In Defense Of Robert E Lee (Canada, rating, governor, abuse)

[ChiGeekGuest]

Originally Posted by Hellion1999

funny, you should read the Corwin Amendment passed by the North and supported by Lincoln in 1861. It made slavery a constitutional state right and the feds could NEVER interfere......the North passed it by a majority so the South would return to the Union, the South didn't and Lincoln and the North decided to kill many people in the South and destroy the South to force them back in the Union......I guess that was honorable....

It had to do more about taxes, tarrifs and control of the revenues of the south. Lincoln and the North could care less about slavery and the slaves.....the Corwin Amendment proved that and it gets ignored over and over.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corwin_Amendment

Why only bring up the Corwin Amendment? Particularly when it didn't prevent the American Civil War?

The 36th Congress reviewed more than 200 resolutions regarding the issue of systemic & race-based slavery. 57 resolutions proposed amendments to the US Constitution.

...In the Congressional session that began in December 1860, more than 200 resolutions with respect to slavery,[7] including 57 resolutions proposing constitutional amendments,[8] were introduced in Congress. Most represented compromises designed to avert military conflict. Mississippi Democratic Senator Jefferson Davis proposed one that explicitly protected property rights in slaves.[8] A group of House members proposed a national convention to accomplish secession as a "dignified, peaceful, and fair separation" that could settle questions like the equitable distribution of the federal government's assets and rights to navigate the Mississippi River.[9]. ...

~ 8. Ewen Cameron Mac Veagh, "The Other Rejected Amendments" The North American Review, vol. 222, no. 829, December 1925, 281-2

Why was it seemingly impossible to avert military conflict? Same schtick as in the Constitutional Convention, 'owning people as property' was the irreconcilable difference, this time apparently, no compromise or consensus could be reached, more than half a million lives just had to be sacrificed.

Just like as in the present day, the folks who had the most to lose (their lives) & the least to gain were conned into believing the War would be short in duration while simultaneously being assured that the Gods were on their side ~ same old lame old bs.

Same as it ever was. SNAFU.

[ChiGeekGuest]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Bingo.

For everyone who falsely believes that Confederate states were not seceding in order to maintain slavery, read these excerpts from some of the Confederate states Declarations of Secession:



Can't get much clearer than that.

I think it's ironic that the very people who cry "They're trying to erase history!" have been guilty of not addressing REAL history like this.

Folks - the Confederacy was not an honorable cause to kill Americans over.

Agreed.

Jubal Early's fabrications live on, & still cause division in the present day.

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

And many of these deflections sound like debating with a child, a disrespectful child at that. This is often how Civil War discussions go. It turned into histrionics. Sometimes it would be better for some people to say "Yes, I know what the cause was about, and I don't care". At least we know where said person stands.

In many cases, deflection is a sign someone has something to hide. A way of saving face.

Right - and so often it quickly devolves into "So if you hate your state/this country/whatever so much, why don't you just leave?????" often laced with profanity and misspelled words. Sometimes it's downright depressing to realize just how many people are this...well, misled is a kind word for it.

[hooligan]

Originally Posted by rbohm

remember that was a time of legal quagmire, states seceding, people leaving the US and joining the confederacy. so once again you cannot take todays morality and attitudes and try to see history through those eyes. you have to see history from the point of view of the people who lived it back then.

attitudes change, moralities and legalities change with time.

So taking up arms against the government was not treason back in 1860?

[KathrynAragon]

Originally Posted by Nlambert

Lee chose to go home to fight alongside the Confederacy because his first loyalty was to his family and his home. Not because he agreed 100% with what the Confederacy stood for. You should do some research on him. There are plenty of letters written by Lee during that time period that explain very well why he made the choices that he made.

Speaking of letters written by Lee, this is an excerpt of one written by Lee to his wife:

In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things.

[rbohm]

Originally Posted by hooligan

So taking up arms against the government was not treason back in 1860?

remember that the south had seceded from the union, and thus were no longer part of the union. thus no treason exists.

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by hooligan

Again, it should be obvious that I'm speaking of a moral obligation, not a legal one.


I disagree that your moral obligation to protect and defend the Constitution ends when you separate/retire from the armed services.


All that aside, taking up arms in open rebellion against the duly elected United States Government is treason. It was then and it still is today. That takes care of the legal bit, as well as the moral.

The definition of treason is to attempt to kill the sovereign or overthrow the government. The Confederacy did not attempt to do either of these things. Lincoln did not want the southern states to secede, therefore he formed an army to prevent secession.


The definition of secession is the action of withdrawing formally from membership of a federation or body, especially a political state.


Our country was FOUNDED on a revolution against England. So our forefathers successfully seceded from England to form what is now the U.S. To assume that it is treasonable or illegal for states within the U.S. to secede doesn't hold any water. There was NOTHING in the constitution that prohibited secession or made it illegal. Nothing.


At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, a proposal was made to allow the federal government to suppress a seceding state. James Madison rejected the proposal stating " A union of the states containing such an ingredient seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a state would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound."


The first state announced secession on December 20, 1860. Prior to the start of the Civil War.


On March 2, 1861 AFTER 7 states seceded Sen. James Dolittle of Wisconsin proposed a constitutional amendment that said "No state or any part thereof, heretofore admitted or hereafter admitted into the union, shall have the power to withdraw from the jurisdiction of the United States."


Several months earlier, Daniel E Sickles of NY, Thomas Florence of PA, and Otis Ferry of Connecticut proposed the same thing.




Tell me this....... IF secession were illegal and treasonable, WHY would all of these representatives feel the need to propose a Constitutional Amendment to prohibit it?


Furthermore, the Northern Democratic and Republican parties favored allowing the South to secede in peace. Just about every Northern newspaper editorialized in favor of the South's right to secede.

New York Tribune (Feb 5, 1860): "If tyranny and despotism justified the Revolution of 1776, then we do not see why it would not justify the secession of Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861."

Detroit Free Press (Feb 19, 1861): " An ttempt to subjugate the seceded States, even if successful, could produce nothing but evil - evil unmitigated in character and appalling in content."

The New York Times (March 21, 1861): "There is growing sentiment throughout the North in favor of letting the Gulf States go."


The ratification documents of Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island explicitly said that they held the right to resume powers delegated, should the federal government become abusive of those powers. The Constitution would have never been ratified if the states thought they could not maintain their sovereignty.

[ChiGeekGuest]

Speaking of definitions: what's the definition of a civil war?

(Not the oxymoronic one, nor the one based on sophistry.)

[Nlambert]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

Speaking of letters written by Lee, this is an excerpt of one written by Lee to his wife:

You left out part of that letter.


The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild& melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?

Letter to his wife on slavery (1856). By Robert E. Lee // Fair Use Repository




Now.... back to my original point where people argue that he committed treason because he did not resign from the US Army...... he did in fact resign.


""Arlington, Virginia, April 20, 1861.

"General: Since my interview with you on the 18th inst. I have felt
that I ought no longer to retain my commission in the Army. I therefore
tender my resignation, which I request you will recommend for
acceptance. It would have been presented at once but for the struggle
it has cost me to separate myself from a service to which I have devoted
the best years of my life, and all the ability I possessed.

"During the whole of that time--more than a quarter of a century--I
have experienced nothing but kindness from my superiors and a most
cordial friendship from my comrades. To no one, General, have I been
as much indebted as to yourself for uniform kindness and consideration,
and it has always been my ardent desire to merit your approbation. I
shall carry to the grave the most grateful recollections of your kind
consideration, and your name and fame shall always be dear to me.
"Save in the defense of my native State, I never desire again to draw
my sword.
"Be pleased to accept my most earnest wishes for the continuance of
your happiness and prosperity, and believe me most truly yours,"



"Arlington, Washington City P.O., April 20, 1861.
"Honourable Simon Cameron, Secretary of War.

"Sir: I have the honour to tender the resignation of my command as
Colonel of the First Regiment of Cavalry.

"Very respectfully your obedient servant,

"R. E. Lee,


And again to explain his mixed emotion and the struggle between choosing who to fight for.....


"Arlington, Virginia, April 20, 1861.

"My Dear Sister: I am grieved at my inability to see you.... I have
been waiting for a 'more convenient season,' which has brought to many
before me deep and lasting regret. Now we are in a state of war which
will yield to nothing. The whole South is in a state of revolution,
into which Virginia, after a long struggle, has been drawn; and though
I recognise no necessity for this state of things, and would have
forborne and pleaded to the end for redress of grievances, real or
supposed, yet in my own person I had to meet the question whether I
should take part against my native State.

"With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty
of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to
raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have
therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of
my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may
never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword. I
know you will blame me; but you must think as kindly of me as you can,
and believe that I have endeavoured to do what I thought right.

"To show you the feeling and struggle it has cost me, I send you a
copy of my letter of resignation. I have no time for more. May God
guard and protect you and yours, and shower upon you everlasting
blessings, is the prayer of your devoted brother, R. E. Lee."

[PullMyFinger]

General Lee was the most decorated, most respected soldier in the US Army at the time. He was against secession and slavery. President Lincoln offered him command of the entire Union Army but because of honor and duty he chose to defend Virginia first.

These ignorant, illiterate left wing morons have lost their minds.