"Geo Washington & Bobby Lee" Topic

In another forum I posted a comment on a friend's post. Out of respect for my friend I didn't want to start a flame war so I ket it go. Now i want to vent and since it is history related, here goes.
I think Washington & Lee had a lot more in common then the poitically correct crowd are willing to admit. I said the main difference was Washington's enemies were willing to quit, whereas Lee's were not.
Somebody decided that was stupid; I think they need to read a history book.
Consider:
Washington fought for the British in an earlier war. Would have sworn a loyalty oath (I presume). Lead the field army in a rebellion against the lawful government of the time. Lost more battles than he won but won the war because his enemy quit.

Lee fought for the US in an earlier war. Swore a loyalty oath. Lead the field army in a rebellion against the lawful government. Won more battles than he lost but lost war because his enemy never quit.

Sounds pretty similar to me.
but maybe I am just an idiot.

When Lincoln offered Lee the Federal command he referred to Washington's service as a Virginian.

Similar and different. Lee was a better tactician, Washington the better strategist. Lee was much more aggressive.

Both were Virginia gentlemen who owned slaves. Lee had no political career while Washington was president, and a burgess before that.

I think there are some similarities, though I think similarities could be made between Lee and many other famous Americans, not just Washington.

I think Bobby Lee was a better general, but George Washington far more adept at keeping the politicians 'on board' with 'the cause'

As a Brit, I hold no bitterness to either man.

They did their duty.

Certainly nothing to get worked up about either way. A convincing case could be made for either argument.

Apples and Lugnuts…

Except for the fact that Lee was taught to revere Washington, thus some emulation was natural.

Each made their choices independently of each other…

Eric

I know they have lots of differences. The point i was trying to counter is those who think Lee and his army were traitors when the only difference is one of them won and one did not

Treason never succeeds, and what's the reason?
Why if it does then none dare call it treason!

Lee swore an oath to protect and defend a Constitution that defines treason as 'Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or…'

A commonly reasoned argument is that the Southern states succeeded in order to protect the rights of their citizens to own and do with property as they saw fit, and more specifically to own and do with human beings as property as they saw fit. All the arguments for Southern succession made at the time are either that the victory of Lincoln threatened slavery itself (if you doubt that read the original one as enacted by South Carolina) or that the North had ignored the interests of Southern agriculture, which was itself based on the institution of slavery.

Fighting for freedom of self-government and freedom from restrictive libel laws (as Washington did) is a far cry from fighting for the right to own property in general, and slaves in particular, as Lee did.

A student, use the term loosely, a U of Texas, Austin signed a fake petition to remove George Washington's statue from the school's grounds.

He stated that because Washington owned slaves it was "like having a statue of Hitler on campus".

George Washington is just like Hitler in this scholar's mind.

I'm just watching Rome burn.

As for your post, loyalties change, no difference. Well, one big difference. Washington won.

It's more complicated than "political correctness" or "if it succeeds"

link

There's a little difference called "slavery," but some people are too blindered by lost-cause indoctrination to understand that.

I wasn't talking about the morality of the cause
Just that both lead troops against the lawful government

Washington was the father of the country, he could easily have kept power, but he walked away from it all when the war ended.

Lee was a traitor who fought against his country and helped kill thousands of US citizens. He kept fighting even when there was no hope of succession working. Thankfully the rightful government was merciful and did not hang him and the rest of the traitors who rebelled and cause the loss of more US lives then any foreign enemy has in the last 150 years.

.as a simple Brit I am getting bemused by the use of succession for secession – or was there also a succession issue? :-)

Sorry. Auto correct tricks again.

If Lee had accepted command of the Federal forces, it would have been a shorter war. He would have taken advantage of the many opportunities to crush the Confederate army. In my mind I hold him accountable for a longer, bitter war. Some are still fighting it.
He made his choice according to his sense of "honor" whether we agree or not with it.

Washington fought for the British in an earlier war. Would have sworn a loyalty oath (I presume).

I wouldn't presume that at all. Washington was never in the British army, he was a Virginia militia officer. That distinction was important.

JtG
Excellent point. He considered himself a Virginian. That's why he got the command in Boston, to keep the rebellion intact.

M