Posted on 10/12/2018 7:13:42 PM PDT by 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 couldnt beat Robert E. Lee," Trump said before launching into a monologue about Lee, Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.
"He was going crazy. I dont 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 cant 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. Theres only one problem they didnt know how the hell to win. They didnt know how to fight. They didnt 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 hes 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 thats ever held this office, he said to a crowd in Youngstown.
But not "at pleasure", only from necessity and destructive conditions as itemized in the Declaration of Independence.
No such conditions or necessity remotely existed in 1860 when Fire Eaters began declaring secession at pleasure.
Further, when unilaterally declared secession leads to rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion, declared war and treason against the United States, all possible constitutional protections for it are withdrawn.
All of which you know, but refuse to acknowledge, preferring instead your own historical fantasies.
“...A great general? ...”
Yes. His tactics are still studied in war colleges the world over.
So are Rommel’s. He killed Americans, and British as well in North Africa, and his handiwork was all over Normandy. And he is also considered a great general.
From a purely military tactical and strategic standpoint, yes - he WAS a great general. The context of the word “great” is what is being discussed. As in “he was a military commander that knew and excelled at his trade”.
And as Bull Snipe pointed out, he WAS offered command of Union forces. And because he WAS a Great General, he probably would have caused complete havoc to the Confederate forces had he done so.
You can read it for yourself. It is Article 4, Section 2, Paragraph 3.
It doesn't mean what you wish it meant. It means what the verbiage in it says it means.
I do on occasion. For example, if Jimmy Carter had never been President, the Shah of Iran would likely not have been deposed, and the Million people killed in the Iran/Iraq war would not have died.
Jimmy Carter is indirectly responsible for all those deaths, and all the deaths caused by Iran being taken over by religious nut jobs.
Not going to grant your “at pleasure” prohibition any consideration. The difference between “at pleasure” and “necessity” is completely in the eye of the beholder.
I often wonder what the world would be like today if Nixon had beaten Kennedy in 1960.
DiogenesLamp: "Propaganda and nothing more.
Slavery would have been perfectly safe in the Union, just as it was in the Union slaves states during the war."
First note here DiogenesLamp's word "propaganda" refers to Fire Eaters' "Reasons for Secession" documents -- so you declare Confederate official documents "propaganda" and then presume to tell us what they really meant??
Well, here's the real truth: in 1860 Fire Eaters could not have gotten even 10% of Deep South voters to accept secession on any basis other than protecting slavery.
All this other nonsense you keep posting about -- tariffs and "oppressive" Washington, or "Northeastern power brokers" or "money flow from Europe", etc., etc., all of that meant nothing to average Southern voters.
But protecting slavery did mean something important in the Deep South, so that's what Fire Eaters used.
And regardless of DiogenesLamp's opinions today, there's no evidence Fire Eaters in 1860 didn't believe their own "propaganda", or that they thought slavery less important than any other issue.
All of which DiogenesLamp fully understands, but refuses to acknowledge because it contradicts his favorite historical fantasies.
marilyn monroe would be really old and living with JFK. Hanoi would be flatter
Only because it contradicts your favorite historical fantasies.
In fact, both "necessity" and "destructive" conditions are clearly spelled out by our Founders in their 1776 Declaration of Independence.
Founders never intended to imply that any small group could declare itself "independent" for any reason whatever, or indeed, for no reason -- in other words, at pleasure.
DiogenesLamp: "Ive already shown you that New York clearly regarded the choice to leave as up to the people, and so did Virginia."
But again, only under conditions they listed, including: "necessary", or "perverted to their injury or oppression".
These words are not meaningless, they specifically negate "at pleasure" secession (unless by mutual consent) and refer back to conditions listed in their own 1776 Declaration of Independence.
Again, all of which DiogenesLamp knows but refuses to acknowledge because it contradicts your favorite historical fantasies.
quoting BJK post #315: "A lie which DiogenesLamp well knows but repeats endlessly anyway."
DiogenesLamp: "You very much wish it were a lie, but as I have also pointed out endlessly, every member of Lincoln's cabinet except one said Lincoln's actions in sending that war fleet was going to cause a war."
First of all, Lincoln did not "open fire" first, indeed his orders were, in effect, "no first use of force"
Second, and to your point: so also Franklin Roosevelt's advisers in 1940 told FDR that sending the US Pacific "war fleet" from San Diego to Pearl Harbor would provoke the Japanese and start war.
So what's the difference, DiogenesLamp?
In both cases the US President sent what you might call a "war fleet" to protect US assets & troops, in both cases they were warned it might provoke the enemy, and in both cases that's just what happened.
And yet nobody claims "FDR started WWII" and that's despite the fact that everybody knows FDR, unlike Lincoln, was looking for a way to help out the Brits by getting the US into WWII in Europe.
