- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"
Posted on 5/23/17 at 7:25 am to Parmen
Posted on 5/23/17 at 7:25 am to Parmen
Robert E Lee was the General of a invading army which lost. There is nothing in the least bit heroic about that. Losers do not get to write history. It is fortunate that Lee's name is even remotely familiar to Americans...I bet not many can name a Vietnamese General and they whupped our arse....
2
Posted on 5/23/17 at 7:41 am to Parmen
Posted on 5/23/17 at 7:58 am to FrenchToast
Lee was right.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 8:03 am to germandawg
quote:
Robert E Lee was the General of a invading army which lost.
Lee had to invade Maryland and later Pennsylvania because the government in Richmond couldn't be counted on to feed his army.
The whole rebel experience was - lame assed.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 8:06 am to Bayou
ISIS tore down Statue's they didn't like, Hitler did the same ,along with rewriting the history books. Now the Democrats are doing the same. Its a real shame. Weak minded people are pointed in a direction and told to go. I wonder if those statues being moved changed any of the people lives who wanted them moved so badly. Hummm. On to the next Crisis.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 8:15 am to FrenchToast
Right where the white supremacist stabbed that brand new second lieutenant to death recently in Maryland.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 8:17 am
Posted on 5/23/17 at 9:05 am to Parmen
It is what happens when you try to interject 21st century norms, values, ideals, and post civil war large centralized government perceptions of government into 19th century issues. They do not mix, and quite simply, putting history in perspective with the time period does not serve progressive ideals. You also cannot begin to discuss things like honor, duty, and state sovereignty to a people who today have such little understanding of those things, nor know that they are something to value in the first place.
Given enough time I feel certain that future generations will honestly believe that WWII was fought to save the Jews.
Given enough time I feel certain that future generations will honestly believe that WWII was fought to save the Jews.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 9:49 am to germandawg
quote:
I bet not many can name a Vietnamese General and they whupped our arse....
Vo Nguyen Giap......the Army and Marine Corps study his tactics and strategies at length
Posted on 5/23/17 at 10:08 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
In that regard, Lee well understood impact the war would have on his family financially. He also planned to free his own slaves in under two years. He did so early in the war, 2-3yrs before slaves in the North were released.
An interesting aside... what became of slaves in the states that outlawed slavery. Surely all those slaves were emancipated. I'm sure the slave owners of the north didn't just ship their slaves south to be auctioned off.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 12:29 pm to BlackAdam
quote:
He did so early in the war, 2-3yrs before slaves in the North were released.
as for NCtigah, this 100% false. Lee's slaves were released on Jan 1st 1863, the same day as the emancipation proclamation went into effect.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 1:55 pm to monsterballads
quote:
as for NCtigah, this 100% false. Lee's slaves were released on Jan 1st 1863, the same day as the emancipation proclamation went into effect.
That is simply a lie. The emancipation proclamation had no effect.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 2:09 pm to monsterballads
quote:Actually, some were released earlier.
as for NCtigah, this 100% false. Lee's slaves were released on Jan 1st 1863
But the larger part of your uninformed opinion centers on your lack of knowledge as to when slaves in northern states were finally freed.
Read a bit about it. You'll learn something.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:02 pm to KiwiHead
quote:The "states rights" southern states sure seemed to love them some state-power-usurping federal laws when it came to that, didn't they?
What the North ended up objecting to ....the straw that broke the camel's back was the Fugitive Slave Law that basically gave Southern bounty hunters free range all over the country to retrieve runaway slaves. On its face it would seem not that big a deal...helping someone retrieve stolen or missing "property". The thing was, that it forced Northerners to actually be complicit in turning over slaves or face prison time. It forced the non slave states to enforce the bondage that they objected to. It led to nullification in places like Wisconsin .
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:14 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:
Lee had to invade Maryland and later Pennsylvania because the government in Richmond couldn't be counted on to feed his army.
Well he had to try and force some detente and treaty...because there is no way in hell the South was ever going to win that war the longer it went on...and were realistically doomed from the start. Total over-reaction to what Lincoln was or wasn't going to do and the worries over their billion dollar industry based on slavery.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:18 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
The "states rights" southern states sure seemed to love them some state-power-usurping federal laws when it came to that, didn't they?
But when southern states joined the confederacy, they had no rights.
The federal confederacy controlled.
If say the Confederacy won the war and years later Georgia decided they didn't want slavery in their state, they couldn't abolish it.
The Confederate Constitution said no state could abolish slavery.
But...state's rights.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 3:26 pm to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Given enough time I feel certain that future generations will honestly believe that WWII was fought to save the Jews.
Well some in high school probably already believe that right now.
Nobody is saying the war was fought to free the slaves. That's absurd.
The South over-reacted to the election of Lincoln and seceded to protect their billion dollar business and to precisely protect THE INSTITUTION OF SLAVERY! It's in every states declaration of secession. That slavery will never be abolished and that the white man is superior to the African.
As a result of secession, the Federal government had little choice than to wage war to preserve the country as a whole for future prosperity.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:12 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:I'd call it a temper tantrum given how stacked the deck already was in favor of the south. The original snowflakes.
The South over-reacted to the election of Lincoln
Posted on 5/23/17 at 4:50 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:Noit didn't. It prohibited Congress from doing so. The rights of the States to pass different laws is shown by
The Confederate Constitution said no state could abolish slavery.
quote:
Article IV Section 2(1)
The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States; and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property; and the right of property in said slaves shall not be thereby impaired.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:06 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
I'd call it a temper tantrum given how stacked the deck already was in favor of the south. The original snowflakes.
Lincoln wasn't even on the Presidential Election ballot in 10 Southern states...that's how much they were fearing him.
Republicans had taken almost all power in the Federal government...but they had almost no representation in the South.
Despite Lincoln being left off all Deep South ballots...Lincoln won the electoral college.
That's when the South realized they were out-numbered and never going to win again.
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:10 pm to AlxTgr
No it said - if you part of the Confederacy...slavery can never be abolished in said Union.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:
Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:
Confederate States Constitution was the explicit protection Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 offered to slavery in all future territories conquered or acquired by the Confederacy.
You can't abolish slavery in your state and then respect the rights of slave transit or ownership in your state from another state.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 4 prohibited the Confederate government from restricting slavery in any way:
Article IV, Section 2 also prohibited states from interfering with slavery:
Confederate States Constitution was the explicit protection Article IV, Section 3, Clause 3 offered to slavery in all future territories conquered or acquired by the Confederacy.
You can't abolish slavery in your state and then respect the rights of slave transit or ownership in your state from another state.
This post was edited on 5/23/17 at 5:12 pm
Page 14 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News