Robert E. Lee was a traitor, a brute and a slaver who wouldn't even trade black union soldiers taken prisoner for the lives of his own men because he saw black people as property to be owned.https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ …
-
-
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.
-
I don’t want to speak for these guys, but they might disagree with that statement.pic.twitter.com/N5YfU94Wj3
-
Yea but,then the truth destroys their talking point. These R the same people that claim that "the enslaved were treated well". It's a waste of time 2have any form of conversation about facts with these types.
-
Respectful dialog is always a good thing. I haven’t seen anyone speaking in favor of slavery or agreeing with it. To me this is more an historical debate and an interesting topic. I don’t care about Lee or statues.
-
Agreed on the dialog point, but the history of the Civil War has a huge influence on how Americans view race relations today. And that touches issues like civil rights, reparations, institutionalized racism, monuments...tons of stuff.
- Još 1 odgovor
Novi razgovor -
-
-
I think Slavery being the issue has always been implied/known. That was their money maker, free labor. State rights was their get out of jail card and their rally cry.
-
The number of times that I’ve heard the “no it was over states’ rights” line tells me it’s not as widely taught or accepted as it should be.
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
You can easily argue it was over States Rights. The south wanted the States to have the rights to Impose slavery.
-
well no, because the south ALSO wanted to impose pro-slavery laws on the northern states they only made it about "states' rights" when they realized they no longer dominated the federal government and couldn't push the North around anymore with abusive federal laws
-
States rights don't get mentioned in the articles of secession by states. Guess what is though?
Kraj razgovora
Novi razgovor -
-
-
Even Lincoln stated several times the war was not fought over slavery.
Hvala. Twitter će to iskoristiti za poboljšanje vaše vremenske crte. PoništiPoništi
-
Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.
Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.