Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?

[mjkidd]

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.

[guids]

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.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

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

[Oski]

[ 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.

[Oski]

[ 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?

[mjkidd]

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?

[Toro]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

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

[mjkidd]

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

[WilyTilt]

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.

[mmbt0ne]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not?