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.

[HandyDandy]

Thanks for sharing those excellent words by Old Hickory.

[DoodleDawg]

Virginia owned it before there was a federal government!

The federal government owned it while Fortress Monroe was active.

[DoodleDawg]

Grant had control of his wife’s slaves who were not freed until the passage of the thirteenth amendment in 1866.

Well in the first place the 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865 not 1866. In the second place, Grant did not have control of his wife's slaves since she didn't own any. They remained the property of her father. Finally even if she did own them, Missouri outlawed slavery in January 1865 so how could she own them till 1866?

Lee was not a slave owner but was the executor of his father in law and following his will freed those slaves.

Lee's wife was the beneficiary of the will. Are you saying Grant could control his wife's chattel but Lee could not? Why not?

[DoodleDawg]

You are like the anvil upon which I hammer my arguments for the benefit of others.

Your hammer appears to be made of rubber since your arguments are so wobbly.

[Bulwyf]

Perhaps, but the Canadians would of taken it regardless. They’ve never given up anything heh.

[DiogenesLamp]

Your part of the country is fighting to keep America a safe, secure republic and yet even some freepers hate you! I just don’t get it.

It's not really my part of the Country. I don't live in the South, though I have driven through some Southern states a few times in my life, but yes, I understand what you mean. It really isn't helpful to demean the people of the South or their ancestors. People are always wanting to judge others in the past by modern standards, but as they say, the past is a different country, and you can't be objective about it unless you can grasp the zeitgeist of the era.

I love the south. Always have since the first time I was taken to a battlefield and exposed to the writings of Margaret Mitchell. I’m also a huge fan of Lincoln and Grant. Go figure!

Lincoln was a very amazing fellow. Extremely intelligent, and astonishingly talented. His writings are elegant and often profound, and I have opined before that were I in his shoes, and understood what I think he knew, I would likely have done the same thing. Then again, i'm not sure if I could have been that bold.

Lincoln was facing a major economic crises, and if he had capitulated, he likely would have been regarded by posterity with ignominy.

Of course if he had just let Seward win, there probably would never have been a crises.

[mrsmith]

‘Bottom line, the North held a 3:2 advantage in available manpower, and an approximate 7:1 advantage in production of war materials. No way the South could have won. ‘

The North won the war when they built the Erie Canal, before it even started. That tied the former Northwest Territories to New England. Though the people who serttled them were mostly from the South. So: brother against brother.

The South could have tied to the NW Terrs with canals but the moneyed elite of the South were plantation owners who saw little financial benefit to canals. While the moneyed elite of the North were merchants who saw plenty to gain.

[DiogenesLamp]

Well, yes, GW did fight for the insurrectionists. That’d be OUR (America’s) side.

And the principle we adopted in declaring our independence was that it was a God given natural right of mankind. One would think that would have been thereafter the accepted American position on the question, wouldn't you think?

That’d be the confederacy’s side. So are you a Confederate or an American?

The nation was founded as a Confederacy. 13 slave owning states broke away from a Union (United Kingdom) and formed a confederacy in which their armies were led by a slave owning general from Virginia, while the Union they were leaving offered freedom to their slaves.

Quite similar to what happen "Four Score and Seven Years" later.

[CommerceComet]

I recently visited Andrew Johnson’s home in TN and was amazed at how conciliatory he was towards the south. He was following Lincoln’s ideals.

While Johnson might have shared Lincoln's conciliatory attitude toward the South, he didn't share Lincoln's political leadership. Unfortunately, for the South and the newly-reunited country, Johnson wasn't able to control the wing of the Republican Party who wanted to punish the South. Lincoln probably could have kept them under control.

[Snickering Hound]

https://youtu.be/4v81Gwu6BTE

The South was on a different railroad gauge from the rest of the country as well.

They finally converted 11,500 miles of track in 1886 in an amazing 36 hours.

[dangus]

Not a general principle, but a highly conditional one. The Declaration of Independence first establishes the unique conditions under which such an insurrection Maybe valid and then proceeds to document the ways the numerous and unique ways in which the behavior of the King has made those conditions exist. And the belligerents with which the Confederacy flew to war is absurd. The states rights argument Falls laughably hard Hollow given hell the precipitation of more was the Southern States desire to export slavery into States who’s earliest settlers had no interest in slavery. They knew that there would be less political defense for slavery the more and more non-slave states joined the union so they pressed on to ensure that other states did not have rights including that they must participate in the evil process of rounding up and sending back off on to their torture and even death slaves sua dared to escape the Deep South.

[DIRTYSECRET]

Gentlemen: after 328+ replies it is now settled: Donald Trump should make that speech declaring Lee was the greatest general the US produced. As I said earlier it can be his “Viet Nam was a noble cause” moment. I remember Viet Nam was not even an issue at the time. He just wanter to stir things up. It worked. Got the ‘discussion’ going while the left could only ‘react’. It will bring out the historian ‘intellectuals’ and force them to explain the issue rather than play drama queen. Oh what a country.

[Bulwyf]

I don’t understand how more people don’t see that, or see the the war was about consolidating power in DC.

[DiogenesLamp]

It’s not a question of whether states have the right to be independent.

Well it was when the United States was formed. I thought their victory over the British established that the right of states to be independent was valid.

If it was valid in 1776, why wouldn't it be valid "four score and seven years" later?

It’s a question of whether of a government has ceased to represent its people.

It is exactly that. As the Declaration of Independence says:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

In 1860, many states believed the government of the United States no longer served their interests, and so they chose to exercise the right to independence which the founders established.

Had the slaves revolted and killed every God-damned slave-holder (I mean that 100% literally, not as a cuss) and blinded sheeple who fought on the side of the slave-holders, THAT would have been just.

Well let's not leave out all the Northern ship builders and shipping companies that rounded them up and brought them here. Obviously they were the lynchpin of the entire slave trade, and they were certainly more responsible for kidnapping them away from their homes than were the slaveholders who put them to work.

Much of the wealth of Boston and other parts of the Northeast are built on the slave trade. The US only accounted for 3% of the total slave trade across the Atlantic, so the northern slave ship companies were responsible for a lot more slavery than that which existed just in this country. I'd say they have a lot more to atone for than those who put that 3% to work. They also carried the other 97% into slavery.

While we are talking about punishing evil and revenge, we need to make sure all the appropriate parties get their fair share of the murder, er, I mean "Justice."

[Bulwyf]

Amen, and don’t forget Lincoln wanted to consolidate power in DC.

[DiogenesLamp]

Chase was worried Davis would prove secession legal in a court of law.

I found his statements on the subject last year, and now i've forgotten where I put the links for them. I've been trying to find them again for a week or so.

Anyway, I remember him saying that they would lose in court everything they had gained on the battlefield, and he strongly urged them to avoid going down this path.

They wisely followed his advice.

[rockrr]

But not as much as davis wanted to consolidate power in Richmond.

[Bulwyf]

I’m no fan of Grant or Lincoln, but when I’m in the US, I get along very well with most southerners. The north folk up east tend to be a lot different.

[Bulwyf]

You sound like a loon. My apologies for pointing that out.

[Bull Snipe]

Only Victory counts