Finally some sanity on the subject! Very good analysis.

You accuse Arnold of making an agreement with a foreign power for his advancement. However that is not true. He was a British subject. The republic was not independent nor did it have a constitution or an established government for him to have sworn allegiance to.

In one of my Facebook groups I was told to give this video a chance. I’m glad I did. Thank you for sharing.

Could you do a video on the lives of Southern generals after the war? I’m curious on how their lives continued on

When Dwight Eisenhower was President, he had a picture of Robert E. Lee in the Oval Office. During a news conference Ike said Lee was one of the greatest Americans.

Looking back in history and applying current moral standards to judge people and events is in fashion. Perhaps sometime in the future people will look back, point out and decry that very same behavior.

I very much enjoy your educational videos. but I disagree with your argument that Lee’s status as a professional soldier tended to justify his decision to fight against the United States As an officer in the US army he had sworn alleigance to the United States, an oath he violated. Arnold made no such oath On my own mildly uninformed opinion is that Lee fought for the south to preserve a slavery system that had enriched his family for many generations Back to the subject of your excellent videos I find them straightforward and easy to understand and free from the typical academic double talk that you encounter and many historical expert books and videos Keep up the good work VINCENT

Loved the sensible analysis. It is true there are probably too many statues of him around, but I will always be against the destruction of monuments for political reasons, I'm not from the US so I can see value in both sides, still all history deserves to be maintained

YOU MAKE HISTORY LEARNING SO NICE, THANKS A LOT!!!!!!

Lee was not tried for treason because he did not commit it. He was a citizen of the State of Virginia. To have remained in the U.S. Army and waged war on Virginia would have made him a traitor by the Constitution's own definition). Article III, Section 3: Treason against the United States, shall consist ONLY in levying war against THEM, or in adhering to THEIR enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. The THEM is the states, not the federal government. Treason is levying war against states, which Lee would have been required to do had he taken Lincoln's offer to lead the federal army. Lee's choice to resign his commission from the U.S. Army released him from further obligations. Further, the South had seceded. It was a separate nation. Even if one rejects the Constitution's states-oriented definition of treason, it is impossible for one nation to commit treason against another. Lee was an enemy combatant who raised arms against an enemy invading his state and nation, not a traitor. The series of pardons that foreclosed the possibility of trials for treason, culminating in the final pardon of December 1868, had much less to do with the magnanimity of Lincoln than the danger to the radical Republicans who had pushed the nation into war of having the issues of treason and session measured against the Constitution and law in open court. They were covering their backsides.

Great discussion. Here just pointing out that Lee did commands some cavalry down south for a short while before the war. One of the cavalrymen (later fought on the union side) came to visits him a few days after he surrendered to Grant - for I guess a chat.

Can you do a video for to help students who are/thinking of going into academia as a career. Cheers!

I think this is a better defense than the praugeru defense

@6:30 Union General George Henry Thomas, aka The Rock of Chickamauga and Sledge of Nashville, was from Virginia.

Lee's first allegiance was to Virginia his real state of birth, and to the constitution of the United States second, of which Virginia and the rest of the south believed they were upholding. "When the south raised it's sword against the union's flag, it was in defense of the union's constitution" Confederate General John B. Gordon.

The Confederacy was mostly filled with good generals, Robert E Lee, Stonewall, Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, James Hood. what did the union have outside of Grant or Sherman?

What is are good books to read if I want to learn facts about the civil war?

Very insightful and objective!

why did Lee choose to fight @ gettysburg ? was Longstreet that late ?

Thank you for getting Robert e Lee Wright. From a nephew

robert e. lee commanded the troops that attacked john brown's forces at harper's ferry.

Lee was never tried for treason because President Johnson issued a blanket pardon for all Confederates in 1868. The Constitution describes treason as "Levying war against the United States." If Lee did not "Levy war against the United States," then I don`t know who has. But, even so, a conviction was going to be an uphill climb. Federal Law held that Federal crimes (Like treason) had to be tried in the Federal district in which the charges were brought. That means that the trial would have had to take place in RICHMOND. Good luck finding 12 people in Richmond, even today, willing to convict Robert E. Lee of Taking the Lord`s Name in Vain, much less Treason.

Great points

Lee was a great leader and a man of valor. Lee never compromised his values or his men's honor...even in surrender. Arnold entered into agreement with a foreign enemy for personal gain and the detriment of the country. Lee never did such even in secession.

I really liked this video, It makes several excellent points. Just to answer the question on generals that did serve the opposite side, General Thomas was from VA and served the union and General Ripley served the confederacy and he was from OH and was sent to West Point by NY. But yes. The vast majority of officers on either side were from that geographic region. Also, when you say that Lee was deified after the war and his death then I would personally disagree with that. Not that I think that his reputation did not get a boost after the war as it clearly did. But if you read what people said about him when they met him long before the Civil War and during it then there is no doubt that everyone that met him had a very high opinion of him. Whether it be Joseph Johnston's opinion of him when they were at West Point together or in Mexico together or Winfield Scott praising him for his abilities in the field etc. All his life everyone that came into contact with him praised him and they did so long before the war. P.S. Someone needs to send this to Alan Guelzo. LOL

Very good video.

i just starting reading a nice fat book about the war of northern aggression

He defended and fought for the continuation of slavery. Regardless of the Constitution, it was a moral failing. No amount of books on your shelf changes that.

I love how passionate you are about this Tom. As a fellow History teacher there's nothing more infuriating than historical revisionism rooted in ignorance of evidence to the contrary. This is pseudohistory of the lowest order. Great video.

Lee led the 2nd US Cavalry in Battle in Texas prior to the Civil War.

Every American should watch Ken Burns Civil War

Funny how this game reframed things. Please read Lincoln's First Inaugural Address (I believe it's in the last 5 paragraphs). He made clear that the federal government would not fire the first shot. He also made it clear that secession was illegal "anarchy". Yes, he did say that he had no power to end slavery, but the Southerners wanted to secede nonetheless because they felt that their "peculiar institution" was under threat. And they were brimming with confidence, which explained why they fired the first shot. Slavery was "not legal in the United States at that time." Slavery was illegal in some states and legal in others. Most Northern states had abolished slavery way before the Civil War started.

God bless. Excellent video.

Robert E. Lee had a third choice. He could have retired honorably from the army. He already had a long career in the army. Also his health wasn't the best (he had a heart attack during the war). No one would have faulted him for not taking on the strain of wartime military command. 0

Benedict Arnold switched sides while still claiming to be on the American side. Lee made it clear which side he chose and worked in that side’s interests.

He could have resigned his commission and sat the war out. Would have saved thousands.

Im from Ky, I wouldn't invade Kentucky where my home is, as well as all my friends and family living here. Not to mention I would be fighting my loved ones alongside strangers from different states and areas Ive never been to

Actually the determinant is the square root of b² - 4ac

Amen

Are u related to Mark Whalberg?

I kind of respect Lee's decision to not fight for the Union, he didn't want to fight his own people, though he did the same either way. If I was him, I'd have just stayed out of the war entirely. He was nothing like Benedict Arnold, except for the fact that he turned on the Union and were military geniuses.

