Robert E. Lee Day

[Salus Maior]

How do you feel about the confederacy,

A banana republic, built on cotton and outright slavery instead of bananas and wage slavery.

about the 'civil rights' movement,

Much better than about the 'states' rights movement' .
Because people have rights, states don't.

and about the legacy of Robert E. Lee, the South's greatest General?

Largely insignificant, as for any other general leading an army that was utterly defeated.

The confederacy wasn't even about more states rights, even though they did have more rights than in the union. The one thing that was mandatory in the Confederacy was slavery, which was constitutionally protected and could not be repealed in any state.

So yeah, we know where their real priorities are.

[Aryan Nation]

https://books.google.com/books?id=SQklAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=they+didn%27t+want+representation&source=bl&ots=I2_XiuiVZd&sig=li3JbSC8d3T05KHc3gqf2SQ4Sls&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuxcOV2MfRAhVizVQKHayoDa8Q6AEIQTAG#v=onepage&q=they%20didn't%20want%20representation&f=false

They wanted their colonial legislatures consulted before taxes were levied, they didn't want equal representation.

So again, they wanted representation. I not once said anything about equal representation, I said the call was against no taxation without representation. Thank you for supporting my claim and showing yours to be wrong.

Well, yes. that's true. If by representation you mean dictation. They weren't interested in representation in parliament. They were interested in sovereign, final say in the matter. The taxes were not the point, independence from Great Britain was.

[Valrifell]

Hmm.... yeah, no. They did not do pretty good during reconstruction and the next 100 years. The South never again has had the level of political and economic influence it enjoyed before the Civil War. After all, the former confederate states and the South in general are still considerably poorer than the North or West.

The South was falling behind economically even before the Civil War.

The Civil War certainly didn't help, though.

[PaNTuXIa]

I'm from the South, most southerners are patriotic to a degree, that's true, but many are still sympathetic to the southern cause. Even if they consider themselves 'patriotic'.

Funny thing is, the confederates saw themselves as patriotic, heirs to George Washington. To them, it was the North that strayed from the ideas of the founding fathers.

The North doesn't give a shit. The 18th century ended a while ago, and apart from a few backwaters in northern New England we're ready to move on.

That's simply untrue. Trying to portray the North as some sort of heroes of social justice is factually inaccurate. The North is much less racially tense, but that doesn't make it the patron saint of equality. Also, while racism against blacks might be common in the South, racism against whites is more commonplace in the North. Blacks can be racist too, you know.

[Salus Maior]

racism against whites is more commonplace in the North.

....No?

As a Northerner myself that's simply untrue. I've never seen or run into any situation where I or anyone else was discriminated against because of white skin.

Maybe you should try backing up your sources before making ridiculous statements.

[Neutraligon]

So again, they wanted representation. I not once said anything about equal representation, I said the call was against no taxation without representation. Thank you for supporting my claim and showing yours to be wrong.

Well, yes. that's true. If by representation you mean dictation. They weren't interested in representation in parliament. They were interested in sovereign, final say in the matter. The taxes were not the point, independence from Great Britain was.

Once again, source. For what reason should I believe the person you linked to any more then I beleive you?

[Dytarma]

As much as I hate the Confederates, I want his holiday to stay due to his great leadership against a militarily, economically, and agriculturally greater Union.

[PaNTuXIa]

Because people have rights, states don't.

Actually, they do.

racism against whites is more commonplace in the North. Blacks can be racist too, you know.

....No?

As a Northerner myself that's simply untrue. I've never seen or run into any situation where I or anyone else was discriminated against because of my skin.

Maybe you should try backing up your sources before making ridiculous statements.

I am also a Northerner. Anecdotal evidence does not refute my claim.

When I said racism, I meant the belief that one race is always inferior to another. This is much more common with Northern blacks than with Southern blacks.

[Aryan Nation]

https://books.google.com/books?id=SQklAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA46&lpg=PA46&dq=they+didn%27t+want+representation&source=bl&ots=I2_XiuiVZd&sig=li3JbSC8d3T05KHc3gqf2SQ4Sls&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuxcOV2MfRAhVizVQKHayoDa8Q6AEIQTAG#v=onepage&q=they%20didn't%20want%20representation&f=false

They wanted their colonial legislatures consulted before taxes were levied, they didn't want equal representation.

So again, they wanted representation. I not once said anything about equal representation, I said the call was against no taxation without representation. Thank you for supporting my claim and showing yours to be wrong.

whilst [the radical colonists] exclaim against Parliament for taxing them when they are not represented, they candidly declare they will not have representatives [in Parliament] lest they should be taxed...The truth...is that they are determined to get rid of the jurisdiction of Parliament...and they therefore refuse to send members to that assembly lest they should preclude themselves of [the] plea [that Parliament's] legislative acts...are done without their consent; which, it must be confessed, holds equally good against all laws, as against taxes...The colony advocates...tell us, that by refusing to accept our offer of representatives they...mean to avoid giving Parliament a pretence for taxing them.

-- William Knox

https://archive.org/stream/williamknoxo ... sentatives

Perhaps you did not have a chance to see my reply before you replied, but there is an example of a statement.

It's difficult to prove my point without delving deep into the correspondence of the time. the relationship between the founding fathers, the future continental congress, et al. as well as the colonial legislatures which wanted final say in all taxes on the matter. It's not that i can't prove it, it's just that proving it would require a whole lot more digging to reach what i would consider satisfactory proof. I would have to write an essay on it, and i'm not prepared to do that just for some E-argument. Don't we have a resident archeologist around here? I'm sure he can shed even more light on the situation.

As you can see from the above quote, of course, the colonists were not interested in representation in the British government. They were interested in sovereign, final say.

I believe i have provided enough evidence to back up my original point -- the colonists were interested in independence, and denying the parliament's sovereign right to taxation was an attempt at gaining sovereign, independent power.

Certainly, it would not be reasonable for a colony to have equal say on what taxation was levied against them, unless they were a sovereign power. This is self-evident.

[Salus Maior]

I am also a Northerner. Anecdotal evidence does not refute my claim.

When I said racism, I meant the belief that one race is always inferior to another. This is much more common with Northern blacks than with Southern blacks.

You've literally just made a claim out of nowhere with nothing to back it. What's there to refute?

Again, another foundation-less claim.

[Genivaria]

Because people have rights, states don't.

Actually, they do.

....No?

As a Northerner myself that's simply untrue. I've never seen or run into any situation where I or anyone else was discriminated against because of my skin.

Maybe you should try backing up your sources before making ridiculous statements.

I am also a Northerner. Anecdotal evidence does not refute my claim.

When I said racism, I meant the belief that one race is always inferior to another. This is much more common with Northern blacks than with Southern blacks.

Anecdotal evidence does not refute my claim.
I don't think you know how this works, when you make a claim you're expected to back it up.
He has nothing to refute because you've provided nothing.

[Valrifell]

Because people have rights, states don't.

Actually, they do.

Quick question, what right does a state have?

[Septimanorum]

Rightfully so, he was a great General who just ended up on the wrong side in the grand scheme of things.

But he chose that. He was offered leadership in the Union Army and declined to fight for his state. It's well-documented that he didn't believe in any part of the CSA cause, but he was loyal to his state, which on it's own should be commended in some way.

^This. It's really unfortunate that history tends to paint all Confederates the same color (don't you dare). The war was fought for abhorrent reasons, but most Confederate soldiers were fighting for their homelands. Sherman's March to the Sea makes it kind of hard to fault that viewpoint, given most of them weren't even slaveholders.

And before anyone says "well they were still racist," the same was true of pretty much everyone in the North. They were anti actual slavery, but very much pro wage slavery (and blacks had it even worse than the Irish and Chinese).

[PaNTuXIa]

Actually, they do.

Quick question, what right does a state have?

*right's

Mostly governance over stuff like education, transport, etc. At least that's what's supposed to happen.

[Neutraligon]

So again, they wanted representation. I not once said anything about equal representation, I said the call was against no taxation without representation. Thank you for supporting my claim and showing yours to be wrong.

-- William Knox

https://archive.org/stream/williamknoxo ... sentatives

Perhaps you did not have a chance to see my reply before you replied, but there is an example of a statement.

It's difficult to prove my point without delving deep into the correspondence of the time.

Have at it, at least point me in the right direction, also maybe I can ask Arch on this one.

the relationship between the founding fathers, the future continental congress, et al. as well as the colonial legislatures which wanted final say in all taxes on the matter. It's not that i can't prove it, it's just that proving it would require a whole lot more digging to reach what i would consider satisfactory proof.

like I said have at it. You can at least point me in the right direction.

I would have to write an essay on it, and i'm not prepared to do that just for some E-argument. Don't we have a resident archeologist around here? I'm sure he can shed even more light on the situation.

As you can see from the above quote, of course, the colonists were not interested in representation in the British government. They were interested in sovereign, final say.

When I looked up William Knox the only one I found was a poet related to Lincoln , whu should I believe them?

I believe i have provided enough evidence to back up my original point -- the colonists were interested in independence, and denying the parliament's sovereign right to taxation was an attempt at gaining sovereign, independent power.

No the best you have done is provide evidence that some people claim the foundning fathers (not the colonists as a whole) wanted independence.

Certainly, it would not be reasonable for a colony to have equal say on what taxation was levied against them, unless they were a sovereign power. This is self-evident.

Not once did I say anything about equal representation. And no, it really isn't self evident that a colony should have less say then any other subdivision of the non-colonies.

You claimed they were only interested in expanding and independence. Show that was the only things they were interested in. That might be a little hard. Oh and the original point you were responding to was that the revolutionary war was not explicitly about slavery, unlike the civil war.

[Community Values]

Actually, they do.

Quick question, what right does a state have?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

[Genivaria]

Quick question, what right does a state have?

*right's

Mostly governance over stuff like education, transport, etc. At least that's what's supposed to happen.

That's what does happen actually, which explains why our school system is shitty.

[Neutraligon]

Quick question, what right does a state have?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The claim is that those are powers, not rights.

[Genivaria]

Quick question, what right does a state have?

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Says powers not rights.

[Valaran]

He was in some respects considered the best general of his time.

Well that's flat out wrong. Considerations aren't always accurate, espcially around people who are eulogised and politicised and mythologised to the extent that Lee is.

He was requested to be a Union general, but declined due to personal loyalties to the then-Confederate state of Virginia, his home state. I can't remember if you're American or not, Val, so as a little fun fact, before the American Civil War, states were much more independent.

I don't have to be American to be aware of this, espcially given that most of my current day-to-day activity is being aware of history in foreign nations.

The United states was more like a successful European Union, and citizens would usually defer to their state before the United States. It wasn't until after the Civil War, which allowed the federal government's power to expand exponentially, that the state's power receded and become less important

I am entirely unsure about why this relevant to my judgement of Lee's character, or his military ability. Could you explain?

Also, a more successful European union doesn't start a butchering itself, so I don't think one could say that the old US was better. In fact, it is the subsequent US that is more successful.

Lee's downfall was that he had poorly-trained troops and outdated equipment.

I disagree. Lee's tactics had considerable failings, as ultimately, did his sense of the enemy. He got beaten by flat out mediocre generals, and was strategically outmatched by good ones.

This is not to say that Lee was bad, but but it is over-simplistic to simply assert that he lost because of troop quality. In fact, he often had a strong belief in his army's capability; this belief did not arise out nowhere. Lee proved that he could overcome such weaknesses when he was on form; thus when he lost, it wasn't simply due to his men.

If Lee had had the industry of the North and had had professional soldiers instead of farmboy militia and slave plantation owners as officers, he would've done just fine.

Something of a counterfactual, no? I could equally argue that the war would have been over much sooner if Grant had been in command from the start, but it doesn't change Grant's ability to win when he needed to, and Lee's rather more mixed record.

Also, slave plantation owners - as odious as they may be - aren't automatically bad officers, or else what was Andrew Jackson?

[Community Values]

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Says powers not rights.

Excuse me for not knowing, but what is the difference?

[Valrifell]

Says powers not rights.

Excuse me for not knowing, but what is the difference?

The powers of a state are granted and ensured by the Federal government, the rights of people are innate.

[Risottia]

Because people have rights, states don't.

Actually, they do.

Not quite. Prerogatives and rights are two different concepts.

[Gettenfeld]

The North doesn't give a shit. The 18th century ended a while ago, and apart from a few backwaters in northern New England we're ready to move on.

That's simply untrue. Trying to portray the North as some sort of heroes of social justice is factually inaccurate. The North is much less racially tense, but that doesn't make it the patron saint of equality. Also, while racism against blacks might be common in the South, racism against whites is more commonplace in the North. Blacks can be racist too, you know.

The only Whites white people up North were racist to were the Irish, Italians, and Poles. Saying that Northern whites weren't 100% perfect angels does not counter the fact that the South was the stomping grounds for mouth-breathing, inbreeding, slave-owning actual racists. It's apples and disgusting, putrid, revolting oranges.

[Thermodolia]

But the former confederacy is today part of the US. They celebrate their holidays.


I doubt you even read what I said...

But it's not just a Confederate holiday, it was done specifically to undermine MLK Day

Lee's actual birthday is January 19.