- 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: Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"
Posted on 5/22/17 at 6:35 am to AUsteriskPride
Posted on 5/22/17 at 6:35 am to AUsteriskPride
quote:Lee was completely in it for states' rights. 100%.
I think it's slightly dishonest on both sides. Lee most certainly supported slavery
He was fighting for Virginia. His personal decision had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery either way. As Virginia went, so went Lee.
Lee met with Lincoln and was offered command of the US Army. Had his state held fast with the Union, Lee was prepared to lead Union troops from the outset.
The war would have lasted 12-18 mos instead of 4yrs. Outcome re: slavery would have been less fortunate though in that it may have persisted in VA, MD, DE for another decade.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 6:36 am
5
Posted on 5/22/17 at 7:49 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
He was fighting for Virginia. His personal decision had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery either way. As Virginia went, so went Lee.
then why did 2/5's of west pointers go to the north?
why did other generals from virginia go to the north?
Posted on 5/22/17 at 8:12 am to NC_Tigah
quote:
Lee was completely in it for states' rights. 100%
State's right to what?
Posted on 5/22/17 at 1:29 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
His personal decision had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery either way.
Wow how are you General?
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:38 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Lee was completely in it for states' rights. 100%.
This states rights argument is so played out now. Let me ask you this - ok so the South was fighting for "State Rights" - state rights for what?
Paving their own roads?
Planting their own peanuts?
Fertilizing their Peaches with Southern fertilizer?
frick no. States rights to own slaves.
Shut up with the states rights argument. It's 2017, grow up.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 5:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Lee was completely in it for states' rights. 100%.
He was fighting for Virginia. His personal decision had nothing whatsoever to do with slavery either way. As Virginia went, so went Lee.
C'mon man, argue it all you want, but it's common sense, you're going to do what will benefit you most financially. To do otherwise is illogical.
I don't understand the need to try and separate support for slavery and state's rights. Both can happen simultaneously, especially as it was a necessity for the financial security of many at the time.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News