Robert E. Lee>>>all. [Archive]

Serapindal

02-10-2005, 05:12

Better comparison: not just any Nazi, but one of the top leaders. You can't be so instrumental in the strategy and defense of an immoral system and just flat-out ignore the immorality within it. Robert E Lee very actively supported a government whose primary purpose was to defend slavery (the biggest "states rights" issue at the time was slavery. Had slavery not existed, I guarantee the Civil War would not have happened). At some point it becomes your civic duty to oppose such a corrupt system.
Besides, he took up arms against his home country without any real injustice being visited upon him beforehand. I certainly understand revolution in the face of tyranny, but revolution because you want the right to own other human beings is not excusable.

Actually, many Nazi Leaders plotted against Hitler.

Take Albert Speer for example. Top Nazi. One of the highest up there, and in Hitler's inner circle. Plotted against him, and was going to be a leader of the German Government if July 20th succeeded.

Plus, no one knew about the concentration camps, except a select few soldiers (probably a few hundred at most.) When the Concentration Camps were found, everyone was like "HOLY SHIT!". Even some of the Nazis. Most German Soldiers at the end of the war, fought for Germany, not Nazism, mostly since there were kids of 10 or so fighting too against the soviets...

And plus, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves. >_<

The Black Forrest

02-10-2005, 05:14

Isn't he the only one who was not pardoned after the war?

Seems rather obscene the Nathanial B. Forest was pardoned over him.....

Valosia

02-10-2005, 05:18

Isn't he the only one who was not pardoned after the war?

He was pardoned after his death a century later by the government, apparently after it was discovered that he had signed an amnesty oath after the Civil War.

The Black Forrest

02-10-2005, 05:20

He was pardoned after his death a century later by the government, apparently after it was discovered that he had signed an amnesty oath after the Civil War.

Ahh didn't know that. Thanks!

Did the family ever get back the family artifacts(ie light horse harry stuff and washington stuff)?

Mentholyptus

02-10-2005, 05:21

Plus, no one knew about the concentration camps, except a select few soldiers (probably a few hundred at most.) When the Concentration Camps were found, everyone was like "HOLY SHIT!". Even some of the Nazis. Most German Soldiers at the end of the war, fought for Germany, not Nazism, mostly since there were kids of 10 or so fighting too against the soviets...

And plus, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves. >_<

Look, forget the Nazi comparison. I regret it now due to the fact that we're waaay off track. Lee clearly knew about slavery. The fact that he didn't work actively to abolish it (or at least not, you know, fight for the slave-owning side) means that he didn't oppose it to the degree you would expect in a decent human being. And don't give me crap about "slavery was widely accepted at the time," because it doesn't matter. If Lee owned slaves, he obviously would have conversed with them and recognized their basic humanity. The fact that he (and most other Americans of the time) at least tacitly supported it speaks to the absolutely dreadful brutality of that era. It doesn't make it any less repugnant.

BistroLand

02-10-2005, 05:23

The Confederist have a cool flag. If you go to the south every third house has a confederate flag, which is cool that they are still racist generations later.

The South Islands

02-10-2005, 05:25

The Confederist have a cool flag. If you go to the south every third house has a confederate flag, which is cool that they are still racist generations later.

For many southern households, the confederate flag does not represent racism, it represents a huge part of their history. Many southern families had their ancestors fight and die for what they proceved to be their freedom.

Valosia

02-10-2005, 05:26

Did the family ever get back the family artifacts(ie light horse harry stuff and washington stuff)?

I do know that one of Lee's homes that had been seized was returned to his descendants and promptly bought back by the government. Any of those artifacts however are probably residing in museums by now.

BistroLand

02-10-2005, 05:27

For many southern households, the confederate flag does not represent racism, it represents a huge part of their history. Many southern families had their ancestors fight and die for what they proceved to be their freedom.

I lived in Alabama for 2 yrs. and most of the whites there are racist.

Undelia

02-10-2005, 05:27

The Confederist have a cool flag. If you go to the south every third house has a confederate flag, which is cool that they are still racist generations later.
First of all, flying the Confederate flag often has little to do with racism. Second, that’s a damn lie. Have you ever been to the South?

Norleans

02-10-2005, 05:28

Undelia

02-10-2005, 05:29

I lived in Alabama for 2 yrs. and most of the whites there are racist.
So your experience in Alabama means you get to call all of the South racist. Never mind that Texas is one of the most culturally and ethnically diverse states in the union.

Ham-o

02-10-2005, 05:29

Robert E. Lee was a great man.

The confederate flag does NOT mean racism.

Slavery and genocide are not the same. Look, from the point of today we can say slavery is wrong, and, it is. But back then, slaves WEREN'T people. They were property! In 100 years, people were think we were sick and immoral, just as you think people 100 years ago were now.

Undelia

02-10-2005, 05:30

Achtung 45

02-10-2005, 05:30

wow this actually turned into a legitimate discussion

Eutrusca

02-10-2005, 05:32

Discuss.
Why? :confused:

The South Islands

02-10-2005, 05:32

Plus, Grant was a heartless butcher.

Don't forget Sherman and his infamous "March to the Sea".

Economic Associates

02-10-2005, 05:33

Didn't Lee chose to be a part of the Confederate side because his home state of Virginia seceded from the Union?

The South Islands

02-10-2005, 05:35

Didn't Lee chose to be a part of the Confederate side because his home state of Virginia seceded from the Union?

Yes. Infact, President Lincoln offered him command of the Union Armies, but he refused on the basis that he "Could never fight against Virginia".

Economic Associates

02-10-2005, 05:39

Yes. Infact, President Lincoln offered him command of the Union Armies, but he refused on the basis that he "Could never fight against Virginia".

Well that's interesting. It makes you wonder what would happen if he accepted Lincoln's offer.

Passivocalia

02-10-2005, 05:39

The Confederist have a cool flag. If you go to the south every third house has a confederate flag, which is cool that they are still racist generations later.

Come to Texas. Every third house has a U.S. flag flying alongside the compulsory Texas flag.

No, that's an exaggeration. But it's close.

But the "Confederate" flag most people see is only the battle flag. No one gets offended by the Bonnie Blue Flag or the Stars and Bars. The latest Confederate national flag had the battle flag in the canton, on a white field, with a red vertical stripe on the outside end.

All focus on the Confederacy as a fighting force, with no focus on the Confederacy as a nation. I find that battle flag much less threatening/offensive than the national ones.

Eutrusca

02-10-2005, 05:40

Better comparison: not just any Nazi, but one of the top leaders. You can't be so instrumental in the strategy and defense of an immoral system and just flat-out ignore the immorality within it. Robert E Lee very actively supported a government whose primary purpose was to defend slavery (the biggest "states rights" issue at the time was slavery. Had slavery not existed, I guarantee the Civil War would not have happened). At some point it becomes your civic duty to oppose such a corrupt system.
Besides, he took up arms against his home country without any real injustice being visited upon him beforehand. I certainly understand revolution in the face of tyranny, but revolution because you want the right to own other human beings is not excusable.
You seem to be speaking more out of anger than any sort of historic awareness. States within the United States were still far more imortant entities to many citizens than was the Union. Remember that before the US had the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation. Feelings for your State ran rather high in some states, most notably from Virginia South.

I suspect that if the issue of slavery hadn't ignited the Civil War, some other issue would have. The North was rapidly becoming an industrial society, while the South was still largely agrarian. The tension between these two cultures can still be felt today, and not just between North and South, but between the two coasts and what is called "middle America."

Passivocalia

02-10-2005, 05:40

Its funny then that he probably had to once West Virgina came about.

That is funny! You know. In that tragic, ironic way.

The Seperatist states

02-10-2005, 05:42

Also, he stated a few times in letters to his family that slavery is immoral.

Also, Im a Texan before an American

The South Islands

02-10-2005, 05:42

You seem to be speaking more out of anger than any sort of historic awareness. States within the United States were still far more important entities to many citizens than was the Union. Remember that before the US had the Constitution we had the Articles of Confederation. Feelings for your State ran rather high in some states, most notably from Virginia South.

I suspect that if the issue of slavery hadn't ignited the Civil War, some other issue would have. The North was rapidly becoming an industrial society, while the South was still largely agrarian. The tension between these two cultures can still be felt today, and not just between North and South, but between the two coasts and what is called "middle America."

Thank you, Eut!

On a tangent, it is sad that many people consider themselves residents of their country than residents of their state.

As for me, I am a Michigander before I am an American.

*Waits for flames*

People without names

02-10-2005, 05:43

The Confederist have a cool flag. If you go to the south every third house has a confederate flag, which is cool that they are still racist generations later.

the confederate flag did not always represent racism, that came many years after the civil war, racist using the flag as their own sort of thing.

if a neo nazi group was to use the american flag, (or brittish, or wherever else you may be from) would you consider that flag to be the symbol of nazis?

every since the civil war the confederate flag has been mis used, i do not fly the confederate flag, but have done research and had to write a report on it.

Eutrusca

02-10-2005, 05:44

Thank you, Eut!

On a tangent, it is sad that many people consider themselves residents of their country than residents of their state.

As for me, I am a Michigander before I am an American.

*Waits for flames*
Oh boy. [ rolls eyes ]

The trick is to think of yourself as an American, but to act locally, yes? ;)

Valosia

02-10-2005, 05:46

Look, forget the Nazi comparison. I regret it now due to the fact that we're waaay off track. Lee clearly knew about slavery. The fact that he didn't work actively to abolish it (or at least not, you know, fight for the slave-owning side) means that he didn't oppose it to the degree you would expect in a decent human being. And don't give me crap about "slavery was widely accepted at the time," because it doesn't matter. If Lee owned slaves, he obviously would have conversed with them and recognized their basic humanity. The fact that he (and most other Americans of the time) at least tacitly supported it speaks to the absolutely dreadful brutality of that era. It doesn't make it any less repugnant.

To say that is to say that everyone before that time throughout history was morally repugnant. Slavery is an ancient institution practiced by most of history's most important civilizations. To our standards, yes, but things were very very different even 100 years ago.

If Lee owned slaves, he obviously would have conversed with them and recognized their basic humanity.

"It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."
— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anne Lee, December 27, 1856

It was a common view among both abolitionists and slavers of the time that blacks were inferior. But here we can see that, misguided as he was, he wasn't being malicious. While abolitionists advocated a quick end to slavery, Lee favored a more gradual end. In fact, some have suggested that Lee's alternative may have been more effective for the welfare of blacks in society today, as the abrupt change in southern society following emancipation created a state of fear that spawned such things as the KKK and Jim Crow laws, and that Lee's method may have averted the instant state of poverty all slaves faced upon freedom.

The South Islands

02-10-2005, 05:46

Oh boy. [ rolls eyes ]

The trick is to think of yourself as an American, but to act locally, yes? ;)

Meh, pretty much.

Boy, I tell you what. If I was in the position that Robert E. Lee was in, I'd make the same decision.

Naturality

02-10-2005, 05:51

The Confederist have a cool flag. If you go to the south every third house has a confederate flag, which is cool that they are still racist generations later.

Well I live in the south and can tell you that every 3rd house doesn't have one.. because if that was the case then there are Alot of blacks flying confederate flags!

Eutrusca

02-10-2005, 05:58

the confederate flag did not always represent racism, that came many years after the civil war, racist using the flag as their own sort of thing.

if a neo nazi group was to use the american flag, (or brittish, or wherever else you may be from) would you consider that flag to be the symbol of nazis?

every since the civil war the confederate flag has been mis used, i do not fly the confederate flag, but have done research and had to write a report on it.
Actually, the flag to which most people make reference when they rail about "The Confederate Flag" is really the Confederate Battle Flag, which is:

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7218/confederatebattleflag5hs.gif (http://imageshack.us)

This, however, is the first national Confederated States of America flag:

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/9398/firstcsaflag4ck.gif (http://imageshack.us)

HM Kaiser Wilhelm II

02-10-2005, 05:59

Lee loved the Union. He fought for it in the Mexican-American War and you can tell from his letters and recollections that it was a painful and difficult decision to resign from the U.S. Army and fight for Virginia. Perhaps the reason R. E. Lee is so highly esteemed even to this day is because of his quiet dignity and absolute resolve to do what he saw as his duty. Besides, he was arguably the greatest general ever to come forth from the Americas.

To call Lee a "traitor" for fighting for Virginia, in an era in which many felt they were citizens of their States first, and Union second, is to by definition call the Americans of 1776 "traitors" because they too left their legally-sanctioned government. Only difference is the 1776 rebels won.

Slavery existed in the NORTH longer than it did in the South. Lincoln said repeatedly he had no intention to interfere with slavery, and defended his Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure rather than an abolitionist document. The Proclamation only freed slaves in states in rebellion, which meant the Confederate States; in other words, Lincoln freed the slaves where he had no authority, and left them in bondage in Union-controlled lands. This included the Union states of Maryland, Delaware, Missouri, and Kentucky, and places controlled by the Union army, such as parts of Florida, New Orleans, and other parts of Louisiana and western Virginia.

Slavery was legal in some Union states (Maryland and Delaware particularly) until the 13th Amendment of December 1866, whereas slavery had been ended forcefully in the South months prior.

We cannot responsibly look back at the Americas of the 1860s and judge the past through the standards of society today. Precious few in the 1860s believed black people to be the equal of whites, including Abraham Lincoln himself, who had elaborate schemes to ship the ex-slaves back to Africa because he felt whites and blacks could not peacefully co-exist as freemen. There were intense riots in New York, Detroit, and many other nothern cities protesting the draft after the Emancipation Proclamation was issued, because in the vernacular of the time, the common northerner refused to "die for the darkies."

It was illegal for a black person from out-of-state to move into the state of Illinois (obviously a northern state) until nearly the turn of the 20th century. The penalty for doing so? Flogging. This is merely one example of dozens of other states, North and South, that had similar laws after the Civil War. At least the South, after the War, had some sort of quasi-justification for racist laws, since they could claim this changed society was "forced" upon them, but what justification is there for the northern states with such laws?

Many people, particularly in the United States, are against recognizing marriage between same-sex couples. I believe in 140 years from now, people will look back and remark about how ignorant, evil, and intolerant people were back in 2005, that we refused to even let two people that love each other get married.

It's the same with slavery in the 1860s. It was an accepted, or at least, tolerated social institution that today we see as absolutely morally repugnant, but 140 years ago people struggled with this issue just like the question of gay marriage is struggled with now.

The vast majority of Confederates did not own slaves. The average Confederate soldier did not fight to preserve the right of 4% of the Southern population to keep their slaves. No, people like Robert E. Lee and the typical Southern soldier fought for their country, for their independence, for their States, and increasingly towards the end of the war, to protect their homes, families, and property from the total war being waged by Grant and Sherman.

And if you still think the Union soldier fought for the glorious and noble purpose of freeing the oppressed African slaves from the yoke of Southern servitude, because of the goodness of his Yankee heart, then you are living some sort of warped delusion.

My ancestor, Private William D. Patton, 14th Arkansas Infantry, Company "D", didn't own a slave, probably didn't even know anybody who owned a slave in the dirt-poor part of Arkansas he came from, but he fought for the Southern Confederacy, for the independence of his country, against what he perceived as an unacceptable abrogation of the rights of Southern states and the usurpation of the Constitution by the Northern states. You may call him a "traitor" and you may insult the cause for which he served for two and a half years, but he was a patriot to his short-lived nation and he did his duty as he saw it. What more do we ask for from any soldier?

People without names

02-10-2005, 06:03

Actually, the flag to which most people make reference when they rail about "The Confederate Flag" is really the Confederate Battle Flag, which is:

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/7218/confederatebattleflag5hs.gif (http://imageshack.us)

This, however, is the first national Confederated States of America flag:

http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/9398/firstcsaflag4ck.gif (http://imageshack.us)

yes it very much so is, and that is the flag i also was reffering to. not too many people even know there was another one, but the statement still holds true.

The Nazz

02-10-2005, 06:03

Discuss.
Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country and a second rate general. I've discussed. Happy?

The WYN starcluster

02-10-2005, 06:07

Thank you, Eut!

On a tangent, it is sad that many people consider themselves residents of their country than residents of their state.

As for me, I am a Michigander before I am an American.

*Waits for flames*
Oh come on! Who's gonna fight for Michigan?

Now take New Jersey, there is a state people* will fight for.

---

* New Yorkers & Philladelphians mostly.

Valosia

02-10-2005, 06:09

Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country and a second rate general. I've discussed. Happy?

Second-rate? He was a top notch commander. With inferior equipment and a smaller military he did extremely well against the Union's army.

Undelia

02-10-2005, 06:10

-snip-
Few have a perspective as mature as yours.
Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country and a second rate general. I've discussed. Happy?
Case in point.

The South Islands

02-10-2005, 06:10

Oh come on! Who's gonna fight for Michigan?

Now take New Jersey, there is a state people* will fight for.

---

* New Yorkers & Philladelphians mostly.

Have you ever been to Michigan? Do you have any Idea how pissy we can get? We'll fight over what jelly tastes better.

Believe me, If anyone conquers Michigan, you'd better just nuke the damn place. Your "occupation" will make Iraq look like a daycare center.

Eutrusca

02-10-2005, 06:12

Oh come on! Who's gonna fight for Michigan?

Now take New Jersey, there is a state people* will fight for.

---

* New Yorkers & Philladelphians mostly.
So why did Washington, DC get all the lawyers and Nu Joisey get all the pollution?

Answer: Nu Joisey won the toss! :D

BistroLand

02-10-2005, 06:14

Come to Texas. Every third house has a U.S. flag flying alongside the compulsory Texas flag.

No, that's an exaggeration. But it's close.

But the "Confederate" flag most people see is only the battle flag. No one gets offended by the Bonnie Blue Flag or the Stars and Bars. The latest Confederate national flag had the battle flag in the canton, on a white field, with a red vertical stripe on the outside end.

