Distortions of truth and history: Lee, a better friend of slaves than Lincoln

[David Floyd]

The Big E is somehow under the deranged state of mind that the South was rich, and all families had slaves all over the place.

Come on, the Big E is the nickname for the USS Enterprise, one of the most famous ships in the USN...can't believe you'd mistake the two

jimmy,

Of course, the vital difference is that Lee lost, and since might makes right, Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson were right and Lee was wrong. Like, duh

[Al B. Sure!]

Generally, Lee is not painted as evil. In school, we learned that he was either pretty honorable and heroic (mainly because he could do so well with his ragtag army) or an alright historical figure though far from evil. Lincoln varies in my experience. Some love him as one of the best presidents while a small minority tends to not like him for one of two distinct reasons... some people say he was worthy of impeachment several times over while others say that he was just a bastard who didnt give a damn about the slaves and only did the emancipation (though not in Union states) so that he could prevent Britain from supporting the south.


thanks

[Capt Dizle]

Actually Lincoln was opposed to slavery long before the war.

[Shi Huangdi]

Say what you want about their beliefs, but the fact is Lincoln's actions were far more beneficial to the cause of freeing the slaves then Lee's. Had lee succeded, Slavery would have remained in the south.

[Jon Miller]

for a while

it was a dying institution even there

Jon Miler

[Capt Dizle]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
Say what you want about their beliefs, but the fact is Lincoln's actions were far more beneficial to the cause of freeing the slaves then Lee's. Had lee succeded, Slavery would have remained in the south.

You are just not paying attention. Lee tried to get the CSA to free the slaves. If he had suceeded the South would have probably gained its freedom.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Thought I'd look in. You found MrFun. Staunch Lincoln supporter.

One should not present either side as simple, one-dimensional, archetype dispicable villains, or virtuous heroes.

Both sides of the Civil War involved imperfect humans; plain and simple.

And one more point -- the history of the Civil War seems to have run against the usual pattern of the victor completely dominating the writing of the Civil War's history.

It has been the losers of the Civil War who gained a powerful influence in writing its history since the 1920s.
For that reason, people today, still worship the Confederate flag, and still believe that the Civil War was fought over anything BUT slavery.

[Capt Dizle]

If you think that the War was fought over slavery and slavery alone you are ignorant.

OTOH, if not for slavery the war wouldn't have been fought.

[Drake Tungsten]

and still believe that the Civil War was fought over anything BUT slavery.

Or maybe they believe that because it is the truth. Slavery was certainly a factor in the war, but so was state rights, economic concerns and any number of other things. You seem to be the one pushing a simple, one-dimensional view here...

[MrFun]

Slavery was the central issue that threatened to tear the nation apart -- all you have to do, is read how the western territories and the country's expansion, was tied to the issue of slavery.

Also, read primary sources where arguments raged back and forth on restricting slavery, or for expanding slavery.

[Capt Dizle]

Yes, that is partially correct. The only thing is you refer to the nation tearing apart thing. The north and south had very different ideas about states rights versus federal power. These differences manifested themselves both before and after the war on a wide variety of issues and still is a common point of contention today.

Slavery was simply an issue that couldn't be peacefully resolved. Slavery would have died without the war of course.

[Drake Tungsten]

It could also be argued that slavery itself was just one aspect of the conflict between the economic systems of the agricultural South and the industrial North. The Southern states were very interested in maintaining their way of life; the continuation of slavery was just one piece in the puzzle.

However, I'm sure you won't believe any of this, Mr. Fun. You've bought into the mistaken idea that slavery is the central issue in American history and therefore has to be the real cause for the Civil War, among other things. You have the right to believe this, but I think that it is a rather narrow view of American history.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by jimmytrick
If Lee betrayed his country so did Washington, Franklin, Jefferson and Mel Gibson.

Since when did Mel betray the US or Australia?

Washinton, Franklyn and Jefferson knew that they were betraying Britain. They just didn't care.

You HAVE to win if you are going to betray your country. They did. Lee didn't.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
Way to rock and fire, Imran.
The Big E is somehow under the deranged state of mind that the South was rich, and all families had slaves all over the place.

I see you not only can't respond in a civil manner you make up my position as well. Well I guess thats the only chance you have to win an arguement with me. You just doing your best I suppose. You can't really help it not being enough.

[Carver]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Or maybe they believe that because it is the truth. Slavery was certainly a factor in the war,

by far the biggest factor

but so was state rights,

yes, the "right" to own slaves

economic concerns

the economics of slavery

You seem to be the one pushing a simple, one-dimensional view here...

I would say you seem to be the one pushing a one-dimensional view of neoconfederate apologism.