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

[VanceMack]

Maybe later..

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Life is too short, man. Just sayin....

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

I'm just curious why you think the 'people' of the United States, who fought a war to gain California and have spent $100s of billions at least in infrastructure and other investments in the state should simply walk away when presumably 50.01% decide, "Hey, thanks for the dying and all the investment in our state - we'll take it from here!"

I don't care if any states secede or not. I think people have the right to choose. I do not feel the need for an all powerful government to rule over the people. I don't think we all need to march to the same drum. I think the many pockets of people evolving separately all over the world offer humanity the greatest diversity.

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

But you're OK with 51% saying they'd rather leave the United States and become independent?

No I don't believe 51% is the number. I believe that people should be free to choose. What if 98% of the people choose to no longer be part of the USA?

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

There is no "right" to secede in a desperate attempt to preserve slavery.

It's especially hilarious that you claim that given that the people you are defending did not allow vast chunks of their populace to "determine their government".

I am sorry you cannot comprehend that people may want to secede from this country and have no wish to enslave anyone.

 

[Jack Hays]

No I don't believe 51% is the number. I believe that people should be free to choose. What if 98% of the people choose to no longer be part of the USA?

I am sorry you cannot comprehend that people may want to secede from this country and have no wish to enslave anyone.

People as individuals may renounce their citizenship but that has no effect on the Union. States may leave the Union with the consent of the other states via the Constitutional amendment process.

 

[JasperL]

I don't care if any states secede or not. I think people have the right to choose. I do not feel the need for an all powerful government to rule over the people. I don't think we all need to march to the same drum. I think the many pockets of people evolving separately all over the world offer humanity the greatest diversity.

OK, but the problem is what you want cannot work in this reality. And people like what an all powerful government does. Doesn't have to be as big as the U.S., see, Europe, but what I've seen is people want the "all powerful" government when it delivers exactly what they want, and nothing more, and what they want depends on what they need, which is unpredictable.

Maybe we'd be better off splitting off the former CSA and parts of the west and the NE etc. but that's not going to happen without a collapse of this government, which will no doubt happen at some point. History is clear enough on that point. And in the meantime, states seceding and taking with them all that this COUNTRY has invested in those areas by filing a piece of paper just isn't going to happen...

 

[Tigerace117]

I am sorry you cannot comprehend that people may want to secede from this country and have no wish to enslave anyone.

I'm sorry you can't seem to comprehend the inherent hypocrisy in defending people for "wanting to govern themselves" only for them to make it very clear they had no intention of letting large numbers of their people do any such thing.

 

[JasperL]

No I don't believe 51% is the number. I believe that people should be free to choose. What if 98% of the people choose to no longer be part of the USA?

Individuals are free to choose as I pointed out - they are free to leave and find anywhere else on this big planet to try their luck. Lots of people do in fact leave and my advice to them is what I said before - don't let the door hit your ass on the way out.

As for states, they'll need to negotiate their exit if they're serious. Simply filing a piece of paper, then claiming all that's within their borders, just ain't going to get it.

 

[Tangmo]

The post you replied to was my last attempt to help you see the light in this thread.
Interesting babble, IMO you have a hard time determining whose to bless & whose to blame but I admire your effert.
I'm sure we'll clash horns again when the next thread concerning "the War of Northern Aggression" pops up

Now that you mention it you guyz lost in Vietnam too.

The Ten Years War was another lost cause.

Westmoreland was a general from South Carolina who, like Lee of Virginia also fought and lost in his own wilderness. We in contrast can do without these loser generals thx anyway.


And it wuz a hundred years later besides, so we know how you guyz must feel...

"Aggression from the North":
State Department White Paper on Vietnam
February 27, 1965
Aggression from North


Except you guyz got it twice, in two once in a century wars. Lee's problem was that he was an engineer for 32 years, not a strategist. Lieutenant-Colonel Lee dug ditches and raised mounds to new heights. A thousand times over. Napoleon he was not.

Lee spent much of his time in Mexico repairing roads and sweeping trails for Gen. Scott's army. Each Lee and Napoleon ended up much the same regardless, i.e., in exile. Napoleon initiated the era of modern war while Lee initiated his Fanboyz recently revived mass treason against the United States.

The one thing you guyz haven't said about Lee is that he was a chessmaster. That's because Lee played checkers tactics while the Union found itself some serious generals who knew the only way was to go forward aggressively to defeat the enemy, not to pamper 'em. Napoleonic Wars went on for 12 years while the War of Secession got cut off at the knees in four.

 

[Tigerace117]

Your opinion is valid, yet only one opinion of many. Part of the partisanship that goes on is that neither side is willing to actually ponder the points the other side makes. There are allot of people who revere Lee. There are allot of people who do not.
There are allot of people who revere Regan. There are allot of people who do not.
Same is true for Bill Clinton and George Patton.

Arguing over statues and other such remembrances of these historical figures should not be sullied just because someone doesn't like it.
People can die over trivialities like this.

