Robert E. Lee, American hero or American traitor?

[42Presidents]

For the most part, history has been kind to Robert E. Lee and his role as the commanding General of the Confederate Army. There is very little criticism for the man who led the South against the Union but is that because Lee was truly a great man or is it because no one has dared to be critical of such a wildly popular southern gentleman?

 

[dilloduck]

For the most part, history has been kind to Robert E. Lee and his role as the commanding General of the Confederate Army. There is very little criticism for the man who led the South against the Union but is that because Lee was truly a great man or is it because no one has dared to be critical of such a wildly popular southern gentleman?

He wasn't too shabby at West Point.

 

[42Presidents]

He wasn't too shabby at West Point.

True. His military record is rather commendable. Can't argue with that.

 

[Gunny]

True. His military record is rather commendable. Can't argue with that.

He also was offered command of the US Army before resigned and went with Virginia instead.

He was pigeonholed in a desk job by Jefferson Davis who appointed political kissasses as commanders instead of capable soldiers until attrition put him in the field. He had to prove himself and he did.

He is considered one of the most brilliant strategists and tacticians in modern military history.

However, I would argue that he was NOT an American Hero in the context of a hero for the US. He did participate in the US Mexico War and Harper's Ferry as a US officer where he acquitted himself well, but nothing heroic I am aware of.

He was a hero to the Confederacy who was an American.

 

[42Presidents]

He also was offered command of the US Army before resigned and went with Virginia instead.

He was pigeonholed in a desk job by Jefferson Davis who appointed political kissasses as commanders instead of capable soldiers until attrition put him in the field. He had to prove himself and he did.

He is considered one of the most brilliant strategists and tacticians in modern military history.

However, I would argue that he was NOT an American Hero in the context of a hero for the US. He did participate in the US Mexico War and Harper's Ferry as a US officer where he acquitted himself well, but nothing heroic I am aware of.

He was a hero to the Confederacy who was an American.

Good points. I can't help but respect the man. He is very much part of this nation and what it became. He may have been on the wrong side but his moral foundation and military career was honorable.

 

[Gunny]

Good points. I can't help but respect the man. He is very much part of this nation and what it became. He may have been on the wrong side but his moral foundation and military career was honorable.

Lee's integrity as a soldier and a man were imeccable, from all I have ever read. He just held a belief that at least half this nation held that required force of arms to settle. The legality of that belief is still argued today even though an after the fact Supreme Court ruling ended any actual legal challenge and justified the actions of the US during the Civil War.

He ended up on the side that lost. Someone stated that Lee was never granted his US citizenship after the War. Yet, the 1868 Supreme Court ruling basically stated states do not have a right to secede. That being the case, how did he ever lose it?

 

[editec]

It is well known he was a man of honor.

Sadly his sense of and loyalty honor lead him to support a dishonorable cause.

Him and millions of others, I might add.

 

[Gunny]

It is well known he was a man of honor.

Sadly his sense of and loyalty honor lead him to support a dishonorable cause.

Him and millions of others, I might add.

The cause was only "dishonorable" in hindsight by those who ride the victor's bandwagon. The cause at the time was not unlawful The war tiself tested that fact after-the-fact of secession.

This argument has been had over and over and it always boils down to a Supreme Court ruling in 1869 that states that states had no right to secede which is based on nothing but assumption. There is no legislation prior to that to preclude secession.

Further, by anyone's imagination, if one enters something as an experiement, the logical assumption is that if that "experiement" fails it gets shitcanned. The experiment known as the United States had failed in the eyes of the Southern states.

With no legislation precluding leaving as freely as they entered, why would they NOT believe they could the same way they came? Some vague assumption that "everybody was supposed to know?" That doesn't fly in court today.

However, the US threw the US Constitution out the window for about 20 years during the Civil War and "Reconstruction." Both Lincoln and Congress committed transgression against it that would have lawyers at every level screaming their lungs out. NSA wiretapping pales in comparison.

I'd say who was "dishonorable" is a matter of debate. At the intellectual level, the US rewriting the rules after-the-fact to justify its actions does not legitimize the actions of the US.

 

[dilloduck]

With all my devotion to the Union and the feeling of loyalty and duty of an American citizen, I have not been able to make up my mind to raise my hand against my relatives, my children, my home. I have therefore resigned my commission in the Army, and save in defense of my native State, with the sincere hope that my poor services may never be needed, I hope I may never be called on to draw my sword...

[T]here is no more dangerous experiment than that of undertaking to be one thing before a man's face and another behind his back.

Robert E. Lee Quotes

too many good quotes to post here

 

[Voltaire]

Robert E. Lee Quotes

too many good quotes to post here

One thing is for sure, he's a Virginian Hero. I'm proud he defended our state.

When I recently visited the Lee family seat, Stratford Hall, I was struck by some conflicting emotions. The so-called Virginia aristocracy gave rise to some of the great thinkers of our early Republic...but their large landholdings were built up on the backs of slaves, and ANY sort of aristocracy runs counter to the founding ideals of our nation. Yes, the Virginia planters lived nowhere near as lavishly as their English counterparts, and yes, the notion of slavery was widely recognized as a great evil by the educated people in the colony. However, failing to address slavery in the constitution was one of the first and most catastrophic failures of the American experiment.

As far as Lee goes, I greatly admire him. I think his main issue, oddly enough, was his deep religious conviction. From what I've gathered from quotes attributed to him at different stages during his life, he was so convinced that the Christian god was a benevolent and omniscient being, that there was no way he would allow an institution like slavery to persist unless it served some sort of purpose. This led Lee to fall prey to the paternalistic views which marred the thinking of many educated Southerners.

 

[wayne]

When Robert was baby his father foolishly lost the family fortune in a bad business deal and had to flee the country in order to avoid debtor’s prison. This left the family impoverished and force to live on the charity of their relatives, the Washingtons and Lees. Fortunately for Robert his family name entitled him to attend the families school. In those days there was no free public education in the South. If his name had not been Lee he would have most likely grown up illiterate. At an early age he was recognized in his family as a remarkable child and student.

He owed his family everything including food, clothing ,shelter, and education; when the time came that they needed him there was no way he could turn his back on them. I think he knew the south was going to lose, he was too good a military man to believe otherwise.

 

[editec]

The cause was only "dishonorable" in hindsight by those who ride the victor's bandwagon.

So noted. I'll mark you down as someone who believes that fighting on behalf of slavers is only dishonorable if you lose the war, then.

I'd say who was "dishonorable" is a matter of debate. At the intellectual level, the US rewriting the rules after-the-fact to justify its actions does not legitimize the actions of the US.

I suppose if you believe that the issue of honor has to do with legalities, you might have a point.

I am not convinced that the Southern States had any right to seceed, but then I've no reason to think they didn't have that right, either, except for the references in the Federalist papers about forging a United States in perpetuity.

But as to the Union having some legal right to prevent them from leaving?

I've never seen a convincing arugment to support that argument, either.

 

[Gunny]

So noted. I'll mark you down as someone who believes that fighting on behalf of slavers is only dishonorable if you lose the war, then.




I suppose if you believe that the issue of honor has to do with legalities, you might have a point.

I am not convinced that the Southern States had any right to seceed, but then I've no reason to think they didn't have that right, either, except for the references in the Federalist papers about forging a United States in perpetuity.

But as to the Union having some legal right to prevent them from leaving?

I've never seen a convincing arugment to support that argument, either.

You are basing your comments on the fallacies that the Civil War was fought on behalf of slaves, and/or that there was any honor involved. Honor among thieves?

The Civil War was fought between the unscrupulous and wealthy of the North and South for control of the of the US government and its power. The notion that it was fought to end slavery is opportunistic revisionism.

"Honor" is relative. From the POV of someone who believes that states had a right to secede, "honor" dictates that one defends one's home against a Federal government invading it, and views the Federal government's actions as the dishonorable one.

In no way does anything I state attempt to glamorize human slavery.

As far as the intellectual argument in regard to secession goes, it's raged on between scholars for over a century with no decisive conclusion. I doubt one will be found here.

For one thing, it challenges the very base beliefs continually argued on the board inthread after thread: The Federal government vs the 10th Amendment/states' rights. The sides in the argument tend to break down along conservative/liberal ideologies, with the usual exceptions.

 

[Sunni Man]

If Robert E. Lee were alive today. He would be in GITMO as an enemy combatant!!

 

[wayne]

If Robert E. Lee were alive today. He would be in GITMO as an enemy combatant!!

No he wouldn't he gave his word not to fight again and that was all that needed. Now if it were Bill Clinton on the other hand the only safe thing to do would be to shoot him. How do you know that Bill Clinton is lying? Answer: He is wasting Oxygen.

 

[Inferno]

R.E. Lee needed only to hold the C.S.A. to the point where the U.S was tired of the war. It was nearing the point. He had to hold up better until the Lincolb secobd election. Gettysburg errors and incursions into the north cost him dearly. The Union forces were doing better and the people voted Lincoln in to a second term. That in and of itself ended the Confederacy. Lincoln woul not yield in his desire to hold the union together.

History looks fondly on Lee. He kept the war going longer than most. Gen. Joe Johnson the highest ramking military man in the U.S., at the beginning of the War for Southern Independence, was not the favorite of Jefferson Davis. Johnson would have been the souths best chance to win. Johnson was not an attacker. He would have not wasted so many troops as Lee did. The loss of manpower was the death note to the war.

Gen. J.B. Hood C.S.A. was also a factor in ending the war. He wasted so many troops he was said after the war to have been the best Gen. The Union had.

R.E. Lee will always been seen as a shining star in history. He had his failings and they can all be tied to his loyality to certain people.

 

[Gunny]

R.E. Lee needed only to hold the C.S.A. to the point where the U.S was tired of the war. It was nearing the point. He had to hold up better until the Lincolb secobd election. Gettysburg errors and incursions into the north cost him dearly. The Union forces were doing better and the people voted Lincoln in to a second term. That in and of itself ended the Confederacy. Lincoln woul not yield in his desire to hold the union together.

History looks fondly on Lee. He kept the war going longer than most. Gen. Joe Johnson the highest ramking military man in the U.S., at the beginning of the War for Southern Independence, was not the favorite of Jefferson Davis. Johnson would have been the souths best chance to win. Johnson was not an attacker. He would have not wasted so many troops as Lee did. The loss of manpower was the death note to the war.

Gen. J.B. Hood C.S.A. was also a factor in ending the war. He wasted so many troops he was said after the war to have been the best Gen. The Union had.

R.E. Lee will always been seen as a shining star in history. He had his failings and they can all be tied to his loyality to certain people.

Actually, you got that a bit backwards. Johsnon WAS Davis's favorite. Lee was pigeonholed at a desk in Richmond and pressed into service in the field only after Johnson was injured. Lee only maintained command through success.

Gettysburg was the decider in the outcome. The Brits had envoys with Lee at Gettysburg. ad he won, Britain most assuredly would recognized the CSA. Britain and Europe were under tremendous pressure from the South to recognize it since the US Naval blockade had choked off Europe's cotton supply.

The South's arguably most capable commander, Albert Sydeny Johnson was killed at Shiloh. That is what most Civil War scholars believe; however, IMO, he at least wasn't very smart in understanding that as the commander his job was NOT at the head of one of his Corps in the field. Not only did he lose his overall control of the battle, he got his ass shot out of the saddle.

 

[Sunni Man]

R.E. Lee needed only to hold the C.S.A. to the point where the U.S was tired of the war. It was nearing the point. He had to hold up better until the Lincolb secobd election. Gettysburg errors and incursions into the north cost him dearly. The Union forces were doing better and the people voted Lincoln in to a second term. That in and of itself ended the Confederacy. Lincoln woul not yield in his desire to hold the union together.

History looks fondly on Lee. He kept the war going longer than most. Gen. Joe Johnson the highest ramking military man in the U.S., at the beginning of the War for Southern Independence, was not the favorite of Jefferson Davis. Johnson would have been the souths best chance to win. Johnson was not an attacker. He would have not wasted so many troops as Lee did. The loss of manpower was the death note to the war.

Gen. J.B. Hood C.S.A. was also a factor in ending the war. He wasted so many troops he was said after the war to have been the best Gen. The Union had.

R.E. Lee will always been seen as a shining star in history. He had his failings and they can all be tied to his loyality to certain people.

Good post Inferno!

I am surprised that a woman knows so much about Civil War history. Usually it's a guy thing.

Are you from the south? A history teacher?

 

[Gungnir]

If Robert E. Lee were alive today. He would be in GITMO as an enemy combatant!!

No, he would have been a Prisoner of War.

Lee also wore a uniform.

 

[Inferno]

Actually, you got that a bit backwards. Johsnon WAS Davis's favorite. Lee was pigeonholed at a desk in Richmond and pressed into service in the field only after Johnson was injured. Lee only maintained command through success.

Gettysburg was the decider in the outcome. The Brits had envoys with Lee at Gettysburg. ad he won, Britain most assuredly would recognized the CSA. Britain and Europe were under tremendous pressure from the South to recognize it since the US Naval blockade had choked off Europe's cotton supply.

The South's arguably most capable commander, Albert Sydeny Johnson was killed at Shiloh. That is what most Civil War scholars believe; however, IMO, he at least wasn't very smart in understanding that as the commander his job was NOT at the head of one of his Corps in the field. Not only did he lose his overall control of the battle, he got his ass shot out of the saddle.

Not Joe Johnson he was the the first commander of the Army of Virginia and replced with Lee. The most capable was Nathan Bedford Forrest considered the father of mechanised warfare. Forrests battle tactics in fact were studied by the German high command prior to WWII his tactics gave birth to lighting warfare or the Blitz Krieg. A.S Johnson is considered down the list some way. Hood was the worst on the C.S.A side. After the battle of White Oak Swamp Stonewall Jackson was never allowed sole command again.
A.P Hill was thought to be one of the best in command of large numbers. Pat Clybourn in the westen theatre was very good as well and similar to Jackson.