Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?

[nath]

Can we keep the politarding in politics please

[ShakeZula06]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually many of the founding fathers are on record of saying that if a state wants to leave the union, it should be allowed to. I'll look for a source.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is quite a good answer. Thanks.

I do have further questions, however:

1. I do believe Lee could have "risen above" his position and stopped the war. He had de facto power over his troops.

2. If there was not an earlier time where Lee could have stopped the fighting where the pros would have overriden the cons, the question does not present itself. (Unless, you wanted to accept the premise for the sake of argument).

3. I fully appreciate the fact that Lee was a central figure in healing the post-war U.S.A. However, long after that time has passed, I am wondering why history has not been more critical to Lee. I cannot shake the notion that a great man could have made the extraordinary decision to give up a lost cause.

4. I certainly agree with you about Forrest.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]


Again, had the South won a military victory, many of these figures probably would have been tried as war criminals.


[/ QUOTE ]

The fact you think this was even a remote possiblity shows a lack of understanding of the period. Had the CSA won the Civil War, it would have been a peace of equals. The North would have never surrendered; they would have simply stopped waging war against the South. The idea of Lincoln or Grant in CSA custody is farfetched to to the point of absurdity.

Having said that, yes, most Southerners thought Grant and Lincoln were butchers. But they never, ever would have faced trial in the south.

[Bill Murphy]

FYPT.

BTW, I don't consider Lee a war criminal, but it's hard to see how he wasn't a traitor to the USA. Killed a lot more Americans than Osama, too (tho you could certainly say that about Grant & Sherman, too).

Great military leader & great man personally, tho.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
Can we keep the politarding in politics please

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not really a political question; its more of a moral question. I am quite sure that there can be a variety of defendable answers.

I believe you participated in the "rank the murderers" thread. If this thread belongs in politics, so does that.

[CCass]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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...

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, if that is the standard you apply, then I suppose you are making an argument that Lee should be considered a war criminal.

Again, had the South won a military victory, many of these figures probably would have been tried as war criminals. IIRC, while the war was ongoing, there were some calling Lincoln a war criminal (or the accepted equivalent for those times).

Also, at no time was the CSA a sovereign nation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Lincoln would have been tried as a war criminal, because the south wasn't fighting for control of the USA, they just wanted to be left alone.

I don't see how you can say that the CSA was not a sovereign entity. Each state withdrew from the USA and then created their own autonomous "nation". They were independent of the USA at that point. I have never seen a Constitutionally valid argument against their seceding from the USA.

[ShakeZula06]

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

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually many of the founding fathers are on record of saying that if a state wants to leave the union, it should be allowed to. I'll look for a source.

[/ QUOTE ]
Found it here.
[ QUOTE ]
According to the theory of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John C. Calhoun, the states had entered into an agreement from which they might withdraw if other parties broke the terms of agreement, and they remained sovereign.

[/ QUOTE ]
That way you guys can at least stop snickering at the fact that in the South most people refer to it as "the war of northern agression".

The civil war was about consolidation to a monolithic American government and mercantilism. It's a joke that Abraham Lincoln is thought of as a good president in history books. And before you say "but he freed the slaves", the civil war wasn't about that. Also in Europe slavery was magically solved without a horrific war, here it cost us >900,000 lives and any semblence of state's rights.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
BTW, I don't consider Lee a war criminal, but it's hard to see how he wasn't a traitor to the USA.

[/ QUOTE ]
Pre-Civil War most people thought of whatever state they were from as there country, and rightfully so considering the original intent of the United States of America.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
I certainly understand that. However, it is not unusual to judge historical figures by modern standards.

[/ QUOTE ]

Was Ghengis Khan emotionally abusive toward his children?

Did Hannibal suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder?

Was Joan of Arc anorexic?

Was Aristotle an ivory tower academic who had no grasp on reality?