Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see how you can keep reading this as me stating this is a feasible scenario. I am merely stating that if this had happened, (which it wouldn't have) those figures would have been (or may have been) prosecuted for the "invasion."

This was merely posited to allow some to get beyond the "oh my god, he's calling Robert E. Lee a war criminal" outrage and perhaps contribute their thoughts to the topic (as opposed to calling me the biggest moron they ever read).

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

Geez, you are welcome to post those questions in another thread if you are so interested. If you are scoffing at the notion that historical perspective changes over time, I guess we have to disagree. You really don't have to shoot the messenger.

The question was generated by a comment in another thread about how unjustified war = murder (or something like that). I am just trying to explore the question further as applied to a fairly static scenario. If this is completely out of line, sorry to bother you.

So far, we have some stating that Lee bears no responsibility for ending the war sooner, because it wasn't his call, he was doing his duty, etc. I don't really buy that and offered the comparison to the Nazi war criminals.

By that example, it is quite obvious that the line can be crossed in war, even where one completely fulfilled his duty. I cannot think of any German general that was in the position where he could have effectively convinced his country to stop fighting. I believe Lee did have this power over his troops.

Of course, there are a myriad of reasons why he did not explore this power. Perhaps his choice not to answer this call was a failure on his behalf.

Therefore, I am merely asking why history has continued to be favorable to Lee and does not really address this delicate question.

Personally, as a man doing his duty, I do not fault Lee. I just think there may have been an opportunity for him to make a more inspired choice.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]


I don't see how you can keep reading this as me stating this is a feasible scenario.


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because you keep on repeating it without caveats.

[mjkidd]

[ QUOTE ]

Personally, as a man doing his duty, I do not fault Lee. I just think there may have been an opportunity for him to make a more inspired choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Lee's a war criminal because he failed to make an inspired choice? And you don't fault him for being a war criminal? WTF?

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Personally, as a man doing his duty, I do not fault Lee. I just think there may have been an opportunity for him to make a more inspired choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, Lee's a war criminal because he failed to make an inspired choice? And you don't fault him for being a war criminal? WTF?

[/ QUOTE ]

I never stated that Lee was a war criminal. I was just asking whether he could be considered one. Furthermore, as part of the question, I was asking whether Lee could have made an inspired choice and whether he failed in doing so.

[furyshade]

google/wikipedia "Reconstruction Mythology" after the war the south was still fighting, when the north came to reconstruct the south, the south heavily resisted considered the reconstruction "the second civil war which they won" i could go on but i dont think anyone is interested in the greater details,but also could you consider the american colonists war criminals had they lost? until the battle of saratoga they had almost no chance of winning the revolutionary war, i dont think you can condemn a force merely for continuing to fight. the south was so invested morally and economically that not fighting would be as devistating as losing at that point

[mmcd]

I just think it is very arrogant to attempt to judge important/great historical figures by our modern standards, especially when those standards are so watered down and just chock full of bullsh*t.

[mjkidd]

So you actually agree with everyone else in this thread that RE Lee was not, and never could be considered a war criminal. Glad we could clear that up. Perhaps we could start up a series of Retarted Strawmen Threads.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I don't see how you can keep reading this as me stating this is a feasible scenario.


[/ QUOTE ]

Probably because you keep on repeating it without caveats.

[/ QUOTE ]

I stated it twice. The first time, read in context of the post should make it clear that I am not stating that this was a likely scenario. After the second time, (under the assumption that it was fairly obvious that I was not presenting the question in connection with a scenario that I believed was possible to happen) I made the proper qualifiers.

[BCPVP]

No need to look so hard, Shake...

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."