U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-26-2008, 12:16 AM
 
269 posts, read 931,380 times
Reputation: 109

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasReb View Post
This is a VERY astute and honest observation IMHO.

Of course, being a Texan (and Southerner), I would apply the observation in reverse, but the main point is RIGHT ON the mark! There ARE some things that cannot be understood nor translated across regional lines. It can range from humor to slang to history and heritage and much in between. That old saying "Its a (fill in the blank) thing. You wouldn't understand" didn't just spring into existence for no reason!

For some reason though, today, many people want to deny the existence of NATURAL diversity among people and regions. And the paradox is that many of those who do are the very same ones who are always championing "diversity" in the superficial and artificial sense!

The United States was never even intended to be one single monolithic entity. It was settled by different peoples in different regions, and a lot of times animosities existed back to the "Old Countries". Factors ranging from old feuds to climate, to say nothing of unique histories and culture, made for differences. IMHO, that fact is something that seems to have been largely forgotten or misunderstood. We ARE all Americans, to be sure...but when it comes right down to it, the original idea of Americans banding together to fight an outside enemy or became a nation at all, was NOT because anyone wanted to morph into a faceless mass...but to protect the right to BE different amongst ourselves. Nothing wrong with that at all! It is TRUE diversity!

AMEN!!! When I lived in Washington D.C. there was an area that was inhabited by both Pakistani and Indian. Okay, so they do not like each other, they move half way around the globe and then become neighbors again? Trust me the grocery shopping was an all out war between the two groups. They had a fued there and brought it here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-26-2008, 03:08 AM
 
Location: Road Warrior
2,015 posts, read 5,006,831 times
Reputation: 798
A whole can of worms right? There is a difference between the midwest mind you that some places are very industrial, Chicago, Minneapolis, Detroit, yes? All worthy of BIG city feel and then there are place like Kansas very rural, very very rural! I can't really generalize that whole region, I would say the midwest minus those large cities are Flat and slower paced, that is about it. Note also places like Kansas votes Republican and places like Wisconsin votes Democrat.

I can't generalize the South either, as there are regions in the South today, mind you we are very mobile today! with Maryland, D.C., Virginia that is redefined as the "mid-atlantic" and then there's Atlanta definetly the biggest city in the South where the saying goes "no one is from Atlanta originally" so how would you generalize places like Atlanta? I would say if I had to generalize it I would say It's characterized by the "Bible-belt", warm-humid weather that's about it.

Regarding a comment about the Confederate flag, to dispell some myths sure the Civil War was fought on slavery but it was also fought about something more called "State Rights" and the flag doesn't symbolize slavery as the greatest Southern general Robert E Lee was not even a slave owner himself and the first colonies to own slaves were in the North. The Confederate flag was a symbol of a new region, the United States were based on states with each jurisidiction and each state had the right to secede, every state was itself a nation and you can read the declaration of independence where it says if a government becomes destructive (starts taking property away from you) you should secede or destroy it. A very noble idea, though impossible today. Our country works because it has State Rights and to a less extent but still does today because as the topic of the thread begins "difference between midwest and south" yes we do have different regions and different regions cater to different economies and demographics and they are represented better by their state government than one huge (dangerous) federal government.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2008, 12:06 PM
 
64 posts, read 161,595 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08 View Post
the greatest Southern general Robert E Lee was not even a slave owner himself
Bull. That is all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2008, 12:27 PM
 
Location: Road Warrior
2,015 posts, read 5,006,831 times
Reputation: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by kite eating tree View Post
Bull. That is all.
The truth is General Lee "did not purchase" slaves and "did not own during the Civil war". He did inherit slaves through his father-in-law which he did not intend to keep, he did take 2 years off the Army to work on the plantation to repay his father-in-laws debt but it was not by choice but inheritance, Lee had better things to do being a professional soldier and eventually freed them 10 years PRIOR to the Civil War.

All the slaves stayed on his father-in-laws plantation until the end of the Civil War by choice (Read Autobiography of Reverend William Mack Lee, one of the slaves Lee inherited). General Lee thought that slavery was immoral and was initially against secession (Read letter from Lee to his wife 12/27/1856) and NOTE: hired by Lincoln to command Union forces, he turned it down to serve his own State of Virginia which seceded, thus becoming a Confederate General. He was thus fighting for his state and state rights not slavery.

If you want to talk about slave owners Lincoln's "very anti-slavery" Secratary of State William Henry Seward even owned slaves himself during the Civil War. Lincoln's family prior to the Civil War owned slaves as well, Mary Lincoln's brother fought for the confederacy. Lincoln as President of the United States once said "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that (8/22/1862)" He was thus not a President of the war against slavery but rather a president of the war fighting for reunification of the union.

Last edited by RangerDuke08; 04-26-2008 at 01:17 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2008, 12:53 PM
 
64 posts, read 161,595 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08 View Post
Heck if you want to talk about slave owners Lincoln's "anti-slavery" Secratary of State William Henry Seward even owned slaves himself during the Civil War. Bull it is.
What argument are you trying to start exactly? All I'm saying is that Robert E. Lee owned slaves. Period. Don't like it? fine, but he did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2008, 01:23 PM
 
Location: Road Warrior
2,015 posts, read 5,006,831 times
Reputation: 798
Quote:
Originally Posted by kite eating tree View Post
What argument are you trying to start exactly? All I'm saying is that Robert E. Lee owned slaves. Period. Don't like it? fine, but he did.
Not starting an arguement but facts, Robert E Lee "inherited" slaves and did not purchase them himself, freeing them 10 years prior to the war, yes slavery is wrong either way but yes there was a difference back then when you "inherited" and when you went out and "shopped for and bought" slaves at a slave market. If he kept the slaves, his intention would be evident that he wanted to be a slaveowner and Lee was a professional soldier not a plantation owner, he was nonetheless superintendent of West Point Academy at one time, located in the North. My initial response was on State Rights and regional differences which this thread was started upon and not about slavery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2008, 01:50 PM
 
64 posts, read 161,595 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08 View Post
The truth is General Lee "did not purchase" slaves and "did not own during the Civil war". He did inherit slaves through his father-in-law which he did not intend to keep, he did take 2 years off the Army to work on the plantation to repay his father-in-laws debt but it was not by choice but inheritance, Lee had better things to do being a professional soldier and eventually freed them 10 years PRIOR to the Civil War.
Robert E. Lee freed his slaves in 1862. I think you misread your history. He not only had slaves previous to inheriting his father-in-laws slaves (just short of some 200) upon that man's death in 1857, but they were to be freed after no more than five years according to his will and Lee kept them for the entire time. So one can question his intention of freeing them ever. Not that I am, I'm not concerned with that.

But you said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08
the greatest Southern general Robert E Lee was not even a slave owner himself
You either misspoke or lied. You pick. Either way you are mistaken. And I could care less how you try to justify or minimize or distort the nature of his slave holding, but he owned slaves. I'm not arguing about the rightness or wrongness of it or who did or did not.

This is very simple:

Robert E. Lee owned slaves. Okay? Can you admit that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08
All the slaves stayed on his father-in-laws plantation until the end of the Civil War by choice (Read Autobiography of Reverend William Mack Lee, one of the slaves Lee inherited). General Lee thought that slavery was immoral and was initially against secession (Read letter from Lee to his wife 12/27/1856) and NOTE: hired by Lincoln to command Union forces, he turned it down to serve his own State of Virginia which seceded, thus becoming a Confederate General. He was thus fighting for his state and state rights not slavery.
He didn't think it was immoral enough to not participate in it.

The rest of the stuff you said is all superfluous information that has absolutely nothing to do with what I took issue with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08
If you want to talk about slave owners Lincoln's "very anti-slavery" Secratary of State William Henry Seward even owned slaves himself during the Civil War. Lincoln's family prior to the Civil War owned slaves as well, Mary Lincoln's brother fought for the confederacy. Lincoln as President of the United States once said "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that (8/22/1862)" He was thus not a President of the war against slavery but rather a president of the war fighting for reunification of the union.
You can argue this stuff into the ground for all I care. My only point then and now is that Robert E. Lee owned slaves. Get off your soap box, take your fingers out of your ears and listen to me, please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2008, 01:54 PM
 
64 posts, read 161,595 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08 View Post
My initial response was on State Rights and regional differences which this thread was started upon and not about slavery.
I know. But you said something that was flat out false. I took issue with that and only that.

Robert E. Lee owned slaves. PERIOD. You said he didn't, that is not true. That is all I was concerned with. It is annoying when people rewrite history. So please don't. That is all I'm asking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2008, 02:09 PM
 
Location: Road Warrior
2,015 posts, read 5,006,831 times
Reputation: 798
This thread wasn't even about slavery, you were first to bring it to that issue. Yes there is a difference, did Robert E Lee "purchase" those slave? Even if you said he "owned" slaves was it his intention? According to Reverend William Mack, one of his slave as an autobiography meaning a first count source "I was raised by one of the greatest men in the world. There was never one born of a woman greater than Gen. Robert E. Lee, according to my judgment. All of his servants were set free ten years before the war, but all remained on the plantation until after the surrender." And if Lee didn't think it was immoral enough, which by freeing the slaves, did Lincoln think it was immoral enough to free the slaves? If merely not denouncing and associated to slavery (Mary Lincoln was a slave owner) and thus by association are you saying Lincoln is a slaveholder as well? They did not live in 2008 as we do, both great men Lincoln and Lee lived in a generation where they were honorable enough to free slaves and unlike "slaveowners" of those days, they were not men who bought hundreds of slaves, believed in inherent slavery and owned them for profit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2008, 02:33 PM
 
64 posts, read 161,595 times
Reputation: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08 View Post
This thread wasn't even about slavery, you were first to bring it to that issue.
I was responding to You. Seriously. I wasn't making an issue out of slavery, I was making an issue out of this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08
the greatest Southern general Robert E Lee was not even a slave owner himself
I don't know why you are trying to make this into something more than it is.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top