Robert E Lee

[bdm]

This makes me sick what is going on

[SUPERX-M1]

Apparently, Lee was a rabid and vicious supporter of slavery-not a nice guy

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.

[lyman]

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]

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]

The Myth of the Kindly General Lee- The Atlantic -Adam Server-6-04-17

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.

[lyman]

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?

[k arga]

the war was fought over taxes and tariffs and to keep the south from selling their goods to England.

[RED]

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]

"States Rights" to what Red?

The statues were controversial when erected. Some things dont change, and that's unfortunate.

[free1954]

the first 13th amendment https://www.gilderlehrman.org/histor...20the%20nation.

[RED]

"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]

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]

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]

People say these generals were traitors to their country. No, these generals fought for their country. The CSA.

[holdover]

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?