Were George Washington and Robert E. Lee really that different?

[BaronChocula]

[Xipe Totec]

1. Thought provoking.

It is always hard to judge people outside their historical context. However, on the question of the morality of slavery, the issue was much better defined in the time of Robert E. Lee than in was in the time of Washington. Washington and Lee are not the same because they lived in a different period of history. Each must be judged by the moral norms of the time in which they lived.

[Quixote1818]

2. I agree, the Founding Fathers were the first to start chipping away at slavery

As products of the European Enlightenment they were some of they first leaders to begin to question if slavery was moral. Heck, slavery goes back to way before Plato and Aristotle.

[BaronChocula]

12. Can you please explain

How the FFs began chipping away at slavery? There were those who opposed and those who were for. In Virginia, Ground Zero in the Washington VS Lee question, pro-slavery laws intensified in the first decade of the 19th century, putting onerous regulations on steps to manumission. Freed slaves in Virginia were required to leave the state. Even anti-slavery FFs like John Adams were no necessarily pro-abolition.

[BaronChocula]

11. But what suggests Washington would have been any different

than Robert E. Lee (a man of his time) had Washington been born in 1807 (like Lee)?

[Xipe Totec]

14. If we're going into hypotheticals,

why not ask what Robert E. Lee might have been like if he were a woman, or if Washington had hooves?

It's pointless.

Each man was who he was and was born when he was born and should be judged by the norms of the time in which they lived.

[BaronChocula]

13. In my humble opinion

The era in which you were born gives you limited license. Add to that, there was only a 75 year difference between Washington and Lee. there are 79 years between FDR and Obama. FDR's "era license" excuses him from the exclusion of African Americans from many New Deal benefits in exchange for Southern Democratic votes. How much license does Washington get for those 75 years. In the decade after his death, Virginia became more stringently pro-slavery. If he were a "man of his time" in Lee's era, he would have certainly would have been just as pro-slavery as Lee was.

[recovering_democrat]

3. very simple

George Washington served as commander of the Revolutionary War soldiers who brought this country into existence. Then he served as the first President of the United States.

Robert E Lee, having a greater loyalty to his state and his property, chose to serve as commander of the Confederate Army who were traitors to this country through seceding from this nation and attacking this nation in a war. Once lost, then he went home and was pardoned by the United States.

any more questions about the difference between them?

[BaronChocula]

15. More questions? You didn't answer the first one.

We all know the circumstances of both of their rebellions against their countries. Given the fact that they were both rebels (one was victorious, the other wasn't) how different was their inspiration? Can you prove that if George Washington had been born in 1807 Virginia, he would have resisted taking up arms against the U.S.?

[George II]

4. This is the United States. Robert E. Lee sent soldiers to war to fight against and kill Americans...

George Washington didn't send soldiers to war to fight against and kill Americans.

Had the British won the Revolutionary War, obviously his status would be different.

[markpkessinger]

8. Exactly . . .

. .. . Taking up arms against the country is a pretty bright line. Why do so many have trouble seeing it?

[rpannier]

9. Had the Americans lost the Revolutionary War

I'd want them taken down

You're exactly right. This is the USA. The American soldiers were the Union troops, the traitors were the confederate
Had the British won the war, Washington statues (and statues to the rest of them) would have to come down [though likely they'd have never been built]

[renegade000]

5. From a military standpoint...

I'd say Washington had a more grounded view of what the Continental Army could accomplish and consequently adopted a more appropriate strategy toward achieving independence.
There's a good case to be made that Lee was unnecessarily aggressive with the Army of Northern Virginia.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. Southern aristocrats and their peculiar institution

did not like Log Cabin Abe Lincoln, who was very unpopular in his day and not considered a very good commander
or adept politician.

As for Washington & Lee, is this another form of Hillary & Donald? They're all the same, aren't they?

[BaronChocula]

10. You can make the case with Hillary and Donald

Can you make the case with Washington and Lee besides "he took up arms against his country"? You can say the same thing about both of them. I'm not being contentious. If people found Lee so repulsive vis-a-vis Washington, why are we only demanding his monuments be taken down now.

[TeamPooka]

7. There were many reasons for the break with England. They filled an entire document

called the Declaration of Independence.
No free speech, government soldiers quarters in your home at your cost, taxation without representation, the Bill of Rights outlines many of the reasons too.
The South fought for one issue: Slavery.
They had representation in Congress but didn't like that they lost the votes and issue to Lincoln.
Fuck the Confederacy, forever.