Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[ScienceRocks]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

out of context again? geesh

Why do you think Liberia exists?

Yes...as the Ivory Coast. But does it make sense to send people to Africa that were born and raised in the U.S.?

If they follow the law and respect other people? I have no problem with living with them. On the other hand, furgason didn't help them.

 

[Dante]

You're not going to win this argument. Fort Sumter was no longer in the United States.

what's your position on Guantanamo Bay Cuba?

 

[hortysir]

It's racist to celebrate anyone who fought for slavery.

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

You're a moron who doesn't know history. Almost nobody on the confederate side was fighting for slavery because very few even owned slaves or had a stake in slavery.

The war was fought because 11 states seceded over issues that had nothing to do with slavery and Herr Lincoln Über Alles used illegal force to dragoon them back into the union.

Do you even know why Fort Sumter was fired upon? Of course you don't because you're an ignoramus who has no clue what the issues were leading up to the war.

Are you an idiot or just pretending to be one????
Many southerners that were too poor and ignorant to purchase slaves fought because they could not stomach the idea that slaves would be elevated to a social status equal to theirs.
White Trash would no longer have someone else to look down their nose at.

Nearly a third of Southern families owned Slaves.

It was a point of pride to own a slave or two back then, and most of the slaveowners owned less than ten slaves, most just a couple (the idea of it all being large plantation owners is a myth) - and not just a point of pride - A duty!

For an interesting perspective on how it was viewed, listen to this Southerner Methodist preacher named Peter Cartwright.

He was born in 1785, and raised in Kentucky.

He wrote an autobiography in 1856 - Full title: Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, the backwoods preacher: The birth, fortunes, general experiences of the oldest American Methodist travelling preacher --

His commentary goes a great deal to what he saw happening in the South and compared what it was like in 1816 up to 1856. It went from denouncement to "duty" (and also what he saw plainly on the horizon):

“….it is a notorious fact, that all the preachers from the slaveholding states denounced slavery as a moral evil….I do not recollect a single Methodist preacher, at that day, that justified slavery. But O, how have times changed!

Methodist preachers in those days made it a matter of conscience not to hold their fellow-creatures in bondage, if it was practicable to emancipate them, conformably to the laws of the state in which they lived.

Methodism increased and spread; and many Methodist preachers, taken from comparative poverty, not able to own a negro, and who preached loudly against it, improved, and became popular among slaveholders; and many of them married into those slaveholding families, and became personally interested in slave property, (as it is called.)

Then they began to apologize for the evil; then to justify it, on legal principles; then on Bible principles; till lo and behold! it is not an evil, but a good! it is not a curse, but a blessing! till really you would think, to hear them tell the story, if you had the means, and did not buy a good lot of them, you would go to the devil for not enjoying the labor, toil, and sweat of this degraded race, and all this without rendering them any equivalent whatever!

….If agitation must succeed agitation, strife succeed strife, compromise succeed compromise, it will end in a dissolution of this blessed Union, civil war will follow, and rivers of human blood stain the soil of our happy country.
'

The backwoods preacher an autobiography - Peter Cartwright - Google Books

"Nearly a third", hunh?

link/source?

 

[candycorn]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

As was Jefferson Davis, who got caught trying to run away in a woman's dress.

Wrong again and as usual. Jefferson Davis when fleeing could not find his overcoat, so he threw his wife's raglan on his shoulders and ran. That's a far cry from cross dressing. Why do you have to distort the truth?

 

[paperview]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

out of context again? geesh

Why do you think Liberia exists?

I know more about Liberia than you could ever hope to --There are Documents & Letters from the President of Liberia in 1850 [ Joseph Jenkins Roberts } in the National Archives because *I* put them there.

I have held documents touched by both Lincoln and Lee, Grant -- and literally thousand of original Civil War letters, diaries and documents. Don't pretend you think you can school me on this.

 

[candycorn]

I'm marking his birthday by calling my toilet "bobby" this week. Each and every time I take a dump, I'll be giving "bobby" better treatment than he deserves.

 

[paperview]

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

You're a moron who doesn't know history. Almost nobody on the confederate side was fighting for slavery because very few even owned slaves or had a stake in slavery.

The war was fought because 11 states seceded over issues that had nothing to do with slavery and Herr Lincoln Über Alles used illegal force to dragoon them back into the union.

Do you even know why Fort Sumter was fired upon? Of course you don't because you're an ignoramus who has no clue what the issues were leading up to the war.

Are you an idiot or just pretending to be one????
Many southerners that were too poor and ignorant to purchase slaves fought because they could not stomach the idea that slaves would be elevated to a social status equal to theirs.
White Trash would no longer have someone else to look down their nose at.

Nearly a third of Southern families owned Slaves.

It was a point of pride to own a slave or two back then, and most of the slaveowners owned less than ten slaves, most just a couple (the idea of it all being large plantation owners is a myth) - and not just a point of pride - A duty!

For an interesting perspective on how it was viewed, listen to this Southerner Methodist preacher named Peter Cartwright.

He was born in 1785, and raised in Kentucky.

He wrote an autobiography in 1856 - Full title: Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, the backwoods preacher: The birth, fortunes, general experiences of the oldest American Methodist travelling preacher --

His commentary goes a great deal to what he saw happening in the South and compared what it was like in 1816 up to 1856. It went from denouncement to "duty" (and also what he saw plainly on the horizon):

“….it is a notorious fact, that all the preachers from the slaveholding states denounced slavery as a moral evil….I do not recollect a single Methodist preacher, at that day, that justified slavery. But O, how have times changed!

Methodist preachers in those days made it a matter of conscience not to hold their fellow-creatures in bondage, if it was practicable to emancipate them, conformably to the laws of the state in which they lived.

Methodism increased and spread; and many Methodist preachers, taken from comparative poverty, not able to own a negro, and who preached loudly against it, improved, and became popular among slaveholders; and many of them married into those slaveholding families, and became personally interested in slave property, (as it is called.)

Then they began to apologize for the evil; then to justify it, on legal principles; then on Bible principles; till lo and behold! it is not an evil, but a good! it is not a curse, but a blessing! till really you would think, to hear them tell the story, if you had the means, and did not buy a good lot of them, you would go to the devil for not enjoying the labor, toil, and sweat of this degraded race, and all this without rendering them any equivalent whatever!

….If agitation must succeed agitation, strife succeed strife, compromise succeed compromise, it will end in a dissolution of this blessed Union, civil war will follow, and rivers of human blood stain the soil of our happy country.
'

The backwoods preacher an autobiography - Peter Cartwright - Google Books

"Nearly a third", hunh?

link/source?

"Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States
(unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Selected Bibliography

1. Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson
2. Ordeal by Fire, by James McPherson
3. The Confederate Nation, by Emory Thomas
4. Civil War Day by Day, by E.B. Long
5. Ordeal of the Union (8 vols.) by Allan Nevins
6. Reader's Companion to American History, by Eric Foner and John Garrity
   
   Selected Statistics

 

[candycorn]

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

You're a moron who doesn't know history. Almost nobody on the confederate side was fighting for slavery because very few even owned slaves or had a stake in slavery.

The war was fought because 11 states seceded over issues that had nothing to do with slavery and Herr Lincoln Über Alles used illegal force to dragoon them back into the union.

Do you even know why Fort Sumter was fired upon? Of course you don't because you're an ignoramus who has no clue what the issues were leading up to the war.

Are you an idiot or just pretending to be one????
Many southerners that were too poor and ignorant to purchase slaves fought because they could not stomach the idea that slaves would be elevated to a social status equal to theirs.
White Trash would no longer have someone else to look down their nose at.

Nearly a third of Southern families owned Slaves.

It was a point of pride to own a slave or two back then, and most of the slaveowners owned less than ten slaves, most just a couple (the idea of it all being large plantation owners is a myth) - and not just a point of pride - A duty!

For an interesting perspective on how it was viewed, listen to this Southerner Methodist preacher named Peter Cartwright.

He was born in 1785, and raised in Kentucky.

He wrote an autobiography in 1856 - Full title: Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, the backwoods preacher: The birth, fortunes, general experiences of the oldest American Methodist travelling preacher --

His commentary goes a great deal to what he saw happening in the South and compared what it was like in 1816 up to 1856. It went from denouncement to "duty" (and also what he saw plainly on the horizon):

“….it is a notorious fact, that all the preachers from the slaveholding states denounced slavery as a moral evil….I do not recollect a single Methodist preacher, at that day, that justified slavery. But O, how have times changed!

Methodist preachers in those days made it a matter of conscience not to hold their fellow-creatures in bondage, if it was practicable to emancipate them, conformably to the laws of the state in which they lived.

Methodism increased and spread; and many Methodist preachers, taken from comparative poverty, not able to own a negro, and who preached loudly against it, improved, and became popular among slaveholders; and many of them married into those slaveholding families, and became personally interested in slave property, (as it is called.)

Then they began to apologize for the evil; then to justify it, on legal principles; then on Bible principles; till lo and behold! it is not an evil, but a good! it is not a curse, but a blessing! till really you would think, to hear them tell the story, if you had the means, and did not buy a good lot of them, you would go to the devil for not enjoying the labor, toil, and sweat of this degraded race, and all this without rendering them any equivalent whatever!

….If agitation must succeed agitation, strife succeed strife, compromise succeed compromise, it will end in a dissolution of this blessed Union, civil war will follow, and rivers of human blood stain the soil of our happy country.
'

The backwoods preacher an autobiography - Peter Cartwright - Google Books

"Nearly a third", hunh?

link/source?

"Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States
(unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Selected Bibliography

1. Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson
2. Ordeal by Fire, by James McPherson
3. The Confederate Nation, by Emory Thomas
4. Civil War Day by Day, by E.B. Long
5. Ordeal of the Union (8 vols.) by Allan Nevins
6. Reader's Companion to American History, by Eric Foner and John Garrity
   
   Selected Statistics

SURGICAL​

 

[JimH52]

The south lost, and deservedly so, because the industrial north was able to out produce the rural south. Yes, even though I am a southerner, I feel the south deserved to lose. The civil war was a huge waste for this country.

 

[hortysir]

And the North wasn't so much anti-slavery, as the were Pro-Union.

The North went to war to keep the Union together.

The South went to war to preserve, protect, defend, and expand Slavery.

"The North" is a misnomer.

The Federal government fought to keep tobacco, cotton, citrus and port cities under its rule

period

 

[Toro]

You missed my larger point that the South would not have been cut off from business dealings with the United States. In fact, if the North had ceased aggression, business would have resumed like it had before, sans tariffs. There was just too much money to be made from the slave trade, which New York and Massechusettes operated. You have the unenviable task of demonstrating that much would have changed simply because there were two countries instead of one. Just like we resumed trade very quickly with Britain after the revolutionary war, the same would have occurred between the United States and the new Confederation of States. Good luck demonstrating otherwise.

I never said that trade wouldn't have resumed. It would have. It's not about trade. It's about capital flows and economic development. Since the South wouldn't have been part of the United States, the manufacturing base wouldn't have migrated south for at least a generation since there would have been no population migration and the cost of doing so would have been high due to the tariffs on manufactured goods that were falling but still significant. The South would have been subject to international trade laws that all other countries are subject. And given the disapproval of racist countries, it's likely that the South would have been shut out of global markets like South Africa.

The onus is on the apologists for the racist Confederacy to explain why the United States would have treated the Confederacy differently than any other country.

 

[Dante]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

out of context again? geesh

Why do you think Liberia exists?

I know more about Liberia than you could ever hope to --There are Documents & Letters from the President of Liberia in 1850 [ Joseph Jenkins Roberts } in the National Archives because *I* put them there.

I have held documents touched by both Lincoln and Lee, Grant -- and literally thousand of original Civil War letters, diaries and documents. Don't pretend you think you can school me on this.

A close personal friend wrote a scholarly paper on Bishop Lynch of S.C. -- seriously LOL

 

[hortysir]

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

You're a moron who doesn't know history. Almost nobody on the confederate side was fighting for slavery because very few even owned slaves or had a stake in slavery.

The war was fought because 11 states seceded over issues that had nothing to do with slavery and Herr Lincoln Über Alles used illegal force to dragoon them back into the union.

Do you even know why Fort Sumter was fired upon? Of course you don't because you're an ignoramus who has no clue what the issues were leading up to the war.

Are you an idiot or just pretending to be one????
Many southerners that were too poor and ignorant to purchase slaves fought because they could not stomach the idea that slaves would be elevated to a social status equal to theirs.
White Trash would no longer have someone else to look down their nose at.

Nearly a third of Southern families owned Slaves.

It was a point of pride to own a slave or two back then, and most of the slaveowners owned less than ten slaves, most just a couple (the idea of it all being large plantation owners is a myth) - and not just a point of pride - A duty!

For an interesting perspective on how it was viewed, listen to this Southerner Methodist preacher named Peter Cartwright.

He was born in 1785, and raised in Kentucky.

He wrote an autobiography in 1856 - Full title: Autobiography of Peter Cartwright, the backwoods preacher: The birth, fortunes, general experiences of the oldest American Methodist travelling preacher --

His commentary goes a great deal to what he saw happening in the South and compared what it was like in 1816 up to 1856. It went from denouncement to "duty" (and also what he saw plainly on the horizon):

“….it is a notorious fact, that all the preachers from the slaveholding states denounced slavery as a moral evil….I do not recollect a single Methodist preacher, at that day, that justified slavery. But O, how have times changed!

Methodist preachers in those days made it a matter of conscience not to hold their fellow-creatures in bondage, if it was practicable to emancipate them, conformably to the laws of the state in which they lived.

Methodism increased and spread; and many Methodist preachers, taken from comparative poverty, not able to own a negro, and who preached loudly against it, improved, and became popular among slaveholders; and many of them married into those slaveholding families, and became personally interested in slave property, (as it is called.)

Then they began to apologize for the evil; then to justify it, on legal principles; then on Bible principles; till lo and behold! it is not an evil, but a good! it is not a curse, but a blessing! till really you would think, to hear them tell the story, if you had the means, and did not buy a good lot of them, you would go to the devil for not enjoying the labor, toil, and sweat of this degraded race, and all this without rendering them any equivalent whatever!

….If agitation must succeed agitation, strife succeed strife, compromise succeed compromise, it will end in a dissolution of this blessed Union, civil war will follow, and rivers of human blood stain the soil of our happy country.
'

The backwoods preacher an autobiography - Peter Cartwright - Google Books

"Nearly a third", hunh?

link/source?

"Selected Statistics on Slavery in the United States
(unless otherwise noted, all data is as of the 1860 census)

Total number of slaves in the Lower South : 2,312,352 (47% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Upper South: 1,208758 (29% of total population).

Total number of slaves in the Border States: 432,586 (13% of total population).

Almost one-third of all Southern families owned slaves. In Mississippi and South Carolina it approached one half. The total number of slave owners was 385,000 (including, in Louisiana, some free Negroes). As for the number of slaves owned by each master, 88% held fewer than twenty, and nearly 50% held fewer than five. (A complete table on slave-owning percentages is given at the bottom of this page.)

For comparison's sake, let it be noted that in the 1950's, only 2% of American families owned corporation stocks equal in value to the 1860 value of a single slave. Thus, slave ownership was much more widespread in the South than corporate investment was in 1950's America.

On a typical plantation (more than 20 slaves) the capital value of the slaves was greater than the capital value of the land and implements.

Slavery was profitable, although a large part of the profit was in the increased value of the slaves themselves. With only 30% of the nation's (free) population, the South had 60% of the "wealthiest men." The 1860 per capita wealth in the South was $3,978; in the North it was $2,040.

Selected Bibliography

1. Battle Cry of Freedom, by James McPherson
2. Ordeal by Fire, by James McPherson
3. The Confederate Nation, by Emory Thomas
4. Civil War Day by Day, by E.B. Long
5. Ordeal of the Union (8 vols.) by Allan Nevins
6. Reader's Companion to American History, by Eric Foner and John Garrity
   
   Selected Statistics

Thank you

I must say, though, that last paragraph sorta proves the allure of taking over the southern states

 

[hortysir]

When you defend slavers, you defend slavery.

You should read up on Lincoln in 1858 about his beliefs and what he wanted to do with the negro. You'll find that you're also not far from one.

out of context again? geesh

Why do you think Liberia exists?

I know more about Liberia than you could ever hope to --There are Documents & Letters from the President of Liberia in 1850 [ Joseph Jenkins Roberts } in the National Archives because *I* put them there.

I have held documents touched by both Lincoln and Lee, Grant -- and literally thousand of original Civil War letters, diaries and documents. Don't pretend you think you can school me on this.

Reading this reminds me that you and I have had this debate before.
You were informative then and now.
So I apologize, again, for my "dickish" remarks early on.



Sidenote: NE is stomping Indy

 

[candycorn]

You missed my larger point that the South would not have been cut off from business dealings with the United States. In fact, if the North had ceased aggression, business would have resumed like it had before, sans tariffs. There was just too much money to be made from the slave trade, which New York and Massechusettes operated. You have the unenviable task of demonstrating that much would have changed simply because there were two countries instead of one. Just like we resumed trade very quickly with Britain after the revolutionary war, the same would have occurred between the United States and the new Confederation of States. Good luck demonstrating otherwise.

I never said that trade wouldn't have resumed. It would have. It's not about trade. It's about capital flows and economic development. Since the South wouldn't have been part of the United States, the manufacturing base wouldn't have migrated south for at least a generation since there would have been no population migration and the cost of doing so would have been high due to the tariffs on manufactured goods that were falling but still significant. The South would have been subject to international trade laws that all other countries are subject. And given the disapproval of racist countries, it's likely that the South would have been shut out of global markets like South Africa.

The onus is on the apologists for the racist Confederacy to explain why the United States would have treated the Confederacy differently than any other country.

Cheap labor in the 1860's isn't what cheap labor is today. We didn't have this big consumer class in developed nations that we do today so when the CSA tried to sell it's cheap goods in places like Europe, they would have been likely locked out due to nationalistic reasons; above and beyond the brutal slavery that allowed such production.

 

[bripat9643]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

 

[Dante]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln was a great man. Lincoln was a god

 

[candycorn]

The pro-CSA folks clearly demonstrate that Lincoln was right.

Some of these people go to bed at night, smiling, happy they are defending slavers.

People who raped, beat, tore families apart, and fought to the death to defend it.


Karma may set them straight -- at some point.

It never fails, when the worshippers of the Lincoln cult can't defend the crimes of their patron saint with facts, they invariably end up accusing his critics of "defending slavery." Apparently they believe this kind of sleazy behaviour is to be respected or even admired.

Lincoln committed no crimes. The South did, and Lincoln saw to it that they paid for it. I sort of wish Reconstruction was still going on....

 

[bripat9643]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

 

[candycorn]

Robert E. Lee was a great American.

He had to get a pardon. He was a criminal and a traitor

He wasn't ever charged with anything, so why would he need a pardon?

Gee, neither was Lincoln...but you call him a criminal.