Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: Slavery's scar on the state borders in the US

  1. Top | #1
    Elder Contributor Underseer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    Chicago suburbs
    Posts
    11,413
    Archived
    39,172
    Total Posts
    50,585
    Rep Power
    72

    Slavery's scar on the state borders in the US


    (View video on YouTube)

    How endless squabbling between free states and slave states led to the shape of the state borders west of the Mississippi river.

    Also, Robert E. Lee wasn't an abolitionist. He just assumed that the pro-slavery set (of which he clearly included himself) would eventually lose the argument on moral grounds, but argued that abolitionists wanted abolition too soon because God clearly wanted slavery to keep happening. Isn't it convenient how that imaginary friend always seems to take philosophical positions that are convenient to believers?

  2. Top | #2
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    71
    Lee has been made into a god.

    He was an ambitious man that wanted to win in battle.

    He won most of the time, a great commander with a brilliant strategic mind.

    As far as morality?

    He is worthless.

  3. Top | #3
    Contributor repoman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    6,005
    Archived
    2,280
    Total Posts
    8,285
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Lee has been made into a god.

    He was an ambitious man that wanted to win in battle.

    He won most of the time, a great commander with a brilliant strategic mind.

    As far as morality?

    He is worthless.
    Lee was our Rommel.

  4. Top | #4
    Industrial Grade Linguist Copernicus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Bellevue, WA
    Posts
    2,225
    Rep Power
    10
    Lee married Mary Anna Custis, great granddaughter of Martha Washington. Her family was a large wealthy slave-owning family. Although Lee and those who revere him have tried to whitewash his support for slavery, he never really deviated from the tradition of many prominent southerners, including George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and many others--that slavery was a moral wrong that would eventually fade away. They were reluctantly required to maintain the institution, because their personal wealth and family well-being depended on it. Like George Washington, many felt that their slaves owed them their labor in return for the expense of feeding, clothing, and sheltering them. Washington himself was known to become furious when he felt slaves were not making an honest effort to fulfill their duties. Lee appears to have been a little more ambivalent about such things, leaving the management of his slaves for others to handle.

  5. Top | #5
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    1,522
    Archived
    4,109
    Total Posts
    5,631
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Lee has been made into a god.

    He was an ambitious man that wanted to win in battle.

    He won most of the time, a great commander with a brilliant strategic mind.

    As far as morality?

    He is worthless.
    Lee was a shitty commander who fought without serious imagination or innovation. He never developed a coherent strategy for the South. He was marginally successful against others who fought like him, but against more competent commanders and real fighters like Grant he got defeated and sucked into a war of attrition he should have known he could never win. He had so much success early in his life that he couldn’t handle defeat properly. Grant was a far better commander who understood warfare so much better than he did. Had Grant been in charge at Antietam the war would’ve ended by 63. I would never compare him to Rommel.

    SLD

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Copernicus View Post
    Lee married Mary Anna Custis, great granddaughter of Martha Washington. Her family was a large wealthy slave-owning family. Although Lee and those who revere him have tried to whitewash his support for slavery, he never really deviated from the tradition of many prominent southerners, including George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and many others--that slavery was a moral wrong that would eventually fade away. They were reluctantly required to maintain the institution, because their personal wealth and family well-being depended on it. Like George Washington, many felt that their slaves owed them their labor in return for the expense of feeding, clothing, and sheltering them. Washington himself was known to become furious when he felt slaves were not making an honest effort to fulfill their duties. Lee appears to have been a little more ambivalent about such things, leaving the management of his slaves for others to handle.
    OK George. You know longer have to feed and clothe me. See ya later dude!

  6. Top | #6
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Lee has been made into a god.

    He was an ambitious man that wanted to win in battle.

    He won most of the time, a great commander with a brilliant strategic mind.

    As far as morality?

    He is worthless.
    Lee was a shitty commander who fought without serious imagination or innovation. He never developed a coherent strategy for the South.
    I separate a great combat commander from a strategist.

    A commander inspires and motivates people to endure hardship and fight.

    Every great strategist needs a lot of great commanders.

    Lee was a great commander. Like Washington he inspired his officers and men.

    Washington was not a very good strategist. He lost a lot of battles.

    But sometimes just being a good commander is enough.

  7. Top | #7
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    1,522
    Archived
    4,109
    Total Posts
    5,631
    Rep Power
    68
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post
    Lee has been made into a god.

    He was an ambitious man that wanted to win in battle.

    He won most of the time, a great commander with a brilliant strategic mind.

    As far as morality?

    He is worthless.
    Lee was a shitty commander who fought without serious imagination or innovation. He never developed a coherent strategy for the South.
    I separate a great combat commander from a strategist.

    A commander inspires and motivates people to endure hardship and fight.

    Every great strategist needs a lot of great commanders.

    Lee was a great commander. Like Washington he inspired his officers and men.

    Washington was not a very good strategist. He lost a lot of battles.

    But sometimes just being a good commander is enough.
    I’d still disagree. A great commander wouldn’t have ordered his men to charge headlong into a fortified position especially after Fredericksburg.

    And many of them didn’t. They weren’t as stupid as they’re made out to be. Many made a modicum of a showing and turned around.

  8. Top | #8
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    21,766
    Archived
    16,553
    Total Posts
    38,319
    Rep Power
    71
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by untermensche View Post

    I separate a great combat commander from a strategist.

    A commander inspires and motivates people to endure hardship and fight.

    Every great strategist needs a lot of great commanders.

    Lee was a great commander. Like Washington he inspired his officers and men.

    Washington was not a very good strategist. He lost a lot of battles.

    But sometimes just being a good commander is enough.
    I’d still disagree. A great commander wouldn’t have ordered his men to charge headlong into a fortified position especially after Fredericksburg.

    And many of them didn’t. They weren’t as stupid as they’re made out to be. Many made a modicum of a showing and turned around.
    You're still talking about strategy.

    The fact that most did it proves he was a great commander.

    Who should not have thrown his army against those defenses.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •