• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump: 'Robert E. Lee was a great general'

For the first three years of the war, it was the north that had it's ass handed to them. It finally took Lincoln appointing a general who would hold his ground and take it to the confederate troops. Your problem and those like you is that you are still living the civil war in your head. The civil war ended in the 1860s. There is no need to hate anyone who fought on either side. It was not just about a white surrender flag. It was about preserving the Union.

But Trump said something positive about Lee so the left has to lose its collective mind. We arent dealing with rational people here.
 

lol....you didn't read your own link. Did you?

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

That in this free government all white men are and of right ought to be entitled to equal civil and political rights; that the servitude of the African race, as existing in these States, is mutually beneficial to both bond and free, and is abundantly authorized and justified by the experience of mankind, and the revealed will of the Almighty Creator, as recognized by all Christian nations; while the destruction of the existing relations between the two races, as advocated by our sectional enemies, would bring inevitable calamities upon both and desolation upon the fifteen slave-holding States.

By the secession of six of the slave-holding States, and the certainty that others will speedily do likewise, Texas has no alternative but to remain in an isolated connection with the North, or unite her destinies with the South.

:lamo
 
Doesn't change the truth of what I said in the least. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union and had little to do with slaves. Had slavery been the only issue, there would have been no civil war. The people in the north cared nothing for the slaves even if they were philosophically or morally opposed to slavery. They had no intention of integrating black people into white society. Lincoln himself opposed mingling of the races and considered the possibility of transporting and resettling the freed slaves in Liberia.

You are correct. Everyone can argue about why the south attempted to leave the Union until the cows come home, however the north did not initially go to war to abolish slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union. Slavery did not become a call to rallying cry until about the 4th year of the war.
 
Doesn't change the truth of what I said in the least. The Civil War was fought to preserve the Union and had little to do with slaves. Had slavery been the only issue, there would have been no civil war. The people in the north cared nothing for the slaves even if they were philosophically or morally opposed to slavery. They had no intention of integrating black people into white society. Lincoln himself opposed mingling of the races and considered the possibility of transporting and resettling the freed slaves in Liberia.

Ah, the sweet, fetid stench of historical ignorance and revisionism. If you could be bother to read the Declarations of Secession, they make it crystal clear that it was all about slavery.

No one familiar with history is buying what you're selling.
 
That is simply not true. The issue that drove Secession was slavery. Not the abolition of slavery, but slavery nonetheless. Without that issue, no secession, no Civil War. No other factor was even remotely as important.

However slavery is not why the north went to war with the confederacy at least not initially.
 
Episode 452 of Mr Trumps reality TV show, "The White House."

Stay tuned for episode 453 folks. It's only a matter of time, probably hours, before he blurts out something designed to further divide the American people.

When will the sponsors pull their sponsorship leading to cancellation of this show? It takes up far too much air time.
 
lol....you didn't read your own link. Did you?



:lamo

You are forced to cherry pick history to justify your bigotry. That mentality is no different than that of the ku klucks klowns.
 
For the first three years of the war, it was the north that had it's ass handed to them. It finally took Lincoln appointing a general who would hold his ground and take it to the confederate troops. Your problem and those like you is that you are still living the civil war in your head. The civil war ended in the 1860s. There is no need to hate anyone who fought on either side. It was not just about a white surrender flag. It was about preserving the Union.

That was the North's decision to preserve the Union. The South's decision to secede in the first place was over slavery.
 
It's a fact; don't need 'luck', nor 'spin'; that's your crutch.

Let me put it this way. The only Confederate flag that matters, or will ever matter, is the white one.
 
You are correct. Everyone can argue about why the south attempted to leave the Union until the cows come home, however the north did not initially go to war to abolish slavery. They went to war to preserve the Union. Slavery did not become a call to rallying cry until about the 4th year of the war.

Well I'll have to agree with them that slavery WAS mentioned in the Declaration of Secession in many of the seceding states. But the issue itself was far deeper than the simple issue of slavery. The deeper issue is quite complicated requiring a great deal of words to properly describe, but in a nutshell it was the threat of the north to use slavery as an excuse to deprive the southern states of their sovereignty and right to self determination.
 
Please explain, how you came to that conclusion?

Antifa are anarchists, you should be able to work that out. And the resistance movement against Trump is about the left not accepting the results of the 2016 election. Peaceful transfer of hallmark of the United States of America.The left no longer seems to believe in that. Just days ago, leftists vandalized a youn man's pickup trump and burned it to a cinder because he had two Trump bumper stickers on it. People wearing MAGA hats are being threatened or physically attacked.Republicans and members of Trump's cabinet are being accosted when they take the family out to restaurants, etc.
 
Lesson 3: Unlike you, I comdemn them all and don't fawn over a general to try and cosmeticize the fact he was a traitor

I don't fawn over General Lee. I just recognize that he was a great General. As for the term, traitor.....your final lesson....it was a civil war.....The term traitor was in the eye of the beholder. Each side fought for what they believed in.
 
