There were lots of black patriots in the Revolutionary war.
Posted on 06/22/2018 11:46:12 AM PDT by DIRTYSECRET
That was according to my 8th grade history teacher-retired military. The only one who came close was MacArthur. That brings up the politics of the left. If it is true that Lee was a great General isn't it at least worth acknowledging? This tearing down of statues should stop. Educated persons should acknowledge the truth. It's the left that's the intelligent ones as they would have us believe. I see no conservatives standing up for this truth. The Senate GOP candidate in Virginia should start an 'intellectual' conversation on Lee and let the left react. Don't wait for a baiting reporter to to knee-jerk him into a quick response that they can interpret their own way.
100% he was. I maintain Lincoln was a terrible president. It does make a lot of people mad, but it’s the truth.
Indeed. The South suffered dearly for Lincoln’s untimely demise.
It looks like you are up against the usual virtue-signallers who refuse to see that there could be several complex and nuanced reasons for why the war occurred. It’s more important to show off about how they are against slavery - as if that’s taking some revolutionary bad-ass position, lol!
The Corwin Ammendment was not directly concerned with it and its permanence or impermanence. The Corwin Ammendment had to do with putting the decision of a state being a Free State or a Slave State into the hands of each individual State. Ya know?...... like States Rights? You are arguing that no State in the South would ever willingly do away with Slavery.
Tell me stupid. Where in The Constitution is the clause allowing slavery?
” but eventually it was mostly the Yankee ships carrying the slaves.”
The following information is from the “Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade Database”. This database can be found at www.slavevoyages.org
The country listed below is the flag of the ship transporting slaves and the number of documented voyages under that flag.
Country total voyages
Portugal 35,994,
Britain 12,010
France 4,199
USA 2,268
Spain 1,893
Holland 1,704
Denmark 411
Total 58,449
American flagged ships carried about 3.9% of the slaves shipped from Africa to the Western Hemisphere.
Tell me where it does? You know something Reb? I’m sick to death of listening to you Confederate morons go on about a treasonous bunch of bastards who split the country in two so a bunch of Southern plutocrats could preserve an economy based on the use of slave labor. Did you want to have it so the Confederacy prevailed? Do you feel proud to be an American in this, the greatest nation in history or would you prefer to be living in some Balkanized mish mosh of a country?
Lol. My dear, lol, I have no doubt that you are aware that your friend, “lampy” is the most virulent Lincoln basher, hater on FreeRepublic? Lol
No; he lost the Battle of Gettysburg. After that debacle the South had no chance to win a negotiated settlement.
Lagmeister: "Your source is slanted and the title screams it"
But the numbers are the same as you can find anywhere else, here, for example.
Lagmeister: "...(Grant went after Lee with 400 thousand armed men you say???? what??? - he could have instantly surrounded Lee and choked every move!!)"
Sorry you misunderstood, those were cumulative totals:
Over the course of the war, Lee commanded a cumulative total of about 600,000 troops -- not all at once, but over the entire war.
Of those about 120,000 were killed or wounded = 20%, slightly higher than other major Confederate commanders.
Grant's numbers for the entire war are: 620,000 total commanded of whom 94,000 were killed or wounded = 15%.
Lee's total of 120,000 killed/wounded is 26,000 more than Grant or 29%.
Of course Grant's numbers include his western campaigns where he proved to be brilliant against less capable opponents.
So if you look just at Grant vs. Lee, Grant commanded a cumulative total of 400,000 in the east of whom 71,000 were killed or wounded = 17.6%.
That is still lower than Lee's 20% overall.
And if you look at Lee vs. Hooker, McClellan & Pope, then Lee's winning battles averaged 22% killed/wounded while their losing battles averaged 15%.
It only proves that winning can cost more lives, lives Lee was willing to lose, until he ran out of them.
At Gettysburg all told, Lee lost 49% of his force while Mead lost 23% of his.
And Lee lost, so who was the "butcher" then?
Lagmeister: "I guess you win the argument by a massive amount of whatever against the wall."
In this case the "whatever" is simply recognized Civil War data presented comparatively.
But you are absolutely correct that in the Overland campaign Grant on offense lost 60% more soldiers than Lee on defense.
More losses on offense were entirely normal for the time -- Grant lost 53,000 Lee lost 33,000.
But Lee on offense also lost 33,000 total (49%) in his Gettysburg campaign compared to Mead on defense losing only 24,000 = 24%.
And yet the myth persists that Grant was a "butcher" and Lee "brilliant".
Why?
We have plenty of south-haters right here on this thread to allow at least one Lincoln hater. Some of our southern freepers had family who fought in that war and want to honor their sacrifices. I respect that.
Only if we call the American revolution “The war of Colonial Rebellion.” Must be consistent, mustn’t we.
Wilson was President of Princeton. Some sort of Liberal idiocy from the Northeast apparently rubbed off on him to turn him into a stark raving lunatic Liberal fool.
Cold blooded and cynical.
Not really. Look at the definitions of the two words. Merriam Webster's Dictionary defines "revolution" as " fundamental change in political organization; especially : the overthrow or renunciation of one government or ruler and the substitution of another by the governed". It defines "rebellion" as "open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government."
The Revolutionary War accomplished it's goal. The outcome of it was a break with Britain and the substitution of their rule with our own government. It was, in short, successful.
The Southern Rebellion did not accomplish it's goal. It was certainly open and armed, but it was also unsuccessful. It was a dismal failure, as the definition states.
So the Revolutionary War is the appropriate title, as is the Southern Rebellion. Now, maybe if you had won you could have called it the "Southern Revolution" or the "Second American Revolution". But you didn't. You're losers.
The real truth is the Northeast saw that European money departing from their control, and launched an invasion to stop the South from trading in peace with Europe, and thereby threatening money they believed to be theirs.
"War of Robber Baron greed" is as apt as anything else.
Until he did it solely with his Dictator power. That's when he decided it was up to him.
There were lots of black patriots in the Revolutionary war.
"Noise", thought I.
LOL! High praise from the expert on repeat and go in circles.
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.