# Robert E. Lee, American hero or American traitor?



## 42Presidents (Jul 30, 2008)

For the most part, history has been kind to Robert E. Lee and his role as the commanding General of the Confederate Army. There is very little criticism for the man who led the South against the Union but is that because Lee was truly a great man or is it because no one has dared to be critical of such a wildly popular southern gentleman?


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 30, 2008)

42Presidents said:


> For the most part, history has been kind to Robert E. Lee and his role as the commanding General of the Confederate Army. There is very little criticism for the man who led the South against the Union but is that because Lee was truly a great man or is it because no one has dared to be critical of such a wildly popular southern gentleman?



He wasn't too shabby at West Point.


----------



## 42Presidents (Jul 30, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> He wasn't too shabby at West Point.



True. His military record is rather commendable. Can't argue with that.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 30, 2008)

42Presidents said:


> True. His military record is rather commendable. Can't argue with that.




He also was offered command of the US Army before resigned and went with Virginia instead.

He was pigeonholed in a desk job by Jefferson Davis who appointed political kissasses as commanders instead of capable soldiers until attrition put him in the field.  He had to prove himself and he did.

He is considered one of the most brilliant strategists and tacticians in modern military history.

However, I would argue that he was NOT an American Hero in the context of a hero for the US.  He did participate in the US  Mexico War and Harper's Ferry as a US officer where he acquitted himself well, but nothing heroic I am aware of.  

He was a hero to the Confederacy who was an American.


----------



## 42Presidents (Jul 30, 2008)

Gunny said:


> He also was offered command of the US Army before resigned and went with Virginia instead.
> 
> He was pigeonholed in a desk job by Jefferson Davis who appointed political kissasses as commanders instead of capable soldiers until attrition put him in the field.  He had to prove himself and he did.
> 
> ...



Good points. I can't help but respect the man. He is very much part of this nation and what it became. He may have been on the wrong side but his moral foundation and military career was honorable.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 30, 2008)

42Presidents said:


> Good points. I can't help but respect the man. He is very much part of this nation and what it became. He may have been on the wrong side but his moral foundation and military career was honorable.



Lee's integrity as a soldier and a man were imeccable, from all I have ever read.  He just held a belief that at least half this nation held that required force of arms to settle.  The legality of that belief is still argued today even though an after the fact Supreme Court ruling ended any actual legal challenge and justified the actions of the US during the Civil War.

He ended up on the side that lost.  Someone stated that Lee was never granted his US citizenship after the War. Yet, the 1868 Supreme Court ruling basically stated states do not have a right to secede.  That being the case, how did he ever lose it?


----------



## editec (Jul 31, 2008)

It is well known he was a man of honor.

Sadly his sense of and loyalty honor lead him to support a dishonorable cause.

Him and millions of others, I might add.


----------



## Gunny (Jul 31, 2008)

editec said:


> It is well known he was a man of honor.
> 
> Sadly his sense of and loyalty honor lead him to support a dishonorable cause.
> 
> Him and millions of others, I might add.




The cause was only "dishonorable" in hindsight by those who ride the victor's bandwagon.  The cause at the time was not unlawful  The war tiself tested that fact after-the-fact of secession.  

This argument has been had over and over and it always boils down to a Supreme Court ruling in 1869 that states that states had no right to secede which is based on nothing but assumption.  There is no legislation prior to that to preclude secession.  

Further, by anyone's imagination, if one enters something as an experiement, the logical assumption is that if that "experiement" fails it gets shitcanned.  The experiment known as the United States had failed in the eyes of the Southern states.  

With no legislation precluding leaving as freely as they entered, why would they NOT believe they could the same way they came?   Some vague assumption that "everybody was supposed to know?"  That doesn't fly in court today.  

However, the US threw the US Constitution out the window for about 20 years during the Civil War and "Reconstruction."  Both Lincoln and Congress committed transgression against it that would have lawyers at every level screaming their lungs out.  NSA wiretapping pales in comparison.

I'd say who was "dishonorable" is a matter of debate.  At the intellectual level, the US rewriting the rules after-the-fact to justify its actions does not legitimize the actions of the US.


----------



## dilloduck (Jul 31, 2008)

> With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword...





> [T]here is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man's face and another behind his back.



Robert E. Lee Quotes

too many good quotes to post here


----------



## Voltaire (Jul 31, 2008)

dilloduck said:


> Robert E. Lee Quotes
> 
> too many good quotes to post here



One thing is for sure, he's a Virginian Hero.  I'm proud he defended our state.

When I recently visited the Lee family seat, Stratford Hall, I was struck by some conflicting emotions.  The so-called Virginia aristocracy gave rise to some of the great thinkers of our early Republic...but their large landholdings were built up on the backs of slaves, and ANY sort of aristocracy runs counter to the founding ideals of our nation.  Yes, the Virginia planters lived nowhere near as lavishly as their English counterparts, and yes, the notion of slavery was widely recognized as a great evil by the educated people in the colony.  However, failing to address slavery in the constitution was one of the first and most catastrophic failures of the American experiment.

As far as Lee goes, I greatly admire him.  I think his main issue, oddly enough, was his deep religious conviction.  From what I've gathered from quotes attributed to him at different stages during his life, he was so convinced that the Christian god was a benevolent and omniscient being, that there was no way he would allow an institution like slavery to persist unless it served some sort of purpose.  This led Lee to fall prey to the paternalistic views which marred the thinking of many educated Southerners.


----------



## wayne (Sep 1, 2008)

When Robert was baby his father foolishly lost the family fortune in a bad business deal and had to flee the country in order to avoid debtor&#8217;s prison.  This left the family impoverished and force to live on the charity of their relatives, the Washingtons and Lees.  Fortunately for Robert his family name entitled him to attend the families school. In those days there was no free public education in the South. If his name had not been Lee he would have most likely grown up illiterate. At an early age he was recognized in his family as a remarkable child and student.  

He owed his family everything including food, clothing ,shelter, and education; when the time came that they needed him there was no way he could turn his back on them.  I think he knew the south was going to lose, he was too good a military man to believe otherwise.


----------



## editec (Sep 1, 2008)

Gunny said:


> The cause was only "dishonorable" in hindsight by those who ride the victor's bandwagon.


 
So noted. I'll mark you down as someone who believes that fighting on behalf of slavers is only dishonorable if you lose the war, then.




> I'd say who was "dishonorable" is a matter of debate. At the intellectual level, the US rewriting the rules after-the-fact to justify its actions does not legitimize the actions of the US.


 
I suppose if you believe that the issue of honor has to do with legalities, you might have a point.

I am not convinced that the Southern States had any right to seceed, but then I've no reason to think they didn't have that right, either, except for the references in the Federalist papers about forging a United States _in perpetuity_.

But as to the Union having some legal right to prevent them from leaving?

I've never seen a convincing arugment to support that argument, either.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 1, 2008)

editec said:


> So noted. I'll mark you down as someone who believes that fighting on behalf of slavers is only dishonorable if you lose the war, then.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You are basing your comments on the fallacies that the Civil War was fought on behalf of slaves, and/or that there was any honor involved.  Honor among thieves?

The Civil War was fought between the unscrupulous and wealthy of the North and South for control of the of the US government and its power.  The notion that it was fought to end slavery is opportunistic revisionism.

"Honor" is relative.  From the POV of someone who believes that states had a right to secede, "honor" dictates that one defends one's home against a Federal government invading it, and views the Federal government's actions as the dishonorable one.

In no way does anything I state attempt to glamorize human slavery.  

As far as the intellectual argument in regard to secession goes, it's raged on between scholars for over a century with no decisive conclusion.  I doubt one will be found here.  

For one thing, it challenges the very base beliefs continually argued on the board inthread after thread: The Federal government vs the 10th Amendment/states' rights.  The sides in the argument tend to break down along conservative/liberal ideologies, with the usual exceptions.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 1, 2008)

If Robert E. Lee were alive today. He would be in GITMO as an enemy combatant!!


----------



## wayne (Sep 1, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> If Robert E. Lee were alive today. He would be in GITMO as an enemy combatant!!



No he wouldn't he gave his word not to fight again and that was all that needed.  Now if it were Bill Clinton on the other hand the only safe thing to do would be to shoot him.  How do you know that Bill Clinton is lying? Answer: He is wasting Oxygen.


----------



## Inferno (Sep 1, 2008)

R.E. Lee needed only to hold the C.S.A. to the point where the U.S was tired of the war. It was nearing the point. He had to hold up better until the Lincolb secobd election. Gettysburg errors and incursions into the north cost him dearly. The Union forces were doing better and the people voted Lincoln in to a second term. That in and of itself ended the Confederacy. Lincoln woul not yield in his desire to hold the union together.

History looks fondly on Lee. He kept the war going longer than most. Gen. Joe Johnson the highest ramking military man in the U.S., at the beginning of the War for Southern Independence, was not the favorite of Jefferson Davis. Johnson would have been the souths best chance to win. Johnson was not an attacker. He would have not wasted so many troops as Lee did. The loss of manpower was the death note to the war. 

Gen. J.B. Hood C.S.A. was also a factor in ending the war. He wasted so many troops he was said after the war to have been the best Gen. The Union had.

R.E. Lee will always been seen as a shining star in history. He had his failings and they can all be tied to his loyality to certain people.


----------



## Gunny (Sep 1, 2008)

Inferno said:


> R.E. Lee needed only to hold the C.S.A. to the point where the U.S was tired of the war. It was nearing the point. He had to hold up better until the Lincolb secobd election. Gettysburg errors and incursions into the north cost him dearly. The Union forces were doing better and the people voted Lincoln in to a second term. That in and of itself ended the Confederacy. Lincoln woul not yield in his desire to hold the union together.
> 
> History looks fondly on Lee. He kept the war going longer than most. Gen. Joe Johnson the highest ramking military man in the U.S., at the beginning of the War for Southern Independence, was not the favorite of Jefferson Davis. Johnson would have been the souths best chance to win. Johnson was not an attacker. He would have not wasted so many troops as Lee did. The loss of manpower was the death note to the war.
> 
> ...




Actually, you got that a bit backwards.  Johsnon WAS Davis's favorite.  Lee was pigeonholed at a desk in Richmond and pressed into service in the field only after Johnson was injured.  Lee only maintained command through success.

Gettysburg was the decider in the outcome.  The Brits had envoys with Lee at Gettysburg.  ad he won, Britain most assuredly would recognized the CSA.  Britain and Europe were under tremendous pressure from the South to recognize it since the US Naval blockade had choked off Europe's cotton supply.

The South's arguably most capable commander, Albert Sydeny Johnson was killed at Shiloh.  That is what most Civil War scholars believe; however, IMO, he at least wasn't very smart in understanding that as the commander his job was NOT at the head of one of his Corps in the field.  Not only did he lose his overall control of the battle, he got his ass shot out of the saddle.


----------



## Sunni Man (Sep 1, 2008)

Inferno said:


> R.E. Lee needed only to hold the C.S.A. to the point where the U.S was tired of the war. It was nearing the point. He had to hold up better until the Lincolb secobd election. Gettysburg errors and incursions into the north cost him dearly. The Union forces were doing better and the people voted Lincoln in to a second term. That in and of itself ended the Confederacy. Lincoln woul not yield in his desire to hold the union together.
> 
> History looks fondly on Lee. He kept the war going longer than most. Gen. Joe Johnson the highest ramking military man in the U.S., at the beginning of the War for Southern Independence, was not the favorite of Jefferson Davis. Johnson would have been the souths best chance to win. Johnson was not an attacker. He would have not wasted so many troops as Lee did. The loss of manpower was the death note to the war.
> 
> ...


Good post Inferno!

I am surprised that a woman knows so much about Civil War history. Usually it's a guy thing. 

Are you from the south? A history teacher?


----------



## Gungnir (Sep 1, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> If Robert E. Lee were alive today. He would be in GITMO as an enemy combatant!!



No, he would have been a Prisoner of War. 

Lee also wore a uniform.


----------



## Inferno (Sep 1, 2008)

Gunny said:


> Actually, you got that a bit backwards.  Johsnon WAS Davis's favorite.  Lee was pigeonholed at a desk in Richmond and pressed into service in the field only after Johnson was injured.  Lee only maintained command through success.
> 
> Gettysburg was the decider in the outcome.  The Brits had envoys with Lee at Gettysburg.  ad he won, Britain most assuredly would recognized the CSA.  Britain and Europe were under tremendous pressure from the South to recognize it since the US Naval blockade had choked off Europe's cotton supply.
> 
> The South's arguably most capable commander, Albert Sydeny Johnson was killed at Shiloh.  That is what most Civil War scholars believe; however, IMO, he at least wasn't very smart in understanding that as the commander his job was NOT at the head of one of his Corps in the field.  Not only did he lose his overall control of the battle, he got his ass shot out of the saddle.



Not Joe Johnson he was the the first commander of the Army of Virginia and replced with Lee. The most capable was Nathan Bedford Forrest considered the father of mechanised warfare. Forrests battle tactics in fact were studied by the German high command prior to WWII his tactics gave birth to lighting warfare or the Blitz Krieg. A.S Johnson is considered down the list some way. Hood was the worst on the C.S.A side. After the battle of White Oak Swamp Stonewall Jackson was never allowed sole command again.
A.P Hill was thought to be one of the best in command of large numbers. Pat Clybourn in the westen theatre was very good as well and similar to Jackson.


----------



## Mauser (Oct 1, 2008)

42Presidents said:


> For the most part, history has been kind to Robert E. Lee and his role as the commanding General of the Confederate Army. There is very little criticism for the man who led the South against the Union but is that because Lee was truly a great man or is it because no one has dared to be critical of such a wildly popular southern gentleman?


 
I don't know how you could fault a man for fighting for the principles embodied in the Constitution at that time.

IMO, it was the north that had failed to live up to them and gave the south little choice but to fight.


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 1, 2008)

Just a small point: our nation military cemetery, Arlington, is Robert E. Lee's former estate.  Also General Grant was convinced that had it not been for Robbert E. Lee, the war could have degenerated into a longer guerrilla war. In my opinion, Robert E. Lee is an American hero. 

The War Between the States was the necessary result of the ambiguities in our Constitution and founding and Lee sided with the principles he felt was right--if individuals have the right of free association and disassociation, then so do states. Lincoln felt once a state enters into an association with other states, they are no longer free to disassociation.  Lincoln won, but it does not mean he was right.


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Oct 1, 2008)

Actually, I don't believe Lee was fighting for lofty beliefs in what the Constitution allowed. He simply fighting for his beloved Virginia. Go to the South and ask people what the greatest state in the Union is. They will all answer with the one that they are from. Simple as that. IMO


----------



## JimH52 (Oct 1, 2008)

Lee was a much better General than Grant and he was sober most of the time.  In Virginia is there a Lee-Jackson day honoring two Generals of the south.  Now that holiday is followed by a holiday honoring Martin Luther King.  Four day weekends are sweet.


----------



## Mauser (Oct 2, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Lincoln felt once a state enters into an association with other states, they are no longer free to disassociation.


 
He didn't always feel that way, especially when he was in the House of Representatives.

An excerpt from a speech in 1848.

_Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better.  This is a most valuable, most sacred righta right, which we hope and believe, is to liberate the world. 

Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much of the territory as they inhabit. 

More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority, was precisely the case, of the tories of our own revolution.  It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones._


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 3, 2008)

CrimsonWhite said:


> Actually, I don't believe Lee was fighting for lofty beliefs in what the Constitution allowed. He simply fighting for his beloved Virginia. Go to the South and ask people what the greatest state in the Union is. They will all answer with the one that they are from. Simple as that. IMO


I don't have to "go to the South and ask people...", I am from the South and a military historian.  As Shelby Foote was fond of saying _prior to the war the * United States are*...but after it was the * United States is...*_* and if you'll read Lee's writings it is obvious his view is that each state is a free, separate, autonomous entity, just like an individual, and that was a commonly held view of day.  In my opinion, General Lee's understanding of the Constitution was far greater than you are giving him credit. A West Point education was nothing to snuff at then or now.*


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 3, 2008)

Mauser said:


> He didn't always feel that way, especially when he was in the House of Representatives.


What you say is very true, but 1848 is a life time from April 1861.  Once the bombing took place in Charleston harbor, the full horror of what could happen to the country struck Lincoln right between the eyes.


----------



## editec (Oct 4, 2008)

*



Robert E. Lee, American hero or American traitor?

Click to expand...

