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.
Are you upset about the statues coming down because it is part of your heritage.
Are you racists? If not then why don't you come out against white supremacists etc and defend your heritage.
Same as saying for Muslims to come out against hatred and violence.
I think I understand that moderate muslims and moderate traditional Southerners are two groups that should speak out for moderation?
Yeah, and wandering around C-D tonight there is a lot of that side of the conversation going. But that does not show well on the 11:00 news, so look for screaming people with a mess of other agendas showing up on TV with their other banners, tearing down statues and destroying things just for fun and screen time.
Slavery existed in ALL original 13 colonies, but during the American Revolution northern states started abolishing the evil institution as it wasn't congruent with the Declaration of Independence.
Also, most New England states like Rhode Island granted blacks the right to vote BEFORE the US Civil War -- more than a century before the Federal government FORCED southern states to give blacks the right to vote. In fact, South Carolina specifically mentions in their Declaration of Secession that one of the reasons why they are seceding is due to some New England states allowing blacks the right to vote.
There is a history of racism everywhere on this globe, but it is insane to think that it is pronounced as much in Rhode Island as it is in the South. According to the Tuskegee Institute, all six New England States combined lynched ZERO blacks from 1882 to 1968. Georgia ALONE lynched 492 blacks during that same time period. Let's be honest where the most pronounced racism against blacks happened - the Deep South. Sure, New England has blemishes too, but it isn't in the same ball park as the Deep South.
The only point that I was making is yes the North had Slaves, plenty of them. And the North yes, also imported Slaves, 1000's and 1000's of them.
Think of it like Stealing. If one guy Steals $1000 and the other guy Steals $10,000, they both Stole and they are both Crooks. That's the "only" point I was making. Too many on here were making the North sound "so innocent". They were not.
Slavery existed in ALL original 13 colonies, but during the American Revolution northern states started abolishing the evil institution as it wasn't congruent with the Declaration of Independence.
Also, most New England states like Rhode Island granted blacks the right to vote BEFORE the US Civil War -- more than a century before the Federal government FORCED southern states to give blacks the right to vote. In fact, South Carolina specifically mentions in their Declaration of Secession that one of the reasons why they are seceding is due to some New England states allowing blacks the right to vote.
There is a history of racism everywhere on this globe, but it is insane to think that it is pronounced as much in Rhode Island as it is in the South. According to the Tuskegee Institute, all six New England States combined lynched ZERO blacks from 1882 to 1968. Georgia ALONE lynched 492 blacks during that same time period. Let's be honest where the most pronounced racism against blacks happened - the Deep South. Sure, New England has blemishes too, but it isn't in the same ball park as the Deep South.
#1 Today's standards?!?!?! Are you telling me that an intelligent man like Robert E. Lee couldn't grasp the concept that it might be considered questionable to kidnap free blacks in the North and take them away from their families to sell them? You do realize that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850, the biggest political issue of its day, was opposed in large measure because it could potentially enable such kidnappings.
#2 Yes, life was hard back then, if you were a free black in Pennsylvania kidnapped away from your family by the "honorable" Robert E. Lee on his way to losing at Gettysburg.
#3 I am not a Democrat and even if I were, what difference does it make what the party did more than a century before I was born? I agree with both parties on some issues and have voted for more Republicans than Democrats in my life.
Two things - Lee the military tactician. He was brutal if needed, did heinous things, and this created significant misery for those in his path who opposed him. Sherman did the same in Georgia. Yes, it was brutal and yet, from a military standpoint, it was extremely effective. He did break the back of the Confederacy so to speak.
Lee the man and his personal morals. He, like so many contemporaries of his time genuinely believed blacks were genetically inferior and should be "trained" and "punished" like farm animals. Yes, it was a terrible view and unfortunately way too many had the same view back then - North and South. The Quakers, I think, were one of the few who never took that view. They truly believed all were equal under the eyes of God. Believe they were instrumental in the Underground Railroad. They really should have a more prominent place is our history classes. I digress.
I personally can never imagine a world where normal people thought like Lee but I know from reading history, it's an unfortunate truth. I believe there's even letters of Lee's where he actually talks about what a great Christian he is for taking care of and "training" blacks on discipline. Our past has some serious ugly in it and frankly, there weren't too many wholly innocent. He was representative of educated white men of his era.
The North, the Northern schools and Society have done such a great job of convincing just about everyone that is was "All about Slavery".
As mentioned, yes, Slavery was the biggest Issue, but it just wasn't that simple...
Quote:
Originally Posted by PullMyFinger
It was mostly money and control. By many accounts the South was going to free the slaves on their own. They knew they would never be accepted as an independent nation until they did.
No the South's own Declarations of Secession and recorded secession debates clearly indicate that they are seceding to preserve the Institution of Slavery. The North fought to preserve the Union.
Southern leaders had ZERO plans to free slaves at the time of secession.
Lincoln wanted to "stop the expansion of slavery," which meant no new slave states out west or anywhere. The North already dominated the House of Representatives, which means they also dominated the Electoral College...and with a growing nation (in terms of states) would come to dominate the Senate if only free states were added as Lincoln had planned. Eventually, the North could impose its will on the South on any slave issue including emancipation through control of the national government.
I do/did not agree with the tenets of the disgusting Vietnam War which claimed over 50,000 American lives for nothing, but I do celebrate the bravery of the men and women who did their duty as soldiers and fought in that war. I also support any statues or war memorials which honor their bravery. I do not see the statue of Robert E. Lee as being any different. It was erected to honor a General who served as he was ordered.
