CDZ Robert E. Lee is Not Our Heritage

[midcan5]

Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the United States of America and he was a poor military leader of the South, He was a savage person to the slave families and individuals. More of the actual man is documented below with sources and other references inside the articles for the person who wants to understand the real history of slavery.

"Nazi Germany was also defeated. But while its surviving leadership was put on trial before the world, not one author of the Confederacy was convicted of treason. Nazi Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop was hanged at Nuremberg. Confederate General John B. Gordon became a senator. Germany has spent the decades since World War II in national penance for Nazi crimes. America spent the decades after the Civil War transforming Confederate crimes into virtues. It is illegal to fly the Nazi flag in Germany. The Confederate flag is enmeshed in the state flag of Mississippi."

Don't Give HBO's 'Confederate' the Benefit of the Doubt

"Lee’s slaves regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

"The argument here is that slavery is bad for white people, good for black people, and most importantly, it is better than abolitionism; emancipation must wait for divine intervention. That black people might not want to be slaves does not enter into the equation; their opinion on the subject of their own bondage is not even an afterthought to Lee."

"I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy." Robert E Lee

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

 

[Slash]

Lee was fighting on the right side of history. The Confederacy just lost. The states had the right to secede. Lincoln did not respect that right to the detriment of generations of blood because he did not want to be the president that presided over the division of a nation. Lee's statue is well earned. Just because the South lost and the public indoctrination system pimps how great Lincoln was does not mean that Lee was not great.

Actually Texas vs. White said that the states did not have the right to secede. So unless we want to rip up the Constitution, what you said is not true. The Supreme Court in matters of the state is granted by the US Constitution jurisdiction "as to law and fact". Meaning as long as the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, the South's secession was NOT legal.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Lee was fighting on the right side of history. The Confederacy just lost. The states had the right to secede. Lincoln did not respect that right to the detriment of generations of blood because he did not want to be the president that presided over the division of a nation. Lee's statue is well earned. Just because the South lost and the public indoctrination system pimps how great Lincoln was does not mean that Lee was not great.

Actually Texas vs. White said that the states did not have the right to secede. So unless we want to rip up the Constitution, what you said is not true. The Supreme Court in matters of the state is granted by the US Constitution jurisdiction "as to law and fact". Meaning as long as the Constitution is the supreme law of the United States, the South's secession was NOT legal.

Yea, of course our stool pigeon SC ruled it's not legal. The reality is it was legal. States entered no binding agreement that they could not secede.

 

[MarathonMike]

We have Civil War memorials that commemorate key figures from a horrific war. We have American Indian memorials that commemorate key Indian leaders. We have Jesse James statues, Pancho Villa statues, and scores of other monuments that depict key American historical figures who were not saints. So what?

It is a slippery, bloody slope to tear down what has been carefully erected to remember our history, good, bad or indifferent.

 

[Toronado3800]

I wonder how much more history the far left thugs will want to erase after this Charleston episode. I'm thinking this is the start of a new industry, tearing down memorials and statues. On the other hand, it's actually been going on for quite awhile like when Tom Sawyer was taken out of many libraries because the word n i g g e r was in the book. The extreme left goons hate the word n i g g e r except when the rap music thugs use it a million times a day on t.v. and radio. Then they squeal and giggle with delight.

Erase? No.

We will hold year long classes where WASPS have to sit on the back of the bus and act as slaves having their children sold out from under them.

Well, seriously, I would put up huge monuments showing the horrors of slavery right next to every Confederate flag and Confederate monument.

 

[ChrisL]

I think some people admire Lee because he was considered one of the BEST generals. He actually trained some of the union troops before the war. He was considered a military genius.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

I think some people admire Lee because he was considered one of the BEST generals. He actually trained some of the union troops before the war. He was considered a military genius.

That, and I admire him for the fact that he personified the fact that he knew America was founded on states rights. He knew that the states had the right to secede. He could've easily taken command of the north forces and won the war in half the time that Grant did; but he didn't because he wasn't a sellout just looking for glory.

 

[Slash]

That, and I admire him for the fact that he personified the fact that he knew America was founded on states rights. He knew that the states had the right to secede. He could've easily taken command of the north forces and won the war in half the time that Grant did; but he didn't because he wasn't a sellout just looking for glory.

Sounds less racist when you bring up the states rights he was fighting for. You know. States rights to have their runaway slaves returned. States rights to be able to expand slavery to new states. States rights to be able to re-open the slave trade with Africa if they so chose.

I personally don't admire him for turning against the USA. I don't admire him for asking Lincoln to surrender and then attacking Washington DC to remove the President of the USA from power because Lee wanted a country that felt that slavery had to be protected.

He was considered a great military leader. Unfortunately like Hermann Goring he decided those skills could be best used against the USA rather than for it.

 

[jwoodie]

To continue, Lee woke up over a thousand days and could have changed his mind. As "cool" as his persona has been passed down, I at best consider him similarly to Rommel.

Tell me Lee realized it wss 1860 and helped lead a coup or organized men against slavery and I may reconsider. (Maybe lee has a diary I have not read? Maybe he snuck funds to the underground railroad?) Until the I spit on his grave as well as the stars and bars of slavery.

A little historical revisionism? The Civil War began as a test of the previously unanswered question of whether States could withdraw from the Union. (Abraham Lincoln stated that he would gladly keep slavery if it preserved the Union.) Virginia had voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln called for an invasion of the seceding States. Instead, Virginia chose to defend its own borders.

It was not until mounting casualties and draft riots in the North that the war was recast as a crusade to eliminate slavery. Even then, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only applied to areas still in rebellion while preserving slavery in states remaining in the Union.

To characterize Robert E. Lee decision to lead the Army of Virginia as being motivated by a desire to preserve slavery is a gross misrepresentation of historical facts. It is also worthy of note that slavery in the Western Hemisphere had completely disappeared in 1888.

 

[Slash]

A little historical revisionism? The Civil War began as a test of the previously unanswered question of whether States could withdraw from the Union. (Abraham Lincoln stated that he would gladly keep slavery if it preserved the Union.) Virginia had voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln called for an invasion of the seceding States. Instead, Virginia chose to defend its own borders.

It was not until mounting casualties and draft riots in the North that the war was recast as a crusade to eliminate slavery. Even then, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only applied to areas still in rebellion while preserving slavery in states remaining in the Union.

To characterize Robert E. Lee decision to lead the Army of Virginia as being motivated by a desire to preserve slavery is a gross misrepresentation of historical facts. It is also worthy of note that slavery in the Western Hemisphere had completely disappeared in 1888.

Actually that's quite a revisionist bit right there. The "test" of the question was based on the perpetuation of slavery that the South thoroughly identified with, and was the cornerstone of their secession.

Abraham Lincoln, even though he was in the abolitionist party during campaign speeches (when the opposition would call him black) would try to pose himself as a moderate. When the opposition was saying he was seeking war to end slavery he said he wasn't trying to start a civil war.

Lincoln also didn't invade the states that seceded. Forts are federal property. The first act of the illegal secession was to take over all federal property. Forts, naval bases, ships, mints, weapons cache's. All of it. Despite all of those being US Federal Gov't property.

He said the war was not about slavery when states were seceding and Maryland and Delaware, two slave states, had yet to secede. Obviously declaring war against them (declaring the war was against slavery) would have simply ended the war with Washington DC finding itself in the heart of the Confederacy the following day. People like to take that out of context when trying to revise history. Saying his words outdo his actions, when the only reason he said those words were to ensure the USA was not destroyed.

Of course while he was in the war, Lincoln did free the slaves in Washington DC (only place a President had power to free them) and used what many called a misuse of power to say the Constitution did not protect states in rebellion and free'd their slave via an executive order.

While Lee's decision to move was based on many things, he did choose to join the government that founded itself on protecting slavery. He did march on Washington DC and call for Lincoln to surrender the USA. He did try and take the President of the USA with force.

And while slavery had disappeared by 1888, there is no proof that it would have disappeared in a country that made it the bedrock of it's existence. Looking at how the world economy has expanded and the huge boon a low cost workforce can be for an export economy, it is hard to say that a country with it's founding tenet being slavery would not still have it in one way or another. And while maybe it would have only been 4 million African Americans who had to spend a full life in slavery, it might have taken two or three generations or more before they got freedom and maybe never would have had equal rights.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

That, and I admire him for the fact that he personified the fact that he knew America was founded on states rights. He knew that the states had the right to secede. He could've easily taken command of the north forces and won the war in half the time that Grant did; but he didn't because he wasn't a sellout just looking for glory.