Robert E Lee fought for the original Articles of Confederation. You know them as the US Constitution. (Yes, that's what it was called.) Those articles included States Rights. What are some examples of States Rights? Marriage ( Straight, Gay, Inter-racial, etc.), adoption, abortion, gambling, legalization of marijuana, driver's license, gun ownership, and more. State's Rights means if you get married or have a license to drive in New York, then you are still married and can drive when you move to California. The Union wanted to abolish States Rights, based on one issue: Slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act said if an individual in legal servitude in one state, migrates to another state, then that servitude will be dissolved. (This failed in the Dred Scott case, which I will address later.) The Union completely reversed itself once former slaves were made into sharecroppers. As wage earners, they would be taxed, thanks to Lincoln's Federal Income Tax of 1861. Suddenly Sharecropper's Debt Laws acted exactly the same as the Fugitive Slave Act, returning people to the plantation by force. The Union had a financial interest in keeping blacks in the South, paying taxes to the Union. Now, I'll re-mention Dred Scott's name here. He didn't have any right to chose where he wanted to live, or how, because he wasn't considered a "citizen". So in summary, Robert E. Lee fought against the Union's abuse and re-wording of the US Constitution (AKA The Articles Of Confederation). Note: This is mention many times in the declarations of secession of the Southern states. In many ways, he fought against the treasonous Northern States attempts at extortion of ALL Southerners, including the people of color. Everyone, including the new "Sharecroppers" would be affected by the tariffs enacted by the North. Sharecroppers had to borrow money for living expenses from the newly-formed Federal Banking System, and pay that money back with interest. (More money going out of the South and into the North). It was a perpetual cycle of debt. Slavery? The Atlantic Slave Trade was abolished in 1808.. (The North had a huge financial interest in that), because blacks were reproducing naturally. (This was later made into accusations of Southern Plantation Owners forcing them to "breed" against their will, or even raping the women.) I'll address these lies and political attacks later. The South got tired of the Protective Tariffs, and wanted to control their own exports of cotton, and imports of equipment directly with Europe. So the North blocked Charleston Bay in 1860, and later all Southern Ports in the Anaconda Plan. The North could have brought the freed slaves to their factories, but they would have to pay them. Instead, they kept them as Sharecroppers in the South, calculating their earnings at $1000 apiece, and taxing them because they were above the $800 minimum laid out in Lincoln's Federal Income Tax law. Meanwhile, factory workers in the North made under $500 in the 1860's. Even in 1920, Northern Factory Workers made $750. So they were still below the radar, and their wages weren't taxed. The South decided to create their own currency, which Europe was willing to accept. Proof: Confederate bills were made in London, and Confederate Coins were minted in Paris. This meant the Northern Union wouldn't be able to tax Confederate money. So they attacked. And the rest is history. Political Attacks were a part of it: - Uncle Tom's Cabin was a work of fiction. - Handcuffs of the day (you've probably seen them in Westerns) were displayed as "slave shackles". - A photograph of a man with Keloid scars (exaggerated skin healing syndrome, possibly from scratches or chicken pox) were claimed to be slash marks from whipping abuse. But there are no long lines which would indicate that. Just short, curved scratches, abnormally overgrown. Then there's the Cotton harvester, patented in 1850, a decade before the Civil War. It could do the work of 100 men, and the blacks would have been set free automatically. But it was withheld from production because: "A mechanical harvester would free millions of blacks, allowing them to migrate into Northern cities. This machine should be driven out of the cotton fields and sunk into the Mississippi River." So once again, the North wanted blacks to stay in the South. Racism? Financial reasons? Maybe both? But it definitely wasn't an issue of "ending slavery". Just re-defining it for the benefit of the North.

thoughtful video-

Could not think of a cause less worthy...sums up what Lee should have had the forsight to see. Is not that what Generals have? Great foresight?..

Robert E. Lee was not a traitor. He was only loyal to his state, and He loved the union very dearly but he loved his state more than he did the Union.

Él actúa según su consciencia y su corazón le dicta yo en lo personal lo admiro y todo mi respeto para el Sr Robert Edward Lee

“If I could save the Union with your freeing any slave I would do it“ “I wish I owned every slave and n the south for I would free them all to avoid war” “ Slavery is a moral and political evil in any country” Guess which quotes are Lincoln’s and guess which are Robert E . Lee

"he swore an oath to the constitution" "but the constitution is ambiguous as to whether you can _unswear_ an oath to the constitution" wow, that's some robert e lee genius level mental gymnastics right there.

I will chose state over country any day

While I agree with your general argument that Lee didn't act in the same way as Arnold There a couple things I feel weren't quite right with your arguments. The first is the idea I have issue with is the idea that Arnold and Lee should be judged by the standards of their time. I feel that a person can and should be judged for their actions to contemporary ethics. Their may be some disagreement about what is right or wrong, but whatever you feel is right or wrong should be right or wrong whether it was 18th,19th century, or 21 century. I feel that Lee had an interest in supporting slavery and that support was principle reason for his decision for fight for Virginia and that was morally reprehensible.This might be getting into ethical philosophy a bit, but I feel strongly on this point that what is moral/immoral was moral/immoral, and it doesn't matter to the sentiment of those at the time. The second thing you mentioned is that slavery was legal in the United States, implying that the should be a moral justification for his ownership and defense of slavery fighting for the South . It was and remained so in the North until 13th amendment, sure as. However, I don't believe that is a justification for his support of slavery. Legality only means the state is giving you license to do something; it shouldn't be considered as a bar for the morality of a certain action. One final thing you mentioned that Lee was indicted for treason, but never had a trial. All former confederates were given a full and unconditional pardon and amnesty by Andrew Johnson, so of course he never had a trial, he already had received a pardon for it. Johnson wanted to rebuild the nation. Using the fact that he never had a trial,to try to put forward that people during didn't see him as a traitor, I feel is somewhat disingenuous to not mention the pardon he received for the alleged crime. One final note, to the actual question of "treason", I'm an anarchist, so to me the question is irrelevant,as I feel no-one owes allegiance to the state. The state and its bylaws are just constructs that should not be considered sacrosanct, nor should one feel obliged to follow out of a sense of morality. Acquiescing to the state's will is not question of morality, but self-preservation from the force the state will use against you. in the same way a clerk shouldn't feel obligated by a sense of morality to give an armed robber the money in their cash register. PS: I love your videos they're always informative and interesting.

_"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for perpetual union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jefferson's Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"_ --Robert E Lee, January 29, 1861. Seems Lee himself didn't deny he committed treason.

It's hard to decide who was the "bad guy" in the Civil War unless you consider something like owning humans to be grounds for calling them a bad guy

Yes,

My family fought for the Union and I have respect for Lee. He chose his family and home over command of the entire Federal Army but some people act like hes some sort of demi god that can never be criticized.

Lord, you’d think Lee was this guys dad the way he defends him on such a personal level.

Lee resigned his commission, so his oath became null and void once he no longer was in the United States military. Lee defended his home of Virginia from foreign invasion so he was a patriot to his country of Virginia.

Defending you state from a hostile invasion does not make you a traitor. Lee didn’t form an army to invade anybody, Lincoln did. He couldn’t fight and kill his own people like Lincoln asked him to do by leading the Union Army. Lee opposed the war and had no choice but to defend his home. People today would still chose to defend their home above all things!! It’s a natural instinct. Who would choose the federal government over your home town?? His home was LITERALLY right across the river from Washington DC! How could anyone lead a Army across the river to kill your family, freinds, and neighbors! But that’s what Lincoln did and Lee had no choice but to defend it

This is biased from a confederate perspective.

Lee was not a traitor. He resigned his commission after Virginia seceded from the Union. There is no treason in his action. The Federal government put Robert E Lee and all Southerners in the position of defending their homes, families, and friends.

YES

Yes

The Constitution is a contract between parties. An oath to said contract only means as much as both sides are upholding their end of the deal. Lincoln had not proven himself to many people at the time as being able to fulfill said duty and so the contract if anything was rendered null and void for them. The Constitution also wasn't clear on secession so they can't be said to be committing treason by exploiting a possible loophole.

We built statues for lee we built a memorial for Arnold's leg which was sacrificed to the rev

Do you have any thoughts on whether the leaders of the C.S.A., in general, should be properly considered, as some people do insist that they should be, as on the same plane as Nazis or fascists?

Don't be ridiculous, the entire reason for secession was slavery. The idea of noble rebellion has become mythologized in the south but that was entirely propaganda. The abolition of slavery was the sole reason for secession and had it not been at the forefront of American politics at the time, then the rebellion never would have happened. How many free states were part of the confederacy? 0. The south didn't succeed because the north was invading the south, the North invaded the south because they were succeeding(because of slavery). Does it not strike you as odd that the people who started and led the rebellion (lee included) were slave owners? Lincolns remarks that if he could "Preserve the Union without freeing a single slave then he would" was also propaganda considering that was actually an option. As for Lee being a military genius, maybe he was but Gettysburg kind of contradicts this. Lee had been advised to withdraw and march on Washington which would have forced Meade to redeploy his own troops off the high ground. The fact is that they actually could have won the entire war right there. I don't say that as an "armchair general", this wasn't my personal assessment. He was advised of this several times. It was obvious even to them at the time. It's generally accepted that he chose not to out of pride. Pickett's charge was suicidal, something Pickett himself knew and tried to reason with Lee, to no avail. As for Lee being a traitor. It was not his prerogative to only follow orders he politically agreed with. The oath Lee swore at West Point was to the United States and to the President, NOT the constitution. It was not the modern oath. He betrayed his oath, making him a traitor. I don't really have much of an opinion on him being compared to Benedict Arnold. It's not really the same scenario. It's true that Robert E. Lee was never tried. Neither was Jefferson Davis, this is a huge topic i'm not going to get into except to say that it almost happened. So is lee like Benedict Arnold? No not really, but I also don't think he should be held up in such high esteem. Lee has become just as mythologized as the southern cause itself, an us vs them kind of thing.

No doubt Lee was one of the greatest military minds the U.S. has ever produced, and that the Army of Northern Virginia was arguably the greatest killing machine in American military history. The tragedy of that being, of course, that that mind, and that great killing machine was used to kill more U.S. soldiers than Hitler or Keiser Wilhelm could boast of. Lee probably would have been even more successful in the Union Army, since he fought as if he had the resources of the Union at his back. Rather than adopt a defense in depth strategy that would bleed the Union Army white with little risk to his own army, he went for daring, risky, and aggressive raids into Union territory that severely depleted his own manpower. Then again, maybe he felt that the Southern people wouldn`t have the stomach for a defensive war of attrition. Southern citizens became resentful of the Confederate government`s increasing demands on their resources and manpower.

Looking within historical context people now in our current time don’t see how different the relationship was between an individual, the state they lived in and national identity. Lee like most men at his time sought to protect his home state.

Can you do a video on Lincoln's intention to invade the Confederacy? I see the south as the aggressor because of the militant seizures of federal arsonals and supply bases. I want to the northern aggression veiw though

Lee has been revered by generations because the Lost Cause Myth has been taught to generations. Brainwashing is a real thing. The same reason why many people believed that Grant was a butcher, when in fact he was probably the second best general during the Civil War (I rate him 2nd to General George Thomas).

While I nonetheless agree with the overall conclusions reached in the video, this was a highly subjective and unsophisticated analysis.

Lee was defending hes home state hes people

Treason is treason.

You make a excellent point!! What gives people the right today to judge Lee as a traitor when his former enemies had forgiven and welcomed them back as countrymen! The people who fought and killed each other had the right to decide this, and they forgave and moved on from it. Perhaps it even made us stronger. Those people had honor and chivalry unlike people today.

General Orders No. 73. The commanding general has observed with marked satisfaction the conduct of the troops on the march, and confidently anticipates results commensurate with the high spirit they have manifested. No troops could have displayed greater fortitude or better performed the arduous marches of the past ten days. Their conduct in other respects has, with few exceptions, been in keeping with their character as soldiers, and entitles them to approbation and praise. There have, however, been instances of forgetfulness, on the part of some, that they have in keeping the yet unsullied reputation of the army, and that the duties exacted of us by civilization and Christianity are not less obligatory in the country of the enemy than in our own. The commanding general considers that no greater disgrace could befall the army, and through it our whole people, than the perpetration of the barbarous outrages upon the unarmed and defenseless and the wanton destruction of private property, that have marked the course of the enemy in our own country. Such proceedings not only degrade the perpetrators and all connected with them, but are subversive of the discipline and efficiency of the army, and destructive of the ends of our present movement. It must be remembered that we make war only upon armed men, and that we cannot take vengeance for the wrongs our people have suffered without lowering ourselves in the eyes of all whose abhorrence has been excited by the atrocities of our enemies, and offending against Him to whom vengeance belongeth, without whose favor and support our efforts must all prove in vain. The commanding general therefore earnestly exhorts the troops to abstain with most scrupulous care from unnecessary or wanton injury to private property, and he enjoins upon all officers to arrest and bring to summary punishment all who shall in any way offend against the orders on this subject. R. E. Lee, General.

13:24 Around here, Tom is giving a good description of what is called "contemporary arrogance" and "presentism" which is all too common in the idiocracy of the 21st century.

Haven’t seen the video, but I would like to give my opinion. No, first the principal of the matter. Arnold sold out his country to a foreign power, and plotted to hand over his command over to enemy and provided critical intelligence to the enemy. Lee legally resigned his commission, and fought for his home state over issues that had been debated since the days of the revolution. Personally I don’t like Lee, but for all his faults he wasn’t a traitor, just a man making a decision that hundreds of other men made.

Lee was a traitor who picked the wrong side and lost. He also lost, so what makes him a genius?

Damn bro you should show everyone in the United States about this video.

No military commander is perfect? Alexander the Great... hello?

These were my thoughts exactly, Tom.

Yes. He was.

As someone who really enjoys history and talking about it, I am very disheartened with how apparently fashionable it has become to call for and support the tearing down or the vandalizing of historic monuments having to do with R.E. Lee as well as several other controversial figures such as Christopher Columbus. There is a great point in this video being made of how we should try avoid analyzing historical figures or actions strictly through the lens of our own time but consider the mores of the person's own time very carefully. Even though the social mores were very different 100-150 years ago, precisely because they were different, really, it's important to preserve artifacts, if only to study the progress that's been made. And I am absolutely not seeing any insistence on the part of the people who call for tearing statues down on preserving anything. What I sense is that the whole idea is to essentially bury darker parts of our history and I just cannot agree with that.

There the same in my opinion

No you can not sir.

To hell with Lee, he rather have left the United States and be a Confederate then be an American. He fought, whatever his motivations, for a would be nation founded upon keeping human beings as slaves. He was also an overrated general who made numerous mistakes at Gettysburg. What Lee did say was make no monuments of him, which I agree

Eid

I think that Robert E. Lee wasn’t a racist Yes he owned slaves but unlike most other slave owners he treated them well they had good clothing were allowed marry in his house etc.etc he wasn’t fighting the war in favour of slavery he was backing his state “this war is not about slavery”

so benedict arnold was a knowing traitor, and robert e lee was a fool that didn't know he was a traitor? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Dubious legality of unilateral secession. The Constitution does not directly mention secession. ... The Articles of Confederation explicitly state the Union is "perpetual"; the U.S. Constitution declares itself an even "more perfect union" than the Articles of Confederation. The notion that Robert Lee is a traitor is clarified in the United States Constitution is found in Article 3, section 3: 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

Well Benedict did betray them for a somewhat valid reason

i mean sure lee was a good general but they lost so i guess he wasnt that good lol

Benedict Arnold was a petulant child. Washington used his fortune to fund the war and how many people tried blaming him for things that weren’t his fault (they said the army wasn’t clothed or fed when they purposely held up the supply lines) or the Conway cabal, Charles Lee. Etc but he was smart enough to play the long game compared to Arnold who couldn’t shut his mouth. Look at General Knox who became head of Artillery and was a bookstore owner. After Fort Ticonderoga was captured he crossed a mountain range and two frozen rivers with 100,000 lbs of artillery to set up in Boston and wasn’t being paid. It’s been compared to Hannibal crossing the Alps. Or organized the crossing of the Delaware in the middle of the night with the artillery and horses Washington needed. When Arnold was cleared at the court martial he said “you have your honor sir which holds more weight than coin” Also, they couldn’t pay Arnold because congress was bankrupt because Arnold told the British congress was having money problems and led to them counterfeiting the money. So he really shot himself in the leg.. Also the Marquis de Lafayette was the richest man in France and at 19 bought his own boat and came to fight against the wishes of the king. He used his own money to clothe, feed, and arm the soldiers and spent winters at valley forge like any regular soldier and was more loyal than Arnold to the cause and Washington.

