I recommend you do a little more research--this isn't at all clear.. Remember that four states valued both slavery and the Union- and in at least two of them-- Missouri and Maryland-- support for the Union was probably not in the majority of the state. The war was not touched off by the North's determination to do away with slavery, but by the South's decision to dissolve the Union against the possibility that they might develop such a determination. But everything we know about why we started fighting suggests that abolition was not a majority opinion. Even the committed abolitionists just wanted the problem to go away; there were any number of different fantasies about how we would free the slaves and send them back to Africa, or colonize Central America with them or found a state in the West somewhere, or anything but continue to have them live among us and face up to what we had created. The political parties splintered into every possible variation of opinion on every possible issue afloat-- the War Democrats in the North were 100% opposed to succession, but probably not even 30% in favor of abolition, for example. Consider two things: that Jim Crow was imposed well within the lifetimes of those who fought the Confederacy, and with the approval of many or most of them; and that when the draft riots broke out they were largely characterized by the lynching of every black person the rioters could lay hands on. That certainly suggests to me that emancipation was not a clear agenda in the North-- a fair number of folks seemed to object to being drafted to fight for black people anyway. Now, by the war's end most of the North had come to grips with the notion that the war was actually about slavery-- but diffidently enough that Jim Crow swept the nation in a decade or two. Keep in mind that Grant had rented slaves himself. and I think Stanton had owned one or more at some point, and Mrs Lincoln and... To ignore all this is to miss a major part of what Lincoln pulled off; and .also to miss a huge portion of his own development.
And he was an expert, having traveled far and wide on the African continent, learning the languages, the cultures, the people. He obviously knew better.
Iifc, taosjohn has been saying this for several years. And he has put it in context of the time, not in our perfect hindsight viewing.
I was going based on population of the nation I'm 1860 and that the majority of the population lived in "free states" (yes, racists existed in the North, but slavery was not official policy...except the "border" states). Of course, I could also mention that slavery had been banned (fortunately) in almost all of Europe. Taking this into consideration I stand by my earlier statement. -Robert E. Lee was a slave owning racist and a traitor. To say otherwise is simply not true. Oh, and yes, Lincoln had a racist streak, as well. He chose to be on the right side of History. Finally, it is friggin' 2018, how are even discussing this?!?
Being a "traitor" isn't always a bad thing, so don't say it like it is. The Rebel Alliance were traitors. Black Separatists were seen as traitors by the agencies who snuffed them. But their cause was good. Same with native sovereigntists. Boricua separatists as well. Lee was racist, obviously, but leave the traitor part out, you're glorifying the government as if all had to be loyal to them. No government deserves loyalty like that unless they really care for the people, and how many governments have ever been like that? The South was racist, but the North were no saints either.
Dude, stop with that canard about slaves.... It has been debunked long time ago. There is so much BS in your posts that I don't even know where to start. Either you are totally and willingly uninformed or you just want to believe and push your revisionist history. Either case, I would strongly suggest to go to a library, or just go online and try to learn more about that period in history. That is the best advice I can give you (and those liking your garbage). What you are doing here is simply rewriting history and it is not cool. I am simply shocked that in this thread in 2018 we are having a debate about Robert Lee not beIng a traitor or being against slavery. What's next?...The War was over states rights or some other Lost cause nonsense? SMH.
I always thought they were voluntold, and decided the change of duties was preferred, despite the risk, but this discussion is best suited for the History sub. Seems appropriated considering the topic.
Hopefully, my last comment & contribution to this topic. Excellent interview of one of the foremost Civil War historian on this myth. Not surprisingly, it is a myth built in large parts bt the tenants of the Lost Cause and this for obvious reasons!
Agree that it's absurd to consider any slave willingly taking up arms The idea was suggested by Patrick Cleburne,and assured that he advanced no farther than division command in the West.
I would add that every revolution/insurrection starts as treason to the status quo and only by succeeding, can they change the status of their movement. Washington and Bolivar and San Martin and Juarez were traitors to the Crowns of England and Spain (simplistic definition, I know some revolutions were not necessarily against the crown), but by liberating the Americas they became heroes and got to write the history. The paradoxical part (when reading my previous paragraph) is that the Confederate States of America got to write their version of history, despite losing, in part because Lincoln decided against taking over the rebellious states. @taosjohn is one of the most knowledgeable posters regarding the US military history, and IIRC, he's also a teacher on the subject. I think that he is mostly accurate and at no point is he pretending to position himself as a defender of the confederacy. I think that his point, is that we cannot completely understand what went on in 1863 with our 2018 views, pretty much the same way we would not understand the Roman Empire applying our current set of values. There might be more debate on the details, but the overall idea is that abolition was not a popular decision neither in the South nor in the North, and that despite freeing the slaves, most of the people in the north still considered African-Americans an inferior race (and a big portion of Whitelandians still do). If I may say, having been raised a Catholic, I think that the Catholic Church Institution is rotten for the most part, but that does not prevent people that follows Christ's teachings to be good people, although it might create a lot of inconsistencies and, in some ways, abiding by the rules of a flawed institution, you may end up supporting evil policies. Case in point, my wife and I are not fervent practitioners, but we want our children to learn some of the things taught in church and go through the same rituals we went as children (baptism, firs communion, confirmation), which means that we have to contribute to our Parish so they can attend to bible school. Usually our parish is not very political and they won't (at least openly) go against particular groups of people; however a couple of times I have felt like leaving the place: when they asked for money to help pay the legal fees of some questionable Archdiocese, and the other when they took a visit from Mike Pence to the Council in Miami as a good thing. IOW, we might agree with most of what our Church teaches, and we would for the most part, agree with the local policies and practices, but by being part of a rotten and political institution, aren't we more or less willingly supporting the very evil we abhor?
Evil and good can coincide in the same place-in the same heart,even. It's a funny old universe like that.
The rise of the Republican party and increased unwillingness of Northern Democrats to march in lock-step with the dominant Southern wing. That's NOT to say the North 'went to war to end slavery' by any means. It doesn't mean that most Northerners were active abolitionists. It certainly doesn't mean most Northern whites were opposed to racism or cared all that much about the fate of African-Americans under slavery. But the sense that slavery was morally wrong--that the "free labor" ideal espoused by political and business elites in the North was morally superior--was generally the rule among Northerners by 1860
You do need to dig a bit deeper than that, though. Attitudes towards slavery were not rigidly fixed in place and time.
A common pro-slavery trope. Lee "knew" the same things that most slavery defenders in the South had come to "know" ever since the rise of the 'positive good' arguments in the 1830's.
That is not how I read his posts. What i read were clearly the same tropes and BS pushed by the Lost Cause theorists and apologists. As I wrote before, those myths, (Lee not being pro slavery / Black confederate soldiers) have been debunked long ago by the most preeminent CW historians (Foote, Mc Pherson, Foner, DuBois).
That is criminal and incredibly racist behavior, not treason. They should have been prosecuted. There is a difference.
Dude you are entitle to your opinions but not your facts. http://www.historynet.com/african-americans-in-the-civil-war https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/confederacy-approves-black-soldiers Also http://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/24634 Now volunteer may be stretching the word, some served because they may have been forced by their owners, some because they may have believed they would be freed. Many slaves also served during the revolution against the Brits because they were told they would be given freedom. Then again, according to this posted thread, even our opinions are not entitled. https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/no...you-hope-to-thrive-on-the-p-ce-board.1976490/
I mean George Washington was a traitor, this country was born out of treason to the Brits. But that is the difference between winning or losing. If you win you go from traitors to heroes and founding fathers, if you lose you are always a traitor. BTW, I do agree on Lee being a traitor, I am just stating the facts that his Racism has to be judged in its historical content, many people that fought for the North against the South were probably just as racist as Lee was. The idea of a black person being totally equal to a white person was in a very small minority of whites back then. Even the most fervent white abolitionist would probably be offended by the idea of a daughter marrying a black male (well I am sure there were some that were ok with it, but probably a small minority). By today's standards, 99.99999% of Americans in 1860 were homophobic, racist, antisemitic, sexist people.
No, I do not have to "dig deeper than that, though." I am not engaging in a debate about whether people thought slavery was good or bad at the time. Only that Robert E. Lee did. I was using certain indicators to support that there was general sentiment on the topic at the time. There were many in the North who (wrongly) supported slavery. There were some, not very many, in the South who supported and advocated against slavery. I am not arguing these issues. I merely mentioned that "official" policy (and population) are pretty good indicators. Also, this is not relevant to the conversation about the fact that Robert E. Lee was a traitor, a racist and a slave owner. This topic and train wreck of a thread jack is over. Let us get back to discussing how the CURRENT administration is a train wreck.
No one is arguing anything about George Washington, but since you brought it up, if you cannot see the difference between George Washington and Robert E. Lee (including their motivations and their actions in context), then I feel sorry for you. This country was not "born out of treason." It was born out of rebellion and, as you point out, if it had failed, it would have been treason. Again, context matters. Again, for the last time, no one is arguing that racism is NOT to be "judged in its historical context (not content)." That is not the discussion.