Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?

Oski · #1 01-31-2007, 01:23 PM

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?

mrkilla · #2 01-31-2007, 01:30 PM

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

SamIAm · #3 01-31-2007, 01:32 PM

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.

Ribsauce · #4 01-31-2007, 01:33 PM

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

Oski · #5 01-31-2007, 02:02 PM

[ 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.

mjkidd · #6 01-31-2007, 02:06 PM

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

DrewDevil · #7 01-31-2007, 01:34 PM

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?

Oski · #8 01-31-2007, 02:04 PM

[ 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.

DrewDevil · #9 01-31-2007, 02:05 PM

[ 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?

TimM · #10 01-31-2007, 01:35 PM

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?