Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: groanup
Although I haven't yet met the descendant of a Union soldier whose ancestor was fighting against slavery.

Haven't found one who was fighting for tariffs, either.

Read Mr. Lee at #455. I'm sure you will have a different context for that one.

Well, I'll put it in context with other writings of Lee.

Look at the words and it is clear that any objection Lee had towards slavery was tepid at best. He is like the person today who would say that they didn't approve of abortion and personally would never have an abortion, but did not believe that it was the role of the government to say what a woman could do with their body. Such a person might consider themselves anti-abortion. Would you?

Lee might personally disavow slave ownership. He might have freed his own slaves. But to call him anti-slavery when he was opposed to any intervention in controlling or ending the institution? Hardly.

470 posted on 01/11/2006 7:52:32 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 469 | View Replies ]


To: Non-Sequitur
...any objection Lee had towards slavery was tepid at best.

Yet this man, who wrote an anti-slavery missive in 1856, was chosen to command an army which had as its sole aim the maintenance of the institution. Am I getting this right?

471 posted on 01/11/2006 8:08:17 PM PST by groanup (Shred for Ian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies ]

To: Non-Sequitur
Haven't found one who was fighting for tariffs, either.

I think Foote put it best when he said in his book that for the most part your average Johnny-reb and Billy-yank fought for many of the same reasons. They fought for glory and adventure, but also because they were afraid not to fight. The propaganda from the North was that the Yankees were gloriously fight'n to save the Union, and the South was traitorously fight'n to dissolve it. The propaganda from the South was generally the same, but with the inference of wickedness of motive reversed.

The irony was the neither side could really explain the nature of the fight, and few have come close since; except as Foote quoted in his book a captured reb remarked to his Yankee captors "I'm fight'n because you're down here."

Personally I think animosity was the main reason, and which because of its own weaknesses as a reason must attach itself to some other cause. In addition to regaining the trade of the Mississippi valley, and Southern markets for Northern goods, I think many Yankees just felt like fight'n Southerners who they perceived as spoiled, reactionary, and worst crime of all arrogant! And, in addition to fight'n for anything else, Southerners wanted to be free of a people they viewed as provincial, greedy, and worst of all, arrogant!

473 posted on 01/11/2006 9:32:48 PM PST by Pelayo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 470 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson