• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is George Washington the same as Robert E. Lee?

ludin said:
you should actually do some study. you are wrong and that is all i am going to say about it because that is about it.
Click to expand...

LOL! Any rational reading of history clearly shows Lee was a traitor.

That you're emotionally incapable of accepting that fact it irrelevant to its accuracy.
 
Gaius46 said:
Washington was more that just a military man. The greatest single thing he did had nothing to do with the battlefield. The greatest thing he did - and the reason he's considered the father of his country - is that he walked away. Twice (so maybe it's the two greatest things he did). He could have seized power for himself, first at the end of the war, and then at the end of his second term. The army would have gone along with him in the former and many people wanted him to remain President in the latter. He could have become a dictator if he wanted. Instead he did what Cincinnatus did in ancient Rome: he walked away.

We would be a much different country if he hadn't.
Click to expand...

You are aware that most of the founding fathers was very must into the early Roman Republic era where in times of need a leader would be picked with absolute power who would then hand that power back to the Roman senate once the danger was in the past?

Washington did not dream up surrendering power as he did but he still should be given credit for doing so.

Sorry I did not see your reference to Cincinnatus in your posting at first but take note that Cincinnatus was hardly the only Roman that turn power back and a large number of the founding fathers was into Roman history.
 
Last edited:
CriticalThought said:
What a strange place we have arrived. I wonder how many Trump supporters imagined they would one day be in the position of defending Robert E. Lee as being as great a man as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They all owned slaves and therefore must be morally equivalent, right? Trump's moral authority on any topic is if you ever did anything bad then it is okay as long as there are other respected individuals who did the same. But let's hear it since this is all about "statues" and the "value of history" and it has absolutely nothing to do with ethnic cleansing and racial supremacy.
Click to expand...

A little history may be in order. As a kid I had a 'meh' attitude about these things. Then I learned a little about who put them up and why.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...te-monuments-is-to-celebrate-white-supremacy/
 
CriticalThought said:
What a strange place we have arrived. I wonder how many Trump supporters imagined they would one day be in the position of defending Robert E. Lee as being as great a man as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They all owned slaves and therefore must be morally equivalent, right? Trump's moral authority on any topic is if you ever did anything bad then it is okay as long as there are other respected individuals who did the same. But let's hear it since this is all about "statues" and the "value of history" and it has absolutely nothing to do with ethnic cleansing and racial supremacy.
Click to expand...

Well Washington won. History is written by the victor. So of course not. ;)

The reality is that trying to reduce the complexity of the civil war is doing an intellectual disservice to history. The war wasn't as simple as "these guys are good and these guys are bad." That is the Hollywood version. You know how Hollywood portrays Nazis. We know that to be a falsehood of course. There were normal people in the ranks whose motives were not as easily understood as "yes I want slaves" or "no I don't." Most probably didn't fully understand that concept. They were not as educated then.

So then the question becomes...do you believe that Lee was well educated in the motives? Do you think his primary concern was the cause? Do you believe him when he said he didn't want to fight against his home? I know the world would be easier if we just had clear good guys and bad guys. And there was no doubt lee was not on the "good" side, but was on the "bad" side. So we have to wonder why he picked the way he did.

Ultimately he was the leader of a rebellion that had a stated objective of freeing one group from another. There are similarities between Washington and Lee.


The crowd is not the sum of its parts.

I am a republican who did not vote for Trump (Or Hillary).
Click to expand...
 
Tanngrisnir said:
LOL! Any rational reading of history clearly shows Lee was a traitor.

That you're emotionally incapable of accepting that fact it irrelevant to its accuracy.
Click to expand...

If Lee was a traitor then Washington was a traitor in the same manner.
 
BillRM said:
If Lee was a traitor then Washington was a traitor in the same manner.
Click to expand...

Newp. Washington successfully broke us away from England for freedom and built a country.

Lee took up arms seeking to destroy that country due slavery and failed.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Newp. Washington successfully broke us away from England for freedom and built a country.

Lee took up arms seeking to destroy that country due slavery and failed.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

Both of them attempted to break their sections from an over government that they was unhappy with and it one and the same and also that in my opinion was the outcome was due to Washington having the support of France arm forces and Lee needed to deal with the overwhelming force of the north without any other nation aid.

Footnote is would had gotten interesting if the northern naval for example would needed to deal with the Brit super warship the Warrior who made the monitor look like a child toy.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
i could careless why they like or don't like them. The fact is it happened. People decided to acknowledge deeds of the people.
if someone can't handle a statue then they seriously need to get some mental help.
It is good to be reminded about the past. It can prevent it from happening again.

Those that forget about the past are doomed to repeat it.
Click to expand...

That is probably easily said when you aren't a black kid growing up in the Jim Crow era.
 
blackjack50 said:
Well Washington won. History is written by the victor. So of course not. ;)

The reality is that trying to reduce the complexity of the civil war is doing an intellectual disservice to history. The war wasn't as simple as "these guys are good and these guys are bad." That is the Hollywood version. You know how Hollywood portrays Nazis. We know that to be a falsehood of course. There were normal people in the ranks whose motives were not as easily understood as "yes I want slaves" or "no I don't." Most probably didn't fully understand that concept. They were not as educated then.

So then the question becomes...do you believe that Lee was well educated in the motives? Do you think his primary concern was the cause? Do you believe him when he said he didn't want to fight against his home? I know the world would be easier if we just had clear good guys and bad guys. And there was no doubt lee was not on the "good" side, but was on the "bad" side. So we have to wonder why he picked the way he did.

Ultimately he was the leader of a rebellion that had a stated objective of freeing one group from another. There are similarities between Washington and Lee.
Click to expand...

Do you believe the intentions of those who put the Lee statues up during the segregation era were good?
 
blackjack50 said:
Nobody here is.
Click to expand...

Nope. We are growing up in an era where we now have to assess whether these statues were recognition of a historical era or an attempt to intimidate blacks during segregation.
 
CriticalThought said:
What a strange place we have arrived. I wonder how many Trump supporters imagined they would one day be in the position of defending Robert E. Lee as being as great a man as George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They all owned slaves and therefore must be morally equivalent, right? Trump's moral authority on any topic is if you ever did anything bad then it is okay as long as there are other respected individuals who did the same. But let's hear it since this is all about "statues" and the "value of history" and it has absolutely nothing to do with ethnic cleansing and racial supremacy.
Click to expand...

It's a strange argument Americans are having these days with respect to your history and symbols of that history.

I find it odd that those who are opposed to those who want symbols of the Confederacy to stand have taken great glee in calling them racists and bigots but when it's pointed out that many supporters of the Union were also slave owners and rightly also racists and bigots, the argument for retaining those Union leaders' symbols and destroying the Confederacy leaders' symbols is massaged into an argument about the Confederacy leaders being traitors and not about their racism and bigotry.

This is what happens when people protesting are doing it as something to do, or for ulterior or political/ideological motives, and not as a matter of principle.
 
CriticalThought said:
That is probably easily said when you aren't a black kid growing up in the Jim Crow era.
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with it. I like studying Lee. He was a great general. He was a very intelligent general as well.
The civil war is an important turning in our country. It should be recognized as such and remembered.

The people that fought in the war should be remembered as well. It is important to know and learn about.

it doesn't matter if you are white or black. these are things that should be studied and lessons learned.

What a cruel thing is war; to separate and destroy families and friends, and mar the purest joys and happiness God has granted us in this world; to fill our hearts with hatred instead of love for our neighbours, and to devastate the fair face of this beautiful world! I pray that, on this day when only peace and good-will are preached to mankind, better thoughts may fill the hearts of our enemies and turn them to peace. … My heart bleeds at the death of every one of our gallant men.

So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.

quotes Robert E. Lee.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
Newp. Washington successfully broke us away from England for freedom and built a country.

Lee took up arms seeking to destroy that country due slavery and failed.

If you can't see the difference, I can't help you.
Click to expand...

Far be it from me to question an American on his country's history, but isn't it true that the southern states seceded from the union because northern states at first refused to honour the provisions of the constitution that imbedded slavery as a right when the union was expanding into the west and creating new states and then further refused to honour that provision as it related to those southern states that seceded? The north wanted those southern states to honour the provisions of the constitution that prohibited them from seceding but not honour the provisions on slavery.

In this way, BillRm's argument is correct. Both committed treasonous acts towards the governments and nations that ruled them at the time.

But let's remember that the arguments put forward to remove any and all symbols of the Confederacy are because they represent racism and slavery and not because they represent treason. That has only become an argument since some on the left want to protect the symbols they support even though some of those symbols are of racists and slave owners as well.
 
BillRM said:
Both of them attempted to break their sections from an over government that they was unhappy with and it one and the same and also that in my opinion was the outcome was due to Washington having the support of France arm forces and Lee needed to deal with the overwhelming force of the north without any other nation aid.

Footnote is would had gotten interesting if the northern naval for example would needed to deal with the Brit super warship the Warrior who made the monitor look like a child toy.
Click to expand...

And? That's completely irrelevant to the fact that Lee was a traitor.
 
BillRM said:
You are aware that most of the founding fathers was very must into the early Roman Republic era where in times of need a leader would be picked with absolute power who would then hand that power back to the Roman senate once the danger was in the past?

Washington did not dream up surrendering power as he did but he still should be given credit for doing so.

Sorry I did not see your reference to Cincinnatus in your posting at first but take note that Cincinnatus was hardly the only Roman that turn power back and a large number of the founding fathers was into Roman history.
Click to expand...

I actually thought Cincinnatus was the first. Did a quick check on Wikipedia and he was the actually the fifth. His story is probably the most well known and Washington is often compared to him specifically because he relinquished his power.
I don't doubt that Washington was well acquainted with the story and it may well have influenced him. Even so it was pretty remarkable of him to walk away when he could have been effectively crowned king if he had wanted it.

Or maybe he was just tired and wanted to hang out with Martha. :)
 
Gaius46 said:
I actually thought Cincinnatus was the first. Did a quick check on Wikipedia and he was the actually the fifth. His story is probably the most well known and Washington is often compared to him specifically because he relinquished his power.
I don't doubt that Washington was well acquainted with the story and it may well have influenced him. Even so it was pretty remarkable of him to walk away when he could have been effectively crowned king if he had wanted it.

Or maybe he was just tired and wanted to hang out with Martha. :)
Click to expand...

If I remember correctly the messenger looking for Cincinnatus to deliver the request from the Roman senate for him to be the dictator found him working one of his fields and as soon as the danger was over he return to his farm and his fields.
 
JamesBY said:
These statues will do more good in a public museum curated for CW history exhibits than on the public square.
Click to expand...
The problem with your 'logic' is that leftists have already begun demanding statues of founding father/slave owners be removed from museums as well.
 
RAMOSS said:
George Washington was a traitor to England by use of violent rebellion. However, there is a mitigating factor involved. He won.
Click to expand...

I don't think republicans like to acknowledge that violent liberals built this country and what it stands for.
 
VanceMack said:
The problem with your 'logic' is that leftists have already begun demanding statues of founding father/slave owners be removed from museums as well.
Click to expand...

Cherry picking fallacy mixed with slippery slope fallacy.
 
Tanngrisnir said:
You can keep trying to pass off false equivalencies to your heart's content. No skin off my teeth
Click to expand...

It would be interesting to see anyone posting any concrete reason why that would not be true other then one man had been turn into a demigod starting in our school system early grades and the other had been degraded at least in the north if not the south.

Oh and both men home state was VA.

footnote Washington did not take a salary during the revolution war only asking for congress to make good his out of pocket expenses and a CPA wrote a book by the name of "George Washington expense accounts" claiming he had pad the **** out of it.

I have no idea how true the CPA claims happen to had been but I remember finding it amusing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom