Posted on 10/12/2018 7:13:42 PM PDT by yesthatjallen
President Trump praised Confederate Geader Robert E. Lee as "a great general" on Friday during a campaign rally in Lebanon, Ohio.
"So Robert E. Lee was a great general. And Abraham Lincoln developed a phobia. He couldn’t beat Robert E. Lee," Trump said before launching into a monologue about Lee, Lincoln and Ulysses S. Grant.
"He was going crazy. I don’t know if you know this story. But Robert E. Lee was winning battle after battle after battle. And Abraham Lincoln came home, he said, 'I can’t beat Robert E. Lee,'" Trump said.
"And he had all of his generals, they looked great, they were the top of their class at West Point. They were the greatest people. There’s only one problem — they didn’t know how the hell to win. They didn’t know how to fight. They didn’t know how," he continued.
Trump went on to say, multiple times, that Grant had a drinking problem, saying that the former president "knocked the hell out of everyone" as a Union general.
"Man was he a good general. And he’s finally being recognized as a great general," Trump added.
— NBC News (@NBCNews) October 13, 2018 Trump has drawn criticism for his defense of Confederate statues, including those of Robert E. Lee.
He drew widespread condemnation last year following a deadly rally in Charlottesville, Va., saying that white nationalist protesters were there to oppose the removal of a "very, very important" statue.
"They were there to protest the taking down of the statue of Robert E. Lee,” Trump said at the time. “This week it's Robert E. Lee. I noticed that Stonewall Jackson is coming down. I wonder, is it George Washington next week and is it Thomas Jefferson the week after? You know, you really do have to ask yourself, where does it stop?”
Trump, speaking at another rally in Ohio last year, said that he can be one of the “most presidential” presidents to hold office. "…With the exception of the late, great Abraham Lincoln, I can be more presidential than any president that’s ever held this office,” he said to a crowd in Youngstown.
You ignore the fact that *CALLING* someone a "Rebel" does not prove them to be a "Rebel."
If you don't like due process, then just say so. I can see how it's far easier to just assert someone is bad, and therefore should be deprived of rights. It's so much easier than following the constitutional rule of law.
They almost did it with Kavanaugh. I guess you are on the side of accusations being the same thing as proof.
I repeat. If you put "Pearl Harbor" into your message, I will ignore the rest of it.
It makes perfect sense from where I sit, but your words "conquer" and "empire" are pretty loaded.
"Empire" is not considered legit today, but back then some Americans (i.e., George Washington) referred to the USA as "our empire", without any sense of sarcasm or depredation.
For your word "conquer" I'd say "liberate" or "restore".
The key historical fact here is that the vast majority of Unionists believed Confederates were engaged in a thoroughly illegal assault on the United States which had to be defeated, almost at any cost.
Remember this: in 1864 George McClellan would have been elected President and cut a deal with Confederates, not because most Northerners were sick & tired of war, but because they were sick and tired of losing.
When Grant & Sherman, et al, showed voters they know how to win, then Lincoln won relatively easy reelection.
In 1864 Democrat McClellan won New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky.
What the Confederates did is irrelevant to the laws governing Union behavior. If you can show me where in the constitution it has a "but, but, but, they did it too!" clause, then I'll withdraw my point.
Till then the *UNION* must obey the constitution, even if the Confederate didn't.
This is a yes or no question. So try again.
This message from you is not even comprehensible to me. But at least it was short.
Supposing it does, *who* gets to decide if something is a "Rebellion"? Did the framers of the constitution ever intend to apply the term "Rebellion" to states who through a Democratic process voted to separate from the Union? I very greatly doubt it.
I recall one Supreme Court Justice (Salmon P. Chase, I think) saying "Secession is not Rebellion."
So did Lincoln go to the courts to get them to decide it was a "rebellion", or did he just through his own power, declare it so?
If you want people to take you seriously, you'll have to do a better job of refuting their points.
I think the Navy counts too.
After Fort Sumter the first battles were in Union states like West Virginia,
When was it again that West Virginia became a Union state? And how did it do that since the constitution expressly forbids it?
Article IV, says the same thing, so it's really axiomatic.
The only thing I “buy into” is Americanism, BroJoe.
America First, always, and in everything. Whatever makes this Country of ours better, stronger, safer, wealthier, and a better place for my kids, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren and beyond. We’re here for an eye-blink, and we owe it to future generations to do better than was done for us. And we were handed something pretty damned special, so it’s our job to ensure it remains so.
Picking fights or arguments over something that ended 150 years ago solves nothing. Muzzles point OUT of the perimeter, and there’s plenty enough enemy out there.
Just thought I'd let you know.
Yes, Lincoln bribed them. Offered promises of government jobs in exchange for support from pivotal delegates. Set the entire tone for his Crony administration and it's back door corruption with big business.
We see the consequences of it in the subsequent Grant Administration.
Calling secession "rebellion" was how Lincoln launched his war. Money was the reason why he launched the war.
But if that, ahem, "someone" has provoked, started, formally declared & waged war on the United States, how is that "someone" not a rebel, or whatever other name might make you feel better about it?
DiogenesLamp: "If you don't like due process, then just say so.
I can see how it's far easier to just assert someone is bad, and therefore should be deprived of rights.
It's so much easier than following the constitutional rule of law. "
As best I can tell, you are asserting without evidence that the laws of war or rebellion, as understood & practiced in the 1860s, were in fact "unconstitutional" and should have been abandoned then to whichever degree was needed to guarantee Confederate victory, is that right?
In other words, you are asserting that the Constitution, despite learned words quoted here to the contrary, was & is in fact, a "suicide pact"?
See my post #559
DiogenesLamp: "They almost did it with Kavanaugh.
I guess you are on the side of accusations being the same thing as proof."
I'm not certain on this...
Would you call the deaths of thousands of soldiers on battlefields from Maryland to New Mexico enough "proof" that a war was on?
What more "proof" do you need?
Law should not change depending upon who sits on the bench. If it does, it is not actual law, it is usurpation of the law.
I'll repeat, if I've said this before: that makes you a coward, intellectually dishonest, a Kool-Aid drinker and mere propagandist for a Lost Cause which, from all we've seen, you have no real interest it.
Oh yeah. Boy’s got a head full of snakes for sure. You know Joe K Ive always thought that, of course given the nature of the times, the quality of life, health care(such as it was), diet and other things related to the 19 century that photos of people from that era, men in particular, they always had a look about them as if they were half demented.
Only if Pearl Harbor happened to be in Tokyo bay and the US was trying to start a war with Japan by attacking Pearl Harbor.
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.