Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

My Name Is Kate · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 12:57 AM by My Name Is Kate.)

(06-09-2013 08:30 PM)tblunk Wrote: "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically."

Was the above statement by Lee, true at the time he made it? Blacks don't have it so good in Africa even now, and much of it is due to black-on-black violence and hatred.

J. Beckert · 06-10-2013, 06:51 AM

That's a very good point, Kate. What is often glossed over is the fact that a great many blacks were captured and sold as slaves by their own people. There's plenty of blame to go around with regard to the slavery issue, but for some folks, the fact is just distasteful that blacks may have actually had a hand in it, too.

To say the North was complicit and profitted from the slave trade, "but they stopped", still doesn't remove all blame.

It's a shame that personal views have tarnished a thread that started out bringing to light a little known fact about a great man. He not only freed his slaves on his own volition, but made sure they were educated a bit before he did. A rare feat, indeed.

If you like to bash your country, Change.org has a discussion board, I think

tblunk · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 07:11 AM by tblunk.)

(06-10-2013 12:57 AM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:
(06-09-2013 08:30 PM)tblunk Wrote: "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically."
Was the above statement by Lee, true at the time he made it? Blacks don't have it so good in Africa even now, and much of it is due to black-on-black violence and hatred.

By whose measure? When my great great granddad used a horse to pull his plow, was that horse better off than if it could run wild and free on the great plains? It probably ate better and lived longer.

It's at least a self-serving justification.

(06-09-2013 09:54 PM)Gene C Wrote: Liz, I just don't get your point, in my mind there is no comparison (warning - the images below are very graphic)

[/quote]

The point was supposed to be (I think) that Lee wasn't responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation, just as Hitler wasn't responsible for creating the state of Israel. Not that Lee was like Hitler, or Slavery like genocide. Those are "hot-button" comparisons that cloud the issue. Whether the comparison was purposely provocative, I don't know.

One could just as easily say that Eisenhower was responsible for my brother's broken neck because Ike "created" the Interstate Highway System. I wouldn't be comparing Lee to Eisenhower, or a car wreck to slavery.

My Name Is Kate · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 12:33 PM by My Name Is Kate.)

I don't know if Lee was trying to justify slavery or not, but I certainly wasn't. My point was: How bad were conditions in Africa at the time Lee made that statement? Was slavery being practiced there? If some black people were rounding up other black people and selling them into slavery, conditions were likely not too good, and 150 years later, they are still not too good.

(And if anyone said in this thread, that Lee was responsible for the Emancipation Proclamation, I missed it (OK, now I see it...post #22). The point of this thread (I think) was that Lee emancipated "his own" slaves voluntarily. Maybe he did see the writing on the wall, maybe he didn't.)

tblunk · 06-10-2013, 10:02 AM

(06-10-2013 06:51 AM)J. Beckert Wrote: It's a shame that personal views have tarnished a thread that started out bringing to light a little known fact about a great man. He not only freed his slaves on his own volition, but made sure they were educated a bit before he did. A rare feat, indeed.

If you like to bash your country, Change.org has a discussion board, I think

The original thread, as I read it, was to burnish one reputation while tarnishing another.

To call Lee a great man is in itself, a personal view. The same goes for anyone being called great. You might think Lee is great. I might think Lee is great. That doesn't obligate anyone else to agree.

The record shows that Lee emancipated his father-in-law's slaves only when required to by the courts. Whether he would have done so anyway is open to question. As I understand it, he tried to keep them longer than the five years stipulated. That doesn't sound like he freed them of his own volition.

To say that Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation for political considerations as in the original post, oversimplifies a very complicated picture. I'm sure there were political considerations. But does that mean that those considerations were the sole reason for the proclamation? Every law that was ever enacted had political considerations behind it. Does that make every one of them meaningless?

brtmchl · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 11:10 AM by brtmchl.)

(06-07-2013 09:54 AM)Laurie Verge Wrote: In analyzing the Lee incident at the altar rail, I have come to think that the priest was the one who created a potential problem. Lee was an Episcopalian, as am I. When the black gentleman knelt at the altar, the priest was obligated to give him communion (unless the man had crossed his arms over his chest to indicate that he had not been confirmed and, therefore, needed a blessing only). When the priest realized (within about ten seconds) that no one else was rising from their pew, I think he should have administered the wafer and wine to the gentleman and not just stood there waiting to see what was going to happen.

To my mind, Lee's actions diffused a bad situation. He could have remained in his pew and done nothing. For us, whose Christian views are so different from those of our forefathers, to surmise that Lee was making an arrogant gesture instead is unsubstantiated and fairly typical of modern culture that tends to put negative spins on everything.

Sorry, I spent 26 years on the organ stool at my church, starting at age 12. And, I spent most of those years under the "old" Episcopal liturgy and beliefs. I am far from being a modern, liberal Episcopalian; I still prefer the dignity of the original Anglican faith, so you will have to pardon my piety.

I think you are exactly right Laurie. This is an example of what great leaders do. On and off the Battlefield.

(06-07-2013 09:23 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:
(06-07-2013 07:40 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: ...products of their time, this is something one often forgets when judging. And of their circumstances. Developement is one more keyword. To be able to reconsider believes, to learn from mistakes and weaknesses and to try to grow. I think, Lincoln did that, Lee obviously, too.

(06-07-2013 04:00 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: He was probably thinking along the same lines as Sherman. "War is Hell" . I've heard there was a Civil War General who, after the war, always ordered his meat well done as he couldn't stand the sight of blood on his plate. Is that true?

At least they knew what they did, they experienced the bloodshed, not just on the screen or from another safe place. Today warbusiness is much cleaner for those in responsible positions.

Good points, Eva. Lee and Grant were actually there in the mix, unlike today's leaders. Although he's not nearly as popular as either Lee or Grant, Gen. Custer did things many times on the battlefield to inspire his men to fight that should have gotten him killed. A different time and a different breed.

You can't lead from the rear.

(06-07-2013 09:23 PM)J. Beckert Wrote:
(06-07-2013 07:40 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote: ...products of their time, this is something one often forgets when judging. And of their circumstances. Developement is one more keyword. To be able to reconsider believes, to learn from mistakes and weaknesses and to try to grow. I think, Lincoln did that, Lee obviously, too.

(06-07-2013 04:00 PM)J. Beckert Wrote: He was probably thinking along the same lines as Sherman. "War is Hell" . I've heard there was a Civil War General who, after the war, always ordered his meat well done as he couldn't stand the sight of blood on his plate. Is that true?

At least they knew what they did, they experienced the bloodshed, not just on the screen or from another safe place. Today warbusiness is much cleaner for those in responsible positions.

Good points, Eva. Lee and Grant were actually there in the mix, unlike today's leaders. Although he's not nearly as popular as either Lee or Grant, Gen. Custer did things many times on the battlefield to inspire his men to fight that should have gotten him killed. A different time and a different breed.

You can't lead from the rear.

brtmchl · 06-10-2013, 12:51 PM

(06-09-2013 09:54 PM)Gene C Wrote: Liz, I just don't get your point, in my mind there is no comparison (warning - the images below are very graphic)

http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/vi...hspart=att

(06-09-2013 09:07 PM)Liz Rosenthal Wrote: My point in making the comparison between Lee-and-Emancipation and Hitler-and-Israel was, I think, apt, even if slavery didn't involve genocide. Both were crimes against humanity. Both were enabled by fear, hatred and indifference. Both involved unimaginable suffering. So I'll stick with my analogy. (Although, in general, as TBlunk pointed out, my main motivation here was to compare implausibilities.)

Reading this thread I think the point of the original post is being overlooked. In my oppinion it was to be ironic. Lee's actions as a brilliant military leader, postponed the end of the war. Even turning a defeat into possible hope of victory. It was this shift in the war that nudged Lincoln into issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.

We can argue that it was a political act, or moral act. In my oppinion I think both. David Blight had once talked about the greatness of Lincoln. His ability to recognize that people can change. Even himself. I think the mark of a truly brilliant person is to know that you don't know everything. Whether Lincoln wanted to end slavery in the beginning of his political career or not is moot. There was a definite shift in his beliefs. You can plainly see it in his writings and quotes. There are also signs of abolishinist mentality in earlier debates. Lincoln today would be chastised by political opponents as a flip - flopper. But, with out flip - flopping there would have been no Emancipation or 13th Ammendment.

Comparing Lee to Hitler. I don't believe anyone was suggestiong that Lee belongs in the same category as a psychopathic, power hungry, murdering unpleasant person. At least I hope not. I believe the comment was to point out the Irony of the original topic.

While Lee and a huge number of Confederate Officers and Enlisted may not have been fighting for slavery. The Confederacy as a whole was. We can argue states rights and everything else as being the main cause, but most arguments still include, or come back to,the slave laber system that the South relied heavily upon.

There is a huge difference between a slavery system in the 19th century and the overall annihilation of a race. But in todays era, slavery has a new meaning and you can place the two side by side in degrees of awfulness. Obviously Mass Genocide ranking at the top.

To me the comparison is fine, if pointing out the irony that something good sprang from something bad and crediting the bad as the reason for the good. And that is simply that.

The comparison is obviouly not existant if comparing the two men.
I believe that everyone knows the difference.

Hitler is better compared to: Mao, Stalin, Milosevic, Genghis Khan, The Akazu in Rwanda, and Kim ll-Sung to name a few monsters. Lee was not a monster, and neither side considered him one.

Lee was a good man. And slavery in this era existed, in fact had been in existence and legal throughout our nations timeline to this point.

There were great, honorable men on both sides of this conflict. Which is why the Civil War has a place in our hearts the way no other conflict does. There was no real horrible villain or enemy. The Governments might have hated each other, but the men still loved each other. They were friends, relatives and colleagues. Driven by their honor and devotion to their communities, ideals,defense of their homes, pro- slave, anti-slave, greed, power, idividuality, union, state's rights, etc. This conflict meant something else to just about everyone, which makes it truly fascinating.
.

L Verge · 06-10-2013, 01:38 PM

While I still have plenty more that I could say to certain contributors to this thread, I am withdrawing with one final thought: What started out as a thoughtful and educational posting on an American leader (and icon to many) turned into yet another repetitive diatribe against slavery and slaveholders by certain contributors. To me, it is another example of why wounds will never heal in our country while such darts continue to be thrown at a 150-year-old bull's-eye instead of working to bring people together to fight today's problems.

Eva Elisabeth · 06-10-2013, 01:43 PM

Brtmchl, you said: "While Lee...may not have been fighting for slavery..." I just know "the basics" about Lee (from which I would assume the same) and maybe I overread this, but I wonder what he was fighting for, Virginia? When he denied Lincoln's offer to command a Union Army he knew the Confederate's intentions were to protect, for themselves, the institution of slavery, please correct me if I'm wrong.

HerbS · 06-10-2013, 02:16 PM

Laurie,After you and I taught History for over 35yrs,there is usually one kid that thinks they know everything! We also know that whipping a "dead horse"can get old.You and I admit that we don't know everything,but at least we know where and how to look it up.Lincoln and Lee were humanitarians and many others in history were not!So,let's all move on.

brtmchl · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 03:04 PM by brtmchl.)

The malaise over slavery followed Lee when he returned to full-time duty in February 1860. As acting head of the Department of Texas he refused to allow that state's secessionists to wrest federal property from him. As the crisis deepened, however, his thinking became increasingly conflicted. Although he did not believe in secession, he also declared that if "the Union can only be maintained by the sword & bayonet … its existence will lose all interest with me." He particularly hoped that Virginia would remain in the Union so that his various loyalties—to country, army, state, and family—could remain intact. Recalled to Washington, he was promoted in March 1861 to full colonel by the new U.S. president, Abraham Lincoln, and once again swore an oath of allegiance to the United States. A few weeks later, Lee was forced to confront his ambivalence when Virginia seceded and he was offered command of Union forces recruited to protect Washington, D.C.

Mary Lee later called the moment "the severest struggle" of her husband's life. Faced with a divided family and the collapse of his career, Lee spent two days consulting scripture and quietly considering his future. On April 20, 1861, he resigned from the U.S. Army, telling friends that he could not participate in an invasion of the South. A few days later he accepted command of Virginia's forces.

the above comes from the Encyclopedia of Virginia.

In this era, States recognized themselves pretty much as their own Countries. Coming together as one in times of war. The government did not have the power it does today or the power that came after the civil war. It would be comparable today in my opinion as the United Nations is today.

There was alot going on at this time besides slavery, and ending slavery wasn't on the table at the beginning of the war. One such example is a view of Northern aggression. The South was heavily dependent on on foreign trade system. Their society was primarily Agricultural and imported most of their manufactured goods from the North and Europe. The North was a growing industrial economy that viewed foreign trade as competition. Trade barriers and tariffs by the North were viewed as hostile and greedy to the Southern economy who depended on exports.

I know people will say that tariifs were instituted years before the War, but it was an issue. Just like The possible spread of slavery to the west after the Mexican War when gold was discovered in California leading to statehood. The Great Compromise, Dredd Scott, Buchanan's inept leadership, The Kansas Nebraska act, John Brown's raid at Harper's Ferry. Slavery was still legal and it wasn't until 1862 that The Emancipation Proclamation freed slaves in states that were engaged in open rebelluion against the Union.

We all remember that scene in from a few good men. Where one Marine said his duty in order were to unit, corps, God, country.
Well, I believe if you asked most of the Southern officers, their beliefs would have been shared as follows: God, Family,State, Union.

We forget that in this time the war wasn't commonly refered to as The Civil War. It was in the North, The War of the Rebellion. And in the South refered to as the War of Northern Aggression. This was an insurgency. The war was primarily a defensive struggle fought in the South.

For a majority of those that fought for the South, they were defending their homes from an invasion. Just as for the North's claim was for Union not slavery. Most Southerners owned no slaves and most slaves lived in small groups rather than on large plantations. But the war evolved into a war about slavery.

For Lee, It was about Virginia. It was about his home.

This is my just my opinion. I think Lee and Lincoln were GREAT men. That can be cherished side by side in history. I understand that others may have different opinions and I welcome that. That is what makes this site great.

J. Beckert · 06-10-2013, 03:27 PM

I think you presented the facts of this issue better than anyone else has on the thread thus far, brtmchl. That was outstanding.

Common sense and truth will prevail over venom and contempt everytime.

BettyO · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 04:38 PM by BettyO.)

AMEN, Brothers!! You BOTH are very correct and said in a much better way than I could....

Thank you both, Gentlemen! Sometimes we need to simply open our eyes and minds and think - and not just from the heart....

Liz Rosenthal · 06-10-2013, 04:41 PM

It appears that I am being marginalized by a majority view (here) that objects to a very specific kind of iconoclasm. We all have our idols. No one wants to see his or her idol smashed. But I wasn't really writing so much about Lee as about the similarities between slavery and other atrocities that have occurred in this world.

Elie Wiesel's accounts of "life" in the concentration camps are often remarkably reminiscent of life for black slaves in the antebellum south. Academics have written comparisons of the two. I didn't come up with this all by myself.

The Holocaust wasn't "just" about mass murder. It had an ideology, just as the Slave System did. The Holocaust literally set up an entire alternate reality, governed by the Nazis and their allies, but lived by the inmates. Families were split up. People's separate identities were taken from them. They were treated like animals - in fact, worse than animals. Survivors have had to deal with these horrific memories. Many committed suicide; others tried to pick up the pieces of their lives after finding that they'd never see their loved ones again. Some were able to get through the memories by educating the public about the Holocaust, as Elie Wiesel has done.

On the issue of what the South was fighting for, I suppose people on this Forum will never agree. But if you read the various states' Secession Statements, you will see that they agreed that slavery was the "cornerstone" of Southern civilization and that they were seceding for this reason. Once slavery was dead, certain people, like Alexander Stephens, V.P. of the Confederacy and author of the "cornerstone" notion, began characterizing southern secession as having been done for a variety of reasons and not for slavery at all. This was, in effect, a P.R. campaign after the fact.

Anyway, I'm not sure this had to get as personal as it did. I stuck to facts; some others resorted to snide remarks clearly intended for me. Is that really necessary? Frankly, I'm disappointed. I thought we were all adults here.

J. Beckert · (This post was last modified: 06-10-2013 07:36 PM by J. Beckert.)

I'm disappointed too, Liz. We went from Lee to Hitler to the Holocaust. Are you off your soapbox now or can you link the CSA to the Holocaust?

As far as snide remarks go, comparing Lee to Hitler (and you did, no matter how you cut it) was offensive to many members here. When you start to apply your mores and political leanings to pass judgement on 19th century Americans who had entirely different mores and politics, you're doing a great disservice to history. It becomes distorted. You said you stuck to the facts, but they were facts that conveniently support your beliefs and political leanings.

It's been said here many times. It was a different time.