Sounds less racist when you bring up the states rights he was fighting for. You know. States rights to have their runaway slaves returned. States rights to be able to expand slavery to new states. States rights to be able to re-open the slave trade with Africa if they so chose.

I personally don't admire him for turning against the USA. I don't admire him for asking Lincoln to surrender and then attacking Washington DC to remove the President of the USA from power because Lee wanted a country that felt that slavery had to be protected.

He was considered a great military leader. Unfortunately like Hermann Goring he decided those skills could be best used against the USA rather than for it.

States rights is what this country was founded on.

 

[jwoodie]

A little historical revisionism? The Civil War began as a test of the previously unanswered question of whether States could withdraw from the Union. (Abraham Lincoln stated that he would gladly keep slavery if it preserved the Union.) Virginia had voted to stay in the Union until Lincoln called for an invasion of the seceding States. Instead, Virginia chose to defend its own borders.

It was not until mounting casualties and draft riots in the North that the war was recast as a crusade to eliminate slavery. Even then, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation only applied to areas still in rebellion while preserving slavery in states remaining in the Union.

To characterize Robert E. Lee decision to lead the Army of Virginia as being motivated by a desire to preserve slavery is a gross misrepresentation of historical facts. It is also worthy of note that slavery in the Western Hemisphere had completely disappeared in 1888.

Actually that's quite a revisionist bit right there. The "test" of the question was based on the perpetuation of slavery that the South thoroughly identified with, and was the cornerstone of their secession.

Abraham Lincoln, even though he was in the abolitionist party during campaign speeches (when the opposition would call him black) would try to pose himself as a moderate. When the opposition was saying he was seeking war to end slavery he said he wasn't trying to start a civil war.

Lincoln also didn't invade the states that seceded. Forts are federal property. The first act of the illegal secession was to take over all federal property. Forts, naval bases, ships, mints, weapons cache's. All of it. Despite all of those being US Federal Gov't property.

He said the war was not about slavery when states were seceding and Maryland and Delaware, two slave states, had yet to secede. Obviously declaring war against them (declaring the war was against slavery) would have simply ended the war with Washington DC finding itself in the heart of the Confederacy the following day. People like to take that out of context when trying to revise history. Saying his words outdo his actions, when the only reason he said those words were to ensure the USA was not destroyed.

Of course while he was in the war, Lincoln did free the slaves in Washington DC (only place a President had power to free them) and used what many called a misuse of power to say the Constitution did not protect states in rebellion and free'd their slave via an executive order.

While Lee's decision to move was based on many things, he did choose to join the government that founded itself on protecting slavery. He did march on Washington DC and call for Lincoln to surrender the USA. He did try and take the President of the USA with force.

And while slavery had disappeared by 1888, there is no proof that it would have disappeared in a country that made it the bedrock of it's existence. Looking at how the world economy has expanded and the huge boon a low cost workforce can be for an export economy, it is hard to say that a country with it's founding tenet being slavery would not still have it in one way or another. And while maybe it would have only been 4 million African Americans who had to spend a full life in slavery, it might have taken two or three generations or more before they got freedom and maybe never would have had equal rights.

You don't seem to grasp the difference between historical facts and historical speculation. Lincoln didn't call for 50,000 federal troops just to liberate Fort Sumter. And the idea that the South would have maintained slavery throughout the agricultural/mechanical revolution and into the 20th Century (not to mention siding with the Nazis in WW2) is ludicrous.

 

[Slash]

You don't seem to grasp the difference between historical facts and historical speculation. Lincoln didn't call for 50,000 federal troops just to liberate Fort Sumter. And the idea that the South would have maintained slavery throughout the agricultural/mechanical revolution and into the 20th Century (not to mention siding with the Nazis in WW2) is ludicrous.

Historical fact. Slavery ended because when the 13th Amendment was ratified.
Historical Speculation. Slavery would have ended by this date if it was allowed to continue in the South.


I got them down pretty well.

It's ALL historical Speculation to say when Slavery would have ended. Maybe it would have been the 1920's. Maybe it would have been weakened where blacks were 3rd class people with no voting rights today like many countries still have. Who knows. It's all historical speculation to say it would have lived through the mechanical revolution. Especially as we see jobs going overseas like wild the past 60 years in a large part due to the cost of labor in the USA.


ANd he called for 75,000 troops, not 50,000. And no, not just to liberate Fort Sumter and the dozens of other forts, banks, weapons Caches, ships, mints and other federal property lost to the South... To win the ongoing war.

 

[Geaux4it]

Robert E Lee himself said he wanted no notice for himself after the war. He said it's time to accept the outcome and to the South he said "Raise up your children as Americans". HE understood it was over and time to move on. He wanted no statues of him and would be appalled that all this violence is because of statues erected by people of him that he would have rejected.

Most of these people in the South that claim 'heritage' don't know the history of the civil war.

No, he said to wait for a better times. We have clearly reached that point since the Civil War

-Geaux

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'd like to see someone attempt to erect a statue of General Sherman in Georgia.

That wouldn't last long.

 

[bodecea]

General Robert E Lee is a key figure in the history of America. Of that there is no doubt. Of that there is no argument. There was no choice for him but to fight first for his state and then for the Confederacy.

One cannot judge that period in time by the minutes and hours of today's world. One must judge a man's soul and character by the period of time he was living in.

Lee was a man of honor. And as such, when he was commissioned by the Governor of the state to be Commander of the army and the navy of Virginia he accepted the position. This was in April of 1861.

Civil war broke out in May. The troops were transferred to the Confederacy and he was appointed to full General status.

Now if one has a decent bone in their body to recognize the conditions at this time that General Lee was living under one would realize General Lee couldn't say...

"I QUIT".

General Lee was an honorable man fighting on the wrong side of history. But if one is to recognize truth, one has to recognize if the South had won, General Lee would have fought on the right side of history.

There most certainly WAS a choice for him. He CHOSE to reject his country and help support a "new" one, killing Americans for 4 years.

The shame was that the North was too lenient afterwards......

 

[bodecea]

I'd like to see someone attempt to erect a statue of General Sherman in Georgia.

That wouldn't last long.

You are right...but tell us why that would be. Wouldn't he be part of the history of Georgia? A history that might be forgotten if his statue wasn't there?

 

[Marion Morrison]

You don't seem to grasp the difference between historical facts and historical speculation. Lincoln didn't call for 50,000 federal troops just to liberate Fort Sumter. And the idea that the South would have maintained slavery throughout the agricultural/mechanical revolution and into the 20th Century (not to mention siding with the Nazis in WW2) is ludicrous.

Historical fact. Slavery ended because when the 13th Amendment was ratified.
Historical Speculation. Slavery would have ended by this date if it was allowed to continue in the South.


I got them down pretty well.

It's ALL historical Speculation to say when Slavery would have ended. Maybe it would have been the 1920's. Maybe it would have been weakened where blacks were 3rd class people with no voting rights today like many countries still have. Who knows. It's all historical speculation to say it would have lived through the mechanical revolution. Especially as we see jobs going overseas like wild the past 60 years in a large part due to the cost of labor in the USA.


ANd he called for 75,000 troops, not 50,000. And no, not just to liberate Fort Sumter and the dozens of other forts, banks, weapons Caches, ships, mints and other federal property lost to the South... To win the ongoing war.

Slavery was supposed to end in 1807. The founding Fathers never wanted slavery to continue.

Congress votes to ban slave trade: March 2, 1807

 

[jwoodie]

Historical fact. Slavery ended because when the 13th Amendment was ratified.
Historical Speculation. Slavery would have ended by this date if it was allowed to continue in the South.

Your historical fact regarding the 13th Amendment is correct, bu who is arguing this point?

Another historical fact is that slavery was abolished in the Western Hemisphere by 1888.

Dismissing rational analysis as mere speculation, without presenting a credible alternative, does not constitute legitimate debate.

But at least you admit that the 75,000 troops were to invade the seceding states.

 

[Marion Morrison]

I'd like to see someone attempt to erect a statue of General Sherman in Georgia.

That wouldn't last long.

You are right...but tell us why that would be. Wouldn't he be part of the history of Georgia? A history that might be forgotten if his statue wasn't there?

The history of Sherman's atrocities will never be forgotten, especially in Georgia. To this day the stories are told by the elders.