?????????

[AUDub 11,131]

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.

Here's two links detailing two of the proclamations issued by Andrew Johnson. The first proclamation detailed the classes, of which General Lee was a part, that must appeal to the president directly for pardon and amnesty. The first issued in 1865 and the other in 1868:

http://history.ncsu.edu/projects/cwnc/items/show/13

The following classes of persons are excepted from the benefits of this proclamation: 1st, all who are or shall have been pretended civil or diplomatic officers or otherwise domestic or foreign agents of the pretended Confederate government; 2nd, all who left judicial stations under the United States to aid the rebellion; 3d, all who shall have been military or naval officers of said pretended Confederate government above the rank of colonel in the army or lieutenant in the navy; 4th, all who left seats in the Congress of the United States to aid the rebellion; 5th, all who resigned or tendered resignations of their commissions in the army or navy of the United States to evade duty in resisting the rebellion; 6th, all who have engaged in any way in treating otherwise than lawfully as prisoners of war persons found in the United States service, as officers, soldiers, seamen, or in other capacities; 7th, all persons who have been, or are absentees from the United States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; 8th, all military and naval officers in the rebel service, who were educated by the government in the Military Academy at West Point or the United States Naval Academy; 9th, all persons who held the pretended offices of governors of States in insurrection against the United States; 10th, all persons who left their homes within the jurisdiction and protection of the United States, and passed beyond the Federal military lines into the pretended Confederate States for the purpose of aiding the rebellion; 11th, all persons who have been engaged in the destruction of the commerce of the United States upon the high seas, and all persons who have made raids into the United States from Canada, or been engaged in destroying the commerce of the United States upon the lakes and rivers that separate the British Provinces from the United States; 12th, all persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain the benefits hereof by taking the oath herein prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement, or custody, or under bonds of the civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offenses of any kind, either before or after conviction; 13th, all persons who have voluntarily participated in said rebellion, and the estimated value of whose taxable property is over twenty thousand dollars; 14th, all persons who have taken the oath of amnesty as prescribed in the President’s proclamation of December 8th, A.D. 1863, or an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States since the date of said proclamation, and who have not thenceforward kept and maintained the same inviolate.

Provided, That special application may be made to the President for pardon by any person belonging to the excepted classes; and such clemency will be liberally extended as may be consistent with the facts of the case and the peace and dignity of the United States.

In the 1865 proclamation he didn't say "treason." He said the war was a "rebellion." That's sufficient to identify its leaders as traitors. He didn't mince words in the '68 proclamation, though:

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=72360#

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Andrew Johnson President of the United States, by virtue of the power and authority in me vested by the Constitution and in the name of the sovereign people of the United States, do hereby proclaim and declare unconditionally and without reservation, to all and to every person who, directly or indirectly, participated in the late insurrection or rebellion a full pardon and amnesty for the offense of treason against the United States or of adhering to their enemies during the late civil war, with restoration of all rights, privileges, and immunities under the Constitution and the laws which have been made in pursuance thereof.

So one can reasonably infer that the letter addressed to President Johnson in my prior post as well as the application for pardon and amnesty are in fact for the crime of treason. Here's the letter, just in case:

Being excluded from the provisions of amnesty & pardon contained in the proclamation of the 29th Ulto; I hereby apply for the benefits, & full restoration of all rights & privileges extended to those included in its terms. I graduated at the Mil. Academy at West Point in June 1829. Resigned from the U.S. Army April '61. Was a General in the Confederate Army, & included in the surrender of the Army of N. Va. 9 April '65.

[/Quote]

Still not done. Finish soon.

[homersapien 11,354]

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

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 ?

Not to be crude, but you don't understand s***.

[homersapien 11,354]

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?

Unbelievable.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

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?

Unbelievable. :no:/>

149 years later and the level of delusion is mind boggling.

[homersapien 11,354]

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.

LOL!

Well, he did get "turned around" at Gettysburg.

And really, "toward the end" of the war??!!! :-\ When did Gettysburg occur? How many battles and deaths followed Gettysburg? When did the war actually end?

I can't believe the ignorance on display here. Damn, I am enjoying this!

[homersapien 11,354]

Not to be random, but this is an interesting counter-take on Lee's big mistake at Gettysburg:

http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Triumph-Lees-Gettysburg-And-Failed/dp/B008SMW5QO

[homersapien 11,354]

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?

