Should Robert E. Lee be considered a war criminal? - Page 2

SamIAm · #11 01-31-2007, 01:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]
4 posts in a row

[/ QUOTE ]
What are you doing? Cut it out.
-Sam

mjkidd · #12 01-31-2007, 01:49 PM

It wasn't Lee's choice to surrender, it was Davis'. And you seem to be talking about Grant's Overland Campaign, which happened in spring/summer of 1864. At this point the South was fighting to make the war unpalatable for the American people and get McClellan elected president. If Lincoln loses the election in November, there is a good chance that the South could sue for peace.

And even if it was hopeless, this situation happens in most wars. Were the German field marshalls murderers to continue resisting allied forces after D-Day? Their position was more hopeless than the CSA in spring 1864.

Oski · #13 01-31-2007, 01:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
It wasn't Lee's choice to surrender, it was Davis'. And you seem to be talking about Grant's Overland Campaign, which happened in spring/summer of 1864. At this point the South was fighting to make the war unpalatable for the American people and get McClellan elected president. If Lincoln loses the election in November, there is a good chance that the South could sue for peace.

And even if it was hopeless, this situation happens in most wars. Were the German field marshalls murderers to continue resisting allied forces after D-Day? Their position was more hopeless than the CSA in spring 1864.

[/ QUOTE ]

I would argue that once the Germans retreated to the Maginot Line (obviously before they retreated to the Sigfried LIne) they knew the war was lost. However, the army was lead by a fanatical bunch who demanded a fight to the end.

Many of the field generals showed acts of heroism by figuring out a way to artfully surrender once their immediate objectives were no longer tenable.

With Lee, it is a different situation:

He had the power to convince Davis that surrender was the only solution. Yet, he chose to fight on.

Evidence supports the position that Lee knew he could not win a military victory and that a political victory was remote.

*** I don't understand the outrage over the question. As an American, I was raised to look at Lee in a positive light. I still do. I think he was an amazing person.

However, I don't understand why history has not been more critical to him as he was in a unique position to save hundereds of thousands of lives.

He chose to carry on even though he knew his chances were very slim.

Oski · #14 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.

Oski · #15 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 · #16 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?

mjkidd · #17 01-31-2007, 02:06 PM

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

Oski · #18 01-31-2007, 02:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No seriously OP, you have to be the dumbest mother [censored] in the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please expand on your ad hominem attack.

Again, you are free to discuss the topic (or, why the topic is so disturbing to you, or so inappropriate for discussion).

Finally, I don't understand the point you are trying to make two posts hence.

Oski · #19 01-31-2007, 02:08 PM

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I certainly agree with you here. I was making a timeline of Lee's understanding of the situation. It is obvious that a political solution was fading and by the time he attempted a breakout from Petersburg, a political resolution was nearly impossible.

Oski · #20 01-31-2007, 02:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. If you do not believe that Lee understood his situation to be untenable, then no need to address the question;
2. If you do not believe that Lee could have pursuaded the South to stop fighting, no need to address the question.

** I never staed that failing to surrender is going to be ground for calling someone a war criminal. Only if 1 and 2 are accepted, is the failure to surrender (potential) grounds.

Finally, I do not see why the post is inflammatory. Please explain.