142nd Anniversary of Gen. Lee’s death

Canda Free Press ^ | October 12, 2012 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

[BigReb555]

America mourned the death of Gen. Robert E. Lee on Wednesday, October 12, 1870 and Friday, October 12th marks the 142nd anniversary of his death.

[Delhi Rebels]

It’s only within about the last 7 years, since I became involved in researching for a book in progress...

Please let us know when your book is published. I'm sure it will be very entertaining.

[BroJoeK]

Reily: "I read somewhere that there was a letter in the Vatican archives from Jefferson Davis where he acknowledged that slavery was on its way out and that he would certainly trade it for Southern independence."

Here is that letter from Jefferson Davis to Pope Pius IX.

Note that it says nothing remotely resembling what you report.

Here is a more detailed report on letters among the Pope, Davis & others, and their importance.

[Sherman Logan]

Nor have seen reports of a Confederate general (out of 400 appointed) born outside the Confederacy.

I don't think you looked very hard.

Pemberton, the loser at Vicksburg, was born in Philly.

There were others, notably Patrick Cleburne, who was born in Ireland.

[rockrr]

Even if those of you in the pro-north position are not persuaded, perhaps you may wish to investigate the truth further, if for no other reason than to satisfy your curiosity or expand your knowledge.

Your intimation that we come to the table ignorant - or even worse somehow suffering from propagandists brainwashing is laughingly presumptuous and condescending. From the "off the shelf" southron revisionism you've offered thus far it is you who is seriously in a fact-deficit position.

Are you seriously contending that there is some sort of conspiracy among every public school instructor (and nearly every private school instructor) to teach a consistently across the board alternate history? Really?! When you urge us to "open our minds" do you seriously believe that we haven't also researched your resources - and rejected them?

Slavery was the sine qua non (without which not) factor in the southron rebellion. If not for the Particular Institution there would never have been the insurrection or the Civil War. That fact is simply irrefutable.

Sure, there were extenuating and mitigating circumstances but they take a distant 2nd place to slavery. And none of those circumstances ever rose to the necessary degree if intolerability necessary to establish a legitimate claim of tyranny.

[Lee'sGhost]

Did I say anyone here had? No. Have you and I seen/heard people make such statements Absolutely. Is your use of “sic” silly and sophomoric? Without a doubt. Does it speak volumes ab your pettiness?

Of course.

[BroJoeK]

Fast Moving Angel: "It’s only within about the last 7 years, since I became involved in researching for a book in progress, that I sought out books and other materials published either during or immediately after the WBTS that set forth accurate accounts, written by people who were “there”, that I reached the intellectual conclusion that the South’s position was correct and that the Confederate states should have been allowed to secede and form their own government – and realized that much I had been taught was wrong."

That is a very long sentence, and deserves a considered response.

First of all, it is interesting to note that on many, if not most, Civil War threads we consistently find certain "stock characters" of the neo-Confederate side.
One is a female neo-con whose stock-in-trade is taking offense at some real-or-imagined insult.
Today that role is played unambiguously by texgal, whose very first post (#26) says:

"I am related to General Lee from his mother’s side of the family (Salter).
This was an unnecessarily rude remark."

Another "stock character", like Fast Moving Angel, always claims to be northern-born and educated, but has now miraculously stumbled onto the "real truth" about the War Between The States.
Strangely, as a "new convert" to neo-Confederatism, he never remembers any of his original education, and can only regurgitate the buckets full of neo-con koolaid he so "recently" drank.

If, Fast Moving Angel, you had read any real history, you would already know that:

"Confederate states were allowed to secede and form their own government."

No action was taken by the Federal government to stop slave-holders from formally declaring secession and then forming their own Confederate government.
No military moves were made against the Confederacy, indeed nothing was done to prevent Confederate authorities from illegally seizing dozens of Federal government properties -- forts, ships, armories, arsenals, customs houses, mints, etc.

Indeed, even after seceding state Congressmen and Senators resigned and left Washington, no military actions were taken against the Confederacy.
No resistance of any kind was offered the Confederacy, except in two places: Forts Sumter and Pickens.
These had loyal US troops to defend them and so President Buchanan decided not to hand them over, despite repeated unlawful threats against them.
Buchanan also attempted to resupply those forts, successfully at Pickens, unsuccessfully at Sumter.

And that is where things stood at Lincoln's inauguration (March 4, 1861), in which he publicly told secessionists they could not have a war unless they themselves started it.

So the Confederacy did just that -- by first assaulting and seizing Fort Sumter (April 14, 1861), then soon after formally declaring war on the United States (May 6, 1861).

Until the time of the Confederacy's formal declaration of war, there had not been a single Confederate soldier killed directly in battle with Union forces, nor had there been any Union "invasion" of the Confederacy.

So the entire Civil War took place after the Confederacy first started then formally declared war on the United States.
That's why there was a war, and the rest of it is just neo-Confederate koolaid drinking nonsense, FRiend.

That is the truth of the matter, and if all the neo-Con koolaid prevents you from seeing it, then it won't matter how much "research" you do for your book -- you'll never get anywhere close to the reality of it.

[Lee'sGhost]

LOL! One of the dumbest posts ever. It’s like arguing over exactly how gray the uniforms were. And the last “factoid” doesn’t even relate to the comment I made.

Trying too hard does not score extra points.

[Lee'sGhost]

“So the South went to war over a suppossedly ‘’dying’’ institution. Seems an awful lot of trouble to go through for something that was ‘’dying’’.”

Which proves the point that they were not fighting to preserve slavery.

Great job! Thanks.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"Among his reasons was that if he did the border states were it existed but where loyal to the North might go against the Union."

So do you agree with the occupation of states such as Maryland that appeared to be leaning towards secession?

[rockrr]

Sorry - I forgot that you don’t actually mean most of what you write.

[Delhi Rebels]

Which proves the point that they were not fighting to preserve slavery.

Actually it indicates that none of the Southern leaders, from Robert Lee to Jefferson Davis to anyone else you care to name, didn't believe that slavery was a dying institution. Texas was pretty blunt about what they thought about the future of slavery in their Declaration of the Causes of Secession: "Texas abandoned her separate national existence and consented to become one of the Confederated Union to promote her welfare, insure domestic tranquility and secure more substantially the blessings of peace and liberty to her people. She was received into the confederacy with her own constitution, under the guarantee of the federal constitution and the compact of annexation, that she should enjoy these blessings. She was received as a commonwealth holding, maintaining and protecting the institution known as negro slavery-- the servitude of the African to the white race within her limits-- a relation that had existed from the first settlement of her wilderness by the white race, and which her people intended should exist in all future time" That was no doubt the consensus throughout the South.

[donmeaker]

Glad I could help you then.

The soldiers who shot him were also nearly deaf: Consider that it was back before earplugs were common.

[donmeaker]

The Morrill Tariff was not passed until the southern represenatives withdrew from the Congress. The idea that the tariff was a cause of secession founders on the shoal of time.

[donmeaker]

And Pemberton, who surrendered Vicksburg to Grant, from Pennsylvania.

[donmeaker]

In fact, his post directly refutes you. The US had not only to fight the rebels, but also to secure the territory. How important was that? Part of the genius of Grant was to force Lee to fight outside the trenches of Richmond, and then switch his base so his supply lines could not be attacked by Lee. Grant had previously prevented his supply lines from being attacked at Vicksburg by abandoning them and living off the land, as did Sherman.

Further, since there were more immigrants as a ratio outside the army than in, the notion that the US was enslaving immigrants is also shown false. That you can not accept direct refutations shows that your education, from what ever source derived, came short.

[donmeaker]

Yes, the southern government was illegitimate, and its acts were of no legal force, per Texas v. White. No state has a right to unilaterally secede, so the pretense that a state could do so, and then with other states form a government is illegal and illegitimate.

That is why the southern pretend government wanted a war right away. That was the only way they could get a legal result, by treaty after successful war.

That failed too.

[donmeaker]

Which proves the point that it was not dying.

[donmeaker]

Certainly the US Army has the right and duty to obey orders that prevent insurrection anywhere in the United States.

Of course that does make life more difficult for traitors.

[Sherman Logan]

Your claim was that the CSA was outnumbered 4:1. I showed the actual numbers were 2:1, and when you deduct the numbers necessary to guard supply lines and occupy hostile territory, the Union most of the time had only about a 50% edge in numbers.

I’m afraid I don’t see why a 50% differential as opposed to a 400% differential is not important.

And you were repeating, I assumed, the common southern claim that the Union armies were largely foreign hirelings. Perhaps you can point out to me just why showing this claim to be untrue does not relate to your comment.

IOW, you made two hyperbolic and inaccurate claims, and I demonstrated their falsity, and then you claim this demonstration isn’t relevant.

Interesting POV.

[jmacusa]

Pal, let me tell you plain ok? If I had been Abe Lincoln I’d have occupied ANY state or territory North ,East, South or West were slavery was in existence until the scourge of it was wiped clean and said state/and/or new territory was bought BACK into the Union! What’s drives you 21st.century Rebels anyway? Do you really wish the South had prevailed 150 years ago? Would you like to today be living in some Balkanized mish-mosh of a country? Doesn’t The United States of America, ONE NATION under GOD and flying The Stars and Stripes suit you or what? It suits me JUST FINE! So what’s your beef Reb?