Opinion of Robert E. Lee

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I should cite this poll everytime someone accuses this of being a liberally-slanted form.

Or perhaps that they recognize Lee as one of the most civilized human beings this country has produced.

No, more like a traitor fighting for a wretched regime. Disgusting human trash just like every single person who fought for that abomination that is the Confederacy.

[Lief 🗽]

And the worst part is, unlike some of the German World War II generals who were otherwise decent people (I'm thinking of Rommel and the like), Lee was given a clear and easy choice, and he chose to fight for that repugnant regime. No one forced him to, and he was even offered to fight for the Union, but he refused!

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

So once again then, what were the people in the South who engaged in guerilla warfare against the Confederacy? Were they traitors?

[Psychic Octopus]

So once again then, what were the people in the South who engaged in guerilla warfare against the Confederacy? Were they traitors?

To the South, Yes, since they attacked their country/region. I support there guerilla actions, however. Lee would have been a traitor to the south, (See Winfield Scott, a favorite General of Mine) had he sided with the north. The Confederacy may have been born in sin, but treason still applies.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's better to be a traitor to traitors (the South being a treacherous region) than your country. Also better to be a traitor to evil than follow evil. Was von Stauffenberg a traitor? Probably, but that doesn't mean I disapprove of his actions.

[SPC]

anti-slavery secessionist general = freedom fighter.

All of the secessionists were fighting for slavery, SPC, whether or not they liked to admit it. Robert E. Lee, unlike many of the poor, ignorant conscripts he sent to their deaths, actually chose to fight for it though.

Don't act like the Union didn't have the draft, and at least in the political sense, it was the South fighting against political enslavement.

I don't pretend to not support conscription. When a country is threatened, then they should be able to draft their citizens to defend the country. And I don't buy this "political enslavement" garbage; politically enslaved to do what? Treat people as human-beings rather than property? And if you want to talk about political enslavement, the South did their part in pushing their pro-slavery policies on the north, through the Fugitive Slave Act, and things like the Crittenden and Corwin amendments.

What is the point of defending one's country if one already lives under a tyranny, one where the state can send you to die? They are politically enslaved to the United States government, thanks to the Union victory. I don't deny that the South pushed pro-slavery policies on the North (BTW, Lincoln was the one who sponsored the Corwin Amendment). However, apparently unbeknownst to you, by seceding, the South made it so the North wouldn't have to put up with political enslavement. Thus, an independent South meant that the Fugutive Slave Act wouldn't be enforced, and that the North wouldn't have to put up with the South's slavery anymore. Also, it is funny that you support the draft and at the same time object to the idea that humans are property, since apparently when someone can send you to a battlefield at your life's risk far away from your home, you can still own yourself. Good luck explaining that one.

You and I have different definitions of tyranny, obviously. Conscription is never a good thing, and obviously not a goal of a democratic government, but sometimes some freedoms must be temporarily taken away to preserve the state, so that it can continue to protect freedom and natural rights after the conflict is over.

So, you wouldn't consider it tyranny if I had the power to take you away from your job, family, and friends and send you to do the work of my choice that happens to have a high mortality rate? Also, LOL at the state protecting freedom and natural rights.

[DownWithTheLeft]

Are country has seen few greater freedom fighters.  From his destruction of the traitorous terrorist John Brown to his stand against Northern aggression, Robert E. Lee is a true American hero.

[Хahar 🤔]

Very much a Horrible Person.

[Conservative frontier]

I kindly Abstain.

He was a bastard for betraying America, but a man with convictions for sticking with Virginia, which he dearly loved.

[Free Palestine]

One man's traitor is another's patriot.  It is nationalistic and ignorant to call Lee a traitor.  States have (or rather, had) the right to secede, and he was defending the right of his state, as well as others, to do so.

[useful idiot]

Not an FF, but a man I admire greatly and who yes, made the right decision. The Civil War was going to take place whether he liked it or not, to fight against the citizens of his home state would have been monstrous.

Slavery was a moral crime, but don't for a minute act like it played into the mind of Lee(or Jackson, or most of the generals for that matter) or the leaders in the North who weren't hardcore abolitionists. The blame rests on the political establishment in the South for slavery, and the blame for the war rests on the shoulders of both sides.

This "traitor" nonsense that the Dems in this thread have been spouting off is retarded. It was often said in the North that they would consider seceding themselves if Breckenridge won. Would the Northerners have been traitors then in your minds?

[Хahar 🤔]

One man's traitor is another's patriot.  It is nationalistic and ignorant to call Lee a traitor.  States have (or rather, had) the right to secede, and he was defending the right of his state, as well as others, to do so.

He was defending slavery.

[useful idiot]

One man's traitor is another's patriot.  It is nationalistic and ignorant to call Lee a traitor.  States have (or rather, had) the right to secede, and he was defending the right of his state, as well as others, to do so.

He was defending slavery.

That's like saying everyone in the current U.S. military is fighting for the interests of multinational corporations. It's true, and in a sense we enslave the world, but that doesn't really play into the minds of most enlisted guys and officers. They think they're protecting America and that they're necessary to do so; both are wrong, but whatever.

Slavery played no part in Lee's decision to fight for the South, period.

[Bo]

HP

[Хahar 🤔]

One man's traitor is another's patriot.  It is nationalistic and ignorant to call Lee a traitor.  States have (or rather, had) the right to secede, and he was defending the right of his state, as well as others, to do so.

He was defending slavery.

That's like saying everyone in the current U.S. military is fighting for the interests of multinational corporations. It's true, and in a sense we enslave the world, but that doesn't really play into the minds of most enlisted guys and officers. They think they're protecting America and that they're necessary to do so; both are wrong, but whatever.

Slavery played no part in Lee's decision to fight for the South, period.

I'd accept that if we were talking about some enlisted man, but we're not. Regardless of whether or not slavery played a role in his decision, it should have. He was fighting for its preservation.

[Free Palestine]

One man's traitor is another's patriot.  It is nationalistic and ignorant to call Lee a traitor.  States have (or rather, had) the right to secede, and he was defending the right of his state, as well as others, to do so.

He was defending slavery.

That's like saying everyone in the current U.S. military is fighting for the interests of multinational corporations. It's true, and in a sense we enslave the world, but that doesn't really play into the minds of most enlisted guys and officers. They think they're protecting America and that they're necessary to do so; both are wrong, but whatever.

Slavery played no part in Lee's decision to fight for the South, period.

I'd accept that if we were talking about some enlisted man, but we're not. Regardless of whether or not slavery played a role in his decision, it should have. He was fighting for its preservation.

And most people in the North were not fighting for it's abolition.

[Хahar 🤔]

One man's traitor is another's patriot.  It is nationalistic and ignorant to call Lee a traitor.  States have (or rather, had) the right to secede, and he was defending the right of his state, as well as others, to do so.

He was defending slavery.

That's like saying everyone in the current U.S. military is fighting for the interests of multinational corporations. It's true, and in a sense we enslave the world, but that doesn't really play into the minds of most enlisted guys and officers. They think they're protecting America and that they're necessary to do so; both are wrong, but whatever.

Slavery played no part in Lee's decision to fight for the South, period.

I'd accept that if we were talking about some enlisted man, but we're not. Regardless of whether or not slavery played a role in his decision, it should have. He was fighting for its preservation.

And most people in the North were not fighting for it's abolition.

So? The victory of the United States of America resulted in the end of slavery.

[roby]

It doesn't matter what he was thinking, the point is that he fought for the side that supported slavery of other human beings, and that makes him an awful person.

[Mechaman]

It doesn't matter what he was thinking, the point is that he fought for the side that supported slavery of other human beings, and that makes him an awful person.

Right, and the Union states of West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland so totally didn't allow slavery at all!
I don't have a fond memory of the Confederation or what it stood for, but to act like only they were guilty of supporting slavery is being ignorant of history.

[Хahar 🤔]

It doesn't matter what he was thinking, the point is that he fought for the side that supported slavery of other human beings, and that makes him an awful person.

Right, and the Union states of West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland so totally didn't allow slavery at all!
I don't have a fond memory of the Confederation or what it stood for, but to act like only they were guilty of supporting slavery is being ignorant of history.

Slavery was abolished in those states at the Union victory. Slavery would not have been abolished in case of a Confederate victory.

[Free Palestine]

It doesn't matter what he was thinking, the point is that he fought for the side that supported slavery of other human beings, and that makes him an awful person.

Right, and the Union states of West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland so totally didn't allow slavery at all!
I don't have a fond memory of the Confederation or what it stood for, but to act like only they were guilty of supporting slavery is being ignorant of history.

Slavery was abolished in those states at the Union victory. Slavery would not have been abolished in case of a Confederate victory.

Just what do you think of as a "Confederate victory"?  At the most, the South would have won it's independence.  They had no intention of conquering the North, nor did they have the capability of doing so.  A Confederate "victory" would have resulted in two different countries.  And in the North, slavery would be abolished, easily, by Constitutional amendment.

[roby]

It doesn't matter what he was thinking, the point is that he fought for the side that supported slavery of other human beings, and that makes him an awful person.

Right, and the Union states of West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland so totally didn't allow slavery at all!
I don't have a fond memory of the Confederation or what it stood for, but to act like only they were guilty of supporting slavery is being ignorant of history.

Ok, so the Northern victory over the backwards South totally didn't bring an end to slavery, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[WillK]

One man's traitor is another's patriot.  It is nationalistic and ignorant to call Lee a traitor.  States have (or rather, had) the right to secede, and he was defending the right of his state, as well as others, to do so.

States never had the right to secede.  The ignorance is yours. 
Lee was a traitor by the straight forward meaning if that word.

[WillK]

Not an FF, but a man I admire greatly and who yes, made the right decision. The Civil War was going to take place whether he liked it or not, to fight against the citizens of his home state would have been monstrous.

Slavery was a moral crime, but don't for a minute act like it played into the mind of Lee

On the contrary, it clearly did play into the mind of Lee.

[Mechaman]

It doesn't matter what he was thinking, the point is that he fought for the side that supported slavery of other human beings, and that makes him an awful person.

Right, and the Union states of West Virginia, Missouri, Kentucky, Delaware, and Maryland so totally didn't allow slavery at all!
I don't have a fond memory of the Confederation or what it stood for, but to act like only they were guilty of supporting slavery is being ignorant of history.

Ok, so the Northern victory over the backwards South totally didn't bring an end to slavery, got it. Thanks for clearing that up.

Look at the underlined part of the quote.
I was addressing your point about how Robert E Lee was a horrible person for fighting for the side that supported slavery. Well, during the war both sides supported slavery of other human beings, so no matter what he would've been fighting for a side that supported slavery.
I'm not discussing the end result, I am discussing what was going on when he made the choice of what side he would fight on, and that both sides supported this great evil.  Politically correct history will say that the North was all good and lovey dovey and fought the Civil War because they gave a damn about the black man, real history shows that the North allowed slavery within their own states and didn't adopt the mission of abolition until it could give them an advantage in the war.
It is entirely unfair to judge Robert E. Lee on that basis when no matter what he did at that point in time, he would've been supporting slavery.  Nobody in 1861 saw the war at that time as "Slavery vs. Abolition" they saw it as "North vs. South", because that is exactly what it was.
And knowing the bigotry that was rampant in Northern cities against immigrants, LOL at you thinking that only the South was backwards in cultural attitudes.