OT Was Robert E. Lee really all that evil?

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

They could have made everyone Free

Oh this is true. But then, Jesus might have tried to end the practice, Mohammad should have.
Every country in the world could have. But none did.

I am impress it is corrected in the Constitution. It is nice that it is correctable by amendment.
 
Last edited:
At the time the United states constitution was written, Slavery was legal though out the world.
Britain passed the Abolition of the Slave trade in 1807.
The US follows in 1808.
Other European Nations follow and the snow ball to end Slavery begins.
Brazil abolishes Slavery in 1888.
The UN makes it final in 1948.
 




The key figure on CNN doesn't even know Charlottesville isn't in Europe.



We really should take Twitter as the gospel.

:lol:
 
At the time the United states constitution was written, Slavery was legal though out the world.
Britain passed the Abolition of the Slave trade in 1807.
The US follows in 1808.
Other European Nations follow and the snow ball to end Slavery begins.
Brazil abolishes Slavery in 1888.
The UN makes it final in 1948.
Actually Marz, France was the first country to abolish slavery in 1794 but Napoleon brought it back in 1802-1804 until Haitian rebellion.. for a short stretch...the French were the first Europeon people to give blacks equal rights and the vote....we weren't close to leading the pack on slavery nor was England
 
Wow, you sometimes say the shittiest things. I hope you don't mean that.

The quotation marks denote that he's attributing it to you, as an implied parallel of what you said.

So, rest easy, it's unlikely he's offering one of his own positions.
 
The quotation marks denote that he's attributing it to you, as an implied parallel of what you said.

So, rest easy, it's unlikely he thinks that himself.

No, I actually think he said it.

I would never say such a thing. It's exactly opposite of the kind of thing I wrote.
 
If only there was a picture that perfectly displayed Denny's posting style and spinning of facts.

Hmmm...
 
If only there was a picture that perfectly displayed Denny's posting style and spinning of facts.

Hmmm...

The text-only version: "but wat about hillary clinton?"

That might be my squirrel food.
 
With quotation marks to attribute it to you, since you used "regrettable" about preserving slavery. It's not too complicated.

I wrote that it was regrettable, the most regrettable thing, that they preserved slavery.

Twist it as you will, but the words are plain english.
 
They created the country with legal slavery. They could have made everyone Free. It's one of the most regrettable compromises in the history of government.

For all to see Minstrel's foolishness.
 
Brutal. I am deeply ashamed of correctly interpreting Rasta's post while you struggled with comprehension.

He wrote those awful words, I did not.

There is no way to interpret what I wrote in any way other than that creating the country with slavery was one of the most regrettable compromises in the history of government.

It absolutely was a compromise, the means to entice the southern states to join the union in the first place.

I'll proudly stand behind my statements.

I also am amazed at the intellectual laziness behind the movement to remove the statues. It's a complex issue in many cases, and each should be looked at by the local people with the help of honest historical scholars.

Lee, for example, wasn't all that pro slavery. Maybe he does deserve statues, maybe not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/us/robert-e-lee-slaves.html

He wrote that the people enslaved on his family’s property, in what was then known as Alexandria County, were not “being sold South,” as had been reported. And he implied that he would free them within five years.

The letter is one of many written by Lee that sheds slivers of light on his thoughts about slavery. Historians have clashed — and are clashing still — over the strength of his support for the system of forced labor that kept millions of people in bondage for generations.

...


In 1862, in accordance with Mr. Custis’s will, Lee filed a deed of manumission to free the slaves at Arlington House and at two more plantations Mr. Custis had owned, individually naming more than 150 of them. And in January 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, declaring that all people held as slaves in the rebelling states “are, and henceforward shall be free.”​

1862 was before the emancipation proclamation, and in the heat of the Civil War.

Of all the letters by Lee that have been collected by archivists and historians over the years, one of the most famous was written to his wife in 1856. “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country,” he wrote.​
 
I also am amazed at the intellectual laziness behind the movement to remove the statues. It's a complex issue in many cases, and each should be looked at by the local people with the help of honest historical scholars.

Lee, for example, wasn't all that pro slavery.

You, like a lot of Republicans, seem confused on this issue (I think El Presidente actually knows better, but just titled this thread for max troll).

No one (or, at least, very few--you can probably find someone to argue anything) is arguing that Lee was "evil" or "American Hitler." Removing his statues isn't as a direct condemnation of Lee himself, but as a condemnation of the Confederacy and the slave culture. It doesn't matter whether Lee, himself, was for or against slavery--what matters is that he took up arms against the US to protect the Confederacy and, by extension, their slave culture. By so doing, he's become a Confederate icon and when there's a push to remove monuments glorifying the Confederacy (removals being done by local mayors and governors), his statues are among those monuments.
 
You, like a lot of Republicans, seem confused on this issue (I think El Presidente actually knows better, but just titled this thread for max troll).

No one (or, at least, very few--you can probably find someone to argue anything) is arguing that Lee was "evil" or "American Hitler." Removing his statues isn't as a direct condemnation of Lee himself, but as a condemnation of the Confederacy and the slave culture. It doesn't matter whether Lee, himself, was for or against slavery--what matters is that he took up arms against the US to protect the Confederacy and, by extension, their slave culture. By so doing, he's become a Confederate icon and when there's a push to remove monuments glorifying the Confederacy (removals being done by local mayors and governors), his statues are among those monuments.
as I posted before remove the uniform and sabers, have him standing as president of Washington college and people wont care about tearing it down
 
Trump has already started to destroy the statue of liberty
 
Actually you failed to read.
No, you failed European history and the history of anti slavery in Europe and the colonies.....but that's ok......France is the first of them to recognize racial equality and write it into law....first to abolish slavery ...
 
Last edited:
No, you failed European history and the history of anti slavery in Europe and the colonies.....but that's ok......France is the first of them to recognize racial equality and write it into law....it was a correction of your British claim

My statement is exact. The British closed the Sea to the Slave trade and began enforcing this rule with the British Navy. The US was the first to back the British in this effort at least on paper. We did not yet have a Navy. Read what I said, read your history before you argue with MarAzul.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top