All focus on the Confederacy as a fighting force, with no focus on the Confederacy as a nation. I find that battle flag much less threatening/offensive than the national ones.

Times have changed when I was in Bama, I was in Bama Feb 99 to June 2001, which is before Sept. 11. After Sept 11 most replaced their confederate flags w/ US flags.

The WYN starcluster

02-10-2005, 06:14

So why did Washington, DC get all the lawyers and Nu Joisey get all the pollution?

Answer: Nu Joisey won the toss! :D
rotflmao!

Thank you I needed - errr ... - deserved that.

Eutrusca

02-10-2005, 06:16

rotflmao!

Thank you I needed - errr ... - deserved that.
Hehehe! Glad I could lighten your ... um ... evening! :)

Undelia

02-10-2005, 06:20

Have you ever been to Michigan? Do you have any Idea how pissy we can get? We'll fight over what jelly tastes better.

Believe me, If anyone conquers Michigan, you'd better just nuke the damn place. Your "occupation" will make Iraq look like a daycare center.
An occupation of Texas would make Michigan look like land of the pussies.

The South Islands

02-10-2005, 06:23

An occupation of Texas would make Michigan look like land of the pussies.

Bah. You have no idea how insane we Michiganers are. Especially the youppers. They are certifiably loony.

We have devious little minds... :D

Undelia

02-10-2005, 06:27

Bah. You have no idea how insane we Michiganers are. Especially the youppers. They are certifiably loony.

We have devious little minds... :D
But how many guns?

The South Islands

02-10-2005, 06:30

But how many guns?

Haven't ypu ever heard of the Michigan Militia?

Between them and the city of Detroit, we have plenty.

BrightonBurg

02-10-2005, 06:33

Speaking as a 19th century history buff, General R.E Lee IMHO, kept the south in the war longer than it should have with his Generalship, beat larger Union armies than his over and over again.

His battles are STILL studied today, I messure the man for what he did at the end of the war, he did not have to surrender at Appomattox Courthouse that day, he could have gone gorrilla, but he did not.

thus start the healing of the union. I will be blunt anyone who says R.E Lee was a " 2nd rate general"

A. has not opened a history book.

B. has not clue one what the F he is talking about, and watches MTV or something, and should stick to talking about Brittany Spears and her stupid husband.

C all of the above.

The WYN starcluster

02-10-2005, 06:33

While I'm still chuckling from all the various banter, my apologies for helping to push us off topic...

{snip} He was a hell of a lot better general than Grant - he was saddled with diminishing resources and an ill equipped, ill trained army. {snip}
Let's talk casualties. Was Lee all that good of a general? Way I hear it ( sic ) the "H.R." dept. of the ANV wanted to take out a contract on him. And not just for Pickets' charge...

The Nazz

02-10-2005, 06:36

Case in point.
Oh--that stung. :rolleyes:

There's nothing mature about refusing to call a traitor a traitor. Regardless of how much Lee agonized over the decision, when push came to shove, he left his sworn duty and sided with traitors--and I'm someone who has been steeped in southern culture his whole damn life, so I've taken my share of shit for this stand, let me tell you. I'm nearly 37, and I've only lived outside the deep south for less than 2 years of that period, so I know the stories about Lee as the hero, the gentleman general, the reluctant Virginian.

Spare me. He chose state over country, when he'd sworn to defend the country. That's treason, no matter how you slice it.

And when you factor in what the south stood for at the time--a backward economy based on slavery and a misbegotten notion of the nobility of agrarianism and a classist system that abused not only blacks but poor whites for the benefit of a privileged few among other things, then Lee's decision to defend it was not only treasonous, it was stupid and short-sighted.

Bigkev7

02-10-2005, 06:36

I have a teacher from a small town in Indiana. When she was a child, a person of color (black) could not stay in the county overnight. I think that Indiana is a little bit to the north, am I right? And on the occupation of Texas vs. Michigan, who has the guns to fight back? ;)

Undelia

02-10-2005, 06:45

Oh--that stung. :rolleyes:

There's nothing mature about refusing to call a traitor a traitor. Regardless of how much Lee agonized over the decision, when push came to shove, he left his sworn duty and sided with traitors--and I'm someone who has been steeped in southern culture his whole damn life, so I've taken my share of shit for this stand, let me tell you. I'm nearly 37, and I've only lived outside the deep south for less than 2 years of that period, so I know the stories about Lee as the hero, the gentleman general, the reluctant Virginian.

Spare me. He chose state over country, when he'd sworn to defend the country. That's treason, no matter how you slice it.

And when you factor in what the south stood for at the time--a backward economy based on slavery and a misbegotten notion of the nobility of agrarianism and a classist system that abused not only blacks but poor whites for the benefit of a privileged few among other things, then Lee's decision to defend it was not only treasonous, it was stupid and short-sighted.
I’m still not understanding why you consider being a traitor to automatically be a bad thing.

Eutrusca

02-10-2005, 06:46

Bah. You have no idea how insane we Michiganers are. Especially the youppers. They are certifiably loony.

We have devious little minds... :D
I had an online affair with a "youpper girl" once. Then she told me she was from Michigan. :D

[NS]Parthini

02-10-2005, 06:48

Hey, all the Founding Fathers were traitors. I guess if you follow Nazz's logic, Ben Franklin is a horrible guy who should be shunned!

The WYN starcluster

02-10-2005, 06:53

I’m still not understanding why you consider being a traitor to automatically be a bad thing.
In a way the U.S. of A. at the time did not consider it such a bad thing. They could have hung him. Which leads me to:
{snip}
I messure the man for what he did at the end of the war, he did not have to surrender at Appomattox Courthouse that day, he could have gone gorrilla, but he did not.
{snip}
Perhaps his greatest achievement. We might still be fighting a low level gorrilla war to-this-day.

The Nazz

02-10-2005, 07:28

Parthini']Hey, all the Founding Fathers were traitors. I guess if you follow Nazz's logic, Ben Franklin is a horrible guy who should be shunned!
This reply is going to be a bit flip, but hey, it's 2:30m in the morning and you haven't exactly set the world on fire with your logic up till now either.

How's this: it ain't treason if there's a reason. The Founders delineated their disagreements with the Crown and wanted a reasonable resolution. The Crown dismissed them and set troops upon them as retribution, at which point they defended themselves.

There is no analogue with the Civil War. Spare me the trite arguments about the right to secession and the theory of nullification--I don't buy them. The South was not aggrieved and was not invaded. They fired the first shots and brought the war upon themselves--ourselves, I should say, as I am a southerner. The two are not similar.

The WYN starcluster

02-10-2005, 08:18

{snip}
How's this: it ain't treason if there's a reason.{snip}
Snappy. I like it - could make a good sig, or national motto.

The Cat-Tribe

02-10-2005, 08:39

Hmmm.

Betrayed his country.

Fought in a bloodbath to defend slavery - one of the worlds greatest evils.

Military excellence perhaps, but also overrated.

Lost.

Great hero. :eek:

Chemica Acta

02-10-2005, 09:22

The cause he fought for had serious shortcomings and his loyalty to that cause is a shameful mark on the record of who is probably the greatest military general of his age. He was a hell of a lot better general than Grant - he was saddled with diminishing resources and an ill equipped, ill trained army. If he had led the northern army the war would have been over much sooner than it was. It's a shame he was blinded to the evil the system he sought to uphold was perpetuating.
For such a true genius he seems rather an idiot for not realizing the dangers of the Minnie bullet combined with Napoleanic traditions, criminally insane for ordering Pickett's Charge, and his entire Northern Expedition was a waste of manpower and resources that exhausted the South. Fool for not understanding that the strategic offensive but tactical defensive was the key to victory during his time(though others did--Longstreet for instance, Jackson is another).
The Myth of REL is so much better than the reality. Decent tactician. Idiot strategist. Lucky as hell to have had subordinates like Longstreet and Jackson.
Someone here pointed out that US Grant was a butcher. Again, we have hit common legend that's really not true(like the oft spoken 'American way of war is pure attrition.'). Go study the Vicksburg campaign for how well Grant could use manuever warfare to get a decisive and low casualty victory.
Grant couldn't afford to lose and if he played it coonservatively he couldn't lose. So that's what he did. Doesn't make him a butcher, makes him a commander who understood the ramifications of losing(like having a Southern army able to sack Washington if his army was disrupted---and what would that do to the length of the war, eh?)
Check out the rather low brow 'How Wars are Won' by Bevin Alxeander and 'From Blitzkrieg to Desert Storm: The Evolution of Operational Warfare' by Robert Citino. Might surprise you as to how the myths of generals are falling.

Leonstein

02-10-2005, 10:32

Take Albert Speer for example. Top Nazi. One of the highest up there, and in Hitler's inner circle. Plotted against him, and was going to be a leader of the German Government if July 20th succeeded.

Plus, no one knew about the concentration camps, except a select few soldiers (probably a few hundred at most.)
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/05/05/Speer_Auschwitz.html
http://journals.aol.com/bmiller224/OldHickorysWeblog/entries/3002
http://www.zeit.de/2005/19/Speer_Verleger (In German - full version of comment above)
Sorry mate, but Speer wasn't one of the good guys.

BackwoodsSquatches

02-10-2005, 10:51

Actually, many Nazi Leaders plotted against Hitler.

Take Albert Speer for example. Top Nazi. One of the highest up there, and in Hitler's inner circle. Plotted against him, and was going to be a leader of the German Government if July 20th succeeded.

Plus, no one knew about the concentration camps, except a select few soldiers (probably a few hundred at most.) When the Concentration Camps were found, everyone was like "HOLY SHIT!". Even some of the Nazis. Most German Soldiers at the end of the war, fought for Germany, not Nazism, mostly since there were kids of 10 or so fighting too against the soviets...

And plus, Robert E. Lee freed his slaves. >_<

Thats not true.

America had possession of pictures of most of the camps by 1941.

We knew.

Also, some of the camps were nearby towns.

You could smell the fat being burned in the air.

They knew.

Neither we, nor the Germans wanted to admit it.

NERVUN

02-10-2005, 12:17

Hmm..
Man: A man of honor and his word, but chose honor and loyalty to his state over doing what was right. However we look at it, in the end he did support a nation built on slaves.

Military: Harder to say, usually a remarkable commander who commanded absolute loyality from his troops and commanders. However, some of his decisions seem to be... more than a little off. Also, it should be noted that his opponent was, for a chunk of the war, some of the worst generals the US has ever fielded (I mean, McClellan? Dear Kamisama, that man was Lincoln's worst mistake!).

Over all, I admire him for his command sence, and his loyalty to what he thought was right, just wish he had actually done what was right.

The Lagonia States

02-10-2005, 12:39

See, the traitor argument doesn't work because it was loyalty that led him to the south in the first place. He was loyal to his family, and his home of Virginia. It was a time of extream sectionalism, and to say he was dis-loyal for siding with his section is just plain ignorant.

He was also very outspoken with his anti-slavery views. He found that slavery creatd an evil in both slave and owner and should be abolished.

Let's not forget that he also spoke out against seccession publicly, but kept quiet once the war started, something many people could learn from today.

Super-power

02-10-2005, 13:00

Robert E. Lee:
During the Civil war, this is the guy that lost for the South by losing in a drinking competition. It was decided that the south would no longer have slaves, but they still didnt have to learn to read or write
[/FamilyGuy] :D

Teh_pantless_hero

02-10-2005, 13:19

First of all, flying the Confederate flag often has little to do with racism. Second, that’s a damn lie. Have you ever been to the South?
I live there, if you are flying the Confederate flag, there is more than a 50% chance you are racist, in fact, more than 90%.

Potato jack

02-10-2005, 13:24

His name rhymes

Americai

03-10-2005, 08:41

Tekania

03-10-2005, 13:06

Robert E. Lee = a traitor. By definition as well as in spirit. Fought to defend one of the most morally repugnant systems ever to exist in the United States. Even if he was fighting for "state's rights," he still fought to defend a government that supported slavery. Saying that he wasn't really fighting for slavery is like saying that a Nazi wasn't fighting for the domination of the "master race," but instead merely defending Germany's sovereignty. Some governments forfeit the right to existence by means of their actions, and any who support it (unless they are threatened with death for not doing so) is guilty of the same crimes by association.

"Save in defense of my state. I shall never desire again to raise my sword." - Robert E. Lee to Winfield Scott, resigning his commission in the United States Army, and declining offer of Command of the Army of the Potomac in early 1863.

Lee fought for Virginia.... Virginia fought, because Virginia refused to act to support invasional policies by Lincoln; instead wanting to attempt peacefull negotiation (which was refused by Lincoln). The secession and activation of Virginia Militia forces was for the purpose of, as stated by the Govenor with authorization by the House of Delegates and Senate "that no foreign force will cross this state with the purpose of invading another one" and "that Virginia will take no part in the forcefull invasion of another state". Lee was in service of his state, and his state alone (being commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, under the direct civil authority of the Virginia Commonwealth and her government and elected officials)... The Virginia governments position was militantly pacifist... and therefore (to assume association) that was Lee's position [which matches up with his complete response to General Scott months before the Legsilatures in Virginia even reached the point of submitting a state-wide refferendum on the issue of secession, whereby the majority of the population of the Commonweath of Virginia decided to withdraw their ratification of the United States Constitution, returning all representative power of the people back into the hands of the Republican form of Government of their own elected State powers (a right in reservation by the official ratification document submitted to the Constitutional Congress by this Commonwealth when approving the Federal Constitution)].

In act case, you have demonstrated an incomplete, and problematic viewpoint of U.S. History.... seemingly ignorant of the complete picture of that day and age, the operations of the people on both sides of the "border"... And operate in a very "revisionist" manner, rewriting history to best suit your ideal (and therefore, are no better than much of the Christian Reivisionist crap that spews from the mouths of fundamentalists, and other such people, at this time).

Tekania

03-10-2005, 13:10

BackwoodsSquatches

03-10-2005, 13:16

An occupation of Texas would make Michigan look like land of the pussies.

Michigan resident here.

Gotta tell ya, the idea that Texas is full of gun totin' rednecks is fairly true, but Michigan is the state with the biggest population of hunters, (rednecks with guns)and all kinds of people waiting to be at the next Ruby Ridge.

Look up a little thing called "The Michigan Militia".

Michigan residents generally like Beer, Guns, and summer.
In that order.

PostEUBritain

03-10-2005, 13:34

Admittedly, the slavery issue was an underlying cause of the Civil War. Yet the Union also had slave states, and Lincoln's emancipation proclamation freed only the slaves in the South, not in the North. Lincoln's proclamation was a political decision, taken to swell the ranks of his army and prevent European intervention on behalf of the South. Lincoln himself a few years before the civil war made it quite clear that he did not consider blacks to be equal to whites.

If I remember correctly it was in late 1864 that Robert E Lee persuaded the Confederate government to adopt a policy of freeing any slaves & their families who would fight on behalf of the Confederacy. In strategic terms, too little too late.

Were Robert E Lee's personal views on slavery any worse than those of Lincoln? He fought for the South based on States' rights, not based on slavery.

The civil war was in progress long before Lincoln's emancipation proclamation. Slavery can only considered to be an indirect cause.

The Southern States had chosen to join the union; the direct issue was whether the Northern states could force the Confederacy to remain in the Union. As a 'democrat' (believer in democracy, not the US political party) I cannot see any moral basis for the North's actions. The South wished to leave the Union, so the North went to war. (Okay, I know...the South fired the first shots but no-one was killed at Fort Sumter). If a state decided to leave the Union today, would the rest really declare war and cost hundreds of thousands of lives based on an ideal of political union?

Robert E Lee's actions have to be seen in this light. At the time, the US had less of a federal identity than it does today. Many considered their loyalty to their home state to be higher than their loyalty to the US government.

Robert E Lee was required to choose between state and country, and he did so on a point of principle. History always judges the losers harshly, yet even in surrender Lee maintained his dignity - virtually forcing the Confederate government to surrender for humanitarian reasons. Had he not done so, there would have been even more harsh feeling and bloodshed.

Syniks

03-10-2005, 17:34

Wallonochia

03-10-2005, 18:06

Another Michigander here.

I'd also have to say that I'm a Michigander first, and an American second. Because I have to think that if the United States for some reason were to invade Michigan, which side would I take? I'd have to side with Michigan. It's my home, my culture, and my people. How could I fight against that?

Texans are more vocal about their state pride, but Michiganders are just as proud. We don't say it because to us its implied. We live in our own little world up here with Michigan as its center. To us things happening out of state are a bit of an abstraction and don't seem all that important to us.

An occupation of either Texas or Michigan would be quite difficult. Texas more so because they have more than 2x our population.

Also, we have a lot of guns. You may think "North" and assume Mass or NY, but we're nothing like them. Michiganders have historically been quite ready to defend their state, look at the Toledo War where we almost fought a war against Ohio.

I think the central issue to whether or not Lee was a traitor is the definition of traitor. I think we can all agree that traitor is someone that fights against their country. I think its clear that Lee believed Virginia to be his country, not the United States. This is hard for a lot of people to grasp these days, with our modern society being inundated with images of eagles, red white and blue, and other assorted patriotic American things. Those sorts of things didn't really start until much later than the Civil War. Many, and most in the South it seems, had much greated loyalty to their state than to the Federal government. Back then the vast majority never left their state and the only way the Federal government touched their lives was the post office. It was an entirely different world.

Also, before the Upper South seceded there were more slaves in the United States than there were in the Confederacy. And the Upper South seceded because they didn't believe it was right for the United States to prevent the secession of the Deep South.

Interesting tidbit. Here's a link to the Michigan state song that was written in 1862. A couple of stanzas I'd like to point out.

