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.
Furthermore, at his Appomattox surrender Lee noticed that one of Grant's officers was Native American. As Lee shook his hand he said "Nice to see 1 real American here".
Also, after the war he used his hero position to urge reconciliation to a very bitter South. He didn't want confederate flags at his funeral nor did he want to be buried in his Confederate uniform
I know the guy was not perfect especially by today's standards but considering the world he grew up in....
"What's best in life?","To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."
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.
I don't care if you're a Democrat or a Republican... if you refuse to consider alternatives to the two parties, you support the Status Quo and you are a major part of the problem.
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.
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.
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.
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.
UpstateSCHokie wrote:
Remind me again, when did the war begin and when was the emancipation proclamation written?
I just said that for the Union, slavery wasn't a driving force behind the Union at first, but slavery was a primary reason southern states seceded. It even said so in their Articles of Secession.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If the north was not fighting to end slavery, then why would the south be fighting to preserve it?
Because of the scrutiny of slavery and the fears that it was going to be abolished. That's why they specifically cited slavery in the Articles of Secession.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So just so we're clear, you're saying that thousands of southern men (most of which did not own slaves) fought and died in a war for 2 years (prior to the emancipation proclamation) to defend an institution (slavery) even though the north had no stated goals of ending it? And that this was the primary reason for the start of the war? Does that really make any sense to you?
I didn't say it was THE reason. It was A reason that was significant enough to be cited in the Articles of Secession.
Or maybe the Articles of Secession were FAKE NEWS?
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.
Right, because the Atlantic is going to give us a non-biased opinion on Lee. If he was so terrible, then why did Lincoln offer him the command of the Federal forces prior to the war between the states?
But of course we all know you guys have to engage in revisionist history to justify your jihad against historical monuments. I'm pretty sure the Atlantic could write a piece to make Thomas Jefferson look like the devil incarnate if they wanted to in order to advance their agenda.
Because of his reputation as one of the finest officers in the United States Army, Abraham Lincoln offered Lee the command of the Federal forces in April 1861. Lee declined and tendered his resignation from the army when the state of Virginia seceded on April 17, arguing that he could not fight against his own people. Instead, he accepted a general’s commission in the newly formed Confederate Army. His first military engagement of the Civil War occurred at Cheat Mountain, Virginia (now West Virginia) on September 11, 1861. It was a Union victory but Lee’s reputation withstood the public criticism that followed. He served as military advisor to President Jefferson Davis until June 1862 when he was given command of the wounded General Joseph E. Johnston's embattled army on the Virginia peninsula.
Lincoln offered Lee because his primary motivation was preserving the Union, not necessarily ending slavery. Emancipation became a rallying cry for the Union later on in the war.
Slavery was a primary reason the southern states seceded and is supported from their secession documents.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remind me again, when did the war begin and when was the emancipation proclamation written?
I just said that for the Union, slavery wasn't a driving force behind the Union at first, but slavery was a primary reason southern states seceded. It even said so in their Articles of Secession.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
revisionist history is awesome!!!! The war was about economics mostly, check with the experts, VT has one
I guess the Articles of Secession that specifically cited the preservation of slavery were FAKE NEWS?
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.
Right, because the Atlantic is going to give us a non-biased opinion on Lee. If he was so terrible, then why did Lincoln offer him the command of the Federal forces prior to the war between the states?
But of course we all know you guys have to engage in revisionist history to justify your jihad against historical monuments. I'm pretty sure the Atlantic could write a piece to make Thomas Jefferson look like the devil incarnate if they wanted to in order to advance their agenda.
Because of his reputation as one of the finest officers in the United States Army, Abraham Lincoln offered Lee the command of the Federal forces in April 1861. Lee declined and tendered his resignation from the army when the state of Virginia seceded on April 17, arguing that he could not fight against his own people. Instead, he accepted a general’s commission in the newly formed Confederate Army. His first military engagement of the Civil War occurred at Cheat Mountain, Virginia (now West Virginia) on September 11, 1861. It was a Union victory but Lee’s reputation withstood the public criticism that followed. He served as military advisor to President Jefferson Davis until June 1862 when he was given command of the wounded General Joseph E. Johnston's embattled army on the Virginia peninsula.
Lincoln offered Lee because his primary motivation was preserving the Union, not necessarily ending slavery. Emancipation became a rallying cry for the Union later on in the war.
Slavery was a primary reason the southern states seceded and is supported from their secession documents.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remind me again, when did the war begin and when was the emancipation proclamation written?
I just said that for the Union, slavery wasn't a driving force behind the Union at first, but slavery was a primary reason southern states seceded. It even said so in their Articles of Secession.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
revisionist history is awesome!!!! The war was about economics mostly, check with the experts, VT has one
Yes, and preserving slavery was a critical economic factor for the South.
HokieDan95 wrote:Wonder why the Atlantic overlooked this episode?
Furthermore, at his Appomattox surrender Lee noticed that one of Grant's officers was Native American. As Lee shook his hand he said "Nice to see 1 real American here".
Also, after the war he used his hero position to urge reconciliation to a very bitter South. He didn't want confederate flags at his funeral nor did he want to be buried in his Confederate uniform
I know the guy was not perfect especially by today's standards but considering the world he grew up in....
Lee was critical in the reconciliation efforts. I don't think many people would argue otherwise.
HokieDan95 wrote:Wonder why the Atlantic overlooked this episode?
Furthermore, at his Appomattox surrender Lee noticed that one of Grant's officers was Native American. As Lee shook his hand he said "Nice to see 1 real American here".
Also, after the war he used his hero position to urge reconciliation to a very bitter South. He didn't want confederate flags at his funeral nor did he want to be buried in his Confederate uniform
I know the guy was not perfect especially by today's standards but considering the world he grew up in....
Lee was critical in the reconciliation efforts. I don't think many people would argue otherwise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uhm... hate to tell you, but that's exactly what the lame brained article you linked did
Dang, dude.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
HokieDan95 wrote:Wonder why the Atlantic overlooked this episode?
Furthermore, at his Appomattox surrender Lee noticed that one of Grant's officers was Native American. As Lee shook his hand he said "Nice to see 1 real American here".
Also, after the war he used his hero position to urge reconciliation to a very bitter South. He didn't want confederate flags at his funeral nor did he want to be buried in his Confederate uniform
I know the guy was not perfect especially by today's standards but considering the world he grew up in....
Lee was critical in the reconciliation efforts. I don't think many people would argue otherwise.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Uhm... hate to tell you, but that's exactly what the lame brained article you linked did
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.
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.
Right, because the Atlantic is going to give us a non-biased opinion on Lee. If he was so terrible, then why did Lincoln offer him the command of the Federal forces prior to the war between the states?
But of course we all know you guys have to engage in revisionist history to justify your jihad against historical monuments. I'm pretty sure the Atlantic could write a piece to make Thomas Jefferson look like the devil incarnate if they wanted to in order to advance their agenda.
Because of his reputation as one of the finest officers in the United States Army, Abraham Lincoln offered Lee the command of the Federal forces in April 1861. Lee declined and tendered his resignation from the army when the state of Virginia seceded on April 17, arguing that he could not fight against his own people. Instead, he accepted a general’s commission in the newly formed Confederate Army. His first military engagement of the Civil War occurred at Cheat Mountain, Virginia (now West Virginia) on September 11, 1861. It was a Union victory but Lee’s reputation withstood the public criticism that followed. He served as military advisor to President Jefferson Davis until June 1862 when he was given command of the wounded General Joseph E. Johnston's embattled army on the Virginia peninsula.
Lincoln offered Lee because his primary motivation was preserving the Union, not necessarily ending slavery. Emancipation became a rallying cry for the Union later on in the war.
Slavery was a primary reason the southern states seceded and is supported from their secession documents.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Remind me again, when did the war begin and when was the emancipation proclamation written?
I just said that for the Union, slavery wasn't a driving force behind the Union at first, but slavery was a primary reason southern states seceded. It even said so in their Articles of Secession.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
revisionist history is awesome!!!! The war was about economics mostly, check with the experts, VT has one
Yes, and preserving slavery was a critical economic factor for the South.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/quote]
at that exact time yes, then mechanization came in so now no, just mexicans for kali
you are wrong but I will take the theories of the experts instead... VT has one
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.
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
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.
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.
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 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.
The Atlantic? LOL. Yeah.
Interesting you're willing to call their citations from lesser historians "fact", relying on their interpretations, over other historians 180* opposite, and calling their interpretations "myth"
Read Freeman's 4-volume biography and get back to us. That "myth" won him a Pulitzer, btw.
Of course, you're just trolling.
You still working on my Nazi question? Goodness. If you couldn't handle THAT, there is no way you're mentally equipped to discuss 1860s history.
Freeman was a segregationist and supported Byrd's massive resistance. They will be taking his name off the HS in Henrico County within 2 years and taking back his Pulitzer.
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
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.
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.
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.
Yeah, I read it. You obviously either: