Gen. Lee statue can be removed, Virginia Supreme Court rules

The damn thing should have been blown-up decades ago.

 

Thanks for the daily joke.

 

Anytime you’re capable of refuting any argument I’ve made, you’re welcome to take your bib off and come over to the big boy table.

 

How was the federal government in violation of the Constitution? Or, for that matter how were the northern states in violation?

 

oh, I see, so you don't like MLK or Abe Lincoln, well good luck with that

 

Mar-a-Lago maybe?

where ever you want to celebrate Confederate Statues, I leave it up to you

 

His wish to have died in the war rather than face the aftermath of the CSA's catastrophic mistakes does not contradict his rejection of the symbols of the CSA.

“I think it wisest not to open the sores of war but to follow the example of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered.” Robert E. Lee, The South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 10, published in 1911.

 

Beauregard was a fool. Attacking Fort Sumpter eliminated virtually all the early Unionist opposition to the war.
The CSA gained nothing from its capture of Fort Sumpter.

 

Uhhh except he never said that. But good try

But thanks for helping me find one more yankee lie you folks use as propaganda

 

What good does moving it to a museum do when you people firebomb them?

 

If Beauregard wouldn’t have done that, he would have been surrounded on three sides and his entire army forced to surrender or be obliterated

 

Robert E. Lee wasn't racist. He just was an army general who fought on the wrong side. Thus people hate him.

 

Giving the benefit of the doubt, 2 out of 3. As a professional officer, he knew what insurrection and rebellion meant.

 

They committed to the defense of their homes, and their families, and their churches and schools and livestock and businesses and their STATES from an invading army. The war was started by Lincoln invading those states with the intent of total destruction to force them back into the union with their slavery intact. Lincoln did not do it to free the slaves. He ended up using slavery when the taste for continuing the war was rapidly declining in the Union, he needed a reason to rally eveyone back up but the fact is it was a meaningless document, it did not apply to the slave states in the Union. Why didn't he send the military to those states to end that slavery he controlled and remove those governments and burn down everything in sight? Slavery was legal in the the United States for almost 100 years before the war, all during the was and after the war. The day the armistice was signed if a slave looked up the flagpole they saw the Stars and Stripes flying over them.

 

To an overwhelming force, without the resources to continue the fight. He remains the most brilliant general of the war and in the top list even today of the greatest military leaders and as Churchill said one of the noblest Americans ever.

 

The union forces, in violation of the agreement to negotiate the disposition of the island an unoccupied, partially constructed fort, it was not an operational fort, sent troops and cannon to the island so that those forces could blockade the port, then Lincoln tried to send additional forces and supplies by running the channel without permission from the state. That was consider an act of war. Lincoln started it. By doing so HE forced military action in response by SC.

 

Prove it was the intent of the CSA or state of Virginia to invade the United States and overthrow that government.

Stop viewing it through the prism of today, then your FIRST LOYALTY was to your STATE.

 

Utter krap. Not historically accurate either. What are you, a Confederate apologist ?

 

Rebellion is sometimes necessary if the country goes in the wrong direction.

 

As a generic statement, spoken in a vacuum, there isn't any response to that statement.

If you want to try and make the case that this country was going in the wrong direction and that a rebellion was necessary, I'm listening.
I only ask that you consider what you present. For example, Bluesguy's posts are both factually and historically wrong.

 

As I posted earlier, yes the country was going the wrong direction. We were moving towards a precedent which would allow the federal government and blocks of states to declare that a portion of the constitution was immoral and refuse to uphold it without going through the constitutional process to do so.

You may think that is a good thing in regards to slavery (and again in a vacuum it probably is), but once you set that precedent, what stops the government from declaring the right to bear arms to be immoral and refusing to uphold that? You have no argument because you’ve already allowed them to set the precedent that it’s acceptable to do so in willful violation of the constitution and the Supreme Court as long as the government thinks its “wrong” enough.

That is the penultimate reason the south went to war; in order to refuse that precedent. They had no other option. Either they concede the federal government and union states can simply violate the constitution at will and with immunity as long as they declare it to be immoral... or they had to secede.

To a true American, there was only one choice and my ancestors had the balls to make it in the face of certain death.

 

I'm not talking about today. Gen. Lee and his comrades felt the need to fight for southern rights. We shouldn't condemn them. They are historical figures but lost a war. Nobody loves losers.

 

True every word, refute it. What in my statement is not historically accurate and please be specific.

 

Why do you think that?

 

False. And I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince a Confederate apologist. You have already demonstrated that you are impervious to facts.
Go ahead, claim victory, but in the end the South lost the war and the Union was preserved. The rebellion was crushed. Too bad it took so many American deaths to
validate the Constitution. I would almost like to quote Thomas Jefferson were it not for the awful cost paid in blood.