Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[Ravi]

The military bases in Iraq were never meant to be permanent US facilities. Ft. Sumter was always a possession of the US, and always meant to be.

Wrong, one of those bases was intended to be permanent. We have been asked to leave military bases all over the world. Do you actually believe the U.S. government would ever refuse to leave?

No military base anywhere except the USA can be a "permanent" base without the hosting country agreeing.

There was only one hosting country for Ft. Sumter. The USA.

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

Nope. Federal land is federal land no matter which state it borders.

It's "federal land" only in the sense the the green zone in Baghdad is "federal land." The later is not U.S. territory, and neither was any part of South Carolina after it seceded.

Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

The green zone in Baghdad is not federal land.

 

[bodecea]

The military bases in Iraq were never meant to be permanent US facilities. Ft. Sumter was always a possession of the US, and always meant to be.

Wrong, one of those bases was intended to be permanent. We have been asked to leave military bases all over the world. Do you actually believe the U.S. government would ever refuse to leave?

No military base anywhere except the USA can be a "permanent" base without the hosting country agreeing.

There was only one hosting country for Ft. Sumter. The USA.

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

You're wrong about a lot of things, but Robert E. Lee was still one of the greatest generals in history.

He was....but whether that was a good thing or not....his greatness prolonged a war and caused many more deaths.

 

[bripat9643]

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession.

True...so it would have been interesting to see the Confederacy.....IF they had not been stupid and started a war by firing on a Federal Installation.

IF secession is legal, then Ft Sumter was the territory of a foreign sovereign state that had every legal and moral right to kick out the trespassers residing therein.

You just contradicted yourself.

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, one of those bases was intended to be permanent. We have been asked to leave military bases all over the world. Do you actually believe the U.S. government would ever refuse to leave?

No military base anywhere except the USA can be a "permanent" base without the hosting country agreeing.

There was only one hosting country for Ft. Sumter. The USA.

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

Nope. Federal land is federal land no matter which state it borders.

It's "federal land" only in the sense the the green zone in Baghdad is "federal land." The later is not U.S. territory, and neither was any part of South Carolina after it seceded.

Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

The green zone in Baghdad is not federal land.

Sure it is. Are you saying the U.S. government just expropriated the property of Iraqi citizens? No, it purchased the land within the boundaries.

 

[bendog]

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession.

True...so it would have been interesting to see the Confederacy.....IF they had not been stupid and started a war by firing on a Federal Installation.

IF secession is legal, then Ft Sumter was the territory of a foreign sovereign state that had every legal and moral right to kick out the trespassers residing therein.

You just contradicted yourself.

Secession wasn't legal, but that stealing thieving lying Yankee bustard Lincoln never paid us for the slaves, and that was unconstitutional.

 

[Ravi]

No military base anywhere except the USA can be a "permanent" base without the hosting country agreeing.

There was only one hosting country for Ft. Sumter. The USA.

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

Nope. Federal land is federal land no matter which state it borders.

It's "federal land" only in the sense the the green zone in Baghdad is "federal land." The later is not U.S. territory, and neither was any part of South Carolina after it seceded.

Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

The green zone in Baghdad is not federal land.

Sure it is. Are you saying the U.S. government just expropriated the property of Iraqi citizens? No, it purchased the land within the boundaries.

No it didn't. Jeesh, you really are a dope.

 

[bripat9643]

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

Nope. Federal land is federal land no matter which state it borders.

It's "federal land" only in the sense the the green zone in Baghdad is "federal land." The later is not U.S. territory, and neither was any part of South Carolina after it seceded.

Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

The green zone in Baghdad is not federal land.

Sure it is. Are you saying the U.S. government just expropriated the property of Iraqi citizens? No, it purchased the land within the boundaries.

No it didn't. Jeesh, you really are a dope.

So the federal government stole the land?

Yeah, right.

 

[Ravi]

Nope. Federal land is federal land no matter which state it borders.

It's "federal land" only in the sense the the green zone in Baghdad is "federal land." The later is not U.S. territory, and neither was any part of South Carolina after it seceded.

Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

The green zone in Baghdad is not federal land.

Sure it is. Are you saying the U.S. government just expropriated the property of Iraqi citizens? No, it purchased the land within the boundaries.

No it didn't. Jeesh, you really are a dope.

So the federal government stole the land?

Yeah, right.

No, it had an agreement with Iraq to occupy the land.

 

[bripat9643]

It's "federal land" only in the sense the the green zone in Baghdad is "federal land." The later is not U.S. territory, and neither was any part of South Carolina after it seceded.

Don't you Lincoln worshipping numskulls get tired of having the same arguments kicked to pieces over and over again?

The green zone in Baghdad is not federal land.

Sure it is. Are you saying the U.S. government just expropriated the property of Iraqi citizens? No, it purchased the land within the boundaries.

No it didn't. Jeesh, you really are a dope.

So the federal government stole the land?

Yeah, right.

No, it had an agreement with Iraq to occupy the land.

It appears most of the land was owned by the Iraqi government. There are a number of private residences within the borders. Some are palaces owned by wealthy Iraqi government officials who abandoned them during the war. Others are still occupied by the owners.

So let's use a more concrete example, the property where the U.S embassy in Paris is located:

Embassy of the United States Paris - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Chancery

The four-story chancery, housing the ambassador's office, faces the Avenue Gabriel and the gardens of the Champs-Élysées; it is beside the Hôtel de Crillon.[3] It was built in 1931, following the demolition of an existing structure.[5] Designed by Delano & Aldrich – an American architectural firm based in New York City, New York – along with French architect Victor Laloux, the building has a façade that conforms with other buildings on the Place de la Concorde, as required by French law.[5]


Talleyrand building
Hôtel de Talleyrand (circa 2007).

The so-called "Talleyrand building" at 2 rue Saint-Florentin formerly housed the American Embassy Consular Services, Public and Cultural Affairs offices, several other government agencies and the George C. Marshall Center.[6] Most of these offices were moved to the embassy proper.[6] Constructed in 1769 as a private residence, the property was acquired in 1812 by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, who owned it until his death in 1838.[7] It was then purchased by the banker James Mayer de Rothschild, whose family, owned it for over a century, until 1950, when it was acquired by the U.S. government.[7]


Ambassador's residence

Main article: Hôtel de Pontalba

The nearby property at 41 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, known as the Hôtel de Pontalba, was built by Louis Visconti for the New Orleans–born Baroness Micaela Almonester de Pontalba between 1842 and 1855.[8] Edmond James de Rothschild acquired the building in 1876.[8] His estate sold it in 1948 to the U.S. government, and today it is the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to France.[8]
​

These properties were obviously purchased by the federal government. If France severed diplomatic relations with the USA and told our embassy personnel to get the hell out, are you saying they wouldn't be obligated to go and that they could shoot any French personnel who tried to take possession of the premises?

 

[bripat9643]

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession.

True...so it would have been interesting to see the Confederacy.....IF they had not been stupid and started a war by firing on a Federal Installation.

IF secession is legal, then Ft Sumter was the territory of a foreign sovereign state that had every legal and moral right to kick out the trespassers residing therein.

You just contradicted yourself.

Secession wasn't legal, but that stealing thieving lying Yankee bustard Lincoln never paid us for the slaves, and that was unconstitutional.

How could secession be illegal if there was no law against it?

 

[Liminal]

The military bases in Iraq were never meant to be permanent US facilities. Ft. Sumter was always a possession of the US, and always meant to be.

Wrong, one of those bases was intended to be permanent. We have been asked to leave military bases all over the world. Do you actually believe the U.S. government would ever refuse to leave?

No military base anywhere except the USA can be a "permanent" base without the hosting country agreeing.

There was only one hosting country for Ft. Sumter. The USA.

