Robert E. Lee On Leadership

C-SPAN ^ | July 14, 1999 | H.W. Crocker

[Pelham]

Brian Lamb interviews author H.W. Crocker

H.W. Crocker talks about his book 'Robert E. Lee On Leadership: Executive Lessons in Character, Courage, and Vision', published by Prima Publishing. The book profiles the life and career of the Confederate Army General. The author pays special attention to General Lee’s career as a farmer and president of the school now known as Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. He examines the general’s character, vision and spirit and how these principles can be applied in today’s marketplace

[NKP_Vet]

“He possessed every virtue of other great commanders without their vices. He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression; and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy and a man without guile. He was a Caesar without his ambition; Frederick without his tyranny; Napoleon without his selfishness; and Washington without his reward. He was obedient to authority as a servant, and royal in authority as a true king. He was gentle as a woman in life; modest and pure as a virgin in thought; watchful as a Roman vestal in duty; submissive to law as Socrates; and grand in battle as Achilles.” - Benjamin H. Hill

[DiogenesLamp]

Finally!! You admit that the Confederate States seceded in order to keep the fruits of Slavery to themselves!!

Finally? I've been saying this for several years now. Perhaps if you had better reading comprehension, you wouldn't be so surprised to learn the obvious.

And the Northern states went to war so that *THEY* could keep the fruits of Slavery they were already getting. Yes, New York and Washington DC were making more money off of slavery than were the people who were running the plantations.

[DiogenesLamp]

It wasn't legal under any law.

The entire foundation of our own government begs to differ with you.

"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."

So what you're saying now is that rebellion is now universally accepted as a legal act?

I know it's hard for you to keep up, but Once a nation has founded itself on the right to independence, it is duty bound to respect it's own established principle.

No, it wouldn't be accepted in England, or France, or Germany, or any other nation that hasn't been founded on this principle, but in the nation that has, it would of course be consistent with the established national character.

I know you have little background to be able to comprehend such a difficult concept, but if you work at it sweetie, you may eventually get it.

:)

[DiogenesLamp]

Nah, just ignoring your nonsense.

I'm sure anything beyond your level of comprehension seems like "nonsense", but I can only suggest you work to improve your ability to understand topics you do not currently grasp.

Keep trying. You might succeed eventually.

:)

In the mean time hush dear. Adults are conversing.

[rockrr]

I disagree.

George Washington was our nation’s first nationalist as well as first president. He was a grand unifier who famously warned against foreign entanglements and hyper-partisanship. Washington was a moderate who eschewed political factions and sought to find common ground among the many discordant voices.

Throughout his career in Virginia’s House of Burgesses and as president of the Constitutional Convention, Washington took labors to remain in the role of moderate. In his twenties, while serving in the Virginia legislature, when the House of Burgesses was divided between moderates and militants in their resistance to the British royals, Washington played a pivotal role by bridging the divides with personal diplomacy, dining with leaders of the different factions.

(https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/washingtons-farewell-address-warned-us-about-hyper-partisanship-214616)

In the months and years after the war, Washington strived to forge a national identity. He was fiercely defensive of our fledgling nation and responded harshly to criticism of her - either from other countries like France or Great Britain, or from factions internally.

Recognizing the inadequacies of our confederation, Washington was an early advocate of a constitutional convention to address those inadequacies. A Federalist, Washington believed in the necessity of a strong central government.

During the constitutional debates, Washington insisted that the Articles of Confederation be overhauled quickly. “Otherwise,” he wrote, “like a house on fire, whilst the most regular mode of extinguishing it is contended for, the building is reduced to ashes.” What was needed, Washington thought, was any solid national government.

https://mises.org/library/george-washington-image-and-its-influence

Naturally Washington was fond of his home and Virginia, but he staked his reputation, his fortune, and his very life in the defense of his nation.

[rockrr]

So you can’t locate any provide primary sourced data. Got it.

[DiogenesLamp]

They weren't denied to them in 1787.

Sure it was. Read the Constitution.

Constitution didn't go into effect until 1789 dear. How was it infringing the powers of sovereign states before it was even passed?

There is also nothing to support that secession as practiced by the Southern states was constitutional either.

You are a slow student. Yes, in fact there *IS* evidence to support that secession "as practiced by the Southern states" was constitutional. I've already told you, but since your attention span seems to be childishly short, I'll remind you again.

1. Declaration of Independence asserts that people have a right under the laws of God to "dissolve the political bonds" between themselves and another people. This God given right established the legitimacy of the USA.

2. New York ratification statement asserts the right to reassume powers given up.

3. Virginia ratification statement asserts the right to reassume the powers given up.

4. Delaware ratification statement asserts the right to reassume the powers given up.

5. During the Hartford convention, (1814) Massachusetts asserted that it had a right to secede.

6. During the Hartford convention, (1814) Connecticut asserted that it had a right to secede.

7. No mention in the text of the US Constitution that states cannot leave.

The weight of evidence is against your claim that states didn't have a right to leave. What evidence do you have to show that the constitution forbade it?

Perhaps a "LOL!" will get you out of this awkward question.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

They held elections and the people voted for self determination

When was that election held before the American Revolution?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Some grew tobacco, some grew indigo, and various other stuff, but I doubt tobacco or indigo would grow any better in the territories than the main crop of cotton.

But according to you, cotton was "the only thing making slavery profitable."

The truth is that slaves did everything from construction labor to industrial work to waiting tables in restaurants, and there's no reason to believe that everyone who owned a slave who worked in these areas was losing money on the proposition, or to believe that as the country expanded westward, new ways to utilize slaves would not have been found. Your constant insistence that everything that could have been done with slaves had been found, that cotton and other plantation agriculture was it, and there was absolutely no other thing slaves could do is without foundation.

[DiogenesLamp]

When was that election held before the American Revolution?

Before the nation was established as a Democratic Republic? Perhaps you don't recall, but representatives from each State were sent to Philadelphia to vote on the question of Independence.

"The declaration was signed by representatives from New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. "

Once they had established a Democratic Republic, elections became the normal way to handle issues of significant importance to a state.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Before the nation was established as a Democratic Republic? Perhaps you don't recall, but representatives from each State were sent to Philadelphia to vote on the question of Independence.

The Revolution had been going on for over a year at that point. We had fought at Lexington, Concord, Bunker Hill, had captured Fort Ticonderoga and invaded Canada. Was all of that illegal up until that point when the magic words were invoked?

[DiogenesLamp]

Some grew tobacco, some grew indigo, and various other stuff, but I doubt tobacco or indigo would grow any better in the territories than the main crop of cotton.

But according to you, cotton was "the only thing making slavery profitable."

Are you familiar with the concept of a Synecdoche?

...or to believe that as the country expanded westward, new ways to utilize slaves would not have been found.

So what would you suggest slavery would have been good for in the "territories?" According to this Wikipedia article on New Mexico: "Regardless of its official status, slavery was rare in antebellum New Mexico. Black slaves never numbered more than about a dozen"

Also bear in mind that this was the case when "New Mexico" territory looked like this.

If they were profitable there, wouldn't you think there would have been a lot more of them there?

[DiogenesLamp]

The Revolution had been going on for over a year at that point.

So? Till we established a Democratic Republic, we had yet to recognize this "consent of the governed" principle.

Once we adopted this principle, then we could insist on following it. Suggesting we should follow a principle before we had accepted it is just nuts.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So? Till we established a Democratic Republic, we had yet to recognize this "consent of the governed" principle.

You seem to have a lot of conditions and procedures around a supposedly natural right.

[DiogenesLamp]

You seem to have a lot of conditions and procedures around a supposedly natural right.

You seem to not have a grasp of how this natural rights thing became adopted as the standard upon which this nation was founded.

You didn't grasp it when we argued about "Natural Born Citizen", and you aren't grasping it now either.

"Natural Law", was a body of philosophy which became dominant around the early 18th century. It began as a collection of ideas and logical arguments about the nature of man and his relationship with the State. Here is the short version.

Locke is known as one of the most significant English origin proponents of "natural law", but Samuel Rutherford and others also contributed to this body of thought.

In any case, you are alleging "conditions" and "procedures" when in fact the only salient one was the decision to adopt a form of government based on the premises of natural law.

We can hardly oblige a government to adhere to a body of thought before that government existed.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Are you familiar with the concept of a Synecdoche?

So what are you saying, that "Cotton was the only thing making slavery profitable" stands for a whole bunch of other things making slavery profitable?

So what would you suggest slavery would have been good for in the "territories?"

Mining, for one. Slaves had already been used in the coal mines of Virginia (there are insurance records of claims made by owners after mine explosions) and in the lead mines of Missouri.

If they were profitable there, wouldn't you think there would have been a lot more of them there?

New Mexico had been US territory barely a decade, and had hardly had an influx of settlers since that time, although a law guaranteeing the protection of slave property had been passed in 1859 to pave the way for it to be expanded there. Given time, and the opening of mines, there could easily have been more. Again, you have this very blinkered position that slaves were only good for a couple of things.

And of course, you neglect the fact that while New Mexico may have had only a small number of black slaves, there were large numbers of Indian slaves. When congress outlawed slavery in the territories in 1862, New Mexico residents petitioned for compensation for 600 Indian slaves. In fact, slavery of Indians persisted after the way, and a government investigator in 1867 estimated there were 400 Indian slaves in Santa Fe alone. But I guess their owners were losing money on them all because there was no cotton (or whatever cotton is a synecdoche for), right?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

A “Natural Right” that requires the infrastructure of a government isn’t natural at all. A natural right belongs to every person, regardless of the imprimatur of some superseding body to invoke it. This goes back to your insistence that only the governments within arbitrary lines drawn on a map by men can exercise these rights, which makes a mockery of these supposedly “natural rights.”

[DiogenesLamp]

When congress outlawed slavery in the territories in 1862, New Mexico residents petitioned for compensation for 600 Indian slaves.

You mentioned 1.8 million slaves doing cotton, and 1.4 million slaves doing something else and now you are talking about 600 Indian slaves plus 12 black slaves in all of New Mexico territory?

You are making my point for me.

[DiogenesLamp]

A “Natural Right” that requires the infrastructure of a government isn’t natural at all.

You are going all Yogi Berra on me. A government (such as that of the United Kingdom) which doesn't recognize the natural law rights articulated by people like Locke, Rutherford, Vattel, and so forth, is not going to support "natural law."

A government which itself is founded on the concept of natural law, will. But it cannot do so until it is actually founded. You need to keep cause and effect in their proper sequence.

A natural right belongs to every person, regardless of the imprimatur of some superseding body to invoke it.

Natural rights belong to every person, but without a governing body to recognize and enforce these rights, they may very well be deprived of them.

This goes back to your insistence that only the governments within arbitrary lines drawn on a map by men can exercise these rights,

My "insistence" is that the standards used by the Founders in establishing the United States, remain valid when applied to other states. If you have an issue with "arbitrary lines" which defined the Southern states, take it up with the Founders, because they accepted these defining lines when they asserted the right of the US to be independent from the UK.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So, let’s see, you’re now conceding that there were in fact hundreds of slaves in the New Mexico Territory, and presented nothing to indicate that that number would do anything but increase. Why do you suppose a law protecting slave property was passed by New Mexico in 1859? Surely it couldn’t be because slavery wasn’t expected to diminish and disappear.