Obama: Controversy on Memorial Day

[Sicario]

Memorial day is over. So is this controversy? :dunno:

 

[Baill Inneraora]

That was wrong and unconstitutional.

Will E. thinks he's a real constitutional scholar.

Robert E. Lee was lucky he wasn't hung for treason.

 

[Member2019]

Robert E. Lee ...

Robert E. Lee was lucky he wasn't hung for treason.

Considering he waited until after Virginia left the union, and had many doubts about both the war and its goals, give the man a little more credit. To him, this was about his homeland state of Virginia.

What would you do if your state left the union?

I think people forget that the Civil War was more than just about slavery. It was a rally cry for some, but there were sincere, legitimate complaints from the South about the North before the war.

The water it down as only about slavery is to call for its repeat.

If people were really interested in "change," they would have saw to ensuring African Americans were truly free. Many just went back to the plantations they were working at, and issues would ensue for more than a century more.

There's no more proof in this than how the North treated the South after the war, using slavery as their justifications, while not doing much for African Americans.

Heck, it took the will of Grant to actually do a few things and try to protect African Americans, including against the new Klan that started their reign of terror. But it was far too little for nothing, and that's why the "states' rights" abuse continued, when they could have ended it, had the North actually cared.

That continues to be my complaint, especially when it came to the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson.

 

[Will E Worm]

Robert E. Lee was lucky he wasn't hung for treason.

How's it treason? They were trying to free themselves from people trying to take away their freedom. Like Lincoln, even the History channel was right about Lincoln's unConstitutional acts.

You know before someone with the guts to finally put a bullet in his head.


Reread Prof Voluptuary comments.

They didn't care about the slaves they just wanted to justify a war with the South to keep them under their rule. :tongue:

 

[Will E Worm]

*Double post*

 

[Member2019]

Whoa dude! Now hold on!

You know before someone with the guts to finally put a bullet in his head.

Whoa dude! Now hold on!

I utterly agree that Abraham Lincoln was one of our worst Presidents. At the same time, he was still one of our greatests. You have to take the good with the bad and vice-versa.

Abraham Lincoln avoided challenging the US Constitution at times, including avoiding emancipation. People forget he didn't do that until 1863. But he did suspend many rights before then, and several after. He broke state's rights in many ways beyond fighting slavery.

And that included many rulings by the US Supreme Court confirming he did.

They didn't care about the slaves they just wanted to justify a war with the South to keep them under their rule. :tongue:

Er, sort of.

Long story short, the North had majority representation and many federal acts favored the North over the South. In fact, one would argue that the North continued to ignore the economic details of the South and their reliance on cheap (or free) labor.

This ignorance did not end with the Civil War, and it's why the African Americans continue to be treated poorly in the South after the war. In fact, some did not like the new Klan because it was bringing attention to what was largely a "status quo."

There is nothing worse than those feeling justified doing as they wish in their own, selfish interests. The North was no better than the South in that regard. Most in the South believed they'd lose, but they wanted to fight anyway.

Hell, if the South would have just pushed through to DC in '61, it might have been over. But they refused to invade the North until '63, when things weren't looking nearly as good.

 

[Will E Worm]

Re: Whoa dude! Now hold on!

Whoa dude! Now hold on!

I utterly agree that Abraham Lincoln was one of our worst Presidents. At the same time, he was still one of our greatests. You have to take the good with the bad and vice-versa.

Evil is evil, I'm not taking some bad to get a little good.

Also, what did the Union do to make life any better for the "freed" slaves?

That's correct nothing. :hatsoff:

 

[Member2019]

Re: Whoa dude! Now hold on!

Evil is evil, I'm not taking some bad to get a little good.

Then everyone is evil.

I don't disagree it's an important aspect to consider in a day when people ignorantly state that W. is the worst President, the first President to do this, Democrats never do that, etc... (please! JFK, FDR, plenty of others to revisit )

Also, what did the Union do to make life any better for the "freed" slaves? That's correct nothing. :hatsoff:

That is the continued, valid point that I've been trying to impress upon people for years.

 

[Hot Mega]

Re: Whoa dude! Now hold on!

Also, what did the Union do to make life any better for the "freed" slaves?

That's correct nothing. :hatsoff:

Uh, freeing them was pretty big wouldn't you say??

 

[Member2019]

No, they weren't ...

Uh, freeing them was pretty big wouldn't you say??

The problem is, they did not. I think you need to re-read your history, and stop being spoon fed the simple history.

 

[Neutron66]

The Union didn't free the slaves?

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Some of the those states are pretty progressive, though.

You can have Ohio and the bottom halves of Illinois and Indiana.

California should become it's own country. It's a hellhole.

Also the American Civil war being about slavery is the second grade version of the American Civil War. It really was about federal power. President Lincoln ran on keeping slavery in the south in the 1860 election because he was afraid of secession. He was interested in the U.S.A. only.

Whoa, there were more Ohioans that fought for and died for the Union than any other State during the Civil War.

Some of my favs would be: William Tecumpseh Sherman, Phillip Sheridan, US Grant.

 

[Spleen]

Spleen, I didn't say the article used the word more than once or how many times it was used.

You implied the article was about controversy, you named the thread after it, and it wasn't about that at all. You took the article completely out of context because you love blowing things out of proportion.

 

[calpoon]

Yes Lincoln sucks and the north did a lot of fucked up things and didn't really care about slaves...

But the south weren't freedom fighters against government tyrany, they were people that were trying to justify the right to slavery which is the worst violation of human liberty and against everything that the US is supposed to stand for.

 

[bodie54]

How's it treason? They were trying to free themselves from people trying to take away their freedom.

Really?
Exactly which freedom was Lincoln attempting to take from them, Will E?

You know before someone with the guts to finally put a bullet in his head.

That's one of the most offensive comments it's been my displeasure to read on this site. In all my time here I've never instigated a neg rep, but that comment sorely tempted me.

And for the record, in murdering Lincoln your hero John Wilkes Booth did nothing but insure reconstruction would be much much tougher on the South than it would have been under Lincoln.

 

[bodie54]

Hell, if the South would have just pushed through to DC in '61, it might have been over. But they refused to invade the North until '63, when things weren't looking nearly as good.

According to commanding General Joseph Johnston, in the wake of Bull Run the Confederate Army was as disorganized in victory as the Union army was in defeat, thus explaining the failure to push through.

In contrast, by the summer of 1863 the Army of Northern Virginia was a finely tuned fighting machine fresh off a crushing victory in May at Chancellorsville. The loss of Jackson was sure to be felt, but having attained "the habit of victory" under Lee, morale in the ANV remained sky high, while war weariness was progressively afflicting the north. Furthermore, in the prelude to Gettysburg the Army of the Potomac changed commanding generals yet again, leaving Meade only a few days to establish himself in that position. Also, a decisive victory on northern soil held the hope of inspiring British recognition; the pot of gold the Confederacy had been pining for since day one.

As a side note, theoretically speaking: had Washington D.C. been lost it would have been a strategic setback and a terrific national humiliation. It's conceivable that would have inspired foreign recognition of the Confederacy, but it's far more likely the capitol would simply have been relocated while the war continued.

 

[bodie54]

Part II

Hell, if the South would have just pushed through to DC in '61, it might have been over. But they refused to invade the North until '63, when things weren't looking nearly as good.

You also failed to note the south invaded the north a year prior to '63 via Lee's Maryland campaign of September 1862, culminating in the battle of Antietam.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

^^ And Braxton Bragg invaded the North in the Western Theatre in the late summer/early fall of '62 also.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Part II

You also failed to note the south invaded the north a year prior to '63 via Lee's Maryland campaign of September 1862, culminating in the battle of Antietam.

Ack, I should have clarified that a bit better. Based on my original statement, you are correct.

Besides, Maryland was actually a state that had a majority that wanted to join the CSA, but it sandwiched DC, so Lincoln had a little say in that (quite Unconstitutionally in fact).

 

[Will E Worm]

You implied the article was about controversy, you named the thread after it, and it wasn't about that at all. You took the article completely out of context because you love blowing things out of proportion.

What a day for a daydream, What a day for a daydreamin' boy. :sunny:

Yes Lincoln sucks and the north did a lot of fucked up things and didn't really care about slaves...

But the south weren't freedom fighters against government tyrany, they were people that were trying to justify the right to slavery which is the worst violation of human liberty and against everything that the US is supposed to stand for.

Yes, they were fighting against tyranny. :hatsoff:

Really?
Exactly which freedom was Lincoln attempting to take from them, Will E?

You need to watch the program about Lincoln on the History channel.

That's one of the most offensive comments it's been my displeasure to read on this site. In all my time here I've never instigated a neg rep, but that comment sorely tempted me.

Flattery

And for the record, in murdering Lincoln your hero John Wilkes Booth did nothing but insure reconstruction would be much much tougher on the South than it would have been under Lincoln.

Sure it did. He did us all a favor.

Uh, freeing them was pretty big wouldn't you say??

The problem is, they did not. I think you need to re-read your history, and stop being spoon fed the simple history.

Mega, you should listen to the Professor and the Worm

Blacks had to drink separately and they weren't allowed to eat in restaurants, in the 1960's. A long time after they were "freed."

Also, they were sprayed down with fire hoses like animals.

Also, what did the Union do to make life any better for the "freed" slaves?

That's correct nothing. :hatsoff:

That is the continued, valid point that I've been trying to impress upon people for years.

I don't know why more people can't see that. Do they like to be willfully ignorant? :dunno: