I have always thought--and this goes back to the history that I was taught in primary school and high school--that Robert E. Lee deserved a certain respect that no decent American would accord to any of the other leaders of the Confederacy.
MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell sees it very differently. What he said was actually rather startling to me. It's a narrative about Robert E. Lee that I had not ever encountered before. Admittedly, I have never studied the Civil War myself, in any "big" way.
O'Donnell certainly presents his "talking points" in a very authoritative style, as if they are meticulously researched. I have not tried to verify any of his "facts" about Lee in any kind of independent way, using any of my own ways of fact-checking and historical research.
If Mr O'Donnell has said anything in this on-air segment that is more false than true, I hope that someone will be able to call him out on it.
Not surprising to me: That Confederate soldiers under the leadership of General Robert E. Lee inflicted umpteen thousand casualties upon the Union Army, and suffered umpteen thousand casualties of their own. I already knew that.
Surprising to me: That Lee's own family was divided, and that his own sister (if I recall O'Donnell's remarks) sided with the Union. That almost half (40 percent) of the men from Virginia who were part of the U.S. Army on the threshold of the Civil War sided with the Union, and not with the Confederacy. That Robert E. Lee wanted to revoke the writs of freedom that Lee's own father-in-law had promised to some of the slaves that were part of the Lee family holdings.
The effect of O'Donnell's commentary was to give me the idea that Robert E. Lee had a kind of personal enthusiasm or a personal investment (in the ideological sense) in the perpetuation of slavery, as it was practiced in the Southern states, that I was not previously aware of. A focus on the perpetuation of slavery that was above and beyond the more general or generic loyalty to Virginia and the other Southern states that I had always considered to be the bedrock that underlay Lee's psyche, and the explanation for his having made the choice to become the leader of a Confederate army, instead of the leader of the Union Army.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-16-2017).]
I somehow doubt that it would matter what anyone said.
Facts don't matter to lefties.
You guys run on bullshit and emotion.
Brad
This is sad.. But I understand how we got here.. Most turn a blind eye to the facts or history.. as it might stop them.. People need a hobby , something to pass the time, Sadly most hobby's have been killed off, or regulated to death that the cost most can not swing. So their hobby becomes looking for things to complain about and be offended by.. If they had a hobby to fill their spare time they might not have the free time to sit and think of things that might offend, or follow the pack of those that are using them as useful idiots. I say this because there is video after video of protesters being asked about what they are protesting and why, and most times they are a stutter box.. um, ah, um ,ah, well, um , ,um,,
I'm generally not a fan of statues or monuments of people or naming public buildings and airports after people (mostly politicians) either. I understand its part of human culture around the world to do these things, it just doesn't float my boat so I don't really care.
When AI takes over, I'm sure they will tear them all down.
My comments from another, related topic thread......
"We commemorate our history through commemorative statues, parks, memorial, buildings and museums. We place these to allow our children and grandchildren to learn from our progress and from our mistakes. If we wipe out our history, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes, hindering our progress.
These vandals are only slightly better than ISIS, at least they haven't evolved into beheading those they don't agree with."
The Civil War was a very dark time in our Nation's history. We need to remember the past, so that we do not repeat the mistakes of those that went before us. If anything, a lot of Mr. O'Donnell's comments reinforce how difficult those times were for our Nation and the families that were involved in that conflict.
I think, we are in for some tit for tat.. And I see mlk and parks carved stone getting the same treatment.. Once all the civil war stones displays are gone they will move to the next, till they get to burning the white house down and putting lady liberty in the n.y. harbor..
Originally posted by olejoedad: These vandals are only slightly better than ISIS, at least they haven't evolved into beheading those they don't agree with."
Yet...
And I woudnt call it a dark time, more like growing pains same as the war of 1812.
It IS a part of history, it DID happen, and we came out of it with stronger friendships and bonds.
I wear the confederate flag tattood not because of racism or any other crap, Its because way back in the 80s some southern people showed me what true hospitality and help and friendship are.....well, that and what moonshine is.
For a kid who had grown up knowing nothing but cruelty, abuse, beatings, catholic religion forced...the south taught me not all people are like that, and there are some very good folks on this planet.
Really, if not for a couple families down there, I probably would have never crawled into a cockpit and would have gone to work at the steel mills in Hamilton. Dont dis the south, those people are some of the best you will find.
Not surprising to me that you get your view of civil war military history from a mainstream media political talking head like Larry O'Donnell instead of studying the works of actual *historians* like Shelby Foote, Douglas Freeman and many others.
You reaffirm my long held observation that lefties are bereft of knowledge of factual history and in particular military and political history.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-16-2017).]
Robert E. Lee's respect probably comes from the fact that he was Trained at West Point was in the US Army, and was an excellent tactician and statesman.
He was very respectful in conversation, and a Southern Gentleman.
He left the Union Army as he thought it was more appropriate to fight for one's own state, rather than a(n) "National Army."
I think, we are in for some tit for tat.. And I see mlk and parks carved stone getting the same treatment.. Once all the civil war stones displays are gone they will move to the next, till they get to burning the white house down and putting lady liberty in the n.y. harbor..
Wait, what?
One is a leader for civil rights, who fought to get equal treatment under the law for people of color. The other is a general of a war where half the country tried to secede so that they could still own those very same people.
How is that the same thing at all? How is that "tit for tat"?
Maybe we shouldn't celebrate those who killed others over the right to own other human beings?
Maybe we shouldn't celebrate those who killed others over the right to own other human beings?
*Maybe* you might have at least a shred of credibility if you also called for taking down the statue of the Communist butcher Vladimir Lenin in Seattle, Washington.
I guess you're happy to *celebrate* the murder of millions and the enslavement of other millions of people by communism?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-18-2017).]
One is a leader for civil rights, who fought to get equal treatment under the law for people of color. The other is a general of a war where half the country tried to secede so that they could still own those very same people.
How is that the same thing at all? How is that "tit for tat"?
Maybe we shouldn't celebrate those who killed others over the right to own other human beings?
------------------
[This message has been edited by Keel (edited 08-17-2017).]
One is a leader for civil rights, who fought to get equal treatment under the law for people of color. The other is a general of a war where half the country tried to secede so that they could still own those very same people.
How is that the same thing at all? How is that "tit for tat"?
Maybe we shouldn't celebrate those who killed others over the right to own other human beings?
FOOL IT IS STILL A REMINDER OF SO CALLED RACISM,, CORRECT?? SO IF A CIVIL WAR CARVED STONE IS TO MUCH OF A SYMBOL THAT BRINS BACK MEMORIES OF RACISM ( that these clowns and you never delt with) So does the parks and MLK DISPLAYS.. or do you pick and choose what things of the same subject bring back memories that are to hard to deal with.. YOU ARE A FOOL THAT SHOULD NOT BE TEACHING A N Y O N E !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 You don't know history, ou think you know what the civil war was about, you think you know what the people that are carved in stone were about.. you don't and never will as you can't be bothered.. and it doesn't fit your racist outlook on everyone but yourself..
------------------ No news , Is good news, With Garry Ganue
Originally posted by rinselberg: I have always thought--and this goes back to the history that I was taught in primary school and high school--that Robert E. Lee deserved a certain respect that no decent American would accord to any of the other leaders of the Confederacy.
MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell sees it very differently. Admittedly, I have never studied the Civil War myself, in any "big" way.
O'Donnell certainly presents his "talking points" in a very authoritative style, as if they are meticulously researched. I have not tried to verify any of his "facts" about Lee in any kind of independent way, using any of my own ways of fact-checking and historical research.
If Mr O'Donnell has said anything in this on-air segment that is more false than true, I hope that someone will be able to call him out on it.
I don't know where you went to school but I was just taught who Robert E Lee was. I wasn't told what to think. Now you are being schooled by the likes of MSNBC, CNN, and on this subject by Lawrence O'Donnell, .
I am ashamed. I thought you were a man of a good bit of intellect.
quote
Originally posted by htexans1: Robert E. Lee's respect probably comes from the fact that he was Trained at West Point was in the US Army, and was an excellent tactician and statesman.
Those are good supporting reasons but I think his respect comes from the fact that he was the commander-in-chief of the Confederate Army. The highest ranking general. The leader.
No rinselberg, I will not listen to anything from MSNBC. I would though entertain your synopsis of O'Donnell's comments.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: Surprising to me: That Lee's own family was divided, and that his own sister (if I recall O'Donnell's remarks) sided with the Union. That almost half (40 percent) of the men from Virginia who were part of the U.S. Army on the threshold of the Civil War sided with the Union, and not with the Confederacy. That Robert E. Lee wanted to revoke the writs of freedom that Lee's own father-in-law had promised to some of the slaves that were part of the Lee family holdings.
Surprising, ? Where did you go to school, ?
Many families were divided. Brothers fought brothers, fathers fought sons, families fought families, Americans fought Americans.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: The effect of O'Donnell's commentary was to give me the idea ...
Originally posted by Threedog: One is a leader for civil rights, who fought to get equal treatment under the law for people of color. The other is a general of a war where half the country tried to secede so that they could still own those very same people.
How is that the same thing at all? How is that "tit for tat"?
Maybe we shouldn't celebrate those who killed others over the right to own other human beings?
Wow, another one with spoon fed thoughts, .
What are you going to blame the next Civil War on ? It's coming !
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 08-17-2017).]
Originally posted by RayOtton: Cliff, got any big lakes down your way that would satisfy a salt water sailor?
My lake is in the Hill Country. Medina Lake. Beautiful. The hills though block the wind so sailing is not usually done. Speed boats baby or pontoons, and fishing boats. 30 miles west of San Antonio.
30 miles north of San Antonio is Canyon Lake and there are many sail boats.
I also have the Gulf of Mexico, 140 miles south of San Antonio, if you need a barnacle fix, .
I would really love to hear what you guys claim the civil war was about, and have any real sources to back it up.
It was simple, Lincoln didn't support slavery in the territories, which would have given the South a minority in congress, which would have meant the end of slavery. The south didn't fight for "states rights" or anything else that was even close to as important to them as slavery was. Regardless, they still owned people. If there is part of our society which promotes the legal ownership of other people, they need to be stopped, it is that simple.
As for the statue of Lenin, it probably should be taken down, that is equally offensive to what this country stands for.
I would really love to hear what you guys claim the civil war was about, and have any real sources to back it up.
It was simple, Lincoln didn't support slavery in the territories, which would have given the South a minority in congress, which would have meant the end of slavery. The south didn't fight for "states rights" or anything else that was even close to as important to them as slavery was. Regardless, they still owned people. If there is part of our society which promotes the legal ownership of other people, they need to be stopped, it is that simple.
As for the statue of Lenin, it probably should be taken down, that is equally offensive to what this country stands for.
You are a FOOL Under 1% of the population of the south owned slaves.. opps you fail.. but cool story bro.. racist phuckstick
Best part is when the lefts actions are finally the stick that broke the camels back, all they will have to do is shut off all routes in and out of that crap hole you call a city, and it'll eat it's own in a week or two.. SAD PART ABOUT YOUR POST IS YOU TEACH...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU ARE TOTALLY CLUELESS..
[This message has been edited by E.Furgal (edited 08-17-2017).]
My lake is in the Hill Country. Medina Lake. Beautiful. The hills though block the wind so sailing is not usually done. Speed boats baby or pontoons, and fishing boats. 30 miles west of San Antonio.
30 miles north of San Antonio is Canyon Lake and there are many sail boats.
I also have the Gulf of Mexico, 140 miles south of San Antonio, if you need a barnacle fix, .
Ok, thanks.
If we don't straighten things out here in Virginia you may have a neighbor. Although I don't want to move too close to the James Avery compound. Wifey is a silver junky.
BTW, I used "sailor" when I should have used 'boater". After plenty of experience on relatives' sailboats in my younger days I can't stand them. I'm 65, I want to GET THERE before it's too late.
I would really love to hear what you guys claim the civil war was about, and have any real sources to back it up.
It was simple, Lincoln didn't support slavery in the territories, which would have given the South a minority in congress, which would have meant the end of slavery. The south didn't fight for "states rights" or anything else that was even close to as important to them as slavery was. Regardless, they still owned people. If there is part of our society which promotes the legal ownership of other people, they need to be stopped, it is that simple.
As for the statue of Lenin, it probably should be taken down, that is equally offensive to what this country stands for.
You are a FOOL Under 1% of the population of the south owned slaves.. opps you fail.. but cool story bro.. racist phuckstick
Best part is when the lefts actions are finally the stick that broke the camels back, all they will have to do is shut off all routes in and out of that crap hole you call a city, and it'll eat it's own in a week or two.. SAD PART ABOUT YOUR POST IS YOU TEACH...!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND YOU ARE TOTALLY CLUELESS..
Less than 1% of the population of the southern states owned slaves... and the other 99% filled the ranks of the Confederate armies.
I wonder if that 1% was 1% of the white population of the southern states, or 1% of the total population (including slaves). If the latter, then it was more than 1% of the white population. Considerably more than just 1% of the white population, I would think.
As I already said, I have not studied the Civil War at any great length. Based on the casual readings that I've done, I think it really was about slavery, "way more" than it was about anything else. Slavery and its near-identical "twin", white supremacy.
The North favored protectionism and tariffs on imported goods to protect the Northern industries. The South, "free trade". But I don't think that stands up as a major reason for the movement to Secession and then the Civil War, compared to slavery. If it were just about trade, it wouldn't have led to a civil war. And if it were only about slavery, that would have been enough, all by itself, to spark a civil war.
Whatever the other reasons that were (are) cited, I think a careful analysis reveals that they were only a kind of cover, or a disguise, for something more solid underneath, and that something was slavery.
Closer to the truth (the truth, as revealed by a scientific approach to history) than E.Furgal ?
I'll take those odds.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-17-2017).]
As I already said, I have not studied the Civil War at any great length. Based on the casual readings that I've done, I think it really was about slavery, "way more" than it was about anything else.
...
Closer to the truth (the truth, as revealed by a scientific approach to history) than E.Furgal ?
I'll take those odds.
I have studied Civil War history, and even was involved in reenactments. I enjoy this.
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was NOT against slavery? Look it up...
You and Threedog often respond back to E.Furgal. In thread after thread, he is your go to guy when responding. Me, I never picked on people to make myself look smarter.
You do not play poker. Those odds are accepted, and I raise the table...
I know that Lincoln said (in so many words) that his purpose was to preserve the Union, with or without slavery in the South.
I know that there were black soldiers in the Union Army and black soldiers in the Confederate armies.
I wanted that previous post to go straight after E.Furgal, because I am beyond "tired" of him calling out other people as "fools." I wanted to take a shot at him today. Done.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 08-17-2017).]
I know that Lincoln said (in so many words) that his purpose was to preserve the Union, with or without slavery in the South.
I know that there were black soldiers in the Union Army and black soldiers in the Confederate armies.
I wanted that previous post to go straight after E.Furgal, because I am beyond "tired" of him calling out other people as "fools." I wanted to take a shot at him today. Done. Click to show
This is the most factual and honest post that I have ever read from you. Thank you.
[This message has been edited by Tony Kania (edited 08-17-2017).]
Less than 1% of the population of the southern states owned slaves... and the other 99% filled the ranks of the Confederate armies.
I wonder if that 1% was 1% of the white population of the southern states, or 1% of the total population (including slaves). If the latter, then it was more than 1% of the white population. Considerably more than just 1% of the white population, I would think.
As I already said, I have not studied the Civil War at any great length. Based on the casual readings that I've done, I think it really was about slavery, "way more" than it was about anything else. Slavery and its near-identical "twin", white supremacy.
The North favored protectionism and tariffs on imported goods to protect the Northern industries. The South, "free trade". But I don't think that stands up as a major reason for the movement to Secession and then the Civil War, compared to slavery. If it were just about trade, it wouldn't have led to a civil war. And if it were only about slavery, that would have been enough, all by itself, to spark a civil war.