Warning, its a PDF (http://www.michigan.gov/documents/hal_mhc_mhm_mich-my-mich-song_53148_7.pdf)

Thou gav’st thy sons without a sigh,
Michigan, my Michigan,
And sent thy bravest forth to die,
Michigan, my Michigan.
Beneath a hostile southern sky
They bore thy banner proud and high,
Ready to fight but never fly,
Michigan, my Michigan.

This clearly implies they were flying the banner of Michigan, not the United States.

And often in the coming years,
Michigan, my Michigan,
Some widowed mother ’ll dry her tears,
Michigan, my Michigan,
And turning with a thrill of pride,
Say to the children at her side,
At Antietam your father died,
For Michigan, our Michigan.

And this says quite clearly that those soldiers died for Michigan. Note that nowhere in this song is the United States mentioned. So perhaps some Northerners were fighting for the side that their state picked, much like Lee was. Just a thought.

Sarzonia

03-10-2005, 18:11

Robert E. Lee was a traitor who should have been tried and convicted as such for making war against the United States.

Tekania

03-10-2005, 18:14

Harry Turtledove - no slouch in the research department - wrote a novel called "The Guns of the South", part of which was a postulation of what happened after the South "won".

Using document's of Lee's as resources, he proceeded to show how Lee, as elected President of the CSA, began the grandfathered elimination of Slavery in a planned and comprehensive manner that resulted in true emancipation for the Blacks (without Jim Crow and assorted other BS) much sooner, with less racial tension, than the 1960s.

Yes, fiction, but likely accurate nonetheless.

You have to watch out; such truths fit about as well with theses revisionist historians as does trying to explain to people that the Union ironclad Monitor never fought against the Merrimac (nor indeed was there even a confederate ship named "Merrimac", and the only union ship named that wasn't even commissioned till 1864...) Questioning the reliability of their soddy education in history does not suit them well.

The South Islands

03-10-2005, 18:17

You have to watch out; such truths fit about as well with theses revisionist historians as does trying to explain to people that the Union ironclad Monitor never fought against the Merrimac (nor indeed was there even a confederate ship named "Merrimac", and the only union ship named that wasn't even commissioned till 1864...) Questioning the reliability of their soddy education in history does not suit them well.

To be a pain, the Monitor fought the CSS Virginia. The name Merrimac was the name of a half-built frigate being constructed in Norfolk. It does not show up in US records because it was never officially commissioned.

Moses Land

03-10-2005, 18:20

The Southern States had chosen to join the union; the direct issue was whether the Northern states could force the Confederacy to remain in the Union. As a 'democrat' (believer in democracy, not the US political party) I cannot see any moral basis for the North's actions. The South wished to leave the Union, so the North went to war. (Okay, I know...the South fired the first shots but no-one was killed at Fort Sumter). If a state decided to leave the Union today, would the rest really declare war and cost hundreds of thousands of lives based on an ideal of political union?

To answer the question of why the North needed to keep the Union together, I refer you to this quote from Jeff Shaara's historical-fictional book Gods and Generals. This is said by Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, then a teacher at Bowdoin Collage, Brunswick, Maine in July of 1862.

"I am embarrassed to tell you that I am among those who never believed this country would fall into this situation. I always have felt that we are a nation that is very different...unique, perhaps. We were founded by thinking men, brilliant men, men who designed a system where conflicts were resolved in debate, where the decision of the majority would prevail. These men had confidence in that majority, they had faith that the design of the system would, by definition, ensure that reasonable men would reach reasonable conclusions, and so we would govern ourselves, all of us, by this new type of system, a system where our conflicts and differences would be resolved by civilized means. There is no other system like this, anywhere. And if this war is lost... if the rebellion is successful, it is possible there may never be another.

"Those who lead the rebellion are trying to prove a point... a point that we are not one nation, that we are a group of separate countries, we are Maine, and Vermont, and Virginia and Georgia and Texas and New York... and that if any one of us disagrees with the policies of the Federal government, we have the right to erase whatever binds us together, disregard the existence-or the importance-of the Union. They have simply said 'We quit-and if you don't approve of our right to quit, then you will have to send a great army down here and point your bayonets at us and maybe shoot us, and you may expect that we will do the same for you."

Chamberlain later served in the Union army.

Sarzonia

03-10-2005, 18:24

To be a pain, the Monitor fought the CSS Virginia. The name Merrimac was the name of a half-built frigate being constructed in Norfolk. It does not show up in US records because it was never officially commissioned.Actually, the CSS Virginia was built on the hulk of the steam frigate USS Merrimac, which actually saw active service in the USN before it was scuttled and its hulk used as the basis for the Virginia.

Tekania

03-10-2005, 18:59

Actually, the CSS Virginia was built on the hulk of the steam frigate USS Merrimac, which actually saw active service in the USN before it was scuttled and its hulk used as the basis for the Virginia.

Nope... still wrong...

The CSS Virginia was built from the destroyed (and sticken) hulk of the U.S. Navy's Steam frigate Merrimack.... (with a "K", and the USN did not use "USS" at the time...)... The Merrimack was a ~4,600 ton steam powered frigate commissioned in 1856, built in Boston, and served untill she was registered as destroyed in 1861 (after which she was salvaged by confederate forces, and used to build the CSS Virginia)...

On the other hand, the Merrimac (a 600 ton side-wheeled steamship) was commissed in 1864, (originally built in England, and iniitally operated by the Confederate Navy as a blockade runner from 1862-1863), she was Captured by the Union frigate Iroquois, and then commissioned and put into use as a union gun-boat untill she was destroyed in 1865 during heavy sea conditions while enroute to the Gulf of Mexico.

Dishonorable Scum

03-10-2005, 19:11

Oh boy, I love coming in on one of my favorite topics much too late to do any good! ;)

Robert E. Lee has become a central part of the Southern mythology of the "Lost Cause". Which isn't to say that much of the myth of Robert E. Lee isn't based on fact; I'm using "myth" in its original sense. Lee was a dignified man and an outstanding general who fought for the state of Virginia, and thus for the Confederate States, for reasons that most modern Americans simply don't understand.

And, no matter how good a general he was, he didn't stand a chance of winning the war. Most historians of the "Lost Cause" (and indeed, most American historians in general, both northern and southern) concentrate far too much on the Confederate land campaign, to the exclusion of the naval and economic reasons for the South's defeat. Bluntly, the South did not have the economic base necessary to fight a modern (for the 1860s) war, while the North did. The Confederates did not have the iron works or ammunition factories needed to supply its armies, and had to import almost all of its arms and ammunition from Europe. The Union Navy blockaded the Southern coastline and methodically closed all of its ports to shipping, despite innovative tactics by their Confederate Navy counterparts. The last open Confederate port, Wilmington NC, fell in February 1865. After that, Lee's army had no source of supply, and was forced to surrender eight weeks later. It doesn't matter how good a general you are if your army is out of ammunition.

But economic history is boring. It's far more romantic, and much better for Southern morale, to focus on the superiority of the Southern generals, particularly Lee; generalship is practically the only area where the Confederate Army had an edge, after all. Never mind that the South was outnumbered and lacked an industrial base; Lee was heroic, and glorious, and all of that. Grant, on the other hand, anticipated World War I by heartlessly throwing wave after wave of men into withering enemy fire, and Sherman anticipated WWII by attacking what little industry the South did have. They may have got the job done, but they were just butchers compared to Lee, Jackson and Forrest. Too bad for the Confederacy that the future of war belonged to men like Grant and Sherman.

It's high time for the South to get rid of the myths it has made of its history. Focusing on the supposed (and largely illusory) glory of the antebellum South and the Confederacy is part of what kept the South down for more than a century after the end of the war. The Old South was what it was - a stratified agrarian society based on slave labor. There is little admirable about such a society, and it was already becoming an anachronism in its own time.

Druidville

03-10-2005, 19:17

The Confederist have a cool flag. If you go to the south every third house has a confederate flag, which is cool that they are still racist generations later.

Blanket Condemnation is the refuge of the ignorant.

Passivocalia

03-10-2005, 19:28

And, no matter how good a general he was, he didn't stand a chance of winning the war. Most historians of the "Lost Cause" (and indeed, most American historians in general, both northern and southern) concentrate far too much on the Confederate land campaign, to the exclusion of the naval and economic reasons for the South's defeat . . .

I think the best prospects for a Confederate victory lay in diplomatic recognition by European powers.

Harry Turtledove's (love the books!) fictional How Few Remain / Great War series focuses on a twentieth century world in which the CSA does exist.

The scenario is that Lee's famous lost orders were never found before the battle of Antietam, McClellan never finds out Lee's specific plans, and the Battle of Antietam never occurs. Instead, the Confederates score another major victory in Union territory and make it all the way to Philadelphia (going around Washington; it's still heavily fortified, remember).

In this scenario, Lincoln lacks the Union victory he needs to legitimise an Emancipation Proclamation. England and France inform the USA that they will intervene if Confederate independence is not recognized, and Lincoln reluctantly agrees.

Back to reality. England and France had the whole slavery issue blocking them from recognizing the CSA, and Davis's initial "King Cotton" embargo against them didn't help very much. Still, I'm one of those who believe that a few more twists and turns could have scored a Confederate victory by virtue of European recognition. Do we know if Lee had this in mind?

