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.

[DiogenesLamp]

Nor did Lincoln’s armies seize all the slaves in the Confederacy.

Come again? How did they not?

[GOPsterinMA]

Oh goodie...another Civil War thread...

First off Hale, you owe no one any explanation. None. Don’t forget that.

Secondly, my family wasn’t here yet. I have no skin in that game. But I’ll ssy this: Abraham Lincoln getting assassinated was the worst event in this country’s history. This country would have been much better off of his Reconstruction policies had been carried out.

[jmacusa]

Rommel had an older sister named Louise. That’s my wife’s middle name. He had two younger brothers Karl(German for Charles) and Eugen(Eugene in English). Her grandfathers name was Karl Eugen Rommel, aka Charles Eugene Rommel. There’s a very close connection but we’ve yet to research it further.

[Bull Snipe]

At the time the last Confederate Army surrendered, the Union army did not occupy all of the South. In addition, most of Tennessee, Tidewater Virginia, Coastal North Carolina, Sea Islands of South Carolina and 13 Parishes in Louisiana were under Union occupation on January 1 1863.

[DiogenesLamp]

You did not answer the question. Which Supreme Court ruling found these laws unconstitutional.

There was a wise man who lived on top of a mountain. He was renowned throughout the community as being very wise. One day a brash young man decided to teach him a lesson. He caught a bird and hiding it behind his back, went to the wise man and said, "Pray tell O wise one, what do I have in my hands?"

The wise man said "You have a little bird in your hands."

"Ah yes", said the brash young man, but is the bird dead or alive?

The wise man responded, "The bird is in your hands."

.

.

The law means whatever the court wants it to mean. It has no objective reality so long as they wish it to mean something it does not actually mean.

They will declare it to be whatever they will.

I am not the least interested in the current courts ruling on other issues. If you do not like their ruling, amend the Constitution.

Because it is completely rational to believe that abortion and homosexual marriage are really constitutional rights?

I think you are refusing to acknowledge the often political nature of the court's decisions. You seem to think we are just going to accept that whatever the court rules is founded on law, and not ideological or political preference.

As i've said on so many other issues, the court's rulings impress me not at all.

Was Plessy v Ferguson ever correct? Did the law change, or did the personal preferences of the Judges change?

[Bull Snipe]

“Till they didn’t”. They only overturned Komatsu. The decisions in Yasui, and Hirabayahi remain in effect. Maybe in a decade or so, the court will overturn the CW confiscation acts. you can only hope.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "What I am saying is that it was Mr. Lincolns war - a war of choice.
A war of choice like WWI, Korea and Vietnam. "

Well, on those grounds you could just as well say the Second World war was also a "war of choice" since neither the Japanese, Italians nor Germans ever seriously threatened the United States homeland.
And yet nobody today doubts WWII was necessary and existential.

Further, "choice" may possibly apply to the 11 states which more-or-less legitimately voted to secede, it certainly did not apply to those eight states -- Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri, Kansas, Indiana & Ohio -- which did not declare secession but were invaded by Confederate forces.
Especially "choice" did not apply to Kentucky & Missouri which Confederates claimed as their 12th & 13th states.

Nor did "choice" apply to those territories -- Oklahoma, New Mexico & Arizona -- claimed & invaded by Confederate forces.
Nor did "choice" apply to others -- California, Colorado & Vermont come to mind -- where Confederate guerillas operated.

So there was no possible way for the Union to avoid war short of abject surrender to all Confederate demands.
Oh, you might say: it was still "choice" to conquer & occupy Confederates, that wasn't necessary.

I'd say: just as it wasn't "necessary" to conquer & occupy Axis countries in WWII.
But nobody I know of today argues we shouldn't have done it or that the world isn't a lot better place because we did.

[Bull Snipe]

If you cannot answer my question, just say so. That will be the end of the discussion.

[DiogenesLamp]

Secondly, my family wasn’t here yet. I have no skin in that game.

Neither was mine. This is why I can be more objective about it.

Abraham Lincoln getting assassinated was the worst event in this country’s history.

I'm thinking perhaps it was his election. Without Lincoln there would have been no war, and if you've read up on how he came to win the nomination, you realize he won by dirty tricks and skullduggery, not to mention a helluvalot of bribery.

William Seward should have been our 16th President. Much bloodshed and destruction would have been avoided. So too would we have avoided the growth of the Federal Monster thus created in 1861.

