Posted on 01/15/2011 2:24:43 PM PST by BigReb555
Young people will get a school holiday in remembrance of Dr. Martin Luther King whose birthday is January 15th. But, will anyone tell them that January 19th is also the birthday of Robert E. Lee?
(Excerpt) Read more at cumminghome.com ...
His telling of how the Confederate Navy captured a Nazi U Boat in WWII was quite remarkable, this from a Man that did not even know who stood outside the Confederate Museum in New Orleans.....
There’s plenty to apologize for on both sides.
This thread should have came with a major BARF alert.
This Confederate democrat party tyrant and traitor against the United States deserves no respect here at FR.
Read more: Smithsonian
Good question. There was no chance that the south could have prevailed.
But let’s take a look at the hypothetical. In the unlikely event of a victory against the union, the confederacy would find itself ragged, penniless, and without a single friend or ally in the world - except perhaps the German Duchy of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha.
No foreign country officially recognized the confederacy - mostly because of its insistence on the practice of slavery (how ironic).
Without allies and trading partners the rebels, having spent everything that had - and more - would not be well poised to ward off the inevitable attacks from without AND within. How can a nation conceived upon the premise of taking a walk anytime things don’t go their way expect to hold itself together in the face of certain adversity?
And how stable can you expect a nation to be when it has just told 1/3 of its residents, “You jes property, boy”?
I doubt that there could be a scenario - including the serendipitous acquisition of AK-47’s - that would have the confederacy lasting more than a few short, miserable years.
There’s no evidence other than Dabney’s claim that Lee ever said that.
Yea, swattie did have a way with words
/s
[Quote]
Very well.
You have your version of history. So be it.
But others have theirs, as well.
Time alone will judge whose version is the more accurate.
[Unquote]
It is not my version of history. It is the history according to Robert E. Lee, who voluntarily chose to give his oath of allegiance to the United States of America once more in his application for amnesty and pardon for his acts in rebellion. Read his own handwriting and his own statements relating to his renewed allegiance to the United States of America and its government.
[Quote]
Aside: did you support the “Kelo decision”?
[Unquote]
I don’t know. I’m not acquainted with the details of the decision. In general, however, the doctrine of eminent domain is a necessary evil in relation to private property. The fault for continuing abuses of the doctrine are the fault of the citizen voters who fail to restrain and restrict the usage of eminent domain to their necessary and proper purposes. Without studying the details of the SCOTUS decision, I suspect the court is going to be prone to not interfering in the right of local citizens to govern the exercise of the eminent domain doctrine.
“...Put down the crackpipe...
...“Mr. Lincoln” wasn’t President when the first treasonous states seceeded...”
-
And just where did I say that he was?
You must be the real crack head here... imagining all sorts of things.
you should hide your face in shame for such a remark.
Yes we Do!!
Lee had resigned his commission, That oath was null and void.
Reagan admired Lee....he had a hell of a lot more sense than YOU!
. . . and Lewis Dabney continued to preach and write in support of slavery for thirty years after the Civil War. Not just in support of the Confederacy, but in specific support of the institution of slavery. Lee's alleged comment to Stockdale, allegedly recounted to Dabney, was certainly . . . convenient . . . for the pro-slavery, lecturing Dabney.
Both the language and spirit of the alleged 1870 comment are inconsistent with Lee's writings and statements of 1870.
Lee believed that secession was revolution - and he knew secession was not the peaceful exercise of a right that the states or citizens of the United States had preserved. In an 1861 letter to his son, Custis Lee, Robert E. Lee wrote:
Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It is intended for 'perpetual Union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession: anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and all the other patriots of the Revolution.
Because Lee recognized that dissolution of the Union, other than by "consent of all the people in convention assembled", was a revolution, he knew he was taking up arms against his country.
Funny US Grant thought the opposite:
The fact is the constitution did not apply to any such contingency as the one existing from 1861 to 1865. Its framers never dreamed of such a contingency occurring. If they had foreseen it, the probabilities are they would have sanctioned the right of a State or States to withdraw rather than that there should be war between brothers.
US Grant Pres. USA
True.
I would also remind readers of two other Robert E. Lee quotes;
“I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than the dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation.”
Col. Robert E. Lee, U.S.A. in a letter to his son Custis, January 23, 1861
***************************************************************************
“Abandon your animosities and make your sons Americans.”
Robert E. Lee, 1865;
“He Lost a War and Won Immortality” Louis Redmond
Once again, your surface-level reading (or quote lifting, as the case may be) does no one, including yourself any good. Here you can find a reprinting of his statement, in context. When read in context, the quote doesn't mean what you want it to mean.
Notice how he sets up the plain meaning here: "If there had been a desire on the part of any single State to withdraw from the compact at any time while the number of States was limited to the original thirteen, I do not suppose there would have been any to contest the right, no matter how much the determination might have been regretted."
Grant admits that while an informal secession may have been successful in the early days of the union, that door closed when the union admitted more states, and conclusively locked with the addition of the Louisiana Purchase.
But the times had changed, the circumstances had changed. The casual understandings of the relationships were no longer practical. Grant understood this. "Secession was illogical as well as impracticable; it was revolution."
"The fathers themselves would have been the first to declare that their prerogatives were not irrevocable. They would surely have resisted secession could they have lived to see the shape it assumed."
Reading is fundamental...;-)
And your man, “Mr. Lincoln” is the cause of all of that.
Treasonous JACKASS secessionists were the cause of that...to suggest otherwise is a DUmocrat "pipe" dream (most likely induced by ingesting too much of the LIEberal crack they've been handing out the last 150 years).
Non-sequitur/Darren Whyte got the zot.
stand watie is not an alias of NS and has not been banned.
If you have proof otherwise, please post it.
Oh...did ‘em get his ‘iddle feelings hurt?
Did the bad man say bad things about your man-god Lincoln?
Now, now, it will be OK, you just try to go on back to sleep...
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.