Reply With Quote
The Supreme Court is a political en y just like any other. I don't worship at their altar. If you doubt that, then you are supremely ignorant.
I don't have a comprehensive history of all Confederate monuments ever built. This one, the one that became a rallying cry for racists all over the country, was built in 1924.
The Supreme Court is a political en y just like any other. I don't worship at their altar. If you doubt that, then you are supremely ignorant.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics...al-lee/529038/Lee’s heavy hand on the Arlington plantation, Pryor writes, nearly led to a slave revolt, in part because the enslaved had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death, and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property, one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.
When two of his slaves escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to "lay it on well." Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”
Meh.
He lied to keep people his property, and whipped them when he thought it necessary to keep them productive and compliant. How noble.
Lee hated slavery so much, he allowed the soldiers under his command to kidnap black people when his armies marched north.During his invasion of Pennsylvania, Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia enslaved free blacks and brought them back to the South as property. Pryor writes that “evidence links virtually every infantry and cavalry unit in Lee’s army” with the abduction of free black Americans, “with the activity under the supervision of senior officers.”
Soldiers under Lee’s command at the Battle of the Crater in 1864 massacred black Union soldiers who tried to surrender. Then, in a spectacle hatched by Lee’s senior corps commander A.P. Hill, the Confederates paraded the Union survivors through the streets of Petersburg to the slurs and jeers of the southern crowd. Lee never discouraged such behavior. As the historian Richard Slotkin wrote in No Quarter: The Battle of the Crater, “his silence was permissive.”
How Christian. Keep the negroes in line for their own good.Nor did Lee’s defeat lead to an embrace of racial egalitarianism. The war was not about slavery, Lee insisted later, but if it was about slavery, it was only out of Christian devotion that white southerners fought to keep blacks enslaved. Lee told a New York Herald reporter, in the midst of arguing in favor of somehow removing blacks from the South (“disposed of,” in his words), “that unless some humane course is adopted, based on wisdom and Christian principles you do a gross wrong and injustice to the whole negro race in setting them free. And it is only this consideration that has led the wisdom, intelligence and Christianity of the South to support and defend the ins ution up to this time.”
Very convenient for an ex-slave holder. It's almost as if he were... rationalizing evil.
Well there you go. I certainly wouldn't deify the current president. He's a dip .
Accepting a pardon is an admission of guilt.That's a window dressing do ent, dude. He didn't even have to admit he did anything wrong; probably cos he would've told them to shove such a do ent up Lincoln's ass.
It's not though.
Yep. Sorry. It happens when you're a traitor.
Accepting a pardon is nothing more than acknowledging a reset. Lee followed the Cons ution and was loyal to his state.
Again, slavery was egregious enough on its own. But I would say that anyone writing an account (on any subject really) is going to be writing the account to make a point. Again, I don't disagree that there were some terrible atrocities above and beyond keeping someone as a slave. However, I don't believe that you're seeing a correct proportion of accounts as to what really happened. Of course we have no way of knowing that.
All that being said, it's too easy to read some accounts online and purport to be an expert on any subject.
lol no. He was a traitor and begged for amnesty. You don't pardon people who did nothing wrong.
Cite the alleged begging or it didn't happen. Or was that wishy washy do ent "begging" in your ephemeral mind's eye?
Pardoning can be done for any reason, tbh. There is zero guidelines on them. So, your point is re ed.
Many of these morons don't even understand the American ins ution of slavery. Many were slaves in name only and actually making relatively solid wages given their station. None of this is to say that wasn't ed up; but these snowflakes just don't know their . There's a reason why almost no emancipated slaves went back to Africa or elsewhere.
Wishy washy? Dude had to take an oath and still didn't get his citizenship back.
Show me a pardon done for any reason other than someone's committing a crime.Pardoning can be done for any reason, tbh. There is zero guidelines on them. So, your point is re ed.
Turkeys don't count.
That oath was standard for everyone in his position; or did they all get on their knees and gravel?
Well, Nixon likely committed crimes, but Ford stated that his pardon was for other reasons. Pardons can be given simply to protect one against foreseen harassment by authorities, though no politician would be likely to say so outright. That the president was given such an awesome unilateral authority says something about the founders' belief that systems and unjust judges could railroad people, imo.
Begging is begging.
Show me a pardon done for any reason other than someone's committing a crime.Well, Nixon likely committed crimes, but Ford stated that his pardon was for other reasons. Pardons can be given simply to protect one against foreseen harassment by authorities, though no politician would be likely to say so outright. That the president was given such an awesome unilateral authority says something about the founders belief that systems and unjust judges could railroad people, imo.
And making up is making up. Which is what you've been caught doing.
Pardons are done to give one a clean slate regardless of what spin you want to put on it. Bringing it back to what we were talking about, that Lincoln pardoned Lee shows just how weak he was and how much even he couldn't deny he overstepped.
Overstepped?
Lincoln needed Lee to help heal wounds between the Union and the Confederacy. Lee, in exchange for pardon, was a mascot that the Union could use to appeal to the South and minimize further fighting in the wake of their defeat.
It's "grovel", not "gravel".
He did need Lee. But if his cause was so ing righteous at the end of the day, he wouldn't have pardoned him in a million years all the same.
Lincoln needed Lee to help heal wounds between the Union and the Confederacy. Lee, in exchange for pardon, was a mascot that the Union could use to appeal to the South and minimize further fighting in the wake of their defeat.
I knew that was off; ty.
Show me a pardon done for any reason other than someone's committing a crime.
It actually makes sort of sense. Sort of.
How about the case we're talking about. Lincoln knew that Lee committed no real crime. He served a properly seceded state. Again, the pardon makes Lincoln look like the chicken commander that he was.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions