One Political Plaza - Home of politics
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main
And even worst things about the T*****r, Robert E. Lee
Page <prev 2 of 10 next> last>>
Aug 19, 2018 22:52:17   #
rumitoid
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
My Great Grand Pappy was named after Robert E Lee. This is the first I heard of him being a cruel s***e master. I must politely object to this accusation


Then ignore history.

Reply
Aug 19, 2018 22:58:25   #
vernon
 
rumitoid wrote:
Lee’s cruelty as a s***emaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his own writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting s***e families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of s***e families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of s***ery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s s***es regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

The trauma of rupturing families lasted lifetimes for the ens***ed—it was, as my colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates described it, “a kind of murder.” After the war, thousands of the emancipated searched desperately for kin lost to the market for human flesh, fruitlessly for most. In Reconstruction, the historian Eric Foner quotes a Freedmen’s Bureau agent who notes of the emancipated, “in their eyes, the work of emancipation was incomplete until the families which had been dispersed by s***ery were reunited.”

Lee’s heavy hand on the Arlington plantation, Pryor writes, nearly led to a s***e revolt, in part because the ens***ed had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death, and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property, one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.

When two of his s***es escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to "lay it on well." Wesley Norris, one of the s***es who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”
Lee’s cruelty as a s***emaster was not confined to... (show quote)



I don't believe a word of that crap.Lee freed his s***es before he joined the war.You let some agitating race baiter who is agitating for more street crime get to you.Lee was against s***ery and said it all along.,

Reply
Aug 19, 2018 23:01:00   #
rumitoid
 
vernon wrote:
I don't believe a word of that crap.Lee freed his s***es before he joined the war.You let some agitating race baiter who is agitating for more street crime get to you.Lee was against s***ery and said it all along.,


That is really pathetic vernon, easily disproven.

Reply
 
 
Aug 19, 2018 23:20:43   #
Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone
 
Although many of your threads are of little interest to me, I will read your other links.
I find your se******n of writers unique and certainly not in the mainstream of recognized authorities on the topics they select. This author is no exception. I do admit that her writing style is clever and entertaining. If I were a Yankee and not as interested in history ... I too would be inclined to believe her well crafted stories.

rumitoid wrote:
I would recommend that you follow my other five links to find the t***h.

Reply
Aug 20, 2018 00:27:13   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
rumitoid wrote:
Then ignore history.
Whos history? Too much contradicts what you posted.

Reply
Aug 20, 2018 03:18:06   #
PeterS
 
PLT Sarge wrote:
I was going to reply but others stated the facts. I would suggest that a person do their own study of a person or issue. Then form their own opinions.


The Myth of the Kindly General Lee

The strangest part about the continued personality cult of Robert E. Lee is how few of the qualities his admirers profess to see in him he actually possessed.

Memorial Day has the tendency to conjure up old arguments about the Civil War. That’s understandable; it was created to mourn the dead of a war in which the Union was nearly destroyed, when half the country rose up in r*******n in defense of s***ery. This year, the removal of Lee’s statue in New Orleans has inspired a new round of commentary about Lee, not to mention protests on his behalf by w***e s*********ts.

The myth of Lee goes something like this: He was a brilliant strategist and dev**ed Christian man who abhorred s***ery and labored tirelessly after the war to bring the country back together.

There is little t***h in this. Lee was a devout Christian, and historians regard him as an accomplished tactician. But despite his ability to win individual battles, his decision to fight a conventional war against the more densely populated and industrialized North is considered by many historians to have been a fatal strategic error.

But even if one conceded Lee’s military prowess, he would still be responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans in defense of the South’s authority to own millions of human beings as property because they are black. Lee’s elevation is a key part of a 150-year-old propaganda campaign designed to erase s***ery as the cause of the war and whitewash the Confederate cause as a noble one. That ideology is known as the Lost Cause, and as historian David Blight writes, it provided a “foundation on which Southerners built the Jim Crow system.”

There are unwitting victims of this campaign—those who lack the knowledge to separate history from sentiment. Then there are those whose reverence for Lee relies on replacing the actual Lee with a mythical figure who never truly existed.

In the Richmond Times Dispatch, R. David Cox wrote that “For w***e s*********t protesters to invoke his name violates Lee’s most fundamental convictions.” In the conservative publication Townhall, Jack Kerwick concluded that Lee was “among the finest human beings that has ever walked the Earth.” John Daniel Davidson, in an essay for The Federalist, opposed the removal of the Lee statute in part on the grounds that Lee “arguably did more than anyone to unite the country after the war and bind up its wounds.” Praise for Lee of this sort has flowed forth from past historians and presidents alike.

This is too divorced from Lee’s actual life to even be classed as fan fiction; it is simply historical illiteracy.

W***e s*******y does not “violate” Lee’s “most fundamental convictions.” W***e s*******y was one of Lee’s most fundamental convictions.

Lee was a s***eowner—his own views on s***ery were explicated in an 1856 letter that it often misquoted to give the impression that Lee was some kind of an abolitionist. In the letter, he describes s***ery as “a moral & political evil,” but goes on to explain that:

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. The b****s are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild & melting influence of Christianity, than the storms & tempests of fiery Controversy.

The argument here is that s***ery is bad for white people, good for black people, and most importantly, it is better than abolitionism; emancipation must wait for divine intervention. That black people might not want to be s***es does not enter into the equation; their opinion on the subject of their own bondage is not even an afterthought to Lee.

Lee’s cruelty as a s***emaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting s***e families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of s***e families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of s***ery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s s***es regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”


His s***es regarded him as "the worst man I ever see"

Snip>>>The issue became a matter of litigation in the probate court of Alexandria County after several of the male members of the Bingham s***e family, Reuben, Henry, Edward and Austin, refused to accept assignments to work at jobs off the premises of Arlington.

Reuben, the leader of the r*******n, told General Lee, who was acting then as executor and manager of Arlington Plantation, that he and his brothers were as free as he. A melee ensued between them when General Lee organized a posse to forcibly remove Reuben and his brothers to the Arlington county jail.

After a short struggle, the rebelling s***es were subdued and taken to the jail where they were held until taken south to Richmond under guard. Wesley and Mary Norris, siblings in the Norris s***e family, fled across the Potomac into Maryland at this time, but were caught before they reached the Pennsylvania line and returned to Virginia: whereupon they too were sent down to Richmond.

In October 1858, General Lee wrote to the Adjutant General of the Army requesting an extension of his leave of absence from Texas. In his letter Lee stated that the terms of emancipation in Custis's will were subject to different interpretations, because in his view the timing of emancipation depended upon the condition in the will that called for the payment of the monetary legacies Custis bequeathed to Lee’s four daughters.

As executor of the Custis estate, General Lee was, in fact, bound by principles of equity to carry out the wishes of the testator under circumstances in which he believed the testator's wishes were in conflict. Custis apparently wished that the s***es be emancipated immediately, yet the only way payment of his legacies to General Lee's daughters could be funded was through the cash received from the labor of the s***es. To resolve this conflict, General Lee applied to the circuit court of Arlington for an interpretation of the will provisions, and for an order specifying the point in time when the will’s provision regarding emancipation must be executed. Eventually, the Court ruled that Lee was legally empowered to hold the s***es in service to the estate until the legacies were satisfied, but that, notwithstanding this, the s***es had to be freed no later than five years from the date of Custis's death, October 10, 1857. (The available evidence does not disclose whether the interest of the s***es were represented by independent counsel in the probate court proceeding, but the Court's ruling seems fair under the circumstances.)

It appears that, over the ensuing five years, in addition to paying the legacies, the income derived from the labor of the s***es was used by General Lee to renovate dilapidated farm buildings and repair farm machinery that had fallen into disuse in the years before Custis's death as well as tend to the farms. The healthy adult male and female s***es located at the tidewater farms were needed there to secure the animals, harvest the annual crops of rye, oats, wheat and corn and bring in the hay; while the s***es located at Arlington, who were not needed as garden boys, yard girls, gardeners, market men, coachmen, maids and the like, were available for hiring out to third parties for the value of their labor.

In December 1862, shortly after the battle of Fredericksburg, General Lee, as executor of the Custis estate, fulfilled the duty he owed the Custis family s***es by executing a deed of manumission which listed most of the s***es recorded on the estate inventory lists.


https://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/General-Lee-S***es/General-Lee-Family-S***es.html

There is quite a bit on Lee and how he treated s***es he inherited from his father-in-law if you look. Of course if you are happy knowing what you know then by all means ignore what is written and just keep on keeping on...

Reply
Aug 20, 2018 03:54:46   #
PeterS
 
Pennylynn wrote:
Although many of your threads are of little interest to me, I will read your other links.
I find your se******n of writers unique and certainly not in the mainstream of recognized authorities on the topics they select. This author is no exception. I do admit that her writing style is clever and entertaining. If I were a Yankee and not as interested in history ... I too would be inclined to believe her well crafted stories.

Well crafted stories? Is it possible that well crafted stories can also be the t***h???

Snip>>>As executor of the Custis estate, General Lee was, in fact, bound by principles of equity to carry out the wishes of the testator under circumstances in which he believed the testator's wishes were in conflict. Custis apparently wished that the s***es be emancipated immediately, yet the only way payment of his legacies to General Lee's daughters could be funded was through the cash received from the labor of the s***es. To resolve this conflict, General Lee applied to the circuit court of Arlington for an interpretation of the will provisions, and for an order specifying the point in time when the will’s provision regarding emancipation must be executed. Eventually, the Court ruled that Lee was legally empowered to hold the s***es in service to the estate until the legacies were satisfied, but that, notwithstanding this, the s***es had to be freed no later than five years from the date of Custis's death, October 10, 1857. (The available evidence does not disclose whether the interest of the s***es were represented by independent counsel in the probate court proceeding, but the Court's ruling seems fair under the circumstances.)

Lee was trying to hang onto the s***es as long as he could to payoff the debts he inherited but did abide by the will and emancipate them after 5 years though Custis wanted his s***e emancipated upon his death.

https://americancivilwar.com/authors/Joseph_Ryan/Articles/General-Lee-S***es/General-Lee-Family-S***es.html

Snip>>>As executor of the will, Lee carried out its contents to the letter, much to the resentment of Custis’ s***es. Norris, his sister Mary, and a cousin resolved to assert what they believed was their rightful free status by running away, and almost made it to the Pennsylvania line before they were apprehended in Westminster, as reported in the Carroll County Democrat. Upon their return to Arlington, Norris alleged that Lee ordered the overseer to administer fifty lashes each to himself and to his cousin, and twenty to his sister Mary. When the overseer refused, the county constable was called in to execute the order. The portrait that Norris paints of his master is very different from the image of the benevolent s***eowner often invoked by Lee admirers. Norris writes:

“Gen. Lee, in the meantime, stood by, and frequently enjoined Williams, the constable, to ‘lay it on well,’ an injunction which he did not fail to heed; not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”

Norris’ testimony was corroborated by two anonymous letters in the New York Tribune. The first, signed “A Citizen” and dated June 19, 1859 but published on June 24, alleged that not only had the Lee’s home in Arlington, Virginia (National Park Service) s***es been brutally flogged, but that Lee himself had administered lashings to Mary Norris. The second, also published on June 24, included remarks on the general decline of living conditions among Custis’ s***es following his death. The authorship of these letters is unknown, and Lee refused to respond to them publically. Privately, however, he denied them. Following Norris’ testimony in June 1866, Lee seemed to be personally aggrieved at the accusations, writing to E.S. Quirk that “There is not a word of t***h in it…No servant, soldier, or citizen, that was ever employed by me can with t***h charge me with bad treatment.”

Now Norris, Mary, and several others had said that Custis had promised them emancipation immediately upon his death (which was corroborated by w****s) and is why they ran away. I really have found quite a bit on this to support rumitoid's version of Lee so if you have anything to paint Lee in a different light I really would like to see it.

http://www.crossroadsofwar.org/discover-the-story/the-coming-storm/civil-war-stories/

And I would appreciate if anything you have be on the internet as I don't have a library close and I no longer drive.

Reply
 
 
Aug 20, 2018 04:20:46   #
PeterS
 
Coos Bay Tom wrote:
My Great Grand Pappy was named after Robert E Lee. This is the first I heard of him being a cruel s***e master. I must politely object to this accusation

I was surprised too but there is actually quite a bit to support this version of Lee. See my reply to PTL Sarge and Pennylynn.

And I found this in the newspaper archive. If you go to the last page of the pdf and look under Robert E Lee you will see the testimony of Wesley Norris. It confirms part of what rumitoid said.

http://fair-use.org/national-anti-s***ery-standard/1866/04/14/standard-26-49.pdf

Reply
Aug 20, 2018 04:42:17   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
PeterS wrote:
I was surprised too but there is actually quite a bit to support this version of Lee. See my reply to PTL Sarge and Pennylynn.

And I found this in the newspaper archive. If you go to the last page of the pdf and look under Robert E Lee you will see the testimony of Wesley Norris. I confirms part of what rumitoid said.

http://fair-use.org/national-anti-s***ery-standard/1866/04/14/standard-26-49.pdf



Reply
Aug 20, 2018 05:27:43   #
maximus Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
 
rumitoid wrote:
Not to Trump and White Nationalists.He is the embodiment of the supposed glorious "Lost Cause," that he lost by bad strategy.


Lee was always out manned and out gunned by the Union army. Lee had several complete victories. He pushed it at Gettysburg, only because he was s**k of the war and he wanted it to be over, one way or another. Do you really think that Lee didn't know what the cost would be crossing those open fields with the Union army holding the high ground and entrenched behind stone fences and bulwarks. The high ground at Gettysburg cost Lee the war. Or you could say that Bragg cost Lee the war at Chickamauga, as he didn't pursue the defeated Union army back to Chattanooga. ( My home town BTW). Lee was clever and lucky to last four years with an ever growing under supply problem, while at the same time, the Union Army got bigger and better provisioned.

Reply
Aug 20, 2018 08:55:26   #
Coos Bay Tom Loc: coos bay oregon
 
maximus wrote:
Lee was always out manned and out gunned by the Union army. Lee had several complete victories. He pushed it at Gettysburg, only because he was s**k of the war and he wanted it to be over, one way or another. Do you really think that Lee didn't know what the cost would be crossing those open fields with the Union army holding the high ground and entrenched behind stone fences and bulwarks. The high ground at Gettysburg cost Lee the war. Or you could say that Bragg cost Lee the war at Chickamauga, as he didn't pursue the defeated Union army back to Chattanooga. ( My home town BTW). Lee was clever and lucky to last four years with an ever growing under supply problem, while at the same time, the Union Army got bigger and better provisioned.
Lee was always out manned and out gunned by the Un... (show quote)

Reply
 
 
Aug 20, 2018 09:04:56   #
lindajoy Loc: right here with you....
 
rumitoid wrote:
Not to Trump and White Nationalists.He is the embodiment of the supposed glorious "Lost Cause," that he lost by bad strategy.


Who told you this or are you just expressing your opinion???

Reply
Aug 20, 2018 09:07:44   #
PJT
 
Wh**ever the t***h about Lee and s***ery, he was a t*****r.
His career was the United States Army as was his free education.
His loyalty to Virginia cost hundreds of thousands of lives when if he accepted Lincoln's
Offer to command the army would have shortened the war.
Had he led by example there is a good chance other ex-West Point officers would have stayed loyal to the Union. Thus the war would have been shortened.
He could have spoken up against s***ery, undermining the South's justification for secession and war.
I consider Lee an abominable t*****r.

Reply
Aug 20, 2018 10:03:05   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
rumitoid wrote:
Lee’s cruelty as a s***emaster was not confined to physical punishment. In Reading the Man, the historian Elizabeth Brown Pryor’s portrait of Lee through his own writings, Pryor writes that “Lee ruptured the Washington and Custis tradition of respecting s***e families,” by hiring them off to other plantations, and that “by 1860 he had broken up every family but one on the estate, some of whom had been together since Mount Vernon days.” The separation of s***e families was one of the most unfathomably devastating aspects of s***ery, and Pryor wrote that Lee’s s***es regarded him as “the worst man I ever see.”

The trauma of rupturing families lasted lifetimes for the ens***ed—it was, as my colleague Ta-Nehisi Coates described it, “a kind of murder.” After the war, thousands of the emancipated searched desperately for kin lost to the market for human flesh, fruitlessly for most. In Reconstruction, the historian Eric Foner quotes a Freedmen’s Bureau agent who notes of the emancipated, “in their eyes, the work of emancipation was incomplete until the families which had been dispersed by s***ery were reunited.”

Lee’s heavy hand on the Arlington plantation, Pryor writes, nearly led to a s***e revolt, in part because the ens***ed had been expected to be freed upon their previous master’s death, and Lee had engaged in a dubious legal interpretation of his will in order to keep them as his property, one that lasted until a Virginia court forced him to free them.

When two of his s***es escaped and were recaptured, Lee either beat them himself or ordered the overseer to "lay it on well." Wesley Norris, one of the s***es who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.”
Lee’s cruelty as a s***emaster was not confined to... (show quote)



Please then explain why Robert E. Lee went through the laborious and expensive process of freeinghis s***es, each & every one of them.


Ta-Nehisi Coates is a r****t and an avaricious. self-serving liar.

Lee was a far better person than you ever thought of being.

And just for the record, there was a lot of agitation to try Jefferson Davis and Lee for capital treason after the War for Confederate Secession but federal lawyers recommended against it for fear that the position against secession would not withstand legal challenge.

In fact, rumitoid, Lincoln was the real t*****r to The Constitution because he waged war against an American state (remember, the Unionists never recognized secession), South Carolina, by blocking its port, Charleston.

Reply
Aug 20, 2018 10:04:35   #
crazylibertarian Loc: Florida by way of New York & Rhode Island
 
PJT wrote:
Wh**ever the t***h about Lee and s***ery, he was a t*****r.
His career was the United States Army as was his free education.
His loyalty to Virginia cost hundreds of thousands of lives when if he accepted Lincoln's
Offer to command the army would have shortened the war.
Had he led by example there is a good chance other ex-West Point officers would have stayed loyal to the Union. Thus the war would have been shortened.
He could have spoken up against s***ery, undermining the South's justification for secession and war.
I consider Lee an abominable t*****r.
Wh**ever the t***h about Lee and s***ery, he was a... (show quote)


It is very hard to compete with your ignorance of history.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 10 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main
OnePoliticalPlaza.com - Forum
Copyright 2012-2024 IDF International Technologies, Inc.