What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Razgovory]

I mean, Lee was a traitor, so of course Trump and his basket of deplorables love him.

so was George Washington.  But he won, while Lee lost.

If Washington lost, it is safe to say that no statues to him would be erected in British America whereas the torn down statutes of King George would be restored.  I would note that none of our neo-Confederates has attacked the demolition of George III's statuary during the revolution as vandalism against heritage or called for their restoration.

Because Washington did win, this land is now the USA, not a possession of the United Kingdom. So it is a bit bizarre for the statutes to insurrectionist secessionists to be erected.

I actually brought this one up to when talking to a person.  Guy didn't believe me.  I sent him a picture of a painting depicting the event and he just said you can't trust a painting.

[The Minsky Moment]

  I sent him a picture of a painting depicting the event and he just said you can't trust a painting.

He's right I checked Alex Hamilton's instragram page and coudn't find the video.  Pics or it didn't happen.

[The Brain]

Japan does have a statue of Saigō Takamori in Tokyo, but in fairness I think there are some differences between him and the pro-slavery rebels of the South. In previous work for the regime, causes of rebellion, and amount of bloodshed in the rebellion. Plus it has a doggo.

[Berkut]

This fact

He certainly did own slaves,

makes this statement

although his personal support for the institution is uncertain

Nonsensical

The man owned slaves. HE OWNED SLAVES.

He did. Personally. They were his property - other human beings. He didn't own them through a trust, or a business that had slaves, or some kind of indirect manner of "ownership".

I am struggling to imagine what possible nuance there could be that could move the dial at all when it comes to evaluating his "personal support" for slavery.

and more ambiguous than other confederate leaders.

Yeah, and this doesn't help. It is not "more ambiguous" at all. Talk about a distinction without a real difference.

[grumbler]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Now, my objection to statues of traitors isn't so much that they are traitors, but that they are losers.  Had they prospered, none dare call it treason.

[Barrister]

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.

Now, my objection to statues of traitors isn't so much that they are traitors, but that they are losers.  Had they prospered, none dare call it treason.

I get your point, but I still call George Washington a traitor.

[grumbler]

I get your point, but I still call George Washington a traitor.

You can call anyone anything you like. 

[HVC]

he had also been in the British military. double traitor.

[Barrister]

The man owned slaves. HE OWNED SLAVES.

He did. Personally. They were his property - other human beings. He didn't own them through a trust, or a business that had slaves, or some kind of indirect manner of "ownership".

I am struggling to imagine what possible nuance there could be that could move the dial at all when it comes to evaluating his "personal support" for slavery.

I'm not writing a hagiography of Robert E Lee.  I'm not here to praise him.

But it's easy for you and I to condemn slavery here in 2021.  The institution has long been made illegal and rightly condemned around the world.  But he grew up in a society that accepted and tolerated slavery.  The number of people from the south that became ardent abolitionists was pretty small.

I googled "Robert E Lee and Slavery" and found the following lengthy article, which states more eloquently (and with far more details than I knew) than anything I could say on the subject.

https://encyclopediavirginia.org/entries/lee-robert-e-and-slavery/

It starts out with saying

Robert E. Lee was the most successful Confederate military leader during the American Civil War (1861–1865). This also made him, by virtue of the Confederacy's defense of chattel slavery, the most successful defender of the enslavement of African Americans. Yet his own personal record on both slavery and race is mottled with contradictions and ambivalence, all which were in plain view during his long career.

I've not previously heard of Encyclopedia Virginia, but browsing around from it's home page it does not at all appear to be a pro-Confederate apologist site (it's feature article right now is about Juneteenth).

As in most of life I think there is room for nuance and you can't simply tar all slave owners with the same brush.  Owning slaves is certainly a stain on Lee's record, but it alone does not define him.

[Solmyr]

Although Washington has a statue in London (as does Gandhi).

There are also statues of Cromwell and Napoleon in London. The British are good sports about this sort of thing, when they are not simply nicking everyone else's statues.

[grumbler]

he had also been in the British military. double traitor.

Actually, he'd never been in the British military. He was an officer in the Virginia militia.

[grumbler]

Lee both believed that slavery was morally wrong, and that it was necessary to preserve the position of the white race.  In my opinion, that makes him worse than those who didn't see it as evil.  He practiced, condoned, and defended a practice he knew was evil. 

[garbon]

As in most of life I think there is room for nuance and you can't simply tar all slave owners with the same brush.  Owning slaves is certainly a stain on Lee's record, but it alone does not define him.

Of course not. He also fought to maintain such a repugnant practice and still seen a hero by racists in my country.

[Sheilbh]

Although Washington has a statue in London (as does Gandhi).

There are also statues of Cromwell and Napoleon in London. The British are good sports about this sort of thing, when they are not simply nicking everyone else's statues.

Cromwell and Charles I

My take on the Washington and Gandhi statues is broadly what Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook said on their podcast - it's possibly actually a later iteration of British imperialism. In this case it is sort of almost colonising and claiming "our" part of them even though they were obviously opposed to Britain

[HVC]

he had also been in the British military. double traitor.

Actually, he'd never been in the British military. He was an officer in the Virginia militia.

Colonial militias aren't part of the parent nation military? serious question, i don't know the answer.

but fine, he's back to single traitor