Doesn't exactly sound like an evil ogre, does he?broman wrote:Source of the post Views on slavery
I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former
broman wrote:Source of the post Prisoner exchange during civil war
As the historian James McPherson recounts in Battle Cry of Freedom, in October of that same year, Lee proposed an exchange of prisoners with the Union general Ulysses S. Grant. “Grant agreed, on condition that blacks be exchanged ‘the same as white soldiers.’” Lee’s response was that “negroes belonging to our citizens are not considered subjects of exchange and were not included in my proposition.”
Again, not exactly the concerns of an ogre. He appears to me to be arguing for a more structured plan for their impending freedom than just saying "Go in peace...You're free."broman wrote:Source of the post Postwar Views
Lee told a New York Herald reporter, in the midst of arguing in favor of somehow removing blacks from the South (“disposed of,” in his words), “that unless some humane course is adopted, based on wisdom and Christian principles you do a gross wrong and injustice to the whole negro race in setting them free.
Presentism is also a factor in the problematic question of history and moral judgments. Among historians, the orthodox view may be that reading modern notions of morality into the past is to commit the error of presentism. To avoid this, historians restrict themselves to describing what happened and attempt to refrain from using language that passes judgment. For example, when writing history about slavery in an era when the practice was widely accepted, letting that fact influence judgment about a group or individual would be presentist and thus should be avoided. Wikipedia
Professor Fate wrote:Source of the post Sorry, can't agree.
John Q. Public wrote:Source of the post "Reading the article" isn't required.
John Q. Public wrote:Source of the post From the three paragraphs and considering it was the mid-19th century, Lee sounds somewhat progressive.
Omar Bongo wrote:Source of the post Neither is knowing what you're talking about
Vilepagan wrote:Source of the post Interesting article worth reading in its entirety.
MDDad wrote:Source of the post JQP, it seems that some here have the inability to stop applying 21st century values and social tolerances to 19th century times and figures. Yes, Lee was indeed a progressive thinker for a 19th century Southerner.
Vilepagan wrote:Source of the post He fought a war to maintain the status quo vis-a-vis the slaves and I think that means he forfeits any right to claim any sort of "progressive" thoughts regarding slavery.This of course doesn't even address the whole issue of his treason in leading an insurrectionist army against the United States in what turned out to be the bloodiest war in our history. This doesn't lead me to think of him as a particularly progressive thinker either.
Vilepagan wrote:Are people from the South just naturally lesser thinkers than those in other parts of the country?
MDDad wrote:Source of the post Evidently, judging by the demeaning comments they consistently receive on this forum.
And if you're talking about the 19th century rather than the current day, they were not so much lesser thinkers as different thinkers.
By the way....they were all slave owners. Washington, Jefferson, Madison and Jackson owned hundreds of them.
Union Civil War heroes Ulysses S. Grant, William T. Sherman and George H.Thomas also owned slaves.
Robert E. Lee did not.
Vilepagan wrote:Source of the post Any of them wage war against the United States?
John Q. Public wrote:Source of the post The topic is Lee's views on slavery and emancipation, not his patriotism.
Users browsing this forum: broman and 0 guests