Difference between revisions of "Robert E. Lee"
|Line 23:||Line 23:|
Latest revision as of 20:18, 24 August 2019
Bigots are everywhere, be afraid: like those that don't want to destroy statues of Robert E. Lee. Of course those with a clue know things like:
- Lincoln offered to let the South have slaves forever (Constitutional Amendment), if the South came back. He was also a racist and an anti-Semite (along with Grant). 
- Robert E. Lee was actually against slavery (maybe more so than Lincoln).  Lee gave up his slaves before the war, Grant kept his until the end.
- Arlington National Cemetery was named that way, because that's what Robert E. Lee called it, before the U.S. government stole it from him. He sued and won, and then sold it back for millions (in today's money). So it's a tribute to his victory over the U.S. government. 
So how was Lee fighting for slavery when he had personally given it up, and he could have kept slavery if he gave up the war, yet he fought on? Lee fought for southern independence, and the Constitution, not slavery. It was not technically a civil war, since that's a fight for control of one country, the South didn't want to control the North, they just wanted independence from it, like they were promised they could have at any time, when they ratified the Constitution.
|Robert E. Lee||To the left, Lincoln (and his General Grant) was a great guy that ended Slavery. Lee was the guy that opposed it. In this 4th grade view of the world, Lee personifies slavery, and anyone that would put up a Statue to pay tribute to Lee, or not demand the removal and denounce him, must be a pro-Slavery racist bigot (they're everywhere, be very afriad).||The informed know that Lincoln offered to let the South keep slaves if they came back. Lee had given up his slaves at the beginning of the war, and denounced the institution. (Grant kept his slaves to the end). We owe Arlington National Cemetery to Lee: do we need to destroy that too? And the war of Southern Independence was a lot more complex than just slavery... and sadly, the Constitution lost.|
The Democrats waste our time with gender-neutral bathrooms and tearing down 100-year-old Civil War statues. People couldn't care less about these issues. They care about the things that matter. But this is a litmus test to see how gullible the public is, and ripe for inciting to revolution. Because if they had a clue about the nuances of history for those things they hate, they'd have a harder time being against it, and riling up the gullible.
Remember the basics: if the North wanted to end slavery, they could have made that deal, but they refused (lookup Compensated Emancipation). They could have agreed to buy all slaves (pay for the slaves freedom) as had happened in the UK and elsewhere, and that would have avoided the civil war and freed the slaves too.
❝ Slavery as an institution, is a moral and political evil in any Country ❞
So the argument against Lee because "Slavery" is based on impassioned ignorance, and proof why we need the statue. The point is this is a lot more complex for the informed than the Democrat activists. Many of us disagree with slavery but recognize that Lee fought better and more honorably (for the wrong cause) than the North did (aka Sherman). If we must tear down Lee's statue, then certainly Lincoln, Washington, Jefferson, and more should come down too.
Even famous TV cars from the Dukes of Hazard TV show are enough to trigger a meltdown of the snowflakes. 
Statuary Rape -
Civil War and Slavery -
When I hear people talk about the civil war and slavery, it reminds me of a movie, "Abe Lincoln: Vampire Hunter", because I often feel that's as based on reality as their perceptions are (they were believing what they'd been told). A few facts that escape their version of the telling:
- The first shots in the civil war were fired over taxes and tariffs (Morrill Tariff), not slavery
- The Corwin Constitutional Amendment (passed by Congress) offered the South to keep slaves forever, the South declined
- The South offered to give up slaves if the North let them go, the North declined
- The 3/5th clause was more limiting slavery than condoning it
- Lincoln was a racist, not an abolitionist
- Lincoln violated the Constitution more than any other President
- Lincoln fought for pride and conquest, the South for freedom and self government: slavery was a catalyst, not the cause
- And so on.
History is rich and complex, not this shallow flat "good vs. bad" or the North was righteous and the South was evil bullshit. Since I care about the uncomfortable truths, more than the comforting fictions, I often discuss these things. Not to diminish what happened, or deny the points of either side, but by remembering the truth of what really happened (from both sides). Of course, since my family came to America, long after this, I have no dog in the fight, and can look at it more objectively than many. But if we care about learning from history, we first have to give up our comforting fictions (caricatures) and learn what really happened.
2018.10.12 Robert E. Lee - Trump does a speech in Ohio, on how great Ulysses S. Grant was (an Ohio native). And to do so, you mention the greatness of the foes he overcame: so in passing, he mentioning that Robert E. Lee was a great general... and was defeated by Grant. NBC spun that sentence fragment into a “WATCH: President Trump says ‘Robert E. Lee was a great general’ during Ohio rally, calling the Confederate leader ‘incredible.'” -- and creates a twitter and media storm about how tone deaf and racist Trump is. Only Trump said that Grant was the "incredible" one. It took NBC two days to quietly retract -- but, as usual, there are 3,000 retweets and 6,000 likes of the FakeNews before the correction, and the distracted are on to other things.