ROBERT E. LEE: OUR GREATEST GENERAL?

[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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Sir, you are a stalwart.

Thank you. I woke up in the "Emperor's New Clothes" universe, and suddenly realized I couldn't see these "new clothes" of which everyone spoke. :)

God love you, and I thank you for providing me something I’ve long sought - a graphical explanation for the War of Northern Aggression.

And here you hit the nail on the head. A visual representation of what happened is the absolute best way of explaining the start of the Civil War. That map (which incidentally was produced by a Union supporter intent on showing the war couldn't be about tariffs because New York was paying most of the tariffs) is what eventually convinced me that I had been misled.

When I first saw it, I accepted it's claim that the North was paying all the tariffs because I didn't know any better. It wasn't until I ran across this information that I realized what that map showed didn't make any sense.

The numbers outlined in this book demonstrate that the South was producing the vast majority of total export value to Europe, and therefore the import value returned in exchange was being paid for by those Southern exports.

What the page of that book revealed, (and I believe PeaRidge has even better sources that show the South paid an even larger percentage) is that the South was paying about 80% of all the taxes for the entire nation!

It also showed that despite 80% of the money being produced in the South, it was somehow ending up in New York. It took me awhile to learn why this was happening, but I finally cracked that conundrum too! It was a combination of Geography and various US laws that funneled everything into New York.

As always, it was about cash.

Exactly.

[RinaseaofDs]

If you have materials or links to any of your graphical or summarized elements, I would be forever in your debt.

The entire American experiment started to delaminate at the Civil War. States rights essentially went out the window.

The death of states rights was the biggest loss of the entire war.

[HandyDandy]

For example. The Constitution required the federal authority to return slaves to people for whom their labor was due according to the laws of any state.

Nope. Sorry. That is incorrect. In point of fact, it is complete and total, utter bullsh*t. Nowhere in the US Constitution does it require the “federal authority” to do any such thing. Again, you are broadbrushing the Fugitive Slave Clause with what the Slave Powers later turned it into. Remember the Fugitive Slave Act?.....the Fugitive Slave Law?.... The Compromise of 1850?......perhaps the Dred Scott Decision rings a bell? It was The Southern Slave Aristocracy that made a Federal Case out of Slavery.

[DiogenesLamp]

If you have materials or links to any of your graphical or summarized elements, I would be forever in your debt.

I don't have much in the way of graphical representations, but I have long been thinking of creating some. I've got some ideas for what I consider pretty devastating graphical arguments for what happened, but making them is quite labor intensive for me, and I already have too many other jobs i'm shirking in preference to posting on these threads.

When I make some, I'll send them to you.

The entire American experiment started to delaminate at the Civil War. States rights essentially went out the window.

Absolutely. The FedGov turned into something the Federalist never envisioned, but oddly enough it turned into exactly what the anti-federalists predicted.

Antifederalist #29.

A standing army in the hands of a government placed so independent of the people, may be made a fatal instrument to overturn the public liberties; it may be employed to enforce the collection of the most oppressive taxes; and to carry into execution the most arbitrary measures. An ambitious man who may have the army at his devotion, may step up into the throne, and seize upon absolute power.

.

.

And:

The militia of Pennsylvania may be marched to New England or Virginia to quell an insurrection occasioned by the most galling oppression, and aided by the standing army, they will no doubt be successful in subduing their liberty and independency. But in so doing, although the magnanimity of their minds will be extinguished, yet the meaner passions of resentment and revenge will be increased, and these in turn will be the ready and obedient instruments of despotism to enslave the others; and that with an irritated vengeance. Thus may the militia be made the instruments of crushing the last efforts of expiring liberty, of riveting the chains of despotism on their fellow-citizens, and on one another. This power can be exercised not only without violating the Constitution, but in strict conformity with it; it is calculated for this express purpose, and will doubtless be executed accordingly.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nope. I'm accurately stating what it always required. Liberal states tried to "living constitution" it away with their bullsh*t made up meanings and their "sanctuary city" like defiance of federal authorities, and the Federal Judiciary simply patched up excuses and looked the other way because they didn't like the agreement either.

The North routinely and deliberately ignored a requirement of the US Constitution because they didn't like it. It's that simple.

[HandyDandy]

DL has become predictable and boring.

ps Thank you.

[HandyDandy]

You are accurately stating what you think is accurate. The problem is that it is not really accurate. Know what I mean?

[DoodleDawg]

DL has become predictable and boring.

