Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.
You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

shootingcu2.jpg
Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

I seem to remember your name somewhere, a sign:

No Smo-
king.

King Nosmo was a parody on the no smoking sign where smoking is broken up into two lines. I remember it from Beverly Cleary's "Ramona" books. I was a boy, but loved these books, go figure. Read my sister's books, played with her toys...what was going on there?

Oh, what were we talking about? Yes, who started the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln did when he drew up 75,000 troops and invaded Virginia. Everything short of that could have been worked out in peace negotiations if forcing the seceding states were not a an intransigent demand by Lincoln. No attempt at peaceful resolution was attempted because the South absolutely wanted to secede and Lincoln absolutely wanted to force them back into the union.

Unless you're going to make the insanely STUPID argument that had Fort Sumter not been fired upon, the WNA would never have happened.

King Nosmo.
Nosmo King was a running character on a locally produced children's show here in Pittsburgh back in the early 1960s.

And secession does not fly. Break the pact, suffer the consequences. Fire on federal troops, suffer the consequences. Hold human beings as slaves for life, suffer the consequences.
That's a moral argument, and a bad one. You propose that it's justifiable to kill people rather be than let them leave when the North made them want to leave to begin with. Do you beat your wife and then kill her when she tries to leave because of it? Because you're supporting the exact same thing. 600,000 dead because an evil, blood thirsty tyrant wanted war rather than let them peaceful secede. He's burning in hell right now. When you get there, you two can talk long about how great killing people is.


No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.
You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

shootingcu2.jpg
Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

I seem to remember your name somewhere, a sign:

No Smo-
king.

King Nosmo was a parody on the no smoking sign where smoking is broken up into two lines. I remember it from Beverly Cleary's "Ramona" books. I was a boy, but loved these books, go figure. Read my sister's books, played with her toys...what was going on there?

Oh, what were we talking about? Yes, who started the War of Northern Aggression. Lincoln did when he drew up 75,000 troops and invaded Virginia. Everything short of that could have been worked out in peace negotiations if forcing the seceding states were not a an intransigent demand by Lincoln. No attempt at peaceful resolution was attempted because the South absolutely wanted to secede and Lincoln absolutely wanted to force them back into the union.

Unless you're going to make the insanely STUPID argument that had Fort Sumter not been fired upon, the WNA would never have happened.

King Nosmo.
Nosmo King was a running character on a locally produced children's show here in Pittsburgh back in the early 1960s.

And secession does not fly. Break the pact, suffer the consequences. Fire on federal troops, suffer the consequences. Hold human beings as slaves for life, suffer the consequences.
 
Do you seriously expect someone like britpat to not ignore facts. That is their modus operandi



britpat:
You've already been informed that Fort Sumter was federal land - S.C. gave it to the feds. (Obviously because they wanted their harbor defended, but they didn't want to actually do it themselves.)

Your lackluster historical education may have overlooked that - but posters here have already corrected your misconception on that.

So repeating an argument (defending S.C. soil) that has been so thoroughly disproven is just an act of willful stupidity.

Nah, I just like underlining willful stupidity to make sure no one else misses it.

The only wilful stupidity you're underlining is your own.

BTW, That's "wilful" with one 'L.'
 
Abe did end up by freeing the slaves. His signature rested not only on the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed thousands immediately), but on the 13th Amendment Resolution.

He fought hard for its passage.

He was not even required to place his signature there, yet he did.

It's a rarity for a president to sign Amendments.
001.gif

It was passed by Congress in January of 1865.

See that signature to the right? :::::::::::: > Abraham Lincoln.

I can't make out any signature by Lincoln.
 
No one is defending the South of practising slavery. The only thing I defend it of is starting the Civil War. If a man is convicted of armed robbery but then gets a DUI, is a lawyer who defends him on the later charge defending him of committing armed robbery?

Your attempt to accuse me of supporting slavery couldn't be more sleazy, pathetic or dishonest.

As for throwing around insults, accusing me of supporting slavery isn't an insult?

You're obviously a colossal dumbass. That isn't an insult. It's the simple truth. You and the rest of the Lincoln cult don't have the mental capacity to carry on a rational discussion.
You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

shootingcu2.jpg
Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

No it doesn't. Every nation in the world has a standing army. Firing on foreign troops trespassing on your territory is self defence.

I know all you Lincoln cult turds will fail to get the point until your last breath. That's why it's useless to discuss the issue with you. It's much more productive just to call you names.
I can understand how a person with a stunted understanding of history and an extremely poor education would think that.

Apparently my understanding of history is a lot better than yours because you think the US government can invade foreign countries if they evict us from property it bought there.
 
Abe did end up by freeing the slaves. His signature rested not only on the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed thousands immediately), but on the 13th Amendment Resolution.

He fought hard for its passage.

He was not even required to place his signature there, yet he did.

It's a rarity for a president to sign Amendments.
001.gif

It was passed by Congress in January of 1865.

See that signature to the right? :::::::::::: > Abraham Lincoln.

I can't make out any signature by Lincoln.
You're so much in denial, you can even see a plain signature apparently.

Look to the right, under the words 'United States" midway.

Lincoln signed the 13th Amendendent. Surprised you didn't know that (well, not really).

He not only pushed for its passage, he did what few presidents have ever done - He signed a House Passed Constitutional Amendment.!
 
Last edited:
You're commending the South for starting the most devastating war in American history? And then you claim the "Lincoln cult" lacks the mental capacity to hold a discussion?

Irony, thy name is britpat

How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

shootingcu2.jpg
Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

No it doesn't. Every nation in the world has a standing army. Firing on foreign troops trespassing on your territory is self defence.

I know all you Lincoln cult turds will fail to get the point until your last breath. That's why it's useless to discuss the issue with you. It's much more productive just to call you names.
I can understand how a person with a stunted understanding of history and an extremely poor education would think that.

Apparently my understanding of history is a lot better than yours because you think the US government can invade foreign countries if they evict us from property it bought there.
I'm so pleased that you answered with such aplomb. You make my point!
 
Grant was a whole lot better. His casually rate was for his worst battles was 28%. He also didn't through live away like Lee did. His battles were logical. Viksburg was fight the same day. The campain was fought at the same time.... mid may to July. That alone should put paid to the discussion of who was a better general

Grant was not a whole lot better than Lee. Grant won by overwhelming numbers and excessive force. He wasted thousands of lives on senseless frontal assaults, e.g., Vicksburg (before he decided to lay siege), Cold Harbor, and Petersburg. At Vicksburg, his "siege" succeeded partly because he bombarded civilian sectors of the city.

Grant also took credit for winning battles that others won, such as the battles around Chattanooga, where Grant either claimed credit for others' success (General Thomas's) or sought to minimize the achievements of others (General Hooker's).

Furthermore, at Cold Harbor, Grant caused hundreds of his wounded to die because he stubbornly refused to follow military protocol and call, as the losing commander, for a ceasefire to treat the wounded. Only after Lee prodded him, and only after his staff officers complained loudly, did Grant finally call for the ceasefire, but by that time most of his wounded had died. He should have been court-martialed for such disgraceful conduct.

Grant did have a noble side. He also, finally, learned not to make frontal assaults--but this was after he had squandered thousands of lives by trying them on several occasions.

Lee learned after Malvern Hill and Gettysburg that frontal assaults were usually foolish. Grant took longer to learn this lesson.
 
Last edited:
Grant was a whole lot better. His casually rate was for his worst battles was 28%. He also didn't through live away like Lee did. His battles were logical. Viksburg was fight the same day. The campain was fought at the same time.... mid may to July. That alone should put paid to the discussion of who was a better general

Grant was not a whole lot better than Lee. Grant won by overwhelming numbers and excessive force. He wasted thousands of lives on senseless frontal assaults, e.g., Vicksburg (before he decided to lay siege), Cold Harbor, and Petersburg. At Vicksburg, his "siege" succeeded partly because he bombarded civilian sectors of the city.

Grant also took credit for winning battles that others won, such as the battles around Chattanooga, where Grant either claimed credit for others' success (General Thomas's) or sought to minimize the achievements of others (General Hooker's).

Furthermore, at Cold Harbor, Grant caused hundreds of his wounded to die because he stubbornly refused to follow military protocol and call, as the losing commander, for a ceasefire to treat the wounded. Only after Lee prodded him, and only after his staff officers complained loudly, did Grant finally call for the ceasefire, but by that time most of his wounded had died. He should have been court-martialed for such disgraceful conduct.

Grant did have a noble side. He also, finally, learned not to make frontal assaults--but this was after he had squandered thousands of lives by trying them on several occasions.

Lee learned after Malvern Hill and Gettysburg that frontal assaults were usually foolish. Grant took longer to learn this lesson.
There was a period of time where both sides seemed oddly to have forgotten the lessons of the Revolutionary War and reverted to formation assaults. It might be explained by the unwise notion that the war wasn't serious. That the other side would be easily routed. Families even tagged along on the first battle bringing picnic supplies as if it were an amusing diversion to be watched like a live acted theater play. When the war grew more desperate and it was concluded the other side was no simple contest, both sides reverted back to the guerrilla tactics that bespoke the desperate cause of previous wars.
 
Abe did end up by freeing the slaves. His signature rested not only on the Emancipation Proclamation (which freed thousands immediately), but on the 13th Amendment Resolution.

He fought hard for its passage.

He was not even required to place his signature there, yet he did.

It's a rarity for a president to sign Amendments.
001.gif

It was passed by Congress in January of 1865.

See that signature to the right? :::::::::::: > Abraham Lincoln.

I can't make out any signature by Lincoln.
You're so much in denial, you can even see a plain signature apparently.

Look to the right, under the words 'United States" midway.

Lincoln signed the 13th Amendendent. Surprised you didn't know that (well, not really).

He not only pushed for its passage, he did what few presidents have ever done - He signed a House Passed Constitutional Amendment.!

The claim that he pushed for it's passage is Lincoln cult propaganda. He didn't lift a finger to get it passed. Lincoln was the author of an Amendment in 1860 that would have enshrined slavery into the Constitution forever. Lincoln didn't give a damn about the slaves. He was a white supremacist.
 
How was leaving the union starting a war. Did somebody force Lincoln to invade the South and use illegal force to dragoon them back into the union? Who put a gun to Lincoln's head?

.....wait, that comes later.

shootingcu2.jpg
Raising a standing army and firing on Fort Sumpter starts a war sure enough.

No it doesn't. Every nation in the world has a standing army. Firing on foreign troops trespassing on your territory is self defence.

I know all you Lincoln cult turds will fail to get the point until your last breath. That's why it's useless to discuss the issue with you. It's much more productive just to call you names.
I can understand how a person with a stunted understanding of history and an extremely poor education would think that.

Apparently my understanding of history is a lot better than yours because you think the US government can invade foreign countries if they evict us from property it bought there.
I'm so pleased that you answered with such aplomb. You make my point!

What point, that everything you know is wrong?
 
Robert E. Lee was a great American. He deserves a holiday

CIVIL WAR OP-ED Remembering Robert E. Lee American Patriot and Southern Hero Huntington News

Sir Winston Churchill called General Robert E. Lee, “one of the noblest Americans who ever lived.”

Please let me call to your attention that Monday, January 19, 2015, is the 208th birthday of Robert E. Lee, whose memory is still dear in the hearts of many Southerners. Why is this man so honored in the South and respected in the North? Lee was even respected by the soldiers of Union blue who fought against him during the War Between the States.

What is your community doing to commemorate the birthday of this great American?

General Lee’s portrait adorns the State Capitol in Atlanta where the Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans hosted their 1st Lee birthday in 1988. The SCV will host their annual Robert E. Lee birthday celebration on Saturday January 17, 2015 at Georgia’s Old Secession Capitol on Greene Street in Milledgeville. Read more at: 2015 Annual Robert E Lee Birthday Celebration

During Robert E. Lee's 100th birthday in 1907, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., a former Union Commander and grandson of US President John Quincy Adams, spoke in tribute to Robert E. Lee at Washington and Lee College's Lee Chapel in Lexington, Virginia. His speech was printed in both Northern and Southern newspapers and is said to had lifted Lee to a renewed respect among the American people.

And In Lexington, Virginia events are scheduled for the birthday of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson on January 16th and 17th. Read more at: Home - Lee-Jackson Day Lexington VA

Dr. Edward C. Smith, respected African-American Professor of History at American University in Washington, D.C. , told the audience in Atlanta, Ga. during a 1995 Robert E. Lee birthday event, quote 'Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert E. Lee were individuals worthy of emulation because they understood history.' Unquote


He was a traitor who led the south to near total destruction. Go ahead, celebrate stupidity. It's what you are good at.
 

Forum List

Back
Top