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.
You made some mistakes in your sentence. "Leave" is spelled "L-e-a-ve", not "g-i-v-e", "me" should be "my" and "your" should be omitted."
Here is how the sentence would read if you had formulated it correctly.
"So if I ask you politely to leave my house, would you do it?"
The answer is that any rational person would. Nobody would stay in someone's house when they are an unwanted guest.
Happy to help.
It’s awfully early to be posting drunk. Shouldn’t you pace yourself?
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can may revolutionize, and make their own of so much of the territory as they inhabit.
They never became independent though
Hmmm, the sentence looks correct and accurate to me, your opinion to the contrary notwithstanding.
Took the fort in the middle of the Night without warning or explanation after having led the Confederates to believe that all such works would soon be turned over to them.
Basically being lying dicks, so nobody trusted them anymore.
Oh, and Anderson also informed them that he would fire on the Confederate batteries if they engaged those ships which were sent to attack them.
He wasn't facing someone so obsessed that they would kill 750,000 people to get his way. Rest Assured, had King George III been so stubbornly determined as Lincoln, we would still be singing "God save the Queen."
You don’t think Lincoln invaded the South? You are the one who needs to get your money back.
Like George Washington.
“Why not George Washington as greatest General?”
Considering he had limited resources to win the war, and his post-war decisions shaped this nation more than any other person, I agree with his nomination.
HIs greatness wasn’t merely winning a war, albeit by a slim margin, but his conduct afterward was how we define ourselves today.
If you engage in discussion on this subject, I will rebut you. If you do not wish a rebuttal, don't engage.
You have been propagandized your entire life, and so have I, but I recently realized what I was taught was incorrect and misleading, but you haven't yet realized it.
Some people simply do not want their dearly held beliefs tampered with. They would rather believe a reassuring lie than an unpleasant truth.
Because it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense. If you had a document from Lincoln saying he was abolishing slavery throughout the Union, and he was going to war against any state that didn't abolish it, then you would have proof that the war was about slavery.
Lincoln said the very opposite of that. He said he believed it was completely unlawful for him to do anything about slavery.
When Lincoln sent the men to invade the South, did he give them any orders regarding slavery? No he did not. What he told them to do was stop the "rebellion."
When did Slavery become a big official deal in the Union attacks against the South? About a year and a half after the war started.
Well the war can't be about something that wasn't an issue until a year and a half after it started, it has to be about something that was an issue at the very beginning of the war.
The question isn't why do "appologists" refuse to accept slavery, the rational question is why do people like you keep insisting that it was about slavery when you have absolutely no proof (like orders from Lincoln) that it was about slavery?
This is like saying "Border Security" is about Illegal alien children being separated from their parents.
No it isn't. Stop trying to dress it up as some emotionally satisfying justification that isn't accurate.
The war was about keeping control of the South and it's export money stream, and most importantly to make certain it didn't compete with the Northeastern wealth that was backing Lincoln.
"Slavery" is just a propaganda dodge to distract attention from the flow of money that led to the Civil War.
Ah, so you've met BroJoeK? Yup, that pretty much sums up his methodology.
If you want a laugh, ask him about "Pearl Harbor", and how it was exactly like Ft. Sumter. :)
That is a point that I hadn't really considered. It is possible that that would have happened, but it occurs to me that Lincoln might have been their pinnacle of control. At this point, the "Deep State"/Crony Capitalist/Establishment was just getting it's footing, and it may not have yet gotten so confident that it could continue the war without Lincoln.
But you have a valid point for further consideration. Yes, they would have wanted to continue the war by any means, because to fail at it would relegate their fortunes to evaporate.
Rich man's war, poor man's fight. Same as it ever was
And that is probably the most apt description of it.
"Should" does not mean "can't." "Should" is simply urging caution, but it does not represent a "condition" required to exercise the right of independence.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us,
Meaning he has attempted to trigger slave rebellions.
Bet you didn't know that was in there.
Apparently stirring up their slaves was one of the just causes for which they seceded from the United Kingdom.
I think I can accurately say that virtually all of them would have been greatly disappointed.
I have noticed a pattern in history. Virtually all of our "super genius" Presidents turn out to be disasters.
Just look at it. All the "intellectual" Presidents thought they were too smart by half. Lincoln never expected the war to get so ugly or be so difficult as it turned out to be.
Wilson created a horrible world mess. Roosevelt (FDR) seriously expanded Federal Power. JFK *CAUSED* the Cuban Missile crises and got us involved in Vietnam. Carter created the Iranian threat that has been troubling the world ever since.
Bill Clinton created the financial crises, and Idiot intellectual Barack Obama created ISIS and the Migrant crises that is now streaming millions of parasites into Europe.
Pretty much all the "smart" Presidents made a total mess of things. Lincoln was one of those "too smart by half" Presidents, and his rule was a disaster for the nation.
The motivation for the war being about slavery wa sin the south. It was part of their economic survival.
The south had fought to keep slavery since the declaration of independence and the articles of confederation and then the constitution. Since the 1820s they worried that more free states would be admitted than slave and after the Louisiana purchase that became very likely.
For you to say the south didn’t;’t want to keep slavery and that wasn’t a part of their motivation ignores there actions to protect slavery for over 75 years.
When the president and congress went to war, they may not have had slavery in mind, but they may. The northern members of congress wanted to admit more free states. Abolition was a big deal in the north east. But it doesn’t matter. By fighting the slave sates they were in fact fighting against slavery.
If that doesn’t make sense to you, I can’t help out any more..
Additionally, Princeton was at the time the most conservative of the Ivy League schools. The related theological seminary was a stronghold of Old School Calvinism during his tenure as university president. The liberals staged a coup there in the 1920s, but by that time Wilson was long gone.
Virtue signaling is definitely a part of it, but I think for many of them another part is defending the actions of their ancestors as "good people."
Neither side wants to believe they have "corruption of blood" as the English used to put it, and both sides want to revere their ancestors, even though they were fighting against each other.
I think the real tragedy was the creation of those conditions where family had to fight against family. That is so unnatural it would seem to be an obvious evil.
But yes, for many modern day virtue signalers, it's important for them to let people know how much they really really hated slavery.
It's the zeitgeist of modern USA.
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.