?????????

[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.

War is hell. Both sides were guilty of there fair share of atrocities. Also, has anyone here indulged in any hero worship of Grant?

Hero worship may overstate it but TexasTiger has posted that Grant was a man of great character. Grant was a known drunkard about whom his fellow officers complained to Lincoln about on many occasions. I know of no other atrocities that are even in the same league as what Grant did on his march from Vicksburg to Atlanta...nothing even remotely comparable! Also I like the way you conveniently edited out the last sentence or two of my original post.

Link to me saying he was a man of great character.

OK my bad, substitute "honorable and reasonable man". I dont think he was either but to each his own. he was a ruthless war criminal who was guilty genocide of civilian populations in war. History has been far too kind in his memory but thats because his side won and to the victor goes the spoils

[homersapien 11,354]

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.

2) General George Washington ordered that BA be hanged the moment he was captured. The thought of trying BA for treason was never a consideration because BA was a grave, immediate threat to the Continental armies.

There would have been some sort of trial, even if a pro-forma, drum head court martial.

But if BA was a traitor because he represented a "grave, immediate threat" to the Continental army, what was Lee if not a "grave and immediate threat" to the U.S. Army?

[homersapien 11,354]

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.

3) You have tried to compare BA with REL. BA worked surreptitiously by acting as a general of the Continental armies in order to undermine them. He was a wolf in sheep's clothing. REL on the other hand resigned his commission from the Union and made his loyalties known to all, prior to engaging in war. There was no equivocation with him. All knew his convictions and on what side of the line he stood.

I have compared BA to REL only in the context that neither was tried, proving the lack-of-a-trial claim doesn't exonerate a traitor.

Here's a hint: If you really wanted to pursue the legal train of logic, I would strongly suggest you focus more on the fact Lee was pardoned, even if for political reasons.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

Being indicted by a grand jury is not the same as being convicted. You originally said REL was a traitor and I should get my facts straight. His rap sheet would show no conviction for treason so your statement "fact" was your opinion and no fact.

No objective, reasonable person doubts it.

I think you meant, no objective resonable person believes it. Right?

Once more...

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.

Blah, blah, blah, no one on this thread has compared him to Hitler. Lee was indicted and President Johnson wanted him tried at that time. He actively sought a pardon. These are historical facts. I've stated Grant was right to intercede. Everything is ideological to you guys-- you can't see simple facts.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

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.

War is hell. Both sides were guilty of there fair share of atrocities. Also, has anyone here indulged in any hero worship of Grant?

Hero worship may overstate it but TexasTiger has posted that Grant was a man of great character. Grant was a known drunkard about whom his fellow officers complained to Lincoln about on many occasions. I know of no other atrocities that are even in the same league as what Grant did on his march from Vicksburg to Atlanta...nothing even remotely comparable! Also I like the way you conveniently edited out the last sentence or two of my original post.

Link to me saying he was a man of great character.

OK my bad, substitute "honorable and reasonable man". I dont think he was either but to each his own. he was a ruthless war criminal who was guilty genocide of civilian populations in war. History has been far too kind in his memory but thats because his side won and to the victor goes the spoils

Lee found him honorable and reasonable in his negotiations and sought his assistance in getting a pardon. That was clearly the context used and if you are honorable and reasonable you will readily see that.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Grant was guilty of genocide, as was Sherman, of civilian populations...

Genocide? That is a heck of an accusation! Would you mind sourcing your thoughts on this? I'm genuinely curious.

...his tactics set the stage for some of history's bloodiest moments of the 20th century

One could argue the entire war merely showed us what was coming. Horrible combination of new weapons and old tactics. Odd bit of post-hoc reasoning to suggest that it was their tactics that led to the ugliness of twentieth century warfare.

Here is a snippet written by Murray Rothbard the founder of the modern libertarian party.

Sherman’s infamous March through Georgia was one of the great war crimes, and crimes against humanity, of the past century-and-a-half. Because by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman paved the way for all the genocidal honors of the monstrous 20th century.

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about memory, about never forgetting about history as retroactive punishment for crimes of war and mass murder. As Lord Acton, the great libertarian historian, put it, the historian, in the last analysis, must be a moral judge. The muse of the historian, he wrote, is not Clio, but Rhadamanthus, the legendary avenger of innocent blood. In that spirit, we must always remember, we must never forget, we must put in the dock and hang higher than Haman, those who, in modern times, opened the Pandora’s Box of genocide and the extermination of civilians: Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln.

[homersapien 11,354]

.....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. :-\

Homey, I usually find your logic flawed; well, because usually there is no logic; but just because you don't like the guys answer doesn't make it delusional; this ones even over the top for you....blah blah blah

Well, I suppose well just have to disagree on whether or not the following is delusional thinking:

"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."

The fact you and some others consider such wacko rhetoric as representing a rational, factual argument certainly explains a lot of the tension on this forum.

What does the "triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography" even mean? And who exactly is this "class enemy" that is being demonized?

[homersapien 11,354]

.....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. :-\

......This whole Southern demonization thing is a creation of the last 40 years....and purely politically motivated....

Correcting the revisionist history of southern members of the "Progressive School" of historiography is hardly "demonization".

I'd say it it was the inevitable result of honest assessment of the historical record by historians without an ax to grind:

"During the first half of the twentieth century the argument that slavery had little to do with the growing polarization between the North and South that led to secession found a great deal of support among professional historians. The "Progressive school" dominated American historiography from the 1910s to the 1940s. "Merely by the accidents of climate, soil, and geography," wrote Charles A. Beard, doyen of the Progressive school, "was it a sectional struggle" - the accidental fact that plantation agriculture was located in the South and industry mainly in the North. Nor was it a contest between slavery and freedom. Slavery just happened to be the labor system of plantation agriculture, as wage labor was the system of Northern industry. The *real* issues between the North and the South in antebellum politics were the tariff, government subsidies to transportation and manufacturing, public land sales, financial policies, and other types of economic questions on which industrial and planting interests had clashing viewpoints.

This interpretive analysis, so powerful during the second quarter of the twentieth century, proved a godsend to a generation of mostly Southern-born historians who seized upon is as proof that slavery had little to do with the origins of the Confederacy. The Nashville Fugitives, an influential group of historians, novelists, and poets who gathered at Vanderbilt University and published the famous manifesto "I'll Take My Stand" in 1930, set the tone for the new Southern interpretation of the Civil War's causes. It was a blend of the old Confederate apologia voiced by Jefferson Davis and the new Progressive synthesis created by Charles Beard.

An offshoot of this interpretation of the Civil War's causes dominated the work of academic historians during the 1940s. This offshoot came to be known as revisionism. Revisionism tended to portray Southern whites, even the fire-eaters, as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it truly was a "war of Northern aggression".

While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? States rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle. In the antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery from the potential hostility of a national majority against Southern interests - mainly slavery."

pp. 3-12(excerpts) "This Mighty Scourge - Perspectives on the Civil War" by James M. McPherson

[homersapien 11,354]

So BA did in fact have a legal 'trial" under the military rules of the day. Let the record thus show that BA was convicted of treason, REL was not, and hence TexasTiger's accusation is fiction (opinion) not fact.

Maybe I missed it, but has anyone claimed REL was convicted of treason?

The only argument I have heard is one cannot be a traitor unless one is tried for it. I certainly don't think that is true. Do you?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Grant was guilty of genocide, as was Sherman, of civilian populations...

Genocide? That is a heck of an accusation! Would you mind sourcing your thoughts on this? I'm genuinely curious.

...his tactics set the stage for some of history's bloodiest moments of the 20th century

One could argue the entire war merely showed us what was coming. Horrible combination of new weapons and old tactics. Odd bit of post-hoc reasoning to suggest that it was their tactics that led to the ugliness of twentieth century warfare.

Here is a snippet written by Murray Rothbard the founder of the modern libertarian party.

Sherman’s infamous March through Georgia was one of the great war crimes, and crimes against humanity, of the past century-and-a-half. Because by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman paved the way for all the genocidal honors of the monstrous 20th century.

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about memory, about never forgetting about history as retroactive punishment for crimes of war and mass murder. As Lord Acton, the great libertarian historian, put it, the historian, in the last analysis, must be a moral judge. The muse of the historian, he wrote, is not Clio, but Rhadamanthus, the legendary avenger of innocent blood. In that spirit, we must always remember, we must never forget, we must put in the dock and hang higher than Haman, those who, in modern times, opened the Pandora’s Box of genocide and the extermination of civilians: Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln.

I have a hard time buying that it was Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln that started the idea of genocide, which is basically what Mr. Rothbard suggests. Please don't confuse this with condoning Sherman's March. My point of contention merely lies with the small historical framework that this person chooses to use as a basis for his argument. Genocide has been happening for centuries (Spanish Conquistadors, The Crusades, American colonists vs American Indians, etc). To solely put the blame for opening "Pandora's Box" on Union officials is careless and shows an ignorance of history, some of which was relatively recent.

[AUFAN78 3,890]

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?

So where did you see that the SPLC "put Clyde Wilson on a hate watch" list? They said he was an ideologue in the neo-Confederate movement. (It's right up there in the above quote.)

Once again, you are making things up to argue against. (Surprise, surprise. :-\ )

Excerpts from various publications............

The SPLC has an entire listing of so-called "hate groups." Admittedly, some are serious, others not so much. Regardless, if they disavow your beliefs they can place you on one of the aforementioned list.

The SPLC is the subject of much debate and criticism. While they've certainly had their share of success, they've had many failures..........

So to answer Homer, Wilson was placed on one of these lists characterized by the SPLC as hate groups. Now what was made up exactly?

[TheBlueVue 177]

Grant was guilty of genocide, as was Sherman, of civilian populations...

Genocide? That is a heck of an accusation! Would you mind sourcing your thoughts on this? I'm genuinely curious.

...his tactics set the stage for some of history's bloodiest moments of the 20th century

One could argue the entire war merely showed us what was coming. Horrible combination of new weapons and old tactics. Odd bit of post-hoc reasoning to suggest that it was their tactics that led to the ugliness of twentieth century warfare.

Here is a snippet written by Murray Rothbard the founder of the modern libertarian party.

Sherman’s infamous March through Georgia was one of the great war crimes, and crimes against humanity, of the past century-and-a-half. Because by targeting and butchering civilians, Lincoln and Grant and Sherman paved the way for all the genocidal honors of the monstrous 20th century.

There has been a lot of talk in recent years about memory, about never forgetting about history as retroactive punishment for crimes of war and mass murder. As Lord Acton, the great libertarian historian, put it, the historian, in the last analysis, must be a moral judge. The muse of the historian, he wrote, is not Clio, but Rhadamanthus, the legendary avenger of innocent blood. In that spirit, we must always remember, we must never forget, we must put in the dock and hang higher than Haman, those who, in modern times, opened the Pandora’s Box of genocide and the extermination of civilians: Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln.

I have a hard time buying that it was Sherman, Grant, and Lincoln that started the idea of genocide, which is basically what Mr. Rothbard suggests. Please don't confuse this with condoning Sherman's March. My point of contention merely lies with the small historical framework that this person chooses to use as a basis for his argument. Genocide has been happening for centuries (Spanish Conquistadors, The Crusades, American colonists vs American Indians, etc). To solely put the blame for opening "Pandora's Box" on Union officials is careless and shows an ignorance of history, some of which was relatively recent.

I would agree but, starting it notwithstanding, does not mean they did not willfully commit the crimes against the civilian population. It also a matter of degree. In the Civil War's latter stages it was a planned strategy. Not sure it had been intentional before but more like incidental to the brutality of war. History is always written by the victors.

[AUDub 11,131]

To be a traitor you have to be convicted of treason.

I'm afraid that's not the case. Traitors get away with it all the time.

[TheBlueVue 177]

To be a traitor you have to be convicted of treason.

I'm afraid that's not the case. Traitors get away with it all the time.

So, I take it, you, TexasTiger and homer are the final arbiters of how REL is remembered? LOL

[AUDub 11,131]

So, I take it, you, TexasTiger and homer are the final arbiters of how REL is remembered? LOL

I wonder how you extrapolated that from that statement.

[AUDub 11,131]

BigBens......I guess you don't believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Of course. But being guilty of treason and being convicted of treason are not the same thing.

[TheBlueVue 177]

BigBens......I guess you don't believe in innocent until PROVEN guilty?

Of course. But being guilty of treason and being convicted of treason are not the same thing.

Split hairs much or just concerning the legacy of REL?

[AUDub 11,131]

How a statement that traitors get away with treason all the time can be anything more than one's opinion escapes me.

History is written by the victors, after all.

Is Snowden a traitor? Top officials, let alone the general public, aren't in agreement on that.

I'm not really sure why you feel the need to bring up Snowden. All I have to say on that is if he is aiding our enemies, then yes.

No one has pointed out that a statue of REL graces the halls of our Capitol. Do they put statues of traitors there?

I guess so. There's a statue of Washington in Trafalgar Square, too.

[japantiger 4,051]

.....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. :-\

......This whole Southern demonization thing is a creation of the last 40 years....and purely politically motivated....

Correcting the revisionist history of southern members of the "Progressive School" of historiography is hardly "demonization".

I'd say it it was the inevitable result of honest assessment of the historical record by historians without an ax to grind:

"During the first half of the twentieth century the argument that slavery had little to do with the growing polarization between the North and South that led to secession found a great deal of support among professional historians. The "Progressive school" dominated American historiography from the 1910s to the 1940s. "Merely by the accidents of climate, soil, and geography," wrote Charles A. Beard, doyen of the Progressive school, "was it a sectional struggle" - the accidental fact that plantation agriculture was located in the South and industry mainly in the North. Nor was it a contest between slavery and freedom. Slavery just happened to be the labor system of plantation agriculture, as wage labor was the system of Northern industry. The *real* issues between the North and the South in antebellum politics were the tariff, government subsidies to transportation and manufacturing, public land sales, financial policies, and other types of economic questions on which industrial and planting interests had clashing viewpoints.

This interpretive analysis, so powerful during the second quarter of the twentieth century, proved a godsend to a generation of mostly Southern-born historians who seized upon is as proof that slavery had little to do with the origins of the Confederacy. The Nashville Fugitives, an influential group of historians, novelists, and poets who gathered at Vanderbilt University and published the famous manifesto "I'll Take My Stand" in 1930, set the tone for the new Southern interpretation of the Civil War's causes. It was a blend of the old Confederate apologia voiced by Jefferson Davis and the new Progressive synthesis created by Charles Beard.

An offshoot of this interpretation of the Civil War's causes dominated the work of academic historians during the 1940s. This offshoot came to be known as revisionism. Revisionism tended to portray Southern whites, even the fire-eaters, as victims reacting to Northern attacks; it truly was a "war of Northern aggression".

While one or more of these interpretations remain popular among the Sons of Confederate Veterans and other Southern heritage groups, few professional historians now subscribe to them. Of all these interpretations, the states-rights argument is perhaps the weakest. It fails to ask the question, state's rights for what purpose? States rights, or sovereignty, was always more a means than an end, an instrument to achieve a certain goal more than a principle. In the antebellum South, the purpose of asserting state sovereignty was to protect slavery from the potential hostility of a national majority against Southern interests - mainly slavery."

pp. 3-12(excerpts) "This Mighty Scourge - Perspectives on the Civil War" by James M. McPherson

Sorry Homey, but this really doesn't have anything to do with the topic at hand. I don't think anyone in this thread said slavery was not a cause....and I believe just about every argument I have put forth had the Southern defense of slavery as a central tenant. Article 4, etc., was about protecting Southern states "property" rights against an increasingly aggressive effort by the Northern states to ignore their obligations.... So where exactly is this thread intended to take the discussion?

[japantiger 4,051]

.....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. :-\

Homey, I usually find your logic flawed; well, because usually there is no logic; but just because you don't like the guys answer doesn't make it delusional; this ones even over the top for you....blah blah blah

Well, I suppose well just have to disagree on whether or not the following is delusional thinking:

"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."

The fact you and some others consider such wacko rhetoric as representing a rational, factual argument certainly explains a lot of the tension on this forum.

What does the "triumph of Marxist categories in American historiography" even mean? And who exactly is this "class enemy" that is being demonized?

The Class is white Southerners....or anyone wishing to fly the Stars and Bars...or anyone who finds the notion that the civil war was a great American drama, that those traditions should be honored...that the war service of their ancestors was noble and should be revered, etc... vs the current left's interpretation of it all as a hate crime writ large. That is the difference that has occurred in the last 40 years.

[AUDub 11,131]

BigBen...with all due respect, that's ridiculous IMHO. I think you are smart enough to realize what you are saying is ridiculous.

Perhaps you overestimate my intelligence. I am a relatively young fellow compared to a old sage like you. ;-)

You can't be guilty of treason unless you are convicted of treason.....except in your OPINON.

Wrong. It is perfectly possible to be guilty of a crime and not be convicted.

It's my opinion that Casey Anthony is guilty of murder but the jury decided otherwise.

What if you or I had seen Casey Anthony murder her daughter and by some utterly insane twist of fate the jury still acquitted her? Is it a matter of opinion then?

Why is that so hard to admit?

Because I have yet to have seen an argument to convince me otherwise. You may end up doing so.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

It is certainly arguable whether or not Robert E. Lee was a hero. However, it would be difficult to argue that he was not a great man. Personally I admire him. I believe he knew that he was fighting for a lost cause and a dying institution. I believe, he did not believe the Civil War was necessary nor worthwhile. I can understand how a man's loyalties might favor his friends and neighbors over his government. I believe that he would probably not call himself a hero. I would guess he would say there are no heroes from the Civil War because, in such a conflict, the only possible hero would be the man who prevented it.

If memory serves me, after the war, he embraced former slaves, in church. He actually brought them to the alter and prayed with them. That sort of display of love and understanding makes him very special to me. Interesting that in contrast, Abraham Lincoln, favored a plan to return former slaves to Africa.

I can picture General Lee near the end of the war, sitting atop Traveler, looking rather old, tired, disillusioned but, a man who did not serve a political party or ideology but a man of faith and principle who although brilliant, realized that men and their ideas are corruptible and fallible and all you can do is stand on principle and know that in the end you still will not always be correct.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

BigBen...with all due respect, that's ridiculous IMHO. I think you are smart enough to realize what you are saying is ridiculous. You can't be guilty of treason unless you are convicted of treason.....except in your OPINON. It's my opinion that Casey Anthony is guilty of murder but the jury decided otherwise. I can accept that your opinion is that REL was guilty of treason but it's nothing more than your opinion.Why is that so hard to admit?

So you believe that every murderer has been convicted of each murder committed and every thief has been convicted of each theft committed?

[AUFAN78 3,890]

It is certainly arguable whether or not Robert E. Lee was a hero. However, it would be difficult to argue that he was not a great man. Personally I admire him. I believe he knew that he was fighting for a lost cause and a dying institution. I believe, he did not believe the Civil War was necessary nor worthwhile. I can understand how a man's loyalties might favor his friends and neighbors over his government. I believe that he would probably not call himself a hero. I would guess he would say there are no heroes from the Civil War because, in such a conflict, the only possible hero would be the man who prevented it.

If memory serves me, after the war, he embraced former slaves, in church. He actually brought them to the alter and prayed with them. That sort of display of love and understanding makes him very special to me. Interesting that in contrast, Abraham Lincoln, favored a plan to return former slaves to Africa.

I can picture General Lee near the end of the war, sitting atop Traveler, looking rather old, tired, disillusioned but, a man who did not serve a political party or ideology but a man of faith and principle who although brilliant, realized that men and their ideas are corruptible and fallible and all you can do is stand on principle and know that in the end you still will not always be correct.

Winner!

[japantiger 4,051]

It is certainly arguable whether or not Robert E. Lee was a hero. However, it would be difficult to argue that he was not a great man. Personally I admire him. I believe he knew that he was fighting for a lost cause and a dying institution. I believe, he did not believe the Civil War was necessary nor worthwhile. I can understand how a man's loyalties might favor his friends and neighbors over his government. I believe that he would probably not call himself a hero. I would guess he would say there are no heroes from the Civil War because, in such a conflict, the only possible hero would be the man who prevented it.

If memory serves me, after the war, he embraced former slaves, in church. He actually brought them to the alter and prayed with them. That sort of display of love and understanding makes him very special to me. Interesting that in contrast, Abraham Lincoln, favored a plan to return former slaves to Africa.

I can picture General Lee near the end of the war, sitting atop Traveler, looking rather old, tired, disillusioned but, a man who did not serve a political party or ideology but a man of faith and principle who although brilliant, realized that men and their ideas are corruptible and fallible and all you can do is stand on principle and know that in the end you still will not always be correct.

That's pretty good...