Robert E. Lee Day

[Oil exporting People]

>Lived in a colony

And you've just lost from the get go. He was born in a British colony, therefore was a British citizen. He was not within the US at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution nor we he later naturalized. Therefore, from every legal perspective, he was not American.

Take the L, and move on.

>Fought for the United States

Irrelevant, as fighting for the US does not equal American citizenship.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

>Lived in a colony

And you've just lost from the get go. He was born in a British colony, therefore was a British citizen. He was not within the US at the time of the adoption of the US Constitution nor we he later naturalized. Therefore, from every legal perspective, he was not American.

Take the L, and move on.

>Fought for the United States

Irrelevant, as fighting for the US does not equal American citizenship.

I couldn't care less about citizenship in this conversation. You're just splitting hairs.

[Galloism]

Would he not have been considered a citizen of Connecticut, given he was born there?

No, because you specifically said he was American, which he never was.

That's arguable.

When the articles of confederation were adopted, it was 1781, and this is the first legal reference to the United States of America. This is the legal point at which people could be American. Although the Articles of Confederacy only refer to citizens once, here:

The better to secure and perpetuate mutual friendship and intercourse among the people of the different States in this Union, the free inhabitants of each of these States, paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States; and the people of each State shall free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and shall enjoy therein all the privileges of trade and commerce, subject to the same duties, impositions, and restrictions as the inhabitants thereof respectively, provided that such restrictions shall not extend so far as to prevent the removal of property imported into any State, to any other State, of which the owner is an inhabitant; provided also that no imposition, duties or restriction shall be laid by any State, on the property of the United States, or either of them.

I don't have a record that he was removed as a citizen of Connecticut, and under those articles, it would appear he would be properly assigned the designation of "American" as he would no doubt have been considered a citizen of Connecticut at the time the term "American" gained legal meaning, unless Connecticut took steps to remove his citizenship of Connecticut after his betrayal (this I don't know).


Beyond legality, from a linguistic standpoint, Americans started referring to themselves as such in the mid 1600s, although it increased more as time went on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_(word)#History

So linguistically, you can refer to Americans from before there was an America, per se, and be accurate. This isn't unusual, incidentally. Anne Hutchinson is considered a fixture of American history, even though she died before there was an official nation of America.

[Oil exporting People]

That's arguable. When the articles of confederation were adopted, it was 1781, and this is the first legal reference to the United States of America. This is the legal point at which people could be American. Although the Articles of Confederacy only refer to citizens once, here:

He already defected prior to 1781, and the Constitution superseded the legal rulings of the Articles (Hence why the Sovereign Citizens movement has no legal basis).

I don't have a record that he was removed as a citizen of Connecticut, and under those articles, it would appear he would be properly assigned the designation of "American" as he would no doubt have been considered a citizen of Connecticut at the time the term "American" gained legal meaning, unless Connecticut took steps to remove his citizenship of Connecticut after his betrayal (this I don't know).

To my knowledge, the colonies didn't issue citizenship and that still doesn't get around the barrier of him not being present in the US at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

Beyond legality, from a linguistic standpoint, Americans started referring to themselves as such in the mid 1600s, although it increased more as time went on.

Legality is the only factor in this manner, language is irrelevant. "I can speak English, therefore I am American" is the logic here, and it never held in US law.

[Farnhamia]

*looms ominously & points at an equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee*

[Oil exporting People]

I couldn't care less about citizenship in this conversation.

Then why are you even debating?

You're just splitting hairs.

I find myself being forced to use this more and more lately.

[Oil exporting People]

*looms ominously & points at an equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee*

Fair enough, my apologies.

[Free Burd]

[Rebel Intensifies] [Free Bird plays louder]

[Empire of Cats]

He was an excellent general with the unfortunate luck of ending up on the wrong side of history.

We should remember what he did and why he did it, but we shouldn't have a day to celebrate a traitor to the Union.

My exact argument. Well said.

[Oil exporting People]

We should remember what he did and why he did it, but we shouldn't have a day to celebrate a traitor to the Union.

If you are a supporter of the Federal position, however, you can't claim Lee was a traitor. The Unionists kinda worked themselves in a bind with that case.

[Neutraligon]

We should remember what he did and why he did it, but we shouldn't have a day to celebrate a traitor to the Union.

If you are a supporter of the Federal position, however, you can't claim Lee was a traitor. The Unionists kinda worked themselves in a bind with that case.

How does the position that the confederacy was a internal rebellion in which the states never actually left the union stop him form being a traitor?

[Infected Mushroom]

He was an honourable man.

The holiday should be kept. He fought to defend the South from the Northern invasion. Regardless of the politics, he fought with honour, valour, and strong spirit.

[Neutraligon]

He was an honourable man.

The holiday should be kept. He fought to defend the South from the Northern invasion. Regardless of the politics, he fought with honour, valour, and strong spirit.

How was it honorable to fight for a bunch of rebels who where attempting to maintain slavery? Why should a nation have a holiday for someone who specifically fought against those trying to maintain that nation?

[Infected Mushroom]

He was an honourable man.

The holiday should be kept. He fought to defend the South from the Northern invasion. Regardless of the politics, he fought with honour, valour, and strong spirit.

How was it honorable to fight for a bunch of rebels who where attempting to maintain slavery? Why should a nation have a holiday for someone who specifically fought against those trying to maintain that nation?

He inspired and led thousands of men into battle. He's shown true courage and valour. Also, the Army of Northern Virginia is one of the greatest military formations in the history of the United States (and probably globally). They fought against overwhelming odds, despite being outnumbered, they showed resourcefulness, courage, and determination. That's the take away message.

[Farnhamia]

He was an honourable man.

The holiday should be kept. He fought to defend the South from the Northern invasion. Regardless of the politics, he fought with honour, valour, and strong spirit.

How was it honorable to fight for a bunch of rebels who where attempting to maintain slavery? Why should a nation have a holiday for someone who specifically fought against those trying to maintain that nation?

Yeah, but his wife was Martha Washington's great-grand-daughter and he liked to have his children rub his feet and he was an excellent engineer. What's a little treason, anyway, hmm?

[Neutraligon]

How was it honorable to fight for a bunch of rebels who where attempting to maintain slavery? Why should a nation have a holiday for someone who specifically fought against those trying to maintain that nation?

He inspired and led thousands of men into battle.

So? Why is this necessarily a thing to be praised?

He's shown true courage and valour.

Did he? Also so?

Also, the Army of Northern Virginia is one of the greatest military formations in the history of the United States (and probably globally).

Debatable, also so?

They fought against overwhelming odds, despite being outnumbered, they showed resourcefulness, courage, and determination.

Once again so? This is still not a reason for the US to have this holiday.

No that is not the take home message, at all. The takeaway message is that he fought for a shitty cause, a cause that he lost. A cause that is directly contrary to the current US since you know he was fighting to destroy the Union which became the current nation. So once again why should the US have a holiday celebrating a man who was a failed traitor, who was good enough that he created a war killing way too many reasons to support a terrible cause?

[Neutraligon]

How was it honorable to fight for a bunch of rebels who where attempting to maintain slavery? Why should a nation have a holiday for someone who specifically fought against those trying to maintain that nation?

Yeah, but his wife was Martha Washington's great-grand-daughter and he liked to have his children rub his feet and he was an excellent engineer. What's a little treason, anyway, hmm?

Nothing at all, just a little speck of nothing important.

[Grave_n_idle]

Robert E. Lee was the premier General of the Confederated States of America...

Not really an accolade. "Grats, man. You suck slightly less than the rest of the confederacy".

[The East Marches]

He was an exceptionally talented general who did his duty. Public holiday is a bit much but to destroy his memory and lose the lessons within as some are suggesting is foolish.

[Galloism]

He was an exceptionally talented general who did his duty. Public holiday is a bit much but to destroy his memory and lose the lessons within as some are suggesting is foolish.

I'll agree with that.

We have to study important figures in history - even those who were on the wrong side and defended horrible things.

[Neanderthaland]

He was an exceptionally talented general who did his duty. Public holiday is a bit much but to destroy his memory and lose the lessons within as some are suggesting is foolish.

I'm not sure he was exceptionally talented.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling him a bad general, but what did he do exactly do deserve the cult that's been built up around him?

Frankly, the coolest thing he ever did was personally run reconnaissance in Mexico.

[USS Monitor]

The North doesn't give a shit. The 18th century ended a while ago, and apart from a few backwaters in northern New England we're ready to move on.

That's simply untrue. Trying to portray the North as some sort of heroes of social justice is factually inaccurate. The North is much less racially tense, but that doesn't make it the patron saint of equality. Also, while racism against blacks might be common in the South, racism against whites is more commonplace in the North. Blacks can be racist too, you know.

Where does my post say anything about racism?

[Farnhamia]

He was an exceptionally talented general who did his duty. Public holiday is a bit much but to destroy his memory and lose the lessons within as some are suggesting is foolish.

I'll agree with that.

We have to study important figures in history - even those who were on the wrong side and defended horrible things.

His duty was to the United States of America, in whose army he was an officer and whose Constitution he had taken an oath to preserve and protect.

[Qianrong]

This is ironic, given that Lee made it pretty clear he was not a "South shall rise again" type after the war, and would probably not approve of this sort of nonsense as a result.

[The East Marches]

He was an exceptionally talented general who did his duty. Public holiday is a bit much but to destroy his memory and lose the lessons within as some are suggesting is foolish.

I'm not sure he was exceptionally talented.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling him a bad general, but what did he do exactly do deserve the cult that's been built up around him?

Frankly, the coolest thing he ever did was personally run reconnaissance in Mexico.

Either he was exceptionally talented or we were exceptionally incompetent. I prefer to be charitable to my own side personally.