Lee's Decision

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Splitter

    R.I.P.
    Jun 25, 2008
    7,266
    Westminster, MD
    Eh.

    It's not news to me that Lee had slaves and it's not news to me that he went, ostensibly, against the wishes of the estate from which he inherited them. There is a reason he sought to extend their servitude...

    As I understand these articles, they come from a very liberal source: NY Times Blog. The letter also came from his daughter after the war and I wonder how much Lee took her into his confidence.

    It is also not news to me that Lee struggled with the decision nor that he made it himself and alone.

    A lot of the commenters should also look at Lee's other papers and what he did to heal the nation after the war.

    It seems that almost 150 years after the war, people are trying to tear down the "heroes" of the war on both sides.

    Face it....the country was conflicted and the men INVOLVED were conflicted. That tends to happen when monumental decisions are being made that will lead to the destruction or survival, BY FORCE, of a nation.

    Splitter
     

    Darkemp

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Aug 18, 2009
    7,808
    Marylandistan
    Eh.

    It's not news to me that Lee had slaves and it's not news to me that he went, ostensibly, against the wishes of the estate from which he inherited them. There is a reason he sought to extend their servitude...

    As I understand these articles, they come from a very liberal source: NY Times Blog. The letter also came from his daughter after the war and I wonder how much Lee took her into his confidence.

    It is also not news to me that Lee struggled with the decision nor that he made it himself and alone.

    A lot of the commenters should also look at Lee's other papers and what he did to heal the nation after the war.

    It seems that almost 150 years after the war, people are trying to tear down the "heroes" of the war on both sides.

    Face it....the country was conflicted and the men INVOLVED were conflicted. That tends to happen when monumental decisions are being made that will lead to the destruction or survival, BY FORCE, of a nation.

    Splitter

    +1. Sad today still that the history of the war is distorted into simply being about slavery. Kids in school are not being taught the broader principles of state's rights over the Federal Government or the events that disillusioned the southern people. Lee's decision to leave the US Army was more so due to his staunch beliefs in limited government, when they tried to use him in a key position against that belief he was forced to choose courage of convictions over his career.
     

    Splitter

    R.I.P.
    Jun 25, 2008
    7,266
    Westminster, MD
    For the record, when I said the commenters should read his other papers, I meant the commenters on the NY Times blog. Just wanted to make that clear.

    Davis did not want secession.
    Lincoln was not for equality for slaves.
    Lee had slaves.
    Grant was a drunk.
    Sherman was a racist.
    Forrest killed a Confederate soldier

    These were complicated times and taking snippets from history does not do it justice.

    Splitter
     

    The3clipser

    Mister Tea
    Nov 29, 2009
    1,851
    For the record, when I said the commenters should read his other papers, I meant the commenters on the NY Times blog. Just wanted to make that clear.

    Davis did not want secession.
    Lincoln was not for equality for slaves.
    Lee had slaves.
    Grant was a drunk.
    Sherman was a racist.
    Forrest killed a Confederate soldier

    These were complicated times and taking snippets from history does not do it justice.

    Splitter

    And my personal favorite,
    Sickles killed Francis Scott Key's son in the middle of the street and got off via claiming insanity.
     

    KMK1862

    Ultimate Member
    Oct 12, 2010
    2,046
    York County, PA
    A lot of the commenters should also look at Lee's other papers and what he did to heal the nation after the war.

    A big plus 1! Also, I'm not a big fan of General Grant's generalship, but he handled the surrender at Appomatox in a very honorable way.

    As to Lee owning slaves, I was under the impression that they more of an "inheritance" from his father in law and he kept them in order to return his father in law's estate to profitablity. His father in law, owned several estates/plantations. The problem was, Lee was a soldier, not a planter/farmer/businessman.

    All of these people were real life human beings just like us, and they had strengths and weaknesses just like us. One of the great horrors, IMO, of history is to judge historical figures by current cultural values. These people should always be judged by the moralities and laws of their time and place.
     

    Splitter

    R.I.P.
    Jun 25, 2008
    7,266
    Westminster, MD
    A big plus 1! Also, I'm not a big fan of General Grant's generalship, but he handled the surrender at Appomatox in a very honorable way.

    As to Lee owning slaves, I was under the impression that they more of an "inheritance" from his father in law and he kept them in order to return his father in law's estate to profitablity. His father in law, owned several estates/plantations. The problem was, Lee was a soldier, not a planter/farmer/businessman.

    All of these people were real life human beings just like us, and they had strengths and weaknesses just like us. One of the great horrors, IMO, of history is to judge historical figures by current cultural values. These people should always be judged by the moralities and laws of their time and place.

    Without looking it up, I think the slaves were to be set free within 5 years of him inheriting them. When the time came, he did need the labor and he feared they would be destitute as free men at the time.

    So he fought a legal battle to extend their slavery.

    Splitter
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,276
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom