Uncancelled History with Douglas Murray | EP. 01 Robert E. Lee

[rightwinger]

And blame we republicans for slavery. They lie like a worn out rug.

Nobody blames Republicans for slavery

But it is Republicans who are defending Confederate Heritage and it’s flag of oppression

 

[Robert W]

It is Republicans defending Confederate heritage and waving the flag.

Defending the South is as easy as defending Gen. George Washington is.

 

[Robert W]

Lets be honest about Confederate statues
They were not put up by Veterans and their families. They were erected by Daughters of the Confederacy 50 years after the war ended.
It was not about Confederate Heritage it was a reaction to a rising Civil Rights movement to “put those uppity Negroes in their place “

You are a good one to ask.
When you were a Republican, is that how you believed then?

The daughters did play a very important role. But the daughters were female Democrats representing the entire population. Why did you change to being a Democrat?

In my case it was due to what Carter did and was not connected at all to race issues.

 

[Robert W]

Nobody blames Republicans for slavery

But it is Republicans who are defending Confederate Heritage and it’s flag of oppression

Oh but many Democrats blame us for slavery. Their accounting says the South started the war. Funny though given all the damage done by the South at Ft. Sumter was to the fort and none of the troops in it were even slightly injured. I judge the flag promoting oppression is the USA flag of that era.

 

[Robert W]

When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to “lay it on well.” Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The legend of the Confederate leader’s heroism and decency is based in the fiction of a person who never existed.

www.theatlantic.com

Lee’s most prominent biographer Douglas Southall Freeman wrote, “There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing.” He went on to label it as “libel” and the result of “the extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators” that became frequently reprinted with numerous “new embellishments.”

An Unpleasant Legacy - Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

 

[rightwinger]

Lee’s most prominent biographer Douglas Southall Freeman wrote, “There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee's station forbade such a thing.” He went on to label it as “libel” and the result of “the extravagance of irresponsible antislavery agitators” that became frequently reprinted with numerous “new embellishments.”

An Unpleasant Legacy - Arlington House, The Robert E. Lee Memorial (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

I will take the testimony of the slave who was whipped over those in Arlington trying to protect Lee’s legacy

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Oh but many Democrats blame us for slavery. Their accounting says the South started the war. Funny though given all the damage done by the South at Ft. Sumter was to the fort and none of the troops in it were even slightly injured. I judge the flag promoting oppression is the USA flag of that era.

There were injuries and one died of wounds. South Carolina defied the Union and died a traitor state's death.

Bing AI reports that "There is no evidence to suggest that Robert E. Lee ever had any of his slaves flogged12. According to Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee’s most prominent biographer, "There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee’s station forbade such a thing"1."

 

[Moonglow]

In other words, Statues put up by Democrats.

Yes, Southern Democrats something you all can't seem to fathom. You had Dixiecrats and Northern Democrats and then Western Democrats and they were not all the same since the Northern Dems and they were called Copperheads or peace Democrats.

 

[Borillar]

In other words, Statues put up by Democrats.

And beloved by Republicans.

 

[Robert W]

Sure, that carries a lot of weight coming from a guy who is whining that no one loves slave owners.

I have never alleged I love slave owners. I am different than the Democrats. I see history as real where 11 states departed the others who remained behind who did not deserve loyalty. And they departed due to slavery but did not create a war over this issue. Even Abe said his war with the South was not over slavery.

 

[Robert W]

Yes, Southern Democrats something you all can't seem to fathom. You had Dixiecrats and Northern Democrats and then Western Democrats and they were not all the same since the Northern Dems and they were called Copperheads or peace Democrats.

Dixiecrats were there in the late 1940s and essentially closed up shop. The northern Democrats were Democrats by believing in Democrats. Abe commenced war at the time and he was a Republican. The myth is a lie. Democrats who joined Republicans in the South did so due to Jimmy Carter.

 

[Robert W]

And beloved by Republicans.

I happen to have studied all of our history and realized at a point that Abe commenced war, and that did not change me back to being a Democrat since I quit the party due to Carter and no other Democrat. However the credo of the Democrats is to deceive this nations public.

 

[The Duke]

Hell, the cancelers even dug-up and removed the plaque at Traveler's stable.

Traveller Plaque on Stables Removed, Grave Marker to Be Replaced - American Renaissance

Robert E. Lee's horse is too racist to be memorialized.

www.amren.com

Just like ISIS.

 

[Robert W]

And beloved by Republicans.

I like to know all of this nations history as opposed to Democrats who want years of our history to be denied.

 

[Robert W]

There were injuries and one died of wounds. South Carolina defied the Union and died a traitor state's death.

Bing AI reports that "There is no evidence to suggest that Robert E. Lee ever had any of his slaves flogged12. According to Douglas Southall Freeman, Lee’s most prominent biographer, "There is no evidence, direct or indirect, that Lee ever had them or any other Negroes flogged. The usage at Arlington and elsewhere in Virginia among people of Lee’s station forbade such a thing"1."

The party that died in Sumter was killed by his own cannon firing in an accident as the flag was removed from the Fort.

 

[Magnus]

I have never alleged I love slave owners. I am different than the Democrats. I see history as real where 11 states departed the others who remained behind who did not deserve loyalty. And they departed due to slavery but did not create a war over this issue. Even Abe said his war with the South was not over slavery.

Yea, sure. It was all about state rights. The right of states to have slaves. LOL

You poor racists. The world has changed but you retards are still stuck in the past, aren’t you? Thoughts and prayers.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I have never alleged I love slave owners. I am different than the Democrats. I see history as real where 11 states departed the others who remained behind who did not deserve loyalty. And they departed due to slavery but did not create a war over this issue. Even Abe said his war with the South was not over slavery.

The South fired on a supply boat to Ft Sumter first, federal property transferred to the Union in the 1830s. The War became over slavery in September 1862.

 

[DudleySmith]

Sorry you had to tell lies on my topic.

Actually it is wrong to call the South traitors as wrong as it is to declare that Washington was also one.
And the republicans never switched parties and since I was for a very long time a Democrat, I say we who changed parties did it due to what Carter did and not what Johnson did.

And then Reagan pretty much copied Carter's policies, which is what makes the cult worship of Reagan so hilarious. Bill Clinton outdid Reagan re 'Reaganomics' even more so.

 

[DudleySmith]

Toward a New Synthesis on the Role of Economic Issues in the Political Realignment of the 1850s

Founded in 1920, the NBER is a private, non-profit, non-partisan organization dedicated to conducting economic research and to disseminating research findings among academics, public policy makers, and business professionals.

www.nber.org

Pretty good analysis of why the Civil War was popular, and of course only idiots still claim it was about Northerners and their great concerns over poor black slaves n stuff. It also covers a lot of why mass immigrations was so harmful and not nearly the Disney like version peddled by modern left wing halfwits and deviants.

Toward a New Synthesis on the Role of Economic Issues in the Political Realignment of the 1850s​

Robert William Fogel

After sketching various ways in which economic issues influenced the political realignment of the 1850s, the paper concentrates on five questions: (1) the timing of the economic issues and the disjunctions in economic developments across regions and classes; (2) the size of the nonagricultural male labor force of the North toward the end of the 1850s and the ethnic and residential distributions of these workers; (3) changes in the ethnic composition of the northern electorate and the sharp shift in the partisan affiliations of "Old Americans," especially between 1852 and 1860; (4) problems in measuring the ups and downs in the standard of living of northern nonagricultural workers between 1840 and 1860 and provisional estimates of the decline in their real wages between 1848 and 1855; (5) a provisional estimate of the excess supply of labor during 1854-1855 created by the unfortunate phasing of three cycles (the collapse of a long cycle in construction, the coincident trough of a relatively mild trade cycle, and the continued upswing of a long cycle in immigration).


Reading this in conjunction with Walter Prescott Webb's chapters on the Cotton Kingdom in his book The Great Plains will also hlep explode the myth of slavery expanding; it points out why the cotton kingdom had already reached its viable limits by the 1840's, and most anybody who traveled knew this fact long before the war, including Daniel Webster and Jefferson Davis, among others, but it was great for using against ignorant immigrants and the Republicans selling their white nationalist platform re keeping blacks out the new territories and out of the northern states altogether.

That the Southern economic system had reached its natural confines was realized by thoughtful men of both sections as early as 1850. No one saw the fact more clearly or stated it more succinctly than Daniel Webster in his address of March 7 on the Compromise of 1850. Webster had always opposed the extension of slavery in Western territory. He consistently opposed the annexation of Texas as a slave state and because it was a slave state. Notwithstanding this opposition, when the Southwest was acquired in the Mexican War, and a proposal was made to insert the Wilmot Proviso prohibiting slavery in that territory, Webster refused to support the Proviso. When Henry Clay introduced his compromise bill of 1850, a part of which provided for leaving the question of slavery in the Southwest to be determined by the people of the territory seeking admittance, Webster alienated his supporters and apparently contradicted his previous stand by supporting the measure and working for the adoption of the compromise in to and for its acceptance by the people of the North. But there was in Webster’s mind no inconsistency in his position. In his speech of March 7 he traced the rapid progress of slavery in Louisiana, in Florida, and finally in Texas.

