Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[squeeze berry]

As usual you ignorance can't refute fact so the attempt at deflection begins.
It can't deflect from the fact that these inbred cousin fuckers fought to maintain slavery...they admit it from their own mouths.

And there it is. The demonic Left HATES country folk because we represent the goodness of America. Their socialist agena proceeds from big cities, but the resistance comes from everywhere else. No wonder they hate us.

So....you claim ownership of that term. Interesting that you admit it.

I have no qualm about the practices you people involved yourselves in...

who is "you people" ?

People that knowingly fucked their cousins and other relatives for the sole purpose of maintaining a social position.

what about those that **** their sisters, sell them into slavery, and still have no social standing?

 

[Freewill]

USMB Republicans think he must have been a Democrat since he fought to keep slavery. They think that it was Democratic liberals who owned slaves and that Northern Republican Conservatives came in and freed the slaves. So clearly, being Republican, they must have been conservatives. It isn't clear why so many southerners today are conservative and so many northerners are liberal. They haven't managed to rewrite that part of history yet.
True Story.
And don't give me that shit that I'm making it up. Everyone here knows about all the posts that it was conservative Republicans who freed the slaves. They have been posted many times.

Let me break it to you, the Republican party initially was the more liberal, modernisation party of the North East... i.e Not Conservatives...

If you want a lesson in US political history

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
​

Lee was a great man. A true Statesman and brilliant military tactician. Too bad we didn't have more Robert E. Lees around these days.

You said: Too bad we didn't have more Robert E. Lees around these days.

We do. They are called "David Dukes without the baggage".

Robert E. Lee was a man of uncommon character. His equal doesn't exist anywhere today. Songs were made about him, monuments sculpted, and Army bases named after him. A worthless flea like you couldn't possibly insult him.

Fought to keep Slavery and Lost... That seems like an insult..

You're incorrect on your last point. Lee didn't fight to "keep slavery" but was actually opposed to it:

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.

Robert E. Lee s Opinion Regarding Slavery

This is interesting in what he said, sounds like he is saying they are better off as slaves: The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.

 

[Kondor3]

...Your deflection from basic humanity is sad, however typical...

Whatever.

...You put up plenty of bull crap excuses why that morally weak and insecure traitor decided to turn his back on the country that nutured his education and career...

I make no excuses for the way Robert E. Lee conducted himself throughout his career and throughout his lifetime.

He made a far higher number of morally correct and strong decisions, was far more secure, and proved his loyalty to both the United States and to his native State, far more frequently and profoundly, than a modern (and rankly amateur) revisionist such as yourself could possibly fathom, never mind appreciate or critique objectively.

...If it was as impossible as you falsely attempt to portray it, then no one would have called slavery immoral and a sin...

Many lawmakers in Great Britain, in parts of Continental Europe, and to a lesser extent, in the Western Hemisphere - even within the United States - did, indeed, judge Slavery to be immoral, and some of that many years before the American Civil War, but that does not mean that the concept had deep roots yet within the popular mind, in either South OR North.

It was not impossible - merely atypical - not really on the public's scope - few people really gave a shit, beyond the realm of politics and territoriality - few were Abolitionists.

Hell... Lincoln, most of his Cabinet, most of the Union high command, and, indeed, most Northerners, felt some sympathy for slaves, and wanted the practice ended, but few had any intention of granting equality to the emancipated at-law, at least not before some idiot Southern sympathizer actor-flake decided to kill the President, anyway.

You keep looking at the past of 150 years ago through modern eyes and through modern filters and with the hindsight-wisdom of 150 intervening years to aid you.

;..However people more concerned with right and truth, than what people thought of them did call slavery evil. They were called abolitionists.

Again, most White Folks back then didn't give a rat's ass about Slaves or Slavery, except to end the practice, put an end to Southern territorial (slaveholding) encroachments, provide some relief for the emancipated, then to ship them back to Africa. It was only later that a majority of White Folk even bothered to put Black Folk on their scopes on a day-to-day basis.

Abolitionists were the exception rather than the rule, North and South, and that included Robert E. Lee and other honorable folk who fought on the wrong side.

 

[reconmark]

And there it is. The demonic Left HATES country folk because we represent the goodness of America. Their socialist agena proceeds from big cities, but the resistance comes from everywhere else. No wonder they hate us.

So....you claim ownership of that term. Interesting that you admit it.

I have no qualm about the practices you people involved yourselves in...

who is "you people" ?

People that knowingly fucked their cousins and other relatives for the sole purpose of maintaining a social position.

what about those that **** their sisters, sell them into slavery, and still have no social standing?

Those would be the poor white southerners, the idiots that were duped into a fool's errand.
I was referring to the so called southern aristocrats...

 

[reconmark]

...Your deflection from basic humanity is sad, however typical...

Whatever.

...You put up plenty of bull crap excuses why that morally weak and insecure traitor decided to turn his back on the country that nutured his education and career...

I make no excuses for the way Robert E. Lee conducted himself throughout his career and throughout his lifetime.

He made a far higher number of morally correct and strong decisions, was far more secure, and proved his loyalty to both the United States and to his native State, far more frequently and profoundly, than a modern (and rankly amateur) revisionist such as yourself could possibly fathom, never mind appreciate or critique objectively.

...If it was as impossible as you falsely attempt to portray it, then no one would have called slavery immoral and a sin...

Many lawmakers in Great Britain, in parts of Continental Europe, and to a lesser extent, in the Western Hemisphere - even within the United States - did, indeed, judge Slavery to be immoral, and some of that many years before the American Civil War, but that does not mean that the concept had deep roots yet within the popular mind, in either South OR North.

It was not impossible - merely atypical - not really on the public's scope - few people really gave a shit, beyond the realm of politics and territoriality - few were Abolitionists.

Hell... Lincoln, most of his Cabinet, most of the Union high command, and, indeed, most Northerners, felt some sympathy for slaves, and wanted the practice ended, but few had any intention of granting equality to the emancipated at-law, at least not before some idiot Southern sympathizer actor-flake decided to kill the President, anyway.

You keep looking at the past of 150 years ago through modern eyes and through modern filters and with the hindsight-wisdom of 150 intervening years to aid you.

;..However people more concerned with right and truth, than what people thought of them did call slavery evil. They were called abolitionists.

Again, most White Folks back then didn't give a rat's ass about Slaves or Slavery, except to end the practice, put an end to Southern territorial (slaveholding) encroachments, provide some relief for the emancipated, then to ship them back to Africa. It was only later that a majority of White Folk even bother to put Black Folk on their scope day-to-day.

Abolitionists were the exception rather than the rule, North and South, and that included Robert E. Lee and other honorable folk who fought on the wrong side.

AAhhhh...the "revisionist" angle come into play. Now it's evident that truth and fact have no part of your childish rants...
Those "few abolitionist" lit a fire under this country's moral rot and turned it toward it's moral and Constitutional obligation towards all it's citizens.

So while you attempt to throw around the pitiful moniker of "revisionist" your so called hero through his own actions has shown himself to be absent of character.
This individual was nurtured, educated and given a career by the Federal Govt, he was so spineless and such a moral coward that he decided to betray his country because otherwise his family and friends would be mad at him...lol.
What a hero.

 

[Kondor3]

USMB Republicans think he must have been a Democrat since he fought to keep slavery. They think that it was Democratic liberals who owned slaves and that Northern Republican Conservatives came in and freed the slaves. So clearly, being Republican, they must have been conservatives. It isn't clear why so many southerners today are conservative and so many northerners are liberal. They haven't managed to rewrite that part of history yet.
True Story.
And don't give me that shit that I'm making it up. Everyone here knows about all the posts that it was conservative Republicans who freed the slaves. They have been posted many times.

Let me break it to you, the Republican party initially was the more liberal, modernisation party of the North East... i.e Not Conservatives...

If you want a lesson in US political history

Lee was a great man. A true Statesman and brilliant military tactician. Too bad we didn't have more Robert E. Lees around these days.

You said: Too bad we didn't have more Robert E. Lees around these days.

We do. They are called "David Dukes without the baggage".

Robert E. Lee was a man of uncommon character. His equal doesn't exist anywhere today. Songs were made about him, monuments sculpted, and Army bases named after him. A worthless flea like you couldn't possibly insult him.

Fought to keep Slavery and Lost... That seems like an insult..

You're incorrect on your last point. Lee didn't fight to "keep slavery" but was actually opposed to it:

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.

Robert E. Lee s Opinion Regarding Slavery

This is interesting in what he said, sounds like he is saying they are better off as slaves: The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856: (regarding a speech given by President Franklin Pierce)

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war.

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former.

The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.

This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.

Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

===========================================

Robert E. Lee s Opinion Regarding Slavery

 

[Kondor3]

...Your deflection from basic humanity is sad, however typical...

Whatever.

...You put up plenty of bull crap excuses why that morally weak and insecure traitor decided to turn his back on the country that nutured his education and career...

I make no excuses for the way Robert E. Lee conducted himself throughout his career and throughout his lifetime.

He made a far higher number of morally correct and strong decisions, was far more secure, and proved his loyalty to both the United States and to his native State, far more frequently and profoundly, than a modern (and rankly amateur) revisionist such as yourself could possibly fathom, never mind appreciate or critique objectively.

...If it was as impossible as you falsely attempt to portray it, then no one would have called slavery immoral and a sin...

Many lawmakers in Great Britain, in parts of Continental Europe, and to a lesser extent, in the Western Hemisphere - even within the United States - did, indeed, judge Slavery to be immoral, and some of that many years before the American Civil War, but that does not mean that the concept had deep roots yet within the popular mind, in either South OR North.

It was not impossible - merely atypical - not really on the public's scope - few people really gave a shit, beyond the realm of politics and territoriality - few were Abolitionists.

Hell... Lincoln, most of his Cabinet, most of the Union high command, and, indeed, most Northerners, felt some sympathy for slaves, and wanted the practice ended, but few had any intention of granting equality to the emancipated at-law, at least not before some idiot Southern sympathizer actor-flake decided to kill the President, anyway.

You keep looking at the past of 150 years ago through modern eyes and through modern filters and with the hindsight-wisdom of 150 intervening years to aid you.

;..However people more concerned with right and truth, than what people thought of them did call slavery evil. They were called abolitionists.

Again, most White Folks back then didn't give a rat's ass about Slaves or Slavery, except to end the practice, put an end to Southern territorial (slaveholding) encroachments, provide some relief for the emancipated, then to ship them back to Africa. It was only later that a majority of White Folk even bother to put Black Folk on their scope day-to-day.

Abolitionists were the exception rather than the rule, North and South, and that included Robert E. Lee and other honorable folk who fought on the wrong side.

AAhhhh...the "revisionist" angle come into play. Now it's evident that truth and fact have no part of your childish rants...
Those "few abolitionist" lit a fire under this country's moral rot and turned it toward it's moral and Constitutional obligation towards all it's citizens.

So while you attempt to throw around the pitiful moniker of "revisionist" your so called hero through his own actions has shown himself to be absent of character.
This individual was nurtured, educated and given a career by the Federal Govt, he was so spineless and such a moral coward that he decided to betray his country because otherwise his family and friends would be mad at him...lol.
What a hero.

Somebody else want to take a crack at this Home-Skooled boy? I've lost interest.

 

[reconmark]

USMB Republicans think he must have been a Democrat since he fought to keep slavery. They think that it was Democratic liberals who owned slaves and that Northern Republican Conservatives came in and freed the slaves. So clearly, being Republican, they must have been conservatives. It isn't clear why so many southerners today are conservative and so many northerners are liberal. They haven't managed to rewrite that part of history yet.
True Story.
And don't give me that shit that I'm making it up. Everyone here knows about all the posts that it was conservative Republicans who freed the slaves. They have been posted many times.

Let me break it to you, the Republican party initially was the more liberal, modernisation party of the North East... i.e Not Conservatives...

If you want a lesson in US political history

You said: Too bad we didn't have more Robert E. Lees around these days.

We do. They are called "David Dukes without the baggage".

Robert E. Lee was a man of uncommon character. His equal doesn't exist anywhere today. Songs were made about him, monuments sculpted, and Army bases named after him. A worthless flea like you couldn't possibly insult him.

Fought to keep Slavery and Lost... That seems like an insult..

You're incorrect on your last point. Lee didn't fight to "keep slavery" but was actually opposed to it:

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.

