- 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 8:33 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
Posted on 5/22/17 at 8:33 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
It creates greater animosity and divides the people.
know what divides people? having white supremacist statues on public land.
1
Posted on 5/22/17 at 8:34 am to LSUcjb318
quote:
State's right to what?
to literally own people
Posted on 5/22/17 at 8:36 am to monsterballads
quote:
So why did he fight for the north and not the south?
It definitely wasn't due to his views on slavery. George Thomas was a slaveholder and believed wholeheartedly in the institution. Where he and and men like Lee disagreed, however, was in their sense of identities. While Lee viewed himself as a Virginian first and foremost, Thomas viewed himself as an American.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 8:40 am to monsterballads
quote:
why did other generals from virginia go to the north?
Why did generals from the north go south? That's a much better question. John C. Pemberton, the Confederate commander at Vicksburg, was from Pennsylvania. Bushrod Johnson was a Confederate general born and raised in Ohio.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 8:47 am to Paluka
quote:
Irony. It's ok to have certain "symbols" that represent different things to different people taken down or destroyed. Why?
Because we as a people have a right to change and choose our narrative when it uses public property? If you support the statues then vote in a mayor to put them back up or erect new ones. That would be a poor use of taxpayer money too in my opinion.
quote:
Erasing our history or eliminating physical "reminders" is a lost cause. It creates greater animosity and divides the people.
Removing statues from public lands doesn't eliminate the history. The moment this movement infringes on anyone's right to remember the Civil War as they want to, then I will be up in arms. Insofar as these were statues on public property I don't see an issue. It's poor use of taxpayer money, but that happens every day.
Also it only divides people insofar as they put their identity to the Lost Cause above other identities that bring us closer together.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 8:54 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:05 am to AUsteriskPride
quote:
I think it's slightly dishonest on both sides. Lee most certainly supported slavery in the sense he used them to right his inherited plantation after it had fallen on hard times.
He honored the instructions of the Custis will. He was to emancipate the slaves once the plantation was in good financial position. That is exactly what he did.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:07 am to monsterballads
quote:
it's funny and sad at the same time from the ones telling people to "get educated about the civil war/Lee" when they themselves don't know the truth about him. or deliberately ignore it and insert their own southern fantasies.
Pow! Pow!
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:08 am to BlackAdam
quote:
I think it's slightly dishonest on both sides. Lee most certainly supported slavery in the sense he used them to right his inherited plantation after it had fallen on hard times.
He honored the instructions of the Custis will. He was to emancipate the slaves once the plantation was in good financial position. That is exactly what he did.
He kept people as slaves when he didn't have to.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:11 am to RollTide1987
quote:
It definitely wasn't due to his views on slavery. George Thomas was a slaveholder and believed wholeheartedly in the institution. Where he and and men like Lee disagreed, however, was in their sense of identities. While Lee viewed himself as a Virginian first and foremost, Thomas viewed himself as an American.
Thomas did something Lee never did. He won a decisive victory. At Nashville he drove the reb Army of Tennessee to destruction.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 9:12 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:13 am to ILeaveAtHalftime
quote:
Don't get me wrong, I'm a history buff with the best of them. But this shite truly does not matter
Historical memories are poison.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:17 am to flyAU
I never said the Civil War wasn't important. Of course it is important. You fail at reading comprehension if that's what you got. These stupid yet constantly recurring arguments about why Lee chose Virginia and statues are what is not important.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 9:19 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:20 am to CorporateTiger
quote:
Also it only divides people insofar as they put their identity to the Lost Cause above other identities that bring us closer together.
Corporate Tiger = Mitch Landrieu. Nobody, black or white, had an issue with the statues until Mitch found a convenient excuse to get rid of them. I'd be willing to bet the statue removal would have failed miserably if it had actually gone to a vote of the folks in Orleans Parish. Mitch's little publicity stunt was absolutely unnecessary and has achieved the exact opposite of bringing us closer together. It's actually laughable to hear that POS say that folks have actually moved from NOLA because of the statues.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:28 am to Parmen
a statue to him in full confederate gear on a public circle is most definitely a monument to a time when many residents of the city's ancestors were slaves.
i'm not saying he was a bad guy, i'm saying if you don't understand how its offensive, you're ignorant
i'm not saying he was a bad guy, i'm saying if you don't understand how its offensive, you're ignorant
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 9:29 am
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:31 am to Parmen
I have been a Civil War history buff for years, reading Catton and Foote and other histories.
It is my humble opinion that the driving force behind Secession was SLAVERY.
It is argued that it was "States' Rights".
The South fought for the States'right to own slaves. Period.
REL, had he fought for the North, would have saved many lives had Lincoln let him. Lincoln effed around with several incompetents before he found Grant.
It is my humble opinion that the driving force behind Secession was SLAVERY.
It is argued that it was "States' Rights".
The South fought for the States'right to own slaves. Period.
REL, had he fought for the North, would have saved many lives had Lincoln let him. Lincoln effed around with several incompetents before he found Grant.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:34 am to Machine
When hearing people all in on removing the statues, I often wonder how the same people will feel when it is suggested that statues of the 12 presidents (read that somewhere), that owned slaves be removed from Washington, DC and any of those states. Think of the fun the Left could have in renaming all the Washingtons, Jeffersons etc from the books.....
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:34 am to Parmen
quote:
Man never fought for slavery
Depends how you define "fought" he was certainly willing to have slaves beaten bloody and then rub salt in the wounds-- he was so damn sadistic about the beatings he had to outsource them since his own overseer thought they were too vile.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:36 am to blackrose890
quote:
He was an excellent military commander, but he oversaw and committed some of the most terrible actions in american warfare.
Yes his actions against the Native Americans certainly do undercut the heroism of his service in the Civil War.
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:37 am to Parmen
quote:Your source is a TV movie?
Scene from Gods and Generals showing this
Lee was uneasy over the institution of slavery. He thought it would eventually die out and he thought that was a good thing. In short, his attitude was consistent with the attitudes of religious people of his day. But his family owned slaves when he was younger, and he inherited slaves from his father in law. He was a stricter master than his father in law had been. He kept his father in law's slaves until the family farm had been stabilized and some financial obligations connected to inheritance were taken care of.
And while it's true that Lee saw Virginia as his country and could not fathom taking up arms against Virginia, there were others in his family did not share this view and who did side with the Union in the Civil War.
This post was edited on 5/22/17 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:38 am to monsterballads
quote:What does that have to do with the well documented decision Lee made?
then why did 2/5's of west pointers go to the north?
quote:Again, what does that have to do with the well documented decision Lee made?
why did other generals from virginia go to the north?
Posted on 5/22/17 at 9:38 am to LSUCouyon
quote:i was unaware that the 12 presidents were members of the Confederacy
I often wonder how the same people will feel when it is suggested that statues of the 12 presidents (read that somewhere), that owned slaves be removed from Washington, DC and any of those states. Think of the fun the Left could have in renaming all the Washingtons, Jeffersons etc from the books.....
surely you can at least agree that Liberty Place was a travesty and should never have been up to begin with.
Page 3 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News