Robert E. Lee: Traitor Or Hero? *NM*

Lee's military genius seems to have allowed him to escape the harsh judgement by histroy which Jefferson Davis has suffered. Before the Civil War, Lee was a General in the United States Army and had sworn an oath to it and the country. Then, he led a war against those institutiions. That sounds like the definition of a traitor to me.


Of course, history is written by the winners. I doubt Washington, Jefferson, and the other founding fathers would have a notable place in history if the American Revolution had failed. They would simply have been remembered as traitors to a victorious British Empire.


Lee wasn't anxious for war. He simply valued loyalty to Virginia over loyalty to the United States.


In the early '90s, there was a U.S. soldier who refused to wear the blue berets of the United Nations during a peace-keeping mission because he felt it would be a betrayal of his oath/loyalty to the United States. Is this a comparable modern-day example on a much smaller scale?

r.e. lee...only cadet to go thru west point with no demerits..first a virginian..always a virginian...smile when you say that..gl

CLearly, today he would be executed.

On many levels.


Tom D

Just a small correction but Lee was only a Colonel in the US Army before the Civil War. However, both Johnston's were generals.

Even though he fought for the breakup of the United States Lee is clearly one of the greatest people in our history. That's because there is no question that he did what he thought was right and did it with honor. Even though we now understand his cause to be wrong today, it certainly wasn't viewed that way by a large percentage of the population at that time.


If Lee was a traitor, he certainly had many opportunities to bring havoc on population centers in the North. But he didn't do this. He made sure that his army always treated civilians with respect and perhaps most important, he choose to surrender at Appomattox instead of continuing the fight in a guerilla fashion.

"Even though we now understand his cause to be wrong today"


please elaborate on this as i know you are a history buff.


brad

Lee's cause supported a way of life that was dependent on slavery. That is it viewed some members of our population as not really being people in the sense that they deserved the same rights as everyone else. Today, our society views this as being very wrong. Ironically, there is evidence that Lee himself never really thought of things in this way, but that's another story.


Of course, when Lincoln began to point this out much of the nation was shocked. Today we find Lincoln's words on the matter of freedom to very comforting and it is in many ways the basis of our current society. Of course getting to this point was not always easy and there are still a relatively few people who disagree.

hmm. i thought you meant states' rights, etc. as for slavery, i didnt think that was really an issue in the north-south rift. i mean, the northern states didnt inititiate the civil war to free slaves. (im sure you know more about the causes of the civil war than i am; i was taught it was trade, etc.)


brad

the recent anti-terrorism bill is a case in point. basically no more 4th amendment. william safire wrote a column saying bush is now a dictator.


i was surprised to learn that in my state of arizona, a bill made it through committee (but not to the full house) that would have called for secession if gun confiscation began, or if the US ceded its sovereignty (think of all the talk of the US-mexico border area being a 'common region', a 100 mile border zone, or some such thing).


so it seems like at least some people agree with some of the ideas of the confederacy.


a lot of weird stuff going on.


brad

Just a little trivia.


The site of the surrender was Appamattox Courthouse. This was the actual name of the toen not a structure in the town. The actual building which was used for the surrender was the MacLean house.

It was about slavery. Don't kid yourself.

Why would white northerners send their sons into battle to free black slaves? Northerners of the 1860's were just as bigoted as their Southern conterparts.


The idea that the civil war was fought over slavery was created after the war was over.

"Even though he fought for the breakup of the United States Lee is clearly one of the greatest people in our history. That's because there is no question that he did what he thought was right and did it with honor."


This is a terrible way to judge greatness. You can't just "think" you are right, your actions have to be right for the generations to follow.


If Lee (and the Confederacy) had succeeded in creating an independent southern nation, it would have been disastourous for millions of blacks for more than a century to come. Considering the institutional brutal treatment of Southern blacks through 1950s and 60s, it's hard to fathom that slavery would have ended any time before the 1970s unless it simply became economically unviable or a slave rebellion was successful. It definitely wouldn't have ended due to a change in social values.


It's impossible to calculate all the consequences of a United States split in half. But, considering the enormous role the U.S. played in the 20th century, I think it's safe to assume that the spread of freedom and democracy worldwide would have been in serious jeopardy. Without a strong United States with complete security on the North American continent, I doubt the U.S. could have played as critical a role in WWII and the Cold War which followed.


Who's side would the Confederate States of America fight on in WWII (or would they fight at all)? Would their philosophy of white supremeacy created a natural bond with Nazi Germany and their philosophy of Aryan supremacy? Just pure speculation. I know there isn't an answer.


My point is that great men not only do what they think is right with honor, but they also have the vision to create a better future for everyone. Lee fails the "greatness test" miserably because of this.

Sure. Keep telling yourself that.


Check out the reading at the link below.

That reading was unpersuasive.


Lincoln and the North were completely willing to allow slavery to continue in the South indefinitely although there were serious disputes about allowing it to spread to the West. It was only several years into the war that Lincoln emancipated the slaves as a punitive action against the South. Only a small minority of Americans gave a damn about freeing slaves.

Lincoln did many things during the Civil War, especially the early stages, that violated our constitution. JUst read about his handling of Missouri and what he did to keep it in the Union. So from that point of view a precedent has been set. However, when the war was over, our ideas of freedom had greatly expanded. So it doesn't mean that Bush is on his way to being a dictator.

Jeb Stuart's cavalry raided and pillaged under Lee's command. He did surrender when he realized that resistance was futile. He was an honorable traitor. Still, he committed treason and was responsible for many more deaths than Tim McVeigh.


In today's society, he would be given the death penalty.

Lee was the Superintendant of West Point. His strategic mind was superior to anything the North had in tactics. Lincoln hated to see him go. Grant won by overwhelming numbers and supply. This has been US Doctrine ever since. Maybe the new war will change that. It seems air power, covert ops, and and the use surrogates are the tenets of a new emerging doctrine.

"Jeb Stuart's cavalry raided and pillaged under Lee's command."


While that's true, Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan burnt everything in site. What happened was that the war went from a clash of armies which produced an occasional battle to an all consuming one. That was the only way the South could be defeated. It was unfortunate but these things happen in war.

Another aspect of the answer to this question was to look at Lee's behavior after the war. Here he advocated the uniting of the North and South into one country and stayed in Virginia. (Some Confederate Army officers and politicians left the country moving either to Mexico or Canada.) It was a shame that he only lived a few years after the war had ended. He certainly would have done much good and probably would have helped the reconstruction process along.

Who's side would the Confederate States of "America fight on in WWII (or would they fight at all)? Would their philosophy of white supremeacy created a natural bond with Nazi Germany and their philosophy of Aryan supremacy? Just pure speculation. I know there isn't an answer."


One of the things that Lee wanted to do at the end of the Civil War was to bring "Negro troops" into the Southern Army. (I believe that Johnston was also in favor of this.) Now when trying to judge Lee this is very significant because it meant that these people would have been freed and granted citenzenship. Thus the breakdown of slavery in the South might have happened much quicker than you suggest.


Furthermore, if these events would have occurred, and this is pure speculaion on my part, the resentment towards blacks (which had a lot to do with the reconstruction process) might not had been as strong and the resultant discrimination that developed may not have happened.

"Grant won by overwhelming numbers and supply."


While this statement is certainly true, Grant is also recognized as a strategic genius. His campaign in Mississippi clearly shows this and the capture of Vicksburg clearly shows this.

For a more in-depth discussion, see “How Robert E. Lee Lost The Civil War”, by

Edward H. Bonekemper, III. In it, the author demonstrates convincingly that Lee’s genius is a myth, and contends that Lee needlessly squandered his woefully outnumbered troops by going on the attack instead of digging in and playing for a tie. It was the North’s burden to conquer the South, not the other way around.


As for Lee’s honor, Bonekemper also indicts Lee for “continuing the hopeless and bloody slaughter after Union victory had been ensured by each of a series of events: the fall of Atlanta, the re-election of Lincoln, and the fall of Petersburg and Richmond”.


A very compelling book.


Tom D

i was taught in school that slavery (as opposed to being 2nd class citizens, which lasted 100 more years anyway) was coming to an end anyway because of technological advances that would have made it uneconomical.


brad

Lincoln and the North were NOT willing to let slavery continue. That was the whole problem. Lincoln was a strong abolitionist elected on a strong abolitionist platform. Furthermore, in the 1860 election, abolitionists came close to also getting a majority in both houses of Congress, and everybody knew it was only a matter of time before they took over, either 1862 or 1864. There were only a handful of Democrats from the north still left in Congress after the 1860 election, and they were either going to have to stop voting with the south on slavery issues or face certain defeat in the next election.


If you read what southern leaders and newspaper editors were actually saying in 1860-1861, rather than what they wrote in their post-war apologia, it's crystal clear that they saw the war as being a defense of the institution of slavery and of the extremist racial views underlying it. They recognized that they were losing control of the federal government. They came right out and said so, over and over.


The whole "states right" business was fabricated by Davis, Stephens, and others after the war to rationalize their dragging the South into a destructive war. It's a myth perpetuated today mainly by so-called Southern Heritage groups. But it ain't what happened.

While it may or may not be true that slavery was doomed by economic conditions, that view is the result of historical hindsight. Nobody in 1860 was saying that slavery was doomed by economics. The ability to make that prediction was far beyond the capability of economists of the time.


It also has to be understood that slavery was not just an economic institution. It was also a social and political institution based on the extreme racist views of the southern aristocracy. Slavery was not just cheap labor; it had evolved into the principle means for maintaining separation of the races and controlling a huge black population.


A lot of the rhetoric coming from southerners at the time makes it clear that they were appalled by the idea of blacks being 'equal' to whites. They were terrified of social mixing of the races and of losing political power to blacks. In this respect, slavery was replaced after the war by dixie-style segregation and radical white supremacist groups.

I don't think even Lee had the influence to start a process of ending slavery and granting the slaves citizenship. The instituion was so ingrained in Southern culture, I think it could only be removed through war/rebellion.


While Reconstruction was a disaster, discrimination towards blacks was not a result of resmentment caused by Reconsruction. There was plenty of discrimination to go around long before the civil war. Slavery is an extreme form of discrimination.

"I don't think even Lee had the influence to start a process of ending slavery and granting the slaves citizenship."


You miss the point, probably because I didn't make it very well. For Lee to put African-American soildiers in his army, the decision to do this must be political. That is Jefferson Davis would have approved it as well as the indiviual southern states that would have supplied them. Thus a process would have been started that would have led to citizenship for some of the slaves. By the way, this same concept was debated in Johnston's army as he retreated towards Atlanta.

'The whole "states right" business was fabricated by Davis, Stephens, and others after the war to rationalize their dragging the South into a destructive war'


well, didnt the north invade the south?


brad

Mason,


I hope to get into the Civil War history next year with the forums book picks but it seems General Lee gets high marks as an honorable opponent and decent man just as Field Marshall Rommell did in World War 2.


In other words, sometimes good men fight for bad or questionable causes.


Regards,


Rick