It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

General Lee was/is not an American Hero

page: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by rebeldog
reply to post by Skerrako
 


Robert E Lee freed his slaves before the war. Ulysses Grant's wife retained their slave UNTIL 6 MONTHS AFTER WAR WAS OVER!!

you are a public fool system [public school system slant, not calling you a fool) scholar huh? have you read anything unbiased about the war? i challenge you to read Jefferson Davis..




And then read some quotes from good ole uncle Abe before he decided to use slavery as publicity for a failing war.

But hey, lets not have facts keep us from hating on long dead people & long dead issues.




posted on Apr, 29 2011 @ 11:24 PM
link   
I guess its the usual broken record. Even though most Northerners, according to the vast majority of contemporary sources, did not care about the morality of slavery, it will always be about slavery, no matter what, to those that have already made their mind up, regardless if they pretend to be seeking alternative knowledge.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:53 AM
link   
He was born in to a slave owning society and yet later in life he came to believe that slavery was a terrible wrong.
Nobody ever said he was perfect but he is still an American and Confederate hero. He fought in the Mexican war and was brevetted for bravery, that makes him an American hero.
After the Civil war, Lee worked hard to bring both sides back together and devoted himself to running Washington and Lee university,
Lee also freed his slaves and set them up in businesses so they could support themselves.
Before Lee joined the Confederate cause his home was wrecked by Union soldiers who vandalized Arlington,
He saw his state and personal fortune ruined and was living on the charity of others after the war,

You find me a man of better moral character, intelligence who played a more important point in history and maybe someone else might come close to being an authentic American hero like Robert E. Lee.

Judging people from the past without historical context is neither fair to the person nor to history.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:04 AM
link   
Wow...you sure jumped into a briar patch that even better men than us have wandered into and never got out of.

Lee nor the South didn't win the Civil War...which is why some do not give him the credit he deserves...on the field of battle nor in the backrooms of politics and policy.

Lee did own slaves as did many in the North. However, Lee saw that slavery was an antiquated system, and his writings indicate that he was willing to propose a system to do away with slavery...albeit a drawn out process. It would have been acceptable to a society and an economy built on slave labor.

Further, Lee was instrumental in offering freedom to slaves in return for serving in the Confederate Army. Radical thinking..., and like service in the Union Army was forcefully opposed by so many "enlightened" peoples in the North.

So...I suggest you do some deeper reading and research into the matter. What passes for education in public these days merely and briefly glosses over historical fact.

You will find Robert Edward Lee...1807-1870...quite a noble and inspiring subject...flaws and all.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:05 AM
link   
reply to post by downtown436
 


But, what would have happened if the South had won?

Would they still kept their slaves?

Slavery probably would have become obsolete anyway due to modern machinery.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:07 AM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


You mean the TV show. The movie sucked.

I grew up loving the show despite having no idea what the confederate flag stood for. I still the show even if I do know what it stands for now.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:19 AM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


Not to hijack this any further but you have to understand that while the Tea Party as a whole is NOT racist, there ARE racist elements within it. They obviously do not have enough clout to influence the movement as a whole.

As for the Civil War? I think several posters nailed it with the dual competing issues of slavery and states rights.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by louieprima
 


Hello, thanks for commenting.



Despite the recent trend of dilettantes denouncing him as a traitor, Robert E Lee exemplified a man torn and pulled and forced into a situation out of his control, but he did so with honor and he was effective. True, many members of the Lee family remained with the Union. How does his lack of blind obedience to his extended family members make him a coward? He was his own man. Even some harsh Yankee critics of his day conceded that he was impressive and worthy of respect. It is, frankly, ignorant folks of the 21st century applying 21st century values to a mid 19th century situation that are mistaken. There were individual acts of heroism and honor by men on both sides of the war. There were acts of cowardice by men on both sides of the war. Contemporaries of Lee, from both sides, tend to agree that he fits in the former category.


I agree the Lee was a strong man, and a fierce defender of states rights. Unfortunately he lacked the same respect for human rights. Hitler and Napoleon were also impressive and worthy of respect in their own rights, but it doesn't mean what they did should be regarded as heroic.

President Lincoln actually gets less respect from me, as he did the right thing for the wrong reasons. He stated over and over that all he wanted to do was keep the union together, regardless of the slavery issue. He was just as much of a "racist" as Lee, and owned slaves as well.




While the end of formalized slavery was necessary for the nation to move forward, the results of the Civil War actually began a process of eliminating freedom for all Americans. The 10th Amendment was weakened considerably and the banking factions came out on top. The road was laid for the domination of central bankers and centralized government. And with that comes servitude and eventually slavery or serfdom for all, or at least most.


Freedom for slaves, followed by the chains of debt for everyone. What a bittersweet symphony that is.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


If your intent is not to cause division and nasty remarks why would you bring up a Representative directly related to the civil war. Especially when this is the 150the anniversary of the beginning of the that war. It may sound like a long time but actually it isn't. In lots of places the wounds are still sore. Check some of the laws that were basically inacted as a conquored nation status and the results thereof. Some places it was well into the 20th before voting and holding office was back to normal.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   
reply to post by rebeldog
 




Robert E Lee freed his slaves before the war. Ulysses Grant's wife retained their slaves UNTIL 6 MONTHS AFTER WAR WAS OVER!!

you are a public fool system [public school system slant, not calling you a fool) scholar huh? have you read anything unbiased about the war? i challenge you to read Jefferson Davis..


Actually, General Lee transferred ownership of all his slaves to his wife. Lincoln owned slaves as well.

Fortunatley thats not what this thread is about.

Do you think he should be admired by present day people, when it was clear his intentions were to keep and entire race enslaved for cheap labor? Isn't that to be looked down upon?

If you asked the same people that idolize General Lee if the agree with Chinese sweatshops would they support that as well? I would imagine not. (I do realize it is not a perfect parallel, but you see what I mean)

They might say "we idolize him because he fought for states rights". but there are thousands of people that fought for states rights AND the abolition of slavery.wouldn't a person like that be better to emulate?



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by louieprima
 




I guess its the usual broken record. Even though most Northerners, according to the vast majority of contemporary sources, did not care about the morality of slavery, it will always be about slavery, no matter what, to those that have already made their mind up, regardless if they pretend to be seeking alternative knowledge.


It would be nice if you actual read my comments and engaged in conversation before you generalize all of "us northerners".

You would quickly see that I believe nothing you just said.

Thanks a million



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by bismarcksea
 





And then read some quotes from good ole uncle Abe before he decided to use slavery as publicity for a failing war.


"If I could save the Union without freeing any slaves, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it, and if I could do it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also so that"
-Abraham Lincoln, August 1862, in a letter to the editor of the New York Times

That doesn't sound like publicity for a failing war. Lincoln was quite ambivalent about the issue himself, but had to deal with it, as it was continuing to divide the nation at a growing rate.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Yes General Lee was a Hero.

Just think about this....
1. In early 1861, President Abraham Lincoln invited Lee to take command of the entire Union Army. Lee declined because his home state of Virginia was, despite his wishes, seceding from the Union.
en.wikipedia.org...

2. Before the opening of Civil War the south had no military.

3. Lee's eventual role in the newly established Confederacy was to serve as a senior military adviser to President Jefferson Davis, thus creating it's military.

General Lee was obviously a highly respected man back in those days.... to put this issue with slavery is ridiculous, since Abraham Lincoln thought highly of him.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by imitator
 


I recognize that Gen. Lee was a brilliant strategist and we'll respected for his service. Many leaders were respected despite clear moral caveats.



General Lee was obviously a highly respected man back in those days.... to put this issue with slavery is ridiculous, since Abraham Lincoln thought highly of him.


Yes, but that is assuming Lincoln was of high moral fiber, which he wasn't.

He was every bit a racist as Lee, and repeatedly said he wanted to keep the union together more than anything, gladly would have continued slavery if it meant saving the Union.

He owned slaves as well.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by pyrodude
 




Are you trying to say that the North wasnt led by other slave owners?


Nope. If I was trying to say that, believe me I would have.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Skerrako
 


YOU ARE WRONG!!! ulysses grant---(the union/north general) transferred his slaves to his wife..who kept them all the way through the war, even 6 months after war was over refused to give them up UNTIL A NAT GUARD regiment threatened to seize the Grant home unless the slaves were freed..

on another note, Abe was not named Lincoln by birth, it was an assumed name, he was a Jew of the zionist type. And his whole story of being a meager poor little country boy was also a LIE..



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako

He was every bit a racist as Lee, and repeatedly said he wanted to keep the union together more than anything, gladly would have continued slavery if it meant saving the Union.

He owned slaves as well.


There where black people who owned slaves too, does that make them racist?
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, that doesn't sound racist?
Owning slaves back then didn't mean you was racist.

The fact is, racialization started after the Civil War in bids for jobs and wages etc... that is where real racialism started.



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by imitator
 


Here you are:



More problematic were Lincoln’s views on race. He held opinions not very different from those of the majority of his racist countrymen. Even if slavery was wrong, “there is a physical difference between the white and black races that will for ever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality.” His solution was a form of ethnic cleansing: shipping blacks off to Liberia, or Haiti, or Central America — anywhere as long as it wasn’t the United States.


artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com...

He said blacks and whites could never live together on terms of social and political equality

Racism- a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement.

dictionary.reference.com...

Do you see my point a bit more clearly?

That is real racism. what we have after the war is the watered-down version of racism, also known as discrimination
edit on 30-4-2011 by Skerrako because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skerrako

He said blacks and whites could never live together on terms of social and political equality


Back then that was true, again doesn't mean racism.... I'm sure Lincoln was referring to Africans and sending them back home.

I don't need no dictionary on Racism- lol
Your the one getting slavery and racism mixed up, look them both up, two totally different meanings....

You seem to be lost over the topic, thought this was about General Lee?


Originally posted by Skerrako
what we have after the war is the watered-down version of racism, also known as discrimination


That is not true at all... it was worse after the war.
The Civil War wasn't even over racism, if you think so then your reading the wrong information.
After the civil war racism changed dramatically for the worst over immigration and jobs ect.. for black and whites it lasted up to the 60's.

There is a bit more to it, but I'm not here to give you a history lesson, unless you want one lol.




edit on 30-4-2011 by imitator because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2011 @ 08:21 PM
link   
reply to post by imitator
 




I'm sure Lincoln was referring to Africans and sending them back home.


I'm sure Lincoln choose his words very carefully, and said exactly what he meant. Let's not paraphrase direct quotes, that is the reason quotes exist, to clarify.



Your the one getting slavery and racism mixed up, look them both up, two totally different meanings....


So youre saying slavery had nothing to do with racism at all? You would be mighty naive to really think that. Ill help you out again:


All servants imported and brought into the Country. . . who were not Christians in their native Country. . . shall be accounted and be slaves. All Negro, mulatto and Indian slaves within this dominion. . . shall be held to be real estate. If any slave resists his master. . . correcting such slave, and shall happen to be killed in such correction. . . the master shall be free of all punishment. . . as if such accident never happened. - Virginia General Assembly declaration, 1705

LINK HERE




You seem to be lost over the topic, thought this was about General Lee?


Yep, and it still is, but when you state very misinformed fact, I figured I should help you find the real facts, and that you may even thank me for it. People can be wrong, it's ok to admit it my friend. Interesting that now you want to "go back on topic", but your original post made no mention of General Lee at all. Here it is:


There where black people who owned slaves too, does that make them racist?
Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, that doesn't sound racist?
Owning slaves back then didn't mean you was racist.

The fact is, racialization started after the Civil War in bids for jobs and wages etc... that is where real racialism started.






That is not true at all... it (racism) was worse after the war.


I'm sure to the freed slaves it was better than being property. How can you say racism worsened? Discrimination and prejudice may have worsened, but no racism did not. People began to see that blacks and whites could function in society more harmoniously.




The Civil War wasn't even over racism, if you think so then your reading the wrong information.


Yeah......I didn't say that. Go ahead and look. Please do not put words in my mouth, there is nothing worse than someone refuting something you didn't say.




There is a bit more to it, but I'm not here to give you a history lesson, unless you want one lol.


There's a lot more too it, and from what I have read so far from you, it doesn't seem like you should be giving history lessons to anyone, my friend.
edit on 30-4-2011 by Skerrako because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join