Well, if he chose his state over his federal government--his country--then, by all means, if his state wants to put up statues, go for it. But why would the country he spurned and took up arms against? It's just like Benedict Arnold--except Arnold did much more to win the Revolutionary War than Lee ever did to hold together the UNITED States.@aloha-hoosier he’s not a traitor. When faced with the choice between his State and his federal government he chose his state.
Which was very in keeping with the time.
The federal government monolith came much layer and was retcon’d by people like you to make all that oppose it evil.
It’s complicated
Prior to the post civil war amendments, a state’s authority to secede from the Union was at least a reasonable argument. Lee obviously was extremely loyal to Virginia which is why he turned down Scott’s offer to lead the Northern army. Is loyalty to your own seceding state really treason? What about Benedict Arnold? At the time he switched allegiance, he was a British subject and the colonials were not even a country.
Fortunately Lincoln was smart enough to bind the nations wounds and issue amnesty and pardons. For this reason alone, I think mentioning Lee and treason in the same sentence is error. Lincoln tried to end that discussion.
Lincoln was right to do that because of the times.It’s complicated
Prior to the post civil war amendments, a state’s authority to secede from the Union was at least a reasonable argument. Lee obviously was extremely loyal to Virginia which is why he turned down Scott’s offer to lead the Northern army. Is loyalty to your own seceding state really treason? What about Benedict Arnold? At the time he switched allegiance, he was a British subject and the colonials were not even a country.
Fortunately Lincoln was smart enough to bind the nations wounds and issue amnesty and pardons. For this reason alone, I think mentioning Lee and treason in the same sentence is error. Lincoln tried to end that discussion.
We're far enough removed from the emotions of that time to say the truth: the Confederates who took up arms against the United States were traitors to the United States. Every last one of them.
We're far enough removed from the emotions of that time to say the truth:
We create a new truth. A pardon is an act of forgiveness. We have moved on so that we have forgotten forgiveness and dwell on the old divisions Lincoln tried to end.
https://twitter.com/endwokeness/status/2002421989886075083?s=61&t=1KiTJ7EYgX-uQgf4Wkb9sg
It seems people figured out some time ago that diversity is not a strength @arthur-dent - your leaders don’t want you to see this…
That's a dodge. What would Lincoln have had to forgive or pardon if Lee didn't engage in treason? Pardons don't erase facts. With respect to the United States, Lee was a traitor. He took an oath to defend it, then took up arms against it. It's pretty cut and dry.We're far enough removed from the emotions of that time to say the truth:
We create a new truth. A pardon is an act of forgiveness. We have moved on so that we have forgotten forgiveness and dwell on the old divisions Lincoln tried to end.
As for Lee's supposed "honor," I think it's a sham. He spent his post-war years lying about his past stance on slavery, his actions as a slave owner, and what the war was about, because the national sentiment was/had quickly changed re slavery and he knew he was going to go down in history as defending a very unchristian, despotic institution. His deceptive campaign worked well enough that he white-washed his past and convinced people to treat him as some noble "knight" defending an honorable cause.
He has been forgiven, of course. No one is talking about that or disputing it. It’s just that he was a traitor by law. We study him at War Colleges because of what he was and what he did as an officer. He deserves some admiration for that.We're far enough removed from the emotions of that time to say the truth:
We create a new truth. A pardon is an act of forgiveness. We have moved on so that we have forgotten forgiveness and dwell on the old divisions Lincoln tried to end.
What exactly am I dodging? A nation that learned how to overcome past forces of division or a nation that will find reasons to continue those forces of division in perpetuity?
I'm not sure he was forgiven by those whose forgiveness mattered.He has been forgiven, of course. No one is talking about that or disputing it. It’s just that he was a traitor by law. We study him at War Colleges because of what he was and what he did as an officer. He deserves some admiration for that.We're far enough removed from the emotions of that time to say the truth:
We create a new truth. A pardon is an act of forgiveness. We have moved on so that we have forgotten forgiveness and dwell on the old divisions Lincoln tried to end.
His involvement in the rebellion led to hundreds of thousands of wounded and dead. I don't think all those families forgave him, and they're who count. Hell, the guy never even admitted he was wrong for engaging in the rebellion.
he was a traitor by law.
For which he was forgiven and welcomed back to the fold. What is to be gained by continuing to refer him as a traitor as if he was never forgiven? Seems to me that is a deliberate fake.
You're dodging the historical question of whether or not Robert E. Lee committed a treasonous act by taking up arms and leading an army against the United States of America. And you're doing it by saying that even asking the question "continue those forces of division in perpetuity." As General Sherman T. Potter would say, "Horse hockey!"What exactly am I dodging? A nation that learned how to overcome past forces of division or a nation that will find reasons to continue those forces of division in perpetuity?
You're not even making sense now. Forgiveness does not erase the past and make "a deliberate fake" out of any reference to the facts that gave rise to the need for forgiveness. Nor does a pardon, by the way. A pardon is an act of mercy, but it doesn't expunge a conviction, for example. Under this bizarre reasoning, we can't talk about Nixon's crimes that led to him resigning because Ford pardoned him? It's all just washed away, never to be mentioned again?he was a traitor by law.
For which he was forgiven and welcomed back to the fold. What is to be gained by continuing to refer him as a traitor as if he was never forgiven? Seems to me that is a deliberate fake.
Robert E. Lee was never pardoned during his lifetime, by the way, so I don't know what you even mean by "welcomed back to the fold."
No, Robert E. Lee was not pardoned during his lifetime, though he applied for one and died without his U.S. citizenship restored, but in 1975, President Gerald Ford signed a resolution to posthumously restore his citizenship, granting a form of pardon long after his death. Lee submitted an application for amnesty after the Civil War, but it was lost, and he remained technically without citizenship rights until Congress acted decades later.
- Application: In 1865, Lee applied for amnesty/pardon but was not officially granted it.
- Death: He died in 1870 as a stateless person, as his citizenship was never restored in his lifetime.
- Posthumous Restoration: In 1975, President Gerald Ford signed a bill (Senate Joint Resolution 23) to restore his full citizenship rights, acknowledging his efforts towards reconciliation.
I see one side of this argument presenting facts, versus the other side offering up little more than emotion
It's been an interesting turn of events.
.
I obviously don’t disagree with anything you say about Lee’s historical record.
Lee told Scott that he could not participate in a federal invasion of Virginia and would resist that. Scott suggested Lee resign his commission and he did so.
I am fully aware of the Confusion about Lee’s pardon. I avoided that because I think it’s a side show. President Grant also effectively honored the missing pardon.
My point in this thread is simple. Post war, the Union leadership including Lincoln and Grant were all in on overcoming the divisions, and bringing the country together. Over time, that effort has been overtaken by resurrecting these divisions and renewed focus on sins long since forgiven. Sad.
I don't get what you think is divisive about recognizing the fact that he was a traitor by definition. This takes me back to my US Army Command and General Staff College days. We're divided into Staff Groups and we have a Navy or Marine officer in each, and an Air Force officer, two foreign military army officers (ours was a German and a Spaniard - lot of interesting dynamics there) and the final 14 people are US Army officers. Among the Americans it was clear we were all gun-loving patriotic conservative and almost certainly Republicans from our interactions with each other. The US Army officer corps is predominately southern. I'd say at least 10 of our Army officers were from the old confederacy states and exposed to the "Lost Cause" narrative their entire lives. When we discussed the Civil War and the important players there was no question among any of us that the Confederate Officers were traitors to their country, but we could certainly recognize that they were people who believed in their cause at the time (which of course was almost completely about slavery). I honestly don't understand this refusal by some of us here to recognize that Lee was a traitor by definition. It's just an historic fact. It doesn't reflect badly on anyone to recognize that. We can still recognize what was good about him as a military officer. That doesn't change either.he was a traitor by law.
For which he was forgiven and welcomed back to the fold. What is to be gained by continuing to refer him as a traitor as if he was never forgiven? Seems to me that is a deliberate fake.