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

All I hear is the snap of the trap and someone trying to chew their leg off.

If your leg doesn't get put in your mouth, then no need to call the doctor for that. Give a go to using your two hands to pull apart the trap, then maybe getting to the phone and calling the doctor yourself could be possible.

Snap, snap, snap

Three traps in a row, ouch, that's got to hurt. Got to stop putting your foot in the traps.

LOL!

B

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

No, I didn't forget this. Your information is irrelevant to the matter under discussion.

But for argument's sake, had the Confederacy won I don't think there is any debate about whether Britain and France would have recognized it. So it comes down, sadly, to winning in the end. If Lee was a traitor then so was George Washington and the Revolutionary cohort that joined the rebel forces in 1776+. The only reason that George Washington isn't considered a traitor today is that the Americans won. Honestly, don't you see the brutishness of your argument Au Pas?

The colonies revolted because they had no representation in government. They were subjects, not citizens. The south had representation, they just didn't like the election results and chose instead to take their football and go home.
Setting aside Lee's military background, he was represented in the government, had the right to vote and took up arms against that duly elected government. His circumstance was different than the colonies.
As far as Ney goes, he should not have accepted the command that went to capture Napoleon if he did not intend to do so. Other generals sat out the 1815 campaign, he could have as well but chose not to. If anyone can think of a more egregious example of treason I'd like to hear it.

Murvihill, you are using the ideology of Revolution in your explanation for the secession of the colonies from the Crown. Your justification is circular in nature. It only works in that natural sense of explanation that you use because the Americans won the war.

The fundamental assertion of the Declaration of Independence was the right of self determination. That is the same right that the Southern States asserted in 1860/61.

But for argument's sake, had the Confederacy won I don't think there is any debate about whether Britain and France would have recognized it. So it comes down, sadly, to winning in the end.

OK, so you have said this before; you believe that right makes right. I don't. I think there is a universal moral aspect to treason and it cant be unilaterally dissolved.

Frankly, I am not sure you truly believe that there is no moral aspect to treason either because you completely absolve confederate actors from any taint of wrongdoing. That suggests that you think when you like something, it is astrally motivated and when you do not it is instead motivated by coarse, earthly impulses.

However, considering the Confederacy lost and your dog-eat-dog viewpoint, how do you rationalize still maintaining that Lee wasn't a traitor? By your own standards of winner/loser, shouldn't he be condemned to treason?

Honestly, don't you see the brutishness of your argument Au Pas?

I don't know that I have an argument, I thought I was responding to the sweeping assertions on here that Lee was not a traitor. He may or may not be have been but the Pro Lee voices seem to want to solely dictate what treason is and where it starts and stops.

Additionally, it seems Neo-confederates react to any skepticism or analysis of their positions as a sort of personal challenge rather than a responsible analysis which in turn calls into question their motives, abilities, honesty etc. Sound arguments welcome stress tests. It demonstrates that they have little confidence in their argument that Lee wasn't a traitor.

But, once again, the pro-confederates are pushing a drastically minority view about Lee as if it is the established viewpoint. Aside from the posters on this thread, are there a lot of responsible historians that hold your view on Lee? To put it in brutish terms, Lee is considered a traitor, and outside of neo-confederate congregations, the burden is on his supporters to prove otherwise, not the reverse.

If Lee was a traitor then so was George Washington and the Revolutionary cohort that joined the rebel forces in 1776+.

Do you think George Washington was a traitor? By your own standard, there was no trial or prosecution. Didnt the British offer amnesty and a treaty several times? Didnt the DOI serve as a resignation of British citizenship and oath to the Crown? No? Only Lee's resignation counts? Ney cant resign, Washington cant resign, only the Confederates can?

Maybe someone can explain the special place the confederates occupy that they always appear to have special rights no one else has?

I noticed you didn't address several points above, is that because you cannot?

I would imagine he was a traitor in the mind of George III but to patriots, he was, well, a patriot. In a similar way, Lee is a hero among confederates and a traitor everywhere else.

Hey, Au Pas, I don't have time to address all of your meandering thoughts. You do use a lot of jargon language that I find difficult to unpack. So I pick and chose your most salient points and respond when I get the chance.

Your binary point of view is not one I share. I can see it from both sides. I do think there is a difference between the Revolution and ACW. The difference is what Murvihill was getting at. There is a Federal government in 1860 that has a direct relationship with the citizens of the States. Can any State simply abrogate that relationship on its authority? I am not sure. Certainly the ACW settled that question. Before the War it was a point of contention. I am not going to take a post ACW perspective and anachronistically impose a judgement on Lee that I don't think he deserves. I see you making that mistake. We should judge historical persons by their context and not our own.

Hey, Au Pas, I don't have time to address all of your meandering thoughts.

Doubtless your arms are full with all of your own.

You do use a lot of jargon language that I find difficult to unpack.

I'll try and use smaller words.

So I pick and chose your most salient points and respond when I get the chance.

You really didn't answer any of them. Most of your arguments are weak but for the sake of civil discussion I still try and give them respect and a thoughtful response. If you want to keep pulling the middle school tactic that you don't have time for my comments because they're "brutish", then perhaps I should also take the gloves off.

I am not going to take a post ACW perspective and anachronistically impose a judgement on Lee that I don't think he deserves.

Too late, your viewpoint is the contemporary Neo-confederate one. My viewpoint was shared by the Union at the time as well as several of the major powers who refused to recognize the Confederacy.

Perhaps, it would be better to stick to circles that share your viewpoint for the same, obvious reasons that you hold true; always less frustrating and safer than subjecting noble persons to the calumny of those who anachronistically judge them.

Additionally, you'll be joining a tradition of serious historians who have so much faith in their arguments that they never have to justify or support them with clear, convincing arguments but instead take the high road and stomp off with their historical truths, maintaining that no one else is capable of understanding them.

Your binary point of view is not one I share.

That's the viewpoint you have. You are confused. Not surprising, really because your support for Lee relies on rationalizations and manipulations. That's why, for example, you think Lee's resignation is the final word but absolute silence about if anyone else in history can resign their oath.

I can see it from both sides.

Oh? I would like to hear why you think Lee was a traitor.

Of course Lee was a traitor, in the worse possible way. Lee wore the uniform of a America, commanded troops in peace and war, was a teacher and was in charge of West Point. Lee knew the strengths and weaknesses of the Union Commanding Generals because they trusted him and he was their mentor. He was the worse kind of traitor because he knew the people he set out to kill on a personal level, that's the betrayal.

Doubtless your arms are full with all of your own.

Actually Au Pas, I edit my comments and attempt to respond succinctly. I think your points would be more salient if you did the same.

Plus +1 Irish Marine

And, I must say, I don't often agree with you Au Pas but you are dead on with this. Your arguments are telling.

Irish Marine, you are more outspoken than I would be but I cannot help but see it your way. And there is the additional tragedy of the what if – If Lee had remained loyal to his country and accepted command of the army, how might the war have gone?

That he turned down this ultimate honor is very hard for me to accept as an American. It's not that he loved Virginia, it's that after all of his service, honors and status, his country did not mean more to him…

… what if – If Lee had remained loyal to his country and accepted command of the army, how might the war have gone?

But Tortorella, to say it the way you do is to beg the question. In 1860 this was not only way to think about the United States of America. As Shelby Foote noted, before the War it was "the United States are", that is the United States was a plural not a singular. There was no prevailing view of the United States that required universal identification with the national government/country in the way you imagine until after war. In a way, that was what the War was about. Where does one's ultimate loyalty lie. For many it belonged first to one's State. In the 80 years before the War that was the prevailing view of many, perhaps most, who lived in the United States. A Virginian first, an American second. After the war it was reversed. To ask Lee to think like a post war citizen is to ask the impossible.

That can be debunked as euphemistic propaganda. Lee sided with Virginia because the Confederacy embodied his slave owning, slave expansion beliefs. We don't really think Lee would've sided with Virginia if they had decided to emancipate slaves? This wasn't a case of my State (as my country) right or wrong, this was a case of Lee loving privilege and slavery.

