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.
Actually, Lee didn't even own any slaves, he was a military officer who didn't join the Confederate cause UNTIL the Union invaded his OWN state.
1. Lee own about 1/2 dozen slaves personally and controlled about 200 that were from the Curtis estate that he was executor of. He kept those slaves from 1857 until December 1862.
2. Lee accepted command of the Virginia state forces on April 23, 1861
1. Lee own about 1/2 dozen slaves personally and controlled about 200 that were from the Curtis estate that he was executor of. He kept those slaves from 1857 until December 1862.
2. Lee accepted command of the Virginia state forces on April 23, 1861
3, First Battle of Bull Run July 21, 1861
Hey RL,
Nice to see you again (even if posting under a new name). What's the matter...had your rear-end Southern fried and handed to you too many times under the old one or what?
I don't have unlimitted time to engage in an exchange until the weekend, but had to greet you here! And note that your tired old arguments still don't hold water.
Your personal opinion of Lee (and fawning adoration of Meigs) matters not in the least. The record is clear on what kind of man he was and that he personally considered slavery little more than a necessary evil for the time-being (until some feasible notion of eventual emancipation could be realized).
In any event, referring to one of your earlier posts (which has been oft repeated under your alter-ego moniker), Lee resigned his commission in the United States Army on April 20, 1861, and did not take command of Virginia forces until several days later.
You keep speaking of the oath he supposedly "violated." Really a stretch. Lee carried out his oath during the time in service....definitely to the satisfaction of his superiors (such as Gen. Scott. who chose the Union side). He was no longer bound to that oath once his resignation was accepted...which it was. Too:
"Codes of military ethics" have nothing to do with the obligatoriness of General Lee's oath as an officer of the army. They are as irrelevant as would be a citation from the Declaration of Independence on a matter of constitutional interpretation. No one disputes that General Lee in 1861 was an officer of the United States army, and as such had taken the usual oaths. It is alike undisputed that he was a native of Virginia, claimed citizenship and residence in this State. Virginia, the State of his nativity and citizenship, seceded from the union of the States, and in her. withdrawal claimed the allegiance and loyalty of her sons. The basal question, lying at the root of this discussion and determining it absolutely, is, had a State in 1861 the right to secede? If the answer be in the affirmative, then the allegiance of her citizens, ipso facto, ceased to be due, if it had ever belonged to the Union or Federal government.
Anyway, I gotta get back to work for now. Just wanted to say hi, Rl..and I am sure we will rejoin later (or over the weekend). Have a nice day, ya heah?
1. Lee own about 1/2 dozen slaves personally and controlled about 200 that were from the Curtis estate that he was executor of. He kept those slaves from 1857 until December 1862.
2. Lee accepted command of the Virginia state forces on April 23, 1861
3, First Battle of Bull Run July 21, 1861
So? Custis' will stated that they were to be released in December of 1862. But the week they were to manumitted the Battle of Cheat Mountain commenced and LEE COULD NOT BE THERE! So it got delayed only at the hands of more major and legal events at hand.
Put it this way, "Mary".... I know denial when I see it.
I dont care if you all are fans of the South's Lost Cause and its flags or other symbols that represent it.
I DO care quite a bit that none of you will allow others to talk freely and frankly about the ugly side of the South, which to millions of people around the world is represented by the darn Confederate flag, like it or not.
Delusiane, you keep on with that those of us who see the Confederate Flag in way which represents pride in our region, history, ancestors, and yes, motivations, are in some kind of state of denial?
I may be dense, but I am not sure where you are going with all this. Was the South perfect, hell no. But was anywhere else in the world?
I realize -- and appreciate -- that you seem to be fair-minded in many ways, which is what prompts the question. I don't see anyone denying that slavery had a role in the War. Nor that some groups use the banner for ugly purposes. Or that Jim Crow laws existed. What more can be said? Again, maybe I am reading it all wrong, but you seem to just want us to all sit around and pick scabs.
The reason that many of us don't sit around and engage in a wallow of historical guilt is, one, we don't feel any, and two, we have a right to throw stones back when attacked by those who are all too often unaware of the pile of dirt (past and present) in their own living rooms.
In the realm of history at least, identify the saints before condeming the sinners..and use the same general standards.
By the way, you are correct that many of the secession ordinances mentioned slavery. Who said otherwise? This is not exactly something hidden. However, most also (Texas and Georgia for instance) listed other causes. And the Upper South states (i.e. those seceding after Ft. Sumter), didn't say anything about slavery at all.
So? Custis' will stated that they were to be released in December of 1862. But the week they were to manumitted the Battle of Cheat Mountain commenced and LEE COULD NOT BE THERE! So it got delayed only at the hands of more major and legal events at hand.
This is what the will said:
"And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, and my estates that are required to pay the said legacies, being clear of debts, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease."
Executors are required to probate a will as quickly as possible. Lee chose to delay the emancipation for personal financial gain.
Delusiane, you keep on with that those of us who see the Confederate Flag in way which represents pride in our region, history, ancestors, and yes, motivations, are in some kind of state of denial?
I may be dense, but I am not sure where you are going with all this. Was the South perfect, hell no. But was anywhere else in the world?
I realize -- and appreciate -- that you seem to be fair-minded in many ways, which is what prompts the question. I don't see anyone denying that slavery had a role in the War. Nor that some groups use the banner for ugly purposes. Or that Jim Crow laws existed. What more can be said? Again, maybe I am reading it all wrong, but you seem to just want us to all sit around and pick scabs.
The reason that many of us don't sit around and engage in a wallow of historical guilt is, one, we don't feel any, and two, we have a right to throw stones back when attacked by those who are all too often unaware of the pile of dirt (past and present) in their own living rooms.
In the realm of history at least, identify the saints before condeming the sinners..and use the same general standards.
By the way, you are correct that many of the secession ordinances mentioned slavery. Who said otherwise? This is not exactly something hidden. However, most also (Texas and Georgia for instance) listed other causes. And the Upper South states (i.e. those seceding after Ft. Sumter), didn't say anything about slavery at all.
Gosh, I really need to get back to work. See ya!
When you return, please see posts from yesterday and a few days ago regarding the romantic Lost Cause.
Appreciate that at least one of you acknowledged the secession declarations, though even you cant bring yourself to get closer to the truth than to write that they "mentioned" slavery
Did you used to post at wikipedia under another name?
"And upon the legacies to my four granddaughters being paid, and my estates that are required to pay the said legacies, being clear of debts, then I give freedom to my slaves, the said slaves to be emancipated by my executors in such manner as to my executors may seem most expedient and proper, the said emancipation to be accomplished in not exceeding five years from the time of my decease."
Executors are required to probate a will as quickly as possible. Lee chose to delay the emancipation for personal financial gain.
Or because he was defending his land from the Yankee invaders...
When you return, please see posts from yesterday and a few days ago regarding the romantic Lost Cause.
Appreciate that at least one of you acknowledged the secession declarations, though even you cant bring yourself to get closer to the truth than to write that they "mentioned" slavery
Did you used to post at wikipedia under another name?
Its really simple yes slavery was part of Civil War however, it was not the only reason nor was it the biggest reason! The only thing people are questioning is how big of a role slavery played in the war.
Without this Civil War, slavery would of died out on its own! It would have taken about 40 more years, but it would have died out! Just like slavery died out in the north. Yes, the north had slave states! President Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at all costs and that was the biggest reason for the north fighting the war! The South wanted less Federal Government and more states rights! The victor writes the history books!
I can see why the south wanted a divorce from the Federal Government! Just look at the Federal Government today! The U.S. Government could care less about the citizens of this nation! You are extremely misguided if you really think the government has our best interest at hand! The government has its own agenda! Just another fact that only 10% of the men fighting in this war owned slaves! 90% of the men fighting would not fight with so much passion for something they did not even own if this war was mainly about slavery! That should be an easy concept for you to grasp
Gideon said, I tend to disagree. Numbers do not lie. I am glad the tide is turning and we are seeing that more people are opposed to seeing such a symbol of hate and racism flurish. What I believe is going on, is that the normal posters whom support it and started this thread have come to and end. Now we are seeing the tide turn as now others continue to come in; it is not the same old run of the mill votes we saw initially and with the same group of people whom supported. The spectrum has broadened.
No Gideon - what is "going on" is, there are those who are unhappy with the "trend" in the numbers, such as yourself, who are getting additional screenames, and then these screenames, who never post - they just merely "vote", in an attempt to falsly tip the numbers in the direction they want.
A significant number of these "false" screenames have been identified.
Its really simple yes slavery was part of Civil War however, it was not the only reason nor was it the biggest reason! The only thing people are questioning is how big of a role slavery played in the war.
Without this Civil War, slavery would of died out on its own! It would have taken about 40 more years, but it would have died out! Just like slavery died out in the north. Yes, the north had slave states! President Lincoln wanted to preserve the Union at all costs and that was the biggest reason for the north fighting the war! The South wanted less Federal Government and more states rights! The victor writes the history books!
I can see why the south wanted a divorce from the Federal Government! Just look at the Federal Government today! The U.S. Government could care less about the citizens of this nation! You are extremely misguided if you really think the government has our best interest at hand! The government has its own agenda! Just another fact that only 10% of the men fighting in this war owned slaves! 90% of the men fighting would not fight with so much passion for something they did not even own if this war was mainly about slavery! That should be an easy concept for you to grasp
Do you just not read replies, or what? I gave you links to the two states' secession documents in which it's made abundantly clear that the ONLY concern they had was slavery. Plus A. Stephen's Cornerstone speech. Also replied to you re 90%/10%.
Is it some sort of "Southern Pride" thing not to listen or discuss? Holy mackerel.
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.
read a book----Civil war was not over slavery!