I was referencing the Trump quote. History's greatest, arguable, but a case could be made.

He was quoting me and I didnt claim that Lee was 'historys greatest' but that he is among them. And he is. I havent seen a list where Lee isnt in the top 25 or so of all time. But that is really a distraction anyway. Trump said nice things about Lee so the left is losing their minds. Thats all thats going on.
 
I don't fawn over General Lee. I just recognize that he was a great General. As for the term, traitor.....your final lesson....it was a civil war.....The term traitor was in the eye of the beholder. Each side fought for what they believed in.

I wonder if the Brits still pout and whine about George Washington being a traitor or if they are mature enough to recognize him as one of historys great leaders.
 
He was quoting me and I didnt claim that Lee was 'historys greatest' but that he is among them. And he is. I havent seen a list where Lee isnt in the top 25 or so of all time. But that is really a distraction anyway. Trump said nice things about Lee so the left is losing their minds. Thats all thats going on.

President Trump could say nice things about Grant and the Libbos would suddenly hate Grant, too. They would bring up Grant's anti-semitism in a heartbeat...lol
 
Yawn. Since you don't understand 'moving the goalposts', I suggest you stop trying to use it.

Here is the claim I responded to: " First of all, Lee is considered one of historys great generals whether you care to admit it or not."

If you can't be bothered to fully read through a thread, why bother to post?

And my quote was correct. He is considered one of historys great generals--except to the historically illiterate.
 
But Trump said something positive about Lee so the left has to lose its collective mind. We arent dealing with rational people here.

Agreed. Many on the left these days are out of their minds. Many of them also support what they claim to be against. For instance, look at how the left is treating Kanye West. He is being labeled everything from a "traitor" to a "house negro" simply over a friendship with Trump. They claim to be hold the moral high ground regarding slavery in the civil war era, yet they scream blood murder if an African American celebrity does not remain on the democrat party plantation.
 
What a beautiful vision!. It's why I cherish the south and it's unique way of life and beauty. President Trump should be so proud and grateful we have his back in taking our country back and making America great again.

Well, with all the judges and politicians you have now maybe you can lobby your congressman to bring back segregation and poll taxes. It's a start....
 
That was the North's decision to preserve the Union. The South's decision to secede in the first place was over slavery.

Slavery was one issue, however not the only one. It was just as much about tariffs on southern agricultural exports. And slavery at the time was not yet abolished in the north. Abolishing slavery became an rallying cry in the 4th year of the war.
 
Well I'll have to agree with them that slavery WAS mentioned in the Declaration of Secession in many of the seceding states. But the issue itself was far deeper than the simple issue of slavery. The deeper issue is quite complicated requiring a great deal of words to properly describe, but in a nutshell it was the threat of the north to use slavery as an excuse to deprive the southern states of their sovereignty and right to self determination.

That and the tariffs on southern agricultural exports.
 
I wonder if the Brits still pout and whine about George Washington being a traitor or if they are mature enough to recognize him as one of historys great leaders.

Good point, but over the heads of the left.
 
Numerous historians disagree with you and the Lee understood a basic fact: the South needed to win early or it wouldn't win.

Any historian worth their salt knows that the South had practically no chance of achieving an outright military victory. They simply didn't have the resources to be able to do so. The South set out to take advantage of their compact geography with internal lines of communication and their military heritage to wage a defensive war against the North in hopes that the likelihood of a protracted conflict would wear down the North's will to fight on. They believed that since Southern soldiers would be principally fighting in defense of their homeland that they would have the greater morale and stronger commitment to the cause. This turned out to be an illusion. They also believed that the British and European heavy dependence upon Southern cotton to supply their mills would cause them to be biased in favor of the South and so they dreamed of direct European assistance. That too turned out to be illusion. Lincoln's issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation shortly after the Union victory at Antietam, Lee's first failed foray into Northern territory, effectively squashed any prospect of European intervention on behalf of the South.
 
Any historian worth their salt knows that the South had practically no chance of achieving an outright military victory. They simply didn't have the resources to be able to do so. The South set out to take advantage of their compact geography with internal lines of communication and their military heritage to wage a defensive war against the North in hopes that the likelihood of a protracted conflict would wear down the North's will to fight on. They believed that since Southern soldiers would be principally fighting in defense of their homeland that they would have the greater morale and stronger commitment to the cause. This turned out to be an illusion. They also believed that the British and European heavy dependence upon Southern cotton to supply their mills would cause them to be biased in favor of the South and so they dreamed of direct European assistance. That too turned out to be illusion. Lincoln's issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation shortly after the Union victory at Antietam, Lee's first failed foray into Northern territory, effectively squashed any prospect of European intervention on behalf of the South.

There was a chance that the Confederacy could win. In warfare, there's no such thing as "no chance of winning/losing".
 
Back
Top Bottom