Traitor? Treason? [Robert E. Lee]

Old Virginia Blog ^ | 5/10/10 | Richard Williams

[Davy Buck]

"If Lee was a traitor (and I don't believe he was), he would be the only traitor for which a ship in the United States Navy was ever named. He would be the only traitor in Statuary Hall at the U.S. Capitol. He would be the only traitor whose image was used in a positive way to recruit military personnel to fight and win WWII. Quite an accomplishment for a "traitor", wouldn't you say. . ."

[Non-Sequitur]

My point is that slavery was expensive.

Slaves were expensive. They were also an investment that paid dividends to their owners. Once purchased, however, the cost of maintaining the slaves was nominal.

[central_va]

I am not defending slavery. All I am saying is that slave abuse of a physical nature was probably rare. Old slaves were allowed to live out their lives on the owners plantation. The psychological abuse seems to be genetic, handed down from generation to generation. This psychological condition can also be transferred to blacks that have immigrated post civil war. I don’t get it, but since it’s a “black” thing I will let it be.

[Non-Sequitur]

I am not defending slavery.

Of course you're not. You're just defending the cause that launched a bloody four year rebellion in defense of slavery.

All I am saying is that slave abuse of a physical nature was probably rare.

Well of course it was. One does not abuse ones horse or cow or slave if one wants to preserve its value and keep getting work from it. Abuse of slaves was no doubt rare. But that doesn't mean it was a benevolent institution.

The psychological abuse seems to be genetic, handed down from generation to generation. This psychological condition can also be transferred to blacks that have immigrated post civil war.

Claims of psychological abuse causing problems a hundred years later seem to be a very late 20th century phenomena. And seem to be calculated to justify cash reparations for those who are generations removed from slavery.

[aruanan]

Well of course it was. One does not abuse ones horse or cow or slave if one wants to preserve its value and keep getting work from it. Abuse of slaves was no doubt rare. But that doesn't mean it was a benevolent institution.

Comparing the conditions of slaves in the southern U.S. to conditions of slaves in South America and the Caribbean, slavery in the U.S. south was very benevolent. Comparing conditions of Southern slaves to Northern factory workers at the same time, it was more benevolent than not. Comparing the ~10% lifetime expropriation of the products of labor of Southern slaves (if you don't produce, you get beaten or sold) with the federal government's expropriation of multiple times that (if you don't pay your taxes you'll be imprisoned, fined, and have your remaining property confiscated), it was pretty stinking benevolent. And look how so much of Southern slavery is part of the modern Democrat plan for society: a rational direction of employment, day care, medical care, housing.

[central_va]

Claims of psychological abuse causing problems a hundred years later seem to be a very late 20th century phenomena. And seem to be calculated to justify cash reparations for those who are generations removed from slavery.

Could it be that we agree on something? Let it be not true!!!!

[Non-Sequitur]

The Eleventh Amendment (which you apparently have never read) restricts the jurisdiction of the high court, with regard to certain cases "where a state may be a party:"

So what is your point with this whole 11th Amendment issue anyway? Is it to show there are some areas that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction in, original or appellate? You don't have to go to the 11th Amendment for that. Article III, Section 2 has the clause "...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Are you trying to suggest that the Texas v White decision is illegitimate because of the 11th Amendment? Well that's plain ridiculous. Or are you just wanting to say "Gotcha!!!" If so then go right ahead and enjoy your moment of 'triumph'. I don't imagine you have all that many.

[Non-Sequitur]

Could it be that we agree on something? Let it be not true!!!!

I sincerely doubt that it will become a habit.

[Non-Sequitur]

Comparing the conditions of slaves in the southern U.S. to conditions of slaves in South America and the Caribbean, slavery in the U.S. south was very benevolent. Comparing conditions of Southern slaves to Northern factory workers at the same time, it was more benevolent than not.

Except for that whole 'property, not people' thing. The factory worker could not be sold. His children could not be sold. His could had a chance at an education. He and his children could dream of better lives and quite often achieve it; history is full of men and women who started with nothing and through their own talents and perseverance went on to greater things. Witness Lincoln himself. But a slave was a slave, almost always for their entire lives. Their parents had been slaves. Their children were slaves. Any and all of them could be sold at the drop of a hat. Not a whole lot of upward mobility in that.

[Who is John Galt?]

So what is your point with this whole 11th Amendment issue anyway?

I was merely correcting one of your patently false statements (that "once a state has been allowed to join then the Supreme Court has original jurisdiction over all cases in where a state may be a party").

Are you trying to suggest that the Texas v White decision is illegitimate because of the 11th Amendment? Well that's plain ridiculous.

A 'straw man argument,' but that's in keeping with your demonstrated preference for logical fallacies, including endless non sequiturs.

Or are you just wanting to say "Gotcha!!!" If so then go right ahead and enjoy your moment of 'triumph'. I don't imagine you have all that many.

Gosh, Non-Sequitur - most mature adults would not have had a problem with simply correcting their original misstatement (see your Post #298). The fact that you are criticizing me, almost 200 posts later, when it was your error (not mine) suggests that you are anything but a 'mature adult'...

;>)

[Who is John Galt?]

FYI: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2512779/posts?page=237#237

[Who is John Galt?]

Hi, Sir!

I note that another thread has been pulled:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2512779/posts?page=237#237

Absolutely no criticism intended! On the contrary, if I was in any way responsible for the required action, I would appreciate a ‘heads up,’ so I can avoid any repetition in the future. I’ve been here for 12 years, but still recognize that I’m a guest, and prefer to not ‘wear out my welcome.’

Thanks for your time & efforts!
Scott

[OneWingedShark]

>he would be the only traitor for which a ship in the United States Navy was ever named.

Not true; there’s the John Murtha...

[Who is John Galt?]

Not true; there’s the John Murtha...

God, what a disgrace: might as well name it the 'Benedict Arnold' - at least General Arnold had a military record that included some indication of valor in the service of the United States. Murtha was - (sorry, but no other way to put it) a disgrace. What the h@ll are we doing, naming vessels after chickensh!t politicians? Might as well have a USS Walter Mitty. I would personally be ashamed to serve on any United States Navy vessel named after 'John Mutha'...

[OneWingedShark]

>>Not true; there’s the John Murtha...
>
>God, what a disgrace: might as well name it the ‘Benedict Arnold’ - at least General Arnold had a military record that included some indication of valor in the service of the United States. Murtha was - (sorry, but no other way to put it) a disgrace.

Completely agreed. A USS Benedict Arnold would be superior to the USS John Murtha.

>What the h@ll are we doing, naming vessels after chickensh!t politicians? Might as well have a USS Walter Mitty.

Walter Mitty? I don’t know who that is... but imagine the USS Mitt Romney.

>I would personally be ashamed to serve on any United States Navy vessel named after ‘John Mutha’...

Indeed; same here. I don’t think I could bring myself to rib navy/marines who were on it... and I’m [former] Army.

[Who is John Galt?]

I don’t think I could bring myself to rib navy/marines who were on it... and I’m [former] Army.

That's saying something, coming from an Army vet! (By the way, every one here considers the United States Army and everyone who served in it to be absolutely 'world class' - and many thanks for the reply! ;>)

[OneWingedShark]

>and many thanks for the reply!

Not a problem; in fact, it was my pleasure.

{Please read these:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2513906/posts
AND
https://docs.google.com/Doc?docid=0ATyjMtQJe7iWZHY2OTh0bV8yNWM3YjM1Y2M5&hl=en
}

[Shimmer1]

The north had smaller, but cruel prisons too

[Shimmer1]

A closed mind gathers no facts. His is closed.

[investigateworld]

Someday, when I develop a stronger stomach, I think I'll construct a time line...

Lincoln began the whole mess by refusing to swap prisoners back for Union troops - held by Confederates.

It was a tacit admission that the Rebels, man for man were better fighters.... no question.

So the Confederates to put pressure on Lincoln, began to mistreat the Yanks, to a degree of cruelty that can only happen in Bible Belt Country.

So the the Yankees retaliated via their abuse of Confederate POWs.

So who started it?

Comes back to old Abe - sad to say - but I would think the South would have been better off to follow the teachings of the Master.

[rockrr]

LOL.

All this time we've been making fun of the lefties proclaiming it "Bush's fault" when in reality it was really "Lincoln's fault^TM...