I find it appaling and disgusting

"Bu, bu bu, we're just praising his great leadership."

The man fought for immoral reasons, and plus if he was such a good leader, why couldn't he save the south?

There were much better leaders out there, yet we don't celebrate them.

I live in Alabama

I didnt know that he was.

I live in Alabama

SaintWalrus

Well, that answers that.

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

I live in Alabama

Wasdie

Well, that answers that.

...Because the south is all about irony.Frame_Dragger

The man fought for immoral reasons, and plus if he was such a good leader, why couldn't he save the south?

SaintWalrus

Say what?

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

The man fought for immoral reasons, and plus if he was such a good leader, why couldn't he save the south?

DucksBrains

Say what?

Because the south secretly want to rise again, i just know it.

the man followed his orders and stood by his state even when offered a position by Lincoln...I respect the man but at the same time he probably knew what he was doing was wrong in the overall picture...it's all just perspective

I find it appaling and disgusting

"Bu, bu bu, we're just praising his great leadership."

The man fought for immoral reasons, and plus if he was such a good leader, why couldn't he save the south?

There were much better leaders out there, yet we don't celebrate them.

I live in Alabama

SaintWalrus

The two have birthdays 4 days apart.

Don't forget he should be celebrated for giving us the inspiration for this:

Don't forget he should be celebrated for giving us the inspiration for this:

[QUOTE="DucksBrains"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

The man fought for immoral reasons, and plus if he was such a good leader, why couldn't he save the south?

SaintWalrus

Say what?

[QUOTE="DucksBrains"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

The man fought for immoral reasons, and plus if he was such a good leader, why couldn't he save the south?

SaintWalrus

Say what?

Glitchspot strikes again. Double post madness.

Many students in my high school don't even know what irony means

SaintWalrus

Uh huh

The man fought to keep slavery alive.SaintWalrus

The irony.

The man fought to keep slavery alive.SaintWalrus

You're cherry-picking. The south fought for states rights. Obviously slavery was among them, but it wasn't the only reason.

Glitchspot strikes again. Double post madness.

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

I live in Alabama

Wasdie

Well, that answers that.

Oh my god, that was funny. I don't know if you intended to be funny, but I know I laughed.

It's his birthday, and he didn't fight for immoral purposes, he was against slavery, he had a chance to fight for the North but he didn't want to fight againts his family and friends...

It's his birthday, and he didn't fight for immoral purposes, he was against slavery, he had a chance to fight for the North but he didn't want to fight againts his family and friends...

Xeogua

This,

Many southern officials where very ***** up, but Lee was very respectable and less racist than most northern generals.

He's best compared to a tragic hero who is pulled into a fight he does not want to fight

Like Yamamoto during WW2

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]The man fought to keep slavery alive.airshocker

You're cherry-picking. The south fought for states rights. Obviously slavery was among them, but it wasn't the only reason.

and plus if he was such a good leader, why couldn't he save the south?SaintWalrus

However great Lee's military skills may have been there's no way the South could have won that war. They lacked the numbers and the industrial and agricultural production to mount a sustained war effort (the North, on the other hand, did have such production). The North also ran a naval blockade along the coasts of the Southern states, thus hampering them from being supplied by other nations.

The only reason he was on the southern side was because he did not want to betray his family and friends in the south. Also he was actually against slavery

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]The man fought to keep slavery alive.CongressManStan

You're cherry-picking. The south fought for states rights. Obviously slavery was among them, but it wasn't the only reason.

[QUOTE="CongressManStan"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

You're cherry-picking. The south fought for states rights. Obviously slavery was among them, but it wasn't the only reason.

LJS9502_basic

And what was the South's main source of revenue?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="CongressManStan"] Then explain to everyone what some of the other right were please.BranKetra

And what was the South's main source of revenue?

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Tariffs, secession, differing economies....LJS9502_basic

And what was the South's main source of revenue?

.

[QUOTE="BranKetra"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Tariffs, secession, differing economies....LJS9502_basic

And what was the South's main source of revenue?

That was true in 1820. By the time of the Civil War, the north was providing the south with almost all of their finished goods and a booming market for their cotton. Secession happened because a Republican candidate won the White House and the south felt this posed a threat to the institution of slavery. By 1860, states' Rights was supported in the south for one main purpose and that was to protect slavery.

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]

Many students in my high school don't even know what irony means

DucksBrains

Uh huh

The man fought to keep slavery alive.SaintWalrus

The irony.

Winner!

/thread

I don't buy that whole "He was anti-slavery and had to stick with his state."

If he was truly anti-slavery, he would have seen that the enslavement of an entire people is far worse than the south losing its independence.

No way would a true hero trade Freedom of a people from cruel agony for some benefits for free people.

And is the south really so bad off today?

Sure they had to come back to the U.S, but is that so bad?

It does not matter why the south wanted to secede.

Even if it would have destroyed their economy because they are a one crop economy, the enslavement of a people is not worth it.

He should have seen that the slavery issue trumps everything and went against it.

We don't here in the north. I saw a story on CNN that said some southerners wont carry 20's or 50's. GET OVER IT. You lost the Civil War in 1865.

roulettethedog

Robert E was a good general so celebrate him... While we are at it lets cellebrate Hitler for his oration... Robert E Lee was a talented man but he used his talents to preserve slavery.Banjo_Kongfooie

Like what others said before, Robert E Lee was a good general. He was against slavery and was offered a position in the Northern Army, but denied it because he didn't want to fight his own family and friends in the south. He followed his instict thats all. What is done is done, history is history that's it.

[QUOTE="roulettethedog"]

We don't here in the north. I saw a story on CNN that said some southerners wont carry 20's or 50's. GET OVER IT. You lost the Civil War in 1865.

SaintWalrus

Robert E was a good general so celebrate him... While we are at it lets cellebrate Hitler for his oration... Robert E Lee was a talented man but he used his talents to preserve slavery.Banjo_Kongfooie

Yeah I think the reason that the South can not get over the Civil war is because they keep trying to excuse what they did... They should just accept that the south was ultimately the "bad guy" in the war.

Sure the North really only fought to preserve the union but the South did fight for slavery.

I think we should have a Robert E. Lee day, and not in the same way as we have an MLK day but rather in the same way that Britain has Guy Fawkes day.

I think we should have a Robert E. Lee day, and not in the same way as we have an MLK day but rather in the same way that Britain has Guy Fawkes day.

theone86