Replies

TWO points which point out how IGNORANT you are:

1. Lee NEVER owned a single slave ever. his wife received a few slaves from her family, which Lee UNLAWFULLY freed immediately. (Lee was so POOR when stationed at Fortress Monroe, that her family sent the couple CARE PACKAGES, so that the children wouldn't go hungry. the USA paid military officers almost nothing in those days.)

2. reference my people, the American Indian & the hatefilled/racist/cruel damnyankees like Grant/Sheridan/Sherman: do you believe that might makes right???? (is anything you CAN do become OK thereby????)

free dixie,sw

I believe that when indians left the reservation, raided settlers, that it was understandable that military power would be neither discriminating nor proportional.

I also believe that when a farming culture meets a hunter-gatherer culture, the farming culture has significant advantages. I believe it is unrealistic to expect the farmer culture to adopt the lack of property rights that characterize the hunter gatherer society. I also believe it is ridiculous for a child of the industrial society to look into the past and apply the industrial society property rights to a hunter-gatherer culture that was in competition with the farmer culture.

The hunter-gatherers had no doubt that they had rights to free passage over the land, and rights to the buffalo. The farmers had no doubt that the land they occupied was open land, free under the homestead act to anyone who would build a residence, occupy it, and improve it. Each by their own reference was right. That differeence in viewpoint was the source of the conflict.

In the beginning, humans often look to "Right" to avoid conflict. Where there is no common frame of reference as to "Right", a common frame of reference will be found, and in the past, that has often been power. The agrarian-industrial society had access to much more power than the hunter gatherer society. The end was sure, in the absence of direct intervention by the Divine.

It is my understanding that Lee freed his family slaves shortly before the Wilderness. It is also my understanding that Lee personally was opposed to slavery, that he never bought a slave, and never sold one. My reference is the book Lee and Grant by Gene Smith. It compares and constrasts Lee and Grant, in the manner of Plutarch's "Parallel Lives". A delightful read, though the picture on the cover is reversed to put Lee and Grant each beneath their name on the cover.

Custis, aka George Washington Parke Custis Lee, a son of Robert Edward Lee, said that he would rather fortify Arlington, with the guns facing south.

I suppose we must once again say "The south began the war to preserve slavery. The north fought and won the war to preserve the Union, with freedom for the slaves as a consequence.

The North began the war with forbearance, the South began it with intrigue and theft. Northern militia companies wer necessary to even get Lincoln in office.

The south began by shelling Ft Sumpter. The North ended by dictating the terms at Appromatox. The South murdered those who opposed them. The North granted generous terms both during the war (at Vicksburg) and at the end (at Appromatox). There was no triumph, no mass hangings. Officers retained their side arms, and soldiers were permitted to take horses or mules to their homes, to support farming. Grant silenced gun salutes from his soldiers. "Stop the firing," he said. "The rebels are our countrymen again."

You wrote:

TWO points which point out how IGNORANT you are:
1. Lee NEVER owned a single slave ever. his wife received a few slaves from her family, which Lee UNLAWFULLY freed immediately. (Lee was so POOR when stationed at Fortress Monroe, that her family sent the couple CARE PACKAGES, so that the children wouldn't go hungry. the USA paid military officers almost nothing in those days.)

2. reference my people, the American Indian & the hatefilled/racist/cruel damnyankees like Grant/Sheridan/Sherman: do you believe that might makes right???? (is anything you CAN do become OK thereby????)

First: According to the National Park Service, Arlington was 15,000 acres and was run by 250 slaves. So you are wrong on count one.

Second, the treaty at Appromatox was written out by a Colonel Ely Parker, who was born on the Tonawanda Indian Reservation near Buffalo. For a pack of racists, promoting them to Colonel in the army was an unusual step, don't you think?

Not all conflicts are racist, even conflicts between different races may not have race at the root of them. For example the US Army forces in the west had indian scouts. These scouts give the lie to your account of racism.

Zero for two. So, now apologize for your lie, or be forever held as an unrepentent wanna be traitor.