# Happy birthday Confederate General Robert Edward Lee



## cornbread (Jul 4, 2005)

Happy birthday Confederate General Robert Edward Lee

(January 19, 1807 – October 12, 1870)

A true American and Southern leader of men and Hero!!



Lee was anti slavery and never owned any at all.
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/biographies/robert-e-lee/

Beloved General of the South

For some the man Robert E. Lee is an almost god like figure. For others he is a paradox. Robert E. Lee was born on January 19, 1807 at Stratford, Virginia. Robert was the fourth child of a Revolutionary War hero Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee and Ann Hill Carter Lee. Young Robert, the son, was raised mostly by his mother. From her he learned patience, control, and discipline. As a young man he was exposed to Christianity and accepted its faith. In contrast to the strong example of his mother Robert saw his father go from failed enterprise to failed enterprise. In part the young Robert was led to try harder and succeed.

Robert was accepted to the United States Military Academy and graduated 2nd in his class. But perhaps greater than his academic success was his record of no demerits while being a cadet which today has still not been equaled. Following his graduation Lee, like most top classmen, was given a commission as an engineer. Lt. Lee helped build the St. Louis waterfront and worked on coastal forts in Brunswick and Savannah. It was during this time he married Mary Custis the granddaughter of George Washington and Martha Custis Washington.

In 1845 the War between U.S. and Mexico erupted. General Winfield Scott, overall U.S. Army commander, attached Captain Robert E. Lee to his staff. Lee was intrusted with the vital duties of mapping out the terrain ahead, dividing the line of advance for the U.S. troops, and in one case leading troops into battle. Lee was learning skills he would need 16 years later. There in Mexico Lee also met, worked with, and got a chance to evaluate many of those he would later serve with and against; James Longstreet, Thomas J. Jackson, George Pickett, and U.S. Grant.

Following the war Lee was almost tried as a traitor, but was only left with his civil rights suspended. Lee was offered the post of President of Washington University where he served until his death in 1870. The school was later renamed Washington and Lee. *As a final note President Gerald Ford had Lee's citizenship restored.*

Long article, but history buffs will like it.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-r...aved-the-union

https://www.thedailybeast.com/when-robert-e-lee-met-john-brown-and-saved-the-union


----------



## gettys1863 (Jan 24, 2013)

Happy Birthday Robert E. Lee


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

Great general, I just wish he had not ventured off into Pennsylvania.


----------



## ticndig (Sep 7, 2014)

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has endorsed a bill that would scrap Virginia's Lee-Jackson holiday celebrating two Confederate generals. 
he has really bent over backwards kissing butt since his college days photo came to light.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Robert E. Lee was a great general, but he personally owned slaves. 

"And what about Lee’s own slaves? He inherited 10 or 12 from his mother, but it is difficult to determine whether he freed any of them. Before the Mexican War he wrote a will that would have liberated one family; however, since he was not killed, those provisions never went into effect. There is no evidence of Lee’s slaves being emancipated—no courthouse records, no mention of it in his massive letter books. One of his sons later said that he had freed all his slaves before the war, but had taken no legal action so they would not have to move out of Virginia. That seems questionable, however. A freed African American really could not exist in Virginia without papers; the law would put him right back into slavery."

https://www.historynet.com/robert-e-lee-slavery.htm


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> That seems questionable, however.


It only "seems questionable" if you want to believe something different.
His son should know the truth.
Your source says they don't really know.



Irish Pixie said:


> "And what about Lee’s own slaves? He inherited 10 or 12 from his mother, but it is *difficult to determine* whether he freed any of them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It only "seems questionable" if you want to believe something different.
> His son should know the truth.
> Your source says they don't really know.


I suggest you read the entire link.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> I suggest you read the entire link.


It won't change the part I quoted.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Happy birthday general!


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

My grandfather was descendant of Robert E Lee. My mother was adopted so it doesn't translate to me. At least not that way. I have no idea my lineage on my mothers side. She never could get her records unsealed.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

He was a great general, and a great leader. And what difference would it make if he owned slaves? Most of the great men mentioned in the christian bible owned slaves. It was common practice, and legal at the time.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

A great man, great general. I have a portrait of him in my living room. A gentleman, always.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

The lives that both Lee and Grant saved and the reconciliation they started at Appomatax by overstepping their authority and ignoring standing orders will make both of them the most important men that salvaged a Republic at the brink. Any of their prior shortcomings or sins should be overlooked, imho, for what they did there and then when it mattered. Many people do the right thing at the wrong time or the wrong thing at the right time. It is spectacular to me, when under duress, people do the perfect thing at the perfect time despite the potential consequences to them being dire.


----------



## NRA_guy (Jun 9, 2015)

muleskinner2 said:


> He was a great general, and a great leader. And what difference would it make if he owned slaves? Most of the great men mentioned in the christian bible owned slaves. It was common practice, and legal at the time.


It seems to me that there is only a fine line between slavery and the lifestyle that many people live today.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

So many people have been duped into believing the Civil War was all about slavery.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Amen, Cornhusker!


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

What was the real reason for the Civil War?
What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America? A common explanation is that the *Civil War* was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.



  




www.pbs.org › opb › historydetectives › feature › causes-of-the-civil-war

*Causes Of The Civil War | History Detectives | PBS*


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

SRSLADE said:


> What was the real reason for the Civil War?
> What led to the outbreak of the bloodiest conflict in the history of North America? A common explanation is that the *Civil War* was fought over the moral issue of slavery. In fact, it was the economics of slavery and political control of that system that was central to the conflict.
> 
> View attachment 82784
> ...


And one of the states rights being argued was the right to own other human beings. 

It's pointless to argue this again, one of the main reasons for the Civil War was the right to own slaves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Irish Pixie said:


> It's pointless to argue this again


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Repeating it doesn't make it any different.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

The Civil War was about the taxation and fees applied to the southern states. The price the North was willing to pay for the cotton was pennies on the dollar to what the South was getting for it over seas. Slavery did not become an issue in the war until some time after it started. Lincoln was pro slavery and was told he could win support and man power if he was to free the slaves. Told they would come fight for the Union if freed. 90% of the slaves fought alongside their masters. A very small fraction of slave owners treated them poorly. Amazing how many people do not realize this and only go off what they have been brainwashed to believe through the school systems. 

Happy Birthday Sir. Mine is the day before yours


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

https://www.history.com/news/5-things-you-may-not-know-about-lincoln-slavery-and-emancipation

*"The Emancipation Proclamation didn’t actually free all of the slaves.*
Since Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation as a military measure, it didn’t apply to border slave states like Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri, all of which were loyal to the Union. (Missouri actually had two competing governments; one loyal to, and recognized by the Union, and one loyal to the Confederacy). 

Lincoln also exempted selected areas of the Confederacy that had already come under Union control in hopes of gaining the loyalty of whites in those states. In practice, then, the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t immediately free a single slave, as the only places it applied were places where the federal government had no control—the Southern states currently fighting against the Union."


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> Repeating it doesn't make it any different.


I think he was hoping you'd heed your own advice. I know I was.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

HDRider said:


> I think he was hoping you'd heed your own advice.


Bingo!!


----------



## nchobbyfarm (Apr 10, 2011)

I wish people who have been taught that the war was for slaves would seek out and read the diaries of the average Southern soldiers and see exactly why they fought. They just might be surprised. 

The powers that be in government (each side) had much different beliefs than the average citizens. The same as today.

If it was slavery, why did it take until September 1862 for Lincoln to issue the emancipation proclamation AND why did it only free slaves in the "states or parts of states" in rebellion. Why not those in the Northern states or the neutral border states? 

It was about trying to win a war and not about freeing slaves. Lincoln hoped the slaves would walk off the plantations and pull troops home to protect their families instead of fight.

Think about it....


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

nchobbyfarm said:


> I wish people who have been taught that the war was for slaves would seek out and read the diaries of the average Southern soldiers and see exactly why they fought. They just might be surprised.
> 
> The powers that be in government (each side) had much different beliefs than the average citizens. The same as today.
> 
> ...



_"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." _*Abraham Lincoln*


Don't bother as many already have the south "pegged" for what they believe it is. I still get flack online being from Texas about having slaves and/or being a bigot. A little simple logic would stop and make them think. The underground railroad had people in the south that literally risked their lives to help slaves escape. If they got caught they were hung or jailed.


----------



## keenataz (Feb 17, 2009)

muleskinner2 said:


> He was a great general, and a great leader. And what difference would it make if he owned slaves? Most of the great men mentioned in the christian bible owned slaves. It was common practice, and legal at the time.



Really. It made a world of difference to the slaves.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

keenataz said:


> Really. It made a world of difference to the slaves.


Just think how nice it would have been if they had all been left in Africa. Where they could of been killed and eaten by their neighbors.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

keenataz said:


> Really. It made a world of difference to the slaves.


Yeah, they could have been in Africa had their neighbors not sold them to begin with.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

Why does nobody remember or talk about the fact that the first and largest owner and seller of slaves was a black man. Very wealthy man and sold hundreds of slaves. But all anyone wants to talk about or yell about is the small percentage of white men that owned slaves and mistreated them. Less than 10% were like that. But nobody is taught or thinks about that. Just what the mainstream media want them to believe.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> Why does nobody remember or talk about the fact that the first and largest owner and seller of slaves was a black man. Very wealthy man and sold hundreds of slaves. But all anyone wants to talk about or yell about is the small percentage of white men that owned slaves and mistreated them. Less than 10% were like that. But nobody is taught or thinks about that. Just what the mainstream media want them to believe.


Sorry but neither was right even if you treated them well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but neither was right even if you treated them well.


PETA will tell you the same thing about your goats, cats, and dogs too.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I’ve lived and gone to school in the south and the north as a kid. It was interesting: how differently Lee is portrayed in school in each place. I can see why white Southerners revere him and why blacks are offended by the reverence shown to him. And I can understand why northerners don’t get it at all.
I have friends and family in the Deep South and I don’t think any of them who revere Lee long for a return to slavery. I think Lee is symbolic of a different time...the glory days of the old South. I'm not a Southerner of course, but that’s what it seems like to me as an outsider.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> And I can understand why northerners don’t get it at all.


Yet some of those in their high northern towers seem quite impressed with their confidence in knowing why those two kids were fighting at the bus stop yesterday; why it was obvious to anyone they agree with.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but neither was right even if you treated them well.


It is pathetic to judge the past by the present.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Lee was a man of honor and integrity. A man of faith. He agonized over leaving the U.S. Army and going with the State of Virginia. At the time, we said the United States ARE, since the war we say the United States IS. Difference being, at the time we were a confederation of independent states. He went with his home state. When asked to serve, he did. He didn't refer to the Union Army as the enemy, he referred to them as those people. He followed his heart and duty to Virginia. The result was losing everything. His home became a Union Cemetery. Still used for that purpose. It does no good to disparage him

Dallas recently removed a statue dedicated to him and renamed the park in which it was located. A disgraceful thing to do, IMO.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

HDRider said:


> It is pathetic to judge the past by the present.


Oh, I don't know. 
Many of these same google foos would agree that most every war we have fought overseas was for oil, yet they somehow don't believe that the troops all signed on expecting to own their own gas station.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Slavery was, at best, a minor issue in the war. For the rich, it was about taxes, for the not so rich, it was about old world rifts that had been brought to the new world. 

The major contributor to the Southern population was non-anglicized Celts from Scotland, Ireland, Wales, etc.. They tend to have immigrated in the 17th and 18th centuries. They were fiercely independent and skeptical of government. On the other hand, the Northern Population was largely made up of Puritan stock from the South of England and, later, anglicized Celts. They largely preferred strong central governments. When these two cultures clashed, war was inevitable.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

HDRider said:


> It is pathetic to judge the past by the present.


And there is the rude and insulting again.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> And there is the rude and insulting again.


Like for like, and always in kind


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

It is foolish to judge the past using standards of the present. If today's standards were those of the past, it would be reasonable.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but neither was right even if you treated them well.


How is this post rude or insulting? 

Your response was both. 



HDRider said:


> It is *pathetic* to judge the past by the present.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> How is this post rude or insulting?
> 
> Your response was both.


You would not understand if I have to explain

You either get it, or you don't, and you can't.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

if we are judging important figures of the past by today’s standards, it should be universal. MLK was a great man in some respects but if this is all true, and the tapes will be released in seven years to prove it one way or the other, how shall we judge him when we know this. 
The author of this article is an MLK biographer, very far to the left. 
https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/...acy-of-martin-luther-king/?mod=article_inline


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Lisa in WA said:


> if we are judging important figures of the past by today’s standards, it should be universal. MLK was a great man in some respects but if this is all true, and the tapes will be released in seven years to prove it one way or the other, how shall we judge him when we know this.
> The author of this article is an MLK biographer, very far to the left.
> https://standpointmag.co.uk/issues/...acy-of-martin-luther-king/?mod=article_inline


We judge him as a human, with strengths, and weaknesses. Just like us all


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

A bunch of crap. Slavery was never acceptable. Just because some people justified it to themselves does not mean that others knew it was not and would not partake.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

HDRider said:


> We judge him as a human, with strengths, and weaknesses. Just like us all


Hopefully. but we are all blinded by our own perspectives to a degree. 
Garrow couldn’t even get his findings published in the US because they were so explosive. 
I wonder how many people who dismiss these allegations out of hand or excuse them because of his greatness have not given the same leniency to say...Thomas Jefferson because of his relationship with a slave.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> A bunch of crap. Slavery was never acceptable. Just because some people justified it to themselves does not mean that others knew it was not and would not partake.


See @Irish Pixie 

Just like I explained, and I know you don't, can't, understand. 

To say something like this speaks volumes to a very narrow, and limited view of people, and history.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> See @Irish Pixie
> 
> Just like I explained, and I know you don't, can't, understand.
> 
> To say something like this speaks volumes to a very narrow, and limited view of people, and history.


I understand perfectly. It was never right to rape, It was never right to murder and it was never right to own slaves.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I understand perfectly. It was never right to rape, It was never right to murder and it was never right to own slaves.


You linked three things that have nothing in common, other than your narrow perspective on them.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> You linked three things that have nothing in common, other than your narrow perspective on them.


What would ever make it right to own a slave?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> What would ever make it right to own a slave?


When was it socially acceptable to rape, and build industry and civilization predicated on rape?

I even have to back track on that. In years past, men waged war, and subjugated their winnings by raping the pillaged.

You are the moral relativist. You explain it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> When was it socially acceptable to rape, and build industry and civilization predicated on rape?
> 
> I even have to back track on that. In years past, men waged war, and subjugated their winnings by raping the pillaged.
> 
> You are the moral relativist. You explain it.



First. What would ever make it right to own a slave?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> First. What would ever make it right to own a slave?


Use your distorted powers of right and wrong to seek the answer yourself.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Use your distorted powers of right and wrong to seek the answer yourself.


Resorting to personal attacks. Does that mean you can not provide an instance where owning a slave was right?


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> What would ever make it right to own a slave?


The fugitive slave act made owning slaves, for their protection, valid. Northern judges would get nothing if they deemed one not a slave, but, would get $10 if they ruled that they were. Free people of color were often forced into slavery because of some Northern judges greed. In such a culture, owning slaves, on paper and giving them autonomy in reality, was a valid way to protect them, and it happened.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> The fugitive slave act made owning slaves, for their protection, valid. Northern judges would get nothing if they deemed one not a slave, but, would get $10 if they ruled that they were. Free people of color were often forced into slavery because of some Northern judges greed. In such a culture, owning slaves, on paper and giving them autonomy in reality, was a valid way to protect them, and it happened.


How does valid equate with right? Claiming protection does not make the act of slavery right in the first place.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> How does valid equate with right? Claiming protection does not make the act of slavery right in the first place.


You asked what would make it right to own a slave. I would say when the alternative was being shanghaied and sold into plantation work, someone who choses to own, or, buy a slave in order to protect said person from such an outcome, would be doing the right thing.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Slavery and rape have never been right...according to the morality of our society.
However, morality is a social construct and changes with time and societal factors like increased scientific knowledge.


A hundred years from now, people might ask when killing and eating another living creature was okay to do.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

Sam Houston saw a slave boy being beaten and bought him. The boy became his personal servant. After the war and Houston's death the boy became a prosperous man. Later, when Houston's widow suffered financial difficulties, the former slave offered her financial assistance. Does that count?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> You asked what would make it right to own a slave. I would say when the alternative was being shanghaied and sold into plantation work, someone who choses to own, or, buy a slave in order to protect said person from such an outcome, would be doing the right thing.


Mitigation does not make the original act right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

whiterock said:


> Sam Houston saw a slave boy being beaten and bought him. The boy became his personal servant. After the war and Houston's death the boy became a prosperous man. Later, when Houston's widow suffered financial difficulties, the former slave offered her financial assistance. Does that count?


Again, mitigation does not make the original act right.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Resorting to personal attacks. Does that mean you can not provide an instance where owning a slave was right?


Is legal sometimes wrong morally?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> Is legal sometimes wrong morally?


Yes of course. I would say many here believe abortion is morally wrong but still legal as an example.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Yes of course. I would say many here believe abortion is morally wrong but still legal as an example.


There you go. You answered your question.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> There you go. You answered your question.


Nope. Not the same thing. Slavery is never right. There is nothing that can justify it. You can't even provide one instance that does.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

Have have never said or implied that slavery was right. Lets get that straight first and foremost. 

The problem I have is all the hate and mis informed people and public about the true history. This is not just about the Civil War or slavery. It goes even deeper than that. We, The USA, is a Contstituional Republic, NOT a Democracy!! I just really wish everyone would learn the truth and not just blindly follow what the media tells us.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Nope. Not the same thing. Slavery is never right. There is nothing that can justify it. You can't even provide one instance that does.


See. I told you you could not grasp it.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> See. I told you you could not grasp it.


You still can't provide an example. Nothing provided by you to grasp. The simple truth of it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Sorry but neither was right even if you treated them well.


Lots of things aren't "right".
People do them anyway.
Being a liar isn't "right".


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> You still can't provide an example. Nothing provided by you to grasp. The simple truth of it.


If something is legal, it is "right" in the eyes of the law.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Nope. Not the same thing. Slavery is never right. There is nothing that can justify it. You can't even provide one instance that does.


By today’s standards. 
If we find out in ten years that an embryo is sentient or we have the means to bring one to term outside a woman’s body than today’s abortion may well be wrong to everyone. 
(And yes, I know it’s already wrong to many).

There was an instance a year or so ago of a young man who went as a missionary to a third world society and was murdered by them. Shall we hold them to our morals and laws and punish the murderers?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> By today’s standards.
> If we find out in ten years that an embryo is sentient or we have the means to bring one to term outside a woman’s body than today’s abortion may well be wrong to everyone.
> (And yes, I know it’s already wrong to many).
> 
> There was an instance a year or so ago of a young man who went as a missionary to a third world society and was murdered by them. Shall we hold them to our morals and laws and punish the murderers?


When did human kind not know it was wrong to own slaves?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> When did human kind not know it was wrong to own slaves?


Biblical times, for one.
A couple of hundred years ago, for another. Some people thought it was fine and dandy, in many countries. As society changed, so did the morals.
Obviously, the people who were in slavery didn’t appreciate it, but that didn’t necessarily stop THEM from owning slaves.

now you answer my question.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Biblical times, for one.
> A couple of hundred years ago, for another. Some people thought it was fine and dandy, in many countries. As society changed, so did the morals.
> Obviously, the people who were in slavery didn’t appreciate it, but that didn’t necessarily stop THEM from owning slaves.
> 
> now you answer my question.


How did that make it right to own another person? Are you saying that people did not know it wasn't right to own someone else?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Bearfootfarm said:


> When did they not know it's wrong to lie?


Among other things.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> How did that make it right to own another person?


If you don’t understand the argument, it’s okay to bow out now.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Nope. Not the same thing. Slavery is *never right*. There is *nothing that can justify it*. You can't even provide one instance that does.


Many say the same about abortion.
What does that have to do with Lee's birthday?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> If you don’t understand the argument, it’s okay to bow out now.


Insults don't help you make your point.

Are you saying that humans in biblical times did not know it was not right to own other humans?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Insults don't help you make your point.
> 
> Are you saying that humans in biblical times did not know it was not right to own other humans?


In the course of history was it legal for one man to own another man?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> In the course of history was it legal for one man to own another man?


I have already stated that legal does not equate with right.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Insults don't help you make your point.
> 
> Are you saying that humans in biblical times did not know it was not right to own other humans?


It wasn’t at all an insult. You aren’t getting what I’m saying, you can’t seem to understand that one time and one society’s morality is not the same as another’s and you don’t bother to answer my question though I took the time to answer yours. 

It’s pointless to get angry and repeat the same things over and over.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Insults don't help you make your point.
> 
> Are you saying that humans in biblical times did not know it was not right to own other humans?


What insult?
You just keep saying the same thing over and over.



painterswife said:


> *I have already stated* that legal does not equate with right.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> It wasn’t at all an insult. You aren’t getting what I’m saying and you don’t bother to answer my question though I took the time to answer yours.
> It’s pointless to get angry and repeat the same things over and over.


You have not yet provided an instance in history where humans did not know that it is not right to own slaves.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I have already stated that legal does not equate with right.


It is "right" in a legal sense. Just like abortion is "right" in a legal sense.

Both are wrong in a moral sense. Related to abortion, you have the present day mind of a slave owner of the past. You can't see how something can be legal, and wrong at the same time. He saw it morally OK to own a slave. You see it morally OK to abort a fetus.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> You have not yet provided an instance in history where humans did not know that it is not right to own slaves.


I have. The Egyptians, Vikings and Romans and African tribes who owned slaves thought it was absolutely moral to do so. So did the rest of the world at that time.

Islamic fundamentalists think it’s perfectly moral and right to kill infidels even now.

Are you able to see that what’s right and what’s wrong changes with time, society, religion, etc?

What is “right” now in the US in 2020 hasn’t always been what is right. Nor will it continue to be forever.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

Painterswife. I am not attacking or insulting with this. I am however have a question for you. You seem to be stuck or hung up on one thing. You keep stating over and over "How is it right to own another person?" From all of my reading on here and have yet to see anyone say it was ok to own another. Some have said why some did it, to protect the person, ect. They have never said it was ok. Why are you so set on this statement? Please help me understand this. Nobody wants to own someone else. The goverment does however seem to want to own and control the population but that is a whole nother thread for another time. As things stand now. All that has been said is that the Civil War was not started over slavery. It was about the states right to succeed from the union. Please help us understand why you keep stating what you do rather than just saying it over and over.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> I have. The Egyptians, Vikings and Romans and African tribes who owned slaves thought it was absolutely moral to do so. So did the rest of the world at that time.


How does owning them make it right. You and others are using the word moral. Not a word I used with respect to slaves. I used the word right. Please provide proof that those people believed it was right to own slaves.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> How does owning them make it right. You and others are using the word moral. Not a word I used with respect to slaves. I used the word right. Please provide proof that those people believed it was right to own slaves.


What do you think “right” is? It’s based on morals.
This is clearly not something you are understanding so I’ll let you discuss with the others.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> Painterswife. I am not attacking or insulting with this. I am however have a question for you. You seem to be stuck or hung up on one thing. You keep stating over and over "How is it right to own another person?" From all of my reading on here and have yet to see anyone say it was ok to own another. Some have said why some did it, to protect the person, ect. They have never said it was ok. Why are you so set on this statement? Please help me understand this. Nobody wants to own someone else. The goverment does however seem to want to own and control the population but that is a whole nother thread for another time. As things stand now. All that has been said is that the Civil War was not started over slavery. It was about the states right to succeed from the union. Please help us understand why you keep stating what you do rather than just saying it over and over.


I made my statement and as you can see several are telling me that I was wrong. The rest of the discussion is beyond what you were discussing and I have no beef with you.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> What do you think “right” is? It’s based on morals.
> This is clearly not something you are understanding so I’ll let you discuss with the others.


I see no proof of any society that belived it was right to own slaves. I see upper classes that justified it for their social and monetary status. You have not provided any proof though that the entire society thought it was right.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> I see no proof of any society that belived it was right to own slaves. I see upper classes that justified it for their social and monetary status. You have not provided any proof though that the entire society thought it was right.


Okey doke. 
I’m going to let you have the last word again, as it appears you’re upset and not trying to or can’t understand, and I know it’s important to you. So you’re up.
Have a good rest of your day.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Lisa in WA said:


> Okey doke.
> I’m going to let you have the last word again, as it appears you’re upset and not trying to or can’t understand, and I know it’s important to you. So you’re up.
> Have a good rest of your day.


All you have to do is provide evidence of your position. If you can't then I guess you will have to walk away from this.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> How does owning them make it right. You and others are using the word moral. Not a word I used with respect to slaves. I used the word right. Please provide proof that those people believed it was right to own slaves.


Moral and right are synonymous. Maybe that is why you are struggling, you don't know what the words mean.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I made my statement and as you can see several are telling me that I was wrong. The rest of the discussion is beyond what you were discussing and I have no beef with you.


I would say this. Stop and take a deep breath please. Like I said you seem to be stuck on one small point. Right Wrong Moral unmoral whatever you want to call it. It is all the same thing You keep saying the same thing over and over. You have asked for examples and they have been provided to the best of the person ability. You and others may not agree with the reason the Vikings or the folks in midevil times used to justify why the owned others. That is your right to do so. 

This thread was started to wish happy Birthday to a man from history. Like him or not he helped form the land we live in now. Learn from history and move forward or be doomed to repeat it. If you do not agree with or can not seem to find a way to explain your view without just saying the same thing over and over then maybe just move on to another thread. I would say most on here would love to have an in depth conversation about this part of our history. We could all learn a lot from eachother. From personal views and life mounts to religious views and beliefs. But we need to be willing to listen and also need to be able to explain what it is we are saying. Not just the same thing over and over. Please dont take offense but it is a lot like the kid in the backseat asking why to everything. I hope you understand and we can move forward with this thing called life. Its hard enough without fighting everyone along the way.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

Before I begin let me say that I find the idea of slavery--of any kind--to be abhorrent. So please do not think that I am in any way, shape, or form advocating slavery. I'm just expressing my view point.

I don't believe there is any race of people who didn't own slaves at some point in their history. The difference between slavery in ages past is that slaves were a spoil of war, it wasn't until the 1800's that they became a commodity. At this time, in today's society we can all pretty much agree that slavery is wrong and that no one has the right to own another human being. And I think we'd all love to say that if we were living in that time, we would have done something to end slavery. 

The fact of the matter is that if you lived in a society or during time when slavery was accepted and encouraged, chances are you would view it differently. We'd love to say 'No, not me.' but in all honesty you can't because 200 years ago, you would have lived in a completely different society with a completely different set of morals and a different scale of what is right and wrong. 

Imagine how many things in today's society will be looked back upon in 200 years and have people shaking their heads in wonder on how we could ever have considered it as 'normal'. 

We can argue who's at fault for slavery, or if someone should be wiped from our history books and landmarks for owning slaves, the real reason behind the civil war, even who owned slaves and who didn't or... we can learn from our history and do something about eradicating slavery in today's society which is an all too true and frightening thing. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gleepish said:


> Before I begin let me say that I find the idea of slavery--of any kind--to be abhorrent. So please do not think that I am in any way, shape, or form advocating slavery. I'm just expressing my view point.
> 
> I don't believe there is any race of people who didn't own slaves at some point in their history. The difference between slavery in ages past is that slaves were a spoil of war, it wasn't until the 1800's that they became a commodity. At this time, in today's society we can all pretty much agree that slavery is wrong and that no one has the right to own another human being. And I think we'd all love to say that if we were living in that time, we would have done something to end slavery.
> 
> ...


I am not making a point about justification or history. I stated my opinion that slavery was never right no matter what excuses are used. That is all. I never tied it to the original post either or person. Just that slavery is and was never right. I did not even blame slave owners.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I am not making a point about justification or history. I stated my opinion that slavery was never right no matter what excuses are used. That is all. I never tied it to the original post either or person. Just that slavery is and was never right. I did not even blame slave owners.


We accept your concession


----------



## montysky (Aug 21, 2006)

Happy Birthday General Lee, a great General and a great Man


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

HDRider said:


> We accept your concession


There is no concession. Slavery was never right no matter what justifications were used to claim it was moral by people that were above those they abused in socio economic status.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> First. What would ever make it right to own a slave?