[The admission of Texas] closed the whole chapter and settled the whole account, because the annexation of Texas, upon the conditions and under the guarantees upon which she was admitted, did not leave within the control of this government an acre of land, capable of being cultivated by slave labor, between the Capitol and the Rio Grande or the Nueces, or whatever is the proper boundary of Texas ; not an acre. . . . And I now say, Sir, . . . there is not at this moment within the United States, or any territory of the United States, a single foot of land, the character of which, in regard to its being free territory or slave territory, is not fixed by some law, and some irrepealable law, beyond the power of the action of the government . 1

This is true, he said, with reference to Texas because Texas has a contract with the United States to that effect. But how about the territories of California and New Mexico?

Now, as to California and New Mexico, I hold slavery to be excluded from those territories by a law even superior to that which admits and sanctions it in Texas. I mean the law of nature, of physical geography, the law of the formation of the earth. That law settles forever, with a strength beyond all terms of human enactment, that slavery cannot exist in California or New Mexico. ... I mean slavery as we regard it ; the slavery of the colored race as it exists in the Southern States . 2

Webster then described the country as he understood it to be and admitted that there are fertile spots in California, but in New Mexico nothing that could induce men to go there with slaves. He adds :

I look upon it ... as a fixed fact . . . that both California and New Mexico are destined to be free, so far as they are settled at all, which I believe, in regard to New Mexico, will be but partially for a great length of time ; free by the arrangement of things ordained by the Power above us.

He then turned to a justification of his opposition to the prohibition of slavery in the Western territory. If a measure were introduced, he said, to provide for a prohibition of slavery in New Mexico, he would not vote for that prohibition, and this in spite of his consistent opposition to the spread of slavery. He would not vote for such a prohibition because it would be useless, would not be needed, and would affront the Southern men. "Such a prohibition would be idle, as it respects any effect it would have upon the territory ; and I would not take pains uselessly to reaffirm an ordinance of nature, nor to re-enact the will of God .” 1

Had Webster turned his mind to the discovery of the place where the ordinance of nature and the will of God had said to slaves and cotton, "Thus far shalt thou go and no farther,” he would have found the boundary not the artificial one separating Texas from New Mexico: he would have found it running through the middle of Texas approximately along the ninety-eighth meridian. He would have seen that although Texas had a contract with the national government to divide the state into five slave states, slavery could not be carried into western Texas, where the ordinance of nature and the will of God prohibiting it could not be set aside.{/b]

Pgs. 190-191, the 1941 edition. The 2nd edition is much more detailed.

The Great Plains : Walter Prescott Webb : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

Book Source: Digital Library of India Item 2015.227820dc.contributor.author: Walter Prescott Webbdc.date.accessioned: 2015-07-10T15:42:03Zdc.date.available:...

archive.org

In 1855 slavery was allowed in Nebraska, yet the census of 1860 ...

Meanwhile, some immigrant farmers from Southern states brought a small number of slaves with them into the territory. "In Nebraska the people never voted for slavery, but people coming here from the South brought slaves with them. In 1855 there were thirteen slaves in Nebraska and in 1860 there were ten. Most of these were held at Nebraska City."[3]

It is not generally known, but it is a fact, that there were from 1856 to 1858 more slaves in Nebraska than in Kansas. Most of the Kansas slaves were conveyed to the North Star section [the Underground Railroad] soon after. The first attempt to cross the Missouri River by the new route was made by the Massachusetts party, under the charge of Martyn Stowell, of which I was a member. We were the advance guard in July, 1856, of Jim Lane's hastily gathered command. The Nebraska City ferry was a flat boat worked by a Southern settler named Nuckolls, who had brought slaves there and who declared we should not cross. Three of us, who were mounted, rode down, called, and got the ferry over on the Iowa or eastern side of the river with Nuckolls himself in charge, and we held him there until our little company of sixty-five young men, with three wagons, wene ferried over. These incidents are only mentioned to show the nature of the obstacles. Mr. Nuckolls yielded to our persuasive force, aided by that of his neighbors, many of whom were free state in sympathy, and perhaps even more by the profit he found by the large ferriage tolls we promptly paid.[4]

History of slavery in Nebraska - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

After 5 years a whopping 10 slaves showed up by 1860. . lol Webster was right. The fact is, they didn't want any black people there at all, and that is what Lincoln's supporters were voting for.

 

[TheParser]

This magnificent statue of Robert E Lee vanished from Richmond. Where is it today? I took photos of it when I was in VA on one of my trips there.

Thank you for this picture of that magnificent statue.

What a shame that the powers-that-be were too cowardly to tell statue protesters to go jump in the lake.

Visitors to the capital of the former Confederacy are denied the opportunity to see it in an appropriate setting.

(Just returned from checking the Web. Yup! Just as I suspected, Richmond now has a lot of violent crime.)