"Robert E. Lee Traitor to America"

[Rod1]

many oath breakers are celebrated throughout history

the difference is they were on the winning side

by your standards the founding fathers were traitors

Founding fathers had sworn oaths to the crown?

Nonetheless, you dont hear the British calling Washington or Jefferson to be "model British".

 

[nac386]

I'm assuming you don't know much about Lee. He was a solid dude, abhorred slavery, viewing it as a great evil.

If we're going to jump on individual Confederates, Lee wasn't so bad.

In the same letter in which Lee called slavery immoral he also said he thought black people needed to be enslaved to be more civilized, actually. He also owned slaves and fought for the Southern states (pro slavery).

"The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race... How long their subjugation may be necessary is known and ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

^ Robert E. Lee on slaves.

Whether or not you believe the statue should stand can be disconnected from what type of man Lee was. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking Lee was really against slavery.

 

[USA!USA!]

In the same letter in which Lee called slavery immoral he also said he thought black people needed to be enslaved to be more civilized, actually. He also owned slaves and fought for the Southern states (pro slavery).

"The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their instruction as a race... How long their subjugation may be necessary is known and ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

^ Robert E. Lee on slaves.

Whether or not you believe the statue should stand can be disconnected from what type of man Lee was. But let's not fool ourselves into thinking Lee was really against slavery.

George Washington had slaves - shall we begin removing all of his statues and monuments from the country?

 

[Rod1]

In this context, I agree. However, sometimes, the loser is more admirable than the winner. I'm not saying this is the case with the Civil War.

Lee was in a tough spot with that choice. I respect him for his decision. It takes a lot of guts to turn down a guy like Lincoln. His image was probably going to be tarnished either way. Either he betrays Virginia and is seen as a Damn Yankee supporter or he stays and is seen as a slavery supporter. He wasn't going to get out unscathed.

The thing is that career military men will always have the oath of their office to fall back to.

Thats why there is nothing wrong into admiring people like that one of my AV even when they fought on the wrong side of history.

 

[Rational Poster]

That's a cop out. The same logic would apply to Lee as we apply it Caesar. Obviously we don't want Caesar's historic monuments torn down.

How is a cop out? It is not our responsibility to tell Italy what to do with their monuments.

How are the situations even analogous? Caesar's team won.

You're comparing ancient history to recorded modern history and doing it badly.

 

[Rod1]

George Washington had slaves - shall we begin removing all of his statues and monuments from the country?

Washington didnt went to war with the specific objective of keeping his slaves. He also didnt betrayed the Crown, nor there are statues of him back in England.

 

[USA!USA!]

Washington didnt went to war with the specific objective of keeping his slaves. He also didnt betrayed the Crown, nor there are statues of him back in England.

But he had slaves in the United States right? So just because he didn't fight to keep slaves, it's OK for him to have slaves?

 

[Rod1]

That's a cop out. The same logic would apply to Lee as we apply it to Caesar. Obviously we don't want Caesar's historic monuments torn down.

Modern Italy is not the Roman Republic.

 

[Rod1]

But he had slaves in the United States right? So just because he didn't fight to keep slaves, it's OK for him to have slaves?

He had slaves almost 100 years before Robert E. Lee had slaves.

Different times, Robert E. Lee isnt being taken down for having slaves, he is being taken down because he was a traitor.

Literally a traitor as per the US Constitution defines treason.

 

[Der Eisbär]

Modern Italy is not the Roman Republic.

You could still argue he betrayed the Roman/Italian people.

Tearing down statues and monuments does not erase what happened nor does it make it better. If anything they should stand as a reminder to society.

 

[USA!USA!]

He had slaves almost 100 years before Robert E. Lee had slaves.

Different times, Robert E. Lee isnt being taken down for having slaves, he is being taken down because he was a traitor.

Literally a traitor as per the US Constitution defines treason.

He is being attacked in this thread for both. The traitor part at least has logical legs - but the slaves part doesn't in my eyes.

 

[Rod1]

You could still argue he betrayed the Roman/Italian people.

Tearing down statues and monuments does not erase what happened nor does it make it better. If anything they should stand as a reminder to society.

He betrayed the Roman Republic, indeed, but Italy is not the Roman Republic.

There is absolutely no connection whatsoever, if the Confederates had won the war or if the US government hadnt lasted up to these days im pretty sure that would change things.

The thing is that Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the US Constitution, so you cant claim that he was a good American.

He waged war against America, not much different than Benedict Arnold who was loyal to the crown.

 

[Der Eisbär]

How is a cop out? It is not our responsibility to tell Italy what to do with their monuments.

Because you're not willing to apply your logic about Lee to another similar situation just because it's not America. That's a cop out.

How are the situations even analogous? Caesar's team won.

Right, up until he was assasinated.

You're comparing ancient history to recorded modern history and doing it badly.

In 1000 years, the Civil War will be ancient history and have the same sort of value. That's what you don't get. You're being short sighted.

 

[Der Eisbär]

He betrayed the Roman Republic, indeed, but Italy is not the Roman Republic.

There is absolutely no connection whatsoever, if the Confederates had won the war or if the US government hadnt lasted up to these days im pretty sure that would change things.

The thing is that Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the US Constitution, so you cant claim that he was a good American.

He waged war against America, not much different than Benedict Arnold who was loyal to the crown.

My argument doesn't rest on Robert E Lee's character or his status as a traitor.

He WAS a traitor. He WAS a piece of shit. I don't disagree. That's not my point.

 

[Last Samurai]

Founding fathers had sworn oaths to the crown?

Nonetheless, you dont hear the British calling Washington or Jefferson to be "model British".

they were British subjects that opposed the crown

whether or not you support Lee's actions is irrelevant. he has a place in history and there are lessons to be learned from it, or the mistakes will be repeated.

 

[Rod1]

He is being attacked in this thread for both. The traitor part at least has logical legs - but the slaves part doesn't in my eyes.

It depends, because at the time of the civil war, slavery was already seen as an evil institution by most of the modern world.

It had already been banned in England and its colonies, France and its colonies, Spain and its current and former colonies (with the exception of Cuba).

It was clearly evil, its like claiming that you cant judge a modern racist and admire Franklin D. Roosevelt at the same time.

 

[Rational Poster]

Because you're not willing to apply your logic about Lee to another similar situation just because it's not America. That's a cop out.

Right, up until he was assasinated.


In 1000 years, the Civil War will be ancient history and have the same sort of value. That's what you don't get. You're being short sighted.

There is nothing similar about the situations.

 

[Rod1]

My argument doesn't rest on Robert E Lee's character or his status as a traitor.

He WAS a traitor. He WAS a piece of shit. I don't disagree. That's not my point.

But a traitor to what? the US Constitution.

If the US Constution and the Constitutional government had not survived the test of time, Robert E. Lee wouldnt be seen as a traitor.

No less than Benedict Arnold would had been seen as a traitor if the British had won the American revolutionary war, Benedict Arnold would had been seen as a loyal hero instead.

 

[loyalyolayal]

As a non-american, can a guy from the north and the south give me a tldr/cliffs version/interpretation of the civil war. The word traitor is being thrown left and right(bitterly I might add)from the winners side. I've read threads and articles about it, but I wanna hear some of you guys thoughts on it.

 

[Gutter Chris]

The south were a bunch of traitors and slavers and it cant be denied. But its a part of our history and reminds of of lessons we dont need to learn again and should stand til the end of time as a reminder.

The war is a part of our nation and a part of each and everyone of us and I think to scrub our memories to make the world a lil more pc does us all a disservice.