Posted on 05/12/2010 11:50:16 AM PDT by Davy Buck
Lee had no real problems with slavery and didn't free his slaves until December 1862. Let's not make the man out to be something he isn't; he's a human, not a deity. Lee was faced with a difficult decision. Lee took the only course he felt his honor allowed him. While I may not agree with it, and while by a strict interpretation of the Constitution his actions may have constituted treason, I am certainly not going to condemn him for it. The average man, upon reaching the crossroads in life, often does not take the right path if he feels it's too hard. Lee took that path regardless of the consequences because he felt it was the only thing his integrity allowed. I respect him for that, and recognize that he paid a tremendous price for his decision.
Actually you should of limited your answer to the question rather then engage in such a transparently childish attempt at topic diversion.
Your response not only proved you don't really believe your "Crusade" argument but also indicated you pretensions to intellectual credibility on this topic are a grotesque fraud.
By saying NO you then agree that Secession was an illegitimate response to the results of the 1860 elections.
BTW, I have a BA in History. So from the point of view of Education, I have a much better grasp of the facts on this topic then you.
Grant one said that No worse cause in history was ever served by better men.
Robert Duvall - amazing as the old man in a cameo in The Road based in the Cormc McCarthy novel.
His best performance ever?
LOL...I think we need to post the picture of the Civilty War FAIL BOAT (The one lying over on its side...)
I generally don’t get involved with Civil War threads for just that reason, but I have always felt that Lee made a tough choice, a very tough choice, and he lived the rest of his life facing it.
As someone who has been lucky enough in life never to have had to make a decision like that one, I respect those who do. I think he made the harder choice, one that he probably knew was not going to go well in the end, but by gosh, he made it. Could I make that decision? I guess I will only know if it comes up. I would like to say I could, but...how does one ever know?
Interesting...I wrote my post at #47 before I saw yours.
I agree. He WAS a human.
HAAAA Damn now that is funny!
Yes, I do not work in the field being far too over on the right politically to be tolerated by the Historian’s guild
I LOVED him as Josha Chamberlain. What a great man, too. (Chamberlain)
I think Washington had to have someone playing it with a HUGE amount of stature and...should I say it (because I HATE the word)...gravitas.
I kept wanting to giggle every time I saw his face, but I give him points for doing a yeoman job.
Slavery was the diving issue for the leaders of the Southern Secessionist movement.
It was not the only issue but it was the key issue in the US Civil War.
Without the divisive issue of slavery dividing the politics north and south all the other issues would of been resolved via political consensus and comprise. Only the issue of Slavery was the “irreconcilable issue” that dived North and South
This is, so far, about as gentle a civil war thread as I have seen.
Why, no one has yet praised the skulking coward who came up behind Lincoln and shot him with a little girl’s gun, for example.
Great question. And no Southerner would have made a statement like he made. The ability to secede from the Union was NOT a revolution, it was and still is a part of the Constitution. We, as citizens can rebel against a tyrannical government. The problem for the South was that the North beat them. There was never a settling of the concept of states seceding.
Agree. Totally. And we should do it again before the progressive progress us into an historical asterisk.
BTW, I agree about Neeson as Washington; it would be a close to perfect fit.
Yup, almost as much fun as debates about the Slaveholder’s Rebellion.
Oh, wait. It’s the same thing.
Burned out the Bonus Marchers camped on the Mall, under Macarther’s direction. Didn’t have problem shooting at WWI veterans who were starving and trying to get the bonus guarenteed to them by Hoover and FDR. FDR never paid them.
Absolutely untrue. He led an army that fought Yankee aggression. He fought in defense of the South's right to secede. He had no interest in revolting against the government of the US and neither did the South. They wanted seperation from the Union...not control over it. And t5hey were well within their rights to secede. lincoln's response was to trample the Constitution and wage war on the PEOPLE of the South.
He didn’t ‘lead’ the Confederacy. At best he was a reluctant defender.
Lincoln himself insisted that he lead the Union Army. The only reason he did not, is because the legislature of Virginia voted in favour of secession.
Lee could have done as others did, and leave the Confederacy, but he chose to defend his state. I can’t fault him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.