Was Robert E. Lee Morally Straight?

[GaHillBilly]

OGE wrote earlier, "Funny, I thought it read, "Thou shalt not kill"

 

Unfortunately, it was so translated in King James translation, and repeated in many subsequent English translations. But, as Rooster7 noted, it was never what was meant, and probably has always been a poor translation. The meaning of the original (and this has not, so far as I know, ever been disputed by scholars) was, "Thou shalt not kill WRONGLY", or more succinctly, "You shall not murder".

 

OGE also questioned, "But it does give one pause to wonder what other biblical 'truths' our society honors that are mis-translated."

 

The problem is not so much mis-translation, as it is ignorance of the Bible, which isolates all such quotes from their context. In earlier times, at least in this country, even people who didn't read were weekly subjected to -- and expected to remember -- long sermons and long Scripture readings. For many, many people, Bible readings were a regular part of their family gatherings. For such people, and others familiar with the Old Testament, it would have never occurred to them that "Thou shalt not kill" meant anything other than "Thou shalt not murder", though not all could have broken from the familiar and restated it that way.

 

In fact, if you examine, all the 6 commands, concerning men's behavior toward men are of this kind:

5. Give parents the respect you owe them.

6. Do not take lives which are not forfeit to you.

7. Do not have sex with any to whom you are not properly bound.

8. Do not take property which is not yours.

9. Do not deny the truth to those due it. (ie, do not testify falsely, NOT, do not lie!)

10. Do not set your heart on anything which is not yours, but which belongs to another.

 

That this is the way to understand the commands is made clear by all the surrounding 'case law' in the Torah. The case (or example) law answers the question, 'How does the commandment apply, just HERE?'.

 

So, OGE, you are correct that that is what was written. But, you are incorrect to think that that statement -- as it stands along in English -- was EVER what was meant!

 

 

Leading with his lip, Packsaddle wrote, "Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country who received far better treatment for his crime than he deserved. I am a Southerner, born and raised."

 

Packsaddle, that statement alone, phrased as it was, offers more than enough reason to question your 'loyalty'.

 

Be that as it may, it's also just dumb. The argument is not worth reproducing here, mostly because you wouldn't listen. But the simple fact is that none of Lee's opponents (including many who were former classmates at West Point) considered him a traitor. And they were in a far, far better position to judge than you.

 

Packsaddle, when you think of your Grandmother's paintings, you draw the wrong lesson. You imagine that she was self-decieved . . . and that you are not. And thus, it is you who are deluded.

 

The fact that Lee knew, as did many on both sides of that War, is that ALL men deceive themselves.

 

 

 

scoutingagain wrote, "Pack, Can't help but think you have an interesting social circle down there in Georgia."

 

Actually, SA, based on Pack's statements I'm guessing that he's actually an emigre living in one of the Yankee enclaves, like Atlanta or Athens, which are found in isolated parts of Georgia. Those of us who are true Southerners are very greatful for I-285, which marks off the boundaries so clearly. ;-)

 

 

 

jr56 wrote, "All you people have way too much time on your hands."

 

Maybe.

 

I've certainly wasted time in this Forum section.

 

But this particular thread addresses an issue more often ignored than not: what does the Scout Law actually mean? What does it mean to be "morally straight"? Or . . . "trustworthy, loyal (to what?), helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient (to whom?), cheerful (when, and on what grounds?), thrifty (like Rockefeller or like George Mueller?), brave, clean, reverent (I won't even start!)"

 

BP is famously reported to have said 'Scouting is a game with a purpose'. And, it's fairly clear that his purpose was to make better citizens for the British Empire.

 

But what is ours?

 

Again, it's fairly clear that many of the originators of BSA hoped to create better American citizens. But "for God and country" is no longer a cry that even American Christians can make without great reservation.

 

BP believed in a fuzzy nature-religion, not entirely unlike the fuzzy thinking and ethics of modern environmentalists. But his nature-ethics were postive and optimistic, where modern environmentalism is, at its heart, both anarchistic and anti-human.

 

Members of the LDS know what role Scouting plays for them, but I'm not sure if any other class of CO's do. Certainly many traditional CO's, like the United Methodist Church, are now led by clergy or other other professionals committed to values at odds with Scouting. Even Scouting itself suffers from what is apparently a national plague of MB and Eagle mills, which teach that "trustworthy" really is all about appearance and not about substance.

 

The question of how the the purpose and values of Scouting should be defined and followed is I've been thinking about, rather hard lately. I find it all together remarkable that B-P created a structure that allows a CO to define, very substantially, the meaning of those values. But, I'm beginning to think that it is only the LDS that have done so. For the rest of us, it seems to me that Scouting may well be a hollow man, lacking heart and soul.

 

I wonder if it's a question any others among you have pondered?

 

If so, what conclusions have you reached?

 

 

GaHillBilly

[packsaddle]

Sorry man, As I said before in this thread, I was born and bred in the South. Lived my whole life here. Hunted and fished...and studied...in most of the Southern states and lived in rural areas, and on the mill hill. Your characterization of Atlanta and Athens as Yankee enclaves is one I'll be sure to mention to provoke people in the future. But I'll let people from those parts defend themselves.

 

As for 'loyalty', I might ask, loyal to what? A failed immoral cause? Ignorance and futile stupidity?

I have direct, personal knowledge of at least one West Point graduate from the winning side who DID consider Lee a traitor and I mentioned in this thread another whose dislike of Lee led to the location for the formation of Arlington Cemetary. But my assessment is my own opinion and as I said before, I know I'm in a minority. I was in a minority opinion regarding integration at one time (also in opposition to BSA practice at the time). I can live with it.

 

I'm loyal to what I have learned through the references that I have listed in this and other threads on the topic. That said, if you have authorities that contradict those scholars, I look forward to reading them. As for opinions, your is yours and mine is mine, even if it is about 3 years old by now.

[Stosh]

What one often remembers is that the world of 1860 is not the world of 2008. As a matter of fact, the understanding, assumptions, and interpretations of life are no longer the same. Ideals, priorities, and values are not the same either. To try and understand the world then with the insights of today would be the same as trying to explain the world of a 6 year old using only the words and thought processes a 6 year old would know. It's not as easy as one would think. Go back to the Founding Fathers and one can complicate the process even more. The further back one goes, the further removed from a reality of understanding one can obtain.

 

As far as Lee being a traitor? Traitor to what? What one does not realize is that the Confederacy didn't really do much when they adopted the Confederate Constitution. One would be hard-pressed to find the minor alterations. And as a grouping of states, and not a single country, the Founding Fathers had to jump through some pretty big hoops to get everyone on board, the southern states weren't really all that interested in joining in with the northern states right from the git-go. The concept of the United States being one country is a post-Civil War concept derived from the northern states conquest of the southern states.

 

And no I'm not a southerner, never lived in the south except for the political side-stepping of bringing in the entirety of California into the north even though half the state was below the Mason-Dixon.

 

Stosh

[Eagletrek]

Forget the "morally straight" angle. He failed the the first part of the "oath" when he forgot to do his duty to his "lawful" country and sided with that splinter group. As a commissioned officer prior to the war, he had taken an oath to support and defend his "lawful" country but I guess he decided that his oath meant nothing and he changed his mind.

 

 

PS I'm a die-hard Yankee now livin' in Rebel country. I'm keepin' an eye on youz guys!!!!(This message has been edited by Eagletrek)

[Gold Winger]

Not really. Back in those days, the state was your homeland and "These United States" was just a loose confederation of sovereign countries. Once their country withdrew from the confederation, their oath was no longer binding.

[TheScout]

Commissioned officers take an oath to defend the "constitution of the United States," not the United States. The South believed the federal governement violated the contract so it no longer applied.

[elfdream]

I'm not a history major but I seem to remember being told that Lee never actually owned slaves himself...that the slaves were owned by his wife.

 

I also remember reading that he freed all of them before he accepted a commission in the Confederate army in order to send the message that he was not fighting for slavery.

 

Is this true or are these just historical urban legends?

[Stosh]

I do believe this story is confused with that of Grant. Grant's wife owned slaves, thus so did Grant, and he emmancipated them rather than selling them soon after he married.

 

As far as Lee being a traitor, the US was a union of individual states. The US government was only for the common defense and international issues. It could not interfere in the workings of the individual states. They were bound by a common agreement (Constitution) such as NATO binds together a variety of different countries.

 

Virginia did not secede from the Union of the states until after Lincoln called for volunteers to preserve the Union by moving against a small handful of states that had officially seceded. Basically all they did was withdraw their membership from the alliance of colonies. Lincoln's definition of Union was going to be tested in the war. Lincoln's definition won out by shear force of arms and the alliance of colonies no longer exits and individual states and their rights ceased to exist. The "united states" is no longer a union of individual states, but one country identified as the United States. The Founding Fathers went to great lengths to insure state sovereignty, but the Civil War changed that to Lincoln's definition of unitary union.

 

At the beginning of the war Lee was loyal to his country, his country was Virginia. That is why the war was fought with army units from the individual states, the US Army consisted of only 14,000 men, way too small to fight the Confederacy. State governors detached their state units to the US Army service, but they never were part of the US Army at any time during the war.

 

Stosh