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.

[John Leland 1789]

Author Burke Davis, Gray Fox: Robert E. Lee and the Civil War. Astounding documentation of his greatness and positive impact on our history.

[NFHale]

Damn, that’s TOO coincidental... worth looking further into.

Does not seem like a common German name.

[NFHale]

“...Hannibal ....he was also shirtless....”

They did that a lot back then... it was the “thing to do”...
Sort of like Air Jordans in the 90s... except with swords, chariots and war elephants and really pissed off Carthaginians running around. Like a Friday night in my old neighborhood in North Philly.

“..Generals are venerated...”

Not so much venerated as studied. Which was the whole point of my discussion.

True, he was on the losing side. But his tactics and operational art made a whole bunch of Union generals look like chumps before Grant came along and finally the eventual loss.

There is much to be learned by the losing side as much as the winning side.

[jmacusa]

No it isn't a common name in America. I read a bio of Rommel years ago. Have to do some research. My guess is that perhaps Rommel Sr. had a brother. This is where the connection might lie. her grandfather emigrated to America sometime before WW1. My wife did say she remembers as a kid hearing there was a connection. My wife grew up in Irvington, NJ, which borders Newark and in the early part of the century and for some decades after, until the end of WW2 had quite a large German population. I also suspect her family's reluctance to say too much about it had to do with Germany and the Nazis. Incidentally my wife’s father was named Eugene.

[jmacusa]

Isn’t Taney the judge who ruled in the Dred Scott case? I know he was a virulent racist.

[NFHale]

“...This country would have been much better off of his Reconstruction policies had been carried out....”

Probably a lot less bitterness too. We’ll never know.

I always remember the scene from “The Fighting 69th”, where the 69th NY Irishers and the 4th Alabama boys are beating the Hell out of each other at Camp Mills, after a brief exchange of “who shot the pants off who” in the Civil War.

The commanding officer, “Wild Bill” Donovan (played by George Brent) breaks it up by correctly stating the Alabama boys shot up Thomas Meagher’s NY Irishers at Marye’s Heights, then cheered them because they respected their bravery after repeated assaults up the heights. (The movie “Gods and Generals” shows that scene pretty well, in horrible detail.)

He ends it by saying “If you must fight, save it for overseas - you’ll get a belly-full of it over there.”

One of my favorite old movies. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_6YkaAmoUmw

Sometimes, these threads kind of remind me of that... and it’s not worth fighting or arguing over - ESPECIALLY with folks who are allies on almost every other issue.

We have a belly-full of fighting ahead of us beating the Left to save our Country.

[NFHale]

“...family’s reluctance to say too much about it had to do with Germany and the Nazis....”

What a shame for people to have to live like that. They had nothing to do with Hitler and his Socialist morons.

[Impy]

I thought some brainaic might say something like that.

That’s comparing apples to chained up Black guys picking cotton.

[Impy]

Studied by you. And you are correct of course in what you say, 100%.

But Lee has definitely been venerated by others, to the point of bizarre obsession to this Yankee’s eyes (note: Why was this thread started? Because the President saw fit to mention him.). To me he is a tragic figure like Benedict Arnold. Either could have ended up as President if they hadn’t turned their coats.

[Bull Snipe]

Taney was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court when the Dred Scott decision was rendered.

[Bull Snipe]

Never said makes it right. Only that is the law. That is fact.

[central_va]

That wasn’t my question you disingenuous pile.

[central_va]

Preserve the union?

Which union? The Union that existed prior to secession no longer existed so it was impossible to "preserve" that one. The North's Union was was smaller, 18 states instead of 30+ states, and it was under no threat of conquest. The CSA was a Union(confederation) so the war for the North certainty wasn't about preserving that Union. The North was trying to simply conquer that Union. So "preserve the union" doesn't even make sense.

The war for the North was about empire, pure and simple.

[BroJoeK]

Bull Snipe: "Lincoln did not confiscate the slaves of the Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland and Delaware planters.
They were not used against the United States.
He confiscated the slaves in those states in rebellion and at war against the United States."

Right.
It's absolutely critical to DiogenesLamp's fantasy narrative to pretend the same constitutional protections apply to secessionists in rebellion against the United States as to normal citizens.
And it does seem to me that SCOTUS has ruled in recent years something along those lines regarding War on Terror enemy combatants -- US citizens, or even illegal aliens in this country, don't lose their Constitutional rights just because they join & fight for an enemy's army(?!).

But I've read nothing which seriously backdated such rulings to the Civil War or in any way criticized Lincoln's actions based on standards in effect at that time.

My question: who during the Civil War wrote to claim Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to, for examples, confiscate "contraband" or declare Confederate slaves freed?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "If you want me to take you seriously, you are going to have to avoid trying to get me to buy into your crazy comparisons."

The truth is you don't even take this subject seriously but rather imagine you can create whatever cockamamie idea comes to your head and pretend that's real history.

As for a "crazy comparison", the truth is it's perfectly valid and you don't answer it because you can't, so you handwave it away.
Like I said: you simply ignore all facts & ideas which contradict your preferred historical fantasies.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "If your argument is that he [Lincoln] had the right to confiscate anything used in the war effort, why didn't he confiscate their horses, or their cattle, or their homes, or whatever else was used?
If the purpose is to confiscate in defiance of due process, why is this one so narrow?"

Both sides confiscated "contraband", "contraband" defined as pretty much anything of value to the war effort and that certainly included the items DiogenesLamp lists here, plus others.

Neither side used "due process" as DiogenesLamp defines it, meaning a court hearing.
I would be most interested to see quotes from DiogenesLamp where anyone from the Civil War era thought such "due process" necessary.

Confederate armies in Union regions confiscated everything they could and destroyed any "contraband" they couldn't take with them, i.e., railroad bridges.
Sometimes they did pretend to "pay for" things they took with inflated Confederate money, but not that often.

Confederates also took Northern freedmen as slaves for sale in Confederate slave markets.

By contrast Union armies normally lived off their own supply trains and did not molest local civilians for food & other necessities.
And when that policy changed (i.e., Sherman in Georgia) it became a matter of controversy lasting centuries.
But nobody then or now much remarked when Confederates did it.

"Democrats will be Democrats", I think is how they put it.

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "It was *called* an "insurrection" strictly for the purpose of exploiting this power.
It was *called* a "rebellion" strictly for the purpose of exploiting this power.
It was in fact neither one, but because this power could not be used if it was called what it really was, the order went out to continuously call it an "insurrection" or a 'rebellion.' "

Regardless of what, for legal purposes only, it was "called", it was war, indeed Confederates formally declared war on the United States on May 6, 1861 -- after Fort Sumter but before any Union "invasion".

By whichever name you wish to use -- "rebellion", "insurrection", "domestic violence", "invasion" or "treason" -- war granted the President & Congress additional powers, a fact not lost on the Confederate congress which granted Jefferson Davis war powers on April 29, 1861, still well before any Union "invasion".

DiogenesLamp: "Rebellion is a master/slave relationship.
It does not apply to members of equal status.
It does not apply to states leaving an organization of which they no longer wished to be a part, and doing so in a democratic and orderly fashion."

But if those very same "democratic and orderly" people then provoke, start, declare & wage war on the United States, then it doesn't much matter what term you call it, does it?

DiogenesLamp: "But Lincoln could do nothing about it unless he could put forth some sort of figleaf to justify the power he would have to claim to stop them. "

Fort Sumter was a pretty big "fig leaf", wouldn't you say?

DiogenesLamp: "Beyond that, Article IV, Section 2 still says slaves have to be returned so long as they are held by the laws of any state."

I think I know what my problem is with your argument, and you know, I did go back and reread the US Constitution, and do you know what I found?
I found a previously unknown pre-preamble, yes I did!
And what do you think our Constitution's pre-preamble says?
That's right! The pre-premble says:

"Regardless of whatever you might think this Constitution says or means, there is only one authority whose rulings on it are inviolable and eternal and that authority goes by the name of... [wait for it]… yes, DiogenesLamp!!"

So there it is, written right into the pre-preamble: regardless of what Founders thought, regardless of what legal scholars think, regardless of laws & precedent, DiogenesLamp is the only true Constitutional authority whose rulings matter in interpreting the US Constitution.

In other words, whatever he says is so, is so, just because DiogenesLamp said it, no proof, no evidence necessary.

Boy, that pre-preamble puts a whole new perspective on things now doesn't it?

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The USA was not bound by the laws of the Confederacy.
It is bound by the laws of the US Constitution.
Except when Lincoln chose to ignore them, of course. "

But even more important than any of that minor stuff, the USA is bound by the Constitution's previously unnoticed pre-preamble which makes DiogenesLamp's interpretations inviolable, indisputable and final word on what it says & means, period.

So "x", you're simply out of order here.

;-)

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "The term "due process" is a well known legal term of art, and it means a court hearing.
No, congress cannot overturn the 5th amendment without passing another amendment and sending it to the states for ratification."

You well know the US Constitution allows for exceptions when, "Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
So, unless you intend to invoke the pre-preamble, you'll need to show examples of where anybody at the time interpreted the Constitution as you do.

DiogenesLamp: "If you could simply declare someone an "enemy" and therefore not entitled to "due process", then every right can be destroyed by this loop hole.
The burden of proof is on the state.
That is as it should be."

The precise phrase, "the Constitution is not a suicide pact" came from the Supreme Court, Justice Thomas L. Jackson (think Nuremburg trials), in 1949.
But the idea itself goes back to President Jefferson, in 1803, who wrote regarding the Louisiana Purchase:

"A strict observance of the written law is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest.
The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation.
To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to the written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means.[1] [2]"

Of course, Jefferson was a Democrat and, in a sense, this is just a Democrat doing what Democrats do -- ignoring the Constitution.
On the other hand, nobody then or since seriously challenged the Louisiana Purchase in court.

In 1861, President Lincoln said it this way:

"After Chief Justice Roger B. Taney attacked the president for this policy, Lincoln responded in a Special Session to Congress on July 4, 1861 that an insurrection
"in nearly one-third of the States had subverted the whole of the laws . . .
Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated"

Clearly, what Lost Causers like DiogenesLamp wish is for us to make the US Constitution into, effectively, a "suicide pact" such that whenever he or others can think of a clever enough attack on it, we (defenders of the Constitution) must simply throw up our hands and surrender, saying, "you're right, we lose, let's just destroy the United States."

As for limits on the "no suicide pact" idea, President Jefferson himself laid them out: "necessity", "self preservation", "saving our country when in danger".
So it is in no way a "get out of jail free" card, but only means in extremis, sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.

Here's how President Trump said it in 2016:

"Our constitution is great, but it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, okay?"[8]

So let's see, on one side of this argument I have Presidents Jefferson, Lincoln and Trump.
On the other side I have DiogenesLamp invoking the pre-preamble telling me the Constitution is, after all, a suicide pact.

Hmmmm… which should I go with, very tough decision...

</sarcasm>

[BroJoeK]

DiogenesLamp: "Why put forth an "appeal to authority"? Can we not read and understand the law for ourselves?"

I'm pretty sure DiogenesLamp has all along been appealing to the Constitution's hither to unknown pre-preamble which unconditionally grants DiogenesLamp unlimited authority to declare the Constitution means whatever DiogenesLamp says it means, no appeals to other "authorities" allowed.

</sarcasm>