Today is Robert E. Lee's birthday

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Secession was not a traitorous act. It was entirely constitutional.

http://www.bonniebluepublishin...LL%20PAGE%20FORMAT.htm

Nice catch blanco nino, too bad your as got saaaaacked

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Secession was not a traitorous act. It was entirely constitutional.

http://www.bonniebluepublishin...LL%20PAGE%20FORMAT.htm

I've always thought that couching the succession of the South in the context of the American Revolution to justify the continued repression and exploitation of a people to be a highly ironic piece of reasoning.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Secession was not a traitorous act. It was entirely constitutional.

http://www.bonniebluepublishin...LL%20PAGE%20FORMAT.htm

I've always thought that couching the succession of the South in the context of the American Revolution to justify the continued repression and exploitation of a people to be a highly ironic piece of reasoning.

I agree that slavery was a horrible thing and should never have occurred to begin with. But it's painfully clear at every level that the issues of succession, and indeed of the civil war itself, were about economics, not human rights.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Secession was not a traitorous act. It was entirely constitutional.

http://www.bonniebluepublishin...LL%20PAGE%20FORMAT.htm

I've always thought that couching the succession of the South in the context of the American Revolution to justify the continued repression and exploitation of a people to be a highly ironic piece of reasoning.

I agree that slavery was a horrible thing and should never have occurred to begin with. But it's painfully clear at every level that the issues of succession, and indeed of the civil war itself, were about economics, not human rights.

I'd argue that it was about many things....to include shifting demographics, the economic ascendancy of the northern states, and the fading of southern political power as a consequence of both of those developments.

Though as the economy of the south was largely based on the fact that they could forcibly exploit a huge pool of labor without pay I'd say the issue of slavery is absolutely inseparable from the causes of the war in addition to the moral issues that arise.

 

[IronWing]

I think the bottom line is that Lee isn't deserving of a national holiday. We have four national holidays commemorating individuals: Jesus, Columbus, Washington, and King. As much as I support the King holiday, I also suspect that in a generation or two it will be replaced with another holiday that suits the times, the Columbus holiday even sooner.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Secession was not a traitorous act. It was entirely constitutional.

http://www.bonniebluepublishin...LL%20PAGE%20FORMAT.htm

I've always thought that couching the succession of the South in the context of the American Revolution to justify the continued repression and exploitation of a people to be a highly ironic piece of reasoning.

I agree that slavery was a horrible thing and should never have occurred to begin with. But it's painfully clear at every level that the issues of succession, and indeed of the civil war itself, were about economics, not human rights.

I'd argue that it was about many things....to include shifting demographics, the economic ascendancy of the northern states, and the fading of southern political power as a consequence of both of those developments.

Though as the economy of the south was largely based on the fact that they could forcibly exploit a huge pool of labor without pay I'd say the issue of slavery is absolutely inseparable from the causes of the war in addition to the moral issues that arise.

Yeah, the South definitely took advantage of the slave labor element, but the Northern politicians weren't focused on actually freeing slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation only affected slaves which were not in Union-held territory, lulz), but upon retaining the huge tax base of the South, which paid the bulk of taxes for the nation as a whole. The South didn't want to be writing the checks for the nation anymore, and the North couldn't maintain their projects and economic standards without that tax income. Hence, war. War for money/power. Same as it ever was.

 

[Deeko]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Yeah, the South definitely took advantage of the slave labor element, but the Northern politicians weren't focused on actually freeing slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation only affected slaves which were not in Union-held territory, lulz), but upon retaining the huge tax base of the South, which paid the bulk of taxes for the nation as a whole. The South didn't want to be writing the checks for the nation anymore, and the North couldn't maintain their projects and economic standards without that tax income. Hence, war. War for money/power. Same as it ever was.

Interesting...the south didn't like that they paid the bulk of the taxes eh? Funny how things change.

 

[marincounty]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Secession was not a traitorous act. It was entirely constitutional.

http://www.bonniebluepublishin...LL%20PAGE%20FORMAT.htm

I've always thought that couching the succession of the South in the context of the American Revolution to justify the continued repression and exploitation of a people to be a highly ironic piece of reasoning.

I agree that slavery was a horrible thing and should never have occurred to begin with. But it's painfully clear at every level that the issues of succession, and indeed of the civil war itself, were about economics, not human rights.

I'd argue that it was about many things....to include shifting demographics, the economic ascendancy of the northern states, and the fading of southern political power as a consequence of both of those developments.

Though as the economy of the south was largely based on the fact that they could forcibly exploit a huge pool of labor without pay I'd say the issue of slavery is absolutely inseparable from the causes of the war in addition to the moral issues that arise.

Yeah, the South definitely took advantage of the slave labor element, but the Northern politicians weren't focused on actually freeing slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation only affected slaves which were not in Union-held territory, lulz), but upon retaining the huge tax base of the South, which paid the bulk of taxes for the nation as a whole. The South didn't want to be writing the checks for the nation anymore, and the North couldn't maintain their projects and economic standards without that tax income. Hence, war. War for money/power. Same as it ever was.

Maybe California, New York, and Massachusetts need to secede from the union? After all, we're paying a lot of the bills for the southern states.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: Deeko

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Yeah, the South definitely took advantage of the slave labor element, but the Northern politicians weren't focused on actually freeing slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation only affected slaves which were not in Union-held territory, lulz), but upon retaining the huge tax base of the South, which paid the bulk of taxes for the nation as a whole. The South didn't want to be writing the checks for the nation anymore, and the North couldn't maintain their projects and economic standards without that tax income. Hence, war. War for money/power. Same as it ever was.

Interesting...the south didn't like that they paid the bulk of the taxes eh? Funny how things change.

Yep, things can flip all kinds of ways, but the root of all conflict inevitably is intrinsically connected with the pursuit of money/power. All the subterfuge and publicly trumpeted ideology and other such nonsense is just rationalization for the pursuit of these elemental goals.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: marincounty

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Secession was not a traitorous act. It was entirely constitutional.

http://www.bonniebluepublishin...LL%20PAGE%20FORMAT.htm

I've always thought that couching the succession of the South in the context of the American Revolution to justify the continued repression and exploitation of a people to be a highly ironic piece of reasoning.

I agree that slavery was a horrible thing and should never have occurred to begin with. But it's painfully clear at every level that the issues of succession, and indeed of the civil war itself, were about economics, not human rights.

I'd argue that it was about many things....to include shifting demographics, the economic ascendancy of the northern states, and the fading of southern political power as a consequence of both of those developments.

Though as the economy of the south was largely based on the fact that they could forcibly exploit a huge pool of labor without pay I'd say the issue of slavery is absolutely inseparable from the causes of the war in addition to the moral issues that arise.

Yeah, the South definitely took advantage of the slave labor element, but the Northern politicians weren't focused on actually freeing slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation only affected slaves which were not in Union-held territory, lulz), but upon retaining the huge tax base of the South, which paid the bulk of taxes for the nation as a whole. The South didn't want to be writing the checks for the nation anymore, and the North couldn't maintain their projects and economic standards without that tax income. Hence, war. War for money/power. Same as it ever was.

Maybe California, New York, and Massachusetts need to secede from the union? After all, we're paying a lot of the bills for the southern states.

There's definitely a huge disparity there, no bones about it. A lot of the Southern states are major drags on the national economy.

BTW, in case it isn't painfully obvious, I am not pro/con on the issue of the Civil War on a side by side basis, obviously I think slavery was atrocious, but still believe that the law was pretty clear on the right of secession.

I think with a more state-centric political structure, and values closer to our founding principles intact, we wouldn't have gotten so entangled with globalization, foreign wars, and so much other nonsense that has come to dominate the American experience.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Yeah, the South definitely took advantage of the slave labor element, but the Northern politicians weren't focused on actually freeing slaves (the Emancipation Proclamation only affected slaves which were not in Union-held territory, lulz), but upon retaining the huge tax base of the South, which paid the bulk of taxes for the nation as a whole. The South didn't want to be writing the checks for the nation anymore, and the North couldn't maintain their projects and economic standards without that tax income. Hence, war. War for money/power. Same as it ever was.

The Union was on the defensive and couldn't risk turning the border states against them. Winning the war was always job one even though most of the Union government was then committed to outlawing slavery forever (including Lincoln) now that that any value in maintaining it to preserve the union was negated.

The 13th Amendment was ratified in 1865

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
I think with a more state-centric political structure, and values closer to our founding principles intact, we wouldn't have gotten so entangled with globalization, foreign wars, and so much other nonsense that has come to dominate the American experience.

If states rights had to be piled into the grave alongside slavery that's a cost that I'd consider acceptable. The north may not have been legally in the right but I believe that history has vindicated them as ending up in the moral right even if they fought for immediate reasons that were less than.

 

[Sedition]

Lee's Birthday is still heavily celebrated in Virginia and West Virginia. I heard quite a few Lee Day Sales and other Lee Day events. I also heard plenty of MLK Events. I feel like there is some slight butting of heads that goes on every year around this time between the different communities.

A buddy of mine from Viriginia told me that Roanoke and Lexington Virginia refused to acknowledge MLK Day if the state wouldn't officially continue to acknowledge Robert E. Lee Day. They also have a Stonewall Jackson day.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Secession was not a traitorous act. It was entirely constitutional.

http://www.bonniebluepublishin...LL%20PAGE%20FORMAT.htm

I've always thought that couching the succession of the South in the context of the American Revolution to justify the continued repression and exploitation of a people to be a highly ironic piece of reasoning.

I agree that slavery was a horrible thing and should never have occurred to begin with. But it's painfully clear at every level that the issues of succession, and indeed of the civil war itself, were about economics, not human rights.

the civil war was more about shifting power in the republic from the south to the north, and the south being unwilling to accept this.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

To call the general a traitor means that you do not recognize a state?s god-given right of freedom and sovereignty to secede from the union. Yet being a union implies separate states joining together by their own free will, and if that were true then we would also have the free will to separate ourselves.

If you denounce the very tenants of this union, then who is the traitor?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

To call the general a traitor means that you do not recognize a state?s god-given right of freedom and sovereignty to secede from the union. Yet being a union implies separate states joining together by their own free will, and if that were true then we would also have the free will to separate ourselves.

If you denounce the very tenants of this union, then who is the traitor?

As I stated before, the US government is the one that creates US government holidays. In the eyes of the US government Lee was a traitor, and secession is illegal. This has nothing to do with your views on the merits of secession, my views on the merits of secession, or anything else.

 

[StinkyPinky]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

You mean like Washington's Birthday?

Of course now it is "President's Day" but you get the point.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

The United States obviously would celebrate the birthdays of people who rebelled against other countries to aid the United States. The United States would obviously not celebrate the birthdays of people who rebelled against the United States to its manifest detriment.

How is this anything but a no-brainer?

I think his point was that the US didn't exist at the time, and Washington was therefore a British citizen and therefore a traitor.

But winners write history and instead of being a traitor he's seen as a hero and a patriot. Just like Lee would be to the CSA if the Confederate States of America existed in 2009

So, in other words, one mans traitor is another mans patriot.

At least I think that was his point

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: StinkyPinky

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

You mean like Washington's Birthday?

Of course now it is "President's Day" but you get the point.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

The United States obviously would celebrate the birthdays of people who rebelled against other countries to aid the United States. The United States would obviously not celebrate the birthdays of people who rebelled against the United States to its manifest detriment.

How is this anything but a no-brainer?

I think his point was that the US didn't exist at the time, and Washington was therefore a British citizen and therefore a traitor.

But winners write history and instead of being a traitor he's seen as a hero and a patriot. Just like Lee would be to the CSA if the Confederate States of America existed in 2009

So, in other words, one mans traitor is another mans patriot.

At least I think that was his point

I know exactly what his point is, what I'm saying is that I wouldn't expect the US federal government to have a holiday honoring R.E. Lee any more than I see the UK starting any holidays to commemorate George Washington.

 

[OFFascist]

Regardless of what you think of the Confederacy, Robert E. Lee ended the civil war.

If he didnt agree to the surrender and encourage his men to go home then it would have just degenerated into a guerrilla war and continued on for many years.

 

[Taejin]

Originally posted by: Onceler
It is a shame that this is MLKjr day and it isin't even his birthday
I think they chose this day to have it to piss off all the Southerners

why would having a MLKJR day piss off Southerners in particular?

 

[WackyDan]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

To call the general a traitor means that you do not recognize a state?s god-given right of freedom and sovereignty to secede from the union. Yet being a union implies separate states joining together by their own free will, and if that were true then we would also have the free will to separate ourselves.

If you denounce the very tenants of this union, then who is the traitor?

As I stated before, the US government is the one that creates US government holidays. In the eyes of the US government Lee was a traitor, and secession is illegal. This has nothing to do with your views on the merits of secession, my views on the merits of secession, or anything else.

Seceding was indeed a legal act back in the day. Check your facts. That the binding gov't didn't like it does not make it illegal. It's also why there are many references to the "federal occupation of the south" after the Civil War. They legally seceded and became their own union of sorts.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: WackyDan

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

To call the general a traitor means that you do not recognize a state?s god-given right of freedom and sovereignty to secede from the union. Yet being a union implies separate states joining together by their own free will, and if that were true then we would also have the free will to separate ourselves.

If you denounce the very tenants of this union, then who is the traitor?

As I stated before, the US government is the one that creates US government holidays. In the eyes of the US government Lee was a traitor, and secession is illegal. This has nothing to do with your views on the merits of secession, my views on the merits of secession, or anything else.

Seceding was indeed a legal act back in the day. Check your facts. That the binding gov't didn't like it does not make it illegal. It's also why there are many references to the "federal occupation of the south" after the Civil War. They legally seceded and became their own union of sorts.

Ugh, as I mentioned earlier in this thread the federal government has determined that secession is in fact illegal, and unconstitutional. The relevant US Supreme Court decision on the topic is Texas v. White. It clearly states that in the opinion of the US government the southern states never left the union, cannot leave the union, and to do so was an act of illegal rebellion.

You may not like this legal interpretation, lots of people don't. It's a very controversial decision. The fact that the ultimate legal authority in the US has stated that it was illegal, does in fact make it illegal however.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

To call the general a traitor means that you do not recognize a state?s god-given right of freedom and sovereignty to secede from the union. Yet being a union implies separate states joining together by their own free will, and if that were true then we would also have the free will to separate ourselves.

If you denounce the very tenants of this union, then who is the traitor?

As I stated before, the US government is the one that creates US government holidays. In the eyes of the US government Lee was a traitor, and secession is illegal. This has nothing to do with your views on the merits of secession, my views on the merits of secession, or anything else.

Actually I do not think the US persecuted Robert E. Lee as a traitor. In fact he worked with Presidents Johnson and Grant during reconstruction, denounced slavery, and helped freed blacks.

Therefore your entire premise that the US government condemned Lee as a traitor is in actuality incorrect.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

To call the general a traitor means that you do not recognize a state?s god-given right of freedom and sovereignty to secede from the union. Yet being a union implies separate states joining together by their own free will, and if that were true then we would also have the free will to separate ourselves.

If you denounce the very tenants of this union, then who is the traitor?

As I stated before, the US government is the one that creates US government holidays. In the eyes of the US government Lee was a traitor, and secession is illegal. This has nothing to do with your views on the merits of secession, my views on the merits of secession, or anything else.

Actually I do not think the US persecuted Robert E. Lee as a traitor. In fact he worked with Presidents Johnson and Grant during reconstruction, denounced slavery, and helped freed blacks.

Therefore your entire premise that the US government condemned Lee as a traitor is in actuality incorrect.

That is incorrect. By 'persecuted' I imagine you mean 'prosecuted'. After the war he petitioned the US government for a pardon and amnesty and it was granted, the same as many members of the Confederacy. These pardons did not state that what they did was not illegal, but that they were forgiven for their crimes.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

To call the general a traitor means that you do not recognize a state?s god-given right of freedom and sovereignty to secede from the union. Yet being a union implies separate states joining together by their own free will, and if that were true then we would also have the free will to separate ourselves.

If you denounce the very tenants of this union, then who is the traitor?

As I stated before, the US government is the one that creates US government holidays. In the eyes of the US government Lee was a traitor, and secession is illegal. This has nothing to do with your views on the merits of secession, my views on the merits of secession, or anything else.

Actually I do not think the US persecuted Robert E. Lee as a traitor. In fact he worked with Presidents Johnson and Grant during reconstruction, denounced slavery, and helped freed blacks.

Therefore your entire premise that the US government condemned Lee as a traitor is in actuality incorrect.

That is incorrect. By 'persecuted' I imagine you mean 'prosecuted'. After the war he petitioned the US government for a pardon and amnesty and it was granted, the same as many members of the Confederacy. These pardons did not state that what they did was not illegal, but that they were forgiven for their crimes.

The US Constitution defines exactly what Treason is - and if I remember correctly it is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Robert E. Lee was not convicted as committing Treason per the US Constitution. Therefore, in the eyes of the US Government when following the guiding document (i.e. the Constitution) Lee was not a traitor.

Remember that entire "innocent until proven guilty" bit that the US adheres to? Well suffice to say that unless somebody is actually convicted of a crime, they are innocent. Lee was not convicted.