Students Demand Acknowledgement of Robert E. Lee's 'Racist and Dishonorable Conduct'

[buckeye45_73]

Gentleman Traitor.

That's a new one.

If he committed treason, then why wasn't he tried and executed?

For the same reason George W. Bush wasn't tried for war crimes.

What war crimes? Omg you people are plain stupid

 

[Bloodrock44]

If he was guilty of nothing, why did they take his home from him and turn it into a military cemetery for Union soldiers?

The Arlington mansion and estate was owned by Lee's wife, who happened to be the daughter of George Washington's adopted son. The cemetery wasn't due to Lee's guilt or innocence, but out of spite. Montgomery Meigs was the Quartermaster of the Union army. His son was killed in battle and Meigs buried him in the flower garden at the mansion to ensure the Lee's would not move back in. The land was confiscated and made into Arlington National Cemetery. I believe it was in the 1990's it was determined that the Lee family were the rightful owners and were compensated for their loss.

It's useless to point out facts to these morons. They aren't interested in the facts.

I know this and you know this, but my army of followers pay me to be the voice of reason.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Lee was on the wrong side of American history, just like every other Confederate fighting to retain their slaves.

wow, do you have an original thought? Ever? I love simplicity, but wow this is even too simple for me. Get educated, learn history and maybe look at other sources other than extreme left wing, hate america propagandists.

 

[Unkotare]

You want to remain ignorant, that's your call. I don't teach for free.

You're just a lazy ass who can't prove his point.

That ******'s most frequent response is "No, it isn't". Yes, you are thinking as I do, utterly brilliant argument.

You are not dealing with an intellectual giant.

Compared to you, old toenail clippings are intellectual giants.

 

[Unkotare]

Can you blame a man for being loyal?

I don't know - can you blame Bin Laden for being loyal to Al Qaida?
How many Americans died because of Bin Laden?
How many died because of Robert E. Lee?

Lincoln killed them, not Robert E. Lee.

Lee chose to cast his lot with traitorous dogs. Lincoln brought them to heel, and showed far greater magnanimity than he had to.

 

[Unkotare]

You're just a lazy ass who can't prove his point.

You haven't read one of the most important documents in American political history, refuse to do so now, and I'm lazy? As I said, if you want to remain ignorant that's your choice.

The reason you decline to quote the pertinent material is that fact that nothing in the document supports your point. You're just a weasel who's thinks he's fooling everyone.

If you weren't so risibly ignorant you would be familiar with one of the most important documents in American history. It seems you dropped out a bit too early.

 

[KNB]

If he committed treason, then why wasn't he tried and executed?

For the same reason George W. Bush wasn't tried for war crimes.

What war crimes? Omg you people are plain stupid

https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+iraq&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+torture&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
https://www.google.com/search?q=gwu+war+crimes&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&channel=sb

 

[nodoginnafight]

Can you blame a man for being loyal?

I don't know - can you blame Bin Laden for being loyal to Al Qaida?
How many Americans died because of Bin Laden?
How many died because of Robert E. Lee?

Lincoln killed them, not Robert E. Lee.

BWAAAAAA

funny stuff

Lee got a pardon of sorts - Lincoln opted not to try any of the traitors for treason. He was all for letting bygones be bygones asap.

 

[WelfareTick]

I don't know - can you blame Bin Laden for being loyal to Al Qaida?
How many Americans died because of Bin Laden?
How many died because of Robert E. Lee?

Lincoln killed them, not Robert E. Lee.

BWAAAAAA

funny stuff

Lee got a pardon of sorts - Lincoln opted not to try any of the traitors for treason. He was all for letting bygones be bygones asap.

He didn't try them for treason because he knew he couldn't make the charges stick. Furthermore, such trials would have brought up Lincoln's incriminating actions leading up to and during the war.

 

[WelfareTick]

You haven't read one of the most important documents in American political history, refuse to do so now, and I'm lazy? As I said, if you want to remain ignorant that's your choice.

The reason you decline to quote the pertinent material is that fact that nothing in the document supports your point. You're just a weasel who's thinks he's fooling everyone.

If you weren't so risibly ignorant you would be familiar with one of the most important documents in American history. It seems you dropped out a bit too early.

Another weasel. I am so surprised!

 

[nodoginnafight]

Lincoln killed them, not Robert E. Lee.

BWAAAAAA

funny stuff

Lee got a pardon of sorts - Lincoln opted not to try any of the traitors for treason. He was all for letting bygones be bygones asap.

He didn't try them for treason because he knew he couldn't make the charges stick. Furthermore, such trials would have brought up Lincoln's incriminating actions leading up to and during the war.

