Why didn't Lee refuse to obey an immoral order?

Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!
Status
Not open for further replies.

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
Seems to me they are the same......

Morality in any time and place is set by the moral values of the majority of the people

Our laws also reflect the morals of the majority

so its hardly surprising they both reflect the same
Are you saying that all laws are made without the slightest infliction of greed or corruption, only on moral composition?
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
The purpose of war is to advance the goals of the state. So whose law is the question...We have come full circle as to whether the CSA was sovereign and could make laws....
but how could confederate law be applied in Pa in 1863, it the rebels argued that the union law could not be applied in Virginia in 1861?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
3,003
Longstreet was at Greenwood, PA, on July 1, 1863. That place is about 12 miles north of the border. Where was Pickett at that time?

HEADQUARTERS FIRST ARMY CORPS,
Greenwood, Pa., July 1, 1863-10,30 a. m.
Major General G. E. PICKETT,
Commanding Division:
As directed yesterday evening, if relieved in time to-day by General Imboden, the commanding general desires you to come on this evening as far as this point, and to follow on after the remainder of the command across the mountains tomorrow morning. If you do not start from the vicinity of Chambersburg before to-morrow you may move on across the mountain without stopping here. When you arrive here, either this evening or tomorrow, the commanding general wishes you to relieve a brigade of General Hood at New Guilford, and send it forward to rejoin his division. Your own brigade will in turn be relieved by General Imboden when he gets here and sent on to rejoin you. The captured contrabands had better be brought along with you for further disposition.
I am, general, very respectfully, your obedient servant,
G. M. SORREL,
Assistant Adjutant-General.
<United States War Department, The War of the Rebellion: A Compilation of the Official Records of the Union and Confederate
Armies
, (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1880-1901), series 1, vol. LI, pt. 2, pp. 732-33.>
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,453
Location
mo
Is fire bombing civilians moral?
All his threads seems riddles that seem to promote nothing but anarchy, and people should be able do whatever, whenever.........things like the majority, laws ect mean nothing.......seems to be the only place he is going with it
Are you saying that all laws are made without the slightest infliction of greed or corruption, only on moral composition?
are you saying they don't reflect the majority will? Instead of endless 20 or 50 questions, you might present some evidence..

Edit: Removed inflammatory comment.

BTW you can think whatever you want goes into reflecting the majority will......However it still doesn't change it is in fact the majority, and the majority governs
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ole Miss

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
2,792
Location
North Mississippi
Judging past actions by today's standards is hardly conducive to reaching valid conclusions. Lee's decision to resign his commission in the Federal army was due to his higher devotion to his state than the nation, which was a determining factor for many serving officers in the antebellum years. The ACW changed how Americans viewed the perception of state vs the nation.

I believe Shelby Foote expressed the change best when he stated:
Before the war, it was said 'the United States are'grammatically it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war it was always 'the United States is,' as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is.”

Lee followed orders he believed to be lawful and evidently was willing for his actions to be judged by future generations as he was very aware of his own history. Whether one believes him to be moral or immoral is a personal decision not a judgment of a peoples group!

The statement:
should it have been as another example of crimes against black people by white people before the civil war?”
Chatters my teeth as the concept of “White Guilt” has no place in this discussion as it is non-existant concept to me for I bare no more guilty of actions by Europeans against slaves than I do for:
1) Romans dominating nations and enslaving them
2) Africans enslaving other Africans and selling them to traders around the world
3) Crusades against Middle East nations and people
4) Colonial actions, conquests and nation creations as Iraq for example
5) American Indian Tribes conquering other tribes and enslaving them
6) The massed killing and enslavement by Japan against other Asian nations and people as well as European and American civilians and soldiers

So let us concern ourselves with the original post Why didn't Lee refuse to obey an immoral order? And not drift off subject.
Regards
David
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

19thGeorgia

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Apr 4, 2017
Messages
3,003
Why did Lee obey the immoral order to take black people into slavery when ANV invaded PA? I thought the war was about the south wanting to be sovereign in their own right from the union? Why didn’t he say something like “no, the confederate army will not kidnap black people because we are fighting for our independence, not for the institution of slavery?” If he was so noble in his believes, couldn’t he stand up to the confederate government on returning free blacks to the south as a moral issue, as he stood up to the United States government to fight for the south as a moral issue?
What were the black people doing when they were captured? Tending fields or driving wagons for the federal army?...or taking pot-shots at the Confederate army?
 

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
All his threads seems riddles that seem to promote nothing but anarchy, and people should be able do whatever, whenever.........things like the majority, laws ect mean nothing.......seems to be the only place he is going with it

are you saying they don't reflect the majority will? Instead of endless 20 or 50 questions, you might present some evidence..

If you have nothing but endless questions, I guess I should conclude your simply clueless

BTW you can think whatever you want goes into reflecting the majority will......However it still doesn't change it is in fact the majority, and the majority governs
so the majority governs fair and unfairly is what you are telling me because I am clueless as to how to understand the majority rules by morals that may be good or bad.
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,453
Location
mo
No, then capturing free black people by Lee's army in 1863 and taking them south to be slaves must be immoral too based on human rights.
Just curious as to your evidence of the majority of Americans, or the allies being outraged over the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo, can you reference any war crime trials since you say it was immoral or human rights violation?
 
Last edited:

Andersonh1

Major
Joined
Jan 12, 2016
Messages
8,002
Location
South Carolina
Well, in other words: if Lee was so willing to resign from the United States Army as to protect the rights of "white people" in Virginia against Union Aggression in 1861,
You don't understand Lee's motivation if this is what you believe. He was reluctant to resign, and his loyalty was to his state.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/25*.html

Lee would not despair of the Union. He was for forbearance to the last, recognizing no necessity for recourse to arms.16 The maintenance of slavery meant nothing to him. He felt that if he owned all the slaves in the South he would cheerfully give them up to preserve the Union.17 He would hold to the army and to the flag as long as he could in honor do so.18 But during those days of suspense, Lee was confirmed in his point of view. He had been determined from the outset that he would adhere to Virginia and defend her from any foe. Now, fully, he realized that though he considered secession neither more nor less than revolution, he could not bring himself to fight against the states that regarded secession as a right. He could not think of himself as fighting with the South against the Union, unless Virginia's defense were involved, but neither, as the possibility seemed to be brought nearer, could he reconcile himself to fighting with the Union against the South. "That beautiful feature of our landscape," he said sadly one day, as he pointed to the capitol across the Potomac, "has ceased to charm me as much as formerly. I fear the mischief that is brewing there."19
------------​
He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States." That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose.​
----------------​
He came downstairs when he had finished the letters. Mrs. Lee was waiting for him. She had heard him pacing in the room above her and had thought she had heard him fall on his knees in prayer. "Well, Mary," he said calmly, "the question is settled. Here is my letter of resignation and a letter I have written General Scott."36
She understood. Months later she wrote a friend, "My husband has wept tears of blood over this terrible war, but as a man of honor and a Virginian, he must follow the destiny of his state."37


 

Ole Miss

2nd Lieutenant
Forum Host
Silver Patron
Joined
Dec 9, 2017
Messages
2,792
Location
North Mississippi
@Robin Lesjovitch asked "Is fire bombing civilians moral?"
If you are referring to the 911 acts you are absolutely correct. If you are referring to the German's Blitz of London, the Bombing of Germany and or Japan, then you must judge with conditions, worries, concerns and mores of those times.
Regards
David
PS Is this question germane to the topic?
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
You don't understand Lee's motivation if this is what you believe. He was reluctant to resign, and his loyalty was to his state.

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/People/Robert_E_Lee/FREREL/1/25*.html

Lee would not despair of the Union. He was for forbearance to the last, recognizing no necessity for recourse to arms.16 The maintenance of slavery meant nothing to him. He felt that if he owned all the slaves in the South he would cheerfully give them up to preserve the Union.17 He would hold to the army and to the flag as long as he could in honor do so.18 But during those days of suspense, Lee was confirmed in his point of view. He had been determined from the outset that he would adhere to Virginia and defend her from any foe. Now, fully, he realized that though he considered secession neither more nor less than revolution, he could not bring himself to fight against the states that regarded secession as a right. He could not think of himself as fighting with the South against the Union, unless Virginia's defense were involved, but neither, as the possibility seemed to be brought nearer, could he reconcile himself to fighting with the Union against the South. "That beautiful feature of our landscape," he said sadly one day, as he pointed to the capitol across the Potomac, "has ceased to charm me as much as formerly. I fear the mischief that is brewing there."19
------------​
He had said: "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people and save in defence will draw my sword on none." There he stood, and in that spirit, after listening to all Blair had to say, he made the fateful reply that is best given in his own simple account of the interview: "I declined the offer he made me to take command of the army that was to be brought into the field, stating as candidly and as courteously as I could, that though opposed to secession and deprecating war, I could take no part in an invasion of the Southern States." That was all, as far as Lee was concerned. He had long before decided, instinctively, what his duty required of him, and the allurement of supreme command, with all that a soldier craved, did not tempt him to equivocate for an instant or to see if there were not some way he could keep his own honor and still have the honor he understood the President had offered him. Blair talked on in a futile hope of converting Lee, but it was to no purpose.​
----------------​
He came downstairs when he had finished the letters. Mrs. Lee was waiting for him. She had heard him pacing in the room above her and had thought she had heard him fall on his knees in prayer. "Well, Mary," he said calmly, "the question is settled. Here is my letter of resignation and a letter I have written General Scott."36
She understood. Months later she wrote a friend, "My husband has wept tears of blood over this terrible war, but as a man of honor and a Virginian, he must follow the destiny of his state."37


but what about the rights of black people in PA under "states rights" in 1863...did he have any honor in protecting them from being brought to the south as slaves?
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,453
Location
mo
so the majority governs fair and unfairly is what you are telling me because I am clueless as to how to understand the majority rules by morals that may be good or bad.
When you keep questioning basic legal, civic, and government principles yes seems clueless to me.......we have majority rule based on majority values to avoid anarchy, really think even you must realize that
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
Just curious as to your evidence of the majority of Americans, or the allies being outraged over the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo, can you reference any war crime trials since you say it was immoral?
Are all war criminal are brought to trial?
 

archieclement

1st Lieutenant
Forum Host
Joined
Sep 17, 2011
Messages
4,453
Location
mo
Well I'm not going to play your endless game. I asked for your evidence of a majority of outrage......and get just another pointless question that didn't go to what I asked at all.

have a nice day

If you are going to ask endless questions. You should be able to answer some.......
 
Fewer ads. Lots of American Civil War content!
JOIN NOW: REGISTER HERE!

ebg12

Corporal
Joined
Feb 28, 2019
Messages
444
so to avoid
When you keep questioning basic legal, civic, and government principles yes seems clueless to me.......we have majority rule based on majority values to avoid anarchy, really think even you must realize that
So, let me understand, to avoid anarchy in the south, slavery was introduced?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top