Posted on 01/20/2012 3:28:33 PM PST by BigReb555
“..and not a military academy. That’s one for me.”
Not surprising since there were no military academies in the colonies.
Lawrence Washington and his army friends tutored young George in military science, in the same manner that Thomas Jefferson was provided a classical education by his tutors. Tutors were the common method of providing an education in colonial Virginia. The few colleges that existed were in New England and New Jersey.
But following what passes for logic in your argument, Jefferson would have had no education because, like Washington, he learned from tutors and not an academy. It’s little wonder that you come to the conclusions that you do seeing how you reason.
“Not only possible but an actual occurrence. He wasn’t, you’re wrong, and that’s two for me.”
Well you have yet to tell us what nationality you think Washington possessed as a subject of the Crown colony of Virginia.
George Washington was the great grandson of John Washington of Essex, England. He was a subject of the Crown colony of Virginia and had served in Braddock’s army as a colonial officer. The Crown regarded him as a British subject, and before opting for rebellion Washington and his contemporaries appealed to London on the grounds that they enjoyed all of the rights of Englishmen.
The Crown thought Washington was a British subject. Washington thought he was a British subject. When Washington and his fellow colonists declared the secession of the colonies from England they were declared traitors to the Crown.
But you say that you have some secret knowledge which says that Washington was ..... well what was he, rockrr? Tell us what country Washington was a subject of before the Revolution.
“Sorry Mr. Pel (or is it Ham?), but you are wrong (again).”
Good grief, are you unable to even use a dictionary?
secede
verb withdraw, leave, resign, separate, retire, quit, pull out, break with, split from, disaffiliate, apostatize On 20 August 1960 Senegal seceded.
“Oh, and the inference that I somehow support the crown? Laughingly idiotic on your part”
Not an inference, a syllogism based on your own complaint that the South failed to imitate Dunmore. Less laughing and more study on your part, rockrr, and then maybe some day you’ll actually earn points and won’t be reduced to awarding them to yourself.
He owned 5 slaves personally, a female “Nancy” and her 4 boys. I always wondered, what happened to the girl children. The chances of 4 boys and no girls is about 1 in 16.
Lee was a career military man. He moved where his leadership sent him, and he brought no slaves along. His primary "ownership" of slaves was via his role as executor of his father-in-law's estate. Hs actions in that period (1860-1862) primarily show that he had vastly more important things on his mind.
Lee's calculated defensive tactics are what kept McLellan out of Richmond for the peninsular campaign (where Lee was initially also called, derisively, the "King of Spades.")
The generation of Churchill or Eisenhower looked at things differently: respect for Lee was part of the price of union. It was a deference that the North gave the South in return for the South respecting the national union. A romantic image of Lee as Christian American hero replaced thinking about him in realistic or political terms.
Since then, the wheel has turned again, and there's likely to be more critical discussion of who Lee was, what he did, and what he represented. If that's "political correctness" then so, in its time was the reverence of a century ago.
I guess we could say that Lee was a "Great American" if we understand "Great" to mean "tragic" or "Shakespearean". Try to simplify it more than that and you get into trouble.
You are forgetting the 1st Minnesota on day 1
The US Constitution's definition of treason is clear and simple:
Article 3, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort..."The Congress shall have power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted."
There is no historical dispute that Secessionists in 1861 started, formally declared and waged war against the United States.
But does that make them necessarily traitors?
The answer depends on whether their declarations of secession were themselves considered constitutional.
So, is secession constitutional?
Answer: of course it is, if, if, if it's done according to the Founders' Original Intent -- meaning with mutual consent, or in Madison's words:
Bottom line: if slave-holders' declarations of secession were constitutional, then Confederates were no longer US citizens, and their declaration of war on the United States, on May 6, 1861, might not necessarily be classified as treason, according to the Constitution's definition.
At war's end, terms offered by Lincoln and Grant were basically: Unconditional Surrender in exchange for no prosecutions for treason.