In fact Lee believed the Confederacy superseded States rights.

Incidentally, if everyone believed their state was their country back then, then why did so many cross the lines to abandon their states and fight for the Union or the Confederacy? I suppose the "obvious" answer is that everyone was a traitor but Lee; at a time when the State was everyone's first love.

The amount of people getting thrown under the bus to rehabilitate Lee is staggering.

Not sure how the war would have gone with Lee in command of Union forces, and I'm not convinced his command presence would have been any better or worse for the North than it was for the South, although we will never know because that isn't what happened. Instead, Lee went from Virginia is my State and the United States of America are/is my country to Virginia is my State and the Confederate States of America are/is my country.

I don't have to guess Lee's motives. He was very clear in his letters and his conversations with administration officials about his reasons for resigning. He was not prepared to use the coercive power of the United States against Virginia (or any other state.)

Lee came to believe that the Confederacy superseded State rights because of the necessity of total war that was need to win against a superior foe. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.

People chose to fight for the South or the North for many reasons. That has nothing to say about where people's identity lay. Lee was certainly not an anomaly in the North or the South in preferring his State to the Federal Government.

I don't have to guess Lee's motives. He was very clear in his letters and his conversations with administration officials about his reasons for resigning. He was not prepared to use the coercive power of the United States against Virginia (or any other state.)

You believe whatever someone writes is true? Or whatever Lee wrote was true? And which is it, did most Virginians think Virginia was their country rather than the USA or only Lee?

Lee came to believe that the Confederacy superseded State rights because of the necessity of total war that was need to win against a superior foe. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention.

Oh, so he wasnt a States Rights absolutist? He picked Virginia over the USA but the CSA over VA? I suppose that you think that impulse wasn't about ultimately about preserving privilege/slavery? Maybe Lee is special and simply just cant ever be a traitor for any reason? Or maybe, Lee was a self serving pragmatist and changed his mind about what loyalty and treason were from moment to moment?

People chose to fight for the South or the North for many reasons. That has nothing to say about where people's identity lay.

Wait, you said that people identified with their state over the nation. Frankly, I would like to know exactly what you're saying. People who were from VA but who fought for the Union were the traitors? People from VA who fought for VA weren't traitors? Or could you be from VA and fight for or against VA and not be a traitor?

Maybe all the people who wanted to preserve the Union didn't get the memo that their state was their true identity? It's interesting that it is supposedly anachronistic to suggest someone should have more loyalty to nation than state and yet there seemed to be large numbers of people during that era who also thought country was supreme over state.

I can see your point Brutus, and maybe the national identity was not as strong before the war. But Lee's heritage went back to the Revolution, he had served in Mexico and at West Point. He knew exactly what the US was about and still he turned away.

Lee soon had no trouble leading troops from many states and his love for VA did not seem to keep him from supporting and effectively leading what became a very centralized "national" war effort on behalf of the rebellion.

Joshua Chamberlin also had no trouble supporting a national war effort and came down from Maine in 1862. He was quite explicit in describing the threat to the nation and the need to defend it. The war was not about Maine. His record in battle, wounded six times, and in subsequent military and public service throughout his life speaks for itself. I have always felt he was one of our greatest patriots. As patriots go, Lee was not in the same league, IMO.

Hi Marcus Brutus,
I trust that you see how this works. You cite Lee's written words.

ApdC puts forward every conceivable negative scenario to throw shade:

You believe whatever someone writes is true? Or whatever Lee wrote was true?

Translation – No written document that diverges from his personal belief system has any value whatsoever.

- – - – -

And which is it, did most Virginians think Virginia was their country rather than the USA or only Lee?

Translation – Here the first attempt is made to derail and divert the "discussion" to a completely irrelevant and unrelated issue. The topic is Lee and his motives; the sentiments of the population of Virginia at large have zero bearing.

- – - – -

Oh, so he wasnt a States Rights absolutist? He picked Virginia over the USA but the CSA over VA?

Translation – More attempt at misdirection: States' Rights and the formation of a new nation under terms of confederacy are not in conflict; they are in fact congenial to one another.

