General Robert E. Lee should be a Role Model for American Youth

[Kosh]

Robert E. Lee wouldn't give racist scum like Steve McGarrett the time of day.

Exactly. Outstanding post!

You have to consider the source of those comments especially when they come from a far left racist/bigoted drone..

 

[Kosh]

I agree 100%.

General Robert E. Lee should be a Role Model for American youth

The author of your cite, is James W. King...Commander of the Albany Georgia USA Camp of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans organization

In Mississippi, this SCV wants to create a commemorative license plate honoring the first national leader of the Ku Klux Klan, when the Klan’s terrorist violence paved the way to a Jim Crow South. Oh, that's right...just for his war service.....

Once Again Racism Rears Up in the Sons of Confederate Veterans Hatewatch

Filthy racists like you would agree.

With people like this, and you, in the world...John Brown seems more right every day

Seems only racists make the argument that "the war of northern aggression" was not over slavery. Technically it was over expanding slavery into the west but in the end it was a war to continue the practice. The proof is that the confederate constitution differs from the US constitution in only one respect, slavery was written into it as a good and proper institution.

The far left loves to re write history..

 

[Skylar]

If we must look to the Civil War for role models then one of the best for American kids would be Joshua Chamberlain.

I would say Nathan Bedford Forrest would be another role model.

Sigh......and conservatives wonder why they have such a hard time getting black folks to vote for them.

 

[Skylar]

The secession was an insurrection and Lincoln had every right to put it down militarily. In fact, it wasn't just his right, it was his job. His duty.

If the south had no authority to secede, then it was exactly as you describe: an insurrection. And Lincoln had a constitutional obligation to put it down. If the south did have the authority to secede, then its attacks on federal holdings were an act of war. And Lincoln had every constitutional authority to wage war against them, invade them, and annex their territory.

 

[JoeB131]

Grant is. Or Sherman. Or Sheridan. Meade has a temper problem.

None of the Northern generals had good character. BTW, do you know where the term "hooker" came from? Now there's some trivia that most people don't know about.

Well, a lot of people who think they "Know" it are wrong. The word Hooker to describe a prostitute long precedes General Hooker.


One early theory traces it to Corlear's Hook, a section of New York City.HOOKER. A resident of the Hook, i.e. a strumpet, a sailor's trull. So called from the number of houses of ill-fame frequented by sailors at the Hook (i.e. Corlear's Hook) in the city of New York. [John Russell Bartlett, "Dictionary of Americanisms," 1859]Perhaps related to hooker "thief, pickpocket" (1560s), but most likely a reference to prostitutes hooking or snaring clients. Hook in the figurative sense of "that by which anyone is attracted or caught" is recorded from early 15c.; and hook (v.) in the figurative sense of "catch hold of and draw in" is attested from 1570s; in reference to "fishing" for a husband or a wife, it was in common use from c.1800. All of which makes the modern sense seem a natural step. Compare French accrocheuse, raccrocheuse, common slang term for "street-walker, prostitute," literally "hooker" of men.

Online Etymology Dictionary

Now back on topic. The biggest problem with the way we teach history is we let people in Jesus-Land think that their ancestors fought a noble cause.

They didn't. They fought so a few rich people could keep owning slaves.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Robert E. Lee wouldn't give racist scum like Steve McGarrett the time of day.

Exactly. Outstanding post!

You have to consider the source of those comments especially when they come from a far left racist/bigoted drone..

Actually Leftists and I both share the same contempt for Nazi racists like the OP. When they're right I will praise them.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The problem with your argument is that Lee was defending Virginia from an illegal invasion. He didn't set out to kill Americans.

All of that is a matter of opinion and history has made it's judgement. Lee chose the wrong side in a bloody conflict that left thousands of Americans dead. That and the terrible results of his reckless use of his own troops does not say a lot for his military acumen. If he is to be admired at all in a modern context it is in him successfully deflecting the worst of post-war punitive measures that the republicans wanted to enact such as stripping civil rights from all who had fought.

No it's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Why do you Leftists think that truth is relative? Lincoln marshaled 75,000 troops and steered this country into full blown war. He invaded Virginia and General Lee defended his homeland. Your blame the victim argument is just stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

Lincoln did not call up troops until after the confederate sec. of war, his name escapes me, openly boasted before the confederate legislature that the confederate flag would fly over Washington.

A few questions,

Do you have proof of that?

Are you making the claim that a war was started because of a trash talking legislator, that otherwise Lincoln's war to "preserve the union" would not have occurred

And finally, were there troop movements in the South that indicated an invasion force was being set up to carry out that threat? (If it actually happened, I think you're full of shit on that one)

I don't really have time to conduct in-depth research just for you to reject it out of hand. People who still argue the confederate case usually gloss over the expansionist ambitions of the South before the war. No one at the time doubted that they wanted to expand their territory so as to create a market for the excess slaves that were building up in the old south where depleted soil had made them a worrisome problem. It is also important to note that they got so many poor Non-slaveholders to fight on the promise of doling out captured territory to them along with some slaves to work it. It was not just the boast of war minster Walker, it was a bunch of other aggressive actions that did not leave any doubt that the confederacy would be content to stay confined within it's borders.

So no, yes, and no. Got it.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I agree 100%.

General Robert E. Lee should be a Role Model for American youth

The author of your cite, is James W. King...Commander of the Albany Georgia USA Camp of the Sons of the Confederate Veterans organization

In Mississippi, this SCV wants to create a commemorative license plate honoring the first national leader of the Ku Klux Klan, when the Klan’s terrorist violence paved the way to a Jim Crow South. Oh, that's right...just for his war service.....

Once Again Racism Rears Up in the Sons of Confederate Veterans Hatewatch

Filthy racists like you would agree.

With people like this, and you, in the world...John Brown seems more right every day

Seems only racists make the argument that "the war of northern aggression" was not over slavery. Technically it was over expanding slavery into the west but in the end it was a war to continue the practice. The proof is that the confederate constitution differs from the US constitution in only one respect, slavery was written into it as a good and proper institution.

That's not true at all. But on this thread you're right, a racist is advocating for the Southern cause.

 

[BlindBoo]

By joining the unconstitutional and illegal separatist, he was little more than a traitor to the country his father fought for. He should be no ones role model. McRacist excluded.

 

[deltex1]

I agree 100%.

General Robert E. Lee should be a Role Model for American youth

MLK should be for the black community. Content of character does not seem to be high on the list.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The secession was an insurrection and Lincoln had every right to put it down militarily. In fact, it wasn't just his right, it was his job. His duty.

If the south had no authority to secede, then it was exactly as you describe: an insurrection. And Lincoln had a constitutional obligation to put it down. If the south did have the authority to secede, then its attacks on federal holdings were an act of war. And Lincoln had every constitutional authority to wage war against them, invade them, and annex their territory.

Given the rightwing's broad contempt for native Americans and the right's contempt for anyone who finds any fault with their treatment historically,

maybe we could just apply rightwing logic and assert that Lincoln should have treated the southern states like the Indians were being treated -

use military force to conquer the South, occupy it, revert it to US territory, i.e., a US possession, and proceed from there...

 

[Steve_McGarrett]

By joining the unconstitutional and illegal separatist, he was little more than a traitor to the country his father fought for. He should be no ones role model. McRacist excluded.

If Lee was a good enough role model for President Eisenhower then he's good enough for me, and the country.

 

[occupied]

All of that is a matter of opinion and history has made it's judgement. Lee chose the wrong side in a bloody conflict that left thousands of Americans dead. That and the terrible results of his reckless use of his own troops does not say a lot for his military acumen. If he is to be admired at all in a modern context it is in him successfully deflecting the worst of post-war punitive measures that the republicans wanted to enact such as stripping civil rights from all who had fought.

No it's not a matter of opinion, it's a fact. Why do you Leftists think that truth is relative? Lincoln marshaled 75,000 troops and steered this country into full blown war. He invaded Virginia and General Lee defended his homeland. Your blame the victim argument is just stupid ratcheted up fortissimo.

Lincoln did not call up troops until after the confederate sec. of war, his name escapes me, openly boasted before the confederate legislature that the confederate flag would fly over Washington.

A few questions,

Do you have proof of that?

