Biggest Traitor in US History

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Especially in the Civil War. A single act of legislative courage (abolishing slavery) and they'd have broke free from the North inside a few months. Without the specter of Slavery to fight against, Northern morale would have crumpled and the European powers put off by the institution of Slavery would have entered the fray.

The politicans lost the Civil War. I can't blame Lee for the choice he was forced to make, but I can blame the folks that forced him to make that choice.

The north wasn't fighting against slavery. Many northern soldiers were upset with Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation, despite the fact that it didn't free a single slave.

And slavery exists where at present in the US? The Emancipation Proclamation did end slavery in the US. There was no option for the states exempted to keep slavery legal when the rest of the states were free.

The 13th amendment ended slavery. The Emancipation Proclamation was simply propaganda that didn't free a single slave because it had no force of law in the Confederacy.

 

[Nosmo King]

I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:

1. He rejected his US citizenship in order to join a rogue terrorist nation(little known fact, he lived out the remainder of his years on parole and never was given his citizenship back during his lifetime).

2. He burned American flags and fought under a terrorist nation's flag.

3. He fought to preserve the evil institution of chattel slavery and was a HUGE proponent of slavery.

4. He murdered hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, more than Hitler, OBL, and Saddam combined.

5. He encouraged and led hundreds of thousands of former Americans to join a rogue nation and fight for that nation against the USA.


IF anyone can name a bigger traitor with evidence attached, I would welcome it.

Robert E. Lee was not a traitor to his country. His country was Virginia and Virginia seceded from the United States and joined the Confederate States.

The Confederacy was not a "terrorist state," the Union invaded them to start the Civil War.

Lee was not a proponent of slavery he was an opponent of slavery and believed that it would fade away if left to its own devices.

Lee didn't murder anyone. The murders of the Civil War took place under Sheridan and Sherman who murdered, raped, and robbed innocent southern civilians including slaves they were supposedly supposed to be freeing.

Fact check this one please.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:

1. He rejected his US citizenship in order to join a rogue terrorist nation(little known fact, he lived out the remainder of his years on parole and never was given his citizenship back during his lifetime).

2. He burned American flags and fought under a terrorist nation's flag.

3. He fought to preserve the evil institution of chattel slavery and was a HUGE proponent of slavery.

4. He murdered hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, more than Hitler, OBL, and Saddam combined.

5. He encouraged and led hundreds of thousands of former Americans to join a rogue nation and fight for that nation against the USA.


IF anyone can name a bigger traitor with evidence attached, I would welcome it.

As both a fellow Virginian and a kinsman to Lee, I have to say I feel his dilemma sharply. There is no question he was wrong on many levels, and God knows he was on the losing side (and the line between a Traitor and a Founding Father is often one battle), but it seems to me that the notion of Lee as a "Traitor" is too complicated for such a simplistic forum.

True, all too true. At that time the status of loyalty to state was often equal or greater than that to the nation. And that is why, had the Confederacy succeed in seccesion, they would have subsequently broken up into a set of feuding states. A Balkanization that would have been bad for all.

You can predict the future? At any rate, that was how the United States was before the Civil War yet you say the south would have split up. This ignores history, I'm afraid. The main difference of opinion in the United States was chiefly always between north and south. With the south as their own separate country the northern states could have done what they liked, and likewise for the south. Regardless, it would be the right of a state to leave the Union and become their own independent country. Rhode Island remained independent for well over a year before ratifying the Constitution.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The north wasn't fighting against slavery. Many northern soldiers were upset with Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation, despite the fact that it didn't free a single slave.

You missed the point. In the North the exsistence of the institution of Slavery was a major rally point that kept the North in the war even after the South handed the North defeat after humiliating defeat in the early days. If you don't buy that, look up some of the editiorials to come out of the major Chicago, New York, and other larger metropolitan papers.

Not only that, England had taken the stance long before the Civil War of outlawing slavery on the high seas and actively hunting slave traders. Most of Europe was of an abolishonist mind set at that time period.

If the South had abolished slavery right at the start of the War a major PR point for the North would have evaporated and one of the major stumbling blocks to British intervention in the war would have dissapeared. The South lost the war by not abolishing slavery.

That's why I can hold Jefferson Davis responsible. As a politician he should have seen the score and worked to abolish slavery outright before the war started. He didn't, and instead you get a bunch of mini-Declaration of Independences from the States that mention slavery numerous times.

Fun Drinking game:
1. Read the Secession articles of 4 of the states here.
2. Search for the word "slave" or "slavery".
3. Take a drink at each instance.
4. Die of alcohol poisoning.

