Jump to content

?????????


Proud Tiger

Recommended Posts

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.

Your comment is extremely odd in that General Lee was never tried for treason, yet you have convicted him of that charge. General Grant fought against even the notion of trying Lee et al for treason....

Neither was Benedict Arnold.

Three comments :homer: :

1) This is the REL thread, not the BA thread. Should you have historical evidence that REL was a traitor then you should post that, not start another of your endless rabbit trails.

2) General George Washington ordered that BA be hanged the moment he was captured. The thought of trying BA for treason was never a consideration because BA was a grave, immediate threat to the Continental armies.

3) You have tried to compare BA with REL. BA worked surreptitiously by acting as a general of the Continental armies in order to undermine them. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing. REL on the other hand resigned his commission from the Union and made his loyalties known to all, prior to engaging in war. There was no equivocation with him. All knew his convictions and on what side of the line he stood.

One additional comment. I'm glad you used BA as an example of a traitor. He typifies those characteristics well. REL in no fashion resembles such. Maybe such a contrast will begin to penetrate the thick skulls of those with the "REL traitor diatribe" that some here pose as serve as the proper contrast. Thank you for making this more clear to others :homer: by demonstrating what a real traitor is .

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

ET, to answer your question, yes I do have deep enough roots to protect my homeland from an invader. My homeland is the United States of America.

The name you chose, TexasTiger, clearly indicates your underlying convictions.

Link to comment
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.

Your comment is extremely odd in that General Lee was never tried for treason, yet you have convicted him of that charge. General Grant fought against even the notion of trying Lee et al for treason....

Neither was Benedict Arnold.

Three comments :homer::

1) This is the REL thread, not the BA thread. Should you have historical evidence that REL was a traitor then you should post that, not start another of your endless rabbit trails.

2) General George Washington ordered that BA be hanged the moment he was captured. The thought of trying BA for treason never was never a consideration because he was a grave, immediate threat to the Continental armies.

3) You have tried to compare BA with REL. BA worked surreptitiously by acting as a general of the Continental armies in order to undermine them. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing. REL on the other hand resigned his commission from the Union and made his loyalties known to all, prior to engaging in war. There was no equivocation with him. All knew his convictions and on what side of the line he stood.

ET makes a pretty good point here.

Still, I think the decision not to try him was more or less political. There is a strong argument for REL being guilty of treason. Granting him amnesty was better for reconciliation.

Link to comment
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.

Your comment is extremely odd in that General Lee was never tried for treason, yet you have convicted him of that charge. General Grant fought against even the notion of trying Lee et al for treason....

Neither was Benedict Arnold.

Three comments :homer:/>:

1) This is the REL thread, not the BA thread. Should you have historical evidence that REL was a traitor then you should post that, not start another of your endless rabbit trails.

2) General George Washington ordered that BA be hanged the moment he was captured. The thought of trying BA for treason never was never a consideration because he was a grave, immediate threat to the Continental armies.

3) You have tried to compare BA with REL. BA worked surreptitiously by acting as a general of the Continental armies in order to undermine them. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing. REL on the other hand resigned his commission from the Union and made his loyalties known to all, prior to engaging in war. There was no equivocation with him. All knew his convictions and on what side of the line he stood.

ET makes a pretty good point here.

Still, I think the decision not to try him was more or less political. There is a strong argument for REL being guilty of treason. Granting him amnesty was better for reconciliation.

I don't think BA was offered as being analogous to REL, but rather to demonstrate that even in a case as extreme as BA, he was not tried for treason which illustrates that being tried for treason may not be the correct measuring stick.

Link to comment
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.

Your comment is extremely odd in that General Lee was never tried for treason, yet you have convicted him of that charge. General Grant fought against even the notion of trying Lee et al for treason....

Neither was Benedict Arnold.

Three comments :homer:/>:

1) This is the REL thread, not the BA thread. Should you have historical evidence that REL was a traitor then you should post that, not start another of your endless rabbit trails.

2) General George Washington ordered that BA be hanged the moment he was captured. The thought of trying BA for treason never was never a consideration because he was a grave, immediate threat to the Continental armies.

3) You have tried to compare BA with REL. BA worked surreptitiously by acting as a general of the Continental armies in order to undermine them. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing. REL on the other hand resigned his commission from the Union and made his loyalties known to all, prior to engaging in war. There was no equivocation with him. All knew his convictions and on what side of the line he stood.

ET makes a pretty good point here.

Still, I think the decision not to try him was more or less political. There is a strong argument for REL being guilty of treason. Granting him amnesty was better for reconciliation.

