Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[Ravi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely, though I do believe most of the abolitionists were northerners. That is actually one reason I admire Lincoln. He was a racist and he still ended up doing the right thing by freeing the slaves.

 

[Liminal]

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

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

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

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

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

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


just sayin'

No, you're not just saying anything. Anything that matters anyway.

 

[Liminal]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm really not interested in superficial equivalencies. I appreciate a more in depth assessment of history.

 

[bripat9643]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely, though I do believe most of the abolitionists were northerners. That is actually one reason I admire Lincoln. He was a racist and he still ended up doing the right thing by freeing the slaves.

Lincoln didn't free a single slave.

 

[Liminal]

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely, though I do believe most of the abolitionists were northerners. That is actually one reason I admire Lincoln. He was a racist and he still ended up doing the right thing by freeing the slaves.

Lincoln didn't free a single slave.

Why do you persist with this kind of nonsense? Why not just make the case for Lee being an exceptional commander? That's an easy one to do.

 

[Dante]

I'm really not interested in superficial equivalencies. I appreciate a more in depth assessment of history.

if this were true you'd read a book, but instead you throw your precious pearls before the hoi polloi @ usmb?

 

[Freewill]

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.

Better tell those men at Gitmo.

 

[DriftingSand]

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

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

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

I do believe that slavery was an issue but I don't believe that it was the primary issue. Most Southerners did not own slaves nor did all Southerners agree with slavery but I would venture to say that the vast majority of Southerners were angry about the protective tariffs that benefited northern manufacturing but harmed the south. I would say that money was the driving force behind the War Between The States but that slavery was used as a pawn by the North to garner sympathy for their cause and to villainize the South.

If slavery had truly been an issue that folks would have been up in arms when my earliest ancestor was brought to the USA as a white slave in the mid 1600s.

 

[Dante]

Lincoln didn't free a single slave.

and yet others will keep arguing this imbecility with you. What does this say about them?

 

[kaz]

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

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

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

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

how, with his magic wand?



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

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

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

He picked his home, family and community. Liberals cannot grasp that concept, it's all about central, collectivist government.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Looks like the "north" just ass whooped the "south" once again!

How many centuries are you sore losers going to cry about this?

All you dumbasses haven't won a single point in this entire thread. All you can do is sling ad hominems and personal attacks around.

You should probably just say that Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest commanders this nation ever produced and just let it go at that.

I will have to put him below Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Longstreet and Joe Johnson. I even think the north dodged a bullet in that Davis chose Lee over Longstreet. Longstreet was in my view substantial better, and nearly as berserker.

The deal with lee was he as a berserker who inspired and was minimally competent and who had two great lieutenants : Jackson and Longstreet. The same as Hitler had Rommel.

Joe Johnson was not a berserker. So he couldn't lead his men into such horrors as Pickets Charge, Antitem, the Seven Days, the Mule shoe.... Lee was mentally ill to the degree of likening war wonderful.

 

[Dante]

I do believe that slavery was an issue but I don't believe that it was the primary issue. Most Southerners did not own slaves nor did all Southerners agree with slavery...

Most Southerners did not have a vote in secession. Slavery was THE issue. Stop lying and accept historical fact

 

[Dante]

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

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

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

how, with his magic wand?



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

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

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

He picked his home, family and community. Liberals cannot grasp that concept, it's all about central, collectivist government.

He picked the village over his nation? Hmmm, very Hillary-esque

 

[Dante]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely, though I do believe most of the abolitionists were northerners. That is actually one reason I admire Lincoln. He was a racist and he still ended up doing the right thing by freeing the slaves.

Lincoln was a racist? In what sense?

 

[RKMBrown]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Absolutely, though I do believe most of the abolitionists were northerners. That is actually one reason I admire Lincoln. He was a racist and he still ended up doing the right thing by freeing the slaves.

Nah. He didn't free the slaves, he took ownership of them.

 

[kaz]

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

how, with his magic wand?



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

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

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

He picked his home, family and community. Liberals cannot grasp that concept, it's all about central, collectivist government.

He picked the village over his nation? Hmmm, very Hillary-esque

You don't give a shit about your nation. You go against them every time it conflicts with your view of a collectivist world order, which is all the time. That you are defending your nation and I am not is a self delusion you practice. You are picking your government, that is not your nation, and you are only picking them when it doesn't conflict with your other goals. You want that which is below them to fold to them, you want them to fold to your envisioned world order. I want a Federal government that is restricted to it's Constitutional limits.

 

[Dante]

Was Lincoln a Racist - The Root

jesus CONTEXT people

 

[Liminal]

Looks like the "north" just ass whooped the "south" once again!

How many centuries are you sore losers going to cry about this?

All you dumbasses haven't won a single point in this entire thread. All you can do is sling ad hominems and personal attacks around.

You should probably just say that Robert E. Lee was one of the greatest commanders this nation ever produced and just let it go at that.

I will have to put him below Grant, Sherman, Thomas, Longstreet and Joe Johnson. I even think the north dodged a bullet in that Davis chose Lee over Longstreet. Longstreet was in my view substantial better, and nearly as berserker.

The deal with lee was he as a berserker who inspired and was minimally competent and who had two great lieutenants : Jackson and Longstreet. The same as Hitler had Rommel.

Joe Johnson was not a berserker. So he couldn't lead his men into such horrors as Pickets Charge, Antitem, the Seven Days, the Mule shoe.... Lee was mentally ill to the degree of likening war wonderful.

These are exactly the kind of unsubstantiated anecdotes I find so uncompelling. All the Generals you mentioned were responsible for some of the worst casualties and least imaginative tactics.

 

[candycorn]

I do believe that slavery was an issue but I don't believe that it was the primary issue. Most Southerners did not own slaves nor did all Southerners agree with slavery...

Most Southerners did not have a vote in secession. Slavery was THE issue. Stop lying and accept historical fact

Its much like the debate libs and cons have today about voter ID laws. The cons want it and most libs do not...myself not included in that liberal camp although most consider me to be a liberal. The broad argument is a sterile voting process. The pretext is much more gloomy. If the conservatives were popular with immigrants and blacks; the last thing they would be interested in is forcing those who least trust the governmental institutions to give more information to those institutions. What they don't realize is that the law is afflicting a lot of seniors and the preppers who just as soon not go down to the courthouse and update their information with the feds.

States rights were important. The #1 right was the right to enslave those who don't look like you. The right to move your capitol building, keep more of your income in the State than Washington, etc... were side issues.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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.

don't go there. The slaves owned themselves first, which was stolen from them. You are going down the rabbit hole of reparations.