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.
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.
Yes I feel your pain and thank you for the good debate as this topic has been brought up beforehand ... history is often written by the victors thus I am only here to dispell some myths myself. If you want to say Robert E Lee "owned" slaves you may do so but Lee once said something that his father-in-law left him a tainted image and that was true, after inheriting the slaves (which the will was not even in Lee's name but he was 1 of 4 legal executors) Lee being a responsible man also inherited Custis' debt and had to pay off the debt which he was able to, legally the slaves were freed in 1862 by the deed of manumission yes but at that time were they slave status or sevant status, Reverend Mack one of the slaves would account for that they were servant status and "freed 10 years prior to the war", in Lee's deed he left $360 a substantial amount of money for Mack to get an education, which Mack did, not exactly something an inherent belief of slavery by a slaveowner would ever do, as you know Blacks and Whites did not even gain an equal educational system until 100 year later, even if you include reconstruction where Blacks and Poor Whites were educated in the same schools, Lee was a supporter of this in reconstruction. And although Lee did inherit slaves by his grandmother prior to his father-in-law inheritance, there is absolutely no proof Lee was ever a man that went out and bought slaves. Yes he was associated with slaves and that is bad enough, but if you want to tell the story you must tell the whole story. Lee was no worse a man than Lincoln and we can agree to disagree but if I or you were in his shoes in his days, we would be associated with those incidents and image as well.
The only difference is that one is located in the southern region of the United States. i can imagine people from the South taking offense to that, but seriously, there is really not much of a difference.
I agree, didn't think their was a lot of difference ,except for the regions and whether and accents perhaps..I think the values are about the same..
Yes I feel your pain and thank you for the good debate as this topic has been brought up beforehand ... history is often written by the victors thus I am only here to dispell some myths myself. If you want to say Robert E Lee "owned" slaves you may do so but Lee once said something that his father-in-law left him a tainted image and that was true, after inheriting the slaves (which the will was not even in Lee's name but he was 1 of 4 legal executors) Lee being a responsible man also inherited Custis' debt and had to pay off the debt which he was able to, legally the slaves were freed in 1862 by the deed of manumission yes but at that time were they slave status or sevant status, Reverend Mack one of the slaves would account for that they were servant status and "freed 10 years prior to the war", in Lee's deed he left $360 a substantial amount of money for Mack to get an education, which Mack did, not exactly something an inherent belief of slavery by a slaveowner would ever do, as you know Blacks and Whites did not even gain an equal educational system until 100 year later, even if you include reconstruction where Blacks and Poor Whites were educated in the same schools, Lee was a supporter of this in reconstruction. And although Lee did inherit slaves by his grandmother prior to his father-in-law inheritance, there is absolutely no proof Lee was ever a man that went out and bought slaves. Yes he was associated with slaves and that is bad enough, but if you want to tell the story you must tell the whole story. Lee was no worse a man than Lincoln and we can agree to disagree but if I or you were in his shoes in his days, we would be associated with those incidents and image as well.
I'm not doing anything even remotely like you seem to think I'm doing.
hilarious that Robert E. Lee was brought up in this. I am a descendant of A.P. Hill who was basically the right hand man of Stonewall Jackson as well as being a key contributor to Robert E. Lee. The South had the best generals. The North only won because of their economic stability.
Weather/temperature might have something to do with the differences. In the south you are probably outdoors running into other people, more months of the year than many places in the midwest.
I can agree that if we agree to disagree then Nuf said.
I think that the argument you are trying to make is much larger in scope than what I am saying. I'm not judging Robert E. Lee, the South or the Confederacy. There is no need to get off on tangents about the Civil War, other people of the era, if their behavior was fine in context to the times or whatever. I really don't know how I can make this more clear.
Throughout this conversation it has been made painfully clear what I mean and how you think it is or is not applicable. Good.
There is nothing to agree to disagree on really, I seriously think that we are only tangentially having the same conversation. This thread was never meant to be derailed.
Have a good day. Okay?
Last edited by kite eating tree; 04-27-2008 at 09:13 AM..
hilarious that Robert E. Lee was brought up in this. I am a descendant of A.P. Hill who was basically the right hand man of Stonewall Jackson as well as being a key contributor to Robert E. Lee. The South had the best generals. The North only won because of their economic stability.
If I caused this thread to go here, then my bad. But I seriously don't understand what this has to do with anything that anyone was saying. /shrug.
Last edited by kite eating tree; 04-27-2008 at 09:14 AM..
I'm not sure why I was quoted here or what this has to do with anything I am saying.
Good lord, I was going to try and stay out of this one, but what exactly ARE you saying...or been saying? I might be extremely dense (and am sure I am) but I confess to not being sure...
Good lord, I was going to try and stay out of this one, but what exactly ARE you saying...or been saying? I might be extremely dense (and am sure I am) but I confess to not being sure...
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerDuke08
the greatest Southern general Robert E Lee was not even a slave owner himself
This is not true. That's it. I'm not saying anything else. I'm not qualifying that statement or asking anyone to justify it. I'm not Judging the man or the South or the Confederacy.
I'm not interested in having a debate about the Civil War or whatever. But, regardless as to how people may explain away Robert E. Lee owning slaves, the fact of the matter is that he did. That is all. Nothing more, nothing less.
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.
Good lord, I was going to try and stay out of this one, but what exactly ARE you saying...or been saying? I might be extremely dense (and am sure I am) but I confess to not being sure...