Whatever the other reasons that were (are) cited, I think a careful analysis reveals that they were only a kind of cover, or a disguise, for something more solid underneath, and that something was slavery.
Closer to the truth (the truth, as revealed by a scientific approach to history) than E.Furgal ?
I'll take those odds.
My point oh bright light, is if the civil war was like 3 dog states about slavery.. with only a tiny % of the south population owning slaves they never have gone to war.. That was the point.. a point totally lost on liberal snowflakes.. Slavery was NOT the cause of the war.. as banning it only affected few.. but the real cause and reasons don't "jive with the liberal narrative , sadly a TEACHER should know history.. yet he does not.. or he does and puts that aside knowingly to push his racial hate.. either way it is not good.. Might try to keep up. shadeball
I know that Lincoln said (in so many words) that his purpose was to preserve the Union, with or without slavery in the South.
I know that there were black soldiers in the Union Army and black soldiers in the Confederate armies.
I wanted that previous post to go straight after E.Furgal, because I am beyond "tired" of him calling out other people as "fools." I wanted to take a shot at him today. Done.
No shot at me.. you couldn't even understand the reply context to 3 dog.. All I see is a big backfire in your face.. This whole issue is a big backfire in the face of those that claim the civil war was because of slavery , only or mostly.. as it was not it was a very small part of the reason..
Originally posted by rinselberg: MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell sees it very differently. What he said was actually rather startling to me. It's a narrative about Robert E. Lee that I had not ever encountered before. Admittedly, I have never studied the Civil War myself, in any "big" way.
The big question is whether or not Mr O'Donnell is a stand-up guy. Because if he isn't, then whatever he has to say on the subject is suspect. And let's face it, he works for MSNBC, so he probably has an agenda to push.
You apparently didn't even take the time to fact-check any of it. So for all you know, you could be spreading misinformation, or even outright lies. Don't you think that's irresponsible?
I know that Lincoln said (in so many words) that his purpose was to preserve the Union, with or without slavery in the South.
I know that there were black soldiers in the Union Army and black soldiers in the Confederate armies.
I wanted that previous post to go straight after E.Furgal, because I am beyond "tired" of him calling out other people as "fools." I wanted to take a shot at him today. Done.
Day three of agreement. Have we reached detente?
If so, cut it out.
FWIW:
Anthony Johnson was one of the first American slaveholders and he was black.
One of the largest slave holders in 1860 South Carolina was a black plantation owner named William Ellison. He was a very wealthy black plantation owner and cotton gin manufacturer. According to the 1860 census, he owned 63 black slaves.
In 1830 there were 3,775 free black people who owned 12,740 black slaves.
Black-on-black slavery was common in Africa for thousands of years.
Most slaves brought to America from Africa were purchased from black slave owners.
White people ended slavery. Paying for that with the death of 600,000 soldiers in the Civil War.
I would really love to hear what you guys claim the civil war was about, and have any real sources to back it up.
It was simple, Lincoln didn't support slavery in the territories, which would have given the South a minority in congress, which would have meant the end of slavery. The south didn't fight for "states rights" or anything else that was even close to as important to them as slavery was. Regardless, they still owned people. If there is part of our society which promotes the legal ownership of other people, they need to be stopped, it is that simple.
It is that simple to simpletons. What kind of sources would you respect ?
Let's go with your logic. Lincoln didn't support slavery in the territories ? The South were not territories. They were States. States who decided the freedom of assembly also meant disassembly. States who at the time could vote on their own destiny. If Lincoln didn't support slavery, why did he not just allow the southern states to do their own thing. By the way, was Lincoln a dictator ? No, he was a republican.
The Civil War was about State rights. Yes, slavery of blacks selling other blacks into slavery was a part of the issue to some, but it was not the impetus.
Let me ask you, not at the point of a gun, ... do States have the right of disassembly ?
If there is part of our society which promotes the legal ownership of other people, they need to be stopped, it is that simple.
Therein lies one of your fundamental problems son.
NO. You have absolutely ZERO right to stop anyone's public free speech no matter how offensive, vile, "dangerous" or hateful you personally think it is.
The same Constitution that allows you to freely express your opinions also protects opinions and ideas that you don't like.
Predictably, you took the bait I offered you and agreed to tearing down that statue of Lenin. You again showed your true colors.
As much as I detest that statue and what it stands for I have to tolerate it because in this country we don't "stop" other people's free public speech and expressions. We peacefully counter ideas and opinions that we disagree with by the use of our own constitutional right of free speech.
If you want tolerance from others, you certainly don't get it by being intolerant or violent toward others.
You also can't change the present or the future by trying to erase the past.
You need to "get real" yourself kid and realize that you're going to hear and see a LOT of things in life that you don't like.
If you're going to react to that by spending your time and energy trying to stop everyone and everything you don't want to hear or see, you're going to spend your life in frustration and failure.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-17-2017).]
Let me ask you, not at the point of a gun, ... do States have the right of disassembly ?
Great question.
We hear a lot lately about how the people depicted by those statues, (i.e. Robert E. Lee), were "traitors" or "treasonous".
However the contemporary facts tell us otherwise.
Secession of the states was not ruled illegal until after the war. The United States Supreme Court, in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700 (1868), determined that secession was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Salmon Chase wrote in his majority opinion that, "The ordinance of secession...and all the acts of legislature intended to give effect to that ordinance, were absolutely null. They were utterly without operation in law."
Note the date of the court's decision, 1868.
Fully 3 years after the end of the civil war.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-17-2017).]
I would really love to hear what you guys claim the civil war was about, and have any real sources to back it up.
It was simple,
Having spent over 40 years of my 64 years on this planet studying military and political history, and in particular the American civil war, the fact that you claim "It was simple" speaks volumes about your ignorance of the complexities of the topic.
I fully realize that you were probably taught that it was *simple*. Like millions of other young people, you were given a simple, expedient, intellectually lazy and politically acceptable explanation that the civil war was only about slavery.
As Allan Bloom outlined in his seminal work; "The Closing of the American Mind", you're probably also unwilling to entertain anything that might conflict with your idealistic, utopian and blinkered world view.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 08-17-2017).]
I have always thought--and this goes back to the history that I was taught in primary school and high school--that Robert E. Lee deserved a certain respect that no decent American would accord to any of the other leaders of the Confederacy.
MSNBC anchor Lawrence O'Donnell sees it very differently. What he said was actually rather startling to me. It's a narrative about Robert E. Lee that I had not ever encountered before. Admittedly, I have never studied the Civil War myself, in any "big" way.
O'Donnell certainly presents his "talking points" in a very authoritative style, as if they are meticulously researched. I have not tried to verify any of his "facts" about Lee in any kind of independent way, using any of my own ways of fact-checking and historical research.
If Mr O'Donnell has said anything in this on-air segment that is more false than true, I hope that someone will be able to call him out on it.
Everything the Democrat voters do, is based off emotion and knee-jerk reactions. The Democrat leadership know this, and that's how they're able to take advantage of their voters.
The Confederate Army deserves respect, because they too were Americans. America was divided.
The only lineage I have in America, is through my mom who's father was born in Missouri. His family goes back many generations, and they were all Republican, and I have two family members who fought for the Missouri 23rd Volunteer Regiment.
So... I have no ties to the Confederacy. Slavery was but one issue, maybe the straw that broke the camel's back. But it wasn't the only issue.
Those Americans deserve as much respect as those from the North. It was enacted into law that Confederate Veterans, and Confederate monuments are to be treated with the same regard and respect as Federal soldiers and monuments.
I realize you don't care, but I still had to respond to this nonsense.
Originally posted by Tony Kania: I have studied Civil War history, and even was involved in reenactments. I enjoy this.
Did you know that Abraham Lincoln was NOT against slavery? Look it up...
You and Threedog often respond back to E.Furgal. In thread after thread, he is your go to guy when responding. Me, I never picked on people to make myself look smarter.
You do not play poker. Those odds are accepted, and I raise the table...
Tony, I responded to you on the other thread and you replied with a poop emoji. If you are going to act like a child, you are going to be ignored like one.
.
?
.
.
