?????????

[TheBlueVue 177]

I must say i find several posts in this thread quite revealing. When disagreeing that REL was a traitor, the question immediately asked was..."Do you wish he had been victorious"? Speaking of self serving questions, why was this even asked? I really dont see the relevance but can see how it would be asked in order to infer the inferiority of anyone's opinion who didn't agree that Lee was a traitor. Progressive liberals whine ad nauseum when you point out their paternalism and arrogance but then the 1st opportunity they get to demonstrate it they jump all over it.

Your back to your standard, but generically vague, ad hominem attack that had nothing to do with the discussion. Just can't let it go...

If the shoe fits wear it I guess.Pointing out the obvious is a fault of mine. I admit I am guilty as charged

[TexasTiger 12,876]

I must say i find several posts in this thread quite revealing. When disagreeing that REL was a traitor, the question immediately asked was..."Do you wish he had been victorious"? Speaking of self serving questions, why was this even asked? I really dont see the relevance but can see how it would be asked in order to infer the inferiority of anyone's opinion who didn't agree that Lee was a traitor. Progressive liberals whine ad nauseum when you point out their paternalism and arrogance but then the 1st opportunity they get to demonstrate it they jump all over it.

Your back to your standard, but generically vague, ad hominem attack that had nothing to do with the discussion. Just can't let it go...

If the shoe fits wear it I guess.Pointing out the obvious is a fault of mine. I admit I am guilty as charged

You can't point out the obvious when you're incapable of seeing it.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.

Do you think the South should break away today?

[AUDub 11,148]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government.

Wouldn't that have been a violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution?

[AUDub 11,148]

When you point out where I stated that my opinion was an absolute, I'll conceded that you have a point worth wasting my time with.

No one here is forcing you to waste your time defending your ham-handed demonization of liberals, but thanks for conceding the point.

[TheBlueVue 177]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.

Do you think the South should break away today?

LOL you refuse to accept the historical significance of the era. Why would I want the south to break away today? I thought the thread was about the Civil War Era? Are you once again endeavoring to infer an unspoken aspersion?

[TexasTiger 12,876]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.

Do you think the South should break away today?

LOL you refuse to accept the historical significance of the era. Why would I want the south to break away today? I thought the thread was about the Civil War Era? Are you once again endeavoring to infer an unspoken aspersion?

You said they still have the right to do so. Asking if you think they should is not an extraneous question.

[TheBlueVue 177]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.

Do you think the South should break away today?

LOL you refuse to accept the historical significance of the era. Why would I want the south to break away today? I thought the thread was about the Civil War Era? Are you once again endeavoring to infer an unspoken aspersion?

You said they still have the right to do so. Asking if you think they should is not an extraneous question.

I see nothing to be gained by that but fail to see the relevance of the question. What does my answer reveal this time? Please explain how asking if I think the South should pursue, once again, a strategy employed 154 years that failed is not an extraneous question. Can you not discuss history in the historical context that it unfolded?

[TexasTiger 12,876]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.

Do you think the South should break away today?

LOL you refuse to accept the historical significance of the era. Why would I want the south to break away today? I thought the thread was about the Civil War Era? Are you once again endeavoring to infer an unspoken aspersion?

You said they still have the right to do so. Asking if you think they should is not an extraneous question.

I see nothing to be gained by that but fail to see the relevance of the question. What does my answer reveal this time? Please explain how asking if I think the South should pursue, once again, a strategy employed 154 years that failed is not an extraneous question. Can you not discuss history in the historical context that it unfolded?

You made the point that they still have the same right. BTW, if that's your opinion, you have the right to it. I don't fault someone for having that view.

[TheBlueVue 177]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.

Do you think the South should break away today?

LOL you refuse to accept the historical significance of the era. Why would I want the south to break away today? I thought the thread was about the Civil War Era? Are you once again endeavoring to infer an unspoken aspersion?

You said they still have the right to do so. Asking if you think they should is not an extraneous question.

I see nothing to be gained by that but fail to see the relevance of the question. What does my answer reveal this time? Please explain how asking if I think the South should pursue, once again, a strategy employed 154 years that failed is not an extraneous question. Can you not discuss history in the historical context that it unfolded?

You made the point that they still have the same right. BTW, if that's your opinion, you have the right to it. I don't fault someone for having that view.

its nice that you dont fault someone for adopting a view that is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Do you think that document has any merit on todays world?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government...

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

I love that people still call it "The War of Northern Aggression". Seriously, it cracks me up to no end.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I love that people still call it "The War of Northern Aggression". Seriously, it cracks me up to no end.

Thats exactly what it was. Of course, Lincoln justified sending 2 million plus Union troops to invade the South in the name of preserving the Union. Laugh all you want....historically, it is what it is.

[TexasTiger 12,876]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.

Do you think the South should break away today?

LOL you refuse to accept the historical significance of the era. Why would I want the south to break away today? I thought the thread was about the Civil War Era? Are you once again endeavoring to infer an unspoken aspersion?

You said they still have the right to do so. Asking if you think they should is not an extraneous question.

I see nothing to be gained by that but fail to see the relevance of the question. What does my answer reveal this time? Please explain how asking if I think the South should pursue, once again, a strategy employed 154 years that failed is not an extraneous question. Can you not discuss history in the historical context that it unfolded?

You made the point that they still have the same right. BTW, if that's your opinion, you have the right to it. I don't fault someone for having that view.

its nice that you dont fault someone for adopting a view that is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Do you think that document has any merit on todays world?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government...

So do you believe we've reached that point?

[TheBlueVue 177]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.

Do you think the South should break away today?

LOL you refuse to accept the historical significance of the era. Why would I want the south to break away today? I thought the thread was about the Civil War Era? Are you once again endeavoring to infer an unspoken aspersion?

You said they still have the right to do so. Asking if you think they should is not an extraneous question.

I see nothing to be gained by that but fail to see the relevance of the question. What does my answer reveal this time? Please explain how asking if I think the South should pursue, once again, a strategy employed 154 years that failed is not an extraneous question. Can you not discuss history in the historical context that it unfolded?

You made the point that they still have the same right. BTW, if that's your opinion, you have the right to it. I don't fault someone for having that view.

its nice that you dont fault someone for adopting a view that is spelled out in the Declaration of Independence. Do you think that document has any merit on todays world?

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

"...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and institute new Government...

So do you believe we've reached that point?

Good grief bud. i am simply pointing out the facts as they exist. That pointing out does not indicate nor otherwise imply that I am for secession from the Union. You continue to conflate that point and I have yet to figure out what it is you think you're accomplishing. My whole point is showing that REL was not a traitor for electing to remain loyal to the Commonwealth of Virginia

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

I love that people still call it "The War of Northern Aggression". Seriously, it cracks me up to no end.

Thats exactly what it was. Of course, Lincoln justified sending 2 million plus Union troops to invade the South in the name of preserving the Union. Laugh all you want....historically, it is what it is.

I don't claim to be a history guru, but I'm pretty sure the first shots of the war were fired by the Confederacy on Fort Sumter. So, who's being the aggressor there?

[TheBlueVue 177]

I love that people still call it "The War of Northern Aggression". Seriously, it cracks me up to no end.

Thats exactly what it was. Of course, Lincoln justified sending 2 million plus Union troops to invade the South in the name of preserving the Union. Laugh all you want....historically, it is what it is.

I don't claim to be a history guru, but I'm pretty sure the first shots of the war were fired by the Confederacy on Fort Sumter. So, who's being the aggressor there?

Fort Sumter is in South Carolina but was occupied by Union troops. You might call that aggression but others might just say that the South was laying claim to its own territory. After all, by that time So Carolina had seceded from the Union.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

I love that people still call it "The War of Northern Aggression". Seriously, it cracks me up to no end.

Thats exactly what it was. Of course, Lincoln justified sending 2 million plus Union troops to invade the South in the name of preserving the Union. Laugh all you want....historically, it is what it is.

I don't claim to be a history guru, but I'm pretty sure the first shots of the war were fired by the Confederacy on Fort Sumter. So, who's being the aggressor there?

And where is Ft. Sumter ? Here's a hint: NOT ABOVE THE MASON-DIXON.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

[homersapien 11,373]

Tex, Robert E Lee's "nation" was the sovereign State of Virginia. He did not turn his back on his nation; to the contrary; he turned towards his nation. He did so in the face of aggression by a distant national government trying to enact "extra" constitutional constraints on his nation. For better or worse, slavery was the law of the land; it was explicit in the Constitution. It was not repealed thru the amendment process. The Southern states were within their Constitutional rights to retain the institution and resist the aggression of the Northern states. You can claim the institution was wrong; you can claim it was a travesty...but you also must acknowledge that it was in fact legal. Thus, in the face of this obvious imposition of illegal actions by the Northern states, how was Lee to react?

"For better or worse"???? Everything the Nazis did was legal too. Citing legality is clearly an immoral justification.

And talking about Northern constitutional "distortion" is the epitome of irony.

For years, the southern states used the Constitution and Federalism against the several states in support of slavery. They were able to do this because of their domination of the judicial and legislative branches. (See Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott, etc.)

Hell, the Confederate states opposed states rights until they started losing their political control of the Federal government. They flipped flopped when it suited their purpose.

Wow Homey. Can you respond to anything without mis-characterizing it "like the Nazi's". You really need to read about analogies...

Please explain to me how that analogy is inappropriate, much less false.

[homersapien 11,373]

homer doesn't have a clue about the civil war. He knows just enough to be dangerous. His long rambling posts aren't worth the time to respond. And if you do, all you end up with is a page long list of quotes.

That's called "sniping". It's a weaseling tactic used by someone who can't or won't address the substance of an argument.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

Its not spin. it is a territorial issue. It makes no difference when the Fort was created or by who. The fact that it was in the state of South Carolina and the firing was after they had seceded from the Union. I dont see how the South is the aggressor when it is no longer affiliated politically with the Union. It is prudent to keep in mind that a government derives its power from the consent of the governed.

[AUDub 11,148]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

Its not spin. it is a territorial issue. It makes no difference when the Fort was created or by who. The fact that it was in the state of South Carolina and the firing was after they had seceded from the Union. I dont see how the South is the aggressor when it is no longer affiliated politically with the Union.

No. The fort was still federal property. This is a silly argument.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

Its not spin. it is a territorial issue. It makes no difference when the Fort was created or by who. The fact that it was in the state of South Carolina and the firing was after they had seceded from the Union. I dont see how the South is the aggressor when it is no longer affiliated politically with the Union.

No. The fort was still federal property. This is a silly argument.

Not in the absence of the consent of the governed.

[homersapien 11,373]

Tex, Robert E Lee's "nation" was the sovereign State of Virginia. He did not turn his back on his nation; to the contrary; he turned towards his nation. He did so in the face of aggression by a distant national government trying to enact "extra" constitutional constraints on his nation. For better or worse, slavery was the law of the land; it was explicit in the Constitution. It was not repealed thru the amendment process. The Southern states were within their Constitutional rights to retain the institution and resist the aggression of the Northern states. You can claim the institution was wrong; you can claim it was a travesty...but you also must acknowledge that it was in fact legal. Thus, in the face of this obvious imposition of illegal actions by the Northern states, how was Lee to react?

"For better or worse"???? Everything the Nazis did was legal too. Citing legality is clearly an immoral justification.

And talking about Northern constitutional "distortion" is the epitome of irony.

For years, the southern states used the Constitution and Federalism against the several states in support of slavery. They were able to do this because of their domination of the judicial and legislative branches. (See Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott, etc.)

Hell, the Confederate states opposed states rights until they started losing their political control of the Federal government. They flipped flopped when it suited their purpose.

And your references to the Fugitive Slave act; don't make sense in relation to your claim. Article 4 specifically required non slave states to return slaves...this was in the constitution...the Fugitive slave act was to clarify this...and reinforce the extradition clause of Article 4 as well....so the Northern states signed up for this when they signed onto the constitution...so exactly how is the Southern states, enforcing a provision of the Constitution, contrary to states rights? The Northern states had an obligation to do this...

You missed my point altogether, which was to point out how the South in the decades prior to the Civil War employed federal leverage through the courts and the executive branch to protect the institution of slavery.

Thus the irony of the "states rights" excuse for the civil war.

The slave states promoted federal laws to force States like Massachusetts to return slaves against their political will, thus establishing the superiority of federal laws over state laws.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Tex, Robert E Lee's "nation" was the sovereign State of Virginia. He did not turn his back on his nation; to the contrary; he turned towards his nation. He did so in the face of aggression by a distant national government trying to enact "extra" constitutional constraints on his nation. For better or worse, slavery was the law of the land; it was explicit in the Constitution. It was not repealed thru the amendment process. The Southern states were within their Constitutional rights to retain the institution and resist the aggression of the Northern states. You can claim the institution was wrong; you can claim it was a travesty...but you also must acknowledge that it was in fact legal. Thus, in the face of this obvious imposition of illegal actions by the Northern states, how was Lee to react?

"For better or worse"???? Everything the Nazis did was legal too. Citing legality is clearly an immoral justification.

And talking about Northern constitutional "distortion" is the epitome of irony.

For years, the southern states used the Constitution and Federalism against the several states in support of slavery. They were able to do this because of their domination of the judicial and legislative branches. (See Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott, etc.)

Hell, the Confederate states opposed states rights until they started losing their political control of the Federal government. They flipped flopped when it suited their purpose.

And your references to the Fugitive Slave act; don't make sense in relation to your claim. Article 4 specifically required non slave states to return slaves...this was in the constitution...the Fugitive slave act was to clarify this...and reinforce the extradition clause of Article 4 as well....so the Northern states signed up for this when they signed onto the constitution...so exactly how is the Southern states, enforcing a provision of the Constitution, contrary to states rights? The Northern states had an obligation to do this...

You missed my point altogether, which was to point out how the South in the decades prior to the Civil War employed federal leverage through the courts and the executive branch to protect the institution of slavery.

Thus the irony of the "states rights" excuse for the civil war.

The slave states promoted federal laws to force States like Massachusetts to return slaves against their political will, thus establishing the superiority of federal laws over state laws.

What is really fascinating is that states like Massachusetts et al when they abolished slavery instead of simply granting their slaves their freedom they sold them. Even then they tried to act like they had the moral high ground on the issue. Hypocrisy is not a new thing believe it or not.