Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Posted January 21, 2016 1) Even though he was a slow, plodding dipshit, his failure was mostly because he was using Pinkertons as spies. And they were telling him Johnston's (opposed slavery, opposed secession, fought for the Confederacy) entire force was about five times larger than it actually was. (One of general Hooker's greatest contributions when he was in command was getting rid of the Pinkertons and creating a real intelligence system in the Army of the Potomac.) 2) Ultimately, Seven Days is about Lee's mastery of the operational art. He lost every battle, but consistently out-maneuvered McClellan before and after the battles. 3) I know, I've done the staff ride. Though I've never been entirely comfortable placing all the blame on McClellan for Antietam - most of it, since he did have the lost order, but the Army of the Potomac was a snake pit of intrigue, backbiting, and insubordination, and his corps and division commanders were basically out of control at that point. 4) Dream on. You'd wouldn't even achieve McClellan's level of competence. You'd be more like Burnside in front of Marye Heights. 5) Which one contains the quote from Lee that his intent was to destroy the Union? I'll start with that one. 1) Ummm...no. That would not explain the Peninsula campaign. Moving the army down there did not change the supposed numerical inferiority Mac felt he faced. Nor was he out manuvered on the peninsula, he simply was scared and retreated after winning. 2) No, Lee just faced someone that could not handle an army in the field. He did use that advantage well, though. 3) Doubt that. You leaving the house? 4) You'd last be seen fleeing the area dictating a memo on how you actually won, but had to be in Richmond to attend a funeral 5) No quote. I'm relying on his actions. He fought for this failed thing called the Confederate States of America (spit) and they were attempting to lead a minority inspired rebellion against the United States of America Minion!!!
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 What right's? I don't just think you are wrong, I know it. Hey, I'm not a minion here, I know what I'm talking about. What right did Lincoln say he was going to take away from the South? And you are changing your answer. He said he DID, now you are saying he said he would, but you are wrong on both counts. You don't know what you are talking about Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about we're all waiting for you to show us where Lee said his intent was to destroy the United States.
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Posted January 21, 2016 just wondering where the basis for legality of seccesion originates and is based on. it seems many supreme court justices believe otherwise: that secession is illegal and unconstitutional. "Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position" full link here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/ perhaps one of the self appointed constitutional scholars here woulsd like a shot at debating Scalia's viewpoint on this? I tend to look at it this way. If they had won then they had the right. But they lost. Winners write the laws and the history.
birdog1960 Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 wow. there really are other nutbags that believe this drivel outside of ppp. one of em writes for American conservative. too bad that scotus disagrees.
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Posted January 21, 2016 Speaking of not knowing what you're talking about we're all waiting for you to show us where Lee said his intent was to destroy the United States. Actions, actions, actions
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 wow. there really are other nutbags that believe this drivel outside of ppp. one of em writes for American conservative. too bad that scotus disagrees.
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Actions, actions, actions Actions speaking louder than words in not always the case. If he was really intent on destroying the country you'd think you'd at least be able to find a quote from him saying something remotely like that as opposed to the quotes I've supplied that say the exact opposite.
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Posted January 21, 2016 Actions speaking louder than words in not always the case. If he was really intent on destroying the country you'd think you'd at least be able to find a quote from him saying something remotely like that as opposed to the quotes I've supplied that say the exact opposite. Leading an invasion into Pennsylvania isn't enough for you? BTW, they grabbed fugitive slaves and took them back to the land of unfreedom during the Invasion of Pennsylvania
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Leading an invasion into Pennsylvania isn't enough for you? BTW, they grabbed fugitive slaves and took them back to the land of unfreedom during the Invasion of Pennsylvania He was fighting for the restoration of the Union.
Tiberius Posted January 21, 2016 Author Posted January 21, 2016 He was fighting for the restoration of the Union. You will have to explain that. No idea what you mean... By leading the Confederate army, he was trying to restore the Union?
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 You will have to explain that. No idea what you mean... By leading the Confederate army, he was trying to restore the Union? Yes. I'm sorry that's a very difficult concept for you to get.
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Actions, actions, actions You're relying on his actions to divine his intent, even though his own statements contradict you? You're actually claiming to know Lee's feelings better than Lee?
Deranged Rhino Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 You're relying on his actions to divine his intent, even though his own statements contradict you? You're actually claiming to know Lee's feelings better than Lee? His ability to misinterpret, misunderstand, and misconstrue is really an incredible feat of ineptitude.
Chef Jim Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 You're relying on his actions to divine his intent, even though his own statements contradict you? You're actually claiming to know Lee's feelings better than Lee? "Knowing" a person's intent better than that person themselves is his M.O. It's a liberal thing I guess.
DC Tom Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 BTW, they grabbed fugitive slaves and took them back to the land of unfreedom during the Invasion of Pennsylvania So? That was the law. Fugitive slaves were property, they weren't free. In the North and South. In fact, McClellan supported that, as he believed an individual couldn't be deprived of their property without due process, so the very harboring of fugitive slaves was unconstitutional. His ability to misinterpret, misunderstand, and misconstrue is really an incredible feat of ineptitude. That's basically why I encourage him. He's a phenom. There's a sort of majestic dysfunctionality to him that's a marvel to behold. It's like gazing on the majesty of Mount Everest...if Everest were just a great big pile of stupid. I mean, really...he claimed above to be the equal in generalship of McClellan. Who does that? Can't even aspire to John Pope's level?
starrymessenger Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 just wondering where the basis for legality of seccesion originates and is based on. it seems many supreme court justices believe otherwise: that secession is illegal and unconstitutional. "Another argument against secession centers on the language of Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation….” To proponents of this position, Article I, Section 10 unequivocally shows that the states which formed the Confederate States of America were in clear violation of the Constitution, thus invalidating their government and the individual acts of secession which led to it. Abraham Lincoln indirectly defended this position" full link here: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/is-secession-legal/ perhaps one of the self appointed constitutional scholars here woulsd like a shot at debating Scalia's viewpoint on this? Interesting. Looks like the nature and legal implications of the compact between the states and the federal government can be hotly debated. I wonder if, theoretically, they are the only players here. Could a local majority within a state succede from the greater commonwealth or not? Is an original "founding" county, township or municipality merely a creature of the state of which it is a part? Does the answer depend upon its whether its powers are entirely delegated, whether its admission at the outset was consensual and like questions? And did I understand Justice Scalia's exclusion for a (presumably unanimous) consensual withdrawal from the Union and revolution to suggest that "revolution" was somehow "legal", and is that the theoretical underpining of the second amendment? And is there a distinction to be made between revolution and succession? I also found the author's suggestion that the pres be limited to a single term interesting. Foreign Minister Lavrov recently commented on the two term limitation as an operational flaw in the American system of government.
starrymessenger Posted January 21, 2016 Posted January 21, 2016 Should Houston’s Lanier Middle School Lose Its Name Because Of Confederate Ties? :Sidney Lanier was in the Confederate Army, but that wasn’t his legacy. FTA: Liberty, patriotism, and civilization are on their knees before the men of the South, and with clasped hands and straining eyes are begging them to become Christians. Lanier served in the Confederate Army, but as a 19-year-old buck private, and later as a pilot on ships used to smuggle cotton past federal blockades. He wasn’t a leader, nor was he an apologist for slavery, white supremacy, or even the “Lost Cause,” which he later gently mocked as a case of mass hysteria extending from Virginia through East Texas. Paraphrasing Robert Earl Keen, Sidney Lanier was no kinda rebel, and was not remembered as such in his lifetime or after. Instead he was renowned as a poet and a musician, or in the words of Jim Henley, legendary former Lanier Middle School debate coach and 2006 liberal Democratic candidate for U.S. Congress, Lanier was “a renaissance man,” one who attempted to mesh his words with his tunes, music he created on the flute, banjo, organ, piano, violin, and guitar. (Lanier once pithily described music as “love in search of a word.”) “He’s the kind of example to which we would wish all of our students to aspire,” Henley says. “Though he was a private in the Confederate Army and for four months a prisoner of war, he was not a leader in the Army. Not a general, not a decision-maker. And I’ve been reading his entire body of work, and in no case does he lament the end of slavery, and in some cases he rejoices over the end of slavery.” Here’s the thing. Despite Grady’s justified inclusion on this list of historical damnation, it seems more and more that the only mortal sin is to have sworn allegiance to the Confederacy. So long as you did not bear arms against the Union, your memory is safe, no matter if you engaged supported secession all your life and spearheaded genocidal campaigns against Native Americans (Mirabeau Lamar); owned a dozen or so slaves at the time of his death (Sam Houston); finagled to introduce large-scale slavery into a sovereign nation where it had hitherto been forbidden (Stephen F. Austin); engaged in the capital offense of slave-smuggling (Jim Bowie, James Fannin); expressed disgustingly racist views in print (Davy Crockett); fathered children with a slave woman (Thomas Jefferson); or joked that the best way to contain the AIDS crisis was “to shoot all the queers” (Louie Welch). All of those men have schools still safely named after them in HISD, as does Oran Roberts, who shepherded Texas out of the Union as president of the 1860 Texas Secession convention and later founded and led a regiment of Confederate soldiers. Why Roberts gets a pass is a mystery. - See more at: http://www.texasmonthly.com/the-daily-post/lanier-middle-school-name-change/#sthash.bo4BGCzT.dpuf It doesn't matter, the liberals in the Houston school district want him out Why Lanier Middle School should lose that Confederate ... www.houstonchronicle.com/.../ General John Bell Hood doubtless turning in his grave. To my mind its a national disgrace when men of stature and accomplishment are pilloried and sacrificed on the alter of contemporary political correctness by entirely secondary men and women. Is it impossible to arrive at a rational understanding of these things and to instruct all of our children accordingly? Manfred Baron Richthofen and Field Marshal Rommel were our enemies, but they were nevertheless respected and admired by the very people whose job it was to kill them. Does that mean that Field Marshal Viscount Montgomery and Winston Churchill were somehow moral imbeciles? Their cause was perhaps bad (certainly Rommel's was) but history seems capable of evaluating them as professional military men and as human beings independently of the accidents of time and place.
Recommended Posts