# Biggest Traitor in US History



## CatholicAtheist (Jul 22, 2008)

I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:

1. He rejected his US citizenship in order to join a rogue terrorist nation(little known fact, he lived out the remainder of his years on parole and never was given his citizenship back during his lifetime).

2. He burned American flags and fought under a terrorist nation's flag.

3. He fought to preserve the evil institution of chattel slavery and was a HUGE proponent of slavery.

4. He murdered hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, more than Hitler, OBL, and Saddam combined.

5. He encouraged and led hundreds of thousands of former Americans to join a rogue nation and fight for that nation against the USA.


IF anyone can name a bigger traitor with evidence attached, I would welcome it.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 22, 2008)

CatholicAtheist said:


> I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. He rejected his US citizenship in order to join a rogue terrorist nation(little known fact, he lived out the remainder of his years on parole and never was given his citizenship back during his lifetime).
> 
> ...



You're a regular piece of work.  he was nowhere near a traitor to his nation as you are factual history without a spin on it.  

He could not be a traitor to a country he renounced his citizenship to.  I'll bet you need a cool, soothing ointment after THAT one.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2008)

CatholicAtheist said:


> I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. He rejected his US citizenship in order to join a rogue terrorist nation(little known fact, he lived out the remainder of his years on parole and never was given his citizenship back during his lifetime).
> 
> ...



After the war no one was considered a traitor. So end of story.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> After the war no one was considered a traitor. So end of story.



By his standard all the Founding Fathers were traitors to our mother country in that they fomented rebellion against it and broke away by force of arms with a terrorist army. 

This is just some knucklehead trying to stir up some shit.


----------



## editec (Jul 23, 2008)

Benedict Arnold, I think.

He sold out his nation because he was angry with Continental Congress for not giving him a higher rank.

Robert E. Lee did committ treason, but I think his motives were not venal.


----------



## jillian (Jul 23, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> By his standard all the Founding Fathers were traitors to our mother country in that they fomented rebellion against it and broke away by force of arms with a terrorist army.
> 
> This is just some knucklehead trying to stir up some shit.



The difference between treason and revolution is generally who wins the war. Had the founding fathers lost, they WOULD have been traitors and hung by the Bits.


----------



## Rhys (Jul 23, 2008)

CatholicAtheist said:


> 3. He fought to preserve the evil institution of chattel slavery and was a HUGE proponent of slavery.



I thought he set his own slaves free.   The notion 'treason' is _not_ a useful one:  you don't love people because you're told to, or feel loyalty to a state you don't want to belong to.

The believers in US Independence had been defended by a great deal of cash from British taxpayers and by the blood of British soldiers, but with the French and their allies defeated, why should they contribute to that cost?   Obviously they were selfish and ungrateful, but how would it help to call them traitors to a King they didn't support?   In the same way, all manner of Irishmen were hanged as 'traitors' over the years, though they'd sworn no oaths to the kings and queens of England - which would go for that Joyce for whom, I think, a contributor here names himself - an American citizen hanged as a traitor to Britain, 'Lord Haw-Haw'.

One of my ancestors, incidentally, was one of the biggest traitors in Welsh history, from one point of view.   From mine, he supported those he liked and what he believed in, though _I_ think he was wrong.   Is 'traitor' really a useful term?


----------



## editec (Jul 23, 2008)

jillian said:


> The difference between treason and revolution is who wins the war. Had the founding fathers lost, they WOULD have been traitors and hung by the Bits.


 
True enough.

Treason, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

By calling Robert E. Lee a traitor, I am, _of course_, announcing my own opinion about that unfortuntate decicion of the South to declare war on the Republic.

By suggesting that _his_ treason was not motivated for venal reasons, I am seeking to mitigate the nature of his treason, too.

I cannot say the same thing for ALL the leaders, generals or participants who fought for the South.

But I think he was a honorable man who did something dishonorable for all the right reasons... as _he_ saw them.

It is NOT a black and white world.

It behooves us ALL to remember that fact.


----------



## Reality (Jul 23, 2008)

GunnyL said:


> By his standard all the Founding Fathers were traitors to our mother country in that they fomented rebellion against it and broke away by force of arms with a terrorist army.
> 
> This is just some knucklehead trying to stir up some shit.



Well the Brits did consider the seperationists as traitors.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jul 23, 2008)

editec said:


> Benedict Arnold, I think.
> 
> He sold out his nation because he was angry with Continental Congress for not giving him a higher rank.
> 
> Robert E. Lee did committ treason, but I think his motives were not venal.



It had more to do then rank. At the battle of Albany HE won the battle but Gates took the credit. Gates did that else where as well on a routine bases. Benedict got real pissed when Washington snubbed him though.

Doesn't change the fact he was a traitor and one of the worst, but claiming he just did it for a star is not true.


----------



## CatholicAtheist (Jul 23, 2008)

Robert E Lee lived out the remainder of his life on parole and never was given his US citizenship back. Jefferson Davis served time in prison. Read a book Gunny other than "The South Was Right" or any other trash put out by neoConfederate scum.


And right you are, the founding fathers were considered traitors in England because they took up arms against the King.

Your ignorance is offensive.




BTW, I would like to see any other high ranking officer serving time in the Army currently renounce his commission and citizenship and then take up arms against America, I would wager to say that he would be considered a traitor by every American. To deny this is to live in fantasy neoConfederate scum land.


----------



## editec (Jul 23, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> It had more to do then rank. At the battle of Albany HE won the battle but Gates took the credit. Gates did that else where as well on a routine bases. Benedict got real pissed when Washington snubbed him though.
> 
> Doesn't change the fact he was a traitor and one of the worst, but claiming he just did it for a star is not true.


 
Yes, understood.

B.A, clearly had reason to be thoroughly annoyed.

He was cheated.

He was a heroic figure whose contributions to the cause of liberty were profound and completely unvalued by the Continental Congress, I totally agree with you.

But his betrayal of the revolution and his personal betray of Washington, who clearly supported him, was truly vile.

Additionally leaving poor noble Lt. Andrew to hang also dispicable.

I simply cannot think of any historic figure in American history who betrayed his country (and himself, too) in a more disgusting way than B.A.


----------



## CatholicAtheist (Jul 23, 2008)

I can. 


ROBERT E. LEE


----------



## Gunny (Jul 23, 2008)

jillian said:


> The difference between treason and revolution is generally who wins the war. Had the founding fathers lost, they WOULD have been traitors and hung by the Bits.



I am aware of that.  Why this whole argument is just some disengenuous BS to stir up some shit, IMO.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 23, 2008)

Reality said:


> Well the Brits did consider the seperationists as traitors.




As Jillian said, it all depends on who wins who gets called what.  It was true in the American Revolution and the US Civil War.


----------



## AllieBaba (Jul 23, 2008)

And let's not forget the time-honored British method of eliminating those who offend the monarchs by labeling them as "traitors".


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 23, 2008)

You have to remember when Lee did what he did, most Americans at that time did not think of themselves as Americans, they thought of themselves as Virginians, or New Yorkers, or what ever. So lee thought he was just serving his state. that is how the vast majority of southerns thought of it. They fought to server the home states.

I would vote for Arnold myself.


----------



## editec (Jul 23, 2008)

Of course, if we can all agree to other definitions for treason and traitor, I'll work with those, but here's what I think those words mean

from: treason - definition from dictionary.die.net 


*traitor* n 1: someone who betrays his country by committing treason [syn: treasonist] 2: a person who says one thing and does another [syn: double-crosser, double-dealer, two-timer, betrayer]

*treason* n 1: a crime that undermines the offender's government [syn: high treason, lese majesty] 2: disloyalty by virtue of subversive behavior [syn: subversiveness, traitorousness] 3: an act of deliberate betrayal [syn: treachery, betrayal, perfidy]




</PRE><!-- google_ad_section_end -->


</PRE><!-- google_ad_section_end -->


----------



## Gungnir (Jul 23, 2008)

We should observe, for a moment, the actions of Pausanias, Regent of Sparta. Here is a man who became ruler of Sparta after Leonidas died in battle at Thermopylae, and after his own father's short rule. Taking his position as Regent for the young heir of Leonidas, Pausanias would eventually direct the Greeks in action against the Persians; durring this time they were ousted from Greece and were being routed from the Hellespont and Ionia.

After the immediate threat of Persia was over, Pausanias becomes traitorous. In his attempt to subjugate the Greeks to his emperorship, Pausanias colludes with the Persians to become their agent. Here we can see a true act of treason, siding with foreigners over your own people. Pausanias is doubly damned for endangering his fellow Greeks with foreign swords for his personal gain.

Now consider Abraham Lincoln, he used recently arrived Irishmen as foot soldiers in the War Between the States. Does that qualify as treason? Well, in my opinion no.

A far more traitorous thing would be the importation of African Slaves, and the use of the fear of a Haitian style anarchic revolt to motivate an entire population to war.

If the misery of that war was tought more than the Holocaust and the 1960s, this country would be better. That war is a harsh lesson; endured by REAL Americans, learned by REAL Americans, and taught by REAL Americans. In it we see key factors for Human Dignity, for Tactics and Strategy, for History and Moral Philosophy, for Economics, for Family and Religion, and even for Vocational Training.

As for Robert E. Lee, considering the Mexican War, he had a duty to try to protect Virginia from the Federal Army after her actions. This was his primary concern.

I would name King George as traitor to his fellow people and subjects for the charges listed in the Declaration of Independence.

As for America's most nefarious traitor; I name Senator Edward Moore Kennedy for his support of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 and other scurrilous things.


----------



## Charles_Main (Jul 23, 2008)

editec said:


> Of course, if we can all agree to other definitions for treason and traitor, I'll work with those, but here's what I think those words mean
> 
> from: treason - definition from dictionary.die.net
> 
> ...



By definition 2 just about every politician in DC today is a traitor.

Hang em all high!!


----------



## Gungnir (Jul 23, 2008)

editec, dictionaries do not define words, they merely provide citations for how a word was used by a population.


----------



## greenpartyaz (Jul 26, 2008)

How about Prescott Bush? He helped Hitler's rise to power by funding the Nazi war machine at the same time the US, and George H.W. Bush was fighting the German's in WWII How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian


----------



## JW Frogen (Sep 22, 2009)

I would have to say Noam Chomsky.

He is batting a perfect 100% disagreement with the USA.

Even Benedict Arnold thought the US should go to war with the British, decent general too, he just did not have the Colin Powell effect, "kiss ass to win brass."


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 22, 2009)

greenpartyaz said:


> How about Prescott Bush? He helped Hitler's rise to power by funding the Nazi war machine at the same time the US, and George H.W. Bush was fighting the German's in WWII How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian



Hate to break it to you but Hitler rose to power in the early 30's long before WW2 and long before the younger Bush fought in that war. In fact until the war trading with Germany was not an illegal act at all.


----------



## blu (Sep 22, 2009)

greenpartyaz said:


> How about Prescott Bush? He helped Hitler's rise to power by funding the Nazi war machine at the same time the US, and George H.W. Bush was fighting the German's in WWII How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power | World news | The Guardian



america greatly helped the nazi machine from $, to parts, to planes, we even gave them data and the blueprints for their eugenics program.


----------



## blu (Sep 22, 2009)

woodrow wilson was the biggest traitor


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2009)

Douglas MacArthur was the biggest traitor in America's history.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 22, 2009)

blu said:


> woodrow wilson was the biggest traitor



He beat Obama and Bush43 by a nose


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 22, 2009)

I've always been willing to give Lee a pass as he was put into the impossible situation of having to choose between his state and his nation.  He chose poorly, but that's a conversation for another day.

If you have to pick traitors in the Civil War, I have to go with the Southern Politicians, with Jefferson Davis at the head of the pack.  They're the folks that put good men like Lee, and most of the Southern Army in the impossible position of choosing between State and Nation and they're the folks that claimed noble reasons (like Freedom!) while penning mini-Declarations that repeatedly defended institutions like Slavery.

If those men had had the courage to abolish slavery before sucession, they'd have won the war.  The existance of the institution of Slavery in the South was a MAJOR public relations victory for the North and allowed them to keep morale high and populace motivated even as they suffered devesating losses early on in the war.  Slavery itself even poisoned the South's relations with abolishonist nations like England that might have jumped in to help the South break free.

The moral cowardice of the Southern politicians that voted for war while retaining slavery cost them the war.


----------



## blu (Sep 22, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> The moral cowardice of the Southern politicians that voted for war while retaining slavery cost them the war.



yea I never agree with blaming soliders for following lawful orders or fighting for their country/state whatever. blame the politicians and policies, not the soldiers.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 22, 2009)

blu said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > The moral cowardice of the Southern politicians that voted for war while retaining slavery cost them the war.
> ...



Especially in the Civil War.  A single act of legislative courage (abolishing slavery) and they'd have broke free from the North inside a few months.  Without the specter of Slavery to fight against, Northern morale would have crumpled and the European powers put off by the institution of Slavery would have entered the fray.

The politicans lost the Civil War.  I can't blame Lee for the choice he was forced to make, but I can blame the folks that forced him to make that choice.


----------



## Toro (Sep 22, 2009)

Gunny said:


> By his standard all the Founding Fathers were traitors to our mother country in that they fomented rebellion against it and broke away by force of arms with a terrorist army.



Those of us from the British Empire agree!  

I haven't studied the Civil War much but I heard someone the other day say that Lee was the greatest general in US history.  Is this true?


----------



## Big Black Dog (Sep 22, 2009)

Toro said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > By his standard all the Founding Fathers were traitors to our mother country in that they fomented rebellion against it and broke away by force of arms with a terrorist army.
> ...



I don't know if you could call Robert E. Lee  the greatest general in US history but his tactics are still studied at West Point.


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 22, 2009)

CatholicAtheist said:


> Robert E Lee lived out the remainder of his life on parole and never was given his US citizenship back. Jefferson Davis served time in prison. Read a book Gunny other than "The South Was Right" or any other trash put out by neoConfederate scum.
> 
> 
> And right you are, the founding fathers were considered traitors in England because they took up arms against the King.
> ...



Obviously you are viewing history through a modern prism, which means you have no concept of historical social context.  At that time in our history most people owed their allegience to their state first and the country second.  Lee was duty and honor bound to follow the dictates of his concience and remain loyal to his native state, Virginia. 
It wasn't until after the war that the country became paramount over the states, the primary reason the war was fought.
And to lable the Confederacy as a terroist nation even more so shows your complete lack of knowledge and utter buffoonery.  Go back to schoo; and actually learn something before you play this game of hoof and mouth disease again.


----------



## rdean (Sep 22, 2009)

The biggest traitor in American history?

Hmmm, let's see.

He let the greatest mass murderer in American history go scott free.

He tricked the nation into invading the wrong country.

He stood by and ignored the genocide of hundreds of thousand of Christians.

While an American city was drowning, he played golf.

He sent tens of thousands of soldiers off to war with old, rusty and malfunctioning equipment AND cut their benefits while they served multiple tours in a war zone. 

Who could it be?


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> The biggest traitor in American history?
> 
> Hmmm, let's see.
> 
> ...



Broken record, skip.Broken record, skip.Broken record, skip.Broken record, skip.Broken record, skip.Broken record, skip.Broken record, skip.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> The biggest traitor in American history?
> 
> Hmmm, let's see.
> 
> ...


Lincoln?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 22, 2009)

CatholicAtheist said:


> I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. He rejected his US citizenship in order to join a rogue terrorist nation(little known fact, he lived out the remainder of his years on parole and never was given his citizenship back during his lifetime).
> 
> ...



Robert E. Lee was not a traitor to his country.  His country was Virginia and Virginia seceded from the United States and joined the Confederate States.

The Confederacy was not a "terrorist state," the Union invaded them to start the Civil War.

Lee was not a proponent of slavery he was an opponent of slavery and believed that it would fade away if left to its own devices.

Lee didn't murder anyone.  The murders of the Civil War took place under Sheridan and Sherman who murdered, raped, and robbed innocent southern civilians including slaves they were supposedly supposed to be freeing.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 22, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> I've always been willing to give Lee a pass as he was put into the impossible situation of having to choose between his state and his nation.  He chose poorly, but that's a conversation for another day.
> 
> If you have to pick traitors in the Civil War, I have to go with the Southern Politicians, with Jefferson Davis at the head of the pack.  They're the folks that put good men like Lee, and most of the Southern Army in the impossible position of choosing between State and Nation and they're the folks that claimed noble reasons (like Freedom!) while penning mini-Declarations that repeatedly defended institutions like Slavery.
> 
> ...



How does Jefferson Davis not get the same consideration as Lee when Jefferson Davis openly opposed seceding from the Union but would not go against the will of his state?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 22, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> blu said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



The north wasn't fighting against slavery.  Many northern soldiers were upset with Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation, despite the fact that it didn't free a single slave.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 22, 2009)

blu said:


> woodrow wilson was the biggest traitor



As terrible as Wilson was, he was not a traitor.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 22, 2009)

editec said:


> Benedict Arnold, I think.
> 
> He sold out his nation because he was angry with Continental Congress for not giving him a higher rank.
> 
> Robert E. Lee did committ treason, but I think his motives were not venal.



I agree on your pick of Arnold.  Arnold's disagreements were with Gates and Washington not the Continental Congress itself.


----------



## rdean (Sep 22, 2009)

Ringel05 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest traitor in American history?
> ...



Doesn't stop it from being the truth,Doesn't stop it from being the truth,Doesn't stop it from being the truth,Doesn't stop it from being the truth,Doesn't stop it from being the truth,Doesn't stop it from being the truth.............


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



In your case only in the mind of the truly delusional.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2009)

Ringel05 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



Ringel05, you are delusional.  Br'er Bush did all those things, and, yes, he is accountable.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 22, 2009)

rdean said:


> the biggest traitor in american history?
> 
> Hmmm, let's see.
> 
> ...



fdr


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Another blind, partisan, supposed adult who never emotionally or mentally matured past the 9th grade.  
Thanks for chiming in.  Ignored as usual as the pure, partisan drool it is.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2009)

Ringel05 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



The facts support my position, not yours.  End of story.  Run along.


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Actually no they don't.  It's simply your blind interpretation of them.  I'm in a foul mood tonight so when you decide to post something not manifestly juvenile then I'll be willing to have a civil, adult discussion, until then go play with your leggos.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 22, 2009)

That you refuse to recognize Bush's outrageous deficiencies as President doesn't make those facts go away.  Who cares if you are in a bad mood?  That means nothing.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> That you refuse to recognize Bush's outrageous deficiencies as President doesn't make those facts go away.  Who cares if you are in a bad mood?  That means nothing.



Deficiencies (as you see it) are not the same thing as being a traitor.  Just because the president did something you don't personally agree with, that doesn't necessarily make him a traitor. 

If you can make a case for treason per the Constitution against former President Bush, make it. If not, your posts end up being nothing more than partisan fervor.


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 22, 2009)

JakeStarkey said:


> That you refuse to recognize Bush's outrageous deficiencies as President doesn't make those facts go away.  Who cares if you are in a bad mood?  That means nothing.



I'm fully aware of Bush's deficiencies, I'm not defending him.  I'm simply not willing to deal with the partisan idiots like you and your opposites who distort everything to support your possitions.  You partisan morons are the problem with this country, not the fucking solution.


----------



## Seanibus (Sep 22, 2009)

CatholicAtheist said:


> I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:
> 
> 1. He rejected his US citizenship in order to join a rogue terrorist nation(little known fact, he lived out the remainder of his years on parole and never was given his citizenship back during his lifetime).
> 
> ...



As both a fellow Virginian and a kinsman to Lee, I have to say I feel his dilemma sharply. There is no question he was wrong on many levels, and God knows he was on the losing side (and the line between a Traitor and a Founding Father is often one battle), but it seems to me that the notion of Lee as a "Traitor" is too complicated for such a simplistic forum.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> CatholicAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:
> ...



The South started a war. They subsequently got their ass kicked in that war. A good thing for our nation.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > blu said:
> ...



And slavery exists where at present in the US? The Emancipation Proclamation did end slavery in the US. There was no option for the states exempted to keep slavery legal when the rest of the states were free.


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 23, 2009)

Ringel05 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Ringel05 said:
> ...



How can you engage in something that you are not intellectually capable of?


----------



## Old Rocks (Sep 23, 2009)

Seanibus said:


> CatholicAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:
> ...



True, all too true. At that time the status of loyalty to state was often equal or greater than that to the nation. And that is why, had the Confederacy succeed in seccesion, they would have subsequently broken up into a set of feuding states. A Balkanization that would have been bad for all.


----------



## Oddball (Sep 23, 2009)

Gunny said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > the biggest traitor in american history?
> ...


Woodrow Wilson.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> The north wasn't fighting against slavery.  Many northern soldiers were upset with Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation, despite the fact that it didn't free a single slave.



You missed the point.  In the North the exsistence of the institution of Slavery was a major rally point that kept the North in the war even after the South handed the North defeat after humiliating defeat in the early days.  If you don't buy that, look up some of the editiorials to come out of the major Chicago, New York, and other larger metropolitan papers.

Not only that, England had taken the stance long before the Civil War of outlawing slavery on the high seas and actively hunting slave traders.  Most of Europe was of an abolishonist mind set at that time period.  

If the South had abolished slavery right at the start of the War a major PR point for the North would have evaporated and one of the major stumbling blocks to British intervention in the war would have dissapeared.  The South lost the war by not abolishing slavery.

That's why I can hold Jefferson Davis responsible.  As a politician he should have seen the score and worked to abolish slavery outright before the war started.  He didn't, and instead you get a bunch of mini-Declaration of Independences from the States that mention slavery numerous times.

Fun Drinking game:  
1. Read the Secession articles of 4 of the states here. 
2. Search for the word "slave" or "slavery".  
3. Take a drink at each instance.  
4. Die of alcohol poisoning.

The Federal Government may not have fought to end slavery, and the average Southerner may not have fought to preserve it, but for the public in the North, and the politicians in the South, slavery was a big deal.  It kept the North fighting, and the South isolated.  Without slavery in the equation the South would have broken free of the North.  With slavery in the picture, it lost.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > CatholicAtheist said:
> ...



Incorrect.  The south attacked Union forts within their borders, but did not start the war.  The war started with Lincoln invading the south.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



The 13th amendment ended slavery.  The Emancipation Proclamation was simply propaganda that didn't free a single slave because it had no force of law in the Confederacy.


----------



## Nosmo King (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> CatholicAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:
> ...


Fact check this one please.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Seanibus said:
> 
> 
> > CatholicAtheist said:
> ...



You can predict the future?  At any rate, that was how the United States was before the Civil War yet you say the south would have split up.  This ignores history, I'm afraid.  The main difference of opinion in the United States was chiefly always between north and south.  With the south as their own separate country the northern states could have done what they liked, and likewise for the south.  Regardless, it would be the right of a state to leave the Union and become their own independent country.  Rhode Island remained independent for well over a year before ratifying the Constitution.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > The north wasn't fighting against slavery.  Many northern soldiers were upset with Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation, despite the fact that it didn't free a single slave.
> ...



You're giving the north far too much credit.  There was no majority that supported the end of slavery in the south.  They fought because they felt the south attacked them first in regards to Fort Sumter, and later because they were conscripted to fight by Lincoln.  Most were very unhappy with Lincoln for the Emancipation Proclamation.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > CatholicAtheist said:
> ...



The facts are there.  The south didn't start the war.  They didn't want Union forts within their borders so they expelled the Union troops.  Who can blame them?


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 23, 2009)

After his speech to the UN, Obama just moved into first place.

We have the first anti-American president in our history.


----------



## blu (Sep 23, 2009)

CrusaderFrank said:


> After his speech to the UN, Obama just moved into first place.
> 
> We have the first anti-American president in our history.



is it online yet?


----------



## Ringel05 (Sep 23, 2009)

Old Rocks said:


> Ringel05 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Read the follow up posts.  The one that indicates all you partisan morons are the problem not the solution.  If the shoe fits wear it, and in your case it fits.


----------



## Nosmo King (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Nosmo King said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


It's an accepted fact that when you fire the first shot, you start the war.  Nice try, but you're just showing us what "spin" means.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



This should say, "There was no majority that supported the end of slavery in the *north*."


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Nosmo King said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Nosmo King said:
> ...



What if Mexico or China tried to establish military bases anywhere in the United States?  What would the response from our government be if those governments refused to be diplomatic in regards to the situation?  Lincoln refused to settle the situation peacefully so the Confederacy expelled those Union soldiers forcefully.  It was their right to do so and did not equate an act of war.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...



Fixed the quote for you as you indicated in a later post.

I think you far underestimate the power of the Press during the Civil War.  The Northern newspapers were ADAMANT in demanding the abolishment of Slavery during the war and took ample opportunity to demonize the South for the existence.  Much of the negative view Northerners had of the South came from both Fort Sumter (which was a tactical blunder by the South) and again, Slavery.

You also didn't address how slavery affected the South's efforts to pull the European powers into the war.  The math for the South was all wrong at the start of the war.  There was absolutely no way they could win without a quick collapse of morale in the North (which would never happen due to Fort Sumter, the Northern press, and Slavery), or European intervention (Which was made VERY difficult because the English hated slavery as an institution).

Slavery turned out to be the Achille's Heel of the South.  Had they abandoned it, they would have had a much greater shot at breaking free.  

(Side note:  Isn't it true that Lee figured this out and advocated abolition at the start of the conflict?  I seem to recall reading that somewhere and can't easily lay hands on the source right now).


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> You can predict the future?  At any rate, that was how the United States was before the Civil War yet you say the south would have split up.  This ignores history, I'm afraid.  The main difference of opinion in the United States was chiefly always between north and south.  With the south as their own separate country the northern states could have done what they liked, and likewise for the south.  Regardless, it would be the right of a state to leave the Union and become their own independent country.  Rhode Island remained independent for well over a year before ratifying the Constitution.




Chances are good that the South wouldn't have split, but they almost certainly would have formed a Federal government of their own.  The South may not have liked the Federal Government, but the Founders formed it after realizing a weak centralized government as embodied by the Articles was a total failure.

