Bye Robert Lee, bye!!!

@no1marauder said
In this case, it would be "helpful" since apologists for the CSA want to make heroes out of those who were willing to destroy the US to expand slavery.

A little accurate historical perspective might be quite useful given the misinformation many right wingers still cling to regarding the American Civil War.

You mean a rewriting of history.

There were no conditions given at Lee's surrender.

Yes there were, but now that we do not know history, who cares? All we care about is rewriting history in our image.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The "statutes issues" as you call it is a subset of the denial of historical truth epitomized by the "Lost Cause" ideology.

Ignoring the former tends to legitimize the latter.

@eladar said
You mean a rewriting of history.

There were no conditions given at Lee's surrender.

Yes there were, but now that we do not know history, who cares? All we care about is rewriting history in our image.

Grant had no legal authority to protect Lee or any other persons from prosecution for any crimes committed against the US.

The one trying to rewrite history is you by denying Lee was a traitor as defined by the US Constitution.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Sorry for the typo.

Thanks for your pettiness.

Indeed it has which is why the fact that Lee was a traitor, not a hero deserving a statue, is worthy of repeating.

@no1marauder said
Grant had no legal authority to protect Lee or any other persons from prosecution for any crimes committed against the US.

The one trying to rewrite history is you by denying Lee was a traitor as defined by the US Constitution.

He was the one to set the terms of surrender. If he had the authority to accept the surrender, he had the authority to set the conditions.

Seeing as Lee was not prosecuted for rebellion, your position has been rejected by history.

@eladar said
He was the one to set the terms of surrender. If he had the authority to accept the surrender, he had the authority to set the conditions.

Seeing as Lee was not prosecuted for rebellion, your position has been rejected by history.

That's absurd; a general does not have the authority to disregard US laws.

IF Grant had promised Lee, the latter would become President of the US effective immediately, would Andrew Johnson have had to step aside?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The discussion is interesting (for example, I would argue that Lee suffered no actual detriment by surrendering since his position was hopeless in any event: https://corporatefinanceinstitute.com/resources/knowledge/other/promissory-estoppel/) but somewhat besides the point. Grant admitted his authority was limited: "I have no authority to treat on the subject of peace" and thus any subject beyond the immediate surrender of Lee's army was outside the scope of his authority.

Anyway, even if I concede for the sake of argument that Grant's promise to not prosecute Lee was legally binding, that does not change the fact that Lee was clearly a traitor as defined in the US Constitution.

@no1marauder said
People in Virginia should realize by now that Robert E Lee was a traitor who fought against their country for the purpose of extending the great evil of slavery.

The French and Russian revolutions can be seen as “treachery” as well.

Not every person who opposes a country or its rule is evil or bad.

Should the Netherlands not have a statue of William the Silent? Or Germany a statue of Sophia Scholl?

Indeed, if it wasn’t for the slavery angle, I dare say that the world would be better off without the US being one country.