Trump: 'Robert E. Lee was a great general'

The Hill ^ | 10/12/18 | CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Yes, British Law didn’t allow people to give up their allegiance. Our Declaration of Independence made it a fundamental right to do so."

But not "at pleasure", only from necessity and destructive conditions as itemized in the Declaration of Independence.

No such conditions or necessity remotely existed in 1860 when Fire Eaters began declaring secession at pleasure.
Further, when unilaterally declared secession leads to rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion, declared war and treason against the United States, all possible constitutional protections for it are withdrawn.

All of which you know, but refuse to acknowledge, preferring instead your own historical fantasies.

[NFHale]

“...A great general? ...”

Yes. His tactics are still studied in war colleges the world over.

So are Rommel’s. He killed Americans, and British as well in North Africa, and his handiwork was all over Normandy. And he is also considered a great general.

From a purely military tactical and strategic standpoint, yes - he WAS a great general. The context of the word “great” is what is being discussed. As in “he was a military commander that knew and excelled at his trade”.

And as Bull Snipe pointed out, he WAS offered command of Union forces. And because he WAS a Great General, he probably would have caused complete havoc to the Confederate forces had he done so.

[DiogenesLamp]

That is such blatant nonsense I can't believe DiogenesLamp continues to post it with even a smidgen of sincerity.

You can read it for yourself. It is Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 3.

It doesn't mean what you wish it meant. It means what the verbiage in it says it means.

[DiogenesLamp]

I never speculate on what might have been.

I do on occasion. For example, if Jimmy Carter had never been President, the Shah of Iran would likely not have been deposed, and the Million people killed in the Iran/Iraq war would not have died.

Jimmy Carter is indirectly responsible for all those deaths, and all the deaths caused by Iran being taken over by religious nut jobs.

[DiogenesLamp]

Not going to grant your “at pleasure” prohibition any consideration. The difference between “at pleasure” and “necessity” is completely in the eye of the beholder.

[bankwalker]

I often wonder what the world would be like today if Nixon had beaten Kennedy in 1960.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK post #315: "...according to Fire Eaters' 'Reasons for Secession' documents which make clear that protecting slavery's future against 'Black Republicans' was their number one concern."

DiogenesLamp: "Propaganda and nothing more.
Slavery would have been perfectly safe in the Union, just as it was in the Union slaves states during the war."

First note here DiogenesLamp's word "propaganda" refers to Fire Eaters' "Reasons for Secession" documents -- so you declare Confederate official documents "propaganda" and then presume to tell us what they really meant??

Well, here's the real truth: in 1860 Fire Eaters could not have gotten even 10% of Deep South voters to accept secession on any basis other than protecting slavery.
All this other nonsense you keep posting about -- tariffs and "oppressive" Washington, or "Northeastern power brokers" or "money flow from Europe", etc., etc., all of that meant nothing to average Southern voters.
But protecting slavery did mean something important in the Deep South, so that's what Fire Eaters used.

And regardless of DiogenesLamp's opinions today, there's no evidence Fire Eaters in 1860 didn't believe their own "propaganda", or that they thought slavery less important than any other issue.

All of which DiogenesLamp fully understands, but refuses to acknowledge because it contradicts his favorite historical fantasies.

[morphing libertarian]

marilyn monroe would be really old and living with JFK. Hanoi would be flatter

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Not going to give your insistence on “necessity” any consideration what so ever."

Only because it contradicts your favorite historical fantasies.
In fact, both "necessity" and "destructive" conditions are clearly spelled out by our Founders in their 1776 Declaration of Independence.
Founders never intended to imply that any small group could declare itself "independent" for any reason whatever, or indeed, for no reason -- in other words, at pleasure.

DiogenesLamp: "I’ve already shown you that New York clearly regarded the choice to leave as up to the people, and so did Virginia."

But again, only under conditions they listed, including: "necessary", or "perverted to their injury or oppression".
These words are not meaningless, they specifically negate "at pleasure" secession (unless by mutual consent) and refer back to conditions listed in their own 1776 Declaration of Independence.

Again, all of which DiogenesLamp knows but refuses to acknowledge because it contradicts your favorite historical fantasies.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp post #214: "Lincoln opened fire on them first by sending a war fleet with orders to use it’s entire force to put men and weapons into fort Sumter."

quoting BJK post #315: "A lie which DiogenesLamp well knows but repeats endlessly anyway."

DiogenesLamp: "You very much wish it were a lie, but as I have also pointed out endlessly, every member of Lincoln's cabinet except one said Lincoln's actions in sending that war fleet was going to cause a war."

First of all, Lincoln did not "open fire" first, indeed his orders were, in effect, "no first use of force"

Second, and to your point: so also Franklin Roosevelt's advisers in 1940 told FDR that sending the US Pacific "war fleet" from San Diego to Pearl Harbor would provoke the Japanese and start war.
So what's the difference, DiogenesLamp?
In both cases the US President sent what you might call a "war fleet" to protect US assets & troops, in both cases they were warned it might provoke the enemy, and in both cases that's just what happened.
And yet nobody claims "FDR started WWII" and that's despite the fact that everybody knows FDR, unlike Lincoln, was looking for a way to help out the Brits by getting the US into WWII in Europe.

DiogenesLamp: "Major Anderson immediately realized it was going to cause a war when he heard of the plan.
The decision to go to war was Lincoln's, and everyone around him at the time clearly understood this."

What Anderson & others did not understand was that Jefferson Davis, for reasons of his own, intended to start war at Forts Sumter and/or Pickens, regardless of what Lincoln did, or didn't do:

"Virginia was on record as saying she would join the confederacy if and when a war started.
"Davis had advisors who were urging him in that direction as well.
L.Q. Washington wrote,
'I fear the present Virginia Convention will not pass an ordinance of secession unless a collision or war ensues; then public feeling will force them to it.
There is a majority of old Federal submissionists, who got in by pretending to be resistance men.'
[OR Series I, Vol I, pp. 263-264]

"One Alabamian had warned Davis,
'Unless you sprinkle blood on the face of the Southern people they will be back in the old Union in less than ten days.'
A sprinkle of blood, too, should bring the fencesitters--Virginia and the other border states--into the Confederate fold.'
[W. A. Swanberg, _First Blood: The Story of Fort Sumter,_ p. 286]

"There are the words of Virginian Roger Pryor, who, speaking to a Charleston audience on April 10, 1861, said,
'But I assure you that just as certain as tomorrow's sun will rise upon us, just so certain will Virginia be a member of the Southern Confederacy; and I will tell your Governor what will put her in the Southern Confederacy in less than an hour by Shrewsbury clock.
Strike a blow!'
[Ibid.,_ p. 289]

"That same day, Davis received a telegram from Louis T. Wigfall, urging,
'General Beauregard will not act without your order.
Let me suggest to you to send the order to him to begin the attack as soon as he is ready.
Virginia is excited by the preparations, and a bold stroke on our side will complete her purposes.
Policy and prudence are urgent upon us to begin at once.'
[Wigfall to Davis, 10 Apr 1861, quoted in Richard N. Current, _Lincoln and the First Shot,_ p. 151]"

And Jefferson Davis' response to all this I've posted now several times:

"There would be to us an advantage in so placing them that an attack by them would be a necessity, but when we are ready to relieve our territory and jurisdiction of the presence of a foreign garrison that advantage is overbalanced by other considerations.

The case of Pensacola then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished."
[Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]"

In summary: Davis was not motivated by Lincoln's "war fleet" but rather by "other considerations", most especially the need for war to force Virginia to secede.

All of which DiogenesLamp has seen before & well knows but refuses to acknowledge because it contradicts his favorite historical fantasies.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "War fleet caused war.
You can keep repeating your tired old propaganda, but i've finally learned the truth.
War fleet caused war. "

Sorry, but you never "learned the truth", you only swallowed a huge Big Lie, and why?
Because that Big Lie importantly supports your favorite historical fantasies and so you just won't give it up, no matter what, right?

[DiogenesLamp]

I often wonder what the world would be like today if Nixon had beaten Kennedy in 1960.

He actually did beat Kennedy, once all the vote fraud (centered around Chicago) was thrown out.

But let's see, Nixon as President would have prevented the Bay of Pigs disaster, Cuba would have been freed, and there never would have been a Cuban Missile Crises.

We would have won in Vietnam, and there would never have been a "Great Society" vote buying scheme that cost us 21 trillion dollars.

Probably history would have turned out a lot better had Nixon actually challenged.

[DiogenesLamp]

Slavery would have been perfectly safe in the Union, just as it was in the Union slaves states during the war.

[DiogenesLamp]

Skip.

[DiogenesLamp]

Skip.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Not even going to read his one."

Because you can't bear any truth which contradicts your own historical fantasies.

DiogenesLamp: " Your normal operating method is to jut launch replies ad nauseum with "Nonsense!" and "Rubbish!" being central components of them, while simply contradicting anything to which you respond."

I call your posts truthfully what they are: fantasy, rubbish & nonsense.
I then tell you what the truth is, even though you don't like to see it.
So you complain it's "boring" and "repetitious"?
Well, the real truth never changes, regardless of how often DiogenesLamp lies about it.
That's why the more often you lie, regardless of how creatively, the more often you'll see the same old boring repetitious truth of the matter.

[Bull Snipe]

In that you are correct in my opinion. Lincoln would probably not have taken any action to end slavery in the United States. His opinion was that based on the Supreme Court ruling in Scott v. Sanford, he had no constitutional authority to use the Federal Government to interfere with slavery where it was legal. This, however was not the view of some of the Southern States which chose to withdraw from the Union. Their belief was that a Republican controlled House and Senate in unison with a Republican President would, at some point in time, take action to end slavery as it existed in 1860. The only avenue left, in their view, was to withdraw beyond the power of the Federal Government. Hence, secession was the answer to allay their fears.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sorry, but you never "learned the truth", you only swallowed a huge Big Lie, and why?

Because that's what they taught me in school. In school I learned that the war was about slavery, and the confederates started it. That was the huge Big Lie we were all taught.

I finally learned that the war was about money, and Lincoln started it.

[DiogenesLamp]

No, i’m just tired of trying to debate with a talking parrot which simply repeats the same stuff that’s already been shot down numerous times before.

[BroJoeK]

quoting BJK post #327: "In fact, Lincoln ordered emancipation of slaves in states & regions in rebellion against the United States."

DiogenesLamp: "And once again, he cannot legally do that.
The constitution requires the laws of the states that hold them to be obeyed.
It doesn't give him an 'except in the case of rebellion' card to play. "

Of course Lincoln could, and the Constitution does acknowledge distinctions in case of rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion, declared war and treason.
Our Founders experienced and fully understood that wars include restrictions on "contraband" and also use of slaves promised freedom for service.
In the Revolutionary War both the Brits and Americans promised slaves freedom in exchange for military service, so there was nothing unusual or forbidden about Union behavior on this during the Civil War.

DiogenesLamp: "If the states are part of the Union, the constitution must be obeyed regarding them.
The only out is to declare them not part of the Union, and therefore constitutional law won't apply to them."

Historically speaking, that's exactly what lawyer & Union General Benjamin Butler said, early in 1861, in refusing to return runaway slaves to their Confederate "masters".
But Lincoln himself disapproved, just because of the implied recognition of Confederate legitimacy.

So Congress acted in August 1861 with the Confiscation Act,

"which declared that any property used by the Confederate military, including slaves, could be confiscated by Union forces.
The next March, its Act Prohibiting the Return of Slaves forbade returning slaves to Confederate masters or the military."

Those then became part of the basis for Lincoln's 1862 Emancipation Proclamation.

DiogenesLamp: "But as i've said, the status of southern states was maintained in a condition of quantum super position, being both in the Union and Out of it simultaneously, depending upon what legal argument needed to be made to do what Lincoln wanted."

"Quantum super position"?
That's a mouthful, brings to mind Schroeder's cat... which both is & isn't simultaneously, in a quantum state.

But I don't think any such physical paradoxes are necessary to define the legal status of Confederate states during the war -- they were in rebellion and normal laws which apply to such states held.
That includes states like Virginia & Tennessee which had huge regions with majority Union loyalists.
Those were treated with all deference as if still part of the Union.

Bottom line: so far as I've ever read nobody ever took your legal arguments here seriously enough to have them tested in the Supreme Court.