Posted on 10/12/2012 11:00:08 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at canadafreepress.com ...
Hold your horses General! I should have stuck the ‘’sarcasm’’ tag on that there post. Them bloody treasonous Rebels were fighting to preserve slavery and there ain’t no one on this Earth going to tell me different.
Dude, you’re delusional.
Rock on ‘’rockrr’’!
But my study of the subject has lead me to believe thats it is illogical to be an ardent supporter of the American Revolution, while at the same time stridently opposing a very similar rebellion that happened fairly shortly thereafter. You can still believe it was in the best interest of the United States for the north to win, but you must concede that the south had some very strong points. As far as the slavery issue we are at an impasse. The civil war was not about slavery, but if you see it differently there is very little more to be said on that score.
How do you feel about the whiskey rebellion? How about Shay's rebellion?
PS it seems strange to me, to seee somebody sitting in the people's republik of New Joisey, thinking that their state is the moral superior to Georgia or Tennessee.
I have never understood the CSA-apologist notion that somehow seceding and fighting over the minimal taxes imposed is more morally justifiable than fighting in defense of slaver.
Actually, I have to agree it is less indefensible, but that doesn't make it justified.
The entire federal government budget for 1860 was $60M. And of course some significant percentage of that was spent in the South, especially since by prewar standards DC was in the South.
This "intolerable extortion," assuming the CSA states paid the entire expense of the government, would have come to about $6 per capita if slaves were included, and roughly $10 per person if only white people are counted.
So this war that killed 600k men was completely justified to avoid the expense of $10 per person? I don't buy it.
Also, tariffs were imposed on imports. Anybody throughout the entire country who bought imported goods paid more. Given the much larger population of the northern states, they probably paid a roughly equivalent proportion of the tariffs.
Protective tariffs were imposed to protect certain industries, which were mostly located in northern states. The South, being almost entirely agricultural, got little benefit from them.
But the net transfer of wealth was not south to north, it was agriculture to industry. Most northerners were also farmers.
Also, the Morill tariff passed only after the first states seceded, and could not have passed unless they had, removing their votes from Congress. The Morill tariff was a result of secession, not a cause.
Interestingly, Catholics in the North were the group most opposed to abolition and the Union war effort.
Ouch! ;-)
The links in post #139 above show Union generals with their places of birth, and Confederate generals, but without birthplaces.
But here is a list of over 400 Confederate generals, including their places of birth.
Turns out, they are roughly as diverse a group as those Union generals, with over 20% born outside the Confederacy proper, nearly 10% born in non-slave states or foreign born.
By my count,
I counted 29 northern-born Confederate generals, including:
Overall, it appears that the South had a slightly higher percentage of generals born outside the Confederacy proper, while the Union had somewhat more foreign-born generals.
Interesting subject... these are just rough counts, would be fun someday to do a more careful study.
Wrong again. I simply choose to put idiotic comments in their proper place.
Of course, he committed no such acts, so you pin your opinion on a fallacy. But, I’m not surprised.
So, you are saying that the US never prospered because of the “treason” it committed against England?
And thus the stupidity of such a line of argument is exposed.
Wrong Lee.
Anyway, so you’re saying New Jersey wasn’t a state?
Since you seem to have difficulty understanding this quote, I will carefully explain it to you, in very simple words.
The quotation is ironic. Successful treason ceases to be treason, as it establishes a new order, resistance to which is itself now treason.
The Founders did indeed, by any measure, commit treason against the British Crown.
However, since their treason was successful, it became heroic resistance to oppression instead. As Patrick Henry famously said, "If this be treason, make the most of it."
They did.
Confederates did indeed commit treason against the United States and its Constitution by armed rebellion, which certainly meets the constitutional definition of the crime. None were ever prosecuted for this crime, but that doesn't mean the crime was not committed.
OH, I got the irony of the quote. It is you who failed to see the irony that is you clinging to it.
Do not pretend that it is rational behavior to insult those honoring the memories of the departed; that those who honor the noble dead, should expect your sort of attack. It is you, who need to "get real." If you are so dedicated to getting rid of Obama, stop stirring up ridiculous fights over your jaundiced views of history. People who note past events, that are meaningful to them, do not do so to invite a battle.
William Flax
Bookmarked and will look forward to your similar condemnation of Lost Causers when they slander and insult the memory of Abraham Lincoln.
Yes the North would be fully socialist quasi-fascist by now. The South is the only keeping the socialist maw from totally eclipsing the individual.
Lee made war against the United States, an act of treason.
He admitted it by applying for a pardon. So, was he a liar when he submitted his application for a pardon? Or are you a liar when you assert that he didn’t commit treason?
Choose wisely.
No. It was the Jim Crow south that supported FDR and Wilson as they instituted socialist policies in their terms. It was the Jim Crow south that supported reelection of FDR for multiple terms, a socialist cult of personality.
Jim Crow south supported socialist Democrats. Only now, that Jim Crow has died, and the south is better educated and more diverse (with some exceptions to be sure) does the south routinely vote for the less left wing of the two major parties.
Lee had the humility and good sense to repent of his treason.
Some of those who honor him, not so much.
The Whiskey rebellion didn’t involve slavery. Never said my state was morally superior to any other. Slavery wasn’t in existence in New Jersey in 1861.
New Jersey became a state in 1787. Slavery was abolished in New Jersey in 1846. And no, I never said Jersey wasn’t a state. So which Lee are the ghost of?
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.