Was Robert E. Lee guilty of treason?

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDavid wrote:

Point of Information, if I may?
If the other countries withdraw recognition from the USA,
will we lose the country ?

Not necessarily. But if you're accused of a crime in a foreign court, and your defense depends on your being a US citizen, you will lose that defense because the court won't recognize the US as a country nor you as a citizen of it.

BillRM's legal theory implies that if you declare your Florida estate "the Independent Republic of Davidland", and Davidland then wages war against the United States, you are not guilty of treason against the United States because you were a citizen of Davidland, not the US, when you waged your war.

This legal theory fails because no country in the world recognizes Davidland as a country. In the same manner, the argument that Lee was innocent of treason against the US --- because he wasn't a US citizen but a CSA citizen when he waged war against the US --- falls apart, too.

Does that clarify the point for you?

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

but if for example Gen Stuart had not gone off on his own before Gettysburg blinding Lee and Lee ended up taking a major Northern population center or two he would not be a traitor due to European nations then recognizing the south.

Bill, from the moment the emancipation proclamation was issued, there was no chance of England recognizing the confederacy. None. Unless the north ended the war and let the confederate states break off from the union.

As the war neared the end, there was much talk about what to do with confederate leaders and high ranking military leaders because they were viewed as traitors.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Boy Im glad you set me strait..

Happy to be of service.

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

Bill, from the moment the emancipation proclamation was issued, there was no chance of England recognizing the confederacy

Nonsense as if the south have kept pounding the north and winning one battle after another and winning control over major population centers of the north emancipation proclamation or no proclamation Europe would have recognize a nation that was in fact already a nation in being.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

When I have completed establishment
of the Republic of Davidland, I hope that u will consider becoming my Secretary of State.

David

0 Replies

Maybe I can recruit Mr. Setanta to be Secretary of War,
since he seems to be mad all the time.

2 Replies

Maybe BillRM will be my Press Secretary.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

BillRM's legal theory implies that if you declare your Florida estate "the Independent Republic of Davidland", and Davidland then wages war against the United States, you are not guilty of treason against the United States because you were a citizen of Davidland, not the US, when you waged your war.

You mean like Texas and Mexico.....LOL

All those men at the Alamo and the rest of the forces of Texas would had been turn into traitors to Mexico if the US had decided not to recognize them?

The south was a nation in being that it took over four years with millions of men under arms and 800,000 lives to conquest.

The same military force would have had have no trouble with conquering both Canada and Mexico in one hell of a lot less time then it took to conquest the south.

In fact they was far more of a nation then most to the nations then existing on earth at the time.

Footnote the cost in blood to end this "non-nation" existence was more then all the wars the US had fought with other nation states since it birth including two world wars the US took part in.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

to be Secretary of War

We was far more honest at one time in naming the war department the war department instead of the Department of Defense.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

It certainly is convenient to perpetrate that myth, rather than face up to valid criticism.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I wonder where that myth came from ?

0 Replies

People who don't deal well with criticism or contradiction tend to find ways of marginalizing that criticism. Suggesting that one's interlocutor is emotional (at the same time implying that one is not) is one of those diversionary tactics.

What you are perpetrating now is the hasty conclusion fallacy--where there's smoke, there's fire. See if you can turn that into evidence that i'm angry, and everything will be hunky-dory.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Its to your credit that u don t sound angry at the moment.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

To the shame of all too many people around here who claim it, i'm never angry. I am sometimes disgusted, but even that is relatively rare. This is not real life, this is not important. Keep in mind that when someone alleges that someone else is angry, what they are not doing is responding to the criticism or the contradiction which their interlocutor made. I also suspect that often it is the hope of a self-fulfilling prophecy--"If i say he's angry often enough, maybe he'll get angry." In the end, it's just elementary school playground rhetoric. One thing it isn't is debate.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

I am not in any way or in any manner attacking anyone by asking this question but why are we going down this branch of whether you happen to be angry or not?

Did I perhaps miss something that drove this thread in that direction?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I am not in any way or in any manner attacking anyone by asking this question
but why are we going down this branch of whether you happen to be angry or not?

Did I perhaps miss something that drove this thread in that direction?

Yea, I guess u can blame me for that, Bill.
I was gently kidding around with Mr. Setanta about that.

I think its just delightful outside in South Florida.

I hope that u r enjoying the Florida weather, Bill.

David

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

To the shame of all too many people around here who claim it,
i'm never angry. I am sometimes disgusted, but even that is relatively rare.
This is not real life, this is not important. Keep in mind that when
someone alleges that someone else is angry, what they are not doing
is responding to the criticism or the contradiction which their
interlocutor made. I also suspect that often it is the hope of a self-
fulfilling prophecy--"If i say he's angry often enough, maybe he'll get angry."
In the end, it's just elementary school playground rhetoric.

I see. Thank u for that information, Mr. Setanta.

Setanta wrote:

One thing it isn't is debate.

Agreed.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

President Lincoln pardoned the entire Confederacy so the point is mute. General Lee's citizenship was returned to him by President Ford.

I don't know where you come up with 'weird duck' however it is quite insulting. Hundreds of historians have followed this mans life from prep school to his death.

This is a good example of why very little discussion about the Civil war on the internet is attended by those who's profession is historian.

I will remind you that Google is not a source as it is heavily edited for political correctness and is bias in so many ways about the Civil War.

1 Reply

@spooky24,

Where to begin with that tripe you posted. Lincoln did not pardon the entire Confederacy--i guess this is a product of relying on the interwebs for your information. The word you wanted was moot, a moot point, not a mute point. I'm sure Lee will survive what you consider insulting, given that he died in 1870. Lee never attended "prep school." As far as "hundreds of historians," as Anatole France put it, "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." That was an ad populum fallacy. You are also attempting to enshrine as unquestionable the Lee hagiography, the biggest popular lie in American history, and along with the general "Lost Cause" myth, one of the most successful, bullshit public relations coups in history. He wasn't even particularly good at his job.

I consider him a weird duck because of his behavior and remarks during the war. I have read many biographies of Lee, notably R. E. Lee, Douglas Southall Freeman, in four volumes, which i have read more than once. Is your profession historian, Mr. Wise Guy? My opinions on Lee were formed before Google existed. The claim that Google is heavily edited is laughably absurd. Don't give up your day job. Maybe you could spend your evenings in night school, polishing your command of English.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Obviously you are unable to discuss any topic in a meaningful respectful way.

That is a pity.

1 Reply

Was Robert E. Lee guilty of treason?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know