Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[bendog]

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.

Slavery became illegal and therefore there was never anything taken away from 'legal' owners.

Keeping their lives instead of being hung for treason was the best deal they could of hoped for.

Ah, where does the federal govt derive a power to declare legal property no longer legal without compensating those losing the property?

 

[Ravi]

No it didn't. Jeesh, you really are a dope.

So the federal government stole the land?

Yeah, right.

No, it had an agreement with Iraq to occupy the land.

It appears most of the land was owned by the Iraqi government. There are a number of private residences within the borders. Some are palaces owned by wealthy Iraqi government officials who abandoned them during the war. Others are still occupied by the owners.

So let's use a more concrete example, the property where the U.S embassy in Paris is located:

Embassy of the United States Paris - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Chancery

The four-story chancery, housing the ambassador's office, faces the Avenue Gabriel and the gardens of the Champs-Élysées; it is beside the Hôtel de Crillon.[3] It was built in 1931, following the demolition of an existing structure.[5] Designed by Delano & Aldrich – an American architectural firm based in New York City, New York – along with French architect Victor Laloux, the building has a façade that conforms with other buildings on the Place de la Concorde, as required by French law.[5]


Talleyrand building
Hôtel de Talleyrand (circa 2007).

The so-called "Talleyrand building" at 2 rue Saint-Florentin formerly housed the American Embassy Consular Services, Public and Cultural Affairs offices, several other government agencies and the George C. Marshall Center.[6] Most of these offices were moved to the embassy proper.[6] Constructed in 1769 as a private residence, the property was acquired in 1812 by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, who owned it until his death in 1838.[7] It was then purchased by the banker James Mayer de Rothschild, whose family, owned it for over a century, until 1950, when it was acquired by the U.S. government.[7]


Ambassador's residence

Main article: Hôtel de Pontalba

The nearby property at 41 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, known as the Hôtel de Pontalba, was built by Louis Visconti for the New Orleans–born Baroness Micaela Almonester de Pontalba between 1842 and 1855.[8] Edmond James de Rothschild acquired the building in 1876.[8] His estate sold it in 1948 to the U.S. government, and today it is the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to France.[8]
​

These properties were obviously purchased by the federal government. If France severed diplomatic relations with the USA and told our embassy personnel to get the hell out, are you saying they wouldn't be obligated to go and that they could shoot any French personnel who tried to take possession of the premises?

Yes, they could choose to do that.

None of those places matter. Ft. Sumter was the property of the US federal government on American soil. All the forts built along the coastline were built with the aim of protecting the United States, and were authorized by the US Congress. South Carolina had no claim to the land. And it gave up its expectancy of being protected by the federal government when it decide to secede.

ROFL! yeah, right. None of the examples that show your claim to be wrong matter. Ft Sumter is a special case where none of the rules that apply elsewhere are applicable.

I already posted the proof that South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the land, so your insistence that it had no claim is entirely unsupported.

If SC in fact seceded, then it was a sovereign nation. You or one of your colleagues admitted that there are no permanent US bases in foreign countries.

You guys need to get your stories straight because you're kicking each other in the gonads.

Ft. Sumter wasn't a special case. All federal forts belonged to the federal government. In fact, they still do belong to the federal government.

 

[Ravi]

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.

Slavery became illegal and therefore there was never anything taken away from 'legal' owners.

Keeping their lives instead of being hung for treason was the best deal they could of hoped for.

Ah, where does the federal govt derive a power to declare legal property no longer legal without compensating those losing the property?

People weren't property after the civil war.

 

[bripat9643]

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.

Slavery became illegal and therefore there was never anything taken away from 'legal' owners.

Keeping their lives instead of being hung for treason was the best deal they could of hoped for.

Candycorn is the only one participating in this thread who posts arguments dumber than yours.

If you owned a farm and the government made it illegal for you to farm your land, are you actually going to maintain that would not constitute a takings according to the 5th Amendment?

Also, no one other than Lincoln was guilty of treason, so there was no legal justification for hanging anyone in the confederacy. If the federal government had tried to prosecute anyone for that it would have lost.

 

[bendog]

True...so it would have been interesting to see the Confederacy.....IF they had not been stupid and started a war by firing on a Federal Installation.

IF secession is legal, then Ft Sumter was the territory of a foreign sovereign state that had every legal and moral right to kick out the trespassers residing therein.

You just contradicted yourself.

Secession wasn't legal, but that stealing thieving lying Yankee bustard Lincoln never paid us for the slaves, and that was unconstitutional.

How could secession be illegal if there was no law against it?

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.


"Lincoln’s argument was more convincing, but only up to a point. The South did in fact secede because it was unwilling to accept decisions by a majority in Congress. Moreover, the critical passage of the Constitution may be more important than the status of the states when independence was declared. Davis and Calhoun’s argument was more compelling under the Articles of Confederation, where there was no express waiver of withdrawal. The reference to the “perpetuity” of the Union in the Articles and such documents as the Northwest Ordinance does not necessarily mean each state is bound in perpetuity, but that the nation itself is so created. After the Constitution was ratified, a new government was formed by the consent of the states that clearly established a single national government. While, as Lincoln noted, the states possessed powers not expressly given to the federal government, the federal government had sole power over the defense of its territory and maintenance of the Union. Citizens under the Constitution were guaranteed free travel and interstate commerce. Therefore it is in conflict to suggest that citizens could find themselves separated from the country as a whole by a seceding state. Moreover, while neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution says states can not secede, they also do not guarantee states such a right nor refer to the states as sovereign entities. While Calhoun’s argument that Article V allows for changing the Constitution is attractive on some levels, Article V is designed to amend the Constitution, not the Union. A clearly better argument could be made for a duly enacted amendment to the Constitution that would allow secession. In such a case, Lincoln would clearly have been warring against the democratic process he claimed to defend. Neither side, in my view, had an overwhelming argument. Lincoln’s position was the one most likely to be upheld by an objective court of law. Faced with ambiguous founding and constitutional documents, the spirit of the language clearly supported the view that the original states formed a union and did not retain the sovereign authority to secede from that union. Of course, a rebellion is ultimately a contest of arms rather than arguments, and to the victor goes the argument. - See more at: "Secession

From the J. Turley article at the end of the link.

Utterly weak.

yes, you obscenity, you know more than Turley.

 

[Liminal]

You're wrong about a lot of things, but Robert E. Lee was still one of the greatest generals in history.

He was....but whether that was a good thing or not....his greatness prolonged a war and caused many more deaths.

No doubt about that, there were other great Confederate generals, Stonewall Jackson comes to mind, but Robert E Lee represented an implacable icon who embodied all the concepts of honor and duty, he was a man of principle. Things that are essentially meaningless to most people today, but were very real and tangible for people of the time.

There's no honor in raping your slaves.

As opposed to so many well known Union officers who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children with great enthusiasm after the Civil War. But I guess that kind of moral clarity is all relative.

There was no honor in that either but it seems odd that you've defined someone honorable that mistreated his slaves.

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

 

[bripat9643]

So the federal government stole the land?

Yeah, right.

No, it had an agreement with Iraq to occupy the land.

It appears most of the land was owned by the Iraqi government. There are a number of private residences within the borders. Some are palaces owned by wealthy Iraqi government officials who abandoned them during the war. Others are still occupied by the owners.

So let's use a more concrete example, the property where the U.S embassy in Paris is located:

Embassy of the United States Paris - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Chancery

The four-story chancery, housing the ambassador's office, faces the Avenue Gabriel and the gardens of the Champs-Élysées; it is beside the Hôtel de Crillon.[3] It was built in 1931, following the demolition of an existing structure.[5] Designed by Delano & Aldrich – an American architectural firm based in New York City, New York – along with French architect Victor Laloux, the building has a façade that conforms with other buildings on the Place de la Concorde, as required by French law.[5]


Talleyrand building
Hôtel de Talleyrand (circa 2007).

The so-called "Talleyrand building" at 2 rue Saint-Florentin formerly housed the American Embassy Consular Services, Public and Cultural Affairs offices, several other government agencies and the George C. Marshall Center.[6] Most of these offices were moved to the embassy proper.[6] Constructed in 1769 as a private residence, the property was acquired in 1812 by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, who owned it until his death in 1838.[7] It was then purchased by the banker James Mayer de Rothschild, whose family, owned it for over a century, until 1950, when it was acquired by the U.S. government.[7]


Ambassador's residence

Main article: Hôtel de Pontalba

The nearby property at 41 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, known as the Hôtel de Pontalba, was built by Louis Visconti for the New Orleans–born Baroness Micaela Almonester de Pontalba between 1842 and 1855.[8] Edmond James de Rothschild acquired the building in 1876.[8] His estate sold it in 1948 to the U.S. government, and today it is the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to France.[8]
​

These properties were obviously purchased by the federal government. If France severed diplomatic relations with the USA and told our embassy personnel to get the hell out, are you saying they wouldn't be obligated to go and that they could shoot any French personnel who tried to take possession of the premises?