Tekania

03-10-2005, 19:38

-snip-

Well, there has been invented contention between industrial and agragarian social forms, however, in the end, neither can fully operate without the other. And neither should be seen in contention....

After all, manufacturing an Air-Jordan sneaker, doesn't say much if you're going to starve to death in the process, lacking the capability to feed yourself (Let's see New York City, in example, feed itself without importing goods from agragarian regions of the United States, or anywhere else)....

If anything, it shows the eventual doom that will overcome future society, as back-stabbing, deceit and butchery become effective "virtues", and honesty, honor, integrity and compassion become hinderances... It's human devolution.... Returning to animalistic instincts and practices, and a loss of what is effectively "humanity".

Southerners like Lee, Jackson, and Stuard; I honor for thier integrity, and honor.... Holding out remarkably given the poor state they had to work in.... And also Northerner's like Chamberlayne... who demonstrate some of the same character and integrity as found in some of the great southern generals. Men who realized that HOW you play the game is just as important, if not more so, than winning... That winning means little if you have SURRENDERED everything you began fighting for in the first place...

Tekania

03-10-2005, 19:48

I think the best prospects for a Confederate victory lay in diplomatic recognition by European powers.

Harry Turtledove's (love the books!) fictional How Few Remain / Great War series focuses on a twentieth century world in which the CSA does exist.

The scenario is that Lee's famous lost orders were never found before the battle of Antietam, McClellan never finds out Lee's specific plans, and the Battle of Antietam never occurs. Instead, the Confederates score another major victory in Union territory and make it all the way to Philadelphia (going around Washington; it's still heavily fortified, remember).

In this scenario, Lincoln lacks the Union victory he needs to legitimise an Emancipation Proclamation. England and France inform the USA that they will intervene if Confederate independence is not recognized, and Lincoln reluctantly agrees.

Back to reality. England and France had the whole slavery issue blocking them from recognizing the CSA, and Davis's initial "King Cotton" embargo against them didn't help very much. Still, I'm one of those who believe that a few more twists and turns could have scored a Confederate victory by virtue of European recognition. Do we know if Lee had this in mind?

I don't think Lee did, but that certainly was some of the motivations found in Virginia's own government at the time (who had wanted a peacefull end ever since the beginning of the whole mess)... Lee, himself, wanted to invade Washington from the north (Washington was heavily fortified, but only along the Potomac)... not to "invade" per se, but to deliver a cease-fire agreement on behalf of the South, and more particularly, Virginia; to bring a peacefull close to the war (such attempts by normal channels went ignored....)...

I agree that all it would have taken is some few twists to change the course of the war... And while union naval superiority gained in 1865, means little (given that the war was already closing by then, since the ANV's loss at Gettysburg)... it was a slight factor.... There are so many slight factors.... Hell, the secession might not even had ammounted to much had Lincoln not ignored peace envoys, and the attempts by pre-secession Virginia to offer settlement (effectively, the secession would have been confined to the cotton-states alone; Virginia, NC, Tenessee, etc. not even bringing secession to question)...

This is of course, all speculation, when dealing with such twists, if's could be thrown everywhere...

Osutoria-Hangarii

03-10-2005, 20:11

People make mistakes

How could Lee have known when he pledged allegiance to the USA that it would attack his home?

I can't call him a traitor

Americai

04-10-2005, 07:01

People make mistakes

How could Lee have known when he pledged allegiance to the USA that it would attack his home?

I can't call him a traitor

I think you mean, "that his home would attack the UNITED STATES"?

Hello son, the name Fort Sumter ring a bell or two? Or has your state not taught you how the war began.

If your not into the FEDERAL republic system this nation was FOUNDED ON, then your a confederate traitor bastard to begin with.

Osutoria-Hangarii

04-10-2005, 07:09

I think you mean, "that his home would attack the UNITED STATES"?

Hello son, the name Fort Sumter ring a bell or two? Or has your state not taught you how the war began.

If your not into the FEDERAL republic system this nation was FOUNDED ON, then your a confederate traitor bastard to begin with.

The CSA gave them plenty of time to clear out of Sumter. They didn't wanna rent it out, so they repossessed it. And as far as being compelled to be 'into' the federal republic system, that's a crock of bull. They were being taken advantage of, and they decided not to put up with it anymore after Lincoln was inaugurated. They had (and still have) the right, and they used it.

The Nazz

04-10-2005, 07:15

They had (and still have) the right, and they used it.
If the Civil War proved anything, it proved that they didn't, and don't have that right, and that any further attempt to defend that right will be summarily put down with extreme prejudice.

Osutoria-Hangarii

04-10-2005, 07:18

If the Civil War proved anything, it proved that they didn't, and don't have that right, and that any further attempt to defend that right will be summarily put down with extreme prejudice.

This might sound like tree-hugger bullshit, but it's true:

War doesn't determine who's right, it determines who's left. I believe the CSA had every right in the world to secede, whether they accomplished it or not. :/

The Nazz

04-10-2005, 07:25

This might sound like tree-hugger bullshit, but it's true:

War doesn't determine who's right, it determines who's left. I believe the CSA had every right in the world to secede, whether they accomplished it or not. :/
I've long looked at the Civil War as a debate over the states' right to secede from the Union--a bloody, disastrous debate, but a debate nonetheless, and a debate that was going to have a definitive winner, i.e. the secessionists or the unionists. The Union carried the day in the debate, and thus the right to secede was found to not exist. That's been backed up by the fact that in the succeeding decades since that debate, there's been nary a peep about secession, not in any real sense.

Osutoria-Hangarii

04-10-2005, 07:45

Americai

04-10-2005, 09:44

The CSA gave them plenty of time to clear out of Sumter. They didn't wanna rent it out, so they repossessed it. And as far as being compelled to be 'into' the federal republic system, that's a crock of bull. They were being taken advantage of, and they decided not to put up with it anymore after Lincoln was inaugurated. They had (and still have) the right, and they used it.

Taken ADVANTAGE of? Who the HELL is teaching you history? And the hell type of parental upbringing did you get?

Lincoln won because the south was stupid. They had TWO nominees that divided the presidential vote in the south. So because THEY sabatoged their own voting power, its the federal republic's fault they are being mistreated? They had NO justification for it. Lincoln didn't want to free the slaves, he wanted to STOP further creation of slave states due to it being immoral and hypocritical to our republic's principles. He, NOR the government were planning to "steal property" from southerners as you and your ilk would like to believe.

Their justification was just immoral and unjustified prejudice.

Tekania

04-10-2005, 12:11

Tekania

04-10-2005, 12:18

I've long looked at the Civil War as a debate over the states' right to secede from the Union--a bloody, disastrous debate, but a debate nonetheless, and a debate that was going to have a definitive winner, i.e. the secessionists or the unionists. The Union carried the day in the debate, and thus the right to secede was found to not exist. That's been backed up by the fact that in the succeeding decades since that debate, there's been nary a peep about secession, not in any real sense.

Problem: In example...

1. Secession was recognized and included in the ratification document sent from the Commonwealth of Virginia to congress...
2. Virginia's secession was based on that already established point of it's initial ratification.

So, if you assume secession was illegal, then Virginia's initial ratification was not legitimate, and war carried about by Federal Fources against that independent Republic was imperialistic and illegal, just as much as it would be if we were to assume secession WAS legal.

Historically, however, Pre-Civilwar; NO ONE had ruled secession illegal, and no one WON a debate in opposition to it... In fact, in the 1840's, a congressional debate ensued over the very issue over Massachusetts wanting to seceed..... The argument favored the secessionists (lincoln being very supportive and arguing for secessionists at the time).... Though Massachusetts never actually did it.

The Nazz

04-10-2005, 13:38

Problem: In example...

1. Secession was recognized and included in the ratification document sent from the Commonwealth of Virginia to congress...
2. Virginia's secession was based on that already established point of it's initial ratification.

So, if you assume secession was illegal, then Virginia's initial ratification was not legitimate, and war carried about by Federal Fources against that independent Republic was imperialistic and illegal, just as much as it would be if we were to assume secession WAS legal.

Historically, however, Pre-Civilwar; NO ONE had ruled secession illegal, and no one WON a debate in opposition to it... In fact, in the 1840's, a congressional debate ensued over the very issue over Massachusetts wanting to seceed..... The argument favored the secessionists (lincoln being very supportive and arguing for secessionists at the time).... Though Massachusetts never actually did it.
All of which is irrelevant to the facts on the ground, namely, that there was a "debate" on the matter, and that the secessionists lost that debate, rather handily as a matter of fact, and that the crux of that debate has never come up again for serious discussion.

Wallonochia

04-10-2005, 13:43

If the Civil War proved anything, it proved that they didn't, and don't have that right, and that any further attempt to defend that right will be summarily put down with extreme prejudice.

Question: Would you be willing to die to keep another state in the United States? Is the idea that no state can leave the Union so important to you that you'd honestly be willing to lay down you life for it? Or the lives of your children?

Also, I thought the United States was built on the principle of self-determination. How would it be right, if a majority of the people in a given state were to vote for it, to not let them leave. Is this mystical attachment to the United States government that important? I know that we're brought up these days to have an almost religious attachment to the United States, with Lincoln as our Christ. I just don't believe it. To me the US Govt is the means to an end, not the end itself.

A question for those of you who think Lee was a traitor. Imagine if you will that your state seceded and the Federal govt was preparing to invade. It doesn't matter why, this is just a hypothetical situation. Would you be willing to join the Federal forces massing on your states borders and go back in and kill your friends, family, neighbors? People you know would stay and defend their state. Is the Church of Lincoln so important to you that you'd be willing to shoot your best friend because he wanted out of it?

Oh, and before someone calls me a "Confederate" or accuses me of supporting slavery, let me just say that I'm from Michigan. Born and raised. You'd be amazed at the amount of people here who put the state before the Fed. And I'd bet if you looked around you'd find a lot of people near you who believe like I do.

The Nazz

04-10-2005, 13:59

Question: Would you be willing to die to keep another state in the United States? Is the idea that no state can leave the Union so important to you that you'd honestly be willing to lay down you life for it? Or the lives of your children?Personally, there is very little I'd be willing to die for--my daughter, my family, and if the circumstances warranted it, the survival of my country were we to be invaded. But when I made my argument above, I was talking about political reality as it stands--secession was tried and it failed, and with the growth of federalism to the point it is now, any further attempt would be met with a crushing response immediately. States are too beholden to the federal government to even consider seceding these days.

Also, I thought the United States was built on the principle of self-determination. How would it be right, if a majority of the people in a given state were to vote for it, to not let them leave. Is this mystical attachment to the United States government that important? I know that we're brought up these days to have an almost religious attachment to the United States, with Lincoln as our Christ. I just don't believe it. To me the US Govt is the means to an end, not the end itself.
I know there are people who consider themselves citizens of a state first, and of the country second--I'm not one of them, perhaps because I've lived in 5 states now in my 36 years, and may live in a dozen more before it's all over for all I know. I have an emotional connection to the state I lived longest in, but I owe it no political allegiance. I'm an American first. When I sing the national anthem, I'm singing it to my country, not my state. When I say the pledge, I'm saying it to my national flag, not my state flag. And my nation is far more powerful than any loose confederation of states could ever hope to be--the US is far greater than the sum of its parts.

A question for those of you who think Lee was a traitor. Imagine if you will that your state seceded and the Federal govt was preparing to invade. It doesn't matter why, this is just a hypothetical situation. Would you be willing to join the Federal forces massing on your states borders and go back in and kill your friends, family, neighbors? People you know would stay and defend their state. Is the Church of Lincoln so important to you that you'd be willing to shoot your best friend because he wanted out of it?Honestly, I'd sit on my ass on the sideline and wait for the feds to come in and crush the resistance. It's not an either/or situation. I'd opt out.

Oh, and before someone calls me a "Confederate" or accuses me of supporting slavery, let me just say that I'm from Michigan. Born and raised. You'd be amazed at the amount of people here who put the state before the Fed. And I'd bet if you looked around you'd find a lot of people near you who believe like I do.
I grew up in Louisiana, still live in the deep south, and other than the nearly two years I lived in California, have lived in the south my entire life. You'd be amazed how many people I know think like I do--that this emphasis on the lost cause and the "heroic" south is a waste of time and harmful to the future of the area. It takes all kinds.

Tekania

04-10-2005, 14:14

All of which is irrelevant to the facts on the ground, namely, that there was a "debate" on the matter, and that the secessionists lost that debate, rather handily as a matter of fact, and that the crux of that debate has never come up again for serious discussion.

Debate = meaningless....

The PEOPLE decided to leave (remember, WE THE PEOPLE?)... I guess you don't believe in what the United States was supposed to stand for....

Legally, and factually, Virginia had the right to seceed (if they did not, then they never joined), in either case, your debate shows you as fundamentally incompitent in discerning fact from fiction... Virginia's ratification document (submitted to, and accepted by, and thus LEGALLY BINDING) grants the people of Virginia to, being the power by which the Constitution is granted authority, RESERVE THE RIGHT, to take back on all such powers, being itself, derived from them... You can claim to win the debate all you want... The docutment in question is a LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT, and thus, regardless your claims, the debate COULD NOT HAVE BEEN WON... It was not even a debate.... When in question, Virginia took upon the people the vote to seceed, THE PEOPLE (who are in fact the MAJOR PART of which grants the constitution power in the first place) decided to throw off federal Constitutional power, and invest such power (in accordance with the FACT of the aforementioned LEGALLY BINDING CONTRACT and ACCEPTED contract) back into the government of their state (being the power of the people of that state)...

You want to win this debate, you'll have to PROOVE that Virginia's ratification contract, did not specifically grant Virginia the power to seceed....

You have two choices... AND TWO ALONE...
1. Virginia's ratification document, giving Virginia the legal authority to seceed from the United States of America, is valid; and this Virginia's decision to seceed was valid; and therefore subsequent invasion was not legally valid...

2. Virginia's ratification document, giving Virginia the legal authority to seceed from the United States of America, is invalid (since secession is illegal), and therefore Virginia never legally Ratified the Constitution; therefore Virginia was never legally part of the United States, was an independent Republic, and subsequent invasion of this independent Republic was not legally valid...

Virgina, BTW, has seceeded THREE times.... Virginia seceeded from the Brittish Crown, Virginia seceeded from the United States of America under the Articles of Confederation, and Virginia seceeded from the United States of America under the Constitution...

You can lay claim to the Congressional Cluster-Fuck all you want... A debate is won on FACTS, not OPINIONS... And that was NO DEBATE.... It was rhetorical opinions, maqueraded as an intelligent well-thought discussion...

Show me EXACTLY WHERE in the Legal wording of the Constitution, or in the LEGAL wording of Virginia's ratification, where secession is prohibited.... Untill you provide such, you will be ignored.... EOM

Osutoria-Hangarii

04-10-2005, 14:24

He, NOR the government were planning to "steal property" from southerners as you and your ilk would like to believe.

That's what I'd like to believe? My ilk, too? Please, tell me more of my own opinions! Then, please tell me, what is my ilk?

Dishonorable Scum

04-10-2005, 14:28

I've always maintained that if South Carolina had taken its case for secession to the Supreme Court, it would have won. Instead, it chose to start an armed rebellion, with predictable results. Of course, I believe that a successful secession by the southern states would have been disastrous for both the US and the Confederacy, but that does not change the fact that the southern states probably did have the legal right to secede.

In fact, the legal question of the right to secede has never been settled, because it's never been tested in court. War does not determine who is legally right, only who is stronger. So it may still be possible for a state to secede legally. However, the former Confederate states were readmitted to the US on the condition that they never try to secede again. Which brings about the interesting situation that northern states may be able to secede legally, while southern states cannot.

:p

Osutoria-Hangarii

04-10-2005, 15:57

Bahamamamma

04-10-2005, 16:04

The Confederist have a cool flag. If you go to the south every third house has a confederate flag, which is cool that they are still racist generations later.

This is B**SH***. People in south do not often fly the confederate flag. I have never seen so much confederate flag waving as I have on travels to Ohio, Pennsylvania, and upstate New York - home of the "enlightened" union. HA - Soooooooooooooooooo much more open racial prejudice up there. Hypocrits.

The WYN starcluster

04-10-2005, 16:10

I've always maintained that if South Carolina had taken its case for secession to the Supreme Court, it would have won. {snip}
We seem to have an interesting debate going with regard to the legality of secession.

It's ugly; but, some issues will only be decided thru. the application of sheer force, in defiance of law, reason, tradition, and so on.

The founders ruefully recognized this and tried to take it into account. Thus the United States has the three way division at the top - Legislative, Executive, Judicial. A good example in action: Lincoln took an obvious and reasonable step suspending Habeas Corpus in an effort to ease the job of recruitment, among other things. His efforts to use this short cut earned him six different kinds of hell in the form of Roger B. Taney. Taney proved that Lincoln was clearly violating the law & nothing happened. The legislature sat this one out.

One vs. one is just not good enough. In short, at this level, it takes two to see the tango thru.

Secession may or may not have been legal. I kinda feel that, in the U.S. of that time, technically, legally, it was. Ultimately this view is meaningless, as the southern representatives to Congress decamped. That left two branches clearly hostile to the notion & no amount of legal, moral, judicial grandstanding was going to accomplish anything.

It's ugly, in an "inelegant" sort of way; but, there it is.

Should the south have kept their representatives at Washington?

Wallonochia

04-10-2005, 16:24

You'd be amazed how many people I know think like I do--that this emphasis on the lost cause and the "heroic" south is a waste of time and harmful to the future of the area. It takes all kinds.

Actually I believe the very same thing about the South. They need to stop lamenting what happened and focus on the future. There is a lot of potential in the South that goes unrealized. I also think that the South handled secession very poorly. They should have taken it to the Supreme Court and should never have fired on Fort Sumter. If they had let the North fire the first shot things would have gone very differently.