Are you making the claim that a war was started because of a trash talking legislator, that otherwise Lincoln's war to "preserve the union" would not have occurred

And finally, were there troop movements in the South that indicated an invasion force was being set up to carry out that threat? (If it actually happened, I think you're full of shit on that one)

I don't really have time to conduct in-depth research just for you to reject it out of hand. People who still argue the confederate case usually gloss over the expansionist ambitions of the South before the war. No one at the time doubted that they wanted to expand their territory so as to create a market for the excess slaves that were building up in the old south where depleted soil had made them a worrisome problem. It is also important to note that they got so many poor Non-slaveholders to fight on the promise of doling out captured territory to them along with some slaves to work it. It was not just the boast of war minster Walker, it was a bunch of other aggressive actions that did not leave any doubt that the confederacy would be content to stay confined within it's borders.

So no, yes, and no. Got it.

Secession occurred in Nov. 1860.

The South immediately set forth to appropriate all federal property, all northern owned ships in port, all union forts and to imprison all troops in them. The federal government did nothing.

April 1861, Southern troops had blockaded Fort Sumter and they were out of food. Intercepted messages had indicated that the commander of the fort was about to surrender but the southern commander was itching for a fight so they began to bombard the fort which promptly capitulated.

The southern politicians then made boasts of Northern conquest that were published across the world. It was only then that Lincoln called up 15,000 troops to defend the Union.

That is the timeline, the claims of Northern aggression has never worked simply because the timeline does not support it. If it were the North that started it the city of Richmond would have come under attack first and much earlier than it did.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The secession was an insurrection and Lincoln had every right to put it down militarily. In fact, it wasn't just his right, it was his job. His duty.

If the south had no authority to secede, then it was exactly as you describe: an insurrection. And Lincoln had a constitutional obligation to put it down. If the south did have the authority to secede, then its attacks on federal holdings were an act of war. And Lincoln had every constitutional authority to wage war against them, invade them, and annex their territory.

Given the rightwing's broad contempt for native Americans and the right's contempt for anyone who finds any fault with their treatment historically,

maybe we could just apply rightwing logic and assert that Lincoln should have treated the southern states like the Indians were being treated -

use military force to conquer the South, occupy it, revert it to US territory, i.e., a US possession, and proceed from there...

I'm a "right wing" NA and don't see the "contempt" you claim, except from politichic who's a racist.

But more to the point, your argument works against you because if the use of force, the slaughtering of thousands, and the reverting of land to U.S. control is wrong, then it should be wrong for both the South and the Indians who both just wanted their own territorial sovereignty. You actually succeeded in making an argument that militates aggressively against your statist viewpoint.

 

[bodecea]

Grant is. Or Sherman. Or Sheridan. Meade has a temper problem.

None of the Northern generals had good character. BTW, do you know where the term "hooker" came from? Now there's some trivia that most people don't know about.

Was Thomas Hooker mentioned by anyone else before you? Why, I believe not.

 

[bodecea]

Grant is. Or Sherman. Or Sheridan. Meade has a temper problem.

Sherman and Sheridan were a couple of genocidal psychos.

Perhaps they didn't go far enough. But.....they DID bring the war home to those Slave holders who STAYED AT HOME and sent the poor dirt farmers to die for them. Bummer.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Grant is. Or Sherman. Or Sheridan. Meade has a temper problem.

None of the Northern generals had good character. BTW, do you know where the term "hooker" came from? Now there's some trivia that most people don't know about.

Was Thomas Hooker mentioned by anyone else before you? Why, I believe not.

And?

 

[bodecea]

If we must look to the Civil War for role models then one of the best for American kids would be Joshua Chamberlain.

I would say Nathan Bedford Forrest would be another role model.

You would.

 

[bodecea]

Grant is. Or Sherman. Or Sheridan. Meade has a temper problem.

None of the Northern generals had good character. BTW, do you know where the term "hooker" came from? Now there's some trivia that most people don't know about.

Was Thomas Hooker mentioned by anyone else before you? Why, I believe not.

And?

You threw him up as if someone had mentioned him as having good character. You and only you brought him up in that regard.

As for me....I agree with the poster who put out Joshua Chamberlain's name.

 

[nodoginnafight]

So apparently holding people in slavery and torturing and raping them .... and going to court to prevent their release according to the owner's wishes is what we all want to see out of our youth?

LEE S LIGHT SKINNED SLAVE GIRLS