• 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'

jonny5 said:
According to the law, the only land the govt can own is 10 square miles for the seat. Everything else is not theirs and at best the states allow the federal govt to use it. The union was asked to leave Fort Sumter, and no longer had a right or reason to be there. Its clearly within the boundaries of South Carolina. The same would go for any British forts on the colonies land. SC even offered to pay the union, but they wanted war. Lincoln wanted to preserve the union at any cost, including killing the death of nearly a million people on both sides.
Click to expand...

Completely, totally and utterly untrue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_enclave

Congress made a law as early as 1841 dealing with the issue, so your claim that the "federal government can only own ten miles" is simply inaccurate.

Uh.....actually, since the fort was federal property, the Union had every right and responsibility to be there, and had no obligation to surrender the fort to a bunch of thugs pointing cannons at it.

Sorry bud, but once a state gives permission for a fort to be built, it cedes the right to claim it as part of their territory. Like I said before, there are no "do-overs". You don't get to start shooting because you have second thoughts years down the line.

Here's the literal statement---

" "The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:

"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.

"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded."

https://www.civilwarhome.com/sumterownership.html

So you can cut the crap whining about how big bad Lincoln "wanted a war" because he didn't just meekly let your slaver pals walk all over him.
 
Buzz62 said:
Well he's certainly not my "hero" but...having actually read a bit of the history, I think he was a rather noble man who got caught up in a bad situation and wanted to fight for his home state. That's what I think.

Ya know...slavery was a long time ago? I don't think anyone would mind if you got over it now...
Click to expand...

Lee was a traitor then...and now,....Sounds like you haven't got over it....Praising him as a Noble man...Who caused the deaths of thousands of US Military
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
That's insane. They fought for the state's right to preserve chattel slavery within the state's borders. Their cause was evil. The only "freedom" they fought for was the "freedom" to own slaves. To say the confederates fought for freedom is like saying the Nazis fought for the freedom to purge the world of what they saw as inferior races.


Here is the leaders of the confederacy in their own words:

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/what-this-cruel-war-was-over/396482/
Click to expand...

That's a great article that I've seen before and forgotten about. What's so devastating about it is impossible to read the words of people throughout the 1850s and leading up to the Civil War and conclude that the Civil War was about anything other than slavery. They weren't shy about it - they were proud as can be to declare, yes, SLAVERY IS THE ISSUE!!
 
Tom Horn said:
Chattel.............what someone does by adding stupid **** words to try to win over idiots Alex, for $800
Click to expand...

It's a particular type of slavery. We assume "chattel" slavery when talking about blacks, but for example it's different than much of the slavery in the Old Testament.
 
JasperL said:
It's a particular type of slavery. We assume "chattel" slavery when talking about blacks, but for example it's different than much of the slavery in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...
Sure. More natives died from slavery then you can ever imagine. The entire Natchez nation was shipped out through the Charleston slave pens system.
 
Buzz62 said:
Well he's certainly not my "hero" but...having actually read a bit of the history, I think he was a rather noble man who got caught up in a bad situation and wanted to fight for his home state. That's what I think.

Ya know...slavery was a long time ago? I don't think anyone would mind if you got over it now...
Click to expand...

If you were white, quite noble I imagine.

But he took control of his wife's father's estate, who called for his slaves to be freed at his death, and instead of doing so separated slave families by selling off family members to distant places, whipped deserters mercilessly, then brined their backs, and was generally a brutal slave owner. If you call that "noble" I guess that's OK, but I wouldn't describe him with that term.
 
Fletch said:
Lee was a great general and the point of Trumps remarks was to praise Grants role in defeating him.
Click to expand...

There is absolutely no question about that. Seems to me even confederate haters could be a little more charitable in an assessment of this
fine leader of soldiers. No other general in Lee's position could have been expected to win, The success he had was astonishing.
 
Tom Horn said:
Sure. More natives died from slavery then you can ever imagine. The entire Natchez nation was shipped out through the Charleston slave pens system.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure what your point is, except to point out other atrocities committed by our ancestors. I'm not defending those actions, if that's what you're suggesting.
 
JasperL said:
If you were white, quite noble I imagine.

But he took control of his wife's father's estate, who called for his slaves to be freed at his death, and instead of doing so separated slave families by selling off family members to distant places, whipped deserters mercilessly, then brined their backs, and was generally a brutal slave owner. If you call that "noble" I guess that's OK, but I wouldn't describe him with that term.
Click to expand...

