Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
Jefferson was a British subject - he waged war against both King and Country, with gusto, and unapologetically.

Nor did Lee believe that slavery was "necessary and good", rather he believed it was practical for the moment, and that Blacks in America were better off than Blacks in Africa. From Lee's individual experience he was probably right - the black slaves he encountered probably were better off overall than blacks in Africa, despite being slaves.



Consider this, Washington held a Commission in a Colonial Regiment, meaning he would have had to have sworn, before God, to serve his King. When he and many other Colonial and British Officers took up arms against their King they were not only traitors, they also perjured themselves before God.

Various defences can, and have, been mounted for this but any such defence would equally apply to Lee et al. In fact, the natures of the US at the time, which described itself as "Theses United States" and not "THE UNITED STATES" as it would after the war gives Lee's defection greater credibility. The individual States voluntarily acceded to the US on the basis of a democratic vote. A basic principle of Common Law is that which is not prohibited is licit. Ergo, if there was nothing in the US Constitution prohibiting secession (and there wasn't) then secession was legal.

There is a very strong argument that, in fact, the US Government was in the wrong and was only able to carry the day through force of arms, as opposed to the force of Law.

The "Lost Cause" narrative is really what this was about, not about the South's right to own slaves but about them having a valid legal complaint just as the Founders did. The fact that Washington allowed this narrative to be fostered in the immediate aftermath of the war is tacit acknowledgement that the South had the legal, if not the moral, Right in the dispute.

Allowing Lee to be lionised was an act of reconciliation, tearing him down is an act of divisive modern politics. Unlike other Southern figures Lee did not really support slavery, even though he supported the right of the South to practice it and his position before and during the war is compatible with support for abolition afterwards. God gave the North victory despite the South having the legal argument - ergo God ordained the abolition of slavery against man's law.

Every major American figure prior to the Civil War will have in some way have benefited from the slave trade. If they themselves did not support it they will still have had tangential benefit from it because of the structure of the US economy at the time. Retroactively demonising Lee means Demonising the Founding Fathers, which undercuts their right to state a Civil war for Independence, which undermines the foundation of the United States.

Of course, one could argue that foundation is already undermined - which is why you are having these disputes and not vice versa.
You are quite correct that our 'founders' were traitors. Removing the taint of treason can be accomplished in one of two ways (pardons do not removed the taint, only the penalty): victory or death. Say what you will of them, they all knew the stakes for which they were playing.

Nor do I decry Robert E. Lee and other confederates simply for their treason against the USA. I simply note that they were traitors. Some of them died trying to win their independence from the USA....the remainder failed in their attempt. Such a fate could have befallen our 'founders' as well -- it was a near run thing until Saratoga, and not certain even after that for some time.

While I find slavery abhorrent, it has been part of the human condition since at least the development of societies larger than a village. According to some of the more ardent feminists, it has been de facto condition of women for virtually all of human history. I don't think Lee's view on slavery was either atypical or motivated by any sense of harshness. He did not view blacks as his cultural equals -- and there were many among the abolitionists of the time who did NOT believe in equality. Lincoln himself was inclined toward resettling blacks back in Africa: free but far away.

Starting with the infamous 'Triangle Trade' and moving forward from there, it is impossible to separate the use of plantation slavery from the success of the US economy prior to the ACW. Nevertheless, England's abolition and the movement away from plantation slavery throughout the world during the 19th put increasing moral pressure on the use of slavery in the USA. There were some, like N.B. Forrest, who were very clearly ardent proponents and believed in its rightness. Yet, for all of that, the moral pressure at the time was such that many referred to "states rights" rather than squarely naming the precipitate cause.

Nevertheless, persiflage aside, the Articles of the Confederacy and the declarations of secession make it clear that THE state right which was prompting secession was slavery. To claim slavery immaterial is to deny a surprising volume of evidence.

That said, I think the Unionists were not on solid ground either. The effective position they took was that, once having joined the union, a state was irrevocably bound to the United States and could not under any circumstances [save violent rebellion] withdraw from that association. The Constitution then extant was, effectively, mute on the issue. However, the Articles of Confederation that preceded the Constitution and the 10th amendment to the US Constitution suggest to me that Lincoln's interpretation was incorrect. He was, however, able to enforce it by push of bayonet.

I like your comment on the lionization and demonization of Lee at different points in our history. You touch on the key point -- BOTH attitudes are political theatre and not fully connected with fact as was.