I don't think BA was offered as being analogous to REL, but rather to demonstrate that even in a case as extreme as BA, he was not tried for treason which illustrates that being tried for treason may not be the correct measuring stick.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

Little wonder that Japan would appreciate such a delusional rant. He could have written it. :-\

Homey, I usually find your logic flawed; well, because usually there is no logic; but just because you don't like the guys answer doesn't make it delusional; this ones even over the top for you.... I didn't read anything in the article historically inaccurate. Prior to the 1970's, Lee was revered across the nation. In fact, so was the "lost cause". Don't believe me, just watch a movie made up until the 70's that spoke to the Civil War and see how the leaders were portrayed. Lee, Jackson, Stuart, or their surrogates, etc., were revered and put in the best light...predictably people like Jeff Davis were displayed as spineless politicians. Lincoln, of course, the imperious all knowing leader and Grant alternately a drunken boob (rarely); but usually a very tired commander with the weight of the nation and hundreds of thousands of lives on his shoulders. These movies weren't made by the Sons of the Confederacy folks...Watch How the West was Won, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon, The Horse Soldiers, The Outlaw Josey Wales, Shenandoah, etc. This was how the nation felt...this was mainstream thought.

Also, those nasty, traitorous rebels were even included in all Civil War commemorations and celebrations; at US Federal Gov't expense. The President and "Union" politicians even participated and spoke at them (e.g., FDR at the 1938 Gettysburg commemoration, etc.). This whole Southern demonization thing is a creation of the last 40 years....and purely politically motivated.

Grant's rationale for not wanting Lee charged was obvious; as he stated there would be no end to the War if he did. And as Lincoln intended, they needed reconciliation, not continued war and division and having Lee, Longstreet, etc., being hunted and pursued would lead to continued warfare. If your intention was to preserve the Union; hard to do with perpetual war.

The Civil War should be taught as a lesson in failed leadership....Northern and Southern. I don't think Lincoln pre-war was a particularly great leader. He made no attempt to reach compromise...he made no real attempt to use Constitutional means to solve the impasse. He didn't travel to meet with any Southern Leaders...he didn't go to Senators looking for legislative means. His language during the campaign was generally inflammatory; up until the few statements made in his inaugural address aimed at trying to calm the waters...it would have been hard to think that any Southern leader believed Lincoln cared about compromise and reconciliation before it was too late. He allowed himself to be lead by the nose into War. He also had little foresight into how military men would respond to provocation at Sumter. He then was a terrible judge of battlefield commanders and tactics (understandable, given he'd never been in a fight); and his staff did pretty much as they pleased for about half the war with disastrous results. Southern leaders were generally hot headed and not particularly interested in compromise either. They too made too little effort to find a way around killing people. Too much concern for their dignity, not enough for their people. Once secession happened, politically, a "President" of the South is not likely to call for the dissolution of the CSA and thus lose his title as President; ego you know. The unintended consequences of both sides actions; or really lack of actions; doomed the nation. Lincoln finally figured out what to do in mid 1863; his boldest and best move was putting Grant in charge in March 1864 and that made the outcome inevitable.

Thanks goodness Grant was there after Lincoln's death to stand up to Johnson'a small minded vindictive desires.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to me labels are being assigned based simply on who won the conflict. Grant was a drunk who initiated and lead widespread war crimes against the confederate civilian population. This is a historical fact that is indisputable and not even subject to debate. If he was subject to current day rules of engagement he would've been court marshaled and imprisoned.

War is hell. Both sides were guilty of there fair share of atrocities. Also, has anyone here indulged in any hero worship of Grant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ET makes a pretty good point here.

Still, I think the decision not to try him was more or less political. There is a strong argument for REL being guilty of treason. Granting him amnesty was better for reconciliation.

NO, there is no strong argument supporting treason. NONE. There never has been. The only reason people bring up this notion of treason is because he fought for the Confederacy, not the Union, and that pisses people off to no end. He was one of the most gifted generals of that time, consequently Lincoln offered him the job of General of the Union Army. That's a grudge that apparently will never end and is the continual argument of the revisionists. The BEST general chose the Confederacy.

REL was a duly commissioned officer, who was a free man. He could do as he wished. He was not conscripted. He LAWFULLY surrendered his commission and made clear his allegiances. He valued his State of Virginia as being his higher order, not the Union. To say that a man cannot change his mind and allegiances implies that the federal government does not permit the exercise a free mind/will and allow an individual to choose his convictions. Even today military personnel may switch their allegiances. Are they considered traitors ? NO. (Btw, is Sergey Brin a traitor considering his powerful influence in the world ?) Their convictions led them along a different course of action in life. However, should those same individuals remain in the employment of their sworn allegiance, yet serve another, as in the case of BA, then yes, they are guilty of treason.

