Students Demand Acknowledgement of Robert E. Lee's 'Racist and Dishonorable Conduct'

[BlindBoo]

Black Students at Washington and Lee University Want Confederate Flags Removed -- Fusion.

"That might sound reasonable, but the university in question is Washington and Lee, named after former commander of the Confederate forces Gen. Robert E. Lee."

How widespread the discontent is remains unclear. Those behind the movement have been vocal about advocating their cause in the media while the university has remained relatively quiet. Regardless, it’s clear that there is some discord on campus and festering discord, particularly when race is involved, ends poorly.

With that in mind, University President Kenneth Ruscio wrote in a letter to the school community, which a spokesman emailed to Fusion, that school officials will carefully consider the students’ concerns. He has also asked the university’s provost to meet with them.

In the letter, he pointed out that the flags are historical replicas and that the school already recognizes King with a campus-wide MLK Legacy Week. He added that the university does not observe Lee-Jackson day, but that the chapel is open to use by non-university groups.

“The students have raised important questions that relate to ongoing discussions at the University,” he wrote. “I welcome their contributions and those of all members of the University community. I am certain we can address these matters in a manner that is both respectful and productive.”

It’s not the first time Ruscio has grappled with his school’s controversial history or Lee’s complexities as a human being. He wrote in an eloquent 2012 essay for Inside Higher Ed:

Lee was a dignified, humble man. His sense of duty and honor would cause him to cringe if he ever became the subject of idolatry or the embodiment of myth. Blindly, superficially and reflexively rushing to his defense is no less an affront to history than blindly, superficially and reflexively attacking him. What he needs, what he deserves, and what his record can withstand is the honest appraisal of those who have not made up their minds, who can appreciate the man with all his complexities and contradictions. History is indeed not kind enough to present us with simple morality tales.

More to the point, a university serves its students best by not imposing an orthodox point of view about the past and certainly not the future. Higher education, no less than other institutions, is a victim of our politicized society. The things we do — the courses we teach, the values we espouse, the faculty we hire — should not be subjected to ideological litmus tests.

 

[pronto]

those demands are reasonable, though no ones listens to those

 

[ClosedCaption]

I would agree to that if they first acknowledge Abraham Lincoln's "racist and dishonorable conduct." Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to ship all the slaves back to Africa. He was busy working on his scheme almost until the day he died. General Grant was an overseer on a plantation before he became a general in the Union Army. Let's also have the university acknowledge his "racist and dishonorable conduct."

So they are right but you want them to do something else because you just want it. Mmmmok

 

[ClosedCaption]

How about the racist and dishonorable present actions of sociopaths here in the US?

Eric Holder?

Alice Walker?

Louis Farrakhan?

Cornel West?

Martin Luther King III? (NOT MLK JR bed wetters)

Al Sharpton?

Jesse Jackass?

Malik Zulu Shabazz?

These bed wetters have their assholes in a knot about dead people? Fuck these people.

They're poster children for the end of using child proof lids on potentially lethal household products.

You're right thats just like Slavery cracka ass cracka....Now go cry about how getting beat with whips is just like me calling you a cracka thin skinned bitch

 

[Pete7469]

How about the racist and dishonorable present actions of sociopaths here in the US?

Eric Holder?

Alice Walker?

Louis Farrakhan?

Cornel West?

Martin Luther King III? (NOT MLK JR bed wetters)

Al Sharpton?

Jesse Jackass?

Malik Zulu Shabazz?

These bed wetters have their assholes in a knot about dead people? Fuck these people.

They're poster children for the end of using child proof lids on potentially lethal household products.

You're right thats just like Slavery cracka ass cracka....Now go cry about how getting beat with whips is just like me calling you a cracka thin skinned bitch

Huh?

Can you translate that?

I don't understand bed wetter jibberish.

 

[Freewill]

GRANT ON SLAVERY


The following is a conversation between Otto von Bismarck (the founder and first chancellor of the German Empire) and General Grant that occurred in June, 1878.


"You are so happily placed," replied the prince, "in America that you need fear no wars. What always seemed so sad to me about your last great war was that you were fighting your own people. That is always so terrible in wars, so very hard."

"But it had to be done." said the General.

"Yes," said the prince, "you had to save the Union just as we had to save Germany."

"Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery," answered the General.

"I suppose, however, the Union was the real sentiment, the dominant sentiment," said the prince.

"In the beginning, yes," said the General; "but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

"I had an old and good friend, an American, in Motley," said the prince, "who used to write me now and then. Well, when your war broke out he wrote me. He said, ‘I will make a prophecy, and please take this letter and put it in a tree or a box for ten years, then open it and see if I am not a prophet. I prophesy that when this war ends the Union will be established and we shall not lose a village or hamlet.’ This was Motley’s prophecy," said the prince with a smile, "and it was true."

"Yes," said the General, "it was true."

"I suppose if you had had a large army at the beginning of the war it would have ended in a much shorter time."

"We might have had no war at all," said the General; "but we cannot tell. Our war had many strange features – there were many things which seemed odd enough at the time, but which now seem Providential. If we had had a large regular army, as it was then constituted, it might have gone with the South. In fact, the Southern feeling in the army among high officers was so strong that when the war broke out the army dissolved. We had no army – then we had to organize one. A great commander like Sherman or Sheridan even then might have organized an army and put down the rebellion in six months or a year, or, at the farthest, two years. But that would have saved slavery, perhaps, and slavery meant the germs of a new rebellion. There had to be an end of slavery. Then we were fighting an enemy with whom we could not make a peace. We had to destroy him. No convention, no treaty was possible – only destruction."

 

[Andylusion]

I would agree to that if they first acknowledge Abraham Lincoln's "racist and dishonorable conduct." Lincoln was a white supremacist who wanted to ship all the slaves back to Africa. He was busy working on his scheme almost until the day he died. General Grant was an overseer on a plantation before he became a general in the Union Army. Let's also have the university acknowledge his "racist and dishonorable conduct."

Students Demand Acknowledgement of Robert E. Lee's 'Racist and Dishonorable Conduct'

A group of seven multiracial Washington and Lee University (W&L) students are demanding the school remove all Confederate flags from campus and "acknowledge" General Robert E. Lee's "dishonorable side."

According to the Roanoke Times, "seven multiracial students, calling themselves 'The Committee,'" have also demanded the school "acknowledge and apologize for participating in chattel slavery." They want recognition of "Martin Luther King Jr. Day on the undergraduate campus" and an end to "neo-Confederates" marching across campus "to the Lee Chapel on Lee-Jackson Day."

The students say they will "engage in civil disobedience" if their demands are not met by September 1st.

They added: "The time has come for us, as students, to ask that the university hold itself responsible for its past and present dishonorable conduct and for the racist and dishonorable conduct of Robert E. Lee."​

Really? Out of everything in the world that one could put time and effort into.... this is what students have to worry about these days?

Guys seriously.... spend your time on something worth while.

 

[eagle1462010]

NEWSFLASH 2014! Robert E. Lee is burning in Hell with every other Confederate failure.

You are boring.

 

[KNB]

And Robert E. Lee is irrelevant.

 

[eagle1462010]

And Robert E. Lee is irrelevant.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLdwZ982kOo]Battle of Fredericksburg ( behind the stonewall ) - YouTube[/ame]

Lee is part of American History and will remain part of the history of this nation good or bad ending...............

He fought for his State, and refused to march on his friends and neighbors. Families even turned on each other back then.

History will remember him and the Civil War, and Not you.

 

[KNB]

Lee was on the wrong side of American history, just like every other Confederate fighting to retain their slaves.

 

[Synthaholic]

W&L is a beautiful campus. These diverse little pieces of feces can go fuck themselves. They have no clue what a gentleman and scholar Lee was. They aren't fit to shake the piss off his dick.

Gentleman Traitor.

That's a new one.

 

[WelfareTick]

W&L is a beautiful campus. These diverse little pieces of feces can go fuck themselves. They have no clue what a gentleman and scholar Lee was. They aren't fit to shake the piss off his dick.

Gentleman Traitor.

That's a new one.

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

 

[WelfareTick]

Lee was on the wrong side of American history, just like every other Confederate fighting to retain their slaves.

What does it mean to be "on the wrong side of history?" Aside from losing, that is.

 

[WelfareTick]

And Robert E. Lee is irrelevant.

If he's "irrelevant," then why are they making such a big stink about him?

 

[WelfareTick]

GRANT ON SLAVERY


The following is a conversation between Otto von Bismarck (the founder and first chancellor of the German Empire) and General Grant that occurred in June, 1878.


"You are so happily placed," replied the prince, "in America that you need fear no wars. What always seemed so sad to me about your last great war was that you were fighting your own people. That is always so terrible in wars, so very hard."

"But it had to be done." said the General.

"Yes," said the prince, "you had to save the Union just as we had to save Germany."

"Not only save the Union, but destroy slavery," answered the General.

"I suppose, however, the Union was the real sentiment, the dominant sentiment," said the prince.

"In the beginning, yes," said the General; "but as soon as slavery fired upon the flag it was felt, we all felt, even those who did not object to slaves, that slavery must be destroyed. We felt that it was a stain to the Union that men should be bought and sold like cattle."

"I had an old and good friend, an American, in Motley," said the prince, "who used to write me now and then. Well, when your war broke out he wrote me. He said, ‘I will make a prophecy, and please take this letter and put it in a tree or a box for ten years, then open it and see if I am not a prophet. I prophesy that when this war ends the Union will be established and we shall not lose a village or hamlet.’ This was Motley’s prophecy," said the prince with a smile, "and it was true."

"Yes," said the General, "it was true."

"I suppose if you had had a large army at the beginning of the war it would have ended in a much shorter time."

"We might have had no war at all," said the General; "but we cannot tell. Our war had many strange features – there were many things which seemed odd enough at the time, but which now seem Providential. If we had had a large regular army, as it was then constituted, it might have gone with the South. In fact, the Southern feeling in the army among high officers was so strong that when the war broke out the army dissolved. We had no army – then we had to organize one. A great commander like Sherman or Sheridan even then might have organized an army and put down the rebellion in six months or a year, or, at the farthest, two years. But that would have saved slavery, perhaps, and slavery meant the germs of a new rebellion. There had to be an end of slavery. Then we were fighting an enemy with whom we could not make a peace. We had to destroy him. No convention, no treaty was possible – only destruction."

General Grant was an overseer on his father in law's plantation. He personally whipped slaves. He hardly has clean hands when it comes to the issue of slavery.

 

[WelfareTick]

Abe did end up by freeing the slaves. His signature rested not only on the Emancipation Proclamation, but on the 13th Amendment Resolution.
He was not even required to place his signature there, yet he did.

And the Northerners did care. During the period of that gag rule there were over 130,000 petitions sent to Congress asking for the abolition of slavery. Of course with the "constitution loving" southerners in the majority, they were not even addressed.

Their voices and right "to petition the government" were GAGGED.

LoLo poster on parade.
Remind us why the war started. Yeah, the South had been shut out of the political process in the 1860 election.
Besides, wtf do you care?

^ Lying stupidman marches on.

Yeah, the South was "shut out of the political process" so much they didn't even allow Lincoln on the ballot in nearly all of the soon to be CSA.

My understanding is that the Republicans didn't even try to get on the ballot in the Southern States. Do you have any evidence that he wasn't "allowed" on the ballot?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1860

Because Lincoln did not campaign or give speeches, state and county Republican organizations worked on his behalf to sustain party enthusiasm and thus obtain high turnout. There was little effort to convert non-Republicans, and there was virtually no campaigning in the South except for a few border cities such as St. Louis, Missouri, and Wheeling, Virginia (now West Virginia); indeed, the party did not even run a slate in most of the South.

 

[WelfareTick]

Here is an article on BS of the blacks fighting for the confederacy.


As to Lee and his view of slavery this is from the book: Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters

What were his views on slavery?

These papers are filled with information about slavery. This is not something you have to read between the lines; Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw slaves as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.

It is shocking how he treated his father-in-law's slaves.

Lee's wife inherited 196 slaves upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the slaves were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the slaves right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.

What happened after that?

Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring slaves to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The slaves resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several slaves jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.

Lee didn't fight for the Confederacy to protect his state he just simply could not fight against his state. Many of his relatives fought and died for the Union. Lee fed the best of the south into a meat grinder at Gettysburg losing the war for the south. It is just a shame it dragged on for two more years.

All one needs to know about Lincoln is that he signed the emancipation proclamation. From that point on he never again mentioned colonization of the black man.

It is simply amazing what people wish to believe and what they think they know about history. What is more incredible is how in this thread Lee, who did own slaves, is treated as a saint. Even though he lead a revolt against the USA. Yet Lincoln, who never owned a slave is treated like scum because at one time he felt that blacks and whites could not live together. Reading some of these posts I think he may have been correct.

The rich southern aristocrat was able to convince the poor white man to fight his war over slavery for him. Quite amazing that there are those who would defend such a war.

Nicely done.

Totally irrelevant. The issue here is liberal hypocrisy. They attack Lee for being a "racist," but their heroes Lincoln and grant were both just as racist.

 

[WelfareTick]

My opinion, if Longstreet or Jackson would have been commander of the Army of Northern Virginia the south would have had a better chance at winning. Lee's successes came early in the war against VERY inferior commanders. When he met a competent one at Gettysburg Lee could have won but because of stupid command mistakes the war was effectively lost. The south never smiled after Shiloh, they never had a chance after Gettysburg.

The Union commander at Gettysburg was just as incompetent, but he was lucky. He took a defensive position mostly because he was terrified of Lee. Lee stupidly attacked a very secure position. When rifles have a range of 500 yards, mass infantry assaults are virtual suicide. After the battle General Meade allowed Lee to get away to fight another day. He should have pursued Lee and attacked him every chance he got. That's why Lincoln sacked him.

I'm actually not all that impressed with Lee as a General. He made stupid decisions at Gettysburg. I think General Longstreet was the true brains of the operation. He wanted to go around Meade's position at Gettysburg and find a strong defensive position between the Unions army and Washington D.C. Then Meade would have to attack the Confederate army and they would have been slaughtered and the South would have won the war.

 

[Unkotare]

W&L is a beautiful campus. These diverse little pieces of feces can go fuck themselves. They have no clue what a gentleman and scholar Lee was. They aren't fit to shake the piss off his dick.

Gentleman Traitor.

That's a new one.

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

Read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.