?????????

[TexasTiger 12,828]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

Its not spin. it is a territorial issue. It makes no difference when the Fort was created or by who. The fact that it was in the state of South Carolina and the firing was after they had seceded from the Union. I dont see how the South is the aggressor when it is no longer affiliated politically with the Union.

No. The fort was still federal property. This is a silly argument.

Not in the absence of the consent of the governed.

So if the South seceded today would it be entitled to every military installation paid for with US dollars?

Could the states with nuclear missiles secede and become nuclear powers overnight?

[homersapien 11,357]

I love that people still call it "The War of Northern Aggression". Seriously, it cracks me up to no end.

But, but the north attacked a bunch of Confederate artillery shells with a fort!

[AUDub 11,137]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

Its not spin. it is a territorial issue. It makes no difference when the Fort was created or by who. The fact that it was in the state of South Carolina and the firing was after they had seceded from the Union. I dont see how the South is the aggressor when it is no longer affiliated politically with the Union.

No. The fort was still federal property. This is a silly argument.

Not in the absence of the consent of the governed.

It's always shocking to me how people who claim to live according to the constitution don't mind this particular violation (Article One, Section ten, first paragraph). Not talking about you specifically, Blue.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

Its not spin. it is a territorial issue. It makes no difference when the Fort was created or by who. The fact that it was in the state of South Carolina and the firing was after they had seceded from the Union. I dont see how the South is the aggressor when it is no longer affiliated politically with the Union.

No. The fort was still federal property. This is a silly argument.

Not in the absence of the consent of the governed.

So if the South seceded today would it be entitled to every military installation paid for with US dollars?

Could the states with nuclear missiles secede and become nuclear powers overnight?

Yes and Yes. Before you pop a stitch, Texas, Im just kidding. Obviously, its an entirely different day and time and the complexities that the modern age introduce are make things much more convoluted. You simply cannot compare the eras. The one over riding reality is that a government derives its power from the consent of the governed. Its just the way it is. I do not foresee secession becoming a present day reality because so many federal tax dollars have been invested in states but in reality the federal government owns nothing because it has real no assets of its own.

[homersapien 11,357]

I really like the "governments derive their power from the consent of the governed" arguments to support the Confederacy. It introduces the subject of general political support of the southern populace for secession.

Not sure you neo-Confederates really want to go there.

It's not like there were general referendums on the issue. The Confederacy was a creation of a relatively small number of privileged, landed slave owners who used patriotic themes to justify the war to the common people. In many, if not most states, a popular vote on secession would have failed (had it been allowed in the first place).

[homersapien 11,357]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

It's amazing how the emotional side of one's brain can so easily dominate the rational side, isn't it?

[TheBlueVue 177]

I really like the "governments derive it's power from the consent of the governed" arguments to support the Confederacy. It introduces the subject of general political support of the southern populace for secession.

Not sure you neo-Confederates really want to go there. It's not like there were general referendums on the issue. The Confederacy was a creation of a relatively small number of privileged, landed slave owners who either used patriotic themes to justify the war. In many, if not most states, a popular vote on secession would have failed (had it been allowed in the first place).

Neo-confederates huh? So, anyone looks at this era of history and doesn't immediately and unilaterally conclude the south had no right to do what they did is a neo-confederate...gotcha!

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Well the U.S. Fort was created before South Carolina seceded, but let's not let that get in the way. I mean, you can spin anything you want to I guess. Hell, Alabama thinks they have 15 legit national titles.

It's amazing how the emotional side of one's brain can so easily dominate the rational side, isn't it?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

I really like the "governments derive it's power from the consent of the governed" arguments to support the Confederacy. It introduces the subject of general political support of the southern populace for secession.

Not sure you neo-Confederates really want to go there. It's not like there were general referendums on the issue. The Confederacy was a creation of a relatively small number of privileged, landed slave owners who either used patriotic themes to justify the war. In many, if not most states, a popular vote on secession would have failed (had it been allowed in the first place).

Neo-confederates huh? So, anyone looks at this era of history and doesn't immediately and unilaterally conclude the south had no right to do what they did is a neo-confederate...gotcha!

That's a beautiful straw man retort.

[TheBlueVue 177]

I really like the "governments derive it's power from the consent of the governed" arguments to support the Confederacy. It introduces the subject of general political support of the southern populace for secession.