There was no deception about REL when he resigned his commission. He was a free man who exercised his free will in defense of his homeland of Virginia and he chose to be upfront about it. BA, on the other hand, was a sniveling coward who betrayed the Continental Army for pieces of silver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this is a bit off the OP..........., but I owe it to my great friend :homer:

Controversy[edit]

The SPLC's listing of hate groups has been a source of some controversy. The designation of "hate groups" has inspired criticism from conservative elected officials and non-profits. In 2010 it was reported that "22 Republican lawmakers, among them Speaker Boehner and Representative Bachmann, three governors, and a number of conservative organizations took out full-page ads in two Washington papers castigating the SPLC for 'character assassination' by listing the conservative Family Research Council as a hate group."[95][96][97] Critics including journalist Ken Silverstein and political fringe movements researcher Laird Wilcox have accused the SPLC of an incautious approach to assigning the label.[98][99][100] In the wake of an August 2012 shooting at the headquarters of the Family Research Council, some columnists criticized the SPLC's listing of the Family Research Council as an anti-gay hate group while others defended the categorization.[101][102] The SPLC has defended its listing of anti-gay hate groups, stating that groups were selected not because of their stances on political issues such as gay marriage, but rather on their "propagation of known falsehoods about LGBT people ... that have been thoroughly discredited by scientific authorities".[103]

J.M. Berger of Foreign Policy disputes SPLC analysis in the Intelligence Report and Year in Hate and Extremism reports and believes the SPLC carries a political slant. He also questions the methodologies used by the SPLC and questions if they overstate the presence of extremists in the United States.[104] Jesse Walker, writing in the libertarian magazine Reason, charges the SPLC with fear-mongering and over-reaching in its broad-brush portrayal of Patriot groups.[105]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK......General Washington ordered BA hanged when he was captured. Did GW have that authority as Commander on the Continental Army? I assume he did or if not he committed a serious offense. Assuming GW had that authority, then BA did in fact face his accuser and was convicted of treason. Fact is history records BA as a traitor bur not REL.

Since BA went over in time of war; I would assume the commander at that time had the authority to dole out capital punishment. Washington did use capital punishment for insubordination, desertion, etc. He did not use it often, but he did use it...in public to bring the troops back into line; and at the same time he pardoned some as a public show of his mercy...he also hanged spies with relish; including the one he viewed as having been responsible for the death of Nathan Hale.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO, there is no strong argument supporting treason. NONE. There never has been.

There is if you had bothered to read article 3 of the constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I doubt the framers of the Constitution had secession in mind when that was written. It's a technically but the seceding states were part of the USA and didn't to war against the USA but against what remained of the USA, namely the Union. What if the secession was peaceful and no war ensued?

I disagree. They apparently had thought about it. The confederacy was illegal based upon Article one, Section ten of the Constitution:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

I'm still having a hard time getting why you're differentiating between the USA and the Union. They're the same entity.

The Southern states maintained they had the right to secede and thus comes in the issue of state's rights which started the war.

They maintained wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NO, there is no strong argument supporting treason. NONE. There never has been.

There is if you had bothered to read article 3 of the constitution.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

If you had bothered to understand article 3 of the Constitution you would know that it applies to citizens of the USA. REL was not a citizen of the USA.

The order of events were these:

1) Virginia seceded to become part of the Confederacy;

2) REL resigned his commission as an officer of the USA;

3) REL then rendered his allegiance to Virginia. His allegiance to the Confederacy negated his citizenship to the USA;

4) REL, after rendering his allegiance to the Confederacy, accepted a commission as a Confederate officer.

You are attempting to carry forward Lincoln's failing argument, that the Confederacy never left the Union, which was ridiculous. The Constitution permitted the states the right of secession and those Confederate States exercised their constitutional right to do so. The Confederacy was a distinct and separate nation. Lincoln's line of thought was paramount to arguing that the Confederacy never existed. The Confederate States of America existed, and REL chose to serve it rather than the Union.

The ONLY way you can ever consider REL a traitor is to use Lincoln's assumption, that the Confederate States of America never existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So BA did in fact have a legal 'trial" under the military rules of the day. Let the record thus show that BA was convicted of treason, REL was not, and hence TexasTiger's accusation is fiction (opinion) not fact.

Fact: He was indicted for treason by a grand jury and actively sought a pardon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to me labels are being assigned based simply on who won the conflict. Grant was a drunk who initiated and lead widespread war crimes against the confederate civilian population. This is a historical fact that is indisputable and not even subject to debate. If he was subject to current day rules of engagement he would've been court marshaled and imprisoned.

War is hell. Both sides were guilty of there fair share of atrocities. Also, has anyone here indulged in any hero worship of Grant?

