Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > History
 [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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-11-2009, 12:19 PM
 
900 posts, read 670,622 times
Reputation: 299

Advertisements

Lee attempted to ensure his 'continuance' of happiness and prosperity by doing his best to kill as many of his soldiers as possible.

Amazing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-11-2009, 12:38 PM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,268,967 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
Yes, Lee fought to protect his state. Which was rebelling to protect slavery. Regardless of Lee's personal motives what he was doing in effect was fighting to protect slavery.
Again I'd point to the fact that Virginia did not secede with this motive in mind. They seceded after Lincoln's call for volunteers to "Suppress the Rebellion", some of which obviously would have had to have come from Virginia...

So as a slaveholding state, Virginia allied itself with the Confederacy, but you're really reaching now.....

"Lee sided with Virginia because it seceded, Virginia seceded because it wasn't going to fight against the South, nor aid in any fight with the Confederacy and didn't agree with Lincoln's assertation that this was a "rebellion" that needed to be supressed, the Confederacy (pre-Virginia) seceded to protect slavery, THEREFORE Lee was fighting for slavery...."

I mean the American Revolution was fought over a bunch of wealthy people that were tired of British taxes. Does that mean that, in effect, Daniel Morgan (for example) fought the British because of taxes?? (A small amount of research will net you the answer that taxes had nothing to do with why Morgan sided with the Continentals as I'm sure you know).

I think personal motive is VERY key if you're going to claim that Lee, "Had an odd way of showing he didn't hold with slavery", you need to examine why then he chose to fight on the side he did. If you are unwilling to examine that, or unwilling to accept the truth you find, then I don't think it's fair to make a statement like this...

I think the only fair thing that could be said of Lee in this regard is, "Obviously he cared more for his home than he did about ending slavery.", which I don't really find abhorrent, do you?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 12:45 PM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,268,967 times
Reputation: 3229
Anyway Irishtom to quote you, "I'm tired of this haggling"... If you wish to argue that Lee technically fought to preserve slavery then whatever. History has very sparse examples of men fighting against their homeland on principal, so if you want to judge Lee for not being a shining exception to that rule of thumb, be my guest...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-11-2009, 01:19 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,692,829 times
Reputation: 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhett_Butler View Post
Anyway Irishtom to quote you, "I'm tired of this haggling"... If you wish to argue that Lee technically fought to preserve slavery then whatever. History has very sparse examples of men fighting against their homeland on principal, so if you want to judge Lee for not being a shining exception to that rule of thumb, be my guest...

OK.

I'm with ole George Thomas on this one. Speaking of whom was there a better pure tactician than Thomas during the war?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 06:43 AM
 
6,565 posts, read 14,268,967 times
Reputation: 3229
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishtom29 View Post
OK.

I'm with ole George Thomas on this one. Speaking of whom was there a better pure tactician than Thomas during the war?
Is there a good book on him? Other than Chickamauga I don't know much about him and would love to read up on that (add it to my "to read" stack which is ever-growing.. ).

Oh, and what was Thomas' take on what we're discussing?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 07:58 AM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,692,829 times
Reputation: 10454
Best book on Thomas is "Education in Violence" by Francis McKinney. The book was out of print for awhile and used copies went for big bucks but a few years ago the Abraham Lincoln Bookshop in Chicago brought the book out again.

Thomas didn't talk about politics and his wife destroyed his papers after he died. He may have stayed with the Union out of principles or out of habit. It seems that Thomas had pretty loose ties to Virginia and as a professional soldier he spent very little time there as an adult, in the 25 years preceding the war he spent only 18 months in Virginia. And his wife was a New Yorker.

I think Thomas simply identified with the Army more than he did with his home state. Winfield Scott, another Virginian who stayed loyal to the Union probably had a larger view and identified with The United States more than either his home state or the Army.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2009, 08:21 AM
 
216 posts, read 342,427 times
Reputation: 118
Yes it was all about money Abe tossed the constitution out the window .The North got to write the history books .Did you know there were black and Jewish regiments fighting for the South .Research why Abe freed the slaves hint he thought they would turn on the South . Research what Sherman did to the South after the war .One reason the South lost was because they had to much Southern honor git it their way fifty like William Quantrell and Bill Anderson the South would of wrote the history . For a few go to The Southern American web site you may learn something . Texas now wants out of the empire hope the rest of the South wakes up too
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2009, 10:32 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,421,916 times
Reputation: 10164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sawmill Jim View Post
Yes it was all about money Abe tossed the constitution out the window .The North got to write the history books .Did you know there were black and Jewish regiments fighting for the South .Research why Abe freed the slaves hint he thought they would turn on the South . Research what Sherman did to the South after the war .One reason the South lost was because they had to much Southern honor git it their way fifty like William Quantrell and Bill Anderson the South would of wrote the history . For a few go to The Southern American web site you may learn something . Texas now wants out of the empire hope the rest of the South wakes up too
Really. Fascinating. Please point me to a reputable history of the South's Jewish Regiments. I have never heard of these and would love to learn more.

The rest of this is just neo-Confederate blather. One thing that shocks me about Civil War study is the degree to which education on both sides has been propagandized. What you are describing makes it quite clear that the North did not get to write all the history books, and that in the South, history books were written that told people exactly what they wanted to hear--be it true or false. That has a lot in common with the history I was taught growing up, which also contained a lot of errors.

What bothers me most about it all is how much of the neo-Confederate stuff arose in direct reply to the civil rights movement.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2009, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
17,531 posts, read 24,640,793 times
Reputation: 9980
Lester Maddox and the States Rights Party were the last time this stupidity raised it's head. States Rights usually mean that some states want to deprive someone of their rights. The NeoConfederacy sometimes needs to be reminded that Secession is Treason and Secessionist are Traitors
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2009, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Aloverton
6,560 posts, read 14,421,916 times
Reputation: 10164
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
Lester Maddox and the States Rights Party were the last time this stupidity raised it's head. States Rights usually mean that some states want to deprive someone of their rights. The NeoConfederacy sometimes needs to be reminded that Secession is Treason and Secessionist are Traitors
In which case George Washington, Tom Paine, John Adams, John Hancock and all were great traitors (from the British standpoint). They seceded from their homeland and took arms against it, or actively aided those who did so. And yes, I do dare compare them to the Confederate leaders, and if you toss away regional biases and nationalism, the matter comes into focus. In fact, you could argue they were greater traitors to the British than the Confederate leaders were to the United States. The British had been doing everything they could think of to placate their colonists and remained mystified as to why there was such unrest south of Canada; the colonists simply would not be placated. Heck, the whole Boston Tea Party was cooked up and instigated by rich smugglers whose high prices the British were about to undercut. The British could not understand why the colonists would not want cheaper tea from a legal source. The answer, of course, is that wealthy interests manipulating simple and honest minds in the name of nationalism is a deeply American tradition. (Of course, we have completely overcome it today.)

In the case of United States vs. Confederate States, the Northern states were doing as little as they could to placate the Southern states. And in my opinion rightly so, because the Southern states were eager that there be more slave states, and that their own slavery be preserved--they fought tooth and nail about this politically. To me, fewer slave states is always better, as it is a step toward no slaves at all. Doesn't mean the North was noble or simon-pure, or that there weren't other issues. It does mean that it's pretty hard to place any moral issue above the direct and sustained hereditary bondage of human beings, and that whoever is doing the most of this is wrong, wrong, wrong--something many Southerners, most of whom owned no slaves, also felt, and something to which the rest of the world was also awakening. It was one reason so many Southerners deserted or went AWOL from the Confederate military, and even served in Union units.

This search for some sort of absolute moral ascendancy always fails. These are governments we are talking about. Governments just about always have shameful hypocrisies inherent in even their noblest-seeming actions. Confederate leaders were not traitors to the Confederacy, any more than colonial leaders were traitors to the United States. It is all a matter of where you stand to observe. Most observers stand in a crater to observe, and then insist that all the world is walls of dirt.
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 > General Forums > History
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top