You're going incoherent again.
The thread was about Robert E. Lee's qualities as a general, not as a human rights champion. You seem to think that the one precludes the other. That, of course, is nonsense. If President Trump had referred to Adolph Hitler as a fine communicator, would you have disputed THAT? Some things are simply a fact. You don't have to like the subject in order to acknowledge its truth.
Robert E. Lee was, by all accounts, an excellent general who nearly won the Civil War despite not having anything close to the resources of the North. The Northern army outnumbered the Confederate army nearly 2 to 1. clo, however, doesn't have more than a child's understanding of the war... or of anything else... which is why she made such an ignorant statement. Her mind is clouded with hatred these days to the point where all she can do is to make claims she can't substantiate and babble about her personal problem with Republicans. She's a lot like you, actually.
Now, addressing your point.
I would NOT be Robert E. Lee's slave today because slavery was ending ANYWAY. Not just in the United States, but throughout the world. If you look at a timeline of nations that outlawed slavery, nearly all of them had by the year 1900. The South would probably have disallowed it by 1890 rather than being increasingly shamed as a pariah by civilized people everywhere. You need to recognize that.
You also need to recognize that the war was not about slavery. Note that the war began in 1861 but Lincoln did not emancipate until 1863. He did so in order to win Southern blacks' support. It was a military move designed to help the North against a Southern army that had been kicking its butt under Robert E. Lee's guidance. It is worth noting that of the dozens of nations that disallowed slavery after 1865, NONE felt it was worth a war in order to end slavery sooner.
Lincoln, in an 1862 letter to Horace Greeley, wrote "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery." It is also true that Robert E. Lee was not fighting to either save or destroy slavery. Slavery was *NOT* the objective. The war was about the South's request to secede over what it deemed to be increasingly unfair and oppressive Federal dictates aimed at the South. Robert E. Lee made no bones about the fact that he was fighting for Virginia, his home, not for anyone's right to keep slaves and certainly not to protect what had become a huge Federal government that was anything but what Virginia had expected when it joined the Union. I believe he was in the right, legally and morally, though after the war the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsurprising decision that he wasn't. I also believe that by killing and maiming 3.5 percent of the American population while utterly ravaging half the country's infrastructure, Lincoln proved himself to be nothing short of a monster. A comparable catastrophe today would result in more than 11 million dead or injured countrymen. If that had been done to accelerate the liberation of 3.9 million slaves who anyone should have known were on the road to freedom anyway, then it was an egregious decision.
I hope that helps you to understand. The civil war wasn't about slavery. If it had been, it wouldn't have been worth it. And regardless, whether there'd been a war or not, the slaves were eventually going to be freed. Robert E. Lee didn't fight to protect slavery. He fought to defend his home.
| 
