re: Myth of Robert E. Lee: Legend of Robert E. Lee's heroism and decency is based on fiction

quote:

---

You're so fricking stupid, that you don't even understand that fighting a "conventional" war was the honorable thing to do. If Lee had chosen to use terror tactics, he would have been labeled a POS.

---

The so-called CSA had no chance to win a conventional war.

quote:

---

my colleague Ta-Nehisi

---

quote:

---

he would still be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black.

---

Utter bullshite. Lee did not give a single solitary shite about slavery, either way. Had Virginia not joined the Confederacy, there is little question that Lee would have led the Army of the Potomac.

Period.

As far as slavery itself, he recognized the inherent evil in it, yet participated in it as a man of his time, just as other great (but flawed) men like Washington and Jefferson.

quote:

---

Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting slave families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of slave families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of slavery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

---

Not defending it, but Lee was dealing with economic hardships that were relatively unknown to the Washington and Custis families. In addition, Lee never actually owned any slaves, they were owned by his wife's family. He followed instructions to free the slaves within 5 years of his father in law's death, and in doing this, I believe some families were broken up in the process.

quote:

---

But Lee was a treasonous loser who fought to maintain slavery ,but but he prayed besides a Black man.

---

Though often repeated, there is no credible source that Lee did anything like that.

quote:

---

Apply that to Lincoln, if you don't mind.

---

Sure:

1)First act in Congress in 1848 was a Bill to abolish slavery in D.C. ( failed)

2) joined a he anti slavery party considering he was anti slavery because he was appalled by Nebraska - Kansas Act



3) allowed 200,000 Black men to honorably serve the US military & fight against White Supremacy/ end slavery

4) Emancipation Proclamation

5)fought hard for & signed the 13th amendment ending slavery in the US

6) called for voting rights for Blacks 100 years before the Voting Rights Acts signed

7)He was also vehemently opposed to/ spoke out against the Dred Scott Decision ( By acclamation the worst Supreme Court Decision in US history

quote:

---

1)First act in Congress in 1848 was a Bill to abolish slavery in D.C. ( failed)

2) joined a he anti slavery party considering he was anti slavery because he was appalled by Nebraska - Kansas Act



3) allowed 200,000 Black men to honorably serve the US military & fight against White Supremacy/ end slavery

4) Emancipation Proclamation

5)fought hard for & signed the 13th amendment ending slavery in the US

6) called for voting rights for Blacks 100 years before the Voting Rights Acts signed

7)He was also vehemently opposed to/ spoke out against the Dred Scott Decision ( By acclamation the worst Supreme Court Decision in US history

---

Yeah, but in the extremely hostile political environment of the time, in an attempt to practice politics as the art-of-the-possible, he made a speech or two before the war trying to draw in some slaver votes by making some quasi-pro-slavery-anti-black remarks that mean everything you just typed is completely meaningless.

quote:

---

This " Men of their times" is a bunch of BS.

" Madness that a revolution for liberty should maintain slavery"- Simon Bolivar

" Slavery is the worst human indignity"- Bolivar


Simon Bolivar born 1783- 1830 was a man of his time who became a staunch Abolitionist who literally fought side by side with slaves to end Spanish rule & end slavery.


Unlike Lee Bolivar was actually successful in his uphill military fight against Spain & directly led to Independence for 6 Nations in Latin America( with much help from Haiti).

Bolivar was an Abolitionist , Canada was a beacon of freedom to slaves , Europe was free of slavery, Haiti was free of slavery , Northern US States ,etc.......


Robert E Lee was surrounded by " men of his time" who were repulsed by slavery/ ended slavery.


Robert E Lee was a treasonous loser who took up arms against the USA

---

quote:

---

Karl Marx's description of Bolívar

In an unsympathetic biography titled Bolívar y Ponte, Simón, published in the New American Cyclopedia, Karl Marx criticized much of Bolívar's life. Marx begins saying that Bolívar was born to a family of "creole nobility in Venezuela" and that similar to the "custom of wealthy Americans of those times, at the early age of 14 he was sent to Europe". Throughout Marx's piece, he explains how Bolívar abandoned his troops multiple times as well. Marx also explains how Bolívar had to be persuaded by his cousin Ribas to return to fight against the Spanish after staying at Cartagena. Marx then explains that after arriving in Caracas in 1813, Bolívar's "dictatorship soon proved a military anarchy, leaving the most important affairs in the hands of favorites, who squandered the finances of the country, and then resorted to odious means in order to restore them". At the conclusion of the biography, Marx uses Ducoudray Holstein's description of Bolívar.[43]

According to Beddow and Thibodeaux, Marx called Bolívar a "falsifier, deserter, conspirator, liar, coward and looter", stating that Marx dismissed Bolívar as a "false liberator who merely sought to preserve the power of the old Creole nobility which he belonged".

---

quote:

---

What this means is that the so-called CSA had NO chance of achieving victory by its own efforts. It could only win if the North decided to stop prosecuting the war. And that is not something you bet the farm on. A war of attrition worked against the south which had 25% of the manpower of the north. But that is what Lee did.

---

You seem to know very little about warfare. If the South had 25% of the manpower, then the only way to win would be to force the North to capitulate as quickly as possible. This is the only way to counter the North's excessive manpower.

You're either arguing that the South should have never fought and just rolled over to Northern lawmakers that only saw the South as a giant piggy bank. Or that the South should have fought a defensive war, which would have been totally fruitless with the wide areas available. They would have had to defend the cities which would have only lead to sieges, a terrible way for army with lesser resources to fight.

It was not Lee's "natural disposition" that encouraged him to fight an offensive battle. He obviously chose the strategy that gave his army the best chance to win. You seem intent on demonizing the South and its leaders, so carry on with your nonsense.

quote:

---

He was the man most responsible for all the useless death.

---

I would argue that that man was Abraham Lincoln. When he decided to form an army to force Southerns to stay in a government that did have their best interests, several governors refused to send troops. Lincoln decided to force his own citizens to fight against their will to continue milking the South for all its worth.

quote:

---

I would argue that that man was Abraham Lincoln. When he decided to form an army to force Southerns to stay in a government that did [not] have their best interests, several governors refused to send troops. Lincoln decided to force his own citizens to fight against their will to continue milking the South for all its worth.

---

The South wasn't worth much.

Lincoln called once for 75,000 volunteers and once for 300,000 volunteers. Both those quotas were filled.

It was the slave power that first resorted to coercion to fill its army.