Yes, but you are perfectly willing to throw Lee under the bus instead of having the same compassion for the moral dilemma he faced.

There are many things in the world that I find offensive, or that remind me of bad things in my past. I don't go around trying to destroy them. Nor should anyone else. We can all learn from others and what they have done, both good and bad, and we can choose to take offense or not.

Some people rise above their environment and use the bad things to fuel their success. Others wallow in self pity and make excuses for their problems.

I'm truly sorry if anything I say is offensive to others, and I'm sorry if a confederate monument causes some a problem. Still, we would all be better off if people grew thicker skin and let things go.

I am not a fan of rewriting history to conform with how some people are thinking today.

Our history has a lot to teach us about things we should and shouldn't do.

I'm also not a fan of "mobs" tearing down monuments.
There is a political process to remove monuments.....if the majority deems it "necessary".

I do believe that our views of history are colored by our own beliefs.
This is not a reason to rewrite the history books.

You don't like General Lee, for example,.....OK....don't like him.
That's not a reason to tear down a monument.

The "problem" IMHO, is that we have entered a time where there is NO tolerance for anything other than what we, as individuals, believe.

I believe this started with the Tea Party but is now being embraced by some liberals, not all, as well.

I have seen a photo of Union and Confederate veterans shaking hands over the wall at the high watermark of the Confederacy at Gettysburg. If they could get over it and they were the folks in harms way why would anyone 150 years after that war take offense. A lot of those southeners were fighting for states rights which I have no illusions meant the right to own slaves. As many of the conservative folk on here want less government intrusion in their lives those folks felt the same way. It was what it was, pulling down a statue won't change it because history is written in indelible ink. If folks wish to honor their heroes what right does anyone have to say they can't? My avatar is my great grandpa who was captured at the siege of Petersburg. He was not well treated in the prison camps but then his guards didn't fare much better as by then the Union had a stranglehold on the supply lines. I have read from his diary that on many days they received only water as there was no food to be had. I still admire men such as Lee and Jackson for their military prowess and certainly do not find a statue honoring any confederate objectionable even though one of my forebearers suffered because of that war.

This is the entire post you refer to:

"chrisscholbe wrote:
Wanting to break away from an entity that no longer shares your views...Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Kind of like we did when we broke away from England?

Not saying right or wrong.

Just saying that there are more ways to look at this than any one of our singular perspectives.

Also, we weren't there when it was happening.


Clearly England sees our revolution differently from our view; do you have trouble seeing that?

They see the forefathers we revere as traitors, and make no statues to commemorate them within their country, yet you expect us to commemorate our traitors within our boundaries, don't you?

Perhaps your logic wanders."

Please show the readers where I 'removed subjects from their contextual structures, then want so see how it holds up when ((I)) attempt to apply some kind of logic against it.'

I think you are confused. I addressed England and how she saw our forefathers, just as the original post said.

You embarrass yourself, and I'm embarrassed for you.

Robert E. Lee became a traitor when he declined Lincoln's offer to lead the Union Army and decided instead to fight with the Confederacy. He lead an Army that killed more than 350,000 Union Troops and more than a quarter of a million of Confederate Troops.
In fact Lincoln was going to prosecute Lee for Treason if not for Grant interceding on his behalf.
Had it not been for Grant, Robert E. Lee would have been found guilty of Treason and probably hanged.
It should be a lesson to us all. Just because you believe in something, that doesn't make it right. Hitler and his Nazis believed that all Jews should be killed. Should we honor him because he fought for something he believed in? I think not.

Surely you can't be sincere.

Traitors ALWAYS act on what they believe in. Benedict Arnold did. Julius and Ethey Rosenberg acted upon what they believed in.

Treason is defined by the act, acting against the best interests of your nation.

Donald Trump extolling Vladimir Putin while acting against the interests of the USA could amount to Treason.

Probably did.

Treason is an act, and a Traitor is defined by doing that act, not by being accused, not by performing sincerity, but by acting against his own country.

Robert E. Lee was a traitor. Benedict Arnold was a traitor. Selling national secrets to Russia defines a traitor. A US citizen making war against the US defines a traitor.

Sincerity be damned, The Act Makes The Treason.