Robert E. Lee, American hero or American traitor?

[chewd_out]

No love for Adolph Rupp?

 

[hopner33]

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.

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]

No love for Adolph Rupp?

he wasn't racist - he hated everybody

 

[MasterChief]

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]

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]

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]

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.
.

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]

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]

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

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

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

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?

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]

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]

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.