Lee choked big time at the most crucial hour- ordering Pickett's charge. In that moment he was a traitor to his own men's welfare. Jackson was the true genius.

A traitor.

Lee wasn't tried as a traitor cuz he was just following the orders of the Jesuits and the Pope. That's the reason why he suspiciously lost certain key battles when by all accounts he should have one them

Whole video is load of Bull. As an example. Guy is racking his brain to find southern generals fighting for the union? How about that nobody.. Winfield frigging Scott?

Mr. Richey, I really like your videos they have helped me through a lot of Euro and now Apush, but I would really like to know if you are simply playing devils advocate with some of your recent videos and streams or are truly a supporter/enthusiast of the Confederacy. Of course all of history can be seen through shades of grey, but General Lee is undoubtedly a traitor, as are the rest of those who aided, abetted, or joined those rebelling from the Union during the Civil War, I hope we can agree on that. I'm not saying that you're some kind of Confederacy fanboy or a supporter of the peculiar institution that they upheld, I just want clarity that you disagree with the Confederacy and those who led and lived in it. Edit: Tom to Mr Richey, you are a teacher after all

You do realise you are talking about a privileged person who has only served in order to keep privileged people in their positions? Both from the south and after the war from the north as well? How can you then argue the man was fighting for his state when the vast majority of the population of that state was either enslaved or too poor to have slaves themselves? The argument that slavery was legal then would btw be similar to state mass murder was legalised under nazi law which would make the criminals envolved law-abiding citizens. Everyone still has his own moral compass. It’s not because a bad choice is legalised, people would suddenly not be able to make better choices themselves anymore... Since you (rightfully) argue that nuance is key when having historical debates, you should set more of an example yourself. Back when slavery was still ‘legal’, it was as brutal and dehumanising as we think of it today. That didn’t change because of its legal status. Or can you prove otherwise?

I will correct you on one thing! One of the best (if not the best) was General Johnson, who was a southerner. And actually very understudied and almost completely overlooked. But I agree with u 100% - Robert E Lee was no traitor. He was doing what 99% of the people did, and go to the state within they were from. There were southerners that stayed with the union. But not many. And when u look at it that way - slavery (a disgusting institution) actually goes on the back burner. Not too many ppl would turn on there ppl, friends, fam, ect. Even for a horrible topic such as slavery

To say that it was expected for the person to align with their state at the time is not wrong, but also not moral. Grant's wife's family owned slaves and grant could have easily fought for the south but he chose to fight for the north despite the harm it would have done to his wife's family financially. There are a few notable generals who were from the south and chose to fight for the north because they viewed secession as wrong. So I do not think this is a valid argument for Lee's honorability in fighting for Virginia. Lee is also quoted in saying that the black race needed slavery to mature and that slavery was morally good and that the slaves would be free in a long gradual time as Good would allow it. He had no problem with keeping slavery for at least a long time. To say that he fought for slavery is also accurate in that the states rights of the south was built for the right to own slaves with protection from federal government. Look no further than the states ordinance of secession. They make it very clear that they felt the institution of slavery was threatened and that they needed to fight to protect it in order to protect their way of life. The north didn't initially fight to end slavery, but slavery was certainly threatened by a republican ruled Congress that could eventually ammend out slavery if no action was taken. Western expansion would also threaten slavery as all future states would cause conflict over new slave or non slave states. So Lee knew that he was fighting to protect slavery although indirectly. That does not make him a traitor. What does make him a traitor is that he was a United States general who turned down an offer to fight for the north, and then immediately went turncoat to the southern government to fight for them. If he had simply turned down command and played citizen he wouldn't have been traitor but he delibrately took up arms against the side that he originally was aligned with at the start of the war.