[Emperor Palpatine]

But obviously not moral enough to keep from abrogating his oath as an officer and to the Constitution.

The man took up arms against his country. That is textbook treason.

Plus he was a lousy field general. He refused to fight the kind of war that won like his counterparts Grant and Sherman did. He was stuck in the last century.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

The man took up arms against his country. That is textbook treason.

Technically, it's not treason if you're exercising an implied right under the Constitution, since the oath is to that very document, not to "the country" or to "the government".

Of course, secession also turns out to be a bad idea, unless you've made sure you're ready to win a war against an aggressive imperial federal government.

[ichabod1]

Wrongo, bongo. Lee used ground and maneuver to twist the North’s head all the way off and all the way back on again, and he did it for years. He never had the resources to fight the kind of war that Grant did. If anybody was stuck in the 18th century during that war it was Grant’s predecessors.

I will grant you Pickett’s Charge was foolhardy and unexplainable in light of Lee’s other battles.

[pcottraux]

Technically, it's not treason if you're exercising an implied right under the Constitution, since the oath is to that very document, not to "the country" or to "the government".

What he said. Secession is not necessarily the same thing as Treason. The South believed they had a right to secede, and viewed the North as aggressive invaders.

The argument can be made that both sides were far too eager to march into war rather than resolving the matter diplomatically.

[ontap]

You have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

[RFEngineer]

“The man took up arms against his country. That is textbook treason.”

You’d never understand, so I won’t even bother to take you to school on this part of yoru post.

“Plus he was a lousy field general. He refused to fight the kind of war that won like his counterparts Grant and Sherman did. He was stuck in the last century.”

That must be why soldiers all over the world study him, and the tactics he used in the Civil War - even to this day.

He was way ahead of his time - but again, you simply wouldn’t understand.

Lee was one of the greatest AMERICANS we’ve ever had, for a whole host of reasons.

You should be studying and admiring him, not denigrating a great man that you would do well to emulate.

[stainlessbanner]

Hi Chance - did they let you back in FR?

[Turret Gunner A20]

... he was a lousy field general. He refused to fight the kind of war that won like his counterparts Grant and Sherman did.

What you're really saying, whether you know it or not, is -- He saw little virtue in useless butchery, rapine, deliberately making war on civilians, and wholesale destruction."

[Turret Gunner A20]

And, by the way, if he was such a lousey general, why are his campaigns still prome studies in just about every militarhy academy in the world?

And how did he whip the socks off armies that outnumbered his by sometimes as much as 4 to 1, with some regularity for about 3 years?

[TexConfederate1861]

Obviously your knowledge is a bit flawed.

1. Lee RESIGNED his commission, therefore, he violated no oath.

2. His state had seceded and had joined another country, therefore he did not take up arms against “HIS COUNTRY”.
His country was the Confederate States of America.

3. He was a brilliant General who respected the property rights of non-combatants. Just because those two butchers you mentioned, had no couth, doesn’t lessen Lee’s ability.

[4CJ]

But obviously not moral enough to keep from abrogating his oath as an officer and to the Constitution.

Robert E. Lee resigned his commission in the federal army, believing correctly that his primary allegiance was to his native state of Virginia. His actions were honourable, his resignation was accepted.

The man took up arms against his country. That is textbook treason.

Nope, he DEFENDED his country (Virginia) from an armed aggressor. When Virginia seceded she also withdrew Lee's allegiance to the former union, hence, his actions again were not against his 'county'.

Plus he was a lousy field general.

I guess that explain why he defeated so many yankee generals and defended the South for over 4 years.

He refused to fight the kind of war that won like his counterparts Grant and Sherman did.

You mean he refused to wage war on innocent women and children, that he refused to enslave Northern women and deport them South, that he refused to allow his men to destroy cities, sack and loot civilian homes, that he refused to commit war crimes? THANK GOD for men like him!

He was stuck in the last century.

I take it you admire Osama bin Laden for his modern position.

[Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus]

Plus he was a lousy field general.

I don't care which side you're on, if you think Robert E. Lee was a lousy field general, then you're a numbskull of the first class.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

He was widely adored by both sides of the battle. You’re a clueless hack.

[TC Rider]

Plus he was a lousy field general. He refused to fight the kind of war that won like his counterparts Grant and Sherman did. He was stuck in the last century.

You mean using troops as literal cannon fodder? Lee's forces were outnumbered in most engagements by 2 to 1. Grant's losses were enormous compared to Lee's.