If you'd learn more about history - you wouldn't be so easily duped by folks who re-write it for political gain.

 

[WelfareTick]

I don't know - can you blame Bin Laden for being loyal to Al Qaida?
How many Americans died because of Bin Laden?
How many died because of Robert E. Lee?

Lincoln killed them, not Robert E. Lee.

Lee chose to cast his lot with traitorous dogs. Lincoln brought them to heel, and showed far greater magnanimity than he had to.

Lincoln was the traitor, not Lee. Look up the definition of the term in the Constitution and you'll see I am correct.

 

[Pennywise]

You're just a lazy ass who can't prove his point.

That ******'s most frequent response is "No, it isn't". Yes, you are thinking as I do, utterly brilliant argument.

You are not dealing with an intellectual giant.

Compared to you, old toenail clippings are intellectual giants.

No, they aren't.

 

[Synthaholic]

If he committed treason, then why wasn't he tried and executed?

For the same reason George W. Bush wasn't tried for war crimes.

What war crimes? Omg you people are plain stupid

Torture is a war crime.

 

[Jarlaxle]

My opinion, if Longstreet or Jackson would have been commander of the Army of Northern Virginia the south would have had a better chance at winning. Lee's successes came early in the war against VERY inferior commanders. When he met a competent one at Gettysburg Lee could have won but because of stupid command mistakes the war was effectively lost. The south never smiled after Shiloh, they never had a chance after Gettysburg.

The Union commander at Gettysburg was just as incompetent, but he was lucky. He took a defensive position mostly because he was terrified of Lee. Lee stupidly attacked a very secure position. When rifles have a range of 500 yards, mass infantry assaults are virtual suicide. After the battle General Meade allowed Lee to get away to fight another day. He should have pursued Lee and attacked him every chance he got. That's why Lincoln sacked him.

I'm actually not all that impressed with Lee as a General. He made stupid decisions at Gettysburg. I think General Longstreet was the true brains of the operation. He wanted to go around Meade's position at Gettysburg and find a strong defensive position between the Unions army and Washington D.C. Then Meade would have to attack the Confederate army and they would have been slaughtered and the South would have won the war.

Lee's ragtag, poorly-equipped Army of Northern Virginia kept union forces (usually larger and ALWAYS better-equipped) off-balance for 3+ years. This despite the fact that he was usually outnumbered, and always short of supplies.

His big problem at Gettysburg was lack of information. Stuart's cavalry was not there to screen & scout for his army, forcing him to basically fight blind.

 

[Freewill]

Here is an article on BS of the blacks fighting for the confederacy.


As to Lee and his view of slavery this is from the book: Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters

What were his views on slavery?

These papers are filled with information about slavery. This is not something you have to read between the lines; Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.

It is shocking how he treated his father-in-law's slaves.

Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.

What happened after that?

Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.

Lee didn't fight for the Confederacy to protect his state he just simply could not fight against his state. Many of his relatives fought and died for the Union. Lee fed the best of the south into a meat grinder at Gettysburg losing the war for the south. It is just a shame it dragged on for two more years.

All one needs to know about Lincoln is that he signed the emancipation proclamation. From that point on he never again mentioned colonization of the black man.

It is simply amazing what people wish to believe and what they think they know about history. What is more incredible is how in this thread Lee, who did own slaves, is treated as a saint. Even though he lead a revolt against the USA. Yet Lincoln, who never owned a slave is treated like scum because at one time he felt that blacks and whites could not live together. Reading some of these posts I think he may have been correct.

The rich southern aristocrat was able to convince the poor white man to fight his war over slavery for him. Quite amazing that there are those who would defend such a war.

Nicely done.

Totally irrelevant. The issue here is liberal hypocrisy. They attack Lee for being a "racist," but their heroes Lincoln and grant were both just as racist.

No, that is your issue. As far as I have read you have proved nothing and I have presented the facts to you. Lincoln didn't own a slave an signed the emancipation proclamation. Grant may have own a slave the history isn't sure. I provided what he said about slavery and the need for the war to destroy the institution. Lee on the other hand owned slaves and mistreated those slaves as I presented to you. He also fought for the side that was defending slavery. How you get some sort of cockamamie idea that Lincoln or Grant was as bad as a man who fought to preserve slavery is really ridicules.

 

[Jarlaxle]

If he committed treason, then why wasn't he tried and executed?

For the same reason George W. Bush wasn't tried for war crimes.

If he was guilty of nothing, why did they take his home from him and turn it into a military cemetery for Union soldiers?

