Was Robert E. Lee guilty of treason?

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

I certainly deny that you are making a valid distinction.

REALLY??? I 'm a little taken aback.
That surprizes me, Mr. Setanta. I thought u 'd get the concept.
If u consider it for a while, then I m sure that u will get the point.
Now, IF I were Mr. Setanta, THEN I 'd accuse u of being an "idiot"
(among your very favorite characterizations),
and then I 'd allege that your error was "hi-lar-i-ous", sadistically exposing u to scorn.
Such has been your posting habit, if not your obsession toward your fellow members.

If I accused u of being an "idiot" then I 'd be a LIAR,
because I know damn well that u r NOT of a mental age below 3 years,
as u attribute to so many, many of your fellow members, but rather
u r a man of above average intellect with a good education,
who has fallen into momentary confusion on this particular point.

I 'll explain it to u:
IF the votes of both houses of Congress were aggregated
THEN thay 'd be 535, consisting of 435 members of the House of Representatives
and 1OO members of the Senate. 2/3 of the votes of BOTH houses are 356.6666666.

Ergo: if 357 of the 435 members of the House of Representatives
voted to submit a constitutional amendment to the States for ratification
and if 1OO% of the Senators voted unanimously against that amendment,
it wud still have been approved according to that (erroneous) criterion.
That is against the constitutional intendment of Article 5;
that error has never been applied.
That is important to the supreme law of the land,
and not "silliness" as u chose to describe it.

( Incidentally, your quote from the Constitution was perfect. )

Setanta wrote:

I also know that you never think that you are wrong,
so whether you respond or not, i'm done with this silliness.

U have uttered a falsehood, Mr. Setanta.
Very recently (maybe yesterday??) I conceded a point to u on grammar
regarding use of the word: "whose"; yet here u allege that:

"you never think that you are wrong . . . ".

Have u lied to blacken my reputation, out of ill will??
It appears that u DID, plummeting into the abyss of mendacity,
prevarication, deceptive vilification, calumniation and fraud against me
( out of spite and envy of my membership
in a certain organization to which u have very persistent reference ??? )

Still, with all your flaws, I kind of like u.
I must admit that u r a colorful character
and I think that this forum is better off with u than it wud be without u.

David

0 Replies

@Thomas,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
Who said George Washington wasn't a traitor?

LOL that my point as if Lee is a traitor for siding with his home state instead of the whole US then Washington is similarly a traitor for siding with the same state Virginia and the united states in the process of being born instead of the English empire.

Thomas wrote:

You say that as if it was a reductio ad absurdum. But it doesn't work because the result of your reduction not absurd; it's perfectly valid. George Washington was a traitor. So was every officer who had sworn an oath to the British crown and took arms against Britain. So was every signatory of the Declaration of Independence. America is a nation built on treason. You just don't hear that often because, as they say, "if treason prospers, none dare call it treason". Washington was a traitor who prospered; Lee was a traitor who didn't. That's the main difference between them. Both of them are traitors.

Was Rudolf Hess a traitor ?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Quote:
"if treason prospers, none dare call it treason". Washington was a traitor who prospered; Lee was a traitor who didn't.

How do you figure that as Lee is a very respected figure in the north as well as the south to this very day.

That surprises me. But I bet the people by whom Lee is a very respected figure aren't the same as those who think his cause deserved to lose, and did. Or maybe they respect him for reasons other than his decision to betray the United States and join the unconstitutional rebellion against it.

Anyway, your original point was that if Lee is a traitor, Washington was a traitor. And my counterpoint to that is that Washington was a traitor. (I see joefromchicago made the same point before I did.) I notice you're not defending your original point anymore.

3 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Was Rudolf Hess a traitor ?

Sure!

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Indeed . . . and the idea was celebrated. There was a speech which Patrick Henry was alleged to have made in the House of Burgesses in 1765, but it's probably apocryphal. Nevertheless, it has come down as a stirring episode in our nation's history. This is how the narrative runs:

“Cæsar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third ——.” at this point it is alleged that the Speaker cried out "Treason!" and that Henry continued: “may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of it.”

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

That surprises me. But I bet the people by whom Lee is a very respected figure aren't the same as those who think his cause deserved to lose, and did.

Well as I had said before I am of the north with ancestors that fought on the northern side of the conflict and I respect Robert Lee.

I also in fact do indeed wish that Lee had taken over the union forces as it is my opinion that he would had won the civil war for the north in a must shorter time frame with far less lost of blood and treasure on both sides if he had done so.

To me his actions on taking the side of the south is regrettable but not dishonorable in any manner.

One of the things we all as Americans can be very proud of is how we treated the losing side of our civil war.

No massive firing squads or hangings or imprisonments that is the normal result all too often in the history of civil wars.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Or maybe they respect him for reasons other than his decision to betray the United States and join the unconstitutional rebellion against it.

Tom, do u imply that Lee believed
that rebellion to be un-Constitutional ?

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Or maybe they respect him for reasons other than his decision to betray the United States and join the unconstitutional rebellion against it.
Tom, do u imply that Lee believed
that rebellion to be un-Constitutional ?

No, I imply that it was unconstitutional. But that's irrelevant to the question if Lee committed treason. Remember, treason is "the betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts." (American Heritage Dictionary) There is no question that Lee did that, no matter what beliefs caused him to.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts.

Sorry but it all depend on how you define country as in that time period the country was the person state not the United States as a whole for many of the population.

Lee not wishing to used his sword against his own family and people is more then understandable.

Right now I think that most of the people of the EU would be loyal to the countries making up the EU not the EU as a whole if there was a military conflict between the members states and the EU as a whole.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Sorry but it all depend on how you define country as in that time period the country was the person state not the United States as a whole for many of the population.

A look at the first edition of Webster's dictionary (1828) tells us that even then, "country" could refer to both "America is my country or Connecticut is my country." In Lee's case, the country Lee had sworn his oath of office to was the United States, not the state of Virginia.

BillRM wrote:

Right now I think that most of the people of the EU would be loyal to the countries making up the EU not the EU as a whole if there was a military conflict between the members states and the EU as a whole.

Unlike Lee, no military officer in the EU has sworn an oath to serve and protect the European Union. By contrast, the oath for officers in the US Army was clear about the target of the oath from 1830 on:

The US Army, summarizing the history of its oaths of office, wrote:

A change in about 1830 read: "I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

Word games with the term "country" will not exonerate Lee from being a traitor to his country.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Quote:

That surprises me. But I bet the people by whom Lee is a very respected figure aren't the same as those who think his cause deserved to lose, and did.

BillRM wrote:

Well as I had said before I am of the north with ancestors that fought on the northern side of the conflict and I respect Robert Lee.

I also in fact do indeed wish that Lee had taken over the union forces as it is my opinion that he would had won the civil war for the north in a must shorter time frame with far less lost of blood and treasure on both sides if he had done so.

To me his actions on taking the side of the south is regrettable but not dishonorable in any manner.

One of the things we all as Americans can be very proud of is how we treated the losing side of our civil war.

No massive firing squads or hangings or imprisonments that is the normal result all too often in the history of civil wars.

The Union troops were pretty ruff, cutting old ladies' throats sometimes, looting.
Hence, the need of Confederate veterans fighting a guerrilla
defensive operation as the KKK.

David

3 Replies

@Thomas,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Thomas wrote:
Or maybe they respect him for reasons other than his decision to betray the United States and join the unconstitutional rebellion against it.
Tom, do u imply that Lee believed
that rebellion to be un-Constitutional ?

Thomas wrote:

No, I imply that it was unconstitutional.

I understood that to be your posistion,
but not whether u implied that Lee BELIEVED his choice to be un-Constitutional.

Thomas wrote:

But that's irrelevant to the question if Lee committed treason. Remember, treason is "the betrayal of allegiance toward one's own country, especially by committing hostile acts against it or aiding its enemies in committing such acts." (American Heritage Dictionary) There is no question that Lee did that, no matter what beliefs caused him to.

In your judgment, was that worse
than if America quit the UN ?

1 Reply

@Thomas,

He openly resign repeat resign from the US military to take the side of Virginia, now if he would had taken control of the US military, as was offer to him, in order to sabotage the union war efforts then he would had indeed been a traitor in the same light as Benedict Arnold.

As it is he was an honorable man who happen to have divide loyally and needed to choose between them.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

He openly resign repeat resign from the US military to take the side of Virginia, now if he would had taken control of the US military, as was offer to him, in order to sabotage the union war efforts then he would had indeed been a traitor in the same light as Benedict Arnold.

As it is he was an honorable man who happen to have divide loyally and needed to choose between them.

Bill, Tom has indicated that Lee was a traitor.
Unless I missed it,
Tom did not deny that Lee was an honorable man.
He will speak for himself.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

than if America quit the UN ?

Yes. First, the UN charter bars no country from leaving the United Nations. The US constitution, by contrast, states explicitly that "No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation". Second, the states in rebellion didn't just leave the United States. They had militants attack US facilities first, and formally seceded only later.

2 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

The Union troops were pretty ruff, cutting old ladies' throats sometimes, looting.
Hence, the need of Confederate veterans fighting a guerrilla
defensive operation as the KKK

You David rewriting history? Shame on you and the KKK right after the war was a terrorist outfit set up to keep the free slaves in line and away from any political power.

I bet you think that the movie Birth of the Nation was history fact!!!!!!!!!

In any case, the first version of the KKK was crush in very short order by the Federal government occupation forces not to raise it ugly face again until the Troops was removed from the south.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

As it is he was an honorable man who happen to have divide loyally and needed to choose between them.

He was a slaver and a traitor. Just because he observed the mannerisms considered proper at the time, that doesn't mean there's any honor in either.

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

You peddle the most egregious bullsh*t. Your grasp of history is on a par with the quality of your orthography.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Quote:

He was a slaver and a traitor. Just because he observed the mannerisms considered proper at the time, that doesn't mean there's any honor in either

LOL he was a slaver as in bringing in new blacks to be slaves as that is the normal meaning of a slaver?

He surely was a slaveholder if not a slaver as was a large percent of the people who created the constitution in the first place.

So you wish to hold Lee to a document created by SLAVERS and who openly held blacks as less then human and who the SC held could not be citizens of the US under any terms under the then constitution.

Seems you wish to have it both ways attacking Lee for being a slaveholder in a time and a place where society did not view it as a sin as least not in the south.and then attacking him for not being loyal to the US constitution that supported the concept of slavery.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Lincoln and Johnston did not see it that way. ALL Confederate officers were pardoned with the only prohibition being that they could NOT serve public office or as officers in the US Army or NAvy. This too was removed in 1871 after Lees death .

At the end of the Civil War, there was a great deal of bitterness against those who were perceived as being the "leaders" of the Rebellion ,ESPECIALLY those Confederate officers who had resignedfromthe United States Army to follow their states.

Following President Lincoln's instructions, an outline of which he verbalized in his second inaugural and his own desire to have peace ..."with malice toward none" Grant offered Lee and those who surrendered in Appomattox PAROLES which prevented the vindictive of the Northern leadership from trying Lee or any of his officers and men for treason.

2 Replies

Was Robert E. Lee guilty of treason?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know