Robert E Lee ex

[SpursforSix]

Show me a pardon done for any reason other than someone's committing a crime.

achoo

[Spurminator]

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.

I don't see why not. Even in the 19th Century, justice wasn't black and white. It was obviously better to make an example of him of how Southerners could embrace the change than to make an example of him as a martyr.

[RandomGuy]

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.

I am not really an expert in slavery. I will say that there are enough accounts of atrocities to say that the ins ution encouraged other evil.

I have read some books, seen some movies. That is about it.

All that said:

Owning people is wrong. Do I really need to add in the extra about murder, torture, and rape to prove that point?

[Spurtacular]

I don't see why not. Even in the 19th Century, justice wasn't black and white. It was obviously better to make an example of him of how Southerners could embrace the change than to make an example of him as a martyr.

I agree. But if he was a traitor in the true sense of the word, Lincoln still would have came down on him and all the leaders with an iron fist. The reality is that Lee was in the right though. Lincoln had not wanted to be the president that presided over the division of the nation. He saw an opportunity for personal glory and he took it. It was never about "justice" against Lee in that regard. He knew Lee had made an honorable choice.

[Pavlov]

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.

Nope. Treason is indeed a crime and secession is illegal.

[Pavlov]

I agree. But if he was a traitor in the true sense of the word, Lincoln still would have came down on him and all the leaders with an iron fist. The reality is that Lee was in the right though. Lincoln had not wanted to be the president that presided over the division of the nation. He saw an opportunity for personal glory and he took it. It was never about "justice" against Lee in that regard. He knew Lee had made an honorable choice.

Personal glory.

Lee was a traitor.

[Spurtacular]

I am not really an expert in slavery. I will say that there are enough accounts of atrocities to say that the ins ution encouraged other evil.

I have read some books, seen some movies. That is about it.

All that said:

Owning people is wrong. Do I really need to add in the extra about murder, torture, and rape to prove that point?

I read a book on it some months back. IIRC, it was actually only a small minority of Southerners who owned slaves by the time of the civil war (not saying the aggregate was not large). Most southerners no longer were personally for the ins ution. It was actually the heinous actions of many abolitionists that often galvanized Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats alike though to not end it sooner. And in truth, the ins ution was due to collapse under its own weight, war or no war. Part of the problem with not doing it sooner was the worry of an unruly class, which Thomas Jefferson had predicted if not done. Which is why he had presented a plan at one point to give all blacks their freedom by 1820. And in truth, TJ and Lincoln had pragmatic idea on this; and in truth both actually abhorred blacks as a race. It's kind of funny given how many want to exalt them. A guy like George Washington seemed to actually see blacks in more humane terms from what I've found in my readings. But he knew that their emancipation was a matter for future generations given the vulnerabilities of a fledgling nation.

[Pavlov]

I read a book on it some months back. IIRC, it was actually only a small minority of Southerners who owned slaves by the time of the civil war (not saying the aggregate was not large). Most southerners no longer were personally for the ins ution. It was actually the heinous actions of many abolitionists that often galvanized Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats alike though to not end it sooner. And in truth, the ins ution was due to collapse under its own weight, war or no war. Part of the problem with not doing it sooner was the worry of an unruly class, which Thomas Jefferson had predicted if not done. Which is why he had presented a plan at one point to give all blacks their freedom by 1820. And in truth, TJ and Lincoln had pragmatic idea on this; and in truth both actually abhorred blacks as a race. It's kind of funny given how many want to exalt them. A guy like George Washington seemed to actually see blacks in more humane terms from what I've found in my readings. But he knew that their emancipation was a matter for future generations given the vulnerabilities of a fledgling nation.

What was the name of this book?

[Spurtacular]

Personal glory.

Lee was a traitor.

Do you even know what Lincoln's personal views of blacks were?

Also, the facts speak for themselves about Lee. I'm guessing you want to defy them because it's just easy to demonize him for the sake of your liberal agenda.

[Spurtacular]

What was the name of this book?

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

[Spurtacular]

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/14...?ie=UTF8&psc=1

BTW, $9 after shipping is a great deal. I paid f'ing $29. If I had known the price was going to drop that drastically, I would have held off and read something else on the list.

[cd021]

the lee statues and memorials are less about honoring lee and more about white america marking their territory against a growing free black population.

Yep tbh.

[DarrinS]

the lee statues and memorials are less about honoring lee and more about white america marking their territory against a growing free black population.

What are the Union memorials and statues for?

[SpursforSix]

I am not really an expert in slavery. I will say that there are enough accounts of atrocities to say that the ins ution encouraged other evil.

I have read some books, seen some movies. That is about it.

All that said:

Owning people is wrong. Do I really need to add in the extra about murder, torture, and rape to prove that point?

Correct : owning people is wrong

But murder, torture, and rape, is on a different level. It seems fairly logical that those who experienced or saw the most atrocities would be the ones that wrote about it. Or the ones whose writings are still published today.
So the fact that you've predominantly read mostly stores of rape/murder/torture certainly doesn't mean that it was the norm.

[SpursforSix]

And ya'll s act like can't be changed. I swear it was "Bernstein" Bears.

[Pavlov]

Do you even know what Lincoln's personal views of blacks were?

Yep. Doesn't make Lee less a traitor.

Also, the facts speak for themselves about Lee. I'm guessing you want to defy them because it's just easy to demonize him for the sake of your liberal agenda.

The facts speak for themselves. Lee was a traitor.

[Spurtacular]

Yep. Doesn't make Lee less a traitor.

The facts speak for themselves. Lee was a traitor.

Apparently, Lincoln disagreed or he wouldn't have pardoned him. Real traitors are hanged, dude.

[Pavlov]

Apparently, Lincoln disagreed or he wouldn't have pardoned him. Real traitors are hanged, dude.

Actually, he pardoned him because he was a traitor. If he wasn't a traitor, no need to pardon.

[Pavlov]

I read a book on it some months back. IIRC, it was actually only a small minority of Southerners who owned slaves by the time of the civil war (not saying the aggregate was not large). Most southerners no longer were personally for the ins ution. It was actually the heinous actions of many abolitionists that often galvanized Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats alike though to not end it sooner. And in truth, the ins ution was due to collapse under its own weight, war or no war. Part of the problem with not doing it sooner was the worry of an unruly class, which Thomas Jefferson had predicted if not done. Which is why he had presented a plan at one point to give all blacks their freedom by 1820. And in truth, TJ and Lincoln had pragmatic idea on this; and in truth both actually abhorred blacks as a race. It's kind of funny given how many want to exalt them. A guy like George Washington seemed to actually see blacks in more humane terms from what I've found in my readings. But he knew that their emancipation was a matter for future generations given the vulnerabilities of a fledgling nation.

So they were all afraid of blacks they had enslaved?

Wow.

Groundbreaking stuff there.

[Spurtacular]

So they were all afraid of blacks they had enslaved?

Wow.

Groundbreaking stuff there.

I wouldn't say they were any more afraid than people like Hillary are of those "super predators" today are. They saw the big box of that would be opened. They weren't wrong. Check the crime stats, brah.

[Big Empty]

screw the confederate

[Adam Lambert]

What are the Union memorials and statues for?

could be a lot of different reasons for any union memorial to be erected, none of which are to say " you, n-gger, this is still a white nation."

[RandomGuy]

Correct : owning people is wrong

But murder, torture, and rape, is on a different level. It seems fairly logical that those who experienced or saw the most atrocities would be the ones that wrote about it. Or the ones whose writings are still published today.
So the fact that you've predominantly read mostly stores of rape/murder/torture certainly doesn't mean that it was the norm.

I agree. The people most motivated to tell stories would be the ones who experienced the most horrible things. It is a very clear case of biased sample.

That said, there are enough stories, and enough corroborating evidence to confirm: Bad happened, and American southern slavery made that possible.

The Confederacy, as the ins ution charged with defending that abomination, deserved to be crushed. The people involved should have be ashamed of their actions, and their decendents should stop honoring them. They died for a cause, waged stupidly by rationalizing elitist pricks.

[Pavlov]

I wouldn't say they were any more afraid than people like Hillary are of those "super predators" today are. They saw the big box of that would be opened. They weren't wrong. Check the crime stats, brah.

brah

Whitey continued to discriminate against blacks to this very day. They played no small part in keeping them down.

[RandomGuy]

I read a book on it some months back. IIRC, it was actually only a small minority of Southerners who owned slaves by the time of the civil war (not saying the aggregate was not large). Most southerners no longer were personally for the ins ution. It was actually the heinous actions of many abolitionists that often galvanized Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats alike though to not end it sooner. And in truth, the ins ution was due to collapse under its own weight, war or no war. Part of the problem with not doing it sooner was the worry of an unruly class, which Thomas Jefferson had predicted if not done. Which is why he had presented a plan at one point to give all blacks their freedom by 1820. And in truth, TJ and Lincoln had pragmatic idea on this; and in truth both actually abhorred blacks as a race. It's kind of funny given how many want to exalt them. A guy like George Washington seemed to actually see blacks in more humane terms from what I've found in my readings. But he knew that their emancipation was a matter for future generations given the vulnerabilities of a fledgling nation.

I'm not sure what evidence would support:
"Most southerners no longer were personally for the ins ution."

Without modern polling or scientific sampling, you would need to cite an awful lot of evidence to be able to make the case for this.

And saying that "It was actually the heinous actions of many abolitionists that often galvanized Northern Republicans and Southern Democrats alike though to not end it sooner."

Seems to say that "were it not for people who really really objected to slavery, it would have ended sooner", as if the ONLY reason it extended out was abolitionist actions, and no small part because of southern aristocracy not wanting to give up their peculiar ins ution?

Southern whites didn't want to keep "the negroes" on the plantations, and away from their jobs?

Seems like a waaaay too simplistic view of a complex thing to me.