The Federal Government may not have fought to end slavery, and the average Southerner may not have fought to preserve it, but for the public in the North, and the politicians in the South, slavery was a big deal. It kept the North fighting, and the South isolated. Without slavery in the equation the South would have broken free of the North. With slavery in the picture, it lost.

You're giving the north far too much credit. There was no majority that supported the end of slavery in the south. They fought because they felt the south attacked them first in regards to Fort Sumter, and later because they were conscripted to fight by Lincoln. Most were very unhappy with Lincoln for the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I would argue that Robert E. Lee was for the following reasons:

1. He rejected his US citizenship in order to join a rogue terrorist nation(little known fact, he lived out the remainder of his years on parole and never was given his citizenship back during his lifetime).

2. He burned American flags and fought under a terrorist nation's flag.

3. He fought to preserve the evil institution of chattel slavery and was a HUGE proponent of slavery.

4. He murdered hundreds of thousands of American soldiers, more than Hitler, OBL, and Saddam combined.

5. He encouraged and led hundreds of thousands of former Americans to join a rogue nation and fight for that nation against the USA.


IF anyone can name a bigger traitor with evidence attached, I would welcome it.

Robert E. Lee was not a traitor to his country. His country was Virginia and Virginia seceded from the United States and joined the Confederate States.

The Confederacy was not a "terrorist state," the Union invaded them to start the Civil War.

Lee was not a proponent of slavery he was an opponent of slavery and believed that it would fade away if left to its own devices.

Lee didn't murder anyone. The murders of the Civil War took place under Sheridan and Sherman who murdered, raped, and robbed innocent southern civilians including slaves they were supposedly supposed to be freeing.

Fact check this one please.

The facts are there. The south didn't start the war. They didn't want Union forts within their borders so they expelled the Union troops. Who can blame them?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

After his speech to the UN, Obama just moved into first place.

We have the first anti-American president in our history.

 

[blu]

After his speech to the UN, Obama just moved into first place.

We have the first anti-American president in our history.

is it online yet?

 

[Ringel05]

The facts support my position, not yours. End of story. Run along.

Actually no they don't. It's simply your blind interpretation of them. I'm in a foul mood tonight so when you decide to post something not manifestly juvenile then I'll be willing to have a civil, adult discussion, until then go play with your leggos.

How can you engage in something that you are not intellectually capable of?

Read the follow up posts. The one that indicates all you partisan morons are the problem not the solution. If the shoe fits wear it, and in your case it fits.

 

[Nosmo King]

Robert E. Lee was not a traitor to his country. His country was Virginia and Virginia seceded from the United States and joined the Confederate States.

The Confederacy was not a "terrorist state," the Union invaded them to start the Civil War.

Lee was not a proponent of slavery he was an opponent of slavery and believed that it would fade away if left to its own devices.

Lee didn't murder anyone. The murders of the Civil War took place under Sheridan and Sherman who murdered, raped, and robbed innocent southern civilians including slaves they were supposedly supposed to be freeing.

Fact check this one please.

The facts are there. The south didn't start the war. They didn't want Union forts within their borders so they expelled the Union troops. Who can blame them?

It's an accepted fact that when you fire the first shot, you start the war. Nice try, but you're just showing us what "spin" means.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The north wasn't fighting against slavery. Many northern soldiers were upset with Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation, despite the fact that it didn't free a single slave.

You missed the point. In the North the exsistence of the institution of Slavery was a major rally point that kept the North in the war even after the South handed the North defeat after humiliating defeat in the early days. If you don't buy that, look up some of the editiorials to come out of the major Chicago, New York, and other larger metropolitan papers.

Not only that, England had taken the stance long before the Civil War of outlawing slavery on the high seas and actively hunting slave traders. Most of Europe was of an abolishonist mind set at that time period.

If the South had abolished slavery right at the start of the War a major PR point for the North would have evaporated and one of the major stumbling blocks to British intervention in the war would have dissapeared. The South lost the war by not abolishing slavery.

That's why I can hold Jefferson Davis responsible. As a politician he should have seen the score and worked to abolish slavery outright before the war started. He didn't, and instead you get a bunch of mini-Declaration of Independences from the States that mention slavery numerous times.

Fun Drinking game:
1. Read the Secession articles of 4 of the states here.
2. Search for the word "slave" or "slavery".
3. Take a drink at each instance.
4. Die of alcohol poisoning.

The Federal Government may not have fought to end slavery, and the average Southerner may not have fought to preserve it, but for the public in the North, and the politicians in the South, slavery was a big deal. It kept the North fighting, and the South isolated. Without slavery in the equation the South would have broken free of the North. With slavery in the picture, it lost.

You're giving the north far too much credit. There was no majority that supported the end of slavery in the south. They fought because they felt the south attacked them first in regards to Fort Sumter, and later because they were conscripted to fight by Lincoln. Most were very unhappy with Lincoln for the Emancipation Proclamation.

This should say, "There was no majority that supported the end of slavery in the north."

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Fact check this one please.

The facts are there. The south didn't start the war. They didn't want Union forts within their borders so they expelled the Union troops. Who can blame them?

It's an accepted fact that when you fire the first shot, you start the war. Nice try, but you're just showing us what "spin" means.

What if Mexico or China tried to establish military bases anywhere in the United States? What would the response from our government be if those governments refused to be diplomatic in regards to the situation? Lincoln refused to settle the situation peacefully so the Confederacy expelled those Union soldiers forcefully. It was their right to do so and did not equate an act of war.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

The north wasn't fighting against slavery. Many northern soldiers were upset with Lincoln after the Emancipation Proclamation, despite the fact that it didn't free a single slave.

You missed the point. In the North the exsistence of the institution of Slavery was a major rally point that kept the North in the war even after the South handed the North defeat after humiliating defeat in the early days. If you don't buy that, look up some of the editiorials to come out of the major Chicago, New York, and other larger metropolitan papers.

Not only that, England had taken the stance long before the Civil War of outlawing slavery on the high seas and actively hunting slave traders. Most of Europe was of an abolishonist mind set at that time period.

If the South had abolished slavery right at the start of the War a major PR point for the North would have evaporated and one of the major stumbling blocks to British intervention in the war would have dissapeared. The South lost the war by not abolishing slavery.

That's why I can hold Jefferson Davis responsible. As a politician he should have seen the score and worked to abolish slavery outright before the war started. He didn't, and instead you get a bunch of mini-Declaration of Independences from the States that mention slavery numerous times.

Fun Drinking game:
1. Read the Secession articles of 4 of the states here.
2. Search for the word "slave" or "slavery".
3. Take a drink at each instance.
4. Die of alcohol poisoning.

The Federal Government may not have fought to end slavery, and the average Southerner may not have fought to preserve it, but for the public in the North, and the politicians in the South, slavery was a big deal. It kept the North fighting, and the South isolated. Without slavery in the equation the South would have broken free of the North. With slavery in the picture, it lost.

You're giving the north far too much credit. There was no majority that supported the end of slavery in the north. They fought because they felt the south attacked them first in regards to Fort Sumter, and later because they were conscripted to fight by Lincoln. Most were very unhappy with Lincoln for the Emancipation Proclamation.

Fixed the quote for you as you indicated in a later post.

I think you far underestimate the power of the Press during the Civil War. The Northern newspapers were ADAMANT in demanding the abolishment of Slavery during the war and took ample opportunity to demonize the South for the existence. Much of the negative view Northerners had of the South came from both Fort Sumter (which was a tactical blunder by the South) and again, Slavery.

You also didn't address how slavery affected the South's efforts to pull the European powers into the war. The math for the South was all wrong at the start of the war. There was absolutely no way they could win without a quick collapse of morale in the North (which would never happen due to Fort Sumter, the Northern press, and Slavery), or European intervention (Which was made VERY difficult because the English hated slavery as an institution).

Slavery turned out to be the Achille's Heel of the South. Had they abandoned it, they would have had a much greater shot at breaking free.

(Side note: Isn't it true that Lee figured this out and advocated abolition at the start of the conflict? I seem to recall reading that somewhere and can't easily lay hands on the source right now).

 

[Dr.Traveler]

You can predict the future? At any rate, that was how the United States was before the Civil War yet you say the south would have split up. This ignores history, I'm afraid. The main difference of opinion in the United States was chiefly always between north and south. With the south as their own separate country the northern states could have done what they liked, and likewise for the south. Regardless, it would be the right of a state to leave the Union and become their own independent country. Rhode Island remained independent for well over a year before ratifying the Constitution.

Chances are good that the South wouldn't have split, but they almost certainly would have formed a Federal government of their own. The South may not have liked the Federal Government, but the Founders formed it after realizing a weak centralized government as embodied by the Articles was a total failure.

Chances are the Southern States wouldn't have enjoyed the political clout they fought for in a free South for long.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You missed the point. In the North the exsistence of the institution of Slavery was a major rally point that kept the North in the war even after the South handed the North defeat after humiliating defeat in the early days. If you don't buy that, look up some of the editiorials to come out of the major Chicago, New York, and other larger metropolitan papers.

Not only that, England had taken the stance long before the Civil War of outlawing slavery on the high seas and actively hunting slave traders. Most of Europe was of an abolishonist mind set at that time period.

If the South had abolished slavery right at the start of the War a major PR point for the North would have evaporated and one of the major stumbling blocks to British intervention in the war would have dissapeared. The South lost the war by not abolishing slavery.

That's why I can hold Jefferson Davis responsible. As a politician he should have seen the score and worked to abolish slavery outright before the war started. He didn't, and instead you get a bunch of mini-Declaration of Independences from the States that mention slavery numerous times.

Fun Drinking game:
1. Read the Secession articles of 4 of the states here.
2. Search for the word "slave" or "slavery".
3. Take a drink at each instance.
4. Die of alcohol poisoning.

The Federal Government may not have fought to end slavery, and the average Southerner may not have fought to preserve it, but for the public in the North, and the politicians in the South, slavery was a big deal. It kept the North fighting, and the South isolated. Without slavery in the equation the South would have broken free of the North. With slavery in the picture, it lost.

You're giving the north far too much credit. There was no majority that supported the end of slavery in the north. They fought because they felt the south attacked them first in regards to Fort Sumter, and later because they were conscripted to fight by Lincoln. Most were very unhappy with Lincoln for the Emancipation Proclamation.

Fixed the quote for you as you indicated in a later post.

I think you far underestimate the power of the Press during the Civil War. The Northern newspapers were ADAMANT in demanding the abolishment of Slavery during the war and took ample opportunity to demonize the South for the existence. Much of the negative view Northerners had of the South came from both Fort Sumter (which was a tactical blunder by the South) and again, Slavery.

You also didn't address how slavery affected the South's efforts to pull the European powers into the war. The math for the South was all wrong at the start of the war. There was absolutely no way they could win without a quick collapse of morale in the North (which would never happen due to Fort Sumter, the Northern press, and Slavery), or European intervention (Which was made VERY difficult because the English hated slavery as an institution).

Slavery turned out to be the Achille's Heel of the South. Had they abandoned it, they would have had a much greater shot at breaking free.

(Side note: Isn't it true that Lee figured this out and advocated abolition at the start of the conflict? I seem to recall reading that somewhere and can't easily lay hands on the source right now).

I didn't address how slavery affected the south's attempt to get European allies because I don't disagree with that. Many were hesitant to side with a slave nation, but another reason was that Lincoln threatened war with anyone who allied with the Confederacy. My only disagreement with you is regarding the north's overall attitude towards slavery. The major opinion was that northerners didn't want an influx of freed slaves moving to their state and taking their jobs. Some states, Illinois for example, had laws forbidding African-Americans from emigrating to their state. Lincoln supported these measures as he wanted to deport all African-Americans out of the country.

Lee opposed slavery as an institution and believed, along with Jefferson Davis, that slavery would end of its own accord. The economy of the south was industrializing, though not as fast as the north of course, and slavery was becoming less and less economical.

 

[StoneSoup]

any of those chicken fuckers who fought against the north are traitors!
Go Yankees!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

You can predict the future? At any rate, that was how the United States was before the Civil War yet you say the south would have split up. This ignores history, I'm afraid. The main difference of opinion in the United States was chiefly always between north and south. With the south as their own separate country the northern states could have done what they liked, and likewise for the south. Regardless, it would be the right of a state to leave the Union and become their own independent country. Rhode Island remained independent for well over a year before ratifying the Constitution.

Chances are good that the South wouldn't have split, but they almost certainly would have formed a Federal government of their own. The South may not have liked the Federal Government, but the Founders formed it after realizing a weak centralized government as embodied by the Articles was a total failure.

Chances are the Southern States wouldn't have enjoyed the political clout they fought for in a free South for long.

The south did form a federal government of their own, Jefferson Davis was the President. What they opposed was an all-powerful national government the likes of which Lincoln transformed the U.S. federal government into. People that say the Confederate government was too weak don't take into consideration that the Confederate government was no less powerful than the U.S. government was supposed to be. The Confederate Constitution was not based on the Articles of Confederation, it was based on the U.S. Constitution. Both countries were confederations of independent states, until Lincoln of course.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

any of those chicken fuckers who fought against the north are traitors!
Go Yankees!

So the founding fathers were traitors as well, right?

 

[Pillow Biter]

Biggest Traitor:

Nicole Brown Simpson.

Bitch.

 

[Armand Bertrand]

I'm going to argue that George Washington and Jefferson are right up there too then.

Your logic sucks dude.

PS. My cousin's wedding had personal beer funnels for each table and a drinking game against the bride and groom. im sorry for ever calling you white trash

 

[StoneSoup]

if you are below the mason-dixon you are dirt loving trash. farm filth. (hi, uh, filth)