DiogenesLamp: "Major Anderson immediately realized it was going to cause a war when he heard of the plan.
The decision to go to war was Lincoln's, and everyone around him at the time clearly understood this."
What Anderson & others did not understand was that Jefferson Davis, for reasons of his own, intended to start war at Forts Sumter and/or Pickens, regardless of what Lincoln did, or didn't do:
And Jefferson Davis' response to all this I've posted now several times:
The case of Pensacola then is reduced [to] the more palpable elements of a military problem and your measures may without disturbing views be directed to the capture of Fort Pickens and the defence of the harbor.
You will soon have I hope a force sufficient to occupy all the points necessary for that end.
As many additional troops as may be required can be promptly furnished."
[Jefferson Davis to Braxton Bragg, 3 Apr 1861]"
All of which DiogenesLamp has seen before & well knows but refuses to acknowledge because it contradicts his favorite historical fantasies.
Sorry, but you never "learned the truth", you only swallowed a huge Big Lie, and why?
Because that Big Lie importantly supports your favorite historical fantasies and so you just won't give it up, no matter what, right?
He actually did beat Kennedy, once all the vote fraud (centered around Chicago) was thrown out.
But let's see, Nixon as President would have prevented the Bay of Pigs disaster, Cuba would have been freed, and there never would have been a Cuban Missile Crises.
We would have won in Vietnam, and there would never have been a "Great Society" vote buying scheme that cost us 21 trillion dollars.
Probably history would have turned out a lot better had Nixon actually challenged.
Skip.
Skip.
Because you can't bear any truth which contradicts your own historical fantasies.
DiogenesLamp: " Your normal operating method is to jut launch replies ad nauseum with "Nonsense!" and "Rubbish!" being central components of them, while simply contradicting anything to which you respond."
I call your posts truthfully what they are: fantasy, rubbish & nonsense.
I then tell you what the truth is, even though you don't like to see it.
So you complain it's "boring" and "repetitious"?
Well, the real truth never changes, regardless of how often DiogenesLamp lies about it.
That's why the more often you lie, regardless of how creatively, the more often you'll see the same old boring repetitious truth of the matter.
In that you are correct in my opinion. Lincoln would probably not have taken any action to end slavery in the United States. His opinion was that based on the Supreme Court ruling in Scott v. Sanford, he had no constitutional authority to use the Federal Government to interfere with slavery where it was legal. This, however was not the view of some of the Southern States which chose to withdraw from the Union. Their belief was that a Republican controlled House and Senate in unison with a Republican President would, at some point in time, take action to end slavery as it existed in 1860. The only avenue left, in their view, was to withdraw beyond the power of the Federal Government. Hence, secession was the answer to allay their fears.
Because that's what they taught me in school. In school I learned that the war was about slavery, and the confederates started it. That was the huge Big Lie we were all taught.
I finally learned that the war was about money, and Lincoln started it.
No, i’m just tired of trying to debate with a talking parrot which simply repeats the same stuff that’s already been shot down numerous times before.
DiogenesLamp: "And once again, he cannot legally do that.
The constitution requires the laws of the states that hold them to be obeyed.
It doesn't give him an 'except in the case of rebellion' card to play. "
Of course Lincoln could, and the Constitution does acknowledge distinctions in case of rebellion, insurrection, domestic violence, invasion, declared war and treason.
Our Founders experienced and fully understood that wars include restrictions on "contraband" and also use of slaves promised freedom for service.
In the Revolutionary War both the Brits and Americans promised slaves freedom in exchange for military service, so there was nothing unusual or forbidden about Union behavior on this during the Civil War.
DiogenesLamp: "If the states are part of the Union, the constitution must be obeyed regarding them.
The only out is to declare them not part of the Union, and therefore constitutional law won't apply to them."
Historically speaking, that's exactly what lawyer & Union General Benjamin Butler said, early in 1861, in refusing to return runaway slaves to their Confederate "masters".
But Lincoln himself disapproved, just because of the implied recognition of Confederate legitimacy.
So Congress acted in August 1861 with the Confiscation Act,
DiogenesLamp: "But as i've said, the status of southern states was maintained in a condition of quantum super position, being both in the Union and Out of it simultaneously, depending upon what legal argument needed to be made to do what Lincoln wanted."
"Quantum super position"?
That's a mouthful, brings to mind Schroeder's cat... which both is & isn't simultaneously, in a quantum state.
But I don't think any such physical paradoxes are necessary to define the legal status of Confederate states during the war -- they were in rebellion and normal laws which apply to such states held.
That includes states like Virginia & Tennessee which had huge regions with majority Union loyalists.
Those were treated with all deference as if still part of the Union.
Bottom line: so far as I've ever read nobody ever took your legal arguments here seriously enough to have them tested in the Supreme Court.
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.