What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Valmy]

Yeah, and this doesn't help. It is not "more ambiguous" at all. Talk about a distinction without a real difference.

I mean there were a number of hand wringing tortured slave owners who hated the institution but were caught in a difficult situation. The southern states made manumission extremely difficult and expensive. Many members of Lee's own family were among them, as they attempted to deal with the example and legacy of George Washington. But Lee was not among these hand wringers, as his actions in managing his enslaved people makes clear.

Though he did occasionally lament the moral decay the institution put on the planters, which was a fairly common lament at the time, that was as far as he went and those statements have been cherry picked to suggest he was anti-slavery to the extent he was not. His opposition to abolitionism and his opposition to black rights all make that clear. Not to mention the actions of the Confederate Armies under his command which, among other things, enslaved people who had never been slaves which was strictly speaking illegal even under the laws of the Confederacy.

I like Lee, he is charming and brilliant and has a whole boatload of amusing anecdotes and quotes but he was not the great honorable gentleman I was led to believe he was. But that is how it usually works when we learn more about these historical icons isn't it?

[Valmy]

he had also been in the British military. double traitor.

He desperately wanted to be. The Brits wouldn't have him. One wonders how things might have been different if they had commissioned him an officer.

Colonial militias aren't part of the parent nation military? serious question, i don't know the answer.

but fine, he's back to single traitor

Well no and that worked out well for his sense of honor. He had no royal commission, just a commission from the colonial government.

[Habbaku]

I'm not sure why the vitriol around being a "traitor" exists. Is it such a poor thing to be a traitor to an unjust regime? I'd rather that than someone were a loyal servant to a vile one, or both a traitor and an evil-loyalist like Lee.

[Eddie Teach]

Although Washington has a statue in London (as does Gandhi).

There are also statues of Cromwell and Napoleon in London. The British are good sports about this sort of thing, when they are not simply nicking everyone else's statues.

Cromwell and Charles I

My take on the Washington and Gandhi statues is broadly what Tom Holland and Dominic Sandbrook said on their podcast - it's possibly actually a later iteration of British imperialism. In this case it is sort of almost colonising and claiming "our" part of them even though they were obviously opposed to Britain

Spider-Man?

[Barrister]

I'm not sure why the vitriol around being a "traitor" exists. Is it such a poor thing to be a traitor to an unjust regime? I'd rather that than someone were a loyal servant to a vile one, or both a traitor and an evil-loyalist like Lee.

There's a distinction between the regime, and the nation.  Oliver Cromwell may have been many things, but a traitor was not one of them because he did not betray his nation even if he did kill his king.

[The Brain]

I'm not sure why the vitriol around being a "traitor" exists. Is it such a poor thing to be a traitor to an unjust regime? I'd rather that than someone were a loyal servant to a vile one, or both a traitor and an evil-loyalist like Lee.

The criminal can serve his sentence and rejoin society. The heretic can repent and be absolved in death. But for the traitor there can be no peace in this world or the next. There is nothing as abhorrent in all the universe as a traitor.

The Emperor asks only that you hate.

[grumbler]

I'm not sure why the vitriol around being a "traitor" exists. Is it such a poor thing to be a traitor to an unjust regime? I'd rather that than someone were a loyal servant to a vile one, or both a traitor and an evil-loyalist like Lee.

There's a distinction between the regime, and the nation.  Oliver Cromwell may have been many things, but a traitor was not one of them because he did not betray his nation even if he did kill his king.

Cromwell absolutely was a traitor.  Treason in the UK is against the monarch, not the nation (legally, that is).

[crazy canuck]

I'm not sure why the vitriol around being a "traitor" exists. Is it such a poor thing to be a traitor to an unjust regime? I'd rather that than someone were a loyal servant to a vile one, or both a traitor and an evil-loyalist like Lee.

There's a distinction between the regime, and the nation.  Oliver Cromwell may have been many things, but a traitor was not one of them because he did not betray his nation even if he did kill his king.

By that logic anyone who thinks they know best can commit political murder and justify it on the grounds they were acting in the interests of the nation.

[The Minsky Moment]

But it's easy for you and I to condemn slavery here in 2021.  The institution has long been made illegal and rightly condemned around the world.  But he grew up in a society that accepted and tolerated slavery.  The number of people from the south that became ardent abolitionists was pretty small.

But that society was part of a much broader society of "civilized" nations.  And in that broader society, by 1860, slavery had been made illegal and right condemned around the world.  The American South, though not the sole outlier, was the most notable one.  The excuse of not knowing better or doing wrong because everyone else is doing it just doesn't fly.   You can't even argue that the South was struggling with morality of the institution because from the 1830s on the trend went in the direction, with more strident and ugly ideological defenses of slavery and more aggressive and forceful enforcement of its brutalities.  This was a society that made a willing and affirmative choice to select evil, because good would cost too much. All the sugar coating in the world can't sweeten it.

As in most of life I think there is room for nuance and you can't simply tar all slave owners with the same brush.  Owning slaves is certainly a stain on Lee's record, but it alone does not define him.

This isn't like having a mistress or telling rude jokes. If the question is what Robert E Lee though about slavery - the single most important moral issue of his time and place - the two salient facts are:

+ he owned lots of slaves
+ Given a choice from honoring his oath of loyalty to the US or pledging himself to a rebel state who declared it was departing the union because of its "oppression of the Southern slaveholding States", Lee chose to side with the "oppressed" slaveholders.  And then did everything he could to uphold protect and defend a constitution declaring that the right of property in slaves shall not be impaired.

[Barrister]

-the slaves Lee owned were an inheritance from his father in law.  As per the will they were to be freed within 5 years.  It appeared that it was Lee's intention to free them (as he was required to do) after the full five years so that funds could be raised to pay off the debts of the estate. (the war ultimately came before the 5 years were up)

-he professed his loyalty to Virginia, not to the US.  He spoke out against secession, but when Virginia voted for secession he remained loyal to Virginia and resigned from the US military.

[The Minsky Moment]

-the slaves Lee owned were an inheritance from his father in law.  As per the will they were to be freed within 5 years.  It appeared that it was Lee's intention to free them (as he was required to do) after the full five years so that funds could be raised to pay off the debts of the estate. (the war ultimately came before the 5 years were up)

Long before the Custis inheritance, he inherited slaves from his mother's estate.

As for the Custis estate, it was not his intent to honor the will's five year proviso; he brought lawsuits in state court seeking to extend the time.

[Berkut]

As in most of life I think there is room for nuance and you can't simply tar all slave owners with the same brush.  Owning slaves is certainly a stain on Lee's record, but it alone does not define him.

As in most life, it isn't hard to find a bunch of "detail" in order to defend something obvious, while just ignoring the obvious part.

I never claim slavery defined Lee - that is either a strawman, or a rather breathtaking moving of the goalposts.

I simply objected to the claim, made by you, that Lee's "personal support" for slavery was "uncertain".

There was nothing, absolutely nothing, uncertain about whether a man who personally owned slaves personally supported slavery.

[The Brain]

As in most of life I think there is room for nuance and you can't simply tar all slave owners with the same brush.  Owning slaves is certainly a stain on Lee's record, but it alone does not define him.

As in most life, it isn't hard to find a bunch of "detail" in order to defend something obvious, while just ignoring the obvious part.

I never claim slavery defined Lee - that is either a strawman, or a rather breathtaking moving of the goalposts.

I simply objected to the claim, made by you, that Lee's "personal support" for slavery was "uncertain".

There was nothing, absolutely nothing, uncertain about whether a man who personally owned slaves personally supported slavery.

It was tearing him apart, Lisa!!!!11

[Berkut]

Poor guy. What a victim of his society.

[Jacob]

I would argue that it doesn't really matter too much what his personal feelings were if he owned slaves, took steps to keep them enslaved even if they were promised freedom in a will (as per Minsky's point upthread), enslaved previously free people, and lead a war to defend and promote slavery.

If in his heart of hearts he was troubled by slavery, it matters not in the slightest bit when stacked against the fact that every action he took supported the monstrous institution.