Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

Inspired by the "Rank the Murderers" thread.

Some posters made the point that war = murder when it is not for the purposes of self-defense. I am not sure that it is that simple, anyway:

There comes a time in many wars that one side can clearly understand that it cannot win. In those cases, the losing side will attempt to position itself for a diplomatic resolution (or a surrender with some concessions). Once the "end game" is apparent, and the losing side can no longer improve its position, it can be argued that further figting serves no purpose and that further casualties is de facto murder.

After Gettysburg, Lee voiced the opinion that the South could no longer win a military victory. He also raised concerns that a political victory was unlikely. Nevertheless, he soldiered on.

After the Wilderness campaign, (despite the ghastly casualties suffered by the Union troops) Lee acknowledged that Grant was content to trade bodies as the Union was guaranteed to win the war of attrition.

As the Confederates were holed up in Peterburg Lee again acknowledged (as he witnessed his men starving to death) that he could not win. Nevertheless, Lee again chose to prolong the war by attempting a breakout to the West.

***

Even without the benefit of history books, Lee was clearly able to understand that at some point after Gettysburg and the ensuring two years before surrender, that the war was a lost cause for the South.

Nevertheless, he chose to prolong the war at the expense of hundreds of thousands of civilan and military casualties, not to mention the destruction heaped on the South by Sherman, et al. as the Union was trying ot force surrender.

By most accounts, Lee was the one (and only one) person that had the ability to keep the Confederates fighting. Had he thrown down his arms, the War would have quickly ended. Not only did Lee fail to surrender, however, he urged his troops to keep fighting long past their breaking point.

At what point (if any) do Lee's actions amount to murder (assuming you accept the premise that there is a difference between casualties in a "justified" war and "murder" as we commonly understand it)?

Why was the Union so quick to canonize Lee after the War? I appreciate the fact that Lee and his family had a long history of service to the Union, and that mercy on him would speed up the healing process for the Union.

Nevertheless, aside from the practical reasons for showing mercy to Lee, why has history followed suit?

Long after the need to unify the nation has passed, why is Lee still considered an "American" hero as opposed to a war criminal?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

paging Anacardo, Anacardo please report to white phone in the lobby

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

Wasn't he tried for war crimes and found innocent? Not saying new discoveries can't come to light, but Robert did think about this while he was alive. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
-Sam

P.S. When the south rises again, you better hope a sympathetic mod deletes your OP. Just a heads-up.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

I've heard some really bad attempts at dragging Lee's name through the mud but this is the worst yet, by far.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

I don't think "continuing to fight even though the war is lost" qualifies as a war crime.

Plus, by this standard every losing general in every war would be a war criminal unless he surrended the moment he felt his side would lose.

WTF?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

I don't know all that much history, but it's hard to second guess. He fought on for a reason. Perhaps Lee was ready to admit he couldn't win, but the rest of the Confederacy was not. Sure he could have stopped the fighting, but would the country be any better off if there remained a large contingent who believed surrender was premature?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

No seriously OP, you have to be the dumbest mother [censored] in the world.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

Posting one more time to have 3 posts in the stupidest thread I've ever seen on the intenet

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
not to mention the destruction heaped on the South by Sherman, et al. as the Union was trying ot force surrender.


[/ QUOTE ]

yea sure thats the only reason. Then why did they stop burning everything in site as soon as they crossed the NC border? Do you think the Civil War was about slavery too?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

4 posts in a row in a thread that is so bad the OP should be shipped to Siberia

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
4 posts in a row

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you doing? Cut it out.
-Sam

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

It wasn't Lee's choice to surrender, it was Davis'. And you seem to be talking about Grant's Overland Campaign, which happened in spring/summer of 1864. At this point the South was fighting to make the war unpalatable for the American people and get McClellan elected president. If Lincoln loses the election in November, there is a good chance that the South could sue for peace.

And even if it was hopeless, this situation happens in most wars. Were the German field marshalls murderers to continue resisting allied forces after D-Day? Their position was more hopeless than the CSA in spring 1864.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't Lee's choice to surrender, it was Davis'. And you seem to be talking about Grant's Overland Campaign, which happened in spring/summer of 1864. At this point the South was fighting to make the war unpalatable for the American people and get McClellan elected president. If Lincoln loses the election in November, there is a good chance that the South could sue for peace.

And even if it was hopeless, this situation happens in most wars. Were the German field marshalls murderers to continue resisting allied forces after D-Day? Their position was more hopeless than the CSA in spring 1864.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that once the Germans retreated to the Maginot Line (obviously before they retreated to the Sigfried LIne) they knew the war was lost. However, the army was lead by a fanatical bunch who demanded a fight to the end.

Many of the field generals showed acts of heroism by figuring out a way to artfully surrender once their immediate objectives were no longer tenable.

With Lee, it is a different situation:

He had the power to convince Davis that surrender was the only solution. Yet, he chose to fight on.

Evidence supports the position that Lee knew he could not win a military victory and that a political victory was remote.

*** I don't understand the outrage over the question. As an American, I was raised to look at Lee in a positive light. I still do. I think he was an amazing person.

However, I don't understand why history has not been more critical to him as he was in a unique position to save hundereds of thousands of lives.

He chose to carry on even though he knew his chances were very slim.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard some really bad attempts at dragging Lee's name through the mud but this is the worst yet, by far.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey. Why don't you just answer the questions? After all, they are just questions. I am not propositioning for one side or the other, I am asking why? or why not?

If I made a factual misstatement, please do us the service of correcting it. Otherwise, I don't see how anyone is being dragged through the mud ... I made some factual statements and then asked some questions.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think "continuing to fight even though the war is lost" qualifies as a war crime.

Plus, by this standard every losing general in every war would be a war criminal unless he surrended the moment he felt his side would lose.

WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not a premise of the question. This situation is unusual and cannot apply to most military situations.

Lee was in a unique position to act upon his assessment of the war and end it. He was the one person who could have pursuaded the South to stop fighting.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think "continuing to fight even though the war is lost" qualifies as a war crime.

Plus, by this standard every losing general in every war would be a war criminal unless he surrended the moment he felt his side would lose.

WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not a premise of the question. This situation is unusual and cannot apply to most military situations.

Lee was in a unique position to act upon his assessment of the war and end it. He was the one person who could have pursuaded the South to stop fighting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with both of those assertions, and even if you were right, failing to surrender is never going to be grounds for calling someone a war criminal.

And your post is inflammatory, can't you see that?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

But during the Wilderness campaign, some political settlement was still feasible. The South's position wasn't hopeless.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
No seriously OP, you have to be the dumbest mother [censored] in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on your ad hominem attack.

Again, you are free to discuss the topic (or, why the topic is so disturbing to you, or so inappropriate for discussion).

Finally, I don't understand the point you are trying to make two posts hence.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
But during the Wilderness campaign, some political settlement was still feasible. The South's position wasn't hopeless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you here. I was making a timeline of Lee's understanding of the situation. It is obvious that a political solution was fading and by the time he attempted a breakout from Petersburg, a political resolution was nearly impossible.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think "continuing to fight even though the war is lost" qualifies as a war crime.

Plus, by this standard every losing general in every war would be a war criminal unless he surrended the moment he felt his side would lose.

WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

That was not a premise of the question. This situation is unusual and cannot apply to most military situations.

Lee was in a unique position to act upon his assessment of the war and end it. He was the one person who could have pursuaded the South to stop fighting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Disagree with both of those assertions, and even if you were right, failing to surrender is never going to be grounds for calling someone a war criminal.

And your post is inflammatory, can't you see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. If you do not believe that Lee understood his situation to be untenable, then no need to address the question;
2. If you do not believe that Lee could have pursuaded the South to stop fighting, no need to address the question.

** I never staed that failing to surrender is going to be ground for calling someone a war criminal. Only if 1 and 2 are accepted, is the failure to surrender (potential) grounds.

Finally, I do not see why the post is inflammatory. Please explain.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

So we can agree that all battles before Lincoln's reelection are not war crimes on Lee's part? That leaves only Lee's breakout from Petersburg in Feburary 1865, followed by 2 months of minor battles, with light casualties on both sides. Probably about 10,000 dead, which after the ghastly death toll of the war is hardly worth considering.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

Some posters made the point that war = murder when it is not for the purposes of self-defense.



The person who said this is an utter moran.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

Lee did try to surrender, but it wasn't his call.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
So we can agree that all battles before Lincoln's reelection are not war crimes on Lee's part? That leaves only Lee's breakout from Petersburg in Feburary 1865, followed by 2 months of minor battles, with light casualties on both sides. Probably about 10,000 dead, which after the ghastly death toll of the war is hardly worth considering.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. If Lee's actions were to amount to war crimes, I would say it would be sometime after the Wilderness and before the attempted breakout.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Lee did try to surrender, but it wasn't his call.

[/ QUOTE ]

If he wanted to, he could have made it his call.