Hero worship may overstate it but TexasTiger has posted that Grant was a man of great character. Grant was a known drunkard about whom his fellow officers complained to Lincoln about on many occasions. I know of no other atrocities that are even in the same league as what Grant did on his march from Vicksburg to Atlanta...nothing even remotely comparable! Also I like the way you conveniently edited out the last sentence or two of my original post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being indicted by a grand jury is not the same as being convicted. You originally said REL was a traitor and I should get my facts straight. His rap sheet would show no conviction for treason so your statement "fact" was your opinion and no fact.

No objective, reasonable person doubts it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears to me labels are being assigned based simply on who won the conflict. Grant was a drunk who initiated and lead widespread war crimes against the confederate civilian population. This is a historical fact that is indisputable and not even subject to debate. If he was subject to current day rules of engagement he would've been court marshaled and imprisoned.

War is hell. Both sides were guilty of there fair share of atrocities. Also, has anyone here indulged in any hero worship of Grant?

Hero worship may overstate it but TexasTiger has posted that Grant was a man of great character. Grant was a known drunkard about whom his fellow officers complained to Lincoln about on many occasions. I know of no other atrocities that are even in the same league as what Grant did on his march from Vicksburg to Atlanta...nothing even remotely comparable! Also I like the way you conveniently edited out the last sentence or two of my original post.

Link to me saying he was a man of great character.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being indicted by a grand jury is not the same as being convicted. You originally said REL was a traitor and I should get my facts straight. His rap sheet would show no conviction for treason so your statement "fact" was your opinion and no fact.

No objective, reasonable person doubts it.

I think you meant, no objective resonable person believes it. Right?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being indicted by a grand jury is not the same as being convicted. You originally said REL was a traitor and I should get my facts straight. His rap sheet would show no conviction for treason so your statement "fact" was your opinion and no fact.

No objective, reasonable person doubts it.

I think you meant, no objective resonable person believes it. Right?

Once more...

How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.....How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

Little wonder that Japan would appreciate such a delusional rant. He could have written it. :-\

Your failure to comprehend the message was predictable.

Predictable perhaps, but not uncorrectable. Please explain whatever part of the message contained in the highlighted text that I missed.

Based on your comment "deusional rant" it is a rather obvious answer. The entire thing!

So to confirm and clarify, you believe the above paragraph represents a rational argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant was a known drunkard about whom his fellow officers complained to Lincoln about on many occasions.

Well, as Lincoln said, "I can't spare this man; he fights."

I know of no other atrocities that are even in the same league as what Grant did on his march from Vicksburg to Atlanta...nothing even remotely comparable!

Total war is an ugly sight to behold.

Also I like the way you conveniently edited out the last sentence or two of my original post.

I tend to sectionalize my replies, like I'm doing here, for my own benefit, as well as to make it clear which portions of the post i am commenting on. That and I didn't feel your little ad hominem statement about "statists" added anything to your post.

Link to comment
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.

Your comment is extremely odd in that General Lee was never tried for treason, yet you have convicted him of that charge. General Grant fought against even the notion of trying Lee et al for treason....

Neither was Benedict Arnold.

Three comments :homer: :

1) This is the REL thread, not the BA thread. Should you have historical evidence that REL was a traitor then you should post that, not start another of your endless rabbit trails.

Sorry but I think you misunderstood me. I am not trying to change the subject to Benedict Arnold, I was making a short response to your suggestion that to be a traitor, one must be charged as such. Benedict Arnold was simply the first example I thought of to refute your implication.

And seriously, evidence? As I said earlier, I wouldn't personally call him a traitor, but after all, he did lead an insurrection against the United States which resulted in the deaths of many U.S. military.

Now you can rationalize those simple facts all you want, but you cannot deny there is a perfectly logical case to be made that he was a traitor to the United States Government. The reason he wasn't charged and tried has more to do with politics than his actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant was a known drunkard about whom his fellow officers complained to Lincoln about on many occasions.

Well, as Lincoln said, "I can't spare this man; he fights."

I know of no other atrocities that are even in the same league as what Grant did on his march from Vicksburg to Atlanta...nothing even remotely comparable!

Total war is an ugly sight to behold.

Also I like the way you conveniently edited out the last sentence or two of my original post.

I tend to sectionalize my replies, like I'm doing here, for my own benefit, as well as to make it clear which portions of the post i am commenting on. That and I didn't feel your little ad hominem statement about "statists" added anything to your post.

Grant was guilty of genocide, as was Sherman, of civilian populations and his tactics set the stage for some of history's bloodiest moments of the 20th century

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Grant was guilty of genocide, as was Sherman, of civilian populations...

Genocide? That is a heck of an accusation! Would you mind sourcing your thoughts on this? I'm genuinely curious.

...his tactics set the stage for some of history's bloodiest moments of the 20th century

One could argue the entire war merely showed us what was coming. Horrible combination of new weapons and old tactics. Odd bit of post-hoc reasoning to suggest that it was their tactics that led to the ugliness of twentieth century warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...