Could Robert E Lee have lost on purpose?

[Nathanb1]

Welcome....and I love your dog..............but in answer to your question, no.........good Lord no!

 

[StephenColbert27]

No. The fact that Lee only surrendered when his army had been ground to a pittance and was surrounded on three sides tells you how determined he was to not lose.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Agreed. Nothing like a lab. What's its name?

Her name is Keiko. She was rescued from the humane society and the doc said she may have cancer so we let her do whatever she wants. She's one of the best.

 

[krvaldovinos]

In response to some wondering why I'd even ask this:

It's a fact that he didn't want the country to be divided, correct? And then in my opinion, Lee was such a smart man/general, you'd think he'd see that the country shouldn't be divided and not let his allegiance to the South rely on a geographical region where his loved ones could simply be moved from.

Democracy and state loyalty is great and all, but at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? That is what seems silly to me, and that's what I was kind of basing this theory on. But I genuinely appreciate everyone's comments and even criticisms.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Assuming that because someone is militarily competent that they must also see the importance of keeping the nation together is foolish. It is possible, in fact, to be quite knowledgeable in one area and a novice in another. Smart people have supported stupid things throughout history. Erwin Rommel fought for the Nazis in World War II, by any measure a stupid thing to do. Does that make him an idiot? No. He did his duty as he saw it. Same as Lee. Lee viewed his duty to defend Virginia as a sacred one, above all others. If that meant destroying the United States as it had been, Lee would do it.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Assuming that because someone is militarily competent they must also see the importance of keeping the nation together is foolish. Smart people have supported stupid things throughout history. Erwin Rommel fought for the Nazis in World War II, by any measure a stupid thing to do. Does that make him an idiot? No. He did his duty as he saw it. Same as Lee.

Well now we're getting into ethics, which don't go well with politics and war because people just follow orders and don't have room for ethics. Maybe I was just trying to convince myself that Lee would make a decision based on what's right and wrong; but you're right. Smart people have supported stupid things.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Well now we're getting into ethics, which don't go well with politics and war because people just follow orders and don't have room for ethics. Maybe I was just trying to convince myself that Lee would make a decision based on what's right and wrong; but you're right. Smart people have supported stupid things.

Side note: I actually think that anyone who fought for the Nazis was an idiot.

 

[StephenColbert27]

Well now we're getting into ethics, which don't go well with politics and war because people just follow orders and don't have room for ethics. Maybe I was just trying to convince myself that Lee would make a decision based on what's right and wrong; but you're right. Smart people have supported stupid things.

Lee did do what was right, at least as he saw it. His priorities (and obviously those of most of his Southern peers) were simply different than what they are today. To many, especially Southerners, the State was more sacred than the Union. That's what Lee said when he resigned his commission, that he would never again draw his sword except in defense of his native state. That's the reality of the time period. He (and many others) viewed his duty to his state as more sacred than his oath to the United States.

 

[krvaldovinos]

This one's for you:

 

[StephenColbert27]

Side note: I actually think that anyone who fought for the Nazis was an idiot.

Viewing the world in generalities and over-simplifications is all well and good in the abstract, but assuming that every man in the Nazi army was an idiot makes the mistake in assuming that they knew everything we know now. They didn't, in many (and I'd go so far as to say most) cases.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Viewing the world in generalities and over-simplifications is all well and good in the abstract, but assuming that every man in the Nazi army was an idiot makes the mistake in assuming that they knew everything we know now. They didn't, in many (and I'd go so far as to say most) cases.

You're right. I shouldn't generalize. And I'll never know because I've never been brain washed into thinking I'm better than someone else. But I do think that people who saw genocide first hand makes them at least a horrible person.

 

[StephenColbert27]

You're right. I shouldn't generalize. And I'll never know because I've never been brain washed into thinking I'm better than someone else. But I do think that people who saw genocide first hand makes them at least a horrible person.

