Trump: 'Robert E. Lee was a great general'

[mountaineer]

My ancestors were simple hardworking farmers in Virginia, much too poor to own slaves. When the war started, they knew only that they were defending their homeland. I am not ashamed of them.

[austingirl]

Victory was never an objective of the Confederacy. Just independence.  From what I have read, slavery even toward the onset of CW was gradually losing favor in the south.  Adding the technology point, I have seen estimates that abolition would have happen somewhere between 1880-1900.

This. The history books reflect the canard that the South fought for slavery and the ignorant buy it.

[Fishrrman]

Suppressed observed (very cogently):
"the North wanted subjugation, even if that meant destroying what they wanted to control.  The South just wanted to be left alone."

Seems like we have exactly that kind of "chasm" right now, with the leftist/democrat-communists on one side and traditional-minded Americans on the other.

What will be the resolution this time ??

[edpc]

This. The history books reflect the canard that the South fought for slavery and the ignorant buy it.

Difficult to ignore the Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech, delivered just weeks before hostilities and honestly call it a canard.

[goodwithagun]

Difficult to ignore the Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech, delivered just weeks before hostilities and honestly call it a canard.

Don’t bring facts into this rehashing of results that can never be altered!

[goodwithagun]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I just read the transcript. You are all refighting the war over nothing.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

[Chosen Daughter]

   Rumor is that Gen. Lee also dated a Slovenia underwear model and was a Democrat.  /JS

 

[austingirl]

Difficult to ignore the Alexander Stephens Cornerstone Speech, delivered just weeks before hostilities and honestly call it a canard.

Easy to ignore the writings of others that don't support your erroneous thesis.

[edpc]

Easy to ignore the writings of others that don't support your erroneous thesis.

Whatever you say.   

His sick words state otherwise.


But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. 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.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/

[goodwithagun]

Easy to ignore the writings of others that don't support your erroneous thesis.

But by ignoring this speech, aren’t you doing the same?

This forum is a little testy lately so I add this: I really like you. I’m not posting this to create yet another controversy/pissing contest. I’m merely stating this for actual debate.

[Emjay]

Easy to ignore the writings of others that don't support your erroneous thesis.

I believe the topic was that Robert E. Lee was a great man and a great general.

[endicom]

Falabella.

[Emjay]

Falabella.

Does that mean the same thing as womp, womp?

[endicom]

Does that mean the same thing as womp, womp?

It's a horse.

[truth_seeker]

Erwin Rommel eas considered to be a great general.

Holding two conflicting ideas at once, is a good quality.

[The_Reader_David]

Other reports make clear that Trump's (fully justified praise) of Lee's strategic and tactical prowess was in the context of a build-up to fulsome praise of Ulysses S. Grant. 

Other great generals:  Erwin Rommel, Heinz Guderian, Ghengis Khan, Tamerlane,...

Why the left insists in proving themselves stupid by pretending that superlative generalship cannot be found throughout history fighting for immoral causes and causes of dubious morality, is quite mystifying. I guess they really are just that stupid.

[catfish1957]

Why the left insists in proving themselves stupid by pretending that superlative generalship cannot be found throughout history fighting for immoral causes and causes of dubious morality, is quite mystifying. I guess they really are just that stupid.

@The_Reader_David

Speaking if immoral causes, as much as I despise W. T. Sherman, he was a superior field general and maybe the ultimate  practitioner of "The Ends Justifies the Means" philospophy.

Through my extensive research, I found it  shocking that the northern. press had little criticism of his practices.  By 1864, maybe the country as a whole had gotten so jaded that they were numb to what should have been an outrage.

[edpc]

I believe the topic was that Robert E. Lee was a great man and a great general.

Then, by all means, tell us more about your letters.   

[Silver Pines]

I understand Southern pride.  I have it myself.  But I swear I don’t understand why we don’t want to admit the war was fought over slavery.  It was, you guys. 

