Posted by tangplay on 11/11/2017 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Just a side note, R. E. Lee opposed slavery. They forget to teach that in history classes.

Yet he fought on a side that supported it.

Abraham Lincoln: "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."

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/11/2017 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Just a side note, R. E. Lee opposed slavery. They forget to teach that in history classes.

Yet he fought on a side that supported it.

Yes, but his character was very well respected by both sides. He was thought of as a great man by the union as well. He didn't fight for slavery. He fought for Virginia. Twisted history bothers me. A large percentage of the confederacy was NOT fighting for slavery.

James Madison: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.
Thomas Jefferson: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.
George Washington: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Posted by sjpoker on 11/11/2017 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/11/2017 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Just a side note, R. E. Lee opposed slavery. They forget to teach that in history classes.

Yet he fought on a side that supported it.

Yes, but his character was very well respected by both sides. He was thought of as a great man by the union as well. He didn't fight for slavery. He fought for Virginia. Twisted history bothers me. A large percentage of the confederacy was NOT fighting for slavery.

James Madison: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.
Thomas Jefferson: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.
George Washington: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.

Robert E Lee: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves. Also a traitor to the United States of America.

Any questions, look it up.

Robert E Lee freed his slaves 10 years prior to the war. Look it up. Everything else on your list is true. 5 out 6 isn't bad I guess.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Most certainly and I'm not advocating for the guy. He was a major part of the loss of thousands upon thousands of American lives. I have no issue with his statues being removed. If you don't like it, don't lose the war. There are just a lot of fallacies being spread about him that need to be addressed.

And then he lead the side fighting a war to preserve slavery.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 10:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Most certainly and I'm not advocating for the guy. He was a major part of the loss of thousands upon thousands of American lives. I have no issue with his statues being removed. If you don't like it, don't lose the war. There are just a lot of fallacies being spread about him that need to be addressed.

You’re arguing he’s misunderstood. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. His personal feelings about slavery became irrelevant when he chose to lead a side fighting to preserve slavery.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 10:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Most certainly and I'm not advocating for the guy. He was a major part of the loss of thousands upon thousands of American lives. I have no issue with his statues being removed. If you don't like it, don't lose the war. There are just a lot of fallacies being spread about him that need to be addressed.

You’re arguing he’s misunderstood. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. His personal feelings about slavery became irrelevant when he chose to lead a side fighting to preserve slavery.

The war had little to do with slavery. This is a case of "winners write the history books" which I'm okay with to an extent. It's a privilege of winning. The north wasn't even necessarily fighting to end slavery. This was just an awesome by-product.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 10:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Most certainly and I'm not advocating for the guy. He was a major part of the loss of thousands upon thousands of American lives. I have no issue with his statues being removed. If you don't like it, don't lose the war. There are just a lot of fallacies being spread about him that need to be addressed.

You’re arguing he’s misunderstood. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. His personal feelings about slavery became irrelevant when he chose to lead a side fighting to preserve slavery.

The war had little to do with slavery. This is a case of "winners write the history books" which I'm okay with to an extent. It's a privilege of winning. The north wasn't even necessarily fighting to end slavery. This was just an awesome by-product.

The war was about slavery.

We have the secession documents.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 10:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Most certainly and I'm not advocating for the guy. He was a major part of the loss of thousands upon thousands of American lives. I have no issue with his statues being removed. If you don't like it, don't lose the war. There are just a lot of fallacies being spread about him that need to be addressed.

You’re arguing he’s misunderstood. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. His personal feelings about slavery became irrelevant when he chose to lead a side fighting to preserve slavery.

Also, I don't think his character is irrelevant. I would wager that most people in this discussion had ancestors who fought for the confederacy that were good people. Rewriting history to say the war was about slavery diminishes their lives unfairly.

It was about slavery.

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 11:02:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 10:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Most certainly and I'm not advocating for the guy. He was a major part of the loss of thousands upon thousands of American lives. I have no issue with his statues being removed. If you don't like it, don't lose the war. There are just a lot of fallacies being spread about him that need to be addressed.

You’re arguing he’s misunderstood. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. His personal feelings about slavery became irrelevant when he chose to lead a side fighting to preserve slavery.

The war had little to do with slavery. This is a case of "winners write the history books" which I'm okay with to an extent. It's a privilege of winning. The north wasn't even necessarily fighting to end slavery. This was just an awesome by-product.

The war was about slavery.

We have the secession documents.

Yes, which include reasons such as economic exploitation, role of military, states rights, slavery, and more.

I'm not sure that most confederate soldiers knew exactly why they were fighting. The motivations have been argued since the onset of the war.

Posted by sjpoker on 11/11/2017 10:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 9:34:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 11/11/2017 9:08:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:07:00 PM (view original):
Just a side note, R. E. Lee opposed slavery. They forget to teach that in history classes.

Yet he fought on a side that supported it.

Yes, but his character was very well respected by both sides. He was thought of as a great man by the union as well. He didn't fight for slavery. He fought for Virginia. Twisted history bothers me. A large percentage of the confederacy was NOT fighting for slavery.

James Madison: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.
Thomas Jefferson: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.
George Washington: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves.

Robert E Lee: opposed slavery. Kept his slaves. Also a traitor to the United States of America.

Any questions, look it up.

OLD NEWS

The southern states were explicit in the secession docs. Slavery was the primary reason for secession.

The civil war was fought to preserve slavery.

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 11:00:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:55:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 10:53:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/11/2017 10:22:00 PM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 11/11/2017 8:32:00 PM (view original):
I'll send you some civil war history books as a Christmas present.

Sure. I’m pretty sure even those books will include the section where Lee was a confederate general.

Most certainly and I'm not advocating for the guy. He was a major part of the loss of thousands upon thousands of American lives. I have no issue with his statues being removed. If you don't like it, don't lose the war. There are just a lot of fallacies being spread about him that need to be addressed.

You’re arguing he’s misunderstood. I’m saying it doesn’t matter. His personal feelings about slavery became irrelevant when he chose to lead a side fighting to preserve slavery.

The war had little to do with slavery. This is a case of "winners write the history books" which I'm okay with to an extent. It's a privilege of winning. The north wasn't even necessarily fighting to end slavery. This was just an awesome by-product.

I will agree with this.