- 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
Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:20 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:20 am
Man never fought for slavery, only for his home state Virginia.
Scene from Gods and Generals showing this
Scene from Gods and Generals showing this
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 3:23 am
25
Posted on 5/22/17 at 5:48 am to Parmen
I think it's slightly dishonest on both sides. Lee most certainly supported slavery in the sense he used them to right his inherited plantation after it had fallen on hard times. Even before the ones he inherited, he owned some of his own. He was in the small minority that actually owned them. Now did he support state's rights? Sure. But let's not pretend he didn't have an economic dependence on the institution of slavery.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 6:35 am to Parmen
Posted on 5/22/17 at 6:38 am to Parmen
Why people on either side of this issue care so much about the Civil War will always be lost on me.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a history buff with the best of them. But this shite truly does not matter
Don't get me wrong, I'm a history buff with the best of them. But this shite truly does not matter
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 6:39 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 7:20 am to Parmen
quote:
Man never fought for slavery, only for his home state Virginia.
Same thing. Lee couldn't support Virginia without supporting slavery.
Slavery and Virginia were inextricably linked. By 1861 Virginia's largest industry was exporting slaves to other states.
"The importation of slaves was officially prohibited by Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution in 1808, but it had little impact. Slave smuggling was common. Virginia became the center of the slave trade and shipped Virginia-born slaves to fast-growing states along the eastern coast, and later in the Deep South. Natural increase accounted for practically all of the slave-population growth in the United States."
LINK
Virginia's economy was dependent upon slavery. That was the State's Right that Lee was fighting for.
The -best- thing you can say about Lee is that he was a man of the past, when we always need men of the future - true heroes like Lincoln, Grant and Sherman.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 7:23 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 7:37 am to Parmen
quote:Losers don't get to write the history books.
Man never fought for slavery, only for his home state Virginia.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:28 am to Parmen
a statue to him in full confederate gear on a public circle is most definitely a monument to a time when many residents of the city's ancestors were slaves.
i'm not saying he was a bad guy, i'm saying if you don't understand how its offensive, you're ignorant
i'm not saying he was a bad guy, i'm saying if you don't understand how its offensive, you're ignorant
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 9:29 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:31 am to Parmen
I have been a Civil War history buff for years, reading Catton and Foote and other histories.
It is my humble opinion that the driving force behind Secession was SLAVERY.
It is argued that it was "States' Rights".
The South fought for the States'right to own slaves. Period.
REL, had he fought for the North, would have saved many lives had Lincoln let him. Lincoln effed around with several incompetents before he found Grant.
It is my humble opinion that the driving force behind Secession was SLAVERY.
It is argued that it was "States' Rights".
The South fought for the States'right to own slaves. Period.
REL, had he fought for the North, would have saved many lives had Lincoln let him. Lincoln effed around with several incompetents before he found Grant.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:34 am to Parmen
quote:
Man never fought for slavery
Depends how you define "fought" he was certainly willing to have slaves beaten bloody and then rub salt in the wounds-- he was so damn sadistic about the beatings he had to outsource them since his own overseer thought they were too vile.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:37 am to Parmen
quote:Your source is a TV movie?
Scene from Gods and Generals showing this
Lee was uneasy over the institution of slavery. He thought it would eventually die out and he thought that was a good thing. In short, his attitude was consistent with the attitudes of religious people of his day. But his family owned slaves when he was younger, and he inherited slaves from his father in law. He was a stricter master than his father in law had been. He kept his father in law's slaves until the family farm had been stabilized and some financial obligations connected to inheritance were taken care of.
And while it's true that Lee saw Virginia as his country and could not fathom taking up arms against Virginia, there were others in his family did not share this view and who did side with the Union in the Civil War.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:39 am to Parmen
Lee was highly regarded by both sides during the war and after. He was known as an "offensive" type general that played defensive mostly during the war. His military strategies were still being studied by us and other countries post WW1. He knew we'd never "beat" the north, he just hoped to prolong the war and they get tired of spending money and men losing lives. Many folks on both sides didn't expect the war to last more than a few months.
When Gettysburg happened, even after the defeat, morale was high in the confederate army. It surprised everyone the south had the ability to make an attack on the north. The problem is the south truly used up too many resources and it somewhat woke up a sleeping giant in the process. People started flocking to the the military on the northern side afterwards.
We like to think in the south we had the better soldiers. In reality, the north had very good and well trained military. A high percentage of soldiers from the south that were in the army prior to the war stayed with the north also. Let's not forget that much of the north was rural back then, so there were still many people "from the country" fighting for the north. The south just had an all star team of commanders.
Lee knew by 1865 the north wasn't running out of money or manpower, he finally made the unpopular decision to surrender. If not the war would have gone on for several more years. None of this had anything to do about slavery, so my bad.
You can't say slavery had nothing to do with the war, you also can't say it had everything to do with it. Cotton export taxes were being raised and Mexico and Central America took advantage of it and became a player in the cotton trade. Also most of the money the south brought in for selling cotton stayed up north. There were many various reasons for the war.
When Gettysburg happened, even after the defeat, morale was high in the confederate army. It surprised everyone the south had the ability to make an attack on the north. The problem is the south truly used up too many resources and it somewhat woke up a sleeping giant in the process. People started flocking to the the military on the northern side afterwards.
We like to think in the south we had the better soldiers. In reality, the north had very good and well trained military. A high percentage of soldiers from the south that were in the army prior to the war stayed with the north also. Let's not forget that much of the north was rural back then, so there were still many people "from the country" fighting for the north. The south just had an all star team of commanders.
Lee knew by 1865 the north wasn't running out of money or manpower, he finally made the unpopular decision to surrender. If not the war would have gone on for several more years. None of this had anything to do about slavery, so my bad.
You can't say slavery had nothing to do with the war, you also can't say it had everything to do with it. Cotton export taxes were being raised and Mexico and Central America took advantage of it and became a player in the cotton trade. Also most of the money the south brought in for selling cotton stayed up north. There were many various reasons for the war.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 9:42 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 11:16 am to Parmen
quote:
Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"
I think his representation as a decent enough dude and a great general who fought for the bad guys is pretty fair.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 11:50 am to Parmen
quote:
Man never fought for slavery, only for his home state Virginia.
and why did virginia secede?
to keep slavery.
just stop. please.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 12:17 pm to Parmen
R.E. Lee was one of the finest gentleman this country has or will ever produce.
Period.
Period.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 12:29 pm to Parmen
Lee was a honorable man and a gentleman. It's disgusting how historians have vilified him.
It was documented that he refused to fight against his own friends and family in Virginia and was loyal to Virginia.
People don't understand this concept today, because we travel abroad so much. Back then men felt more loyalty to their own state than the country
It was documented that he refused to fight against his own friends and family in Virginia and was loyal to Virginia.
People don't understand this concept today, because we travel abroad so much. Back then men felt more loyalty to their own state than the country
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:58 pm to Parmen
quote:they're down. It's over
Man never fought for slavery, only for his home state Virginia.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:00 pm to Parmen
quote:He took up arms to fight against the USA.
Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"
He is a traitor.
That said, he was a great leader, and a compelling figure.
The line between revolutionary and traitor, is the question: "who won?"
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:03 pm to Parmen
quote:
only for his home state Virginia.
If he only fought for Virginia, why do we need a statue of him in Louisiana?
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:07 pm to Parmen
You're showing a scene in a movie from a fictional novel with "imagined" dialogue?
Posted on 5/22/17 at 4:24 pm to Parmen
Lee was always going to fight for Virginia. That's where allegiances lay back then.
But lets not use Lee as an example of regressive historians.
You had real history written - then after Reconstruction you had historians rewritting the war in myth and romance - from which a lot have probably been raised on - and now you have original history being written again - cutting through all the lost cause muck and guck.
This speech was given shortly after the Confederate government was formed and just a few weeks before Lincoln tricked the Confederacy into firing on Ft. Sumter. Vice President of the Confederacy Stephens tells us:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.
It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Then Stephens gives us the cornerstone of his new nation:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
But lets not use Lee as an example of regressive historians.
You had real history written - then after Reconstruction you had historians rewritting the war in myth and romance - from which a lot have probably been raised on - and now you have original history being written again - cutting through all the lost cause muck and guck.
This speech was given shortly after the Confederate government was formed and just a few weeks before Lincoln tricked the Confederacy into firing on Ft. Sumter. Vice President of the Confederacy Stephens tells us:
But not to be tedious in enumerating the numerous changes for the better, allow me to allude to one other though last, not least. The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted.
The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically.
It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time.
The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.”
Then Stephens gives us the cornerstone of his new nation:
Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News