Posted on 04/29/2019 10:09:48 AM PDT by Pelham
Brian Lamb interviews author H.W. Crocker
H.W. Crocker talks about his book 'Robert E. Lee On Leadership: Executive Lessons in Character, Courage, and Vision', published by Prima Publishing. The book profiles the life and career of the Confederate Army General. The author pays special attention to General Lee’s career as a farmer and president of the school now known as Washington and Lee University in Lexington, Virginia. He examines the general’s character, vision and spirit and how these principles can be applied in today’s marketplace
From a leadership perspective Lee is akin to Rommel. Both very good generals doing more with less.
A loss is still a loss. It the results that count.
Warring on your homeland is wrong.
Thanks for posting.
No. Wrong. Dead stop. His country was The United States of America. His oath was to protect and defend the United States Constitution.
I recognize that he had a difficult decision to make. Taking the commission offered by Lincoln did not automatically mean that he would be waging war against his home state. Arguably, honoring his previous commitment would most certainly have sparred thousands (if not tens of thousands) of American lives.
But renouncing his oath and turning his back on his motherland by joining the rebels DID mean that he waged war against her. Some would call that treason.
Tough choices. I believe that he chose poorly.
“Warring on your homeland is wrong. “
King George III agrees! That was the exact point of his “Proclamation For Suppressing Rebellion And Sedition” aimed at George Washington and friends:
“We have thought fit, by and with the Advice of Our Privy Council, to issue this Our Royal Proclamation, hereby declaring that not only all Our Officers, Civil and Military, are obliged to exert their utmost Endeavours to suppress such Rebellion, and to bring the Traitors to Justice; but that all Our Subjects of this Realm and the Dominions thereunto belonging are bound by Law to be aiding and assisting in the Suppression of such Rebellion, and to disclose and make known all traitorous Conspiracies and Attempts against Us, Our Crown and Dignity.”
I believe Washington received British pay.
“King George III agrees!”
The difference, of course, is that Lincoln was ELECTED. Unlike King George.
New York and others reserved the right to take back the sovereignty they had given up if they ever felt that it was necessary to do so.
No, I think right and wrong play a huge role in what counts. Certainly Hitler had no right to invade other countries and kill their people.
The fact that he won does not change any of that. He still didn't have the moral right to do what he did.
I am sure that when Washington was in the King’s service he received the Kings pay.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/confederate-history-slave-ownership/
Tired of trying to make a clickable link on shrimp boat wifi. Can’t find the memoirs but this will have to do until I get back on land in June.
Lee freed his slaves which he inherited, not purchased, a year before the emancipation proclamation, whereas Yankee generals amongnothers kept theirs until after the war was over.
Did I miss something in my history class, thought the Germans were defeated in WWII.
When the founders articulated the right to freedom, Britain ceased to be their homeland. Where their homes actually remained was their homeland.
Literally, Home-Land.
Denying the right to independence is rebelling. Exercising that right is not.
He was elected by a rump plurality, sort of like Bill Clinton. Elections for the Presidency should require at least a majority. With pluralities, you can elect a man that the majority hates.
Also, the right to independence would not have changed had George III been elected. It's not about how a government is constituted that matters, it is the "consent of the governed" that is the sole requirement for governmental legitimacy.
So another manner in which George Washington and Robert E Lee are similar.
your point?
They took Poland before we even entered the war. Had they stopped there, they probably could have kept it. According to your calculus, they would have been in the right to do so.
I don't hold with the "Might makes Right" theory of war morality.
Your entitled to your opinion.
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.