Let's remember that the Civil War, at its core, was about those southern states wanting to keep their slaves (to stay very rich) and ignoring the basic tenants of the United States Constitution:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

So the leaders of the southern movement were a bunch of rich white men who didn't want to give up their free labor, and who convinced thousands and thousand of young men through BS propaganda (sound familiar?) that it was some sort of noble cause that made killing other Americans justified.

Lee, at various points during his military career, instructed his troops to capture any free blacks they came across and to return them to the south so they could be enslaved again.

When you have some time give this a read. Again, sound familiar?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_C...he_Confederacy

I have ancestors that fought in every American war since the Mayflower and they were a bunch of ****s for it.

Maduro's son threatens to 'take the White House' with guns in case of U.S. intervention - POLITICO

#GeographyFail

:laughing:

I think quite a lot of people would think that tbh.

That was before LBJ or whatever the crossing over point was, so they were essentially Democrats though.

Very few. Mostly, it was these southern planters have an unfair economic advantage and they're bringing African savages into the country. Slave owners at least wanted to protect their property. Non-slave owners were either apathetic or just wanted a simple way to get rid of the blacks. There's documents of white abolitionists with decent intentions but their prevelance in society is deeply exaggerated. It was met with the concern we have of a mosquito eradication program today. Nobody cares about the mosquitos. It's all about how does this affect everything else.

^ Thanks, elphenor. Sorry, but I really don't understand the bolded bit.

I can see that it's still a very contentious issue in a country that isn't mine and I don't want to disrespect the feelings of Americans. Everyone can see that the Civil War was a huge tragedy; huge partly because the country was so evenly divided, and at the time Lee was a military hero to many Americans. The Civil War is now part of American history, as in fact is the statue itself. How long has it been standing there without exciting comment? Why not leave historical memorials in place, even if they commemorate things or people that are controvertial by modern standards of thinking? Another way to show disdain for Robert E. Lee would be to put a new, dated, plaque under the statue explaining when the statue was put up and how his cause is now largely discredited, but please leave your historical artifacts in place.
When a dictator is overthrown, it's very common that his statues are destroyed in the excitement of victory, but that doesn't apply in this case and imo no country should go around smashing up the monuments it doesn't approve of.


^ Strictly speaking, the Civil War was about Federal vs State control; the whole issue of slavery was just an add on from Lincoln after they had already been fighting for years:-


^ lol. Invasion 101: buy a map of the place you plan to invade.

It means he's gonna go punch up some Nazifolk.


Zero years.

I actually think it's a lot more similar to the dictator analogy than you realize tbh. Lee is essentially a leader of a foreign country that laid stake on US soil.

The ONLY abolitionists were fringe Christians who actually believed in the New Testament. This idea that the north was morally superior to the south is just bull**** revisionism to reinforce patriotism with the dishonest narrative that the good guys won and America fights for freedom. The only issues at play were money and greed. The north was industrialized and the south used blacks as agricultural machinery. The north didn't give a **** about blacks they just wanted to extend their economic advantage.