good book! There are lots.
I cannot say slavery was a non-issue, what i will say is most northern industrialists wanted to take the profit, and few really cared about slavery, then.
Monday is Robert E. Lee day in Alabama.
- Thread starter Eeset
- Start date
- Status
good book! There are lots.
I cannot say slavery was a non-issue, what i will say is most northern industrialists wanted to take the profit, and few really cared about slavery, then.
States have no rights. States have authority. They are not the same thing. They are authorized (authority) to act in God's name. And selling people against their will is not authorized.
People have rights. The state has authority to defend those rights.
I don't do doubt that for one second.
Maybe you missed it. But the articles of confederation was tossed aside. The small quotes have been adopted, whether you like it or not.
So what. Lee went to war for the side that said they can own human beings against their will. You posted a strawman argument in the most classical sense. You tore down something that is not being argued. Robert E Lee is a despicable man and should not be honored.
Thank God for men like General Sherman and Colonel Montgomery.
Both sides said that for a great deal of the war.
You're peddling ignorance and you're wrong.
What Sherman did and turned a blind eye to could qualify him as a war criminal.
Under Federalist No. 39 you are correct.
The South did not start slavery, yet they came too late of hour, dependent on it.
Goodnight
Lee committed treason.
"I think that Lee should have been hanged. It was all the worse that he was a good man and a fine character and acted conscientiously. It’s always the good men who do the most harm in the world." - Henry Adams
We judge in retrospect, TH. And you'd be right about both Lincoln and Sherman (frankly, the general would probably agree with you).
He betrayed his oath, his army, and his country. No amount of revisionist spin changes that.
Understood. But those who rejected the notion were consistently wrong.
Maybe because over half a million corpses hadn't left anyone in a real blood-letting mood when all's said and done.
Not many southerners have this kind of honesty.
Correct.
One thing you will never see those who defend Lee and the Confederacy bring up is Article I Section X of the United States Constitution:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
As we see above, Confederations are explicitly banned.
However, nothing stopped Lee and the rest of his Confederates from ignoring the Constitution.
Also, the Article above from the Constitution proves Angel4Trught and her "state rights" wrong. Many things an independent nation is capable of doing are banned for states.
PureX
Well-known member
They honor their haters and losers, while the rest of the nation honors a lover of peace, freedom, and a winner of human rights.
Some people just can't grow and learn.
In order, agreed (but that requires us to distinguish between our different contexts), not by the light of his day and it's iffy, but likely true of a great many men celebrated as leaders in a great many wars.
No, he didn't. Lee resigned his commission and with the withdraw of Virginia was no more a traitor in fact (outside of the debate) than anyone moving to a foreign nation and defending its flag. The revisionism here is applying our modern understanding and context regarding what states were entitled to do by the light of the settled question.
Well, that was sort of the argument being settled on the field at first, if over the issue of expanding slavery to new American land holdings.
That wasn't Grant's reasoning and he was fairly clear about defending Lee. I doubt you'd have gotten many or any of the generals on the Union side to have collected him for a firing squad. But allowing that the moment can mitigate all sorts of things should inform us in our present zeal, don't you think?
Perhaps not with an outsider, though you might be surprised. I think what's happened for many is conflating the fact that most Southerners who fought for the Confederacy didn't fight for the cause of the wealthy and entitled and confusing that with an overreaching truth for that war. So they're right about the sentiment and motivation and wrong on the issue.
Er, no.
The withdraw of Virginia into a Confederacy was a violation of the Constitution of the United States.
No state within the Union did. And secession was far from settled as a course before that war. Here's an interesting look at it at historynet.
Sherman strikes me as a self-aware monster. I digress.
Tet's already covered this: he violated the Constitution and the oath he took as a soldier.
He was warmly regarded. Doesn't change what he did.
I certainly would hope so.
They still were in the wrong. The foundation of their nation was the white man's supremacy over the black.
I think there was the war he'd have rather and the war he had, but it doesn't excuse knowingly allowing and failing to prosecute and punish those within his ranks who violated any civilized rule of war. Understanding the same can be said for a great many on either side of the conflict.
Tet missed the mark, as per my answer.
And yet...or, I think that's the difference between your modern context and Grant's.
That's been my experience, but it's anecdotal, if a large anecdote experientially speaking.
Not to their minds, but that's what wars tend to decide.
The economic heart of the nation was fueled, knowingly, by the agrarian products of the South acquired on the backs of slaves and the molasses to rum to slaves bit wasn't just a catchy song in a Revolutionary War musical. The North profited, built much of its economic might by the light of that sad institution's output and made no effort to liberate anyone until the war was well on.
Or, our Yankee cousins did not begin their part of the conflict to free a single soul. Romanticizing that is as errant as pretending the war wasn't fought on the issue of slavery's expansion.
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
It was the proposal to end slavery that caused the south to secede from the union, and it was the act of secession that caused the civil war. So the war was in fact fought over the issue of slavery, no matter how you want to try and say it wasn't. The individual's reasons for fighting, I am sure, were many. But the instigation for it all was the poison of slavery.
And choosing to honor a man who fought to preserve slavery by destroying the United States of America on the same day as the rest of the nation honors a man who finally, 100 years later, managed to make us face our racism and bigotry as a nation, and end it, is just another example of the south seceding from the union once again to honor it's racist and slave-keeping past.
And choosing to honor a man who fought to preserve slavery by destroying the United States of America on the same day as the rest of the nation honors a man who finally, 100 years later, managed to make us face our racism and bigotry as a nation, and end it, is just another example of the south seceding from the union once again to honor it's racist and slave-keeping past.
I agree with Abraham Lincoln's interpretation of the Constitution, you agree with Jefferson Davis' interpretation.
Earlier, I posted a copy of Article I, Section X (BTW, your link never mentions Article I, Section X)
Here is the first sentence:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation"
It's hard for me to understand how the above sentence isn't explicit, and how the Southern states weren't in violation of it.
Couldn't agree more. This is a deliberately provocative insulting slap in the face.
:thumb:
- Status