VA: Gen. Robert E. Lee Statue in Richmond Has Been Taken Down

[Frodo]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

I have no idea who your ancestors were or what they did, but I would not be so quick to absolve poorer white southerners, since it is they who allowed themselves to be manipulated by those same slaveowners.  It is they who manned the slave patrols, who served as overseers as well as slave bounty hunters, and aspired to own slaves themselves as a mark of social standing.  Without them, the system of slavery would not have survived as long as it did.  Without them, there would have been no one to enforce Jim Crow on a day-to-day basis.  It is from their ranks that the Ku Klux Klan (and other white terror groups) drew from in their campaign to undermine Reconstruction. So we shouldn't pretend that the responsibility for slavery and its legacy is the burden of only slaveowners.  

[Cashew]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

Yes, because the ability of a past legislature to bind a future one is a well known cornerstone of the republican form of government.

[Big Abraham]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

Yes, because the ability of a past legislature to bind a future one is a well known cornerstone of the republican form of government.

It's not just the General Assembly resolution; it's in the deed itself. That's a legally binding document

[Cashew]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

Yes, because the ability of a past legislature to bind a future one is a well known cornerstone of the republican form of government.

It's not just the General Assembly resolution; it's in the deed itself. That's a legally binding document

Then the deed was flawed from the start. Anything other than a treaty or constitutional amendment that tries to bind a legislative body forever is illegitimate.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

Yes, because the ability of a past legislature to bind a future one is a well known cornerstone of the republican form of government.

It's not just the General Assembly resolution; it's in the deed itself. That's a legally binding document

Then the deed was flawed from the start. Anything other than a treaty or constitutional amendment that tries to bind a legislative body forever is illegitimate.

Flawed or not, the state has an obligation to adhere to it (it being the deed).

[Cashew]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

Yes, because the ability of a past legislature to bind a future one is a well known cornerstone of the republican form of government.

It's not just the General Assembly resolution; it's in the deed itself. That's a legally binding document

Then the deed was flawed from the start. Anything other than a treaty or constitutional amendment that tries to bind a legislative body forever is illegitimate.

Flawed or not, the state has an obligation to adhere to it (it being the deed).

Utter madness. If it were actually enforceable revolution would quickly become the only way to repeal non budgetary legislative policy that has become permanently entrenched in covenants.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

Yes, because the ability of a past legislature to bind a future one is a well known cornerstone of the republican form of government.

It's not just the General Assembly resolution; it's in the deed itself. That's a legally binding document

Then the deed was flawed from the start. Anything other than a treaty or constitutional amendment that tries to bind a legislative body forever is illegitimate.

Flawed or not, the state has an obligation to adhere to it (it being the deed).

Utter madness. If it were actually enforceable revolution would quickly become the only way to repeal non budgetary legislative policy that has become permanently entrenched in covenants

Nice to see you are all fine-and-dandy with the state abrogating contracts because public opinion among voters who elected the party in charge is in favor of it. It's not like, you know, contracts actually mean anything...

[HST1948]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

It doesn’t matter if they were poor, slave owners, rich, or what information that they had… Your “ancestors” fought for genocide. And that is what it is… genocide and enslavement. There is no ambiguity about what that southern soldiers fought for. There is no reason what so ever to preserve any of this history or the history of Robert E. Lee. Germany doesn’t have statues to hitler and the US shouldn’t have statues celebrating or memorializing the greatest traitors and war criminals of our own history. And to be honest, if one man who was on the losing side of history can be so powerful to a generation of southerners… more powerful than the founding fathers, more powerful than FDR, more powerful than mother Teresa, more powerful than Pope John Paul… maybe it’s time for them to reassess southern priorities and values.

[Cashew]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

Yes. Completely disrespectful.

Then this is flagrantly illegal then...

Yes, because the ability of a past legislature to bind a future one is a well known cornerstone of the republican form of government.

It's not just the General Assembly resolution; it's in the deed itself. That's a legally binding document

Then the deed was flawed from the start. Anything other than a treaty or constitutional amendment that tries to bind a legislative body forever is illegitimate.

Flawed or not, the state has an obligation to adhere to it (it being the deed).

Utter madness. If it were actually enforceable revolution would quickly become the only way to repeal non budgetary legislative policy that has become permanently entrenched in covenants

Nice to see you are all fine-and-dandy with the state abrogating contracts because public opinion among voters who elected the party in charge is in favor of it. It's not like, you know, contracts actually mean anything...

Go to bed. No i'm not being snarky, seriously go to bed, and hopefully when you wake up you will realize that your legal theory if recognized by the supreme court could be the most drastic change in american judicial history, and if accepted by legislators would quickly lead to a stampede of legislatures forming covenants to ensure their successors are powerless when to comes to their priorities. Thankfully though that has yet to happen that happen with no serious legislator or judge believes this, seeing as though the United States has yet to collapse.

[Cashew]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

I agree with the general sentiment, but this 99% talking point parroted by lost causers reeks of minimization. Yes if you count individuals rather than households who make use of the slaves, and stretch if further to count minors you maybe might come close, but let's not pretend that the slaveholders wife, and his 18 year old son still living at home are not practically slaveholders themselves and benefitting form its existence. That does not take into account the overseers whose livelyhoods benefits from and depend on the existence of slavery as well.

[Frodo]

And it’s gone:

[ProudModerate2]

Wasn't this on land given to the state on condition they respect the statue?

They are "respectfully" and carefully removing it, instead of toppling it down like the huge Saddam Hussein statue back in 2003.

[Santander]

Never setting foot in Virginia again.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

At least I'll always have my pictures with it. Thanks for the memories, General!

[rhg2052]

Never setting foot in Virginia again.

No great loss for Virginia.

[Crumpets]

"This is all my fault."
- Robert E. Lee, between bouts of diarrhea, after losing 23,000 of his troops in a battle he lost

[KaiserDave]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

The 99%+ number you postulate is entirely fictitious. It’s very much not the case.  In fact it’s thought that over a third of the Army of Northern Virginia owned slaves themselves or were part of families that did. It wasn't just the absurdly rich who owned slaves, and it certainly wasn't just them who reaped its benefits and profited from it. This post is malarkey folks.

As for ordinary Southern folk not approving of slavery? Well...I've got bad news to break to you...

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Great news, Marguerite it was explained on the Movie Parkland, I watched over, said that Oswald's were named Lee and Robedue to being distant cuz of General Lee, it makes sense now with their names and why Robert and lee's wife was so angry at Lee for ruining their Dallas homeland

Marguerite died in 1980 so we don't see much of her, but she said by an actress on movie, that Lee deserved to be buried on Arlington due to relationship with General Lee, of course this was before BLM

[GP270watch]

And it’s gone:

Glad they removed it but pretty pathetic we're doing this in the year 2021. Most of these statues have only come down in the last 5 to 10 years which really speaks to how ingrained this garbage was in the consciousness of the American public.

[Dan the Roman]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

The 99%+ number you postulate is entirely fictitious. It’s very much not the case.  In fact it’s thought that over a third of the Army of Northern Virginia owned slaves themselves or were part of families that did. It wasn't just the absurdly rich who owned slaves, and it certainly wasn't just them who reaped its benefits and profited from it. This post is malarkey folks.

As for ordinary Southern folk not approving of slavery? Well...I've got bad news to break to you...

Slavery functioned by the mid to late 1850s the way anti-mask stuff or CRT now does. It was an emotional us v. them issue.

In fact, the more slaves someone owned in the South, the more Unionist/moderate on the slavery issue they tended to be. Why? They had skin in the game and therefore had to look at this whole thing not as a game, but as a real one where they would lose.

The largest slaveholder in MS was future Republican governor James Alcorn. The large slaveholders overwelmingly backed John Bell in 1860, and Unionist/American Party candidates in the late 1850s.

After them came the well off merchants.

Basically it was

Big Slaveholders = Whig/American/Unionist
Professional Classes = Douglas Ds, see Mobile or other places where Douglas maintained some Southern support.

Old Jacksonian populist poor white base = Breckinridge, base of the fire eaters.


It was the poorer, slave-less whites who had nothing else but their identity and culture who forced a war over slavery, and thereby caused slaveholders to lose everything

[Ferguson97]

A traitor to his nation.

[KaiserDave]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

The 99%+ number you postulate is entirely fictitious. It’s very much not the case.  In fact it’s thought that over a third of the Army of Northern Virginia owned slaves themselves or were part of families that did. It wasn't just the absurdly rich who owned slaves, and it certainly wasn't just them who reaped its benefits and profited from it. This post is malarkey folks.

As for ordinary Southern folk not approving of slavery? Well...I've got bad news to break to you...

Slavery functioned by the mid to late 1850s the way anti-mask stuff or CRT now does. It was an emotional us v. them issue.

