I have been in the Lee House on Franklin Street in Richmond many times. It used to be a museum years ago - then a bookshop was opened in what was "Traveller's stable", and then a restaurant called "Traveller's" was opened in the house..... it is now the headquarters of the Homebuilders Association of Virginia.

http://www.hbav.com/stewart-lee-house.shtml

(06-09-2013 06:28 AM)Gene C Wrote:  Thanks Rick

Gene,

My pleasure.

Rick

Prior to the Civil War, Lee's family had owned three or four plantations along one of the lesser known rivers of Virginia (Indian name that I don't remember, Betty). When Lee inherited these in 1857, he sent some of the Arlington slaves to work those plantations. I can only assume that those lands were confiscated by the Yankees also.

Also, in regards to Lee seeing the handwriting on the wall and manumitting the slaves before the Emancipation Proclamation went into effect on January 1, 1863, please remember that the Proclamation did not affect those states currently in rebellion against the U.S. - that included Virginia. Yes, those rebelling states would free their slaves once they were "conquered," but in 1862-63 that seemed a long ways off, if ever. It was not until the fall of Vicksburg and the battle of Gettysburg simultaneously in July of 1863, that a Union victory seemed a distinct possibility.

Laurie,

I believe only 8 counties in Virginia were exempt from the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation. Otherwise, a state then in rebellion against the United States would have the proclamation in force, with the military to recognize those held in bondage as now free and treated as such by the military authorities.

Joe

(06-07-2013 12:30 PM)william l. richter Wrote:  Robert E. Lee: The Great Emanciaptor

In his own way, Lee was the Great Emancipator. He forced Lincoln to act to end slavery to win the war.

I don't know. That's like saying Adolf Hitler was the true founder of Israel because he perpetrated the Holocaust.

I have to disagree with you Liz. That to me is an extreme and unworthy comparison. It's not even "apples to oranges"

While slavery in the United States was terrible, it is not comparable to the torture and murder of about 6 million people. The photo's taken prove it. I'm not even going to even link to any, because I think they are so bad. The goal of slavery in the US was not to kill or wipe out a race of people.

Well said, Gene! There is a big difference between genocide and slavery....of course slavery in any respect is all wrong - but the eradication of literally thousands of innocents is no comparison at all.

Liz,Genocide is one thing,and The Civil War was another,along with Native Americans sent to"trust lands".The Neisi experiment with the Japanese was for National Security reason.Lincoln and Lee were emancipators,Hitler was an Exterminator and a drug adict.Need we go on and on with this Jiberish?

First question for Joe - In 1862, when Lee freed his wife's slaves, were there just eight counties of Virginia that were not under Union control? That might have been true later, but Virginia has 100+ counties - and the Yankees kept pulling in and out a lot. If you're right, I apologize for bad information.

Second is a comment to support both Gene and Betty. There are appropriate comments for your inappropriate ones, Liz; but as a proper Southern lady, I shall refrain from using them. I would, however, suggest that you read at least the first three chapters of A VAST AND FIENDISH PLOT by Clint Johnson in order to start considering some of the blame that can be placed on Northerners for the continuance of slavery. And, make sure that you start with the role that New York State and City played. To quote just one line at the end of Chapter 3: "On the issue of continuing slavery in the South, New York would support the South."

And yes, the author has a boatload of documentation for his comments. He cites sources and statistics for both sides, not venomous personal opinions. Slavery was wrong over thousands of years and civilizations, and it continues wrong today. Are you active in U.S. organizations that continue to fight the practice in Third World nations?

---

(06-09-2013 02:54 PM)Joe Di Cola Wrote:  Laurie,

I believe only 8 counties in Virginia were exempt from the provisions of the Emancipation Proclamation. Otherwise, a state then in rebellion against the United States would have the proclamation in force, with the military to recognize those held in bondage as now free and treated as such by the military authorities.

Joe

Virginia was named, but exemptions were specified for the 48 counties then in the process of forming the new state of West Virginia, and seven additional counties and two cities in the Union-controlled Tidewater region. I also erred in the number of counties in Virginia at that time -- 95, not 100+

---

(06-09-2013 05:58 PM)HerbS Wrote:  Liz,Genocide is one thing,and The Civil War was another,along with Native Americans sent to"trust lands".The Neisi experiment with the Japanese was for National Security reason.Lincoln and Lee were emancipators,Hitler was an Exterminator and a drug adict.Need we go on and on with this Jiberish?

Herb,

You were posting as I was posting, so I'm just reading your comments. Thank you, sir. You have hit the nail on the head with precision and few words. God bless you - especially for your use of the last word.

(06-09-2013 04:57 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I have to disagree with you Liz. That to me is an extreme and unworthy comparison. It's not even "apples to oranges"

While slavery in the United States was terrible, it is not comparable to the torture and murder of about 6 million people. The photo's taken prove it. I'm not even going to even link to any, because I think they are so bad. The goal of slavery in the US was not to kill or wipe out a race of people.

I'm going to come to the defense of Ms. Rosenthal here. (although, she probably doesn't really need my help) She isn't comparing Lee to Hitler, nor is she comparing slavery to genocide. She is merely comparing one statement with another trying to highlight the original statement's implausibility.

(06-09-2013 07:23 PM)tblunk Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 04:57 PM)Gene C Wrote:  I have to disagree with you Liz. That to me is an extreme and unworthy comparison. It's not even "apples to oranges"

While slavery in the United States was terrible, it is not comparable to the torture and murder of about 6 million people. The photo's taken prove it. I'm not even going to even link to any, because I think they are so bad. The goal of slavery in the US was not to kill or wipe out a race of people.

I'm going to come to the defense of Ms. Rosenthal here. (although, she probably doesn't really need my help) She isn't comparing Lee to Hitler, nor is she comparing slavery to genocide. She is merely comparing one statement with another trying to highlight the original statement's implausibility.

Please avail yourself of other comments made over months along the same vein in other threads to see a pattern.

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

And I have to admit, the above quote from Lee's letter made me think "Arbeit macht frei".

A pattern of what, Laurie? A pattern of being critical of the Ante-bellum South and the Jim Crow South? If that's what you mean, I'm guilty as charged. And I'm not ashamed of my guilt.

Now, I am fully aware that the North was complicit in slavery; I've read a bit on the subject. There was a lot of money to be made by everybody. The illegal slave trade was often engaged in by northerners. There were laws in a number of states either prohibiting the migration of free blacks into their states or prohibiting them from voting and/or owning property or both. Abolitionists were often in mortal danger in the North.

But the Northern states did get rid of slavery. Admittedly, this proceeded over a long period of time, but they got rid of it. The South clung to a disgusting and vile institution, all the while making excuses for it. They preferred to secede than acquiesce to any limitations on the spread of slavery.

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.)

Incidentally, although slavery was not genocide, many aspects of it were reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in Europe before and during World War II. And many aspects of the Jim Crow South were reminiscent of the treatment of Jews in Germany and Austria in the years leading up to World War II, and the plight of Jews in Eastern Europe during the latter part of the 19th century and the first third of the 20th century. I'm talking about instances of mass random violence and killing, as well as a plethora of legal disabilities.

Someone here, on another thread, was wondering why Jews and blacks worked together during the U.S. Civil Rights movement, positing that it must have been due to the fact that Hebrews had been slaves in Egypt thousands of years ago. Well, no, that wasn't really the reason. What both groups had in common were very similar *recent* histories.

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 08:07 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.)

(06-07-2013 03:00 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?

That would be General Ulysses Grant. He couldn't stand the sight of blood, so his steaks were always 'well done'.
And as I understand it, Grant had that aversion well before the War.