroline passed legislation in 1836 stating that they were ceding Ft. Sumter to the federal government.

Therefore, there were no foreign troops on Ft. Sumter.

 

[paperview]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Puhleeze. Foreign recognition doesn't mean a damn thing. On the one hand you turds insist secession isn't allowed, and then on the other you don't give a hoot about the heinous violations of the Constitution Lincoln committed against Southerners if that claim were true.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Lincoln worshippers are the lowest kind if scum there is.

Just imagine the hate these folks must hold for the sons of liberty. I mean, what vile, treasonous fucks those guys were. Bucking the established rule.

I thought when we did that and banished the tyrants, we had won. Only come to find out that tyrants are every where. once they established their own version of the King in the "United" States, they could do whatever they please and sycophants would cheer.

I imagine those who hate confederates today must hold the same disdain fro those who fought the British. Then agin, hypocrites abound!

The "Sons of Liberty" settled the question at the Convention.

Yes. the direct question, when posed, was answered when NY was considering it's ratification of the Constitution. At that time it was proposed:

"there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years." A vote was taken, and it was negatived.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/r...wyork0723.html

Historian Amar goes on to explain the pivotal moment of agreement:
But exactly how were these states united? Did a state that said yes in the 1780's retain the right to unilaterally say no later on, and thereby secede? If not, why not?

Once again, it was in New York that the answer emerged most emphatically. At the outset of the Poughkeepsie convention, anti-Federalists held a strong majority. The tide turned when word arrived that New Hampshire and Virginia had said yes to the Constitution, at which point anti-Federalists proposed a compromise: they would vote to ratify, but if the new federal government failed to embrace various reforms that they favored, "there should be reserved to the state of New York a right to withdraw herself from the union after a certain number of years."

At the risk of alienating swing voters and losing on the ultimate ratification vote, Federalists emphatically opposed the compromise.

In doing so, they made clear to everyone - in New York and in the 12 other states where people were following the New York contest with interest - that the Constitution did not permit unilateral state secession.

Alexander Hamilton read aloud a letter at the Poughkeepsie convention that he had received from James Madison stating that "the Constitution requires an adoption in toto, and for ever." Hamilton and John Jay then added their own words, which the New York press promptly reprinted: "a reservation of a right to withdraw" was "inconsistent with the Constitution, and was no ratification."

[TBODY] [/TBODY]

Thus, it was New York where the document became an irresistible reality and where its central meaning - one nation, democratic and indivisible - emerged with crystal clarity."

Conventional Wisdom--A Commentary by Prof. Akhil Amar Yale Law School

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

And Lincoln killed so many people he's lucky he didn't get shot.

Oh wait....he did!

That was clearly illegal. Charging Lee with treason would not have been illegal.

Lincoln wanted war and he got it. Nobody's immune from the wars they start and their consequences.

Why did he want war?

To restore the status quo, including leaving slavery intact. Thanks for asking.

Please be a little more detailed. Restore what status quo?

Keep in mind that there would have been no war if the southern states hadn't seceded.

Bullshit! Nobody was forced to go to war by states leaving the union. That's like telling a woman, "You wouldn't cooperate with me so I was forced to rape you." Absolute nonsense!

 

[paperview]

"Some of you laugh to scorn the idea of bloodshed as the result of secession, but let me tell you what is coming....

Your fathers and husbands, your sons and brothers, will be herded at the point of the bayonet....You may after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, as a bare possibility, win Southern independence...but I doubt it."

-Governor Sam Houston of Texas, upon the Texas vote for secession.

 

[bripat9643]

Just because you call yourself a country, doesn't make you one.

Yeah, only the British..er, the Federal, er the King er whoever is in charge gets to make that call. You're not free people, you fucks! You belong to the King Lincoln!

Right. If the King of England says the United States is not a country, then it isn't a country and it can occupy our installations at will.

 

[bripat9643]

"Some of you laugh to scorn the idea of bloodshed as the result of secession, but let me tell you what is coming....

Your fathers and husbands, your sons and brothers, will be herded at the point of the bayonet....You may after the sacrifice of countless millions of treasure and hundreds of thousands of lives, as a bare possibility, win Southern independence...but I doubt it."

-Governor Sam Houston of Texas, upon the Texas vote for secession.

What do you imagine that proves?

 

[paperview]

Cocksure, undermanned, underarmed, lacking infrastructure and integrity for an honorable cause, the confederacy died, as Jeff Davis said, of a theory.

 

[bripat9643]

South Carolina fired the first shots. and they did so to protect the institution of slavery:

"The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. "
Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

"The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution."
- Alexander Stephens - Vice President of the Confederacy

Alexander Stephens Reinforces The Cornerstone

Irrelevant. Firing of foreign troops trespassing on your territory is not an act of war.

You turds will repeat this mantra endlessly: "they fired the first shots. They fired the first shots. They fired the first shots." You obviously don't give a damn about the facts or international law. You're spewing Lincoln propaganda, just as they did 150 years ago.

Do you ever look at what you type before you click "post reply"?

One wonders how the troops were decided to be" foreign".

They were union troops. SC was a sovereign country after it seceded.

Ft. Sumter belonged to the United States, NOT, to South Carolina. In fact, South Caroline passed legislation in 1836 stating that they were ceding Ft. Sumter to the federal government.

Therefore, there were no foreign troops on Ft. Sumter.

We've already been through this, and your idiocy has been proven wrong a dozen times.

 

[paperview]

The True Flag of the Confederacy:



"Died of a Theory." -- Jeff Davis

 

[reconmark]

Just because you call yourself a country, doesn't make you one.

Yeah, only the British..er, the Federal, er the King er whoever is in charge gets to make that call. You're not free people, you fucks! You belong to the King Lincoln!

If you are too ignorant as to what makes a country a country, maybe your ancetors were just as stupid and actually fought a war based on that stupidity.
Ultimately that stupidity resulted in their traitorous asses becoming maggot stew...

 

[paperview]

It wasn't another country. No one recognized it as such.

You can't just let states take federal property. That is property of the whole of the people.

What if Kentucky decided to just declare independence and say, hey, Fort Knox belongs to us now. Too bad.

Can't do it. Besides, as I showed earlier, South Carolina ceded all rights to Fort Sumter in 1836. It wasn't hers to just take.

Nor were the forts and military instillations or the Mint filled with Gold they seized. Or the US Ships they fired on, and captured for their own use as Man of War vessels in January 1861.

You can't just go stealing federal government property and say: hey, it's ours now. Go fuck yourselves.

Puhleeze. Foreign recognition doesn't mean a damn thing. On the one hand you turds insist secession isn't allowed, and then on the other you don't give a hoot about the heinous violations of the Constitution Lincoln committed against Southerners if that claim were true.

The hypocrisy is unbelievable. Lincoln worshippers are the lowest kind if scum there is.

Just because you call yourself a country, doesn't make you one.

That's your opinion. The Founding Fathers disagreed.

And in case you missed this one from earlier (maybe you didn't, but just had no way to reply) -

Here's a goodun' for ya. Ten years before the war, 1850 - 51, when South Carolina was flouting around with secession and held their Convention - but couldn't get the other states to join them --

Lookie here, Mississippi held a Convention too, and what did they say?

"Resolved, further, 4th, That, in the opinion of this Convention, the asserted right of secession from the Union, on the part of a State or States, is utterly unsanctioned by the Federal Constitution, which was framed to establish, and not destroy, the Union of the States; and that no secession can, in fact, take place, without a subversion of the Union established, and which will not virtually amount, in its effects and consequences, to a civil revolution."

- 1851 Mississippi Secession Convention

Source: The Rebellion Record a diary of american events with documents narratives ... - frank moore - Google Books
http://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/...c30779/m1/117/

Ten years earlier Southerners were saying secession was Unconstitutional. Howzabout that?

Irrelevant. Plenty of other events and people indicate that secession was perfectly legal. Note: your cite claims that secession is "unsanctioned," not illegal.

lol.

More
Lost Cause babbling. If it makes you feel better blabber on. Won't change the fact of history.

Nor the fact had we not succeeded in keeping the Union together, you wouldn't be here right now, able to babble about what has become the greatest and most powerful country in the world.