Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Legacy of Robert E Lee? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter shader
- Start date
supermike80
Footballguy
Loser
-jb-
Footballguy
I heard they had a whole bunch of ‘em. You can always see when they jump over a creek that the front quarter panel buckles, but then the car is perfect in the next shot. I always thought it was pretty cool that they had the doors sealed, but now it seems kinda dumb. Yeeeeeeehawww!!!1!!
timschochet
Footballguy
Honorable man, great military leader, should always be remembered. In museums and history books. Because his image and memory have been stolen by white nationalists, his statues need to be removed and his name removed from public buildings.
shader
Footballguy
I get this perspective. The Ken Burns series paints him in a bit of a sympathetic light. I grew up learning he was an incredible military mind, and was loyal to his state. His memory has definitely been hijacked.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Bo and Luke Duke probably owe someone reparations
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Eh, I don't think I want to do this thread (and I won't) but after your comment it would be interesting if you just put in a footnote if you did or did not grow up in a town with an RE Lee statue in it.
Did.
Last edited by a moderator:
Was the HC for a 16 seed against a 1 seed. He ALMOST shocked the world.....but in the end, he didn't have enough Irish to win.
While I admire his tactical mind and his love for his Home State...... I wonder what would have happened if he took the General job for The North. Would we be in a better place now?
While I admire his tactical mind and his love for his Home State...... I wonder what would have happened if he took the General job for The North. Would we be in a better place now?
GROOT
Footballguy
shader
Footballguy
Why? Are things really at a place where we can't discuss a major figure in US history?
BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Great man. He loved the Union. He just loved Virginia more.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Hmmmm: no.
When it started going on about taking it down it occurred to me that it might bother not just others but enough others that it might bother me. It was a highly screwed up local issue on a number of levels, which as you know is what we do here, and that complicated things.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I don't know, are we or aren't we? We still have a Robert E. Lee Boulevard. The City Council is going to take another run at this renaming and taking down thing.
I'll admit to being trepidatious about the discussion.
NO surrendered early. As great as the Battle of New Orleans was under Gen. Jackson that's just as ignominious as our fall was in the CW. I say this as someone of immigrant stock who got here post CW on both sides, one side after 1900. We have a lot of problems here, it's complicated.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
How I feel about things. I'm a big fan of Plessy vs Ferguson. Ask me if I'd rather spend $2 million maybe illegally spent on tearing down Lee, or would I rather see how many statues we could legally build two times higher of Homer Plessy, Louie Armstrong, Jelly Roll Morton and Buddy Bolden? I get very emotional about my hometown, and often quite pissed, it's a hard convo for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
HellToupee
Footballguy
Top 5 American General , definitely top 7-8
People today, judging people from a different generation are ignorant and should pause.
So based on this theory we should ban all mlk throughout the country since most people are offended by his sexually assaults/rapes - right?
Roy L Fewks
Footballguy
I think we can salute soldiers without bowing our heads to the nations who declared wars against us.
No, slavery was bad then and is bad now. Lee chose to defend his state's mistake, and lost.
Your recollection of history is ignorant. Lee’s primary allegiance was to state and not slavery.... please read his statement when pledging allegiance to the south.
I'm fully aware of why he chose to defend Virginia, but riddle me this: why did Virginia secede?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Uhhh I’ll try to treat your question in a normative fashion. Let’s leave King out of it. Say the question is do we have to evaluate the lives of people whom we name streets and other locales after or for? Or is it enough that some portion of society objects to a name and then what portion?
I don’t know. I’m sure we can all see how much work that would be.
State rights. You are deflecting things which is classic liberalism / utopia. What does tearing down a statue solve? Nothing. Lee was a southern general that join the south primarily based on his state allegiance..
From Battlefields.org: "The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention on the twenty-fifth day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-eight, having declared that the powers granted under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression; and the Federal Government, having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern Slaveholding States."
That's the first paragraph of it. No mention of states rights, but they felt the need to mention slaveholding.
From Wikipedia: "According to one Virginian teacher, William M. Thompson, who would later become a Confederate cavalryman, the declaring of secession by the slave states was necessary to preserve slavery as well as prevent marriages between freedmen and the white "daughters of the South", saying that civil war would be preferable:
Better, far better! Endure all the horrors of civil war than to see the dusky sons of Ham leading the fair daughters of the South to the altar.
— William M. Thompson, letter to Warner A. Thompson, (February 2, 1861)."
It wasn't about states rights. It was about preserving slavery. Try again, or better yet, don't. I fell for that "states rights" lie when I was a teenager, until I cracked a history book.
![[scooter]](/data/avatars/m/22/22287.jpg?1659477690){kind=avatar}
[scooter]
Footballguy
Who said it needs to "solve" something? You're arguing against a position that no one is taking.
[scooter]
Footballguy
[scooter]
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Sammy3469
Footballguy
dgreen
Footballguy
We can name things after whoever we want. And, many generations from now, others can replace those names with their own names. So be it.
Personally, I think we lift people up way too high and bring them crashing down way too low. As long as we worship people, this will be an issue.
timschochet
Footballguy
This would be an easier argument to make if a slew of southern generals had said, “oh no I’m not fighting for the right to own slaves”. But they didn’t. Virtually every man who was a soldier from the south fought for the south. Most Confederate soldiers did not own slaves. Many of them were either indifferent or opposed go slavery. Yet in the end they still fought for the south.
It is true that the main right the south seceded for was the right to slavery- not in their own states, which in 1860 was a given on both sides, but in new territories. However this was not true of Virginia. Virginia seceded from the Union because, following the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter, Lincoln called for a militia to put down a rebellion in the south, which Virginia objected to. In other words, Virginia seceded on the principle that other states had the right to secede. If Lincoln had decided to let the southern states leave, it is very likely that Virginia would not have seceded. So the notion that Lee fought and killed for the right to own slaves is a bit misleading on two points.
Zow
Footballguy
Certainly top three of former American generals to then lead battles against American soldiers.
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/slavery
Read Section under civil war that the war was not about slavery to begin.
The 2nd sentence of your link reads as follows: "By the mid-19th century, America’s westward expansion and the abolition movement provoked a great debate over slavery that would tear the nation apart in the bloody Civil War."
From Wikipedia's article, "Origins of the American Civil War:" "While virtually all historians in the 21st century agree that conflicts over slavery caused the war, they disagree sharply regarding which kinds of conflict—ideological, economic, political, or social—were most important."
I mean, your own link disproved your hypothesis, even if it was by a TV channel that has a surprising number of shows about aliens.
Since it was about slavery then all the states in the union did not have slavery when the war started and the confederate states did have slavery?
My father's family has been in what is now West Virginia for 260 years at least. They never owned slaves. West Virginia started out as a part of Virginia in the Civil War, until they seceded and joined the Union.
Wikipedia is actually very strict about the edits that take place on their pages. This isn't 2002 anymore, when anyone could edit there.You are citing Wikipedia which is maintained by unknown people
Everybody knows about he Missouri Compromise. Tell me: what did every Confederate State have in common with one another?
I’ll take history.com over Wikipedia especially after reading a story about Wikipedia biggest contributor was some young kid living in his moms basement.
whoknew
Footballguy
You didn’t answer my question. Did northern states have slavery when civil war began. The answer is yes...