Not sure you neo-Confederates really want to go there. It's not like there were general referendums on the issue. The Confederacy was a creation of a relatively small number of privileged, landed slave owners who either used patriotic themes to justify the war. In many, if not most states, a popular vote on secession would have failed (had it been allowed in the first place).

Neo-confederates huh? So, anyone looks at this era of history and doesn't immediately and unilaterally conclude the south had no right to do what they did is a neo-confederate...gotcha!

That's a beautiful straw man retort.

its an honest question. Is it your belief that the Confederacy had no right to do what they did? This isn't a question about if they were right in doing it, and BTW, it certainly is not an emotional issue 154 years later.

[telling tiger 156]

If it wasn't for straw man, he would have no man.

This is simultaneously one of the saddest and funniest threads in the political forum in quite some time.

Japan called, they have decided to call WW2, "The War of American Aggression".

PLEASE secede and take the rest of the cognitive dissonance sufferers with you.

Go. Go fast.

The last one to leave Alabama, please turn out the lights.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Yeah, an amazingly accurate parallel. A foreign country bombing an American harbor is the exact same thing as the events at Fort Sumter

[AUDub 11,137]

We could refrain from insulting one another. This discussion is heated enough.

[telling tiger 156]

"One can imagine REL agonizing over his decision". Oh poor fellow, how he must have suffered.

Agony can be accurately described as being hung by the neck until dead because you fought for your own personal freedom, or being horse whipped for attempting to do the same thing. That is real agony, instead of the romanticized fantasy of someone who, "imagined".

When one threatens the loss of ones' respect, one needs to comprehend that the respect spoken of, isn't of the same value to everyone. Zero sum loss.

[AUDub 11,137]

Or it could be an important history lesson for a few revisionists we seem to have among our ranks. Finally got the girls in bed (they were out for said holiday), and I've had about enough of this revisionist nonsense.

Prior to Lincoln's inauguration 7 states broke off and formed the confederacy in Montgomery, a clear violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the Constitution of the United States over a perceived threat to the institution of slavery. Call it what you want; states rights, protecting their way of life, whatever. Troops from South Carolina, Alabama, and Florida seized federal property, again in violation of the Constitution. It's shocking to me that there are people here that expect us to believe that the confederacy should have been allowed to seize federal property and expect to get away with it (Looking at you, Blue). Yet we are to believe that somehow the South was forced into a war, that the war was not about the institution of slavery, that the South were the innocent victims of Yankee aggression, and that General Lee is some sort of Hero for leading the armies of a rebellion against the country he took an oath to protect (Apologies in advance to you, Proud).

In the end, what happened is that the South started a war they couldn't win. Their collective mouth wrote checks their collective ass couldn't cash. William Tecumseh Sherman probably said it best:

You people of the South don't know what you are doing. This country will be drenched in blood, and God only knows how it will end. It is all folly, madness, a crime against civilization! You people speak so lightly of war; you don't know what you're talking about. War is a terrible thing! You mistake, too, the people of the North. They are a peaceable people but an earnest people, and they will fight, too. They are not going to let this country be destroyed without a mighty effort to save it... Besides, where are your men and appliances of war to contend against them? The North can make a steam engine, locomotive, or railway car; hardly a yard of cloth or pair of shoes can you make. You are rushing into war with one of the most powerful, ingeniously mechanical, and determined people on Earth—right at your doors. You are bound to fail. Only in your spirit and determination are you prepared for war. In all else you are totally unprepared, with a bad cause to start with. At first you will make headway, but as your limited resources begin to fail, shut out from the markets of Europe as you will be, your cause will begin to wane. If your people will but stop and think, they must see in the end that you will surely fail.

It would be laughable and pathetic were it not for the fact that it cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans, while hundreds of thousands more were maimed for life. This thread has become a few relatively sane individuals arguing with a pack of folks largely ignorant of the subject they are arguing.

I really like the "governments derive their power from the consent of the governed" arguments to support the Confederacy. It introduces the subject of general political support of the southern populace for secession.

One state even split over it. A cookie to the first one to guess it.

Have a nice night.

[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.

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...

You missed my point altogether, which was to point out how the South in the decades prior to the Civil War employed federal leverage through the courts and the executive branch to protect the institution of slavery.

Thus the irony of the "states rights" excuse for the civil war.

The slave states promoted federal laws to force States like Massachusetts to return slaves against their political will, thus establishing the superiority of federal laws over state laws.

The slave states simply asked the Federal authority to enforce the constitutional provisions related to slavery in the face of open defiance by the Northern states. The 4th amendment was quite clear on this. See, both the North and South had obligations under the constitution. The constitution was clear on "property rights" and the obligations of the states regarding extradition of runaway slaves. Just because you don't like the provisions doesn't negate them.

What I don't understand is why Lincoln jumped straight to War to "preserve" the Union. Given that war should be the last resort, I can't understand why they didn't try further negotiation, economic sanctions, foreign policy efforts, etc. These would have been easier and less costly. Largely, some would have been equally unconstitutional; but much less destructive and dramatic as massing an army and trying to preserve the Union at gunpoint; that was just piss poor leadership.

Now, back to Robert E Lee...honorable man and a hell of a general.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

You don't have to apologize to me BigBens. Even though we disagree on a lot of things, you have been civil in this discussion which I honestly didn't intend to start, let alone go 15 pages, 132 replies, and 1582 views as I type this. And nothing has changed my mind one iota. REL wlll

will always be one of my heroes. An oil painting of him riding down a foggy creek at Manassas is the centerpiece of our house and my California born and raised wife picked it out at an art gallery south of DC. I have spent hours studying the Civil War and walked most of the major battlefields. I have discussed the war with many expert historians, both from the North and South, and I am content with my knowledge and understanding of it.

FWIW, I've been more civil with you than you with me in this discussion, Proud. I just stated a fact you took issue with.

[AUFAN78 3,892]

Interesting quotes from the Washington Post..............

Lee never violated his oath. His oath was to the Constitution. His oath was to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. He saw the overreach of the federal government as unconstitutional and thus the federal government was the enemy.

Lee was no less a traitor than were our founding fathers, all of which were British subjects and many of which were officers in the British military, and thus subject to their oath to that institution. The British Crown certainly considered our founding fathers to be traitors, but we consider them to patriots because of the liberties they fought for. The southern states fought not so much for the institution of slavery, but for the rights of states enshrined in our Constitution, a document which in the last 150 years has been so heavily trampled that most contemporaries have no clue what it really is. It's unfortunate that one of those states rights they fought for was the right to decide the issue of slavery as opposed to having the federal government force an unconstitutional decision upon them.

As for the Civil War being about ending slavery, if that were so, why didn't Lincoln issue his "Emancipation Proclamation" executive order in 1861? Why did he wait until 1863, a full 2 years after SC was the first state to secede and 20 months after shots were fired at Ft. Sumter? The reason was that by 1863 the Union was getting its butt kicked by a smaller, weaker, but far superior force. They needed a game changer, so the President delared that the slaves in the states still in rebellion were "free". If the war was truely about ending slavery, why didn't Lincoln free all the slaves where ever they were with his proclamation, including those in states that never seceded from the Union but still practiced slavery.

[homersapien 11,357]

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.

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...

You missed my point altogether, which was to point out how the South in the decades prior to the Civil War employed federal leverage through the courts and the executive branch to protect the institution of slavery.

Thus the irony of the "states rights" excuse for the civil war.

The slave states promoted federal laws to force States like Massachusetts to return slaves against their political will, thus establishing the superiority of federal laws over state laws.

The slave states simply asked the Federal authority to enforce the constitutional provisions related to slavery in the face of open defiance by the Northern states. The 4th amendment was quite clear on this. See, both the North and South had obligations under the constitution. The constitution was clear on "property rights" and the obligations of the states regarding extradition of runaway slaves. Just because you don't like the provisions doesn't negate them.

I have already made my point about laws not affecting the basic morality of an issue.

Otherwise, what you write is a perfect example of how the South used federal powers/means/levers to support slavery as long as they could. Thus the excuse of "states rights" to justify secession is absurdly hypocritical.

[homersapien 11,357]

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.

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...

You missed my point altogether, which was to point out how the South in the decades prior to the Civil War employed federal leverage through the courts and the executive branch to protect the institution of slavery.

Thus the irony of the "states rights" excuse for the civil war.

The slave states promoted federal laws to force States like Massachusetts to return slaves against their political will, thus establishing the superiority of federal laws over state laws.

.....What I don't understand is why Lincoln jumped straight to War to "preserve" the Union. Given that war should be the last resort, I can't understand why they didn't try further negotiation, economic sanctions, foreign policy efforts, etc. These would have been easier and less costly. Largely, some would have been equally unconstitutional; but much less destructive and dramatic as massing an army and trying to preserve the Union at gunpoint; that was just piss poor leadership....

Lincoln didn't want war but he gave priority to preserving the Union. He was even willing to accommodate slavery at first to avoid disunion. Negotiation was not an option. The Confederacy was a fait accompli. They weren't going to disband and rejoin the Union. They didn't feel they had any reason to.

[homersapien 11,357]

Interesting quotes from the Washington Post..............

Lee never violated his oath. His oath was to the Constitution. His oath was to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. He saw the overreach of the federal government as unconstitutional and thus the federal government was the enemy.

Lee was no less a traitor than were our founding fathers, all of which were British subjects and many of which were officers in the British military, and thus subject to their oath to that institution. The British Crown certainly considered our founding fathers to be traitors, but we consider them to patriots because of the liberties they fought for. The southern states fought not so much for the institution of slavery, but for the rights of states enshrined in our Constitution, a document which in the last 150 years has been so heavily trampled that most contemporaries have no clue what it really is. It's unfortunate that one of those states rights they fought for was the right to decide the issue of slavery as opposed to having the federal government force an unconstitutional decision upon them.

As for the Civil War being about ending slavery, if that were so, why didn't Lincoln issue his "Emancipation Proclamation" executive order in 1861? Why did he wait until 1863, a full 2 years after SC was the first state to secede and 20 months after shots were fired at Ft. Sumter? The reason was that by 1863 the Union was getting its butt kicked by a smaller, weaker, but far superior force. They needed a game changer, so the President delared that the slaves in the states still in rebellion were "free". If the war was truely about ending slavery, why didn't Lincoln free all the slaves where ever they were with his proclamation, including those in states that never seceded from the Union but still practiced slavery.

After you respond to my post #56, I will explain the faulty logic contained in your last paragraph. Otherwise, why bother?

[AUFAN78 3,892]

Interesting quotes from the Washington Post..............

Lee never violated his oath. His oath was to the Constitution. His oath was to defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic. He saw the overreach of the federal government as unconstitutional and thus the federal government was the enemy.

Lee was no less a traitor than were our founding fathers, all of which were British subjects and many of which were officers in the British military, and thus subject to their oath to that institution. The British Crown certainly considered our founding fathers to be traitors, but we consider them to patriots because of the liberties they fought for. The southern states fought not so much for the institution of slavery, but for the rights of states enshrined in our Constitution, a document which in the last 150 years has been so heavily trampled that most contemporaries have no clue what it really is. It's unfortunate that one of those states rights they fought for was the right to decide the issue of slavery as opposed to having the federal government force an unconstitutional decision upon them.

As for the Civil War being about ending slavery, if that were so, why didn't Lincoln issue his "Emancipation Proclamation" executive order in 1861? Why did he wait until 1863, a full 2 years after SC was the first state to secede and 20 months after shots were fired at Ft. Sumter? The reason was that by 1863 the Union was getting its butt kicked by a smaller, weaker, but far superior force. They needed a game changer, so the President delared that the slaves in the states still in rebellion were "free". If the war was truely about ending slavery, why didn't Lincoln free all the slaves where ever they were with his proclamation, including those in states that never seceded from the Union but still practiced slavery.

After you respond to my post #56, I will explain the faulty logic contained in your last paragraph. Otherwise, why bother?

I am not looking for an explanation, so don't bother on my account.

[TheBlueVue 177]

This has been an interesting thread. One in which it was implied that I am a revisionist who wished the south had won the Civil War, that I would like to see the south secede from the Union even now and that I am a straw man. LOL - everyone has the right their opinion. My point of view is based on an attempted understanding of the political and ideological thinking of the time. The country was founded as a constitutional republic. The existence of the states preceded the existence of the constitution and obviously preceded the existence of a national government. This is not an insignificant fact. The states gave their consent to the Articles of Confederation and then switched their consent to the Constitution. The thinking of the time was a national government was simply an agent of the states. So the dilemma was that any believer in republicanism cannot argue against the states' right to withdraw their consent to be governed.

