The Truth About Robert E. Lee That Liberals Hope You Never Hear
Make sure you read both pages.
I knew some of this but didn't know exactly why he fought...he fought to protect his state, not to fight for slavery. He was against it and encouraged reconciliation.
Just in case you can't get to the second page...the most important page, here is the link: http://conservativetribune.com/truth-...
I knew some of this but didn't know exactly why he fought...he fought to protect his state, not to fight for slavery. He was against it and encouraged reconciliation.
Just in case you can't get to the second page...the most important page, here is the link: http://conservativetribune.com/truth-...
Let's not for forget Cloward and Piven!
FACT: Arlington National Cemetery resides on Lee's confiscated plantation Also, the Confederate tombstones are pointed because those of that time did not want the soldiers dishonored by people parking their asses on the tombstones.
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/51/83/6f/51...
The publication of the Emancipation Proclamation caused widespread desertion in the Union army, rioting in New York City, with hangings of black residents, and at least one attempt to overthrow a Union state (Indiana) government and join the Confederacy. The Indiana Copperheads failed in their attempt, but were still strongly in favor of white supremacy (some would say they still are, since one of remaining KKK bastions is in this state).
My family owned the piece of land called the "surrender triangle" at Appomattox where the defeated Confederates stacked their arms. One of my ancestors (great-great uncle) rode with J.E.B. Stuart, my great-great grandfather was a Confederate artilleryman, and the two other brothers who fought in the war died in Union prison camps. Nonetheless I agree with Lee that memorials should not have been erected, and in fact most of them were put up in the 20th century.
My reason for not tearing these monuments down and renaming myriad schools, streets and the like has nothing to do with nostalgia nor southern heritage. I object to the expense of all this destruction. When the nation and nearly every state is sweating over how to fund building and repairing infrastructure (just one example), why on Earth spend taxpayer dollars on an effort not supported by most in the nation?
Incidentally, Walter Williams, the renowned black economist, agrees with Lee's observation that the slaves were better off than their relatives that remained in Africa. Williams points out that the life expectancy of an American slave in the 1800s was better than the current African life expectancy, and that the descendants of American slaves are better off materially, better educated, and with more freedom than a citizen of any African state today. This does not mean Williams thinks slavery was a defendable institution, but that the consequences had unexpected positive outcomes.
England and America should be praised for their efforts to end it all.
Another tidbit, there are more slaves today, (sex slaves and laborers) in the pagan and perverted world than there was in all times past!...yes, many are bicameral societies and progressive, democratic and communistic creatures.
YES!
And I would add that economic slavery as a result of socialist/communist policies enslaves even more. True freedom is something most across the world wouldn't recognize and many of those who have it don't realize how truly a minority they are.
I used to think that they were clever. Now I think they are just stupid...and 'stupid'
is dangerous.
Like those "Scare" quotes?
One of my ancestors was an Irishman conscripted into the British army and sent to the Colonies to kill George Washington and any other rebel, but after he got here realized what the patriots of true freedom were all about. He was a commoner who owned NOTHING, but had to work to pay the royal rent on everything he had. He was virtually a slave. He changed sides and fought in the Colonial army for freedom and a piece of land to call his own near Elmira, NY. He paid no property tax, no income tax, and could build his home as he saw fit and grow the crops he saw fit and no man or government could take it away. He paid NO royal rent to anyone. He was a FREE MAN. Didn't last long, I guess. If I don't pay the "Royal Rent" I will soon learn I actually own NOTHING and, in that respect, am as much a virtual slave as my ancestor before he fought in the Colonial army. The majority of the people have returned to being "commoners" again.
And another tidbit...
I read that Frederick Douglas was asked why the negro wasn't set free at the conclusion of the American Revolution and his response was the white man had to free himself first.
As soon as government took upon itself the right to tax and confiscate, it infringed on freedom - the level of infringement rising with the depth and breadth of taxation. The only way to restore freedom is to restrain taxation and the infringement it brings.
I also wanted to say that your family history is great! I wish there were such interesting people in my background.
the history of our country and it's important individuals have been under attack for a hundred years by the collectivists (through intention and with large foundations )who do not want to glorify the rugged individual.
The individual is the greatest minority long may he/she be free.
Overarching article from "Task and Purpose" military support website
http://taskandpurpose.com/gripknife-r...
includes links to previous research.
"Sender: Robert E. Lee
Recipient: Thoms L. Rosser
Lexington VA 13 Dec - r 1866
My dear Genl
I have considered the questions in your letter of the 8th Inst: & am unable to advise as to the efficacy of the scheme proposed for the accomplishment of the object in view. That can be better determined by those more conversant with similar plans than I am.
As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated; my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; & of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour. All I think that can now be done, is to aid our noble & generous women in their efforts to protect the graves & mark the last resting places of those who have fallen, & wait for better times.
I am very glad to hear of your comfortable establishment in Baltimore & that Mrs. Rosser is with you. Please present to her my warm regards. It would give me great pleasure to meet you both anywhere, & especially at times of leisure in the mountains of Virginia; but such times look too distant for me to contemplate, much less for me now to make arrangements for -
Very truly yours
R E Lee
Genl Thos: L. Rosser"
Notes: Lee PapersUniversity of Virginia Archives
http://leefamilyarchive.org/papers/le...
Like all of the army and navy officers who abandoned their oaths to the union and the Constitution in joining the southern revolt, Lee already broke his word once. But let us accept that this time he really meant it.
Virginia certainly did not merely petition Congress or bring suit before the Supreme Court. The war started with the bombardment of Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor. What did not happen was that a southern state following rule of law was invaded by federal troops or federal marshals who arrested the government of that state. The elected representatives of Virginia and the other secessionists in other states then joined the attack on the United States.
Yes, many people in the south knew that slavery was (1 )morally wrong and (2) economically doomed. They still clung to it, often arguing from their own alleged benevolence for the so-called "colored race."
Read the Constitution of the United States. Importation of slaves was forbidden after 1807. Everyone knew the end of slavery was inevitable and for another lifetime - 60 years - the southerners did nothing. In fact, they passed even harsher laws and engaged in worse punishments. People of African ancestry, free and slave alike, in America in 1835 were worse off than they had been in 1789.
The northerners who were opposed to slavery compromised time and again with the southern representatives. The Kansas-Nebraska Act nullified the Compromise of 1850. Compromise only delayed the inevitable and did nothing to bring the slave owners into the industrial age.
Moreover, it is curious that the same conservatives who distrust democracy as mobocracy excuse the mobs in the southern states. We all know that just because "everyone" votes for something does not make it right.
That Lee and the other traitors got off so lightly speaks deeply to magnanimity of the American culture, the American spirit. We are nice to our enemies.
I personally hold Lee to be an honorable man. One should remember that it wasn't until after the Civil War (and one can really argue that it didn't happen until WW I) that national loyalty rose above State loyalty. It would be very much akin to someone holding themselves as a Belgian before a European.
Lee was a staunch supporter of state sovereignty over federalism and served the interest of his kinsmen (Virginians) in spite of his personal feelings. While he owned a plantation (Arlington) he never owned slaves.
Mercury one museum has that original document.
http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/new...
If I find the quotes and references again I'll post them.
This site is the best resource I have found and it has accumulated millions of original documents and personal letters of our founding and our founders.
https://wallbuilders.com/george-washi...
Best I can find is that Lincolns father did not own slaves. When they bought the house in Illinois they did not have slaves and some sites say that Mary inherited slaves, (her father did not owned slaves) and they sold them upon inheritance.
I cannot vet the sources out to my satisfaction at this point.
But yes, libraries have been purged. An example on another topic is the library in the little town of Peninsula, Ohio. Peninsula is one of the five small communities where the National Park Service purged hundreds of property owners -- i.e., seized homes, businesses, farms and land by eminent domain -- for the Cuyahoga National Recreation Area (now National Park), which ordeal was documented on a PBS Frontlines episode "For the Good of All" in 1982 following the purge. The library had a large collection of documents, most of which disappeared by the time I was there 10 or 15 years ago researching it. The library's board of directors had been taken over by elitists who worship the National Park and who could care less about the people who used to live there, but who don't want people to know what their favorite government agency had done to spoil the romantic imagery.
As for the internet, the NPS Administrative History of the Cuyahoga NRA I had once found on the NPS history pages in its website, but had not finished with or completely downloaded, disappeared. I eventually found it, by means too complex to go into here, squirreled away on an obscure government documents site not accessible by a direct search. The experience tipped me off to dig up several other such Administrative Histories kept hard to find and containing embarrassing (to them) information, including their internal personal attacks on individuals who have opposed their abusive tactics.
I too once held your view until faced with the empirical facts, ex. Speeches written from passages from the Bibles etc. It no longer scares me anymore because I have a deeper understanding of our biblical ancestors and their bicameral brain sets, (their points of view etc.).
But...you are certainly entitled to your opinion...the discussion here as with any posts on the Gulch have been interesting and enlightening...wouldn't trade it for the world.
Yes he did.
http://radgeek.com/gt/2005/01/03/robe...
Do I think his statues should be taken down, no. His statues weren't erected to honor his memory of slave ownership (which was limited and for a limited time), they were erected to honor his ability as American general. Lincoln offered Lee command of the Northern forces.
U.S. Public Law 85-4254 section 410
In 1958 Congress granted Confederate soldiers the game legal status as US soldiers, protecting graves and monuments from desecration and even providing a pension to those who served during the war.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...
Regarding the statues, if they were truly erected to honor his ability as an American general, then Benedict Arnold is equally entitled to statues in his honor. I'm not saying this facetiously, the two men share many similarities. Both fought for the U.S. and then switched sides. Arnold's U.S. military career was arguably more valuable to the nation than Lee's, prior to his defection to the South. Arnold actually had more justification for his defection, as he was repeatedly passed over for promotion, while Lee, as you mentioned, was offered command of the Northern forces.
Ultimately I don't think either Benedict Arnold or Robert E. Lee are deserving of statues in their honor.
It is what it is...we need only to put ourselves in that position and learn from it. We study history to be free from it, so we won't repeat the same situations over and over again.
Are we not having a similar battle today? A paradigm of Freedom will not give way to a paradigm back into slavery...I think most have learned that lesson but are still blinded by the fact that the reverse fight never ended...example: big government, collectivism, political correctness (making anyone wanting to discuss the matter an instant criminal), global warming, Big City states, dumbed down education, revised history and all manner of disempowerments.
My caution is about criticizing military personnel for obeying the policies of their political leadership. I don't put Lee in with the Confederate political leadership (like Jefferson Davis) who were agitating for the continuance and expansion of slavery. He had to make a tough choice between the land that he loved and the land that he loved. It was a lose-lose decision.
Everyone , in those times, grew up and lived with slavery, they all were enslaved by Kings and Queens; thoughts otherwise was a recent development, radical, so to speak, for those times...memes or paradigms do not change quickly.
Are we not having a similar battle today? A paradigm of Freedom will not give way to a paradigm back into slavery...I think most have learned that lesson but are still blinded by the fact that the reverse fight never ended.
The American Civil War was a defining point in US and world history and the primary participants of both sides should be studied, not erased. One interesting point is the fact that the states that had an estimated 4.5 million slaves to contribute to their war effort still couldn't beat the free states. America was becoming a powerful nation with slavery, but in the end became a far more powerful nation without it.
Jefferson himself is judged as a great man because of how he thought and fought to implement his superior ideas over the course of his career. It isn't based on a single trigger word and no context, followed by an hysteria to tear down the Jefferson Memorial.
This moral judgment has nothing to do with prosecuting speeders under whatever the current legal speed limit is. Speed limits are optional within a range and set for the current road conditions; they are not moral principles. The moral principle is not endangering others' lives and the necessity to judge what driving actions do that.
The speed limit analogy was simply to illustrate accountability and rational assignment of guilt could change over time for various reasons. Sorry you missed it. Here's another example: We know today that human sacrifice is murderous evil, but try explaining that to an Aztec priest 700 years ago. Their descendants are now more enlightened and no longer practice such things. Accountability has changed with knowledge. We don't burn witches anymore, either.
Here's a hypothetical based on your phrase "...in this case the slavery of rational beings...". What if at some future time that definition is expanded to include non-rational beings, such as dogs, cats, horses, et al? What if pet ownership is looked upon as an evil subjugation of another species and pet owners of today are referred to as vile hateful people whose statues should be torn down regardless of any other positive or historical contribution the individual may have made? Oh wait, I think this expanded definition is already under way.
Do we assign guilt and erase all history because our ancestors may have committed some "crime" by TODAY'S standards? Let's face it, by today's standards in Western Civilization the whole past world was pretty nasty and a large portion of the contemporary world continues to be just as nasty. We should learn from the past with a mind towards understanding and take care in how we judge those who came before us.
The principles of objective morality are based on the facts of the nature of man, not cultural relativism. This isn't the subjective Pragmatism with its "what's true today may not be tomorrow".
Burning people as "witches" and persecuting and executing Quakers was also immoral, whenever it was done and regardless of what the religious/political leaders and their followers thought about it in their rationalizing.
Concepts are not arbitrarily expanded to lump dogs, cats and horses in with rational beings to "look upon" as whatever someone wants. If and when any such animals biologically evolve to live by independent rational thought, and to which the concept morality objectively applies, then we can conceptualize and identify immoral subjugation -- without condemning anyone who ever had a pet and for which the concept does not apply.
We do "take care in how we judge those who came before us". We do not "erase history". We look at the philosophical ideas as they evolved through centuries of history and what that meant in practice, not as random acts of nastiness dropping the intellectual context. "Nasty" behavior then or now does not imply cultural relativism with a warning to not judge. It shows that you had better judge -- by objective criteria -- and understand the ideas that caused it as well as those who held better ideas that led to progress.
Would you have abstained all together back in the day? It's not an easy call either way CB.
Would I have abstained altogether back in the day? I grew up in the 1950's South, and based on my evaluation of the mindset of typical people then in power, abstaining (or actively supporting the other side) would have been an easy call. And I wasn't even an Objectivist at the time.
Jefferson wondered if they could learn like everyone else. He taught them to read and write, taught them skills and found them to be no different than anyone else...that's what changed his mind about slavery. Unfortunately, Virginia law prohibited him from freeing the slaves he inherited from his father...same goes for Adams and Washington...they inherited slaves from their fathers as well.
What many do not know is that during those times there were many Black Americans involved in the revolution, in state, federal governments not to mention, The Congress in Session. Any one of those people would make our present day government look like kindergartners.
"He has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. This piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the Christian king of Great Britain. Determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce; and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he deprived them, by murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another."
quoted in Carl Becker, The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas, 1922 (emphases in original).
Yes, stupid is more dangerous than evil and stupid that doesn't tame one's cognitive dissonance should never be forgiven nor celebrated but it was clear that Lee was none of these things and in fact encouraged Reconciliation...For someone from the south, it was worth a statue or two.
PS...I did not mark you down.
Letter to his wife on slavery (selections; December 27, 1856)
"The steamer also brought the President's message to Cong; & the reports of the various heads of Depts; the proceedings of Cong: &c &c. So that we are now assured, that the Govt: is in operation, & the Union in existence, not that we had any fears to the Contrary, but it is Satisfactory always to have facts to go on. They restrain Supposition & Conjecture, Confirm faith, & bring Contentment: I was much pleased with the President's message & the report of the Secy of War, the only two documents that have reached us entire. Of the others synopsis [sic] have only arrived. The views of the Pres: of the Systematic & progressive efforts of certain people of the North, to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South, are truthfully & faithfully expressed. The Consequences of their plans & purposes are also clearly set forth, & they must also be aware, that their object is both unlawful & entirely foreign to them & their duty; for which they are irresponsible & unaccountable; & Can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a Civil & Servile war. In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. 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. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy. This influence though slow, is sure. The doctrines & miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years, to Convert but a small part of the human race, & even among Christian nations, what gross errors still exist! While we see the Course of the final abolition of human Slavery is onward, & we give it the aid of our prayers & all justifiable means in our power, we must leave the progress as well as the result in his hands who sees the end; who Chooses to work by slow influences; & with whom two thousand years are but as a Single day. Although the Abolitionist must know this, & must See that he has neither the right or power of operating except by moral means & suasion, & if he means well to the slave, he must not Create angry feelings in the Master; that although he may not approve the mode which it pleases Providence to accomplish its purposes, the result will nevertheless be the same; that the reasons he gives for interference in what he has no Concern, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbors when we disapprove their Conduct; Still I fear he will persevere in his evil Course. Is it not strange that the descendants of those pilgrim fathers who Crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom of opinion, have always proved themselves intolerant of the Spiritual liberty of others?"
http://fair-use.org/robert-e-lee/lett...
That's my observation anyway...
Lee appears to have been more concerned with his "home state" as a collective than with the freedom of the individuals in it.
I do not intend to try to maintain that he was a monster, I just do not think a statue of him as a military hero should continue to be maintained at public expense.
I live in Richmond, where we have Monument Ave. It might cost too much to remove those Confederate statues, but perhaps we could donate them to the Confederate Museum, to be taken there at the Museum's expense. And then signs could be put up, naming the "heroes" whose statues had stood there, how long they were there, and the address of the museum(s) where they were to be found. Or, if this is not feasible, perhaps we could put a sign above them, reading "Confederate Museum--Outside
Branch".
As for maintaining statues in commemoration, there should be no government monuments at all (see Ayn Rand's "The Monument Builders") other than perhaps military cemeteries and memorials and a few major symbols like the Washington Monument and Jefferson Memorial in Washington DC.
But removing monuments now is far from a priority, and the current hysteria is an irrational, contrived movement to promote leftist group think denouncing the origins of this country entirely. They are dominating public thought through a compliant media that lurches from one fad to another as the left demands that we go on the defensive to its alleged moral superiority about everything from statues to conspiracies about the president being a Russian spy.
Far more important than the statues, we should be systematically demolishing statutes -- think of it as a statues for statutes program.
Jan