- 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 2:51 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:51 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I have long argued that while the most famous battles of the war were fought in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the most important battles were fought in Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee.
The Union brutalized the Confederacy in the West, militarily. Grant starved out Vicksburg and then basically kicked a Confederate army off a mountain at Chattanooga and if that as a general or politician does not get your attention, when Grant unleashed Sherman in 1864 ...well, by then, the outcome had already been written , the only thing left wee the grisly details.
0
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:51 pm to RollTide1987
quote:It's an interesting and incomplete premise. Tariffs were legal but unfair. Slavery was unfair but legal. The balance left both regions aggrieved, but willing to compromise. However, the North having advantaged itself with the former, was maneuvering to disadvantage the South on the latter, despite Constitutionality. Hence the nature of session documents. Without both elements, tariffs and slavery, there would have been no Civil War.
However, the Civil War never happens if the South doesn't secede. Secession was driven primarily by the desire to preserve the institution of slavery.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service.
Fortunately Lincoln was lying through his teeth, right?
No. Lincoln was quite content to leave the slaves in bondage rather than rend the country by rebellion. But limiting the institution to where it presently existed was a way to -begin- the end of slavery.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:58 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Instead of focusing on what Lincoln thought of slavery, you should focus on what the South believed Lincoln thought of slavery. You might get to the root of secession once you do that.
Lulz.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:58 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
However, the Civil War never happens if the South doesn't secede. Secession was driven primarily by the desire to preserve the institution of slavery. It's an interesting and incomplete premise.
Tariffs were legal but unfair.
No one made the southern aristocracy be averse to factories and free labor.
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 2:59 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:Yet he did nothing whatsoever to dissuade Virginia's session, and in fact, acted to make it inevitable.
Lincoln clearly felt it better to talk and negotiate and allow slavery to exist than it was to fight over.
Why?
Because as did Southerners, Lincoln horribly underestimated potency of the adversary he was creating.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 2:59 pm to MrCarton
Dude...I realize you know you have lost the argument, but if you're going to continue to try to tread water I would appreciate cognitive and constructive debate rather than emoticons and one-word slang responses.
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 3:02 pm to WhiskeyPapa
quote:I'm sure that sounded better before you posted it.
No one made the southern aristocracy be averse to factories and free labor.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:03 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
I have long argued that while the most famous battles of the war were fought in Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the most important battles were fought in Mississippi, Georgia, and Tennessee.
Without a doubt.
When Grant moved his attention to the east, the war was over.
I hold the Gettysburg was not the turning point in the war. It was the fall of Vicksburg.
With the Mississippi completely under Union control, it allowed Grant and Sherman to come east.
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 3:06 pm to deltaland
quote:
Lee was a honorable man and a gentleman. It's disgusting how historians have vilified him.
quote:
He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable.
There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.
LINK
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 3:16 pm to monsterballads
quote:quote:
Lee was a honorable man and a gentleman. It's disgusting how historians have vilified him.
He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable.
There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's
I need to continue stating this, sadly.
Judging historical figures with the morality of today is horrifically dishonest. Embarrassing even.
You judge men with the morality of THEIR day, accounting for the culture of the region.
Owning slaves was a legal practice.
WHat if animal lives begin to be seen as equal to human lives in 50 years? Should they then see us all as sick, evil fricks because we eat bacon? All great men that eat meat will have all of their good deeds erased?
The answer is no. You can't control what morality will become.
You judge a man with the morality of his day, not yours.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 3:17 pm
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:20 pm to Roaad
quote:The Union took up arms against his state.
He took up arms to fight against the USA.
Lee's view was that turning on Virginia would have been traitorous.
States were viewed as much more independent entities then than now.
Ignoring that, disallows any understanding of the contemporary antebellum landscape.
Our modern Federalized view of the US is, of course, quite different than that of the founders. Their concept was more a hybrid of today's US and EU. even more so perhaps in the South. Hence a confederacy in governance.
As somewhat of a perspective, consider the feeling in Britain if the EU took military action as result of Brexit. The analogy is imperfect, but sets more of a contemporary perspective into Lee's view regarding Virginia.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:22 pm to magildachunks
quote:
I hold the Gettysburg was not the turning point in the war. It was the fall of Vicksburg.
It's not the turning point, it should have been the end. Shiloh should have been the turning point if no the decisive battle
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:24 pm to RollTide1987
quote:
Dude...I realize you know you have lost the argument, but if you're going to continue to try to tread water I would appreciate cognitive and constructive debate rather than emoticons and one-word slang responses
There was no debate. at no point did you ever actually engage either of my main points of contention. In fact, you offered only strained speculation as to why your contention that slavery (an institution that was set to be protected by Lincoln) was the cause of secession. So let me try this one more time.
1. Slavery was going to happen under the lincoln presidency, until the south seceded from the union
2. seceding from the union destroyed any hope of the south creating slave economies in the west. surely you understand that the south's only hope to do so was destroyed when they removed themselves from the legislative process of the union, no? Therefore, unless the southern slavers were fricking morons, this would have been a TERRIBLE reason to leave the union
3. We know that all of the states had supplementary reasons for wanting to leave the union that preserving slavery WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED. We know that lincoln was backed by pro abolitionist industrialist cronies, and pitted against the agriculture industry in the south. We know that the south was dismayed that the president could be elected without even being on the ballot of 10 southern states. We know that southerners knew that the EC was not going to change, and that the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were on a trajectory to completely isolate the south politically and economically. We know southerners were angered by continued subsidy to northern industrialists, often at the expense of agricultural producers in the south.
Yet, in your mind, the south seceded from the union to preserve slavery (that lincoln promised to preserve)... Or (depending on which argument you are faced with) they seceded because they wanted to expand slave economies west after declaring war on the union...which makes abosolutely no fricking sense whatsoever.
so there you have it. Another RT1987 bullshite response. You should be happy I stuck with you this long kiddo.
(token Emoticons)
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 3:26 pm
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:24 pm to monsterballads
quote:Unfortunately, so did the Constitution. Right?
He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor
Posted on 5/22/17 at 3:32 pm to MrCarton
quote:
fact, you offered only strained speculation as to why your contention that slavery (an institution that was set to be protected by Lincoln) was the cause of secession.
It's not speculation. The South's major fear was that the election of a Republican administration would prevent the expansion of slavery into the western territories. Once that happened, the South feared, the representatives of these newly minted free states would go to Congress, get together with their northern counterparts, and eventually legislate slavery out of existence.
Many expansionist minded Democrats, including President James K. Polk, had long-term plans to expand the borders of the United States into Mexico and Cuba to continue the growth and life expectancy of slavery.
quote:
1. Slavery was going to happen under the lincoln presidency, until the south seceded from the union
They were thinking long term, as I have already stated.
quote:
seceding from the union destroyed any hope of the south creating slave economies in the west. surely you understand that the south's only hope to do so was destroyed when they removed themselves from the legislative process of the union, no? Therefore, unless the southern slavers were fricking morons, this would have been a TERRIBLE reason to leave the union
Hence the South's plans to expand south into Cuba and Mexico.
quote:
We know that all of the states had supplementary reasons for wanting to leave the union that preserving slavery WOULD NOT HAVE CHANGED.
But we know slavery was their primary reason.
quote:
they seceded because they wanted to expand slave economies west after declaring war on the union...which makes abosolutely no fricking sense whatsoever
Hence why they planned on expanding slavery into Mexico and Cuba.
The Confederacy's Plan to Conquer Latin America
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 3:34 pm
Page 10 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News