Historical Question: Do you think that Robert E. Lee was a traitor to is country?

Question

A lot of northerners wanted to hang him for treason after the cival war.

There are many good answers here. However, I was hoping that someone would question which country I was referring to. Robert E Lee considered his country to be the Confederate States of America, after eleven southern states seceded from the Union in 1860–61, until its defeat in 1865. In this case, his country would not have considered a traitor but a patriot and it's greatest hero.

Answer 1

.No. His country was the Commonwealth of Virginia

Answer 2

People don't understand one thing about the Civil war -- that the conflict was about state's rights versus having a massive federal government -- not about slavery.
People back then looked at their state AS THEIR COUNTRY
and Robert E Lee resigned from the US army to fight on the side of what HE FELT was his country -- Virginia
so no, he is not a traitor.....as a matter of fact he was offered the command of the northern army (knowing full shitten well that if he took the job he would win and would get fame and glory and probably go on to be president). But the guy was so ******* honorable that he GAVE ALL THAT UP and did his duty to Virginia
and became a so-called "traitor to his country" in the process
He was pardoned for his part in the civil war by the president at that time so its pointless to say he was a traitor. *******..... Robert E Lee was a better man that ANY mother ****** could possibly be today

Answer 3

Yes, he did. Though he may have been loyal to Virginia, the state of Virginia was a member of the United States and had ratified the Constitution. Part of the oath that a soldier takes is to defend the United Sates against all enemies foreign and domestic. I don't know if that was part of Lee's oath, but he became one of those domestic enemies.

Bound's hubby: check your sources a little more closely.

I served in the Regular US Army on Active Duty for six years, and can attest unequivocally that we were definitely involved in the fighting of the Civil War. The term "Regular Army" was first used during the Civil War (1861–1865) to describe the U.S. Army soldiers who served in the Union Army side-by-side with the massive state volunteer forces.

Ulysses S. Grant attended West Point and graduated July 1, 1843, and began service as a 2nd Lt in the Regular Army. He was eventually promoted to CPT, and then resigned his commission July 31, 1854.

On June 17, 1861, he joined with the Illinois volunteers, and on July 4, 1863 was promoted to Major General of the US Army. He became Lieut.-General, U. S. Army, Mar. 2, 1864, and in command, as General-in-Chief, of the Armies of the United States, Mar. 17, 1864, to Aug. 12, 1866. This included command of the volunteer forces.

He served in command of the Armies of the United States, Aug. 12, 1866, to Mar. 4, 1869 when he was inaugurated as the 18th President of the United States.

Yes, their were two distinctions made about different sections of the Army, just as we have Regular Army and US Army Reserve, but make no mistake that the Regular Army participated in the Civil War and was in command of the Union Army and the volunteer section.

Answer 4

Bound's hubby, the history teacher, here:

Actually, no. When the South seceded, cadets were given the opportunity, along with the cadre, to depart the service to stand by their states, with honor. In the fighting of the War Between the States, the Regular Army was not deployed to fight ... the War Between the States (War for Southern Independence, War of Northern Aggression, etc.) was fought by volunteers, from both the North and South. The Regular Army found itself stationed along, and maintaining, the western frontier.

Besides, according to the United States Constitution, Article III, Treason (by definition) is providing aid and comfort to the enemy during a declared state of war ... and Congress never declared war during the Civil War, since admission that it was a war as opposed to a civil insurrection would have opened the war up to foreign assistance ... and that would have meant that the national capital would presently be located in Richmond.

Answer 5

Civil war in any land whatever the cause divides families. Lee had taken an oath to defend the Nation. However, the epic events of the initial split forced him to return and defend his own kind and their beliefs. Many thousands of young men North and South had to also choose! If you declare Lee a traitor so do you condemn the thousands of others faced with that terrible decision! Only the innermost feelings of each and every individual caught up in it can be regarded as there's alone to so judge who to fight, but what was paramount to them - to fight for!

Answer 6

Certainly what Lee did was a treasonous act, however following five years of bloodshed the country was ready for healing. In spite of his turncoat actions, Lee was allowed to return home and live out his years.

Looking back on the civil war, I would have to say that the right call was made regarding Lee. He was a great leader and a good man; history will remember him that way!

Answer 7

nicely in direction of the Dred Scott courtroom case, the form defended slavery. So its extra that Lincoln became the traitor then Lee. Lee technically "defended" the form via going over to the South, loose will or not. So no, he became not a traitor to the old shape a minimum of.

Answer 8

Do i think he was a traitor.....hmmmm....no. Alot of the men on either side looked across the battlefield and never could grasp that they were fighting the enemy. I can recall Gen. Armistead's reaction when facing Gen. Hancock at Gettysburg, good friends prior to the war and both dreading their face-to-face encounter in battle.

RE Lee commanded and fought with many of the blue-bellies during the Mexican War and in service prior to 1861.

Following the flag of your state seems patriotic to me and not a traitorous act.

Answer 9

Robert E. Lee was not a traitor, before the war he was in the U.S. Army and was recommended for a top command in the Federal Army.

However, he chose to fight for the South because he was from Virginia (southern state) and refused to fight against his family and friends. By definition, yes. In reality, he just tried to do what he thought he was right.

"I shall never bear arms against the Union, but it may be necessary for me to carry a musket in the defense of my native state, Virginia, in which case I shall not prove recreant to my duty."

Answer 10

The country was alot different back then. The federal government was less empowered because state's rights were held in higher regard. Many thought of the US as a group of nations together (state = nation, duh!) I think he said he could not take up a sword against his home, an admirable and difficult choice.

Today we enjoy a stronger union and more safety and prosperity because of that.

Answer 11

Because the North won, yes, he was a traitor to his country: he broke the agreement signed among the states to create a national government. And he wanted to break the nation up.

but in a way, he wasn't because protest is patriotic! I guess it depends on how far one takes it.