142nd Anniversary of Gen. Lee’s death

Canda Free Press ^ | October 12, 2012 | Calvin E. Johnson, Jr.

[BigReb555]

America mourned the death of Gen. Robert E. Lee on Wednesday, October 12, 1870 and Friday, October 12th marks the 142nd anniversary of his death.

[texgal]

The war was not about slavery, although that was the issue to get it started! Union soldiers and Northerners owned slaves! And you are right - the issue would have died a natural death on its own.

The war was about upholding the Constitution and States Rights.We would be a free nation of states today if the South had won. Right now we are states held captive by the federal government. Being a member state of the United States should not mean being part of a death pact! That's where we are at this point.

[Fast Moving Angel]

First of all, I can’t claim the honour of having been born in the South, so I’m not a “Confederate” in the literal sense. However, research that I’ve done for a book currently in progress has led me to realize that The South Was Right in its position on states’ rights. See The Constitutional Right of Secession for more.

Before you jump on the “it was all about slavery” bandwagon, slavery was “a” factor. It wasn’t “the” factor – slavery was on its way out anyway, and given 5 years or so, would likely have been entirely dead on its own. In addition to states' rights, another main factor was money – oppressive tariffs that were assessed against the South to pay the lion’s share of running the federal government (sound familiar?). For an excellent explanation of this issue, see Mike Scruggs’ article, Understanding the Causes of the Uncivil War – A Brief Explanation of the Impact of the Morrill Tariff.

As to “who fired first”, and why, I would recommend America’s Caesar. I was a product of public schools and was taught the revisionist history line as promulgated by the victors as well, and these books, among others, corrected the errors I had been taught.

Finally, as to General Lee, I don’t understand your problem with him. He was a Southern gentleman, a descendant of a Revolutionary War hero, related to George Washington by marriage, and an officer in the U.S. Army before resigning his commission when Virginia seceded. He agonized and prayed over that decision, and in the end, his conscience dictated that he serve his home state instead of the federal government. If you claim that he is responsible for thousands of deaths, then you have to equally claim the same of Sherman, Grant or McClellan.

I have no desire to re-fight the War Between the States -- what's done is done and you are certainly entitled to your opinion. However, I would be gratified if you would research the facts, with an open mind, beyond that what was forced down our throats in public school.

[rockrr]

You'll find your revisionism at http://www.americascaesar.com/ - I've reviewed it....no thanks.

Slavery was the factor - as stated by the rebellious states themselves as they mounted their insurrection. It is undeniable no matter how many times it is protested. The slavers saw the writing on the wall and instead of preparing for the inevitable, chose rebellion, insurrection, and war.

I have no particular problem with lee - he was a fine tactician. He was also a turncoat who dishonored the country of his birth.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"When you start wars, yes, the blood is on your hands."

Robert E. Lee didn't start the civil war. To insist that he did is illogical on many levels.

"...could turn against his country and fight to preserve slavery."

The civil war wasn't about slavery. It was about whether individual states or the federal government had the right to decide whether it should be legal or not. It could have been any issue -- the argument was over who was the final authority in determining legality within state borders.

"...go to war against a numerically superior foe who could produce more of the weapons to fight a war, and how brilliant is it to go to war with virtually no navy to speak of?"

And yet the south still managed to put up one hell of a fight. Sometimes, there are things worth going to war over, no matter what the odds.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

jmacusa said (among other things)..."Madame, (General Robert E.) Lee himself was ‘a rude remark’’. The man took up arms against his own country. Ever give any thought as to what America would look like today if Lee had prevailed?"

[Ohioan]

You are begging fundamental questions of law, philosophy & priorities. I strongly disagree with your premises. As a Northerner, myself, I do not hesitate to say that I honor General Lee, immensely, and find your insults offensive.

As for the present: Your desire to stir old wounds, argue in a mean spirit questions on which many American Conservatives have a very different viewpoint, is hardly calculated to help us work together to oust Obama. Your anti-Southern style of rant went out of style by the Spanish American War; I have no idea why you feel a need to revive it 114 years later!

Frankly, your opinions smack more of the likes of Thad Stevens, who would likely have been in Obama's cabinet, if he were not dead--and more likely in Hell.

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

"He was also a turncoat who dishonored the country of his birth."

You mean Virginia?

You have to consider the situation in the context of the time. The devotion to one's state above all else was very strong.

[rockrr]

No, the United States of America (but you knew that). He didn’t swear upon the Bible an oath to Virginia when he was at West Point and he didn’t swear an oath to Virginia when he became an officer of the United States Army. He dishonored those oaths.

I understand his devotion to Virginia. I simply believe that he chose poorly.

Welcome to FreeRepublic BTW

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

Yes, he swore an oath to defend against foes foreign and domestic.

[rockrr]

I see no honor on turning on your countrymen and stabbing them in the back. YMMV

[Wyrd bið ful aræd]

YMMV?

[x]

The fascination with Lee is that he was an old world, pre-modern figure with tribal and ancestral loyalties and ideas of honor, who earns a very post-modern, subjective and emotive, kind of respect for having gone through all the emotional torment, and agony, and upheaval, and suffering.

A respect for all the suffering, and dignity, and grace (something familiar to us nowadays from tabloids and talk shows, yet somehow connected to deeper emotions with ancient, mythic sources) prevented people from asking too many hard questions about his actual loyalties, commitments, and decisions.

[Delhi Rebels]

And you’d be wrong given that slavery was a U.S institution and would (and for a while, did) continue to exist in the U.S.

That is true. But the Confederacy was founded on slavery, dedicated to keeping one third of their population in slavery, and yet you say they were fighting for freedom. Freedom for whom? Freedom for one segment of their country to keep another segment of their population eternally in bondage.

You have to be intellectually honest and admit that the war was fought to preserve the union, NOT free slaves, just as Lincoln said.

I have absolutely no problems admitting that. But then you should have the intellectual honesty to admit that by far the single most important reason the South seceded was to protect their institution of slavery from threats made by the Republican party.

[Sherman Logan]

Lee, like many other US officers, was faced with a conflict of loyalties. Nation vs. state. IMO honorable men could choose either one.

Lee chose to follow his state. Other Virginians chose to stand with their nation, including Thomas, one of the best Union generals.

It is my understanding that northern people have accepted that Lee and men like him made an honorable decision more readily than southerners have recognized the same for Thomas and his ilk.

[rockrr]

Your
Mileage
May
Vary

The context here is a recognition that others may view the honor of his actions differently.

[Delhi Rebels]

...slavery was on its way out anyway, and given 5 years or so, would likely have been entirely dead on its own.

Given that the Southern economy was totally dependent on slave labor, that there was no ready substitute for slaves, that slaves formed an investment of well over $3 billion in 1861 dollars, that one third of all Southern families owned slaves, that the Confederate Constitution absolutely forbade Congress from passing any laws interfering with slavery, that all 13 state constitutions in effect at the time did not allow their legislatures to pass laws interfering with slavery, and that adopting a constitutional amendment ending slavery would have taken the approval of 9 of 13 states, then what do you base your statement that slavery would have been done away with within 5 years on?

[rockrr]

A dissertation by Livingston.

[Delhi Rebels]

The civil war wasn't about slavery. It was about whether individual states or the federal government had the right to decide whether it should be legal or not. It could have been any issue -- the argument was over who was the final authority in determining legality within state borders.

I don't think you're correct in that because neither Lincoln nor any other Republican running for the nomination in 1860 advocated ending slavery where it currently existed. They realized that they didn't have the power to do that, and I'm not aware of any quotes that indicated they wanted to change that.

[Sherman Logan]

It’s very confusing, but the name of the town (actually village) where the surrender took place in the McLean home was Appomatox Courthouse.

[Sherman Logan]

It’s very confusing, but the name of the town (actually village) where the surrender took place in the McLean home was Appomatox Courthouse.