So far as I know, the issue was never tried in Court, or in Congress, so it remains a matter of debate.
Lee had substantial influence over his postings, particularly in his later years with the US Army. Far from merely going where sent, he requested, and got permission for extended residence at Arlington to settle his father in law’s estate. That is why he happened to be available when John Brown raid in Virginia took place.
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.
The pretense of the rebels was that unilateral secession at pleasure was legal. That pretense was founded on a lie, to justify their treason.
Rebellion against the government is treason. There is one exception: if you win. That high standard was not met by the rebels of 1861.
The admiration if Eisenhower et al. for Lee was for some of his military achievements, not for his politics. In like manner one can respect and even admire Eric von Manstein/Lewinski’s military achievements without supporting his sad devotion to horrible political masters and corresponding war crimes.
But there was no treason trial BECAUSE SESSION WAS NOT ILLEGAL OR UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Davis wanted, no begged is a better word, for a trial after Lincoln's pretend war to "preserve the Union". But the cowardly sniveling Yankees "victors" would not put their illegal war on trial. That really pisses you guys off doesn't it? Kind of ruins the party for you. Poor babies. You would just love to see Matthew Brady pictures of Lee swinging form a rope but alas you creeps have been denied your last "treat". The 'f' job on the South would have no climax.
Sic semper tyrannis.
Lee was covered under his parole agreement, and thus should, and could not have been tried. It was considered, and Grant quashed it, absent evidence that Lee had violated his parole.
Davis was pretty discredited at the end of the war, and wrote his works of fiction to rehabilitate himself. As you know, the legality of secession as pretended in 1861 was treated by Texas v. White.
I thought I answered it by stating that Lee was covered by his parole agreement.
Davis was not covered by a parole agreement as far as I know, until he accepted parole after he was released, and accordingly before that could have been legally tried and hung. Prosecutor’s discretion was applied, recognizing that when two officials committed similar acts, their treatment should be similar. I look on that as an act of mercy by the victorious federal government.
Davis’ justifications of pretended unilateral secession at pleasure fail. The entire federal constitution, to include the amendment process, and the requirement to resolve disputes using the supreme court, was a limitation on state sovereignty agreed to by the states when they accepted the Constitution. To pretend that later a state could overturn their sovereign agreement to those limitations would be a ex post facto limit on the sovereignty of the states which agreed to the Constitution.
Again, asked and answered. Perhaps you would like to know my opinion of people who champion treason for evil purposes?
I think, like your blue ancestors, you demonstrate the qualities of a scalawag, reprobate and a scapegrace.
And I think, like your rebel models, that you pretend powers you do not have to judge matters beyond your knowledge, understanding, and authority.
I am glad you are not in charge of my homeowner’s association, to say nothing of any higher position of trust and responsibility.
Please answer Yes or No to the following question:
Jefferson Davis should have been tried for treason by the US Government after his capture in 1865. If found guilty he should have been hung.
I will make it easy for you.
Davis could have been convicted, and could have been hung. They decided not to go forward with a trial, in keeping with the widespread mercy the US bestowed on those deluded or oppressed by the slave power. Davis accepted that mercy.
John Brown should not have been hung for treason against Virginia, as JB had never taken an oath of loyalty to Virginia, nor was the Harpers Ferry arsenal a Virginia installation. He could have been tried for the felonious murders in Virginia, but trying a white man for the murder of a black man wasn’t the example the slave power wanted.
By contrast, Davis had taken such an oath of loyalty to the US, and then made war against the US as a general of the militia of Mississippi and as president.
As every American retains the right of rebellion, the federal government retains the right to punish for rebellion. The government also retains the right to not punish at its discretion. The government exercised its discretion.
So a simple question for you: yes or no, do you support treason?
I hate to see ya getting emotionally overwrought cva, especially since BroJoeK covered this in #85.
You are a coward LOL!
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.