Why is this CCWT (Critical Civil War Theory) not taught in elementary school?
Prof. Guelzo is a bit of a ham, but his history is solid.
Prof. Guelzo is a bit of a ham, but his history is solid.
Did R.E. Lee Commit Treason?
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
I have what I think is Guelzo's entire body of published work. Gone to Princeton, is he? How could you leave Gettysburg if you had his position there? Maybe for the money? I agree regarding how solid his history is.
“We are threatened by fracture, and it’s a fracturing in which we cease to regard each other as fellow Americans, we cease to feel that we have anything in common with each other,” Guelzo says. “And we start coming apart at the seams, we start shunning each other, and then we start separating from each other. And what do we get? Secession.”
My nephew studied history at Gettysburg. I guess I never appreciated that it was such a highly regarded program. He is now working on his PhD at Georgia.
I have a question about one of his statements, that Lee would have to be tried where the crime was committed which would mean Virginia. Could not a strong case be made that he also committed treason in Maryland (Sharpsburg) and Pennsylvania?
Obviously. Lee waged war against the US and committed treason. If nothing else, those 5 days it took for his resignation to be accepted guaranteed it was treason (though I would argue it was treason anyway). Obviously, we should have honored the surrender and not tried him for treason.
Obviously. Lee waged war against the US and committed treason. If nothing else, those 5 days it took for his resignation to be accepted guaranteed it was treason (though I would argue it was treason anyway). Obviously, we should have honored the surrender and not tried him for treason.
I wondered about that too, but I assumed it was because the specific indictment came from a Virginia grand jury.
Lee exposed loyalty to his state foremost. I don't think anyone but a Texan would go with that argument today but that was his thinking, if I remember correctly.
He made a horrible decision but I don't think there would have been much desire to prosecute him given how broken the country was at the time. Heck he died in 1870.
He made a horrible decision but I don't think there would have been much desire to prosecute him given how broken the country was at the time. Heck he died in 1870.
I don't think making a martyr of him would have been a good idea and the Union understood that. Hell, Napoleon was only 50 years before this. Not that I think Lee would have gone that route (returning after some kind of imprisonment or exile) but better to make sure the south didn't have anyone to revere and return the South to glory post war.
No. At that time, and before the 14th Amendment,, whether a state had authority to secede from the Union was an open question. Many in the north agreed that the Southern states had that Authority. If Virginia had authority to withdraw, no treason.
Even if we accept that, there are the five days between his resignation and its acceptance. He was leading a revolt while an officer under oath to the federal government for those five days.
To the extent that there was any debate over the right to secede, the North answered that question emphatically - at the expense of over 600,000 lives. Lee committed treason.
That was certainly Lee's thinking. All of the seceded South's elected officials took the position their state was entitled to withdraw and the withdrawal required them to resign from their federal positions. It was not overly controversial to anybody but the folks who argued the states could NOT withdraw.
Lee expanded that argument a notch, and expressed a position that - because he was a Virginian - Virginia's withdrawal from the Union virtually required his resignation from his federal military commission, and removed his ability/duty to serve the federal government, which then prevented him from committing treason against the federal government. (That was also why he became so concerned that federal "acceptance" of his resignation was delayed a few days - and not accepted until after he had already agreed to serve the Army of Virginia. This meant that for a few days he might have been serving two armies. Ooops.)
At least in his memoirs, Grant took issue with the ability of ANY state to secede. He acknowledged that the original 13 colonies/states may have a "right" to succession, but claimed the ratification of the Constitution removed it. And that if it did not remove it, the addition of new states removed it - by changing the nature of the confederation. He also took the view that the new states were paid for by Treasury dollars and/or blood of citizenry, and never had any right to secede. And yet, he was among the first to defend Lee and argue that the C-in-C Lincoln and General Of the Army Grant has the right/power to bind the civil authorities with terms of surrender.
It made me think about border states like Kentucky, where competing Union/Confederate governments existed for short time, and the impact on Lee's arguments for - for example - a Buckner or a Breckinridge (who was freaking VP (!) - and fled the country after the fall of Richmond. He never claimed Kentucky's attempted secession protected him at all!)
Interesting stuff.
Philosophically speaking, it doesn’t really make sense that the state couldn’t secede if it “chose.“ Problem is, it’s a radical decision and so probably should require some extreme percentage of its citizens, so it doesn’t happen every four years or more often.
Brexit on a simple majority of the citizenry is absurd in my opinion.
Brexit on a simple majority of the citizenry is absurd in my opinion.
The ironic thing is that Lincoln mooted all the talk about treason, insurrection etc. with his Second inaugural delivered weeks before the end of the Civil War. His message was reunification, healing, ending hostilities and ending slavery. . Now we have tossed Lincoln’s message of reconciliation and unity on the trash heap as we reignite 160-year-old conflicts with 1619, treason, etc. Sigh.
Overly dramatic a bit? No serious thinker is forgetting Lincoln’s contributions to our nation. Exhuming secretly buried history is simply including history important to some of our citizenry. What’s your problem with that? It doesn’t matter if some people overhype it. You do that with your pet issues and peeves. And?
I’ve got no problem with history. But if you think 1619 is about history or discussing Lee and treason is only about history, you are flat dead wrong. It’s about current race issues and using old history to stoke and nurture current issues.
What we are now doing to ourselves is no different from the Balkans or Middle East where small minded people use historical conflict to acquire current power and influence because they are not smart enough, or capable enough, to do it any other way.
And yes, this whole discussion about Lee and treason is a repudiation of Lincoln’’s post war unity message.
The US went crazy after 1890 building Confederate monuments, especially between 1920-1950. In America there were over 1000 monuments to Confederates built. For a long time it was argued those monuments meant more than just thinking PTG Beauregard was a swell guy.
But those of us wondering why California, Oregon, Indiana, and West Virginia would build Confederate monuments were told that it was ONLY history and certainly no possible way a statement about race.
Mapping the hundreds of Confederate statues across the US
There are 771 standing monuments of anti-abolitionists across the US. Protesters are demanding they be taken down.
Now suddenly history has a deeper meaning? Building Confederate monuments is good, teaching that those monuments were designed as more is bad?
The history of Southern Civil war monuments is interesting. Mostly it’s a result of entrepreneurship and marketing. Often the monuments were the same with minor changes to make it a southern or northern figure.The US went crazy after 1890 building Confederate monuments, especially between 1920-1950. In America there were over 1000 monuments to Confederates built. For a long time it was argued those monuments meant more than just thinking PTG Beauregard was a swell guy.
But those of us wondering why California, Oregon, Indiana, and West Virginia would build Confederate monuments were told that it was ONLY history and certainly no possible way a statement about race.
Mapping the hundreds of Confederate statues across the US
There are 771 standing monuments of anti-abolitionists across the US. Protesters are demanding they be taken down.www.google.com
Now suddenly history has a deeper meaning? Building Confederate monuments is good, teaching that those monuments were designed as more is bad?
Did you ever notice the difference between the north and south state monuments at the Gettysburg Battle Field? I’ve always wondered about that too.
I think you trying to relate the monuments to the way history of slavery is now taught is a reach. For far too many of us, the fight must never end. The fight gives them purpose. Sad.
American Bronze Company - Wikipedia
Wake up, wokester.
Nobody secretly buried history.
If you believe that, you can be made to believe anything, and if you can be made to believe anything, you need to check yourself before you wind up like this guy:
Thanks, genuine frontier asshole. You gotta stop eating your bullshit for breakfast, you’re beginning to think it’s a delicacy.Wake up, wokester.
Nobody secretly buried history.
If you believe that, you can be made to believe anything, and if you can be made to believe anything, you need to check yourself before you wind up like this guy:
Robert E. Lee was a traitor. That is not disputable. He took the oath of every officer to support and defend the United States of America. He was trained at West Point. There were 8 colonels in the US Army from Virginia trained at West Point and Lee was the only one who fought for the Rebellion.
Maybe the only good part of Covid has been watching c-Span 3. I think they probably cover the whole annual Gettysburg College Civil War symposium. Plus Guelzo has a couple of books out and did several book interviews of the other CSPAN channels too.
I though it was ballsy for W&L to even let him give a lecture mentioning Lee and treason in the same sentence. Education without anger and accusation still lives!
As usual, I posted excellent substance beyond your capacity to understand, which you ignored in favor of trite snark. It’s good to know some things will never change.
Enjoy your future career as a propagandized oven camp attendant, where you may even get to try and secretly bury some history. Self-fulfilling prophecies are still prophecy, eh?
Your sophistry knows no bounds. “1619” has more than one meaning and you’re using that fact deviously. I couldn’t care less about small-minded actors attempting to gain power here and now. That doesn’t equate to “we” as in “What we are now doing to ourselves.”
1619 for me signifies not someone’s petty power grab but a historical event, no more, no less. I’m not lessening Lincoln’s contributions and know no one who is. I don’t care whether or not Lee is tried and convicted of treason by modern-day society although I commend Lincoln’s forward-thinking message of unity and think we should emulate it. Your premises don’t map onto a significant segment of reality.
Never made that claim. But those monuments are tied directly to Jim Crow. Simple math, when did Jim Crow laws go into effect? When were the monuments built.
There are Confederate monuments in state lands in West Virginia, a state that only exists because it wanted no part of the confederacy. But it was a state with a kkk history we all know.
You lie. You called me a wokester. Not that I’m offended by your pigsty posting but let’s call a spade a spade.
Woke applies to lemmings on both sides and if you know anything about my posting you know that I am not a lemming for anyone or anything. Your inability to perceive that reflects on you.
Would Lee have surrendered his army if he thought Grant would pursue treason charges and put the noose around his neck? The answer to that is absolutely not, no way Lee surrenders his army under those terms.
The fighting would've kept going for who knows how long. It was best to get Lee's surrender and that's what Grant chose to do.
My great-great grandfather and uncles fought for the 38th Georgia Regiment which was part of Lee's Northern Virginia Army. I just found this out about three months ago.
The fighting would've kept going for who knows how long. It was best to get Lee's surrender and that's what Grant chose to do.
My great-great grandfather and uncles fought for the 38th Georgia Regiment which was part of Lee's Northern Virginia Army. I just found this out about three months ago.
The fact that you CAN respond to me intelligently, but choose not to, also tells a lot.
1619 is only a thing because those who push it want to perpetuate and exploit race-centric history for political purposes, not as historical education.
Much more important and meaningful would be:
The 1776 Project. The first time in European colonial history the colonies told the colonizers to shove it.
The 1783 Project. The Treaty of Paris the beginning of the end of colonial rule.
The 1789 Project. The USConstitution and the first enduring example of government by consent of the governed.
The 1865 Project. The end of Slavery in the U.S.
The 1868 Project: The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the creation of the U.S. as we now know it.
You know as well as I do that the 1619 project is not just history, it’s an exploitation of history for divisive purposes.
Truth is truth. Lies disintegrate in the face of truth. You embody more than anyone here the idea that others’ lies won’t affect you.
The ulterior motives of “1619” as you use it concern me as much as termites in Tanganyika.
——
The relative importance of your various projects are based on your values and agenda.
An interesting example of what I’m talking about in terms of conflating the meaning of 1619, is BLM.
BLM has at least two basic meanings commonly used in society. One meaning, probably the most prevalent, is the basic notion that blacks should be treated equally in the eyes of law-enforcement. BLM also is an Organization that takes in funding from whatever sources, I don’t know. That organization has recently come under fire for embezzlement or whatever. I haven’t really paid much attention.
The point is, you’re focusing on a small group of people you consider to have bad intentions just like the embezzlers in BLM. I couldn’t care less about bad actors in society. We have laws to deal with them. I’m interested in those trying to make the world better. For the time being luckily we are winning the game of life.
No, we dont have laws to deal with bad actors in society. BLM, for millions of people, has become a way to legitimize bigoted intolerance for the bigoted intolerant.
Oh, you mean like MAGA, for millions of people, has become a way to legitimize bigoted intolerance for the bigoted intolerant?
Man, you have to stop believing people are fundamentally evil. Don’t feed the curmudgeon in you.
I was going to link a CSPAN BookTV presentation by Charles Love about his book "Race Crazy-BLM, 1619 and The Progressive Racism Movement," but this Rivals site does not list CPAN media as permissibly-embedded media, so it won't link.
I encourage you to read his book and/or find sound-bites from his many YouTube discussions, and acquire some additional information about 1619.
Of course it is. If you want to argue that the story of how the Europeans began slavery in the New World should be of a higher moral and historical value than how we threw off colonial rule, ended slavery, and then established an enduring self governing federal system, let’s have that argument.
By the way, I think this interview with John McWhorter better reinforces your point with a liberal audience.
Similar threads