- – - – -

You might as well be debating with Professor Irwin Corey.

B

I can see your point Brutus, and maybe the national identity was not as strong before the war. But Lee's heritage went back to the Revolution, he had served in Mexico and at West Point. He knew exactly what the US was about and still he turned away.

I agree with you Tortorella that we might have hoped for different decision from Lee in 1861 than we got. From what I understand this was a close call for Lee. He labored over the decision for days. I believe he carried his letter of resignation with him for a couple of days before finally offering it. So the local and the national call on Lee was strong. If we dismiss this then I don't think we do Lee justice. In the end Lee did what many did in his day; he went with his local community rather than with the national will.

Blutarski, I appreciate your translation. It seems that Au Pas would rather win than have a fruitful dialogue.

Au Pas, Lee liked winning and in the end was prepared to do what it took to win. If that meant subverting state rights during the war so be it. Lincoln subverted the Constitution in order to win. Think of his illegal suspension of habeas corpus (that power belonged to Congress) or the illegal entry into the Union of West Virginia (see. IV.3 of the Constitution.)

Blutarski +111111 😂

Marcus, I am afraid you will find Debating APDC is like asking OJ Simpson for marriage advice, and equally as pointless.

A skilled debating team style does not always make for rewarding conversion. We are talking because we love history and look for ideas and answers, do not always agree.

But I don't keep score for its own sake.

Not only are there poor translation skills used to answer Aus Pas' questions, but also there seems to be misdirection being used against accusation of such. No one said there was "no" value, yet there could be questionable value. If the topic is Lee and his motives, then perhaps the title of the article could have been better chosen, and yet it was about whether or not Lee was a patriot or a traitor. And the idea that the USA was moving towards constricting slavery, even threatening its abolishment, of course Lee choosing to defend his slavery permitting state along side of other states is "congenial", even to the point where using nationalism to protect the cultural and economic use of slavery could have had a bearing on Lee's choice to turn his back on the USA as well. Additionally, saying Lee liked winning, is sort of like saying Lee ultimately lost, because who doesn't like winning and Lee ultimately lost.

As an aside, I see OVI's finger got lost on the keyboard when typing the number 1, although when at the same time comparing topics that don't really compare. Lee was at least partially forgiven, so suppose I can at least partially forgive OVI, even though those could really not compare either, and hopefully he can partially forgive me. ; )

I have noticed that inflation has hit the +1s on a couple of other threads as well!

Of Southern officers of Lee's rank or higher, he was the only one to join the CSA. Obviously, they found a higher reason to stay then just supporting their states.

Sorry, I meant of similar rank not higher rank.

Grattan54 is correct.

It is also relevant to examine whether this State taking preeminence over country is true.

Take a look at this passage below:

Lee the Virginian indisputably held center stage during this dramatic period. As he put it to his sister Anne Lee Marshall, "I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home." Yet many members of Lee's extended family were staunch Unionists, including Anne and many cousins. Moreover, approximately a third of all Virginians who had graduated from West Point remained loyal to the United States. Among the six Virginian colonels in U.S. service in the winter of 1861, only Lee resigned his commission. In short, many Virginians, including some who were very close to Lee, did not abandon the United States during the secession crisis.

link

This total not only includes Gen. George Thomas but also Winfield Scott himself.

But, it seems that I am not the only one who is staggered by Lee's dynamically shifting loyalties:

In the same article by Professor Gallagher:

A letter from Lee to P.G.T. Beauregard in October 1865 provides an excellent starting point to examine his conception of loyalty. Just six months after he surrendered the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox, Lee explained why he had requested a pardon from President Andrew Johnson. "True patriotism sometimes requires of men to act exactly contrary, at one period, to that which it does at another," stated Lee, "and the motive which impels them—the desire to do right— is precisely the same. The circumstances which govern their actions change; and their conduct must conform to the new order of things."

This is some true moral brinkmanship. Maybe Lee could hop back and forth over the Mason Dixon Line while saying "Im CSA, IM USA, I'm Virginian, no, CSA, no, USA!"

