Robert E. Lee, American hero or American traitor?

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Listen, no political philosophical system is free of a Dark Side. The founding fathers realized this which is why they tried to create a system with checks and balances. However, they were fully aware that anything created by human hands will eventually fail. That is why some felt that the tree of liberty must be watered with blood of patriots from time to time.

Robert E. Lee was seduced by the Dark Side for a time, but he was a hero in Mexican-American War and a hero after the War Between the States by refusing to support a protracted guerrilla war. What he did the first Sunday home after the surrender is a story of courage and honor, and the story of true American hero.

Seduced by the darkside? If anybody was Emporer Palpatine it was Abraham Lincoln.

 

[MasterChief]

If Lee did the same thing today. He would be considered a traitor and would be in a prison like GITMO awaiting execution.

Binky,
You Idiot--it was then and this is now. GITMO is for foreign fighters caught on the battlefield, attacking United States military forces without military authorization of any state or dressed in uniforms identifying them to any legitimate fighting force. Since they have not given any loyalty to the United States, they cannot be traitors. What they are, are illegal combatants, and should be treated as such.

It is obvious that you know nothing about the life and times of Robert E. Lee or American history. The Confederate States of American had every right to leave the Union and to defend that right with military force. Lee had the authorization from the State of Virginia and was dressed in the military uniform of his state. Robert E. Lee has nothing in common with those scumbags at GITMO. And when the war ended, he did not set coachbombs killing thousands of innocent bystanders or decapitate former enemies. No, he used all his influence to heal the nation...that's uniquely American and a hero.

 

[sealybobo]

Both

Traitor, just like Todd Palin who wants to succeed from our union.

 

[MasterChief]

Seduced by the darkside? If anybody was Emporer Palpatine it was Abraham Lincoln.

Good point.

 

[Sunni Man]

Binky,
You Idiot--it was then and this is now. GITMO is for foreign fighters caught on the battlefield, attacking United States military forces without military authorization of any state or dressed in uniforms identifying them to any legitimate fighting force. Since they have not given any loyalty to the United States, they cannot be traitors. What they are, are illegal combatants, and should be treated as such.

It is obvious that you know nothing about the life and times of Robert E. Lee or American history. The Confederate States of American had every right to leave the Union and to defend that right with military force. Lee had the authorization from the State of Virginia and was dressed in the military uniform of his state. Robert E. Lee has nothing in common with those scumbags at GITMO. And when the war ended, he did not set coachbombs killing thousands of innocent bystanders or decapitate former enemies. No, he used all his influence to heal the nation...that's uniquely American and a hero.

You are the idiot.

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!!

Just because they don't have uniforms doesn't make them any less of a patriot to their country. Most of the soildiers in George Washington Army didn't have uniforms. There is NO difference!

 

[MasterChief]

He is a confederate hero! He could of been a American Hero if he would have stayed with the union.

You are looking back on Robert E. Lee with post-War Between the States eyes. 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. Lee was loyal to Virgina and the principles of the founding fathers. To ask him to reject Virgina and what fathers fought for is unthinkable. Had he, then he would not have been Robert E. Lee.

And please do not overlook his heroic actions during the Mexican-American War...but then again you probably never covered that in your freshman American history class at whatever liberal college you attend. If you want to learn something about it, try the fictionalized version of the war written by Jeff Shaara called Gone For Soldiers. Its an easy and fast read.

Lee was an American HERO first, before he became a confederate hero, and he was an American hero afterwards...even U.S. Grant knowledged as much.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Traitor, just like Todd Palin who wants to succeed from our union.

Secede*

And the states have every right to secede if it's in their best interest. THESE United States of America were never meant to be run by an all powerful federal government. The founders would be disgusted with what we have let happen to our union.

 

[hopner33]

Seduced by the darkside? If anybody was Emporer Palpatine it was Abraham Lincoln.

How is this?

 

[hopner33]

You are looking back on Robert E. Lee with post-War Between the States eyes. 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. Lee was loyal to Virgina and the principles of the founding fathers. To ask him to reject Virgina and what fathers fought for is unthinkable. Had he, then he would not have been Robert E. Lee.

And please do not overlook his heroic actions during the Mexican-American War...but then again you probably never covered that in your freshman American history class at whatever liberal college you attend. If you want to learn something about it, try the fictionalized version of the war written by Jeff Shaara called Gone For Soldiers. Its an easy and fast read.

Lee was an American HERO first, before he became a confederate hero, and he was an American hero afterwards...even U.S. Grant knowledged as much.

This is utter hogwash.

The idea that the union was some "monolithic entity" had been around long before the Civil War, most notably in the Hayne-Webster debates and Andrew Jackson's statement against nullification.
And loyal to the principles of the Founding Fathers? Rufus King would certainly not have agreed and neither would have James Madison.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

How is this?

He denied the Confederate states their rights to leave the Union, and waged one of the most bloody and disastrous wars in American history. Also, a popular misconception is that he did it to free the slaves, which is incorrect. In his first inaugural address Lincoln stated, "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable," on the subject of slavery. These are only a few of Lincoln's offenses.

I suggest reading The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, both by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, for more on the subject.

 

[hopner33]

He denied the Confederate states their rights to leave the Union, and waged one of the most bloody and disastrous wars in American history. Also, a popular misconception is that he did it to free the slaves, which is incorrect. In his first inaugural address Lincoln stated, "I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable," on the subject of slavery. These are only a few of Lincoln's offenses.

I suggest reading The Real Lincoln and Lincoln Unmasked, both by Thomas J. DiLorenzo, for more on the subject.

He denied the Confederate States their rights to leave the Union? Do you mean legal rights or revolutionary rights?

It also takes two sides to fight a war, and very few people would agree with your assessment that the Civil War was the most disastorous in history.

I also disagree that Lincoln did not fight the war to end slavery. While he would have been perfectly content to have the war end with slavery intact, he stood his ground and refused any compromises that would have allowed the future of slavery intact.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

He denied the Confederate States their rights to leave the Union? Do you mean legal rights or revolutionary rights?

It also takes two sides to fight a war, and very few people would agree with your assessment that the Civil War was the most disastorous in history.

I also disagree that Lincoln did not fight the war to end slavery. While he would have been perfectly content to have the war end with slavery intact, he stood his ground and refused any compromises that would have allowed the future of slavery intact.

Their legal rights, despite the Supreme Court's ruling after the war. The New England states held a conference to decide whether to secede during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and President Jefferson never assumed he had the authority to stop them. I suggest you look into Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolve of 1798. The founders knew that secession was a necessary part of States' Rights. They never believed in an all powerful federal government, as I said before.

The Confederate States obviously had to defend themselves when Lincoln attacked. I didn't say it was the most disastrous war, I said it was one of them. Sherman and his men attacked and looted how many civilians in their march?

Lincoln was a white supremacist who did not want black people in the country at all. He supported and assisted in efforts to deport slaves and freed black men to Liberia, Haiti, and Panama. Where they probably wouldn't have survived.

 

[hopner33]

Their legal rights, despite the Supreme Court's ruling after the war. The New England states held a conference to decide whether to secede during the Presidency of Thomas Jefferson, and President Jefferson never assumed he had the authority to stop them. I suggest you look into Thomas Jefferson's Kentucky Resolve of 1798. The founders knew that secession was a necessary part of States' Rights. They never believed in an all powerful federal government, as I said before.

The Confederate States obviously had to defend themselves when Lincoln attacked. I didn't say it was the most disastrous war, I said it was one of them. Sherman and his men attacked and looted how many civilians in their march?

Lincoln was a white supremacist who did not want black people in the country at all. He supported and assisted in efforts to deport slaves and freed black men to Liberia, Haiti, and Panama. Where they probably wouldn't have survived.

Your legal rights argument is flawed in a couple of ways.
1) The Hartford Convention was during the Presidency of Monroe not Jefferson. Furthermore the Hartford Convenion never adopted a platform of secession and its proceedings were in secret thus preventing us from really knowing what happened in there.
2) Why do you accept Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution as legal fact? Madison's Virginia Resolution was released at about the same time and he later stated that the Virginia Resolution was not meant to construe that secession was a remedy. He in fact denied secession.
3) Madison's letter to Webster in 1833 proves that "the founders" did not believe in secession. Perhaps some did but others did not.
4) Of course they did not believe in an all powerful national government, but at the same time they did not beleive in a pitifully weak national government that could be overruled whenever by the states.

Lincoln attacked?

And if you are only using the word "disastorous" in terms of physical destruction than I have no quarrell. If you are using that word in terms of results though we will quibble.

If you want to blame a man for living in his time than do so. The policy of colonizaion was much more progressive than the policy of slavery and had a long history with many notable supporters. More importantly, LIncoln had begun to drift away from those views near his death.

 

[Luissa]

Your legal rights argument is flawed in a couple of ways.
1) The Hartford Convention was during the Presidency of Monroe not Jefferson. Furthermore the Hartford Convenion never adopted a platform of secession and its proceedings were in secret thus preventing us from really knowing what happened in there.
2) Why do you accept Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution as legal fact? Madison's Virginia Resolution was released at about the same time and he later stated that the Virginia Resolution was not meant to construe that secession was a remedy. He in fact denied secession.
3) Madison's letter to Webster in 1833 proves that "the founders" did not believe in secession. Perhaps some did but others did not.
4) Of course they did not believe in an all powerful national government, but at the same time they did not beleive in a pitifully weak national government that could be overruled whenever by the states.

Lincoln attacked?

And if you are only using the word "disastorous" in terms of physical destruction than I have no quarrell. If you are using that word in terms of results though we will quibble.

If you want to blame a man for living in his time than do so. The policy of colonizaion was much more progressive than the policy of slavery and had a long history with many notable supporters. More importantly, LIncoln had begun to drift away from those views near his death.

Yeah for one the confederate attacked Fort Sumtner to start the war! They told Lincoln to leave and instead of doing so or adding more men to the fort he just sent food. Really I think he was just waiting for them to attack first!

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Yeah for one the confederate attacked Fort Sumtner to start the war! They told Lincoln to leave and instead of doing so or adding more men to the fort he just sent food. Really I think he was just waiting for them to attack first!

Fort Sumter was on Confederate land, and being occupied by Union troops. The Confederacy appointed delegates to try to buy property owned by the federal government, but Lincoln refused to deal with them. What were they supposed to do?

 

[Luissa]

Fort Sumter was on Confederate land, and being occupied by Union troops. The Confederacy appointed delegates to try to buy property owned by the federal government, but Lincoln refused to deal with them. What were they supposed to do?

And why do you think Lincoln refused?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Your legal rights argument is flawed in a couple of ways.
1) The Hartford Convention was during the Presidency of Monroe not Jefferson. Furthermore the Hartford Convenion never adopted a platform of secession and its proceedings were in secret thus preventing us from really knowing what happened in there.
2) Why do you accept Jefferson's Kentucky Resolution as legal fact? Madison's Virginia Resolution was released at about the same time and he later stated that the Virginia Resolution was not meant to construe that secession was a remedy. He in fact denied secession.
3) Madison's letter to Webster in 1833 proves that "the founders" did not believe in secession. Perhaps some did but others did not.
4) Of course they did not believe in an all powerful national government, but at the same time they did not beleive in a pitifully weak national government that could be overruled whenever by the states.

Lincoln attacked?

And if you are only using the word "disastorous" in terms of physical destruction than I have no quarrell. If you are using that word in terms of results though we will quibble.

If you want to blame a man for living in his time than do so. The policy of colonizaion was much more progressive than the policy of slavery and had a long history with many notable supporters. More importantly, LIncoln had begun to drift away from those views near his death.

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.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

And why do you think Lincoln refused?

He felt that the federal government should have dominion over the formerly sovereign and independent states. Had he been diplomatic rather than tyrannical, however, there may have been a better outcome.

 

[ButtersBC]

In terms of Southern Racist Leaders of Men he's behind only Paul "Bear" Bryant on this reporter's list

 

[TPIRFail]

In terms of Southern Racist Leaders of Men he's behind only Paul "Bear" Bryant on this reporter's list

don't forget Bum Phillips