?????????

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Excerpts from an article by Dr. Clyde Wilson, a professor of history.........

This year is Robert E. Lee's bicentennial — the 200^th anniversary of his birth. Nothing better illustrates the swift and vicious descent of Political Correctness upon American history and symbols than the shadow that has, in just the last few years, been thrown over a man regarded (rightly) for well over a century as among the greatest of Americans.

Even before the War to Prevent Southern Independence had ended, his Northern enemies were claiming Lee as a prized exhibit of America's contribution to the world. (As they also were claiming his great lieutenant, "Stonewall" Jackson.) Such a claim could hardly be avoided since the entirety of the civilized world, watching the American bloodbath with interest, had already made that judgment. The British military commentator, Viscount Wolsely, expressed much international opinion when he wrote of Lee: "He is stamped upon my memory as being apart and superior to all others in every way."

Lee was the son of a renowned general in the Revolution, nephew of two signers of the Declaration of Independence, and husband of Martha Washington's granddaughter. His last five years were spent as a non-citizen with life and liberty at the mercy of the bounders and petty tyrants who had come exercise the power of the United States. This he endured with exemplary Christian fortitude and charity. Lee was an audacious military genius and inspired leader of men, called by Churchill the greatest captain of the English-speaking peoples, but his fame rests even more upon his character. No American leader has ever set a higher example in peace and war of what the Western world used to understand as a Christian gentleman. When the "traitor" died in 1870, the New York Herald editorialized: "Here in the North we . . .have claimed him as one of ourselves. . . have extolled his virtue as reflecting upon us — for Robert E. Lee was an American, and the great nation which gave him birth would be today unworthy of such a son if she regarded him lightly."

That judgment had become pervasive national opinion by 1907, when Charles Francis Adams Jr., the only Adams to have seen active service in the war, celebrated Lee in a speech in Boston and other cities called "Lee the American." Adams admitted that the Constitutional position of Lee's cause had been correct (but had to be defeated, he claimed, because it stood in the way of national progress and greatness). More recently President Truman picked a large equestrian portrait of Lee for the lobby of his Presidential library and President Eisenhower went out of his way to vindicate admiration for Lee against complaints that he was honouring a "traitor." They were merely expressing mainstream American sentiment.

How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

[TheBlueVue 177]

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.

You must not have gotten the memo. Narrow minded views 150 years later trump the historical proof to the contrary.

[TheBlueVue 177]

LOL, being called narrow minded by some people here, is akin to being called a socialist by a fascist. It simply has no meaning or value.

Would that be an insult? Socialism is basically fascism sans the militarism. You've become an expert at posting meaningless pithy pearls of irrelevance

[telling tiger 156]

Gentlemen, if I was interested in your respect, I would be worried about what you think of me.

To me, your respect isn't worth having. If you liked me, I wouldn't.

Your opinion of me is as worthless as your lives have been long.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

AUFAN78....thanks for your great posts.

You sir are welcome. It was my pleasure.

[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.

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.

Homey, The Northern States actions did not respect the Property Rights of the Southern States under the Constitution. It was the rights of the Southern States that were being violated by the Northern States attempts to circumvent Article 4.

[japantiger 4,051]

Excerpts from an article by Dr. Clyde Wilson, a professor of history.........

This year is Robert E. Lee's bicentennial — the 200^th anniversary of his birth. Nothing better illustrates the swift and vicious descent of Political Correctness upon American history and symbols than the shadow that has, in just the last few years, been thrown over a man regarded (rightly) for well over a century as among the greatest of Americans.

Even before the War to Prevent Southern Independence had ended, his Northern enemies were claiming Lee as a prized exhibit of America's contribution to the world. (As they also were claiming his great lieutenant, "Stonewall" Jackson.) Such a claim could hardly be avoided since the entirety of the civilized world, watching the American bloodbath with interest, had already made that judgment. The British military commentator, Viscount Wolsely, expressed much international opinion when he wrote of Lee: "He is stamped upon my memory as being apart and superior to all others in every way."

Lee was the son of a renowned general in the Revolution, nephew of two signers of the Declaration of Independence, and husband of Martha Washington's granddaughter. His last five years were spent as a non-citizen with life and liberty at the mercy of the bounders and petty tyrants who had come exercise the power of the United States. This he endured with exemplary Christian fortitude and charity. Lee was an audacious military genius and inspired leader of men, called by Churchill the greatest captain of the English-speaking peoples, but his fame rests even more upon his character. No American leader has ever set a higher example in peace and war of what the Western world used to understand as a Christian gentleman. When the "traitor" died in 1870, the New York Herald editorialized: "Here in the North we . . .have claimed him as one of ourselves. . . have extolled his virtue as reflecting upon us — for Robert E. Lee was an American, and the great nation which gave him birth would be today unworthy of such a son if she regarded him lightly."

That judgment had become pervasive national opinion by 1907, when Charles Francis Adams Jr., the only Adams to have seen active service in the war, celebrated Lee in a speech in Boston and other cities called "Lee the American." Adams admitted that the Constitutional position of Lee's cause had been correct (but had to be defeated, he claimed, because it stood in the way of national progress and greatness). More recently President Truman picked a large equestrian portrait of Lee for the lobby of his Presidential library and President Eisenhower went out of his way to vindicate admiration for Lee against complaints that he was honouring a "traitor." They were merely expressing mainstream American sentiment.

How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

There's a higher degree of testiness generally tolerated on the political forum, but I've tried to delete the worst of the purely personal back and forth. I suggest that those exchanges cease, period. The posts I've deleted aren't even worthy of PMs, but if you must continue in that vein, that's where you do it.

[Elephant Tipper 430]

A couple of points.

1. Anyone who has seriously studied the situation at the beginning of the Civil War KNOWS the issue in the beginning was State's Rights.. My wife grew up in

California and even they were taught that.But believe what you want. You can make long, yada yada posts until hell freezes over and you won't change my mind about the war or my admiration of Robert E. Lee.I have spent too much time over the years doing indepth study to not stand my ground.

2. Having said that, as ET said above, I started this thread simply noting that today was Lee's birthday ad that he is one of y historical heroes. I didn't bring politics into it until a couple of other posters did. If you want to do that start your own damn thread.

Great point. I love history myself and share you interest in and admiration of the life of REL. Interestingly enough, he could have been the General of the Union Army but chose not to be.

He chose wrong and became a traitor in the process. One can't be an American hero and turn his back on his country. There is a ton of denial and very perverted logic being employed by anyone calling him an American hero.

Your comment is extremely odd in that General Lee was never tried for treason, yet you have convicted him of that charge. General Grant fought against even the notion of trying Lee et al for treason. So why do you feel that your judgment is more qualified than Lincoln's or Grant's who opposed the charge of treason ? Was there some secret court that convicted REL of treason that only you know of yet every contemporary at that time didn't ? Do you have special knowledge that they didn't possess ? Otherwise you cast aspersions on REL's name and upon those also who chose to serve their States rather than the Union.

REL's Union contemporaries thought most highly of him even though they were of the opposite sides. He was considered an heroic figure, almost mythical, even by his enemies.

One last thought, you have reversed the role of the States and the Federal government to justify your accusation of treason. REL chose to resign his commission to protect his homeland, Virginia, which was the higher and nobler choice for him, not Washington, D.C. Remember that the Union was created by and for the states, not the reverse. I'm sure that if you were faced with the proposition of destroying your homeland "in the name of the Union" or leading it against an invader that you would choose to protect it against such an invader for those whom you loved. Then again, maybe you don't have deep roots to call any one such place your homeland and you wouldn't mind declaring war on your neighbor. I do have such a home and would defend my state home of Alabama without reservation.

[japantiger 4,051]

Well said. In the words of Samuel Watkins when asked by a Yankee soldier "why are you fighting us"; Watkins replied; "because you're down here".

[AUFAN78 3,894]

Excerpts from an article by Dr. Clyde Wilson, a professor of history.........

This year is Robert E. Lee's bicentennial — the 200^th anniversary of his birth. Nothing better illustrates the swift and vicious descent of Political Correctness upon American history and symbols than the shadow that has, in just the last few years, been thrown over a man regarded (rightly) for well over a century as among the greatest of Americans.

Even before the War to Prevent Southern Independence had ended, his Northern enemies were claiming Lee as a prized exhibit of America's contribution to the world. (As they also were claiming his great lieutenant, "Stonewall" Jackson.) Such a claim could hardly be avoided since the entirety of the civilized world, watching the American bloodbath with interest, had already made that judgment. The British military commentator, Viscount Wolsely, expressed much international opinion when he wrote of Lee: "He is stamped upon my memory as being apart and superior to all others in every way."

Lee was the son of a renowned general in the Revolution, nephew of two signers of the Declaration of Independence, and husband of Martha Washington's granddaughter. His last five years were spent as a non-citizen with life and liberty at the mercy of the bounders and petty tyrants who had come exercise the power of the United States. This he endured with exemplary Christian fortitude and charity. Lee was an audacious military genius and inspired leader of men, called by Churchill the greatest captain of the English-speaking peoples, but his fame rests even more upon his character. No American leader has ever set a higher example in peace and war of what the Western world used to understand as a Christian gentleman. When the "traitor" died in 1870, the New York Herald editorialized: "Here in the North we . . .have claimed him as one of ourselves. . . have extolled his virtue as reflecting upon us — for Robert E. Lee was an American, and the great nation which gave him birth would be today unworthy of such a son if she regarded him lightly."

That judgment had become pervasive national opinion by 1907, when Charles Francis Adams Jr., the only Adams to have seen active service in the war, celebrated Lee in a speech in Boston and other cities called "Lee the American." Adams admitted that the Constitutional position of Lee's cause had been correct (but had to be defeated, he claimed, because it stood in the way of national progress and greatness). More recently President Truman picked a large equestrian portrait of Lee for the lobby of his Presidential library and President Eisenhower went out of his way to vindicate admiration for Lee against complaints that he was honouring a "traitor." They were merely expressing mainstream American sentiment.

How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

[homersapien 11,362]

.....How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

Little wonder that Japan would appreciate such a delusional rant. He could have written it. :-\

[AUFAN78 3,894]

.....How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

Little wonder that Japan would appreciate such a delusional rant. He could have written it. :-\

Your failure to comprehend the message was predictable.

[autigeremt 6,598]

General Lee was a man who felt compelled to fight for his state and home against what he saw as an over aggressive federal government. While slavery was a part of the division (note that slavery existed in the North prior to and during the beginning of the war......if it had been such the deplorable issue it's made to be, from a Union perspective, it would have been abolished on day one of the war) it was also about states rights and their ability to separate if they felt compelled to do so. The Constitution gave them that right.

General Lee served honorably in the US Army and fought bravely in the Mexican-American War. He was a sound leader and battlefield tactician. He was also a good and decent man. The South wouldn't have forced the Union to go 4 years without him, and if not for the key loss of Stonewall Jackson by friendly fire during Gettysburg who knows what may have happened. Up to that point the Confederacy had the union on the run for the most part.

At any rate, he was one of many who served his country honorably. Slavery was a terrible way to go about "business" and I don't want any part of it. It didn't start in the US and sure as heck shouldn't have found its way here but that is water under the bridge. To hear some the US invented slavery and should pay dearly for it even today. I say suck it up! My genealogy is full of Cherokee but you can keep your political BS money. It's too late for that. Show me a better way forward and I'll call it even.

[homersapien 11,362]

.....How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

Little wonder that Japan would appreciate such a delusional rant. He could have written it. :-\

Your failure to comprehend the message was predictable.

Predictable perhaps, but not uncorrectable. Please explain whatever part of the message contained in the highlighted text that I missed.

[homersapien 11,362]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

[autigeremt 6,598]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

[TexasTiger 12,828]

The arguments offered are based on very specious reasoning. They go like this, “If he wasn’t convicted of treason, he couldn’t have committed it.” In fact, the evidence is clear that Grant, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and the federal grand jury that indicted Lee, believed he had. The evidence even supports that Lee believed he had, which is why he sought a pardon, including filling out an application and oath of allegiance.

Did Nixon commit a crime? He resigned before charged and received a pardon because Ford thought it was in the nations best interest to move on.

Why did Grant support the pardoning Lee? Many reasons. First, he respected him as a man, a general and foe. As a younger officer he had looked up to Lee—in fact, he sounds as if he was almost star struck. Grant was an honorable and reasonable man, perhaps remarkably lacking any vindictiveness toward the South after such a brutal war. From his memoirs:

What General Lee's feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassable face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter [proposing negotiations], were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.

Grant also knew that it would be unwise to place Lee on trial for treason and that peace was best served by not being overly punitive to any soldier that laid down his arms and peaceably returned to his life before the war. Grant understood that Lee had great respect and influence with others in the South.

He expressed it as his earnest hope, however, that we would not be called upon to cause more loss and sacrifice of life; but he could not foretell the result. I then suggested to General Lee that there was not a man in the Confederacy whose influence with the soldiery and the whole people was as great as his, and that if he would now advise the surrender of all armies I had no doubt his advice would be followed with alacrity.

Grant a) felt his honor was at stake, as he had made promise to Lee to obtain his surrender; b ) he believed that subjecting Lee and others who were abiding by those terms to arrest would be disruptive to peace—not pursuing treason charges was a strategic necessity.

When Grant when to the White House, he found Johnson unyielding. The President said he wanted “to make treason odious,” stating that Lee and other rebel leaders had to face punishment. Grant objected. He told Johnson he could do as he pleased “about civil rights, confiscation of property, and so on,” but the terms of Appomattox had to be honored.

“When can these men be tried,” asked Johnson.

“Never,” replied Grant. “Never, unless they violate their parole.”

Johnson persisted, demanding by what right “a military commander interferes to protect an arch-traitor from the laws.”

Grant, who rarely lost his temper, was livid. He told the president that as the responsible commander in the field he had an obligation to destroy Lee’s army. “I have made certain terms with Lee, the best and only terms. If I had told him and his army that their liberty would be invaded, that they would be open to arrest, trial, and execution for treason, Lee would never have surrendered, and we should have lost many lives in destroying him. My terms of surrender were according to military law, and so long as General Lee observes his parole, I will never consent to his arrest. I will resign the command of the army rather than execute any order to arrest Lee or any of his commanders so long as they obey the law.”

http://www.aleksandr...parole-treason/

FWIW, I totally agree with Grant’s actions. It would have been a horrible mistake to place Lee on trial for treason—not because the facts didn’t meet the definition of the crime, but for all the reasons Grant stated. My point on this thread has not been to besmirch the memory of Lee, but to provide a little objective sanity to it. You don’t lead an armed insurrection against the United States of America and become an American hero, no matter how gallant, dignified or sincere you may be. The Civil War has been romanticized to a disturbing degree by too many. It is 2014 and time to look at it more dispassionately.

Proud, I also have ancestors who fought, and some who died, for the Confederacy. They were pretty low level soldiers and while I understand the context within which they did so, if someone told me they could have been tried for treason, I would not be the least bit insulted by that statement of fact. Perhaps I’m able to be more objective about the past since I don’t live in it.

ET, to answer your question, yes I do have deep enough roots to protect my homeland from an invader. My homeland is the United States of America.

[autigeremt 6,598]

The arguments offered are based on very specious reasoning. They go like this, “If he wasn’t convicted of treason, he couldn’t have committed it.” In fact, the evidence is clear that Grant, Lincoln, Andrew Johnson and the federal grand jury that indicted Lee, believed he had. The evidence even supports that Lee believed he had, which is why he sought a pardon, including filling out an application and oath of allegiance.

Did Nixon commit a crime? He resigned before charged and received a pardon because Ford thought it was in the nations best interest to move on.

Why did Grant support the pardoning Lee? Many reasons. First, he respected him as a man, a general and foe. As a younger officer he had looked up to Lee—in fact, he sounds as if he was almost star struck. Grant was an honorable and reasonable man, perhaps remarkably lacking any vindictiveness toward the South after such a brutal war. From his memoirs:

What General Lee's feelings were I do not know. As he was a man of much dignity, with an impassable face, it was impossible to say whether he felt inwardly glad that the end had finally come, or felt sad over the result, and was too manly to show it. Whatever his feelings, they were entirely concealed from my observation; but my own feelings, which had been quite jubilant on the receipt of his letter [proposing negotiations], were sad and depressed. I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us.

Grant also knew that it would be unwise to place Lee on trial for treason and that peace was best served by not being overly punitive to any soldier that laid down his arms and peaceably returned to his life before the war. Grant understood that Lee had great respect and influence with others in the South.

He expressed it as his earnest hope, however, that we would not be called upon to cause more loss and sacrifice of life; but he could not foretell the result. I then suggested to General Lee that there was not a man in the Confederacy whose influence with the soldiery and the whole people was as great as his, and that if he would now advise the surrender of all armies I had no doubt his advice would be followed with alacrity.

Grant a) felt his honor was at stake, as he had made promise to Lee to obtain his surrender; b ) he believed that subjecting Lee and others who were abiding by those terms to arrest would be disruptive to peace—not pursuing treason charges was a strategic necessity.

When Grant when to the White House, he found Johnson unyielding. The President said he wanted “to make treason odious,” stating that Lee and other rebel leaders had to face punishment. Grant objected. He told Johnson he could do as he pleased “about civil rights, confiscation of property, and so on,” but the terms of Appomattox had to be honored.

“When can these men be tried,” asked Johnson.

“Never,” replied Grant. “Never, unless they violate their parole.”

Johnson persisted, demanding by what right “a military commander interferes to protect an arch-traitor from the laws.”

Grant, who rarely lost his temper, was livid. He told the president that as the responsible commander in the field he had an obligation to destroy Lee’s army. “I have made certain terms with Lee, the best and only terms. If I had told him and his army that their liberty would be invaded, that they would be open to arrest, trial, and execution for treason, Lee would never have surrendered, and we should have lost many lives in destroying him. My terms of surrender were according to military law, and so long as General Lee observes his parole, I will never consent to his arrest. I will resign the command of the army rather than execute any order to arrest Lee or any of his commanders so long as they obey the law.”

http://www.aleksandr...parole-treason/

FWIW, I totally agree with Grant’s actions. It would have been a horrible mistake to place Lee on trial for treason—not because the facts didn’t meet the definition of the crime, but for all the reasons Grant stated. My point on this thread has not been to besmirch the memory of Lee, but to provide a little objective sanity to it. You don’t lead an armed insurrection against the United States of America and become an American hero, no matter how gallant, dignified or sincere you may be. The Civil War has been romanticized to a disturbing degree by too many. It is 2014 and time to look at it more dispassionately.

Proud, I also have ancestors who fought, and some who died, for the Confederacy. They were pretty low level soldiers and while I understand the context within which they did so, if someone told me they could have been tried for treason, I would not be the least bit insulted by that statement of fact. Perhaps I’m able to be more objective about the past since I don’t live in it.

ET, to answer your question, yes I do have deep enough roots to protect my homeland from an invader. My homeland is the United States of America.

My homeland is IN the United States of America. I'll fight to protect her as long as she stands to protect us...all of us. If she is led astray I may have to face her despots to protect my freedoms. I surely hope she never allows it to happen.

[homersapien 11,362]

General Lee was a man who felt compelled to fight for his state and home against what he saw as an over aggressive federal government. While slavery was a part of the division (note that slavery existed in the North prior to and during the beginning of the war......if it had been such the deplorable issue it's made to be, from a Union perspective, it would have been abolished on day one of the war) it was also about states rights and their ability to separate if they felt compelled to do so. The Constitution gave them that right.

Over aggressive Federal Government? Because anti-slavery forces in the north wanted to limit expansion of slavery in the territories? Again, as you say, the north didn't enter into the war with the idea of abolishing slavery in the south or they would have announced so at the beginning. It was the south who took the initiative by seceding and they did so to protect the institution of slavery for the future, including in new territories that hadn't yet been admitted into the union. The north responded in order to preserve the Union.

How is that being "aggressive"?

[homersapien 11,362]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

[TheBlueVue 177]

It appears to me labels are being assigned based simply on who won the conflict. Grant was a drunk who initiated and lead widespread war crimes against the confederate civilian population. This is a historical fact that is indisputable and not even subject to debate. If he was subject to current day rules of engagement he would've been court marshaled and imprisoned. I understand you cannot go back in history and hold characters accountable to current rules and regulations but that is exactly what is being done to REL. Its good to see we have so many unconditional unionists aka statists among us who evidently would gladly turn on and kill family, neighbors and friends if their beloved president asked them to.

[homersapien 11,362]

A couple of points.

1. Anyone who has seriously studied the situation at the beginning of the Civil War KNOWS the issue in the beginning was State's Rights.. My wife grew up in

California and even they were taught that.But believe what you want. You can make long, yada yada posts until hell freezes over and you won't change my mind about the war or my admiration of Robert E. Lee.I have spent too much time over the years doing indepth study to not stand my ground.

2. Having said that, as ET said above, I started this thread simply noting that today was Lee's birthday ad that he is one of y historical heroes. I didn't bring politics into it until a couple of other posters did. If you want to do that start your own damn thread.

Great point. I love history myself and share you interest in and admiration of the life of REL. Interestingly enough, he could have been the General of the Union Army but chose not to be.

He chose wrong and became a traitor in the process. One can't be an American hero and turn his back on his country. There is a ton of denial and very perverted logic being employed by anyone calling him an American hero.

Your comment is extremely odd in that General Lee was never tried for treason, yet you have convicted him of that charge. General Grant fought against even the notion of trying Lee et al for treason....

Neither was Benedict Arnold.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

And Dr. Clyde Wilson whom you quoted is an interesting character:

The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed Wilson among the "ideologues" of the neo-Confederate movement, claiming that he told Gentleman's Quarterly in 1998 that "We don't want the federal government telling us what to do, pushing integration down our throats... We're tired of carpetbagging professionals coming to our campuses and teaching that the South is a cultural wasteland."

^{http://en.wikipedia....Clyde_N._Wilson}

The Southern Poverty Law Center has it's own bias. At the end of the day only Liberty and true freedom can help lift people out of their plight. Give them the chance to control their own destiny, provide a stable and opportunistic environment, and most will find a way to succeed.

Yeah, freedom, liberty and justice. Anyway, that doesn't change the facts about Clyde Wilson.

When asked what criteria the Southern Poverty Law Center uses, "Heidi Beirich, the law center’s director of research and special projects and a frequent contributor to its Hatewatch blog, acknowledged in an e-mail that 'we do not have a formal written criteria.'” That my friend changes everything. Talk about bias. Where is the justice? I don't agree with you, so I put you on a hatewatch listing? Seriously?

[AUFAN78 3,894]

.....How the times have changed — and suddenly. The official doctrine of the MSI (Mainstream Intellectuals) now condemns Lee as a traitor and oath-violator and his cause as little better than Hitler's. This interpretation rests upon either a deliberate or a vastly ignorant misinterpretation of everything important in American history. The orchestrated blackening of Lee and his cause exhibits the triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography and public discussion. The War to Prevent Southern Independence has become not a great, tragic, historic drama of Americans, but a matter of the destruction and continued demonization of a "class enemy." This now semi-official view warps the understanding not only of The War but of all of American history — which is its purpose.

Nice post.

Thank you! Glad you enjoyed it. My hope is that it opened some eyes and quite possibly changed some minds.

Little wonder that Japan would appreciate such a delusional rant. He could have written it. :-\

Your failure to comprehend the message was predictable.

Predictable perhaps, but not uncorrectable. Please explain whatever part of the message contained in the highlighted text that I missed.

Based on your comment "deusional rant" it is a rather obvious answer. The entire thing!