Started By
Message

re: Eisenhower Explains About General Lee

Posted on 7/11/20 at 12:09 pm to
Posted by kingfish225
Member since Dec 2013
595 posts
Posted on 7/11/20 at 12:09 pm to
No
Posted by hashtag
Comfy, AF
Member since Aug 2005
33919 posts
Posted on 7/11/20 at 1:11 pm to
For anyone still confused on why Abraham Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave and why the Civil War occurred. Let's look at his own words, not what history has told us.
quote:

The War is waged by the government of the United States not in the spirit of conquest or subjugation, nor for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or institutions of the states, but to defend and protect the Union.
quote:

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery.
quote:

I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.

And some bonus content from the guy who wanted so desperately to give equal rights to blacks:
quote:

And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.
Posted by red sox fan 13
Valley Park
Member since Aug 2018
19244 posts
Posted on 7/11/20 at 1:33 pm to
Everyone is so obsessed with Lee. He wasn’t some god, he was just a fricking guy. He was a good general that fought for a bad cause (slavery, he wouldn’t have to defend Virginia if it wasn’t for the rebellion to protect slavery) and ended up losing. The Lost Cause propaganda in the late 1800s turned him into some great hero on the level of Washington. Maybe he would have been in the CSA if it somehow won, but they lost. It was 150 years ago. Get over it. Side note Eisenhower was good president. We need more like him.
Posted by IamPatman
In The Head Of My Enemies
Member since Nov 2019
575 posts
Posted on 7/11/20 at 10:43 pm to
quote:

There wasn't really a difference in opinion. This was the predominant thought process of 99.9% of white men in the North and the South

99.9% is wishful thinking bullshite you're just making up. Same as your belief that those that fought for the confederacy should be revered. Granted white superiority over the black race was the common "opinion" of those in the north and the south. However, the confederates of the south are the ones that took up arms against the United States of America so they could continue to subjugate the black race and continue to own human beings as slaves. This is far different than holding the absurd, yet common for the time and evolving opinion of superiority, while also firmly believing no human should be "owned" and all men should be allowed to reap the rewards of their own labor. You are too stupid and blinded by your closeted (or not) racism to realize the confederacy should hold no different position in history than al-Qaeda. Over 800,000 dead because white men of the south wanted to own black men for free labor.

The quote you attribute to Lincoln has no legitimate transcript for verification and is only found in a couple of newspaper recounts of a debate between he and Stephen Douglas when running for the Illinois senate in 1858. But lets just say it is 100% accurate and verbatim...actions speak louder than words! If I felt so inclined, I could link dozens of official statements on record from prior to that senate campaign that clearly show Lincoln's position against slavery which drove him to attain the position of President of the United States which allowed him to affect the change he knew was needed.

Your attempt to put Lee and Lincoln on equal standing positions of historical context will only be successful against inferior, susceptible minds with limited reasoning ability such as your own and unfortunately the vast majority of other posters on this board. Have a good day sir!
Posted by IamPatman
In The Head Of My Enemies
Member since Nov 2019
575 posts
Posted on 7/11/20 at 11:23 pm to
quote:

Don’t say slavery because that was an excuse made up as an afterthought that was never mentioned until Lincoln’s emancipation proclamation speech

Are you being this ignorant willfully or do you simply lack reading comprehension? I quoted Alexander Stephens (VP of the Confederacy) Cornerstone speech from Savannah, Ga in 1861 about 3 weeks before the Confederacy fired on Fort Sumter. Ignoring the likelihood of your inability to understand written words, I will provide the most pertinent part of his speech which absolutely shoots down your revisionist bullshite position that slavery was merely and afterthought as the confederacies purpose for secession. From March 21, 1861 prior to the attack on Fort Sumter April 12, 1961;
quote:

The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the "storm came and the wind blew."

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal.


And who was shitting on the Constitution? As stated further in the same speech...
quote:

This new [Confederate]constitution. or form of government, constitutes the subject to which your attention will be partly invited. In reference to it, I make this first general remark: it amply secures all our ancient rights, franchises, and liberties. All the great principles of Magna Charta are retained in it. No [currently free]citizen is deprived of life, liberty, or property, but by the judgment of his peers under the laws of the land. The great principle of religious liberty, which was the honor and pride of the old constitution, is still maintained and secured. All the essentials of the old constitution, which have endeared it to the hearts of the American people, have been preserved and perpetuated. Some changes have been made. Some of these I should have preferred not to have seen made; but other important changes do meet my cordial approbation. They form great improvements upon the old constitution. So, taking the whole new constitution, I have no hesitancy in giving it as my judgment that it is decidedly better than the old.

The old constitution he alludes to is the same one we currently recognize today as United States citizens, not the one he was proposing that was supposedly better. Please tell me with complete honesty what you would say to someone today if they told you "I have a great idea for a different constitution of the United States of America that will be much better than the old one" Curious, would you call that person or organization a patriot or a traitor?
Posted by ABearsFanNMS
Formerly of tLandmass now in Texas
Member since Oct 2014
20274 posts
Posted on 7/11/20 at 11:38 pm to
quote:

This is the difference in opinion that Lee fought for regardless of any other revisionist versions of history or who they come from. I consider that quite sullied indeed!



You are obviously blindly following an untrue narrative, I suggest you actually read some history about Gen Lee before you make this statement. He actually didn’t believe in slavery and only fought for his State.
Posted by TROLA
BATON ROUGE
Member since Apr 2004
14989 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:12 am to
quote:

or anyone still confused on why Abraham Lincoln refused to allow the South to leave and why the Civil War occurred. Let's look at his own words, not what history has told us.


Slavery conflates the issues that surrounded the secession of the south and while it was not inherently pushed as the most forthcoming issue as much as a states right to secede was during the debate process, let’s not pretend it wasn’t the underbelly that drove the wedge.. the south knew that with new states entering the union they must keep an equal balance to ensure what they viewed as their god given right within the top social/wealth class of the south. Lee, like the vast majority of the United States aristocracy was beholden to the idea of their superiority regardless of owning slaves from both the north and the south.. The difference was always in the way they viewed their states vs the Union.. the northerner view was that of a strong federal union while the south viewed their state as their de facto union.. Not many held that belief stronger than Lee and as went Virginia, so did he..

To me, we view them from a flawed aspect Relative to victory or defeat... they all had a racist superiority feeling of the Anglo White population while looking down upon all other ethnicities with African being at the bottom.. I personally have a heavy respect for Lincoln and applaud his tenacity in preserving the union but only for the fortunate luck it led our country to become.. if one were to honestly look at his place in that time period you easily see how he was a racist who wiped his arse with the constitution to save his own arse
This post was edited on 7/12/20 at 12:15 am
Posted by IamPatman
In The Head Of My Enemies
Member since Nov 2019
575 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 12:52 am to
quote:

You are obviously blindly following an untrue narrative, I suggest you actually read some history about Gen Lee before you make this statement. He actually didn’t believe in slavery and only fought for his State.


I am well read and you sir are following a revisionist narrative of historical fact. I am able to very clearly see the true historical accuracy of the reason the southern states wished to secede from the United States of America. You are responding to my first post in this thread before I provided numerous documented statements from the vice president of the Confederacy stating unequivocally that the purpose of the Confederacy and secession of the southern states was to maintain the practice of slavery of the black race. Stated 3 weeks before rhe war began. To then take up arms and fight for the Confederacy means Lee was in support of that position. I am very well informed on this issue and the states rights argument is utter bullshite created to give those of you in support of the Confederacy a morally defensive position when there is none. The only states rights being fought for was the right to own and subjugate human beings...period exclamation point. VP of the Confederacy, Mr. Alexander Stephens is my ancestor and his speeches and positions have been widely debated and discussed within my family for generations and his words made it very clear the true purpose of the Confederacy. To disagree with this is to simply ignore the facts for whatever your purpose may be...most likely that you still today see yourself as racially superior while knowing that is inherently wrong and are just too much of a pussy to come outright and say it.
Posted by antibarner
Member since Oct 2009
26928 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 3:04 am to
Judging 19th Century people using 21st Century ethics. I think we all can agree slavery was and is wrong, then and now but there is considerable dispute whether this was the only reason for the war and indeed whatever the reason there can be a case made that secession was legal.

But could you imagine what men on BOTH sides would have said about US if they could have seen you today? Using their ethics to judge us?

They would call us all less than men. Castrati and cowards, for letting the degenerates and worse do the things they do in this country and still run free.
This post was edited on 7/12/20 at 3:06 am
Posted by TigerNlc
Chocolate City
Member since Jun 2006
33224 posts
Posted on 7/12/20 at 3:11 am to
Robert E Lee is probably one of the greatest humans to ever step foot on American soil and it has nothing to do with the civil war.
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram