Best takedown of Gen'rul Lee that I've seen

DiogenesTheWiser

DiogenesTheWiser

Well-Known Member
Yes, pun intended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/lee-national-review/529206/

Quotable: "The myths both about Lee and the Confederacy, his supposed hatred of slavery, his non-ownership of slaves, and his conduct during the war and his reasons for fighting it, are all sustained by the statues and monuments that honor him. The reverence for the people represented by those monuments interferes with the proper remembrance of history, it does not enhance it. You don’t need a statue of Lee to understand why white Southerners revered him, you need a book. The statue can go in a museum."
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
Yes, pun intended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/lee-national-review/529206/

Quotable: "The myths both about Lee and the Confederacy, his supposed hatred of slavery, his non-ownership of slaves, and his conduct during the war and his reasons for fighting it, are all sustained by the statues and monuments that honor him. The reverence for the people represented by those monuments interferes with the proper remembrance of history, it does not enhance it. You don’t need a statue of Lee to understand why white Southerners revered him, you need a book. The statue can go in a museum."
Click to expand...
Wasn't the mayor of New Orleans just recently taking down Civil War statues, including General Lee's?
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
The war wasnt really about slavery. And slavery or not the states had every right to leave. I dont support slavery just saying.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Drowning-Man said:
The war wasnt really about slavery. And slavery or not the states had every right to leave. I dont support slavery just saying.
Click to expand...


When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, I've heard it only "freed" the slaves in the rebellion states and
did not free slaves in states which were not attempting to secede.

Sometimes I wonder if Lincoln was as big a racist pig as that douche FDR who incarcerated thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WW II.
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
When Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, I've heard it only "freed" the slaves in the rebellion states and
did not free slaves in states which were not attempting to secede.

Sometimes I wonder if Lincoln was as big a racist pig as that douche FDR who incarcerated thousands of Americans of Japanese ancestry during WW II.
Click to expand...
He did it cuz it gave him a tactical advantage
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Drowning-Man said:
He did it cuz it gave him a tactical advantage
Click to expand...

Yes ironically the dipshit Union used conscripted troops ( a kind of enslavement) to fight against the Confederates in order to force them to remain in the Union against their will.

Then to further the absurdity the dipshits of the Confederacy said they were fighting for "freedom" which included some kind of stupid "right" to enslave other people.
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Yes ironically the dipshit Union used conscripted troops ( a kind of enslavement) to fight against the Confederates in order to force them to remain in the Union against their will.

Then to further the absurdity the dipshits of the Confederacy said they were fighting for "freedom" which included some kind of stupid "right" to enslave other people.
Click to expand...
And the people who fought for the south were poor and didnt own slaves. Slave and land owners were exempt from service. And the wealthy from the north could pay a fee for military exemption.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
If not slavery, what was the war about?

Be sure to cite your sources.
Click to expand...
Divergent economic situations were a big driver, in part due to the slavery plantation system. The north industrialized and grew both the economy and population (immigration) faster than the cotton slave plantation economy could. The northern industries benefited from tariffs while tariffs stifled cotton exports through reciprocal tariffs from trading partners. The slave based cotton economy was bottled up in southern states and couldn't expand westward. Mining and building railroads could have been done by slave labor instead of immigrants and the southern elite saw laws against westward expansion as an unfair cap on their own economic growth. On the other hand, the more populous north wanted those railroad and mining jobs to go to their burgeoning population. And the north had the money and numbers to make legislation go their way. Without the ability to expand into the west, the slave states were capped to an agricultural economy. And tariffs hurt the south while they helped the north.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/history/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/civil-war-economic-causes-issue

So, yeah, slavery was the foundation on which conditions that led to war grew to crisis levels. But it wasn't the immorality of slavery and concern over human suffering that led to the civil war. It was disparity in economic growth and the constraints on growth of wealth among the southern elite. That said, the south was insane to think it could defeat the north in a war. There was no real reason why a smart wealthy southerner couldn't divert wealth into industrial activity instead of land and slaves and so this idea of stifling southern economy is a stilted one. So maybe it was the inability to accept facts that was the real cause of the civil war.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Drowning-Man said:
Actually wiki states 7%
Click to expand...
I guess it comes down to how it is calculated. It's quite likely we are both right or close enough.

I think the 31% number is more pertinent. It applies to all families in the south and implies the white connection to and support for slavery must have been pretty high. I don't see how an average figure for all the united States has any meaning. Most people living in the United States in 1860 were residents of non-slave states. Agree that Texas was just getting started in the slave business at the beginning of the war. But given their recent entry into the United States, they were quickly headed towards full participation.

https://saintanselmhistory.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-slavery-and-the-1-6/
Figuring out what proportion of Southern families owned slaves is really quite simple. The University of Virginia has a Historical Census Browser that allows one to search, map, and calculate figures associated with various censuses (the calculator for the Census of 1860 is here). .... As you can see, about 31% of the families in the states that seceded owned slaves. The range runs from 49% of families in Mississippi to 20% of families in Arkansas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_slaveholders
Only 8% of all US families owned slaves
 
Drowning-Man

Drowning-Man

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I guess it comes down to how it is calculated. It's quite likely we are both right or close enough.

I think the 31% number is more pertinent. It applies to all families in the south and implies the white connection to and support for slavery must have been pretty high. I don't see how an average figure for all the united States has any meaning. Most people living in the United States in 1860 were residents of non-slave states. Agree that Texas was just getting started in the slave business at the beginning of the war. But given their recent entry into the United States, they were quickly headed towards full participation.

https://saintanselmhistory.wordpress.com/2016/02/05/lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-slavery-and-the-1-6/
Figuring out what proportion of Southern families owned slaves is really quite simple. The University of Virginia has a Historical Census Browser that allows one to search, map, and calculate figures associated with various censuses (the calculator for the Census of 1860 is here). .... As you can see, about 31% of the families in the states that seceded owned slaves. The range runs from 49% of families in Mississippi to 20% of families in Arkansas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States#Distribution_of_slaveholders
Only 8% of all US families owned slaves
Click to expand...
The elite have been around for a long time. War is young men dieing and old men talking
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
DiogenesTheWiser said:
Yes, pun intended.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/lee-national-review/529206/

Quotable: "The myths both about Lee and the Confederacy, his supposed hatred of slavery, his non-ownership of slaves, and his conduct during the war and his reasons for fighting it, are all sustained by the statues and monuments that honor him. The reverence for the people represented by those monuments interferes with the proper remembrance of history, it does not enhance it. You don’t need a statue of Lee to understand why white Southerners revered him, you need a book. The statue can go in a museum."
Click to expand...
*revere
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Drowning-Man said:
The elite have been around for a long time. War is young men dieing and old men talking
Click to expand...
Dude, nearly 1/3 of all families owned slaves. To put it into perspective, participation rate of kids in Texas high school football is 3%* yet nearly every family has some connection to this sport. Try banning football in Texas and see how it goes over. I don't know why you even try to deny that slavery was a reason for the Texas Civil War dead.

Does it bother you to think that the people of Texas were committed to maintaining the tradition of slavery?

*165,000 student athletes, source: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/football-top-sport-us-1088158-high-school-players

5.4 million high school students, source: file
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top