Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal?

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is simply an uncalled for ad hominem. I suggest you read the question and my comments. From the outset, I made it clear that I have been taught that Robert E. Lee was a great man, hero, etc., and I stated that I believe that to this day.

The actual thrust of the question came right at the outset: (paraphrasing) "If Lee could have ended the war at an earlier time, yet chose not to, at what point (if any) do his actions amount to murder ... under the premises stated in the OP.

I don't understand how by one merely asking a question necessarily means it is necessary to impart an opinion to the one asking the question.

Finally, I never said that Lee "never could be considered a war criminal." I thought it was pretty clear that I was introducing some scenarios, that if were factually accurate, could open up that very possibility.

I don't appreciate being called retarded, either. Remember, hugs are for retards.

[mjkidd]

I never called you retarted. I called your thread retarted.

[furyshade]

please read anything about Lost Cause Mythology, it pretty much explains the entire reasoning for Robet E. Lee's heroic representation along with the psychology of the post civil war south

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never stated that I was attempting to rewrite history. I was presenting a question about whether the (possible) failure of Lee to make a different choice could possibly amount to "murder" under the premise of the original question.

However, when one poster stated that the concept of war crimes did not exist at that time, I merely accepted that position for the sake of argument, and stated that it is not uncommon to judge historical figures by modern values. If I am mistaken about that, then feel free to correct me.

No doubt history looks most favorable on the winning side, and of course, the losing side historically runs the danger of being "prosecuted" for their actions against the victor. That is not really important to me. I understand that.

However, I was wondering if there was a more objective standard for when a war becomes unjustified and when its participants have arguably committed murder. I need not ask the obvious questions that involve wanton killing/raping of civilians, I am sure we can all agree that such is beyond acceptable wartime behavior.

Therefore, I attempted to present a scenario that is not so black and white.

Obviously, if war crimes did not exist at the time, I would hope that such would not obscure that actual question and prevent discussion. Instead, the question is relevant today, and if it is necessary to use modern terms (such as war crimes) to flesh out the discussion, so much the better.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
I never called you retarted. I called your thread retarted.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I suppose I should thank you for your contributions to this retarded thread.

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.

[Oski]

[ QUOTE ]
please read anything about Lost Cause Mythology, it pretty much explains the entire reasoning for Robet E. Lee's heroic representation along with the psychology of the post civil war south

[/ QUOTE ]

Will do. Thanks for the suggestion.

[mjkidd]

[ 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.

[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 ..."

[WilyTilt]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think a more interesting debate is whether Lee was actually a good general, as he has been lionized by popular culture as brilliant and out-maneuvering his opponents to preserve the South for several years. Some have said he was the best general in American history. But I think he had several major shortcomings:

1. He was tactically astute, but strategically he misunderstood the fundamental Southern necessity of staying on the DEFENSIVE. His greatest victories were defensive battles on Southern soil, such as Chancellorville, Fredericksburg, and Cold Harbor/Petersburg. In terms of ratio of casualties, those were astounding successes, and if he had stayed on the defensive he may have turned Union opinion through continued victories and high Union casualties.

2. However, he still believed in the Napoleonic tactics of a war of maneuver and offense, which was fundamentally based on the idea that a spirited offense (with bayonets and inaccurate muskets) would always defeat a defense. This was no longer true in the ACW with the advent of rifled muskets. This failure to adjust would lead to several major tactical errors, such as Pickett's Charge, or even fighting at Gettysburg at all despite the strong Union defensive positions (Longstreet said many times that Lee should've withdrawn after the first day to fight on ground of his choosing).

3. Therefore, his offensives in the north led to his greatest defeats. At Antietam, he only managed a draw because of McClellan's timidness and incompetence; at Gettysburg he suffered a defeat that crippled the Army of N. Virginia. He should not have wasted his initiative and manpower on those battles.

4. Also, he misunderstood the importance of the Western theatre, which was much more important in terms of the Southern economy. Several times he was asked to transfer to the Army of Tennessee or Vicksburg to prevent Grant/Sherman's advances. His failure to do so contributed to the South losing control of the Mississippi, which greatly hurt their ability to continue the war. Instead, rather incompetent generals like Bragg or Johnston were allowed to command the western theatre, leading to defeats at Vicksburg, Chattanooga, and Atlanta.

5. Finally, the reason why the Union did not win in the first three years was not due to Lee's brilliance, but rather the incompetence of the Northern generals and THEIR misunderstandings of grand strategy. McClellan, and even Meade, did not understand that the Northern strategy had to be the opposite of the Southern strategy, that they had to go on the offensive and sustain higher casualties in order to break the Southern economy and ability to resist. McClellan especially understood the security environment of the time, that rifled muskets would lead to very high casualties on the offense, but he did not understand that the Union could withstand higher casualties enough to defeat the South even on the offense. Hence, his horrible execution in 1862 of the Chesapeake expedition, which should've taken Richmond by all accounts. Another example is Meade's failure to chase Lee after Gettysburg, which may have finished the war in 1863.

In my last class, War and Politics, we went over the above to decide that Lee did not deserve his reputation of being a great general. However, those in the South often think of him as such, because of several historical accounts that overplayed his skills. Read McPherson's Battle Cry of Freedom for a good analysis of his short-comings.

As an aside, the best general in US history is still by far its first, George Washington. He was one of the few actors in any war whose presence was fundamental to the results; he helped to turn a very improbable rebellion into a victory against the greatest military power at the time.

[WilyTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
please read anything about Lost Cause Mythology, it pretty much explains the entire reasoning for Robet E. Lee's heroic representation along with the psychology of the post civil war south

[/ QUOTE ]

I hadn't seen this post when I posted my long analysis of why Lee was not a great general. This is exactly what I'm referring to in terms of the revisionism that made popular view of his abilities so great.