1. He fought for his state. The "country" was a "Union of States". The US was much more localized back in 1860. They fought for States' Rights, not just slavery. Slavery was the norm back then, they didn't know what political correctness was. Cheap manual labor was necessary to succeed in farming. There was no real farm machinery. Your idealistic view of the 1860 world is laughable.
2. Show me after his dad died when he was 11 where he owned a plantation. They were essentially beggars living with family.
3. Who is ashamed of annexing Texas? Not most of us. Mexican–American War - Wikipedia
4. If you were drafted to fight in VN what would you do? The power of the "state" has demands.
Funny how you regulate the owning of other human beings being wrong just a matter of political correctness.
I guess if it were deemed PC you would gladly own other humans?
Sent from my iPhone using
USMessageBoard.com
What's wrong is applying 2019 politically correct norms to ancient history. Trying to criminalize what was not against the Law.
I don't support slavery, but if I lived in ancient times it would be the norm, to use cheap manual labor. It was not against the Law, was it?
Tell me you support full benefits and the minimum wage for farm workers, so that your fresh produce costs triple or quadruple?
The idea of not owning other human beings is not a matter of political correctness...no matter how many ways you try to whitewash the institution of slavery.
There is no comparison to low wages and being owned. Fucking pathetic you would try and compare the two
The reality of owning human beings is alive and well in 2019. The UN estimates that about 40m humans are current slaves. What's pathetic is that you act as if slave owners were mass murderers. You do not factor in normal practices of the era. I don't blame the founding fathers for owning slaves, I blame Wall Street and K-Street for outsourcing jobs and factories keeping the middle-class poor.
Modern-Day Slavery by the Numbers | Facts & Trends
My point being that great generals like Robert E. Lee, or the US Founding Fathers, and their statues, should be revered, not destroyed. Yes some of their statues were destroyed by mobs. Why? Because they "owned slaves", which was the norm back in that time.
From what ass do y'all pull this bogus bullshit?
Is it by chance........... orange?
Once AGAIN, y'all can make shit up 'til the sun comes down, doesn't change the history. Which is ironic, since y'all keep leaning on this crutch about "waaaah, destroying history sob" which completely IGNORES the history of the Lost Cause that fucking PUT THEM THERE. "They owned slaves" doesn't have SHIT to do with it.
The first monument he's talking about --- first one New Orleans removed --- was a plaque celebrating a coup d'êtat takeover of the city by a white supremacist organization called the White League. Another one was a statue of P.T. Beauregard. In my state we have "Silent Sam" out at UNC Chapel Hill, erected (again) by the UDC and dedicated by a CSA vet who praised God for CSA having "saved the Anglo-Saxon race" and
recounted how he had "horse whipped a Negro wench" near the very spot.
NONE of those subjects were Robert E. Lee and none of them owned slaves. That's not the criterion and never has been.
As for Robert E. Lee himself, he specifically left orders to NOT be statued. So if the UDC puts a Lee statue up and a city takes it down ---- guess which one is actually honoring his wishes.
Aren't you the same wag who's never heard of the cotton gin?