Started By
Message

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

Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:55 pm to
Posted by shinerfan
Duckworld(Earth-616)
Member since Sep 2009
22379 posts
Posted on 5/23/17 at 5:55 pm to
quote:

Some confederates were complete racists



Most were. As were most Federals. As were most Brits. The times were very different.
Posted by ssgrice
Arizona
Member since Nov 2008
3058 posts
Posted on 5/23/17 at 6:38 pm to
quote:

face it, lee was a hated slave owner who beat his slaves and treated them very badly

and Lincoln still wanted him to lead the North. Lee was Lincoln's first choice to lead the North.
Posted by Big Scrub TX
Member since Dec 2013
33498 posts
Posted on 5/23/17 at 6:42 pm to
quote:

Most were. As were most Federals. As were most Brits. The times were very different.
And yet Frederick Douglass toured Great Britain as a celebrity giving anti-slavery speeches when he would have been put in shackles and returned to the fields (if not worse) had he set foot again in the land of the snowflake traitors. Times were already different. Some were just entirely moored to a retrograde past.
Posted by goatmilker
Castle Anthrax
Member since Feb 2009
64407 posts
Posted on 5/23/17 at 6:42 pm to
quote:

The South over-reacted to the election of Lincoln I'd call it a temper tantrum given how stacked the deck already was in favor of the south


So few remember how powerful the South was politically at the time and in the decades before the War.
Posted by mizzoubuckeyeiowa
Member since Nov 2015
35568 posts
Posted on 5/23/17 at 6:45 pm to
quote:

And yet Frederick Douglass toured Great Britain as a celebrity giving anti-slavery speeches when he would have been put in shackles and returned to the fields (if not worse) had he set foot again in the land of the snowflake traitors.


Since as early as 1780, slavery was being argued over in Britain to be abolished. The abolition movement was far earlier than in the Americas.

The Slave Trade Act 1807 or the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act 1807 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed on 25 March 1807.
Posted by Roaad
White Privilege Broker
Member since Aug 2006
76525 posts
Posted on 5/23/17 at 9:03 pm to
quote:

quote:

modern morality.



is a cop out.



OK, I am going to need you to explain this, please.

quote:

quote:

was it considered moral then, though?



of course not.
It absolutely was, particularly in Virginia.


On a side note: 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?
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81680 posts
Posted on 5/23/17 at 9:57 pm to
You're misreading that. It's what I said before. Federal vs. State. The feds couldn't prevent a State from having slavery, but the State could. Such a State could not infringe on another's right though.
Posted by germandawg
Member since Sep 2012
14135 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 6:21 am to
quote:

Vo Nguyen Giap......the Army and Marine Corps study his tactics and strategies at length



Like I said...one out of what, 20? And that's with google available
This post was edited on 5/24/17 at 6:22 am
Posted by monsterballads
Make LSU Great Again
Member since Jun 2013
29267 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 6:30 am to
quote:

your uninformed opinion


I have a lot of respect for you overall as a poster, but you're being quite the hack in this thread.

Posted by monsterballads
Make LSU Great Again
Member since Jun 2013
29267 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 6:32 am to
quote:

The Confederate Constitution said no state could abolish slavery.

But...state's rights.


Posted by NC_Tigah
Carolinas
Member since Sep 2003
124018 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 7:11 am to
quote:

He did so early in the war, 2-3yrs before slaves in the North were released.


as for NCtigah, this 100% false. Lee's slaves were released on Jan 1st 1863
Slaves in states like Delaware were not released until Dec 1865, December 6, 1865 to be precise. That would be 2 yrs 11 months and 6 days after Lee's last slave was set free.

You said the statement Lee freed his slaves 2-3yrs before slaves in the North were released was 100% false.
Now you say I've been a hack in this thread.
Have it as you will.

To put it mildly, I'm not a fan of revisionism. Nor am I a fan of history taught, learned or recited through a wholly noncontemporary basis. That is what is happening in this thread.

Sorry if it comes across as prickly, but some of the imbecilic rote assertions arising here are annoying. They share a great deal with those who know nothing of history except that they want to censure or destroy it.
Posted by BlackAdam
Member since Jan 2016
6458 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 8:43 am to
quote:

No it said - if you part of the Confederacy...slavery can never be abolished in said Union.


But the Confederacy, like the Union prior to Lincoln, was not a perpetual union. States were free to leave for any reason or no reason at all.
Posted by Stuckinthe90s
Dallas, TX
Member since Apr 2013
2576 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 8:57 am to
quote:

he used them to right his inherited plantation after it had fallen on hard times.


As stated in the will of the estate he was executing, he used the slaves to right the planatation and then emancipated all of them.
Posted by magildachunks
Member since Oct 2006
32482 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 9:43 am to
quote:

ut the Confederacy, like the Union prior to Lincoln, was not a perpetual union. S



Link to where it's stated that states could leave the union?

Why are these terms never mentioned in the Constitution?
Posted by BlackAdam
Member since Jan 2016
6458 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 9:54 am to
quote:

Link to where it's stated that states could leave the union?

Why are these terms never mentioned in the Constitution?



You ever hear of the 10th amendment to the bill of rights? Nowhere in the US Constitution is the power to force membership in the union granted to the federal government.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
81680 posts
Posted on 5/24/17 at 11:16 am to
quote:

You can't abolish slavery in your state and then respect the rights of slave transit or ownership in your state from another state.
That's the whole reason for the provision. It's meaningless unless a State can outlaw it.
Jump to page
Page First 13 14 15
Jump to page
first pageprev pagePage 15 of 15Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram