Thats correct, the primary issue was states rights, as new states were being added to the union.
Monday is Robert E. Lee day in Alabama.
- Thread starter Eeset
- Start date
- Status
Thats correct, the primary issue was states rights, as new states were being added to the union.
Sorry, but you don't know what you're talking about. The idea was briefly considered by Lincoln and then tabled.
And this discussion really isn't about him, anyway.
Anyone can check what i posted and i can post a ton more, that show you ignorant completely of what you are discussing.
The North had no vested interest in slaves themselves. They proposed industrialization to be better then slavery, and could have cared less about an idea of Americanized blacks. They would have shipped them back overseas if it was affordable to do so.
That's just blunt reality. One sees how political correctness warps the common perception of such history- Lincoln the emancipator, Lee the traitor..
Lol, sorry, but that's pretty laughable even by today's standards of politically correct grandeur.
Must think you you're in England. We fry chicken and shoot guns, you're in 'Murica buddy, there is no treason in an American civil war!
That's just blunt reality. One sees how political correctness warps the common perception of such history- Lincoln the emancipator, Lee the traitor..
Lol, sorry, but that's pretty laughable even by today's standards of politically correct grandeur.
Must think you you're in England. We fry chicken and shoot guns, you're in 'Murica buddy, there is no treason in an American civil war!
You're doing that thing where you post too quickly (it shows in how you write). Again: Lincoln never took the idea seriously, and knew it'd be next to impossible to pull off.
Circling back to the actual subject of the thread...
What Lee did, and what he fought for, isn't defensible. Neither side's hands were completely clean, but to honor a man who betrayed his country and oath is beyond absurd.
Yes, He did take it seriously, his only reservation was how to implement it, as those before him believed as well. His stance (which is the bigger issue) on how he felt about separation of the races, never changed, nor did the fact that he considered whites superior and did not want the races mixing.
Yes, states right are defensible, you are ignoring the larger issue completely.
Yeah, notice he didn't take it seriously because it wasn't affordable; that he didn't throw out the idea with some idea that it was wrong.
Lee fought for the same reason people would fight for in the event of a second revolutionary war.
It is very defensible, because we do not live in a monarch. Supreme power does not rest anywhere, he betrayed no one anymore then the North was betraying the South.
Clear cut, simple truth. It is why the Civil War is so richly venerated in American history because it's a true work of American freedom, not Demigod Pres against treasonous Lee.
The problem with those such as yourself is that you've gotten so used to the idea of Big Government that the very ideology of original America just doesn't avail you.
The Berean
Well-known member
Exactly. There was something like 4 million freed black slaves. How in the world would the Federal government had transported that many people to Africa?
He is right. I can't agree that a person that kills for the right to sell human beings should be applauded.
That is certainly a despicable cause. To say that rights and authority flow uphill. And more than the process, is the idea that it is ok to sell human beings against their will. Selling humans that are foolish enough to sell themselves is one thing. Human trafficking is something else.
drbrumley
Well-known member
You know Nick, you keep yapping about "authority flows downhill." There isn't any disagreement that it flows downhill. But you have it backwards.
In your world, you have (A)God (B)United States (C)State Government (D) County Government (E) City Government
But the reality is (A)God (B)State Government (C) County Government (D)City Government
Why you even include the United States Government is beyond me.
It was part one’s the time, and we all know George Washington held slaves, as did Thomas Jefferson.
Lee said, “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.” Lee felt slavery was worse for whites than black people, again, this was a thinking in that time. \Lee was more loyal to Virginia than to the idea of a central government, the union, which was his reason for fighting for the South.
Lincoln was very pro-union, a forward thinker who may have envisioned the American empire, if the entire land remained a single nation. Lincoln who personally disliked slavery, stated, I will preserve the union if it frees all salves or no slaves.”
Lincoln was not the man of the recent movie; he was more the first of the return to Hamilton theory of nation building.
I never hated Lincoln, yet I can see why many older generations of southerners did.
Slavery was the great wrong that has plagued our nation!
England does not have to face the shame, although they were part of it, along with Spain and Portugal. Not to mention African war chiefs.
Shame always plagues the side that lost!
:doh: Lee's sole cause had nothing to do with slavery, he was about rebelling the Union which, at the time, was seen by the rest of America as un-American and absurd to the free state.
But leave it to others to make it about something else. A right winger against Lee is a contradiction.
But leave it to others to make it about something else. A right winger against Lee is a contradiction.
The Berean
Well-known member
zoo22
Well-known member
People who say the south's civil war wasn't about slavery are revisionist idiots. All you have to do is read the confederate state's declarations of causes for secession.
For example:
Those are just a drop in the bucket. The confederate states made it perfectly clear that their secession was about slavery.
drbrumley
Well-known member
You sound like a modern man judging out of context. You could as well call Lincoln a racist or Sherman a war criminal.
No, that would be Burr. Lee resigned his commission and went home to defend Virginia against incursion. The notion of a Union you hold and Lincoln declared wasn't one popularly accepted and iron clad in the time of that war. That said, Lee neither wanted to fight against the flag he'd served prior nor for Virginia to leave that Union. But when it did his course was set.
Wrong on both counts, but you'd have to understand what he fought for and what he never did...then you'd know why Grant protected him following that war and why the people who had the power to charge, try and execute had no desire to for the most part.
Of course it was about slavery, the expansion of it at any rate. The Union had already been clear that slave holding states in existence would be allowed to continue the practice. But most people who lived in the South and fought that war neither owned slaves nor fought for and over that issue. They fought because the landed gentry some mistakenly think should be empowered today to run the country led them into it to protect their future economic interests. They fought as Lee fought, for their homes and families.
Last edited:
Lee had a moral dilemma. He had sworn to defend the United States he had also loyalty to the state of Virginia. He made a decision according to his conscience.
Leave it at that. He was an honorable man, who did his best.
Leave it at that. He was an honorable man, who did his best.
You actually think that a state should have the right to have slavery legal?
I can't believe you guys are defending Robert E. Lee.
Granite is right, Lee should have been hung.
Of course not. But most of our founding fathers and even the President did.
I'm more astounded by what you believe and conflate and refuse to consider. But that's life for you.
Not according to those who had the power to do so.
- Status