Unbelievable. :no:/>

149 years later and the level of delusion is mind boggling.

The thing that strikes me is that such delusion requires rejection of simple historical facts. It's kind of scary.

I suppose one could assume they aren't actually rejecting facts, they're just ignorant, but that's no less scary.

[AUDub 11,131]

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.

Absolutely. Everyone who bore arms against the USA was a traitor under the standards that existed at that time.

They would never have signed such a document. War would have continued had they even thought that's what the document meant.

How do you back this assertion that the war would have continued? Gut feeling? Not sure about this line of reasoning.

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.

As I said earlier, that they were never tried is an uninteresting bit of trivia to me. Whether or not their actions constituted treason really isn't up for debate.

[japantiger 4,051]

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.

The plan to attack DC from the North, undetected, was a brilliant plan. Once they were detected, the likelihood of success was dramatically reduced. Even with a win at Picket's charge, not sure that the Confederate force could have still carried out the original plan. Casualties during the 1st two days alone were staggering...if you assume that Armistead had been able to penetrate the line on Cemetery Ridge and then hold it...what would Lee have then? There were still nearly 100k Union troops in the area and more coming; and now that the alert was sounded...even more would be mobilized to the North of DC.

[TheBlueVue 177]

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?

Unbelievable. :no:/>

149 years later and the level of delusion is mind boggling.

You have shown a persistent willingness to make ignorant judgments when its patently obvious you don't know s*** from shinola what you're talking about. Chronologically there was still a little over a year and a half left in the Civil War after the Battle of Gettysburg was fought, but for all intents and purposes, it definitely was the end of the Confederacy's chances of winning the War. Moreover, to my point, about it being close to the end, there were no more epic battles between forces totaling 150K+ troops after that, only ongoing skirmishes by comparison - it was all over but the crying for the Confederacy.

You boys are hell bent believing this was tantamount to Lee invading the north when in reality a brigade of Confederates had wandered close to Gettysburg looking for shoes when they, by chance and chance alone, spotted a battalion of Federal troops from which they pulled back. Make of that what you will but it was definitely not a planned invasion. Obviously things escalated into a battle of epic proportion over the next few days with Gen Meade ending it by bringing in 100,000 Federal reinforcements. There were no more battles even remotely approaching this magnitude of forces fought in the Civil War.There is no delusion in that but, one would think after a while you'd just remain silent rather than trying to score points when you're as clueless as you always prove yourself to be. Here's your cure to whine about ad hominem attacks-that seems to have become your fallback retort in every thread.

[AUDub 11,131]

You have shown a persistent willingness to make ignorant judgments when its patently obvious you don't know s*** from shinola what you're talking about. Chronologically there were still a little over a year and a half left in the Civil War but Gettysburg was, for all intents and purposes, the end of the Confederacy's chances of winning. Moreover, to my point, about it being close to the end, there were no more epic battles between forces of 150K+ troops after that, only ongoing skirmishes by comparison - it was all over but the crying for the Confederacy.

Wow. You need to learn a little more about our history before you hop in these threads, Blue. I'll give you the benefit of a doubt that you don't know what you're talking about, but you calling people ignorant is the height of irony. I tend to agree that once the Confederate campaigns in the North ended the outcome was a forgone conclusion, but the war was far from over.

Gettysburg had roughly 165,000 combatants. Battle of the Wilderness had 160,000+ combatants. Spotsylvania had 152,000 combatants. Cold Harbor 167,000 combatants.

You boys are hell bent believing this was tantamount to Lee invading the north when in reality a brigade of Confederates had wandered close to Gettysburg looking for shoes when they spotted a battalion of Federal troops from which they pulled back. Obviously things escalated into a battle of epic proportion over the next few days with Gen Meade bringing in 100,000 Federal reinforcements. There were no more battles even remotely approaching this magnitude of forces fought in the Civil War.There is no delusion in that but, one would think after a while you'd just remain silent rather than trying to score a point when you're as clueless as you always prove yourself to be. Here's your cure to whine about ad hominem attacks-that seems to have become your fallback retort in every thread.

The Gettysburg campaign was an invasion. The way you talk, you'd think the brigade had accidentally wandered in to Pennsylvania looking for boots.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Touche'. That's the way I recall the battle unfolding.

[AUDub 11,131]

Touché.

Thank you.

That's the way I recall the battle unfolding.

How old are you?

[AFTiger 282]

Lee wanted to take the war the North. Invasion? The United States of America invaded the Confederated States of America. The war was fought in the South and there was no Marshall Plan, only retribution.

[homersapien 11,354]

Lee wanted to take the war the North. Invasion? The United States of America invaded the Confederated States of America. The war was fought in the South and there was no Marshall Plan, only retribution.

Yeah, too bad Lincoln was assassinated. huh?

Well, at least we aren't arguing how slavery was incidental, if a factor at all, in causing the war. That's progress I suppose. :-\

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Enough is enough. This thread was highjacked by a bunch of a-holes wanting to bash a historical person I admire. It got out of hand. So I edited my beginning post and the original title of the thread. Carry on with whatever BS you care to. I'm out of it. Better things to do than argue with people who don't know the difference between fact and opinion. I've deleted all my posts in the thread except the beginning and this one as I want no further part of homerism or the other BS.

[homersapien 11,354]

Enough is enough. This thread was highjacked by a bunch of a-holes wanting to bash REL and it and got out of hand. So I edited my beginning post and the original title of the thread. Carry on with whatever BS you care to. I'm out of it. Better things to do than argue with people who don't know the difference between fact and opinion. I've deleted all my posts in the thread except the beginning and this one as I want no further part of homerism or the other BS.

Oh, the irony!

[Weegle777 78]

Can we all agree that General John Croxton is an Auburn hero for burning turdtown to the ground? Middle ground boys, middle ground.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

A couple of hours ago I was reading this thread and thinking about how much I have learned from the posts and how great the discussion was going. Now that I have come back to it, I think the only one "delusional" here is me.

I appreciate those who are trying to make this a better forum. Some of you however, need to stop being overly sensitive, hypercritical, know-it-all jackasses. Come on. There are times when it is difficult to be civil but, some of you don't even try anymore. Again, I'm not trying to be the hall monitor. This could be a great forum if we could eliminate about 2/3 of the childishness. NONE of us are as smart as we might like to believe but, none of us are stupid either.

Can we all just try to be decent for one week? Please.

[AUDub 11,131]

Can we all agree that General John Croxton is an Auburn hero for burning turdtown to the ground? Middle ground boys, middle ground.

[homersapien 11,354]

Can we all agree that General John Croxton is an Auburn hero for burning turdtown to the ground? Middle ground boys, middle ground.

Yeah, but where's General Croxton when we need him?

[AUDub 11,131]

A couple of hours ago I was reading this thread and thinking about how much I have learned from the posts and how great the discussion was going. Now that I have come back to it, I think the only one "delusional" here is me.

I appreciate those who are trying to make this a better forum. Some of you however, need to stop being overly sensitive, hypercritical, know-it-all jackasses. Come on. There are times when it is difficult to be civil but, some of you don't even try anymore. Again, I'm not trying to be the hall monitor. This could be a great forum if we could eliminate about 2/3 of the childishness. NONE of us are as smart as we might like to believe but, none of us are stupid either.

Can we all just try to be decent for one week? Please.

SRS BSNS

ICHY's right. I apologize for anyone bothered by much of what I've posted. I'm often guilty of being a snarky jackass. Sometimes I post faster than I think. I'll dial it down. This has been a good exercise on my knowledge of history, though.

Still wish to apologize to you directly as well, Proud. I know having a hero criticized is not something anyone enjoys. General Lee is a very complex and interesting topic of discussion. I'd recommend the biography I picked up the other day. It's entitled Robert E. Lee: A Biography by Emory M. Thomas. It focuses more on Robert E. Lee the man than the general and avoids most of the hagiography pumped out by Lost Cause apologists.

[Weegle777 78]

Can we all agree that General John Croxton is an Auburn hero for burning turdtown to the ground? Middle ground boys, middle ground. ;D/>

Yeah, but where's General Croxton when we need him?

Yahoo sports is our John Croxton, without the stones to get the fire started.

[homersapien 11,354]

I'm not apologizing to anyone. I just got home from a "Drive By Truckers" concert and....

YOU DAMN RIGHT I AIN'T HAPPY!

[AUFAN78 3,890]

I'm not apologizing to anyone. I just got home from a "Drive By Truckers" concert and....

YOU DAMN RIGHT I AIN'T HAPPY!

Drive By Truckers? Wow! I must admit I am impressed Homey. I thought you were an Abba guy.