Lee Robert E. Lee - A Hero Every Child Should Know.

[huskerblitz]

Washington's cause was just, Lee's cause was not.

Proof?

 

[The Confederate]

Proof?

Washington's cause was about freeing themselves from British oppression, Lee's cause was about preserving and expanding Slavery.

 

[huskerblitz]

Washington's cause was about freeing themselves from British oppression, Lee's cause was about preserving and expanding Slavery.

What oppression really and does the Revolution actually qualify the 'just war' as defined in the other thread? The answer is debatable at best. And let's not forget that Lafayette tried in vain to get Washington to free his slaves and he refused and the states also demanded fugitive slaves back following the shooting. Is that 'just'? Again, anything using 'just' is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[NedBaldwin]

Lee's entire reason for siding with the CSA...

Does anything else need to be said? As you admit he sided with the CSA, which by definition was not the USA.

 

[huskerblitz]

Does anything else need to be said? As you admit he sided with the CSA, which by definition was not the USA.

Well to be honest, the book that is highlighted in this thread doesn't not require the character to be a hero of the US. In fact, most of the entries in the book at definitely not from the US.

 

[major bill]

When I look at the book it is a hundred year old book for children that honors mostly mythical people or myths about real people. One chapter is about Hercules and another chapter is about King Arthur.

 

[The Confederate]

What oppression really and does the Revolution actually qualify the 'just war' as defined in the other thread? The answer is debatable at best. And let's not forget that Lafayette tried in vain to get Washington to free his slaves and he refused and the states also demanded fugitive slaves back following the shooting. Is that 'just'? Again, anything using 'just' is in the eye of the beholder.

The oppression of being unfairly taxed without Representation, the oppression of being treated as second-class citizens, etc.

And Lee inherited slaves from his wife's family and from his own family, in fact, he refused to free his inherited Slaves as it was stated in the will of George Washington Parke Custis, he even went to court in Arlington to protest that, but hey, it's Lee the holy martyr, so I guess you don't have any problem with that.

 

[Bee]

When I look at the book it is a hundred year old book for children that honors mostly mythical people or myths about real people. One chapter is about Hercules and another chapter is about King Arthur.

Exactly: It is a relic of a book that represents its era. In fact, the OP as explained is about a treasure trove of old books, and how they have endured the generations. The arguments about the content is for a different time and place.

 

[huskerblitz]

The oppression of being unfairly taxed without Representation, the oppression of being treated as second-class citizens, etc.

And Lee inherited slaves from his wife's family and from his own family, in fact, he refused to free his inherited Slaves as it was stated in the will of George Washington Parke Custis, he even went to court in Arlington to protest that, but hey, it's Lee the holy martyr, so I guess you don't have any problem with that.

You still think the Revolution was about taxes???? But if you want to pursue that point, I think my tax rate is unfair, therefore I am justified in rebelling, correct? And if I steal a bracelet worth thousands from a store would I get probation (What we call in my classroom the 'Lindsey Lohan Effect') or jail time? If I get jail time would that not prove my status as a second class citizen? We could go on about your etc., but I will assume you get the point.

I don't have a problem with that. If I did I wouldn't have much of a life since it's something I can't change. But Washington, as commander of the Continental Army and likely the most respected man around in that time was given the opportunity and as president could have done something...but nothing. The problem comes from trying to make dead people into martyrs based on just a few things.

 

[thomas aagaard]

That is a perspective, a northern perspective.

Lee's entire reason for siding with the CSA was to protect and defend Virginia who going to be invaded.

Both sides were waging war with each other and both sides were elected representatives of American government. To try and simplify Lee as "waging war on America" is grossly inaccurate.

Don't miss quote me.

I wrote the USA. Not america.

He waged war on The United States of America. And since they won and the book was published in New York he waged war on the country the book was published in.

Also, Virginia would never have been invaded if they had not Rebelled.

And yes the Government waged war on the south... difference is, Waging war on the government is Treason the other is suppressing a rebellion.

 

[thomas aagaard]

Not to mention that that other slave owner, Washington, also waged war against his country.

But he did not wage war on the USA.

And the difference ism the book was published in the USA. not Britain.

 

[The Confederate]

You still think the Revolution was about taxes???? But if you want to pursue that point, I think my tax rate is unfair, therefore I am justified in rebelling, correct? And if I steal a bracelet worth thousands from a store would I get probation (What we call in my classroom the 'Lindsey Lohan Effect') or jail time? If I get jail time would that not prove my status as a second class citizen? We could go on about your etc., but I will assume you get the point.

I don't have a problem with that. If I did I wouldn't have much of a life since it's something I can't change. But Washington, as commander of the Continental Army and likely the most respected man around in that time was given the opportunity and as president could have done something...but nothing. The problem comes from trying to make dead people into martyrs based on just a few things.

Do you have any proof that the Revolution was not about taxes? And about the rest, FACEPALM!

And the fact that you criticize Washington for not freeing his Slaves, but at the same time, condone Lee for not freeing his slaves shows your HYPOCRISY!

 

[huskerblitz]

Do you have any proof that the Revolution was not about taxes? And about the rest, FACEPALM!

And the fact that you criticize Washington for not freeing his Slaves, but at the same time, condone Lee for not freeing his slaves shows your HYPOCRISY!

Ummm...pretty much every history book on the Revolution perhaps? The point is, taxation was the law of the land regardless of the issue of representation. Most of the acts passed by Parliament was in direct response to the colonists either purposely evading paying taxes or committing acts of terror against those who opposed them. I would invite you to read about the era. It's rather fascinating.

Please point out where I criticized Washington at the same time condoning Lee. Or simply I would invite you to actually read what I typed.

 

[The Confederate]

Ummm...pretty much every history book on the Revolution perhaps? The point is, taxation was the law of the land regardless of the issue of representation. Most of the acts passed by Parliament was in direct response to the colonists either purposely evading paying taxes or committing acts of terror against those who opposed them. I would invite you to read about the era. It's rather fascinating.

Please point out where I criticized Washington at the same time condoning Lee. Or simply I would invite you to actually read what I typed.

If they were unfairly taxed but had no Reprensentation then they were completely right to protest, and the Confederates also committed acts of terror against those who opposed them.

And about Washington and Lee:

"And let's not forget that Lafayette tried in vain to get Washington to free his slaves and he refused and the states also demanded fugitive slaves back following the shooting. Is that 'just'?"

"I don't have a problem with that. If I did I wouldn't have much of a life since it's something I can't change. But Washington, as commander of the Continental Army and likely the most respected man around in that time was given the opportunity and as president could have done something...but nothing."

 

[leftyhunter]

That is a perspective, a northern perspective.

Lee's entire reason for siding with the CSA was to protect and defend Virginia who going to be invaded.

Both sides were waging war with each other and both sides were elected representatives of American government. To try and simplify Lee as "waging war on America" is grossly inaccurate.

Maybe not the Secessionists would intimidate and sometimes kill voters who voted against secession. protect Va against what? If Va wouldn't of declared secession it wouldn't be invaded. Many Virginians fought for the Union are they traders? Doesn't the Virginia Ordinance of Secession tell us why Va seceded? Lee is directing the killing of American troops this is honorable? Lee's forces kidnapped free blacks in Pa this to is honorable?
How do you teach young Afro-American children to honor someone who fought to keep their ancestors enslaved?
Leftyhunter

 

[major bill]

George Washington, Robert E Lee and Abraham Lincoln were all relevant to the era in which they lived. None were perfect and neither are we. Washington was a great soldier but also a slave owner. Lee fought for a government that wanted to keep and expand slavery. Lincoln originally did not believe in equality for all races, but his view on this was evolving.

