Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[Ravi]

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

the fort isn't actually in SC, it's in the waters off SC. Not that it makes any difference.

 

[bripat9643]

I don't like communism, but you do hate America

You don't like communism, but you agree with every plank of the Communist party.

The claim that kaz hates America is pure idiocy.

go away

Mommy, he's picking on me!

go away. why? because you're not even good at trolling

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

You and all the other Lincoln worshippers keep ignoring the fact the SC seceded from the union. Unless you can prove that such a move was somehow forbidden, then all your arguments about Ft Sumter are bogus, and you all know you can't prove any such thing. The evidence all runs in the other direction.

 

[Liminal]

No doubt about that, there were other great Confederate generals, Stonewall Jackson comes to mind, but Robert E Lee represented an implacable icon who embodied all the concepts of honor and duty, he was a man of principle. Things that are essentially meaningless to most people today, but were very real and tangible for people of the time.

There's no honor in raping your slaves.

As opposed to so many well known Union officers who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children with great enthusiasm after the Civil War. But I guess that kind of moral clarity is all relative.

There was no honor in that either but it seems odd that you've defined someone honorable that mistreated his slaves.

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

Are you now agreeing that Lee wasn't an honorable man?

I think when you attempt to explain history in the context of contemporary thinking you do yourself a disservice because you really aren't trying to understand historic events or historic figures.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

the fort isn't actually in SC, it's in the waters off SC. Not that it makes any difference.

That means it's in SC.

 

[bendog]

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

the fort isn't actually in SC, it's in the waters off SC. Not that it makes any difference.

yeah, I don't see how it makes any difference. Even if the view is that the fed govt illegally occupies the property, you don't get to bomb it.

 

[bripat9643]

We believe in fighting wars that are just, you believe in fighting wars you can win. Who's the hawk? LOL.

The Union fought a war that was just and they won. A twofer.

That war was in no way "just."

It's just because the Union was attacked first. Just like WWII was just for the Union because Japan attacked us first and Nazi Germany declared war on us first.

It's not like the Japanese or Germans because US troops were not in Japan or Germany. The south attacked an occupying force that was in it's territory they didn't want to be there.

Ft Sumter was Federal Property. And the South decided to start a fight believing that they could kick the Yankees' asses. Oopsie.

You have proved exactly nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

the fort isn't actually in SC, it's in the waters off SC. Not that it makes any difference.

yeah, I don't see how it makes any difference. Even if the view is that the fed govt illegally occupies the property, you don't get to bomb it.

Yes you do, dumshit.

 

[bendog]

You don't like communism, but you agree with every plank of the Communist party.

The claim that kaz hates America is pure idiocy.

go away

Mommy, he's picking on me!

go away. why? because you're not even good at trolling

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

You and all the other Lincoln worshippers keep ignoring the fact the SC seceded from the union. Unless you can prove that such a move was somehow forbidden, then all your arguments about Ft Sumter are bogus, and you all know you can't prove any such thing. The evidence all runs in the other direction.

Dear obscenity, I realize grey is not a color for you, but the fact remains, stubbornly, that there are arguments either way.

 

[Ravi]

There's no honor in raping your slaves.

As opposed to so many well known Union officers who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children with great enthusiasm after the Civil War. But I guess that kind of moral clarity is all relative.

There was no honor in that either but it seems odd that you've defined someone honorable that mistreated his slaves.

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

Are you now agreeing that Lee wasn't an honorable man?

I think when you attempt to explain history in the context of contemporary thinking you do yourself a disservice because you really aren't trying to understand historic events or historic figures.

There is no historical context needed. You either treated people you considered your inferiors well or you didn't.

 

[Ravi]

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

the fort isn't actually in SC, it's in the waters off SC. Not that it makes any difference.

yeah, I don't see how it makes any difference. Even if the view is that the fed govt illegally occupies the property, you don't get to bomb it.

Yes you do, dumshit.

What are you waiting for then?

 

[bendog]

Robert E. Lee.
His Brutality To His Slaves.

Let's hear from one of Lee's slaves on how benevolent he was::​

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years;

I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free;

he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh,

Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetery on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement."

Robert E. Lee His Brutality to His Slaves 1866 . By Wesley Norris in NATIONAL ANTI-SLAVERY STANDARD Vol. XXVI. No. 49 April 14 1866 . Whole No. 1 349 Fair Use Repository​

Bottom line, Lee owned slaves and he fought for the side to preserve the practice.

Bottom line, since he was going with the North if Virginia didn't secede, that wasn't his motivation. He was fighting for his home, his State.

Paperview says your homes and families and community and business and property don't matter. He's an idiot.

In fact, had Virginia not voted for secession, he almost certainly would have been the commanding general of the north. Lincoln even offered him the job, but once Virginia went with secession he couldn't bare to fight against his beloved home. He knew slavery had no future, and he personally would have chosen to end the practice to prevent the divided nation.

how, with his magic wand?



oh please, he chose rebellion over unity of the USA. he was a traitor. All traitors have reasons

Well, you wouldn't understand this because government is your highest priority, but he had to choose between his allegiances. Virginia was his home, choosing that over his country was completely reasonable. Though to you it's not even about choosing your country, it's about controlling it's government for your collectivist ends. You don't grasp the concept of what your country is.

You're making it personal. Imo it's an interesting question. Lee did not believe in the legality of secession. And, imo, he could see that slavery was not an institution capable, or even worthy, of preserving. Yet, despite that he partook in the killing of 2.5% of the population, and that figure is perhaps half of what it truly was. That's an interesting result of a man's honor. That's not a diss, but rather a concept. What is the price of honor? And is it different today?

 

[bripat9643]

As opposed to so many well known Union officers who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children with great enthusiasm after the Civil War. But I guess that kind of moral clarity is all relative.

There was no honor in that either but it seems odd that you've defined someone honorable that mistreated his slaves.

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

Are you now agreeing that Lee wasn't an honorable man?

I think when you attempt to explain history in the context of contemporary thinking you do yourself a disservice because you really aren't trying to understand historic events or historic figures.

There is no historical context needed. You either treated people you considered your inferiors well or you didn't.

It's difficult to describe how full of shit you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

the fort isn't actually in SC, it's in the waters off SC. Not that it makes any difference.

yeah, I don't see how it makes any difference. Even if the view is that the fed govt illegally occupies the property, you don't get to bomb it.

Yes you do, dumshit.

What are you waiting for then?

ROFL! Further proof that you're a moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Bottom line, Lee owned slaves and he fought for the side to preserve the practice.

Bottom line, since he was going with the North if Virginia didn't secede, that wasn't his motivation. He was fighting for his home, his State.

Paperview says your homes and families and community and business and property don't matter. He's an idiot.

In fact, had Virginia not voted for secession, he almost certainly would have been the commanding general of the north. Lincoln even offered him the job, but once Virginia went with secession he couldn't bare to fight against his beloved home. He knew slavery had no future, and he personally would have chosen to end the practice to prevent the divided nation.

how, with his magic wand?



oh please, he chose rebellion over unity of the USA. he was a traitor. All traitors have reasons

Well, you wouldn't understand this because government is your highest priority, but he had to choose between his allegiances. Virginia was his home, choosing that over his country was completely reasonable. Though to you it's not even about choosing your country, it's about controlling it's government for your collectivist ends. You don't grasp the concept of what your country is.

You're making it personal. Imo it's an interesting question. Lee did not believe in the legality of secession. And, imo, he could see that slavery was not an institution capable, or even worthy, of preserving. Yet, despite that he partook in the killing of 2.5% of the population, and that figure is perhaps half of what it truly was. That's an interesting result of a man's honor. That's not a diss, but rather a concept. What is the price of honor? And is it different today?

Lincoln is the one who killed 2.5% of the population. Lee didn't kill anyone who wasn't trying to kill him.

 

[bendog]

Ah, flipping the bird and calling names. A sure way to make point. LOL

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Real reasons for the War Between The States (slavery being low on the list):

CONFEDERATE AMERICAN PRIDE The 10 Causes of the War Between the States

yes and no. There were reasons economic, reasons nationalistic, reasons psychological, but all the reasons go back to slavery. Was the south primarily agrarian? Slavery made it so. Racism southern was different from racism Northern, and one could argue northern racism was a great deal worse in some aspects. These reasons go back to slavery. Even the nationalism went back to individual states in the southern conception, to the union in the north. this went back to slavery. So there were a thousand different reasons, but there was, at bottom, one reason that was paramount

 

[Liminal]

As opposed to so many well known Union officers who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children with great enthusiasm after the Civil War. But I guess that kind of moral clarity is all relative.

There was no honor in that either but it seems odd that you've defined someone honorable that mistreated his slaves.

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

Are you now agreeing that Lee wasn't an honorable man?

I think when you attempt to explain history in the context of contemporary thinking you do yourself a disservice because you really aren't trying to understand historic events or historic figures.

There is no historical context needed. You either treated people you considered your inferiors well or you didn't.

I'm pretty sure you don't need any.

 

[Ravi]

There was no honor in that either but it seems odd that you've defined someone honorable that mistreated his slaves.

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

Are you now agreeing that Lee wasn't an honorable man?

I think when you attempt to explain history in the context of contemporary thinking you do yourself a disservice because you really aren't trying to understand historic events or historic figures.

There is no historical context needed. You either treated people you considered your inferiors well or you didn't.

I'm pretty sure you don't need any.

No one does. You either treat people well, even if you don't believe they are your equal, or you don't.

Lee more than likely considered black people to be little more than animals. You know anyone that mistreats animals and is considered honorable?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

There was no honor in that either but it seems odd that you've defined someone honorable that mistreated his slaves.

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

Are you now agreeing that Lee wasn't an honorable man?

I think when you attempt to explain history in the context of contemporary thinking you do yourself a disservice because you really aren't trying to understand historic events or historic figures.

There is no historical context needed. You either treated people you considered your inferiors well or you didn't.

I'm pretty sure you don't need any.

hmm... Liminal is starting to sound very, very, familiar


just sayin'

 

[bendog]

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

Are you now agreeing that Lee wasn't an honorable man?

I think when you attempt to explain history in the context of contemporary thinking you do yourself a disservice because you really aren't trying to understand historic events or historic figures.

There is no historical context needed. You either treated people you considered your inferiors well or you didn't.

I'm pretty sure you don't need any.

No one does. You either treat people well, even if you don't believe they are your equal, or you don't.

Lee more than likely considered black people to be little more than animals. You know anyone that mistreats animals and is considered honorable?

Probably so, but blacks were not seen as equals by many, or even a majority, of northerners.

I'd agree it mainly comes down to slavery, but not to free the slaves per se.