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

Saladin4 · Oct 15, 2018

PIPEWRENCH said:
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.

"Justify"????...Bull****...****in traitors...and they paid for it...Big time

Tigerace117 · Oct 15, 2018

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.

Oh look, more drivel about “honor” coming from a guy defending slavers. Guess what bud? South Carolina gave its word that it would give up the land to the goverment. Guess the word of your pals is even more worthless.

Lol oh really? Where, exactly in the Constitution does it say people have the “right” to keep slavery forever?

ludin · Oct 15, 2018

Tangmo said:
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.

blah blah blah.

I recognize Grant for being a great general. he was. He had a different method than lee and forced lee's hand more than what lee would have liked.
The fact is though that lee on many occasions still did get the better of grant in a few battles.

I am not a neo-confederate. I view history for what it is not the revisionist thuggery that you guys do.

To say that Lee was a bad general is well ignorant of history. he was the top of his class at west point. He graduated with honors and
was so impressive that Lincoln asked him to lead the Union army.

Lee made a huge mistake at gettysburg. It was his down fall. it happens. The same thing happened to Napoleon at waterloo.
but that doesn't mean that napoleon was a moron of a general.

even the best generals have bad battles. sometimes they are ones that cost them their lives and their armies.
that doesn't mean they were bad generals.

JasperL · Oct 15, 2018

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.

By which law? Secession isn't in the Constitution - it grants states no rights to simply decide at any later date to walk away and seize without compensation any federal property within its borders, with a concurrent demand for the U.S. and the rest of the country's response to be, "Oh, OK, that's fine."

It simply cannot work that way, that Tennessee can "secede" and therefore claim at least $10s of billions in federal property at Oak Ridge, paid for by the taxpayers throughout the 50 states over a period of decades. "I filed a piece of paper, therefore that property is MINE!" just isn't how it can work, and it didn't work that way, obviously.

And your East Germany reference isn't instructive at all. There is no useful parallel. Different countries, different laws, different circumstances in every way.

JasperL · Oct 15, 2018

Tom Horn said:
Our ancestors. They were ****ing drafted.

Who is "they?" The people in charge? Seems unlikely.

But besides that I have no f'ing idea what your point is here. What the hell do (I assume) pre-revolutionary actions have to do with this discussion? Are you just throwing out random red herrings for fun or is there a point buried somewhere in these random observations?

Atomic Kid · Oct 15, 2018

PIPEWRENCH said:
That is sates that are part of the union. The states once seceded can become another country and those forts are no longer on united States land but state land or even another country.

The Supreme Court has consistently interpreted the Constitution to be an "indestructible" union. There is no legal basis a state can point to for unilaterally seceding. Many scholars hold that the Confederate secession was blatantly illegal.

Tigerace117 · Oct 15, 2018

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!

Yep, the South would have been crushed in 1866 instead and your hero would have wound up in front of a firing squad instead of going on to a long life of forming domestic terrorist organizations.

Saladin4 · Oct 15, 2018

ludin said:
blah blah blah.

I recognize Grant for being a great general. he was. He had a different method than lee and forced lee's hand more than what lee would have liked.
The fact is though that lee on many occasions still did get the better of grant in a few battles.

I am not a neo-confederate. I view history for what it is not the revisionist thuggery that you guys do.

To say that Lee was a bad general is well ignorant of history. he was the top of his class at west point. He graduated with honors and
was so impressive that Lincoln asked him to lead the Union army.

Lee made a huge mistake at gettysburg. It was his down fall. it happens. The same thing happened to Napoleon at waterloo.
but that doesn't mean that napoleon was a moron of a general.

even the best generals have bad battles. sometimes they are ones that cost them their lives and their armies.
that doesn't mean they were bad generals.

Lee was a traitor...Who fought against the US Military...To preserve Slavery...He is NO hero....He was not great....by any measure

Buzz62 · Oct 15, 2018

Saladin4 said:
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

Errr...Saladin? Lee's dead now.
And I'm developing some mild concern for you mental state.

Saladin4 · Oct 15, 2018

Buzz62 said:
Errr...Saladin? Lee's dead now.
And I'm developing some mild concern for you mental state.

I very happy he is Dead,, ....I'd like to see every statue of this fool removed...That wouldn't bother you...Would it?

Tanngrisnir · Oct 15, 2018

Tangmo said:
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.

Yep. The frosting on that ****ing traitor's cake is the fact that Arlington National Cemetary is where it is.

I'll let the treason-appeasers Google that.

Buzz62 · Oct 15, 2018

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.

If you were white?
You should meet Saladin I think. The 2 of you seem to be on the same wave length.
Unfortunately that wave length is slightly out of phase with today's reality.

Look...Trump says Lee was a great general. By all historic accounts...he was.
Romell was also a great general. Patton too.

You should really try not confusing modern day norms and reality, with historical norms and reality.
Today slavery is over. And that's a good thing.
In yester year, Lee was a great military general who is today revered...as having been a great general in the US military.
Was he a dick? Ya maybe. Does that have anything to do with his being a great general who some, to this very day, revere? Certainly not...that would be crazy...no?

PirateMk1 · Oct 15, 2018

Saladin4 said:
I very happy he is Dead,, ....I'd like to see every statue of this fool removed...That wouldn't bother you...Would it?

Then you wont mind me and my friends running around in our Chargers painted orange with Dixie flag painted up top, mashing on our horns playing Dixieland going vroom, vroom making all kinds of noise. Ye-Ha!!!

Buzz62 · Oct 15, 2018

Saladin4 said:
I very happy he is Dead,, ....I'd like to see every statue of this fool removed...That wouldn't bother you...Would it?

I wouldn't waste a sunny afternoon parading about Charlottesville over it, but it would strike me as a rather childish thing to do.
And sad I suppose, that some angry mob of uncontrollably loud and obnoxious fruit cakes, managed to remove a significant historical figure, from American history.

But I'm glad you very happy he is Dead. Feel better now?

slick · Oct 15, 2018

Tigerace117 said:
Yep, the South would have been crushed in 1866 instead and your hero would have wound up in front of a firing squad instead of going on to a long life of forming domestic terrorist organizations.

I know this, some of the arguments put forth by some posters like you just have to charitably ignore! If you try to contradict
even the oddest posts the contradictions are followed by pretzel like contortions in an attempt justify nonsense.
Even the most decorated soldiers of WWI & WWII like York & Murphy if those who hate the south realized they were from the south,
they would be demonized , justlike Lee, Jackson & Forrest!

JasperL · Oct 15, 2018

Buzz62 said:
If you were white?
You should meet Saladin I think. The 2 of you seem to be on the same wave length.
Unfortunately that wave length is slightly out of phase with today's reality.

He wan't "noble" to his black slaves. Read about him if you want - I've linked to some stories elsewhere. For goodness sake, he refused a prisoner swap that would have freed his OWN MEN because Grant insisted doing so meant Lee would have to treat the blacks he captured as actual men, and included in the swap. So yeah, he was a POS when it came to blacks.

Look...Trump says Lee was a great general. By all historic accounts...he was.
Romell was also a great general. Patton too.

You should really try not confusing modern day norms and reality, with historical norms and reality.
Today slavery is over. And that's a good thing.
In yester year, Lee was a great military general who is today revered...as having been a great general in the US military.
Was he a dick? Ya maybe. Does that have anything to do with his being a great general who some, to this very day, revere? Certainly not...that would be crazy...no?

You called him a "noble man" which he just wasn't to his slaves, even by the standards of the day. The Custis family treated them well, freed them at their death, then the "noble" Robert E. Lee proceeded to break families apart, work the old slaves who had largely 'retired' as young field hands, whipped then brined the backs of those who 'escaped' but whose freedom was promised in the will he served as executor, and who he kept as slaves until the last possible day.

Call him a great general all you want, but he was no "noble man." That's Lost Cause historical revisionism. He was an unrepentant white supremacist and cruel slave master by the standards of his own FAMILY.

PIPEWRENCH · Oct 15, 2018

Saladin4 said:
Yeah...Why didn't they allow those Southern states to continue slavery.....Just not right...Yee Haw

I never said slavery was OK.

PIPEWRENCH · Oct 15, 2018

Saladin4 said:
"Justify"????...Bull****...****in traitors...and they paid for it...Big time

Great counter point.

PIPEWRENCH · Oct 15, 2018

Tigerace117 said:
Oh look, more drivel about “honor” coming from a guy defending slavers. Guess what bud? South Carolina gave its word that it would give up the land to the goverment. Guess the word of your pals is even more worthless.

Lol oh really? Where, exactly in the Constitution does it say people have the “right” to keep slavery forever?

I never supported slavery. Try again.

Buzz62 · Oct 15, 2018

JasperL said:
He wan't "noble" to his black slaves. Read about him if you want - I've linked to some stories elsewhere. For goodness sake, he refused a prisoner swap that would have freed his OWN MEN because doing so meant treating the blacks he captured as actual men, and included in the swap. So yeah, he was a POS when it came to blacks.

You called him a "noble man" which he just wasn't to his slaves, even by the standards of the day. The Custis family treated them well, freed them at their death, then the "noble" Robert E. Lee proceeded to break families apart, work the old slaves who had largely 'retired' as young field hands, whipped then brined the backs of those who 'escaped' but whose freedom was promised in the will he served as executor, and who he kept as slaves until the last possible day.

Call him a great general all you want, but he was no "noble man." That's Lost Cause historical revisionism. He was an unrepentant white supremacist and cruel slave master by the standards of his own FAMILY.

Jasper...you cannot realistically ascribe our morality about slavery, to that era. Its a silly notion.
Many many people, white people for the most part, tortured blacks and treated them like dogs.
That stain on history cannot and should not be removed. Its a lesson. MOST white folk of the time were white supremacists.
It was normal then. In fact...it was looked upon by allot of people as...hang onto your sox Jasper...MORAL.

General Lee's nobility comes from his service record with both militaries.

Tigerace117 · Oct 15, 2018

slick said:
I know this, some of the arguments put forth by some posters like you just have to charitably ignore! If you try to contradict
even the oddest posts the contradictions are followed by pretzel like contortions in an attempt justify nonsense.
Even the most decorated soldiers of WWI & WWII like York & Murphy if those who hate the south realized they were from the south,
they would be demonized , justlike Lee, Jackson & Forrest!

Yes, I bet you desperately have to ignore reality. After all, you idolize a man who led a gang of thugs who specialized in stringing up kids and shooting farmers.

Hate to break it to you bud but neither Alvin York nor Audie Murphy fought for slavery or killed Americans. That is the difference....but I’m not surprised a Klan wannabe like you can’t grasp that.

Jack Hays · Oct 15, 2018

Lee was the last great pre-modern general. His problem was that Grant and Sherman were the first great modern generals.
Lee was a slaveholder who fought to defend slavery and destroy the Union.
Lee and Jefferson Davis approved and oversaw the Confederate Secret Service operation that ultimately led to the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.

Tigerace117 · Oct 15, 2018

Buzz62 said:
Jasper...you cannot realistically ascribe our morality about slavery, to that era. Its a silly notion.
Many many people, white people for the most part, tortured blacks and treated them like dogs.
That stain on history cannot and should not be removed. Its a lesson. MOST white folk of the time were white supremacists.
It was normal then. In fact...it was looked upon by allot of people as...hang onto your sox Jasper...MORAL.

General Lee's nobility comes from his service record with both militaries.

What a load of crap. The south was the second to last area in the entire damn Western Hemisphere to ban slavery. Even in 1860 they knew it was an incredible evil.

Tigerace117 · Oct 15, 2018

PIPEWRENCH said:
I never supported slavery. Try again.

You whining endlessly about how “dishonorable” crushing slavers is says otherwise bud.

JasperL · Oct 15, 2018

slick said:
I know this, some of the arguments put forth by some posters like you just have to charitably ignore! If you try to contradict
even the oddest posts the contradictions are followed by pretzel like contortions in an attempt justify nonsense.
Even the most decorated soldiers of WWI & WWII like York & Murphy if those who hate the south realized they were from the south,
they would be demonized , justlike Lee, Jackson & Forrest!

No, that's not it. The problem is the rewriting of history to simply ignore or actively lie about who these people were and why having statues to them in 2018 is offensive, at least to many reasonable people. N.B. Forrest was the first Grand Dragon of the KKK. Are you surprised that a black community in Memphis doesn't look at his statue in their neighborhood and get inspired by his white supremacist greatness that we're now supposed to ignore? Has nothing to do with them being FROM the South, but what they did as individuals. Alvin York is from Tennessee. I'm aware of no ACTS by him that would justify disparaging him as a racist or white supremacist. He was a working man, mostly poor.

A dozen people in this thread are also insisting that the Civil War wasn't about slavery - it was, that was the reason for the war, period. Talking about the relative merits of Lee or Forrest as generals is OK, but every damn discussion of them includes a bunch of Lost Cause lies and that's what people object to. It would be no different than a thread about Rommel being polluted with Holocaust deniers, who ask us to forget for what cause Rommel fought.

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

Traveler