I can appreciate Washington for being a great general and fighting to from a new nation based on democracy. However, Washington's view of democracy was not for people of all races. I can believe Lee was a great general. But Lee was fighting for the continuation and expansion of slavery. Lincoln did help define a nation were freedom and justice is given to all and not reserved for only some. This does not mean I do not see that by todays standards, Lincoln would be considered a racist.

My main problem with Lee was that his support for slavery would have caused millions of people to be held in slavery for another 50 to 100 years. By 1860 the western world was moving away from slavery and I can not bring myself to believe that 100 years of chattel slavery was the proper direction for North America to follow.

 

[leftyhunter]

Exactly: It is a relic of a book that represents its era. In fact, the OP as explained is about a treasure trove of old books, and how they have endured the generations. The arguments about the content is for a different time and place.

True in and of it's self/ However the book would not reflect the political values of a large proportion of many ( certainly not all) of today's American population. The book shows that we have changed our perception of what constitutes a hero. One hundred plus years from now what a hero is would be anybodies guess.
Leftyhunter

 

[huskerblitz]

If they were unfairly taxed but had no Reprensentation then they were completely right to protest, and the Confederates also committed acts of terror against those who opposed them.

Let me help you out here since prior postings you marry the men to their words. Look at a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Found all over the web, I went ahead and provided you a link to the DOI. Focus on the third major part, often referred to as the List of Grievances. Count how many times taxes are mentioned as a grievance. I'll assist: once. The reason taxes are only mentioned once was because it was more about power. Power over the continent and power over the inhabitants. The Revolution was about who had that power, not taxation.

And about Washington and Lee:

"And let's not forget that Lafayette tried in vain to get Washington to free his slaves and he refused and the states also demanded fugitive slaves back following the shooting. Is that 'just'?"

"I don't have a problem with that. If I did I wouldn't have much of a life since it's something I can't change. But Washington, as commander of the Continental Army and likely the most respected man around in that time was given the opportunity and as president could have done something...but nothing."

Yes, thank you for quoting me. Still not seeing where I am condoning Lee anywhere but I do note you, for whatever reason, chose not to include my last line: "The problem comes from trying to make dead people into martyrs based on just a few things." I don't have problems with the past because there is nothing I can do about it. I did however say that making martyrs is a problem. And like heroes, I don't make them and rarely get caught up in whether they are or they aren't since that is someone else's opinion.

 

[The Confederate]

Let me help you out here since prior postings you marry the men to their words. Look at a copy of the Declaration of Independence. Found all over the web, I went ahead and provided you a link to the DOI. Focus on the third major part, often referred to as the List of Grievances. Count how many times taxes are mentioned as a grievance. I'll assist: once. The reason taxes are only mentioned once was because it was more about power. Power over the continent and power over the inhabitants. The Revolution was about who had that power, not taxation.


Yes, thank you for quoting me. Still not seeing where I am condoning Lee anywhere but I do note you, for whatever reason, chose not to include my last line: "The problem comes from trying to make dead people into martyrs based on just a few things." I don't have problems with the past because there is nothing I can do about it. I did however say that making martyrs is a problem. And like heroes, I don't make them and rarely get caught up in whether they are or they aren't since that is someone else's opinion.

Count how many times was Slavery mentioned in the Declaration of Causes, It was the only cause mentioned, and besides, the inhabitants were now represented.

And you clearly condone Lee:

"I don't have a problem with that...But Washington, as commander of the Continental Army and likely the most respected man around in that time was given the opportunity and as president could have done something...but nothing."

And I didn't quote the last line because it didn't have anything to do with the subject.

 

[7th Texas Mounted Rifles]

When I look at the book it is a hundred year old book for children that honors mostly mythical people or myths about real people. One chapter is about Hercules and another chapter is about King Arthur.

Exactly.

Exactly: It is a relic of a book that represents its era. In fact, the OP as explained is about a treasure trove of old books, and how they have endured the generations. The arguments about the content is for a different time and place.

Thank you - this is exactly what i was trying to convey when i started the thread.