Charlottesville, Va Blut Und Boden

I wish you would try a little harder to understand Lee's point of view and his difficult situation. You'll probably never agree with it, but you may someday come to respect where he was coming from, to some degree. He was in a situation that you and I cannot personally relate to. Not only has the world changed drastically since then, but I don't think like a military person, so understanding this story was quite a stretch for me.

When Lee swore an oath to fight for the United States, the United States included the state of Virginia. So many years before the war, it never crossed his mind that he might someday be given orders to attack Virginia, kill Virginia citizens (possibly including his own friends and relatives), or destroy Virginia property. That isn't a normal part of being in military service in a normal country. That's not what he had agreed to do, in his own mind. When the Army changed the terms of the deal, he felt free to re-think his end of the bargain.

Lee considered himself somewhat a high society man, having married into the George Washington family and coming into ownership of the old Washington family plantation house on the big hill in Arlington, overlooking the city of Washington. After having graduated from West Point as a young man with the most perfect record in the history of the school, he had hopes of a great military career that would result in him someday being remembered as one of Virginia's great men; a state that had already produced Jefferson, Washington, and Madison.

You don't get remembered as a great Virginian by going to war against Virginia.

A fanatic on the issue of armies being controlled by democratically elected civilian governments, he respected the decision of the Virginia state government to join the CSA, even though he didn't personally agree with it. He advised Jefferson Davis that a Southern war of independence could not be won, but he strongly believed that the final decision should not be made by military leaders, as you would commonly see in a third world banana republic.

He also wrote that he believed slavery would soon be over everywhere, no matter what happened in the short term. He did not believe 1861 was the right time to end it, due to lack of a transition plan, and that a national decision and timetable should not be forced on Virginia, which makes him a moderate on the issue, light years away from a hardcore racist and slavery supporter.

What if he had made the opposite decision about his role? I'm not sure that backstabbing group of Northern generals would have accepted his leadership, and I'd rather have him running the Southern army than anybody else. No matter what he did, his job would have been filled by somebody.

A man of lesser moral character and values might have invaded Pennsylvania and burned Harrisburg to the ground, rather than fight the US Army at Gettysburg in accordance with established international ethics of war between civilized countries. A lesser man might have refused to surrender at Appomattox and caused the war to drag out for as long as possible. A lesser man might have taken General Gordon's suggestion to run to Mexico to regroup, to begin a new offensive the next year He strongly opposed all these things. As Jefferson Davis was fading away into insignificance and Southerners increasingly viewed Lee as the true moral leader of the South, he was telling them to put down their weapons, accept defeat, and return to being peaceful citizens of the US. As he put it, "The matter has been decided on the battlefield."

What more would you have him do in that situation? What more could he do?

Some people believe that everybody was born for a purpose, and maybe Lee's purpose on earth was to be a good loser and bring the war to an end. Grant and Lincoln had nothing but respect for the way he conducted the war and the surrender.

I don't believe I have ever in my life met anyone as personally impressive as Robert E. Lee. But I'm very glad he lost.

 

Yes; George Washington was a traitor to Great Britain, his side won though.

 

Thank you for saying that. A rebellion is only legal if you win. If the colonies had lost, Washington would have been hanged as a traitor to the King. No country makes it legal for various areas to leave and become a separate country.

... which was the legal government of where he lived, in 1776.

Proof of his outstanding reputation as an officer. Both sides wanted him very badly. He didn't choose until he was absolutely certain there was going to be a war.

There was no difference between the two, at the time he swore it. Why is that so hard for people like you to understand?

The primary difference between Lee and John Reynolds is that Reynolds was lucky enough to be born in a place that opposed slavery. Therefore, he didn't have a difficult decision to make. He didn't need to fight against his home. Otherwise, the two were very much alike. They both had stellar academic records, both were deeply admired by their peers for self-discipline, excellence, and superior leadership qualities.

Leading that group of generals has been compared to herding cats, which is why, like Lee, John Reynolds turned down the job. Meade was in command at Gettysburg only because Reynolds had turned down Lincoln's offer, and Meade was Lincoln's second choice.

The US Army was Lee's prime target. He had zero interest in Northern cities. Unlike Sherman, he never burned or looted anything. Every troop was reminded before both Northern invasions that any man caught illegally harming US civilians or property would be court-martialed, possibly receiving the death penalty. They knew he was dead serious, so little of it went on.

I'm aware of the cavalry action west of Harrisburg. Their objective was to probe enemy strength at that location. Harrisburg is not the best route from Winchester, VA to Philadelphia. The supply lines would have been ridiculous. Lee was not a fool. There were not enough wagons and horses in all of Virginia to do that. Crossing the Susquehanna under enemy artillery fire would have been impossible. It's too wide. Lee simply had to give his infantry something to do to get the US Army to chase them. Threatening Harrisburg seemed like as good of a ploy as any. It worked.

He didn't care about the location, except that he would have preferred to have held the high ground and to have had more scouting information from General Stuart.

I guess I should stop talking to Yankees about the Civil War, as my father advised me long ago. And I should stop talking to Southerners about the Civil War, because I'm glad we lost. Maybe today's black leaders are right when they say that it's time to forget the Civil War and stop talking about it at all.

I have a hard time respecting people who can't see that there are at least two sides to every story.

 

Oh my God who gives a shit any more? The south lost. Get over it already.

 

People who get tired of being told that everybody from the South is a fucking idiot, and always has been. It's almost as offensive as racism. Northeastern snobs can be absolutely insufferable.

 

Who here is saying that?

 

LOL, you read my last two posts, and this is what you get out of it? Unbelievable!

Are you a typical Pittsburgh guy? I've been all over your state. Philadelphia treated me like shit, Lancaster and Scranton were okay, but Harrisburg people were some of the friendliest and kindest individuals I ever met. They didn't care where I was from. I hope their attitude will spread across the state. Maybe you can visit there and learn from them. I visited their Civil War museum and had excellent conversations with some of the volunteers. No angry regional BS.

So much for the idea of the internet allowing people to learn about each other, through open and honest communication. Fuck this shit.

 

Yes, that's the end of it. I obviously have no idea what my own opinions are unless you tell me.

 

The fascist group or groups Support is more important than maintaining individual rights.
Believing that one's group is a victim. This justifies any behavior against the group's enemies, opposition
The belief that individualism enable dangerous decadence and have a negative effect on the group.
A strong sense of community or brotherhood. This brotherhood's unity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary.
Individual self-esteem is tied up in the grandeur of the group. this provides an enhanced sense of identity and belonging.
Extreme support of a leader, socialists in America. This results in one man taking on the role of national savior. Obama did that, or tried to and was successful judging by the response of groups after he left and opposition took office.
The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success. Labelling white America as right wing and racist, fascists while justifying their propaganda and fascist ideology.
Once in power, ie Obama was in power he systematically suppressed individual liberties if it opposed him. fascists in the USA are revolutionists who will break up institutions if they think it will bring international power and/or grandeur.

Left wing fascism in the classroom, this doesn't even touch the tip if the iceberg. If you want more I have plenty.

Fascism

Professor Karla Erickson, Describes herself as a "feminist ethnographer,” who teaches a special topics class called “American Whiteness,” Tthis is an quote from one she gave out to her class in 2015, “Whiteness is, among much else, a very bad idea" then quote Kansas University Professor David Roediger. “It is quite possible to avoid hating white people as individuals but to criticize the ‘idea of white people in general.’”

The syllabus for the course states. “Beyond the Whiteness of Whiteness” and “The Case for Reparations,” the latter of which encourages students to “take on the labor of interrogating and attacking racism by making whiteness visible.”

http://legalinsurrection.com/2017/08/grinnell-college-feminist-prof-to-teach-course-lamenting-american-whiteness/

https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=9590 - Ann Blankenship-Knox education professor shares techniques she uses to push a social justice and "decenter whiteness" in the classroom. She Further promises to “decenter whiteness” in her classes by prioritizing “first person narratives of people of color, and documentaries that challenge the narratives presented in Mississippi history books.”


Ward Churchill was a professor of ethnic studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder for close to two decades. Churchill claims, teaches that the attacks were an result of unlawful U.S. policy, and compared the corporations working in the World Trade Center to Adolf Eichmann, one of the architects of the Holocaust. He squid the university for firing him and taking away his right to free speech and won. He pretends to be native, to which he is not and feels the need to school native people on their history and all that the black community has done for native people. A man who is called upon to speak at universities as an expert.


Bill Ayers - friend of Obama, was part of the weather network, terrorist organization, left politically is a now retired prof as of 2014. Taught elementary education theory professor at the University of Illinois, Chicago. He is a left wing socialist terrorist.



I sent you a link to the human rights commission where they strongly suggest giving extra days off with pay for throes who are minorities and of other faiths. I have seen this in action personally as have others I know who are not necessarily white, but are called racist when they express feelings of it not being fair simply because you are Canadian and may or may not be Christian.

Again if you want more I have plenty.

 

I attribute it to obama because he catered to so called miniorities and supported fascists groups, extreme left groups, gave them a voice, catered to them, now their voice is ignored. If trump caters to the kkk as obama did to BLM I will equally object as I do to my prime minister.

I am also having troubles with private messages. Nothing comes up in the area. Not sure what is wrong with it.

I was replying to you but was in a hurry this morning and didn't have time to put it all together.

My statements about fascism was what every fascist group has done in history. It is their common tactic. The KKK, BLM, antifa use the same methods to gather people to their side and justify it with violence and hatred. It applies to both the alt left and alt right.

I have found that middle of the road left are becoming more alt left than any other group.

 

Oh look, big surprise here. Lol

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450824/clemson-university-professor-calls-republicans-racist-scum

 

What blows my mind is how the leftist press has literally raised "The KKK" from the ashes. BLM has more members. Anti-fa has more members. There are more gang members in Chicago than klan members in the whole country. So calling them some kind of "threat" is moronic at best. Seriously, if you don't feed them with all this attention, they'll slink back into their holes. The ONLY thing keeping the fake ass KKK together is today's media. The KKK isn't actually DOING anything.

 

I don't know, but I loathe 53's, so you lost me.