Aside from the Creepy Joe Hand, I Spy, with My Little Eye, a 17 in the Upper Left...
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (305)
sorted by:
These resources will absolutely answer that question on a much deeper level, but the most basic action that need not any quote, proving Lee's actions not matching his words, is that he literally took up arms against the nation (USA) he pledged an oath to defend, for the purpose of defending a traitorous movement within the state of VA and elsewhere in the "southern states" in order to protect and expand slavery.
An example of real heroes who walked the talk, were the 20-25k Virginians who answered the call to put down the rebellion, including the Rock of Chickamagua These men fought to preserve their country, even when most of their neighbors (like Rebel E. Lee) engaged in treason and insurrection.
Like I said, "we" as "conservatives" need to better understand and explain what happened in 1860... unfortunately, the Democrat/leftist pushing ot Lost Cause propaganda that has been wrongly accepted by advocates of states rights has made it an uphill battle. The "Confederates" (glorified Calhounians) are not our allies... they literally demanded a stronger federal government for the enforcement of one thing, and one thing only: slavery.... stronger fugitive slave laws (Congress overriding state laws, like those of PA) and the legalized expansion of slavery into the western territories (and eventually the entire country... Taney laid the logical foundation for such a conspiracy in the Dred Scott ruling... Lincoln identified it and called it out in his "House Divided" speech)
My only issue with your statements are that for the uninformed you make conclusions like "... for the purpose of defending a traitorous movement.... in order to protect and expand slavery" without any evidence (source). We have to take your word on that, right?
How about if I said "The North's actions were mainly driven by a deep state group involved with human trafficking that wanted access to the south's labor pool", or somesuch, and didn't provide any evidence. You would have to take my word on that, or disregard it completely. Bad example, but hopefully you get my point.
The little I have heard from those pushing back against the war being purely about slavery was that it was a war resisting federal governmental overreach that infringe on states rights. If framed in this way, your conclusion quoted above seems off.
Positive examples are not necessary when the negative conclusion isn't supported.
I'll call it there, as I haven't reviewed your prior links, just replying to help aid your effectiveness in sharing. Thanks.
edit: tl;dr - If you assert something as fact and not opinion, you should provide a link
At times I forget that it's possible that people can be so uninformed or misinformed. You now have the information to become better informed. Enjoy fren!
Interesting takeaway. You are now armed to be a better communicator and dispenser of knowledge. Cheers.