Started By
Message

History Topic: Did R.E. Lee Betray His Countrymen?

Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:30 am
Posted by OleWarSkuleAlum
Huntsville, AL
Member since Dec 2013
10293 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:30 am
Surrendering the Army of Northern Virginia at Appomattox as opposed to taking to the hills and fighting it out like Longstreet, Fitz Lee, and John Gordon wanted to?

Personally looking at it yes he was in a tough position, however it's almost criminal to surrender while he still had approximately 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers under his command regardless of the Union strength. If they would have taken to the hills and fought a guerilla style war the Northern will would have been broken within that year. That combined with R.E. Lee and his staff riding South and commanding from Johnston's headquarters he would have easily been able to outmaneuver/defeat Sherman's forces. With a large Union defeat in the south combined with guerilla warfare in Washington D.C., R.E. Lee was extremely shortsighted and borderline treasonous in surrendering his Army and himself.
Posted by pensacola
pensacola
Member since Sep 2005
4642 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:48 am to
Would Lincoln have died five days later?
Posted by jmarto1
Houma, LA/ Las Vegas, NV
Member since Mar 2008
34066 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:51 am to
He saved thousands of lives. The war was out of reach for the South and Lee hadn't been able to pull of a major victory in some time.
Posted by fouldeliverer
Lannisport
Member since Nov 2008
13538 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:56 am to
Yes, he did betray his countrymen. When he resigned from the U.S. Army and decided to fight for the treasonous inveterates fighting to keep the evil institution of slavery he betrayed his country.
Posted by CSATiger
The Battlefield
Member since Aug 2010
6225 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:57 am to
at that point, the troops had no supplies or food.
Posted by beejon
University Of Louisiana Warhawks
Member since Nov 2008
7959 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 9:59 am to
Lee did the right thing. The North had more of everything and it was inevidible that the South would be defeated.

The biggest mistake, in my opinion, was the South's lack of planning before the war...there was little if any. Stockpile supplies and have some sort of agreement with a few European countries that they would support the cause with manpower, supplies and money. As it was, it was simply a matter of time for the South.
Posted by VanCleef
Member since Aug 2014
704 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:05 am to
quote:

Yes, he did betray his countrymen. When he resigned from the U.S. Army and decided to fight for the treasonous inveterates fighting to keep the evil institution of slavery he betrayed his country.


This is the correct answer.
Posted by Rex
Here, there, and nowhere
Member since Sep 2004
66001 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:11 am to
quote:

however it's almost criminal to surrender while he still had approximately 25,000 to 30,000 soldiers under his command regardless of the Union strength.

No matter if they had ammunition, food, or medicines?

Posted by armytiger96
Member since Sep 2007
1227 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:12 am to
You also over estimate the South's willingness to continue the fight once Sherman and Grant shifted to Total War tactics.
Posted by windshieldman
Member since Nov 2012
12818 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:16 am to
30,000 troops isn't much to work with Especially when you are low on ammo and food.
Posted by secondandshort
Member since Jan 2014
1028 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:18 am to
One of his officers suggested this, Edward Porter Alexander. Lee said "You and I as Christian men have no right to consider only how this would affect us. We must consider its effect on the country as a whole...if I took your advice the men would be without rations and under no control of officers. They would be compelled to rob and steal in order to live. They would become bands of marauders... We would bring on a state of affairs it would take the country years to recover from."

Now that he was beaten he was looking at how best for his men and the country to get back to work and farming and being a nation.
Posted by yankeeundercover
Buffalo, NY
Member since Jan 2010
36377 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:19 am to
Union4lyfe
Posted by 13SaintTiger
Isle of Capri
Member since Sep 2011
18315 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:21 am to
ib4darthwikipedias
This post was edited on 4/12/15 at 10:22 am
Posted by 20MuleTeam
West Hartford
Member since Sep 2012
3862 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 10:45 am to
Yes, when he commited treason by joining the confederacy.
Posted by TROLA
BATON ROUGE
Member since Apr 2004
12406 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 11:28 am to
He did the right and honorable considering the situation.. They had no supplies and while a guerrilla war would've certainly extended the war, it also would've resulted in the destruction of south completely with the same result.. Lee was at his heart, fighting for Virginia and the destruction that would've resulted would have destroyed what he believed in.
Posted by WeeWee
Member since Aug 2012
40191 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 12:07 pm to
quote:

History Topic: Did R.E. Lee Betray His Countrymen?


No, he did the sensible thing that gave his "countrymen" the best possible outcome. If he had gone guerilla the best outcome would have been the states rejoining the union, but keeping slavery due to the north getting tired of a vietnam type situation in the South. There probably be massive riots am ong the slave populations and in northern cities. Then the Civil War would break out a few years later because the slavery issue had not been settled. The worst possible outcome is Yankee army adopts Sherman's scorced earth campaign across the entire south. Lee did the right thing.
Posted by Sal Minella
Member since Nov 2006
1951 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 12:52 pm to
He was outnumbered by at least 4 to 1 and had limited resources left. His army had been on the defensive for almost 2 years.

For those that say he betrayed his countrymen when he resigned to fight for Virginia may be right by applying today's standards but in 1861 the states were still viewed as a basis of the republic that the Founding Fathers had created.

"There are certain social principles in human nature, from which we may draw the most solid conclusions with respect to the conduct of individuals and of communities. We love our families more than our neighbors; we love our neighbors more than our countrymen in general. The human affections, like solar heat, lose their intensity as they depart from the centre . . . On these principles, the attachment of the individual will be first and for ever secured by the State governments. They will be a mutual protection and support." - Alexander Hamilton, 1788

It seems this held true for Lee even though he was against the secession of Virginia.

Here's a good article on Lee.
Posted by NYNolaguy1
Member since May 2011
20927 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:13 pm to
Longstreet would be equally guilty, considering he got shot off his horse fighting his old soldiers at the battle of liberty place in 1874.
Posted by PiscesTiger
Concrete, WA
Member since Feb 2004
53696 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:15 pm to
Joseph E. Johnston was the only decent help left and he and his army of NC were separated from Lee's Army.

It was the right call to make. The only general who did not think surrendering was the right move, to my knowledge, was Porter Alexander who was also the artillery commander for the Army of No Virginia. I think everyone else knew it was the only option.
Posted by bobaftt1212
Hills of TN
Member since Mar 2013
1317 posts
Posted on 4/12/15 at 1:53 pm to
you shut your whore mouth. Lee was the only reason the confederacy lasted as long as it did.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 2Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram