Posted on 01/20/2012 3:28:33 PM PST by BigReb555
Dr. Edward C. Smith, respected African-American Professor of History at American University in Washington, D.C., told the audience in Atlanta, Georgia during a 1995 Robert E. Lee birthday event, ‘Dr. Martin Luther King and Robert E. Lee were individuals worthy of emulation because they understood history.’
(Excerpt) Read more at cumminghome.com ...
Don’t like the answer to the question I asked.
Noone ever called me a coward in Airborne school, in Ranger school, in my years of foreign service in the Army.
That you do it from the safety of an anonomous keyboard across the country tell us much about you, and nothing at all about me.
Shame on you.
Coward. Just the US Government to cowardly to try Davis post-bellum. Cowards all.
Lee, when he took command of the so called “Army of Northern Virginia” didn’t use calculated defensive tactics before Richmond. Rather he used attacks by Jackson’s corps, which mostly did not succeed, and cost the south 20,000 men.
Lee’s attacks destroyed an army. His own.
Thank you for your reply.
It is indeed true that of the Battles of the Seven Days it is only Gaines Mill that would be considered an absolute Confederate Victory, but Lee was brought in in the fourth quarter, down two touchdowns. Jackson weakened McLellan all that could be done, by playing Harry in the Valley Campaign, and with that done, Lee had to acccept huge risk and sacrifice to keep the War from ending in Spring of 1862 (it amazes me how few historians seem willing to admit how close McLellan, for all his faults, came to achieving this.)
With respect to Lee as a slaveowner, I would simply say that it is inaccurate to describe him as either a forward-looking humanitarian abolitionist or as a cruel plantation master; he was a career military man who primarily lived in Army housing, ate Army food, and breathed in air smelling of Army mule poop - not Mint Juleps and barbeque.
When I characterize him as a man of honor, I would caution anyone listening that it is awkward to judge the moral struggles of the leading figures of that time through a one-hundred-fifty year long lens.
I would also repeat that Picket was, in fact, a scumbag war criminal by the standards of his day as well as ours, and there was plenty of justification to hang him. That's why he fled the country after the war.
Haven’t figured it out yet?
I will give you a few more hours to beclown yourself then.
“Rebellion against the government is treason.”
That’s exactly what King George III said as he sent the Redcoats to quash the rebels.
“There is one exception: if you win. “
Your argument has the merit of doing away with legal and philosophical reasoning.
“That pretense was founded on a lie, to justify their treason.”
Now wait minute, you just said that rebellion is fine if you win. Now you’re saying it is based on a lie. So when Geo Washington and company rebelled from Great Britain, at what point did their rebellion cease being based on “a lie to justify their treason” and become instead a virtue?
“The pretense of the rebels was that unilateral secession at pleasure was legal”
You mean like at the Hartford Convention? Where the New England Federalists advocated secession in 1814? Where the secession minded New Englanders cited the Virginia and Kentucky Resolves of 1798, the same justification used in 1860?
“The admiration if Eisenhower et al. for Lee was for some of his military achievements, not for his politics.”
And you know this how, exactly? Where is the apposite quote of Eisenhower and Marshall to instruct you on what their interest in Lee was?
Still haven’t figured it out?
Keep beclowning yourself.
If Eisenhower admired Lee for his politics, Lee would have to have a political position for which to be admired.
Lee never did have a political position. At West Point Lee’s battles are studied. His politics, mostly either excused, or ignored.
Secession is the pretense that breaking the union would be legal under specific circumstances. Rebellion is the attempt to break the union outside the law, which may be justified by morality, as in 1776, or not as in 1860-61.
The union of the colonies was with the British Crown, rather like the union of the island of Jersey with England. England had no representation in their parliament from the colonies, just as they have no representation from the island of Jersey.
In 1776, England, with the king, had repeatedly attempted to tax the colonies, where they had no authority, and from which they had no representation. (The colonies had their own representation, and enacted their own taxes.) The English Parliament and the King had sent out soldiers and officers to enforce that taxation, effectively making war on the colonies. That war, begun by the Crown, justified the rebellion, despite pretended laws passed by England.
By contrast, the southern states had representation with the federal government, and far from being attacked by the federal government, the southern rebels attacked US government soldiers and seized US government bases and property.
The Union had preceded the states, and it was the concerted efforts of the United Colonies that created the states, with the states being later recognized by treaty with Britain.
So the lie of the rebels were as follows (incomplete list)
1. the pretense by southern rebels that secession was legal,
2. the pretense that the states had created the Union
3. the pretense that citizens of the states owed service to their states, even when a state legislature exceeded its authority, and pretended secession from the Union.
4. the pretense that the failure of northern state governments to support and obey slave state laws justified secession.
The success of those lies were uneven. Some states were able to delude most of their people owing to their people’s lack of education. Other states were not able, and relied on force (such as Texas, where Sam Houston as governor was removed because he would not take unconstitutional action.) In no rebellious state of 1860-1861 was rebellion justified, as no state was denied representation to the US Congress. Tennessee in particular retained its representation in the Senate even after their state pretended secession. For every less competent general such as Lee or Hood, trained by the Union, there was a more competent general such as Grant or Thomas, also trained by the Union.
Glad I could help you with that. Gosh, your education must be even more wanting than I previously appreciated.
Please tell me what scumbag war crimes are laid at Pickett’s door.
Inquiring minds want to know.
A recent Article in “Armchair General”, that I briefly read in an airport, suggested that Jackson had an appreciation of the strength of a fortified defense, and recommended either southern use of fortified positions, or raiding attacks against the north. Jefferson Davis and RE Lee overruled Jackson.
I point out the irony that John Brown also had gained (from Kansas) an appreciation of the strength of the defense, but not having a military education, overreacted to that appreciation, not having the benefit of constraints by other officers.
I disagreed with the idea expressed in that article that Jackson making those recommendations was more correct than those who overruled him. I think that Davis and Lee had an appreciation that removing southern militia from the south would have exposed the country to servile insurrection, and southern reliance on fortification would have exposed most of the country (that could not be fortified) to northern raiders.
More Irony: Meade defeated Lee at Gettysburg using the kind of field fortifications that Jackson had appreciated. Sherman cut off Atlanta, despite the fortifications which prevented direct assault. Then Sherman’s army, after Atlanta, functioned as the kind of raider that Jackson had advocated. Wheeler, in the absence of Hood and the Army of Tennessee, could not stop Sherman, even by resorting to illegal infernal devices that were nearly sure to randomly murder civilians.
North Carolina had the distinction of being the only seceding state where the question of secession was put to a popular vote, and the proposition was rejected. Many, many Tarheels opposed secession.
When Federal troops landed and siezed most of the Carolina coast, many North Carolinians enlisted in the U. S. Army.
Pickett captured a number of federal troops at New Bern. He declared that all North Carolinians in USA uniforms were deserters; he hanged (if memory serves) on the order of 26.
Knowing he would face trial, he fled the country after 1865. The general exhaustion of war finally led several ex-union officers to interdcede for him and suggest a (completely unjustified) amnesty.
That’s okay, donny, just because you can’t find any statement of Ike’s about why he admired Lee it doesn’t mean that you’re wrong. It just means you that can’t buttress your opinion with a reference.
That’s an interesting distinction you’re making between ‘secession’ and ‘rebellion’- too bad dictionaries don’t make that same distinction that you’re claiming.
Your definitions are what is known as “special pleading”, or an “appeal to” fallacy, where you are simply inventing a ‘definition’ convenient to your argument, but unsupported by any reference other than your own imagination.
Your precis of English history leading up to the war is amusing, considering that you have England starting the war through its intention to collect taxes, which of course was the role of Fort Sumter as the tariff collection facility in Charleston harbor. The logic of that argument probably won’t work out the way that you intend it to.
“The Union had preceded the states, and it was the concerted efforts of the United Colonies that created the states, with the states being later recognized by treaty with Britain.”
Well that of course is exactly backwards. The individual colonies/states drafted the Articles of Confederation in 1776 and then voted to establish the United States of America a year later by ratifying those Articles. In similar fashion the states replaced the Articles with the Constitution by ratifying it.
If the Union had preceded the states, as per your claim, then the colonies/states would not have had the power to ratify anything concerning the Union, since they would have been mere subordinate structures. But they did ratify the Articles, creating the union, and they ratified the Constitution, changing the structure and defining the powers of the national government.
As for the rest of your post, it’s tendentious nonsense. You need some basic history, as well as something like Copi’s Logic in order to learn how to put together an argument without the ad hominems and other logical fallacies that adorn your writing.
http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~ncuv/collins1.htm
“During the latter quarter of 1863 and early 1864, the Second North Carolina Union Volunteer Regiment began to take shape under the leadership of Captain Charles Henry Foster. The regiment was essentially a failure. It’s soldiers cared less about Unionism and Emancipation than the earlier more politically motivated recruits of the First North Carolina. Many of its men were ex-Confederates who were deserting in increasing numbers after the Southern defeats at Vicksburg and Gettysburg in mid-1863. These men had much to fear if captured since return to their former units meant certain death. The Second North Carolina also attracted scores of poor and destitute North Carolinians who were attracted to the service by an increase in the enlistment bonus from one to three hundred dollars in December of 1863. These men constantly petitioned/begged their officers to carry out expeditions behind enemy lines to retrieve wives and children. The poor and their families became a constant concern and worry to Federal military and civil officials. Recruiters heatedly competed for enlistees. Threats were used and aged men and young boys, and persons too ill and disabled were accepted and taken into the regiment. Such tactics brought a severe rebuke from General John Peck, in command at New Bern.
The decline of the Second North Carolina began in February 1864 during an offensive against New Bern by Confederate forces under Generals George Pickett and Robert Hoke. Company F, stationed on outpost duty at Beech Grove eight miles outside of New Bern, found itself trapped behind enemy lines. Their pleas to the New York officer in command to allow them to lead the outpost to safety were ignored until too late. Fifty-three members of the company were taken prisoner. Twenty-seven of these were former Confederates who had deserted from the Southern army. Court martials were held and twenty-two were publicly hanged within view of the citizens of Kinston. Within two months, all but a handful of the remaining fifty-three died slower deaths in prison camps at Richmond and Andersonville.
The executions caused shock-waves in the Union army, and struck fear in the hearts of the North Carolina regiments. Their greatest apprehension about being captured appeared to be confirmed — and worse, death by hanging instead of firing squad. Colonel Edward Ripley reported the utter demoralization of the North Carolina soldiers. “Indeed, they are already looking to the swamps for the protection they have so far failed of getting from our government... I believe they will inevitably, in case of a fight, become panic-stricken and have a bad effect on the rest of this slim command.” The men were further distracted when their regimental commander, now Lieutenant Colonel Charles Foster, a man who was well-loved by his men, but not by other Northern officers, was dismissed from the service.
In March, only six weeks after the hangings in Kinston, disaster struck again. General Hoke captured Plymouth on April 20 following a three-day battle. Most of companies B and E of the Second North Carolina regiment were taken prisoner. The latter company had been ordered to Beaufort the previous month and might have been saved. The order was reversed through the pleading of Captain Calvin Haggard of Bertie County who had argued that “we are as safe here as anywhere in Union lines.” Remembering the fate of Company F in Kinston, North Carolina soldiers sought refuge any way possible. Private Joseph Pritchard removed the identification from a dead New Yorker and attempted to pass himself off as a Northern soldier. General ... Wessells, in command at Plymouth, reported that “during the siege and in the night a considerable number of North Carolina soldiers ... left their companies without authority, escaping in canoes, being picked up . . by our boats in the sound.” Their conduct led to a general loss of confidence in the North Carolina Buffalo regiments.
General I. N. Palmer wrote to his superior in Fort Monroe that General Peck “not only has no confidence in them, but that he fears they will desert to the enemy.” Palmer himself had little faith in the North Carolinians and their steadfastness in the face a very superior force.
The loss at Plymouth led to another disgraceful incident involving the North Carolina soldiers. On the same day as the surrender at Plymouth, General Palmer ordered the evacuation of Little Washington and the removal of the North Carolina companies to New Bern. “Not a particle of property was to be destroyed,” he said in his order, “as the move was not being made in the face of the enemy.” Despite this, the Northern occupation troops went on a three day rampage that began at the quartermaster’s store of the First North Carolina. The Buffaloes of Company L joined Northern soldiers and sailors, Negroes, and in some instances citizens. Gangs of men patrolled the city, breaking into houses and wantonly destroying everything that they could not carry away. Officers were ignored, and the pillaging ended only when there was nothing left to plunder. To make matters worse, two fires, one purposely set to destroy the bridge, spread and burned much of the town. General Palmer was outraged, calling his own men an “army of vandals,” who were “not soldiers, but thieves and scoundrels. “
Sorry, you have it wrong.
Secession is the legal separation from the union. That is your neo-reb argument: Secession would be legal for the states, and your argument is that it was legal as practiced in 1860. If it was not legal in 1860, then the rebels were traitors when they made war against the US.
Neo-Rebs need to conflate the 1776 colonies that were (with royal charters and with royal governors) with the states (with elected governors and new constitutions) that they became to support the pretense that the states created the Union. So, when were these independent states independent? Name the year. Rather, it was an act of the union that published the Declaration of Independence. The colonies were not independent of the British Crown prior to that. Despite not being independent, the British Crown sent soldiers to occupy Boston in response to the Boston Tea party. English parliament had what they thought was a good scheme: They would collect the tax in England, and then the British tea company would sell the tea in the colonies at a price that was cheaper than the competition. Due to the unfairness of the tax, in most ports, the tea was not unloaded. In most ports, the tea was not unloaded, or was not distributed after unloading. Only in Boston was the tea destroyed. In response to the destruction of the tea, the British Crown sent soldiers, and Gage used them to hold Boston hostage until compensation was collected. When compensation was not forthcoming, Gage sent those soldiers on an extended raid to seize weapons not owned by the Crown, but rather by the local militia. Such military operations turned into a battle, and into a war. Further military operations occurred at Bunker Hill/Breed’s Hill. The Declaration of Independence was written in response to that war begun by the British crown.
It may be we both agree that secession could be legal. I hold legal secession could be possible by constitutional amendment, and might be legal by successful federal court case or perhaps even by federal law. Such legal secession would not be rebellion, being agreed to by the Union. None of those legal means were attempted by the rebels of 1860, as they recognized that they would fail. It was the rebels of 1860 that appealed to the sword, and they lost utterly.
Successful rebellion would also be theoretically possible, but in my lifetime, with the federal government deploying nuclear weapons, I see that as unlikely. Your mileage may differ.
That difference between secession and rebellion is not of my invention, but rather is well documented. Your inadequate education or tedious misrepresentation is no reflection on me.
I will point out that the key dates are 1776 when the Declaration of Independence was passed by the Union, as represented by the Continental Congress, and the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781. In response to the Declaration of Independence, the local governments removed royal governors, wrote constitutions to replace royal charters, and held elections, becoming states subordinate to the Union.
It was very common for southern officers to murder US soldiers of African descent, or the officers assigned to command US colored troops. Pickett murdering US soldiers doesn’t make him unique, I am afraid.
Enough time.
No, I don’t care enough about Davis the failed politician to have a position on whether he should be hung. That he committed treason, by levying war against the US should be a point on which we can agree.
Your assertion was that I and people like me wanted to see Lee and Davis hung. Your point is refuted. My response that Lee should not have been hung, baring violation of his parole, and I don’t care about the hanging of Davis the failed politician completes the refutation.
You lose again. Still.
Oh good. Your false statement about me is in the same class as your statements on the War of the Rebellion. “Completely lacking veracity”
So glad you made that clear.
Adding liar to the liar of perjortives for you....
“Dear Mr. President:
“At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.
“I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.
“The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes.
“Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?
Sincerely yours, “Leon W. Scott”
Eisenhower's response, written on White House letterhead on August 9, 1960 reads as follows:
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history. From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Sincerely, Dwight D. Eisenhower
Black union troops were indeed executed after surrendering on several occasions. A case was made that General Forrest bore responsibility for the Fort Pillow massacre, but my understanding is that that case rested on very littl e evidence and was largely refuted.
General George Pickett remains unique for ordering the execution, as deserters, of North carolinians whom he knew had never worn the uniform of any unit of the Confederate Army and who had never joined it.
To learn very little about the case (and nothing about the cuplability of the primary War Criminal, Pickett) other then a weak diatribe against the honor of North Carolinians who fought for the USA, please see the cut-and-paste weak substitute for an argument in post 110 above.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.