They were to be freed within 5 years after his death, which they were.
 
apdst said:
They were to be freed within 5 years after his death, which they were.
Click to expand...

There was no requirement to keep them enslaved for five more years - that was his choice, and he treated them brutally in the interim. This fits with how he regarded black POWs, and he refused an offer to exchange POWs with the North because they insisted black soldiers captured in battle were included. The "noble" Lee didn't regard them as human beings, but as property and so refused, being a "noble" person and all...
 
ludin said:
Not really. Grant helped swing the battle in the Unions favor for sure.
All the previous generals were abysmal and frankly were costing the union the war.

Lee had too many factors against him.
He had low man power, poor supplies, and basically old technology.

Grant had a massive army with the ability to call up more people.
He had better supplies and he also had better technology believe it or not.

Towards the end of the war repeating rifles and rifled barrels were starting to emerge.

The union was quickly supplying their army with these Rifled cannons and guns.
along with repeating rifles. These were only gained by the south when they were able to pick
them up off the battle field.

Lee was starting to have massive supply issues. Sherman's march through the south really hurt lee even more.

Grant was not quite as good as lee but he just had better logistics all the way around.
Click to expand...


We need reasons not excuses.

Lee specialized as the classic spoiler of attacks while being on the defensive. He disrupted the Army of the Potomac time and time again. He maneuvered and took extraordinary chances that often paid off. The downside is that Lee fought at the cost of high casualties especially in proportion to the number of men in his command to include the Army of Northern Virginia.

A good analytical word for Lee's victories would be Pyrrhic in that he lost soldiers he could not afford to lose in the long run. At Gettysburg Lee lost whole divisions which contributed significantly to the final defeat of the Confederacy. It is indeed generous to say Lee was less successful on the offensive. Lee's only two invasions were of the North -- DE & PA -- and both were repulsed without achieving their strategic goals. Lee in fact entered Delaware in an ambulance after a bout with his horse Traveller who'd become spooked and wild. In Pennsylvania Lee left the battlefield a broken man.

Meade knew at Gettysburg that when you precluded Lee maneuvering he attacked forward against your front line. Lee accomplished nothing any time he was boxed in and reacted in this way so he wasted the lives of his soldiers in frontal attacks that were unwise and unnecessary. Commanding Gen. Winfield Scott privately made the observation of Lee during the Mexican War so it circulated widely among the officer corps. This was Lee's approach in Mexico and it became his pattern. Lee never acknowledged however that the defending Mexican Army was usually not as well trained, well armed and led as the Union Army was. In the civil war Lee simply underestimated his opponent. Conversely, Lee over estimated his own capabilities and those of his commanders and soldiers as well as the (lost) cause that motivated them. That is, hating yankees just wasn't enough.

The bottom line is that the right winger neo-Confederates who traffic in the myths of Robert E. Lee can't ever recognize or acknowledge that Lee is overrated by them. Lee suffered further indignity several years ago when the Confederate flags were removed from his tomb at the college chapel where he'd been president up to his death. Lee the traitor can never be compared to the patriot Gen. Grant. Which goes to prove that even in a million years Donald Trump couldn't ever pull his head out of his ass.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
There was no requirement to keep them enslaved for five more years - that was his choice, and he treated them brutally in the interim. This fits with how he regarded black POWs, and he refused an offer to exchange POWs with the North because they insisted black soldiers captured in battle were included. The "noble" Lee didn't regard them as human beings, but as property and so refused, being a "noble" person and all...
Click to expand...

You got caught lying about that. Whatelse are you lying about?
 
JasperL said:
I'm not sure what your point is, except to point out other atrocities committed by our ancestors. I'm not defending those actions, if that's what you're suggesting.
Click to expand...
Our ancestors. They were ****ing drafted.
 
Michael Shaara The Killer Angels, though the book won the ‘Pulitzer Prize’ for fiction there is no fiction in this excerpt:

'It is an army of 70,000 men of remarkable unity. Though there are many men who cannot read or write they all spoke English.
They share common customs & a common faith & have been consistantly victorious against superior numbers. They have as
solid a faith in their leader as any army that ever marched. Robert Lee is the most beloved man in either army.'

He marches north with the confidence of a leader who had just 2 months before at 'Chancellorsville' soundly
defeated Union forces in what historians called 'Lee's greatest tactical victory' But he headed towards Pennsylvania
without the person who was equally responsible for what happened at Chancellorsville and in the Gettysburg theatre
his superb cavalry leader Jeb Stuart who always was there to scout Union positions was nowhere to be found.

Imagine if Thomas Jackson hadn't been killed at Chancellorsville and if NBF the 'Wizard of the Saddle' probably the
finest cavalry commander either horse or mechanized ever born on US soil led Lee's cavalry instead of the absent
Stuart. We would have had a much different outcome!
 
slick said:
Michael Shaara The Killer Angels, though the book won the ‘Pulitzer Prize’ for fiction there is no fiction in this excerpt:

'It is an army of 70,000 men of remarkable unity. Though there are many men who cannot read or write they all spoke English.
They share common customs & a common faith & have been consistantly victorious against superior numbers. They have as
solid a faith in their leader as any army that ever marched. Robert Lee is the most beloved man in either army.'

He marches north with the confidence of a leader who had just 2 months before at 'Chancellorsville' soundly
defeated Union forces in what historians called 'Lee's greatest tactical victory' But he headed towards Pennsylvania
without the person who was equally responsible for what happened at Chancellorsville and in the Gettysburg theatre
his superb cavalry leader Jeb Stuart who always was there to scout Union positions was nowhere to be found.

Imagine if Thomas Jackson hadn't been killed at Chancellorsville and if NBF the 'Wizard of the Saddle' probably the
finest cavalry commander either horse or mechanized ever born on US soil led Lee's cavalry instead of the absent
Stuart. We would have had a much different outcome!
Click to expand...
Except The 1st VA battalion spoke nothing but Irish.
 
Last edited:
JasperL said:
OK, but it can't work that the U.S. and all its citizens buys and maintains and fights for and dies for a piece of property, and still owns that property, and all it takes to claim it is to "secede." I wish it worked that way. We hiked some beautiful trails up to the highest point in the state last weekend. Maybe I could just stake out a claim in the middle of the GSMNP, file some secession papers, and it's MINE!

Same with Oak Ridge. The federal government owns Y-12 and a bunch of other nuclear sites, and Oak Ridge National Lab, but I'm pretty sure the city or Tennessee can just secede and claim everything! At least that's what you're suggesting, which sounds kind of cool to me. $10s or $100 billions in U.S. funds developed all that and it's all for Tennesee's taking! Tennessee (or Oak Ridge) would overnight become one of the world's great nuclear powers!
Click to expand...

When E Germany left the USSR and became part of Germany again all the USSR military bases in E. Germany were removed because they were no longer part of the USSR.

Once S. Carolina seceded from the union that land was no longer in the USA but in S Carolina which by law no longer was part of the USA. The US military could either remove themselves from S. Carolina or be removed from where they no longer had a right to be.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
When E Germany left the USSR and became part of Germany again all the USSR military bases in E. Germany were removed because they were no longer part of the USSR.

Once S. Carolina seceded from the union that land was no longer in the USA but in S Carolina which by law no longer was part of the USA. The US military could either remove themselves from S. Carolina or be removed from where they no longer had a right to be.
Click to expand...

What?.....South Carolina was no longer part of the USA?......Non sense
 
Tigerace117 said:
South Carolina ceded all right to the land when they agreed to allow the fort to be built......well before they decided to try to leave the Union to protect their precious slavery. There are no "do-overs"; you don't get to seize by force what you already gave away just because you had second thoughts years down the line. Federal property does not magically become part of another "country" even when that "country" decided it is independent.....oh, and by the way, no one else recognized the south as an independent country.
Click to expand...

Nobody had to recognize the south except the south for it to be legal to secede. The fact is the word of the USA isn't worth the paper it was written on. They proved that when they did not let the southern states secede like they agreed. They went back on their word. They clearly had no honor. Honorable people keep their word.
 
Saladin4 said:
What?.....South Carolina was no longer part of the USA?......Non sense
Click to expand...

South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union after the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. South Carolina adopted the Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union on December 20, 1860.
 
PIPEWRENCH said:
Nobody had to recognize the south except the south for it to be legal to secede. The fact is the word of the USA isn't worth the paper it was written on. They proved that when they did not let the southern states secede like they agreed. They went back on their word. They clearly had no honor. Honorable people keep their word.
Click to expand...

Yeah...Why didn't they allow those Southern states to continue slavery.....Just not right...Yee Haw
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom