The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Your Virginia Tech Politics and Religion source
Forum rules
Be Civil. Go Hokies.
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by ip_law-hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:People talk past each other on this. Yes it was about slavery. Yes it was about economics. The two are irrevocably intertwined.

Well, yes Cap'n. The South's economy was premised on slave labor. It's really not that difficult unless you want to make it difficult, presumably in order to assuage one's own guilt and to justify one's support of a losing, traitor, rogue regime that got their ass kicked while trying to defend the institution of slavery.
Showing that it's economics shows cause over having slaves vs having slaves to feed grapes to you all day.
Got it.
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by 133743Hokie »

awesome guy wrote:
133743Hokie wrote:
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Hokie CPA wrote:In fairness to nolan, he didn't say slavery was the reason for the war. He correctly said it was the reason for secession. The war was started because Lincoln invaded the sovereign Confederacy over some misguided perception that somehow states couldn't leave this club they had voluntarily joined, even though every state believed in the right to secession. Massachusetts had even advocated its own secession about 40 years earlier. And these CalExit fruitcakes still think they have a right to secede.

The War Between the States was started primarily because Lincoln didn't want to be the guy who broke the United States.
Well he said it was the primary reason for secession.
nolanvt wrote: Slavery was a primary reason the southern states seceded and is supported from their secession documents.
I'm still not clear why the states felt they needed to secede to preserve slavery when the north was not trying to end it (until later in the war). In Lincoln's own words:
My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union
http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lin ... reeley.htm

Ending slavery was not an objective of the war when it started.
Missouri compromise. Everyone knew the country was expanding and that new states would not be slave states. The south's power (slaves as 3/5 to boost population and seats in the house) was going to quickly be diluted if not eroded and the north was going to then outlaw slavery.
Other way, that was to diminish their representation.
That's what I said
HvilleHokie
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by HvilleHokie »

USN_Hokie wrote:People talk past each other on this. Yes it was about slavery. Yes it was about economics. The two are irrevocably intertwined.
Yes.. that's certainly true.

I will comment that saying economics rather than slavery serves the purposes of those who like to diminish the racial aspect of it.

You are 100% correct though. Saying economics is the same thing as saying slavery.
User avatar
USN_Hokie
Posts: 30831
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:58 pm
Party: Draintheswamp

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by USN_Hokie »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:People talk past each other on this. Yes it was about slavery. Yes it was about economics. The two are irrevocably intertwined.

Well, yes Cap'n. The South's economy was premised on slave labor. It's really not that difficult unless you want to make it difficult, presumably in order to assuage one's own guilt and to justify one's support of a losing, traitor, rogue regime that got their ass kicked while trying to defend the institution of slavery.
Abraham Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union (and yeah, that was 99% about economics) than ending slavery IMHO. Plenty of folks in the South cited slavery as a reason for secession and that's a legitimate thing to point out, but slavery was going to end anyways, it was only a matter of time.

I'm not expert on civil war history...just MHO. I don't really have any dog in the fight except that the lamentations of those bemoaning these statues are an irrational hypersensitivity to the issue. The people complaining should invest that time making their lives better instead of wasting it blaming inanimate objects.
133743Hokie
Posts: 11220
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 12:29 am

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by 133743Hokie »

HvilleHokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:People talk past each other on this. Yes it was about slavery. Yes it was about economics. The two are irrevocably intertwined.
Yes.. that's certainly true.

I will comment that saying economics rather than slavery serves the purposes of those who like to diminish the racial aspect of it.

You are 100% correct though. Saying economics is the same thing as saying slavery.
And those that yell slavery, slavery, slavery serve their own purpose as well.
User avatar
HokieHam
Posts: 26381
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:50 pm
Location: Kicking over crayons in a safe space for libruls....

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by HokieHam »

133743Hokie wrote:
HvilleHokie wrote:
USN_Hokie wrote:People talk past each other on this. Yes it was about slavery. Yes it was about economics. The two are irrevocably intertwined.
Yes.. that's certainly true.

I will comment that saying economics rather than slavery serves the purposes of those who like to diminish the racial aspect of it.

You are 100% correct though. Saying economics is the same thing as saying slavery.
And those that yell slavery, slavery, slavery serve their own purpose as well.
I've been on UWS for years........seems to be a running theme ;)
Image
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."

ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
HvilleHokie
Posts: 3074
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2013 12:26 pm

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by HvilleHokie »

cwtcr hokie wrote:
HvilleHokie wrote:Every serious civil war historian, from James McPherson to Gary Gallagher and yes even bud Robertson agree that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. It wasn't even really debated until the lost cause movement in the early 20th century which obfuscated the truth. This same movement, steeped in white supremacy, was also responsible for deifying southern generals. It is no coincidence that these statues were all erected in the 1920s.

As to lee himself... He was an excellent tactician. He fought on the wrong side of the civil war. The statues to him were erected as part of the lost cause movement that speaks more to a white supremacy movement in the early 20th century than to civil war history. For that reason they should come down.
I guess you did not listen in class, Robertson in the class I had with him said economics was the primary reason, yes slavery as part of it. Of course at the time there had been slaves by the rest of the planet before and to this day after the US Civil War. America made a correction which happens at times but yes taking down statues will stop black folks from being the overwhelming danger to life of other black folks....Charlotte just racked up its 57th murder, double last year, the stats are lots of black people.... killed by other black people. Statues have yet to kill anyone in town this year.
http://www.vtmag.vt.edu/winter11/feature1.html
Slavery, Robertson teaches his students, was unquestionably the primary cause of the war, even if the original goal of the war wasn't to end it. "For 15 years [before the war], every issue to come before Congress [had] something to do directly or indirectly with slavery," he said.
HokieJoe
Posts: 13125
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by HokieJoe »

WestEndHokie39 wrote:
nolanvt wrote:I understand this will go against what some of you all learned in Virginia public schools, but the facts cited in this piece should make anyone have second thoughts on some of the myths perpetuated about Gen. Lee as a person.

http://theatln.tc/2fDOn38


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The Civil War is one my history passions. I have read many, many different works by many authors with many viewpoints.

You are embarrassing yourself, moreso since you graduated from a university with one of the premier Civil War scholars in the nation.
'Buh, buh, I read an article in the Atlantic and a Howard Zinn book.'

/nolan
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
HokieJoe
Posts: 13125
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 2:12 pm
Alma Mater: Virginia Tech
Party: Eclectic

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by HokieJoe »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie CPA wrote:
ip_law-hokie wrote:
Hokie CPA wrote:In fairness to nolan, he didn't say slavery was the reason for the war. He correctly said it was the reason for secession. The war was started because Lincoln invaded the sovereign Confederacy over some misguided perception that somehow states couldn't leave this club they had voluntarily joined, even though every state believed in the right to secession. Massachusetts had even advocated its own secession about 40 years earlier. And these CalExit fruitcakes still think they have a right to secede.

The War Between the States was started primarily because Lincoln didn't want to be the guy who broke the United States.
Robert E. Lee was given a choice to stand with his country or quit and join the opposition. He quit. He lost. And he was a traitor.

Losers still follow him today.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Suppose Trump were to order the US Military to put down a revolt... say a bunch of people come back to stop work on the Dakota Pipeline. How many of our soldiers do you think would refuse to fire on Americans? Never mind the "It wouldn't happen" argument. It's a hypothetical. I think an awful lot of American soldiers would have a real problem following such an order. Lee had the same problem. Lincoln wanted him to invade Virginia and kill Virginians. Lee refused to do it.
He should have, as members in his family did. Losers don't get to write history, CPA.
Because historical facts are just a political prop.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
User avatar
ip_law-hokie
Posts: 19133
Joined: Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:20 pm
Alma Mater: Manchester
Location: New York, NY

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by ip_law-hokie »

HvilleHokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HvilleHokie wrote:Every serious civil war historian, from James McPherson to Gary Gallagher and yes even bud Robertson agree that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. It wasn't even really debated until the lost cause movement in the early 20th century which obfuscated the truth. This same movement, steeped in white supremacy, was also responsible for deifying southern generals. It is no coincidence that these statues were all erected in the 1920s.

As to lee himself... He was an excellent tactician. He fought on the wrong side of the civil war. The statues to him were erected as part of the lost cause movement that speaks more to a white supremacy movement in the early 20th century than to civil war history. For that reason they should come down.
I guess you did not listen in class, Robertson in the class I had with him said economics was the primary reason, yes slavery as part of it. Of course at the time there had been slaves by the rest of the planet before and to this day after the US Civil War. America made a correction which happens at times but yes taking down statues will stop black folks from being the overwhelming danger to life of other black folks....Charlotte just racked up its 57th murder, double last year, the stats are lots of black people.... killed by other black people. Statues have yet to kill anyone in town this year.
http://www.vtmag.vt.edu/winter11/feature1.html
Slavery, Robertson teaches his students, was unquestionably the primary cause of the war, even if the original goal of the war wasn't to end it. "For 15 years [before the war], every issue to come before Congress [had] something to do directly or indirectly with slavery," he said.
According to UWS dogma, there were many reasons and slavery was just one of them. Just keep repeating that until you believe it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
With their Cap’n and Chief Intelligence Officer having deserted them, River, Ham and Joe valiantly continue their whataboutismistic last stand of the DJT apology tour.
nolanvt
Posts: 13116
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:01 pm
Alma Mater: Marshall Univ.

Re: The Myth of the Kindly Gen. Lee

Post by nolanvt »

ip_law-hokie wrote:
HvilleHokie wrote:
cwtcr hokie wrote:
HvilleHokie wrote:Every serious civil war historian, from James McPherson to Gary Gallagher and yes even bud Robertson agree that slavery was the primary cause of the civil war. It wasn't even really debated until the lost cause movement in the early 20th century which obfuscated the truth. This same movement, steeped in white supremacy, was also responsible for deifying southern generals. It is no coincidence that these statues were all erected in the 1920s.

As to lee himself... He was an excellent tactician. He fought on the wrong side of the civil war. The statues to him were erected as part of the lost cause movement that speaks more to a white supremacy movement in the early 20th century than to civil war history. For that reason they should come down.
I guess you did not listen in class, Robertson in the class I had with him said economics was the primary reason, yes slavery as part of it. Of course at the time there had been slaves by the rest of the planet before and to this day after the US Civil War. America made a correction which happens at times but yes taking down statues will stop black folks from being the overwhelming danger to life of other black folks....Charlotte just racked up its 57th murder, double last year, the stats are lots of black people.... killed by other black people. Statues have yet to kill anyone in town this year.
http://www.vtmag.vt.edu/winter11/feature1.html
Slavery, Robertson teaches his students, was unquestionably the primary cause of the war, even if the original goal of the war wasn't to end it. "For 15 years [before the war], every issue to come before Congress [had] something to do directly or indirectly with slavery," he said.
According to UWS dogma, there were many reasons and slavery was just one of them. Just keep repeating that until you believe it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It was actually economics! [emoji38]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Fully vaccinated, still not dead
Post Reply