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.
Sorry I edited that before you replied. But I'll certainly respond. To be honest, I was hoping that I could get you to chime in.
LOL Well, now I have. So go for it. And to reply, I think it is you who are making a big to-do about nothing.
I personally will agree that yes, Robert E. Lee "owned" slaves (so did Gen. Grant, thru his wife). He did inherit them however, and his historical commentary on the subject leave little doubt that he was deeply troubled by it.
Still, though, he "owned" slaves. Satisfied?
Now then, here is where your own approach to intelligently discussing history comes into play. If I recall correctly, in one of your original posts, you said:
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.
Yes, one CAN question his intentions of freeing them ever. Just as one CAN question whether or not Lincoln would have shipped all blacks in the country to Liberia if it had been feasible to do so (certainly he wanted to). Point is, that the use of the phrase "one can question" in the manner you did, is just a rhetorical ploy. Hell, one "can question" whether or not men ever landed on the moon, and actually make it appear that something so silly make sense and be actually be worthy of debate otherwise.
Bottom line of mine is really a question to you. WHAT is your main point?
LOL Well, now I have. So go for it. And to reply, I think it is you who are making a big to-do about nothing.
I personally will agree that yes, Robert E. Lee "owned" slaves (so did Gen. Grant, thru his wife). He did inherit them however, and his historical commentary on the subject leave little doubt that he was deeply troubled by it.
Still, though, he "owned" slaves. Satisfied?
Now then, here is where your own approach to intelligently discussing history comes into play. If I recall correctly, in one of your original posts, you said:
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.
Yes, one CAN question his intentions of freeing them ever. Just as one CAN question whether or not Lincoln would have shipped all blacks in the country to Liberia if it had been feasible to do so (certainly he wanted to). Point is, that the use of the phrase "one can question" in the manner you did, is just a rhetorical ploy. Hell, one "can question" whether or not men ever landed on the moon, and actually make it appear that something so silly make sense and be actually be worthy of debate otherwise.
Bottom line of mine is really a question to you. WHAT is your main point?
I'm not debating anything. That's my point. Robert E. Lee owned slaves. RangerDuke08 said he didn't. That is false. That is all.
I'm not making a big to-do about nothing. Other people are making a bit to-do about a simple correction I made to someones dishonest post.
I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything else. None of this other stuff was ever an issue with me. It seemed very important for people to presume my intentions and create arguments that didn't exist.
The part you put in italics was my attempt at pointing out how RangerDuke08 was mincing words and I thought it was silly. The part you took specific issue with ("one can question") wasn't meant to be my personal interpretation, rather it was intended to show that spinning these things is what got us into this conversation and how that was the problem to begin.
And, yes, I wanted you to chime in because I thought you would be fair about this and take what I said at face value without reading into it like everyone else did. I then figured that maybe, just maybe they would listen to you. You did that, for the most part. Thank You. I mean that.
Just got to thinking of this (cos it is the thing that people like me just get to thinking of .
From my own personal experience, Oklahoma seems to be the state where aspects of the South meets the same of the Midwest. And I have noticed there seem to be noteable differences in speech and manner (not in a bad way, I hasten to add...just different) once one gets north of Oklahoma City and east of Tulsa. South and east is more Southern, while north and west are more midwest! Even demographic surveys of regional preference back this up.
Oh well, just a rambling observation here...and IF there IS any point to it at all, it might be that Oklahoma can be a good "case study" of the original thread topic!
Thank you in turn for a nice and courteous reply. I see what you are saying, and appreciate the way you put it, even if I quibble with parts of it. Here is my own (reply):
Quote:
Originally Posted by kite eating tree
I'm not debating anything. That's my point. Robert E. Lee owned slaves. RangerDuke08 said he didn't. That is false. That is all.
That was established in a strict sense, but I don't think RangerDuke ever denied that fact. Unless I missed something, what he DID do (as I see it) was simply to make some relevant historical distinctions in ownership by inheritance as opposed to actively buying and owning slaves.
Quote:
I'm not making a big to-do about nothing. Other people are making a bit to-do about a simple correction I made to someones dishonest post.
The thing is, again, I really don't see it as "dishonest" It acknowledged facts of history and I can see nothing truly dishonest about it.
Quote:
I'm not trying to prove or disprove anything else. None of this other stuff was ever an issue with me. It seemed very important for people to presume my intentions and create arguments that didn't exist.
Then perhaps it was a misunderstanding of intentions and replies on the part of ALL parties (including me) involved? Can we agree on that, even if still committed to basic premises earlier expressed? If so? We can let this offshoot of the topic as in "hard feelngs" die a natural death! Will that work?
Then perhaps it was a misunderstanding of intentions and replies on the part of ALL parties (including me) involved? Can we agree on that, even if still committed to basic premises earlier expressed? If so? We can let this offshoot of the topic as in "hard feelngs" die a natural death! Will that work?
Location: A right angle directly south of Sac and east of the bay area
120 posts, read 385,713 times
Reputation: 44
Id like to digress on the whole south could have won the war thing. Ive got generations of illinois, maryland, and ohio boys in my family even though Im a west coaster... and I must say, our northern boys gave you guys quite a run for your money, god bless the irish i would like to add.
Having lived in the Midwest my whole life and having relatives from the South, in my opinion I can say that the South is also politically much more conservative than the Midwest. While the rural parts of the Midwest (especially the Southern Midwest) can be considered conservative, it is not conservative to the point where change is intolerable, at least from the people I know from here.
Ok so the flag was not flown over Armies of the Confederacy? It was not used as a symbol for them at all? I was mistaken, I did not know it was about country life, about working hard.. ( I thought you all had slaves to do that ), about country music, ( are we talking Squeal like a pig country music ), good friends, family and all that.
So again why do all these hate groups gravitate to it so readily? I mean its a wholesome symbol, its about family hard work and all that right.. why do they use it? You would think they could find a better flag than that?
What Heritage are we honoring?
I know this is old, but use some wisdom if you have it. The KKK uses the cross, yet the cross is a symbol of sacrifice, unconditional love, and the victory of Christ over sin. Yet there's hundreds of cults that pervert and corrupt the meaning of the Cross. Does that mean the true meaning is lost; or the people who truely understand it's meaning shouldn't use it?
I'm a "Yankee" (from Rhode Island). I apprecaite the true meaning of the confederate flag. Why? Because i've done the research and understand the difference between the real history of our country, and the propagized version.
Having lived in the Midwest my whole life and having relatives from the South, in my opinion I can say that the South is also politically much more conservative than the Midwest. While the rural parts of the Midwest (especially the Southern Midwest) can be considered conservative, it is not conservative to the point where change is intolerable, at least from the people I know from here.
I've been in the Boston area most of my life, but lived a few years in central Ohio. Interesting point about Midwestern conservatism. To me the Midwest seems down-to-earth and . . . pragmatic. Pragmatic enough to know that it's possible to make progress, if you're willing to try something new, and accept it if it works, and also pragmatic enough not to jump excitedly at every new idea someone can dream up, rather to incorporate new innovations as they are tested and proven worthwhile.
I was born and raised in rural southern Missouri, and most my kin live in rural Georgia and we visit alot there are some differences like the hospitality and people down south have better manners, and are bolder, but we eat the same things, have a pretty close accent and are all god fearin people. As far as bein Yankees, thats insulting.
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.
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.
Transition state...?
.