Ok, say your tribe had just won the battle, and you had fifty prisoners. The option is to kill them or make them slaves. If you were one of the prisoners which would you choose? Death or the chance to escape at some point and start over? Many of the most powerful and wealthy people in the ancient world were slaves at some point. Good or bad, right or wrong had nothing to do with it. It's just how things were, and you had to deal with it. 

Every culture in the history of humans have kept slaves. Every tribe in Africa had slaves. Every tribe in ancient China had slaves. Every tribe of native Americans had slaves. And if the white man hadn't come along and interfered with their culture they would all still be keeping slaves.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> There is no concession. Slavery was never right no matter what justifications were used to claim it was moral by people that were above those they abused in socio economic status.


OK, OK, we can call it an apology if you like.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

muleskinner2 said:


> Ok, say your tribe had just won the battle, and you had fifty prisoners. The option is to kill them or make them slaves. If you were one of the prisoners which would you choose? Death or the chance to escape at some point and start over? Many of the most powerful and wealthy people in the ancient world were slaves at some point. Good or bad, right or wrong had nothing to do with it. It's just how things were, and you had to deal with it.
> 
> Every culture in the history of humans have kept slaves. Every tribe in Africa had slaves. Every tribe in ancient China had slaves. Every tribe of native Americans had slaves. And if the white man hadn't come along and interfered with their culture they would all still be keeping slaves.


Did you give them a choice to leave instead of death or slavery? If not you exerted force and it was wrong.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Mitigation does not make the original act right.


But, that is not what you asked.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I am not making a point about justification or history. I stated my opinion that slavery was never right no matter what excuses are used. That is all. I never tied it to the original post either or person. Just that slavery is and was never right. I did not even blame slave owners.


Ok, I never said you did any of those things. I will agree that you said that slavery is/was never right. Also, my post wasn't directed at you, I was just jumping in to comment. Let me clarify, my point was simply this (I just got a little long winded with it):

If someone lived in a society where it was socially acceptable and even encouraged to own slaves then their views on morality and right or wrong about owning slaves would probably be different than what our current views on the subject are.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gleepish said:


> Ok, I never said you did any of those things. I will agree that you said that slavery is/was never right. Also, my post wasn't directed at you, I was just jumping in to comment. Let me clarify, my point was simply this (I just got a little long winded with it):
> 
> If someone lived in a society where it was socially acceptable and even encouraged to own slaves then their views on morality and right or wrong about owning slaves would probably be different than what our current views on the subject are.


I understand that. It, however, is based on social economics. The act of being able to force someone into slavery does not mean that all of the society is okay with it. Only the people that can exert that force and benefit from it. The slave is part of that society and not okay with it.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I understand that. It, however, is based on social economics. The act of being able to force someone into slavery does not mean that all of the society is okay with it. Only the people that can exert that force and benefit from it. The slave is part of that society and not okay with it.


If we take your statment as stated then we if not all are currently slaves to the goverment. They have exerted force over the population for their gain.


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> Did you give them a choice to leave instead of death or slavery? If not you exerted force and it was wrong.


First of all I have never been in that position, so I didn't "exert" anything. My question, if I cared enough to ask one would be, wrong by who's standard. Today we might call it wrong, back then it might have been the most practical thing to do. I personally don't believe in a god, or santa claus, or the easter bunny, or any other mythical being who decides what is right or wrong. "I" think it is "wrong" to "kill" unborn babies, yet it is "legal" in most first world countries. So, is it right?

Society forms norms based upon what is practical at the time. These norms change over time, usually because a new group takes over through force, or over time with religion. Neither way is any more "right" than the other. It's just the way it happened to turn out.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> If we take your statment as stated then we if not all are currently slaves to the goverment. They have exerted force over the population for their gain.


We sure could be.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I understand that. It, however, is based on social economics. The act of being able to force someone into slavery does not mean that all of the society is okay with it. Only the people that can exert that force and benefit from it. The slave is part of that society and not okay with it.


I'm sure that most slaves were not okay with it, no matter how they got there. But your rigid stance of 'It's not right' is forcing today's standards onto events that happened in the past. Is slavery wrong today? Yes. Was slavery wrong then, yes. But not because they didn't know right from wrong--their standards for right and wrong were different from ours--it's wrong by today's standards. I hope that if I was alive 200 years ago, I would have found it wrong then as well but there is no way to know that.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> We sure could be.


I personally do not want to and will not be slave to the "King" or goverment!! I would hope that everyone else would feel the same way and that the overreach is too much


----------



## muleskinner2 (Oct 7, 2007)

painterswife said:


> The slave is part of that society and not okay with it.


In every society that had slaves, the slaves may not of liked it. But given the chance they would of enslaved their masters and society would of gone on as normal. It would of never entered their minds, that it was wrong.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gleepish said:


> I'm sure that most slaves were not okay with it, no matter how they got there. *But your rigid stance of 'It's not right' is forcing today's standards onto events that happened in the past*. Is slavery wrong today? Yes. Was slavery wrong then, yes. But not because they didn't know right from wrong--their standards for right and wrong were different from ours--it's wrong by today's standards. I hope that if I was alive 200 years ago, I would have found it wrong then as well but there is no way to know that.


No, I don't believe that to be the truth. Something is either right or wrong in anyone's opinion. That is all I said. I don't discount, the times, justifications or circumstances. I could steal a loaf of bread tomorrow and it would be wrong. I could justify it because I was starving but that would not make it any less wrong.

I think that many here are trying to take my stance on slavery and think I am saying Lee was a bad person. Not the case. I did not even discuss him. I also don't equate doing something wrong with being a bad person. I accept that many people owned slaves and did no real bad but they were still wrong to own slaves.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> I did not even discuss him.


He's the topic.

*



Happy birthday Confederate General Robert Edward Lee

Click to expand...

*


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Until he wasn't


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> No, I don't believe that to be the truth. Something is either right or wrong in anyone's opinion. That is all I said. I don't discount, the times, justifications or circumstances. I could steal a loaf of bread tomorrow and it would be wrong. I could justify it because I was starving but that would not make it any less wrong.
> 
> I think that many here are trying to take my stance on slavery and think I am saying Lee was a bad person. Not the case. I did not even discuss him. I also don't equate doing something wrong with being a bad person. I accept that many people owned slaves and did no real bad but they were still wrong to own slaves.


No, *I* don't think that you are saying Lee was a bad person, or wrong equals bad, what I was trying to say is that I think applying today's standards of right and wrong to historical events is a flaw in your logic.



painterswife said:


> A bunch of crap. *Slavery was never acceptable.* Just because some people justified it to themselves does not mean that others knew it was not and would not partake.


All I've done is repeat


gleepish said:


> ...if you lived in a society or during time when slavery was accepted and encouraged, chances are you would view it differently....





gleepish said:


> ...If someone lived in a society where it was socially acceptable and even encouraged to own slaves then their views on morality and right or wrong about owning slaves would probably be different than what our current views on the subject are....


I will agree with you that not every member of society agreed with slavery or found it acceptable. (I don't think there has ever been an issue that society was 100% in agreement with.) My original and subsequent posts had nothing to do with you, or I being wrong in our conclusion that slavery is bad, it had to do with what I saw as a flaw in your logic that it was never acceptable.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gleepish said:


> No, *I* don't think that you are saying Lee was a bad person, or wrong equals bad, what I was trying to say is that I think applying today's standards of right and wrong to historical events is a flaw in your logic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I stated my opinion that it was always wrong. I stand by that. Many people from those times would stand by that. 

Why is my stating that a logical flaw?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

I will ask this.

Would you believe that it was ever right to rape someone even if it was a cultural norm and the society had been taught that is was all right to rape?


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I stated my opinion that it was always wrong. I stand by that. Many people from those times would stand by that.
> 
> Why is my stating that a logical flaw?


The statement is flawed. To say that slavery was never acceptable is wrong. History has shown us it was accepted. I was pointing out a possible option as to why it was accepted. If slavery had never been an accepted practice, there never would have been slaves. Obviously since there were laws written to incorporate the definition of slaves and include what their rights were and were not... then at some point, slavery was accepted. 

Now, if you had said that by today's standards, slavery was not (or is not) acceptable, then we'd be in agreement.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

gleepish said:


> The statement is flawed. To say that slavery was never acceptable is wrong. History has shown us it was accepted. I was pointing out a possible option as to why it was accepted. If slavery had never been an accepted practice, there never would have been slaves. Obviously since there were laws written to incorporate the definition of slaves and include what their rights were and were not... then at some point, slavery was accepted.
> 
> Now, if you had said that by today's standards, slavery was not (or is not) acceptable, then we'd be in agreement.


It was accepted by those that had the power to do it. It was not acceptable to all. It was never right. Sorry but That is my opinion and I stand by it.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> It was accepted by those that had the power to do it. It was not acceptable to all...


And I agree with that statement... 

I always enjoy a good debate! Enjoy the rest of your day!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Would you believe that it was ever right to *rape* someone even if it was a cultural norm and the society had been taught that is was all right to *rape*?


What does that have to do with *Lee's birthday*?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> It was *not acceptable* to all. It was *never right*.


Is it "acceptable" to lie just to get what you want?
Was it ever "right"?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

I agree with painterswife, slavery was never acceptable to an entire society, only those that had the power and influence to enforce it. The slaves did not acknowledge it's acceptability.


----------



## barnbilder (Jul 1, 2005)

People all acting like slavery doesn't still exist. As if any law or war will ever end it. What naive creatures.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

barnbilder said:


> People all acting like slavery doesn't still exist. As if any law or war will ever end it. What naive creatures.


What people are acting that way?


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

barnbilder said:


> People all acting like slavery doesn't still exist. As if any law or war will ever end it. What naive creatures.


I actually reference slavery today in an earlier post, (Edit: 'slavery today' meaning as in contemporary or modern slavery) I don't think anyone was acting like it doesn't exist, it's just that contemporary or modern day slavery, wasn't the topic--then again, Slavery in general wasn't the topic to begin with so....


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

Irish Pixie said:


> Slavery was in the original post:


seriously... My apologies. I took that as an editorial addition to the reference to the article, not the meaning behind the article.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with painterswife, slavery was never acceptable to an entire society, only those that had the power and influence to enforce it. The slaves did not acknowledge it's acceptability.



Are you referring to this country or anywhere anytime? Taking the fact that slaves were not part of the society they were under I would have to disagree. That being said I am in no way endorsing slavery or defending it in any way. Just looking at the history of many places and times throughout history.


----------



## siberian (Aug 23, 2011)

Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with painterswife, slavery was never acceptable to an entire society, only those that had the power and influence to enforce it. The slaves did not acknowledge it's acceptability.



Are you referring to this country or anywhere anytime? Taking the fact that slaves were not part of the society they were under I would have to disagree. That being said I am in no way endorsing slavery or defending it in any way. Just looking at the history of many places and times throughout history.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

54metalman said:


> Why does nobody remember or talk about the fact that the first and largest owner and seller of slaves was a black man. Very wealthy man and sold hundreds of slaves. But all anyone wants to talk about or yell about is the small percentage of white men that owned slaves and mistreated them. Less than 10% were like that. But nobody is taught or thinks about that. Just what the mainstream media want them to believe.


Not many people period owned slaves. Most couldn't afford it. Those that did own slaves generally owned a large number. Not like some would have you believe that most everyone owned slaves.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Truth is an unwelcome commodity. Misrepresented history is a very useful commodity.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Many folks who came to America were self sold slaves as condition of often prison term length indentured servitude willing accepted their status much as we modern day slaves accept our workplace master as we labor for our pay to exist and provide for ourselves and our own until the end of the next pay period instead of living in slave quarters or company town housing.

Slavery in one form or another has existed for time eternal and will continue in ways acceptable to future eras as long as Mankind exists.

As this thread was initially of remembering General Robert E. Lee's birth and history, I have found that few now realize that after surrendering the Confederate forces and his sabre to General Grant at Appomattox Courthouse , his sabre was returned to him by Grant and Lee returned to limited service to the Union despite not having his repatriation approved before his death and his lost in the archives repatriation was finalized by Gerald Ford in 1975 , returning Robert E. Lee's U.S. citizenship a century after the War Between the States had ended.

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/lee-after-the-war/


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Shrek said:


> Many folks who came to America were self sold slaves as condition of often prison term length indentured servitude willing accepted their status much as we modern day slaves accept our workplace master as we labor for our pay to exist and provide for ourselves and our own until the end of the next pay period instead of living in slave quarters or company town housing.
> 
> Slavery in one form or another has existed for time eternal and will continue in ways acceptable to future eras as long as Mankind exists.
> 
> ...


And the pardon (not Pardon) and safe passage granted by Grant was so far beyond his authority saved so many lives. The surrender by Lee of just his Army was not authorized or expected to be respected by Confederate Armies not under his command was respected ended so much carnage by real war criminals like Sherman is so whitewashed and even worse praised by the 'greater good' fiction just sets up the next crusade.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

painterswife said:


> When did human kind not know it was wrong to own slaves?


Many still find slavery perfectly acceptable. Our own "civilized" first world country practiced slavery up until the mid 1970s.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> I will ask this.
> 
> Would you believe that it was ever right to rape someone even if it was a cultural norm and the society had been taught that is was all right to rape?


Do I think it's wrong? Absolutely. Do I think Viking men thought it was wrong? Absolutely not. 

Again, different times, different culture and I don't think that there are many of that society and their values left today. We can't rewrite history and while we don't have to sanction the actions of other societies from the past, all the ranting in the world won't change what has already happened.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

In continuance of the gentlemen's birthday, a few of his thoughts-

_"So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained."_
_
"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country."

"True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another, and the motive which impels them—the desire to do right—is precisely the same"._


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

mreynolds said:


> Not many people period owned slaves. Most couldn't afford it. Those that did own slaves generally owned a large number. Not like some would have you believe that most everyone owned slaves.


So very true. I saw a figure once that less than 30% of the nation owned slaves and less than 20% of those in the south owned slaves. How true that is I am not sure but I bet it was fairly close. A lot of people say that if a house servant was of color and lived on the property then they are a slave. Not always true. They recieved room and board and a small wage for their work. This does not make them a slave as we know. But they tend to be lumped into that term. Many non slave servants would be included or passed down in last wills to surviving family memebers. Granting them continued employment and housing. 

I just wish history was remembered and told the truth. Not the way it is to fit what ever way they want us to know or think.


----------



## gleepish (Mar 10, 2003)

I got curious so I went to go find information and I found basically this same information in several places so I just stuck with this one:

"State-by-state figures show some variation. In Mississippi, 49 percent of families owned slaves, and in South Carolina, 46 percent did. In border states, the percentage was lower -- 3 percent in Delaware and 12 percent in Maryland. The median for slaveholding states was about 27 percent."

Taken from this website that is debunking a viral meme on slavery: https://www.politifact.com/punditfa...viral-post-gets-it-wrong-extent-slavery-1860/ 

but similar information can also be found here:
https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
and here: 
https://www.theroot.com/slavery-by-the-numbers-1790874492


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

54metalman said:


> I just wish history was remembered and told the truth. Not the way it is to fit whatever way they want us to know or think.


In this nation's era and culture slavery is wrong. In some places of the world over long periods of time, not only has it been deemed right and proper but pursued.
It suits some to throw a blanket of their truth over a period in time and say that any less than their narrative, or any opposing viewpoints makes right to label and shame.
Most of those types of statements are made from ignorance or a desire to reshape the past so as to herd modern day thought.
Lee recognized that war is ugly and vile.
Sherman's actions were monstrous and quite provable as war crimes against women and children.

One only needs read history as it was, rather than as they presume to understand the truth.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Not many people period owned slaves. Most couldn't afford it. Those that did own slaves generally owned a large number. Not like some would have you believe that most everyone owned slaves.


I thought it was interesting that on a show about celebrity genealogy, Ben Affleck tried to cover up that his ancestor had owned slaves. As if it somehow impacted him as a human being.


----------



## whiterock (Mar 26, 2003)

I know some of my ex wife's family had slaves as I have seen papers from those days. Don't know any of my family had slaves, most had enough trouble feeding and clothing the family.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

whiterock said:


> I know some of my ex wife's family had slaves as I have seen papers from those days. Don't know any of my family had slaves, most had enough trouble feeding and clothing the family.


My husband’s family did. It appears they came from Switzerland to SC in the 1700’s and got a slave. Later generations had more. The family story is that they were well treated. (But of course that would be the family story).
I do know that my husbands grandmothers father still had “family” blacks that had cared for him as a child that had been slaves and they lived with them till they died. His grandmother told me the story of when “Aunt Duck” 
“wore her out” for letting the cat out of the bag about Aunt Duck’s age. Her grandfather was loved for having started the first black school in the area. Or the first school that allowed blacks...not sure.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

My moms family is from the Idaho, Montana area. They had a "slave" that was of color and worked for them. He is one that he and his family including children were willed to a son. This was to keep them in housing and food and employment. They were classified as a slave but were not "owned" like many think.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Lisa in WA said:


> I thought it was interesting that on a show about celebrity genealogy, Ben Affleck tried to cover up that his ancestor had owned slaves. As if it somehow impacted him as a human being.


Being from Texas, I understand why he would want to. If I could I would tell him to just be himself and to heck with everyone else. He cant change their mind. Those SJWs have a bingo card too and guys like us win all the time.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

mreynolds said:


> Being from Texas, I understand why he would want to. If I could I would tell him to just be himself and to heck with everyone else. He cant change their mind. Those SJWs have a bingo card too and guys like us win all the time.


If they think any of us are responsible for anything another person has done then heck ‘em. Who cares what they think? I’m sure everyone has someone in their metaphorical woodpile that they wouldn’t be proud of if they knew about it.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Lisa in WA said:


> I’m sure everyone has someone in their woodpile that they wouldn’t be proud of if they knew about it.


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

I had an old racist in mine.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

SRSLADE said:


> I had an old racist in mine.


I think we all did.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

I descend from slaves and slave owners. I have forefathers who wore the blue and the gray. Jews, Gentiles, Black, brown, and lily white folks round out my family tree. I am not embarrassed by any of them.


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

painterswife said:


> It was accepted by those that had the power to do it. It was not acceptable to all. It was never right. Sorry but That is my opinion and I stand by it.





Irish Pixie said:


> I agree with painterswife, slavery was never acceptable to an entire society, only those that had the power and influence to enforce it. The slaves did not acknowledge it's acceptability.


The Native Americans accepted it, by their tribal laws it was legal and by their social standards was acceptable.It was even acceptable to those who were captured.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Accepting because other force you into and even make it tribal law does not make it right. Nor does it mean that the slaves found it acceptable. Making the best of your situation does not mean you believe something is right.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

painterswife said:


> Accepting because other force you into and even make it tribal law does not make it right. Nor does it mean that the slaves found it acceptable. Making the best of your situation does not mean you believe something is right.


how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?


----------



## D-BOONE (Feb 9, 2016)

painterswife said:


> Accepting because other force you into and even make it tribal law does not make it right. Nor does it mean that the slaves found it acceptable. Making the best of your situation does not mean you believe something is right.


You are trying to project your morels on to another society which will never work ,What they accepted as fact you wouldnt and yes even the slaves felt "to the victor go the spoils". But if it makes your morels feel any better most only spent a couple of years as a slave and were then married into the tribe as yet another way to introduce new blood and cut back on inbreeding.Couple years gave them time to learn the new language and customs.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

painterswife said:


> Accepting because other force you into and even make it tribal law does not make it right. Nor does it mean that the slaves found it acceptable. Making the best of your situation does not mean you believe something is right.


Arguing that that historical events were right or wrong, really doesn't change the fact that it happened. 

I commend you for steadfastly insisting that owning slaves is morally wrong and I haven't seen anyone disagree. There is nothing we can do to change so you can debated until the cows come home that it's wrong but we can't undo what was already done.


----------



## Hiro (Feb 14, 2016)

Lisa in WA said:


> how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

painterswife said:


> Making the best of your situation does not mean *you believe something is right*.


Does doing something repeatedly and on purpose indicate you believe it's "right"?


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

wr said:


> Arguing that that historical events were right or wrong, really doesn't change the fact that it happened.
> 
> I commend you for steadfastly insisting that owning slaves is morally wrong and I haven't seen anyone disagree. There is nothing we can do to change so you can debated until the cows come home that it's wrong but we can't undo what was already done.


I am not trying to change history. I however will not agree that just because the people who had power and will could write laws that made something legal or applied force to make it happen that it was right. Many wrong things have been stopped when the society has a whole finally had the will and the might to stop it. The act is always wrong. The power and will to stop it has to be gathered to write that wrong.

It is the history of the human condition.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Qualifying past eras by standards of the current era is no different than holding up an apple and calling it an orange. It does not change the apple or change the history.

As eras changed and means of maximizing individual labor manpower developed, slave labor manpower began disappearing from the majority of the world as each era developed manufacturing and agricultural machinery so one operator could do the labor of many.

In the current era, the main slavery factor is human trafficking primarily for the illegal sex and drug society sectors and the authorities do their best to identify and dismantle the elements of those sectors.

Accept the fact that past eras had facets not fitting the current era as history to learn from.

A black friend I grew up with was never obsessed with the slavery aspects of past eras and felt blaming others of this era for events of the past and wanting reparations made no sense as none of us lived then and we all went to college and when we graduated high school he was our 4.0 GPA valedictorian.

In our era he pointed out that regardless of race or religion we all had similar opportunities. While my goal was to make my mark in my industry sector and retire early, his was to make his mark and transition from employee to owning his own business and we both achieved our goals as did the majority of our classmates.

So all of us can do is accept that slavery in this nation is part of it's history and as we now combat human trafficking, this era has learned from past eras, so let's give the apples/oranges vitriol a rest and accept the historical fact that 213 years ago this past Sunday , Robert E. Lee was born.

He grew up in his era , made his mark in history as he made his decisions based on the events and conditions that transpired within his era as historians documented the events that some in this era try to rewrite or erase instead of using it as historical reference.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

Yes, slavery is part of history and exists now and will in the future. I, however, don't have to accept that people in the past did not know it was wrong even if they found ways to make it acceptable or palatable. If people had the brainpower to make laws about it, they had the brainpower to know it was wrong.

They sure knew it was wrong in the times of Lee.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

painterswife said:


> Yes, slavery is part of history and exists now and will in the future. I, however, don't have to accept that people in the past did not know it was wrong even if they found ways to make it acceptable or palatable. If people had the brainpower to make laws about it, they had the brainpower to know it was wrong.
> 
> They sure knew it was wrong in the times of Lee.


There is something going on now that has many parallels to the black mark of slavery. About half believe it is wrong to subject humans to this act and about half call it a right. What will those numbers be in 150 years?


----------



## Miss Kay (Mar 31, 2012)

And what would that act be?


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> There is something going on now that has many parallels to the black mark of slavery. About half believe it is wrong to subject humans to this act and about half call it a right. What will those numbers be in 150 years?


I would like to know who is the half that considers it a right.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SRSLADE said:


> I would like to know who is the half that considers it a right.


Ask Planned parenthood.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I am not trying to change history. I however will not agree that *just because the people who had power and will could write laws that made something legal or applied force to make it happen that it was right*. Many wrong things have been stopped when the society has a whole finally had the will and the might to stop it. *The act is always wrong. *The power and will to stop it has to be gathered to write that wrong.
> 
> It is the history of the human condition.


*Hence the abortion debate*


----------



## SLADE (Feb 20, 2004)

Farmerga said:


> Ask Planned parenthood.


AHHHHHHHH 
I don't know where you get your half and half from.


----------



## GTX63 (Dec 13, 2016)

The form of slavery that kills more blacks in New York City than are born alive each year.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

Painterswife.... I am asking again because I am either lost or missing something. No one has said you are wrong or not right. Nobody has said that slavery was good or right in todays times. Yet you are still stuck on "yelling" that its not right. You keep stating it over and over. Why? We all agree with you. We all agree thats its not right by todays standards. We all agree it was wrong then and now but can do nothing about the past but learn from it and do our part to not let it happen again. Why do you still feel the need to "force" your belief on others? We got it. We hear you. We understand. We agree. Why? Please help me understand and explain it to me and others without just saying the same thing again and again. I am not poking or meaning any disrespect in any way. Just cant seem to understand why.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

And you never will


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> Painterswife.... I am asking again because I am either lost or missing something. No one has said you are wrong or not right. Nobody has said that slavery was good or right in todays times. Yet you are still stuck on "yelling" that its not right. You keep stating it over and over. Why? We all agree with you. We all agree thats its not right by todays standards. We all agree it was wrong then and now but can do nothing about the past but learn from it and do our part to not let it happen again. Why do you still feel the need to "force" your belief on others? We got it. We hear you. We understand. We agree. Why? Please help me understand and explain it to me and others without just saying the same thing again and again. I am not poking or meaning any disrespect in any way. Just cant seem to understand why.


Really? I am responding to other's posts to me. I don't see it as yelling. How am I doing anything but expressing my view? How am I forcing you to believe anything by standing up for my position? Are you being forced to read it? Are you being forced to respond?


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> Really? I am responding to other's posts to me. I don't see it as yelling. How am I doing anything but expressing my view? How am I forcing you to believe anything by standing up for my position? Are you being forced to read it? Are you being forced to respond?


I am reading all the post and responces. I am understanding your position and you standing up for it. I got it. What I am not understanding is the constant repeating over and over and over saying the same thing. We got it! Again I was trying to understand thinking I was missing something. I have read this thread over and over to see what if anything I missed. I was being polite and just asking for help understanding more. As far as your remark about being forced to read or respond??? Are you being forced? Are you being told point blank your wrong and that slavery was good and should still be in affect today? Are you being told to get over it? Are you being forced to believe anything at all??? NO!! As for the "yelling" remark.... You are "sounding" like those people I have been around for several years that just keep saying the samething over and over getting louder and louder "guns are bad" "Bundys are crooks" "Cows polute" or at the school level "I know I am but what are you?" You have made your point and stated your opinion and position. Unless we are missing something else... Let it go and move on. Slavery was and is wrong and not "right".


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> I am reading all the post and responces. I am understanding your position and you standing up for it. I got it. What I am not understanding is the constant repeating over and over and over saying the same thing. We got it! Again I was trying to understand thinking I was missing something. I have read this thread over and over to see what if anything I missed. I was being polite and just asking for help understanding more. As far as your remark about being forced to read or respond??? Are you being forced? Are you being told point blank your wrong and that slavery was good and should still be in affect today? Are you being told to get over it? Are you being forced to believe anything at all??? NO!! As for the "yelling" remark.... You are "sounding" like those people I have been around for several years that just keep saying the samething over and over getting louder and louder "guns are bad" "Bundys are crooks" "Cows polute" or at the school level "I know I am but what are you?" You have made your point and stated your opinion and position. Unless we are missing something else... Let it go and move on. Slavery was and is wrong and not "right".


I don't believe others have got it from the way they respond to me.


----------



## 54metalman (Jul 12, 2011)

painterswife said:


> I don't believe others have got it from the way they respond to me.


Then I would say to pray for them and move on. You cant change anything by beating a dead horse.


----------



## painterswife (Jun 7, 2004)

54metalman said:


> Then I would say to pray for them and move on. You cant change anything by beating a dead horse.


You want me to stop because my standing up for my opinion bothers you in some way. How about you move on and let me decide what I do in response to other's questions to me.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

SRSLADE said:


> AHHHHHHHH
> I don't know where you get your half and half from.


Polls tend to fall that way. Half are for it, half are against it, give or take a few points in either direction.


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

painterswife said:


> You want me to stop because my standing up for my opinion bothers you in some way. How about you move on and let me decide what I do in response to other's questions to me.



Why are you standing up for your opinion?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Seth said:


> Why are you standing up for your opinion?


Who else is going to stand up for their own opinion? No one is forcing anyone to agree, post, or respond, correct?


----------



## Seth (Dec 3, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> Who else is going to stand up for their own opinion? No one is forcing anyone to agree, post, or respond, correct?


Absolutely! Sometimes, I stand up for other folks opinions, even if I don't agree with them.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Farmerga said:


> There is something going on now that has many parallels to the black mark of slavery. About half believe it is wrong to subject humans to this act and about half call it a right. What will those numbers be in 150 years?


Nope. https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

There doesn't seem much more left to be discussed.


----------

