Remembering Robert E. Lee: American Patriot and Southern Hero

[bripat9643]

We know Lee fought against the Union, thus fought for slavery.

stmike talking about history is similar to a hamster eating the pages of a history book.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Of course not....it was fought over a states right to allow slavery

Oh God, not that crap again.

All one has to do is read he justifications for secession written by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. There were the direct words of the people who started the civil war, and the reasons they gave for doing that. Only a revisionist moron accepts contemporary spin about it.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Lincoln started the Civil War, dumbshit. He invaded Virginia. It wasn't the other way around.

 

[rightwinger]

It's racist to celebrate anyone who fought for slavery.

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

The confederacy was formed to protect the right to consider others to be property

Lee fought for that nation

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wrong, he fought for his state, the CSA, and his property. The USA could not "invade" Virginia, for Virginia was a governmental entity indivisble from the USA.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's racist to celebrate anyone who fought for slavery.

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

You're a moron who doesn't know history. Almost nobody on the confederate side was fighting for slavery because very few even owned slaves or had a stake in slavery.

The war was fought because 11 states seceded over issues that had nothing to do with slavery and Herr Lincoln Über Alles used illegal force to dragoon them back into the union.

Do you even know why Fort Sumter was fired upon? Of course you don't because you're an ignoramus who has no clue what the issues were leading up to the war.

 

[rightwinger]

We know Lee fought against the Union, thus fought for slavery.

stmike talking about history is similar to a hamster eating the pages of a history book.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Of course not....it was fought over a states right to allow slavery

Oh God, not that crap again.

All one has to do is read the justifications for secession written by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. These were the direct words of the people who started the civil war, and the reasons they gave for doing that. Only a revisionist moron accepts contemporary spin about it.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

I have read those justifications as well as the Constitution of the Confederacy.......protecting slavery was prominent

 

[toxicmedia]

We know Lee fought against the Union, thus fought for slavery.

stmike talking about history is similar to a hamster eating the pages of a history book.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Of course not....it was fought over a states right to allow slavery

Oh God, not that crap again.

All one has to do is read he justifications for secession written by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. There were the direct words of the people who started the civil war, and the reasons they gave for doing that. Only a revisionist moron accepts contemporary spin about it.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Lincoln started the Civil War, dumbshit. He invaded Virginia. It wasn't the other way around.

On April 12, 1861, General P.G.T. Beauregard, in command of the Confederate forces around Charleston Harbor, opened fire on the Union garrison holding Fort Sumter. At 2:30pm on April 13 Major Robert Anderson, garrison commander, surrendered the fort and was evacuated the next day.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Love what happened to his house....we should do stuff like that today.

You mean you favor having the government expropriate people's property?

I'm not surprised that you don't give a crap about the Bill of Rights.

He committed treason and forfeited his holdings...that they buried war dead on his back porch was fitting...as is your worship of a treasonous figure in American history.

If he committed treason, then why wasn't he tried for treason?

Lincoln decided it would be a "With malice toward none" type of reconstruction.

Government isn't allowed to violate your rights without due process of law.

Tell that to Michael Brown.

You know that legal principle that liberals turds like you are always whining about? That means a trial and a conviction. He didn't forfeit jack squat according to the Constitution.

You know very little about the Constitution, In that case.

Of course, liberal turds like you have displayed your utter contempt for the Constitution on a regular basis. You cheer every time Obama wipes his ass with it.

You're cheering for someone who wanted to overthrow the US government and lead an army bent on doing so.

When did Lee try to overthrow the U.S. government? They were just trying to leave. You leftwats have NO CLUE what the war was about. I can't believe that anyone can be so ignorant as you are without shooting themselves in the head out of a deep sense of embarrassment.

 

[toxicmedia]

It's racist to celebrate anyone who fought for slavery.

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

You're a moron who doesn't know history. Almost nobody on the confederate side was fighting for slavery because very few even owned slaves or had a stake in slavery.

The war was fought because 11 states seceded over issues that had nothing to do with slavery and Herr Lincoln Über Alles used illegal force to dragoon them back into the union.

Do you even know why Fort Sumter was fired upon? Of course you don't because you're an ignoramus who has no clue what the issues were leading up to the war.

Ooops, hit agree by accident....you're a moron.

Read the southern justifications for secession...their own words by the way

 

[Lakhota]

Southern plantation owners suckered poor white trash into fighting for slavery.

 

[JakeStarkey]

paperview over the years has schooled the idjits on the causes of the Civil War. The idjits refuse to read the state justifications for the war, which overwhelming cites preservation of slavery as a prime cause.

 

[hortysir]

The hate for Lee is palpable.
Keep hearing he fought "against The US" or he committed "treason".

There was no US. It was (supposed to be ) still THESE United States.
THAT was what he was fighting for. Not slavery.

Ole Abe was the same sort of 'republican' so many of you accused Bush of being. But with Lincoln it wasn't "all about the oil", it was all about the tobacco, citrus and port cities. That, and more real estate to rule over.
He couldn't give two shits about slavery. His only concern was preserving his Union and damn anybody that stood in his way

 

[hortysir]

Southern plantation owners suckered poor white trash into fighting for slavery.

Why were no northern slaves freed by the Emancipation proclamation?

 

[paperview]

We know Lee fought against the Union, thus fought for slavery.

stmike talking about history is similar to a hamster eating the pages of a history book.

The Civil War was not fought over slavery.

Of course not....it was fought over a states right to allow slavery

Oh God, not that crap again.

All one has to do is read he justifications for secession written by South Carolina, Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas. There were the direct words of the people who started the civil war, and the reasons they gave for doing that. Only a revisionist moron accepts contemporary spin about it.

Avalon Project - Confederate States of America - Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

Lincoln started the Civil War, dumbshit. He invaded Virginia. It wasn't the other way around.

On April 12, 1861, General P.G.T. Beauregard, in command of the Confederate forces around Charleston Harbor, opened fire on the Union garrison holding Fort Sumter. At 2:30pm on April 13 Major Robert Anderson, garrison commander, surrendered the fort and was evacuated the next day.

Getting more than 3,000 cannonballs fired atcha can have that affect.

To be precise though, hostilies had already commenced months before, with the Rebels firing on Union ships (in January 1861), and seizing forts, arsenals and other military installations in the South - they even seized the Mint filled with Gold -- before Lincoln was even inaugurated. Aggressive Acts of War.

They were gung ho from the get go -- foolishly arrogant, and never stood a chance of winning. Damn shame they had to take so many lives to fight for a government whose goal was to protect and preserve slavery.

 

[eagle7_31]

paperview over the years has schooled the idjits on the causes of the Civil War. The idjist refuse to read the state justifications for the war, which overwhelming cites preservation of slavery as a prime cause.

Speaking for myself, slavery was one of the reasons for the civil war. My point was about Lee being against slavery and many in the north not exactly being for equality for the blacks.

Slavery was brought to this country 400 plus years ago and should not have been. A whole lot of problems would have been avoided.

 

[hortysir]

How anybody justified another person as "property" is bizarre. There simply is no justification of that.

You're applying modern logic to a very different era

 

[hortysir]

It's racist to celebrate anyone who fought for slavery.

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

How many slaves did Lee own?

 

[paperview]

Southern plantation owners suckered poor white trash into fighting for slavery.

Why were no northern slaves freed by the Emancipation proclamation?

That Executive Order. [EO #95 to be exact) did have the effect of immediately freeing thousands of slaves.

It was also a brilliant tactical move in that at that point, it became a war about slavery for the Union, made it more difficult for England to recognize the Confederacy (no country had recognized the CSA), and gave major incentives for blacks to escape and fight for the Union,

announcing they would be accepted into the ranks of Army and Navy (by the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of Colored Troops fought for the Union)...

and it completely transformed the character of the war.

 

[paperview]

It's racist to celebrate anyone who fought for slavery.

If you knew anything about history you would know Lee was against slavery.

Against it in a "I'm going to keep my slaves until I am forced to free them" kind of way.

Yes, he expressed a few sentiments against slavery, but still fought *for* the cause of defending, preserving, protecting and expanding slavery. There's no getting around that.

How many slaves did Lee own?

I'm not sure the exact count at this moment: These were willed to him, in 1858

"The Custis estate inventory records of 1858 list as assets, 93 slaves, 28 mules, 28 oxen, 73 sheep and 100 hogs at the White House in New Kent County;
43 slaves, 10 mules, 38 cattle, 44 sheep and 50 hogs at Romancoke in King William County. The inventory records list 62 slaves on the grounds of Arlington"


"When Custis died in 1857, Robert E. Lee—the executor of the estate—determined that the slave labor was necessary to improve Arlington's financial status. The Arlington slaves found Lee to be a more stringent taskmaster than his predacessor. Eleven slaves were “hired out” while others were sent to the Pamunkey River estates. In accordance with Custis's instructions, Lee officially freed the slaves on December 29, 1862."

Slavery at Arlington - Arlington House The Robert E. Lee Memorial U.S. National Park Service

 

[Lakhota]

Without the Civil War, when would the south have abolished slavery - or even recognize blacks as human beings?

 

[hortysir]

Southern plantation owners suckered poor white trash into fighting for slavery.

Why were no northern slaves freed by the Emancipation proclamation?

That Executive Order. [EO #95 to be exact) did have the effect of immediately freeing thousands of slaves.

It was also a brilliant tactical move in that at that point, it became a war about slavery for the Union, made it more difficult for England to recognize the Confederacy (no country had recognized the CSA), and gave major incentives for blacks to escape and fight for the Union,

announcing they would be accepted into the ranks of Army and Navy (by the end of the war, hundreds of thousands of Colored Troops fought for the Union)...

and it completely transformed the character of the war.

Great response.
Excellent way to not answer the question,tho