Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oaths are to guide you when times get confusing, not to mention downright tough.
Anyone can keep an oath when times are not challenging.
That said, it isn't hard to see why Lee violated his oath, and he was hardly alone. I actually don't think this was a huge deal in the scheme of things. But I do think the idea that loyalty to your state trumps loyalty to your nation is a bit of a stretch, and again, many people at the time saw it as I do.
I don't disagree that, by definition, Lee committed treason.
There were others in the south that did hold true to their oath.
George Thomas was one. And he seems to be one of the forgotten ones.
I don’t disagree with anything there. The point is in 1860 attitudes were different. Lee was loyal to state over country.
But if we're discussing the ethics of that choice, surely it's relevant to bring up what his state was doing - and why. Mindless loyalty isn't honorable. Fighting well for a dishonorable cause is nothing to be proud of.
Lee graduated from West Point, took an oath on his honor to protect and defend the U.S. and our Constitution, then turned traitor.
Attacking the U.S. is the very definition of treason.
Being a traitor was not acceptable behavior 150 years ago.
No matter how folks try to polish this turd, Lee was a traitor and should have lived out his life in a prison cell.
Exactly. Folks kill me with these dissertations defending these treasonous losers and how far they reach into trying to spin them as not being bad. Even without him owning slaves, people who claim to love America should not celebrate him due to the fact alone he turned his back on his country. He got off easy for his betrayal. The only people revising history are those trying to make excuses for the man!!
Exactly. Folks kill me with these dissertations defending these treasonous losers and how far they reach into trying to spin them as not being bad. Even without him owning slaves, people who claim to love America should not celebrate him due to the fact alone he turned his back on his country. He got off easy for his betrayal. The only people revising history are those trying to make excuses for the man!!
Celebrating confederate generals is already a kind of revisionism. They rebelled and lost against the United States of America, to preserve slavery. They're not scum, but they don't deserve statues.
Celebrating confederate generals is already a kind of revisionism. They rebelled and lost against the United States of America, to preserve slavery. They're not scum, but they don't deserve statues.
Anyone who wants to can erect a statue of whoever they damn well please, providing it's on land they control. I don't have a problem with statues of Lee, necessarily. All I'm doing is pointing out that Lee's actions and the reasons for them are pretty well-known, and have been under discussion for over 150 years now, since the time(s) when he did them. There's really nothing new that can be said that hasn't already been said.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
