Current Events > Why do people slurp Robert E Lee's nuts?

(+) Yeah! (+)

While I value freedom, there is discussion today about whether people actually value freedom over safety and security. Many are okay with the government taking away their rights as long as they are safe.

This is not an endorsement for slavery before anyone jumps on me. Just backing up Ilishe.
---

Balrog0 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

ITT: People who couldn't even get a 2 in an AP history exam

I got a 4 dawg

US history or what
---

Bc Robert Elite
---

Ilishe posted...

emblem boy posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Robert E. Lee actually didn't care for the practice of slavery. Lee would have rathered the matter have been solved peacefully. He joined the Confederate Army because he couldn't fight against his family, friends, and home state. People actually had a sense of loyalty back then. Not all practioners of slavery were evil people. People comparing plantation owners to Nazis have their heads stuck in their own asses if they think executing 6 million people based on ethnicity is the same as American slavery.

He himself had slaves and there are reports that he treated them badly.

This is what he wrote in a letter

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.

That is a reasonable viewpoint.

I don't mean to offend anyone, but some of the slaves came from societies that practiced cannibalism and lived like stone age people. You can't just make them adapt to modern life in five minutes.

Certainly there were people who treated their slaves like cattle and I believe they have found their places in Hell for their disgusting and atrocious behaviour.

But you can't tell me everyone mistreated their labourers. And you can't tell me they were better off in Africa where they got sold off into slavery to begin with (not by white people, either!).

The post I was replying to was saying Lee didn't care for the practice. He obviously did care for it and advocated it.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

My point is, anyone who got a 4 on an AP exam (not exclusively you) knows that Robert E Lee didn't join the Confederates because "but-but mah slaves", nor was the Civil War initiated because of it

Did anyone say something to the contrary? The latter point is highly contested but I don't think anyone said Lee joined because muh slaves
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

ITT: People who couldn't even get a 2 in an AP history exam

I got a 4 dawg

US history or something else

My point is, anyone who got a 4 on an AP exam (not exclusively you) knows that Robert E Lee didn't join the Confederates because "but-but mah slaves", nor was the Civil War initiated because of it

Right on the first point, absolutely wrong on the second.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

ITT: People who couldn't even get a 2 in an AP history exam

I got a 4 dawg

US history or something else

My point is, anyone who got a 4 on an AP exam (not exclusively you) knows that Robert E Lee didn't join the Confederates because "but-but mah slaves", nor was the Civil War initiated because of it

Seriously stop posting in these topics.
---

thompsontalker7 posted...

My point is, anyone who got a 4 on an AP exam (not exclusively you) knows that Robert E Lee didn't join the Confederates because "but-but mah slaves", nor was the Civil War initiated because of it

Want to know how I know you never read the actual articles of secession from the traitorous states?
---

NinjaBreakfast posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

ITT: People who couldn't even get a 2 in an AP history exam

I got a 4 dawg

US history or something else

My point is, anyone who got a 4 on an AP exam (not exclusively you) knows that Robert E Lee didn't join the Confederates because "but-but mah slaves", nor was the Civil War initiated because of it

Seriously stop posting in these topics.

He's completely right, and most of you guys need to take 10 minutes and read up on Lee.
---

The Admiral posted...

NinjaBreakfast posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

ITT: People who couldn't even get a 2 in an AP history exam

I got a 4 dawg

US history or something else

My point is, anyone who got a 4 on an AP exam (not exclusively you) knows that Robert E Lee didn't join the Confederates because "but-but mah slaves", nor was the Civil War initiated because of it

Seriously stop posting in these topics.

He's completely right, and most of you guys need to take 10 minutes and read up on Lee.

He's not completely right.

RaptorLC posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

My point is, anyone who got a 4 on an AP exam (not exclusively you) knows that Robert E Lee didn't join the Confederates because "but-but mah slaves", nor was the Civil War initiated because of it

Want to know how I know you never read the actual articles of secession from the traitorous states?

He's right about Lee though.
---

idk, didn't robert e lee himself say that we should consign memories of the war to the dustbin of history or something along those lines?

I don't see any escape from the fact that he shouldn't be lionized regardless of his personal character tbqh
---

Romanticized southern history and libertarian handwaving
---

state's rights guys, NOT slavery
---

Antifar posted...

Ilishe posted...

But you can't tell me everyone mistreated their labourers.

By virtue of being enslaved, they were mistreated.

Yeah okay.

In some shithole backwards cannibalistic society they had freedom to get eaten. Or dying of the flu still stuck in the stone age.

In America they were eventually allowed to integrate into society fully and become regular citizens. The first few generations suffered but their descendants have it way, way better today.

People becoming indentured servants in America had a very similar experience.

You tell me what's better.
---

Ilishe posted...

Antifar posted...

Ilishe posted...

But you can't tell me everyone mistreated their labourers.

By virtue of being enslaved, they were mistreated.

Yeah okay.

In some shithole backwards cannibalistic society they had freedom to get eaten. Or dying of the flu still stuck in the stone age.

In America they were eventually allowed to integrate into society fully and become regular citizens. The first few generations suffered but their descendants have it way, way better today.

People becoming indentured servants in America had a very similar experience.

You tell me what's better.

The sad thing about this post is that you're probably dead serious.

Its just embarrassing seeing some milquetoast like thomp storm into these topics and try act like an authority on things.

Also v cringe that he constantly paints himself as a neutral observer when he always without fail falls on the right wing side of things or contrives to make some laboured 'both sides are just as bad!' point
---

Ilishe posted...

Antifar posted...

Ilishe posted...

But you can't tell me everyone mistreated their labourers.

By virtue of being enslaved, they were mistreated.

Yeah okay.

In some shithole backwards cannibalistic society they had freedom to get eaten. Or dying of the flu still stuck in the stone age.

In America they were eventually allowed to integrate into society fully and become regular citizens. The first few generations suffered but their descendants have it way, way better today.

People becoming indentured servants in America had a very similar experience.

You tell me what's better.

shut the fuck up
---

Ilishe posted...

Antifar posted...

Ilishe posted...

But you can't tell me everyone mistreated their labourers.

By virtue of being enslaved, they were mistreated.

Yeah okay.

In some shithole backwards cannibalistic society they had freedom to get eaten. Or dying of the flu still stuck in the stone age.

In America they were eventually allowed to integrate into society fully and become regular citizens. The first few generations suffered but their descendants have it way, way better today.

People becoming indentured servants in America had a very similar experience.

You tell me what's better.

yeah man

those black people should be thanking their masters for enslaving them and helping them integrate into society. they sure were doing the Lord's work
---

Ilishe posted...

You tell me what's better

I would tell you but after the top 10 dumbest post in CE history you just made I don't think it's worth the effort for even the slightest attempt at a civil conversation

Spoilers: it's not the 200 years of slavery plus 100 years of blatant in your face CE apologists couldnt even begin to spin discrimination
---

Ilishe posted...

In America they were eventually allowed to integrate into society fully and become regular citizens

Only because the practice of slavery was put to an end through war. Those fighting for the south had no intention of allowing black people to integrate into society, even a full century after the Civil War ended. Stop glorifying people whose intentions were only to profit off of unpaid labor at gunpoint.
---

how can people still say that the civil war was about states rights when the states rights argument was originally used by northerners to fight fugitive slave laws, including the 1850 fugitive slave law which was drafted by Senator Mason of Virginia and supported by a wide array of southern politicians, including Senator Barnwell who ended up serving in the Senate of the CSA?
---

Balrog0 posted...

how can people still say that the civil war was about states rights when the states rights argument was originally used by northerners to fight fugitive slave laws, including the 1850 fugitive slave law which was drafted by Senator Mason of Virginia and supported by a wide array of southern politicians, including Senator Barnwell who ended up serving in the Senate of the CSA?

Hey, don't leave out Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy. He even gave an entire speech about it.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/
I'll provide some money quotes. Buckle up, they're pretty vile:


"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization."

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."

"Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

This dude was appointed vice president of the Confederacy.

there are Americans(some even ITT) who don't care what evils were done in this country as long as it furthered White supremacy. that alone dictates who is and isn't evil in their eyes.

that's why certain people have more respect for the slave owners and those who supported it than slaves/slave descendants who fought/fight against systems that promote dehumanizing their people.

streets, schools, buildings, etc... named after them. they're on our currency. they are spoken of with dignity and respect in history classes, and people wonder why the people who fell victim to these types continue to feel disenfranchised, lol.

"but how come you don't want to include me in the conversation anymore? is it because I lack empathy, understanding and show more interest in bringing my grandfather's era back from the 50's?" lolololol
---

Balrog0 posted...

how can people still say that the civil war was about states rights when the states rights argument was originally used by northerners to fight fugitive slave laws, including the 1850 fugitive slave law which was drafted by Senator Mason of Virginia and supported by a wide array of southern politicians, including Senator Barnwell who ended up serving in the Senate of the CSA?

Because "state rights!" Today Is just a cover term for "we want to be able to do bad shit to people but we don't want everyone to know we're fighting the federal government FOR that".

Caution999 posted...

Crazy to think they didn't have the benefit of hindsight back when slavery was an a social norm.

Or there are other factors to consider with Robert E Lee.

Slavery was widely condemned both in the states, at the time, and internationally. Can we stop using this faulty argument?
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

Balrog0 posted...

how can people still say that the civil war was about states rights when the states rights argument was originally used by northerners to fight fugitive slave laws, including the 1850 fugitive slave law which was drafted by Senator Mason of Virginia and supported by a wide array of southern politicians, including Senator Barnwell who ended up serving in the Senate of the CSA?

Because "state rights!" Today Is just a cover term for "we want to be able to do bad shit to people but we don't want everyone to know we're fighting the federal government FOR that".

that's one major reason I can never be Libertarian. I don't like the feds having much say-so over states, but it's literally the feds that made it so I could I could be treated as a citizen. if certain states had their way, I'd still be in chains.

I sometimes wonder what it's like to not have to think about shit like this. would be much easier to only have the economy as a primary concern.
---

would take this topic more seriously without the immature language in the OP
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

if certain states had their way, I'd still be in chains.

probably not, slavery eventually became economically obsolete.
---

Dathrowed1 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

if certain states had their way, I'd still be in chains.

probably not, slavery eventually became economically obsolete.

inmates have different arguments. we currently have the highest incarceration rates in the world, and have been the reigning champs for a long long time now.

economically, the trade makes a killing
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

inmates have different arguments. we currently have the highest incarceration rates in the world, and have been the reigning champs for a long long time now.

And what economic contributions are inmates giving back?
---

RaptorLC posted...

thompsontalker7 posted...

My point is, anyone who got a 4 on an AP exam (not exclusively you) knows that Robert E Lee didn't join the Confederates because "but-but mah slaves", nor was the Civil War initiated because of it

Want to know how I know you never read the actual articles of secession from the traitorous states?

No.

My highlighted post you were using as a smoking gun was actually in reference to the North's justification for the Civil War, maybe I should've made that clearer. They weren't doing it to free slaves initially like all narratives like to present it as.
---

Dathrowed1 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

inmates have different arguments. we currently have the highest incarceration rates in the world, and have been the reigning champs for a long long time now.

And what economic contributions are inmates giving back?

Google products made by inmates. a great starting point for you.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Dathrowed1 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

inmates have different arguments. we currently have the highest incarceration rates in the world, and have been the reigning champs for a long long time now.

And what economic contributions are inmates giving back?

Google products made by inmates. a great starting point for you.

Well then post it.
---

scorpion41 posted...

Not all practioners of slavery were evil people.

Perhaps not.

But owning slaves is an inherently evil thing to do. So how do you reason that.

Coolppl Owns posted...

slavery apologists on CE

should I be surprised?

You're one of those "the civil war was all about ending slavery and racism" people. I can't blame you for that, because that's the narrative these days. I can blame you for not expanding your knowledge base to learn what it was really about, though.
---

Dathrowed1 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

Dathrowed1 posted...

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

inmates have different arguments. we currently have the highest incarceration rates in the world, and have been the reigning champs for a long long time now.

And what economic contributions are inmates giving back?

Google "products made by inmates". a great starting point for you.

Well then post it.

if you were sincere about learning, you'd use follow my instructions. I literally gave you the sentence to Google.

if you're not sincere, why take you serious enough to pretend like you have something to contribute?
---

gafemaqs posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Not all practioners of slavery were evil people.

Perhaps not.

But owning slaves is an inherently evil thing to do. So how do you reason that.

Owning slaves was a major part of the economy on every continent, and people at the time (at least up until the abolitionist movement) did not view it as "evil." And that includes the black landowners who also owned slaves. The idea of personal liberty is a relatively modern one, and the majority of people who have ever existed on this planet did not share those values.

So the reasoning is that you're falling guilty to the fallacy of presentism. You're imposing 21st century social norms and values on a time period where those are inappropriate.
---

As for the topic title, Lincoln himself wanted Lee to command the Union army because he had proven in previous wars that he was a tactical genius.
---

The Admiral posted...

gafemaqs posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Not all practioners of slavery were evil people.

Perhaps not.

But owning slaves is an inherently evil thing to do. So how do you reason that.

Owning slaves was a major part of the economy on every continent, and people at the time (at least up until the abolitionist movement) did not view it as "evil." The idea of person liberty is a relatively modern one, and the majority of people who have ever existed on this planet did not share those values.

So the reasoning is that you're falling guilty to the fallacy of presentism. You're imposing 21st social norms and values on a time period where those are inappropriate.

"but others did it too! why be accountable?"

"time dictates good and evil!"
---

kewldude475 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

how can people still say that the civil war was about states rights when the states rights argument was originally used by northerners to fight fugitive slave laws, including the 1850 fugitive slave law which was drafted by Senator Mason of Virginia and supported by a wide array of southern politicians, including Senator Barnwell who ended up serving in the Senate of the CSA?

Only people trying to push confederate propaganda try to say it was about state's rights, no smart person actually buys into that lol

So it was all about slavery, then. Ok, why didn't the EP free slaves in Maryland? Or other northern states?
---

There are literally people defending slave owners and those who fought for slavery ITT. What the fuck.

ElatedVenusaur posted...

Balrog0 posted...

how can people still say that the civil war was about states rights when the states rights argument was originally used by northerners to fight fugitive slave laws, including the 1850 fugitive slave law which was drafted by Senator Mason of Virginia and supported by a wide array of southern politicians, including Senator Barnwell who ended up serving in the Senate of the CSA?

Hey, don't leave out Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Confederacy. He even gave an entire speech about it.
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/
I'll provide some money quotes. Buckle up, they're pretty vile:


"The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization."

"Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition."

"Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature’s laws. With us, all of the white race, however high or low, rich or poor, are equal in the eye of the law. Not so with the negro. Subordination is his place. He, by nature, or by the curse against Canaan, is fitted for that condition which he occupies in our system."

This dude was appointed vice president of the Confederacy.

So we just gonna ignore this? >_>
---

TheVipaGTS posted...

There are literally people defending slave owners and those who fought for slavery ITT. What the fuck.

The topic is about Lee. If someone said you and your family are traitors, join us and kill them, what would you do? I'd side with my family, as Lee did.
---

kewldude475 posted...

TheVipaGTS posted...

There are literally people defending slave owners and those who fought for slavery ITT. What the fuck.

Welcome to CE.

Welcome to CE, with arguments like this. Don't try to understand what the other side is saying, but act super offended in attempt to discredit anything they have to say. Misconstrue arguments whenever possible.
---

kewldude475 posted...

OrtegaTron posted...

kewldude475 posted...

Balrog0 posted...

how can people still say that the civil war was about states rights when the states rights argument was originally used by northerners to fight fugitive slave laws, including the 1850 fugitive slave law which was drafted by Senator Mason of Virginia and supported by a wide array of southern politicians, including Senator Barnwell who ended up serving in the Senate of the CSA?

Only people trying to push confederate propaganda try to say it was about state's rights, no smart person actually buys into that lol

So it was all about slavery, then. Ok, why didn't the EP free slaves in Maryland? Or other northern states?

Umm what? Whatever you're talking about has nothing to do with the fact that the Civil War was mainly over slavery. Every non-racist knows this, we learned it in Elementary school (and common sense). Keep up.

Yeah, that what they teach. You didn't answer my question, though. It has everything to do with it, since slaves were only freed in states in rebellion, as to not agitate northern states that profited from it and provided resources to the union.
---

RickyTheBAWSE posted...

The Admiral posted...

gafemaqs posted...

scorpion41 posted...

Not all practioners of slavery were evil people.

Perhaps not.

But owning slaves is an inherently evil thing to do. So how do you reason that.

Owning slaves was a major part of the economy on every continent, and people at the time (at least up until the abolitionist movement) did not view it as "evil." The idea of person liberty is a relatively modern one, and the majority of people who have ever existed on this planet did not share those values.

So the reasoning is that you're falling guilty to the fallacy of presentism. You're imposing 21st social norms and values on a time period where those are inappropriate.

"but others did it too! why be accountable?"

"time dictates good and evil!"

Yes, it very much does.

I'm certainly hoping we don't have a generation of SJWs in 2090 who think MLK Jr. was "evil" because he opposed gay marriage. It's unreasonable to apply those standards to someone at a time when they were not the norm.
---