Ok, it wasn’t 100% about slavery but that was of course the primary and most significant reason why the American Civil War was fought. I find it hard to believe that someone as educated as Lee would not have known that by aligning Confederate he was fighting a war for the perpetuation of slavery, despite what other goals he had in doing so.
Or he thought the independance of his country/state more important than the situation of the slaves, as slavery might eventually be abolished anyway.
Maybe to him it was more about the right to decide for themselves, instead of Washington, what to do with the slavery issue.
This. In addition the Union was not fighting directly to free the slaves from the start, if the Civil War had ended before the Emancipation Proclamation, there would have been no immediate freeing of slaves.
We weren’t talking specifically about the Union, we were talking about the Confederates. You said yourself Lee was a good man who fought for an evil cause, so was the primary cause of the Confederates slavery or not?
[QUOTE=latros]
Maybe to him it was more about the right to decide for themselves, instead of Washington, what to do with the slavery issue.
[/QUOTE]
This implies (and I don’t know enough about Lee to say whether your implication is right or not) that Lee was ambivalent about the issue of slavery. So it might not have been his overall intent to bolster slavery, but that was an obvious and direct result of his actions.
Right, because the confederacy was all about freedom of choice and self-determination, you see, unlike those Union bastards who wanted to tell people what to do without giving people a choice about it.
Yet another reason to despise nationalism.
Most of the conscripted troops in any given country’s military are good people who are just following orders and are in no position to go against the people commanding them. But where does line of accountability get drawn? Junior officers? Senior officers/enlisted NCOs? Generals? A general has a lot of power but is still ultimately following orders from his government.
I know this opinion is deeply unpopular to the point of being considered marginally insane, but I think that the deepest, most profound ethical obligation we have is not to intentionally kill another person unjustly. It doesn’t matter whether it’s in a war or not. The line of accountability gets drawn at anyone who makes a decision to kill, even if they’re following orders. Only if the alternative is death do they have an excuse.
Thus if the orders are against the laws of war, the soldiers is expected to defy them.