Null



Sign in to follow this  
Proud Tiger

?????????

Recommended Posts

I started this thread with the intent of stating something positive about a man I admire. A few chose to make something negative out of it so I have changed the title to what is now is..........a bunch of ___________ (you fill in the blank).

Edited by Proud Tiger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




" May have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one " - Mal Reynolds. FIREFLY

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" May have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one " - Mal Reynolds. FIREFLY

Right. Slavery was even justified by the bible. :-\

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" May have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one " - Mal Reynolds. FIREFLY

Right. Slavery was even justified by the bible. :-\

I must have missed that part. Wait, no I didn't. I never read that part, so I can't have missed it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was always pretty clear to me he picked the wrong side.

...Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew." Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth...

-Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice President of the CSA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" May have been on the losing side, still not convinced it was the wrong one " - Mal Reynolds. FIREFLY

Right. Slavery was even justified by the bible. :-\

I must have missed that part. Wait, no I didn't. I never read that part, so I can't have missed it in the first place.

Well, I certainly do not wish to argue what the bible does or does not justify. Perhaps it would have been more accurate for me to say the bible was used by the supporters of slavery to justify the practice.

http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp

"....Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it..."

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

homer...you seem ready enough to overlook the fact that Washington, Jefferson, Grant, Sherman, etc., all had slaves.

I am not overlooking it at all. It's not really relevant if we are talking about why the South seceded.

Lee was a gentleman as contrasted to the butcher Sherman who lined up 300 slaves in the streets in Savannah and killed them because they were showing loyalty to their owners.

Also not relevant to the topic.

I assume you do know that the Civil War didn't start over slavery so that was not a major factor in Lee's decision. The issue that started the war was State's Rights. Slaver became a major issue a year or so into the war. And thank goodness state's rights has prevailed for the most part. in spite of what Obama and his minions would like.

This is BS. States Rights to what end? To preserve the institution of slavery.

While you can argue Lee's personal motivations (presumably using his own writings) the reason Virginia joined the secessionists was to preserve slavery. They didn't equivocate about the reason at the time. Of course later, slavery was dropped from the post-war rationale, after all, who wanted to admit so many lives were lost for the purpose of preserving such an evil institution?

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "debate" about the role of slavery as the cause of secession. All one has to do is read the original statements and speeches that explain exactly why the Confederate States seceded.

These original sources are referenced in the book "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles B. Dew (a southerner btw).

http://www.amazon.com/Apostles-Disunion-Southern-Secession-Commissioners/dp/081392104X

Edited by homersapien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war of Northern Aggression can be debated from many angles. It was a complex era in the worlds most sophisticated republic. What cannot be debated is the fact that slavery was championed by democrats and it took a republican to emancipate them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Homer, you, with prejudice, segued from a thread about REL and surreptitiously implanted another as to defame a legitimate American hero. Shame on your ignorance. REL NEVER supported or justified slavery, PERIOD ! (and "PERIOD" is what it actual means in my use of the word, not as Obama's use)

You falsely accuse REL of supporting slavery. He didn't. His wife inherited 196 slaves with the stipulation that they were to be freed within 5 years. REL may have inherited about 6 who were to be immancipated upon his death. HE NEVER PURCHASED SLAVES. It is believed that he kept these 6 people and and a FEW of those his wife inherited because they were too frail/infirmed to earn a livelihood on their own. Those who were able-bodied and capable of earning a livelihood he FREED, and this was prior to The War Between the States.

Did REL view blacks as equals ? No. Did he enslave them ? NO ! Did he FREE those slaves whom he and his

wife owned ? YES (years before the War Between the States) ! REL believed that Christianity would be the means to end slavery for all time.

REL's cause for war was States Rights as ProudTiger mentions, NOT SLAVERY.

Learn more about REL's thoughts about slavery: http://www.civilwarh...m/leepierce.htm

Robert E. Lee's Opinion Regarding Slavery

This letter was written by Lee in response to a speech given by then President Pierce.

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence.
Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist!
While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Edited by Elephant Tipper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "debate" about the role of slavery as the cause of secession. All one has to do is read the original statements and speeches that explain exactly why the Confederate States seceded.

These original sources are referenced in the book "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles B. Dew (a southerner btw).

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/081392104X

The thread, :homer: , is about Robert E. Lee. Not everyone else. Stay on the subject of REL, not what other's did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "debate" about the role of slavery as the cause of secession. All one has to do is read the original statements and speeches that explain exactly why the Confederate States seceded.

These original sources are referenced in the book "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles B. Dew (a southerner btw).

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/081392104X

The thread, :homer:, is about Robert E. Lee. Not everyone else. Stay on the subject of REL, not what other's did.

Funny you direct your ire at :homer: rather than AURaptor, whose quote from a TV show set off this little firestorm.

Regardless, General Lee came to the defense of the indefensible, whatever his personal motivations may have been. "My country right or wrong" is no excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war of Northern Aggression can be debated from many angles. It was a complex era in the worlds most sophisticated republic. What cannot be debated is the fact that slavery was championed by democrats and it took a republican to emancipate them.

if slavery was the primary reason, the north would have lost. The border states would have fully aligned with the confederacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war of Northern Aggression can be debated from many angles. It was a complex era in the worlds most sophisticated republic. What cannot be debated is the fact that slavery was championed by democrats and it took a republican to emancipate them.

if slavery was the primary reason, the north would have lost. The border states would have fully aligned with the confederacy.

That's probably a fair statement. It's still silly to assume that the perceived threat to the "peculiar institution" wasn't the catalyst for the formation of the confederacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war of Northern Aggression can be debated from many angles. It was a complex era in the worlds most sophisticated republic. What cannot be debated is the fact that slavery was championed by democrats and it took a republican to emancipate them.

if slavery was the primary reason, the north would have lost. The border states would have fully aligned with the confederacy.

Like I said it was a complex era for the republic. I didn't say slavery was the only issue but, undeniably, it was at the bottom of all the debates about states rights and representation in Congress and fueled the fire of secession.which ultimately was the northern clarion call to arms in the interest of preserving the union.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points.

1. Anyone who has seriously studied the situation at the beginning of the Civil War KNOWS the issue in the beginning was State's Rights.. My wife grew up in

California and even they were taught that.But believe what you want. You can make long, yada yada posts until hell freezes over and you won't change my mind about the war or my admiration of Robert E. Lee.I have spent too much time over the years doing indepth study to not stand my ground.

2. Having said that, as ET said above, I started this thread simply noting that today was Lee's birthday ad that he is one of y historical heroes. I didn't bring politics into it until a couple of other posters did. If you want to do that start your own damn thread.

Great point. I love history myself and share you interest in and admiration of the life of REL. Interestingly enough, he could have been the General of the Union Army but chose not to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no "debate" about the role of slavery as the cause of secession. All one has to do is read the original statements and speeches that explain exactly why the Confederate States seceded.

These original sources are referenced in the book "Apostles of Disunion" by Charles B. Dew (a southerner btw).

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/081392104X

The thread, :homer:, is about Robert E. Lee. Not everyone else. Stay on the subject of REL, not what other's did.

Funny you direct your ire at :homer: rather than AURaptor, whose quote from a TV show set off this little firestorm.

Regardless, General Lee came to the defense of the indefensible, whatever his personal motivations may have been. "My country right or wrong" is no excuse.

I addressed my comments to :homer: because his thought's were real, not like the quote of fiction AURaptor made. If fiction is your focus, then so be it.

See, you make the same mistake as :homer: by making REL's support of The War Between the States simplistic. The tyranny of the federal government was REL's greatest concern and it's attack against his HOME, not some far-away place. This was a war to protect his state, his family, friends, SLAVES, and his values.

Should you be looking to attack those of hypocrisy (as you imply toward REL), then you should look at Grant and Lincoln. Grant, et al, had slaves, and he had the same opinions as REL re: blacks, and Lincoln even wanted to put blacks on ships to return to Africa. You make this issue very simplistic. REL did NOT support slavery. His desire was to end it, but not through war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points.

1. Anyone who has seriously studied the situation at the beginning of the Civil War KNOWS the issue in the beginning was State's Rights.. My wife grew up in

California and even they were taught that.But believe what you want. You can make long, yada yada posts until hell freezes over and you won't change my mind about the war or my admiration of Robert E. Lee.I have spent too much time over the years doing indepth study to not stand my ground.

2. Having said that, as ET said above, I started this thread simply noting that today was Lee's birthday ad that he is one of y historical heroes. I didn't bring politics into it until a couple of other posters did. If you want to do that start your own damn thread.

Proud, don't be so naive or disingenuous to make a post honoring Robert E. Lee on the political forum and then claiming other injected politics into the discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of points.

1. Anyone who has seriously studied the situation at the beginning of the Civil War KNOWS the issue in the beginning was State's Rights.. My wife grew up in

California and even they were taught that.But believe what you want. You can make long, yada yada posts until hell freezes over and you won't change my mind about the war or my admiration of Robert E. Lee.I have spent too much time over the years doing indepth study to not stand my ground.

2. Having said that, as ET said above, I started this thread simply noting that today was Lee's birthday ad that he is one of y historical heroes. I didn't bring politics into it until a couple of other posters did. If you want to do that start your own damn thread.

Great point. I love history myself and share you interest in and admiration of the life of REL. Interestingly enough, he could have been the General of the Union Army but chose not to be.

He chose wrong and became a traitor in the process. One can't be an American hero and turn his back on his country. There is a ton of denial and very perverted logic being employed by anyone calling him an American hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The war of Northern Aggression can be debated from many angles. It was a complex era in the worlds most sophisticated republic. What cannot be debated is the fact that slavery was championed by democrats and it took a republican to emancipate them.

if slavery was the primary reason, the north would have lost. The border states would have fully aligned with the confederacy.

Like I said it was a complex era for the republic. I didn't say slavery was the only issue but, undeniably, it was at the bottom of all the debates about states rights and representation in Congress and fueled the fire of secession.which ultimately was the northern clarion call to arms in the interest of preserving the union.

EXACTLY. Slavery was undeniably one of many underlying issues, issues which were being addressed by those of differing opinions who sought to resolve them as they best determined, yet those of the federal gov't decided to kill 100's of thousands of Confederates (about 2-3% of the population) to get their point across that their method was the ONLY acceptable method of resolving states' issues. Kinda reminds me of the today's Democrats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REL was an honorable man, a true leader, one who was truly admired by his soldiers (both northern and southern), and his countrymen. He lived with the purpose of making the United States a better place, and when the time came to defend his home from that same government he did so. He was thrust into choosing sides when war was forced upon him. He would have rather reconciled America peacefully.

For those who care to know more about this "complex" man, you should read his letters and prayers. Your prejudices about this hero will change.

Long live the name and honor of General Robert E. Lee.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REL was an honorable man, a true leader, one who was truly admired by his soldiers (both northern and southern), and his countrymen. He lived with the purpose of making the United States a better place, and when the time came to defend his home from that same government he did so. He was thrust into choosing sides when war was forced upon him. He would have rather reconciled America peacefully.

For those who care to know more about this "complex" man, you should read his letters and prayers. Your prejudices about this hero will change.

Long live the name and honor of General Robert E. Lee.

Your prejudices are firmly in place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Texas Tiger.....you wouldn't like my opinion of you right now. Anybody who calls Lee a traitor is 100% a-hole IMHO. And thanks for respecting my request to move on and keep politics out of this thread..........just couldn't do it could you. You choose to rationalize and show your own perverted, leftist self rather than respect.

I'm actually being pretty patient with you right now, Proud. You post in a POLITICAL FORUM and ask that we keep POLITICS out of it. Elephant Tripper immediately adds this absurd distinction between Democrats and Republicans as if it had any bearing on current politics.

Robert E. Lee may have had some admirable qualities as a man, but the undisputed truth is that he turned his back on his country and led an armed insurrection against it. That's treason. That's being a traitor. Love him anyway, if you wish, but it's indisputably true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this