?????????

[homersapien 11,362]

The war of Northern Aggression can be debated from many angles. It was a complex era in the worlds most sophisticated republic. What cannot be debated is the fact that slavery was championed by democrats and it took a republican to emancipate them.

if slavery was the primary reason, the north would have lost. The border states would have fully aligned with the confederacy.

Like I said it was a complex era for the republic. I didn't say slavery was the only issue but, undeniably, it was at the bottom of all the debates about states rights and representation in Congress and fueled the fire of secession.which ultimately was the northern clarion call to arms in the interest of preserving the union.

EXACTLY. Slavery was undeniably one of many underlying issues, issues which were being addressed by those of differing opinions who sought to resolve them as they best determined, yet those of the federal gov't decided to kill 100's of thousands of Confederates (about 2-3% of the population) to get their point across that their method was the ONLY acceptable method of resolving states' issues. Kinda reminds me of the today's Democrats.

Are you referring to the OSA (Obama's Secret Army)? :-\

[homersapien 11,362]

Texas Tiger.....you wouldn't like my opinion of you right now. Anybody who calls Lee a traitor is 100% a-hole IMHO. And thanks for respecting my request to move on and keep politics out of this thread..........just couldn't do it could you. I chose to start this thread in this forum because none other seem to fit. I had no political motive for it at all. You choose to rationalize and show your own perverted, leftist self rather than respect.

I hope for your sake that sort of cognitive dissonance is not painful.

Look, I "get" REL. I have probably gotten it for many more years than you have.

On the other hand, one could argue that Lee was directly or indirectly responsible for more casualties to the American Army than any other individual in our countries history.

But the country has moved on (at least most of us have) and while I wouldn't personally call him a "traitor", there is a logical case for doing so.

[AUDub 11,147]

Im not arguing anything. I simply posted an opinion, the result of many years of observation. It seems to me you have a problem with that opinion. I am entitled to having an opinion, am I not?

What nonsense! Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you presented it as fact!

[TexasTiger 12,829]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Im not arguing anything. I simply posted an opinion, the result of many years of observation. It seems to me you have a problem with that opinion. I am entitled to having an opinion, am I not?

What nonsense! Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but you presented it as fact!

I cant help how you interpret my posts. it is an opinion based on many years of observation so in my experience IT IS A FACT. Im not trying to sell you but you continue to express a problem with my opinion in a way that almost makes my point for me. if you dont see it that way that's fine by me.

[TheBlueVue 177]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

His choice was a legal option outlined in the Constitution. He exercised that option as a faithful and loyal Virginian. In my opinion he was a man of great virtue and in no way a traitor.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

His choice was a legal option outlined in the Constitution. He exercised that option as a faithful and loyal Virginian. In my opinion he was a man of great virtue and in no way a traitor.

Do you wish he had been victorious?

[AUDub 11,147]

I cant help how you interpret my posts. it is an opinion based on many years of observation so in my experience IT IS A FACT.

Are facts are a matter of opinion or experience, Blue?

[TexasTiger 12,829]

Good night to a lot of dumb asses here who have wasted lot of time today pissing in the wind with worthless posts...

Don't be so hard on yourself, Proud.

[TheBlueVue 177]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

His choice was a legal option outlined in the Constitution. He exercised that option as a faithful and loyal Virginian. In my opinion he was a man of great virtue and in no way a traitor.

Do you wish he had been victorious?

Is that a trick question? I am a student of history. I dont know you Texas but I have a hard time imagining that you would go to battle against and kill family and friends if Obama asked you to but this is the standard against which you've formulated your opinion that Lee was a traitor. Nice try trying to bait me into a trap where you could gleefully call me a backward racist. LOL

[TheBlueVue 177]

I cant help how you interpret my posts. it is an opinion based on many years of observation so in my experience IT IS A FACT.

Are facts are a matter of opinion or experience, Blue?

When you point out where I stated that my opinion was an absolute, I'll conceded that you have a point worth wasting my time with. I stated plainly, when you cross examined me, in straight forward language that IN MY EXPERIENCE that is how they've come across. I dont know what to tell you pal other than it is a factual statement that I have had many experiences with those of the liberal progressive ilk that justified my post. Is there something about that that misses on you? It's funny to me when people start posing questions that they expect to be answered in absolutes. Experience is relative ole buddy and as a result of different experiences, apparently, our perspectives differ accordingly. I do notice that you seem either unwilling or unable to allow me my opinion which goes a long way to making my point.Carry on, sir. I have no problem with whatever you think and I guarantee you I wont chase your posts demanding any explanations either.

[homersapien 11,362]

Homer, you, with prejudice, segued from a thread about REL and surreptitiously implanted another as to defame a legitimate American hero. Shame on your ignorance. REL NEVER supported or justified slavery, PERIOD ! (and "PERIOD" is what it actual means in my use of the word, not as Obama's use)

You falsely accuse REL of supporting slavery.

Here we go. Nobody pays any attention anymore. What is it - video games? social media?

I did not "accuse" REL of "supporting slavery". I said the reason Virginia seceded was because of slavery.

In fact, I said that one can imply the reasons for Lee deciding to side with the Confederacy, based on his own writings. That apparently is what you are doing.

Do you now see the difference between what you deduced and what I wrote? If so, please acknowledge your error and we can continue the discussion.

But if you think I actually did accuse Lee of being a "supporter of slavery", please explain why.

Bump. Hey Elephant, did you read and understand this response or are you just ignoring me?

[TexasTiger 12,829]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

His choice was a legal option outlined in the Constitution. He exercised that option as a faithful and loyal Virginian. In my opinion he was a man of great virtue and in no way a traitor.

Do you wish he had been victorious?

Is that a trick question? :angry:/> I am a student of history. I dont know you Texas but I have a hard time imagining that you would go to battle against and kill family and friends if Obama asked you to but this is the standard against which you've formulated your opinion that Lee was a traitor. Nice try trying to bait me into a trap where you could gleefully call me a backward racist. LOL

So you can't simply say "no." You've answered my question.

I actually think that Lee faced a tremendous ethical dilemma and actually don't demonize him for his decision. I think his choice was understandable in the context of the time he lived in. Still, I was responding to the notion that he was an American hero. He took up arms against the USA. He resigned his commission in the US Army. I have no doubt that he was an impressive man in many respects and a brilliant general-- perhaps one of the best ever. I respect his lack of obvious bitterness after losing the war and his support for reconciliation. He still opposed extending the right to vote to freed slaves, however. And, by definition, committed treason. You may believe that was justified. Saying it was understandable is different than denying the reality that it occurred.

[japantiger 4,051]

Texas Tiger.....you wouldn't like my opinion of you right now. Anybody who calls Lee a traitor is 100% a-hole IMHO. And thanks for respecting my request to move on and keep politics out of this thread..........just couldn't do it could you. You choose to rationalize and show your own perverted, leftist self rather than respect.

I'm actually being pretty patient with you right now, Proud. You post in a POLITICAL FORUM and ask that we keep POLITICS out of it. Elephant Tripper immediately adds this absurd distinction between Democrats and Republicans as if it had any bearing on current politics.

Robert E. Lee may have had some admirable qualities as a man, but the undisputed truth is that he turned his back on his country and led an armed insurrection against it. That's treason. That's being a traitor. Love him anyway, if you wish, but it's indisputably true.

Tex, Robert E Lee's "nation" was the sovereign State of Virginia. He did not turn his back on his nation; to the contrary; he turned towards his nation. He did so in the face of aggression by a distant national government trying to enact "extra" constitutional constraints on his nation. For better or worse, slavery was the law of the land; it was explicit in the Constitution. It was not repealed thru the amendment process. The Southern states were within their Constitutional rights to retain the institution and resist the aggression of the Northern states. You can claim the institution was wrong; you can claim it was a travesty...but you also must acknowledge that it was in fact legal. Thus, in the face of this obvious imposition of illegal actions by the Northern states, how was Lee to react? If the Northern States could impose their will on the South in this manner extra-constitutionally, then there was certainly no other matter where they could not do the same with impunity. I don't pretend to judge "honorable" men of the past under these circumstances. Lee was honorable, he was the greatest General produced by this nation during it's first 130 years. He has inspired more US military leaders in the 150 years hence than those he fought against.

I see the same actions being attempted by this Federal government today; for things that are not repugnant to morality or modern sensibilities like slavery is. My right to a gun, the rights of the unborn, my rights to property, my rights to privacy of my person and papers, my rights to equal protection., my right to see the damn doctor I choose, not the one some distant bureaucrat chooses, etc. .At this point, I really don't see how to maintain one nation when the opinions of the people and leaders are so different. I read what type of citizens the Governor of New York characterized as undesirable for his state; and I don't see how to reconcile a statement like that with just about any belief I have. Frankly, the citizens of New York state that live outside of New York City don't either. We have become two nations once again. I see no moral conflict in which side I choose; and certainly see my opposition to a distant and rapacious government as anything but treason. And should it come to something more extreme, there would be no ambiguity as to the path to choose.

[homersapien 11,362]

Tex, Robert E Lee's "nation" was the sovereign State of Virginia. He did not turn his back on his nation; to the contrary; he turned towards his nation. He did so in the face of aggression by a distant national government trying to enact "extra" constitutional constraints on his nation. For better or worse, slavery was the law of the land; it was explicit in the Constitution. It was not repealed thru the amendment process. The Southern states were within their Constitutional rights to retain the institution and resist the aggression of the Northern states. You can claim the institution was wrong; you can claim it was a travesty...but you also must acknowledge that it was in fact legal. Thus, in the face of this obvious imposition of illegal actions by the Northern states, how was Lee to react?

"For better or worse"???? Everything the Nazis did was legal too. Citing legality is clearly an immoral justification.

And talking about Northern constitutional "distortion" is the epitome of irony.

For years, the southern states used the Constitution and Federalism against the Northern states to support slavery. They were able to do this because of their domination of the judicial and legislative branches. (See Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott, etc.)

Hell, the Confederate states opposed states rights until they started losing their political control of the Federal government. They flipped flopped when it suited their purpose.

[TheBlueVue 177]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

His choice was a legal option outlined in the Constitution. He exercised that option as a faithful and loyal Virginian. In my opinion he was a man of great virtue and in no way a traitor.

Do you wish he had been victorious?

Is that a trick question? :angry:/> I am a student of history. I dont know you Texas but I have a hard time imagining that you would go to battle against and kill family and friends if Obama asked you to but this is the standard against which you've formulated your opinion that Lee was a traitor. Nice try trying to bait me into a trap where you could gleefully call me a backward racist. LOL

So you can't simply say "no." You've answered my question.

I actually think that Lee faced a tremendous ethical dilemma and actually don't demonize him for his decision. I think his choice was understandable in the context of the time he lived in. Still, I was responding to the notion that he was an American hero. He took up arms against the USA. He resigned his commission in the US Army. I have no doubt that he was an impressive man in many respects and a brilliant general-- perhaps one of the best ever. I respect his lack of obvious bitterness after losing the war and his support for reconciliation. He still opposed extending the right to vote to freed slaves, however. And, by definition, committed treason. You may believe that was justified. Saying it was understandable is different than denying the reality that it occurred.

I simply interpret his actions through a different lens with different parameters for calling him a traitor. Debating a different outcome of that war is a waste of everyone's time. It had to happen and it did. We can agree to disagree about REL, I hope. Many hardliners are simply unwilling to allow a different take w/o harboring a trace of bitterness about it. The "reality" you quote exists in a vacuum and devoid of any human conditions that dictated his choice. I have great respect for the place in history that REL holds and am not deterred nor distracted by the fact that you wish to paint him as a traitor. So, I guess, if Obama asked you to go to war against and kill family and friends you'd jump at that chance in the interest of remaining loyal to your government?

[japantiger 4,051]

Tex, Robert E Lee's "nation" was the sovereign State of Virginia. He did not turn his back on his nation; to the contrary; he turned towards his nation. He did so in the face of aggression by a distant national government trying to enact "extra" constitutional constraints on his nation. For better or worse, slavery was the law of the land; it was explicit in the Constitution. It was not repealed thru the amendment process. The Southern states were within their Constitutional rights to retain the institution and resist the aggression of the Northern states. You can claim the institution was wrong; you can claim it was a travesty...but you also must acknowledge that it was in fact legal. Thus, in the face of this obvious imposition of illegal actions by the Northern states, how was Lee to react?

"For better or worse"???? Everything the Nazis did was legal too. Citing legality is clearly an immoral justification.

And talking about Northern constitutional "distortion" is the epitome of irony.

For years, the southern states used the Constitution and Federalism against the several states in support of slavery. They were able to do this because of their domination of the judicial and legislative branches. (See Fugitive Slave Act, Dred Scott, etc.)

Hell, the Confederate states opposed states rights until they started losing their political control of the Federal government. They flipped flopped when it suited their purpose.

Wow Homey. Can you respond to anything without mis-characterizing it "like the Nazi's". You really need to read about analogies...

And your references to the Fugitive Slave act; don't make sense in relation to your claim. Article 4 specifically required non slave states to return slaves...this was in the constitution...the Fugitive slave act was to clarify this...and reinforce the extradition clause of Article 4 as well....so the Northern states signed up for this when they signed onto the constitution...so exactly how is the Southern states, enforcing a provision of the Constitution, contrary to states rights? The Northern states had an obligation to do this...

The same with Dredd Scott. It only reinforced what was in the Constitution. African American's were not citizens and thus could not sue in Federal Court.

The fact that the institution is repugnant; doesn't change the law...and certainly did not give the Northern States the right to attack the South. There were many forms of redress short of war. In your POV; Lincoln was a lot like Bush...he shot before he did the things a leader should do to find a way short of war.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I must say i find several posts in this thread quite revealing. When disagreeing that REL was a traitor, the question immediately asked was..."Do you wish he had been victorious"? Speaking of self serving questions, why was this even asked? I really dont see the relevance but can see how it would be asked in order to infer the inferiority of anyone's opinion who didn't agree that Lee was a traitor. Progressive liberals whine ad nauseum when you point out their paternalism and arrogance but then the 1st opportunity they get to demonstrate it they jump all over it.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

His choice was a legal option outlined in the Constitution. He exercised that option as a faithful and loyal Virginian. In my opinion he was a man of great virtue and in no way a traitor.

Do you wish he had been victorious?

Is that a trick question? :angry:/> I am a student of history. I dont know you Texas but I have a hard time imagining that you would go to battle against and kill family and friends if Obama asked you to but this is the standard against which you've formulated your opinion that Lee was a traitor. Nice try trying to bait me into a trap where you could gleefully call me a backward racist. LOL

So you can't simply say "no." You've answered my question.

I actually think that Lee faced a tremendous ethical dilemma and actually don't demonize him for his decision. I think his choice was understandable in the context of the time he lived in. Still, I was responding to the notion that he was an American hero. He took up arms against the USA. He resigned his commission in the US Army. I have no doubt that he was an impressive man in many respects and a brilliant general-- perhaps one of the best ever. I respect his lack of obvious bitterness after losing the war and his support for reconciliation. He still opposed extending the right to vote to freed slaves, however. And, by definition, committed treason. You may believe that was justified. Saying it was understandable is different than denying the reality that it occurred.

I simply interpret his actions through a different lens with different parameters for calling him a traitor. Debating a different outcome of that war is a waste of everyone's time. It had to happen and it did. We can agree to disagree about REL, I hope. Many hardliners are simply unwilling to allow a different take w/o harboring a trace of bitterness about it. The "reality" you quote exists in a vacuum and devoid of any human conditions that dictated his choice. I have great respect for the place in history that REL holds and am not deterred nor distracted by the fact that you wish to paint him as a traitor. So, I guess, if Obama asked you to go to war against and kill family and friends you'd jump at that chance in the interest of remaining loyal to your government?

You missed my point. When a citizen takes up arms against the United States of America he can only be an American hero when such action is absolutely necessary and his cause is obviously and ultimately right and seen as such by most Americans. If you believe his cause was right and his actions necessary, then you must have wanted him to be victorious.

On the other hand, if you believe his cause was ultimately wrong, but understand why he did what he did, that doesn't make him a hero.

He did take up arms against his fellow soldiers and former superior officers. He could have refused to take up arms at all, understanding that either way he was fighting friends. That would have been a tremendous statement requiring great courage, and arguably heroic.

[TheBlueVue 177]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

Actually, England signed 13 different peace accords with 13 sovereign nations. The union was only formed purely for business purposes and nothing else. REL allegiance to the Commonwealth of Virginia does not make him a traitor unless you completely dismiss all of the historical events leading up to the secession and the legal formation of separate free Government with its leaders elected by its people.

[TheBlueVue 177]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

His choice was a legal option outlined in the Constitution. He exercised that option as a faithful and loyal Virginian. In my opinion he was a man of great virtue and in no way a traitor.

Do you wish he had been victorious?

Is that a trick question? :angry:/> I am a student of history. I dont know you Texas but I have a hard time imagining that you would go to battle against and kill family and friends if Obama asked you to but this is the standard against which you've formulated your opinion that Lee was a traitor. Nice try trying to bait me into a trap where you could gleefully call me a backward racist. LOL

So you can't simply say "no." You've answered my question.

I actually think that Lee faced a tremendous ethical dilemma and actually don't demonize him for his decision. I think his choice was understandable in the context of the time he lived in. Still, I was responding to the notion that he was an American hero. He took up arms against the USA. He resigned his commission in the US Army. I have no doubt that he was an impressive man in many respects and a brilliant general-- perhaps one of the best ever. I respect his lack of obvious bitterness after losing the war and his support for reconciliation. He still opposed extending the right to vote to freed slaves, however. And, by definition, committed treason. You may believe that was justified. Saying it was understandable is different than denying the reality that it occurred.

I simply interpret his actions through a different lens with different parameters for calling him a traitor. Debating a different outcome of that war is a waste of everyone's time. It had to happen and it did. We can agree to disagree about REL, I hope. Many hardliners are simply unwilling to allow a different take w/o harboring a trace of bitterness about it. The "reality" you quote exists in a vacuum and devoid of any human conditions that dictated his choice. I have great respect for the place in history that REL holds and am not deterred nor distracted by the fact that you wish to paint him as a traitor. So, I guess, if Obama asked you to go to war against and kill family and friends you'd jump at that chance in the interest of remaining loyal to your government?

You missed my point. When a citizen takes up arms against the United States of America he can only be an American hero when such action is absolutely necessary and his cause is obviously and ultimately right and seen as such by most Americans. If you believe his cause was right and his actions necessary, then you must have wanted him to be victorious.

On the other hand, if you believe his cause was ultimately wrong, but understand why he did what he did, that doesn't make him a hero.

He did take up arms against his fellow soldiers and former superior officers. He could have refused to take up arms at all, understanding that either way he was fighting friends. That would have been a tremendous statement requiring great courage, and arguably heroic.

Like I said...I suppose we can agree to disagree but it seems more and more you're unwilling to let it go. I simply do no agree

[TexasTiger 12,829]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

No names, just facts: An officer resigns his commission in the United States Army and leads an armed insurrection against the United States of America. American hero or traitor?

Insurrection? Evidently, your awareness of history is a bit muddled. Lee was a native Virginian and refused to fight against his home state, family and friends. At the time he matriculated at West Point, secession was taught as a right of the states as a counter-balance against a national government becoming too powerful. Thomas Jefferson believed in states' right to secession and even Abraham Lincoln, himself, argued for states rights to secede on the floor of Congress in 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable and most sacred right - a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so many of the territory as they inhabit."

Lee was no traitor, just a loyal son of the Commonwealth of Virginia

He was loyal to Virginia, but not our country. You can choose to love your state more than your country, but that doesn't make you a hero of the country you rejected in favor of your state. Had the Confederacy won he'd be a national hero.

He was a brilliant military tactician, but choices have consequences. He left his country. Understanding the time in which he lived, that wasn't really shocking. But our heroes in the United States of America aren't those who fought and killed for our disunion.

His choice was a legal option outlined in the Constitution. He exercised that option as a faithful and loyal Virginian. In my opinion he was a man of great virtue and in no way a traitor.

Do you wish he had been victorious?

Is that a trick question? :angry:/> I am a student of history. I dont know you Texas but I have a hard time imagining that you would go to battle against and kill family and friends if Obama asked you to but this is the standard against which you've formulated your opinion that Lee was a traitor. Nice try trying to bait me into a trap where you could gleefully call me a backward racist. LOL

So you can't simply say "no." You've answered my question.

I actually think that Lee faced a tremendous ethical dilemma and actually don't demonize him for his decision. I think his choice was understandable in the context of the time he lived in. Still, I was responding to the notion that he was an American hero. He took up arms against the USA. He resigned his commission in the US Army. I have no doubt that he was an impressive man in many respects and a brilliant general-- perhaps one of the best ever. I respect his lack of obvious bitterness after losing the war and his support for reconciliation. He still opposed extending the right to vote to freed slaves, however. And, by definition, committed treason. You may believe that was justified. Saying it was understandable is different than denying the reality that it occurred.

I simply interpret his actions through a different lens with different parameters for calling him a traitor. Debating a different outcome of that war is a waste of everyone's time. It had to happen and it did. We can agree to disagree about REL, I hope. Many hardliners are simply unwilling to allow a different take w/o harboring a trace of bitterness about it. The "reality" you quote exists in a vacuum and devoid of any human conditions that dictated his choice. I have great respect for the place in history that REL holds and am not deterred nor distracted by the fact that you wish to paint him as a traitor. So, I guess, if Obama asked you to go to war against and kill family and friends you'd jump at that chance in the interest of remaining loyal to your government?

You missed my point. When a citizen takes up arms against the United States of America he can only be an American hero when such action is absolutely necessary and his cause is obviously and ultimately right and seen as such by most Americans. If you believe his cause was right and his actions necessary, then you must have wanted him to be victorious.

On the other hand, if you believe his cause was ultimately wrong, but understand why he did what he did, that doesn't make him a hero.

He did take up arms against his fellow soldiers and former superior officers. He could have refused to take up arms at all, understanding that either way he was fighting friends. That would have been a tremendous statement requiring great courage, and arguably heroic.

Like I said...I suppose we can agree to disagree but it seems more and more you're unwilling to let it go. I simply do no agree

Sure we can agree to disagree. But it's a discussion forum and folks can state their views. I guess I could also say you are unwilling to let go because you keep stating views contrary to mine.

[TexasTiger 12,829]

I must say i find several posts in this thread quite revealing. When disagreeing that REL was a traitor, the question immediately asked was..."Do you wish he had been victorious"? Speaking of self serving questions, why was this even asked? I really dont see the relevance but can see how it would be asked in order to infer the inferiority of anyone's opinion who didn't agree that Lee was a traitor. Progressive liberals whine ad nauseum when you point out their paternalism and arrogance but then the 1st opportunity they get to demonstrate it they jump all over it.

Your back to your standard, but generically vague, ad hominem attack that had nothing to do with the discussion. Just can't let it go...

[TheBlueVue 177]

japantiger.......you make a good point. Lee didn't leave the USA. Once the Confederate States were established, there was no more USA as it formerly existed. The remaining states were referred to as the Union. So Lee had to make a choice which "side" he would support. He didn't commit treason against the USA because there as no USA. A technicality perhaps but fact none the less.

You're grasping at straws.

He was a commissioned officer in the United States Army. If what you say is correct, he would not have found it necessary to resign his commission. The USA did not recognize the Confederacy. They were seen as rebellious states.

The Confederate States had a right to break away and form their own government. They did that and elected even their leaders - that right still exists today. Lincoln refused to acknowledge that right and sent 2million soldiers to invade the territory and approved of committing war crimes against innocent civilians. Your take completely dismisses the rights of the Confederacy. Lincoln did not have to wage his war of northern aggression but he chose to do that.