I suppose all three can be true an swapped out whenever appropriate, sort of like a Swiss army knife of citizenship.

As so often was the case, Lee looked to his primary hero, George Washington, as an example: "At one time he fought against the French under Braddock, in the service of the King of Great Britain; at another, he fought with the French at Yorktown, under the orders of the Continental Congress of America, against him." Although he did not say so explicitly, Lee's "desire to do right" surely stemmed from his understanding of duty and honor. That understanding placed him in the uniforms of the United States, the state of Virginia and the Confederacy within a period of a few weeks in 1861.

So, George Washington gave him the green light to hop around, eh?

In any case, it is hardly a case of revisionism to suggest that there were large numbers of Virginians who didn't think that State superseded Nation.

Perhaps Lee talked himself into this "Virginia is for Lovers" fugue, and it existed as a choice but it was far from the accepted norm. Incidentally, Lee's state of mind can only be partly relevant for discussing a normative practice Which Shelby Foote and Marcus Brutus raise.

This is also very interesting. Although be warned, if you are a Lost Cause guy, you might find this article offensive.

link

Blutarski +111111 😂

Marcus, I am afraid you will find Debating APDC is like asking OJ Simpson for marriage advice, and equally as pointless.

ironically, they share many similar qualities. Neither were convicted but the general public still considered them guilty of what they were accused of.

Of Southern officers of Lee's rank or higher, he was the only one to join the CSA. Obviously, they found a higher reason to stay then just supporting their states.

How many Southern officers of Lee's rank are we talking about? What is the size of the pool? I would be surprised if it was more than handful considering how small the US Army was in 1860.

And again Grattan's language reflects a post war bias. It is only after the war that serving in the national army become a higher calling than serving in the state militia. One of the curiosities of the ACW is the atrophy of the US army during this period. Before the War the US government had great difficulty in maintaining full enlistment quotas. During the War the US government found it next to impossible to provide new recruits for US army regiments. The vast majority of Union mobilization was done on a state by state basis. There are several explanations for this phenomenon but it is certainly true that even in the North people maintained a strong identification with their State. Recruits wanted to serve in State designated and organized units. Surely, if there was such a strong national identity, as some here assert, the national army would have been a stronger rallying point for the North and would have played a more prominent role in the War. That it didn't I think speaks volumes for how people understood their loyalties and where their primary identity lay.

According to the author of the article linked below there were 34 Northern generals who were born in the South, of which 9 grew up in the north, 11 of them refused to leave the US army when the south seceded, 8 fought for the North due to them opposing succession, and 5 moved north when they reached adulthood staying loyal to the USA, and 1 more was commissioned in the Federal Navy prior to the war.

link

As for Southern generals who were born in the North, there were 33, 6 of which moved to the south at a very young age, 15 moved to the south in adulthood and were in essence Southerners anyway, 8 married southern women and that's how they became Southerners, and 4 others with varying stories, and here is a link to the article on all of these …

link

Additionally, it's been estimated that around 100,000 Southerners served in the Union Army, over 45,000 of these were white, and every state in the South, except South Carolina, had units of white troops that fought for the North.

Of course Grattan's specific argument was with respect to senior commissioned officers at the start of the War and the kind of choices they faced with war about to break out. If we look at lower ranked officers Southern and Northern born members pretty much stayed with their respective side. But I have no problem with the idea that situation was culturally and politically fluid in 1861 and that there were a variety of possible responses to war. After all, the War was called the War of Brother versus Brother or something to that effect for a reason. Immediate families split on which side to support.

I want to use this moment as an opportunity to say that I am troubled when people come to topics like this and hurl insults like accusing others of being Neo-Confederate (and by implication allied with White Nationalists) or Southern apologists. I was born and live in Ontario, Canada. I have no affiliation with the North or South of the US. I love US history and am an aficionado of the ACW. My goal is historical accuracy and felicity with the truth. I am willing to learn and enjoy hearing other points of view. I don't appreciate it when people make careless and reckless comments to my character because my historical take on the ACW is different from theirs. Can we just to keep to the facts as we best understand them and leave the personal attacks alone?

From Marcus Brutus …

Of course Grattan's specific argument was with respect to senior commissioned officers at the start of the War and the kind of choices they faced with war about to break out. If we look at lower ranked officers Southern and Northern born members pretty much stayed with their respective side. But I have no problem with the idea that situation was culturally and politically fluid in 1861 and that there were a variety of possible responses to war. After all, the War was called the War of Brother versus Brother or something to that effect for a reason. Immediate families split on which side to support.

The info and links weren't provided by me to back up Grattan's comments, and of course seem only distantly related. As for your comment on "lower ranked officers", this brings the question as to where you're getting such information from? Not much different than you're questioning of Grattan's comment.

Marcus, this might help.

"Nine hundred and seventy-seven West Point graduates from the classes of 1833 through 1861 were alive when the Civil War began. Of these men, 259 (26%) joined the Confederacy and 638 (65%) fought for the Union. Eight did not fight for either side. Thirty-nine graduates from these classes who had come to West Point from Southern states fought for the Union and 32 who had come from Northern states fought for the Confederacy."

These percentages above closely correlates to the populations on both sides.

Subject: West Point in the Civil War – The Cleveland Civil War Roundtable


link

I guess we owe a debt of gratitude to one native Northerner who had a major command of Confederate troops, for losing Vicksburg to Grant.

"Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton was a native of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and a West Point Military Academy graduate. It was because of the influence of his Virginia-born wife, and many years of service in the southern states before the Civil War, that he became devoted to the South. Pemberton was made a Lieutenant General in the Confederate Army and assigned to defend Vicksburg and the Mississippi River. Upon Vicksburg's surrender, he voluntarily resigned his commission and served as a lieutenant colonel of artillery for the remainder of the war, a testimonial of his loyalty to the South"

Marcus, you are right. There is a certain line that may sometimes be crossed. And we are hyper politicized. My thread over in the Lounge is about Virginias latest attempt at a US history textbook and the controversies surrounding its ultimate purpose. 1865 feels like more of a truce than a conclusion.

That said we have been engaged for sometime in a reality check for Lost Cause narratives. Lee no longer wears the golden halo. We have heard about his military skills, but not the full story on his complex character, IMO I am interested in the man and his world. We have been piecing this together in recent years. I hope someone writes the definitive agenda-free story, using all of the latest sources and tools.

But a truce is still a truce. We cannot seem to let go of a war that continues to define us to varying degrees. IMO. From this may come ad hominem attacks by sincerely outraged folks who have in some ways made choices like Lee once faced, or who march with the ardent certainty of Chamberlain.

This has left me with mixed feelings about gaming the period, which I started doing as a kid during the Centennial years. I stopped altogether for decades and went to Naps. Slavery and its realities had crossed my path. I only returned in the last few years after re-reading Catton's Army of the Potomac trilogy. Catton actually knew and spoke to Union veterans. The narrative he wrote about them and their Army reminded me of what I believe the American experience is about. I do not hate the Confederacy. But it's reality is far more balanced in my mind.

I guess Tort the thing for me as an outsider to the American Experience is that I see myth making on both sides of the truce. When people only recognize one side of the myth making (the other side of course) but fail to recognize their own contribution to it I get historically "worried."

The power of myth underlies human history… Lee and Lincoln became larger than life, their stories as real people are there, more so than ever these days, but still the myths live on.

I liked Catton because he humanized the soldiers, tried to tell things from their viewpoint. I like Chamberlain because his writings are about his core beliefs and he was a regular guy. The Lost Cause was especially mythological and needed to be brought back to historical reality.

I dont need people to agree with me. I dont need to be popular. I dont need to be censored either.

I come here for discussion, well, at least on the more controversial topics. You can have an outsider viewpoint, you can also have a personal view or opinion or even a completely arbitrary one. But, dont repackage it as some sort of historical research/argument. Just admit it's your own hope and dream.

Neo-confederate or otherwise, I would welcome a well thought out argument on why Lee wasn't a traitor. I haven't seen much more than a string of rationalizations; many of them flimsy. In any case, I would make different arguments for why Lee wasn't a traitor.However, this isn't my fight, I am simply responding to somewhat fringe arguments about why Lee isnt a traitor. When I say fringe, how many respected ACW historians maintain that he wasnt?

Not sure how much being born and living outside the US somehow counts as being ok for having views that seem similar to those who express sympathy for the 1860s nationalist tendencies exhibited by the leaders and their followers in the South at the time, and helped cause the war in the first place. Now afterwards, such views continue to cause issues beyond the original resolution, and the defeat of the likes of leaders like Lee, including many, if not all, of those today who opine that Lee was something other than a traitor, and without having much if anything more than the emotional attachment to their own beliefs of such and similar viewpoints, usually without a reasonable line of thought to back it up. Plus just because one's goal is "historical accuracy and felicity", doesn't mean such isn't going to be called into question. And when silence is the result, which perhaps provides a sense of self-happiness, such can additionally risk the credibility of the previously attempted expression.

IIRC, Lee made it clear that he resigned because he could not make war on his FAMILY -- i.e. his sons (and brother), who owned property in Virginia (he didn't) and were pro-Confederates.

He admitted (in a letter to his son Custis) that secession is revolution, but felt that the North (i.e. the Republican Party) was the political aggressor, meaning that he swallowed pro-slavery propaganda. Remember, he was the officer who captured John Brown and put down an Abolitionist-inspired potential slave rebellion.

Ironically, as executor of his father-in-law's will, it was his responsibility to free the man's slaves within 5 years of his death (which he did).

Don, I can understand not wanting to make war on your family, a good point. But did this have to mean betraying your country and making war against it? He had another option to sit it out, IMO, under the circumstances.

GP, the question is motivation. What motivates a person's point of view. I simply stating the FACT that I have no association with Southern supremacy or Neo Confederate aspirations. I don't even really understand what you or others mean when you make such comments. My understanding comes from an extensive reading for primary and secondary material.

The idea that Lee was a "traitor" has become fashionable in certain circles of contemporary Civil War scholarship. But if we look at the whole swath of ACW scholarship over the past 150 years the idea that Lee was a traitor, in pure simple terms, makes up a tiny, tiny portion of the scholarship.

He admitted (in a letter to his son Custis) that secession is revolution, but felt that the North (i.e. the Republican Party) was the political aggressor, meaning that he swallowed pro-slavery propaganda.

Don, you state a fact but then follow it up with an opinion. I agree with your fact but I an skeptical of your explanation of for why Lee did what he did.

The idea that Lee was a "traitor" has become fashionable in certain circles of contemporary Civil War scholarship. But if we look at the whole swath of ACW scholarship over the past 150 years the idea that Lee was a traitor, in pure simple terms, makes up a tiny, tiny portion of the scholarship.

Fashionable? Which authors maintain that Lee was not a traitor?

You never did explain how your theory that State took preeminence over Country during the 1860s squares with large numbers of people not behaving that way and whether they were traitors to their states.

You never addressed why Lee changed his mind about loyalty three times. Just sweep it under the rug? When it comes to rehabilitating Lee's name, every day is a winding road?

GP, the question is motivation. What motivates a person's point of view. I simply stating the FACT that I have no association with Southern supremacy or Neo Confederate aspirations.

We believe you but you should be aware that your argument and their arguments are similar. For my part, when it comes to you personally, I am positive it is mere coincidence but you cant deny me the right to point this out; especially when scant evidence or analysis is employed.

My understanding comes from an extensive reading for primary and secondary material.

It isn't a question of reading but of arrangement/rearrangement of facts and events and/or overlooking inconvenient ones.

You maintain that Lee didn't consider himself a traitor and I think that's right; Lee didn't see himself that way, nor did much of the Confederacy nor do their contemporary apologists/fans. That's fine but let's not pretend this is a universal view. If a traitor had to feel in their heart they were a traitor to be traitor, then the word would lose meaning. It isnt purely a subjective standard.

Further, by your own standard, winners decide who the traitors are. Shouldn't that be case closed for Lee; that he is a traitor because he lost?