On that I agree, assuming that you mean those who saw genocide and did nothing to combat it. The people I was referring to (like Rommel) were those that did not have involvement with that, and in fact acted counter to Hitler's desires.
Clarification:
When I say "counter to Hitler's desires", I'm referring to the fact that Rommel refused to hand over Jewish POW's and otherwise did not cooperate with Hitler's program to kill Jews. I'm well aware of him winning battles, which obviously was not counter to Hitler's desires.

 

[ForeverFree]

I'm not saying I think Lee did this, but what if all along he didn't want the south to secede, and when Virginia seceded he used "I'm going with my state" to side with the union and then he put up a good fight but eventually surrendered because that's what he felt should happen? Just prove me wrong in this thread please.

I think the burden of proof is on you to establish that it is reasonable to believe that Lee actually felt this should happen. Without any evidence to reason to believe that this was Lee's intent, we must assume that this premise in untrue.

- Alan

 

[ole]

Only a worm, once comitted, would try to lose. I can't and won't say Lee was a worm.

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

Poor R.E. . Such is his legacy you wonder if anyone has the definitive word on the guy. You know- stuck forever riding that loop on Traveler between 1861 and 1865, after which he never did anything- just headed back to 1861. Or Harper's Ferry. Children and the wife make brief appearances in the sidecar, gosh, even 2 enslaved at Arlington have a place in History because they were connected to Lee-heck even Arlington magically became Lee's ancestral home. It's blasphemy to suggest otherwise. R.E. tried mightily to wean Mary from Arlington, her ancestral home, feeling she spent far too much time and had too much loyalty there. Place drove him crazy. Point being while this particular question is a no-brainer there's an awful lot of myth on Lee. Easy myth too, not anything you can't see laying right out there in the open.

He is a very cute dog! You never know with those awful tumors. Our ancient Shepherd mix has had them for years, still not causing him pain. Vet said you just can't tell- no point in doing anything, make sure he's happy. Still raiding the garbage can and chasing cats.

 

[M.Warren]

Lost on purpose? No.
Knew when it was useless to go on? Absolutely.
If he was a quitter, he'd have done it long before he did, in the end.

 

[Dave Hull]

When I first read the premise, my mind immediately conjured a mob boss talking with a bookmaker, who in turn talks to a manager who turns to Lee the boxer and says "Kid, you have to take a dive in the 9th."

 

[krvaldovinos]

One's failure to prove you wrong means nothing if you are unable to prove you're right.

You're right. I'm not saying I can prove anything, which is why I'm in the "what if" section. In fact I doubt that he did this, which is why I just wanted people to tell me why he didn't do this. But thanks for the response.

 

[krvaldovinos]

Lee did do what was right, at least as he saw it. His priorities (and obviously those of most of his Southern peers) were simply different than what they are today. To many, especially Southerners, the State was more sacred than the Union. That's what Lee said when he resigned his commission, that he would never again draw his sword except in defense of his native state. That's the reality of the time period. He (and many others) viewed his duty to his state as more sacred than his oath to the United States.

And you're right again. Your response reminds me of when Shelby Foote (in the Ken Burns series) said something to the extent of: "Before the Civil War, we referred to the USA as exactly what the name is - a bunch of states - and people would say "the United States of America are...." and after the Civil War, people started saying "the United States of America is...."

Regarding democracy, everyone's minds shifted after the war and only because of the war. Once we became a nation again we were still a bunch of states together, but maybe because we were "forced" to, it became an "us" instead of a "we".

 

[krvaldovinos]

On that I agree, assuming that you mean those who saw genocide and did nothing to combat it. The people I was referring to (like Rommel) were those that did not have involvement with that, and in fact acted counter to Hitler's desires.
Clarification:
When I say "counter to Hitler's desires", I'm referring to the fact that Rommel refused to hand over Jewish POW's and otherwise did not cooperate with Hitler's program to kill Jews. I'm well aware of him winning battles, which obviously was not counter to Hitler's desires.

(yes I mean those who saw genocide and did nothing to combat it. my bad.)

And I didn't know anything about Rommel - I'll hit up WWII after I'm done obsessing over the American Civil War.