Neo-Confederate propaganda
What a big stinking piece of Neo-Confederate revisionist agitprop this was. 4 hours of my life I will never get back.
shareIt's well known that Robert E. Lee was no fan of slavery; he fought for the Confederacy only to defend Virginia.
But to have Jackson promise that "one day your people will be free," is to downplay the fact that the South seceded to prevent that very thing from happening.
Lee may not have believed in slavery(a big maybe),but he sure didn't do a thing to stop it. He fought for the side that wanted to keep slavery.
shareFor all the hero worshiping that Lee gets, he may very well be responsible as an individual for the most Americans needlessly killed by his stance and actions. He was a morally weak person, no better than Wehrmacht generals who fought for their country during WWII with its horrid and inhuman policies.
He can be remembered as a Christian general for all his good manners and dressing up and acting the southern aristocrat, but when it comes down to it he served a vile government to the utmost of his ability.
Many people after the civil war were of the opinion he should have been hanged from a sour apple tree. I say those people had good reason to feel so.
seems a little harsh...his country was his country, as it was for the WW2 Germans as well, btw..the South was still going to go to war whether he was in the engine-room or not..
He had to serve one side, or the other...look at it from his POV, when considering presumably serving the OTHER side..what would his people say of him?
Now your point about prolonging the war and greatly magnifying the casualty count is probably valid..but you already know, 20-20 hindsight, that what was in store was a LONG bitter war and then bitter Northern victory and bitter Southern defeat.
seems a little harsh...his country was his country,
The south was not a country. It was a part of the United States in armed insurrection and rebellion against the lawful government of the United States. Lee swore an oath as an officer to uphold the Constitution of those United States and he deliberately broke it by accepting a position with the armed forces of that rebellion. By any definition that makes him a traitor.
It's really very clear-cut and simple. If he felt torn between his oath and other feelings, he could simply have resigned his commission and sat the war out. But he deliberately choose not to and devoted all his energies into waging war on the government he had sworn to protect.
It was only by the good grace and leniency of the United States government that Lee was not executed as a traitor as was often the normal custom in those times. Policy however dictated that leniency was a better option. It did not behoove the government to turn Lee into a martyr.
Of course no one could have foreseen that he would be canonized and placed on a pedestal afterwards ... share
the right to secede is the natural law of revolution, by your logic the american founding fathers were traitors for rebelling against the United Kingdom and the Crown.
It's really very clear cut and simple, you're an idiot and you've been brainwashed by never ending anti-confederate propaganda in your public school system.
There is no natural right to secede. Revolt all you want, but remember, you will be traitors if you fail.
And how in the world would you know where I went to school? You don't have the slightest idea in which country it was, let alone if it were public, private, religious or whatever. The years I did tend school in the US, were the years before the Centennial even, when everyone North and South were great buddies, all the participants heroes and gallant, before the Civil Rights Days ...
What I learned about the American Civil War and the rest of military history, does not come from my American school days.
[deleted]
Even an ignorant Aussie like myself knows that post Civil War it was the Northern bankers who were the slave masters, buying up all the land for next to nothing after laying waist with there army of bandits and looters. Kind of similar to what your government/banks have done to Sth America, Sth East Asia & now the Middle East.
Please correct me if I am wrong but were their not Union Generals who still owned slaves a decade after the war of northern aggression ended?
Is this a satirical post? Slaves ten years after the war? lol as an Aussie you should bloody well know better
shareaagar99: Spare us your self-righteous B.S. You 'ignorant' Aussie's have no moral high ground, not from the way you treated the Aboriginal Peoples. Even hunting them for sport, you hypocrite! What else can be expected from a Country formed by convicts and kangaroos.
shareIt's well known that Robert E. Lee was no fan of slavery; he fought for the Confederacy only to defend Virginia.
That's more myth than fact about Lee, regarding slavery. Please check out the link below discussing the Loyalties of R. E. Lee.
https://youtu.be/wMGrDmUjZCg?t=2232 share
the war was not over slavery, that's a myth, one state cited the economic losses of abolition as one of the reasons they wanted to secede but that was a single state and it wasn't their primary reason for leaving the union, the primary reason was the exploitation of northern manufacturers, they bought southern raw goods and refined them and sold them back to the south at criminally high prices and the union highly regulated where manufacturing could take place, preventing the south from becoming economically sovereign and getting rich in the process.
shareIt was over slavery.
Nice try at altering history, though.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .
[deleted]
Indeed. There is often no use arguing with grown-ass adults locked into idolizing evil, though.
---
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing .