Trump: 'Robert E. Lee was a great general'

The Hill ^ | 10/12/18 | CHRIS MILLS RODRIGO

[yesthatjallen]

President Trump praised Confederate Geader Robert E. Lee as "a great general" on Friday during a campaign rally in Lebanon, Ohio.

"So Robert E. Lee was a great general. And Abraham Lincoln developed a phobia. He couldn’t beat Robert E. Lee," Trump said before launching into a monologue about Lee, Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.

"He was going crazy. I don’t know if you know this story. But Robert E. Lee was winning battle after battle after battle. And Abraham Lincoln came home, he said, 'I can’t beat Robert E. Lee,'" Trump said.

"And he had all of his generals, they looked great, they were the top of their class at West Point. They were the greatest people. There’s only one problem — they didn’t know how the hell to win. They didn’t know how to fight. They didn’t know how," he continued.

Trump went on to say, multiple times, that Grant had a drinking problem, saying that the former president "knocked the hell out of everyone" as a Union general.

"Man was he a good general. And he’s finally being recognized as a great general," Trump added.

— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 13, 2018 Trump has drawn criticism for his defense of Confederate statues, including those of Robert E. Lee.

He drew widespread condemnation last year following a deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., saying that white nationalist protesters were there to oppose the removal of a "very, very important" statue.

"They were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Trump said at the time. “This week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”

Trump, speaking at another rally in Ohio last year, said that he can be one of the “most presidential” presidents to hold office. "…With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office,” he said to a crowd in Youngstown.

[central_va]

never made a claim that it was.

BroJoeK believes the contemporary poppycock that the Union(USA) was in the "fight for its existence"

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "You still dodged the question so maybe you couldn't read it correctly.
I made it larger for possible penetration into that thick JoeK skull.
So can a patriot hate the Federal Government and still love his state?"

You asked an obvious rhetorical question, I gave you rhetorical responses, twice.
First I noted it isn't just state vs. Federal, some people also hate specific cities.
That should have been a big clue.

"Curiously, ahem, some posters reserve their "hate" less for either certain states or Federal government than for some cities, most notably, New York City & Washington, DC."

The second time I spelled it out:

"...the answer is obvious -- love or hate whom you wish, but if you hate your country, then I'd recommend moving to a different one you like better."

To summarize: love or hate whichever political entity you wish, be it township, county, village, borough, town, city, state or country.
But when your feelings of hatred grow so strong they cloud your overall outlook on life, then I'd say: unless you're devoted to political activism, it's time to move elsewhere.
Love it or leave it.

How is that not clear to you?

[Bull Snipe]

In a way it was. If the Confederacy had won it’s independence, the Union as it existed before January 1 1861 would have died.

[DiogenesLamp]

Now this was done after the US congress issued a series of warnings to the people in rebellion, through the second confiscation act, that they had sixty days to surrender or face confiscation of their land and properties. So the emancipation proclamation was constitutional.

An act of congress cannot override a very specific constitutional clause. You must amend it. Article IV, *REQUIRES* slaves to be turned back to their masters if held by state law. It does not allow congress to override it by "confiscation acts".

[DiogenesLamp]

Your wrong. There were people, a minority to be sure, that believed that blacks were just as intelleigent and capable as whites. There was a bigger minority than that believed that they deserved the same freedom as any white man. Abraham Lincoln was one of those people. I think it’s a shame that more didn’t feel that way.

They didn't believe it strongly enough to put forth an amendment to free them. As a matter of fact, they apparently didn't believe it strongly enough to stop the Corwin Amendment from passing congress, and being ratified by 3 northern states. (The Corwin Amendment strengthened protections for slavery in the United States.)

Sounds like they didn't believe it very strongly at all, until it became a cause celebre, and after it was determined that it would be in the interests of empowering the Liberals of that era.

[DiogenesLamp]

Abraham Lincoln is responsible for the deaths of 750,000 people in the war, and as much as perhaps 2 million as a consequence of the aftermath of the war. The sole person deciding to start a war was the man who sent a war fleet to attack the Confederates at Charleston.

Virtually his entire cabinet said he would cause a war by doing this, and Major Anderson in Command of Ft. Sumter also said this would cause a war when he learned of it.

No war fleet, no war.

Of course I have also learned that Lincoln intended to deliberately start a war by the actions of Lieutenant David Porter in command of the Powhatan in Pensacola. It is clear that Porter's orders was to fire on the Confederates near Fort Pickens, and he was only prevented from doing so by the quick action of Captain Meigs.

Lincoln had *TWO* plans to start a war. If he had failed in Charleston, Porter was to start it in Pensacola.

Porter did indeed fire (and with no news of the events in Charleston) on Confederate ships in Pensacola, and were it not for the news that the war had already started in Charleston, Porter's actions would have likely started it in Pensacola.

Porter himself said that he believed at the time his were the first offensive actions of the war.

[central_va]

Union as it existed before January 1 1861 would have died.

So I wonder if it works both ways. So when a territory was admitted to the Union, the Union as it existed prior to that territory becoming a state would have died. Right?

[DiogenesLamp]

That proves my point even better. The Union, as some ill informed would say was supposedly in the existential fight of it’s life, STARTED a huge project like that in the middle of a war. A project that in no way helped war effort. LOL!

It did make a lot of money for powerful interests in Washington DC and New York. If you start looking at events from the perspective of enriching robber barons in New York and Government cronies in Washington, a lot of events make more sense than they otherwise would.

You might find this article of interest.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2011/05/how-the-robber-barons-hijacked-the-victorian-internet/

Wealthy Liberals in the North East trying to control the communications system? Sounds like today, doesn't it?

[DiogenesLamp]

How much was this gift of public land worth to these corporations, and wasn't Lincoln a corporate railroad lawyer?

Cui bono?

[Mr. Mojo]

Yeah, Lee might’ve been our greatest general. At this rate it won’t be long (if we’re not there already) when declaring George Washington to be a great American will be controversial.

[DiogenesLamp]

In a way it was. If the Confederacy had won it’s independence, the Union as it existed before January 1 1861 would have died.

So? The British Union as it existed before July 4, 1776 died, but what remained of it went on to be more prosperous than it had ever been in it's entire history. So did the part that broke away.

And we still celebrate the death of the British Union as it existed before July 4, 1776.

[Bull Snipe]

So you are denying the fact. The U.S. as it existed before January 1 1861 would have remained the same?

[Bull Snipe]

It helped finance the construction of the Transcontinental railroad. As did nearly 60 million worth of 30 year bonds the Gov. floated to help pay the construction costs. Lincoln occasionally did work for the Illinois Central RR.
Don’t think he was on a permanent retainer for them. Nor do I know if he worked for any other railroad.

[Bull Snipe]

sure, why not.

[DiogenesLamp]

So you are denying the fact. The U.S. as it existed before January 1 1861 would have remained the same?

I'm not denying it, i'm merely pointing out it wouldn't necessarily have been a disaster. England went on to become more powerful and wealthy than it had ever been. The Union may have very well done so as well.

[Bull Snipe]

Never said it would be a disaster. Only commented that it would be different.

[DiogenesLamp]

It helped finance the construction of the Transcontinental railroad. As did nearly 60 million worth of 30 year bonds the Gov. floated to help pay the construction costs.

That it was beneficial to the larger public is clear, but what is not clear is whether or not this was the prime consideration in the government getting this involved with the doings of industry.

Lincoln's philosophy of "Mercantilism" did benefit the public eventually, but it benefited the powerful people first. As I've gotten older, i've become cynical as to which master our government serves first.

[DiogenesLamp]

Never said it would be a disaster. Only commented that it would be different.

I've speculated that it would have likely prevented the US intervention in World War I, and preventing that would likely have prevented a lot of subsequent disasters, such as the rise of Hitler and his Nazism.

As a matter of fact, looking at the history following US entry into WWI, I can hardly see how it could have turned out much worse than it did in terms of loss of life and loss of freedoms world wide. I'm not sure a stalemate or a German victory would have been worse than what we got.

Yes, it would have been different. Perhaps better, Perhaps worse, perhaps even nearly the same.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "There is a constitutional clause REQUIRING slaves to be returned to the people to whom their labor is due according to the laws of the state that holds them.
No lesser act of congress can override that.
It simply does not matter what congress says on the subject, because the Constitution itself says they have to be returned."

That is such blatant nonsense I can't believe DiogenesLamp continues to post it with even a smidgen of sincerity.
And DoodleDawg fully answered in post #307, saying Lincoln:

"...was acting under the authority granted the government by the Confiscation Acts, the constitutionality of which were upheld by the Supreme Court in The Prize Cases (67 US 635) in 1862;"

By now DiogenesLamp should well know the 1787 US Constitution fully recognizes possibilities for rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion and treason.
It even allows normal protections to be set aside during such periods, i.e., habeas corpus.
And the Constitution grants ultimate authority in Article 1 Section 8, to:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"

Further, in 1807 President Jefferson and his Democrats in Congress passed the Insurrection Act granting

"authority to President of the United States to deploy military troops within the United States to put down lawlessness, insurrection, and rebellion."

So President Jefferson's Insurrection Act of 1807 is what President Lincoln used to declare the beginning of Civil War in 1861.
It was also the basis for the August 1861 Confiscation Act, which made runaway slaves, aka "contraband" property of the Federal government, to be treated as hired hands.

Lincoln's 1862 Emancipation Proclamation was an executive order to all Federal units under Lincoln's command, declaring Confederate slaves free when they reached Union lines.
Like the previous Confiscation Acts, Emancipation was an act of war under authority of Article 1, section 8 and the 1807 Insurrection Act.

All of which DiogenesLamp well knows but refuses to acknowledge because it shoots down his favorite historical fantasies.

****************************

Note on this map those states & territories colored as "disputed".
By any definition, Confederate efforts to seize those through military force amounted to constitutionally recognized invasion or rebellion, and as such an existential threat to the United States:

[Bull Snipe]

I never speculate on what might have been.