User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:17:16 AM EDT
[#1]
IBTSS
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:17:35 AM EDT
[#2]
Here we go.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:19:35 AM EDT
[#3]
William Tecumseh Sherman was a better man.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:20:12 AM EDT
[#4]
Makes sense to me.
(IBTNSS) in before the north south shitstorm)  ETA: I see MM beat me to it.  Hessian-1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:20:15 AM EDT
[#5]
Antifederalist |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:26:03 AM EDT
[#6]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:27:29 AM EDT
[#7]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:29:15 AM EDT
[#8]
Robert E. Lee was right. That's exactly what we have today. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:29:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Happy Martin Luther King / Robert E. Lee Day!
(Before I get accused of something despicable, that is exactly how it is listed on our State Holiday calendars here in Alabama.  )
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:29:58 AM EDT
[#10]
At least he didn't declare war on his own nation.
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:31:01 AM EDT
[#11]
Better than, you know, treason. Anyway, the hearts and minds came later. The more pressing matter was saving America. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:31:51 AM EDT
[#12]
 kinda like a happy yes/no day...... Is the USPS open today? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:34:48 AM EDT
[#13]
I highly recommend reading "The Politically Incorrect Guide to American History" by Thomas Woods, if you haven't already. It's a good read. Pres. Abe Lincoln was a tyrant, IMHO. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:37:12 AM EDT
[#14]
+999,999,999 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:41:42 AM EDT
[#15]
Sounds interesting, Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:49:45 AM EDT
[#16]
If Robert E. Lee had the morals of Sherman the CSA would have won the war. The irony is that had Linclon the morals of Lee, there would have been no war and over 600,000 Americans owuld not have died! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:54:28 AM EDT
[#17]
Lee forbid his men to harrass civilians. Sherman slaughtered anybody in his path. How is that better? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 4:57:14 AM EDT
[#18]
Actually, before the war one's loyalty was to their home state. That's why Lee turned down command of the federal army when Lincoln offered it to him. Before the war the FedGov wasn't this monolithic central power we have today. The states were more independent political entities, and the 10th Amendment actually meant something. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:02:21 AM EDT
[#19]
Well, he won the war to save America, for starters. We firebombed the hell out of Dresden and vaporized two cities full of Japanese civilians. Sometimes there are more important considerations. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:02:58 AM EDT
[#20]
Lies, and I think you know it too. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:05:13 AM EDT
[#21]
Puts on GREY kepi gets popcorn
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:05:25 AM EDT
[#22]
As a disclaimer I must admit I'm no expert on this subject. But there never was a declaration of war. The United States, Pres. Lincoln in particular, viewed the Civil War as an insurrection. The South merely declared secession from the Union. They viewed the ratification of the Constitution to be a voluntary pact between States. They felt they could secede as secession was not mentioned in the Constitution and due to the 10th Amendment, the Southern States felt that it was their right to secede. The Southerners mostly fought for the right of self-government. Most Southerners, contrary to popular belief, did not own slaves (that does not mean they didn't believe in negro inferiority, &c). Here's a quote:
Notice that after the Southern States seceded, Pres. Lincoln immediately blockaded all of the South's ports. Previous to the war, there existed an economic hegemony of the North over the South mainly enforced through Federal protective tariffs. The South rebelled because they could not get the protective tariffs lifted to reduce the prices of goods that were solely being supplied by the North at the time. The cause of this war, like most wars before and after, was mainly economic. Think about blockades of ports, aka economic sanctions or whatever the popular euphemism these days is. This requires force. Ergo, to many historians, the Union was the agressor. Technically, many people believe that "The Civil War" is a misnomer. Hence you'll often hear "The War of Northern Agression" or "The War Between the States." Like I said, I'm no expert. But public education doesn't tell you the whole truth, there's more to history than a simple "good vs. evil" type of cartoonish plot. And this is coming from one who was formerly indoctrinated. 
|
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:31:34 AM EDT
[#23]
During World War Two should America have rounded up all those of German decent like General Eisenhower? Of course not. Of course if they all had loyalty like Lee we would of had a problem. All this stuff trying to portray Lincoln as bad is beside the point. When Lee played lets switch allegiance Lincoln's only crime had been getting elected.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:35:42 AM EDT
[#24]
it wouldn't been treason if the south won! ya know like our forefathers and the American revolution. here we go arm chair historians fighting the civil war. at least those guys were men of honor,except Sherman who was a crazy murdering crazy bastard  flame on
|
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:39:41 AM EDT
[#25]
History is written by the victors. It's best to remember that when looking at the past. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:42:25 AM EDT
[#26]
+1. The Confederates were following in our Founders' footsteps. Their actions could be supported by the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the writings of scoundrels such as Thomas Jefferson. Lincoln was the 19th century's King George. People getting uppity, wanting to go their own way? Time for a smackdown! Yep, those are the principles our country was founded on, right? 
|
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:44:30 AM EDT
[#27]
No. I don't know about other Confederate commanders, but when Lee invaded the north, he issued orders to not molest the civilian population. Are you posting lies, or are you just mistaken? |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:44:44 AM EDT
[#28]
Think of it when you visit Arlington National Cemetary; it was once Robert E. Lee's family home.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:46:41 AM EDT
[#29]
If you didn't notice there was no law banning pro-Lee books. The "Gone with the Wind" movie was rather pro-southern. Plenty of books, movies, etc. written on the side of the losers, the confederacy. On the otherside if the confederacy had won well they didn't believe in freedom of speech. Start having freedom of speech and people start talking about banning slavery. Rich slave holders can't have that. See any non-slave states join the confederacy? |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:51:03 AM EDT
[#30]
I recommend that folks should do some study into Lee's character before slandering him with their opinions.
He was a great man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:53:23 AM EDT
[#31]
Lincoln agreed with that sentiment. As do I. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:57:17 AM EDT
[#32]
Nah, never let the facts get in the way of your opinion. Robert E. Lee was a great man. There are very few negative character comments about him from either side. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:58:48 AM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 5:59:50 AM EDT
[#34]
Yup, intended as a slam to REL, yet kinda backfired in my opinion. The most hallowed ground in the US. Anyone ever visit Sherman's home? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:03:33 AM EDT
[#35]
He was indeed. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:12:37 AM EDT
[#36]
Lee was a great and very wise man, and he was respected by all
For those of you who learned history in a post 1976 public school, I suggest you do some reading on Robert E. Lee |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:13:14 AM EDT
[#37]
I'm going to have to disagree here. Pres. Lincoln's attitude towards the South was akin to, "don't like it? well, suck it bitches!" His lack of seeking compromise pushed the Southern States to secession. Gen. Lee himself was opposed to secession at the beginning. However, after Pres. Lincoln's call for troops to fight the South, 4 more states seceded rather than provide troops to a Federal government they considered out of control. One of these states was Gen. Lee's home state of Virginia. Imagine that you were Gen. Lee and you were in the position to fight against your own state at the head of the the Union like Darth Vader leading imperial troops or something. I believe that perhaps you're operating under the premise that Pres. Lincoln was right. I believe that many citizens disagreed at the time. I believe that Gen. Lee was not all pumped up to go out and kill Northerners, I believe he was just defending his home from tyranny. Gen. Lee said, "It is well that war is so terrible -- lest we should grow too fond of it." On the contrary, Pres. Lincoln could have prevented the war, instead he rushed head-long into it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:17:29 AM EDT
[#38]
Timothy McVeigh & Robert E. Lee are two sides of the same coin to me. They were both honoroble men and good soldiers that declared war on their own country and became monsters. Robert E. Lee was able to kill more Americans than McVeigh though.
There was a war . The south lost. Thanks to decisions made by Robert E. Lee and Jefferson "King Jeff" Davis. Get over it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:20:02 AM EDT
[#39]
Not even close. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:22:39 AM EDT
[#40]
That is a little unfair.
If you read some of his speeches prior to inauguration, you will see his attitude was that he was elected by the people. Even though he lost the popular vote, he did win the electoral votes necessary to be elected president. In order to maintain the Union as it was intended, by the ballot boxes rather than weapons, he felt it was necessary to fight to preserve it. You do not allow the minority to fight a legal election with weapons. They must vote and get others to vote at the next election if they disagree. So it wasn't just suck it, it was the fact that he was legally elected to office and they didn't like it. On a side note, I wish we could have taken a few pointers from the Confederate constitution. Bills can only deal with one topic/law instead of the crap now. They had the line item veto already, and limiting terms to 1 term and such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:22:50 AM EDT
[#41]
The comments about Lee "declaring war on his own country" show how successful the FedGov has been in consolidating power and conforming people to the acceptance of its irresistable authority.
Prior to the war, the central (federal) government was nothing like it is today. As Shelby Foote noted: Before the war: The United states are... After the war: The United States is... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:24:49 AM EDT
[#42]
Amen. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:27:29 AM EDT
[#43]
If you could please supply me with the names, places and dates of civilians "slaughtered" under the express orders of Gen sherman, I would be obliged. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:28:43 AM EDT
[#44]
Well I'm safe, no matter what I post today it won't be as ignorant as this. McVeigh intentionally targeted a building with a day care inside with a low-life style sucker punch. To compare that piece of shit with REL is ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:29:02 AM EDT
[#45]
Hold on to your butts! Here comes the cartoon-history!!! (see my first post) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:29:33 AM EDT
[#46]
This thread just got switched into high gear. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:31:54 AM EDT
[#47]
Again, please supply the names, places and dates of civilians killed on express orders of Gen Sherman. The south's problem with Sherman was not only did he whip every force sent against him, but he humiliated the south in marching, at will, through its' heartland. |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:32:39 AM EDT
[#48]
Please reread the 10th Amendment and execute a search on the rest of the Constitution for "secession." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:32:47 AM EDT
[#49]
Names? You have to be kidding. That's like saying the Turks didn't slaughter Armenians because I can't name one. I'll admit that saying he "slaughtered anybody in his path" was a tad exaggerated, however, much of his "war" was directed at the civilian populace. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 1/21/2008 6:32:50 AM EDT
[#50]
Not really. But threads like this do help the observant make distinctions about who on the site have an education about history, and who just talk off of the top of their heads. American education is becoming a pitiful thing. |
||
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