In fact, the more slaves someone owned in the South, the more Unionist/moderate on the slavery issue they tended to be. Why? They had skin in the game and therefore had to look at this whole thing not as a game, but as a real one where they would lose.

The largest slaveholder in MS was future Republican governor James Alcorn. The large slaveholders overwelmingly backed John Bell in 1860, and Unionist/American Party candidates in the late 1850s.

After them came the well off merchants.

Basically it was

Big Slaveholders = Whig/American/Unionist
Professional Classes = Douglas Ds, see Mobile or other places where Douglas maintained some Southern support.

Old Jacksonian populist poor white base = Breckinridge, base of the fire eaters.


It was the poorer, slave-less whites who had nothing else but their identity and culture who forced a war over slavery, and thereby caused slaveholders to lose everything

This is comically ahistorical gobbledygook. The comparison to masks and CRT is hilariously absurd, but you're right it was an extremely emotional issue (hence why the comparison to the petty nothingness of masks and CRT is strange), but it was also very much a calculated decision for many of the chief secessionists and fire-eaters.

As for the bigger slaveowners being more "moderate"? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The chief secessionists drew much of their support from the planter oligarchs, who rather go to war then risk their bottom line with a President who staunchly opposed the expansion of slavery. They were the ones who got behind the border ruffians, and supported imperial adventures into Latin America to spread slavery. James Alcorn supported the Confederacy entirely, and became a Republican for the purposes of political power.

As for John Bell. John Bell was a secessionist! Up until 1861, he was a "conditional unionist" which is to say he was for the union so long as slavery existed. That's not real Unionism, that's holding the country at gunpoint. John Bell defected to the Confederacy during the secession crisis. All of these people you mention as "Unionist/American/moderate" all supported secession! Stephen Duncan at least was a very prominent slaveowner who supported the Union, but he was shunned by the elite class for these views.

You are seemingly blaming the average southerner for forcing a war against the interests of the large slaveowners, who wanted no such thing. I have no idea where you got that idea, because it is completely made up. It was the planter elite who were behind the secessionist chiefs and among them themselves. Alexander Stephens held 37 people in bondage and owned thousand of acres, Jefferson Davis held 113 people in bondage, Judah P. Benjamin held 140, and so on.

Your breakdown of the 1860 election demographics might be accurate, I don't know, but the rest of your comments aren't. At the very least you acknowledge the average southerner (often enthusiastically) supported slavery, which Alben did not.

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

Oh dear.

Liberalrepublican is making some interesting observations but has got his facts in the wrong order. Other claims ITT are just plain wrong, as e.g. that less than 1% of white Southerners were slaveowners —the actual figure was closer to 33%, 40% in the Army of Northern Virginia, as KaiserDave has already mentioned, and that doesn't account for the common practice of poor households borrowing or renting slaves during harvest season. The demographic analysis of the 1860 election in the slave states is more accurate, but still problematic; the assertion that the planter class were forced to go to war in 1861 by popular acclamation and against their own better judgement is simply incorrect. I am not sure how we are supposed to make sense of this claim considering his previous assertion that poor Southerners "literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed [sic] by their state governments", i.e. that they were in effect unwitting pawns of the wealthy slave power they somehow forced to go to war against their will. If that were the case, why didn't the planters just flood the newspapers with editorials to turn public opinion against secession? In reality, of course, people like Jefferson Davis absolutely supported secession of their own volition and not merely in response to popular enthusiasm for the idea following Lincoln's election —though to be sure secession was popular and a minority of the planter class (notably Lee and Stephens) remained conditional unionists until events proceeded on without them.

[Big Abraham]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

The 99%+ number you postulate is entirely fictitious. It’s very much not the case.  In fact it’s thought that over a third of the Army of Northern Virginia owned slaves themselves or were part of families that did. It wasn't just the absurdly rich who owned slaves, and it certainly wasn't just them who reaped its benefits and profited from it. This post is malarkey folks.

As for ordinary Southern folk not approving of slavery? Well...I've got bad news to break to you...

Slavery functioned by the mid to late 1850s the way anti-mask stuff or CRT now does. It was an emotional us v. them issue.

In fact, the more slaves someone owned in the South, the more Unionist/moderate on the slavery issue they tended to be. Why? They had skin in the game and therefore had to look at this whole thing not as a game, but as a real one where they would lose.

The largest slaveholder in MS was future Republican governor James Alcorn. The large slaveholders overwelmingly backed John Bell in 1860, and Unionist/American Party candidates in the late 1850s.

After them came the well off merchants.

Basically it was

Big Slaveholders = Whig/American/Unionist
Professional Classes = Douglas Ds, see Mobile or other places where Douglas maintained some Southern support.

Old Jacksonian populist poor white base = Breckinridge, base of the fire eaters.


It was the poorer, slave-less whites who had nothing else but their identity and culture who forced a war over slavery, and thereby caused slaveholders to lose everything

This is comically ahistorical gobbledygook. The comparison to masks and CRT is hilariously absurd, but you're right it was an extremely emotional issue (hence why the comparison to the petty nothingness of masks and CRT is strange), but it was also very much a calculated decision for many of the chief secessionists and fire-eaters.

As for the bigger slaveowners being more "moderate"? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The chief secessionists drew much of their support from the planter oligarchs, who rather go to war then risk their bottom line with a President who staunchly opposed the expansion of slavery. They were the ones who got behind the border ruffians, and supported imperial adventures into Latin America to spread slavery. James Alcorn supported the Confederacy entirely, and became a Republican for the purposes of political power.

As for John Bell. John Bell was a secessionist! Up until 1861, he was a "conditional unionist" which is to say he was for the union so long as slavery existed. That's not real Unionism, that's holding the country at gunpoint. John Bell defected to the Confederacy during the secession crisis. All of these people you mention as "Unionist/American/moderate" all supported secession! Stephen Duncan at least was a very prominent slaveowner who supported the Union, but he was shunned by the elite class for these views.

You are seemingly blaming the average southerner for forcing a war against the interests of the large slaveowners, who wanted no such thing. I have no idea where you got that idea, because it is completely made up. It was the planter elite who were behind the secessionist chiefs and among them themselves. Alexander Stephens held 37 people in bondage and owned thousand of acres, Jefferson Davis held 113 people in bondage, Judah P. Benjamin held 140, and so on.

Your breakdown of the 1860 election demographics might be accurate, I don't know, but the rest of your comments aren't. At the very least you acknowledge the average southerner (often enthusiastically) supported slavery, which Alben did not.

I can't speak for everything Dan the Roman wrote, but it is interesting to mention that, of the largest slaveholders recorded in the 1860 census, most of the ones concentrated at the very top were thoroughly Unionist. Dr. Stephen Duncan of Mississippi, who owned 858 slaves, was ostracized for his refusal to support the Confederacy and ended up moving to New York City. William Aiken Jr. of South Carolina, who was an antebellum governor of that state who owned 700 slaves, was also a loyal Unionist. Joseph Acklen of Louisiana, who owned 659 slaves and six cotton plantations, is known to have expressed his pleasure for the North in the Civil War in his personal letters. The list (literally) goes on and on, and while no doubt there are many Confederates to be found among some of the largest slaveholders, there is nevertheless at least some truth in his point.

[KaiserDave]

In the winter of '65
We were hungry, just barely alive
By May the 10th, Richmond had fell
It's a time I remember, oh so well

The night they drove old Dixie down
And the bells were ringing
The night they drove old Dixie down
And the people were singing
They went, "Na, na, la, na, na, la"

Back with my wife in Tennessee
When one day she called to me
"Virgil, quick, come see,
There goes Robert E. Lee!"

Now ah don't mind choppin' wood
And ah don't care if the money's no good!
Ya take what ya need and ya leave the rest
But they should NEVER have taken the VERY BEEEEEESSSSSSST!

This was my grandfather's (yes, the same one who stormed Normandy on D-Day) favorite song by the way. HIS grandfather fought for the Confederacy as a rural Appalachian North Carolina man who probably never saw a black person in person his entire life, let alone owned a slave or approved of such a thing.

Turns out people and massive wars are complicated and not as black and white as commonly portrayed! Who would have thought???

And before anyone takes this as a defense of slavery or the Confederacy, no it absolutely is not. The plantation system of chattel slavery was abhorrent, reprehensible, one of the greatest moral evils of all-time. It and the rebellion ABSOLUTELY deserved to be put down.

HOWEVER... My point, and the point of the song, is that the people who suffered and died in the name of the Confederacy were in 99%+ cases NOT slave owners. These people were barely literate if at all. Many didn't own f--king shoes. They literally had no access to any information about the outside world besides what they were spoonfed by their state governments (ESPECIALLY in particularly isolated places like Western North Carolina). And they certainly didn't own slaves, and couldn't afford to even if they wanted to. THEY were nonetheless the ones used as cannon fodder in the Confederacy's "lost cause." Blame the plantation class, not my ancestors. And while it is true Robert E. Lee was part of that plantation class, and in most cases I agree his likeness has no business on the streets of modern America... To deny just how powerful an influence the image (if not the reality) of this man was on generations of Southerners is just to deny reality and history. And if it's going to be preserved anywhere, it absolutely should be Richmond, Virginia.

The 99%+ number you postulate is entirely fictitious. It’s very much not the case.  In fact it’s thought that over a third of the Army of Northern Virginia owned slaves themselves or were part of families that did. It wasn't just the absurdly rich who owned slaves, and it certainly wasn't just them who reaped its benefits and profited from it. This post is malarkey folks.

As for ordinary Southern folk not approving of slavery? Well...I've got bad news to break to you...

Slavery functioned by the mid to late 1850s the way anti-mask stuff or CRT now does. It was an emotional us v. them issue.

In fact, the more slaves someone owned in the South, the more Unionist/moderate on the slavery issue they tended to be. Why? They had skin in the game and therefore had to look at this whole thing not as a game, but as a real one where they would lose.

The largest slaveholder in MS was future Republican governor James Alcorn. The large slaveholders overwelmingly backed John Bell in 1860, and Unionist/American Party candidates in the late 1850s.

After them came the well off merchants.

Basically it was

Big Slaveholders = Whig/American/Unionist
Professional Classes = Douglas Ds, see Mobile or other places where Douglas maintained some Southern support.

Old Jacksonian populist poor white base = Breckinridge, base of the fire eaters.


It was the poorer, slave-less whites who had nothing else but their identity and culture who forced a war over slavery, and thereby caused slaveholders to lose everything

This is comically ahistorical gobbledygook. The comparison to masks and CRT is hilariously absurd, but you're right it was an extremely emotional issue (hence why the comparison to the petty nothingness of masks and CRT is strange), but it was also very much a calculated decision for many of the chief secessionists and fire-eaters.

As for the bigger slaveowners being more "moderate"? I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. The chief secessionists drew much of their support from the planter oligarchs, who rather go to war then risk their bottom line with a President who staunchly opposed the expansion of slavery. They were the ones who got behind the border ruffians, and supported imperial adventures into Latin America to spread slavery. James Alcorn supported the Confederacy entirely, and became a Republican for the purposes of political power.

As for John Bell. John Bell was a secessionist! Up until 1861, he was a "conditional unionist" which is to say he was for the union so long as slavery existed. That's not real Unionism, that's holding the country at gunpoint. John Bell defected to the Confederacy during the secession crisis. All of these people you mention as "Unionist/American/moderate" all supported secession! Stephen Duncan at least was a very prominent slaveowner who supported the Union, but he was shunned by the elite class for these views.

You are seemingly blaming the average southerner for forcing a war against the interests of the large slaveowners, who wanted no such thing. I have no idea where you got that idea, because it is completely made up. It was the planter elite who were behind the secessionist chiefs and among them themselves. Alexander Stephens held 37 people in bondage and owned thousand of acres, Jefferson Davis held 113 people in bondage, Judah P. Benjamin held 140, and so on.

Your breakdown of the 1860 election demographics might be accurate, I don't know, but the rest of your comments aren't. At the very least you acknowledge the average southerner (often enthusiastically) supported slavery, which Alben did not.

I can't speak for everything Dan the Roman wrote, but it is interesting to mention that, of the largest slaveholders recorded in the 1860 census, most of the ones concentrated at the very top were thoroughly Unionist. Dr. Stephen Duncan of Mississippi, who owned 858 slaves, was ostracized for his refusal to support the Confederacy and ended up moving to New York City. William Aiken Jr. of South Carolina, who was an antebellum governor of that state who owned 700 slaves, was also a loyal Unionist. Joseph Acklen of Louisiana, who owned 659 slaves and six cotton plantations, is known to have expressed his pleasure for the North in the Civil War in his personal letters. The list (literally) goes on and on, and while no doubt there are many Confederates to be found among the very largest slaveholders, there is nevertheless at least some truth in his point.

I ended up editing in Duncan. Maybe there is a grain of truth to it, but all of these folks were ostracized from the planter society, and his overall point of the Southern population forcing the unwilling slaveholders to go to war is just absurd.