The entire world is racist to varying degrees. Still is and will always be. People have learned behaviors and norms from their upbringing that continue this system for all.
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
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Virtually every state had enslaved persons in the 1840 Census, and the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 (affirmed by Dred Scott in 1857) ensured they were not freed merely by entering a Free State, e.g., a state where Slave Trade was abolished by law.
Sorry where we going with this?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I guess I'm asking because it surprises me when people who don't have a personal stake in their hometowns feel strongly about this. This probably isn't an issue where you are, right?
In my time and travels up north I think I can recall seeing civil war monuments in MA, NY, RI, MI. I love history so it's the sort of thing I'll do, stop, look, read these old things. People up there were pissed. And so sad. I remember one in Kalamazoo MI, just this long list of names of the dead from what must have been a small town back then. And it's understandable, so, so much death, so much needless, stupid, destruction. And the victory of the CSA would have meant the death of the republic, something I love. I doubt you'll do this but if you get a chance pick up a copy of 12 Years A Slave. I'm not being preachy, and really the prose is hard, but the main thing is this poor guy got seized, kidnapped, taken as a free man in the north. Taken from his family, his home, his life, and thrown into absolute inhuman madness. Just one man's story. I've read Elie Weisel and Alexander Solzhenitsyn, maybe throw in Papillon, and that would be my comp, gulag, stalag stuff.
Going to plantations is interesting. I used to go to them when I was a kid, field trips, traveling with the folks. Beautiful homes, just frozen in time, gorgeous landscapes. Louisiana is just lush. As you get older and you revisit them you start to look around and roam. And then you see what was behind them. And imagine it in the heat, no AC, what's basically swamp and recovered marsh. Just more murderous madness, sheer insanity. This is where humans - Americans - were 150 years ago?
I understand there are people in the north who are wrapped up in the Confederate flag, they fly it, that kind of thing. I don't understand it. Things are complicated down here. But people in the north getting wrapped up in this from a pro-statue/name POV I don't understand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Redwes25
Footballguy
There is basically no doubt that the civil war was caused by slavery. People knew it at the time that the states seceded for that reason. Just go read their resolutions of succession. Unfortunately, the Lost Cause movement starting in 1880s were able to change the narrative away from that reason. As late as the 1980s their narrative was still taught in our schools and part of the American tale that the South fought for “state rights” or the “southern way of life” against “northern aggression”.
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
This is true.
What I find encouraging in protests in Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, U.K., et al, is that they are not merely standing in solidarity with the U.S. Alongside #blacklivesmatter #icantbreathe #justiceforgeorgefloyd #sayhername we see chants of “always was, always will be Aboriginal land” and localized hashtags #ArmsDownNZ and #JusticePourAdama. 15,000 people gathered in the capital Berlin, 20,000 in Düsseldorf, and 25,000 in Munich to denounce local institutionalized racism, an everyday reality for black Germans. Handmade placards in London listing Mark Duggan, Julian Cole and others killed or left disabled by British police, chanted “no justice, no peace, no racist police” and carried signs that declared “the UK is not innocent”.
We’re all in this together.
Last edited by a moderator:
A southern military general who fought secede from the Union to keep slavery in the south, at the orders of his Democrat leaders during a time when one's loyalty to their state was greater than their loyalty to a nation.
Yet another who followed the orders and of his superiors and was misled by the Democrats and Democrat controlled MSM of his time
Yet another who followed the orders and of his superiors and was misled by the Democrats and Democrat controlled MSM of his time
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
If ever in doubt, merely read the secession documents. The state legislatures of the first 7 who went out left no doubt and were quite explicit about why they were leaving.
That said, the radical Republicans and Abolitionists were a vocal minority. Northern men were never going to take up arms to ensure slaves be freed. Lincoln’s own position was still evolving. The only way to drum up support to put down the rebellion was to emphasize preserving the Union. Emancipation wasn’t part of the conversation yet.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Lincoln wrote at one point that if he could keep slavery and preserve the union, he would do it, or if he could dissolve slavery and preserve the union, he would do it. Why didn't the Confederacy just take him up on it if it was only about slavery?
"I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be “the Union as it was.” If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. 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. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views."
