Posted on 01/15/2015 10:05:46 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Many American presidents have held Robert E. Lee in the highest regard and publicly paid homage to him. Today, we have a president who holds Al Sharpton in higher esteem than Robert E. Lee.
As you can probably surmise by my detailed caption, this article is a collection of random thoughts. It is typical at the beginning of a new year for people to reflect soberly on the state of events, and make optimistic resolutions and predictions for the future. Although I will try to maintain a hopeful outlook, I’m afraid I am unable to make any starry-eyed predictions.
My random thoughts are heavily influenced by the anniversary of Robert E. Lee’s birthday, which falls on January 19th. The anniversary of the birthday of this remarkable man should be a very special day, not only for Southerners, but for all Americans who acknowledge true heroes. Unlike today’s media-created celebrities, Lee was a genuine hero. In addition to his exemplary public life, General Lee’s personal life didn’t involve scandals or debauched behavior that had to be hidden from the public eye.
Theodore Roosevelt characterized General Lee this way: “the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth.” Lee is also venerated in Europe, as evidenced by this tribute by Winston Churchill: “one of the noblest Americans who ever lived.”
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
The "argument," as you put it, is itself a tangent to the discussion of Robert E. Lee & Media bias, unless you really want to try to justify the hostility of the Media & President Obama to the South & Southern culture.
it still needed a bigger government than necessary to control the people back then.
The most significant legislation in Virginia & the other Southern States, with the exception of Louisiana, with regard to the slave population, mandated humane treatment. An owner could be criminally charged for abusing a slave.
Again, rather than heed the ridiculous speculations of people with an anti-American axe to grind, heed what the great champion of the newly freed Southern Negro, Booker T. Washington, had to say about race relations in the plantation South.
(And its not the first time that egalitarian/collectivists who hated a social order, lied to make a point. Marie Anoinette never said, "Let them eat cake." The pampered theorists who postulate collectivist/utilitarian/humanist make believe, believe that anything is justified to promote the change they seek.)
I don't see that as being accurate. North Korea does not rely on mob rule. It is a total police state, as was the Soviet Union, East Germany and every other modern totalitarian state I can think of. They maintain power through intimidation of the majority not by mobilization of mobs.
But rather than get drawn into a long dissertation on just how bad the 1960s were, from that standpoint, let me urge you to look more carefully at The Declaration Of Independence--With Study Guide. It is endlessly quoted out of context; but put in context is actually a refutation of what most of those here as Lee detractors, are arguing for. The specific grievances, enunciated by Jefferson, go to a Central Government, suppressing local control over local matters.
It was a mob that overthrew the moderate Socialists to produce the Bolshevik tyranny in Russia. It was Hitler's National Socialists who won a battle for the streets of Germany against the Communist mobs, who triggered the dynamics that brought Hitler to power.
As for the idea that there is a majority that is being intimidated by the North Korean government? I think that the "Majority" there are even more intimidated there than are the majority here, in the age of "political correctness," but I am not sure for how long.
Mobs are seldom backed by a "majority," of the people; but neither, necessarily, are any other faction, in times of radical change. Most historians on the period, credit the American Revolution with having the support of only about 1/3 of the public; with a third directly opposed, and another third being what I have sometimes referred to as "cottage gawkers," those who when an invading army came through, stood outside their cottages and wondered just what all the commotion meant for them.
Incidentally, on the subject of "intimidation of the majority," just what do you think is the purpose of Al Sharpton--President Obama's friend--in stirring up the crowds at places like Ferguson, Missouri, into mobs?
Precisely what rights of other states were being interfered with in 1860-61? What was the threat to their ability to manage their own affairs?
Like everything Sharpton does, its about the money. ;~))
I have to get back to work now, but I will try to get back to post some more references, to corroborate the hostile atmosphere that was being created--and probably contributed too, also to be fair, by some of the Southern rhetoric in retort. (But the South were not the aggressors in the growing abandonment of the spirit of the coming together in the 1770s.)
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels wrote articles for the New York Tribune at the time of the US Civil War. If the Confederate cause was “socialist” as you say, you’d think that Marx and his comrades would be solidly on the side of the Confederacy. In fact, they enthusiastically supported the Emancipation Proclamation, and (rightly or not) saw it as a precursor to the “worker’s revolution” that they propagandized for.
Before I begin a debate with you, please read the article I posted in post 54, it will give you a better understanding of where I stand. After confirming you read it, I’ll respond. I don’t want to be playing “catch-up the new comer”.
Stick with, ...not [rightly] saw it as a precursor to the “worker’s revolution” that they propagandized for. Do you actually think Emancipation was the taking away of freedom?
My apologies, I thought I was debating an argument with ek_hornbeck; not two people at once.
PS: Though it will take some time, I am reading your “Conservative Debate Handbook”. Wow, looks like you put a lot of time into it! I find it VERY interesting so far.
But our status as a "free" State did not empower us to interfere in the rights of any other State to manage their own affairs. We did not have the right to violate the rights of other States, which is implied by the context of your question.
There has ever been a time that a US state was self empowered to interfere in the rights of any other state to manage their affairs. Correct me if I am wrong here.
In any case, my point is with federal power over state's rights, not states empowerment over another. It is also how the Democrats have and had used the federal government to expand not only slavery, but a bigger government than necessary.
In his day Lee would have owned Sharpton, literally.
The 1960s were the first period when all Americans were granted in practice the individual rights they’d all had in theory since the Founding. The problem of course is that this coincided with other trends that were decidedly negative.
Unless you’d care to contend that a black man or woman in 1830s or 1930s America was treated as if he/she really had those inalienable rights.
Insofar as people ignoring the specific grievances in the DoI relative to the universal aspirations, there’s a darn good reason for that. Quartering of troops and incitement of Indian raids aren’t much of an issue anymore.
“All men are created equal” and so forth changed the world forever.
A recitation of grievances, variants of which had been published many times before, did not.
Straw man...and yet there is truth in what you say. Northerners were oppressors of blacks. That truth might be hard for you to swallow, but there it is.
"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America"
I just don’t understand rehashing these old battles particularly when we are all under attack. Do you think it matters one whit to all these anti white agitators who was a slaver and who wasn’t?
Are there ANY leaders today who could or who would stand up for us?
And yet runaway slaves made their way north. If their lot was so oppressed there, why did they continually attempt to go there? Could it be that it was comparatively less oppressive than the south?
"[R]ace prejudice seems stronger in those states that have abolished slavery than in those where it still exists, and nowhere is it more intolerant than in those states where slavery was never known." --Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America"
I suppose one is inclined to be tolerant of their property.
Another question that it's hard to get a straight answer from the lost causers about is whether slaves had a natural right of rebellion to rise up against their masters. The closest I've gotten is someone telling me that it was okay, as long as nobody got hurt.
OTFLOL !!! Thanks for the laugh, and the info. I will definitely keep both in mind for future reference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.