The Great Robert E. Lee
Robert E. Lee was a great American. He was in rebellion against his country for four tortuous, bloody years. At the head of the Army of Northern Virginia, he came darn close to winning Southern independence. Lee was a brilliant field commander, full of audacity. His daring was a gift and a bane. He was a man of integrity. He was a man of his place and time. He deserves our remembrance and respect.
The left – and the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, the race industry, and establishment go-alongs – want to destroy our history. Destroy anything that honors the men who fought for the South in the Civil War. Destroy, as the left does – here and abroad – history that doesn't comport with its worldview. Destroy it or ignore it and rewrite it, as the Stalinists did. As Orwell warned.
That's a villainous mindset. It contains an awfully destructive logic if not defeated. The left won't stop at discarding the soldiers of the South's rebellion. It will advance to anything and anyone the left deems inconvenient to its narrative – a narrative it fashions to gain power and control over all of us. If successful, the left will turn with a terrible vengeance on our founders. It will eviscerate the nation's leaders in the generations up to the Civil War, and then beyond. It's a means to tyranny.
Goes the left's argument: the South's secession was to preserve an evil institution, slavery – negro slavery, precisely. In large part, it was. But we live in dumbed down times, when schools fail to teach, or foist revisionist history on our kids; when history is barely remembered, much less understood; when tens of millions of citizens are open to falsehood, misrepresentation, and certainly lack of context about the momentous events and times and people in the past who shaped our nation.
Robert E. Lee was intimately connected to the nation's beginnings. From Biography:
Lee was cut from Virginia aristocracy. His extended family members included a president, a chief justice of the United States, and signers of the Declaration of Independence. His father, Colonel Henry Lee, also known as "Light-Horse Harry," had served as a cavalry leader during the Revolutionary War and gone on to become one of the war's heroes, winning praise from General George Washington.
Lee married Mary Custis, whose great grandparents were George and Martha Washington. He graduated from West Point and distinguished himself in the Mexican-American War. In the small postwar army, Lee rose to the rank of colonel. He served as superintendent of the United States Military Academy.
Lee's star rose when he was ordered to quell John Brown's rebellion at Harper's Ferry. He was then regarded as a possible leader of the Union army should civil war come.
When the war came, Lincoln offered Lee command of Union forces. Lee declined. It's important to understand why – and it wasn't because Lee was pro-slavery. Like most every American, he was, first and foremost, a citizen of his state: Virginia. When Virginia seceded, Lee acted from conviction: his duty lay with his state.
Modern Americans often travel across state lines. They relocate for work or lifestyle. They fail to appreciate mid-19th-century life. Though change was coming, Americans were still overwhelmingly rural, rarely venturing more than a dozen miles from their villages or farms. The nation was only loosely knitted together through the Revolution, rudimentary media, religion, and culture. The Civil War commenced just 72 years after Washington was sworn in as president.
Slavery had been contentious from the time the Constitution was debated and drafted. It remained contentious, in ebbs and flows, throughout the early decades of the republic. The 1850s saw an escalation in tensions and conflict about the issue. Lincoln's election in 1860 proved the deal-breaker for 11 lower Southern states.
Most Southerners didn't own slaves. They couldn't afford them even if they desired to do so.
Lee didn't believe in slavery. From a letter dated December 27, 1856:
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race.
But, current with some thinking at the time, Lee wrote:
While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter [blacks], my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.
Most assuredly, slavery was a "moral and political evil." Yet Lee's rationalization that blacks would progress to emancipation after an undefined period as slaves was in broad circulation among "enlightened" Southerners. Lee was a man of the South, a Virginian with social status. Racism was prevalent throughout the nation. Lee's thinking was deemed progressive. The temptation is to impose early 21st-century sensibilities on Lee, whose correspondence is 161 years ancient.
The North and South were diverging. The former was industrializing, while the latter remained agrarian. The North's demographics were changing, with influxes of European immigrants. The North had started to urbanize.
Lee, like many Southerners, fought for independence, not slavery. Those Southerners fought Northern tyranny – so perceived, though erroneous. Had it been a divorce, the South would have filed on grounds of irreconcilable differences. South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter because they mistrusted Lincoln. They chose not to take him at his word. Reasoned Lincoln: No expansion of slavery, but leave the institution alone where it existed. Lincoln didn't share Lee's view of slavery as civilizing. He did believe that, in time, it would wither away. Nowadays, does that make Lincoln an abettor of slavery?
Lee, the gifted tactician, fought battle after battle against the superior Union army – outmanned, outgunned, out-provisioned. Lee profited from facing incompetent and feckless Union generals. Yet his boldness and talent for maneuver were decisive. Chancellorsville was, perhaps, his greatest victory. His aim to break the North's will ran afoul of Gettysburg, which became his great defeat. U.S. Grant's advent changed the dynamic. Grant used superior forces to doggedly pursue Lee, battering Lee's army, cutting supply lines – finally surrounding him near Appomattox.
But Lee might have escaped Grant's grip with a remnant of his troops, retreating to the Appalachians, vowing open-ended war, there inspiring or spawning thousands of William Quantrills and Bloody Bill Andersons. Instead, he surrendered, with no ironclad assurance that he'd not have a date with a hangman's noose. Lee's surrender and peaceful return to Richmond ended the Civil War.
The South wouldn't reintegrate with the nation for another century. There would be decades of Southern apartheid (Jim Crow), KKK night ridings, lynchings of blacks – aided and abetted, if not orchestrated, by the Democratic Party. The Civil Rights Movement and laws closed that horrible chapter.
But the man, Robert E. Lee, must be remembered for the man. His sense of duty and loyalty to principle are unimpeachable. He must be seen and regarded in context: a man of achievement in a unique place and moment in time. Respect Lee; revile slavery.
The Civil War greatly shaped our nation. It's intrinsic to our history, our reality. It has a truth – terrible, tragic, noble. Leftist revisionists be damned.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_great_robert_e_lee.html#ixzz4qKLt58z8
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
The left – and the mainstream media, the Democratic Party, the race industry, and establishment go-alongs – want to destroy our history. Destroy anything that honors the men who fought for the South in the Civil War. Destroy, as the left does – here and abroad – history that doesn't comport with its worldview. Destroy it or ignore it and rewrite it, as the Stalinists did. As Orwell warned.
That's a villainous mindset. It contains an awfully destructive logic if not defeated. The left won't stop at discarding the soldiers of the South's rebellion. It will advance to anything and anyone the left deems inconvenient to its narrative – a narrative it fashions to gain power and control over all of us. If successful, the left will turn with a terrible vengeance on our founders. It will eviscerate the nation's leaders in the generations up to the Civil War, and then beyond. It's a means to tyranny.
Goes the left's argument: the South's secession was to preserve an evil institution, slavery – negro slavery, precisely. In large part, it was. But we live in dumbed down times, when schools fail to teach, or foist revisionist history on our kids; when history is barely remembered, much less understood; when tens of millions of citizens are open to falsehood, misrepresentation, and certainly lack of context about the momentous events and times and people in the past who shaped our nation.
Robert E. Lee was intimately connected to the nation's beginnings. From Biography:
Lee was cut from Virginia aristocracy. His extended family members included a president, a chief justice of the United States, and signers of the Declaration of Independence. His father, Colonel Henry Lee, also known as "Light-Horse Harry," had served as a cavalry leader during the Revolutionary War and gone on to become one of the war's heroes, winning praise from General George Washington.
Lee married Mary Custis, whose great grandparents were George and Martha Washington. He graduated from West Point and distinguished himself in the Mexican-American War. In the small postwar army, Lee rose to the rank of colonel. He served as superintendent of the United States Military Academy.
Lee's star rose when he was ordered to quell John Brown's rebellion at Harper's Ferry. He was then regarded as a possible leader of the Union army should civil war come.
When the war came, Lincoln offered Lee command of Union forces. Lee declined. It's important to understand why – and it wasn't because Lee was pro-slavery. Like most every American, he was, first and foremost, a citizen of his state: Virginia. When Virginia seceded, Lee acted from conviction: his duty lay with his state.
Modern Americans often travel across state lines. They relocate for work or lifestyle. They fail to appreciate mid-19th-century life. Though change was coming, Americans were still overwhelmingly rural, rarely venturing more than a dozen miles from their villages or farms. The nation was only loosely knitted together through the Revolution, rudimentary media, religion, and culture. The Civil War commenced just 72 years after Washington was sworn in as president.
Slavery had been contentious from the time the Constitution was debated and drafted. It remained contentious, in ebbs and flows, throughout the early decades of the republic. The 1850s saw an escalation in tensions and conflict about the issue. Lincoln's election in 1860 proved the deal-breaker for 11 lower Southern states.
Most Southerners didn't own slaves. They couldn't afford them even if they desired to do so.
Lee didn't believe in slavery. From a letter dated December 27, 1856:
There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race.
But, current with some thinking at the time, Lee wrote:
While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter [blacks], my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things.
Most assuredly, slavery was a "moral and political evil." Yet Lee's rationalization that blacks would progress to emancipation after an undefined period as slaves was in broad circulation among "enlightened" Southerners. Lee was a man of the South, a Virginian with social status. Racism was prevalent throughout the nation. Lee's thinking was deemed progressive. The temptation is to impose early 21st-century sensibilities on Lee, whose correspondence is 161 years ancient.
The North and South were diverging. The former was industrializing, while the latter remained agrarian. The North's demographics were changing, with influxes of European immigrants. The North had started to urbanize.
Lee, like many Southerners, fought for independence, not slavery. Those Southerners fought Northern tyranny – so perceived, though erroneous. Had it been a divorce, the South would have filed on grounds of irreconcilable differences. South Carolinians fired on Fort Sumter because they mistrusted Lincoln. They chose not to take him at his word. Reasoned Lincoln: No expansion of slavery, but leave the institution alone where it existed. Lincoln didn't share Lee's view of slavery as civilizing. He did believe that, in time, it would wither away. Nowadays, does that make Lincoln an abettor of slavery?
Lee, the gifted tactician, fought battle after battle against the superior Union army – outmanned, outgunned, out-provisioned. Lee profited from facing incompetent and feckless Union generals. Yet his boldness and talent for maneuver were decisive. Chancellorsville was, perhaps, his greatest victory. His aim to break the North's will ran afoul of Gettysburg, which became his great defeat. U.S. Grant's advent changed the dynamic. Grant used superior forces to doggedly pursue Lee, battering Lee's army, cutting supply lines – finally surrounding him near Appomattox.
But Lee might have escaped Grant's grip with a remnant of his troops, retreating to the Appalachians, vowing open-ended war, there inspiring or spawning thousands of William Quantrills and Bloody Bill Andersons. Instead, he surrendered, with no ironclad assurance that he'd not have a date with a hangman's noose. Lee's surrender and peaceful return to Richmond ended the Civil War.
The South wouldn't reintegrate with the nation for another century. There would be decades of Southern apartheid (Jim Crow), KKK night ridings, lynchings of blacks – aided and abetted, if not orchestrated, by the Democratic Party. The Civil Rights Movement and laws closed that horrible chapter.
But the man, Robert E. Lee, must be remembered for the man. His sense of duty and loyalty to principle are unimpeachable. He must be seen and regarded in context: a man of achievement in a unique place and moment in time. Respect Lee; revile slavery.
The Civil War greatly shaped our nation. It's intrinsic to our history, our reality. It has a truth – terrible, tragic, noble. Leftist revisionists be damned.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/08/the_great_robert_e_lee.html#ixzz4qKLt58z8
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
"But the man, Robert E. Lee, must be remembered for the man. His sense of duty and loyalty to principle are unimpeachable. He must be seen and regarded in context: a man of achievement in a unique place and moment in time. Respect Lee; revile slavery. "
He was a great man and it wasn't until 1970 that he regained his citizenship.
The left is on a roll now. But, I tell you what it is doing to me and I don't like it. I have never been prejudiced against anyone in my lifetime, but what is happening now is turning me into one. Enough is enough!
Don't give into desires for revenge. We will just make life a living hell for the individuals and groups who try to rob America of its culture and history. No need to resort to their bigotry and hatred to do it though. This article for example will be a total affront to those statue banners and we can defend our history at the same time. Though I lived most of my life in Rural California, I was born in the south and loved it when I got to go back as an adult. Davidson County and Nashville, Tn. are my birth place.
