Robert E. Lee

[Mountain Man]

Right and wrong, thats how you reconcile. A traitor to Russia would be a hero to the U.S.

It sure sounds like you're advocating a "might makes right" philosophy. Our Founding Fathers are only considered "right" today because they won the war.

[JimL]

It sure sounds like you're advocating a "might makes right" philosophy. Our Founding Fathers are only considered "right" today because they won the war.

Really? So you don't believe that the Founding Fathers were actually right?

[shunyadragon]

It sure sounds like you're advocating a "might makes right" philosophy. Our Founding Fathers are only considered "right" today because they won the war.

Not because they won. I believe their cause (Founding Fathers) were morally grounded in their motives for rebellion against the King of England.

I do not believe the Leaders of the Confederate States were morally grounded in their motives for rebellion against the Union.

[Mountain Man]

Really? So you don't believe that the Founding Fathers were actually right?

My personal beliefs are irrelevant. The point is that if Lee had won the war, which he came very close to doing, then I suspect the modern world would have regarded Lee similar to how the Founding Fathers are seen today: men who had the conviction and strength of character to fight for what they believed in and prevailed over those who opposed them. If the Founding Fathers had lost the war, which very nearly happened, then I suspect the modern world would have regarded them in much the same way Lee is regarded today: a traitor to his nation who was on the wrong side of history.

There's a lot of nuance here that is no doubt lost on the black-and-white moralizing of a simpleton like you.

[JimL]

My personal beliefs are irrelevant. The point is that if Lee had won the war, which he came very close to doing, then I suspect the modern world would have regarded Lee similar to how the Founding Fathers are seen today: men who had the conviction and strength of character to fight for what they believed in and prevailed over those who opposed them. If the Founding Fathers had lost the war, which very nearly happened, then I suspect the modern world would have regarded them in much the same way Lee is regarded today: a traitor to his nation who was on the wrong side of history.

There's a lot of nuance here that is no doubt lost on the black-and-white moralizing of a simpleton like you.

If you say so, then there's no point in reading the rest of your reply.

[Mountain Man]

If you say so, then there's no point in reading the rest of your reply.

In other words, you concede the debate.

[Sparko]

When things get tough in the stuck in the corner changing the subject get's you nowhere. I do not see any movement to form an army and wage a war of rebellion against Trump.

Again, not the subject of the thread.

Dude! It's my thread.

Just leave. buh-bye.

[shunyadragon]

My personal beliefs are irrelevant. The point is that if Lee had won the war, which he came very close to doing, then I suspect the modern world would have regarded Lee similar to how the Founding Fathers are seen today: men who had the conviction and strength of character to fight for what they believed in and prevailed over those who opposed them. If the Founding Fathers had lost the war, which very nearly happened, then I suspect the modern world would have regarded them in much the same way Lee is regarded today: a traitor to his nation who was on the wrong side of history.

There's a lot of nuance here that is no doubt lost on the black-and-white moralizing of a simpleton like you.

It's unfortunate that your beliefs are grounded more in the pragmatism of the winner can take the high ground regardless of their motives for rebellion, than in real moral motives whether they win or not.

[Sparko]

R.E. Lee said: "The Framers would never have exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in forming the Union if it was intended to be broken up by every member of the Union at will."

so where does he say that he or the south were traitors?

What I'm saying, and what I made perfectly clear is that secession is illegal, contrary to the Constitution, and treasonous, and yes, the leaders of such an insurrection should be treated as such.

Great. I will remind you of that when you inevitably put your foot in your mouth.

[Sparko]

It depends how California would choose to secede. If they choose armed rebellion against the Union they would be traitors. If there is an agreement to secede they would not.

I consider this argument a canard and not worth any further discussion.

again, this is not your thread, so what you think is worth further discussion is irrelevant. You seem to do this a lot, think you are in control of threads you did not start.

Like I said, please leave the thread.

[JimL]

so where does he say that he or the south were traitors?

Oops, I guess it went over your head again.

Great. I will remind you of that when you inevitably put your foot in your mouth.

Okay, and you can continue to chew on your own until that time.

[Sparko]

Oops, I guess it went over your head again.

oops I guess I was right and you just made up stuff that you can't back up.

Okay, and you can continue to chew on your own until that time.

So if the Calexit ballot initiative actually makes it on the ballot that means the California government is being traitorous and we should send in the National Guard and replace the current state government and arrest them all for treason. Good to know.

[Cow Poke]

Not because they won. I believe their cause (Founding Fathers) were morally grounded in their motives for rebellion against the King of England.

And, of course, their "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence", right?

[Mountain Man]

It's unfortunate that your beliefs are grounded more in the pragmatism of the winner can take the high ground regardless of their motives for rebellion, than in real moral motives whether they win or not.

I see you're also incapable of parsing a nuanced argument. Either that or your only hope of even attempting to engage my position is to build yourself a nice, little straw man for you to attack.

It could be argued that, broadly speaking, Lee was fighting for the right of the people to freely govern themselves, which is essentially what our Founding Fathers fought for. The perceived moral "rightness" of their cause seems, in hindsight, to depend largely on whether or not they won.

Notice that at no point, in any of my arguments, have I promoted a might-makes-right philosophy. That seems to be the position Jimmy was taking when he said, "Right and wrong, thats how you reconcile," because his notions of right and wrong seem to rest largely on who the victors are.

[Sparko]

I find it hilarious that JimL and the other liberals are condemning the South as traitors and as slavers.

Do they even realize that Jefferson Davis and the Southern states were DEMOCRATS and that the Abolitionists were REPUBLICANS, and Davis gave a speech saying that if an Abolitionist (Republican) was elected President, they would secede from the Union?

Sounds exactly like the democrats today in California who say that because a Republican was elected they want to secede from the Union.

Different century same "Not my President!" Democrats.