Posted on 01/07/2014 6:48:32 AM PST by BigReb555
The Georgia Division Sons of Confederate Veterans will again sponsor their annual Robert E. Lee Birthday Commemorative on Saturday January 18, 2014 at the Old Capitol Building, 201 E. Greene St., Milledgeville, Georgia.
(Excerpt) Read more at cumminghome.com ...
Interesting subject.
Kock was certainly ambitious, but it's unclear how unscrupulous he was. At the least, he put his own life on the line, going with his colonists (<500, not 5000) to Haiti. It should be noted that all colonists were volunteers, and that Kock got stiffed by his investors, who did not forward supplies as agreed.
Here's a link to the story.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=69893
An interesting account by one of Kock's descendants.
http://thompsongenealogy.com/2011/12/bernard-kock-colonized-cow-island-with-freed-slaves/
Lincoln's proclamation rescinding his agreement with Kock.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=69893
It's unclear to me why this story should be considered discreditable to Lincoln. It's usually coupled with implication that colonists were deported, rather than volunteers, which is flatly untrue.
While colonization projects failed, that doesn't mean they were inherently wrong or evil.
They did not go to the Alamo expecting to die.
No, but they stayed there knowing it. At least if the famous line in the sand story is true.
No one can teach southern women anything about passive aggression.
“No one can teach southern women anything about passive aggression”
Southern men know better. :-)
The men who landed on the Normandy coast weren’t there to enslave anyone. They were there to liberate people.
Good point. And I’ll take it one step further...
It’s hard enough to be precise in stating one’s own position, especially when it is multifaceted - it’s doubly troubling when it is misrepresented through imputation by someone else.
I prefer it when folks state their own premises (”I believe such & so”) rather than “You believe this n that” (therefore you must believe ABC).
Yeah. Pretty much.
Agreed. It's much easier to state a simple yes/no proposition than a complex position.
The problem is that human motivations are rarely simple. Any attempts to understand the past accurately tend to devolve into "on the one hand, but then on the other hand" accounts, which sound like equivocation even when they aren't.
It boils down to the fact there has never been a political group, or a human for that matter, that was all bad OR all good.
Which doesn't means (here comes the "on the other hand") that the mix between good and evil isn't important.
‘’there has never never been a political group, or a human for that matter, that was all bad OR all good’’<< Does that include Adolph Hitler and the Nazi Party? Or Barack Obama and the Democrat Party?
The men who landed on the Normandy coast weren’t there to enslave anyone. They were there to liberate people.
<><><>
Absolutely, the causes they fought for were quite different.
I was looking at it from the standpoint of the individual, looking at the open ground (water, beaches, whatever) knowing full well the arsenal that was pointing at you.
I spent the day at Antietam after coming back from my 4th tour in Iraq in 09...and I had the tower all to myself for about an hour...I had already gathered maps and walked Bloody Lane up to that point...I just just looked at the immense effort of men crossing open fields in shear numbers just to “take the field” so to speak...it was humbling to look down and understand what had occurred there...quite different than the desert.
Sad Earth, Sweet Heaven: The Diary of Lucy Rebecca Buck during the War betwen the States is the diary of a young woman who lived in Front Royal. It is an excellent view of the War in that area.
Can’t we just get along... ( ; )...
After we decide/state that slavery was wrong, then count Lee’s
good points and bad points...(tactics-good, strategy-bad)
...remember that U.S. and at one time Soviet commanders in training studied American “Civil War” battles to understand American military practice...my middle name is Lee, my wife’s middle name is Lee, my Mother’s middle name was Lee, my Mother-in-law’s middle name was Lee. My Mother-in-law was attended at birth by one of her two Grandfathers that served the South in the Civil War as doctors.
If we want to use the “Civil War” as a point of contest with liberals then we need to call it the “American Counter-Revolution” against federalism and state’s rights... and discuss the growing income inequality( ; ) between the North and South...and the North’s desire to be in charge of it’s destiny... at the loss of federalism and state’s rights.
I am not sure why you posted this to me. I did not, never do comment on the Civil War.
I think both sides were wrong and should have been able to work something out. Then after the north won, they did some terrible things to punish the south and that was another wrong that was committed.
I would disagree with that point.
“He wasn’t a traitor.
Lee’s primary allegiance like that of so many people back then, was to his state - Virginia.”
It was not.
Many Virginians served in the Union. Lee was not bound by anything to fight for a breakaway government. In fact a chunk of the state stayed with the Union. Virginia wasn’t even for succession until the U.S. had the nerve to not surrender federal property to a mob with guns pointed at Ft. Sumter.
So to whom was his loyalty naturally supposed to fall?
He rightfully resigned his post, and had hoped that it didn’t have to come to that, but in the end he had to betray his nation to work for another. That’s just the logic of the situation.
But he handled himself with such dignity and professionalism that he was saved from a firing squad in the end.
“Unfortunately it wasn’t so much the fed telling southerners what they could and couldn’t own - or do with their property - as it was the southern slavers who demanded that the rest of the country toe the line in tacit acceptance of the Particular Institution.”
Yes.
The Fugitive Slave Act was the Obamacare of the 19th century.
It forced people in states that didn’t practice this barbarism to collude with out of state slavers to hunt down human beings and force them back into bondage or face consequences.
It made slavery partially legal in states that wanted no part of it. Blacks had to flee the nation from places they were supposed to be safe.
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.