 
Both*


----------



## CrimsonWhite (Oct 5, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> I don't have to "go to the South and ask people...", I am from the South and a military historian.  As Shelby Foote was fond of saying _prior to the war the * United States are*...but after it was the * United States is...*_* and if you'll read Lee's writings it is obvious his view is that each state is a free, separate, autonomous entity, just like an individual, and that was a commonly held view of day.  In my opinion, General Lee's understanding of the Constitution was far greater than you are giving him credit. A West Point education was nothing to snuff at then or now.*


*

You are correct. I promise you that I was not diminishing Lee's intellect or his understanding of the Constitution. Reading his writings will show you a man conflicted between love of Country and love of State. Belief in a sovereign state and a belief in a strong nation. I believe his decision simply came down to the fact that he loved Virginia.*


----------



## Luissa (Oct 5, 2008)

wayne said:


> No he wouldn't he gave his word not to fight again and that was all that needed.  Now if it were Bill Clinton on the other hand the only safe thing to do would be to shoot him.  How do you know that Bill Clinton is lying? Answer: He is wasting Oxygen.


Nice answer because Bill Clinton is just so similar to this subject!


----------



## editec (Oct 5, 2008)

The Civil WAR was inevitable, I think.

The Floundering Fathers knew even as they were drafting the Constitution that the issue of slavery was going to be a problem for this nation. Many of them ALSO knew that slavery was evil even though they found themselves having to defend its continuation.

Even Randolph, probably the most eleqant spokeman for the rights of the slave states understood that slavery wouldn't last forever, and that it was fatally flawed.

But he faced, just as the people in 1860 faced, that unhappy fact that the majority of capital in the SOUTH was in the form of human beings as slaves.

Facing the bankrptsy of their societies, facing the destruction of a social order they were trying to forge against all odds, they made their bargain with the Devil and the Devil got his due in 1861.


----------



## Mauser (Oct 5, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> What you say is very true, but 1848 is a life time from April 1861. Once the bombing took place in Charleston harbor, the full horror of what could happen to the country struck Lincoln right between the eyes.


 
I believe that's why it's important to have a set of core values.

With regards to Lincoln.....his seems to have changed with the political winds.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 7, 2008)

I wouldn't call him an American hero, but he's no traitor.  The southern states had every right to secede from the Union, and it makes sense that a man would support his own state.


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 9, 2008)

Mauser said:


> I believe that's why it's important to have a set of core values.
> 
> With regards to Lincoln.....his seems to have changed with the political winds.


I could not agree more and his belief that the federal governments interests trumps the state is what made the US strong enough to fight a two front war and win eighty years later.  However, it is now the philosophy behind much of present political and financial crisis--when the president can appoint one man to "insure" the financial well being of the country, we've gone too far.


----------



## Luissa (Oct 9, 2008)

editec said:


> The Civil WAR was inevitable, I think.
> 
> The Floundering Fathers knew even as they were drafting the Constitution that the issue of slavery was going to be a problem for this nation. Many of them ALSO knew that slavery was evil even though they found themselves having to defend its continuation.
> 
> ...


Both George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. And the slave population was always a large number from almost the beginning of slave trade. One of the reason they need slaves in Virginia was due to the fact the English kept dying from disease. We were also one of the last countries to outlaw slavery!
And who do you think traded the largest number of slaves?


----------



## wayne (Oct 9, 2008)

wayne said:


> No he wouldn't he gave his word not to fight again and that was all that needed.  Now if it were Bill Clinton on the other hand the only safe thing to do would be to shoot him.  How do you know that Bill Clinton is lying? Answer: He is wasting Oxygen.



The difference between General Lee and Bill Clinton promise is like night and day. The difference is Robert's word would have been as good as gold where as Clinton' word would be worth less than a load of cow poop.


----------



## Luissa (Oct 9, 2008)

wayne said:


> The difference between General Lee and Bill Clinton promise is like night and day. The difference is Robert's word would have been as good as gold where as Clinton' word would be worth less than a load of cow poop.


I didn't know we were comparing Robert and Bill here! Like I stated before what does Bill have to do with this? And way to go quoting yourself.


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 12, 2008)

Listen, no political philosophical system is free of a *Dark Side*.  The founding fathers realized this which is why they tried to create a system with checks and balances. However, they were fully aware that anything created by human hands will eventually fail. That is why some felt that the tree of liberty must be watered with blood of patriots from time to time. 

Robert E. Lee was seduced by the Dark Side for a time, but he was a hero in Mexican-American War and a hero after the War Between the States by refusing to support a protracted guerrilla war. What he did the first Sunday home after the surrender is a story of courage and honor, and the story of true American hero.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 12, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> and the story of true American hero.



Give me a break!!!

If Lee did the same thing today. He would be considered a traitor and would be in a prison like GITMO awaiting execution.


----------



## Luissa (Oct 12, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Give me a break!!!
> 
> If Lee did the same thing today. He would be considered a traitor and would be in a prison like GITMO awaiting execution.


He is a confederate hero! He could of been a American Hero if he would have stayed with the union. Now is home is a cemetary!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 12, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Listen, no political philosophical system is free of a *Dark Side*.  The founding fathers realized this which is why they tried to create a system with checks and balances. However, they were fully aware that anything created by human hands will eventually fail. That is why some felt that the tree of liberty must be watered with blood of patriots from time to time.
> 
> Robert E. Lee was seduced by the Dark Side for a time, but he was a hero in Mexican-American War and a hero after the War Between the States by refusing to support a protracted guerrilla war. What he did the first Sunday home after the surrender is a story of courage and honor, and the story of true American hero.



Seduced by the darkside?  If anybody was Emporer Palpatine it was Abraham Lincoln.


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 13, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> If Lee did the same thing today. He would be considered a traitor and would be in a prison like GITMO awaiting execution.


Binky,
You Idiot--it was then and this is now. GITMO is for foreign fighters caught on the battlefield, attacking United States military forces without military authorization of any state or dressed in uniforms identifying them to any legitimate fighting force.  Since they have not given any loyalty to the United States, they cannot be traitors. What they are, are illegal combatants, and should be treated as such. 

It is obvious that you know nothing about the life and times of Robert E. Lee or American history.  The Confederate States of American had every right to leave the Union and to defend that right with military force.  Lee had the authorization from the State of Virginia and was dressed in the military uniform of his state.  Robert E. Lee has nothing in common with those scumbags at GITMO. And when the war ended, he did not set coachbombs killing thousands of innocent bystanders or decapitate former enemies.  No, he used all his influence to heal the nation...that's uniquely American and a hero.


----------



## sealybobo (Oct 13, 2008)

editec said:


> *
> 
> Both*



Traitor, just like Todd Palin who wants to succeed from our union.


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 13, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Seduced by the darkside?  If anybody was Emporer Palpatine it was Abraham Lincoln.


Good point.


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 13, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Binky,
> You Idiot--it was then and this is now. GITMO is for foreign fighters caught on the battlefield, attacking United States military forces without military authorization of any state or dressed in uniforms identifying them to any legitimate fighting force.  Since they have not given any loyalty to the United States, they cannot be traitors. What they are, are illegal combatants, and should be treated as such.
> 
> It is obvious that you know nothing about the life and times of Robert E. Lee or American history.  The Confederate States of American had every right to leave the Union and to defend that right with military force.  Lee had the authorization from the State of Virginia and was dressed in the military uniform of his state.  Robert E. Lee has nothing in common with those scumbags at GITMO. And when the war ended, he did not set coachbombs killing thousands of innocent bystanders or decapitate former enemies.  No, he used all his influence to heal the nation...that's uniquely American and a hero.


You are the idiot.

Lee was a traitor and should have been hanged after a quick trial for treason!!!


The Freedom Fighters in Iraq are fighting FOR their country, Not against it like Lee was doing!!

Just because they don't have uniforms doesn't make them any less of a patriot to their country. Most of the soildiers in George Washington Army didn't have uniforms. There is NO difference!


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 13, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> He is a confederate hero! He could of been a American Hero if he would have stayed with the union.


You are looking back on Robert E. Lee with post-War Between the States eyes.  Prior to the war, each state was a nation unto itself and the union was a free association of states. The idea of the Union as being some type of monolithic entity, absorbing states into its collective from which no state could leave,  comes after the war starts and is not found in the Constitution.  Lee was  loyal to Virgina and the principles of the founding fathers.  To ask him to reject Virgina and what fathers fought for is unthinkable.  Had he, then he would not have been Robert E. Lee.  

And please do not overlook his heroic actions during the Mexican-American War...but then again you probably never covered that in your freshman American history class at whatever liberal college you attend. If you want to learn something about it, try the fictionalized version of the war written by Jeff Shaara called *Gone For Soldiers*. Its an easy and fast read.

Lee was an American HERO first, before he became a confederate hero, and he was an American hero afterwards...even U.S. Grant knowledged as much.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 13, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Traitor, just like Todd Palin who wants to succeed from our union.



Secede*

And the states have every right to secede if it's in their best interest.  THESE United States of America were never meant to be run by an all powerful federal government.  The founders would be disgusted with what we have let happen to our union.


----------



## hopner33 (Oct 13, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Seduced by the darkside?  If anybody was Emporer Palpatine it was Abraham Lincoln.



How is this?


----------



## hopner33 (Oct 13, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> You are looking back on Robert E. Lee with post-War Between the States eyes.  Prior to the war, each state was a nation unto itself and the union was a free association of states. The idea of the Union as being some type of monolithic entity, absorbing states into its collective from which no state could leave,  comes after the war starts and is not found in the Constitution.  Lee was  loyal to Virgina and the principles of the founding fathers.  To ask him to reject Virgina and what fathers fought for is unthinkable.  Had he, then he would not have been Robert E. Lee.
> 
> And please do not overlook his heroic actions during the Mexican-American War...but then again you probably never covered that in your freshman American history class at whatever liberal college you attend. If you want to learn something about it, try the fictionalized version of the war written by Jeff Shaara called *Gone For Soldiers*. Its an easy and fast read.
> 
> Lee was an American HERO first, before he became a confederate hero, and he was an American hero afterwards...even U.S. Grant knowledged as much.



This is utter hogwash.

The idea that the union was some "monolithic entity" had been around long before the Civil War, most notably in the Hayne-Webster debates and Andrew Jackson's statement against nullification. 
And loyal to the principles of the Founding Fathers? Rufus King would certainly not have agreed and neither would have James Madison.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 13, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> How is this?



He denied the Confederate states their rights to leave the Union, and waged one of the most bloody and disastrous wars in American history.  Also, a popular misconception is that he did it to free the slaves, which is incorrect.  In his first inaugural address Lincoln stated, "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable," on the subject of slavery.  These are only a few of Lincoln's offenses.

I suggest reading _The Real Lincoln_ and _Lincoln Unmasked_, both by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, for more on the subject.


----------



## hopner33 (Oct 13, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> He denied the Confederate states their rights to leave the Union, and waged one of the most bloody and disastrous wars in American history.  Also, a popular misconception is that he did it to free the slaves, which is incorrect.  In his first inaugural address Lincoln stated, "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable," on the subject of slavery.  These are only a few of Lincoln's offenses.
> 
> I suggest reading _The Real Lincoln_ and _Lincoln Unmasked_, both by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, for more on the subject.



He denied the Confederate States their rights to leave the Union? Do you mean legal rights or revolutionary rights?

It also takes two sides to fight a war, and very few people would agree with your assessment that the Civil War was the most disastorous in history.

I also disagree that Lincoln did not fight the war to end slavery. While he would have been perfectly content to have the war end with slavery intact, he stood his ground and refused any compromises that would have allowed the future of slavery intact.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 13, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> He denied the Confederate States their rights to leave the Union? Do you mean legal rights or revolutionary rights?
> 
> It also takes two sides to fight a war, and very few people would agree with your assessment that the Civil War was the most disastorous in history.
> 
> I also disagree that Lincoln did not fight the war to end slavery. While he would have been perfectly content to have the war end with slavery intact, he stood his ground and refused any compromises that would have allowed the future of slavery intact.



Their legal rights, despite the Supreme Court's ruling after the war.  The New England states held a conference to decide whether to secede during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and President Jefferson never assumed he had the authority to stop them.  I suggest you look into Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolve of 1798.  The founders knew that secession was a necessary part of States' Rights.  They never believed in an all powerful federal government, as I said before.

The Confederate States obviously had to defend themselves when Lincoln attacked.  I didn't say it was the most disastrous war, I said it was one of them.  Sherman and his men attacked and looted how many civilians in their march?

Lincoln was a white supremacist who did not want black people in the country at all.  He supported and assisted in efforts to deport slaves and freed black men to Liberia, Haiti, and Panama.  Where they probably wouldn't have survived.


----------



## hopner33 (Oct 13, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Their legal rights, despite the Supreme Court's ruling after the war.  The New England states held a conference to decide whether to secede during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and President Jefferson never assumed he had the authority to stop them.  I suggest you look into Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolve of 1798.  The founders knew that secession was a necessary part of States' Rights.  They never believed in an all powerful federal government, as I said before.
> 
> The Confederate States obviously had to defend themselves when Lincoln attacked.  I didn't say it was the most disastrous war, I said it was one of them.  Sherman and his men attacked and looted how many civilians in their march?
> 
> Lincoln was a white supremacist who did not want black people in the country at all.  He supported and assisted in efforts to deport slaves and freed black men to Liberia, Haiti, and Panama.  Where they probably wouldn't have survived.




Your legal rights argument is flawed in a couple of ways. 
1) The Hartford Convention was during the Presidency of Monroe not Jefferson. Furthermore the Hartford Convenion never adopted a platform of secession and its proceedings were in secret thus preventing us from really knowing what happened in there. 
2) Why do you accept Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution as legal fact? Madison's Virginia Resolution was released at about the same time and he later stated that the Virginia Resolution was not meant to construe that secession was a remedy. He in fact denied secession. 
3) Madison's letter to Webster in 1833 proves that "the founders" did not believe in secession. Perhaps some did but others did not. 
4) Of course they did not believe in an all powerful national government, but at the same time they did not beleive in a pitifully weak national government that could be overruled whenever by the states.

Lincoln attacked?

And if you are only using the word "disastorous" in terms of physical destruction than I have no quarrell. If you are using that word in terms of results though we will quibble.

If you want to blame a man for living in his time than do so. The policy of colonizaion was much more progressive than the policy of slavery and had a long history with many notable supporters. More importantly, LIncoln had begun to drift away from those views near his death.


----------



## Luissa (Oct 14, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> Your legal rights argument is flawed in a couple of ways.
> 1) The Hartford Convention was during the Presidency of Monroe not Jefferson. Furthermore the Hartford Convenion never adopted a platform of secession and its proceedings were in secret thus preventing us from really knowing what happened in there.
> 2) Why do you accept Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution as legal fact? Madison's Virginia Resolution was released at about the same time and he later stated that the Virginia Resolution was not meant to construe that secession was a remedy. He in fact denied secession.
> 3) Madison's letter to Webster in 1833 proves that "the founders" did not believe in secession. Perhaps some did but others did not.
> ...


Yeah for one the confederate attacked Fort Sumtner to start the war! They told Lincoln to leave and instead of doing so or adding more men to the fort he just sent food. Really I think he was just waiting for them to attack first!


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 14, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> Yeah for one the confederate attacked Fort Sumtner to start the war! They told Lincoln to leave and instead of doing so or adding more men to the fort he just sent food. Really I think he was just waiting for them to attack first!



Fort Sumter was on Confederate land, and being occupied by Union troops.  The Confederacy appointed delegates to try to buy property owned by the federal government, but Lincoln refused to deal with them.  What were they supposed to do?


----------



## Luissa (Oct 14, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Fort Sumter was on Confederate land, and being occupied by Union troops.  The Confederacy appointed delegates to try to buy property owned by the federal government, but Lincoln refused to deal with them.  What were they supposed to do?


And why do you think Lincoln refused?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 14, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> Your legal rights argument is flawed in a couple of ways.
> 1) The Hartford Convention was during the Presidency of Monroe not Jefferson. Furthermore the Hartford Convenion never adopted a platform of secession and its proceedings were in secret thus preventing us from really knowing what happened in there.
> 2) Why do you accept Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution as legal fact? Madison's Virginia Resolution was released at about the same time and he later stated that the Virginia Resolution was not meant to construe that secession was a remedy. He in fact denied secession.
> 3) Madison's letter to Webster in 1833 proves that "the founders" did not believe in secession. Perhaps some did but others did not.
> ...



I have a feeling you and I are not going to come to much of an agreement on this issue.  So it's probably not worth my time to make much of a response, but I will.

1. You are correct, my mistake.

2. The Kentucky Resolve was cited by New Englanders when they refused to abide by the embargo act President Jefferson enacted in 1807.  Considering that they did in fact seriously consider seceding just 7 years later, it is obvious to me that it was common knowledge at the time that they had the right to do so.

3. "It crushes "nullification" and must hasten the abandonment of "Secession." But this dodges the blow by confounding the claim to secede at will, with the right of seceding from intolerable oppression. The former answers itself, being a violation, without cause, of a faith solemnly pledged. The latter is another name only for revolution, about which there is no theoretic controversy."

Taken directly from Madison's letter.  Don't think that I am advocating that any state should secede just to do it.  I am merely stating that the states have the right to do so if they are being mistreated by the federal government, as Madison's letter clearly states.  The south had the right to secede from the union, and President Lincoln had no right to stop them.  He should have been diplomatic rather than tyrannical in his approach.

4. The founders believed in checks and balances, and knew that the states would have to overrule the federal government from time to time.  When they refused to abide by President Jefferson's embargo, the Connecticut state assembly had this to say:

"But it must not be forgotten that the state of Connecticut is a free sovereign and independent State; that the United States are a confederated and not a consolidated republic."

Obviously Lincoln did not attack personally, but you know what I mean.

Then you will have to quibble because I am using the term for both meanings.  The result of the Civil War was unnecessary bloodshed, and an extermination of the sovereignty and independence of the States.

There were men in that period that had no problems with black people and helped them to freedom, rather than try to force them out of the country into a new environment that they probably would not have been able to survive in.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 14, 2008)

Luissa27 said:


> And why do you think Lincoln refused?



He felt that the federal government should have dominion over the formerly sovereign and independent states.  Had he been diplomatic rather than tyrannical, however, there may have been a better outcome.


----------



## ButtersBC (Oct 14, 2008)

In terms of Southern Racist Leaders of Men he's behind only Paul "Bear" Bryant on this reporter's list


----------



## TPIRFail (Oct 14, 2008)

ButtersBC said:


> In terms of Southern Racist Leaders of Men he's behind only Paul "Bear" Bryant on this reporter's list



don't forget Bum Phillips


----------



## chewd_out (Oct 14, 2008)

No love for Adolph Rupp?


----------



## hopner33 (Oct 14, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I have a feeling you and I are not going to come to much of an agreement on this issue.  So it's probably not worth my time to make much of a response, but I will.
> 
> 1. You are correct, my mistake.
> 
> ...




2. Like I said earlier, just how much the Hartford convention considered secession is impossible to prove. Historian Samuel Morris thinks that they did not really consider it at all and the story of them doing so exists soley because of the success of Republican propaganda.
And I do agree that the Kentucky resolution gives the states extensive powers probably including secession. BUt the Virginia Resolution denies this. Why is one correct and the other false?

3. I think you misread Madison's letter. He denies the right of secession as a legal recourse for states to use when they are upset with the national government. He only allows "seceding from intolerable oppression" which he considers revolution. I have never argued that the states had the right to have a revolution. But if they did have that right, Lincloln as leader of United States had the right and duty to put it down.

4. That quote is just a snippet from a much longer piece that rather than confirming state sovereignity confirms a form of dual sovereignity. It discusses how Connecticut must follow the federal government when it uses the power actually given to it, but does not when the government oversteps its bounds. So yes, the state of Connecticut does ackowledge a power to interpret the constitution but it does not mean that Connecticut is a sovereign state by todays definition of sovereign.

I don't know what you mean by Lincoln.

End of the sovereignity and independence of the states? That was never established in the way you want. Rufus King at the Constitutional Convention said that states were free and sovereign, but in a different way. 
"The states were not sovereigns in the sense contended for by some. They did not possess the peculiar features of sovereignty,they could not make war, nor peace, nor alliances, nor treaties. Considering them as political beings, they were dumb, for they could not speak to any foreign sovereign whatever. They were deaf, for they could not hear any propositions from such sovereign. They had not even the organs or faculties of defence or offence, for they could not of themselves raise troops, or equip vessels, for war.... If the states, therefore, retained some portion of their sovereignty [after declaring independence], they had certainly divested themselves of essential portions of it."

People have always argued over the meaning of state sovereignity, and for you to claim that the Civil War ended it must assume that Rufus King's side was wrong from the beginning. 

And I think you misunderstand Lincoln's views on colonization. It was always voluntary and he supported it partly because he thought blacks would have a much better chance at surviving away from America than inside of it.


----------



## TPIRFail (Oct 14, 2008)

chewd_out said:


> No love for Adolph Rupp?



he wasn't racist - he hated everybody


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 14, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Lee was a traitor and should have been hanged after a quick trial for treason!  The Freedom Fighters in Iraq are fighting FOR their country, Not against it like Lee was doing!


Your utter lack of knowledge in American history and current events is so appalling whacked that it is laughable.  

Who was the President after Lincoln's assassination?  Any idea?  Does the name Andrew Johnson ring a bell? What you propose is exactly what he, and many members of Congress, wanted to do.  

Do you have any idea why it was not done?  Rhetorical question because it is obviously that you do not know.  

The answer President Lincoln had opposed such retribution and said it would prolong the hostilities. To insure that his wishes were implemented Lincoln shared his wishes with General Grant and Sherman and gave them authority to grant pardons on the battlefield.  So when President Johnson sought go after Lee and others, Grant wrote a strong letter that basically said he would not support such trails and that Lincoln had granted him the authority to pardon Lee--which he had done. His reasoning, Grant said was to quickly end the hostilities and heal the nation's wounds.  

President Johnson recessed his authority to override Lincoln's order and wishes.  It became painfully evident he could not win this fight with Grant: legally or politically.  Hence, President Johnson did not pursue a trail of Lee and others any further. 

I know of no reputable American historian who does not agree with Grants actions--not one. If you know of one, please let me know. A really good book that lays this all out is entitled *April 1865*. 

Now concerning your so called *Freedom Fighters*...I was unaware the war in Iraq was on the table but thought you'd eluded to the detainees at GITMO.  

Be that as it may, please recheck you data from reputable sources and you'll discover the majority of hostilities have come, and are coming, from foreigners--Jihadist from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan who want to meet Allah in hell and are willing to kill innocent Iraqis to do that. 

Our fine military personal are more than willing to send these psychopaths on their merry way with the help for the true _Freedom Fighters_: the New Iraqi Army and Police force. 

Now I know this is hard for you, but try to follow the logic here: *to qualify as a traitor* a person must have pledged loyalty to some authority--either a nation-state or religion--and then not only disavowed that loyalty, but worked against the nation-state or religion unto his or her capture and  conviction or, better yet, his or her death.  This is why John Walker Lynn is a traitor and Khalid Shaki Mohammad is not.


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 15, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> This is utter hogwash.


No, it is not.  Do you know who Shelby Foote is?  He was professor of history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, and author of the three volume set entitled *Civil War* among other books on the subject, until his recent death.  He most clearly makes this very point in several books and the PBS series about the war.  He says that prior to the war it was correct say"..._the United States are_ such and such or so and so."  It is only after the war does that change to "...the _United States is_ such and such or so and so..."  Hence, it is only a change in attitude toward the federal government that justifies this now use of improper grammar.  In our  contemporary setting, a majority takes this change for granted, but it was not always the consensus view in the early 1800's.


----------



## hopner33 (Oct 15, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> No, it is not.  Do you know who Shelby Foote is?  He was professor of history at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, and author of the three volume set entitled *Civil War* among other books on the subject, until his recent death.  He most clearly makes this very point in several books and the PBS series about the war.  He says that prior to the war it was correct say"..._the United States are_ such and such or so and so."  It is only after the war does that change to "...the _United States is_ such and such or so and so..."  Hence, it is only a change in attitude toward the federal government that justifies this now use of improper grammar.  In our  contemporary setting, a majority takes this change for granted, but it was not always the consensus view in the early 1800's.



I know who Shelby Foote was but I do not think you do. While i do not know his whole biography I would be surprised if he was a professor at Emory because he was not an academic historian. He was a novelist which allowed him to write a fine history of the Civil War but it was always criticized as not being academic enough especially with its lack of footnotes. 

Furthermore my "utter hogwash" comment was not in response to Foote's quote but rather your assertation that  "Prior to the war, each state was a nation unto itself and the union was a free association of states. The idea of the Union as being some type of monolithic entity, absorbing states into its collective from which no state could leave, comes after the war starts and is not found in the Constitution."  This quote is just not true as Webster'r response to Hayne shows and as Jackson's response to the Nullification Crisis shows. 

While I respect Foote, I have to question his quote. It is definitely true that the United States was used in the plural prior to the Civil War but it is far from clear that the Civil War caused the change. It seems to me as just a correlation that has been accepted as causation. Just look at the 13th amendemnt. It says that "Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to *their* jurisdiction." If the Civil War really caused this change "their" should not be used but "its" should.


----------



## hopner33 (Oct 15, 2008)

MasterChief said:


> Who was the President after Lincoln's assassination?  Any idea?  Does the name Andrew Johnson ring a bell? What you propose is exactly what he, and many members of Congress, wanted to do.
> 
> Do you have any idea why it was not done?  Rhetorical question because it is obviously that you do not know.
> 
> ...



Johnson's reversal on how to deal with ex-Confederates was amazing. As vice-President he called for harsh retribution. As a new President he called for retribution on some Confederate leaders. Yet barely a year later he would have persoanlly pardoned most of the Confederate elite and allowed them to regain their social status.


----------



## editec (Oct 16, 2008)

So, in the minds of you folks who feel that secession was the right of every state, I am curious...

Most of you seem to hate the nation, where it's going, who runs it and so forth.

Should the South secede _now?_

Why or why not?


----------



## Sunni Man (Oct 16, 2008)

Face it. Lee took up arms against the United States. 

He was a traitor and should have been hanged. Period.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Oct 16, 2008)

editec said:


> So, in the minds of you folks who feel that secession was the right of every state, I am curious...
> 
> Most of you seem to hate the nation, where it's going, who runs it and so forth.
> 
> ...



I would say if it came to secession in our present condition, every state should secede.  It's not just a certain area of the nation getting the shaft, but the nation as a whole.  Our representatives don't listen to us, and the government feels it has the right to run our lives.

However, I think it would be more productive if we could somehow force the government to work within it's Constitutional limits.  Of course this is about as likely as every state successfully seceding from the union.


----------



## jodylee (Oct 17, 2008)

bob was a made man, he came from british arrostocracy and french/norman before that. his brothers signatures are on the consititution. he's just a rich bloke on a horse.


----------



## MasterChief (Oct 17, 2008)

hopner33 said:


> I know who Shelby Foote was...


I think you have Shelby Foote confused with Jeff Shaara.  

Secondly, I believe we have a gentleman's disagreement on view of the federal government prior to 1860's.  You are correct that during the War Between the States, the north saw Lee as a traitor.  

And this goes to my third point--nobody's life should be judged by one slice.  Rather, a person's life should be judged in it's totality. Was Robert E. Lee actions in the Mexican-American War heroic?  The government said yes.  Did Robert E. Lee perform his duties at Harper's ferry? Yes. Did Robert E. Lee support the succession of confederate states? Yes. After the war, did Lee use all his influence to heal the nation? Yes, he did.  There are three "yes" in support the United States and one "yes" against.

Hence, in my opinion Lee is an American hero.


----------

