That should not be forgotten.

Let's say there are two armies: One that wants to loot and pillage your home and one that wants to defend it.

Which army do you join?

he was a man of honor to fight for his state, against his government and country. He was also a slave owner who was clearly on the side of supporting slavery.

And remind me again which side attacked first. The Union was NOT intent on looting and pillaging. It was intent on keeping the Union together. Lee, and every other Confederate turned against the Union. So, he was a traitor. Not really that complicated.

In fact, had people like Lee stood up and said, "NO. I will not go to war against my country, but do everything in my power to seek a peaceful solution to our differences," things would have been a lot different. Especially if they'd ever come around to understand the horror and absolute wrongness of slavery. Instead, people in the South are still defending it more than a century and a half later. The were wrong then, and they're wrong now.

Right on every point.

That's what armies do. At least civil war armies were somewhat ummm civil and raping was not tolerated.

Oh that's right, it fucking doesn't.

This is pure whataboutism.

He had nothing to do with it. He left the army when his state left the Union as the vast majority of other southern officers did. Hard to be in an army of a foreign power. When he left, there was not an expectation of war. In Davis's inaugural address, which happened before Lincoiln's, he said "All we ask is to be left alone." Lee had absolutely nothing to do with Fort Sumter. In fact when the first states seceded, he was serving in Texas.

On the other hand, Jefferson Davis was part of the Crittenden Committee of senators who stayed until Christmas in Washington working on compromises that could keep the southern states in the Union. The effort failed because President-elect Lincoln wouldn't offer any guidance on what he would accept or not accept. Senator Seward, representing the Republicans on the committee was unable to make any commitments.

I am holding him responsible for being a traitor to the Union. For fighting against his country. There's a lot of prettifying what he did in the myth of kindly Marse Robert, the justification in the name of States' Rights. The Civil War was fought to protect and preserve slavery, and Lee fought very hard on that behalf.

The glorification of the Confederacy really needs to end. It should be illegal to display the Confederate flag, as it's illegal in Germany (and some other countries) to display the Nazi flag.

He was indicted for treason and never tried. He was okay with that.

President Davis on the other hand spent the rest of his life demanding his right to an open and speedy trial. It was never given to him. He was left indicted and never tried though he insisted on his trial.

In fact you have no idea if Christ owned slaves. If he did, there's no reason to expect to read about it in the Gospels. Slavery was such a normal and common thing that it probably wouldn't have been considered worthy of mention.

It's a real shame Christ never preached against slavery specifically. Imagine how much suffering might have been averted if he had done so.

(far from, of course..).

He lived whereever the army put him from Staten Island, New York to Texas. He spent very little time home.

The slaves he owned were inherited from his uncle when he died. It was Lee's job to free them within five years as his uncle's wishes. This was easier said than done, especially living far away and having to do all the paperwork by mail. You didn't just tell the slaves you're free, go away. Generally arrangements were made of where they would go and how they would live, especially the elderly ones.

Lee has been criticized for dragging his feet and taking the whole five years before freeing them. I don't know how damning that criticism is. You'd have to hear both sides of the story to know.

if you want to call it that, doesn't get him off.

https://www.nps.gov/arho/learn/historyculture/slavery.htm

https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/08/arlington-bobby-lee-and-the-peculiar-institution/61428/

The ghost of King George III appreciates that.

their slaves.

Anymore questions?

Who have no issues in their lives. Of course I am sure you are one...

It's like arguing about Hitler's good qualities.

Not racist, sexist, homophobes, nothing? Careful how you answer. The internet if full of information much to the dismay of some.

but the clear implication of your post was that all of the founders owned slaves. Many of them didn't. Hamilton also didn't to name another one.

It always baffles me why the majority of people who defend Robert E Lee's legacy think their revisionist history bullshit is OK. It's as if they believe we can be convinced their ancestors (and I suppose them by proxy) are honorable people. I have relatives I am not particularly proud of but I do not erect monuments to them or identify with and justify their misdeeds. I am not them. If he was a prick who defended the indefensible, then that is what he was. Suck it up and don't be like him.

Exhibit A: Donald Trump's overwhelmingly and enthusiastic support among Southern whites.

(not lumping in ALL Southern whites with Trump voters, of course, but there is a pattern here...)

Would have failed because the slaves would never have supported a slaveocrat insurrection.

He had a president who used to be Secretary of War.

President Davis set the overall strategy. Lee was a trusted advisor and had input, but it was Davis who set the strategy.

The option of a guerrilla war wasn't an option anyway. There were certain points that had to be defended. Richmond was the obvious example, not just because it was the capital, but it had the largest ironworks in the south.

If the Confederacy could count on a steady supply of European arms like George Washington had, Lee could have kept retreating further into the south like Washington did.

You also mentioned the other big reason. They were fighting to preserve an order. Guerrilla wars are generally to overthrow an order.

This is what you get, by the dozens:

Last edited Sun Jun 4, 2017, 08:04 PM - Edit history (1)

the southern cause. He was urged to keep it going, but he declined. Unfortunately, all of the confederacy deplorables want to keep the cause going. They are frauds, fools, and completely in the wrong with their myths and should be treated as such.

http://www.vahistorical.org/collections-and-resources/virginia-history-explorer/robert-e-lee-after-war

"Heritage not hate," my ass.

You can generally condemn a man for an overwhelming bad fault (fighting for states that were going to war for slavery) without ignoring any positive qualities he may have possessed.

Lee was on the wrong side of history and it should have been apparent even at the time. That said, like all of us, he is more complicated than that.

He wouldn't read his kids a bedtime story unless they tickled his bare feet. If they paused, or stopped, he would stop reading and say, "No tickling, no story."

I found that a very strange task to set for your children.

Sounds a lot like today's Trump voters doesn't it? I believe that we are in the middle of a civil war over the same issues that caused the first one: racism, greed, bigotry, and ignorance.