Posted on 03/28/2019 8:50:21 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York University was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is intended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy undertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representative American scholars in different callings. They are mostly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.
(Excerpt) Read more at abbevilleinstitute.org ...
Because I don’t like Lee.
Were you this kind of drama queen as an officer?
He resigned when Virginia seceded. That is the point. He knew exactly what was going to happen and was positioning himself to be ready for the call.
You have just accepted a duel. You lack nothing but discretion.
And intelligence.
So I must then assume that if someone impugns our courage or lack thereof, we should just be quiet and reticent. Wouldn’t want to make anyone mad or think ill of us, right?
So your idea of a great leader was George H.W. Bush, because we wouldn’t want to do anything imprudent, correct?
“The North was not taking any of those from the South, but the South was taking all three from the slaves. The North had a duty to try and rectify those wrongs, just as Washington felt he had a duty to rectify the wrongs of King George.”
If it is true the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
“There is little if nothing to emulate in Gen Lee.”
You wouldn’t have been fit to polish his boots.
L
Because when his STATE seceded, his allegiance shifted.
His state considered itself no longer under federal rule.
Kinda like the colonies did.
Really. It’s not that hard to understand.
Who cares what he knew.
Your point is debunked that he was under oath to the u.s. when the war began.
Another what?
I guess the fact that most Southerners (Democrats) called Republicans the “Black” Republicans” for their anti-slavery stance. Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, Thomas Paine and a host of others were anti-slavery.
The South totally saw the whole secession as separating from an anti-slavery country, because the leaders of the South had all their money and riches tied up in slavery.
The Southern power brokers wanted to maintain power and treasure, and talked their fellow countrymen into war under the premise that the North was going to take away their way of life.
Really, Lee didn’t understand what secession meant?
That it would ultimately mean war?
You have little belief in his intelligence then, because he knew exactly what secession meant and he knew exactly who they would go to. It fit his ego perfectly.
Complete nonsense.
No Founder in 1776, or ever, claimed an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All insisted only the gravest of reasons justified their necessary Declaration of Independence.
No Founder in 1788, or ever, claimed an unlimited "right of secession" at pleasure.
All insisted only the gravest of reasons -- like oppression, injury, usurpations & necessity -- could justify disunion from the US Constitution.
In many threads here on FR, we lambaste the left for ad hominum attacks on people if their views do not agree with them. We rightly attack them for being so tolerant in name, but incredibly intolerant in reality.
Why can we not discuss these topics without the personal attacks? Why do you have such an animosity toward a different viewpoint?
For most of his life Franklin was a slave owner but yes, like Washington and many southerners, Franklin spoke against slavery, especially at the very end of his life.
But now you are introducing facts and that is good. Of the 13 original states, only 13 of them were slave states.
And only 13 of those voted to enshrine slavery into the Constitution of the United States.
“Why do you have such an animosity toward a different viewpoint?”
Because it displays an appalling ignorance of a very important historical figure, that’s why. And it should be called out loudly every time it rears its stupid head.
L
Of COURSE he knew what it meant.
Don’t be ridiculous. And my statement should have been clearer that once he understood his state would be most likely in the confederacy during the war then he resigned and revoked his U.S. oath. Since technically Ft. Sumpter was the beginning of the war, causing his state to finally vote to secede and he resigned as a result of that realization. Which all happened within the same week.
His loyalty was to his State and home first and foremost just like most people.
And What do you mean he knew who they would go to?
OF COURSE he did, Captain Obvious.
They had been soliciting him for months.
The union had also been in the steady process of promoting him incrementally to get him to general status.
When he realized things could go either way in Virginia, he stopped accepting the promotions because he knew if Virginia seceded he would resign. But if they stayed with the union he’d continue on in the u.s. army.
So there.
If it had been about his ego, he would’ve accepted the promotions, his home and family and state be damned.
This is a dishonest argument. The North did not a f*** give about the slaves, until the South wanted to set up direct Trade with Europe. The North also agreed to legal slavery when the Constitution was ratified, and to claim this was some sort of deal breaker after they had accepted it for "Four Score and Seven Years", is just rationalization for their real reasons for invading the South, which was to stop huge economic losses to Northern power barons.
The North had a duty to try and rectify those wrongs,
It is to laugh. This "North" of which you speak, while in complete control of Congress, passed the "Corwin Amendment", which guaranteed slavery would continue virtually indefinitely, and now you are trying to say that they had a "duty" to stop black slavery?
Why then were they trying to secure it in perpetuity then? Where was their "duty" when they passed the Corwin Amendment, and four Northern states had ratified it, all at the urging of Lincoln that this amendment be made "express and irrevocable"?
You have been lied to. The same power cabals controlling Washington DC today, controlled it back in 1860. They were fine with slavery so long as the money produced by slavery kept funneling through their hands. It was the threat that all that money (230 million per year in 1860 dollars) would stop filling their rice bowl that triggered the need to invade the South.
"Slavery" was just a made up post hoc pretext to justify what they were doing, and to hide the reality of an economic war from the General public.
You can't go from supporting a Constitutional amendment supporting slavery to claiming you had to kill 750,000 people because you felt a "duty" to slaves, whom in fact, everyone in the North hated.
Sending a war fleet with orders to attack the Confederates *WAS* the first shot.
Lincoln's own cabinet informed him that if he sent those warships, it would cause a war. Major Anderson, Commander of Ft. Sumter, upon hearing of the Fox plan, said it would start a war, and most especially because the Confederates had been lied to.
The South could easily have not taken the bait, and waited out Lincoln.
The South had already received copies of the Ships orders. The sending of this fleet of warships was not a very well kept secret. The Navy department had so many spies and sympathizers in it that David Porter (later Admiral Porter) told Lincoln that anything sent through the Navy department "would be flashed across the wires".
The orders said that if those ships were resisted, they were to use their entire force to place men and munitions into Fort Sumter.
The Confederates did not act upon just learning of these orders. You may be surprised to learn that they did not open fire on the Fort until the "Harriet Lane" had showed up at the entrance to Charleston Harbor, and it was the sighting of some of the ships of the fleet that convinced them the Union was going to attack them.
Furthermore, they had even sent word to Anderson in Ft. Sumter asking him to give his word that he would not fire on them if those ships attacked. His reply was that if they fired on any of those ships, he would open fire on them with all the cannons at his disposal.
What would you do were you in General Beauregard's shoes? Roll over and surrender?
All Major Anderson had to do is to say he would not attack them, and they would have left him alone. He refused to do that, so what choice did they have? They were about to be attacked by both ships *and* the fort. A lot more men would die if they did nothing. Beauregard would have been court-martialed and possibly even hung for dereliction of duty resulting in the deaths of many of his soldiers.
What would wbarmy do in such a situation?
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.