Robert E. Lee had the option to stay in the U.S. Army as its commander.
Unlike fellow Virginian George Thomas, considered by some as the finest commander in the Civil War, Lee chose to fight for the Confederacy, well aware that the Confederacy's chief tenet was the defense of slavery, an institution Lee claimed to oppose.
With Lee in command of the Union Army, it's possible that the war would have been short and the Confederate states largely spared the resulting devastation.
It's shameful to compare Lee with Vietnam veterans who actually did serve their nation as ordered and in the belief that they were fighting for the liberty of the South Vietnamese.
How would you feel about a statue of Ho Chi Minh being installed next to the Vietnam War Memorial in DC? Minh was a brave soldier that was just fighting for his country against the US government much like Robert E Lee, right?
Nice try. No, the statue of Ho Chi Minh is in Saigon where it belongs. Just as the statue of Robert E. Lee is in Virginia where it belongs. You'll be happy to know that there is also a similar statue of Lee & Traveler at the Gettysburg Memorial in Pennsylvania which stands 41 feet high.
From the Gettysburg website:
"The Virginia monument was the first of the Confederate State monuments at Gettysburg. It was dedicated on June 8, 1917 and unveiled by Miss Virginia Carter, a niece of Robert E Lee.
It is the largest of the Confederate monuments on the Gettysburg battlefield, a fitting tribute for the state that provided the largest contingent to the Army of Northern Virginia, its commander, and its name. Lee’s figure, topping the monument astride his favorite horse, Traveler, was created by sculptor Frederick Sievers from photographs and life masks of the general. He even went to Lexington, Virginia to study Traveler’s skeleton, preserved at Washington and Lee University."
Guess the snowflakes will be heading to Gettysburg next.
Last edited by JustMike77; 08-14-2017 at 09:46 PM..
Robert E. Lee had the option to stay in the U.S. Army as its commander.
Unlike fellow Virginian George Thomas, considered by some as the finest commander in the Civil War, Lee chose to fight for the Confederacy, well aware that the Confederacy's chief tenet was the defense of slavery, an institution Lee claimed to oppose.
With Lee in command of the Union Army, it's possible that the war would have been short and the Confederate states largely spared the resulting devastation.
It's shameful to compare Lee with Vietnam veterans who actually did serve their nation as ordered and in the belief that they were fighting for the liberty of the South Vietnamese.
Additionally, Lee claimed that he turned down the chance to lead the Union Army, because he could draw his sword against the people of his own state - Virginia.
What was Lee's first job in the field? To attack Virginians, people of his home state, out west in the mountains (what would become West Virginia) that didn't want to secede and force their loyalty to the Confederacy or annihilate them. He willingly attacked Virginians that were loyal to the Union.
So much for the claim that he sided with the Confederates due to not wanting to raise his sword against people in his home state.
Very cute. No, the statue of Ho Chi Minh is in Saigon where it belongs. Just as the statue of Robert E. Lee is in Virginia where it belongs. You'll be happy to know that there is also a similar statue of Lee & Traveler at the Gettysburg Memorial in Pennsylvania which stands 41 feet high.
From the Gettysburg website:
"The Virginia monument was the first of the Confederate State monuments at Gettysburg. It was dedicated on June 8, 1917 and unveiled by Miss Virginia Carter, a niece of Robert E Lee.
It is the largest of the Confederate monuments on the Gettysburg battlefield, a fitting tribute for the state that provided the largest contingent to the Army of Northern Virginia, its commander, and its name. Lee’s figure, topping the monument astride his favorite horse, Traveler, was created by sculptor Frederick Sievers from photographs and life masks of the general. He even went to Lexington, Virginia to study Traveler’s skeleton, preserved at Washington and Lee University."
Guess the snowflakes will be heading to Gettysburg next.
Look if the majority of a city says the Confederacy no longer represents our values - why shouldn't they take down the statue?
You make statues as symbols of what you value. Values can change over time. If it no longer represents the majority in that city - why not take it down if the majority wills it? Is that not simply local democracy in action?
I don't think you can compare Gettysburg - technically a national park, which is essentially a battlefield museum to what should be a local issue for a city like Charlottesville and the city's property. Statues are a big deal - they display symbolically what we value.
Now your talking. When I say it wasn't "All about Slavery", I don't mean just from the South's point of view, but also the North's. If it was truly "All about Slavery" then both sides would equally have the same exact ambitions for the same exact cause, but of course, opposite beliefs of it. I agree the "North fought to preserve the Union". Lincoln had fears of losing Power and Money, as mentioned earlier, either Nationally, Globally or both. But I just so happen to disagree on how he handled it.
Why many Southerners find Robert E. Lee statues offensive
<<But even if one conceded Lee’s military prowess, he would still be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black. Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase slavery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one. That ideology is known as the Lost Cause, and as historian David Blight writes, it provided a “foundation on which Southerners built the Jim Crow system....”
When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to "lay it on well." Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”>>
And after the conclusion of the Civil War:
<<Publicly, Lee argued against the enfranchisement of blacks, and raged against Republican efforts to enforce racial equality on the South. Lee told Congress that blacks lacked the intellectual capacity of whites and “could not vote intelligently,” and that granting them suffrage would “excite unfriendly feelings between the two races.” Lee explained that “the negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power.” To the extent that Lee believed in reconciliation, it was between white people, and only on the precondition that black people would be denied political power and therefore the ability to shape their own fate.>>
Read this article and then tell us again that Robert E. Lee was an innocent defender of the institution of slavery.
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.
Why many Southerners find Robert E. Lee statues offensive
