Meanwhile before the civil war U.S. Grant was destitute and was given a slave from a family member so he could sell him. He immediately freed the slave instead
It wasn't immediate, he owned him for a year. However it's very possible he couldn't free him until he owned him for a year since he was in a slave state and their laws about freeing slaves made it super difficult to do so.
@@jossebrodeur6033Yeah, freeing slaves involved quite the bureaucratic process. Fees and forms, that of course take time to work when everything moves by carriage. Almost like they would prefer you to sell them.
@@jossebrodeur6033 that was most likely the case. Especially since, on top of the process being long and drawn out, Grant was broke. The fact he managed to get the man his freedom within a year is kinda impressive when you consider the situation as a whole. Grant was a solid dude. I just got in a copy of his memoirs, and the little I've read so far already has me psyched for the rest. Sherman's should be coming in soon.
Lee's army when they invaded Pennsylvania also captured free blacks and sold them into slavery, and Lee didn't stop this. I rarely see this brought up by any historian.
Yeah, Lee didn't care. While he did take a dim view of slavery, he was certainly a more than willing participant. Though he made it clear, his reason for joining the South was over rights. At the same time, his own behavior clearly showed he didn't see slaves as human, and his claimed moral objection to the practice was not strong at all. I always get the feeling Lee was highly self agrandizing and his decision to join the South may have been his way of trying to leave a legacy like George Washington. Grant, on the other hand, well, he's my favorite president. He was an incredible general. Most don't even know how much he tried to do while in office and how successful he was in stamping out domestic hate groups during his presidency. He was, in my opinion, as worthless as it may be a highly moral and honorable man who did what he could when he could to make the United States better.
Lee was such a hard slaveowner that be made the news for it. A local newspaper reported on his personally beating a handful of slaves that had failed an escape attempt, after his slave driver refused to do it, and the beating was so brutal that it shocked his community.
@@TuckerMasterson-pl4ol Kinda like when the term chauvinist got coined. Back in the 18th hundreds or sth when most men definitely weren't feminists. But some men didn't just think women were beneath them in a sense of naturalistic order, but just straight up despised women. Like modern incels where you genuinely ask yourself why those guys don't just leave women alone if they hate them so much and date other men. Those guys were called chauvinists back in the day. Imagine being so sexist other men in the industrial age thought you're pathetic for it.
Lee say "slavery is an evil" not because he thought was bad. But because he didnt like how it made HIM act. He was just as racist as anyone else of the time. He just didnt like the reality that slaves weren't obeident unconditionally. Infact he was SUPPOSED to free all of his father in laws slaves per his will but kept putting it off. Then got furious when they tried to leave. (His father in law told them they were free upon his death)
Ah. Sooooo, he was the sort that, perhaps, thought that other "races" were *inherently* inferior, and should subsequently be *naturally* subordinate? And, thus, that the great Evil of Slavery wasn't its *basic* existence as an institution, but that, as an institution, it was *superfluous,* as it merely reinforcing a hierarchy which *he* saw as natural and Right...? 😲😲🤯
You don’t have it quite right. “In his will, Custis directed that the enslaved people be freed after the payment of legacies and debts and within five years.” The enslaved people did feel they were promised they’d be freed immediately upon Custis’s death, but Custis left those instructions and Lee felt obligated to execute the will as it was. He *did* try to extend the 5 years with Virginia, however, and when the state refused he executed a deed of manumission.
A quote from the Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant: He is writing about his meeting with Lee at Appomatox: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
@@douglaswilkinson5700 Funny how it was about 'state's rights' when they had, just shortly prior to seceding from the Union, attempted to remove the Free State's rights on freeing slaves and protecting escaped slaves. 🤔🤔🤔🤔 The Confederacy wanted to own people. That's what the Civil War was about. EVERYTHING revolved around that.
Grant briefly owned one slave given to him by his father-in-law. The slave worked the farm side by side with Grant and ate at the family table. Grant freed the man rather than sell him, at a time when the farm had failed and he was short of money.
@@ethanwalker955 Considering I’ve seen that exact thing said of Lee AND Grant at different points in the story I’m preferring to suppose that entire story is made up
Grant took the slave because he was dependent on his Father in Law sending money to keep his family fed, and refusing the slave would have pissed off the FIL. He did catch utter crap from neighbors and relatives for being on a first-name basis with his slave, letting him eat at the family table, never whipping him, and splitting the work pretty evenly.
It actually doesn’t fall apart. Slavery wasn’t considered an evil thing yet and by using current morality it’s being disingenuous. It’s either you’re ignorant of society back then or you willfully realize it and choose to be an ass
Jefferson also held slaves and advocated abolition. He notoriously freed his children when his babymomma threatened not to go back to america when he took her to France, since she was feee there. His slaves were not even freed in his will. Washington also held slaves until his death. Many examples of folks taking advantage of the system in place, while also advocating the end of the system.
Yes. The system was pretty screwed up. Even if Jefferson wanted to free his slaves, it would have hurt him financially in a way that politicking wouldn't have been an option anymore. And since the Union was young it was fragile and there was realistically no way for him to make all the other slave owners also give up that wealth. After all, they just overthrew one government. Why not do so for the new one if they think it sucks?
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a "gag rule" in 1836 to prohibit debate and discussion of anti-slavery petitions and Jefferson discussed slavery primarily as an objection to the limitations on free speech.
Slaves were property and property was often mortgaged. Many slave owners who wanted to free their slaves couldn't because the banks wouldn't allow it. Some just didn't practice what they preached. History is complicated.
I am a direct descent of Robert E. Lee and of a person who was enslaved by his family (the story goes that we are descendants of a “relationship” between he and a woman who was enslaved by him). I recently had someone try to explain to me how good he was to his slaves. My response was, “if he was so good to them, then he wouldn’t have ENSLAVED them in the first place.” He did not like that answer. Think I’ll show him this video next time I see him… 😐
As somebody, who is the third generation of my family named after that man, I greatly appreciate you spreading the truth. I'm proud of the name and the historical connotation, but not of the man I am named after. Keep doing the good work, brother. Soon all the world will be educated and be able to appreciate history properly.
Ugh, sorry you have to deal with folks like that. I think how you used "person who was enslaved" or "enslaved" person is powerful, too. Just the word "slave" feels really dehumanizing, and it's the same language many used in the 1800s. I also don't like "slave masters" or "slave owners". It doesn't hold the weight of the abject horror, and some idiots use those terms with gusto. Maybe "enslavers". Or just "lazy" lol
"Lee personally owned people..." It's weird how much worse this sounds than "owned slaves." Like the very word slave still has a dehumanizing effect on the conversation.
@@crusaderduncan9398It is pretty clear that you don’t understand the true horror of slavery because pretty much any brutality you can think of one human visiting on another is included within the auspices of enslavement. The version we teach is extremely sanitized. The reality encompasses the full range of human cruelty.
Painting Lee as a saint became a thing to do in the South after the Civil War. For many diehard Confederate fans, saying anything negative about Lee is a taboo to this day. In academia, it's called the Lost Cause School of Interpretation (of the Civil War), and its hold on the Southerners is still very tight.
I'm from Louisiana and can confirm there are many teachers and professors that sugar drench it in your classic "Lost Cause" wrapping, which seems to me to ultimately downplay the aspect of slavery, and raise many problematic leaders in a more favourable light.
Humans are complicated. It's like any other dysfunctional relationship, there's good mixed in with the bad, which cements the bond even when it's horrendously harmful to everyone involved.
A myth that was perpetuated by minstrel shows, from white actors in blackface. Absolutely recommend checking out Drew Gilpin Faust's book on Confederate Nationalism that details how those shows were supposed to help calm women and children who feared God's wrath, but it backfired by humanizing enslaved people by giving them a voice (false that it was) in their society
Many were separated at ir a few years after birth. Regardless of the evils experienced, these oeople were a form if famiky in a sick way. If you never heard the last slave tapes, i suggest it greatly. Most likely found two or three family that way as well. Including an interviewer that married into one of the families... History is a trip.
I remember reading in one of my history school books when I was 8 or 9 that slavery wasn’t so bad if you had good masters. The horror of this was the black kids were reading this same hogwash as I . I hope the textbooks don’t have this bs in them anymore. I’m 81 now.
Shelby Foote said it best (and I believe he was quoting someone else): If you believe the civil war was about slavery, you'd be absolutely wrong. And, if you believe it was not about slavery, you'd be just as wrong.
@@Trobtwillis Slavery was the straw that broke the camels back. But, the issues between the northern and southern states was way more than just slavery and had existed since the Constitution was ratified.
Yup, me too. But in NC's favour, when I visited the South for the first time since I was a kid, I saw the historic site where the Confederate Army finally disbanded. Not a rebel flag in sight. I was pleasantly surprised.. ❤
@@scarecrow953 Can you point to some states rights they were fighting for besides slavery? Literally every respected historian says that the primary purpose of the Confederate seceding the Union was to preserve slavery.
@@davekingrey1009 So, you don't get it, and probably won't. The issues between the north and south began shortly after the constitution was ratified. The issues were political, economical, trade and cultural. Slavery became the straw that broke the camels back. There weren't specific rights that were argued. The notion was that all states joined the US union as Sovereign states and the union was voluntary. And that state law over rode federal law. Rhode Island actually took 2 yrs to ratify the US Constitution because they believe it would have too much power. James Madison had to travel there and address the legislature to insure this was not the case. But over time, northern states pushed for more federal control and law over states. This is what states rights means. The right to govern itself with little federal influence. Even the Paris Treaty of 1783 ending the revolutionary War recognized the several SOVEREIGN states in America. If you read deeper, the southern states, specifically Virginia, were debating the best way to transition out of slavery. This had to be a planned and gradual transition or it would potential destroy the southern economy. Southern states were afraid Lincoln would end it overnight, wreck southern economy and fears of slave reprisal. So, yes, slavery was the reason, along with thousands of other reasons. I would dare say, that most confederate soldiers didn't care about slavery. They just hated Yankees!
@@davekingrey1009 No, this was just the first issue that arose challenging the constitution's protection over state's rights. Jefferson Davis clearly states that his biggest mistake was not abolishing slavery before the war ever started, as not doing so allowed for the intentional manipulation of the context and truth into the divisive and racially biased narrative that is projected and perpetuated today. All of these are revisionist history tactics being used as a form of mental warfare and enslavement upon the We the People of today. This is simply put a tool of divide and conquer utilized by them in order to keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of coming together & collectively focusing our transgressions on establishment politicians and the elite ruling class who are indiscriminately takeing advantage of, using & controlling us all now, both mentally and physically. Of course this is only my educated opinion, but absolutely one based upon sound logic, deductive reasoning & unbiased critical thought... All referenced by accurate historical sources independently verified and substantiated by myself as well as countless others. While it's unlikely anyone will read this, as it seems RUclips does not wish to encourage yet instead censors intelligent, free thought, productive civil discourse or anything of the sort which may be deemed enlightening or empowering to the public, please do not take my word for it, but exert the effort yourselves to seek out, identify and research legitimate historical records that are grounded in fact and free from prejudiced or unfounded opinion. Practice deductive reasoning and critical thought processes that are free from the potentially deceptive influence and constraint of an often time preconditioned and biased viewpoint.
@@davekingrey1009 Perhaps it was. But the issue of states rights does go deeper. It goes to the question of if states were sovereign entities in a compact with each other or if they were just basically an administrative layer. Even now that question rustles quite a few jimmies. If it was the former, then surely any state would be able to opt out of anything Washington does that is not expressly written in the constitution. And such was the point. Sure, it was slavery in that instance. The principle that you do not wish to be dictated to by a central government goes deeper than the issue that sparked the discussion though.
Lee, like George III, held the rights of property to sacred to allow the abolition of slavery. George of England SAID slavery was evil, but like Lee, George saw slavery as a necessary evil. Grant found slavery morally repugnent when he experienced owning a slave. He freed the slave. Washington was seen as a bad slave owner, but he came to see slavery as incompatible with any form of constitutional government. But we discovered that from private letters, not public statements, sad to say.
Washington kind of had to or he wouldve lost a lot of faith in the early American populace. As most of them wouldve owned or see nothing bad about owning slaves. And people need to bring the John Adams up more HE NEVER owned people
One time the guy gave his slaves 50 lashes as a punishment. For perspective, at the time 30 lashes would have been considered a pretty brutal punishment. This treatment was so horrifying that some of his slave drivers, men whose entire living was made in beating men and women like animals, refused to do it. So you can't say that you "can't judge him by today's standards, it was a long time ago". People at the time thought this was excessively cruel, it made the local paper.
And when he freed the slaves that were in his wife's name... it's because it was part of her father's will or trust (I forget which) that said slaves would be granted their freedom by the time that Lee freed them.
Lee's father in law made him the executor of his will, problem was that he testamented large sums of money to his children, money he did hot have, Lee raised the money by renting out his slaves until they had raised the money promissed, then he fulfilled the last part of the will and freed his father in laws slaves. it propably was more a question of Lee doing his duty and keeping his word than any personal beliefs in abolition. Lee's father was a bit of a scammer, and Lee was desperate to rid himself of his fathers legacy.
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 he also beat his slaves so hard even the professional slave drivers wouldn’t do the shit he did and refused to do it when asked to Lee was so infamous for the brutality of his beatings that HIS SLAVE OWNING COMMUNITY WERE SHOCKED AND APPALED
Imagine living in a different era that had different rules and different different norms. And then trying to apply a lifestyle from over 100 years later into that era.
@neilkurzman4907 bro what are you even on? What is your end goal on defending slavery? By the time it was occurring in the US it was considered abhorrent. Jesus people like you just enjoy being contrarian for no reason
@@neilkurzman4907 Don't drag Biblical slavery into this. A thief being an indentured servant for 7 years as a form of punishment is not the same as toddler being sold at auction to pay for his master's gambling debts. Yes, Paul told slaves in the Roman era to obey and not rebel, BUT when Paul wrote to Philemon, he told him to treat Onesemus as he would treat Paul himself. 1 Cor 7:21 Paul tells slaves to buy their freedom if they can. It's true different times, different cultural norms, but don't act like 18bc and 1860ad are the same.
"The most amazing thing about the enduring cult of personality surrounding Robert E. Lee is how few of the traits Lee's admirers claim to see in him that he actually possessed."
Serious question: if that's true, then how come his own contemporaries, including his enemies, men who knew him well did respect him? I'd rather stick with the primary sources based on people who knew him, Northern or Southern.
@@Winaska Grant said he personally didnt like him, but only acted civil so the war would end. And most of the people he knew were people like him. You dont see many people hanging out with people that was shit talk them
@@allanorme2093 citation for Grant saying that? And most of the people he knew were not people like him. The man knew so many people from his army time and his days at West Point and in the Mexican war. He knew plenty of varying kinds of men and women
It was actually during the time of the American Civil War in the early 1860s. If I remember correctly his father in law had wrote in his will that they would be freed within 5 years after his death which while bad did mean that eventually the people who were enslaved would eventually be freed.
Why is nobody talking about free blacks owning slaves? They did that also especially in South Carolina and Louisiana. A simple census records check from the 1850s will verify this.
From the foreigner point of view, it is extremely funny, how similiar arguments of the CSA apologists sounds to the arguments of the apologists of the Russian Whites in the Russian Civil War and to the nazi apologists. But their Lost Cause always was supported by western media for obvious reason.
So much for embracing tradition. Tradition would dictate telling history as it was. These people are hypocritical about free speech too. "I can say what I want cuz it's my right but don't you dare use your right to speak out if it is in opposition to mine".
Grant at one point had one slave that was gifted to him (I think by his in-laws) and he was so guilty about it that he set him free after a few months or years, rather than enjoy the easy life of having someone work for him for free. For Grant, who was always struggling financially, this was pretty much throwing away a golden ticket to feeding his family more easily.
Just because Lee ended up realizing he was on the wrong side of history near the end of his life doesn't automatically absolve him of all of his wrong knowings. He owned slaves, he actively supported a slave state, he split the goddamn country in two, and then surrendered with his tail between his legs because he realized he fucked up. All of this is ignoring the horrid state of the Confederate armies and troops that were barely fed. It makes him a man who did terrible things who happened to have just the slightest sliver of a conscience. Grant wasn't the best person either, but at least he didn't lead the Confederacy.
I don’t mean to side with what Lee stood for, but here are some items to consider. -Lee was fighting for his home (in his mind, the State of Virginia). Lots of soldiers do that while knowing their home has flaws. -Lee did not split the Union. The split happened well before he got involved. -For some parts of the South, it was illegal to give a slave his/her freedom. Thomas Jefferson encountered this problem at the same time leading the charge against the Atlantic Slave Trade. (Read Thomas Sowell’s book “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” for a thoughtful take on Slavery and the American law and politics). -Slavery was an accepted institution. Even former slaves became slave owners when they had the means to do so. Read about William Ellison for an example. The rest of what you wrote I do not dispute. Bobby Lee was full of contradictions.
Lee didn't surrender with his tail between his legs at all. At least no Union soldier who had fought against him for four years would say that. And blaming Lee for all the confederacies failures is just dumb. There was a President, a cabinet, and a congress that controlled things too. A sliver of conscience is enough to lead to repentance. But people just love to hate.
Confederate fan < Union Chad I dont know why so many people, especially southerners, are quick to defend the confederacy. (I understand why, its rhetorical.) The confederacy was supported by the democractic party, founders of the kkk. The Union supported by the anti-slavery party, the Republicans.