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

You're wrong about a lot of things, but Robert E. Lee was still one of the greatest generals in history.

He was....but whether that was a good thing or not....his greatness prolonged a war and caused many more deaths.

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.

 

[Ravi]

The green zone in Baghdad is not federal land.

Sure it is. Are you saying the U.S. government just expropriated the property of Iraqi citizens? No, it purchased the land within the boundaries.

No it didn't. Jeesh, you really are a dope.

So the federal government stole the land?

Yeah, right.

No, it had an agreement with Iraq to occupy the land.

It appears most of the land was owned by the Iraqi government. There are a number of private residences within the borders. Some are palaces owned by wealthy Iraqi government officials who abandoned them during the war. Others are still occupied by the owners.

So let's use a more concrete example, the property where the U.S embassy in Paris is located:

Embassy of the United States Paris - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Chancery

The four-story chancery, housing the ambassador's office, faces the Avenue Gabriel and the gardens of the Champs-Élysées; it is beside the Hôtel de Crillon.[3] It was built in 1931, following the demolition of an existing structure.[5] Designed by Delano & Aldrich – an American architectural firm based in New York City, New York – along with French architect Victor Laloux, the building has a façade that conforms with other buildings on the Place de la Concorde, as required by French law.[5]


Talleyrand building
Hôtel de Talleyrand (circa 2007).

The so-called "Talleyrand building" at 2 rue Saint-Florentin formerly housed the American Embassy Consular Services, Public and Cultural Affairs offices, several other government agencies and the George C. Marshall Center.[6] Most of these offices were moved to the embassy proper.[6] Constructed in 1769 as a private residence, the property was acquired in 1812 by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, who owned it until his death in 1838.[7] It was then purchased by the banker James Mayer de Rothschild, whose family, owned it for over a century, until 1950, when it was acquired by the U.S. government.[7]


Ambassador's residence

Main article: Hôtel de Pontalba

The nearby property at 41 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, known as the Hôtel de Pontalba, was built by Louis Visconti for the New Orleans–born Baroness Micaela Almonester de Pontalba between 1842 and 1855.[8] Edmond James de Rothschild acquired the building in 1876.[8] His estate sold it in 1948 to the U.S. government, and today it is the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to France.[8]
​

These properties were obviously purchased by the federal government. If France severed diplomatic relations with the USA and told our embassy personnel to get the hell out, are you saying they wouldn't be obligated to go and that they could shoot any French personnel who tried to take possession of the premises?

Yes, they could choose to do that.

None of those places matter. Ft. Sumter was the property of the US federal government on American soil. All the forts built along the coastline were built with the aim of protecting the United States, and were authorized by the US Congress. South Carolina had no claim to the land. And it gave up its expectancy of being protected by the federal government when it decide to secede.

 

[Ravi]

Wrong, one of those bases was intended to be permanent. We have been asked to leave military bases all over the world. Do you actually believe the U.S. government would ever refuse to leave?

No military base anywhere except the USA can be a "permanent" base without the hosting country agreeing.

There was only one hosting country for Ft. Sumter. The USA.

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

You're wrong about a lot of things, but Robert E. Lee was still one of the greatest generals in history.

He was....but whether that was a good thing or not....his greatness prolonged a war and caused many more deaths.

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.

 

[bendog]

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession.

True...so it would have been interesting to see the Confederacy.....IF they had not been stupid and started a war by firing on a Federal Installation.

IF secession is legal, then Ft Sumter was the territory of a foreign sovereign state that had every legal and moral right to kick out the trespassers residing therein.

You just contradicted yourself.

Secession wasn't legal, but that stealing thieving lying Yankee bustard Lincoln never paid us for the slaves, and that was unconstitutional.

How could secession be illegal if there was no law against it?

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.


