[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I guess you are of the opinion that the questions stated in the O.P. should never be considered, whether applied directly to the scenario presented, or to a more general situation.

I don't understand why you hold such opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

You use two terms to describe RE Lee's moral cupability: murder and war crimes. War crimes, by today's definition, can be rejected out of hands. Making last stands and fighting hopeless battles have been never considered war crimes. And no, I don't think a commander of an army who is following the rules of war could be guilty of war crimes by fighting a battle he cannot win.

Murder is another very specific legal term. I don't think that any commander of an army has ever been found, or thought to be guilty of murder, for senslessly spending the lives of his men. Is Lee responsible for the lives of the men under his command? Of course, but that is not his main concern. His main concern is to follow the legal orders of his Commmander in Chief. Surrender is a political descision, not a military one, unless all options are exausted. Lee's orders were link up with armies in the west; Lee thought a breakout was possible, and he tried it. Grant and Sheridan stopped him. The thing is, against Hooker or McClellan or Meade, a breakout WOULD have been possible, so how could Lee have known for certain without trying? He couldn't. When all hope was lost and his army was surrounded on 3 sides and outnumbered, he sensibly surrendered, even though his men would have fought. Even if he had ordered his men to fight a hopeless last stand, he would not be guilty of murder. Murder is the unlawful killing of another, and Lee would have the legal (if not moral) authority to order his men to thier deaths.

[/ QUOTE ]

I already stated that I don't fault Lee for doing his duty. Ok? Do you want to actually read the question? If not, no need to keep posting in this "retarted thread."

I also stated (probably more than once) that the question does not really involve fighting to the last man, etc. where the general is specifically in a position where he cannot deviate from his orders. To flesh this out, I did, however point out that "following orders" is not always an acceptible defense, and I used the Nazis as an example.

Committing a murder under the pretext of war, is a war crime. You can call it whatever you want, but the context of the original question makes that clear. Again, ordering men to death, or ordering men to kill other men, is a duty of a general. No argument. Of course, just because one has this authority, does not mean that it can be used under all conditions. Again, the Nazis provide an apt comparison.

So, your helpful explanation of the definitions of murder and war crimes really does nothing towards answering the question.

However, considering Lee's unique postion, he gained the status above and beyond a mere military figure. He could have affected the war outside of his duty as a general, had he chosen to. Of course, we must first answer the question as to whether Lee understood that the army should stop fighting, and whether he could have done anything about it. Thus, the ultimate question is (assuming "yes" as the answer to the first two questions) whether Lee's failure to act is morally culpable (or if it amounted to murder).

If you want to just answer the question, fine. Here, I will help you get started ...

"No. Lee's did not have the ability to effectively stop the South from fighting the war because ... No. Even if Lee did have such power, there was no need (or proper opportunity) to end the fighting sooner because ... No. Lee should not be considered a war criminal because even if questions one and two are "yes", his failure to act was justified because ..."