First of all, we need to consider the premise of whether the South surrendering at an earlier point would have been beneficial. If it wasn't, there is no question to be answered here (unless it is strictly in the hypothetical).

Second, Lee was in a unique situation were he could have potentially made a more courageous decision to stop fighting. After all, Lee professed that man's highest virtue is to do his duty. His primary duty (according to him) was to defend Virginia from the northern invaders. At some point, prolonging the war was doing more damage to Virginia and the rest of the South, than the possibility of victory or a political settlement would justify.

An intresting comparison is that the German troops conceded that they were not going to win the war, and many wished that Hitler could accept that. They had to continue fighting, however, for their country and because it was impossible to quit. That did not change the fact they wished it would be over.

Many Confederate soldiers fought on because of the inspiration Lee provided them, and many wanted to win the war for him. At some point, fighting for the South was almost secondary.

Again, if you don't accept the premise that Lee could not have stopped the war any sooner, then this question only exists as a hypothetical to be applied to a different situation.

Finally, should the South have won an unconditional victory, it is likely Lincoln would have been tried as a war criminal. If such were the case, should Lincoln have been found a war criminal?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

But a political solution was a possibility right until Lincoln won the election. This was the hope that Lee and other Confederates held onto. It was misguided, but how could Lee be expected to know accurately judge the political situation in the North?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
And your post is inflammatory, can't you see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honest question, not flaming. Are Southerners still sensitive about this [censored]?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

The south would have never, ever won an unconditional victory.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

OP makes an interesting contention. No need to criticize him for trying to start an intellectual debate.

The main reasons why R.E. Lee isn't considered a war criminal is because he fought without breaking the rules of war, committing fewer atrocities than many of the generals on both sides. He was deeply respected by soldiers and politicians on both sides. The definition of a war criminal is someone who breaks the laws of war, by harming civilians/POW's, and nothing more. Fighting to the last man does not count as a war crime, but most of the times is instead respected as courage or fulfillment of duty.

Furthermore, specific to the ACW, Lee could not have known the South had lost until after the 1864 re-election of Lincoln. Also, I do not believe that Jefferson Davis would've simply surrendered if Lee told him so - recall that Davis tried to run after Appomattox, and the war wasn't over until Johnson and several other generals surrendered. Also, the center of gravity of the war was not casualties or victories on the field, but rather the will to fight for the Union population. If Lee thought there was a chance he could hold out and bleed the Army of the Potomac until the northern population got sick of the slaughter, then he can't be considered wrong for doing what he did.

After the Civil War, he was allowed to become president of Washington & Lee University because Lincoln/Johnson wanted to reconcile the south with rejoining the Union, and imprisoning Lee would've been outrageous to the south.

Now if there's one general who could be considered a war criminal in the ACW, it's Nathaniel Forrest. He did not take black POW's when captured from the Union army, and ordered the massacre of black soldiers at Fort Pillow.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think the Civil War was about slavery too?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Honest question, not flaming. Are Southerners still sensitive about this [censored]?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

Now for a serious answer to the OP's question. Lee should be considered a "war criminal" for prolonging the war (and thus causing more deaths) at the same time that Grant, Sherman, Lincoln, etc... are considered "war criminals" for invading a sovereign nation, ruthlessly killing innocent women and children, etc...

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And your post is inflammatory, can't you see that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honest question, not flaming. Are Southerners still sensitive about this [censored]?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess you've never encountered anyone from south of Washington DC.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
...for invading a sovereign nation, ruthlessly killing innocent women and children, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

"sovereign" nation?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Again, if you don't accept the premise that Lee could not have stopped the war any sooner, then this question only exists as a hypothetical to be applied to a different situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lee was just serving his President. not sure why this is so hard to understand. He tried to resign, Davis wouldn't let him. and at the end of the war, many of his troops wanted to keep fighting, but it was Lee who stopped them.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
...for invading a sovereign nation, ruthlessly killing innocent women and children, etc...

[/ QUOTE ]

"sovereign" nation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would the CSA not be considered a sovereign nation?

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

You gotta win a war before you're a sovereign nation. Till then you're just a bunch or rebels/traitors.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
The South sucks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

Not when you're a sovereign State in a federal Union supposedly deriving its powers from the consent of the governed.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not when you're a sovereign State in a federal Union supposedly deriving its powers from the consent of the governed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol at federalism.

Re: Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Not when you're a sovereign State in a federal Union supposedly deriving its powers from the consent of the governed.

[/ QUOTE ]

ty