This thought had to be counter-balanced against the winner of elections right to rule the losers unless the winners violated the citizens natural rights. It is true the south essentially started a war they could not win but it was started because they felt the existence of their way of life and their natural rights to have and to hold private property was threatened by a national government that was under stiff pressure from abolitionists to pass an amendment abolishing slavery. That, however, would never muster the 3/4's the vote required to pass such an amendment. In the 4 years immediately preceding the Civil War the cotton crop alone had been valued at an average of $207,000,000. Those in the south felt that this accumulation of wealth as their private property was their natural right. It was an agrarian economy but it was built on the backs of slave labor and that was their and the country's dilemma.

In 1860 the US was made of 17 free labor states and 15 slave states. The Northern Democrat appeasers of the slavocracy had been willing to protect slavery in order to preserve the Union and save the Party. It was the majority in the party's acquiescence to the minority within the party that prevented debate in Congress and forced white men to return runaway slaves to slavery without any protection. Political hypocrisy, not necessarily a modern phenomenon, was alive and well in America in the 1850s. However, a revolutionary sentiment was growing in the south. That was primarily due to continued abolitionist pressures to free the slaves and abolish slavery. Consequently, the idea of disunion grew in favor as the only viable long term option. The Kansas-Nebraska act turned out to be the tipping point where northern democrats made clear their refusal of any further slave power requests for protection under the law. Clearly, the end was inevitable.

I have never believed what the Confederacy did was right or moral but I can see why they did it. Ideologically, given the times, I can also empathize with their desire to protect and preserve what they believed was their natural rights. In hindsight, it is easy to pass judgement and call out those who are interested in this southern era as idiots and bigots but, clearly, slavery was never going to survive in the most sophisticated republic the world had ever known. Its time had come and gone but a way of life dies hard and the Civil War certainly made that adage a reality. The Union crushed the south and in the process committed widespread war crimes against innocent civilian population as Sherman ruthlessly took the battle to the people and basically burned everything in his path. Its easy to brush the whole thing off and immediately conclude everything the south did was wrong and evil but its much more interesting, to me, trying to understand the historical context of the issues that drove the conflict.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

The Northern Democrat appeasers of the slavocracy had been willing to protect slavery in order to preserve the Union and save the Party.

I have never believed what the Confederacy did was right or moral but I can see why they did it.

You've written extensively but I'm excerpting two parts to address.

Many/most of the founders of this nation, just as those Northern Democratic appeasers you cite, did not want slavery, but in order to establish the United States, it was an evil they tolerated, but with the hopes they could abolish it, just as REL did. If anyone condemns REL then, to be consistent, they must also condemn the founders of this nation for doing the same. I am of the conviction that many of the Southern leadership did not want slavery, yet not wanting war either were of the conviction that it would disappear over time. REL fought for his homeland.

The argument that the War Between the States was fought primarily for the institution of slavery was only for a small percentage of the South. The vast majority of Southerners did NOT own slaves. Approximately 75-80% (or more) were without slaves. Those who fought did so because they were 1) fighting to preserve their homeland; 2) some were genuinely fighting to preserve slavery (a type of big business for the day); 3) some for alternative reasons.

But let's be realistic, if you are willing to die in a battle, are you doing it to own a person or to protect your homeland ? Most saw it as protecting their homeland.....and Sherman et al definitely proved their suspicions when he blazed the South.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

TexasTiger.......you stated a "fact" as you see it by calling REL a traitor. I just take angry exception to that. I have never heard anyone except a radical call him a traitor. If he is a traitor then my great grandfather and other great relatives also were traitors and I take your "fact" as an insult. You should take note of AUFAN78's post above referencing the Washington Post and another view of your so-called facts.

Nothing you or anyone can say at this point in time can change MY opinion of REL as a gentleman, a great General, and one of my heroes so no need to waste any more of your breath. I'm proud and happy to be able to live in Dixie.

No Confederate was ever charged with treason. All were pardoned who submitted the required paperwork.

General Grant fought against the idea of charging REL as a traitor. Grant won that argument. REL was not a traitor per the Union's stipulations.