Robert E. Lee: Traitor or Hero?

[HemlockGrey]

I'm fed up with all the crap about how Robert E. Lee was some great southern gentleman general, opposed slavery, on and on and on. It doesn't matter whether or not he opposed slavery or secession; all that matters was that he fought on their side. He willingly led hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths simply because he could not bear the thought of fighting Virginians.

As for the inevitable Revolutionary War/Washington comparisons: Washington was fighting against an unequal, tyrannical government to create a much more free and equal government. Lee was fighting against the latter to create the former.

So, what do you think?

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The c

[Tosho]

Lee was a Goddamn traitor and deseved to be hanged.

[Raptor 597]

Lee was a Goddamn traitor and deseved to be hanged.

And all the other surviving Confederate soldiers?

[MKSheppard]

Lee was offered Command of the Army of the Potomac, and yet he
turned it down because he couldn't fight against his home state of
Virginia. I've lived all my life in Maryland, and I couldn't possibly
imagine having to fight my fellow Marylanders.

[EmperorChrostas the Cruel]

The civil war was every bit as much about the future form os the USA, as it was about slavery.
You know, that Federal vs Confederate form of goevernment.
State's rights, or Federal rights, which trumps which.
Slavery was one of the hotbutton talking points, used to justify their position.It was an issue, but not the only one, and not the most important one to many.

The USA was just starting to get big enough, that it's government HAD to change, but the FORM of it's change was heatedly disputed.

Many who fought for the south were against slavery, on principal, but didn't like one extra layer of government added on top.
Some because they were loyal to the state, not the USA. Some just didn't want an invading army to move in.(they ain't from 'round here, 'n' have guns, so's theys invaders.)


Robert E. Lee wouldn't be the first general to fight for a "home" that you didn't agree with politicaly.

I agree, though, can a man realy be a "gentleman of honor" and fight for an immoral cause? I don't think so. He fought for an EVIL cause. Supporting a system that permitted, no, GLORIFIED the "gentleman plantation owner." (America's shameful flirtation with "royalty")
These shitheads believed they were better than others, by breeding.
You can't throw shit without some of the stink getting on you.

[MKSheppard]

These shitheads believed they were better than others, by breeding.
You can't throw shit without some of the stink getting on you.

Right, then explain how R.E. Lee freed 230~ slaves?

[Tosho]

Lee was a Goddamn traitor and deseved to be hanged.

And all the other surviving Confederate soldiers?

In principle they should have been hanged, in practice however it wouldn't be very worthwile to wipe out a generation's worth of men. Better to kill the ringleaders to get the point across, and destroy those who would most likely lead a second rebellion.

[Sea Skimmer]

In principle they should have been hanged, in practice however it wouldn't be very worthwile to wipe out a generation's worth of men. Better to kill the ringleaders to get the point across, and destroy those who would most likely lead a second rebellion.

The easy peace that came after the South's surrender was a key part of putting the nation back together.

[Raptor 597]

Lee was a Goddamn traitor and deseved to be hanged.

And all the other surviving Confederate soldiers?

In principle they should have been hanged, in practice however it wouldn't be very worthwile to wipe out a generation's worth of men. Better to kill the ringleaders to get the point across, and destroy those who would most likely lead a second rebellion.

Lee wasn't going to lead a second rebellion. And the ringleaders were all mostly politicans. Lee only lead an Army until Feburary 1865 when he got full military command. The man if any that deserved to be hanged was Davis or those that committed war crimes.

[Tosho]

In principle they should have been hanged, in practice however it wouldn't be very worthwile to wipe out a generation's worth of men. Better to kill the ringleaders to get the point across, and destroy those who would most likely lead a second rebellion.

The easy peace that came after the South's surrender was a key part of putting the nation back together.

True, I feel that we should have killed the ringleaders, and then followed Lincoln's plan for an easy peace for the "little guys" of the CSA[/b]

[Tosho]

And all the other surviving Confederate soldiers?

In principle they should have been hanged, in practice however it wouldn't be very worthwile to wipe out a generation's worth of men. Better to kill the ringleaders to get the point across, and destroy those who would most likely lead a second rebellion.

Lee wasn't going to lead a second rebellion. And the ringleaders were all mostly politicans. Lee only lead an Army until Feburary 1865 when he got full military command. The man if any that deserved to be hanged was Davis or those that committed war crimes.

When I say ringleaders I mean the folowing;

Davis, his vice Pres., his cabinet, the CSA congress, governers, state legislatures, major military leaders Lee, Longstreet ect., and war criminals.

[TrailerParkJawa]

In principle they should have been hanged, in practice however it wouldn't be very worthwile to wipe out a generation's worth of men. Better to kill the ringleaders to get the point across, and destroy those who would most likely lead a second rebellion.

The easy peace that came after the South's surrender was a key part of putting the nation back together.

True, I feel that we should have killed the ringleaders, and then followed Lincoln's plan for an easy peace for the "little guys" of the CSA[/b]

One of the more unique aspects to the war is that we DIDNT hang people afterward. Doing so, could have triggered long term problems and spurred a guerilla movement.

[Ted]

Washington was fighting against an unequal, tyrannical government

Sorry about taking this off topic but, in no way was the British government tyrannical government, nor was it unequal. The American revolution reversed the changes that the British had introduced in the colonies. As well, the American government that replaced the British was tyrannical and unequal.

[Joe]

Washington was fighting against an unequal, tyrannical government

Sorry about taking this off topic but, in no way was the British government tyrannical government, nor was it unequal. The American revolution reversed the changes that the British had introduced in the colonies. As well, the American government that replaced the British was tyrannical and unequal.

Oh God, PLEASE leave the American Revolution, the one thing we have that can be held marginally sacred, alone, Ted. You shit on everything else about this country whenever you have the chance; PLEASE, just leave the American Revolution alone! What is it with you, why do you hate this country so much? Do the pro-America folks on this board routinely shred everything that is good about Canada to pieces?

Taxation without representation is not equal and it is quite tyrannical. It is true that the oppression experienced by American colonists does not compare to the oppression experienced later on by peoples in India and Africa under the British Empire, but that hardly means that Britain was angelic; they forced American colonials, who were considered Englishmen and had the civil rights of Englishmen, to quarter British troops against their will, for one, they gave favored corporations monopoly power at the expense of American businesses, and they treated the American colonies like what they were - colonies, and no one likes to be treated like colonials (except 19th century Canadians, I guess). Really, Britain was guilty of giving Americans too much freedom - benign neglect, as historians have dubbed it - and then coming it in and taking it away when they had become accustomed to it. People never respond well to this sort of thing, and so there was revolt (which Britain encouraged, to be sure - every time American colonials would protest an unpopular measure, the British would back down quite easily, and by the time they were serious about taking a real stand it was too late). It would be like a parent letting his kid go at the age of eighteen, allowing him to become prosperous on his own, then demanding that the kid get in line and obey his parents ten years later. Britain shot itself in the foot with America and got what it deserved.

[horatio]

The easy peace that came after the South's surrender was a key part of putting the nation back together.

True, I feel that we should have killed the ringleaders, and then followed Lincoln's plan for an easy peace for the "little guys" of the CSA[/b]

One of the more unique aspects to the war is that we DIDNT hang people afterward. Doing so, could have triggered long term problems and spurred a guerilla movement.

Yeah, the country needed serious healing, and that would have been the worst possible signal to the former Confederates. They revered these men, and many only willingly laid down arms at their behest.

[Darth Yoshi]

The fact of the matter is, Lee was a member of the US Army. For him to switch allegiances and fight for the Confederacy against the Union is treason. I'm not saying that he should have taken up arms against his home state, but like it or not, taking up arms against the government you served to is treason.

[horatio]

Technically, I agree with you Yoshi. However, it would not have been wise to prosecute Lee. Sometimes it is best to forgive and move forward.

[Darth Yoshi]

I know. The political climate was horrid after the Civil War, and prosecuting Lee would throw a wrench in the process of reintegrating the South. It might even provike the South into seceding again. Even so, Lee was still a traitor.

[irishmick79]

The Civil War was an event in American history that just had to happen. There were too many issues that could simply not be effectively be resolved by the politicians, desipite all of their best efforts. The debate of the role of states in the Union, the explosive issue of slavery, and the agressive expansion of the American Union put so much strain on the contentious issues between North and South that the politicians simply couldn't effectively put them to rest. Eventually, almost inevitably, the issues had to be settled with decisive military force.

Nobody wanted things to come to Civil War. A generation of politicians, both North and South, spent their entire careers trying to avert such a catastrophe for the country. In the end, the sheer number of contentious issues forced the coming of Civil War.

In the end, the war had to be fought. The air had to be cleared. It really doesn't matter what side the combatants chose, it only matters that the issues that were tearing the country apart were finally settled once and for all.

Lee was certainly a hero, and he represented what was good about the Old South. He represented the finest tradition of the US military, and his career in the confederacy was a tribute to his training in the old US army. Lee was a fine example of American military leadership, and nothing more.

[MKSheppard]

I suggest you all read the following book:



then get back to me...

In April 1865 the Civil War appeared to be ending with a whimper rather than a bang. The Army of the Tennessee had been destroyed as an effective force, Sherman was ravaging the Carolinas, and Lee's soldiers were surviving on handfuls of parched corn. In fact, the war did end without a final paroxysm of violence, but there was nothing inevitable about that conclusion. After a career in government, Winik is currently a senior scholar at the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs. He has written a provocative account of the closing weeks of America's greatest national trial.^B Winik sheds light on the apparently serious Confederate plans to wage a prolonged guerrilla war. He suggests that the assassination of Lincoln could have triggered a coup in the North, and his insights into the on-again, off-again "peace" negotiations are incisive. Scholars and Civil War buffs may disagree with some of his assertions, but this fast moving, well-written chronicle will highlight obscure aspects of the war and stimulate further controversy.

[Lonestar]

I suggest you all read the following book:



then get back to me...

In April 1865 the Civil War appeared to be ending with a whimper rather than a bang. The Army of the Tennessee had been destroyed as an effective force, Sherman was ravaging the Carolinas, and Lee's soldiers were surviving on handfuls of parched corn. In fact, the war did end without a final paroxysm of violence, but there was nothing inevitable about that conclusion. After a career in government, Winik is currently a senior scholar at the University of Maryland's School of Public Affairs. He has written a provocative account of the closing weeks of America's greatest national trial.^B Winik sheds light on the apparently serious Confederate plans to wage a prolonged guerrilla war. He suggests that the assassination of Lincoln could have triggered a coup in the North, and his insights into the on-again, off-again "peace" negotiations are incisive. Scholars and Civil War buffs may disagree with some of his assertions, but this fast moving, well-written chronicle will highlight obscure aspects of the war and stimulate further controversy.

(bolding mine)

Horseshit, accounts of Shermen "ravaging" the carolinas and Georgia are very much exagerated. During his march, Sherman's army actualy grew, because Local militias were switching sides. Sherman's army stole from the land no more than when Lee entered Pennslyvania.

slightly back on topic;

Lee was a traitor, but was instrumental in reconciling the South with the North. It's a good thing he wasn't hanged.

Nathen Bedford Forrest, however.....

[Lonestar]

Shep, you should read Lies Across America by James Loewen

Little seems to delight historian James W. Loewen, author of Lies My Teacher Told Me, more than picking apart the cherished myths of American history. Few Americans study history after high school--instead, Loewen writes, they turn to novels and Oliver Stone movies to learn about the past. And they turn to the landscape, to roadside historical markers, guidebooks, museums, and tours of battlefields, childhood homes, and massacre sites. If you were to trust those sources, Loewen suggests, you would learn, erroneously, that the first airplane flight took place not at Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, but at Pittsburg, Texas. "It must be true--an impressive-looking Texas state historical marker says so!" Loewen chortles.
In these entertaining pages, Loewen takes a region-by-region tour of the United States, pointing out historical oddments as he travels. For example, a massacre of white pioneers by Indians commemorated in Almo, Idaho, never took place, Loewen continues; neither did many other such events. Indeed, he insists, "throughout the entire West between 1842 and 1859, of more than 400,000 pioneers crossing the plains, fewer than 400, or less than .1 percent, were killed by American Indians." And if you were to visit Helen Keller's Georgia birthplace, over which a Confederate flag flies, you would get the impression that Keller had been an unreconstructed daughter of the Old South, whereas she was in fact an early supporter of the NAACP. And so on.

After finishing Loewen's alternately angry and bemused exposé, readers will likely never trust a roadside historical marker or tour guide again--which may prompt them to turn to history books to check things out for themselves. As well they should. --

[Sir Sirius]

This American obsession with a war that was fought a century and a half a go never ceases to amaze me.

PS. Lonestar it is, I belief, customary to identify copy & paste quotes as such.

[jegs2]

Lee was offered Command of the Army of the Potomac, and yet he
turned it down because he couldn't fight against his home state of
Virginia. I've lived all my life in Maryland, and I couldn't possibly
imagine having to fight my fellow Marylanders.

That's the crux of it. At that time, loyalty was more to one's state than the nation as a whole. In fact, a legacy of the States War is the centralization of government. At the time, one was more likely to say, "these United States," rather than, "the United States." Lee made a hard choice. He was well-respected by his foes and was an outspoken voice of reconciliation after the war. Due to the political climate of the time period and other factors, I voted for the first.