View Full Version : Robert E Lee
Everyone knows that name. There is a statue in Virginia that honors the General. It's a beautiful work. Some want to tear it down. Yeah, I get it, it's about war. It's about slavery. It's about white men who carry guns. Now they want to tear it down. Did it every occur to all those who want to do so much good that they could visit the statue and give it a good looking over and give some thought to why the statue is there. Instead, they remind me of the Taliban or whoever who blew up the mammoth Budda. The Budda probably was there for a thousand years or so. Things move faster these days. Lee has a ten day injunction.
https://www.richmond.com/news/local/update-richmond-judge-bars-removal-of-lee-statue-on-monument-avenue-for-10-days/article_82e76fb6-58f0-5b65-8a8b-4435a73b8775.html
How do you move a 12 ton statue?
Northam ordered the removal of the Lee monument last week amid nationwide protests sparked by the death of Floyd, a black man in Minneapolis who died after a white officer jammed his knee into his neck for nearly nine minutes.
free1954
06-09-2020, 01:29
lee was a great american. even before he fought for the "other side." this is a travesty, brought on by ignorance.
shadycon
06-09-2020, 04:55
They won't be happy until they erase the civil war out of history!:1948:
S.A. Boggs
06-09-2020, 05:42
Wasn't there another group of people recently who went about destroying history that they didn't agree with?:evil6:
Sam
Gun Smoke
06-09-2020, 05:51
When are statues of MLK going to be torn down? Though I understand his cause he was a racist and was the cause of numerous violent riots.
He was not even an elected official or general---just a self appointed "speaker" like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
Found this old post of his, which makes sense to me.
I think it wiser not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.
Major Tom
06-09-2020, 07:36
When are statues of MLK going to be torn down? Though I understand his cause he was a racist and was the cause of numerous violent riots.
He was not even an elected official or general---just a self appointed "speaker" like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
That MLK statue in D.C. offends me it is just a huge P.O.S.
apparently a Judge has put a stay to the removal,
it will now go thru the courts,
I've posted this elsewhere, not sure if on Jouster,
RVA has a history for the past 50+ yrs of being a bit too much like Baltimore or DC in the way those elected into government behave,
corruption, yep, but not to the same degree
petty bickering, yep, but that happens everywhere,
perpetually offended, every day and then some,
so instead of looking South, they can only look North (all the statues face north, BTW)
why look south?
SC , specifically Charleston, has roughly the same history as RVA,
Rev War,
Slave trade
Civil War
limited 1812 stuff,
they (Charleston) have learned how to capitalize it, and bring in the tourist $$$
we, (RVA) wanna be butthurt over it, piss/moan about it, and tear stuff down that be used to make cash to improve lots of stuff,
but no,
we want to be sooo much like Baltimore, NY DC Etc,
clintonhater
06-09-2020, 08:57
When are statues of MLK going to be torn down? Though I understand his cause he was a racist and was the cause of numerous violent riots.
He was not even an elected official or general---just a self appointed "speaker" like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.
You left out "Communist." But he was the greatest demagogue this country ever produced! And what makes you think statues of Jessie & Al won't be next?
clintonhater
06-09-2020, 09:03
That MLK statue in D.C. offends me it is just a huge P.O.S.
No arrests made (or attempted) for the vandalization of other DC monuments; what kind of frenzy would result if the same was done to THIS masterpiece of sheer ugliness?
S.A. Boggs
06-09-2020, 09:03
The Army base are next as Ft. Bragg is now Hillary Center, Ft. Hood becomes Obama Central...you get the picture. Can you imagine pink vehicles to show the world what America is now? Trained to not offend anyone and welcoming to one and all.
Sam
Roadkingtrax
06-09-2020, 09:14
The Army base are next as Ft. Bragg is now Hillary Center, Ft. Hood becomes Obama Central...you get the picture. Can you imagine pink vehicles to show the world what America is now? Trained to not offend anyone and welcoming to one and all.
Sam
The Confederate commander Bragg, lost 7 of 8 battles. It should be argued he helped the Union win.
The Army base are next as Ft. Bragg is now Hillary Center, Ft. Hood becomes Obama Central...you get the picture. Can you imagine pink vehicles to show the world what America is now? Trained to not offend anyone and welcoming to one and all.
Sam
do you know what a Pink Panther is ?
do you know what a Pink Panther is ?
I doesn't sound good. Thankfully, I've lived a pretty sheltered life.