@@Trebor74Did you feel that was really necessary? The man made a sincere point. What is the point of criticizing a text? I have never understood this. Sometimes, it is best to observe. Just educating you (of course), like you were (apparently) trying to educate another user.
@@txmetalhead82xkLet’s be frank, this is an American grammar mistake gaining more and more traction, and should be eradicated. I am glad he mentioned it.
How does that make Lee better that he thought slavery was bad? He didn't have enough convictions in his beliefs to fight for the right cause? He was still going to fight against his brothers in the war either way.
I have a question, was there any wealthy people at all who didn’t own slaves? people who exclusively ran large amounts of industrialized factories, and not run any plantations? Or were the people who are our modern equivalent of billionaires all have houses in both the north and the south so that they could own slaves and also be industrial capitalists?
We tend to envision the world back then much in the same way we envision our own - interconnected in which people owned numerous properties across the United States with megacorporations that spanned numerous industries. While there are examples of such phenomenon in that period of time, albeit at a much smaller scale than one would observe today, it was much rarer. It wasn't common to see one corporation dabbling in dozens of different industries as you might see today either. Or to more accurately put it, it wasn't at the same scale as one might see today. What you have to understand about the economy in the south, is that the large plantations that produced say, as an example, cotton or tobacco weren't ran like corporations. At least, not in the way that you would traditionally envision them. The larger plantations were very much aristocratic in nature and truth be told, so massively profitable thanks to the institution of slavery, that there was little incentive to invest one's time and resources into other industrial endeavors. In many regards, the culture was radically different to that of many urbanized northern states, specifically in the north-east. tl;dr, no. It was by no means normal nor common for northern industrialists to own property in the south, nor employ slave labor.
Northern families used immigrant labor and low-income people to work in their factories, in their homes they had domestic workers who earned a salary. It should be noted that paying immigrants and the poor was cheaper than having slaves and that was one of the reasons why there was not so much slavery in the north, of course it was in the north where abolitionism and the clamor arose to end slavery and emphasize that many northerners did not know slavery firsthand, many northerners had never seen the cruel and inhuman treatment given to slaves
I think Up North's human rights violations ran more to immigrant and child labor, but that doesn't mean corporations weren't indirectly supporting/benefitting from slavery, especially in the garment and tobacco industries.
@@shannoncrane4131 You are right, the working conditions in the north were very bad, the salaries they received were very low, but, here comes the difference, I believe that in terms of human rights the south was worse, even in Christian morality, because they no longer could import slaves from other parts of the world, the only way to get more slaves was by illegally kidnapping free African Americans in the north and reproducing the slaves they already had as if they were cattle because for the plantation owners the slaves where that, even worse, Many of the slaves were children of their owners because the masters raped their slaves, such as the case of Thomas Jefferson who had children with his wife's half-sister, who was black and the children born to her were enslaved by Jefferson himself. There were thousands of cases like this in the south, so the southeners where slaving their own children, with this I am not saying that the north was better, both were bad, but I do believe that we can reach the conclusion that the north was the lesser evil.
In Arkansas, the state's biggest newspaper will have a page and a half of opinion pieces memorializing Robert E Lee and one tiny piece on Martin Luther King on MLK day
It's important we view history through the eyes of the standards of the time first, and then view the entirety of the historical event with 20/20 hindsight.
2 phrases we have in record these videos will never tell you "If I could end this war without freeing a single slave, I would" Lincoln "I wish I could buy every slave in the south, so I could set them all free" Lee.
People should be taught history correctly. Le was a great leader of soldiers and a brilliant tactician.He was also a product of his southern life. Grant was also a great leader but je hated Slavery. He was living a very hard life before the Civil War.
Historians should stop referring to said people as "slaves" & instead refer the slave traders as "slavers". "Slave" was never a willling job description. Just what slavers called them.
This is what we need to do in order to get an appropriate and accurate account of our history. Read, and study, those letters, articles, books, and documents, that were actually written by the people who lived it. Especially those who were everyday people, not just the well known figures. And, look at it generationally. It sheds light on the human factor of how close we actually are to these times and events.
I like to call them traditionalists, because tradition is the only thing they want to "conserve". They sure as hell don't care about conserving the environment. :)
Everyone does that it's a common human trait. This is why historians should always struggle to be as a-political as possible. Don't give either side any ammunition
Thats honestly surprising to me that Lee freed his slaves and left the business a decade before the war. But considering the fact slavery was only a decade removed in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and possibly even New York at that time its not surprising.
People who claim that the South wasn't fighting for slavery have no understanding of the Confederacy at a time. The slave trade was a MASSIVE economic powerhouse and almost all of the heavy labor done in the South was done by slaves. The South took a HUGE blow when they lost the slaves. They absolutely needed them. Lincoln also didn't truly give a damn about slaves until Europe threatened to step in to help the confederacy because their cotton supplies had been cut off. Then Lincoln shifted harder to the left so that the Europeans wouldn't be able to openly support the south without directly promoting slavery. Simple history
@@lorenzocassaro3054 Yet Lincoln freed not one slave in any of the northern slave holding states, supported the Corwin Amendment and wrote exemptions in the Emancipation Proclamation that would allow slavery to persist in any southern state that went back to the union, or the fact that slavery wasn't even brought up until almost two years into the war. The south left the union during a time that the north was trying to ratify slavery as a constitutional right would of been the 13th amendment this is what the Corwin Amendment was all about and the south still dipped out, so if it was about slavery the south could of had it but they left still.
I love how people defend the Confederacy with their whole chest it's like you're defending one of America's enemies. Not that I personally care, but I mean you might as well defend Russia and Iran.
Being totally honest, most abolitionists didn't oppose slavery out of the kindness of their heart either. They mostly felt that slavery suppressed otherwise paying jobs and that slaveowners and their slaves took over land that they thought should be available for them instead. Altho it may have sounded nice in speeches and as a talking point, the majority of opposition to slavery wasn't from a moral or altruistic point of view.
Thomas Jefferson said that he wanted the overseers to stop beating the children who labored in the blacksmith shop making nails. When production fell, he authorized the beatings of 8 year old children so they would pick up the pace. 😢
That mugs up the history. We need to use harsh words like slaves when talking about slavery. We dont want confederate propagandists in the future using us saying "people" as evidence that slavery wasn't as bad. They will grasp at anything to make the Confederacy sound good
Yup Lincoln said his only obligation was to preserve the union and levy taxes. South left the union years before the north or Lincoln even mentioned anything about slavery, the north at the time of the south leaving was in the process of ratifying the Corwin Amendment which would of allowed slavery to continue in any state that wished it the federal government would have zero say, but it was about slavery as they say.
You don't have to scroll these comments far at all to see lots of people arguing these evils -- they may have happened in the past, but they do not solely reside there, yet.
This is not necessarily true, Lee was actually known for his good treatment of slaves, however, while he was stationed elsewhere, he hired a Foreman that came recommended and he was actually very cruel.
They are on the full video, and funny how you Lost Causers like to pile it on Lincoln, Grant and Sherman in return. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
@@vehx9316 I see he highlights ur reply...lol. I dont know why ur taking about Grant and Lincoln. I dont recall mentioning them. Grant and Linvoln understood and respected the South and their military leaders. Maybe u should read more about them too.
@@cwbristow spare me the diatribe of "respect", there is a difference between that and lying out right about how Lee was an abolitionist when he clearly isn't. Also Lost Causers made a whole cottage industry about lies of Lincoln and Grant, so if you don't know that then you are just plain ignorant.
@@vehx9316Agian...Not what I said at all. My bad. I assumed this was a conversation about what I said... Not you taking everything everyone said for the last 150 yrs so you dont have to have a direct debate using facts. You just like broad statements on an internet forum. Not reading or looking someone in the eye and having to draw from knowledge in your head.
@@cwbristow again you got anything relevant to the subject, or are you just gonna pull the "that is not what I said ad verbatim" excuse of a 5 year old. This entire channel and it's contents is about the Lost Cause issue. If you came in blind without any prior reading of the subject then the fault is on you.
In the historical fantasy “Guns of The South”, modern day racists go back in time and equip the South with AKs. But things go awry when Lee doesn’t act like they expected he would! It’s a really good book, worth a read.
His dad was also himself a abolitionist and when he found out that the family of Ulysses future wife were enslavers he understandably opposed their marriage due to his moral view’s against the practice.
What I don't understand is why people think there was a good side in this war. All wars happen because powerful people have something to gain and/or lose. The rest is just fluff to make the people doing the fighting feel better. It's true the North weren't nearly as good as history says they are. But that in no way makes the South the good guys.
Lee said after the war was over “Just Let it Go”. Why do people continue to keep digging up old bones and gnawing on them. Oh, that’s right it makes them feel self righteous.
