Students Demand Acknowledgement of Robert E. Lee's 'Racist and Dishonorable Conduct'

[Pete7469]

Pete, your writings indicate a sociopathology, meaning that you know right from wrong, but you don't care as long as you can get what youwant.

Bed wetter, your response indicates you have no reading comprehension skills. The next time you feel indigestion, ignore the warning labels on the Drano and drink at least a quart. I promise relief from all the pain you feel in life. Lord knows bed wetters like you cause more pain than you're worth.

Pete demonstrates the typical sociopath's behavior: ignore the data and attack personality.

This bed wetting tool is more offended by the posts of an anonymous user on a message board than the public denunciations of private individuals and demagoguery of millions of US citizens by none other than the US Senate Majority Leader.

Who the sociopath bed wetter?

(Hint: it's not you, you're a complete blithering idiot. The political whores you support are the sociopaths)

 

[Unkotare]

You think maybe it's possible to discuss a point of contention without encouraging one another to kill themselves? Hmmm? Maybe? Just a thought.

 

[Katzndogz]

The seven students want to take American history and make it more to their liking. That's what this is all about.

 

[natstew]

I have nothing against Lee...but nobility?

How else do you describe it? There was nothing in it for Lee. He knew the South stood at a very serious disadvantage going into the conflict. And yet he followed his conscience. That is nobility.

Integrity? Wouldn't nobility have more to do with social class?

No, this is the definition that more describes Robert Edward Lee:
Possessing eminence, elevation, dignity, etc.; above whatever is low, mean, degrading, or dishonorable; magnanimous; as, a noble nature or action; a noble heart.

 

[Pete7469]

Abraham was a racist lol..thats a good one

Abraham Lincoln never believed in equality for blacks.

History News Network | Abraham Lincoln Never Believed in Racial Equality

You're wasting your time, bed wetters aren't interested in the truth.

I'm surprised they don't call Lincoln a democrook.

 

[occupied]

I generally find history revisionism distasteful no matter who does it. Lee was about as honorable a man as ever led an army but the reason they were fighting was fucked up. I live in the south and have read and heard much about the man and feel that there could have just as easily been a much more heartless and brutal man in that position.

That being said we are actually talking about right now rather than 1865. When all the white supremacists show up to defend the flag it will make those young history revisionists right. it will show that regardless of Lee's motives or the state of affairs during and after the civil war the rebel flag is the flag of proud racists today, much the same way that Hitler took a symbol for good and turned it into a swastika. Defending the flag will cost them the flag.

 

[bripat9643]

Abraham Lincoln was a disgusting and despicable traitor. He committed treason and deserved to be hung. His head should have been placed on a pike until it was flyblown.

There: fixed it for ya.

There: reported.

Asswipe.

"Reported?" what does that mean? Did you tattle on me to a sysop or something?

 

[bripat9643]

Go back and check the footnote and tell me who was speaking?

Careful, tool: I know the answer.

They were both speaking, Fakey. That's what happens when you have a conversation with someone. General Butler relayed the details of a conversation he had with Lincoln. We can choose to believe the good general, or we can choose to believe you. Which do you think we are going to do?

Thought so. You have no idea who recorded the "conversation."

They didn't have tape recorders in 1865, Fakey.

 

[Unkotare]

They were both speaking, Fakey. That's what happens when you have a conversation with someone. General Butler relayed the details of a conversation he had with Lincoln. We can choose to believe the good general, or we can choose to believe you. Which do you think we are going to do?

Thought so. You have no idea who recorded the "conversation."

They didn't have tape recorders in 1865, Fakey.

Tape recorders are not the only way to "record" a conversation, genius.

 

[natstew]

If nothing else, Lee was dishonorable in standing with and fighting for the traitorous confederacy when he could have led the Union army and brought far greater honor to his name than that very considerable amount which he had already accrued and subsequently squandered. He was against slavery and secession, but still chose to stand with traitors. A bad call of historical proportions.

All that having been said, these 'students' likely knew all this before they even applied to the college so they are probably just trying to pad their 'lefty' resume in preparation for careers as douchebags upon graduation, should they get that far.

No, Lee was not 'traitorous'. Lee stood for what was right and for how the United States was set up. The States created the Federal Government to serve the States, not for the States to be subservient to the United States Government. The States were to remain Sovereign in everything except in the powers specifically granted the Federal Government by the States via the Constitution of The United States. No where in the Constitution is the Right to Secede prohibited to the States, therefore the Right to Secede remains with the States.
Add to that the Declaration Of Independence and it's clear, the States were within their Rights to secede from what they saw as a tyrannical and oppressive Government.

Asa May, one of the largest Planters in Jefferson County Florida was secretly schooling his 'slaves', whom he chose to call his 'people', to read, write, and do basic math to prepare them for eventual freedom. He inherited slaves and was never comfortable with the idea of one man owning another. Ending slavery wasn't as simple as just telling slaves, "Hey, you're free, get off my property or pay rent". Many suggestions were offered by slave owners as to how to peacefully end slavery. All were rejected by the Northern controlled Congress to placate their radical abolitionist supporters, and to keep the money coming into their campaign coffers from the rich textile mill owners.

I'm not denying there were hard core slave owners who were against anything that freed any slaves, but that it was more complicated than just suddenly freeing all the slaves to survive on their own. Reality is, the way it was done led to 100 years of conflict that is still being experienced today in some places.
Spin it any way you choose, it was a National disaster caused by politicians. You can not polish a turd, and turds are all politicians produce.

 

[Unkotare]

If nothing else, Lee was dishonorable in standing with and fighting for the traitorous confederacy when he could have led the Union army and brought far greater honor to his name than that very considerable amount which he had already accrued and subsequently squandered. He was against slavery and secession, but still chose to stand with traitors. A bad call of historical proportions.

All that having been said, these 'students' likely knew all this before they even applied to the college so they are probably just trying to pad their 'lefty' resume in preparation for careers as douchebags upon graduation, should they get that far.

No, Lee was not 'traitorous'.

He stood with traitors. He fought for traitors and the evil they would defend at the cost of this nation when he could have led the Union forces and added to his considerable honor while defending his own beliefs. I imagine he was a man who understood that choices have consequences.

 

[Sallow]

There: fixed it for ya.

There: reported.

Asswipe.

"Reported?" what does that mean? Did you tattle on me to a sysop or something?

It's against TOS to change people's posts.

 

[Unkotare]

There: reported.

Asswipe.

"Reported?" what does that mean? Did you tattle on me to a sysop or something?

It's against TOS to change people's posts.

It's against the TOH (Terms of Humanity) to be as much of a dishonest, reprehensible, characterless scumbag as Johnny Reb.

 

[Sallow]

If nothing else, Lee was dishonorable in standing with and fighting for the traitorous confederacy when he could have led the Union army and brought far greater honor to his name than that very considerable amount which he had already accrued and subsequently squandered. He was against slavery and secession, but still chose to stand with traitors. A bad call of historical proportions.

All that having been said, these 'students' likely knew all this before they even applied to the college so they are probably just trying to pad their 'lefty' resume in preparation for careers as douchebags upon graduation, should they get that far.

No, Lee was not 'traitorous'. Lee stood for what was right and for how the United States was set up. The States created the Federal Government to serve the States, not for the States to be subservient to the United States Government. The States were to remain Sovereign in everything except in the powers specifically granted the Federal Government by the States via the Constitution of The United States. No where in the Constitution is the Right to Secede prohibited to the States, therefore the Right to Secede remains with the States. Add to that the Declaration Of Independence and it's clear, the States were within their Rights to secede from what they saw as a tyrannical and oppressive Government.

Asa May, one of the largest Planters in Jefferson County Florida was secretly schooling his 'slaves', whom he chose to call his 'people', to read, write, and do basic math to prepare them for eventual freedom. He inherited slaves and was never comfortable with the idea of one man owning another. Ending slavery wasn't as simple as just telling slaves, "Hey, you're free, get off my property or pay rent". Many suggestions were offered by slave owners as to how to peacefully end slavery. All were rejected by the Northern controlled Congress to placate their radical abolitionist supporters, and to keep the money coming into their campaign coffers from the rich textile mill owners.

I'm not denying there were hard core slave owners who were against anything that freed any slaves, but that it was more complicated than just suddenly freeing all the slaves to survive on their own. Reality is, the way it was done led to 100 years of conflict that is still being experienced today in some places.
Spin it any way you choose, it was a National disaster caused by politicians. You can not polish a turd, and turds are all politicians produce.

Wait what?

That's completely wrong.

These are constitutional limits on the states:

Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

That section is a prohibition on secession.

And if that isn't clear?

Section 3.

New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Additionally?

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The Constitution and the Federal Government are supreme.

That's why we are the largest and most powerful nation on earth.

 

[paperview]

Lincoln most certainly held some racist views, as did just about everyone at that time - but the Colonization plan (this is the important part) -- was (and Bri and his fellow neo-confederates know this, but repeat the lie) --

Voluntary. <---- Real important element

Very often, Lost Causers and those who use words like Lincoln the Tyrant present an image of the Colonization plan (which was borne of the abolitionists) -- as one of a forced deportation. That's not true.

It would have been voluntary.

 

[natstew]

If nothing else, Lee was dishonorable in standing with and fighting for the traitorous confederacy when he could have led the Union army and brought far greater honor to his name than that very considerable amount which he had already accrued and subsequently squandered. He was against slavery and secession, but still chose to stand with traitors. A bad call of historical proportions.

All that having been said, these 'students' likely knew all this before they even applied to the college so they are probably just trying to pad their 'lefty' resume in preparation for careers as douchebags upon graduation, should they get that far.

No, Lee was not 'traitorous'.

He stood with traitors. He fought for traitors and the evil they would defend at the cost of this nation when he could have led the Union forces and added to his considerable honor while defending his own beliefs. I imagine he was a man who understood that choices have consequences.

No, they were not traitors, they were patriots, loyal to their States.

 

[Unkotare]

Liberia turned out to be pretty much a disaster anyway.

 

[paperview]

Considering the five or so generations of slave and slave descendents that followed the Civil War, that were denied Civil Rights...


:think:

 

[bripat9643]

Thought so. You have no idea who recorded the "conversation."

They didn't have tape recorders in 1865, Fakey.

Tape recorders are not the only way to "record" a conversation, genius.

So how is it done so that you would call it valid historical evidence?

 

[bripat9643]

Lincoln most certainly held some racist views, as did just about everyone at that time - but the Colonization plan (this is the important part) -- was (and Bri and his fellow neo-confederates know this, but repeat the lie) --

Voluntary. <---- Real important element

Very often, Lost Causers and those who use words like Lincoln the Tyrant present an image of the Colonization plan (which was borne of the abolitionists) -- as one of a forced deportation. That's not true.

It would have been voluntary.

Prove it.

Furthermore, that's beside the point. Lincoln was a white supremacist who didn't want blacks living in the United States. Of that fact there is no doubt.