God bless Robert E. Lee

[Unregistered user]

A nice song for the statue pullers.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvIU6VQAWpo

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

Hewza whatza?

Ugh um I mean cool I'll check it out 😀

Edit...that was very cool! My apologies

[covey ridge]

Not Johnny's best. Robert E. was on the wrong side. He gave up his sword instead of killing off another 20 thousand. Robert E. could have saved way more if he had not taken up arms against his country. He would have probably been executed for treason if it were not for General U.S. Grant. I do not give a rat's butt if his statues go down or stay up. Robert E. lost his war and lost many that followed him.

[covey ridge]

Instead of erecting statues of that pompus general who led all those men to their death maybe they should erect statues to some of the men who dies for his cause.
https://www.google.ca/search?source=...k1.arHzWgov1EU

[270person]

Knock em all down.

[normstad]

Robert E. Lee was on the wrong side of virtue and morality, and as much as I like Johnny Cash, Cash is on the wrong side with this song as well.

Those statures are were mostly put up during the Jim Crow law period, and have little to do with honor. Where are the statutes of the soldiers who died, many conscripted and forced into that war of the States.

Knock 'em all down is right.

[Unregistered user]

Politicians create wars, soldiers do the dirty work officers try to win it. Pulling down statues is the work of imbeciles and communists, taliban does that too.

[propliner]

Perhaps some of the historical revisionists on here don't realize that a statue isn't necessarily meant to honor a person but rather to mark history by the characters who lived it.

Ideologically burying the past dooms us to repeat it.

[Rastus]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Politicians create wars, soldiers do the dirty work officers try to win it. Pulling down statues is the work of imbeciles and communists, taliban does that too.

YOU GOT THAT RIGHT!!!! Could not agree more.

[ram crazy]

Originally Posted by propliner

Perhaps some of the historical revisionists on here don't realize that a statue isn't necessarily meant to honor a person but rather to mark history by the characters who lived it.

Ideologically burying the past dooms us to repeat it.

2x...

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by Unregistered user

Politicians create wars, soldiers do the dirty work officers try to win it. Pulling down statues is the work of imbeciles and communists, taliban does that too.

Not all statues need to be pulled down...soldiers will destroy certain statues especially when they conquer a madman....

[Aim Low]

Originally Posted by propliner

Perhaps some of the historical revisionists on here don't realize that a statue isn't necessarily meant to honor a person but rather to mark history by the characters who lived it.

Ideologically burying the past dooms us to repeat it.

Ummm no. The issue is context. These statues were put up to honor the legacy of the individuals. If this statue were in a civil war museum you would be correct. A 10 year old can understand this concept.

By your logic, statues of Hitler and Stalin should still be standing throughout Europe and former USSR states. I'm sure the victims holocaust and the holodomor are VERY concerned about history...

Agree or disagree with the war in Iraq, but when the US invaded, one of the first things the people did was quickly tear down monuments to saddam hussein's legacy...and no, before people start crying "fake news!", I don't think the joy seen in the crowds was US propaganda..

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hWxszYK6IPU

[densa44]

Did you know that he was a Prof at West Point when the war started and Lincoln offered him the command of all union forces. Lee turned him down and joined the south in rebellion.

Imagine the difference in US history had Lee lead the North in what would have been a much shorter and less bloody war. Instead of Grant he may have been president.

[Aim Low]

Originally Posted by densa44

Did you know that he was a Prof at West Point when the war started and Lincoln offered him the command of all union forces. Lee turned him down and joined the south in rebellion.

Imagine the difference in US history had Lee lead the North in what would have been a much shorter and less bloody war. Instead of Grant he may have been president.

Interesting stuff. Didn't Washington own a bunch of slaves too? I'm sure we can find all kinds of interesting things once we go digging around the closets of historical figures.

Maybe he was a great guy after all,but it still doesn't change the fact that he fought for a group of people that felt human beings should be treated like property. That legacy shouldn't be celebrated or honored, it should be remembered for what it was.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by densa44

Did you know that he was a Prof at West Point when the war started and Lincoln offered him the command of all union forces. Lee turned him down and joined the south in rebellion.

Imagine the difference in US history had Lee lead the North in what would have been a much shorter and less bloody war. Instead of Grant he may have been president.

He chose to go to his home state...this state promoted slavery which needed to be stopped...no dought a great general and all just on the wrong side from my perspective.

[Bigwoodsman]

Originally Posted by propliner

perhaps some of the historical revisionists on here don't realize that a statue isn't necessarily meant to honor a person but rather to mark history by the characters who lived it.

Ideologically burying the past dooms us to repeat it.

x3

bw

[JohninAB]

Originally Posted by Aim Low

Interesting stuff. Didn't Washington own a bunch of slaves too? I'm sure we can find all kinds of interesting things once we go digging around the closets of historical figures.

Maybe he was a great guy after all,but it still doesn't change the fact that he fought for a group of people that felt human beings should be treated like property. That legacy shouldn't be celebrated or honored, it should be remembered for what it was.

Lee went to the confederates as he would not raise his sword against his state and the civil war started as a war of union versus states rights.

The Emancipation Proclamation of 1863 is misunderstood but it brought slavery into the war officially.

Lee was not the original commander of all confederate forces if I recall correctly.

Lee was a brilliant military commander other than his mistake at Gettysburg.

[hogie]

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.c...k-enslavement/

It's not like slavery was just an American problem. Happened here as well, along with the natives doing it to each other as well.

Humans all of different cultures , colours, races have had slaves at some point in there history or mistreated another. We really are a flawed group collectively.

Lincoln wasn't really against slavery as much as he is made out to be. Do some research on his career. Lots of info on the net.

[TBD]

Originally Posted by Aim Low

Interesting stuff. Didn't Washington own a bunch of slaves too? I'm sure we can find all kinds of interesting things once we go digging around the closets of historical figures.

Maybe he was a great guy after all,but it still doesn't change the fact that he fought for a group of people that felt human beings should be treated like property. That legacy shouldn't be celebrated or honored, it should be remembered for what it was.

... another false narrative propagated by the liberal education industry.

[Don_Parsons]

I liked the movie "The God's and the Generals.

I love my United States of America, but I love my Virginia More.

The movie left out alot of interesting points, but we can pick and choose what we want to take away from this.

My gramps had a few sayings about wars.

There are no winners in war, only survivors.

The saying that stands out the most still puts a chill down my spine even today.

"We" are all products of wars in some shape way or forum whether we like it or not.
Even if "We" did not nor participated in any way to a war in human body.

All humans at some point have an ancestor that was either in a war or benefited from a war,,, many did not.

There have been wars long before we we're born, many more will follow as man kind will repeat these dreadfully acts,,, un-less history is wrong.

I will not take part in the theatre of conflicts, my task is to assist in those that are left behind.

The sad reality is that we all loose in some way, shape or forum.

Wize to ones self "if" the skies are dark and the grounds become mud as only hero's of human kind stand out above the rest.

Desmond Doss.

This is a man that deserves a statue in the hearts and minds of human kind.

Don

[lmtada]

Robert Lee was Lincoln first choices lead the Civil War. However Robert chose to fight for his state, which was a confederate state. One of best generals ever. My $0.02 if it matters? And it doesn't.

[BuckCuller]

The civil war was not all about slavery.
It was about statesmanship vs union. Slavery was used as political recruitment tool the same as immagration and victim hood is today. The government didn't actually care but used it to there advantage.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by 58thecat

He chose to go to his home state...this state promoted slavery which needed to be stopped...no dought a great general and all just on the wrong side from my perspective.

The fact that Robert E. owned slaves was not cool, but his real sin was that Robert E. was a traitor to a country that as a soldier he swore to protect.

Robert E. should not be forgotten, his story should always be told, but to remember him as some sort of hero may invite a repeat of history. Robert E. should be put in his proper place and remembered more like Benedict Arnold, or the New Testament Judas.

[ReconWilly]

To much SJW in this thread, it's unreadable.

The triggers are triggered and everyone wants to use their privilege to suppress the oppresors...what a freak show.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by BuckCuller

The civil war was not all about slavery.
It was about statesmanship vs union. Slavery was used as political recruitment tool the same as immagration and victim hood is today. The government didn't actually care but used it to there advantage.

I think you are correct, in that slavery was not the only issue and for many southerners was not the most important issue. For many southerners the issue was individual rights which extended to the right for their state to leave the union. I think that many fought just to protect their homes and felt that Washington was a threat like some of us today think that Ottawa is a threat.

I doubt if many of the grunts who fought and gave their lives on both sides were slave owners. The politicians and the generals knew what this war was about.

I think that the USA like many countries do not like to remember bad military leaders or bad policy. They like to justify policy and remember their leaders as heroes no matter what. Custer comes to mind.

[normstad]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I think you are correct, in that slavery was not the only issue and for many southerners was not the most important issue. For many southerners the issue was individual rights which extended to the right for their state to leave the union. I think that many fought just to protect their homes and felt that Washington was a threat like some of us today think that Ottawa is a threat.

Originally Posted by covey ridge

I doubt if many of the grunts who fought and gave their lives on both sides were slave owners. The politicians and the generals knew what this war was about.

I think that the USA like many countries do not like to remember bad military leaders or bad policy. They like to justify policy and remember their leaders as heroes no matter what. Custer comes to mind.

Actually, that is the historical revisionism that too many people buy into.

From the Confederate Constitution:

Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And, most explicitly:

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

THIS is the main thrust, and they actually put it into their constitution in numerous places. It was about slavery, period, and no whitewashing can change that.

[Grizzly Adams]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

Not Johnny's best. Robert E. was on the wrong side. He gave up his sword instead of killing off another 20 thousand. Robert E. could have saved way more if he had not taken up arms against his country. He would have probably been executed for treason if it were not for General U.S. Grant. I do not give a rat's butt if his statues go down or stay up. Robert E. lost his war and lost many that followed him.

But, you remembered all that, cause of a lousy statue. Time to ban Johnny Cash.

Grizz

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by normstad

[B]

Actually, that is the historical revisionism that too many people buy into.

From the Confederate Constitution:

Article I Section 9(1)
The importation of negroes of the African race from any foreign country, other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America, is hereby forbidden; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same.

Article I Section 9(4)
No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.

And, most explicitly:

Article IV Section 3(3)
The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states.

THIS is the main thrust, and they actually put it into their constitution in numerous places. It was about slavery, period, and no whitewashing can change that.

Not just about slavery. Slavery was a big issue for sure, but the really big issue was the fact that the Confederate states wrote a constitution that was contrary to the constitution of the United States of America. They were declaring that their Confederate States were pulling out of the Union.

[covey ridge]

Originally Posted by Grizzly Adams

But, you remembered all that, cause of a lousy statue. Time to ban Johnny Cash.

Grizz

No I thought of that by listening to the words of that lousy song that Johnny sang. Just goes to show that Johnny Cash respected Robert E. for not wasting
20000 lives after he was responsible for many times more wasted lives.

BS! Actually I think Robert E. surrendered because he knew to continue would mean he would be among the wasted lives and was not willing to die for the cause that he sent his men to die for.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by covey ridge

No I thought of that by listening to the words of that lousy song that Johnny sang. Just goes to show that Johnny Cash respected Robert E. for not wasting
20000 lives after he was responsible for many times more wasted lives.

BS! Actually I think Robert E. surrendered because he knew to continue would mean he would be among the wasted lives and was not willing to die for the cause that he sent his men to die for.

We will never really know the truth and that is all part of history, a little this and a little of that and then perspective of who is telling the story...