Afterthoughts on Robert E. Lee and the South

It’s not everyday that the Southern perspective makes it into the media and methinks it deserves to be heard:


The flag you feature is the generally accepted flag of the Confederacy. There were different state battle flags…not every state had a flag…actually, different troops had differ battle colours, they were different variations of that flag you feature.

For 150 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has been trying to make this into a Supreme Federal Govt. (That is what it has done.)

It was never the intent of the founding fathers to have that.

That is why the South was called a Confederation of States. The South was trying to tell the North that they were not going to be a part of what they were trying to do and now have done.

The whole Federal Govt taking over the whole world concept started pretty quickly and has brought us to where we are today – the original concept of reserving power to the small entities has been lost.

Today, you can only control what the Federal govt. lets you control. (States) It was supposed to be the other way around. Losing the war accelerated the Federal Govt. taking on more powers here and over the world, really.

There were people in the North who agreed with the South AND it wasn’t about even mainly, or even hardly slavery. They agreed it was states rights — what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

I do not know if I read it recently on a comment at N.O. or where and don’t have time to look, but someone said something about Slavery in the South.

The South was not (and regular folks were not slave holders!) the only place or people who ‘benefited’ from slavery. Your very own country probably made more money from the slave trade than anyone, the Yankees who shipped them over too.

The slaves’ own people made money, or whatever it was they valued, too. They would not have allowed it were they not benefitting from the evil of slave trade.

Also, the Irish who had emigrated here were treated horribly, wherever they were, they were not valued as the slaves were. They were pretty destitute.

[Our own shy southern belle]

11 comments for “Afterthoughts on Robert E. Lee and the South

  1. The Kaigat Of Wands
    January 23, 2019 at 20:41

    Really not trying to open a can of worms here – but while I think everything said here is valid – and I do, after all, live in Charleston with a South Carolinian wife who most definitely agrees – I think it’s also a bit disingenuous. The Declaration of Immediate Causes is very clear on the importance of the slavery question as a justification for secession. This is not to say the issue of states’ rights was secondary, but you can’t just ignore the little matter of slavery.

    • Mark Matis
      January 23, 2019 at 20:53

      Congress’ declaration that the “slavery question” was NOT the justification for the secession is less important to you then?

      • The Kaigat Of Wands
        January 23, 2019 at 22:48

        Less important than what the men actually initiating the secession said – yes. I believe both motives were at work but it’s at least a question as to what extent one influenced the other.

  2. dearieme
    January 23, 2019 at 21:35

    “They agreed it was states’ rights”: pah! When the southern states controlled Congress they were dead against states’ rights. Once the northern states controlled Congress the southern politicians became strongly for states’ rights.

  3. January 24, 2019 at 00:29

    Missing the point of slavery:

    1. African nations, northerners and the British were at it;

    2. It was only a certain percentage holding slaves, most people weren’t.

    But some are determined to blanket condemn. What is being missed here is that the writer is anti-slavery but is lumped in with pro-slavers in comments above, which is hardly an exercise in clear thinking, is it?

    Would it not occur to ask what the writer’s views on slavery were before using words like disingenuous and assuming it was a ‘little matter’?

    Also, please note Mark Matis’s comment.

    As for myself, I went back to explore last night through search engines, yes, and all there were were northern academia ‘history’ channels which for twelve pages or so were wall-to-wall oversimplistic north = pure virtue signalling, south = evil slavers.

    There was one site purporting to be balanced [don’t they all?], he said he was from Wisconsin or wherever and had conducted battle site tours. All he ever got, he said, were southerners giving him the cold shoulder and accusing him, when asked, of talking of nothing BUT slavery, assuming ALL southerners were in love with this great wrong.

    Three-quarters of the south held no slaves at all, so he said they all wanted to, it didn’t excuse them. And this is what he called ‘balanced’. He was leading every tour with east coast academia’s stock notion – nothing about the econmy of the US as a whole, nothing about the architecture of the period, which they’d come for, about how society was for the three quarters.

    At least one site pointed out the the bast majority of the millionaires were Mississipi valley, not deep Alabama, for example.

    And then, like Ocasio, the rich kid pretending to be from the Bronx or Warren pretending to be native, he could not understand southern disdain for his position.


    Speaking more broadly, aren’t we just so dependent on our sources for our general view? It’s frightening sometimes. I’ve been looking at Moriah Conquering Wind and the a priori assumptions are staggering, but that’s another post.

    Lastly, we see the attitudes on the whole in the Georgian attitude which led to 2015 and in all the lefties tearing down the statues of the war heroes of the time. If there’s to be a statue to Grant, then why not REL or Stonewall? As for Sherman, the less said the better.

    And over here, vandalising statues as well.

    • QM
      January 24, 2019 at 03:04

      The British had abolished the transport of Slaves in 1812 and Abolished slavery in 1833.

  4. james wilson
    January 24, 2019 at 05:53

    For the North it was a religious war led by Puritans to perfect all the country and correct the original stain; thereafter the world. It seemed like they almost had that in their grasp too.

    The South was made stupid by slavery. Stupid, lazy, unindustrious–literally. Labor, so associated with slavery. was not exalted. But they put up a hell of a fight.

    Even after Gettysburg they could have won simply by abolishing slavery. They had nothing to lose now but their stubbornness. England would have ended their neutrality immediately, and with it the blockade. Stupid.

    Now once again succession is the answer, but the Puritans still will not hear of it.

  5. January 24, 2019 at 08:06

    Speaking once again for my shy correspondent, consider this:

    “QM is correct. How many years did they conduct the vile business, England? Where did they sell and deposit slaves? Yes they did change but it was after many years of conducting the vile business before they, by law, stopped the business.”

    I would add – let’s also look at the cotton mills in my neck of the woods, 5 miles from my home town.

    And who was behind the abolition? Christians. One of the major arguments academia trots out is that the bible was used to justify the slavery.

    Let me bring in an analogy. The murderous thugs who were ankle deep in blood in Jerusalem were Frankish, from the Merovingian roots, Byzantine writers noted their boorish justifications – they were there for the killing.

    Of course the slave owners quoted selected bible verses, but there were also many, many Christians against the revolting trade. Think about the sort of men who led the abolitionist cause at grass roots, whom they were praying to.

    My own point is that there is really a rush to judgment, not so much on various practices, but on who the perps actually were. Just as Crusader armies in part wore red crosses, did that make them Christian in itself?

    My aim on this theme was to balance the seemingly all one way condemnation … and I bet we can extend that to many topics we have and will tackle.

    “The motivation of slave trade [and no doubt it had been going on for many years…read the Bible] was obviously in order to achieve enormous wealth. Self-wealth was the driving force of everyone involved, except the abducted and potential slave.”


    One thing I’ll bring in on the next look at history/politics of the time is just what is meant by ‘the south’ did this, ‘England’ or ‘Great Britain’ did that. To look at Bush or Obama USA and say ‘the US’ did this or that – what does that mean?

    I suggest it means that the corrupt deep state up there in those lands had one view, e.g. Tony Blair recently, but the people as a whole may have another. Also north-south, working class-middle-class. One needs to define more accurately.

  6. January 24, 2019 at 08:19

    I’d just add this from the leftwing Wiki, which at least has the decency to note:

    “William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, philanthropist, and a leader of the movement to stop the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming a Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). He was independent of party.

    In 1785, he became an evangelical Christian, which resulted in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for social reform and progress. He was educated at St. John’s College, Cambridge.”

    Now to whom do anti-Christian modern academics ascribe the abolition? To “England”. But it was certain people within England though, wasn’t it? Not those making the fortunes.

    Those of the time in public life would see him as an upright Christian man of that type which has been characterised and caricatured.


    Finally from me on this – do not think for a second that commenters above are unwelcome, not a bit of it. How can we have a discussion if no points of view are put? The aim is to thrash out issues, not sweep them under.


  7. January 24, 2019 at 08:38

    Ho ho ho:

    “Clarkson was the son of Rev. John Clarkson (1710–1766), an Anglican priest. Thomas attended Wisbech Grammar School where his father was headmaster; then he went on to St Paul’s School in London in 1775. He did his undergraduate work at St John’s College, Cambridge, beginning in 1779.[1] An excellent student, he appears to have enjoyed his time at university, although he was also a serious, devout man. He received his BA degree in 1783 and was set to continue at Cambridge to follow in his father’s footsteps and enter the Anglican Church. He was ordained a deacon but never proceeded to priest’s orders.”

    “Granville Sharp (10 November 1735 – 6 July 1813) was one of the first English campaigners for the abolition of the slave trade. He also involved himself in trying to correct other social injustices. Sharp formulated the plan to settle black people in Sierra Leone, and founded the St. George’s Bay Company, a forerunner of the Sierra Leone Company. His efforts led to both the founding of the Province of Freedom, and later on Freetown, Sierra Leone, and so he is considered to be one of the founding fathers of Sierra Leone. He was also a biblical scholar, a classicist, and a talented musician.”

    Ladies and gentlemen – hmmmmmmmmm, eh? 🙂

  8. The Kaigat Of Wands
    January 24, 2019 at 14:47

    I knew I should have stayed quiet ……. all I wanted to observe was that the view that it was all to do with states’ rights is questionable. My wife’s family fought for the Confederacy and they were certainly not slave-holders, they probably had never even seen a slave where they lived – they fought for reasons to do with loyalty and defence against aggression – and, no doubt, because their leaders and “betters” wanted them to. Of course slave-holding was mostly confined to a fairly small number of wealthy people, including not a few blacks, but these were the political class and they were the ones driving the whole process.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.