I doesn't sound good. Thankfully, I've lived a pretty sheltered life.
get your mind out the gutter,
and google it, include SAS in the search,
dogtag would get it
This makes me sick what is going on
SUPERX-M1
06-11-2020, 05:32
States an article which seemed knowledgeable and fair. Said that most sources and articles white wash over his flaws ,what he did and the generally vicious way he went about it.
I have no knowledge of this other than the article , but am inclined to believe the article.
States an article which seemed knowledgeable and fair. Said that most sources and articles white wash over his flaws ,what he did and the generally vicious way he went about it.
I have no knowledge of this other than the article , but am inclined to believe the article.
you need to actually read some history and his own words
clintonhater
06-11-2020, 08:34
have no knowledge of this other than the article , but am inclined to believe the article.
Since, as you say, you "have no knowledge of this other than the article," WHY would you be inclined to believe IT, & disregard the immense volume of contrary data? Are you aware that Lincoln asked LEE to lead the Union forces at the outbreak of the CW? Do you think Lincoln was partial to "vicious" men?
SUPERX-M1
06-12-2020, 11:37
also: Robert E. Lee and Slavery- at History Net- Elizeabeth Brown Pryor.
also.........
Quite a few historians agree that Lee was solidly pro slavery and his personal and professional actions were reprehensible- now and even then.
Professionally, some called his actions treason. The country was split apart, and many, so very many men died or were terribly injured so that Lee and the South could enslave men, women and children.
If you like Lee, well,as you wish. But the Civil War was fought because of slavery. And Lee wanted slavery to remain an institution of the South.
The past is in the past. Repercussions reverberate today. Racism then, racism today.
also: Robert E. Lee and Slavery- at History Net- Elizeabeth Brown Pryor.
also.........
Quite a few historians agree that Lee was solidly pro slavery and his personal and professional actions were reprehensible- now and even then.
Professionally, some called his actions treason. The country was split apart, and many, so very many men died or were terribly injured so that Lee and the South could enslave men, women and children.
If you like Lee, well,as you wish. But the Civil War was fought because of slavery. And Lee wanted slavery to remain an institution of the South.
The past is in the past. Repercussions reverberate today. Racism then, racism today.
you really need to read more of his actual words, and look at the context of the time,
where are you getting this info? CNN?
the war was fought over taxes and tariffs and to keep the south from selling their goods to England.
also: Robert E. Lee and Slavery- at History Net- Elizeabeth Brown Pryor.
also.........
Quite a few historians agree that Lee was solidly pro slavery and his personal and professional actions were reprehensible- now and even then.
Professionally, some called his actions treason. The country was split apart, and many, so very many men died or were terribly injured so that Lee and the South could enslave men, women and children.
If you like Lee, well,as you wish. But the Civil War was fought because of slavery. And Lee wanted slavery to remain an institution of the South.
The past is in the past. Repercussions reverberate today. Racism then, racism today.
You are totally wrong. If there had never been a single slave in North America the Civil War would have still happened. You are brain washed...
Lee, like the majority of the South, believed the State was more important than the Union. It was called States Rights and that had a meaning back then. According to the Constitution as adopted, the States had more rights than the Federal Government. Read the Constitution it, and the Bill of Rights, is a restriction on the Federal Government and not the States. Had there been no Civil War, slavery would have still been abolished... albeit one State at a time.
Today traitors abound that want a totalitarian dictatorship and a utopian world where everything is perfect, everybody are exactly the same, same ambition, the same thoughts, the same level of education (no doctors, no lawyers, no indian chiefs) samey, samey, around the globe.
When you say "Quite a few historians agree... " What does that mean? I am a historian, I have college degrees in History, Political Science, and a minor in Economics. Today nobody is really studying history any more. What they are studying is the opinions, and the "take" that other people have instead of reading and studying the original documents and archives.
Oh yeah, what is reprehensible today was social norms 160 years ago. Spanking children was common when I was a child, today it is reprehensible. So that makes my parents "reprehensible???"
As Derry Brownfield used to say you are "ignorance gone to seed."
Roadkingtrax
06-12-2020, 02:43
"States Rights" to what Red?
The statues were controversial when erected. Some things dont change, and that's unfortunate.
free1954
06-12-2020, 03:17
the first 13th amendment https://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-resources/spotlight-primary-source/proposed-thirteenth-amendment-prevent-secession-1861#:~:text=Proposed%20thirteenth%20amendment%20t o%20protect,began%20withdrawing%20from%20the%20nat ion.
"States Rights" to what Red?
The statues were controversial when erected. Some things dont change, and that's unfortunate.
The States Rights to govern themselves. Help me out here, tell me the controversial objections to the Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Iwo Jima, Monuments.
Tell me why the monument honoring the Massachusetts 54th Infantry was controversial and needed to be destroyed. Come on genius, documentation please.
Tell me how this erasing history movement is different than the Muslims destroying ancient Buddhas statues. or destroying the Pyramids in Egypt... Stupid is...
Gun Smoke
06-12-2020, 03:42
the war was fought over taxes and tariffs and to keep the south from selling their goods to England.
+1
A slight technicality that the liberal public school system always leaves out in their effort to re-write history and make it PC for them.
The issue of slavery entered later but was not a leading cause of the war.
Roadkingtrax
06-12-2020, 04:07
The States Rights to govern themselves. Help me out here, tell me the controversial objections to the Columbus, Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, Iwo Jima, Monuments.
Tell me why the monument honoring the Massachusetts 54th Infantry was controversial and needed to be destroyed. Come on genius, documentation please.
Tell me how this erasing history movement is different than the Muslims destroying ancient Buddhas statues. or destroying the Pyramids in Egypt... Stupid is...
What specifically did the Southern states want to govern themselves? It's not THAT hard to find an answer.
All the other questions you have, you would be better to ask the people doing the damage. I dont support it.
- - - Updated - - -
+1
A slight technicality that the liberal public school system always leaves out in their effort to re-write history and make it PC for them.
The issue of slavery entered later but was not a leading cause of the war.
Articles of secession, the historical facts, completely disagree with your opinion.
Fred Pillot
06-12-2020, 06:05
People say these generals were traitors to their country. No, these generals fought for their country. The CSA.
holdover
06-12-2020, 07:28
If the war was fought over slavery, why did the Federal government , by the act of the president wait till 9-22-1862 to create Emancipation Proclamation and wait till 1-1-1863 to make it effective, and why did it only relate to the slaves in the 10 states in rebellion and not the slaves in the north?
clintonhater
06-12-2020, 07:34
also: Robert E. Lee and Slavery- at History Net- Elizeabeth Brown Pryor.
also.........
Quite a few historians agree that Lee was solidly pro slavery and his personal and professional actions were reprehensible- now and even then.
Lincoln asked a man whose personal and professional actions were reprehensible to lead the Union Army? Do you believe Lincoln could be such a fool? Lee's character, not his military accomplishments (he had none in 1861) was the factor that motivated both the USA & CSA to seek his leadership. Why would you take the word of a left-wing pseudo-historian who hated the South over almost every other historian. You can find "proof" on the internet that the CIA was behind the Twin Towers attack; do you believe that also?
- - - Updated - - -
The statues were controversial when erected.
Who says so? Those who still hated the South?
Roadkingtrax
06-12-2020, 07:49
Who says so? Those who still hated the South?
Not my opinion, and no one else from today either.
The soldiers and peers of those that served with and under those men, that were put up in the late 1800s. I've combed through newspapers and publications, contemporary to the statue placements. You would think the celebration of these people would be a controversial topic only in this century, but it's always been a bit peculiar .
States rights? How about the free states' rights to their own laws, removed from Federal interference on behalf of the slave states? The war was precipitated by slavery. And the abolitionists were on the right side of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
It has been written, persuasively, that Lee was overly-aggressive on the attack, and wasted good men. Maybe he should have taken that US commission.
I can't follow all this history but I liked Reds post. No,seriously. Forthright, before all the scholars pile on.
Vern Humphrey
06-13-2020, 08:20
Lincoln asked a man whose personal and professional actions were reprehensible to lead the Union Army? Do you believe Lincoln could be such a fool? Lee's character, not his military accomplishments (he had none in 1861) was the factor that motivated both the USA & CSA to seek his leadership. Why would you take the word of a left-wing pseudo-historian who hated the South over almost every other historian. You can find "proof" on the internet that the CIA was behind the Twin Towers attack; do you believe that also?
- - - Updated - - -
Who says so? Those who still hated the South?
Pardon me? Lee was the man who led the US Army across the Pedregal (the lava beds) during the war with Mexico. Grant was the man who broke down the gates of Mexico City by hauling an M1841 Mountain Howitzer up into a church belfry and bringing them under fire.
They both had stellar war records -- in Lee's case, Winfield Scott the Commanding General of the US Army, recommended him for command of the Army of the Potomac.
Gun Smoke
06-13-2020, 08:47
Pardon me? Lee was the man who led the US Army across the Pedregal (the lava beds) during the war with Mexico. Grant was the man who broke down the gates of Mexico City by hauling an M1841 Mountain Howitzer up into a church belfry and bringing them under fire.
They both had stellar war records -- in Lee's case, Winfield Scott the Commanding General of the US Army, recommended him for command of the Army of the Potomac.
They sure don't make them like that anymore.
Vern Humphrey
06-13-2020, 09:41
They sure don't make them like that anymore.
Nor do they.
For his two Invasions of the North (Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns) Lee took elaborate precautions to prevent looting and atrocities against civilians. Contrast that with Sherman's March Through Georgia.
Nor do they.
For his two Invasions of the North (Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns) Lee took elaborate precautions to prevent looting and atrocities against civilians. Contrast that with Sherman's March Through Georgia.
C'mon a real historian doesn't cherry pick facts for misleading comparisons. A politician does though. Which are you???
C'mon a real historian doesn't cherry pick facts for misleading comparisons. A politician does though. Which are you???
he actually has be both, correct?
he actually has be both, correct?
Let's see if he owns up to the misleading element of that claim.
clintonhater
06-13-2020, 02:40
C'mon a real historian doesn't cherry pick facts for misleading comparisons.
Like all the self-righteous pols cherry picking the facts about Floyd they want to talk about?
Like all the self-righteous pols cherry picking the facts about Floyd they want to talk about?
If you want to equate Vernon with a self-righteous politician, you'll get no argument here!
Lee's northern incursions were done to bring the war to the North, in a way that raised the perceived cost to the North, but without actions by his army that would inspire a desire for retribution. Remember the South wanted a military stalemate that led to a political recognition of secession.
By November 1864 the North was moving to end the rebellion in the field. The drive on Savannah was meant to break the economic capacity of the South to field armies. Sherman was 80 years ahead of his time.
Vern Humphrey
06-13-2020, 04:04
For those who have questions, I recommend Edwin Coddington's "The Gettysburg Campaign," which remains not only the seminal account of the Battle of Gettysburg but also a model of Civil War and historical writing. Coddington devotes considerable space to describing Lee's measures to prevent looting and atrocities. Confederate officers were appointed to negotiate with civic leaders to commandeer things the Army needed (which is in accord with the Laws of Land Warfare) but looting by individual soldiers was prohibited. No Confederate soldier could enter a private home without the owner's permission. If they took anything from stores, they had to pay -- albeit with Confederate money or city "shinplasters." On entering a town, the Provost Marshall posted guards, seized all alcohol and poured it out, and took other measures for the protection of civilians.
For those who have questions, I recommend Edwin Coddington's "The Gettysburg Campaign," which remains not only the seminal account of the Battle of Gettysburg but also a model of Civil War and historical writing. Coddington devotes considerable space to describing Lee's measures to prevent looting and atrocities. Confederate officers were appointed to negotiate with civic leaders to commandeer things the Army needed (which is in accord with the Laws of Land Warfare) but looting by individual soldiers was prohibited. No Confederate soldier could enter a private home without the owner's permission. If they took anything from stores, they had to pay -- albeit with Confederate money or city "shinplasters." On entering a town, the Provost Marshall posted guards, seized all alcohol and poured it out, and took other measures for the protection of civilians.
Was the army as polite with their slaves as with northern civilians? Also you still needed me to put this in context for you.
clintonhater
06-13-2020, 04:46
Was the army as polite with their slaves as with northern civilians?
As polite as Northern industrialists were with their wage-slave workers, esp. the Irish.
S.A. Boggs
06-13-2020, 05:00
As polite as Northern industrialists were with their wage-slave workers, esp. the Irish.
Boy that's the truth!!! Indentured servants for @ least 7 yers.
Sam
Gun Smoke
06-13-2020, 05:46
Boy that's the truth!!! Indentured servants for @ least 7 yers.
Sam
And yet the Irish along with all the other millions of descendants of slaves of all nationalities are NOT crying for reparations. Just the blacks.
Vern Humphrey
06-14-2020, 09:00
And yet the Irish along with all the other millions of descendants of slaves of all nationalities are NOT crying for reparations. Just the blacks.
No, we earned our citizenship. We built this country.
Roadkingtrax
06-14-2020, 09:02
No, we earned our citizenship. We built this country.
*Some of it.
As polite as Northern industrialists were with their wage-slave workers, esp. the Irish.
We'll keep that in mind for the next time someone talks about the impeccable manners of northern industrialists. The topic at hand was the genteel manner in which Lee's army came north. Their interest in not pissing off the locals has already been explained. The South was hoping for a draw and political settlement.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.