Chances are the Southern States wouldn't have enjoyed the political clout they fought for in a free South for long.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



I didn't address how slavery affected the south's attempt to get European allies because I don't disagree with that.  Many were hesitant to side with a slave nation, but another reason was that Lincoln threatened war with anyone who allied with the Confederacy.  My only disagreement with you is regarding the north's overall attitude towards slavery.  The major opinion was that northerners didn't want an influx of freed slaves moving to their state and taking their jobs.  Some states, Illinois for example, had laws forbidding African-Americans from emigrating to their state.  Lincoln supported these measures as he wanted to deport all African-Americans out of the country.

Lee opposed slavery as an institution and believed, along with Jefferson Davis, that slavery would end of its own accord.  The economy of the south was industrializing, though not as fast as the north of course, and slavery was becoming less and less economical.


----------



## StoneSoup (Sep 23, 2009)

any of those chicken fuckers who fought against the north are traitors! 
Go Yankees!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > You can predict the future?  At any rate, that was how the United States was before the Civil War yet you say the south would have split up.  This ignores history, I'm afraid.  The main difference of opinion in the United States was chiefly always between north and south.  With the south as their own separate country the northern states could have done what they liked, and likewise for the south.  Regardless, it would be the right of a state to leave the Union and become their own independent country.  Rhode Island remained independent for well over a year before ratifying the Constitution.
> ...



The south did form a federal government of their own, Jefferson Davis was the President.  What they opposed was an all-powerful national government the likes of which Lincoln transformed the U.S. federal government into.  People that say the Confederate government was too weak don't take into consideration that the Confederate government was no less powerful than the U.S. government was supposed to be.  The Confederate Constitution was not based on the Articles of Confederation, it was based on the U.S. Constitution.  Both countries were confederations of independent states, until Lincoln of course.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

StoneSoup said:


> any of those chicken fuckers who fought against the north are traitors!
> Go Yankees!



So the founding fathers were traitors as well, right?


----------



## Pillow Biter (Sep 23, 2009)

Biggest Traitor:

Nicole Brown Simpson.

Bitch.


----------



## Armand Bertrand (Sep 23, 2009)

I'm going to argue that George Washington and Jefferson are right up there too then.   

Your logic sucks dude. 

PS. My cousin's wedding had personal beer funnels for each table and a drinking game against the bride and groom. im sorry for ever calling you white trash


----------



## StoneSoup (Sep 23, 2009)

if you are below the mason-dixon you are dirt loving trash. farm filth. (hi, uh, filth)


----------



## Armand Bertrand (Sep 23, 2009)

I'll also nominate Marian Hossa.


----------



## Brikzkrieg (Sep 23, 2009)

I think every white man in the history of this country is a traitor.  They're the reason us strong, proud black men have to sling rocks to get ahead.  Fuck Whitey!


----------



## Armand Bertrand (Sep 23, 2009)

I hate Jews, mexicans, cubans, ricans, canadians, towel heads, chinks, gooks, kikes, japs, riceeaters, greasy wops, dagos, pug irish mics, and pretty much everybody else, but... I LOVE ME SOME NURGAHS!


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 23, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I didn't address how slavery affected the south's attempt to get European allies because I don't disagree with that.  Many were hesitant to side with a slave nation, but another reason was that Lincoln threatened war with anyone who allied with the Confederacy.  My only disagreement with you is regarding the north's overall attitude towards slavery.  The major opinion was that northerners didn't want an influx of freed slaves moving to their state and taking their jobs.  Some states, Illinois for example, had laws forbidding African-Americans from emigrating to their state.  Lincoln supported these measures as he wanted to deport all African-Americans out of the country.
> 
> Lee opposed slavery as an institution and believed, along with Jefferson Davis, that slavery would end of its own accord.  The economy of the south was industrializing, though not as fast as the north of course, and slavery was becoming less and less economical.



I think we're probably closer in opinion than I realized.  I'm curious, as an aside:  How do you think things would have played out had the South abolished slavery prior to the war?  Would that have even been a possible course of action?

I always thought that a Southern Emancipation Proclamation at the start of the War would have turned the situation on its head, as that would have left the North as the only side with slave holding states.  However, once you read the secession articles of the Southern States, you start to realize that abolishing the institution of Slavery just wasn't likely to happen.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 23, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > I didn't address how slavery affected the south's attempt to get European allies because I don't disagree with that.  Many were hesitant to side with a slave nation, but another reason was that Lincoln threatened war with anyone who allied with the Confederacy.  My only disagreement with you is regarding the north's overall attitude towards slavery.  The major opinion was that northerners didn't want an influx of freed slaves moving to their state and taking their jobs.  Some states, Illinois for example, had laws forbidding African-Americans from emigrating to their state.  Lincoln supported these measures as he wanted to deport all African-Americans out of the country.
> ...



It depends on how it happened.  If the new Confederate government simply decreed slavery abolished it never would have worked out, in my opinion.  Or had the Confederate Constitution not explicitly protected slavery I don't think it would have been ratified.  If they tried some kind of paid emancipation where slave owners could get paid to free their slaves then I think they might have had some success, though I can't predict how widespread it would have been.  I'm sure there would have been some very serious opposition to that plan as well, however.  At any rate I don't see how it could have happened at the start of the war whatsoever.


----------



## BasicGreatGuy (Sep 23, 2009)

Brikzkrieg said:


> I think every white man in the history of this country is a traitor.  They're the reason us strong, proud black men have to sling rocks to get ahead.  Fuck Whitey!



If you can't get ahead in life, it is due to the fact that you keep looking behind you. How about taking responsibility for your life, stop your tired ignorant racial excuses, and start looking forward for a change.


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 26, 2009)

Exatly, Arminius (or Siegfried or Herrman) who was/is regarded as the "Defender of Germanic Independence from evil Rome" and still has a fair bit of hero worship today (some friggin large statues for starters) basically won his Roman War with a very very well planned and executed betrayal.

Quote:
There is only one excuse for betrayal, that is if you win.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Sep 26, 2009)

All of the Founders were treason baiters, to the British, at least, and to about 15% of colonists.  It's all situational ethnics, neh?


----------



## Xenophon (Sep 28, 2009)

editec said:


> Benedict Arnold, I think.
> 
> He sold out his nation because he was angry with Continental Congress for not giving him a higher rank.
> 
> Robert E. Lee did committ treason, but I think his motives were not venal.


Look no further, this is the correct answer.


----------



## bodecea (Sep 28, 2009)

Gunny said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> > After the war no one was considered a traitor. So end of story.
> ...



Actually they were traitors to England and its king...and if they'd lost, many would have been hung as such.

The difference is all in who wins.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 28, 2009)

bodecea said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > RetiredGySgt said:
> ...



Its actually more who you ask 

One of the more...."interesting"... transitions I've had to make since moving to the South comes down to how folks view the players in the Civil War.  Where I grew up Lincoln was spoken of in hushed reverant tones and Sherman has a statue in his honor in Central Park.  He's seen as a guy that did what had to be done.  Lee isn't villified, but he isn't really respected and Jefferson Davis is a traitor.

First thing I found when I moved to New Orleans was a GIGANTIC statue of Lee.  A few streets down from me is Jefferson Davis Drive.  I actually looked at a house on that street and decided to pass because I couldn't stomach living on a street named for that guy.  Lincoln and Sherman don't come up at all in conversation, and I wouldn't dream of brining them up.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 28, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



What's your grudge against Jefferson Davis?  Davis was no more a traitor than Lee was, and Davis openly opposed secession from the Union.


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 28, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Serving in the Military in defense of your home is a totally different thing than accepting the Presidency of the organization that is risking bringing trouble to your doorstep.  If Davis opposed secession, he shouldn't have agreed to lead the Confederacy.

That's the issue for me.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 28, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



He opposed his state seceding from the Union, but he accepted that they had the right to do so and chose to stick with his state the same way that Robert E. Lee did.  I don't see why him being the President of the Confederacy makes any difference.  Lee chose to serve in the military and Davis chose to serve in the government.  They both chose to serve the Confederacy so why does one get a pass and the other gets labelled a traitor?


----------



## Dr.Traveler (Sep 28, 2009)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Dr.Traveler said:
> 
> 
> > Kevin_Kennedy said:
> ...


For me its the distinction between military and civilian service.  Lee joined to defend his home state, an action made necessary by the decisions of others.  Accepting civilian leadership is a horse of a different color.  Davis could have passed on that and found other ways to help defend his state in the conflict to come.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 28, 2009)

Dr.Traveler said:


> Kevin_Kennedy said:
> 
> 
> > Dr.Traveler said:
> ...



Well I don't agree, but that's obviously just my opinion.  Thanks for clarifying your point at any rate.


----------



## PLYMCO_PILGRIM (Sep 28, 2009)

Gunny said:


> CatholicAtheist said:
> 
> 
> > I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:
> ...



Wow looks like you're "Traitor Theory"  Had a HUGE hole in it there CatholicAtheist.   

I was betting it was either George W Bush or Barack H Obama...i was WAY off.


I'd say Benedict Arnold for selling out his fellow troops and the revolution over perceived slights from George Washington.


----------

