Robert E. Lee has been misrepresented by regressive "historians"

quote:

---

I think it's slightly dishonest on both sides. Lee most certainly supported slavery

---

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.

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.

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

That's just silly and typically dramatic for this board regarding the Civil War. It is nothing but history at this point. Someone else doesn't share your view of it? Ignore them and go about your day.

You don't have to, I don't have to prove anything to you either.

But having arguments over the Civil War almost 2 centuries later is absolutely pointless. It's possible to study and enjoy history while also keeping things in perspective.

I understand the civil war's importance in the history of the USA. At the same time, I've never understood modern people who seemingly let their self identity get wrapped up in the "Lost Cause" concept.

That ranges from plastering the confederate flag on stuff (often while criticizing immigrants for using their old country's flag), to having to defend many figures in the Confederacy, to trying to pretend slavery wasn't something the Confederacy supported.

The causes of the war were varied. Some confederates were complete racists. Ultimately having brother kill brother is one of the worst periods in our history and we should learn the lesson that we are a great nation together and move on.

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.

quote:

---

But having arguments over the Civil War almost 2 centuries later is absolutely pointless. It's possible to study and enjoy history while also keeping things in perspective.

---

quote:

---

How much time needs to pass after a historical event before hat event no longer matters?

---

Small people care abut small things.

You'll have a hard time convincing people that Sherman was a hero. He was an excellent military commander, but he oversaw and committed some of the most terrible actions in american warfare. Sherman would be probably most accurately described the greatest tool of destruction the USA ever unleashed within its own borders.