u02bnpx Loc: NW PA

If you're among those who lament the removal of the Confederate f**g from the pole outside the SC legislature building, you may just be causing General Lee to be doing some fast spinning in his grave. The short piece below is by a contemporary biographer of Lee, the tragic and noble man who, upon his defeat, sought a true union of north and south.

A few years ago, I spent a long afternoon in the Museum of the Confederacy in Richmond, where two of my sons have lived for some time. It occurred to me that this was the ideal setting for learning about the Confederacy. And that's just the kind of setting in which SC's f**g has found a home.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/01/15/even-robert-e-lee-wanted-the-confederate-f**g-gone.html

Duggy

What a Crockof BS.

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

Lee owned s***es, whipped s***es, and also sold s***es that broke up families. He worked hard to expand s***ery to the west. The civil war was about s***ery. Lee knew he was defending s***ery. His comments about the problems with s***ery were disingenuous. Lee was the one who LEFT the United States and fought against it. We have a term for someone who fights against their own country.

As for the Confederate f**g, it was a symbol of defending s***ery.

u02bnpx Loc: NW PA

I can easily find half a dozen sources, including some from southern historians, who would support what is reported in what I supplied. Can you find one that describes Lee's funeral differently? If you can, please send a link to it. If you can't, stop calling what I sent to the forum as "a Crockof." Simply denying an assertion doesn't make it false.

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

My response was in regard of attempts to redeem Lee from what he stood for, practiced, and fought for. In terms of his military sk**l and relationships with family and friends he is reported to be an outstanding man.

The regard for the Confederacy has me baffled. It was about supporting s***ery in the name of states rights. The N**i's also supported the dehumanization of b****s and Jews. No humane person would want to have museums, shrines, and heroes to N**i culture.

I am agreement with you that the Confederate f**g must come down.

u02bnpx Loc: NW PA

I know we agree, but I have a little quibble about your statement re shrines and museums. I was overwhelmed by a day-long visit to the Holocaust Museum in D.C. Likewise, I was sobered by my half-day walk through the Jewish cemetery and ghetto in Prague. We should "preserve" the memories and artifacts of the Confederacy so that later generations will always see the effects of a divided nation.

SBW

Not only are you a liar and a slanderer you are full of s**t. Let me be clear, you are a liar and full of s**t. Lee wrote and spoke many times against s***ery. Lee freed his own s***es early on in the war. Way before the so called Emancipation Proclamation, which by the way only freed some of the s***es, not all of them. You do know that your icon General U.S. Grant owned s***es, not only before the war, but during the war and surprise you lying bastard, after the war.

General Lee's siding with the Confederate States had absolutely nothing to do with s***ery. If you knew any history at all you would know that. Or you may know history and you are purposely lying about it. There were good people with good intentions on both sides of that conflict, Lee was one of them.

How do YOU know that Lee's comments about s***ery were untrue? How do YOU know that? Tell us you prick.

Site one source that states the General Lee whipped s***es and tortured them. Just one. If you cannot do that then you shut your filthy mouth, you lying prick.

What a clear example you are of an ignorant fool speaking about something he clearly knows nothing about.

SBW

You are full of crap. You are not a late bloomer, you have not bloomed at all.

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

Some people do not know much and are called ignorant. Some people can not know much or refuse to and are called stupid. Some are a combination of both. Open your mind.

US NEWS June 24, 2007

For her newly published biography, Reading the Man: A Portrait of Robert E. Lee Through His Private Letters, historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor draws on a cache of previously unknown Lee family papers, discovered in 2002 in two sturdy wooden trunks that Lee's daughter stored in a Virginia bank about a century ago. Quoting from these and other overlooked letters, Pryor presents a multifaceted man, more accessible and at the same time more puzzling than ever. He was an irrepressible flirt, and, contrary to popular belief, Lee not only believed in s***ery; he was capable of treating his own s***es cruelly.
What were his views on s***ery?

These papers are filled with information about s***ery. This is not something you have to read between the lines; Lee really tells us how he feels. He saw s***es as property, that he owned them and their labor. Now you can say he wasn't worse than anyone; he was reflecting the values of the society that he lived in. I would say, he wasn't any better than anyone else, either.

It is shocking how he treated his father-in-law's s***es.
Lee's wife inherited 196 s***es upon her father's death in 1857. The will stated that the s***es were to be freed within five years, and at the same time large legacies—raised from selling property—should be given to the Lee children. But as the executor of the will, Lee decided that instead of freeing the s***es right away—as they expected—he could continue to own and work them for five years in an effort to make the estates profitable and not have to sell the property.

What happened after that?
Lee was considered a hard taskmaster. He also started hiring s***es to other families, sending them away, and breaking up families that had been together on the estate for generations. The s***es resented him, were terrified they would never be freed, and they lost all respect for him. There were many runaways, and at one point several s***es jumped him, claiming they were as free as he. Lee ordered these men to be severely whipped. He also petitioned the court to extend their servitude, but the court ruled against him and Lee did grant them their freedom on Jan. 1, 1863—ironically, the same day that Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation went into effect.

Terry Sandlin

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

If someone wants to make a comment, they should have the integrity to stand behind their comments and not make them "in hiding" and fail to use their true name.

wlgoode Loc: Globe, AZ

As for Neo-Confederates you'll hear constantly that the war was not about s***ery. It was about States Rights. Hum- bug revisionist history!!!

Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Alabama & Virginia - 5 of the seceding states had a written Seceding Declaration. Those 5 listed s***ery as the reason for seceding! They also listed that they had disdain for those states exercising the right to be non-s***e holding states.

The 6 remaining states had no written declaration, the Governors gave a speech of declaration. All 6 gave the prime reason for leaving the union as s***ery.

It is clear that the reason was s***ery and the states were not in favor of state's rights.

Revisionist history is a pox on sane political discussion.

SBW

Pure lies, plain and simple. You are a liar and not worth any more response than this. You are the revisionist.

SBW

And subject themselves to late night phone calls from crazed nuts like you? Dream on, you lying prick.

SBW

You are the ignorant one here. Have you read the book that this article is discussing? I have. Twice. I read it the second time to try and and have a fair view of it. She is a good writer, and usually a good researcher. The book it pretty long, almost 600 pages. You probably have not read it because most often a liar like you does not have the attention span to stay with something like this.

This book has been severely discredited by dozens of historians as a very biased opinion piece. Nothing more. It has been proven that she had no understanding of the history around the war nor any understanding of the issues of secession or the union. If you read the book and know the history, that is very easy to see.

Again, closed minded people like you usually cannot learn anything. You just make stuff up, throw lies out there and then if they are challenged by fact which I have done and can do then you just attack the fact giver and say something silly like "they don't use their real" name or "they are in hiding". What the hell does that have to do with anything you ignorant lying prick?

Again, this book of hers has been PROVEN to be factually incorrect and mostly an opinion piece and a very biased one at that. There are many, many reviews of this book available. Here are just a couple that you may be interested in. One is written and one is a video interview from a historian. If you care to know the t***h and have a more balanced view then read this and then view the interview. I doubt you will attempt to learn anything. But then I could be surprised.

You can remain an ignorant lying prick, or you can be something different. Up to you. But don't bother me with your lies and uninformed opinions. I know better.

http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cwh/summary/v055/55.1.fellman.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJk7z2BiWzI

You probably do not have the guts to watch this.

latebloomer Loc: Topeka, KS

Personality disorder? You might want to consider seeing a therapist. There are medications to help those with symptoms similar to yours.

It is my opinion that your comments, full of personal invective, show someone who will not accept reality when provided evidence.

Perhaps you are better off remaining in "hiding." That will allow you to avoid standing behind your comments and convictions.

You have given notice to all who choose to view this forum and our topic the nature of your character by uncivil personal offensive name calling and rabid denial.

It is my intention to avoid responding to this topic.