"Lincoln’s argument was more convincing, but only up to a point. The South did in fact secede because it was unwilling to accept decisions by a majority in Congress. Moreover, the critical passage of the Constitution may be more important than the status of the states when independence was declared. Davis and Calhoun’s argument was more compelling under the Articles of Confederation, where there was no express waiver of withdrawal. The reference to the “perpetuity” of the Union in the Articles and such documents as the Northwest Ordinance does not necessarily mean each state is bound in perpetuity, but that the nation itself is so created. After the Constitution was ratified, a new government was formed by the consent of the states that clearly established a single national government. While, as Lincoln noted, the states possessed powers not expressly given to the federal government, the federal government had sole power over the defense of its territory and maintenance of the Union. Citizens under the Constitution were guaranteed free travel and interstate commerce. Therefore it is in conflict to suggest that citizens could find themselves separated from the country as a whole by a seceding state. Moreover, while neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution says states can not secede, they also do not guarantee states such a right nor refer to the states as sovereign entities. While Calhoun’s argument that Article V allows for changing the Constitution is attractive on some levels, Article V is designed to amend the Constitution, not the Union. A clearly better argument could be made for a duly enacted amendment to the Constitution that would allow secession. In such a case, Lincoln would clearly have been warring against the democratic process he claimed to defend. Neither side, in my view, had an overwhelming argument. Lincoln’s position was the one most likely to be upheld by an objective court of law. Faced with ambiguous founding and constitutional documents, the spirit of the language clearly supported the view that the original states formed a union and did not retain the sovereign authority to secede from that union. Of course, a rebellion is ultimately a contest of arms rather than arguments, and to the victor goes the argument. - See more at: "Secession

From the J. Turley article at the end of the link.

 

[Liminal]

No military base anywhere except the USA can be a "permanent" base without the hosting country agreeing.

There was only one hosting country for Ft. Sumter. The USA.

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

You're wrong about a lot of things, but Robert E. Lee was still one of the greatest generals in history.

He was....but whether that was a good thing or not....his greatness prolonged a war and caused many more deaths.

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.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure it is. Are you saying the U.S. government just expropriated the property of Iraqi citizens? No, it purchased the land within the boundaries.

No it didn't. Jeesh, you really are a dope.

So the federal government stole the land?

Yeah, right.

No, it had an agreement with Iraq to occupy the land.

It appears most of the land was owned by the Iraqi government. There are a number of private residences within the borders. Some are palaces owned by wealthy Iraqi government officials who abandoned them during the war. Others are still occupied by the owners.

So let's use a more concrete example, the property where the U.S embassy in Paris is located:

Embassy of the United States Paris - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Chancery

The four-story chancery, housing the ambassador's office, faces the Avenue Gabriel and the gardens of the Champs-Élysées; it is beside the Hôtel de Crillon.[3] It was built in 1931, following the demolition of an existing structure.[5] Designed by Delano & Aldrich – an American architectural firm based in New York City, New York – along with French architect Victor Laloux, the building has a façade that conforms with other buildings on the Place de la Concorde, as required by French law.[5]


Talleyrand building
Hôtel de Talleyrand (circa 2007).

The so-called "Talleyrand building" at 2 rue Saint-Florentin formerly housed the American Embassy Consular Services, Public and Cultural Affairs offices, several other government agencies and the George C. Marshall Center.[6] Most of these offices were moved to the embassy proper.[6] Constructed in 1769 as a private residence, the property was acquired in 1812 by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, who owned it until his death in 1838.[7] It was then purchased by the banker James Mayer de Rothschild, whose family, owned it for over a century, until 1950, when it was acquired by the U.S. government.[7]


Ambassador's residence

Main article: Hôtel de Pontalba

The nearby property at 41 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, known as the Hôtel de Pontalba, was built by Louis Visconti for the New Orleans–born Baroness Micaela Almonester de Pontalba between 1842 and 1855.[8] Edmond James de Rothschild acquired the building in 1876.[8] His estate sold it in 1948 to the U.S. government, and today it is the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to France.[8]
​

These properties were obviously purchased by the federal government. If France severed diplomatic relations with the USA and told our embassy personnel to get the hell out, are you saying they wouldn't be obligated to go and that they could shoot any French personnel who tried to take possession of the premises?

Yes, they could choose to do that.

None of those places matter. Ft. Sumter was the property of the US federal government on American soil. All the forts built along the coastline were built with the aim of protecting the United States, and were authorized by the US Congress. South Carolina had no claim to the land. And it gave up its expectancy of being protected by the federal government when it decide to secede.

ROFL! yeah, right. None of the examples that show your claim to be wrong matter. Ft Sumter is a special case where none of the rules that apply elsewhere are applicable.

I already posted the proof that South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the land, so your insistence that it had no claim is entirely unsupported.

If SC in fact seceded, then it was a sovereign nation. You or one of your colleagues admitted that there are no permanent US bases in foreign countries.

You guys need to get your stories straight because you're kicking each other in the gonads.

 

[bodecea]

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

You're wrong about a lot of things, but Robert E. Lee was still one of the greatest generals in history.

He was....but whether that was a good thing or not....his greatness prolonged a war and caused many more deaths.

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.

It always is.

 

[Ravi]

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.

Slavery became illegal and therefore there was never anything taken away from 'legal' owners.

Keeping their lives instead of being hung for treason was the best deal they could of hoped for.

 

[bripat9643]

There is nothing in the Constitution prohibiting secession.

True...so it would have been interesting to see the Confederacy.....IF they had not been stupid and started a war by firing on a Federal Installation.

IF secession is legal, then Ft Sumter was the territory of a foreign sovereign state that had every legal and moral right to kick out the trespassers residing therein.

You just contradicted yourself.

Secession wasn't legal, but that stealing thieving lying Yankee bustard Lincoln never paid us for the slaves, and that was unconstitutional.

How could secession be illegal if there was no law against it?

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.


"Lincoln’s argument was more convincing, but only up to a point. The South did in fact secede because it was unwilling to accept decisions by a majority in Congress. Moreover, the critical passage of the Constitution may be more important than the status of the states when independence was declared. Davis and Calhoun’s argument was more compelling under the Articles of Confederation, where there was no express waiver of withdrawal. The reference to the “perpetuity” of the Union in the Articles and such documents as the Northwest Ordinance does not necessarily mean each state is bound in perpetuity, but that the nation itself is so created. After the Constitution was ratified, a new government was formed by the consent of the states that clearly established a single national government. While, as Lincoln noted, the states possessed powers not expressly given to the federal government, the federal government had sole power over the defense of its territory and maintenance of the Union. Citizens under the Constitution were guaranteed free travel and interstate commerce. Therefore it is in conflict to suggest that citizens could find themselves separated from the country as a whole by a seceding state. Moreover, while neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution says states can not secede, they also do not guarantee states such a right nor refer to the states as sovereign entities. While Calhoun’s argument that Article V allows for changing the Constitution is attractive on some levels, Article V is designed to amend the Constitution, not the Union. A clearly better argument could be made for a duly enacted amendment to the Constitution that would allow secession. In such a case, Lincoln would clearly have been warring against the democratic process he claimed to defend. Neither side, in my view, had an overwhelming argument. Lincoln’s position was the one most likely to be upheld by an objective court of law. Faced with ambiguous founding and constitutional documents, the spirit of the language clearly supported the view that the original states formed a union and did not retain the sovereign authority to secede from that union. Of course, a rebellion is ultimately a contest of arms rather than arguments, and to the victor goes the argument. - See more at: "Secession

From the J. Turley article at the end of the link.

Utterly weak.

 

[Ravi]

That would include military bases in states the secede. You just contradicted your own argument. Thanks for admitting I am right.

You're wrong about a lot of things, but Robert E. Lee was still one of the greatest generals in history.

He was....but whether that was a good thing or not....his greatness prolonged a war and caused many more deaths.

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.