In Memoriam: Robert E. Lee, 19 January 1807- 12 October 1870

[Ghost Knight]

I don't get how any White Nationalist could hate the Confederacy

[Teyrn]

I don't get how any White Nationalist could hate the Confederacy

May be because I'm tired of seeing the north (where I'm from) and the Union constantly bashed by: 1) keyboard Confederates; 2) clueless Europeans; etc.? Historical fact doesn't make the south's cause anymore noble than the north, but that's not how it's commonly talked about on forums where Lincoln = devil incarnate, etc.

[Leadchucker]

Just some added information on leaving the Union (copy and paste..sorry)

Q: Didn’t the outcome of the “Civil War” prove that secession is not an option for any State?
A: No. It only proved that, when allowed to act outside his lawfully limited authority, a U.S. president is capable of unleashing horrendous violence against the lives, liberty, and property of those whom he pretends to serve. The Confederate States (including Texas) withdrew from the Union lawfully, civilly, and peacefully, after enduring several decades of excessive and inequitable federal tariffs (taxes) heavily prejudiced against Southern commerce
Refusing to recognize the Confederate secession, Lincoln called it a "rebellion" and a "threat" to "the government" (without ever explaining exactly how "the government" was "threatened" by a lawful, civil, and peaceful secession) and acted outside the lawfully defined scope of either the office of president or the U.S. government in general, to coerce the South back into subjugation to Northern control.
The South's rejoining the Union at the point of a bayonet in the late 1860s didn't prove secession is "not an option" or unlawful. It only affirmed that violent coercion can be used—even by governments (if unrestrained)—to rob men of their very lives, liberty, and property.

It bears repeating that the united States are "united" explicitly on the principle that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed" and "whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends [i.e., protecting life, liberty, and property], it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government" and "when a long train of abuses and usurpations...evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."

[Smaland]

Today is the 206th anniversary of Lee's birthday.

The "preacher" I referred to in the OP is Michael King (Martin Luther King).

[Smaland]

Lee's life and career left a legacy of selfless devotion to duty, honor, and people unmatched in the history of Western civilization. His was not just a military heroism, but a moral heroism. His brilliant accomplishments on the battlefield were outshone in victory and defeat by the nobility of his moral wisdom and stainless integrity. His devotion to his soldiers, his family, the Southern cause, and to God became legendary.

"Happy 200th Birthday, Robert E. Lee!"

[Smeagol]

Great man. American hero.

[Weedman]

Lee is a man I would have saluted and followed. I don't agree with a lot the South stood for (slavery) but a country has the right to be independent.

At least Lee was a gentlemen and he fought for clear ideals: his country.

Lee didnt agree with slavery personaly. He said "it is a greater evil to the white man even than it is to the colored man"
he thought slavery would gradually disappear,as did most Southerners, and blacks should be slowly integrated into wider society. He also wanted to grant slaves manumission if they were willing to fight for the Confederacy.

He also freed his own slaves before the war started.

He did not truly want to have to fight against the Union but was devoted to the protection and defense of his home (Virginia) and was genuinely disgusted to think the American (Union) government would send in troops against it's own people!

[Weedman]

I don't get how any White Nationalist could hate the Confederacy

many reasons that dont fit with modern WN ideology

A. the South was based on a slave-economic structure meaning they wanted to KEEP blacks here for bondage where as most WN's today would rather get rid of black all together, much like northern abolitionists who wanted to send most back to Liberia. WN today are separatists

B. The South( Confederacy) had no particular problem with Jews. Many Jews fought for the South and one in particular (Judah P Benjamin) was a high ranking Confederate Statesmen who went to become the first Jew in many higher political offices after the war, in the Union as well.

C. Some modern day- NEO Confederates try to "clean-up" the image of the Confederacy by over emphasizing how many blacks and non-whites fought for the confederacy, to appease modern liberals and their critics

D. finally, if you want to talk about groups like traditional Klansmen, they are in fact WN's also, but many also strongly emphasize their uniquely American roots, their Democratic American Ideals, and specifically Christian-based ideology, who dont care to be confused with modern Neo-Nazi groups or modern National Socialists

[Weedman]

The Southerns ought to have a day. Respected, but might not be too popular in the North to this day.

back when my parents were growing up every Southern state used to celebrate Jefferson Davis's birthday as a state-wide holiday just like Memorial day or anything else

we DID have our own day which was taken away by liberals later on!

[Weedman]

May be because I'm tired of seeing the north (where I'm from) and the Union constantly bashed by: 1) keyboard Confederates; 2) clueless Europeans; etc.? Historical fact doesn't make the south's cause anymore noble than the north, but that's not how it's commonly talked about on forums where Lincoln = devil incarnate, etc.

our cause was just.............yours was tyrannical