I have never been prejudiced against anyone in my lifetime, but what is happening now is turning me into one.
Against who Mag? A political movement? And while I agree that people are going to extremes, we all chose our own paths in these cases.
"Lee, the gifted tactician, fought battle after battle against the superior Union army – outmanned, outgunned, out-provisioned. Lee profited from facing incompetent and feckless Union generals. Yet his boldness and talent for maneuver were decisive. Chancellorsville was, perhaps, his greatest victory."
And many of his tactics are still being taught and trained on by today's US military. Not to mention that there is a military installation that bears his name (with no plans of change on either account).
This article for example will be a total affront to those statue banners and we can defend our history at the same time.
Actually, it's a total affront to anyone who abhors 'cafeteria' history. One isn't 'defending our history' by editing it to the point that it's almost unrecognizable.
Really? What was unrecognizable about it? His family and heritage? The letters he wrote, the reasons why he turned down Lincoln and led the CSA instead? How much detail can you have in one small article? Lee was a great man.
Really?
Yes.
What was unrecognizable about it?
This article explains it pretty well.
Reality Warning! The Atlantic article is based on sourced historical documentation.
I suggest you do your own research with no prejudice. He said..."it is morally and politically wrong to own slaves".
I did. See my reply to Redding for a summary.
The other poster simply found an opinion more to their own liking.
History is never black or white. There are always shades of gray. It's not a matter of liking. Both can be true at the same time, since people are complex beings.
Although it would be ideal if history were actually factually correct, different sources of information about historical events are bound to have different viewpoints. That makes it difficult to know what is true and what is not.
That makes it difficult to know what is true and what is not.
Which is why I prefer to read the entire letter Lee wrote to his wife in 1856, and the whole biography of Colonel Henry Lee and the documented history of how Robert E. Lee actually treated the slaves he was entrusted with after the death of his father in law.
I prefer to avoid the agenda behind truncation and editorializing history. Sometimes it takes splicing together two divergent sources and making an educated decision on what is most likely to be true. But I never take one source or viewpoint as the 'gospel truth'.
Actually, it's a total affront to anyone who abhors 'cafeteria' history. One isn't 'defending our history' by editing it to the point that it's almost unrecognizable
How long have you been having these thoughts Dulay? Has your entire life been ruined because of these statues? I mean have you been walking around for 40 years or more thinking how bad these statues are and stressed out just knowing they are still there?
Comment removed for violating the CoC. jwc2blue
have you been walking around for 40 years or more thinking how bad these statues are and stressed out just knowing they are still there?
Six - don't be silly. The issue is that these statues have had an impact on policies because they represent and promote a way of thinking that these States refuse to set aside. I don't think we need to even bring race into the discussion. The fact that these men and women were traitors to the country alone should be reason enough to remove them.
What's next - a statue of Snowden ( although I personally think he did the country a service ) or maybe Assange. We could say he helped to get Trump elected which has taken the alt right movement to a new level. Hell - let's put one up of Putin. ( cheeky grin )
Why not Benedict Arnold? After all, he was an extremely successful General in the Revolutionary Army before he defected.
what is it that the southern states refused to set aside? They don't have slavery any more. No more segregation. Less prejudice and bigotry than in say Boston, Chicago, etc. so, what is it other than that they vote for the wrong party and you think they weren't punished severely enough for the Civil war and all those Yankees that moved down there since the sunbelt boom began in the 1970's and their children need additional punishment for what happened 150 years ago.
How long have you been having these thoughts Dulay?
Since I realized that what I learned about 'manifest destiny' was a huge lie.
Has your entire life been ruined because of these statues?
My comment had nothing to do with the statues. It was about the fairytale history of Lee in the 'article'.
I mean have you been walking around for 40 years or more thinking how bad these statues are and stressed out just knowing they are still there?
Actually, no. I was however deeply effected the first time I read the plaque at the site of Ft. Douglas in Chicago. Does that count?
Robert E. Lee was a great American
Robert E. Lee was an enemy of our country. He launched armed attacks on the United States of America . . . That's treason-- by any definition...
(I still can't help but wonder why the U.S. is the only country in the world that erects monuments to those who commit acts of treason against us....?)
It was considered treason, but he was pardoned by Lincoln and Grant.
He was still a great General.
He was still a great General .
So was General Benedict Arnold.
Lee betrayed his oath to the Constitution and sided with a foreign government, a government whose only reason to exist was in order to maintain slavery. Lee then led an invading army in attacking the United States of America.
Lee chose to betray and fight against the US, like Arnold and, fortunately for us, he also lost like Benedict Arnold.
The only difference between the two men is how we have decided to pay tribute to each one.
Arnold's place in our history is marked by this;
Lee and the other Confederate memorials were mostly put up between 1900 & 1970, to highlight the strangle hold whites held over our society from the reconstruction days, segregation, Jim Crow and the era of civil rights legislation.
Like Arnold's historical marker the Confederate ones belong in graveyards and museums.
The U.S. did not erect most of these statues the snowflakes have their panties in a wad about. They were erected by states (as states have rights as to their own sovereignty, though it seems less and less every year). And Lee was, form a military perspective, a brilliant tactician and leader of men.
I think the statues will have to come down but not because of their connection to racism. They need to be removed because they are a reminder to Southerners that traitors were allowed to live and to keep their dignity. The United States should have shot or hung all traitors. We did our country a disservice by showing compassion.
They are going to have to? On whose orders? Who is going to impose and enforce that decree? Are you trying to repunish the south because of a war that ended 152.5 years ago? I take by your final remarks that you have a very low opinion of Abraham Lincoln. With charity toward all and malice toward none. He realized that it was brother against brother and father against son in too many cases. What you describe could never have happened here. The radical republicans after Lincoln died were vindictive enough and were the cause of the kkk, segregation, and the solid democrat south for a century. There is never a disservice to a nation by having a compassionate result for the losing side of a civil war. The fact that we did not have excesses in our revolutionary war compared to other nations revolutions and that we had a civil end to our civil war is what sets us apart from other nations and made us exceptional. The costs to this country over time in blood, occupation, no reconstruction, and possibly never ending guerilla warfare and the risk of other countries getting involved with slavery no longer an issue would have been staggering. The south should hold onto its traditions and history.
X - I'm sorry but I disagree.
By showing compassion we have had to endure centuries of the South pretending their role in the war was because they were fighting for something noble. Owning people is not noble, raping them, beating them, abusing them, and keeping them down is not noble.
Anyone who supported rising up and taking arms against the country should have been executed. They are traitors. Anyone who continues to honor what the confederates did are in their own way honoring treason.
Thankfully for America President Lincoln disagreed with your viewpoint.
And we are all the worse for it. Here we are 152 years AFTER the NORTH won and we're still debating whether or not the South's "way of life" should be honored.
No one wants to admit that their ancestors did something wrong, and that is understandable. No one wants to admit that their kid is a shoplifter or that their mother was a drunk.
We should do what has to be done, in an orderly way, and move on.
The war and slavery ended 150 years ago. Reconstruction and readmittance occurred over 130 years ago. Southern lifestyle is a different issue and is of no concern to those not living there. The Dixiecrat segregationists democrats are long dead. We are not now going to relitigate the end of the war or revoke what Lincoln did nor impose new expostfacto penalties upon us/them.
Southern lifestyle is a different issue and is of no concern to those not living there
X- Southern lifestyle and values ARE the issue. Some could argue they are honoring traitors to this country. That's the position I am taking but in reality you are trying to reconcile two different issues. The statues were not put up to honor the men and women who fought for what they believed in. The statues were put up to "remind" people where their place in society and this country was and the statues continue to be used to advance this narrative. Why do you think the racists in this country are fighting to keep the statues up?
The south is no longer racist and its less segregated than many northern cities.
First they give up their flag and now the northern aggressors want to coerce them into giving up their monuments. They should say not only no, but heck no.
PJ, this answers you far better than I.
Why Are There Monuments of Confederate Soldiers?
Can a man be guilty of a sin he himself seeks to purge from his being? Can he be a mixed bag, having some good and some evil in his being? Yes. We all know it. We all feel the sting of shame, of regret, when we reflect honestly on our hidden evil thoughts, when we contemplate the condemnation we would receive if a wrongful act was discovered. We could be otherwise deserving of praise for aspects of our nature that are laudable and honorable, but in that one thing we would feel disgraced.
Interesting word, isn’t it? Disgraced. It means to lose mercy, favor or virtue. Therefore, its opposite: grace, means to extend the restoration of virtue, to grant mercy, to again look favorably upon someone.
In the Civil War, America suffered a fall from grace. But grace was used to turn enmity into comity.
This is why the Civil War monuments existed, in part, perhaps in the largest part. A shattered nation needed to come back together. Secession was treason. Treason was disgrace; worse, treason was committed to protect the evil of slavery. Men died to stop it. Men died to save it. We know who won. But with battlefields stained with blood, and the shops, streets and homes filled with maimed bodies, broken futures, and fractured souls, how do you mend two warring sides?
Lincoln had planned for a mending. In 1863, roughly two years before the war ended, he issued a Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction, as stated here:
The proclamation addressed three main areas of concern. First, it allowed for a full pardon for and restoration of property to all engaged in the rebellion with the exception of the highest Confederate officials and military leaders. Second, it allowed for a new state government to be formed when 10 percent of the eligible voters had taken an oath of allegiance to the United States. Third, the Southern states admitted in this fashion were encouraged to enact plans to deal with the freed slaves so long as their freedom was not compromised.
Lincoln knew how difficult the task would be to re-unite blood enemies, so he made a plan and announced it. He informed the South that there was a way out, a way back. In effect, he did not say that they, as a people, were evil. He said they were a good people that went down the wrong path and that we should all be friends again.
As Lincoln saw it, the victors needed to extend grace to the defeated, once they lay down their arms. As he said his second inaugural address:
The President saw the need to overcome the conceit that a person can own another in servitude; he had to destroy the idea that slavery was acceptable; and once doing that, remove the disgrace from the person. Let them restore their dignity, sense of place, recognizing those parts of themselves that were honorable and good. They were made to see that this thing about slavery they got horribly wrong. He believed that to be at peace and to become neighbors again, to be one nation again, they must forgive; they must get past it; they must see each representative of the former enemy as a whole being, fully vested with all the rights and privileges of citizenship. There are no spoils for the victors because there is no one vanquished. We are brothers again. Lincoln’s plan for amnesty was enacted by his successor, Andrew Johnson, by Proclamation 179 on Dec. 25, 1868. It granted full pardon. How appropriate. On Dec. 25 they were forgiven. The president told them to go back to their homes and to sin no more.
In doing so they built monuments to their dead. But it wasn’t their dead anymore, it was our honored dead. Some of the honored dead were those who chose to secede from the federal government to protect their dependence on a system with slavery, but they are those who gave this up and rejoined a lawful government. Some of the honored dead were those who forced them to it. General Robert E. Lee said:
In their decision to surrender, they decided for all time and absolutely for America that slavery is wrong, and that it brings disgrace. Racism could not stand in the light of the belief that all men are equal. Surrender and victory became America resolving itself to a mutually confirmed truth in a manner that cannot be undone. We would not, and could not, ever be divided on this issue again. The men and women of both sides in this now re-united whole are honorable.
When the General Robert E. Lee statue was opened to the public, the Daily Picayune included this quote:
Lincoln said:
Fast forward to today and we see a culture rescinding grace, condemnation rages, we are breaking apart into ideological camps, persons are judged for perceived sins, judged for past sins. For all appearances, the bonds of affection are broken. The willingness to forgive or to look upon each other as brothers is vaporizing. We no longer hold certain principles in common nor do we seek to uphold them. Too many stand by while evil flourishes.
There are three dangerous and disastrous concepts taking hold today. The first is the idea that past sins taint the vessel. For example, if a founder to this country sinned (i.e. Thomas Jefferson had slaves), then he and all that he touched is tainted. This includes his place in history and the related memorials of that place, his writings, legal conclusions, etc. The second is the conceit that we are qualified and right to condemn them as persons, without distinction or evaluating the balance of their wrongs versus their positive contributions. Martin Luther King was known as a womanizer, but he made valuable contributions to the character of this nation. His sins on one side do not erase his contributions on the other. The third is companion to the second and the most dangerous of the three, that people of one class may condemn an entire class of persons as tainted (white privilege). When we are all bearers of some sin in ourselves, who are we to judge another unworthy of life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness, much less a whole class of others?
The truth is that the freedoms of today are the fruits of labor of those who went before. They were men and women in a process to establish and keep a free society. It is their legacy and it is our job to protect it. They knew then that the high ideals they established this nation under could not tolerate some of the habits they themselves operated under. The blessings of liberty were to be for everyone, so they set a course. The Civil War cemented us on that course for everyone one regardless of race. This is to our collective credit. America shines as beacon because of it.
The blessings of liberty require grace. We must stop those who want to secede from that understanding.
Read more:
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
I saw PJ at the top of this comment as I quickly glanced at it and started reading immediately. I was thinking it was put up by PJ and it felt good.
What do you mean Six?
Race-based legislation in the North
To the fugitive slave fleeing a life of bondage, the North was a land of freedom. Or so he or she thought. Upon arriving there, the fugitive found that, though they were no longer slaves, neither were they free. African Americans in the North lived in a strange state of semi-freedom. The North may had emancipated its slaves, but it was not ready to treat the blacks as citizens. . . or sometimes even as human beings.
Northern racism grew directly out of slavery and the ideas used to justify the institution. The concepts of "black" and "white" did not arrive with the first Europeans and Africans, but grew on American soil. During Andrew Jackson's administration, racist ideas took on new meaning. Jackson brought in the "Age of the Common Man." Under his administration, working class people gained rights they had not before possessed, particularly the right to vote. But the only people who benefited were white men. Blacks, Indians, and women were not included.
This was a time when European immigrants were pouring into the North. Many of these people had faced discrimination and hardship in their native countries. But in America they found their rights expanding rapidly. They had entered a country in which they were part of a privileged category called "white."
Classism and ethnic prejudices did exist among white Americans and had a tremendous impact on people's lives. But the bottom line was that for white people in America, no matter how poor or degraded they were, they knew there was a class of people below them. Poor whites were considered superior to blacks, and to Indians as well, simply by virtue of being white. Because of this, most identified with the rest of the white race and defended the institution of slavery. Working class whites did this even though slavery did not benefit them directly and was in many ways against their best interests.
Before 1800, free African American men had nominal rights of citizenship. In some places they could vote, serve on juries, and work in skilled trades. But as the need to justify slavery grew stronger, and racism started solidifying, free blacks gradually lost the rights that they did have. Through intimidation, changing laws and mob violence, whites claimed racial supremacy, and increasingly denied blacks their citizenship. And in 1857 the Dred Scott decision formally declared that blacks were not citizens of the United States.
In the northeastern states, blacks faced discrimination in many forms. Segregation was rampant, especially in Philadelphia, where African Americans were excluded from concert halls, public transportation, schools, churches, orphanages, and other places. Blacks were also forced out of the skilled professions in which they had been working. And soon after the turn of the century, African American men began to lose the right to vote -- a right that many states had granted following the Revolutionary War. Simultaneously, voting rights were being expanded for whites. New Jersey took the black vote away in 1807; in 1818, Connecticut took it away from black men who had not voted previously; in 1821, New York took away property requirements for white men to vote, but kept them for blacks. This meant that only a tiny percentage of black men could vote in that state. In 1838, Pennsylvania took the vote away entirely. The only states in which black men never lost the right to vote were Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts.
The situation in what was then the northwest region of the country was even worse. In Ohio, the state constitution of 1802 deprived blacks of the right to vote, to hold public office, and to testify against whites in court. Over the next five years, more restrictions were placed on African Americans. They could not live in Ohio without a certificate proving their free status, they had to post a $500 bond "to pay for their support in case of want," and they were prohibited from joining the state militia. In 1831 blacks were excluded from serving on juries and were not allowed admittance to state poorhouses, insane asylums, and other institutions. Fortunately, some of these laws were not stringently enforced, or it would have been virtually impossible for any African American to emigrate to Ohio.
In Illinois there were severe restrictions on free blacks entering the state, and Indiana barred them altogether. Michigan, Iowa, and Wisconsin were no friendlier. Because of this, the black populations of the northwestern states never exceeded 1 percent.
African Americans also faced violence at the hands of white northerners. Individual cases of assault and murder occurred throughout the North, as did daily insults and harassment. Between 1820 and 1850, Northern blacks also became the frequent targets of mob violence. Whites looted, tore down, and burned black homes, churches, schools, and meeting halls. They stoned, beat, and sometimes murdered blacks. Philadelphia was the site of the worst and most frequent mob violence. City officials there generally refused to protect African Americans from white mobs and blamed blacks for inciting the violence with their "uppity" behavior.
African Americans and their white allies did not simply sit back and accept Northern racism; they responded to it in a whole range of ways. Black people founded their own churches, schools, and orphanages. They created mutual aid societies to provide financial assistance to those in need. They helped fugitive slaves adjust to life in the North. Blacks and whites working together took legal measures to try to prevent the erosion of black rights and to protest against new restrictions. African Americans held a series of national conventions to decide on a collective course of action. Combined with these actions was the constant effort to end slavery, to protect fugitive slaves, and to save free black people from being kidnapped and sold South. Some states even passed Personal Liberty Laws to counteract federal legislation such as the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. These protected fugitives and guaranteed some rights to African American citizens of that state.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all my feelings about all of this, slavery was the worst thing that ever happened in our country. Slavery of any race is the worst thing we can do to our fellow human beings.
I know it's off topic, but isn't it ironic that countries where slavery still exists legally are members of the United Nations Human Rights Council.
By most historical reckoning, Robert E. Lee was a very good general, even though he made some disastrous mistakes (don't they all sooner or later). But no one is suggesting taking down monuments to him because he wasn't a good general.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL men are created equal..."
That acknowledgement and aspiration exists in the official documents of the nation of Washington and Jefferson (who wrote it), it does not exist in the documents of the nation of Robert E. Lee.
Robert E. Lee did what he thought he had to do. It is not something to build statues to.
The debate isn't whether to build statues to him or not. They already exist.
I am capable of referring to the past in the present tense. It is called knowing how to manipulate language to communicate thoughts and ideas.
We are not going to levy additional punishments upon the south.
Lee defended a rebellion FOR slavery to enshrine white supremacy. The fact that he was an honorable man is beside the point because he acted in concert with the enemies of freedom and it is his "military" role as an enemy of freedom that is captured in the statues of him. To me, it is beyond ridiculous that we need to remember history with a statue celebrating traitors fighting FOR slavery. And if Lee were still alive and was the honorable man he is reputed to be, he himself would vote to remove his own statue rather than let it stand as a symbol of white supremacy, 150 years after its "official" demise.
We don't remember the revolutionary war with a statue of King George or Benedict Arnold. We don't remember world war II with a statue celebrating the brilliance of the Japanese pilots who bombed Pearl Harbor. We don't remember 911 with a monument of Osama bin laden.
Many of these statues were in cemeteries and dragged to public squares in the 1950's and 1960's as an offensive response to the civil rights movement and they're still doing it. The purpose was to create friction, not harmony, and they still stand. White supremacists know what these statues represent which is why they want them up. Enough is enough. Haul these things back to the cemeteries where they belong or put them in museums or toss them in the junkyard.
If they are not taken down, then fuck em up where they stand! Topple them, spray paint them, bang em up with hammers, set them on fire, throw acid on them.
Robert E. Lee in his own words about monuments. We should listen to him and quit with the BS that the monuments are something other than what they are and represent.
"As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated," Lee wrote in December 1866 about another proposed Confederate monument, "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; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour."
Not only was Lee opposed to Confederate memorials, "he favored erasing battlefields from the landscape altogether," Horn wrote .
He even supported getting rid of the Confederate flag after the Civil War ended, and didn't want them them flying above Washington College, which he was president of after the war.
The youth are sick of hearing it.
They have listened (inattentively, but subconsciously) sense they were born to this racial bull shit, now that they are older, have international friendships and know racism is fucked up they are out to shut it down.
Many are sick of watching the adults do little to stop it and some are ready to take matters into their own hands.
Defend racism or be outraged that the youth are doing this, it doesn't matter its happening. World wide.
The computer connecting us all is changing the world.... Surprise... LOL Not !
You found one.
This is the audio of the second video above.
This is the first video above.
She should set her stupidity to music like this.