Happy Lee-Jackson Day everyone!

[??????????]

Everyone have a happy Lee-Jackson day today!

[minionofmidas]

kthx. I will.

[A18]

There's a Lee-Jackson Day? I guess they're about as worthy as Martin Luther King, then.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

*waits for the PC left to bitch*

[??????????]

There's a Lee-Jackson Day? I guess they're about as worthy as Martin Luther King, then.

Yes, its a recognized holiday in the state of Virginia. They are far more worthy for a holidy then the poverty pimp.

[Undisguised Sockpuppet]

The way we went about civil rights was the wrong way IMO. First assmilation into mainstream culture THEN ciivil rights instead of just being like "Here's your civil rights now!" and not doing anything after it.

[ATFFL]

There's a Lee-Jackson Day? I guess they're about as worthy as Martin Luther King, then.

Yes, its a recognized holiday in the state of Virginia. They are far more worthy for a holidy then the poverty pimp.

What a choice!  A wife beater with good ideas or a couple of losers.

[??????????]

There's a Lee-Jackson Day? I guess they're about as worthy as Martin Luther King, then.

Yes, its a recognized holiday in the state of Virginia. They are far more worthy for a holidy then the poverty pimp.

What a choice!  A wife beater with good ideas or a couple of losers.

I'll take the two patriots anyday.

[Joe Republic]

I'll take the two patriots anyday.

He said 'losers'.

[??????????]

I'll take the two patriots anyday.

He said 'losers'.

Well of course I would expect a Yankee to call them losers. To the vast majority of southerners however, they are heros.

[Beet]

I'll take the two patriots anyday.

He said 'losers'.

Well of course I would expect a Yankee to call them losers. To the vast majority of southerners however, they are heros.

Then the vast majority of southerners consider traitors and murderers heros.

[Joe Republic]

I must admit I find it strange that just the other day, you were quick to highlight the personal flaws of Martin Luther King, while completely glossing over his good points.  Here, you champion two treacherous failures, while completely ignoring their personal flaws.  A double standard, don't you think?

[??????????]

I must admit I find it strange that just the other day, you were quick to highlight the personal flaws of Martin Luther King, while completely glossing over his good points.  Here, you champion two treacherous failures, while completely ignoring their personal flaws.  A double standard, don't you think?

Please name Jackson and Lees personal flaws firstly. And no, they were not "treacherous failures" as you like to say. Jackson won the majority of battles he commanded in as did Lee. Lee was a very honorable and respectable family man who believed in reunifying the country after the war had ended. But I guess you probably don't care about the facts as I doubt you've read about either.

[Beet]

I must admit I find it strange that just the other day, you were quick to highlight the personal flaws of Martin Luther King, while completely glossing over his good points.  Here, you champion two treacherous failures, while completely ignoring their personal flaws.  A double standard, don't you think?

I wouldn't hold him to such a high standard, Joe. States is a friendly, personable individual but his opinions on these issues are grossly distorted and always will be grossly distorted. He just can't accept the fact that his "heros" were treacherous generals who were willing to betray their own country and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men to just to protect their right to enslave others.

[??????????]

I must admit I find it strange that just the other day, you were quick to highlight the personal flaws of Martin Luther King, while completely glossing over his good points.  Here, you champion two treacherous failures, while completely ignoring their personal flaws.  A double standard, don't you think?

I wouldn't hold him to such a high standard, Joe. States is a friendly, personable individual but his opinions on these issues are grossly distorted and always will be grossly distorted. He just can't accept the fact that his "heros" were treacherous generals who were willing to betray their own country and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men to just to protect their right to enslave others.

Jackson and Lee didn't believe in slavery. But lets not let the facts stand in the way of your "beliefs".

[Joe Republic]

Why then did Lee personally own slaves?

Also, yes they were failures, because their side lost, correct?

[Democratic Hawk]

And a Happy Lee-Jackson day to you Jeff

Dave

[??????????]

Why then did Lee personally own slaves?

Also, yes they were failures, because their side lost, correct?

Actually they were his wifes slaves that were inherited.

Yes, they lost due to failures in the supply chain, not due to their incompetance. The failure was in the administration of the CS government.

[Beet]

I must admit I find it strange that just the other day, you were quick to highlight the personal flaws of Martin Luther King, while completely glossing over his good points.  Here, you champion two treacherous failures, while completely ignoring their personal flaws.  A double standard, don't you think?

I wouldn't hold him to such a high standard, Joe. States is a friendly, personable individual but his opinions on these issues are grossly distorted and always will be grossly distorted. He just can't accept the fact that his "heros" were treacherous generals who were willing to betray their own country and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men to just to protect their right to enslave others.

Jackson and Lee didn't believe in slavery. But lets not let the facts stand in the way of your "beliefs".

Jackson and Lee fought to against their own country in a cause created to preserve slavery.

Lee was a documented owner of slaves across at least three decades, and owner of up to several dozen slaves for at least five years. When some of these tried to escape, he them whipped and their lacerated backs rubbed with brine.

[??????????]

I must admit I find it strange that just the other day, you were quick to highlight the personal flaws of Martin Luther King, while completely glossing over his good points.  Here, you champion two treacherous failures, while completely ignoring their personal flaws.  A double standard, don't you think?

I wouldn't hold him to such a high standard, Joe. States is a friendly, personable individual but his opinions on these issues are grossly distorted and always will be grossly distorted. He just can't accept the fact that his "heros" were treacherous generals who were willing to betray their own country and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men to just to protect their right to enslave others.

Jackson and Lee didn't believe in slavery. But lets not let the facts stand in the way of your "beliefs".

Jackson and Lee fought to against their own country in a cause created to preserve slavery.

Lee was a documented owner of slaves across at least three decades, and owner of up to several dozen slaves for at least five years. When some of these tried to escape, he them whipped and their lacerated backs rubbed with brine.

Lees slaves were inherited, as I said earlier. For the second 'fact', source please?

[Beet]

I must admit I find it strange that just the other day, you were quick to highlight the personal flaws of Martin Luther King, while completely glossing over his good points.  Here, you champion two treacherous failures, while completely ignoring their personal flaws.  A double standard, don't you think?

I wouldn't hold him to such a high standard, Joe. States is a friendly, personable individual but his opinions on these issues are grossly distorted and always will be grossly distorted. He just can't accept the fact that his "heros" were treacherous generals who were willing to betray their own country and cause the deaths of hundreds of thousands of men to just to protect their right to enslave others.

Jackson and Lee didn't believe in slavery. But lets not let the facts stand in the way of your "beliefs".

Jackson and Lee fought to against their own country in a cause created to preserve slavery.

Lee was a documented owner of slaves across at least three decades, and owner of up to several dozen slaves for at least five years. When some of these tried to escape, he them whipped and their lacerated backs rubbed with brine.

Lees slaves were inherited, as I said earlier. For the second 'fact', source please?

See end:

http://fair-use.org/new-york-tribune/1859/06/19/letters/a-citizen

http://fair-use.org/new-york-tribune/1859/06/21/letters/some-facts-that-should-come-to-light

See middle:

http://fair-use.org/wesley-norris/testimony-of-wesley-norris

Even if his slaves were inherited, one cannot say he was opposed to slavery as he kept them rather than releasing them immediately.

[??????????]

The first two letters dont even have a person named its simply signed "A citizen". How can I know those letters were created back then as propaganda to slander Lee? The third letter is pretty good and it does say that Lee ordered his slaves whipped. I then read the full letter and at the beginning it said the slaves had attempted to run away. Back in the mid 19th century corporal punishment such as whipping was very common, whether it be a slave owner, navy, army or factory owner. So its not really all that shocking to be honest. And after the whippings they would often put brinewater onto the wounds as a means of preventing gangrene and helping the healing process as antiseptics were non-existent at this point.

[ATFFL]

Why then did Lee personally own slaves?

Also, yes they were failures, because their side lost, correct?

Actually they were his wifes slaves that were inherited.

Yes, they lost due to failures in the supply chain, not due to their incompetance. The failure was in the administration of the CS government.

It was more than that, and you know it.  They were offensively incompetent, even worse than many of the northern generals.  Lee had this insane preoccupation with attacking the enemy where they were strongest thinking that they were really weakest there or would break most easily.

They also decided to try to fight a war of attrition against an opponent superior on nearly every level relevant to a war of attrition.  Lee may have tried to deflect the blame with his "the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources" line, but he chose to fight a war where numbers and resources were key.

While Lee had no special love of slavery, he was, by no means, an abolitionist.

[??????????]

Why then did Lee personally own slaves?

Also, yes they were failures, because their side lost, correct?

Actually they were his wifes slaves that were inherited.

Yes, they lost due to failures in the supply chain, not due to their incompetance. The failure was in the administration of the CS government.

It was more than that, and you know it.  They were offensively incompetent, even worse than many of the northern generals.  Lee had this insane preoccupation with attacking the enemy where they were strongest thinking that they were really weakest there or would break most easily.

They also decided to try to fight a war of attrition against an opponent superior on nearly every level relevant to a war of attrition.  Lee may have tried to deflect the blame with his "the Army of Northern Virginia has been compelled to yield to overwhelming numbers and resources" line, but he chose to fight a war where numbers and resources were key.

While Lee had no special love of slavery, he was, by no means, an abolitionist.

So then he was of the opinion of probably 80% of the nation at the commencement of the Civil War.

[bgwah]

How can anyone be mad at StatesRights?

I love his kitty with a rifle avatar.