New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

Fact -When the Civil War started, Lincoln asked Robert E Lee to lead all Union troops

trapdoor

Governor
The bottom line...he led an army against the United States Of America and doesn't deserve being honored with statues in the public square. If you want one on your property...go ahead.
That would be a matter of concern to the people in that square, wouldn't it? And those determinations were made long enough ago that reversing them now seems petty at best.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
That would be a matter of concern to the people in that square, wouldn't it? And those determinations were made long enough ago that reversing them now seems petty at best.
People who live in that state...so explain the right wingers from around the country, whom you seem to support, having a say.

When those statues were raised there was no safety for those who spoke against them...
 

trapdoor

Governor
Rommel was fighting for Germany, not the Nazis or the murder of millions of Jews.

So?
So Rommel's followers didn't have control of the German government 40 years after the war, and in the interim the country passed laws forbidding any memorial to the former Nazis. America has a broader notion of free speech, and still has individual states that can memorialize (publicly) howsoever they desire. Roughly 40 years after the Civil War, they desired to erect these statues, statues which now have a history of their own of more than a century.
You keep ducking the central question. Lee fought for slavery neither more nor less than Washington -- so when is the Washington Monument coming down.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
So Rommel's followers didn't have control of the German government 40 years after the war, and in the interim the country passed laws forbidding any memorial to the former Nazis. America has a broader notion of free speech, and still has individual states that can memorialize (publicly) howsoever they desire. Roughly 40 years after the Civil War, they desired to erect these statues, statues which now have a history of their own of more than a century.
You keep ducking the central question. Lee fought for slavery neither more nor less than Washington -- so when is the Washington Monument coming down.
When did Washington fight to destroy the country. Lee did from 1861 to 1865.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Washington voted to destroy A country, the British Empire. In winning, he extended the lifetime of slavery on the North American Continent by 32 years.
1. He fought to end a colonial relationship. I don't suppose you'd see any statues to George in the UK. Do ya think?

2. You act as if the colonials should have known that 60 years after the revolution that Britain would have abolished slavery and therefore continued as colonies....pretty bizarre argument there, Trap.
 

trapdoor

Governor
1. He fought to end a colonial relationship. I don't suppose you'd see any statues to George in the UK. Do ya think?

2. You act as if the colonials should have known that 60 years after the revolution that Britain would have abolished slavery and therefore continued as colonies....pretty bizarre argument there, Trap.
Colonies were considered part of the Empire. By your lights he fought to end the Empire. In so doing, he extended slavery for 32 years as the British Empire outlawed the practice 32 years before it ended in the U.S.

You act as though the CSA knew that people would disagree with it violently 150 years after it had ceased to exist. You evaluate Lee, Davis, and other CSA leaders based on 21st, not 19th, century morality. Pretty bizarre argument there, Mid.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Colonies were considered part of the Empire. By your lights he fought to end the Empire. In so doing, he extended slavery for 32 years as the British Empire outlawed the practice 32 years before it ended in the U.S.

You act as though the CSA knew that people would disagree with it violently 150 years after it had ceased to exist. You evaluate Lee, Davis, and other CSA leaders based on 21st, not 19th, century morality. Pretty bizarre argument there, Mid.
Are you kidding? The people responsible for secession certainly did know there would be a war. Some even welcomed it. By the time Lee signed up for the Confederate army the war had already begun.

George Washington, by any stretch of the imagination, could not be accused of fighting a war to avoid the abolition of slavery 60 years later. Your arguments are getting loony.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Are you kidding? The people responsible for secession certainly did know there would be a war. Some even welcomed it. By the time Lee signed up for the Confederate army the war had already begun.

George Washington, by any stretch of the imagination, could not be accused of fighting a war to avoid the abolition of slavery 60 years later. Your arguments are getting loony.
You normally read better than this. What I wrote was, "You act as though the CSA knew that people would disagree with it violently 150 years after it had ceased to exist." (Emphasis added).

George Washington could easily be accused, on a much shorter timeline, of fighting a war to extend slavery. England banned slavery in 1833 -- plenty of Revolutionary War veterans were still alive at that point. Slavery in the U.S. didn't end until 1865 (well, 1867, but it's a legal quibble). Washington owned slaves and participated fully in the slave-based economy -- more fully actually than Lee, as the only slaves Lee ever owned he inherited, and he was working to free them when the war began. So tell me again when we start tearing down the Washington memorials.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
You normally read better than this. What I wrote was, "You act as though the CSA knew that people would disagree with it violently 150 years after it had ceased to exist." (Emphasis added).

George Washington could easily be accused, on a much shorter timeline, of fighting a war to extend slavery. England banned slavery in 1833 -- plenty of Revolutionary War veterans were still alive at that point. Slavery in the U.S. didn't end until 1865 (well, 1867, but it's a legal quibble). Washington owned slaves and participated fully in the slave-based economy -- more fully actually than Lee, as the only slaves Lee ever owned he inherited, and he was working to free them when the war began. So tell me again when we start tearing down the Washington memorials.
Silly question repeated over and over again doesn't make it less silly.

It isn't about who owned slaves. It is about who fought to tear the country apart. Did Washington damage the British Empire? Yup. So now go find a statue of any of the colonial founding fathers on British soil.
 

trapdoor

Governor
Silly question repeated over and over again doesn't make it less silly.

It isn't about who owned slaves. It is about who fought to tear the country apart. Did Washington damage the British Empire? Yup. So now go find a statue of any of the colonial founding fathers on British soil.
OK, then the racial component doesn't matter, as you said it did earlier, and what maters is "did they fight to destroy the Union?" the answer to which is, "no."

As for a statue? No, but there's this: https://benjaminfranklinhouse.org/

And yes, in the 1750s, Franklin owned and dealt in slaves.
 

EatTheRich

President
Missouri was already a state during the era under discussion, having come in under the Missouri compromise in 1821. Generally what happened if there was a surplus (slaves died, and surpluses were rare), was that they were sold, but there was a lot of economic growth in what is today the South East and was then just the South thanks to the expansion of cotton production. There was no need to expand slavery to the west for economic reasons.

The slave debate is something that is generally framed wrong from both sides. While undoubtedly there were people on both sides who saw it as a moral matter ("slavery is evil"/"the Bible says slavery isn't evil), the simple truth is that the Democrats in the south had more money, and hence more political power and the Whigs/eventual GOP in the North didn't want them to have more power. The war was over the political advantages, in Congress, of this or that state being slave or free. The Southerners who pointed out this political distinction were denounced as slavers, even when they were pointing out that someone with a factory full of Irishmen being worked 7-12s under starvations wages had no legitimate moral position better than the slaveowners. Yes, there were idealistic extremists like Thaddeus Stevens; there a few idealistic moderates like Lincoln among the abolitionists, and there were extreme "pro-slave" Southerners such as John C. Calhoun, but there were also slave-moderates in favor of gradual manumission such as Robert E. Lee. So the war was about power politics, based around slavery, as much as it was about the actual issue of slavery. This is a nuance, but it is not a quibble. The war was fought over that argument of political power -- the "expanded market for slavery" was neither a proximate cause of Bleeding Kansas nor the war that followed.
Fights over politics are always ultimately fights over economics.
 

EatTheRich

President
You are a fool. Lee was ALL OFFENSE and that's why the south lost. Lee thought fighting a defensive war was not "honorable". When you are outnumbered 3-1 you have to fight a defensive war but lee refused.

And of course the south merely wanted to leave the union not destroy it. They never said otherwise. Jefferson Davis said "we just want to be left alone".
And went on to prove himself a liar by harassing loyal states.
 

EatTheRich

President
Who taught you that BS? Your teachers robbed you of an accurate education. I suppose you believe that ole Abe's agenda was to free the slaves the whole time don't you?
Yet the American Historical Association agrees with me ... unsurprisingly, since my position is confirmed unambiguously by primary sources. No, Lincoln’s goal was to secure the political supremacy of the manufacturing class, but to get that he needed allies in the petit-bourgeois democracy ... folks like Charles Sumner whose political goal was to free the slaves ... and finally the logic of events posed to him the alternative of freeing the saves or letting the slaveowners win the war.
 

EatTheRich

President
When, prior to 1863, was the existence of slavery threatened? It was not. Yes, there were abolitionists, but they were fringe politicians -- Thad Stevens never had the votes. The issue, the real issue, was its expansion.
There were 3 major slave revolts. One of the main things animating the South was that any criticism of slavery by politicians not sufficiently fanatical in its defense would help inspire slave revolts.
 

EatTheRich

President
Well, I'm pretty much done here. The articles of secession were, as I've said already numerous times, propaganda. They were a corporate mission statement, they encompassed an "issue" by avoiding the real issue. Do you think Trump gives a flying eff about illegal immigrants, one way or another? No, but he sees that as an issue that rallies the people that put him the White House. Same thing.
The real issue was the profits on commodities produced by slave plantations (cotton, sugar, but most of all child slaves).
 
Top