29 ms·

There's bad and then there is traitorous - completely untrustworthy. Robert E. Lee might be seen as a traitor, but only if everyone citizen of the CSA is. I'm

There's bad and then there is traitorous - completely untrustworthy. Robert E. Lee might be seen as a traitor, but only if everyone citizen of the CSA is. I'm not aware of David Duke being a traitor.

labster 5y ago
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- octopoc 5y ago
  There is nuance here that you might not be aware of. He just had higher loyalty to his state than the union, something that was common back then. For better or for worse, the United States became dramatically more centralized after the Civil War, both in terms of political power and in the public's consciousness. One way I've heard it expressed is that before the Civil War, people would say "The United States are..." but after the Civil War people say "The United States is..." edit: also please refrain from telling people what to feel, it's rude and hinders the conversation
- winstonewert 5y ago
  People despise traitors because they pretend to be on one side while actually working for another. That's why Benedict Arnold is despised and Lee is not. Lee may turned against the Federal government, but he never pretended to be on a different side then he was.
  - alehlopeh 5y ago
    That is absolutely not what a traitor is.
    - yywwbbn 5y ago
      Is Lee that different from Washington or any other officer in the Continental army who served in the British army prior to the war? Or do you think there is no distinction between being a rebel and a traitor?
- AnimalMuppet 5y ago
  > and you should feel bad for making it. That's not an appropriate argument for HN.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >The argument on Lee not being a traitor is bad and you should feel bad for making it. The argument that it is some sort of obvious black and white issue is horse shit you should feel bad about your ignorance of history. Lee's decision to serve for the confederacy was not morally cut and clear either way at the time. He was both obligated to serve the federal government and obligated to serve his home state. This was obvious to even casual observers and was the subject of much speculation at the time. To make a comparison that innumerable people seven score and thirteen years ago made, George Washington took half a dozen oaths to serve the crown over the course of his military service prior to the American Revolution yet when his people chose to declare independence he fought on their side.
  - chasil 5y ago
    I don't really know much about Lee, and I have avoided study of the U.S. Civil War (although I did read most of Grant's memoirs, which likely paint a very biased picture). However, if Lee was in a state militia, would he not have pledged loyalty to the governor, and not to the president? This in no way atones for what the Union would see as crime.
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      Lee was serving in the US army when war broke out. The Wikipedia page on him is a fine overview of Lee's feelings on the matter.
- chasil 5y ago
  I'm not willing to judge Lee or Arnold. They were products of their times.
smcl 5y ago
If being a traitor was such a big thing I would have imagined the attempt to overthrow the election on 6th January 2020 would have been more broadly opposed. What is more traitorous than attempting a coup? My point is not to relitigate old battles though - people like and dislike stuff based on their gut, which is fairly arbitrary and sometimes contradictory and I am not immune to that myself. My point was that it's interesting one person gets a pass for being universally awful and another has their role in a revolutionary war completely boiled down to "Benedict Arnold bad!" when the story is "Benedict Arnold bad ... but also at one point good, and interesting and worth reading about"
- stonogo 5y ago
  There are (so far) 862 criminal charges filed regarding that incident, with more on the way. How broad would you like your opposition?
  - rootusrootus 5y ago
    I expect that GP meant broadly opposed [amongst the population]. You could argue that even with this assumption, it would qualify, as 7 in 10 Americans do think the insurrection was wrong. But I can see the merit in arguing that 3 in 10 supporting it is uncomfortably high.
  - nescioquid 5y ago
    I read the parent to mean that -- apparently in some cases -- actions alone are insufficient to indicate treason: the actor has to be seen as a traitor. Hence the apparent disjunction between the general regard of Americans for Benedict Arnold and Trump.
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Mostly misdemeanors. Very few got as many as four years, probably most will be out in much less than their sentence. Not like the patriots who exposed war crimes.
  - smcl 5y ago
    Well a pretty sizeable chunk of the population believe it was a good thing and don't appear to be discouraged in any way by those charges

There's bad and then there is traitorous - completely untrustworthy. Robert E. Lee might be seen as a traitor, but only if everyone citizen of the CSA is. I'm not aware of David Duke being a traitor.

labster 5y ago

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
octopoc 5y ago
There is nuance here that you might not be aware of. He just had higher loyalty to his state than the union, something that was common back then. For better or for worse, the United States became dramatically more centralized after the Civil War, both in terms of political power and in the public's consciousness. One way I've heard it expressed is that before the Civil War, people would say "The United States are..." but after the Civil War people say "The United States is..." edit: also please refrain from telling people what to feel, it's rude and hinders the conversation
winstonewert 5y ago
People despise traitors because they pretend to be on one side while actually working for another. That's why Benedict Arnold is despised and Lee is not. Lee may turned against the Federal government, but he never pretended to be on a different side then he was.
- alehlopeh 5y ago
  That is absolutely not what a traitor is.
  - yywwbbn 5y ago
    Is Lee that different from Washington or any other officer in the Continental army who served in the British army prior to the war? Or do you think there is no distinction between being a rebel and a traitor?
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
> and you should feel bad for making it. That's not an appropriate argument for HN.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>The argument on Lee not being a traitor is bad and you should feel bad for making it. The argument that it is some sort of obvious black and white issue is horse shit you should feel bad about your ignorance of history. Lee's decision to serve for the confederacy was not morally cut and clear either way at the time. He was both obligated to serve the federal government and obligated to serve his home state. This was obvious to even casual observers and was the subject of much speculation at the time. To make a comparison that innumerable people seven score and thirteen years ago made, George Washington took half a dozen oaths to serve the crown over the course of his military service prior to the American Revolution yet when his people chose to declare independence he fought on their side.
- chasil 5y ago
  I don't really know much about Lee, and I have avoided study of the U.S. Civil War (although I did read most of Grant's memoirs, which likely paint a very biased picture). However, if Lee was in a state militia, would he not have pledged loyalty to the governor, and not to the president? This in no way atones for what the Union would see as crime.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    Lee was serving in the US army when war broke out. The Wikipedia page on him is a fine overview of Lee's feelings on the matter.
chasil 5y ago
I'm not willing to judge Lee or Arnold. They were products of their times.

smcl 5y ago

If being a traitor was such a big thing I would have imagined the attempt to overthrow the election on 6th January 2020 would have been more broadly opposed. What is more traitorous than attempting a coup? My point is not to relitigate old battles though - people like and dislike stuff based on their gut, which is fairly arbitrary and sometimes contradictory and I am not immune to that myself. My point was that it's interesting one person gets a pass for being universally awful and another has their role in a revolutionary war completely boiled down to "Benedict Arnold bad!" when the story is "Benedict Arnold bad ... but also at one point good, and interesting and worth reading about"

stonogo 5y ago
There are (so far) 862 criminal charges filed regarding that incident, with more on the way. How broad would you like your opposition?
- rootusrootus 5y ago
  I expect that GP meant broadly opposed [amongst the population]. You could argue that even with this assumption, it would qualify, as 7 in 10 Americans do think the insurrection was wrong. But I can see the merit in arguing that 3 in 10 supporting it is uncomfortably high.
- nescioquid 5y ago
  I read the parent to mean that -- apparently in some cases -- actions alone are insufficient to indicate treason: the actor has to be seen as a traitor. Hence the apparent disjunction between the general regard of Americans for Benedict Arnold and Trump.
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Mostly misdemeanors. Very few got as many as four years, probably most will be out in much less than their sentence. Not like the patriots who exposed war crimes.
- smcl 5y ago
  Well a pretty sizeable chunk of the population believe it was a good thing and don't appear to be discouraged in any way by those charges