Current Events > Robert E. Lee is a bad and overrated general

(+) Yeah! (+)

Exactly confederate sympathizers always have revisionist history to bolster their side and make their side look good

---

FortuneCookie posted...

He ee-ehz a distinguished gentle-mun who fought for the Lost Cawse, suh!

Why, I do declare, General Beauregard! Are you trying to court me?

---

blackthunder329 posted...

Interesting thought on that. The Colonies were called "The British Colonies" for a reason. And what I had stated is factual based on the very definition of the word treason.

Im not sure if youre agreeing or disagreeing with me. Either way there's a large difference since colonists had zero say in the running of British government policy that effected them.

Southern states had representatives in the US gov. and decided to rebel anyway.

factually untrue. he was a competent general.

---

blackthunder329 posted...

Interesting thought on that. The Colonies were called "The British Colonies" for a reason. And what I had stated is factual based on the very definition of the word treason.

Actually, what I stated is more thought out that the OP's statement.

Here's the thing, the very definition of the word treason is exactly what the Colonists had done.

For anyone who thinks this country was founded by any means other than treason, remember this. The very definition of the word treason is "The crime of betraying one's country, especially by attempting to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government."

Now, the Colonists did exactly that by telling King George that he had no power over the people of the British Colonies. The "Revolutionary War" as it is called was no revolution. No one knows who fired the first shot. And the colonists had been attacking the soldiers for quite some time.

The South did the same, but in a more peaceful way. They just simply cut ties with the North and formed their own government. The North fired the first shot during the start of the Civil War. People want to call out Robert E. Lee for being such a terrible general, but seem to forget about General Sherman who burned and killed everything and everyone in his path to Atlanta.

Consider this. King George wanted to keep control of the British Colonies, land that was "owned" by Great Britain. The North wanted to keep control of the South to keep a complete "Union" of the growing nation.

Both used what would be called excessive force by military according to the way people act and think today.

Here's something even bigger. Are people going to go after the Washington Monument? Are they going to protest his accomplishments? No. He owned slaves. Just because he kept them well fed should not distract from the fact that he still had them.

How about any of the politicians up to, and beyond Lincoln? The have all ordered mass genocide of the Native tribes of this land. Yet people want to complain about something that was abolished at the end of the Civil War. That's right, the "Emancipation Proclamation" was done after the war was all but settled.

Keep in mind that the African peoples of the United States are allowed to live, work, go, etc. wherever they want. The slaves who came from Africa to the Colonies/United States were sold by their own people. The Native tribes are still being forced to live on land that the government controls. It is still in the books (laws) that in order for them to live outside of the Reservations, they have to give up their way of life, and live like the people who forced them from their land with the threat of mass genocide.

You legitimately have no grasp on history.

Just because two acts can be defined under the same crime does not mean they are identical. Historians and people with brains use this thing called "context" to define the ethical and moral implications of actions instead of just playing "match-the-word-to-the-definition".

The colonists were being ruled by a government that lived three months away from it with no legal representation within that government. Furthermore, that government did very little to secure the rights that that group of people thought was important, and we in hindsight can also agree that the discrete rights that they came up with (The Constitution) was a superior code of law for the region than what they were subjected to previously. After decades of discontent at the treatment and non-response from the British Crown about their treatment, the American's rebelled. It was treason in the legal sense, but crimes do not define morality. We infer our legal system from our moral code, not the other way around.

Now for starters, The South fired the first shot. They literally stormed Fort Sumter to capture Union war materiel. Now, what was the cause of the Secession of the South? What was their claim to moral goodness? It was slavery. There would have been no Secession if there was no slavery. The South wanted to keep slavery, and it wanted the right to expand slavery into regions that weren't even in The South. The only way you could argue that the American Independence War and the American Civil War were similar in their declarations is if you use reductive arguments to hand wave away literally all the important context that led up to the declarations of independence.

Edit: Also, the Emancipation Proclamation was done well before the war was settled as a means to legally justify capturing and freeing Southern Slaves. More blatant ignorance on your part. However, the Emancipation Proclamation did NOT free Northern Slaves, as it would have been illegal to do so without a Constitutional amendment.

Americans committed all kinds of atrocities that have nothing to do with the position you're trying to support. You've done nothing in the remainder of your post to demonstrate why the Genocide of the Native Americans is at all relevant to the debate at hand.

Go educate yourself on some American history before blathering about like a dotard. This kind of bold, unapologetic ignorance makes me sick.

---

Technically Lincoln did lose. Grant won. Unfortunately it was all a mess.

---

He was a good general but a better car.

P4wn4g3 posted...

Technically Lincoln did lose. Grant won. Unfortunately it was all a mess.

What?
---

UnholyMudcrab posted...

What?

Lincoln was assassinated, the south did not give up on their racism, reconstruction did not happen, the KKK was formed. Lincoln had a very ambitious goal in mind. Defeating the South was just about ending the Civil War. To a larger extent it was about getting a second term, but we know how that ended.

---