- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: History Topic: Did R.E. Lee Betray His Countrymen?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:16 pm to RollTideATL
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:16 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
I think it's convenient to say he fought for the south because that's where his friends and family lived.
In 2015, it's convenient to say that his allegiance to Virginia should've been less than his allegiance to the causes of the north. It's also convenient to say that the war was "about slavery, period."
I'll stipulate that Lee was a contradiction to himself. He wrote in 1856 "There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." But yet, his father-in-law stated in his will that he wanted his slaves freed within five years of his death. He died in 1857 and Lee didn't free them till December 1862.
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 1:17 pm
1
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:17 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
it was about slavery, period
Among other issues. Many southerners felt alienated from Washington and something we should have more of today -- state's rights and state's decisions to make decisions.
But yes, slavery is #1 reason.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:20 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
Through the political leadership of the likes of Henry Clay and John Crittenden, Kentucky tried to keep the nation together through the early 1800s as slavery and sectional conflicts threatened to tear the nation apart.
quote:
the people of the state also strongly believed in and supported the nation the Founding Fathers created and did not want to destroy the nation they had been given.
LINK /
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:25 pm to doublecutter
quote:
Something nobody mentions about slavery is up to the War of Northern Aggression, slavery was not illegal.
quote:
As long as there were an equal number of slave-holding states in the South as non-slave-holding states in the North, the two regions had even representation in the Senate and neither could dictate to the other. However, each new territory that applied for statehood threatened to upset this balance of power. Southerners consistently argued for states rights and a weak federal government but it was not until the 1850s that they raised the issue of secession.
LINK
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:26 pm to RollTideATL
"My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." -Abraham Lincoln, 1862
Seems the issue for Lincoln was states rights as well.
Seems the issue for Lincoln was states rights as well.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:29 pm to Sal Minella
quote:
Seems the issue for Lincoln was states rights as well.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:30 pm to Sal Minella
quote:
In 2015, it's convenient to say that his allegiance to Virginia should've been less than his allegiance to the causes of the north. It's also convenient to say that the war was "about slavery, period."
Ok, we'll call it "states' rights" if that makes everyone feel better.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:34 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
Ok, we'll call it "states' rights" if that makes everyone feel better.
And we'll call you a "Southerner...through and through".
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:35 pm to rb
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:36 pm to rb
the bama fan is LSU's offense on 1/9 and the other posters are the 50 yard line.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:41 pm to heartbreakTiger
quote:
the bama fan is LSU's offense on 1/9 and the other posters are the 50 yard line.
Way to offer up some knowledge...
quote:
Q. What caused the Civil War?
While many still debate the ultimate causes of the Civil War, Pulitzer Prize-winning author James McPherson writes that, "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states. When Abraham Lincoln won election in 1860 as the first Republican president on a platform pledging to keep slavery out of the territories, seven slave states in the deep South seceded and formed a new nation, the Confederate States of America. The incoming Lincoln administration and most of the Northern people refused to recognize the legitimacy of secession. They feared that it would discredit democracy and create a fatal precedent that would eventually fragment the no-longer United States into several small, squabbling countries."
LINK
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:49 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
Ok, we'll call it "states' rights" if that makes everyone feel better.
I feel fine, thank you. Maybe you should consider that an argument that the Civil War was about state's rights doesn't minimize that slavery was evil and as an institution had to end.
Here's a primer on the fight over state's rights that began during the birth of this country. LINK
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:53 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
you shut your whore mouth. Lee was the only reason the confederacy lasted as long as it did.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:58 pm to TheSexecutioner
quote:
if the war was truly about slavery
Maryland had slaves and stayed in the union. Their slaves were not frees by the emancipation proclamation. They would even go to the Freedmens Village and look for runaways.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 2:01 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
Read that and tell me what "states' rights" boils down to...
States rights encompassed alot of issues in 1860 not just slavery. Slavery was jus the biggest and the sexiest. There was also the issue of taxes and tariffs, where to locate the transcontinental railroad, if the fedral government could force a standard rail gauge (track width) on the states, navigation on waterways, and abunch of other issues.
BTW: I love how you link a site with only a few authors and the main one on why the south fought is this guy.
quote:
Gordon Rhea is one of the foremost authorities on Grant’s 1864 Overland Campaign, and is the author of The Battle of the Wilderness: May 5-6, 1864, To The North Anna River: Grant and Lee, May 13-25, 1864 and Cold Harbor: Grant and Lee, May 26-June 3, 1864, among others. Rhea has given scores of lectures and sits on the board of directors at the Civil War Library and Museum in Philadelphia and North and South magazine.
Rhea graduated summa cum laude from Indiana University with a B.A. in History, and received his Masters from Harvard University as a Woodrow Wilson Fellow. Rhea went into law –earning his degree from Stanford University -- and was a Federal Attorney for a number of years.
Rhea currently works with the firm of Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook and Brickman, who pursue environmental justice. He is a major supporter of the Civil War Trust.
That site is revisionist history 101. Take the winning sides arguments and only present evidence to back it up (i.e. it never mentions the north forcing a tariff on the south and the nullification crisis of the 1830s). That is like the Russian media telling the world why Ukraine is fighting them.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 2:05 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
How would he have fed and provisioned his army? The countryside had been virtually wiped clean already. His army would have starved.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 2:11 pm to OleWarSkuleAlum
I thought the premise of the OP would be if he betrayed THE UNITED STATES when he declared his loyalty to the Confederacy. That is the more interesting discussion to me.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 2:11 pm to RollTideATL
quote:
History is the ultimate judge here, and he chose the wrong side of it.
Let's take the moral equivalency test for second generation Southern history revisionists. Slightly off topic.
Are you as equally "ashamed " of those blue clad legions of anti-slavers ,that murdered and exiled red people from their natural homelands? I wonder why the vast majority of those displaced red people sided with the traitorous secessh ?
Why did history judge red people so harshly ?
Posted on 4/12/15 at 2:15 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
How would he have fed and provisioned his army? The countryside had been virtually wiped clean already. His army would have starved.
The plan to feed the army was to break it up into small gangs and let them scavenge and raid the Yankee supply lines for food. That is what the partisan bands did in the west and border states. The Army of Northern Virginia was to become a bigass collection of partisan bands.
For ammo, the CSA had been planning on guerrilla war since Atlanta fell in 1864. They had ammo and supplies stashed and ready to go. The night before Lee surrendered he arrived at one of those depots to find over a month's worth of powder and ammo, but no food. That is what pushed him over the edge and to change course and surrender.
Posted on 4/12/15 at 2:18 pm to rb
quote:
Let's take the moral equivalency test for second generation Southern history revisionists. Slightly off topic.
Are you as equally "ashamed " of those blue clad legions of anti-slavers ,that murdered and exiled red people from their natural homelands? I wonder why the vast majority of those displaced red people sided with the traitorous secessh ?
Why did history judge red people so harshly ?
Why should we be ashamed on any act that was committed by ppl that are long since dead? We are not judged on the sins of our fathers and grandfather. Even if we were what nation on the face of the earth could say they are better than us? Maybe Canada, but that is the only one I can think of.
Page 4 of 7
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News