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 ...
And I read that Beto O'Rourke was born in 1972; Kamala Harris was born in 1964; Jussie Smollett in 1982; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's mother sprung-fresh in 1989.
I'm beginning to doubt your new-is-better argument. Or that today's thinking is not really a modern distortion.
jeffersondem: "I'm beginning to doubt your new-is-better argument.
Or that today's thinking is not really a modern distortion. "
No, jeffersondem, you're not "beginning" to think -- you've never believed otherwise -- fess it up, FRiend.
"x" has it exactly right -- papering over is just what previous generations did, and it's also what our current Lost Causers want us to do here -- paper over the real reasons in favor of your own Marxist economic dialectics.
It was all just "RAW POWER", say some.
It was all just "MONEY", say some
It was all just "Northeastern Power Brokers" and "money flows from Euorpe" say some.
But people of that time made abundantly clear that slavery was their number one reason for secession, and slavery soon enough became a major issue in the war -- from Contraband to Confiscations, to Emancipation & Colored Troops, to Abolition and citizenship -- slavery became increasingly important during the war.
I actually think it was a good thing Lee broke his oath. If he hadn’t, and accepted the command of the Unites States forces, the war probably would have ended much quicker. With a quicker victory slavery would not have been destroyed. We might have still had slavery until the early 20th century, making a mockery of our claim “all men are created equal”.
I spent 21 years in the military, two deployments to Iraq, and am a critic of Lee. Want to try again?
I agree with you there. I don’t think the Lamp has said one thing that was correct in all his postings on this civil war threads.
So he knew it was revolution that the southern states were attempting, not this made up seccesion the fire eaters claimed.
Here is the last sentence in Lincoln’s letter to Horace Greeley dated August 22, 1862;
I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
If you read Lincoln’s writings and speeches you will see he was against slavery from an early age. This puts him, morally, head and shoulder above any southern leader and many northern leaders.
Dump on Dwight D. Eisenhower, another "traitor" who understood a little about American history:
Dwight D. Eisenhower in Defense of Robert E. Lee
https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-in-defense-of-robert-e-lee/
Robert E. Lee remains one of the most polarizing figures of the Civil War (or War Between the States). Debates and opinions abound in newspapers, books, and social media as to whether Lee is a person to be admired or condemned. Many of the anti-Lee arguments center on his resignation from the U.S. Army to fight for the Confederacy, an act many view as an inexcusable violation of his oath as a West Point graduate and army officer.
Along those lines, surely an exemplary officer and general like Dwight D. Eisenhower would also regard Lee as a traitor, would he not? Basically, that was the question asked of then President Eisenhower in August 1960. During the Republican National Convention of that year, Eisenhower mentioned that he kept a picture of Robert E. Lee in his office. That prompted a dentist from New York to send the following letter to the White House:...
That is an interesting comment.
As someone under oath, what exactly did you do when you saw President Obama repeatedly violate the United States Constitution?
I mean in addition to making anonymous posts on the Internet.
The letter written by President Eisenhower is very much on point. Thank you for posting it.
Just don't be surprised if one of the young 'uns here comes along and makes the claim that General Eisenhower was a fascist or a Nazi.
It wasn't too long ago that one of the more talkative members of this board made the claim that Thomas Jefferson was a yapping dog.
I'm serious: one member of this board made the claim Thomas Jefferson was a yapping dog.
And our public schools are turning out millions more like that every June.
Well... that oath actually is to the constitution, so if they were in violation of the constitution then it’s actually your job to go against them defending the constitution.
And i’m pretty sure if Barack obama had ordered you to war against and/or shoot your family and friends unconstitutionally you have rebelled.
So there are always exceptions to oaths except our oath to God
Well... that oath actually is to the constitution, so if they were in violation of the constitution then it’s actually your job to go against them defending the constitution.
And i’m pretty sure if Barack obama had ordered you to war against and/or shoot your family and friends unconstitutionally you have rebelled.
So there are always exceptions to oaths except our oath to God
Oh and also. Thank you for your service.
There was no similarity between Founders in 1776 and Fire Eaters in 1860, so Washington's choice in no way equates to Lee's.
Most military men hold Lee in the highest regard. Same thing can be said for Jackson and Bedford Forrest. Most liberals hate all three.
“if you read Lincoln’s writings and speeches you will see he was against slavery from an early age. This puts him, morally, head and shoulder above any southern leader and many northern leaders.”
Lincoln’s many words and writing show he could take or leave slavery. His personal views on the black man show he thought they were inferior to whites and he wanted the white man to be the boss. In today’s society Lincoln would be consider a White Supremist.
How many "White Supremists" today would restrict slavery at the risk of secession and risk war to preserve the Union?
How many would use the resulting war to confiscate, emancipate & abolish slavery?
How many would bring black leaders to the White House to discuss potential recolonization?
Of course you're not serious.
If you were, you wouldn't misrepresent it.
Jefferson was an anti-Federalist, opposed ratifying the Constitution in 1788, concocted doctrine to defeat it in 1798 (Nullification), then as President ran rough-shod over it, i.e., Louisiana Purchase.
But nobody on these threads ever called Jefferson a "yapping dog".
You know, for a "mere school-boy" you have an amazingly old-man's memory.
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.