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/ …
-
-
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.
-
It does. And no one is served by half-truths and oversimplifications.
Akhir percakapan
Percakapan baru -
-
-
But it's a "Spin". It was all about slavery. They wrote it that way themselves. MS - "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world."
-
If the war was all about slavery, why were there slave states in the Union? The Union was NOT fighting to end slavery. Claiming otherwise is a lie. Therefore, the war was not about slavery. The war was about whether or not states could choose to leave the union.
-
And yet most of those border states abolished slavery before the war was over. I mean, I hear you, I really do. But it's always semantics when someone says "the war wasn't about slavery".
-
No. This isn't semantics. It's pointing out that pretending it was entirely about slavery and painting the Union as fighting the war to stamp it out is no less revisionist and wrong than pretending that the Confederacy didn't try to leave about the slavery issue.
-
Ok, I concede it wasn't ONLY slavery. But is was a major contributing factor and a significant part of the cause of secession. :)
-
As I said before: The secession was certainly significantly about slavery. The war was about who had the right to control the land, people, and resources. Just like pretty much every war.
Akhir percakapan
Percakapan baru -
-
-
Are you people that ignorant? Lincoln said in his inaugural address on March 4, 1861 that he had “NO CAUSE to interfere with the institution of slavery in the states where it exists” now if Lincoln said he wasn’t fucking with it, how did it cause a war?
#itdidnt -
Fort Sumter?
-
What about fort Sumter? As a South Carolinian I am well versed in the history of my State. Lincoln was advised by his Generals and by his cabinet after multiple Peaceful attempts by South Carolina to allow the Union to leave FS that a resupply was an Act of War by the North.
Akhir percakapan
Percakapan baru -
Pemuatan tampaknya berlangsung agak lama.
Twitter sedang kelebihan beban atau mengalami sedikit masalah. Coba lagi atau kunjungi Status Twitter untuk informasi lebih lanjut.