Posted on 05/13/2003 6:17:13 AM PDT by VMI70
This past weekend, my son and I went on his troop's annual father-son hike. His troop is one of many in the Robert E. Lee Council of the Boy Scouts of America, which is headquartered in Richmond, VA.
On Sunday, during the church service at the end of the hike, it was announced that the Council directors had voted to change its name from The Robert E. Lee Council, which has been in use for many decades, to something else.
This morning, the news broke on the local radio station: WRVA 1140 AM, Richmond's Morning News with Jimmy Barrett.
WP: Show that in the record.
I beg you to get some help with your reading comprehension problem. I pointed out that you were incorrect in saying "I do not think a single rebel citizen was hanged by federal authorities for disloyal activities." and gave an example.
I was aware of the Hunter letter. Obviously Lee was not in favor of immediate emancipation. It's also clear he had no love for the institution. As Non-Sequitor points out, he even termed it an "evil" at one point.
That's a long way away from the 2003 zeitgeist. For a scion of the southern plantocracy in the 1850's, it was remarkably enlightened. And fairness dictates judging Lee by the standards of his day, not ours.
Of course, Lee also advocated arming slaves in the final weeks of the war, offering them freedom for their service - a tactic of desperation to be sure. But then there was certainly some element of pragmatism in the Union's decision to form colored regiments - especially as the northern manpower pool began to dwindle in the final year of the war. A similar proposal just a year earlier by Patrick Cleburne likely destroyed any chances of advancement that outstanding division commander might have enjoyed for the remainder of the war.
For me the moment that stands out is the one in the church in April 1865. Lee was capable of growth on the issue and a warmth of Christian charity rare enough among his peers. While I reject DiLorenzo's argument, I can't agree that Lee is getting "better press" than he deserves.
Go for it! At least it isn't taking a dozen requests that you produce the letter, unlike the last time we had this exchange. Anyone who can read will know that you are peddling fibs.
You truly are one dim bulb, non-seq. How do you think trade occurs? When something goes out, it has to be paid for by the other party and vice versa. There are two ways that payment can occur - by exchange of currency and credit or by exchange of other goods. If Europe imports something into the US, we pay for it in dollars or by exporting something of our own, which in turn get spent buying other exports from us.
The same works for Europe, meaning if we export something to them, we expect payment in return. That means imports to the US or credit. If you impose a tariff, it blocks imports into the US from Europe. This in turn halts trade itself, meaning the exporters lose out.
As always, Walt, the criteria of your requests change after the fact. Reminds me of your old stunt on the issue of yankee rapists. First you denied that the rapes occurred and when evidence was presented that they did indeed, you responded by claiming they were less than 10 in number. That too was disproven, so you changed your criteria again and demanded that only the ones in Sherman's army counted. Sure enough, I posted a list from Sherman's army in addition to the other yankee armies -- I think it had some 60 named rapists in total -- and you fled the thread. Some things never change, I guess.
What on earth are you smoking, non-seq? The Morrill Act was by definition protectionist. It was openly proclaimed as such by the newspapers of the time and, after they were outed, its own sponsors. The bill was openly justified on the plank of the 1860 GOP platform calling specifically for protectionism. Lincoln himself touted its importance in a highly publicized speech where he reiterated this call for protectionism.
Your entire line of argument on this issue would be laughable if I did not think you actually hoped to accomplish something with it! It's becoming more absurd by the day...absurd to the point that you are even denying what the bill's supporters in its own day knew, admitted, spoke of, and publicly proclaimed to have been their agenda by passing it.
I'm not sure what to expect next from you in this little charade, but I have no doubt it will be amusing. I wait in anticipation, Mr. Perot. Roll out that next chart.
For the sake of consistency, we should probably change the name of our Council, too. What about...the Patty Murry Council? The Baghdad Jim McDermott Council? The Governor Grope Lowry Council?
Whiskey = Soviet Class Submarine
Papa = Soviet Class Submarine
I think your handle says it all about your views
Well, I guess that means the debate is over.
But was it unconstitutional, that was the original question.
I'm not sure what to expect next from you in this little charade, but I have no doubt it will be amusing.
The amusement will all be on my side. You may continue to make an ass out of yourself, you need no further help from me.
He was a strong propenent of slavery.
Walt
The debate on protectionism was over among economists a century ago. Your side lost. Live with it.
I believe that was a debate you were having with somebody else. For the record I do indeed believe it was unconstitutional, but our discussion was over its protectionist nature and the harm it inflicted on an export economy such as the south's. You made some off the wall claim that it hurt everybody "equally" and then tried to deny it was protectionist all together. Both claims were wrong, Non-Seq. That means you lose.
Call yourself whatever you like. I will consent to that term if you desire though as it does describe your recent behavior. But go ahead and wheel out those charts, Mr. Perot. I want to hear about the giant sucking sound coming from Mexico.
What is a propenent?
What on earth are you smoking, non-seq? The Morrill Act was by definition protectionist.
Saw a program on the History Channel recently. They had one of their talking head scholars noting that the ACW really started with the Kansans-Nebraska Act of 1854. Over two hundred people were killed in "Bleeding Kansas" prior to 1860. And it wasn't over tariffs.
Now it's always dicey to trust what one hears on the HC. But this stands up pretty well. The cause of the war was slavery, not tariff agitation.
I was watching this program on the HC this week about the "Hunter-Heroes" Boone and Crocket. It was generally very entertaining but it did offer as unchallenged the account of the death of Crocket, citing the diary of a Mexican officer who said that Crocket was among the 5 or 6 Texans captured and then immediately executed on order of Santa Anna. This particular factoid I KNOW is hotly disputed. There is no definitive agreement on how or when Crocket died. So the HC is playing fast and loose wth the truth.
I mention this to say that the account that the HC gave in the "April 1865" show of Lee taking communion with the black man in Richmond. That is also not well or authoritatively documented.
Walt
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.