If he was guilty of anything, why was he PAID for it? His home (actually, it belonged to his wife, Mary Custis Lee; he never actually owned it himself) was occupied by Union forces in 1861. After the battle of the Wilderness, the grounds were used as a cemetery, being the most suitable ground in the area. In 1874, Robert E. Lee's son Custis (the legal heir to it after his grandfather's death) sued and won, collecting $150,000 (about $3.2 million today) for it.

 

[Jarlaxle]

For the same reason George W. Bush wasn't tried for war crimes.

If he was guilty of nothing, why did they take his home from him and turn it into a military cemetery for Union soldiers?

The Arlington mansion and estate was owned by Lee's wife, who happened to be the daughter of George Washington's adopted son. The cemetery wasn't due to Lee's guilt or innocence, but out of spite. Montgomery Meigs was the Quartermaster of the Union army. His son was killed in battle and Meigs buried him in the flower garden at the mansion to ensure the Lee's would not move back in. The land was confiscated and made into Arlington National Cemetery. I believe it was in the 1990's it was determined that the Lee family were the rightful owners and were compensated for their loss.

Custis won his court case in 1882.

 

[Jarlaxle]

I don't know - can you blame Bin Laden for being loyal to Al Qaida?
How many Americans died because of Bin Laden?
How many died because of Robert E. Lee?

Lincoln killed them, not Robert E. Lee.

BWAAAAAA

funny stuff

Lee got a pardon of sorts - Lincoln opted not to try any of the traitors for treason. He was all for letting bygones be bygones asap.

Lincoln did not try any of the Confederates for treason because he worried (and he was right to) that the result would be across-the-board ACQUITTALS!

 

[Freewill]

GRANT ON SLAVERY


The following is a conversation between Otto von Bismarck (the founder and first chancellor of the German Empire) and General Grant that occurred in June, 1878.


"You are so happily placed," replied the prince, "in America that you need fear no wars. What always seemed so sad to me about your last great war was that you were fighting your own people. That is always so terrible in wars, so very hard."

"But it had to be done." said the General.

"Yes," said the prince, "you had to save the Union just as we had to save Germany."

"Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery," answered the General.

"I suppose, however, the Union was the real sentiment, the dominant sentiment," said the prince.

"In the beginning, yes," said the General; "but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

"I had an old and good friend, an American, in Motley," said the prince, "who used to write me now and then. Well, when your war broke out he wrote me. He said, ‘I will make a prophecy, and please take this letter and put it in a tree or a box for ten years, then open it and see if I am not a prophet. I prophesy that when this war ends the Union will be established and we shall not lose a village or hamlet.’ This was Motley’s prophecy," said the prince with a smile, "and it was true."

"Yes," said the General, "it was true."

"I suppose if you had had a large army at the beginning of the war it would have ended in a much shorter time."

"We might have had no war at all," said the General; "but we cannot tell. Our war had many strange features – there were many things which seemed odd enough at the time, but which now seem Providential. If we had had a large regular army, as it was then constituted, it might have gone with the South. In fact, the Southern feeling in the army among high officers was so strong that when the war broke out the army dissolved. We had no army – then we had to organize one. A great commander like Sherman or Sheridan even then might have organized an army and put down the rebellion in six months or a year, or, at the farthest, two years. But that would have saved slavery, perhaps, and slavery meant the germs of a new rebellion. There had to be an end of slavery. Then we were fighting an enemy with whom we could not make a peace. We had to destroy him. No convention, no treaty was possible – only destruction."

General Grant was an overseer on his father in law's plantation. He personally whipped slaves. He hardly has clean hands when it comes to the issue of slavery.

Here is some more on Grant the President:

As president, Grant led the Radical Republicans in their effort to eliminate vestiges of Confederate nationalism and slavery, protect African American citizenship, and defeat the Ku Klux Klan. In foreign policy,

After the Civil War, Grant served two terms as president and worked to stabilize the nation during the turbulent Reconstruction period that followed. He enforced civil rights laws and fought Ku Klux Klan violence. Grant encouraged passage of the Fifteenth Amendment, giving protection for African-American voting rights. He used the army to build the Republican Party in the South, based on black voters, Northern newcomers ("Carpetbaggers"), and native Southern white supporters ("Scalawags"). As a result, African-Americans were represented in the Congress for the first time in American history in 1870. Although there were some gains in political and civil rights by African Americans in the early 1870s, by the time Grant left office in 1877, Democrats in the South had regained control of state governments, while most blacks lost their political power for nearly a century.

Ulysses S. Grant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia