Keith,

"Robert E Lee freed the slaves that he inherited from his father in law."

I believe Lee's father-in-law had already drawn up the conditions for their manumission.

In any case, my point is not to talk about Lee's treatment of slaves (my example was completely hypothetical). Instead, I just wanted to give an example of how we would want to be careful about using a source.

"I am just tired of hearing a blanket condemnation of the South or more accurately the Confederacy being a racist and white supremist society."

I don't blame you for being tired of that at all. Any person who tries to play off the Union war effort as a great and shining example of human freedom for blacks against an "evil" Confederacy is not to be taken seriously.

I don't believe that in any of my posts I condemn the South or the Confederacy for racism. I have certainly talked about the importance of white supremacy in the South (and I have talked about how many in the northern states were white supremacists). But such talk is not inherently a "condemnation," for I have no interest in placing a personal moral judgment on Confederates.

If we wish to understand the South (and the nation as a whole), we must see how race and slavery as well as all other social, economic and political practices and institutions played a part. Historian U. B. Phillips called white supremacy the "central theme" in Southern history, and I believe he was right in many ways (although I certainly do not agree with some of his other ideas). Phillips was not trying to condemn the South by any means. He was a prominent Southern historian at the turn of the century, whose father (if I remember correctly) had been a Confederate soldier.

Other people may disagree with Phillips on that point, and that is absolutely fine. I discuss history not to try to convince someone I'm right, for I surely do not know everything, but to learn. Discussion is a process of learning. While it is not a great analogy, it serves some use---so, consider the game of tennis. A true tennis enthusiast is not interested in absolutely "winning" every match they play, but being challenged and facing an opponent that pushes their skills to the limit. Of course, winning the match is a bonus, but someone who really loves the game is more pleased with improving and learning more about the sport by going up against someone who is better. In that way, both players can improve.

I have no interest in "winning" a discussion on this website, for it is impossible. This is not a competition, nor are there any ways to "win." But, I am interested in talking about some of these issues with people who know them "better" than I do, and who will return a question or challenge with a well-argued, and well-documented, post. If someone does not put out the effort to make a good "return," I find myself a little disappointed---for nothing has been gained by either "player."

I have discussed history with many different people over the years, and have run into quite a few who disagree with me. The people I have respected the most during that time were those who disagreed with me and could back their arguments up. There was one gentleman who took a different approach to about every Civil War topic we covered...but man could he back himself up with evidence and a clear argument. Often we found that we agreed on much, other times we basically agreed to disagree. But I learned a lot from him and I always appreciated it.

That is my interest in visiting this website. I want people to disagree with me and explain how and why. But I do not want people to assume I am here to bad-mouth the South or the North or any other historical subject. If you read my posts carefully, it should be clear that such petty "condemnation" is not my intention or my practice.