MovieChat Forums > Baluga > Replies
Baluga's Replies
Yes he was. He sided with a rebellion against his own country. He was due to be charged and hanged after the war actually but due to his surrender being argued as grounds for a clemency (by none other than Grant himself), the plan was eventually dropped.
"A great man" who committed treason against his own country to be part of an alliance that fought to protect slavery instead. A man who had slaves that he beat and separated from their families, as if it was just financial move like any other (wich to him it was).
No It is never fine to own slaves.
Grant freed his slave March, 1859
Lee freed the last of his December, 1862
Only a few days before the Emancipation Proclamation act (wich would've forced him to free them regardless). Lee was the benefactor of an inheritance of these slaves so when their original owner died, Lee insisted on keeping them enslaved for 5 additional years. He petitioned to extend their slavery and getting to keep them longer than that but failed in court.
The objectives of a war will obviously differ and all of them ultimately end with a political agreement. Lee could've waged a defensive war and the Confederacy as a whole could've extracted a political concession: not through an outright victory but simply by remaining as an undefeated force. Instead he went on the offensive and wasted the fewer resources that were at disposal.
He owned 1 slave wich he set free before the war. Lee owned 200+ and went to war for the cause of preserving and expanding the institution of slavery indefinitely. Also Lee wasn't a traitor for the slaves he owned but for the rebellion against his own country.
Selfless to a hault lmao. He detracted from the overall Confederate war effort when it suited him to run his own personal Virginia gig. Eisenhower must've read some lost cause bullshit about the saint Lee and swallowed it wholeheartedly.
They could've won even by getting a stalemate, the Union needed a concisive win. The other side's advantage does not excuse not using your own resources properly wich in the Confederacy's case would be waging a defensive war.
Then what does? Where it counted the most, he failed.
A self-admitted traitor and very invested in upholding slavery (he went to court to contend it).
https://www.c-span.org/video/?407279-1/myth-lost
Debunking the lost cause of the Confederatecy. Also deals with the myth about Lee's supposedly great leadership from 01:20:00 onwards.
-Had slaves
-Didn't mind separating slave families by selling them individually
-Fought to preserve slavery
-Put Virginia over the broader military objectives of the Confederacy
-Wasted soldiers on grand offensives that he didn't have the resources for
A lowlife and failure in every sense of the word.
I mean 2Pac became a gangster *after* becoming rich & successfull. It should've been the other way around if anything, don't you think? Hardly the life of a social justice activist to put it mildly. Convicted of rape and died as a result of assaulting a known gangmember. He didn't have to but he wanted to prove himself. He's been Messiah-nized and put above criticism when in reality he was a douche.
I don't know that Elvis assaulted people or joined a gang with the understanding that he might have to kill someone one day. Elvis was leading un unhealthy lifestyle of *personal addiction* not one of violent behsviour.
I mean the concept itself could be iterated a 1000 times, no? That of a masked killer. If they inject old characters just to keep up a forced continuity then it might be trashed but they don't have to make it that way.
No he actually wasn't. It's a myth perpetrated by the lost cause to give any redemption they can to a vile system and the war that was waged to uphold it.