[DiogenesLamp]

This is not explaining how *all* of the slaves got "confiscated" as a consequence of war.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "People are always trying to make those few states that did issue secession statements asserting slavery as speaking for all the rest, and this is deliberately misleading."

Nooooo, what's totally misleading is to deny the importance of the first four "Reasons for secession" documents in deciding what was truly going on in Fire Eaters' minds in late 1860 and early 1861.
Sure, later other things happened which drove Upper South states to secede, but they did not start the ball rolling.
What started it rolling were states like South Carolina, Mississippi & Georgia which took the time to spell out exactly what & why they did what they did.

And indisputably those states were concerned, first & foremost, to protect slavery.
That's what they & many others said at the time, so why would you call them liars?

[Bull Snipe]

Not all slaves got confiscated as a consequence of war.
Never said they did.

[DiogenesLamp]

Maybe in a decade or so, the court will overturn the CW confiscation acts. you can only hope.

They will never overturn it because a suit cannot be brought, but you are ignoring the fact that at that point in history, the court was going to rubber stamp anything Lincoln wanted.

The closest they came to bucking him was the trial of Jefferson Davis, in which one of the Justices flat out told the Justice department that if they brought Davis to trial, they might lose in the courts everything they had won on the battlefield.

"Secession is not rebellion."

[x]

GOPster in Massachusetts: Secondly, my family wasn’t here yet. I have no skin in that game.

Diogenes Lamp: Neither was mine. This is why I can be more objective about it.

_____

And the comedy never ends around here ...

[DiogenesLamp]

You are attempting to frame the debate on the premise that the court administers rulings in strict accordance with what is the law, and I absolutely reject that premise.

They sometimes do so, but they often adjudicate law in terms of what they prefer it to be, rather than what it is.

I reject your premise that the Supreme Court does not lie.

It lies, and far too often.

[Bull Snipe]

“that at that point in history, the court was going to rubber stamp anything Lincoln wanted”. You opinion only, unsupported by any facts.

[Bull Snipe]

The Supreme Courts ruling are the law of the land. You may call them lies if that makes you feel good, but that in no way alters a cold hard fact, the Court has the last word.

[Bull Snipe]

I reject your premise that the Supreme Court does not lie.
Never claimed they didn’t.
Rule 1. The Supreme Court rulings are law
Rule 2. In case the law is wrong, refer to rule #1.

[BroJoeK]

central_va: "Ok, post reference from the period where one leader or newspaper editorial, either North or South, espoused that position.
One."

Any quotes about preserving or saving the Union will fill this bill, and there are many, many.
For examples:

1. "As to the policy I 'seem to be pursuing' as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt.
   I would save the Union.
   I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution.
   The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be 'the Union as it was.'
   If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them.
   If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them.
   My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery..."
   Lincoln, August 22, 1862

2. "Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
   Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure."
   Lincoln November 19, 1863

I could go on & on, but clearly Union leaders believed Confederates represented an existential threat to the United States.

[Impy]

I’m a glutton for punishment who likes being called a Damn Yankee idiot so I’ll make a series of controversial statements, forgive me rebel FRiends if I have any. I am not a military historian so dime store analysis when I touch on that subject.

1)When Lee got his commission he swore an oath, not to Virginia, to the United States, he broke it. I’ll leave it at that.

2)It’s alleged he was against both secession and slavery but fought for the CSA for “honor” or something. Was he a Klingon? Fighting for something you don’t believe in is profoundly, tragically silly. If he was as great as claimed then if he had commanded the union army he could have ended the war quickly, been one of the greatest heroes in American history. Sad.

3)I always found it bizarre how losing Generals are venerated. Sure Lee had no chance to win but he did indeed lose, the lost cause mythos has built him up into Superman. Hannibal dicked around Italy for 15 years, eventually got handed his @$$, then fled, this was brilliant?

4)This statement isn’t controversial here but I just wanted to mention that there is no chance Hannibal was Black or had any significant Black blood, there may have been Blacks in Carthaginian society but not the upper class. Seeing how he lost I’m confused as to why Black activists are eager to claim him as Black. I saw some thing on the history channel once and he was played by some dude that looked like the Rock, ridiculous, he was also shirtless.

5)This may be my most important point, this ancient history is very interesting but not relevant. Talking about Robert E. Lee isn’t gonna help us win the House, Senate, and key governorships, downballot offices and state legislative chambers, which is what we need to be doing. No Republican candidate or leader should be talking about Robert E. Lee, especially not Corey Stewart.