Yes, they could choose to do that.

None of those places matter. Ft. Sumter was the property of the US federal government on American soil. All the forts built along the coastline were built with the aim of protecting the United States, and were authorized by the US Congress. South Carolina had no claim to the land. And it gave up its expectancy of being protected by the federal government when it decide to secede.

ROFL! yeah, right. None of the examples that show your claim to be wrong matter. Ft Sumter is a special case where none of the rules that apply elsewhere are applicable.

I already posted the proof that South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the land, so your insistence that it had no claim is entirely unsupported.

If SC in fact seceded, then it was a sovereign nation. You or one of your colleagues admitted that there are no permanent US bases in foreign countries.

You guys need to get your stories straight because you're kicking each other in the gonads.

Ft. Sumter wasn't a special case. All federal forts belonged to the federal government. In fact, they still do belong to the federal government.

I'm getting tired of pounding this into your thick skull. You just keep repeating the same exploded arguments over and over again. You're obviously too stupid to waste any more time on.

 

[bripat9643]

IF secession is legal, then Ft Sumter was the territory of a foreign sovereign state that had every legal and moral right to kick out the trespassers residing therein.

You just contradicted yourself.

Secession wasn't legal, but that stealing thieving lying Yankee bustard Lincoln never paid us for the slaves, and that was unconstitutional.

How could secession be illegal if there was no law against it?

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.


"Lincoln’s argument was more convincing, but only up to a point. The South did in fact secede because it was unwilling to accept decisions by a majority in Congress. Moreover, the critical passage of the Constitution may be more important than the status of the states when independence was declared. Davis and Calhoun’s argument was more compelling under the Articles of Confederation, where there was no express waiver of withdrawal. The reference to the “perpetuity” of the Union in the Articles and such documents as the Northwest Ordinance does not necessarily mean each state is bound in perpetuity, but that the nation itself is so created. After the Constitution was ratified, a new government was formed by the consent of the states that clearly established a single national government. While, as Lincoln noted, the states possessed powers not expressly given to the federal government, the federal government had sole power over the defense of its territory and maintenance of the Union. Citizens under the Constitution were guaranteed free travel and interstate commerce. Therefore it is in conflict to suggest that citizens could find themselves separated from the country as a whole by a seceding state. Moreover, while neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution says states can not secede, they also do not guarantee states such a right nor refer to the states as sovereign entities. While Calhoun’s argument that Article V allows for changing the Constitution is attractive on some levels, Article V is designed to amend the Constitution, not the Union. A clearly better argument could be made for a duly enacted amendment to the Constitution that would allow secession. In such a case, Lincoln would clearly have been warring against the democratic process he claimed to defend. Neither side, in my view, had an overwhelming argument. Lincoln’s position was the one most likely to be upheld by an objective court of law. Faced with ambiguous founding and constitutional documents, the spirit of the language clearly supported the view that the original states formed a union and did not retain the sovereign authority to secede from that union. Of course, a rebellion is ultimately a contest of arms rather than arguments, and to the victor goes the argument. - See more at: "Secession

From the J. Turley article at the end of the link.

Utterly weak.

yes, you obscenity, you know more than Turley.

Perhaps not, but I'm not a sleazy dishonest court historian.

 

[Ravi]

He was....but whether that was a good thing or not....his greatness prolonged a war and caused many more deaths.

No doubt about that, there were other great Confederate generals, Stonewall Jackson comes to mind, but Robert E Lee represented an implacable icon who embodied all the concepts of honor and duty, he was a man of principle. Things that are essentially meaningless to most people today, but were very real and tangible for people of the time.

There's no honor in raping your slaves.

As opposed to so many well known Union officers who slaughtered Indian men, women, and children with great enthusiasm after the Civil War. But I guess that kind of moral clarity is all relative.

There was no honor in that either but it seems odd that you've defined someone honorable that mistreated his slaves.

No that's you defining for me. Do you understand the difference?

Are you now agreeing that Lee wasn't an honorable man?

 

[Ravi]

No, it had an agreement with Iraq to occupy the land.

It appears most of the land was owned by the Iraqi government. There are a number of private residences within the borders. Some are palaces owned by wealthy Iraqi government officials who abandoned them during the war. Others are still occupied by the owners.

So let's use a more concrete example, the property where the U.S embassy in Paris is located:

Embassy of the United States Paris - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Chancery

The four-story chancery, housing the ambassador's office, faces the Avenue Gabriel and the gardens of the Champs-Élysées; it is beside the Hôtel de Crillon.[3] It was built in 1931, following the demolition of an existing structure.[5] Designed by Delano & Aldrich – an American architectural firm based in New York City, New York – along with French architect Victor Laloux, the building has a façade that conforms with other buildings on the Place de la Concorde, as required by French law.[5]


Talleyrand building
Hôtel de Talleyrand (circa 2007).

The so-called "Talleyrand building" at 2 rue Saint-Florentin formerly housed the American Embassy Consular Services, Public and Cultural Affairs offices, several other government agencies and the George C. Marshall Center.[6] Most of these offices were moved to the embassy proper.[6] Constructed in 1769 as a private residence, the property was acquired in 1812 by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, who owned it until his death in 1838.[7] It was then purchased by the banker James Mayer de Rothschild, whose family, owned it for over a century, until 1950, when it was acquired by the U.S. government.[7]


Ambassador's residence

Main article: Hôtel de Pontalba

The nearby property at 41 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, known as the Hôtel de Pontalba, was built by Louis Visconti for the New Orleans–born Baroness Micaela Almonester de Pontalba between 1842 and 1855.[8] Edmond James de Rothschild acquired the building in 1876.[8] His estate sold it in 1948 to the U.S. government, and today it is the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to France.[8]
​

These properties were obviously purchased by the federal government. If France severed diplomatic relations with the USA and told our embassy personnel to get the hell out, are you saying they wouldn't be obligated to go and that they could shoot any French personnel who tried to take possession of the premises?

Yes, they could choose to do that.

None of those places matter. Ft. Sumter was the property of the US federal government on American soil. All the forts built along the coastline were built with the aim of protecting the United States, and were authorized by the US Congress. South Carolina had no claim to the land. And it gave up its expectancy of being protected by the federal government when it decide to secede.

ROFL! yeah, right. None of the examples that show your claim to be wrong matter. Ft Sumter is a special case where none of the rules that apply elsewhere are applicable.

I already posted the proof that South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the land, so your insistence that it had no claim is entirely unsupported.

If SC in fact seceded, then it was a sovereign nation. You or one of your colleagues admitted that there are no permanent US bases in foreign countries.

You guys need to get your stories straight because you're kicking each other in the gonads.

Ft. Sumter wasn't a special case. All federal forts belonged to the federal government. In fact, they still do belong to the federal government.

I'm getting tired of pounding this into your thick skull. You just keep repeating the same exploded arguments over and over again. You're obviously too stupid to waste any more time on.

The next time you explode an argument will be the first time.

 

[bripat9643]

It can be argued either way, but in the end, the North won. But, as I noted, the bustards never paid for the property/slaves they took form their legal owners.

Slavery became illegal and therefore there was never anything taken away from 'legal' owners.

Keeping their lives instead of being hung for treason was the best deal they could of hoped for.

Ah, where does the federal govt derive a power to declare legal property no longer legal without compensating those losing the property?

People weren't property after the civil war.

You didn't answer his question.

big surprise there.

 

[bripat9643]

It appears most of the land was owned by the Iraqi government. There are a number of private residences within the borders. Some are palaces owned by wealthy Iraqi government officials who abandoned them during the war. Others are still occupied by the owners.

So let's use a more concrete example, the property where the U.S embassy in Paris is located:

Embassy of the United States Paris - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Chancery

The four-story chancery, housing the ambassador's office, faces the Avenue Gabriel and the gardens of the Champs-Élysées; it is beside the Hôtel de Crillon.[3] It was built in 1931, following the demolition of an existing structure.[5] Designed by Delano & Aldrich – an American architectural firm based in New York City, New York – along with French architect Victor Laloux, the building has a façade that conforms with other buildings on the Place de la Concorde, as required by French law.[5]


Talleyrand building
Hôtel de Talleyrand (circa 2007).

The so-called "Talleyrand building" at 2 rue Saint-Florentin formerly housed the American Embassy Consular Services, Public and Cultural Affairs offices, several other government agencies and the George C. Marshall Center.[6] Most of these offices were moved to the embassy proper.[6] Constructed in 1769 as a private residence, the property was acquired in 1812 by Charles Maurice de Talleyrand, who owned it until his death in 1838.[7] It was then purchased by the banker James Mayer de Rothschild, whose family, owned it for over a century, until 1950, when it was acquired by the U.S. government.[7]


Ambassador's residence

Main article: Hôtel de Pontalba

The nearby property at 41 rue du Faubourg Saint-Honoré, known as the Hôtel de Pontalba, was built by Louis Visconti for the New Orleans–born Baroness Micaela Almonester de Pontalba between 1842 and 1855.[8] Edmond James de Rothschild acquired the building in 1876.[8] His estate sold it in 1948 to the U.S. government, and today it is the residence of the U.S. Ambassador to France.[8]
​

These properties were obviously purchased by the federal government. If France severed diplomatic relations with the USA and told our embassy personnel to get the hell out, are you saying they wouldn't be obligated to go and that they could shoot any French personnel who tried to take possession of the premises?

Yes, they could choose to do that.

None of those places matter. Ft. Sumter was the property of the US federal government on American soil. All the forts built along the coastline were built with the aim of protecting the United States, and were authorized by the US Congress. South Carolina had no claim to the land. And it gave up its expectancy of being protected by the federal government when it decide to secede.

ROFL! yeah, right. None of the examples that show your claim to be wrong matter. Ft Sumter is a special case where none of the rules that apply elsewhere are applicable.

I already posted the proof that South Carolina retained legal jurisdiction over the land, so your insistence that it had no claim is entirely unsupported.

If SC in fact seceded, then it was a sovereign nation. You or one of your colleagues admitted that there are no permanent US bases in foreign countries.

You guys need to get your stories straight because you're kicking each other in the gonads.

Ft. Sumter wasn't a special case. All federal forts belonged to the federal government. In fact, they still do belong to the federal government.

I'm getting tired of pounding this into your thick skull. You just keep repeating the same exploded arguments over and over again. You're obviously too stupid to waste any more time on.

The next time you explode an argument will be the first time.

One thing is certain: you won't notice when I do.

 

[kaz]

Which shows that it was of no threat to the new Confederacy. Thanks for showing that. So the South fired on a harmless federal installation....why? To start a war they couldn't win. Pretty stupid....but not surprising.

It was in the entrance to Charleston Harbor, moron.

And? If there had been no war started by the South, that would have meant nothing.

We believe in fighting wars that are just, you believe in fighting wars you can win. Who's the hawk? LOL.

The Union fought a war that was just and they won. A twofer.

And the south fought a was to prove they were better than the slaves and lost.

You might want to read a history book or two before deciding to flout your ignorance.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

why don't you leave America?

Love liberal tolerance. Why don't you leave? China, North Korea are both still Communist.

I don't like communism, but you do hate America

You don't like communism, but you agree with every plank of the Communist party.

The claim that kaz hates America is pure idiocy.

go away

Mommy, he's picking on me!

go away. why? because you're not even good at trolling

 

[kaz]

It was in the entrance to Charleston Harbor, moron.

And? If there had been no war started by the South, that would have meant nothing.

We believe in fighting wars that are just, you believe in fighting wars you can win. Who's the hawk? LOL.

The Union fought a war that was just and they won. A twofer.

That war was in no way "just."

It's just because the Union was attacked first. Just like WWII was just for the Union because Japan attacked us first and Nazi Germany declared war on us first.

It's not like the Japanese or Germans because US troops were not in Japan or Germany. The south attacked an occupying force that was in it's territory they didn't want to be there.

 

[bendog]

Love liberal tolerance. Why don't you leave? China, North Korea are both still Communist.

I don't like communism, but you do hate America

You don't like communism, but you agree with every plank of the Communist party.

The claim that kaz hates America is pure idiocy.

go away

Mommy, he's picking on me!

go away. why? because you're not even good at trolling

Yeah, it's too bad. The legality and understanding the beliefs and motives of the parties to secession and opposition to secession are illustrative today.

 

[kaz]

how can you have the consent of the governed when the governed are forced to consent?

one word: elections

So you force them to stay in a union they don't want to be in, but call it consent when you outvote them? LOL, yeah, that's consent.

why don't you leave America?

Love liberal tolerance. Why don't you leave? China, North Korea are both still Communist.

I don't like communism, but you do hate America

No, but I hate what you are doing to America, and you are a communist.

 

[bodecea]

And? If there had been no war started by the South, that would have meant nothing.

We believe in fighting wars that are just, you believe in fighting wars you can win. Who's the hawk? LOL.

The Union fought a war that was just and they won. A twofer.

That war was in no way "just."

It's just because the Union was attacked first. Just like WWII was just for the Union because Japan attacked us first and Nazi Germany declared war on us first.

It's not like the Japanese or Germans because US troops were not in Japan or Germany. The south attacked an occupying force that was in it's territory they didn't want to be there.

Ft Sumter was Federal Property. And the South decided to start a fight believing that they could kick the Yankees' asses. Oopsie.

 

[bendog]

Love liberal tolerance. Why don't you leave? China, North Korea are both still Communist.

I don't like communism, but you do hate America

You don't like communism, but you agree with every plank of the Communist party.

The claim that kaz hates America is pure idiocy.

go away

Mommy, he's picking on me!

go away. why? because you're not even good at trolling

Perhaps, but the flip side is the constitution clearly gives the fed govt the sole power defense and regulating trade, which was the purpose of the fort, and states were not called sovereign in the const. So, while the island might be in SC, can a state have a legal power to bomb a federal defense installation?

 

[kaz]

Robert E. Lee.
His Brutality To His Slaves.

Let's hear from one of Lee's slaves on how benevolent he was::​

My name is Wesley Norris; I was born a slave on the plantation of George Parke Custis; after the death of Mr. Custis, Gen. Lee, who had been made executor of the estate, assumed control of the slaves, in number about seventy; it was the general impression among the slaves of Mr. Custis that on his death they should be forever free; in fact this statement had been made to them by Mr. C. years before; at his death we were informed by Gen. Lee that by the conditions of the will we must remain slaves for five years;

I remained with Gen. Lee for about seventeen months, when my sister Mary, a cousin of ours, and I determined to run away, which we did in the year 1859; we had already reached Westminster, in Maryland, on our way to the North, when we were apprehended and thrown into prison, and Gen. Lee notified of our arrest; we remained in prison fifteen days, when we were sent back to Arlington; we were immediately taken before Gen. Lee, who demanded the reason why we ran away; we frankly told him that we considered ourselves free;

he then told us he would teach us a lesson we never would forget; he then ordered us to the barn, where, in his presence, we were tied firmly to posts by a Mr. Gwin, our overseer, who was ordered by Gen. Lee to strip us to the waist and give us fifty lashes each, excepting my sister, who received but twenty; we were accordingly stripped to the skin by the overseer, who, however, had sufficient humanity to decline whipping us; accordingly Dick Williams, a county constable, was called in, who gave us the number of lashes ordered; Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams to lay it on well, an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh,

Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done. After this my cousin and myself were sent to Hanover Court-House jail, my sister being sent to Richmond to an agent to be hired; we remained in jail about a week, when we were sent to Nelson county, where we were hired out by Gen. Lee’s agent to work on the Orange and Alexander railroad; we remained thus employed for about seven months, and were then sent to Alabama, and put to work on what is known as the Northeastern railroad; in January, 1863, we were sent to Richmond, from which place I finally made my escape through the rebel lines to freedom; I have nothing further to say; what I have stated is true in every particular, and I can at any time bring at least a dozen witnesses, both white and black, to substantiate my statements: I am at present employed by the Government; and am at work in the National Cemetery on Arlington Heights, where I can be found by those who desire further particulars; my sister referred to is at present employed by the French Minister at Washington, and will confirm my statement."

Robert E. Lee His Brutality to His Slaves 1866 . By Wesley Norris in NATIONAL ANTI-SLAVERY STANDARD Vol. XXVI. No. 49 April 14 1866 . Whole No. 1 349 Fair Use Repository​

Bottom line, Lee owned slaves and he fought for the side to preserve the practice.

Bottom line, since he was going with the North if Virginia didn't secede, that wasn't his motivation. He was fighting for his home, his State.

Paperview says your homes and families and community and business and property don't matter. He's an idiot.

In fact, had Virginia not voted for secession, he almost certainly would have been the commanding general of the north. Lincoln even offered him the job, but once Virginia went with secession he couldn't bare to fight against his beloved home. He knew slavery had no future, and he personally would have chosen to end the practice to prevent the divided nation.

how, with his magic wand?



oh please, he chose rebellion over unity of the USA. he was a traitor. All traitors have reasons

Well, you wouldn't understand this because government is your highest priority, but he had to choose between his allegiances. Virginia was his home, choosing that over his country was completely reasonable. Though to you it's not even about choosing your country, it's about controlling it's government for your collectivist ends. You don't grasp the concept of what your country is.