Robert E. Lee s Opinion Regarding Slavery

This is interesting in what he said, sounds like he is saying they are better off as slaves: The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856: (regarding a speech given by President Franklin Pierce)

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war.

There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former.

The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.

This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day.

Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

===========================================

Robert E. Lee s Opinion Regarding Slavery

Posted twenty pages ago by myself, try to keep up...

 

[reconmark]

...Your deflection from basic humanity is sad, however typical...

Whatever.

...You put up plenty of bull crap excuses why that morally weak and insecure traitor decided to turn his back on the country that nutured his education and career...

I make no excuses for the way Robert E. Lee conducted himself throughout his career and throughout his lifetime.

He made a far higher number of morally correct and strong decisions, was far more secure, and proved his loyalty to both the United States and to his native State, far more frequently and profoundly, than a modern (and rankly amateur) revisionist such as yourself could possibly fathom, never mind appreciate or critique objectively.

...If it was as impossible as you falsely attempt to portray it, then no one would have called slavery immoral and a sin...

Many lawmakers in Great Britain, in parts of Continental Europe, and to a lesser extent, in the Western Hemisphere - even within the United States - did, indeed, judge Slavery to be immoral, and some of that many years before the American Civil War, but that does not mean that the concept had deep roots yet within the popular mind, in either South OR North.

It was not impossible - merely atypical - not really on the public's scope - few people really gave a shit, beyond the realm of politics and territoriality - few were Abolitionists.

Hell... Lincoln, most of his Cabinet, most of the Union high command, and, indeed, most Northerners, felt some sympathy for slaves, and wanted the practice ended, but few had any intention of granting equality to the emancipated at-law, at least not before some idiot Southern sympathizer actor-flake decided to kill the President, anyway.

You keep looking at the past of 150 years ago through modern eyes and through modern filters and with the hindsight-wisdom of 150 intervening years to aid you.

;..However people more concerned with right and truth, than what people thought of them did call slavery evil. They were called abolitionists.

Again, most White Folks back then didn't give a rat's ass about Slaves or Slavery, except to end the practice, put an end to Southern territorial (slaveholding) encroachments, provide some relief for the emancipated, then to ship them back to Africa. It was only later that a majority of White Folk even bother to put Black Folk on their scope day-to-day.

Abolitionists were the exception rather than the rule, North and South, and that included Robert E. Lee and other honorable folk who fought on the wrong side.

AAhhhh...the "revisionist" angle come into play. Now it's evident that truth and fact have no part of your childish rants...
Those "few abolitionist" lit a fire under this country's moral rot and turned it toward it's moral and Constitutional obligation towards all it's citizens.

So while you attempt to throw around the pitiful moniker of "revisionist" your so called hero through his own actions has shown himself to be absent of character.
This individual was nurtured, educated and given a career by the Federal Govt, he was so spineless and such a moral coward that he decided to betray his country because otherwise his family and friends would be mad at him...lol.
What a hero.

Somebody else want to take a crack at this Home-Skooled boy? I've lost interest.

No you haven't lost interest, just silly non factual excuses...lol.

 

[paperview]

Shorter Lee:

Abolitionists suck.

Let God fix it.

 

[Kondor3]

...Your deflection from basic humanity is sad, however typical...

Whatever.

...You put up plenty of bull crap excuses why that morally weak and insecure traitor decided to turn his back on the country that nutured his education and career...

I make no excuses for the way Robert E. Lee conducted himself throughout his career and throughout his lifetime.

He made a far higher number of morally correct and strong decisions, was far more secure, and proved his loyalty to both the United States and to his native State, far more frequently and profoundly, than a modern (and rankly amateur) revisionist such as yourself could possibly fathom, never mind appreciate or critique objectively.

...If it was as impossible as you falsely attempt to portray it, then no one would have called slavery immoral and a sin...

Many lawmakers in Great Britain, in parts of Continental Europe, and to a lesser extent, in the Western Hemisphere - even within the United States - did, indeed, judge Slavery to be immoral, and some of that many years before the American Civil War, but that does not mean that the concept had deep roots yet within the popular mind, in either South OR North.

It was not impossible - merely atypical - not really on the public's scope - few people really gave a shit, beyond the realm of politics and territoriality - few were Abolitionists.

