Jump to content

?????????


Proud Tiger

Recommended Posts

The only thing that surprises me about this whole thread is...............the fact that Bill Ayers isn't an Obama appointee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 302
  • Created
  • Last Reply

We understand that you and others on this board consider REL as a traitor but what Union contemporaries with authority pursued trying him ?

The decision to be lenient to the Lee and the other rebels was purely a matter of political expediency. It doesn't matter that he was never tried. He even had to apply for a pardon, for treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We understand that you and others on this board consider REL as a traitor but what Union contemporaries with authority pursued trying him ?

The decision to be lenient to the Lee and the other rebels was purely a matter of political expediency. It doesn't matter that he was never tried. He even had to apply for a pardon, for treason.

Please give evidence of your claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We understand that you and others on this board consider REL as a traitor but what Union contemporaries with authority pursued trying him ?

The decision to be lenient to the Lee and the other rebels was purely a matter of political expediency. It doesn't matter that he was never tried. He even had to apply for a pardon, for treason.

Odd how things go down in history, especially when its the victors who are writing it. Lee didn't accept the opportunity to be the General of the Union Army but he never invaded the northern territory. He was simply loyal to his home, his family, his neighbors and his friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give evidence of your claim.

http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2005/spring/piece-lee.html

Odd how things go down in history, especially when its the victors who are writing it. Lee didn't accept the opportunity to be the General of the Union Army but he never invaded the northern territory. He was simply loyal to his home, his family, his neighbors and his friends.

You serious? What about the Maryland or Gettysburg?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please give evidence of your claim.

http://www.archives..../piece-lee.html

Odd how things go down in history, especially when its the victors who are writing it. Lee didn't accept the opportunity to be the General of the Union Army but he never invaded the northern territory. He was simply loyal to his home, his family, his neighbors and his friends.

You serious? What about the Maryland or Gettysburg?

yeah Im serious. I knew he fought in Maryland and Pennsylvania immediately adjacent to the Virginia borders so, there is that. However, I guess I was thinking in relative terms to Union forces going all the way down the Mississippi through Vicksburg to New Orleans and across to Atlanta and on to Savannah pales anything Lee did in Pennsylvania and Maryland with regard to a geographical invasion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very familiar with this document. It does not support your claim of treason.

No. It supports the fact that he applied for pardon for treason. I'm going to ask you to go through this again with me very slowly. How do you figure his actions did not constitute treason?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what Lee did as treasonous. He resumed residence in the Confederate State of Virginia, a free sovereignty with publicly elected leaders. He joined a seceded sovereign state. The state of Virginia existed long before the Constitution or the Union.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah Im serious. I knew he fought in Maryland and Pennsylvania immediately adjacent to the Virginia borders so, there is that. However, I guess I was thinking in relative terms to Union forces going all the way down the Mississippi through Vicksburg to New Orleans and across to Atlanta and on to Savannah pales anything Lee did in Pennsylvania and Maryland with regard to a geographical invasion.

I'm inclined to agree in terms of severity, but that's a far cry from "never invaded the northern territories."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah Im serious. I knew he fought in Maryland and Pennsylvania immediately adjacent to the Virginia borders so, there is that. However, I guess I was thinking in relative terms to Union forces going all the way down the Mississippi through Vicksburg to New Orleans and across to Atlanta and on to Savannah pales anything Lee did in Pennsylvania and Maryland with regard to a geographical invasion.

I'm inclined to agree in terms of severity, but that's a far cry from "never invaded the northern territories."

Not really...not anymore than a days ride from the Virginia border hardly constitutes a northern invasion IMO. Besides, that was toward the end of the War. The truth is Union troops invaded the South. Not the other way around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what Lee did as treasonous. He resumed residence in the Confederate State of Virginia, a free sovereignty with publicly elected leaders. He joined a seceded sovereign state. The state of Virginia existed long before the Constitution or the Union.

Said sovereign state joined an illegal confederacy in direct violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution and levied war against the United States in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, thereby committing treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yeah Im serious. I knew he fought in Maryland and Pennsylvania immediately adjacent to the Virginia borders so, there is that. However, I guess I was thinking in relative terms to Union forces going all the way down the Mississippi through Vicksburg to New Orleans and across to Atlanta and on to Savannah pales anything Lee did in Pennsylvania and Maryland with regard to a geographical invasion.

I'm inclined to agree in terms of severity, but that's a far cry from "never invaded the northern territories."

Not really...not anymore than a days ride from the Virginia border hardly constitutes a northern invasion IMO. Besides, that was toward the end of the War. The truth is Union troops invaded the South. Not the other way around.

Pssst, your historical revisionist streak is showing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ever studied the Constitution of the United States as it was in the pre-war 1860's? If you do so, be sure to pay close attention to those powers given to the federal government. Only those powers listed are given to the federal government. All other powers are granted to states.

Remember this also........to the victor goes not only the spoils, but also the telling of the story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what Lee did as treasonous. He resumed residence in the Confederate State of Virginia, a free sovereignty with publicly elected leaders. He joined a seceded sovereign state. The state of Virginia existed long before the Constitution or the Union.

Said sovereign state joined an illegal confederacy in direct violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution and levied war against the United States in violation of Article 3, Section 3 of the Constitution, thereby committing treason.

Nothing illegal about the Confederacy. Lincoln didn't like it and fought the War to preserve the Union but it was not illegal. The right to secede still exists. The Union doesn't have power over states without their consent to be governed. Like Ive already pointed out the states existed prior to the existence of the Union and the Articles of confederation preceded the Constitution. Just like the states changed their allegiance from the Articles to the Constitution, they changed it from the Constitution to the Confederacy. I've already had this pointless debate once and people like you will never see it any other way and frankly, there's nothing you can say that would change my mind either so, we'll agree to disagree.

I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson: Of course what would he know, right? At the Constitutional Convention he was the principal author of the Declaration of Independence, a signer of the Constitution and the 3rd president of America

If any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation with the first alternative to a continuance in union without it, I have no hesitation in saying 'let us separate.' I would rather the States should withdraw which are for unlimited commerce and war, and confederate with those alone which are for peace and agriculture.

--Thomas Jefferson to William H. Crawford, 1816. ME 15:29

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, can't believe this one is still going on. And to think; the "Lee was a traitor group" still haven't read the pre-Civil War constitution. But guys, you do have to concede the point that the South did fight on Northern soil....and, the battle at Gettysburg was part of a deliberate invasion of the North to threaten DC attacking from the North. Maryland and Northern Va were basically no-mans-land with battles moving back and forth across both. Those damn Yankees were the aggressor in this regard though and carried the fight to the South for the entire war (one of the few things they got right until late 1863).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You guys really need to learn the art of critical thinking and stop leading with your emotions"..... :roflol:/>

You don't think it's "leading with your emotions" to flat out deny there is a perfectly logical case for REL as traitor to the U.S.? Anyone who takes that position is clearly elevating their feelings above logic.

Do you really not get that?

We understand that you and others on this board consider REL as a traitor but what Union contemporaries with authority pursued trying him ?

This was answered several pages ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, can't believe this one is still going on. And to think; the "Lee was a traitor group" still haven't read the pre-Civil War constitution. But guys, you do have to concede the point that the South did fight on Northern soil....and, the battle at Gettysburg was part of a deliberate invasion of the North to threaten DC attacking from the North. Maryland and Northern Va were basically no-mans-land with battles moving back and forth across both. Those damn Yankees were the aggressor in this regard though and carried the fight to the South for the entire war (one of the few things they got right until late 1863).

Could you kindly link the pre Civil War constitution? This one is my reference:

http://www.civilwar.org/education/history/primarysources/usconstitution.html#ARTICLE%20I

Also, withholding any value judgements on the right or wrong of taking the battle to the North, I personally think that Lee's decision to do so was a great decision militarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, can't believe this one is still going on. And to think; the "Lee was a traitor group" still haven't read the pre-Civil War constitution. But guys, you do have to concede the point that the South did fight on Northern soil....and, the battle at Gettysburg was part of a deliberate invasion of the North to threaten DC attacking from the North. Maryland and Northern Va were basically no-mans-land with battles moving back and forth across both. Those damn Yankees were the aggressor in this regard though and carried the fight to the South for the entire war (one of the few things they got right until late 1863).

Could you kindly link the pre Civil War constitution? This one is my reference:

http://www.civilwar.....html#ARTICLE I

Also, withholding any value judgements on the right or wrong of taking the battle to the North, I personally think that Lee's decision to do so was a great decision militarily.

Lee's decision to send In Picketts charge on the 3rd day of Gettysburg is certainly debatable whether or not it was a great military decision. Lee was determined to strike while Longstreet tried to dissuade him. The Confederacy's fall at that point was simply a matter of time. Pickett's brigade was crushed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm very familiar with this document. It does not support your claim of treason.

No. It supports the fact that he applied for pardon for treason. I'm going to ask you to go through this again with me very slowly. How do you figure his actions did not constitute treason?

You show that you have no clue about what you are arguing. You extrapolate outlandish thoughts of treason by citing those two documents. So I'm typing this very slowly so you can read very slowly and hopefully comprehend.

First, the parole document stipulates that those Confederates who surrendered were promising to not restart the war or support those who might. THAT'S ALL. THAT IS IT'S ONLY PURPOSE, AND NO MORE.

Second, the amnesty document is the promise by the signatory that he would honor the Constitution of the Union and with the specification that he would uphold the laws regarding slavery that changed during the war. NOTHING MORE.

Neither document discusses the concept of treason or even imply such. PERIOD. I don't see how you could even interpret either as documents of treason.

For fun though, let's take your wildly inaccurate interpretation that these documents as if they were conveying the guilt of treason to those who signed. That means the Union was conveying about 1,000,000 Confederates with the guilt of treason. They would never have signed such a document. War would have continued had they even thought that's what the document meant. But your retort would be, Well, they are guilty of treason, regardless. No, they are not. Treason is a legal charge that requires due process of law, not a mere acknowledgment, which apparently doesn't matter to you, but would have been required to exact the charge you make.

To end this discussion, I'm quoting my comments to you earlier in this thread about REL that you declined to rebut:

"If you had bothered to understand article 3 of the Constitution you would know that it applies to citizens of the USA. REL was not a citizen of the USA.

The order of events were these:

1) Virginia seceded to become part of the Confederacy;

2) REL resigned his commission as an officer of the USA;

3) REL then rendered his allegiance to Virginia. His allegiance to the Confederacy negated his citizenship to the USA;

4) REL, after rendering his allegiance to the Confederacy, accepted a commission as a Confederate officer.

You are attempting to carry forward Lincoln's failing argument, that the Confederacy never left the Union, which was ridiculous. The Constitution permitted the states the right of secession and those Confederate States exercised their constitutional right to do so. The Confederacy was a distinct and separate nation. Lincoln's line of thought was paramount to arguing that the Confederacy never existed. The Confederate States of America existed, and REL chose to serve it rather than the Union.

The ONLY way you can ever consider REL a traitor is to use Lincoln's assumption, that the Confederate States of America never existed."

To remind you, the Confederacy existed, and had the legal right to such. The power of winning a war though allows those to use their imagination to distort the truth as they wish, and you are carrying forth that distortion to the present day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, can't believe this one is still going on. And to think; the "Lee was a traitor group" still haven't read the pre-Civil War constitution. But guys, you do have to concede the point that the South did fight on Northern soil....and, the battle at Gettysburg was part of a deliberate invasion of the North to threaten DC attacking from the North. Maryland and Northern Va were basically no-mans-land with battles moving back and forth across both. Those damn Yankees were the aggressor in this regard though and carried the fight to the South for the entire war (one of the few things they got right until late 1863).

Could you kindly link the pre Civil War constitution? This one is my reference:

http://www.civilwar.....html#ARTICLE I

Also, withholding any value judgements on the right or wrong of taking the battle to the North, I personally think that Lee's decision to do so was a great decision militarily.

Lee's decision to send In Picketts charge on the 3rd day of Gettysburg is certainly debatable whether or not it was a great military decision. Lee was determined to strike while Longstreet tried to dissuade him. The Confederacy's fall at that point was simply a matter of time. Pickett's brigade was crushed.

I meant the campaign overall. They needed victories in a hurry. The resource advantage of the North as a result of the blockade would eventually starve the South. Victories in Northern Territory would serve to hopefully persuade foreign powers to formally recognize the Confederacy and render aid and serve to heighten discontent in the North toward the war.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"If you had bothered to understand article 3 of the Constitution you would know that it applies to citizens of the USA. REL was not a citizen of the USA.

The order of events were these:

1) Virginia seceded to become part of the Confederacy;

2) REL resigned his commission as an officer of the USA;

3) REL then rendered his allegiance to Virginia. His allegiance to the Confederacy negated his citizenship to the USA;

4) REL, after rendering his allegiance to the Confederacy, accepted a commission as a Confederate officer.

You are attempting to carry forward Lincoln's failing argument, that the Confederacy never left the Union, which was ridiculous. The Constitution permitted the states the right of secession and those Confederate States exercised their constitutional right to do so. The Confederacy was a distinct and separate nation. Lincoln's line of thought was paramount to arguing that the Confederacy never existed. The Confederate States of America existed, and REL chose to serve it rather than the Union.

The ONLY way you can ever consider REL a traitor is to use Lincoln's assumption, that the Confederate States of America never existed.

To remind you, the Confederacy existed, and had the legal right to such. The power of winning a war though allows those to use their imagination to distort the truth as they wish, and you are carrying forth that distortion to the present day.

When I said slowly, I didn't mean a screed. One point at a time, if you will.

But I'll dispute your third assertion here before I begin with the rest. The Confederate States of America were a non-entity under the law of nations. No foreign nation, and certainly not the United States, ever recognized them. The CSA were never a country that Lee could have been a citizen of. The US always had jurisdiction over the states in rebellion, and Lee was always a United States citizen. True enough, they were granted belligerent status, but they were never a sovereign nation except in their leaders' own mind, the minds of unreconstructed southerners and modern day apologists. I'll get to the rest shortly. Lot to sort through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Deep, deep delusion.

Maybe so, but I'll have a go at it. Good learning experience. :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...