"General Robert E. Lee - Patriot or traitor?" Topic

"Many Americans were and are torn in their view of General Robert E. Lee (1807-1870), the famed Confederate Army commander. Lee has been applauded for his gentlemanly demeanor and shrewd military expertise; he stands in the American military pantheon alongside Washington, Jackson, Grant, MacArthur, Eisenhower, Patton, and Powell. Yet there is an obvious difference between all these men and Robert E. Lee, for Lee not only fought for the American flag, he also fought against it. Robert E. Lee was, by traditional definitions of the term, a traitor.

Robert Edward Lee was born in Virginia in 1807, the son a Revolutionary War hero. Married to a great-grand daughter of Martha Washington, he belonged to the elite of Virginia planter society. An inheritor of the South's famed martial spirit, Lee graduated from West Point Military Academy in 1829. He built dams and dikes along the upper Mississippi with the Army Engineers, and later served as a cavalry officer on the Texas frontier. He was tested in battle in the Mexican War, and had attained the rank of Army Lieutenant Colonel when he rousted John Brown and his men from Harper's Ferry in 1859. At the outbreak of the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln quite naturally offered Lee a command in the Union army, but the Virginian turned him down. He betrayed his oath of office in order to follow what he honestly believed to be a more important obligation—his duty to defend his native Virginia. He saw himself as a Virginian first and an American second. As such, he brilliantly led Confederate troops through three long years of war…"

Main page

link

Armand

The poor horse is dead for crying out loud. Stop beating him.

I get tired of hearing comments like Lee "betrayed his oath of office" No he did not. Lee did the honorable thing and resigned his commission from the United States Army. The oath that bound him to defend the United States of America was made null and void by his resignation. That is how it works or at least it did pre 1865.

+1 Marcus.

B

Marcus +1

Marcus has spoken the simple truth.

Lee was a great man and no traitor.

Traitor. He picked his state and slavery over his country, total freaking traitor along with the rest of them.

+1 Marcus

+! Irish Marine, for pete's sake stop trying to white wash the past with old paint.

Amusing the ranting "traitor" from those whose whole nation were traitors to the Crown…

All Sir Garnett 😂

Whole nation? anywhere from 30% or so, fought for the King. Another 20% or so wanted nothing to do with it.

What about all those "traitors" who fought for Parliament against their legitimate King? God knows who counts as "traitors" during the War of the Roses. 😉

Cheers

Boy. That escalated quickly. One person's traitor is another person's patriot. 35th OVI nailed it.

To me a bit of a quandary. Seems like a decent chap – smart, tactically brilliant, caring of his men.
And yet, resigned his commission (quick and easy way to get off the hook?), fought at the head of a rebellious army and responsible for the death of thousands of fellow Americans. Hmm.

Do we really need this argument again? If the Confederacy won then Lee would be considered a patriot.

Traitor. Just because he resigned his commission doesn't make it any better, nicer or prettier.

Look at the reason WHY he resigned and where his next job was.

If he had sat out the war in, say, Europe, you could somehow maybe make an argument.

If the Confederacy had won, I'd still consider him a traitor.

But this is really a useless argument.

Eric

Thanks.

Armand

I'm with you, Irish Marine.

This is interesting. At the time, someone, somewhere thought Lee was a traitor and made him sign this:

link

Also interesting:

link

I think the Revolution was different than the Secession.

Unless there is evidence to the contrary, The Founding Fathers hadn't taken any oath to the Crown and most of them knew they were pulling a fast one. They may have even realized they were traitors in a sense.

Lee and other ex army officers knew they were breaking an oath they had once taken for the constitution/country and actually took up arms against it.

Nay you say, I mean Ney.

Per usum, +1 Irish Marine

Charge, the Founders knew perfectly well they were engaged in treason.

If the Men Who fought against him could forgive and forget, Why can't we?

Who said they did? Do we have the views of all 1 million men who fought for the North? Or do we have a lot of Southern revisionism that says the Northern soldiers all forgave South. I would say during the early period of Reconstruction when Southerners were attacking Unionists and freedmen and refusing to admit secession was wrong and refusing to ratify amendments to end slavery many Nothern soldiers were likely very angry with the South who seemed to be forgetting who won the war.

We were are are the United States. No matter the reason, taking up arms against the United States is an act of treason. The warm glow of revisionist southern historical perspective has softened the impact over the years.

From HMS Exeter …

The poor horse is dead for crying out loud. Stop beating him.

Who was beating him? The article seems to be giving a fair assessment of the situation. And history gets told, and told again. There seems to be a bit of over-reaction to the article. When that happens something triggered it, and perhaps clouded one's view, even if unintentionally.

I get tired of hearing comments like Lee "betrayed his oath of office" No he did not. Lee did the honorable thing and resigned his commission from the United States Army. The oath that bound him to defend the United States of America was made null and void by his resignation. That is how it works or at least it did pre 1865.

Marcus has spoken the simple truth.

Simple perhaps but not the whole truth.

Contemporary defenders of Lee seem doomed to patch together rationalizations for his actions by careful selection and manipulations of the facts. However, you cant base Lee's status of traitor only on what Lee believed. Otherwise, any common thief could claim immunity from prosecution because they really believed they were entitled to someone else's property.

The Confederacy was mostly considered a rebellion and no nation recognized the Confederacy as a country. At the end of the war, there was a need to take an oath reaffirming loyalty to the constitution and apparently Lee wasn't reinstated as a voting citizen. Apparently all this states rights business, touted by present day confederate sympathizers who also maintain that you cant judge Lee by today's morals, wasn't really what everyone back then thought.

It's a complex issue but we cant say that Lee was completely absolved of treachery. He doesn't seem to have told the USA that he didn't need to sign an oath because he never broke one (unless there is evidence to the contrary?) nor did he say he wanted to be tried as a combatant of a defeated enemy nation.

Treachery? What do you know about treachery? As a member of the First Nations I find it laughable that ANYONE would suggest being loyal to a nation that broke every single treaty it made with Native Americans. A country that is itself untrustworthy has no right to expect that oaths be upheld. The Choctaws were the first to walk the Trail and I'm proud they fought for the Confederacy. America during the 1800s wasn't worthy of the oath.

Lee was a great man and no traitor.

Charge, the Founders knew perfectly well they were engaged in treason.

Interesting. Your position is that the Founders were traitors but that Lee was not?

The Founders must have been aware that – if they failed to win the military struggle – they would have been guilty of treason by waging war against the British government. But they won, so they were not going to be charged, simple as that.

Similarly, had the Confederacy won, there would have been no
question of CS officials, officers or men being tried for treason.

Winners write the rulebook.

Can someone kindly refer me to the volumes upon volumes of trial transcripts covering confederates tried for treason after the war? They must be sitting somewhere in NARA or the Library of Congress.

Does anyone know where and how the remains of all the executed villains were disposed?

I thought not.

99.99 pct of this "Traitor" argument strikes me as ignorant, out of context oratory.

B

Both Jefferson Davis, John C. Breckinridge and Robert E. Lee were indicted for treason.

The fate of Jefferson Davis after the war is fairly well known. Davis was covered under Johnson's general amnesty.

An account of Lee's indictment and why he wasn't arrested and prosecuted can be found in The Lost Indictment of Robert E. Lee by John Reeves. Lee was among those excluded from Andrew Johnson's Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon of 1865, and was therefore obligated to apply individually for a pardon. Lee did apply for a pardon, but it was not granted. Lee ultimately was covered under Johnson's general amnesty of 1869.

Breckinridge was able to escape overseas when the Confederacy collapsed. He returned to the U.S. after the general amnesty of 1869 avoiding any requirement that he apply for a pardon.

+1 Choctaw and yet some want to talk about exceptionalism.

@Gamespoet

It is a sad reality in here that there are topics that recur periodically that neatly divide the congregation and produce the same arguments from both sides that no one really pays attention to, except to chime in a +1. It is not unusual for the invective and/or politics to heat up and someone get an all expenses paid trip to the Dawghouse.

Was the Civil War about Slavery?
Does this new gun law violate the 2nd Amendment?
Were the Confederate leaders traitors?

We've been round and round a bazillion times. Nothing ever comes of this. It'd be nice if we could find a way to retire these subjects once and for all.

Ok, although if the site owner continues to permit it, then it'll keep occurring. And your post … it was the first reply to it. Regardless, seems I miss interpreted your post, my mistake.

And then I see this from Choctaw …

Treachery? What do you know about treachery? As a member of the First Nations I find it laughable that ANYONE would suggest being loyal to a nation that broke every single treaty it made with Native Americans. A country that is itself untrustworthy has no right to expect that oaths be upheld. The Choctaws were the first to walk the Trail and I'm proud they fought for the Confederacy. America during the 1800s wasn't worthy of the oath.

Although the actions taken by the US Government on the Choctaw seem inappropriate, the Choctaw sided with the Confederacy for multiple reasons, including and not limited to their support of slavery. However, not sure of the logic to some how two wrongs making a right when it comes to comparing the U.S. Government's action towards Choctaw, with Lee's towards the United States, yet perhaps I am missing something. Besides … not sure the Choctaw had a way to side with the U.S. Government anyway (sometimes classified as another reason why some didn't), and I've not seen a reference yet to Lee's decision to side with the Confederacy as some how being to support the Choctaw in their grievances towards the U.S. Government. Also, another reason that some Choctaw participated on the side of the Confederacy was because some of them were drafted into service. I'm understanding and empathetic towards the plight of the Choctaw, yet that doesn't some how disqualify Lee for his actions being as some proclaim them to be, although that could be stating the obvious.

Both Jefferson Davis, John C. Breckinridge and Robert E. Lee were indicted for treason.

Yes they were.

Interesting on the subject:

link

Also interesting on treason:

link

Curiously, the article originally posted says that Lee was never charged. I thought that was odd until I saw that Larry Schweikart was involved with this site. Although he can sometimes be entertaining, he's no intellectual and most of his offerings are history for low information audiences.

But you can see the sort of damage this can produce in neo-confederate circles where people begin to demand transcripts of Lee's trial while ignoring why an innocent man didn't tell the US government he had no need to re-sign an oath he never broke or why he asked for a pardon.

@HMS Exeter

Speaking for myself, I find these misplaced passions masquerading as history or factual/legal analysis to be entertaining.

Further, some of the more alarming, confidently stated, Belushi-esque assertions along the lines that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor force me to take a look at subjects I haven't paid that much attention to in order to get the record straight and debunk the misinformation touted by persons on a site where you would think you'd be mingling with history aficionados, not propagandists.

Thus, in one way, this sort of low brow vote-for-what-you-like presented as history forces me to keep those skills honed needed to guard against inaccurate revisionism.

"Ney", I guess one man's traitor is always another man's hero. I guess one should "marshal" ones thoughts on the matter. 🤔

Contemporary defenders of Lee seem doomed to patch together rationalizations for his actions by careful selection and manipulations of the facts. However, you cant base Lee's status of traitor only on what Lee believed. Otherwise, any common thief could claim immunity from prosecution because they really believed they were entitled to someone else's property.

Resignation was the proper way to undo an oath of office. This is true throughout Western militaries and it is also true, for instance, of cabinet officers and other political appointments. There is no manipulation of facts. It is simple and straightforward. And remember that winners get to decide the final rules post victory. I am not all surprised that there were forces attempting to bring charges of treason against high ranking Confederate officers and officials. The charges themselves prove nothing.

Resignation was the proper way to undo an oath of office. This is true throughout Western militaries and it is also true, for instance, of cabinet officers and other political appointments.

The man took up arms against the US and invaded the North twice. No country ever recognized the confederacy. Did you forget this?

What Lee unilaterally did isn't the final story. He didnt resign and retire into private life, he took a soldier off the table for the Union and added one to its enemies. The Union shot conscientious objectors; by that formula shouldn't they have shot Lee for attacking the Union?

In any case, I love that I just get finished saying Lee apologists patch together rationalizations and carefully selected facts and your counter is to patch together a rationalization with a carefully selected fact?

Doesn't matter what you, Lee and the other militaries of the world thought, the Union had a different opinion. Or does only Lee's and Western military tradition have a say?

There is no manipulation of facts.

Oh? Did you miss the fact that the original article asserted the inaccuracy that Lee was not charged?

What about above statements that the Founders were traitors? Were they charged with treason? Anyone worried about trial transcripts there?

Do you consider Benedict Arnold a traitor? Was he tried for treason?

Why is it that both the Founders and Mr. Arnold can be considered traitors in the court of public opinion but Gen. Lee has to have been Federally convicted of it or it never happened?

Just more factual gerrymandering.

For a variety of reasons, treason as a legal standard is a very high bar for the government to prove. However, that doesn't mean the actor isn't a traitor.

Are we really saying that if we were at war with Russia and 500,000 Americans renounced their citizenship along with half of our military officers to fight alongside them that we wouldn't consider them traitors but instead say "Well they resigned in the proper manner"?

If we captured them, would we try all 500,000? If the US chose not to charge them, would that be proof that they weren't really traitors?

It is simple and straightforward.

For Lee apologists it is simple and straightforward but for everyone else, not so much. I ascribe these calculations to be more a matter of insincere wishful thinking; otherwise known as "Grabbing for Straws".

And remember that winners get to decide the final rules post victory.

Well, not quite. I'm not sure there was a "winner" in that war but the USA was extremely generous with the confederacy.

Also, did you see that site with all the pro confederacy books? The website with all the confederate tshirts, mugs and doggie blankets? Seems like the losers don't learn their lesson too well and get to peddle their schlock. In this light, it seems like your "winner takes all" view doesn't really apply to the ACW.

I am not all surprised that there were forces attempting to bring charges of treason against high ranking Confederate officers and officials.

Because a lot of people considered confederate officers traitors. Where is that simple and straightforward method when one really needs it?

I hope I am mistaken but implied in your post is the idea that the Union would've convicted Lee and other confederates if they could. That everyone crushes everyone else when they have the opportunity and if they cant it's because it wasn't possible. That everyone acts out of selfish, political or monetary motives; everyone that is, except the Confederacy which acted out of noble motives. Their every move impeccably legal, their every thought noble and proper.

Ironic that a society dedicated to anarchy, slavery might be the only pure hearted actors in an otherwise rotten, corrupt world.

Unbelievable.

The charges themselves prove nothing.

They prove quite a bit. For instance, it rebuts the idea touted with tunnel vision by some confederate apologists that during that era, loyalty was due to the state and not the Federal government.

"Ney", I guess one man's traitor is always another man's hero. I guess one should "marshal" ones thoughts on the matter.

Are your comments about somehow trying to tie in Ney's situation with your sympathy for the Confederacy?

My sympathy for the Confederacy? 🤣 No I have been consistent in trying to post on the preserving of our history, both good and bad. Be that statutes, places or people. Just like preserving acreage of Battlefields, as you know from your current TMP thread. I don't hate the Confederates, I don't idolize them either. If those, like my relatives who fought for the Union could meet and forgive them, who am I to hate them. We today did nothing! We did not do the heavy lifting, who are we to demand the destruction?

No, just trying to show the Dichotomy of some peoples views on judging traitors in one's country and in another. I doubt some will recognize that.

Subject: [TMP] "The Trial of Marshal Ney: Actions of former comrades" Topic


TMP link

Then how is the article in the first post of the current thread some sort of dichotomy of the article in the thread you've linked? If your making a point, sometimes it can be good to be direct, and then your doubt about folks being able to recognize could be resolved.

And I link to the previous article from the first post in your link for your convenience …

link

I never said the articles were a dichotomy did I? Cute. I said the views on treason by individual(s) in the two threads were a dichotomy. (Lee is a dirty, filthy traitor, Ney, an honorable individual).

They both deserted the leadership they currently served under. Lee at least turned in his resignation and did not turn his troops over to the man who opposed the man he had currently served.

Ney's treason was along the same lines as Arnold's. I am sure you would agree, true?

I fail to see how a reasonable individual could not view Ney a traitor, if they also viewed Lee as one. Again I am sure you agree.

Individuals wrote the articles linked in the two threads, and both authors have written about only one of the two situations, although being less familiar with Ney, than I am with Lee, means currently I don't have a view that can be expressed regarding a comparison. The article in the first post of the current thread, as well as the article linked in the other thread, are not seeming to address a relationship between the Lee and Ney situations, yet it seems you're bringing one to the table anyway, ok. As for your assertions/assumptions, there have been ideas expressed by yourself previously that have been shown to be less than credible, so taking your word for the history of these situations isn't something I'm going to blindly believe.

Thanks for your answer. Credibility is a two way street.

As for your assertions/assumptions, there have been ideas expressed by yourself previously that have been shown to be less than credible, so taking your word for the history of these situations isn't something I'm going to blindly believe.

An artful exercise in sophistry. I'm impressed.

B

From OVI …

Thanks for your answer. Credibility is a two way street.

You're welcome, although I haven't offered up an assertion/assumption on the topic you've brought to the table, so it appears the street sign has been over looked, disguised, or inappropriately changed for an inaccurate representation.

- – – – – -

From Blutarski …

As for your assertions/assumptions, there have been ideas expressed by yourself previously that have been shown to be less than credible, so taking your word for the history of these situations isn't something I'm going to blindly believe.

An artful exercise in sophistry. I'm impressed.

B

Missing with another drive by shooting. Hard to be impressed by the drive by, yet thankful for the miss.

If I missed so badly, it surely seems to have gotten your attention. Delicate sensibilities, I imagine.

;-)

B

No, just trying to show the Dichotomy of some peoples views on judging traitors in one's country and in another. I doubt some will recognize that.

Subject: [TMP] "The Trial of Marshal Ney: Actions of former comrades" Topic

I would imagine this means me?

Ney's treason was along the same lines as Arnold's. I am sure you would agree, true?

Not at all. The only relevancy Arnold as traitor has in this conversation is the one I posted above.

I never said the articles were a dichotomy did I? Cute. I said the views on treason by individual(s) in the two threads were a dichotomy. (Lee is a dirty, filthy traitor, Ney, an honorable individual).

I dont know who you think said this but it does dredge up an unfortunate and recurring behavior, that you think everything, including history, is purely subjective and personal and that nothing can be objectively analyzed. That would suggest that you dont need to read, research, synthesize or think about events which would in turn explain why you struggle with concepts and only see what side you believe everyone is on.

They both deserted the leadership they currently served under. Lee at least turned in his resignation and did not turn his troops over to the man who opposed the man he had currently served.

Are you implying that Ney's big mistake was a technicality?; that he failed to say "Mother may, I?" before he supported Napoleon again?

Can oaths be terminated unilaterally?

Ney's only treachery was against an autocratic monarch not a constitutional democracy. As it was, only Louis XVIII considered Ney a traitor and thus both wanted and ensured Ney's conviction and death.

Ney didnt lead any troops against France or Louis XVIII.

Lee broke an oath to an established democracy because of an event that took place after that oath was taken. He wasn't faced with the same circumstances as Ney. In any case, Lee was given all the safeguards of a fair minded justice system and allowed to live in peace.

But really, the two stories aren't similar except that there is an oath involved.

Louis XVIII's reinstatement was the equivalent of all the European monarchs waging war against the Founders after the DOI and after 30 years of war, forcibly reinstalling George III's descendant as King in America thus forcing everyone to either swear an oath of fealty or face severe punishment.

I fail to see how a reasonable individual could not view Ney a traitor, if they also viewed Lee as one. Again I am sure you agree.

I dont know if I can agree or disagree because I don't know what you're suggesting. Should Ney have been shot? Does that mean Lee should also have been shot? You do understand these two cases had very different outcomes?

I didn't say Ney was or wasn't guilty of treason, only that it was a complex matter that some of the posters on that thread were both ignorant of and uninterested in analyzing. That at least has parallels here with pro-confederate characters who seem to think any sort of drill down of evidence or events is a challenge by an adversary.

From Blutarski …

If I missed so badly, it surely seems to have gotten your attention. Delicate sensibilities, I imagine.

;-)

B

"You can't depend on your eyes when your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain

Missing seems to be a natural result when firing without substance. Twice in one thread isn't your first time, probably won't be your last. ; )