Maybe it’s not wanting to give an inch to people you think look down on the South.  Some (not necessarily here) do just that, but who cares.  We all run into Northerners who come down here and think they can improve the South with their liberal politics, their impatience on the behind the wheel,  and  their habit of wiping out the pastrami at the grocery store deli.  We laugh at them, like they deserve. 

We also don’t need to indulge any Northern self-righteousness, since that region profited like crazy from the slave-driven cotton trade.  After the importation of slaves was banned, the building of slave ships continued there, in order to keep the slave trade going to the Caribbean and South America.  Also, shipping black slaves from Maryland and Virginia to the plantations in the deeper South was financed by the North.

Pockets of slavery existed for a long time after the North ended the practice, and blacks pretty much caught hell up there after fleeing the South.  There were no angels.

It’s also simple fact that the North entered the war not to end slavery, but to preserve the Union.  Abraham Lincoln was not an abolitionist and believed—stated—that the North had no right to interfere in the Southern slave trade.  It’s interesting...the old chestnut about history being written by the victors is true.  You have to dig for some of this stuff.  It’s amazing that some Northerners don’t know slavery ever existed there.   I’m pretty sure they also don’t know that blacks were lynched in the streets of New York City in 1863.  So there’s little room for anybody to get on a moral high horse.

 As for the South, we fought to keep slavery as an institution.  I’m sure most of the poorer men who took up arms did so for love of their home.  I’ve read that many resented having to leave their families, homes, and crops when they had no slaves of their own...they felt it was a rich man’s war. 

Only ninety years prior to the CW, the colonies beat the most powerful military force in the world and founded this country, unique in the history of the world,  based on man’s God-given rights.  “Confederate Constitution”... we never needed a new Constitution. 

[Emjay]

Then, by all means, tell us more about your letters.   

Thank you, Ed.  Next you will be wanting to know about Tandy Walker Davis, an ancestor on my Mother's side who joined the Cavalry from Alabama.  He had to furnish his own horse.  Lots of good stories about him.

[Formerly Once-Ler]

No, but I will judge you that way for the other 6 non-slave holders who killed and died defending their homeland.

@catfish1957
Defending evil because it is on your side is not a virtue to me, although I can sympathize for the position they were in.  I am saddened they sided with the minority slave owners, and you, I suspect, are proud. 

[Formerly Once-Ler]

That is just a stupider comment than your last one.

Am waiting now to see #3.

@IsailedawayfromFR
Why are you waiting for my stupid comment?

[Formerly Once-Ler]

His sick words state otherwise.

@edpc
I am constantly amazed at the things I don't know.  Thanks for posting that.

[truth_seeker]

"Ancestor Virtue Signaling."

Guess what? British and Canadians today, are descended from those that fought in opposition to the Founding of the United States of America.

Would you hold those descendants in low regard, for the actions of that time, place, etc?

In my opinion,it is not differentfor a Southerner today to be proud,, than for a Canadian or Brit today to be proud.


For example, what about the descendants of those that fought against OUR Plains Indians, for decades?

Seems to bea fool's errand, to chase around signaling phoney virtue at eery instance.


The Anti-Mormons ar your fvorite old site, for a time, ranted on and on, about a massacre in Southern Utah over 100 years ago, suggesting every Mormon today should be diminished for it.

[DCPatriot]

"Ancestor Virtue Signaling."

Guess what? British and Canadians today, are descended from those that fought in opposition to the Founding of the United States of America.

Would you hold those descendants in low regard, for the actions of that time, place, etc?

In my opinion,it is not differentfor a Southerner today to be proud,, than for a Canadian or Brit today to be proud.


For example, what about the descendants of those that fought against OUR Plains Indians, for decades?

Seems to bea fool's errand, to chase around signaling phoney virtue at eery instance.


The Anti-Mormons ar your fvorite old site, for a time, ranted on and on, about a massacre in Southern Utah over 100 years ago, suggesting every Mormon today should be diminished for it.

Much truth here from @truth_seeker !!  It's a fools errand.

Pragmatically, I enjoyed the thread to learn about members...no different than FB building a profile on your likes.