Today is Robert E. Lee's birthday

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Babbles

The US Constitution defines exactly what Treason is - and if I remember correctly it is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Robert E. Lee was not convicted as committing Treason per the US Constitution. Therefore, in the eyes of the US Government when following the guiding document (i.e. the Constitution) Lee was not a traitor.

Remember that entire "innocent until proven guilty" bit that the US adheres to? Well suffice to say that unless somebody is actually convicted of a crime, they are innocent. Lee was not convicted.

If no offense was committed, then no pardon is needed. A pardon, by definition, presupposes an offense.

He rejected the offer of Lincoln to lead the armies of the United States in order to directly battle against it in the service of (depending on how you want to view it) states rebelling against the Constitution, or a foreign power. That's treason any way you cut it.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway, there are plenty of cases in which treason might be legally punishable, but morally correct. The guys who tried to kill Hitler were committing treason. This attempt to say that Robert E Lee was not a traitor in the eyes of the US government is simply silliness however.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

You mean like Washington's Birthday?

Of course now it is "President's Day" but you get the point.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

The United States obviously would celebrate the birthdays of people who rebelled against other countries to aid the United States. The United States would obviously not celebrate the birthdays of people who rebelled against the United States to its manifest detriment.

How is this anything but a no-brainer?

So you only support the winning side. If you look at the facts of the Civil War, the tides have turned. The South now has more MFG capacity and more people that are willing to fight for what they believe in.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski

So you only support the winning side. If you look at the facts of the Civil War, the tides have turned. The South now has more MFG capacity and more people that are willing to fight for what they believe in.

Once again, all I can say is:

Huh? What the hell are you talking about? My post was on the position of the US government, and why there's no federal Robert E Lee celebration.

Oh, but the tides have not turned. The wealth of the country continues to be concentrated in the Northeast and West, the South is actually an overall tax burden on the rest of the country.

 

[Babbles]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Babbles

The US Constitution defines exactly what Treason is - and if I remember correctly it is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Robert E. Lee was not convicted as committing Treason per the US Constitution. Therefore, in the eyes of the US Government when following the guiding document (i.e. the Constitution) Lee was not a traitor.

Remember that entire "innocent until proven guilty" bit that the US adheres to? Well suffice to say that unless somebody is actually convicted of a crime, they are innocent. Lee was not convicted.

If no offense was committed, then no pardon is needed. A pardon, by definition, presupposes an offense.

He rejected the offer of Lincoln to lead the armies of the United States in order to directly battle against it in the service of (depending on how you want to view it) states rebelling against the Constitution, or a foreign power. That's treason any way you cut it.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway, there are plenty of cases in which treason might be legally punishable, but morally correct. The guys who tried to kill Hitler were committing treason. This attempt to say that Robert E Lee was not a traitor in the eyes of the US government is simply silliness however.

Words and concepts mean things.

You can not call somebody a traitor in the eyes of the US government if it is in fact not true. If you were to claim some moral point of view or in your opinion that he was a traitor, then that is fair and I would, to a certain extent, agree with you.

However you repeatedly said that "in the eyes of the US government Lee was a traitor" which is technically not correct.

Additionally, according to the National Archives Lee did not receive a pardon in his lifetime, but rather he signed an amnesty oath. Over a hundred years later President Ford pardoned Lee; being that Lee was long dead I think we can safely assume that this was a symbolic gesture.

Yet again, the US government did not bring treason charges against Lee much less being convicted of treason. By definition, "in the eyes of the US government" he was not a traitor.

You may think otherwise, which is fine.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
It may be easy to simply dismiss Robert E. Lee as a traitor, and while I had no idea Lee's birthday was even in the vicinity of Dr. Martin Luther King day, its still has to be said Robert E. Lee did much to help heal the nation after the civil war. Lee's loyalties rested with his native State of Virginia, had Virgina not succeeded, he had already been offered overall command of the Union army because it obvious to all, that Gen Winfield Scott, the hero of the Mexican war over a generation ago, was too old and unable to ride a horse. As for the rest of the available Northern Generals, not exactly the sharpest knives in the drawer, as Lincoln later found out.

He also was uneasy in his conscience about slavery. I'm pretty sure he'd released his slaves by the time war broke out.

I don't like trying to fight over the civil war. It was too sad an event to turn into a pissing contest. Just watching Gettysburg will give you that much insight.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Babbles

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Babbles

The US Constitution defines exactly what Treason is - and if I remember correctly it is the only crime defined in the Constitution. Robert E. Lee was not convicted as committing Treason per the US Constitution. Therefore, in the eyes of the US Government when following the guiding document (i.e. the Constitution) Lee was not a traitor.

Remember that entire "innocent until proven guilty" bit that the US adheres to? Well suffice to say that unless somebody is actually convicted of a crime, they are innocent. Lee was not convicted.

If no offense was committed, then no pardon is needed. A pardon, by definition, presupposes an offense.

He rejected the offer of Lincoln to lead the armies of the United States in order to directly battle against it in the service of (depending on how you want to view it) states rebelling against the Constitution, or a foreign power. That's treason any way you cut it.

I don't see what the big deal is anyway, there are plenty of cases in which treason might be legally punishable, but morally correct. The guys who tried to kill Hitler were committing treason. This attempt to say that Robert E Lee was not a traitor in the eyes of the US government is simply silliness however.

Words and concepts mean things.

You can not call somebody a traitor in the eyes of the US government if it is in fact not true. If you were to claim some moral point of view or in your opinion that he was a traitor, then that is fair and I would, to a certain extent, agree with you.

However you repeatedly said that "in the eyes of the US government Lee was a traitor" which is technically not correct.

Additionally, according to the National Archives Lee did not receive a pardon in his lifetime, but rather he signed an amnesty oath. Over a hundred years later President Ford pardoned Lee; being that Lee was long dead I think we can safely assume that this was a symbolic gesture.

Yet again, the US government did not bring treason charges against Lee much less being convicted of treason. By definition, "in the eyes of the US government" he was not a traitor.

You may think otherwise, which is fine.

Yes, words and concepts definitely mean things. Amnesty is, by definition, 'a general pardon for offenses against a government'.

Once again, if no offense is committed, amnesty is not required. Lee's request for amnesty, and the government's granting of it, is an implicit admission and acceptance of guilt. The US government could not bring treason charges against someone it had granted amnesty to, that's the entire point of amnesty.

 

[WackyDan]

Seceding was indeed a legal act back in the day. Check your facts. That the binding gov't didn't like it does not make it illegal. It's also why there are many references to the "federal occupation of the south" after the Civil War. They legally seceded and became their own union of sorts.[/quote]

Ugh, as I mentioned earlier in this thread the federal government has determined that secession is in fact illegal, and unconstitutional. The relevant US Supreme Court decision on the topic is Texas v. White. It clearly states that in the opinion of the US government the southern states never left the union, cannot leave the union, and to do so was an act of illegal rebellion.

You may not like this legal interpretation, lots of people don't. It's a very controversial decision. The fact that the ultimate legal authority in the US has stated that it was illegal, does in fact make it illegal however.[/quote]


EDIT - Screwed up quotes... My response is below.

Then I suggest you read that case again. Check the date stamp. 1869. The supreme courts decision had everythig to do with that case... In 1869... not 1861.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: WackyDan

EDIT - Screwed up quotes... My response is below.

Then I suggest you read that case again. Check the date stamp. 1869. The supreme courts decision had everythig to do with that case... In 1869... not 1861.

And in 1869 the US Supreme Court determined that the actions taken in 1861 were in fact illegal. Just because the opinion was issued in 1869 does not mean that secession was legal from 1861 to 1868, then suddenly illegal in 1869.

 

[colonel]

he was a good general in west point but he is traitor.

 

[CU]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just because the opinion was issued in 1869 does not mean that secession was legal from 1861 to 1868, then suddenly illegal in 1869.

Sure it does. It happens all the time. Alcohol was legal then illegal then legal again. Now that it is legal doesn't mean it was legal to have during prohibition. Max speed limits is another example that has changed a few times. Things become legal when the ruling is given. It doesn't go back to the beginning of time, just to the incident that started the ruling and then until another ruling that is different is made.

Other thinks to discuss:

I read somewhere that General Lee didn't have the authority to surrender, an no other surrender was given. Basically the South just quit fighting, but didn't legally surrender. Thus legally the CSA still exist and is occupied by a foreign government called the USA.

I have also read that Britain was very close to coming to the Souths aid, but after the Emancipation Proclamation or Gettysburg Address (can't remember which one) they thought the war was over so never game to the Souths aid.

Another thing I read said if the Union had lost the Battle of Gettysburg they would have surrender to the South.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CU

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just because the opinion was issued in 1869 does not mean that secession was legal from 1861 to 1868, then suddenly illegal in 1869.

Sure it does. It happens all the time. Alcohol was legal then illegal then legal again. Now that it is legal doesn't mean it was legal to have during prohibition. Max speed limits is another example that has changed a few times. Things become legal when the ruling is given. It doesn't go back to the beginning of time, just to the incident that started the ruling and then until another ruling that is different is made.

Other thinks to discuss:

I read somewhere that General Lee didn't have the authority to surrender, an no other surrender was given. Basically the South just quit fighting, but didn't legally surrender. Thus legally the CSA still exist and is occupied by a foreign government called the USA.

I have also read that Britain was very close to coming to the Souths aid, but after the Emancipation Proclamation or Gettysburg Address (can't remember which one) they thought the war was over so never game to the Souths aid.

Another thing I read said if the Union had lost the Battle of Gettysburg they would have surrender to the South.

No. Completely no.

Alcohol was legal, then illegal, then legal again because an amendment to the Constitution was passed and then repealed. ie: legislative action was taken. The Supreme Court's decision in this case was based upon already existing law.

As for your other things to discuss, no. The CSA does not continue to legally exist, and had the Union lost Gettysburg they would not have had to surrender to the South.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: CU

Other thinks to discuss:

I read somewhere that General Lee didn't have the authority to surrender, an no other surrender was given. Basically the South just quit fighting, but didn't legally surrender. Thus legally the CSA still exist and is occupied by a foreign government called the USA.

Lee surrendered himself and the Army of Virginia. The vast majority of CSA officers in other commands quickly followed suit as the cause was obviously then lost. The CSA was defeated as it's military unraveled and political leadership officially disbanded.

I have also read that Britain was very close to coming to the Souths aid, but after the Emancipation Proclamation or Gettysburg Address (can't remember which one) they thought the war was over so never game to the Souths aid.

England was never close to coming to the aid of the CSA. The Emancipation Proclamation made it politically impossible for them to do so even if they were so inclined.

Another thing I read said if the Union had lost the Battle of Gettysburg they would have surrender to the South.

No, the Union Armies would have continued to bleed the CSA dry even if they continued to sustain higher losses. Vicksburg also fell to Grant a day after Gettysburg.

[/quote]

 

[nobodyknows]

Originally posted by: RU482
I know, being from the north, that my family has a big picnic every year on Grant's Birthday. Ya know, cause we're from the north

Nice one.

 

[CU]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Alcohol was legal, then illegal, then legal again because an amendment to the Constitution was passed and then repealed. ie: legislative action was taken. The Supreme Court's decision in this case was based upon already existing law.

So what if new supreme court judges come in and read the law differently. The law doesn't change then does it ie. no legislative action.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The CSA does not continue to legally exist

So did Lee have the authority to surrender the CSA? He was just a general. Is there a signed surrender document from the CSA's president?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
had the Union lost Gettysburg they would not have had to surrender to the South.

I believe the reason that I read was because the North was losing badly up until that point, and that was going to be their breaking point.

 

[CU]

Well looks like everyone posted at the sametime. If I get a chance I will try to find where I read this at. It has been years ago though.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CU

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Alcohol was legal, then illegal, then legal again because an amendment to the Constitution was passed and then repealed. ie: legislative action was taken. The Supreme Court's decision in this case was based upon already existing law.

So what if new supreme court judges come in and read the law differently. The law doesn't change then does it ie. no legislative action.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
The CSA does not continue to legally exist

So did Lee have the authority to surrender the CSA? He was just a general. Is there a signed surrender document from the CSA's president?

Originally posted by: eskimospy
had the Union lost Gettysburg they would not have had to surrender to the South.

I believe the reason that I read was because the North was losing badly up until that point, and that was going to be their breaking point.

No offense man, but these are basic concepts. If the Supreme Court were to once again rule on the issue of secession and overturn their previous ruling, then yes, secession would be legal and this would apply retroactively. The Supreme Court has not done this, and the original ruling specifically states that Texas' action taken in 1861 (and by extension the actions of the entire Confederacy), was illegal and unconstitutional. That means that in the eyes of the law, it was illegal from the moment they did it in 1861, not from 1869. Period. End of story.

Here's another example for you: Bush's warrantless wiretapping program has been challenged in the courts as being illegal and unconstitutional. If the USSC were to find the program illegal, it would not suddenly become illegal from this day forward, it would have been illegal from the start, and people could be prosecuted accordingly. (no, I don't want to get into a wiretapping debate, it's just an example) Do you understand?

As for your other suppositions, do you know how many countries on Earth have ceased to exist legally without signed surrender documents? There is nowhere in any set of laws I am aware of that states a country must sign a document in order to dissolve itself. I have no idea where you are getting this from.

As for Gettysburg, the Union was not losing badly up to that point, but they had certainly not accomplished their objective of destroying the Confederacy. Lee's hope was not to force the North to surrender, but to make the prospects of victory dim enough and costly enough that the anti-war factions in the North would force a peace agreement that left the Confederacy in existence. This would most likely occur through the defeat of Lincoln in his bid for re-election. Nowhere, ever, could the Confederacy have hoped to force the Union to surrender. They had insufficient troops and logistics for such a thing.

 

[CU]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
No offense man, but these are basic concepts. If the Supreme Court were to once again rule on the issue of secession and overturn their previous ruling, then yes, secession would be legal and this would apply retroactively. The Supreme Court has not done this, and the original ruling specifically states that Texas' action taken in 1861 (and by extension the actions of the entire Confederacy), was illegal and unconstitutional. That means that in the eyes of the law, it was illegal from the moment they did it in 1861, not from 1869. Period. End of story.

Here's another example for you: Bush's warrantless wiretapping program has been challenged in the courts as being illegal and unconstitutional. If the USSC were to find the program illegal, it would not suddenly become illegal from this day forward, it would have been illegal from the start, and people could be prosecuted accordingly. (no, I don't want to get into a wiretapping debate, it's just an example) Do you understand?

OK, I am fine with that, I don't like it, but I don't like alot of things the government does. I just don't like that you can be doing something legal or even order to do it by the government then a year later it is ruled illegal so you are considered a criminal an prosecuted. That just doesn't seem fair. How are you suppose to know how they will read the law. And that gives them way to much power. That could be a catch 22. Example. If you don't follow the order (which is legal at the time) say from a police officer you could be arrested depending on the order I guess, but if you follow the order then the order is considered illegal later you could be arrested for following the order in which you had to follow at the time. I am sure there are better examples than that.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As for your other suppositions, do you know how many countries on Earth have ceased to exist legally without signed surrender documents? There is nowhere in any set of laws I am aware of that states a country must sign a document in order to dissolve itself. I have no idea where you are getting this from.

Yeah it has been years since I read it, so I don't know. I though the CSA was more intact at the end so it would have been a more formal surrender than the CSA just kind of disbanding into nothing.

Originally posted by: eskimospy
As for Gettysburg, the Union was not losing badly up to that point, but they had certainly not accomplished their objective of destroying the Confederacy. Lee's hope was not to force the North to surrender, but to make the prospects of victory dim enough and costly enough that the anti-war factions in the North would force a peace agreement that left the Confederacy in existence. This would most likely occur through the defeat of Lincoln in his bid for re-election. Nowhere, ever, could the Confederacy have hoped to force the Union to surrender. They had insufficient troops and logistics for such a thing.

My fault I didn't mean surrender as in give me your land, I just meant stop fighting and let the South Secede. Pretty much what you said, but I was under the impression they were losing badly up to that point.

 

[lupi]

Why would the south be pissed about Lee-Jackson-King day?

 

[Nemesis 1]

Lee was just a General a dam good one at that. Wasn't it clay that sucked.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: shinerburke

Originally posted by: eskimospy
I have no idea why the US doesn't celebrate the birthdays of traitors more often.

You mean like Washington's Birthday?

Of course now it is "President's Day" but you get the point.

Huh? What the hell are you talking about?

The United States obviously would celebrate the birthdays of people who rebelled against other countries to aid the United States. The United States would obviously not celebrate the birthdays of people who rebelled against the United States to its manifest detriment.

How is this anything but a no-brainer?

In those days the United States were actually a group of, y'know, united states. And yes, i said "were", not "was". Plural. The Civil War was more akin to an internal war within NATO than an actual civil war within a traditional republic.

Robert E. Lee seemed like a good guy. I don't celebrate his birthday any more than I celebrate the birthdays of any number of other historical figures, but I certainly don't vilify him.

 

[winr]

Originally posted by: lupi
Why would the south be pissed about Lee-Jackson-King day?

I have no idea why ????

I am from the South and am not pissed..

I dont know anyone that is pissed about this ????

...and....I have never heard anyone say they were pissed about this....

 

[Onceler]

it's an in your face thing.
It pisses me off that a traiter like King is celebrated on the day of a great general's birthday instead of his own.

 

[monovillage]

Nothing ruins a troll post quite as bad as spelling a word like traitor wrong. It just loses so much of it impact and marks the author as a hmmmmmmmm..... something or other.

 

[Onceler]

Excuse me if my spelling sucks but I am empassioned whenever one of my heroes is replaced by a Marxist piece of a worm that they dug out of a donkeys crap.

 

[nonlnear]

I understand and in many ways agree with you. It doesn't change the fact that the US government has already deemed secession illegal. The US Supreme Court ruled in Texas v. White that secession is unconstitutional and illegal.

No. Texas v. White, wrongly decided as it was under massive political pressure to validate the preceding massacre, held that "There was no place for reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution or through the consent of the States". Consent of the states is left wide open. It most certainly does not mean Constitutional amendment, but it could mean pretty much anything else (until it is ruled on).