Robert E. Lee: Traitor or Hero?

[Andrew J.]

When he graduated from West Point Lee took an oath to preotect the United States. He broke it, he's a traitor, no if ands or buts.

[MKSheppard]

When he graduated from West Point Lee took an oath to preotect the United States. He broke it, he's a traitor, no if ands or buts.

Ok then by your view, William Jefferson Clinton is a traitor who
should be shot and hanged for selling missile secrets to the Chinese
in exchange for campaign contributions, breaking his oath to protect
and defend the constitution of the united states

[Illuminatus Primus]

We're not at war with the People's Republic of China.

Weapons are traded all the time for political purposes, and you can't prove he "sold them missile technology."

And what does this have anything to do with the fact that Robert E Lee was a traitor?

No more red herring, Shep.

[MKSheppard]

And I think the US Navy has settled this entire matter:

There is no ship named after Benedict Arnold, but SSBN-601
was named the USS Robert E. Lee and was laid down the very
same week the last living veteran of the War Between the States
died.

[Illuminatus Primus]

No more red herring, Shep.

He broke his oath to the U.S. and joined a foriegn military to fight for the destruction of the Union.

He is the definition of a traitor, the USN's nomenclature notwithstanding.

[jegs2]

When he graduated from West Point Lee took an oath to preotect the United States. He broke it, he's a traitor, no if ands or buts.

Actually, that is incorrect. Officers take an oath to defend the Constitution of these United States. I took such an oath myself.

[jegs2]

U.S. Army Commissioned Officer Oath

I, (state your name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Emphasis mine

[Death from the Sea]

U.S. Army Commissioned Officer Oath

I, (state your name), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Second Lieutenant, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of The United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.

Emphasis mine

I consider Lee a traitor, but the foreign and domestic part of the oath could be used to argue that Lee was a Patriot.

[MKSheppard]

This reminds me of that old nutcase Benjamin Franklin. He was all for fighting
against the King of England, but when a bunch of farmers rose in revolt
against taxes on booze implemented by the Congress, he went into a fiery organ grinding paroxymn
against those "traitors".

Washington did the right thing by pardoning the "Whiskey Revolt" ring
leaders with no strings attached

[Illuminatus Primus]

When he graduated from West Point Lee took an oath to preotect the United States. He broke it, he's a traitor, no if ands or buts.

Actually, that is incorrect. Officers take an oath to defend the Constitution of these United States. I took such an oath myself.

Wouldn't joining the military of a foriegn nation break the oath to the U.S. Constitution?

[Illuminatus Primus]

This reminds me of that old nutcase Benjamin Franklin. He was all for fighting
against the King of England, but when a bunch of farmers rose in revolt
against taxes on booze implemented by the Congress, he went into a fiery organ grinding paroxymn
against those "traitors".

Washington did the right thing by pardoning the "Whiskey Revolt" ring
leaders with no strings attached

Shep, you misunderstand me. I think Lee was by all counts a traitor to the Union. So were the "Whiskey Revolt" participants.

Should they all have been hung? No.

[Death from the Sea]

Wouldn't joining the military of a foriegn nation break the oath to the U.S. Constitution?

Don't see how it would, unless it was an approved transfer.

[Howedar]

I think he was both.

[jegs2]

Wouldn't joining the military of a foriegn nation break the oath to the U.S. Constitution?

I don't know the rules concerning such, but it would be a definite conflict of interests, not to mention nearly impossible. An officer in the US Army is a 24/7 job, so I don't see how he or she would have time to serve in a foreign military service. Moreover, all officers are required a SECRET security clearance, and a commission in a foreign military would negate that, thus forcing a premature end to the officer's commission. Enlistment is another issue entirely.

[irishmick79]

Also, when the war started there was a tacit understanding between US army high command and the rest of the officer corps that officers could choose to leave the army and fight for the south without reprecussions (other than those that the course of the war brought). The US army would have had no way keep officers who were determined to "go South" in the US army, and trying to enforce any such measure would have been a burden the army couldn't handle.

[Lonestar]

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.

You are correct Sir....the quote somes from a Amazon.com review.

sorry.

[Andrew J.]

When he graduated from West Point Lee took an oath to protect the United States. He broke it, he's a traitor, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Ok then by your view, William Jefferson Clinton is a traitor who
should be shot and hanged for selling missile secrets to the Chinese
in exchange for campaign contributions, breaking his oath to protect
and defend the constitution of the united states

Yes, he should.

Anyway sorry about the "defend the Constitution" mix-up. I thought that might be the case when I posted, but I was too lazy to look it up and I didn't think anyone would care about such a trivial piece of semantics.

[Stuart Mackey]

When he graduated from West Point Lee took an oath to protect the United States. He broke it, he's a traitor, no ifs, ands, or buts.

Ok then by your view, William Jefferson Clinton is a traitor who
should be shot and hanged for selling missile secrets to the Chinese
in exchange for campaign contributions, breaking his oath to protect
and defend the constitution of the united states

Yes, he should.

Anyway sorry about the "defend the Constitution" mix-up. I thought that might be the case when I posted, but I was too lazy to look it up and I didn't think anyone would care about such a trivial piece of semantics.

Given the nature of the US Government, and the US constitution, it is hardly trivial.

[Patrick Degan]

It would be nice for a change if the people yammering on about Robert E. Lee being a traitor and the Confederate States of America being a work of treason would bother to actually read history before passing an opinion. For the record, I do not say this as any sort of neoconfederate, Southern nationalist, or unreconstructed fire-eater. No serious historian has ever given this point of view any level of credence. Furthermore, the political and constitutional issues at stake in the conflict were and are far more complex than the "hang 'em from a sour apple tree" crowd comprehend, as any legal analysis of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and even a cursory reading of the proposed Crittenden Compromise of 1861 reveals.

A further caveat: when the Federal government was contemplating the treason trial of Jefferson Davis in 1866, the Johnson Administration was bluntly advised by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase that Davis' legal arguments regarding the constitutionality of secession had been essentially correct (see Time/Life's The Civil War: The Aftermath) and that Davis could well have been acquitted. That was one of the reasons the Federal government dropped the matter and Davis never stood trial.

[Joe]

Chase was the Secretary of the Treasury. Why so much input on Davis' trial?

[Perinquus]

It would be nice for a change if the people yammering on about Robert E. Lee being a traitor and the Confederate States of America being a work of treason would bother to actually read history before passing an opinion. For the record, I do not say this as any sort of neoconfederate, Southern nationalist, or unreconstructed fire-eater. No serious historian has ever given this point of view any level of credence. Furthermore, the political and constitutional issues at stake in the conflict were and are far more complex than the "hang 'em from a sour apple tree" crowd comprehend, as any legal analysis of Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation and even a cursory reading of the proposed Crittenden Compromise of 1861 reveals.

A further caveat: when the Federal government was contemplating the treason trial of Jefferson Davis in 1866, the Johnson Administration was bluntly advised by Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase that Davis' legal arguments regarding the constitutionality of secession had been essentially correct (see Time/Life's The Civil War: The Aftermath) and that Davis could well have been acquitted. That was one of the reasons the Federal government dropped the matter and Davis never stood trial.

People are also making the mistake of judging past figures by present standards - always a thing to be careful of. As someone else already pointed out, prior to the Civil War, it was common to say "the United States are..." rather than "the United States is... as we do today". The fact is that states rights loomed larger in people's minds back then, and many were inclined to consider the states more or less as sovereign nations which chose to confederate with each other for economic and security reasons, and consequently, these same people felt more loyalty to their states than they did the U.S. as a whole. In much the same way, I imagine that if you were to ask a present day Italian or German whether he felt his first loyalty was to Italy or Germany, or whether it was to the European Union, I suspect most of them would put their countries first. Well, many Americans of the antebellum period regarded the United States and their respective home states in a similar way.

Really, this should come as a surprise to no one. We are, after all, talking about an era when there was no radio or telephone, and even wire telegraphy was in its infancy. There were no automobiles, and there were many parts of the country where the railroads didn't go. Most people of that time never travelled farther than 20 miles from the spot where they were born. It's only natural then, that under these circumstances, one's locality loomed larger in the mind, and seemed far more immediate and real. Your state was where you and your family and your friends all lived, and where the people all talked and acted and thought just like you, and when that's all you've ever known, it's a lot easier to put your loyalty there first, rather than to a vast country that, frankly, you've never directly experienced the reality of. Even people like Lee, who was in the army, and travelled about quite a bit as a result, was still a product of this society, and people are shaped by their environments.

[irishmick79]

Chase was the Secretary of the Treasury. Why so much input on Davis' trial?

Lincoln accepted Chase's resignation as Secretary of the Treasury in 1864, and a year later Lincoln appointed him to the Supreme Court. He had a firm anti-slavery background, and was a stout republican who had worked with the party since it's birth in 1854. The fact that he was saying that convicting Davis of treason would have been difficult if not impossible was regarded as significant because of his background.

[Admiral Johnason]

He was an American citizen who took up arms against the United States. He killed thousand of US troops and led assualt into the United States. That fits to the t.

[Patrick Degan]

He was an American citizen who took up arms against the United States. He killed thousand of US troops and led assualt into the United States. That fits to the t.

Only by a very simplistic reading of the matter. Legally, he was not a citizen of the United States when Virginia ceased to be part of the Federal union and he subsequently resigned his commission and followed his state. His actions and those of the Confederate officer corps were of a whole different character, legally and morally, than those of John Brown —who did promulgate a lawless insurrection against the constituted authorities of the state of Virginia and the United States while still a citizen in 1856.

Again, read the history. Please.

[NapoleonGH]

What really pisses me off is that most of same people who say Lee wasnt a traitor to the US and that secession was a legal thing, have no problem with calling anyone who disagrees with the US government today a traitor.