Lysander Spooner, an abolitionist anarchist that actually campaigned against slavery, offered free legal services to slaves, even advocated violence by slaves and free Southerners to end the institution, wrote about Lincoln being a tyrannical pos. The Civil War was about centralizing power in the hands of the state. Freeing the slaves was an afterthought. Slavery is still legal under 13th amendment, it's an ongoing institution in the prison system.
President Lincoln wrote this on August 22, 1862....approximately 1.5 years after the start of the Civil War and a couple of weeks before Antietam Written during the heart of the Civil War. This is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve.
President Lincoln wrote his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.
Link added.
No doubt that he wrote it but I am sure that much of his "reflection" in this letter , had to more do with the huge number of deaths that had occurred up to then.
No doubt....the greatest of all Presidents.
President Lincoln wrote his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. The letter, which received acclaim in the North, stands as a classic statement of Lincoln's constitutional responsibilities. A few years after the president's death, Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.
Link added.
No doubt that he wrote it but I am sure that much of his "reflection" in this letter , had to more do with the huge number of deaths that had occurred up to then.
No doubt....the greatest of all Presidents.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The main thrust of the Republican Party was the abolition of slavery. Maybe not right away, maybe not in the immediate future, but ultimately. Obviously a huge chunk of the Democratic Party split over that. The GOP definitely was not going to permit slavery to expand in the west. That's why Lincoln just getting elected led to South Carolina moving to secede, SC seceding led to SC demanding the USA evacuate Fort Sumter. The election was November 6th, the secession was November 9th. Given how news traveled back then that was practically immediate. The cascading stupidity that followed on the part of the rest of the South reminds me of the inception of WW1.
BobbyLayne
Footballguy
Was looking through Grant’s memoirs for his thoughts on R.E.L. (though I gather no one really cares about the OP supposed original intent) when I can across this gem. Written 140 years ago but superbly prescient:
Last edited by a moderator:
Redwes25
Footballguy
I am well aware but the reason the Southern states seceded was Slavery to ensure the survival of that institution. We have no war without the Southern States seceding to maintain an awful institution.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Again,
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery.”
The war was fought in service to centralizing federal power. Look at how blacks have been treated the past century, even now, because SLAVERY IS STILL LEGAL, and tell me the federal govt’s interest is freedom for African Americans. It’s bull####. It was always bull####.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
He sent that letter with the Emancipation Proclamation sitting on his desk about to be signed. Lincoln was very much anti-slavery, he commented on it many many times.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
More accurately, he Civil War was about stopping the spread of slavery. The biggest issues always came when new States were added and determining if they would have slaves or not. Of course this by it's nature touches on the direct question of slavery itself because those States would send Legislators to Congress and if the balance of slave vs non-slave States swung too far in one direction, it could have potentially changed federal laws.
ren hoek
Footballguy
That may be the case. But the reason he engaged in mass slaughter was to concentrate power for the Union. Not to end slavery. He said so himself.
leave a whisper
Footballguy
I live in a City in Ohio named after a Revolutionary War General and has a Union Soldier Monument downtown at the square of "A Union Soldier" (no name assigned) that was dedicated in 1895 - lists the names of the soldiers from our County who died or were captured in the Civil War and also has a plaque on one side that lists those from the County who fought in the Revolutionary War as well........ having said that, I see a lot of Confederate flags on the back of Trucks & flown on porches here in town - the Confederacy & their flag is a symbol of white power now not "the South" IMHO ..... right wrong or indifferent R. Lee is the face of that - history books are enough, he doesn't deserve a statue.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
I believe this Government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved -- I do not expect the house to fall -- but I do expect it will cease to be divided.
Redwes25
Footballguy
He is making up a narrative that fits his view of the world with an oppressive federal govt that started with Lincoln. It doesn't fit with reality so not really worth arguing with him.
I’m a history buff and graduated college with a degree in history so I place a high on anything historical. I’m born and raise here in ct so no confederate flag and honestly can’t remember the last time I saw one here. They could have just removed the monument, statue etc to relocate it or donate it the confederate museum in Richmond which is fascinating if you ever get a chance.
Ilov80s
Footballguy
Oh I know. He and I used to be the only ones posting here about militarization of the police, spying and US drone use in the ME. Now, I am not sure where he really is. He hates powerful central government and I totally get that but he also seems to carry a lot of water for the Trump GOP.
ren hoek
Footballguy
That is just rhetoric. Spooner- an actual abolitionist and not a pretend one- wrote letters to Sumner & Seward about the real nature of the Republican Party.
His book on the Unconstitutionality of slavery advanced an invincible argument that slavery was completely incompatible with the constitution. Spooner believed that, had the case been made publicly that slavery was unconstitutional, world opinion would have pressured southern leaders like Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee to work towards doing what the British, Spanish, Dutch, French, and other slave-owning societies had done in the nineteenth century to end the institutional peacefully. In his own words, from the letter to Sumner:
“Had all those men at the North, who believed these ideas (the unconstitutional nature of slavery) to be true, promulgated them, as was their plain and obvious duty to do, it is reasonable to suppose that we should long since have had freedom, without shedding one drop of blood... The South could, consistently with honor, and probably would, long before this time, and without a conflict, have surrendered their slavery to the demand of the constitution... and to the moral sentiment of the world... You, and others like you have done more, according to your abilities, to prevent the peaceful abolition of slavery, than any other men in the nation”
Lincoln didn’t need to engage in mass murder to end slavery. It was never about ending slavery. That is why it is still legal.
It's complicated. FWIW, I've always been a lot more disturbed by monumnets to people like Ben Tillman than something like Confederate Defenders of Charleston memorials.
rustycolts
Footballguy
Saints if you like the history of the Civil War this book The Immortal 600 is really an interesting read. It is about The US forces using pows as human shields. My Great Great Grandfather was a prisoner there. When reading this remember it was written by a Major who was there. Times were different then he was racist no doubt but so were many many others. Its a shame people ever felt that way but hopefully we are evolving as human beings and it will go away forever someday. There are interesting letters written by officers of both sides in the book. So I thought you might find it interesting. Again there are seriously cringe worthy statements made but if you can get past that you might find it interesting.SaintsInDome2006 said:
https://archive.org/details/TheImmortalSixHundred_201605/page/n17/mode/2up
This link is a little easier to read. https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=t2EUAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&pg=GBS.PP1 A picture of my Great Great Grandfather is on page xxi in the preface
Last edited by a moderator:
Stealthycat
Footballguy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee
Agree with him siding with the Confederacy or not, the man did a lot with his life. How people viewed the world in 1830-1870 is something none of us will ever fully understand. It was a different world then.
Agree with him siding with the Confederacy or not, the man did a lot with his life. How people viewed the world in 1830-1870 is something none of us will ever fully understand. It was a different world then.
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Militarily, he had a nice win at Chancellorsville and a good draw (fellow fans of bad Premier League clubs will understand what I mean by this) at Antietam. I guess a small case could be made for Fredericksburg, though there weren't many tactical decisions to be made there. He made one major bad decision on each of the three days at Gettysburg and after that he fought a two year delaying action. Hardly a genius resume there.
And during the incursion into Pennsylvania he issued orders to capture free black people and return them to slavery in the confederacy.
And during the incursion into Pennsylvania he issued orders to capture free black people and return them to slavery in the confederacy.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Thanks for the reference, that's very cool. I have a set of these, The Louisiana Historical Quarterly, from back in the day (relative). The telling of stories from people who lived through the times is vastly different from what we get today. Those were harsh, harsh times too. Thanks for the info, I will check it out. - SID
Robert E. Lee opposed Confederate monuments. Shouldn't that end any discussion about whether we should purport to honor him by maintaining statues of his likeness as Confederate monuments?
Last edited by a moderator:
If you see an equal stance between owning another human being and not wanting to memorialize a failed insurgency, one that coincidentally openly promoted owning human beings, there are larger issues here.
timschochet
Footballguy
Back with my wife in Tennessee, when one day she turned to me, “Virgil, quick come see! There goes Robert E Lee!”
Now I don’t mind chopping wood, and I don’t care if the money’s no good. You take what you need and you leave the rest, but they should have never taken the very best.
Now I don’t mind chopping wood, and I don’t care if the money’s no good. You take what you need and you leave the rest, but they should have never taken the very best.
ren hoek
Footballguy
Why stop with confederate statues? We should also stop celebrating the genocidal maniac Christopher Columbus, remove slave holders from US bills, tear down the monument to mass murdering tyrant Abraham Lincoln, blast the faces off Mount Rushmore and return it to the Lakota Sioux. Strike Hoover’s name from FBI headquarters, rename George Bush’s library after Muntadhar al-Zaidi. Cancel the war criminal Barack Obama’s Netflix deal after he apologizes for extrajudicially murdering US citizens.
Matter of fact let’s tear down the American flag since it stands for death and destruction to the countries we overthrow. Sounds like a good start to restoring peace and dignity around the world.
Matter of fact let’s tear down the American flag since it stands for death and destruction to the countries we overthrow. Sounds like a good start to restoring peace and dignity around the world.
jplvr
Footballguy
I used to be against taking down the confederate statues before I saw when most of them were erected. I definitely think we need to take them down, but the way it's happening is appalling, and there is a slippery slope. People are already talking about cancelling Washington and Jefferson because they owned slaves. You're just going to lose a lot of people when you start talking like that, and then what happens when people start looking into Lincoln more?
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/18/cnns_angela_rye_washington_jefferson_statues_need_to_come_down.html
Here's the CNN discussion on Washington and Jefferson:
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/08/18/cnns_angela_rye_washington_jefferson_statues_need_to_come_down.html
Last edited by a moderator:
Your idea seems a little extreme. How about we take care of the super obvious stuff first before burning down everything in sight?
HellToupee
Footballguy
ren hoek
Footballguy
squistion
Footballguy
They should have cut off the hands instead, since that was what he had done to Indians who didn't collect enough gold, who were then left to bleed to death.
Insomniac
Footballguy
To me, there is an enormous difference between people like George Washington and any of the famous confederates. Washington was a key figure in the creation of the US and did great things to build this country. OTOH RE Lee was a good general who is only famous for his efforts to destroy the country in the cause of maintaining slavery.
Is their a more harmful historical myth in US history than the "Lost Cause"?
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
There were plenty of people in the 1950's that didn't think black people should have to drink from seperate water fountains and didn't mistreat black people even thought it was the accepted thing to do.
Heck there are plenty of people here that didn't hate gay/trans folks 20 years ago even though it was considered mostly acceptable to do so.
HellToupee
Footballguy
The principle I was espousing wasn't "we should follow the thoughts of anyone in the 1800s I agree with." It was "don't pretend to honor someone by going against his express wishes." That's kind of the opposite of hypocrisy, so your charge misses the mark.
As for my calling anyone the spawn of satan, you seem to be completely imagining that.
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
Spawn of Satan is the name of my early Ozzy cover band.
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL
Footballguy
I honestly can't figure out if you're just mixing me up with someone else or what.
You said you can't denegrate Lee based on today's morals because FBGs living in the south back then would be slave owners because that was acceptable at the time. I said as a parrallel not everyone from the 1950's mistreated black people even though it was considered acceptable at the time, and FBGs from 20 years ago didn't mistreat/mock gay people 20 years ago even though it was much more acceptable at the time than it is now.
To wit you brought up something about getting an ammendment to the constituation instead of taking it by force. I have no idea what the heck you are talking about. All I was talking about was thinking less of Robert E Lee and using non-mistreating black/gay people just because others considered it more acceptable at the time as a parallel to your counter point. What the hell does that have to do with taking anything by force?
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ah WYES, very nice.
>>“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”<<
More here.
I do find this persuasive.
Just some other thoughts:
- Many of these monuments were built in the generation following the CW generation itself. The CW was a brutal, gruesome gash for those who lived through it.
- Though some areas more than others. The Atlanta, Richmond, GA, VA experience was different from NO’s & LA’s.
- I think the inscriptions on these things especially Lee’s matters.
- One thing I’ll say about Lee is that symbolically he could stand for more than just war and rebellion. He could stand for surrender, reconciliation, dignity, rejoining and supporting the Union. Now I say that as someone who grew up in a town with a very prominent Lee statue. It seemed pretty, noble, “old.” Whites, blacks & everyone else had Carnivals and festivals under it with no problem. I used to frequent a favorite bar in its shadow. But having said that I’ll point out one feature of this seemingly innocuous statue: the local legend was it faced North purposefully because the General would never turn his back on the North, always vigilant lest they try to return.
Last edited by a moderator:
