OT Was Robert E. Lee really all that evil?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Legacy

 

Doesn't seem like the "American Hitler" the left is trying to paint him as and erase him from the history books.

 

Jefferson Davis was probably the "American Hitler," if that's the label you want to use. I've never seen or heard anyone compare Lee to Hitler or consider him overtly evil. Lee is simply the icon of the Confederacy that the South commemorates the most and therefore, when those who believe that Confederate monuments don't belong on public land because the Confederacy was a stain on US history, a lot of them end up being Robert E. Lee statues.

 

There was probably good reason Lee's statues stayed up. While the war was inevitable, it seems like he surrendered rather colloquially for such a bloody war.

 

His side lost. So he can rot in hell.

The winning side's slave owners get a pass for some reason. For now.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "stayed up." Lee was the most successful figure for the South during the Civil War, so he got a lot of monuments. It's true that he probably turned out to be their best statesman after losing, but it's not like he had all that much choice in surrendering.

 

Fantastic comparison.

 

Which Union officers owned slaves after the start of the Civil War? I don't remember that bit from U.S. History, but I confess, it's been awhile.

 

never heard of him.

 

Right, every Union side slave owner died years before the war.

If a man robs banks and decides to stop is he better than the guy who robbed one this morning?

 

Terrible example. Rommel was a race traitor and betrayed his Führer, joining the conspiracy to assassinate the rightfully chosen leader of the Reich.

 

After states in the north abolished slavery and slave-holders relinquished their slaves I'm not sure what else we're supposed to do with them from a historical perspective. It's taking up arms to defend a despicable inhumane practice that gives the confederacy it's tainted legacy to this day. If it had only been about state's rights, the statues wouldn't be a big deal.

 

I don't know about "died years before" but slavery had been abolished in the Northern states, with the exception of Delaware (where even there over 90% of the black residents were free) long before the Civil War began. So yes, there were a very, very few slave owners in the North--but no monuments have been built to them. If there had been, those would be removed too. I'm not sure how that can be construed as "only the losing slave owners get their statues torn down."

 

Also, what if robbing banks wasn't illegal the day before?

 

Call them what they are, slightly better than the people they fought.

From a historical perspective they're all trash. During their time the Union was the good side. So what?

I'm sure sometime in history that isn't recorded two tribes of cannibals fought and one was somehow better. Maybe they repurposed more of the person they just ate?

I saw one black girl say she could see that statue from all over the city as if it looked down on her. If so, I'm for taking it down.

I'm not for mobs tearing them down while cops watch.

 

Nothing was illegal at one point in time.

Should we hide anything from history before laws came to be?

Was a caveman who smashed a woman with a club and dragged her home evil?