But always amusing.

ps Thank you.

You're welcome.

[DoodleDawg]

You are accurately stating what you think is accurate. The problem is that it is not really accurate. Know what I mean?

Whatever he believes to be true must, by his definition, be true. Lot of that going around.

[DoodleDawg]

States rights essentially went out the window.

In what way?

[Hugin]

Again you are the one making up facts. Lincoln sent ships to resupply a fort, with orders only to respond with force if the south attempted to stop them by force. The rebels could have simply let them resupply the fort but decided to start shooting instead. Trying to characterize that as sending “warships to attack the South” is a lie no matter who correctly predicted the southerners would respond with aggression. You are clearly beyond accepting that reality, but nobody but a handful of neo-confederate kooks really believes your spin. You cannot change who fired the first shots.

[dangus]

>> I copied and pasted. Go back and look for yourself. <<

Yes, you copied and pasted a selected PORTION of a sentence, so as to rob the sentence of its context, so you could apply a false context.

[HandyDandy]

Whatever he believes to be true must, by his definition, be true.

The irony is inescapable. DL has at last, with his lamp, found an honest man. And that man turns out to be non other than,...... his very own self!

[HandyDandy]

DL Nope. I'm accurately stating what it always required.

Please direct to me to the particular clause of the US Constitution that specifically requires “Federal Authorities” to do anything in regards to Slaves. If you had done true research you would know that that was the whole problem with Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2. It did not specify precisely who was to return the “Fugitive Slaves”. The Slave Aristocracy who held sway in Washington hammered away at that Clause over many years until it came to mean that no person of color ever had been, was not then, nor could ever be a citizen of the USA. That’s the fact, Jack.

DL Liberal states tried to "living constitution" it away with their bullsh*t made up meanings and their "sanctuary city" like defiance of federal authorities, and the Federal Judiciary simply patched up excuses and looked the other way because they didn't like the agreement either.

Wow, you certainly are well practiced at throwing a bunch of non sequiturs to obfuscate your lies. What a gross and perverted coverup of your own suspect tactics. You throw this out there as a rebuttal to your own distortion of the truth? That won’t cut the mustard to anyone with more than one brain cell.

DL The North routinely and deliberately ignored a requirement of the US Constitution because they didn't like it. It's that simple.

It is much simpler than that (probably too simple for the likes of you). I can remember explaining the Fugitive Slave Clause to you many thousands of posts ago. Simply, the Clause acknowledged that Slavery existed, and more importantly, that there were Slave States and that there were Free States. It was about States respecting each other’s Rights.

[HandyDandy]

Correction: meant to say Article IV, Section 2, Clause 3.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "I find this previously hidden aspect of the Civil War to be quite fascinating.
Following the money makes a lot of events clearer to me now than they were when I first learned of them years ago."

Sorry, but it wasn't "previously hidden" because it never existed, it's all just cockamamie nonsense, fantasies invented by people who just can't abide the real truth.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "BroJoeK? Is that you? :)"

Right here!

DiogenesLamp: "I copied and pasted."

Of course, I don't object to "copy & paste", but some of our other posters are not quite so... ah, understanding.

DiogenesLamp: "I believe JeffersonDem has thoroughly thrashed out the proof that 'domestic insurrections' referred to slave rebellions which people thought might be triggered by Lord Dunmore's proclamations."

jeffersondem has only expressed his opinion that "domestic insurrections" referred to non-existent slave rebellions, rebellions which were never "excited" by Lord Dunmore or anyone else.
But jeffersondem has "thrashed out" nothing, "proof" or otherwise.

The more likely explanation is that our Founders went to pains to keep slavery out of their Declaration, and so "domestic insurrections" referred to actual insurrections by American loyalists to Britain, of which there were several in the months before July 4, 1776.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp on who owned Fort Sumter: "Not when the people became independent.
The land always belongs to the inhabitants.
Even Lincoln said so."

DiogenesLamp well knows that neither Lincoln nor any law anywhere, any time ever said: ownership of property changes just because some people get together to declare themselves "seceded".

The US Constitution provides that Congress disposes of Federal properties, but no Confederate ever approached Congress to negotiate anything regarding Federal properties in states which declared secession.

All of which DiogenesLamp well understands, but refuses to acknowledge.

[DiogenesLamp]

http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/

[DiogenesLamp]

No, it's quite true, as the facts I keep posting confirm. The South produced 200 million per year in European money coming into New York.

Fact.