It’s funny how people think that most of the northern states didn’t have slaves. Black people owned slaves, lots of them. Indians had slaves.its really amazing what we aren’t taught
The fact that they were slaves that had no choice in the matter of their enslavement means that they were badly treated, no matter what their owners said!
Lee may have been against secession, but he was *not* against slavery. Also I find funny the idea of someone freeing their slaves, not out of the kindness of their heart, but because, ‘Eh, it’s too much work to manage them’.
Lee County, Florida is named after him. There is a rest stop, Cleveland Avenue, Highway 41 near the bridge. Tells of, long before the bridge was built, Lee sent one of his military scouts, by boat over the river. He was expecting the opposition to be waiting for him, ready to fight. The scout returned, informing the other military had 'gone fishing'. Wish I had a picture of this plaque. Only if all wars fought ended up this way.
It has always been that way the 200 or so slaves Lee inherited were his father in laws slaves he couldn't free them they were tied to the property, this has been the case since Jefferson which is why he had such a hard time freeing his you literally couldn't even if you sold the estate whoever brought it they got the slaves with it, freeing them would come at an extreme cost to the individual trying to free them as you would have to buy each one like you would buy a parcel of land of a property this is going to be very costly. It was the same in Britain and in Mexico hence why the nations paid to free held slaves as you had to legally untie the slave from the estates or land they were bound to.
I think its a weird argument that a person is bad because he treated his slaves poorly. Would anyone genuinely feel any better hearing that someone was “nice” to their slaves? I doubt anyone commenting on this video would care.
If the slaves had their own houses, made their own hours, had vacations paid for, had help reuniting their families, etc... Pretty sure a master like that would be remembered as unusual.
Imagine if the predominantly stronger tribes in Africa did not participate in owning the weaker tribes as slaves and made it into a lucrative business with the Atlantic slaves trade with the Portuguese Imagine if slavery never made it to Europe or America and was never dealt with as it is still prevalent in certain parts of the world as we speak!! God bless America!!!
Respectfully, I believe the premises of this video is incorrect. It is my understanding that Robert E. Lee never owned any slaves. His father in law, George Wahington Parke Custis (the adopted son of George Washington) owned the Custis Planation (now across from the Lincoln Memorial) until his death in 1857. Robert E Lee was the executor of his estate and freed the slaves owned by Mr. Custis in accordance with the terms of his will, which for some occurred during the Civil War. The father of Robert E. Lee, Richard “Lighthorse” Harry Lee was a hero of the Revolutionary War but suffered severe financial reversals when Robert E. Lee was a very young boy. He grew up under modest financial circumstances. During most of his military career, he and his wife lived apart because he was stationed in places distant from the Custis Plantation where she lived. I have read the letters to and from his family published by his son, Robert E. Lee, Jr. They do not mention Robert E Lee selling slaves. Please post the sources of your statements about Lee owning slaves. Thank you.
Meanwhile before the civil war U.S. Grant was destitute and was given a slave from a family member so he could sell him. He immediately freed the slave instead
I don't think it was immediate. But the point is taken. I respect, and admire Grant.
It wasn't immediate, he owned him for a year. However it's very possible he couldn't free him until he owned him for a year since he was in a slave state and their laws about freeing slaves made it super difficult to do so.
@@jossebrodeur6033Yeah, freeing slaves involved quite the bureaucratic process. Fees and forms, that of course take time to work when everything moves by carriage. Almost like they would prefer you to sell them.
@@jossebrodeur6033 that was most likely the case. Especially since, on top of the process being long and drawn out, Grant was broke. The fact he managed to get the man his freedom within a year is kinda impressive when you consider the situation as a whole. Grant was a solid dude. I just got in a copy of his memoirs, and the little I've read so far already has me psyched for the rest. Sherman's should be coming in soon.
B A S E D
Lee's army when they invaded Pennsylvania also captured free blacks and sold them into slavery, and Lee didn't stop this. I rarely see this brought up by any historian.
I’m starting to think the confederates are a bit pro-slavery
Yeah, Lee didn't care. While he did take a dim view of slavery, he was certainly a more than willing participant. Though he made it clear, his reason for joining the South was over rights. At the same time, his own behavior clearly showed he didn't see slaves as human, and his claimed moral objection to the practice was not strong at all. I always get the feeling Lee was highly self agrandizing and his decision to join the South may have been his way of trying to leave a legacy like George Washington.
Grant, on the other hand, well, he's my favorite president. He was an incredible general. Most don't even know how much he tried to do while in office and how successful he was in stamping out domestic hate groups during his presidency. He was, in my opinion, as worthless as it may be a highly moral and honorable man who did what he could when he could to make the United States better.
@@Gomjibar www.nps(DOT)gov/arho/learn/historyculture/robert-e-lee-and-slavery(DOT)htm
@@invisalats841 as a meme once pointed out: "A state's right to WHAT?"
Captured? I think you mean kidnapped and sold into slavery.
Lee was such a hard slaveowner that be made the news for it. A local newspaper reported on his personally beating a handful of slaves that had failed an escape attempt, after his slave driver refused to do it, and the beating was so brutal that it shocked his community.
You know it's bad when other slave owners think you're bad.
@@applesandgrapesfordinner4626 and the guy that most likely has punished slaves through generations says it's fucked
Propaganda was worse then than it is now. Only because you only had access to one maybe 2 news papers and one was more of a local newsletter.
@@TuckerMasterson-pl4ol Kinda like when the term chauvinist got coined.
Back in the 18th hundreds or sth when most men definitely weren't feminists.
But some men didn't just think women were beneath them in a sense of naturalistic order, but just straight up despised women.
Like modern incels where you genuinely ask yourself why those guys don't just leave women alone if they hate them so much and date other men.
Those guys were called chauvinists back in the day.
Imagine being so sexist other men in the industrial age thought you're pathetic for it.
@ngotemna8875 yooo, that's wild but a really solid breakdownand. never thought of the connections like that to the modern-day incel
Lee say "slavery is an evil" not because he thought was bad. But because he didnt like how it made HIM act. He was just as racist as anyone else of the time. He just didnt like the reality that slaves weren't obeident unconditionally.
Infact he was SUPPOSED to free all of his father in laws slaves per his will but kept putting it off. Then got furious when they tried to leave. (His father in law told them they were free upon his death)
Ah. Sooooo, he was the sort that, perhaps, thought that other "races" were *inherently* inferior, and should subsequently be *naturally* subordinate?
And, thus, that the great Evil of Slavery wasn't its *basic* existence as an institution, but that, as an institution, it was *superfluous,* as it merely reinforcing a hierarchy which *he* saw as natural and Right...?
😲😲🤯
You don’t have it quite right. “In his will, Custis directed that the enslaved people be freed after the payment of legacies and debts and within five years.”
The enslaved people did feel they were promised they’d be freed immediately upon Custis’s death, but Custis left those instructions and Lee felt obligated to execute the will as it was.
He *did* try to extend the 5 years with Virginia, however, and when the state refused he executed a deed of manumission.
Well when the whole economy of the south is dependent on slaves it is a necessary evil in my books 🤔
Yup. Everyone was racist at the time. Even the great Abraham Lincoln.
@@nathalie_desrosiersBut not everyone was a slave owner like Lee.
A quote from the Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant: He is writing about his meeting with Lee at Appomatox: "I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse."
Many Southerners -- who did not own slaves -- fought for "states' rights."
@@douglaswilkinson5700 The states right to do what, exactly?
@@anthonyelledge7475the "states rights" is a modern rewriting of history and with even half a brain cell it falls apart so spectacularly
@@anthonyelledge7475 You should have learned about states' rights in high school. Wikipedia has an article on this sybject.
@@douglaswilkinson5700 Funny how it was about 'state's rights' when they had, just shortly prior to seceding from the Union, attempted to remove the Free State's rights on freeing slaves and protecting escaped slaves. 🤔🤔🤔🤔 The Confederacy wanted to own people. That's what the Civil War was about. EVERYTHING revolved around that.
Grant briefly owned one slave given to him by his father-in-law. The slave worked the farm side by side with Grant and ate at the family table. Grant freed the man rather than sell him, at a time when the farm had failed and he was short of money.
@@ethanwalker955that was Lee who did that.
@@ethanwalker955 Considering I’ve seen that exact thing said of Lee AND Grant at different points in the story I’m preferring to suppose that entire story is made up
@@ethanwalker955 what the hell are you even talking about.
@@ethanwalker955no, that was General Lee, you’re confusing the two.
Grant took the slave because he was dependent on his Father in Law sending money to keep his family fed, and refusing the slave would have pissed off the FIL. He did catch utter crap from neighbors and relatives for being on a first-name basis with his slave, letting him eat at the family table, never whipping him, and splitting the work pretty evenly.
Grant was a "slave owner" in the context his father In law gifted him a slave which grant despite being broke , freed the slave
Lee's wife inherited the slaves and they were freed in 1862.
@@drewdurbin4968They were freed? Why, isn’t that nice? What s hero!
I’m being sarcastic.
i feel this argument falls apart when it's like this: "i treat my *slaves* right!"
yeah, what word did you describe them as?
No no no it’s
“I treat my property right “
That way no one knows what you’re talking about
Hell Joe Biden refered to them as Negros like a year ago. Democrats have always been racist.
It actually doesn’t fall apart. Slavery wasn’t considered an evil thing yet and by using current morality it’s being disingenuous. It’s either you’re ignorant of society back then or you willfully realize it and choose to be an ass
Minnions
props to this guy for emphasizing "people" and not just saying "slaves". really drives the level of inhumanity home
Jefferson also held slaves and advocated abolition. He notoriously freed his children when his babymomma threatened not to go back to america when he took her to France, since she was feee there. His slaves were not even freed in his will. Washington also held slaves until his death. Many examples of folks taking advantage of the system in place, while also advocating the end of the system.
Yes. The system was pretty screwed up. Even if Jefferson wanted to free his slaves, it would have hurt him financially in a way that politicking wouldn't have been an option anymore. And since the Union was young it was fragile and there was realistically no way for him to make all the other slave owners also give up that wealth. After all, they just overthrew one government. Why not do so for the new one if they think it sucks?
The U.S. House of Representatives passed a "gag rule" in 1836 to prohibit debate and discussion of anti-slavery petitions and Jefferson discussed slavery primarily as an objection to the limitations on free speech.
Slaves were property and property was often mortgaged. Many slave owners who wanted to free their slaves couldn't because the banks wouldn't allow it. Some just didn't practice what they preached. History is complicated.
When Sally was in France with Jefferson, she wasn’t a mother yet. Learn history correctly.
@@Cc-bs8ll Cool. Her son still attested that that was the deal she made while in France.
I am a direct descent of Robert E. Lee and of a person who was enslaved by his family (the story goes that we are descendants of a “relationship” between he and a woman who was enslaved by him). I recently had someone try to explain to me how good he was to his slaves. My response was, “if he was so good to them, then he wouldn’t have ENSLAVED them in the first place.” He did not like that answer. Think I’ll show him this video next time I see him… 😐
As somebody, who is the third generation of my family named after that man, I greatly appreciate you spreading the truth. I'm proud of the name and the historical connotation, but not of the man I am named after.
Keep doing the good work, brother. Soon all the world will be educated and be able to appreciate history properly.
Ugh, sorry you have to deal with folks like that. I think how you used "person who was enslaved" or "enslaved" person is powerful, too. Just the word "slave" feels really dehumanizing, and it's the same language many used in the 1800s. I also don't like "slave masters" or "slave owners". It doesn't hold the weight of the abject horror, and some idiots use those terms with gusto. Maybe "enslavers". Or just "lazy" lol
This. I find it repugnant enough that slave owners would hold slaves, but to even keep their own children as slaves? A Christian General indeed.
Bless you, God loves you spreading the truth
Dude, if I had a dime for every fucking time I've seen "I'm a direct descendant of Robert E Lee", I'd be richer than Elon fucking Musk.
Posting old checkmate clips…..It’s coming soon
This friday... >:)
@HistoryEnjoyer3010 I suspected the new episode was coming out, and yeah it did lol
"Lee personally owned people..."
It's weird how much worse this sounds than "owned slaves." Like the very word slave still has a dehumanizing effect on the conversation.
It's supposed to dehumanize them. It's easily the most fucked up thing Human beings have done is own People as property.
@@Dillpickle1997Really, I can think of a litany of worse things
@@crusaderduncan9398It is pretty clear that you don’t understand the true horror of slavery because pretty much any brutality you can think of one human visiting on another is included within the auspices of enslavement.
The version we teach is extremely sanitized. The reality encompasses the full range of human cruelty.
@@Dillpickle1997yep and it’s happened almost everywhere to every people- it’s universality shows how it’s an evil aspect found in all human nature
@@crusaderduncan9398 most of those worse things happened to slaves.
Painting Lee as a saint became a thing to do in the South after the Civil War. For many diehard Confederate fans, saying anything negative about Lee is a taboo to this day. In academia, it's called the Lost Cause School of Interpretation (of the Civil War), and its hold on the Southerners is still very tight.
I'm from Louisiana and can confirm there are many teachers and professors that sugar drench it in your classic "Lost Cause" wrapping, which seems to me to ultimately downplay the aspect of slavery, and raise many problematic leaders in a more favourable light.
"The Southerners"?
Not all. And certainly not this one.
Some causes need to lose.
@@bobbyearl60when I still lived in the South I was always grateful to meet people such as yourself, but sadly you were an exception. But I thank you.
White slaves Indian slaves then black slaves😅😅😅😅😅
Another weird justification I’ve heard is that sometimes the slaves loved their masters
Classic Stockholm syndrome
Humans are complicated. It's like any other dysfunctional relationship, there's good mixed in with the bad, which cements the bond even when it's horrendously harmful to everyone involved.
A myth that was perpetuated by minstrel shows, from white actors in blackface. Absolutely recommend checking out Drew Gilpin Faust's book on Confederate Nationalism that details how those shows were supposed to help calm women and children who feared God's wrath, but it backfired by humanizing enslaved people by giving them a voice (false that it was) in their society
Many were separated at ir a few years after birth. Regardless of the evils experienced, these oeople were a form if famiky in a sick way.
If you never heard the last slave tapes, i suggest it greatly.
Most likely found two or three family that way as well. Including an interviewer that married into one of the families...
History is a trip.
I remember reading in one of my history school books when I was 8 or 9 that slavery wasn’t so bad if you had good masters. The horror of this was the black kids were reading this same hogwash as I . I hope the textbooks don’t have this bs in them anymore. I’m 81 now.
That “Nooo” always has me dying…
But the bible says that slaves should obey their masters.
@@PROVOCATEURSK all that tells anyone is that the bible supports both slavery and blind obedience in the face of injustice
@@PROVOCATEURSK it also says not to eat pork or lobster. STFU.
@@PROVOCATEURSK That says more about the Bible than slavery.
I come back to this short every couple weeks and watch it several times to just laugh. so fucking good
Having grown up in North Carolina all my life I was told that the Civil War had absolutely nothing to do with slavery. I hated being lied to.
Shelby Foote said it best (and I believe he was quoting someone else): If you believe the civil war was about slavery, you'd be absolutely wrong. And, if you believe it was not about slavery, you'd be just as wrong.
@@scarecrow953
Please explain.
@@Trobtwillis Slavery was the straw that broke the camels back. But, the issues between the northern and southern states was way more than just slavery and had existed since the Constitution was ratified.
Yup, me too. But in NC's favour, when I visited the South for the first time since I was a kid, I saw the historic site where the Confederate Army finally disbanded. Not a rebel flag in sight. I was pleasantly surprised.. ❤
Slavery was only part of the issue,but modern history books make it the sole issue
"The civil war was about states rights!" ....yeah exactly, states rights to own slaves.
Always enjoy people who read a chapter in high school history book and then anoint themselves with a PhD in history.
@@scarecrow953 Can you point to some states rights they were fighting for besides slavery? Literally every respected historian says that the primary purpose of the Confederate seceding the Union was to preserve slavery.
@@davekingrey1009 So, you don't get it, and probably won't. The issues between the north and south began shortly after the constitution was ratified. The issues were political, economical, trade and cultural. Slavery became the straw that broke the camels back. There weren't specific rights that were argued. The notion was that all states joined the US union as Sovereign states and the union was voluntary. And that state law over rode federal law. Rhode Island actually took 2 yrs to ratify the US Constitution because they believe it would have too much power. James Madison had to travel there and address the legislature to insure this was not the case. But over time, northern states pushed for more federal control and law over states. This is what states rights means. The right to govern itself with little federal influence. Even the Paris Treaty of 1783 ending the revolutionary War recognized the several SOVEREIGN states in America.
If you read deeper, the southern states, specifically Virginia, were debating the best way to transition out of slavery. This had to be a planned and gradual transition or it would potential destroy the southern economy. Southern states were afraid Lincoln would end it overnight, wreck southern economy and fears of slave reprisal.
So, yes, slavery was the reason, along with thousands of other reasons. I would dare say, that most confederate soldiers didn't care about slavery. They just hated Yankees!
@@davekingrey1009
No, this was just the first issue that arose challenging the constitution's protection over state's rights.
Jefferson Davis clearly states that his biggest mistake was not abolishing slavery before the war ever started, as not doing so allowed for the intentional manipulation of the context and truth into the divisive and racially biased narrative that is projected and perpetuated today. All of these are revisionist history tactics being used as a form of mental warfare and enslavement upon the We the People of today. This is simply put a tool of divide and conquer utilized by them in order to keep us fighting amongst ourselves instead of coming together & collectively focusing our transgressions on establishment politicians and the elite ruling class who are indiscriminately takeing advantage of, using & controlling us all now, both mentally and physically.
Of course this is only my educated opinion, but absolutely one based upon sound logic, deductive reasoning & unbiased critical thought... All referenced by accurate historical sources independently verified and substantiated by myself as well as countless others.
While it's unlikely anyone will read this, as it seems RUclips does not wish to encourage yet instead censors intelligent, free thought, productive civil discourse or anything of the sort which may be deemed enlightening or empowering to the public, please do not take my word for it, but exert the effort yourselves to seek out, identify and research legitimate historical records that are grounded in fact and free from prejudiced or unfounded opinion. Practice deductive reasoning and critical thought processes that are free from the potentially deceptive influence and constraint of an often time preconditioned and biased viewpoint.
@@davekingrey1009 Perhaps it was. But the issue of states rights does go deeper. It goes to the question of if states were sovereign entities in a compact with each other or if they were just basically an administrative layer. Even now that question rustles quite a few jimmies.
If it was the former, then surely any state would be able to opt out of anything Washington does that is not expressly written in the constitution. And such was the point. Sure, it was slavery in that instance. The principle that you do not wish to be dictated to by a central government goes deeper than the issue that sparked the discussion though.
Lee, like George III, held the rights of property to sacred to allow the abolition of slavery. George of England SAID slavery was evil, but like Lee, George saw slavery as a necessary evil.
Grant found slavery morally repugnent when he experienced owning a slave. He freed the slave. Washington was seen as a bad slave owner, but he came to see slavery as incompatible with any form of constitutional government. But we discovered that from private letters, not public statements, sad to say.
Washington kind of had to or he wouldve lost a lot of faith in the early American populace. As most of them wouldve owned or see nothing bad about owning slaves.
And people need to bring the John Adams up more HE NEVER owned people
One time the guy gave his slaves 50 lashes as a punishment. For perspective, at the time 30 lashes would have been considered a pretty brutal punishment. This treatment was so horrifying that some of his slave drivers, men whose entire living was made in beating men and women like animals, refused to do it.
So you can't say that you "can't judge him by today's standards, it was a long time ago". People at the time thought this was excessively cruel, it made the local paper.
And when he freed the slaves that were in his wife's name... it's because it was part of her father's will or trust (I forget which) that said slaves would be granted their freedom by the time that Lee freed them.
Lee's father in law made him the executor of his will, problem was that he testamented large sums of money to his children, money he did hot have, Lee raised the money by renting out his slaves until they had raised the money promissed, then he fulfilled the last part of the will and freed his father in laws slaves. it propably was more a question of Lee doing his duty and keeping his word than any personal beliefs in abolition. Lee's father was a bit of a scammer, and Lee was desperate to rid himself of his fathers legacy.
Lee actually went to court in order to try and keep those slaves, but the court didn't rule in his favor.
@@jossebrodeur6033 wrong, he tried to free them sooner, he and his wife also opened a school to educate freed slaves
@@insomniacbritgaming1632 he also beat his slaves so hard even the professional slave drivers wouldn’t do the shit he did and refused to do it when asked to Lee was so infamous for the brutality of his beatings that HIS SLAVE OWNING COMMUNITY WERE SHOCKED AND APPALED
@insomniacbritgaming1632 Got a source I can look up?
RIP Billy Yank
His souls is marching on.
@@Ducaso Glory, glory, hallelujah
He's marching with John Brown now
Wait..did the guy that did these pass away?
Stop spoiling!
People will always romanticize the losers. Right or wrong people always will.
The loser’s people will.
@@judipierry549 unless the losers were actually justified in their cause. Everyone romanticizes Native Americans for instance.
Imagine thinking slavery is a "necessary" evil. What a joke
Imagine living in a different era that had different rules and different different norms. And then trying to apply a lifestyle from over 100 years later into that era.
@neilkurzman4907 my brother in christ slavery was abhorrent in that time too. Wtf are you even yapping about trying to defend it
@@benverboonen1108
Funny a lot of questions on slaves then. A lot of ministers had no issue with slaves back then. There are slaves in the Bible.
@neilkurzman4907 bro what are you even on? What is your end goal on defending slavery? By the time it was occurring in the US it was considered abhorrent. Jesus people like you just enjoy being contrarian for no reason
@@neilkurzman4907 Don't drag Biblical slavery into this. A thief being an indentured servant for 7 years as a form of punishment is not the same as toddler being sold at auction to pay for his master's gambling debts. Yes, Paul told slaves in the Roman era to obey and not rebel, BUT when Paul wrote to Philemon, he told him to treat Onesemus as he would treat Paul himself. 1 Cor 7:21 Paul tells slaves to buy their freedom if they can. It's true different times, different cultural norms, but don't act like 18bc and 1860ad are the same.
"The most amazing thing about the enduring cult of personality surrounding Robert E. Lee is how few of the traits Lee's admirers claim to see in him that he actually possessed."
To be honest, a lot of historical military leaders have that going on.
Serious question: if that's true, then how come his own contemporaries, including his enemies, men who knew him well did respect him? I'd rather stick with the primary sources based on people who knew him, Northern or Southern.
@@Winaska
Grant said he personally didnt like him, but only acted civil so the war would end.
And most of the people he knew were people like him. You dont see many people hanging out with people that was shit talk them
@@allanorme2093 citation for Grant saying that? And most of the people he knew were not people like him. The man knew so many people from his army time and his days at West Point and in the Mexican war. He knew plenty of varying kinds of men and women
your old georgia accent is AMAZING
No, no it is not good and you capitalize Georgia.
@@hellbillyBob You also put a comma after the second "no" in that usage of it. Or you restrain yourself from being a grammar pedant.
@@lysanamcmillan7972 Only spelling . Run along lysol
@hellbillyBob you got torched mate.
@@falconmclenny7284 mate ?!? How the fuck do you know what a Georgia accent sounds like.
Didnt Virginia court in 1840s ordered Lee to free his father in law slaves because that was his will (father’s in law not Lee’s)
It was actually during the time of the American Civil War in the early 1860s. If I remember correctly his father in law had wrote in his will that they would be freed within 5 years after his death which while bad did mean that eventually the people who were enslaved would eventually be freed.
John Adams was the ONLY one who truly hated slavery.
ONLY one?? wtf are you talking about?
So he didn´t follow the bible.
@@MeatFarmer Wow! I did not know that, and that is interesting but sad.
@@MeatFarmerhaha I always loved that fact. John Adams was obnoxious but at least he walked the walk.
@@augustuslunasol10thapostle more so the ppl who abused that book for their selfish gain evil is a bit of an exaggeration 🤷
Why is nobody talking about free blacks owning slaves? They did that also especially in South Carolina and Louisiana. A simple census records check from the 1850s will verify this.
Robert E Lee has been real quiet since this dropped
Yeah, he doesn't get out much anymore. Still votes Democrat though.
The face Billy makes after saying "noooooo" needs to be a meme. RIP Billy, your death came as a shock to me.
What? When? How?
I didn’t know this either.
These Confederate apologists are utterly sickening, just truly terrible people.
From the foreigner point of view, it is extremely funny, how similiar arguments of the CSA apologists sounds to the arguments of the apologists of the Russian Whites in the Russian Civil War and to the nazi apologists. But their Lost Cause always was supported by western media for obvious reason.
Or people with different opinions.
We are all humans capable of malicious acts. Even you!
Those who don't want history taught want to repeat it. Project 2025 doesn't want "embarrassing" things about the South taught.
So much for embracing tradition. Tradition would dictate telling history as it was. These people are hypocritical about free speech too. "I can say what I want cuz it's my right but don't you dare use your right to speak out if it is in opposition to mine".
Grant at one point had one slave that was gifted to him (I think by his in-laws) and he was so guilty about it that he set him free after a few months or years, rather than enjoy the easy life of having someone work for him for free. For Grant, who was always struggling financially, this was pretty much throwing away a golden ticket to feeding his family more easily.
Just because Lee ended up realizing he was on the wrong side of history near the end of his life doesn't automatically absolve him of all of his wrong knowings.
He owned slaves, he actively supported a slave state, he split the goddamn country in two, and then surrendered with his tail between his legs because he realized he fucked up.
All of this is ignoring the horrid state of the Confederate armies and troops that were barely fed.
It makes him a man who did terrible things who happened to have just the slightest sliver of a conscience.
Grant wasn't the best person either, but at least he didn't lead the Confederacy.
I don’t mean to side with what Lee stood for, but here are some items to consider.
-Lee was fighting for his home (in his mind, the State of Virginia). Lots of soldiers do that while knowing their home has flaws.
-Lee did not split the Union. The split happened well before he got involved.
-For some parts of the South, it was illegal to give a slave his/her freedom. Thomas Jefferson encountered this problem at the same time leading the charge against the Atlantic Slave Trade. (Read Thomas Sowell’s book “Black Rednecks and White Liberals” for a thoughtful take on Slavery and the American law and politics).
-Slavery was an accepted institution. Even former slaves became slave owners when they had the means to do so. Read about William Ellison for an example.
The rest of what you wrote I do not dispute. Bobby Lee was full of contradictions.
Lee didn't surrender with his tail between his legs at all. At least no Union soldier who had fought against him for four years would say that.
And blaming Lee for all the confederacies failures is just dumb. There was a President, a cabinet, and a congress that controlled things too.
A sliver of conscience is enough to lead to repentance.
But people just love to hate.
Would love to see you and Brad Neely discuss Ulysses S Grant.
⚡️🌹💀
Confederate fan < Union Chad
I dont know why so many people, especially southerners, are quick to defend the confederacy. (I understand why, its rhetorical.)
The confederacy was supported by the democractic party, founders of the kkk. The Union supported by the anti-slavery party, the Republicans.
Because it was never about the parties but the Christian nationalism of the South
Thank goodness my state is in the Union side (West Virginia) but unfortunately Stonewall Jackson was born in our State 💀.
Other leaders such as Washington and Jefferson believed Slavery was wrong but their pocketbooks spoke louder.
Too be fair Washington did eventually free the people that he had enslaved in his will although they would only be freed upon the death of his wife.
Washington: i cant just FREE my slaves
John Adams:wooimmabouttomakeanameformyselfear
As a black man. I COULD CARE LESS! you can describe the flaws in every person who ever lived. We are all fallen.
Could care less means you care a little bit could care less. Couldn't care less means you don't care at all.
@@Trebor74 thanks for the grammar correction. I COULDN'T CARE LESS! 😂😂😂😂
Amen, good sir 🎩
@@Trebor74Did you feel that was really necessary? The man made a sincere point. What is the point of criticizing a text? I have never understood this. Sometimes, it is best to observe. Just educating you (of course), like you were (apparently) trying to educate another user.
@@txmetalhead82xkLet’s be frank, this is an American grammar mistake gaining more and more traction, and should be eradicated. I am glad he mentioned it.
How does that make Lee better that he thought slavery was bad? He didn't have enough convictions in his beliefs to fight for the right cause? He was still going to fight against his brothers in the war either way.
I have a question, was there any wealthy people at all who didn’t own slaves? people who exclusively ran large amounts of industrialized factories, and not run any plantations? Or were the people who are our modern equivalent of billionaires all have houses in both the north and the south so that they could own slaves and also be industrial capitalists?
Yes, tons of wealthy people did not own slaves. It was not the usual for northern businesses to hold any property in the south.
We tend to envision the world back then much in the same way we envision our own - interconnected in which people owned numerous properties across the United States with megacorporations that spanned numerous industries.
While there are examples of such phenomenon in that period of time, albeit at a much smaller scale than one would observe today, it was much rarer.
It wasn't common to see one corporation dabbling in dozens of different industries as you might see today either. Or to more accurately put it, it wasn't at the same scale as one might see today.
What you have to understand about the economy in the south, is that the large plantations that produced say, as an example, cotton or tobacco weren't ran like corporations. At least, not in the way that you would traditionally envision them. The larger plantations were very much aristocratic in nature and truth be told, so massively profitable thanks to the institution of slavery, that there was little incentive to invest one's time and resources into other industrial endeavors. In many regards, the culture was radically different to that of many urbanized northern states, specifically in the north-east.
tl;dr, no. It was by no means normal nor common for northern industrialists to own property in the south, nor employ slave labor.
Northern families used immigrant labor and low-income people to work in their factories, in their homes they had domestic workers who earned a salary. It should be noted that paying immigrants and the poor was cheaper than having slaves and that was one of the reasons why there was not so much slavery in the north, of course it was in the north where abolitionism and the clamor arose to end slavery and emphasize that many northerners did not know slavery firsthand, many northerners had never seen the cruel and inhuman treatment given to slaves
I think Up North's human rights violations ran more to immigrant and child labor, but that doesn't mean corporations weren't indirectly supporting/benefitting from slavery, especially in the garment and tobacco industries.
@@shannoncrane4131 You are right, the working conditions in the north were very bad, the salaries they received were very low, but, here comes the difference, I believe that in terms of human rights the south was worse, even in Christian morality, because they no longer could import slaves from other parts of the world, the only way to get more slaves was by illegally kidnapping free African Americans in the north and reproducing the slaves they already had as if they were cattle because for the plantation owners the slaves where that, even worse, Many of the slaves were children of their owners because the masters raped their slaves, such as the case of Thomas Jefferson who had children with his wife's half-sister, who was black and the children born to her were enslaved by Jefferson himself. There were thousands of cases like this in the south, so the southeners where slaving their own children, with this I am not saying that the north was better, both were bad, but I do believe that we can reach the conclusion that the north was the lesser evil.
"If slavery is evil, then call be Reobert E-Lee-vil." - General Lee's dying words.
His last words were pass hill to the front
In Arkansas, the state's biggest newspaper will have a page and a half of opinion pieces memorializing Robert E Lee and one tiny piece on Martin Luther King on MLK day
Let’s just hope we don’t forget this history. This stuff must be remembered and not rewritten.
Much has been forgotten
Like who almost entirely brought them here
It's important we view history through the eyes of the standards of the time first, and then view the entirety of the historical event with 20/20 hindsight.
2 phrases we have in record these videos will never tell you
"If I could end this war without freeing a single slave, I would" Lincoln
"I wish I could buy every slave in the south, so I could set them all free" Lee.
Literally both covered in these videos, but good try, champ. ❤
@@user-to9ge8ii9n funny I don't remember actually hearing the video mention said quotes.
m.ruclips.net/video/Lac-8tTuyhs/видео.html&pp=iAQB
About 6:00 minutes in.
People should be taught history correctly. Le was a great leader of soldiers and a brilliant tactician.He was also a product of his southern life. Grant was also a great leader but je hated Slavery. He was living a very hard life before the Civil War.
I love it that he is drinking a Samual Adams beer!
I drink Samuel Jackson beer.
It will get you drunk
Historians should stop referring to said people as "slaves" & instead refer the slave traders as "slavers". "Slave" was never a willling job description. Just what slavers called them.
This is what we need to do in order to get an appropriate and accurate account of our history. Read, and study, those letters, articles, books, and documents, that were actually written by the people who lived it. Especially those who were everyday people, not just the well known figures. And, look at it generationally. It sheds light on the human factor of how close we actually are to these times and events.
The ultimate dunk was when the federal government seized Arlington House and turned it into Arlington national cemetery.
The Confederate Army of Virginia had slave hunters during the Gettysburg Campaign.
You mean they were simply kidnapping any Black person they encountered.
As a youth, George Washington was such a slave hunter. I read about it in a book: White Cargo. It was about the Indentured Servants trade.
Thank you for tackling these things. Conservatives often try to rewrite history to suit their own agendas.
I like to call them traditionalists, because tradition is the only thing they want to "conserve". They sure as hell don't care about conserving the environment. :)
Everyone does that it's a common human trait. This is why historians should always struggle to be as a-political as possible. Don't give either side any ammunition
Actions do speak louder than words. But that’s also something people say to dismiss what someone said.
Thats honestly surprising to me that Lee freed his slaves and left the business a decade before the war. But considering the fact slavery was only a decade removed in Pennsylvania, Delaware, and possibly even New York at that time its not surprising.
first check if Johnny Reb is wearing shoes. if not, walk. actions speak louder than words.
Grant and Sherman were the first modern generals.
Thank you!!! I'm so tired of the stupid crap people say about Lee. I'm ashamed that I'm related to him!
He seems so pleased with his chosen duplicity.
People who claim that the South wasn't fighting for slavery have no understanding of the Confederacy at a time. The slave trade was a MASSIVE economic powerhouse and almost all of the heavy labor done in the South was done by slaves. The South took a HUGE blow when they lost the slaves. They absolutely needed them. Lincoln also didn't truly give a damn about slaves until Europe threatened to step in to help the confederacy because their cotton supplies had been cut off. Then Lincoln shifted harder to the left so that the Europeans wouldn't be able to openly support the south without directly promoting slavery. Simple history
Hi, could you link primary sources for this topic? There are a lot of Lee sympathizers out there, and I was one of them until a few years ago.
They are in the original video. This is just a clip.
What was funny is people thinking slavery only existed in the south.
It was all around the world, from what I read. Still, slavery will always be diabolical and oppressive.
This one actually surprised me. I was under the impression Lee was anti slavery tbh
If he was anti slavery he wouldn't have led the army that fought a war to uphold it
@@lorenzocassaro3054 Yet Lincoln freed not one slave in any of the northern slave holding states, supported the Corwin Amendment and wrote exemptions in the Emancipation Proclamation that would allow slavery to persist in any southern state that went back to the union, or the fact that slavery wasn't even brought up until almost two years into the war. The south left the union during a time that the north was trying to ratify slavery as a constitutional right would of been the 13th amendment this is what the Corwin Amendment was all about and the south still dipped out, so if it was about slavery the south could of had it but they left still.
He wrestled with it internally (good for him) but never publically spoke out and instead doubled down
It really was a war where brother fought brother. I mean, these two guys could be twins.
In 1741 , 11 slaves were burned at the stake in New York City
What I hate is that I still get personally blamed for the actions of the South over 150 years ago, and I'm an Asian-American immigrant!
Please explain.
I think he may be thinking of the absurd demands for reparations.
I'm a descendant of an Irish Famine immigrant. None of this was my fault either. I don't owe anybody anything.
Stop your shitty grift/rage bait, literally none of this affects you in anyway
Thanks for sharing this information
I love how people defend the Confederacy with their whole chest it's like you're defending one of America's enemies.
Not that I personally care, but I mean you might as well defend Russia and Iran.
Apprently you do if your posting...
Or defent vietnam
and pretend it's heritage when the damn doritos locos taco from tacobell outlived the confederacy
A civil war is way different than a war against a foreign foe. The confederates were literally other Americans.
Being totally honest, most abolitionists didn't oppose slavery out of the kindness of their heart either. They mostly felt that slavery suppressed otherwise paying jobs and that slaveowners and their slaves took over land that they thought should be available for them instead.
Altho it may have sounded nice in speeches and as a talking point, the majority of opposition to slavery wasn't from a moral or altruistic point of view.
That's why Lincoln didn't emancipate the slaves until the Civil War was two and a half years old.
The more I learn about the civil war the more I think
Sherman went too easy on The Confederates. Like... Wayyyyy too easy.
Ever heard of the Ebeneezer creek massacre
This guy's acting is so good that sometimes he makes me believe that he's an actual NatSoc or a Confederate.
Thomas Jefferson said that he wanted the overseers to stop beating the children who labored in the blacksmith shop making nails. When production fell, he authorized the beatings of 8 year old children so they would pick up the pace. 😢
It was easy to say you were antislavery while owning slaves at this time
I like using "people" in place of the word "slave."
That mugs up the history. We need to use harsh words like slaves when talking about slavery. We dont want confederate propagandists in the future using us saying "people" as evidence that slavery wasn't as bad. They will grasp at anything to make the Confederacy sound good
Good way to remember what we’re actually taking about.
Slavery never ended, tbey just rebranded kt.
Let's. Fkn. Go.
Lincoln said if he could keep America together without freeing the slaves, he would've. 😒😠
Yup Lincoln said his only obligation was to preserve the union and levy taxes.
South left the union years before the north or Lincoln even mentioned anything about slavery, the north at the time of the south leaving was in the process of ratifying the Corwin Amendment which would of allowed slavery to continue in any state that wished it the federal government would have zero say, but it was about slavery as they say.
Feeling morally superior by recounting evils of the past. Actions do speak louder than words.
You don't have to scroll these comments far at all to see lots of people arguing these evils -- they may have happened in the past, but they do not solely reside there, yet.
This is not necessarily true, Lee was actually known for his good treatment of slaves, however, while he was stationed elsewhere, he hired a Foreman that came recommended and he was actually very cruel.
Lmao just completely making shit up
Blah blah blah
Where are all the hard references for these facts that arent opinions or Yankee propaganda? Hard for a dead man to defend himself. Gotta love YT.
They are on the full video, and funny how you Lost Causers like to pile it on Lincoln, Grant and Sherman in return. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
@@vehx9316 I see he highlights ur reply...lol. I dont know why ur taking about Grant and Lincoln. I dont recall mentioning them.
Grant and Linvoln understood and respected the South and their military leaders. Maybe u should read more about them too.
@@cwbristow spare me the diatribe of "respect", there is a difference between that and lying out right about how Lee was an abolitionist when he clearly isn't.
Also Lost Causers made a whole cottage industry about lies of Lincoln and Grant, so if you don't know that then you are just plain ignorant.
@@vehx9316Agian...Not what I said at all. My bad. I assumed this was a conversation about what I said... Not you taking everything everyone said for the last 150 yrs so you dont have to have a direct debate using facts. You just like broad statements on an internet forum. Not reading or looking someone in the eye and having to draw from knowledge in your head.
@@cwbristow again you got anything relevant to the subject, or are you just gonna pull the "that is not what I said ad verbatim" excuse of a 5 year old.
This entire channel and it's contents is about the Lost Cause issue. If you came in blind without any prior reading of the subject then the fault is on you.
I've never heard anybody argue on behalf of general Lee that he was remotely abolitionist😂
In the historical fantasy “Guns of The South”, modern day racists go back in time and equip the South with AKs. But things go awry when Lee doesn’t act like they expected he would! It’s a really good book, worth a read.
If I’m remembering correctly, general, Grant had inherited a slave, but sent him free.
His dad was also himself a abolitionist and when he found out that the family of Ulysses future wife were enslavers he understandably opposed their marriage due to his moral view’s against the practice.
What I don't understand is why people think there was a good side in this war. All wars happen because powerful people have something to gain and/or lose. The rest is just fluff to make the people doing the fighting feel better. It's true the North weren't nearly as good as history says they are. But that in no way makes the South the good guys.
Now do the Arab Slave Trade. The worst slave trade to ever happen, and gets no recognition
and that’s why his legacy is surrendering an army barefoot, broken, starving, and unable to go on.
Lee said after the war was over “Just Let it Go”. Why do people continue to keep digging up old bones and gnawing on them. Oh, that’s right it makes them feel self righteous.
Love it when the justification for owning slaves is how you “treat” them. - like property, not humans.
It’s funny how people think that most of the northern states didn’t have slaves. Black people owned slaves, lots of them. Indians had slaves.its really amazing what we aren’t taught
The fact that they were slaves that had no choice in the matter of their enslavement means that they were badly treated, no matter what their owners said!
Lee may have been against secession, but he was *not* against slavery.
Also I find funny the idea of someone freeing their slaves, not out of the kindness of their heart, but because, ‘Eh, it’s too much work to manage them’.
Lee County, Florida is named after him. There is a rest stop, Cleveland Avenue, Highway 41 near the bridge. Tells of, long before the bridge was built, Lee sent one of his military scouts, by boat over the river. He was expecting the opposition to be waiting for him, ready to fight. The scout returned, informing the other military had 'gone fishing'. Wish I had a picture of this plaque. Only if all wars fought ended up this way.
Lee was reincarnated as a shift manager at a KFC in NC.
There were slaves in Grants house but it was slaves brought to his house from his wife's plantation.Julia refused to leave her slaves behind.
It has always been that way the 200 or so slaves Lee inherited were his father in laws slaves he couldn't free them they were tied to the property, this has been the case since Jefferson which is why he had such a hard time freeing his you literally couldn't even if you sold the estate whoever brought it they got the slaves with it, freeing them would come at an extreme cost to the individual trying to free them as you would have to buy each one like you would buy a parcel of land of a property this is going to be very costly. It was the same in Britain and in Mexico hence why the nations paid to free held slaves as you had to legally untie the slave from the estates or land they were bound to.
I think its a weird argument that a person is bad because he treated his slaves poorly. Would anyone genuinely feel any better hearing that someone was “nice” to their slaves? I doubt anyone commenting on this video would care.
If the slaves had their own houses, made their own hours, had vacations paid for, had help reuniting their families, etc... Pretty sure a master like that would be remembered as unusual.
@@user-eg4te4kq4f I have no idea what point you could be making here.
Imagine if the predominantly stronger tribes in Africa did not participate in owning the weaker tribes as slaves and made it into a lucrative business with the Atlantic slaves trade with the Portuguese Imagine if slavery never made it to Europe or America and was never dealt with as it is still prevalent in certain parts of the world as we speak!!
God bless America!!!
People really try to argue that the general of the confederates was an abolitionist? Lmaooo
Respectfully, I believe the premises of this video is incorrect. It is my understanding that Robert E. Lee never owned any slaves. His father in law, George Wahington Parke Custis (the adopted son of George Washington) owned the Custis Planation (now across from the Lincoln Memorial) until his death in 1857. Robert E Lee was the executor of his estate and freed the slaves owned by Mr. Custis in accordance with the terms of his will, which for some occurred during the Civil War. The father of Robert E. Lee, Richard “Lighthorse” Harry Lee was a hero of the Revolutionary War but suffered severe financial reversals when Robert E. Lee was a very young boy. He grew up under modest financial circumstances. During most of his military career, he and his wife lived apart because he was stationed in places distant from the Custis Plantation where she lived. I have read the letters to and from his family published by his son, Robert E. Lee, Jr. They do not mention Robert E Lee selling slaves.
Please post the sources of your statements about Lee owning slaves.
Thank you.