Hell... Lincoln, most of his Cabinet, most of the Union high command, and, indeed, most Northerners, felt some sympathy for slaves, and wanted the practice ended, but few had any intention of granting equality to the emancipated at-law, at least not before some idiot Southern sympathizer actor-flake decided to kill the President, anyway.

You keep looking at the past of 150 years ago through modern eyes and through modern filters and with the hindsight-wisdom of 150 intervening years to aid you.

;..However people more concerned with right and truth, than what people thought of them did call slavery evil. They were called abolitionists.

Again, most White Folks back then didn't give a rat's ass about Slaves or Slavery, except to end the practice, put an end to Southern territorial (slaveholding) encroachments, provide some relief for the emancipated, then to ship them back to Africa. It was only later that a majority of White Folk even bother to put Black Folk on their scope day-to-day.

Abolitionists were the exception rather than the rule, North and South, and that included Robert E. Lee and other honorable folk who fought on the wrong side.

AAhhhh...the "revisionist" angle come into play. Now it's evident that truth and fact have no part of your childish rants...
Those "few abolitionist" lit a fire under this country's moral rot and turned it toward it's moral and Constitutional obligation towards all it's citizens.

So while you attempt to throw around the pitiful moniker of "revisionist" your so called hero through his own actions has shown himself to be absent of character.
This individual was nurtured, educated and given a career by the Federal Govt, he was so spineless and such a moral coward that he decided to betray his country because otherwise his family and friends would be mad at him...lol.
What a hero.

Somebody else want to take a crack at this Home-Skooled boy? I've lost interest.

No you haven't lost interest, just silly non factual excuses...lol.

No, you're a one-trick pony and automatic gainsayer, only a couple of notches above that of the Village Idiot, and of little further interest.

 

[reconmark]

Shorter Lee:

Abolitionists suck.

Let God fix it.

Watch out...you have made him the fool such as I.
He may now call you "home skooled"...,lol!!!

 

[reconmark]

...Your deflection from basic humanity is sad, however typical...

Whatever.

...You put up plenty of bull crap excuses why that morally weak and insecure traitor decided to turn his back on the country that nutured his education and career...

I make no excuses for the way Robert E. Lee conducted himself throughout his career and throughout his lifetime.

He made a far higher number of morally correct and strong decisions, was far more secure, and proved his loyalty to both the United States and to his native State, far more frequently and profoundly, than a modern (and rankly amateur) revisionist such as yourself could possibly fathom, never mind appreciate or critique objectively.

...If it was as impossible as you falsely attempt to portray it, then no one would have called slavery immoral and a sin...

Many lawmakers in Great Britain, in parts of Continental Europe, and to a lesser extent, in the Western Hemisphere - even within the United States - did, indeed, judge Slavery to be immoral, and some of that many years before the American Civil War, but that does not mean that the concept had deep roots yet within the popular mind, in either South OR North.

It was not impossible - merely atypical - not really on the public's scope - few people really gave a shit, beyond the realm of politics and territoriality - few were Abolitionists.

Hell... Lincoln, most of his Cabinet, most of the Union high command, and, indeed, most Northerners, felt some sympathy for slaves, and wanted the practice ended, but few had any intention of granting equality to the emancipated at-law, at least not before some idiot Southern sympathizer actor-flake decided to kill the President, anyway.

You keep looking at the past of 150 years ago through modern eyes and through modern filters and with the hindsight-wisdom of 150 intervening years to aid you.

;..However people more concerned with right and truth, than what people thought of them did call slavery evil. They were called abolitionists.

Again, most White Folks back then didn't give a rat's ass about Slaves or Slavery, except to end the practice, put an end to Southern territorial (slaveholding) encroachments, provide some relief for the emancipated, then to ship them back to Africa. It was only later that a majority of White Folk even bother to put Black Folk on their scope day-to-day.

Abolitionists were the exception rather than the rule, North and South, and that included Robert E. Lee and other honorable folk who fought on the wrong side.

AAhhhh...the "revisionist" angle come into play. Now it's evident that truth and fact have no part of your childish rants...
Those "few abolitionist" lit a fire under this country's moral rot and turned it toward it's moral and Constitutional obligation towards all it's citizens.

So while you attempt to throw around the pitiful moniker of "revisionist" your so called hero through his own actions has shown himself to be absent of character.
This individual was nurtured, educated and given a career by the Federal Govt, he was so spineless and such a moral coward that he decided to betray his country because otherwise his family and friends would be mad at him...lol.
What a hero.

Somebody else want to take a crack at this Home-Skooled boy? I've lost interest.

No you haven't lost interest, just silly non factual excuses...lol.

No, you're a one-trick pony and automatic gainsayer, only a couple of notches above that of the Village Idiot, and of little further interest.

Sure son...sure.
Go back to the "Civil war for idiots and revisionists" site.

 

[RKMBrown]

On November 22, 1841, the Federal Government's title to 125 acres of harbor "land" recorded in the office of the Secretary of State of South Carolina.

NPS Historical Handbook Fort Sumter

ALL issues regarding ownership were settled in 1841.

A History of Fort Sumter Building a Civil War Landmark - M. Patrick Hendrix - Google Books

Federal Government owned it lock, stock & barrel.

Wrong again. It says "Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State." That means the property is subject to all the laws of South Carolina. SC could have expropriated the property if it desired.

No.

"cede all the right, title and claim of South Carolina" seems to escape your attention.

"“Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state."


What you keep trying to hang your hat on is standard language (used in 1797 & 1803 as well...) It meant a lawbreaker or fugitive from South Carolina law can't use the Federal Fort and enjoy immunity. It gave South Carolina authorities the right to serve papers and arrest fugitives.

It meant that the Fort wasn't a sanctuary, not that both SC & the federal Government had dual authority over the Fort or that SC retained title to the land, dunce.

Yes, but that was before SC ceded from the Union and became a sovereign state with the power to expel foreign armies, such as the Union army, and seize title of lands within it's borders, which it did.

Didn't work out too well, did it?

No. Did not work out well for either side.

The Union won. You should be happy for that.

Why? SS? Nope. ACA? Nope. Medicare? Nope. Federal Welfare? Nope. War on Terror? Nope. War on non-prescription drugs? Nope. NSA snooping on every communication over the internet? Nope. TSA groping my daughter? Nope. Having the President constantly belittle hard work and effort for profit? Nope. Having the federal government mandate AA? Nope. Having the federal government tell the states they have to let babies be murdered in their second trimester without representation for the child? Nope.

I'm sorry, why should I be happy the union bought millions of Europeans to murder my kin?

 

[bripat9643]

If Houston decided it wanted to leave the State of Texas could it?

Well, if Houston decided to leave the State of Texas, could it?

Chirp....chirp....chirp...

I guess I could declare my condo as being a new country as well???

Why shouldn't you be able to? I think everyone should be able to secede from whatever level of government they wish to secede from. The notion that you owe fealty to some politicians simply because you were born in a certain location is ridiculous.

You can do that. Leave the ******* country already, you White Supremacist dirtbag.

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

 

[paperview]

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Go **** yourself.

Indeed.

 

[Liminal]

So, if Texas seceeded from the Union, Fort Hood would not be a US Army base any longer? Is that the BS that is for sale by the OP?

yes, that is exactly what would happen unless the Texas legislature came to some new agreement with the United States Congress.

It might be fun watching the Texas National Guard get blown to pieces.

 

[bripat9643]

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Go **** yourself.

Indeed.

That was a justified response to:

"You can do that. Leave the ******* country already, you White Supremacist dirtbag."​

 

[bripat9643]

Notice how nasty they get when the know they have been beaten?

...
Go **** yourself.

Indeed.

That was a justified response to:

"You can do that. Leave the ******* country already, you White Supremacist dirtbag."​

Yes, a sleazy totalitarian bootlicker like you might enjoy that.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

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 **** 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 ***** 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!

We won against the British....that is the ONLY reason the Patriots were not labeled traitors. In fact, the British had made up a list of who they were going to hang for treason. Needless to say, most of our Founders were on that list.

Amazing how you on the Left call Lee a traitor for the same act of secession. And BTW, slavery was practiced in every colony at the time, so according to your convoluted logic, they too were "fighting for slavery". Because of course if there's slavery, no other issue exists.