Replies

“but he never committed treason, so there’s that”

“George Washington and all of the colonial Patriots committed treason according to the government that they were rebelling against, so there’s that:”

So, it appears that you’re conceding that Robert E Lee committed treason (we both wholeheartedly agree with that!), but that his actions were no different than that of George Washington and all of the colonial Patriots.

There are a couple of problems with that logic, though. If you follow that train of thought, you’re implying that Robert E Lee was no different than Fidel Castro or Vladimir Lenin. After all, they committed treason according to the government they were rebelling against, weren’t they? I suspect you aren’t as comfortable comparing Robert E Lee (and George Washington!) to Fidel Castro and Vladimir Lenin, but that’s exactly what you are doing.

There’s another issue with your comparison. Robert E Lee, as a military officer, swore an explicit oath to defend the country. The oath he swore is a little different than the modern one, but it did include the lines “…I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. So, he forswore his sacred oath when he committed treason (I thought his word and his honor would have meant something to Robert E Lee, but I guess not). Washington was not an officer of the crown (he was a member of the Virginia militia in the French and Indian War), so he had no explicit oath to go against.

Another issue is, why did they commit treason? In George Washington’s case it was to rid the country of an oppressive, non-representative government, and to freely elect their government. In Robert E Lees’ case is was to maintain the right to own people. I think you would agree they are not the same.
So, to summarize, Robert E Lee was a forsworn traitor, and can in no way be compared to an honorable man like George Washington