Hundreds of thousands of people did die to stop Robert E Lee and the rest of the slavers from accomplishing their goals. If it is really a "triviality" then there should be no problem with preventing people from celebrating slavers.

Neither Reagan, Clinton, nor Patton fought for slavery. Your analogy doesn't hold water.

 

[Tigerace117]

The post you replied to was my last attempt to help you see the light in this thread.
Interesting babble, IMO you have a hard time determining whose to bless & whose to blame but I admire your effert.
I'm sure we'll clash horns again when the next thread concerning "the War of Northern Aggression" pops up

Yes, you posted a long list of Neo Confederate drivel, and I responded by debunking your laughable claims.

Yeah, it sure was "aggressive" of the North not to keep letting Forrest and his ilk sell human beings like cattle:roll:

The stupidity of Neo Confederates remains downright hilarious.

 

[Tangmo]

Why 3 paragraphs on Stuart, who I briefly mentioned was notably ineffective at gettysburg.
Stuart had nothing to do with my post.

<<snip>>

You certainly scribbled a peculiar interpretation replying:
'Your post says if only soldiers didn't die in war the outcome of any given war could and almost surely would have been the other way around.
That is, the Confederacy could, should, and would have won.'

<<snip>>

Let's be real, Thomas Jackson's effectiveness at Fredericksburg & especially Chancellorsville was vital.
He was replaced by Lieutenant General Richard S. Ewell. The man often blamed for the Southern failure
at Gettysburg. An amputee and a new bridegroom, Ewell faced immense military and political challenges
as Stonewall Jackson's replacement after Chancellorsville.

<<snip>>

A much different outcome you wrongly concluded was that the 'Confederacy could, should, and would have won.'
Even Lee after Fredericksburg & Chancellorsville never thought the South with limited resources & populated by 5 million
people could "WIN' against the industrial North of 22 million. But a stalemate may have been possible if Lee had
Jackson who he previously relied on & Forrest who was left under floundering commanders in the western theatre.

We need reasons not excuses. Here's one reason that presents how and why the Union finally quit on compromise and the Confederacy's desperate need of stalemate.

Sheridans Ride was inspired by Union Cavalry General Philip Henry Sheridan as he galloped his great black gelding “Rienzi” from Winchester to The Battle of Cedar Creek in Virginia upon hearing the Union line had broken and was in retreat.

Sheridan will crash down the pike waving his hat and rallying the Union retreat until they cheer and turn, renewing the attack and pushing General Jubal Early out of the Shenandoah Valley...


Sheridan's Ride

General "Fighting Phil" Philip Sheridan who after the war became general-in-chief of the US Army. Grant brough Sheridan east from his command of a cavalry division to command of all the Union cavalry forces. At Cedar Creek Sheridan commanded four divisions of cavalry and three divisions of infantry -- VI Corps.


"The epic poem “Sheridan’s Ride” by Thomas Buchanan Read told the dramatic story of the timely ride by Union General Philip Sheridan who was in Winchester on Oct.18 the eve before the battle and was returning from his conference with Secretary of War Stanton and Lincoln.

"Union command is under Major General Horatio G. Wright in Sheridans absence, who is under full attack as his 7 divisions are being driven from the field in disarray after General Early’s dawn attack. The Union will have fast losses including 1,300 taken as prisoners as well as lose 24 artillery pieces to the rebels. Time is short and the Union army has crumbled and is in trouble by just 10am.

"Sheridan is riding hard since 9am to the battle on his horse Rienzi with a few staff and is reinforced by approx. 300 cavalry along the way, when they meet the beginning of the Union army in full retreat. Cavalry units are spread out in line to stop the pell mell retreat of the Union army.

"Sheridan is yelling “Come on back, boys! Give ’em hell, God damn ’em! We’ll make coffee out of Cedar Creek tonight," as the soldiers stop their retreat and start to reform, understanding Sheridan’s words mean a bold counterattack. This buys the Union army the time to stop their retreat, reform and attack Early, pushing him back in a full rout when Union cavalry under Major General George Armstrong Custer and Wharton charge in a headlong gallop past the Confederate flanks in a planned envelopment.

"The rebel army has no choice but to fall back in their own retreat that will bring them back to New Market, and the end of their defense of “The Valley”. The Battle of Cedar Creek is a deadening blow to the south regarding control of the Shenandoah and the food supplies it afforded the Confederate army. Lee will never again be able to bring his army north through the valley to attack the north."

Battle of Cedar Creek, Va. Sheridan's ride at Battle of Cedar Creek


Reasons.

Reality, not classic rightwing whataboutism. Your posts are from the Confederate La-La Land of "if only" and wish. The bottom line here is that Americans like winners and the Confederacy lost. The Confederacy Fanboyz want to make America great again. Desperately so.

 

[Tom Horn]

I believe the immediate cause for succession can have its roots traced back to the threat Massachusetts made to leave the union in 1820, and then SC to leave in 1840.

 

[jonny5]

The why are you defending the secessionists claiming that they had a the right to deprive those people of their freedom?

Because they also have a right to be free. Its two separate issues.

 

[jonny5]

People as individuals may renounce their citizenship but that has no effect on the Union. States may leave the Union with the consent of the other states via the Constitutional amendment process.

It does not say that in the constitution and the right to be free does not require consent from others. A person can not sign away their freedom. It is unalienable.

 

[Buzz62]

I'm not. What I keep doing is using his OWN family as a measure and Lee failed that simple and reasonable test, and also of course the test of history.

If you want to describe him honestly as an unrepentant white supremacist who fought competently or even greatly to defend the institution of slavery, then I won't object. I just tire of people peddling Lost Cause BS about these people. :roll:

OK well I just don't care anymore if you object or not.
Your butt-hurt attitude is tiring, annoying and is the attitude that's gonna cost Democrats the elections.
Bye.

 

[Buzz62]

Hundreds of thousands of people did die to stop Robert E Lee and the rest of the slavers from accomplishing their goals. If it is really a "triviality" then there should be no problem with preventing people from celebrating slavers.

Neither Reagan, Clinton, nor Patton fought for slavery. Your analogy doesn't hold water.

Well "J" tell ya what. You keep trashing history and railing against it.
I will continue to accept history for what it is. Lee was a great general and taking down statues is one of the thinks the energizes the Republicans to get out and vote.
So please proceed.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Life is too short, man. Just sayin....

Noted.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

It does not say that in the constitution and the right to be free does not require consent from others. A person can not sign away their freedom. It is unalienable.

Unalienable freedom is for individuals.
When the states formed a "more perfect union" they surrendered any right to secede outside the constitutional amendment process.

 

[JasperL]

OK well I just don't care anymore if you object or not.
Your butt-hurt attitude is tiring, annoying and is the attitude that's gonna cost Democrats the elections.
Bye.

Sorry that actual history, as opposed to Lost Cause hagiography, offends you. :roll:

 

[jonny5]

Unalienable freedom is for individuals.
When the states formed a "more perfect union" they surrendered any right to secede outside the constitutional amendment process.

Show me where it says that in the contract they signed. Our founding philosophy states the exact opposite.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

 

[Jack Hays]

Show me where it says that in the contract they signed. Our founding philosophy states the exact opposite.

. . . Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to some very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation which created a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when it was implemented, only strengthened and perfected this perpetual relationship.[SUP][16][/SUP] Chase wrote:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[SUP][7][/SUP]
​

After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressed Texas' relationship to that Union. He rejected the notion that Texas had merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said it had in fact incorporated itself into an already existing indissoluble political body.[SUP][16][/SUP] From the decision:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[SUP][7]. . . .[/SUP]


​

Texas v. White - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White



Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. ... The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.‎Background · ‎Secession and bond sales · ‎State of Texas, plaintiff · ‎Decision

 

[jonny5]

. . . Chase wrote that the original Union of the colonies had been made in reaction to some very real problems faced by the colonists. The first result of these circumstances was the creation of the Articles of Confederation which created a perpetual union between these states. The Constitution, when it was implemented, only strengthened and perfected this perpetual relationship.[SUP][16][/SUP] Chase wrote:

The Union of the States never was a purely artificial and arbitrary relation. It began among the Colonies, and grew out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interests, and geographical relations. It was confirmed and strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form and character and sanction from the Articles of Confederation. By these, the Union was solemnly declared to "be perpetual". And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect Union". It is difficult to convey the idea of indissoluble unity more clearly than by these words. What can be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not?[SUP][7][/SUP]
​

After establishing the origin of the nation, Chase next addressed Texas' relationship to that Union. He rejected the notion that Texas had merely created a compact with the other states; rather, he said it had in fact incorporated itself into an already existing indissoluble political body.[SUP][16][/SUP] From the decision:

When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into an indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for reconsideration or revocation, except through revolution or through consent of the States.[SUP][7]. . . .[/SUP]


​

Texas v. White - Wikipedia


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._White



Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the United States Supreme Court in 1869. ... The state filed suit directly with the United States Supreme Court, which, under the United States Constitution, retains original jurisdiction on certain cases in which a state is a party.‎Background · ‎Secession and bond sales · ‎State of Texas, plaintiff · ‎Decision

Notice the court didnt actually cite the constitution. That is a court opinion, not the law. Show me where in the actual law that states agreed to never be able to leave the union.

 

[Atomic Kid]

Because they also have a right to be free. Its two separate issues.

So you're saying the secessionists had freedom to deprive other people of their freedom? What kind of twisted logic is that?

 

[Tigerace117]

Well "J" tell ya what. You keep trashing history and railing against it.
I will continue to accept history for what it is. Lee was a great general and taking down statues is one of the thinks the energizes the Republicans to get out and vote.
So please proceed.

No, you will continue to spew myths and be outraged when people are no longer willing too tolerate the celebration of slavers.

Or you will emulate right wingers in the past who started shrieking about the Taliban and spewing the moronic fantasy that people are "trying to destroy memory of the civil war".

If removing statues to traitors and slavers is what upsets Republicans, that says one hell of a lot about Republicans.....none of it good.