USAians: What are you doing on this loooong MLK weekend?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
His country was the CSA.

The Confederate States of America illegally seceded from the Union.

Besides, why would you have respect for a country that seceded on the basis of preserving the ideology of white supremacy?

And before you retort with the usual, "but some of Revolutionary founders were also slave owners" let me say this:

The difference between the revolt of American patriots in 1775 and the secession revolt of white Southerners in 1861 was in their REASON for revolting.

The Revolutionary founders revolted against Great Britain for economic and political reasons that did not revolve exclusively around preserving slavery. It was a revolt in which some of the rebels happened to have been slave owners.

There was only one overriding, economic reason why white Southerners revolted through secession in 1861. First, there was hundreds of millions of dollars invested in slave property; slave owners wanted to preserve such wealth. Second, these elite slave owners found ways to rally the majority of white Southerners who did not own slaves by using propaganda of states' rights and the ideology of white supremacy.

History has often shown that money and wealth are great motivators among greedy humans. And if you think an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in slaves was a non-issue and that this was not the reason for secession, you need to pull your head out of your ass.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by MrFun
The Confederate States of America illegally seceded from the Union.

That question wasn't resolved until years later in a poorly decided SCOTUS case and has little bearing on the issue. It also contradicts the actions of the Radical Republicans.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
That question wasn't resolved until years later in a poorly decided SCOTUS case and has little bearing on the issue. It also contradicts the actions of the Radical Republicans.

U.S. Constitution:

Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of teh several State Legislators, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution.

This part here seems to state that government officials of United States were legally bound by their oaths to uphold the Constitution of United States.

Also, the U.S. Constitution set clear limits on the full sovreignty of each individual state; see Section 10 under Article I.

And I'm trying to remember off-hand; I believe there is something in the Consitution that also provides the federal government with the legal power to deal with insurrection within its country.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I suspected that was the case.

Yes, but working out that Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson were alive and well in the 19th Century and Martin Luther King wasn't, might just have tipped you off.


That and the racist nature of the war they're most famous for commanding in, and M.L.K.'s ethnicity would be big clues as to why a particular state might have a day commemorating two Confederate commanders BEFORE M.L.K day even existed...

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Right. So when the Queen jumps up we do her bidding, eh?

Difficult to envisage you doing any queen's bidding.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

You will find ones of Cromwell.

Unlike Napoleon or Jeanne D'Arc, Cromwell was English.

Other than being wars there's very little similarity between the wars in the 17th Century in the British Isles and the American Civil War.

A better comparison would be the American War For Independence- after all many of the same ideas were being rehashed, just on a different continent.

Read the Putney Debates.

The radicals wanted a constitution based upon manhood suffrage ("one man, one vote"), biennial Parliaments and a reorganisation of parliamentary constituencies. Authority was to be vested in the House of Commons rather than the King and Lords. Certain "native rights" were declared sacrosanct for all Englishmen: freedom of conscience, freedom from impressment into the armed forces and equality before the law.

http://www.british-civil-wars.co.uk/glossary/putney-debates.htm

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I think it's important that states should be able to honour those they consider to be heroes.

Perhaps California, Texas or Florida could have a Wernher Von Braun day- just think of the boost to the state economies due to his inventions.

Pity about all those slave workers who died to achieve 'em, eh ?

[Ben Kenobi]

Are you arguing Lee wanted to lose at Gettsyburg in order to hasten the end of the war?

Yep, it was the last major push he did to convince the North that the war couldn't be won without major cost and sacrifice. He wanted to break the spirit of the north by showing them how vunerable they were in 1863 after 2 years of war. He did the same a year later with Early's raids on Washington.

He didn't ever want the war, thought it would be a disaster but he did the best he could with what he had.

Btw, the Union armies at Gettysburg were commanded by Meade, not McClellan.

McClellan had his plans after Antietem. He realised what Lee was trying to do because he didn't have the men or manpower for anything more then a giant push.

Didn't mean to say McClellan was the commander at Gettysburg, just that he knew what Lee was up to.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
without Lee, they would not have lasted nearly as long as they did.

Which, as Imran rightly points out, makes him an even worse traitor. Over 600,000 soldiers died in that war, and an unknowable number of civilians, who are always forgotten in that war. So many more lives could have been saved if Lee had fought for, not against, his country. Lee is the greatest traitor this country has ever known.

[Ben Kenobi]

His people won in the long run. Teh Glorious Revolution ring any bells?

Elizabeth II is Puritan?

Not to you he wasn't, because you aren't an American.

Che, a nationalist? First I hear you complaining about the returns on your investments then I hear that you are a nationalist?

What's next? A membership in the Republican party. You are sounding more and more like one every day.

That was an entirely different matter altogether. France under Napoleon was a continental super power. Britain could not afford to let Napoleon consolidate his power, because once he was able to put together a navy, he would be crossing the straights.

And France prior to this wasn't a Global superpower? The rivalry between England and France has a long, long history.

This is entirely irrelevant. He took up arms against the government of the United States. That makes him a traitor. You can't mitigate his treason by saying he was opposed to the treason but did it anyway. I don't care. He shouldn't have fought for the South.

So he should have fought for the north and shot his own family? Gee, I can see that happening. I can't fault the man for his choice, and his positions both before and after the war. He did what he had to do with what he had. There were many during the war in the North that wished they had him on their side. Doesn't sound like a traitor to me.

Again, Cromwell's people won in the long run. Perhaps if there were celebrations of Charles I you might have a point.

And not the true Bonnie prince?

Irrelevant. Once those secessionists carried the day, he fought for them, rather than against them. If he had fought against them, then he wouldn't be a traitor.

Yes, he would have been. He would have been a traitor to his state of Virginia. He has no way out by your statement, he's a traitor to his people no matter what.

Or he could simply uphold the same ideals he always had.

By definition he is. He fought against his country. You cannot fight against your country and not be a traitor.

Sure you can. You are fond of plenty of revolutionaries. The only case you seem to hold in question is whether they win or not. Might makes right, Che?

[Ben Kenobi]

Which, as Imran rightly points out, makes him an even worse traitor. Over 600,000 soldiers died in that war, and an unknowable number of civilians, who are always forgotten in that war. So many more lives could have been saved if Lee had fought for, not against, his country. Lee is the greatest traitor this country has ever known.

So Lee, (who btw wasn't supreme commander of the confederate forces at the start), was responsible for the civil war?

No, he was responsible for it's ending.

Was he crying for secession? Was he shouting from the rooftops saying that the war was needed? No. He was there fighting tooth and nail to keep Virginia in the union.

He failed. How can we hold it against him that Virginia turned to the south?

[Ben Kenobi]

No he isn't. His reluctance is irrelevant. He took up arms against the US. He's a traitor. End of story.

Only because he lost

I'll have to remember that. You can't be a traitor if the revolution succeeds.

I think it is important that true patriots stop states from honoring traitors. Either that or lose any credibility when proclaiming patriotism.

So the US should tell Virginia to stop celebrating Lee-Jackson day? Yeah right. What's the point of having state governments then?

Aren't you aware of the principle that the best government is the smallest and most local?

Which makes him one of the worst traitors.

No, blame the folks that insisted virginia should join the south for that.

So you wouldn't protest if the state of Massachusetts had a Richard Dawkins day? I don't believe that for a second.

Why would I? It's their right to do so. A better example would be the Orangemen. I don't like what they stand for or what they represent, but if a state chose to honour them, they should be permitted to do so.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Yep, it was the last major push he did to convince the North that the war couldn't be won without major cost and sacrifice. He wanted to break the spirit of the north by showing them how vunerable they were in 1863 after 2 years of war. He did the same a year later with Early's raids on Washington.

He didn't ever want the war, thought it would be a disaster but he did the best he could with what he had.

You are nodding "yes" while saying "no". If he wanted to "break the spirit of the north" it seems strange to do that by losing. That would have the opposite effect would it not?

McClellan had his plans after Antietem. He realised what Lee was trying to do because he didn't have the men or manpower for anything more then a giant push.

Didn't mean to say McClellan was the commander at Gettysburg, just that he knew what Lee was up to.

This means nothing then. Someone not in command or charge thinks they know what someone else is up to.

[Ben Kenobi]

You are nodding "yes" while saying "no". If he wanted to "break the spirit of the north" it seems strange to do that by losing. That would have the opposite effect would it not?

You do it by throwing everything you have as hard as you can at one place that you think most vunerable. He didn't have a choice. If the war continued it was only a matter of time.

This means nothing then. Someone not in command or charge thinks they know what someone else is up to

Ok. Here's the deal. He fought Lee to a draw in Antietem, and managed to capture Lee's plans for the assault.

When he realised that Lee was throwing everything he had for this one chance, he didn't pursue him immediately.

Lincoln, because he wanted Lee to be pursued when he was in Union territory, heard of McClellan's lack of pursuit, and sacked him.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
You can't be a traitor if the revolution succeeds.

Of course you can. George Washington? He was and remains a traitor to the British Empire.

So the US should tell Virginia to stop celebrating Lee-Jackson day? Yeah right. What's the point of having state governments then?

I'm the US now? The people should be putting pressure on the states to stop celebrating holidays of traitors, just as they put pressure on Southern states to remove the marks of treason (ie, the Confederate battle flag) from their state flags. States can do what they want with their holidays, but that doesn't mean the people have to just go along with it.

Aren't you aware of the principle that the best government is the smallest and most local?

Yes. It's a bull**** principle.

blame the folks that insisted virginia should join the south for that.

I can blame both. He chose to join up with them when push came to shove.

Why would I? It's their right to do so. A better example would be the Orangemen. I don't like what they stand for or what they represent, but if a state chose to honour them, they should be permitted to do so.

And you really wouldn't protest that? I call BS! So, you basically don't care if another political entity celebrates someone who you despise? If a Muslim country has an Osama bin Laden day, you'll shut your mouth because that state should be permitted to do so?

BULL****! You aren't that big of a wuss.