Contrary to myth, Lee did not oppose slavery or secession. He called slavery “necessary for their instruction as a race,” he enslaved free black people in his invasion of the North, and after the war, opposed black suffrage.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ …
-
-
Diesen Thread anzeigenDanke! Twitter wird dies nutzen, um deine Timeline zu verbessern. Rückgängig machenRückgängig machen
-
-
-
The counter movement to this is not about the actions of Robert E Lee but rather the protection of history. The protection of history is very important to understand who the people are both good and bad. The showing of the statue it self helps the visual side of understanding.
-
a museum would be a great place for it.
-
In a museum, such a statue would include a large plaque explaining how and why the post-segregation South came to build commemorative statues portraying the leaders of the secession in heroic poses. Without that plaque, it's teaching something completely different...
-
I can see that point of view
-
Most of those statues are relatively new, why put them in a museum? They aren't teaching us anything, and they have no historical significance past an artist wanting to honor the confederacy. Melt it down.
-
The Problem I see w/ that is that removing the statues doesn't remove the mindset, but looses the teaching opportunity that visible statue w/ Plaque has. Don't hide the sins of the past: explain them to not repeat them.
-
The artist's intent wasn't to teach that the confederacy was bad, the people who funded it didn't want to teach that the confederacy was bad, casual observers don't walk over to a statue commemorating this general and walk away thinking the confederacy was bad. That's nonsense.
- 2 weitere Antworten
Neue Unterhaltung -
-
-
You're talking about a different time. In that era States wanted a small federal Government and States to run themselves. Though slavery was an issue, this war has more to do with States Rights than anything else. Grant's own wife had slave servants, during the war.
-
Nope. The southern states were all about Federal overreach when it came to violating other states' sovereignty by enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act or the Dred Scott decision. It was never about states' rights. What you're saying is a lie.
-
I was taught that it was about “States rights“ in college 30 years ago. And I live in MA! I knew better at the time, but I couldn’t believe the professor was saying that. So some people are just mistaken because that’s what they were taught. And they never looked into it further.
-
It drives me up the wall when people say the war was about states’ rights and neglect to mention *which* states rights in particular were so important to the southern states that they were willing to fight a war over them. (It was slavery.)
-
I don't get it either. We're not talking about speculation here. It's not oral or anecdotal history. They literally wrote it down - in official documents. And more than once.
-
Yes, the overwhelming reason for the secession was the impending spectre of abolition, but the union absolutely was NOT fighting about slavery, so saying the war was about slavery is an outright lie. The war was about denying the ability to secede.
-
OK. I wouldn't call it a lie, though. The reason they went to war was because they were not allowed to secede from the Union. Which still leaves slavery as the cause for wanting to secede in the first place.
-
But slavery was exactly zero percent of the reason the Union was fighting. So saying the war was about slavery is either a deliberate lie, or foundational ignorance.
- 5 weitere Antworten
Neue Unterhaltung -
-
-
I've read Shelby Foote and he said the war was due to the inability to compromise. The issue of slavery couldn't have a compromise numb nuts. Also don't expect a single northerner to listen to a word you say when you refer the truth as propaganda.
-
Also Shelby Foote wasn’t a historian
-
True. He also pushed lost cause fallacies. Was only mentioning his view on the war since it was brought up by the person I was responding to. We all know that the south has had many years to rewrite true history to say exactly what they want, then pass lies off as history.
-
Please *don't* feed the trolls by responding to strawman type arguments like "Shelley Foote was a historian." No. He wasn't. He was a novelist. Don't validate false ideas by arguing them as though they were true.
- 1 weitere Antwort
Neue Unterhaltung -
Das Laden scheint etwas zu dauern.
Twitter ist möglicherweise überlastet oder hat einen vorübergehenden Schluckauf. Probiere es erneut oder besuche Twitter Status für weitere Informationen.