It's not an either/or situation. I'd opt out.

Fair enough.

perhaps because I've lived in 5 states now in my 36 years, and may live in a dozen more before it's all over for all I know.

That would make sense. I've only lived in Colorado, Michigan, and Germany. To me the whole US patriotism thing seems very hollow and contrived. I spent 4 years in the US Army and was surprised at how very different Americans from different states and regions are. I and many other Americans I'm sure, grew up thinking that the US is pretty much the same from one end to the other, and we're really not. We're quite similar, don't get me wrong, but we're also rather different.

Also, in my time in the Army something happened, I'm not sure what, that left me very dissillusioned with the United States. It's not that I had a hard time in the Army, I love the Army dearly, but I have very little love for the Federal government.

the US is far greater than the sum of its parts

I don't know if I believe that.

States are too beholden to the federal government to even consider seceding these days.

Some are, some aren't. But you are right, the Federal government has grown to such mammoth proportions that a state would have a rather hard time adjusting to not having it.

However, the former Confederate states were readmitted to the US on the condition that they never try to secede again.

That was agreed to under duress. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but I would think that should count for something.

The WYN starcluster

04-10-2005, 16:33

{snip}
Also, in my time in the Army something happened, I'm not sure what, that left me very dissillusioned with the United States. It's not that I had a hard time in the Army, I love the Army dearly, but I have very little love for the Federal government.
{snip}
I don't see anything wrong with that. Just don't go an' try to secede! ;)

Osutoria-Hangarii

04-10-2005, 17:16

They should have taken it to the Supreme Court and should never have fired on Fort Sumter.

Starve them out? O.o

The Lagonia States

05-10-2005, 00:18

Using document's of Lee's as resources, he proceeded to show how Lee, as elected President of the CSA, began the grandfathered elimination of Slavery in a planned and comprehensive manner that resulted in true emancipation for the Blacks (without Jim Crow and assorted other BS) much sooner, with less racial tension, than the 1960s.

Yes, fiction, but likely accurate nonetheless.

Sounds about right. Let's face it, everything he ran went great.

The South Islands

05-10-2005, 00:45

Sounds about right. Let's face it, everything he ran went great.

Considering what he had to work with, I doubt anybody else would do better than Lee.

CSW

05-10-2005, 00:52

For many southern households, the confederate flag does not represent racism, it represents a huge part of their history. Many southern families had their ancestors fight and die for what they proceved to be their freedom.
My family fought on the side of the Nazi's. Shall I fly a nazi flag around and claim it is my heritage and that they were fighting for my freedom?

The Lagonia States

05-10-2005, 00:54

Considering what he had to work with, I doubt anybody else would do better than Lee.

Not only the Confederancy, but the Mexican War, his later work at Washington and Lee University (Then known as Washington University) and... well, anything he ever ran in his entire life. Everything was either successfull or at least more successfull than it should have been.

The South Islands

05-10-2005, 00:54

My family fought on the side of the Nazi's. Shall I fly a nazi flag around and claim it is my heritage and that they were fighting for my freedom?

If you wish (unless you're German).

It is your heritage. It is your right to display it. IMHO, of course.

CSW

05-10-2005, 01:02

If you wish (unless you're German).

It is your heritage. It is your right to display it. IMHO, of course.
And, of course, this flag flying would be taken as a symbol of my heritage and my pride in my past, and wouldn't be associated with the actions of the nazi's at all?

Please.

Reminder everyone: Fort Sumter was Federal Property.

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory.

The United States Army didn't have to go anywhere. They held legal title to the land. Firing upon that land and invading the fort is not only an act of treason, but an act of war besides.

Oh, and who says succession is legal. We've put down enough rebellions to establish that you simply can't leave. I refer you to Texas v. White on this.

The South Islands

05-10-2005, 01:09

And, of course, this flag flying would be taken as a symbol of my heritage and my pride in my past, and wouldn't be associated with the actions of the nazi's at all?

Please.

Reminder everyone: Fort Sumter was Federal Property.

So? If you want to display what you consider a symbol of your pride and heratige, than you must be prepared for people's perception of the actions associated with the flag.

Just as the people that fly the flag of the Confederacy.

Morvonia

05-10-2005, 01:17

great General if you watch the movie "Gettysburg" it shows him with the total love of his men.

Also some people say that he faught for slavery...not at all...most of them faught (like he did) for his state..

CSW

05-10-2005, 01:19

So? If you want to display what you consider a symbol of your pride and heratige, than you must be prepared for people's perception of the actions associated with the flag.

Just as the people that fly the flag of the Confederacy.
And so the statement "the confederate flag is a racist symbol" fails what test?

great General if you watch the movie "Gettysburg" it shows him with the total love of his men.

Also some people say that he faught for slavery...not at all...most of them faught (like he did) for his state..

If he was a private, maybe. However, once you're a general, you're actively aiding and abetting what they are doing. He was a traitor, and should have been hanged as one.

The South Islands

05-10-2005, 01:29

And so the statement "the confederate flag is a racist symbol" fails what test?

I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Many people consider the Confederate flag as just a symbol of racism, just as many people consider the Nazi flag as just a symbol of the "Final Solution". But, for others, they represent a nation that their fathers and grandfathers fought and died for.

Those father and grandfathers fought for what they considered a just cause. Most fighters of the Confederacy did not own slaves, just as most fighters of Nazi Germany were not aware of the "Final Solution".

Morvonia

05-10-2005, 01:29

If he was a private, maybe. However, once you're a general, you're actively aiding and abetting what they are doing. He was a traitor, and should have been hanged as one.

but if the private is taking orders from the general of his own free will,then he is just as much a traitor in you definition.

was he a traitor sure by definition...but i still admire the man for fighting for his state rather than for the nation.

CSW

05-10-2005, 01:39

I do not understand the point you are trying to make. Many people consider the Confederate flag as just a symbol of racism, just as many people consider the Nazi flag as just a symbol of the "Final Solution". But, for others, they represent a nation that their fathers and grandfathers fought and died for.

Those father and grandfathers fought for what they considered a just cause. Most fighters of the Confederacy did not own slaves, just as most fighters of Nazi Germany were not aware of the "Final Solution".
How many people do you see flying around the nazi flag celebrating the history behind it, fighting for a just cause?

The South Islands

05-10-2005, 01:41

How many people do you see flying around the nazi flag celebrating the history behind it, fighting for a just cause?

Not many. Although I have no experience in this matter, I would assume they would not want to deal with the social and (in some places) judicial rammifications of their pride.

Osutoria-Hangarii

05-10-2005, 01:58

F–k Texas v. White

The Supreme Court was a bunch of b—hes

CSW

05-10-2005, 02:00

F–k Texas v. White

The Supreme Court was a bunch of b—hes
You'd, of course, be willing to provide a point by point rebuttal of the standing caselaw?

Osutoria-Hangarii

05-10-2005, 02:10

You'd, of course, be willing to provide a point by point rebuttal of the standing caselaw?

Nope. Too lazy to do that right now. Maybe later?

The Black Forrest

05-10-2005, 02:12

That was agreed to under duress. I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination but I would think that should count for something.

Wellllll. Does it really count since they basically said we aren't part of you anymore. As such did they have the same rights as before?

They didn't have to sign. More then a few left the country afterwards.

Even my relations Col Angus McDonald III told his wife to leave the country as he didn't want his children living in such a country after the war.

Osutoria-Hangarii

05-10-2005, 02:22

What do these things have to do with whether Robby rocks?

The South Islands

05-10-2005, 02:24

What do these things have to do with whether Robby rocks?

And hence, you have seen evolution.

Osutoria-Hangarii

05-10-2005, 02:26

And hence, you have seen evolution.

wh

Passivocalia

05-10-2005, 03:55

Reminder everyone: Fort Sumter was Federal Property.

"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory. "

Oh, wow. Amazing the things I learn once school stops wasting my time.

Serapindal

05-10-2005, 03:56

How many people do you see flying around the nazi flag celebrating the history behind it, fighting for a just cause?

I find nothing wrong with people flying around the Swastika. It's a great looking symbol actually...very pretty on the eyes...

Tekania

05-10-2005, 12:51

Oh, and who says succession is legal. We've put down enough rebellions to establish that you simply can't leave. I refer you to Texas v. White on this.

Official legal status and rights of Virginia persuant to Ratification of the United States Constitution, signed and sealed by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and accepted by the Congress of the United States, June 26th, 1788...

"...DO in the name and in behalf of the people of Virginia, declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States may be resumed by them..."

The above declaration is attached to Constitutional Ratification, and is LEGALLY BINDING between the Federal United States, and the post-ratification Commonwealth of Virginia.... Virginie reserved the right to secession, and the FEDERAL CONGRESS AGREED TO THIS RIGHT... I could care less about illegal bench-legislation case-law... Such was not the courts operating or rulling within the specific authority of their power.

NationStates Jolt Archive

Robert E. Lee>>>all.