Lee didn’t betray his side: his side was Virginia.
I can’t speak as to Arnold. I was obsessed with the Civil War for a number of years. For whatever reason, I’ve never been as interested in the Revolution.
I would ask though, in the same vein, if the colonists were patriots for seceding from Great Britain, why where the Confederates traitors for seceding from the Union?
One really big difference is that the southern states, and the citizens thereof, already had the rights that the colonies rebelled over not having.
Virginia had exactly as much representation in the U.S. as they had contracted for. They had their two Senators and however many members of the House. (Based on apportionment that included 3/5 of their slaves.)
They were “renegades” for reneging on a contract they’d agreed to.
(“I, the undersigned, agree to repay the finances of four thousand dollars, at fifty dollars per month, against three per cent interest per annum…as long as I feel like it.” Not much of a contract.)
Perhaps, but Lee made a massive mistake by essentially abandoning Vicksburg so he could go on a badly-planned expedition into hostile territory.
I’m not so sure. When Vicksburg was taken, it severed the Confederacy in two, handed the entire Mississippi over to the Union, who now had control of not only that river but all its major tributaries, which provided military access to a massive portion for the South, restricted Southern movements and dealt a crippling blow economically, resulted in the second loss of an entire army, and actually caused a gain in Union economic strength as the Midwest could trade through New Orleans again.
So yeah. It was probably the single worst loss the Confederacy suffered. While you are correct in saying Richmond was the main site of Confederate war manufacturing, that was largely because the Confederacy chose to site much of its war industry there, and because so much had already been captured or destroyed by the Union. New Orleans wasn’t a huge manufacturing town, but it was still pretty important. However, with the loss of Nashville and Jackson, the Confederates were getting pretty thin on factories.
Yes, they would have. Provided they didn’t just roll the guns away beforehand.
Even if they hadn’t, it was improbable that Pickett would have:
(1) Accomplished the charge,
(2) With his command intact,
(3) Advancing so fast they captured the guns and limber chests,
(3) Be in such a shape as to resist the counter-attack.
(4) And had to skills and organization to then deploy the guns to deadly effect.
of those events happened *at times *in the Civil War, but never all at once. Unfortunately, Lee was convinced that he could destroy the entire Union Army, and failed to realize that he was instead destroying his own.
The Colonials were patriots to America and traitors to Britain. The Confederates were patriots to the Confederacy and traitors to the United States.
Oh, for crying out loud!!!
Once and for all, people–
Lee was not responsible for areas outside his theater of operations!!!
Lee did not become General-in-Chief of all Confederate forces until January 1865. Before that, he was Commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, and that’s all. He had exactly zero to do with Vicksburg.
Actual betrayal, worse yes. Actions after the betrayal, I don’t agree. Warring against your side is worse than passing information, IMO.
Did he fight for Virginia in the Mexican war?
Was West Point a Virginia state institution when he ran it?
Which side was he on when Texas seceded and he abandoned Fort Mason?
Was he an officer of the United States Army at the actual start of the Civil War?
The colonists were traitors.
Arnold did a fair bit of warring against the colonies.
That is not altogether true. Jefferson Davis wanted to send more troops, but Lee convinced him otherwise. The two men met after Grant had attacked Vicksburg, but before Lee left for Pennsylvania - and this was when Lee set in motion the events that would lead to Gettysburg. In the process, he also persuaded Davis from splitting off any men for Johnson, which was his stated plan. In fact, he actually pulled additional troops away from other fronts.
Lee apparently didn’t consider the importance of Vicksburg and actually stated that the “climate in June would force the enemy to retire”, one of the most farcical notions ever bandied about in wartime. And there’s the rub - you can argue that Davis should have been more thoughtful, but you can’t deny that Lee had special significance owing to his dramatic successes. The Confederate government essentially was unwilling to deny him anything, and Lee did not use that influence wisely.
Ahhh ok, I get it now, are you just not a big believer in the social contract of government or individual or member-state’s rights to break away when it is perceived that government isn’t living up to its end of the contract?
Very well, I accept the logic of your assessment of Lee based given your definition of traitor. I suppose it is technically correct (the best kind of correct!)
I suppose King John’s barons were also traitors then, and the members of the communist revolution, and those pesky Indians advocating for their freedom from the British, and the Normans in general when they became an autonomous country from France, and well the thing in South Africa and pretty much anybody ever dissenting from a nominally in charge government however ludicrous its rule. Horrendous traitors… all of them.
Actually, I don’t think rebelling against the King was treason in English law until the 14th century.
The rebs actually did capture cannons where they broke through the Union lines, and turned them against the Union positions. Except it did them no good, because there was no ammunition. :smack:
Some would say the difference between a traitor and a freedom fighter often boils down to who won. Others would say it’s a matter of “the cause being just and the quarrel honourable” or not. But then again, that’s most often argued out by the people who are still around after the smoke clears.
One country surrenders when they’re obviously beat, rather than be destroyed, and are berated for it; another fights to the last man and are called “fanatical”.
(FWIW I happen to believe the South’s grievances and cause were not worth the decisions taken by the seccessionist states, and it’s shameful that hundreds of thousands of men died gallantly in the name of a worthless cause.But that’s just IMO.)
And of course from our +150 year later POV, there are those to whom the notion of primary loyalty to Virginia over the USA sounds like loyalty to the Sunrise Acres Mall or to the Rivershore Park Lawn.
Heartily agree. I apologize if I’ve been overzealous in this “great debate”.
I think Lee should have resigned after Gettysburg. All that could be done after this, was to kill more men…Union and Confederate, to no good end. I wonder how many lives would have been saved, had hostilities ended then?
He held a commission in the US army and took a oath to protect and defend the US Constitution: *I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States." *
He violated that oath, thus he was a traitor.
I’m a ‘believer’ in it (when the cause is just) I just don’t see a need to name it other than what it is.
By the time of the Barons’ War, definitely. Especially when they invited a Frenchman to lead them.
Which one?
No. That’s resistance to occupiers, not betrayal of your own sworn oaths.
Nope, Normandy was a barony in its own right, not outright the king’s domain. William had title to England, the King of France didn’t, AFAIK.
You mean the time elements of the Union army tried to fight for the Nazis? Yeah, they were traitors.
Or did you mean resistance to Apartheid? Naah, see my answer for Indians…
No, see, there’s a difference between resistance and dissent.
Your “recent unpleasantness” shall soon be forgotten 
See, I did not know that. Thanks.