Robert E. Lee

[Mountain Man]

...the leaders of the confederacy fought a war against their own country in order to continue the practice, a war that cost the lives of 620,000 americans, and R.E. Lee resigned from the U.S. Army in order to lead that insurrection.

I wonder if you appreciate the irony that you're denouncing the actions of Democrats?

[Leonhard]

Racism in the US is a long and complex story, weaving in and around some very good men and very brilliant thinkers, who in many ways tried to justify it, or when they couldn't to excuse it, or when they couldn't excuse it to at least look the other way... People aren't consistent. Robert E. Lee both spoke out against it, yet also permitted his troops to enslave free black men. He supported vocally the liberation of slaves, which his wife worked for, yet also argued that freed slaves shouldn't have the right to vote.

He's not a monster, but he's not saint either. Just an a normal Southern gentleman, with views that don't really distinguish him from his time.

He grew up in and around a culture of Southern intellectuals that saw slavery as an institution from God. It was seen as necessary (like divorce) because of the sin in men. Attempts to abolish slavery was seen as an attempt to undo something God had ordained, with horrific and inevitable results on civic morality to follow. Many of the Confederate thinkers agreed that what was called slavery in the US was vile, and against the will of God. The kind of slavery that existed, deferred from the Biblical idea of slavery, which any apologist ever commenting on indentured servitude in the Bible, certainly knows. In particular the freedom and leeway given to slave owners to abuse, mentally, physically and sexually their slaves, to deny them education, in fact to punish them for getting educated! Most good men could see that this was wrong, on both sides. Anyone who think its was only the Northerners who had a conscience, haven't read a bit of what the Southerners think of it.

So Southerners could agree that slavery, what was practiced, was bad. Without actually being against it. I've barely dug into it and its a complicated topic. By and large though, the institution of slavery was expected to exist in society, by these thinkers, Robert E. Lee included, for many generations to come. Thankfully it ended much sooner than they anticipated.

Robert E. Lee, as long as he lived, freed no slave. He didn't support any of the rights discussed here. He didn't criticize in writing, or in any public speeches, bad slave owners directly. By name. At least not any I've been able to find. He didn't emancipate a single slave he owned, until literally forced to do so, and didn't give up a slave until he couldn't legally own them anymore.

He specifically argued against suffrage for emancipated slaves.

Source: http://www.historynet.com/encounter-robert-e-lee-faces-congress.htm

“My own opinion is that, at this time, they cannot vote intelligently,” Lee said, “and that giving them the right of suffrage would open the door to a great deal of demagogism.”

“Do you not think,” Blow asked, “that Virginia would be better off if the colored population were to go to Alabama, Louisiana or some other Southern state?”

“I think it would be better for Virginia if she could get rid of them,” Lee replied. “That is no new opinion with me. I have always thought so, and always been in favor of emancipation—gradual emancipation.”

© Copyright Original Source

In saying this Robert E. Lee was no icon of racism. He was just an ordinary southern gentleman who didn't think too highly of black slaves. They were a lower class. Lower and more unfit than his own noble class. He hoped, like many Southern thinkers did, that eventually, by virtue granted by God's grace, they'd slowly climb up and out of their slavery, into a lower working class.

Its hard to imagine anyone thinking like that, but it was common, and Robert E. Lee, like other historical figures remains a man of his time, every bit as much a product of it as we are of our own. Its easy for us to judge him. We weren't there, and grow up at a safe distance of more than a century. Yet at the same time, denying that he did in fact hold racist thoughts, defended slavery, kept slaves, allowed the enslavement of free blacks by his own men and argued against suffrage for emancipated black slaves, can't be ignored. He certainly did.

In the end I don't think he's the hero the South tries to make him out to be. He picked up a gun to fight in a futile war fought for arguably bad reasons. There are many opinions about him, and I don't see what Southerners see in him. He was a general, he lead a few victories, and got crushed both by mistakes, but also by the fact that the South fought a needless war they had no chance of winning.

But I can't deny he was a gentleman.

That he was a racist is not important to me. Find me a white man from back then who wasn't a racist, and didn't really want to rock the status quo. I just see a nobleman, but an ordinary one. He blends into the crowd of Confederate thinkers to me, his reasons barely distinguishable and his only accomplishments is that he is has become a focal point of everything modern day southern Americans see as noble about that era, in the process ignoring or white-washing a lot about him and perhaps glorifying too much a few of his accomplishments. I don't think he deserves glorification or vilification. He was just a complex man of his era. Better than most perhaps, but hardly dissimilar.

I don't want to see his statue vandalized anymore than I want to see the danish statues of various mediocre kings, who pretty much gave people away to be the servants of barons. Farmers who did not own the farm they farmed, but all the wealth was taken upwards and they lived the life of slaves. Danes hardly beat an eye at it.

When were these bronze statues people seem to invest with so much significance made?

[Sparko]

Racism in the US is a long and complex story, weaving in and around some very good men and very brilliant thinkers, who in many ways tried to justify it, or when they couldn't to excuse it, or when they couldn't excuse it to at least look the other way... People aren't consistent. Robert E. Lee both spoke out against it, yet also permitted his troops to enslave free black men. He supported vocally the liberation of slaves, which his wife worked for, yet also argued that freed slaves shouldn't have the right to vote.

He's not a monster, but he's not saint either. Just an a normal Southern gentleman, with views that don't really distinguish him from his time.

He grew up in and around a culture of Southern intellectuals that saw slavery as an institution from God. It was seen as necessary (like divorce) because of the sin in men. Attempts to abolish slavery was seen as an attempt to undo something God had ordained, with horrific and inevitable results on civic morality to follow. Many of the Confederate thinkers agreed that what was called slavery in the US was vile, and against the will of God. The kind of slavery that existed, deferred from the Biblical idea of slavery, which any apologist ever commenting on indentured servitude in the Bible, certainly knows. In particular the freedom and leeway given to slave owners to abuse, mentally, physically and sexually their slaves, to deny them education, in fact to punish them for getting educated! Most good men could see that this was wrong, on both sides. Anyone who think its was only the Northerners who had a conscience, haven't read a bit of what the Southerners think of it.

So Southerners could agree that slavery, what was practiced, was bad. Without actually being against it.

Kinda like Abortion huh?

I've barely dug into it and its a complicated topic. By and large though, the institution of slavery was expected to exist in society, by these thinkers, Robert E. Lee included, for many generations to come. Thankfully it ended much sooner than they anticipated.

Robert E. Lee, as long as he lived, freed no slave. He didn't support any of the rights discussed here. He didn't criticize in writing, or in any public speeches, bad slave owners directly. By name. At least not any I've been able to find. He didn't emancipate a single slave he owned, until literally forced to do so, and didn't give up a slave until he couldn't legally own them anymore.

I just posted an excerpt from a book by one of his freed slaves that said he freed all of his slaves 10 years before the war even began.

[Leonhard]

Kinda like Abortion huh?

I'm against abortion. Not sure what point you make. The defense of abortion, by making it out to be a necessary institution for society... which is what democrats are doing? Trying to draw an analogy?

Abortion and enslavement of free men is vile, contemptible and offensive to God.

I just posted an excerpt from a book by one of his freed slaves that said he freed all of his slaves 10 years before the war even began.

The slaves actually almost revolted when Robert E. Lee kept them in slavery. They thought they were to be emancipated when Lee's father-in-law died. If that's the plantation we're talking about. Three fled trying to make it for the north, they were captured and personally punished by Lee. While there's disagreements on the accounts, most historians consider it probable he had them beat.

Again, not uncommon for his time.

When the plantation was sold, they were finally emancipated I think, but we're on shaky grounds. The evidence doesn't point to a "kind slave owner". Robert E. Lee, if he was any improvement over a regular slave owner, again, wasn't that different. Better than most plantation owners, perhaps, but of the same stock.

I'll need to check up on the details though.

[Sparko]

I'm against abortion. Not sure what point you make. The defense of abortion, by making it out to be a necessary institution for society... which is what democrats are doing? Trying to draw an analogy?

Abortion and enslavement of free men is vile, contemptible and offensive to God.

well you say it is an abomination but you put up with it. Same as many people in the south did with slavery.

The slaves actually almost revolted when Robert E. Lee kept them in slavery. They thought they were to be emancipated when Lee's father-in-law died. If that's the plantation we're talking about. Three fled trying to make it for the north, they were captured and personally punished by Lee. While there's disagreements on the accounts, most historians consider it probable he had them beat.

Again, not uncommon for his time.

When the plantation was sold, they were finally emancipated I think, but we're on shaky grounds. The evidence doesn't point to a "kind slave owner". Robert E. Lee, if he was any improvement over a regular slave owner, again, wasn't that different. Better than most plantation owners, perhaps, but of the same stock.

I'll need to check up on the details though.

I think the words of one of his actual slaves carries a lot more water than what modern people say about him 150 years later.

[Leonhard]

well you say it is an abomination but you put up with it. Same as many people in the south did with slavery.

You're not making sense Sparko.

I pray to end it. Argue against, in public and in private. When there's a protest I can participate in, I participate. I haven't had an abortion, paid for an abortion, voted for abortion and if I lived in the US, I would have swallowed my dislike of Trump and voted for him because my conscience wouldn't let me vote Hillary on this issue.

If you want to draw a parallel, its not there. Just because I'm a liberal, and agree with US Democrats on a lot of things, more so than I do with US Republicans, doesn't mean I support one of the issues they tend to support. I certainly don't.

Sparko, Lee, did more than merely put up with slavery. He owned slaves, personally, and allowed his men to enslave free black men in the cause of the war.

Robert E. Lee was handed a plantation, but instead of immediately selling it and freeing the slaves (which the slaves thought would happen), he kept it running to make it earn a profit before selling it. When slaves escaped he had them captured, brought back and punished. Nothing about this is false. Glossing it over looks like white washing to me.

I think the words of one of his actual slaves carries a lot more water than what modern people say about him 150 years later.

I have said nothing that wasn't said in his own time, also by witnesses. You can look it up. Nothing the slave writes dismisses what I said. The plantation was sold in 1862, he got it in 1857. Everything about his punishments of the escapees is right there, and he was certainly offended that some slaves he owned (and certainly considered his property) had tried to run, because they had considered themselves 'as free as me'.

But as I've said, Robert E. Lee is complex. He was definitely against making educating slaves forbidden. He considered it the white man's burden to keep blacks in slavery, so that through the institution of slavery they could gradually, slowly, be built up into civilized people.

[shunyadragon]

George Washington was a slave owner. As well as most of the early Presidents. In fact Lee's wife was a Custis, an adoptive decendant of Washington, and they inherited their slaves FROM Washington's Mount Vernon estate.

The difference between Washington and Lee is Washington did not lead an army for the Confederate States of America with the purpose to preserve the institution of slavery.

Robert E Lee had a choice he could lead the Union army, or his devotion to the State of Virginia, which seceded from the Union to join the Confederate States of America. He chose Virginia, which supported the institution of Slavery. This is why his estate was confiscated and made a Cemetery for the Union fallen in the war and future wars.

He was a great general and gentleman, but also a traitor to the United States of America.

[Starlight]

I pray to end it. Argue against, in public and in private. When there's a protest I can participate in, I participate. I haven't had an abortion, paid for an abortion, voted for abortion and if I lived in the US, I would have swallowed my dislike of Trump and voted for him because my conscience wouldn't let me vote Hillary on this issue.

Eh? The two main things that drive the abortion rate down are sex education and access to contraceptives. US conservatives keep cutting those things and so increase the rates of abortion.

[Darth Executor]

Eh? The two main things that drive the abortion rate down are sex education and access to contraceptives. US conservatives keep cutting those things and so increase the rates of abortion.

Liberal: Shoot this man or I will kill ten more.
Conservative: No.
Liberal: *kills ten people*
Liberal: Look at all the people you killed, Conservative.

[Mountain Man]

The difference between Washington and Lee is Washington did not lead an army for the Confederate States of America with the purpose to preserve the institution of slavery.

Robert E Lee had a choice he could lead the Union army, or his devotion to the State of Virginia, which seceded from the Union to join the Confederate States of America. He chose Virginia, which supported the institution of Slavery. This is why his estate was confiscated and made a Cemetery for the Union fallen in the war and future wars.

He was a great general and gentleman, but also a traitor to the United States of America.

Ask the Brits what they think of George Washington. Which version of history is right? The one that remembers certain people as heroes, or the one that remembers them as traitors to their country?

[Mountain Man]

Eh? The two main things that drive the abortion rate down are sex education and access to contraceptives. US conservatives keep cutting those things and so increase the rates of abortion.

Oh, is that why abortion rates in the US skyrocketed following Roe v. Wade?

[Terraceth]

George Washington was a slave owner. As well as most of the early Presidents.

That's true. However, Washington was one of most important individuals in founding the country (and more importantly, keeping it from collapsing) whereas Robert E. Lee was one of the most important individuals in trying to split apart the country.

In the end I don't think he's the hero the South tries to make him out to be. He picked up a gun to fight in a futile war fought for arguably bad reasons. There are many opinions about him, and I don't see what Southerners see in him. He was a general, he lead a few victories, and got crushed both by mistakes, but also by the fact that the South fought a needless war they had no chance of winning.

While I'll agree the reasons were bad, I wouldn't say it was futile. Victory was absolutely within the realm of possibility for the South, had a few things gone differently; for example, had the Confederate Army had not inadvertently left behind a copy of Special Order 191.

Ask the Brits what they think of George Washington. Which version of history is right? The one that remembers certain people as heroes, or the one that remembers them as traitors to their country?

Having done some research, the British don't remember George Washington as a traitor... they don't remember him much at all. Their feelings towards him are about what your typical American would feel about Robert Walpole: Indifference.

[Mountain Man]

Having done some research, the British don't remember George Washington as a traitor... they don't remember him much at all. Their feelings towards him are about what your typical American would feel about Robert Walpole: Indifference.

That's how people generally felt about the Civil War for many decades. This rabid anti-Confederacy nonsense is a fairly new development in modern America. Used to be we simply considered it a piece of our history that was worth remembering and even celebrating. It happened, and I don't see the point of tearing down every reminder of our past. Then again, I'm not an irrational liberal, so maybe I'll never understand.

[shunyadragon]

Ask the Brits what they think of George Washington. Which version of history is right? The one that remembers certain people as heroes, or the one that remembers them as traitors to their country?

I would not ask the British concerning the Revolution. Today I do not think the British would agree with you.

Waging a war of independence is very very different from a war of rebellion, treason, and separation because of the goal of preservation of the institution of slavery in Southern states. Changing the subject does not justify a cause of white supremacy, and a desire to glorify treason against the USA.

Again . . .

The difference between Washington and Lee is Washington did not lead an army for the Confederate States of America with the purpose to preserve the institution of slavery.

Robert E Lee had a choice he could lead the Union army, or his devotion to the State of Virginia, which seceded from the Union to join the Confederate States of America. He chose Virginia, which supported the institution of Slavery. This is why his estate was confiscated and made a Cemetery for the Union fallen in the war and future wars.

He was a great general and gentleman, but also a traitor to the United States of America.

[Raphael]

Waging a war of independence is very very different from a war of rebellion, treason, and separation because of the goal of preservation of the institution of slavery in Southern states. Changing the subject does not justify a cause of white supremacy, and a desire to glorify treason against the USA.

Had the South won their war, and ceded from the North then today we would refer to it as a war of independence.

The war against the British Empire was a war of rebellion, treason and separation from the Empire. the difference is the USA won that one.