JJMt said:

---

Something rarely discussed is whether or not Lee and the other Army officers who fought for the South violated their oaths by doing so.

The military oath back then was different than it is today. It was stronger in terms of an oath to the Country rather than to the Constitution.

---

If you resign your commission do you violate your oath?

If you are no longer an appointed officer in the armed forces and now a citizen, wouldn't you be free to do as you want? I guess to put it simply, if you are no longer an employee of a company do you have to abide by those companies rules? (NDA excluded). Does the UCMJ still apply after you get out of the service? I was enlisted so I'm not 100% on all the legalese. Maybe officers are different?

Totally something I've heard before, and even was discussing this with a guy at work who is an Army Reserve Captain about a month ago. Neither he nor I knew the official regulations. Also no idea of the rules back in 1861. However, Band of Brothers jogged my memory and, granted it's Wikipedia, Dick Winters was officially discharged from the Army in 1946 but called back to active service in 1951.......but then he resigns his commission a year later.

Jmmt:

Your interpretation of that oath says an officer is in for life and can never sever the ties.

I read it more like a contract with the first sentence saying in exchange for a job as an officer, I agree to...

Once a person is no longer an officer, the contract is void.

I know for a fact that currently, officers can attempt to resign and be denied. They are then required to continue to serve until the military higher ups allow them to step down.

One of my best friends (class of '99) filed his retirement paperwork back in 2010 or 2011. Everything was in order, he had served for 10+ years, but there were several strains that his family was going through that he felt couldn't be ignored. The pentagon denied his retirement request, "due to the US being actively at war" (the wording was something like that) and promptly transferred him to a unit that was deploying and sent him back to Iraq.

By the time that tour was complete and he was back stateside, he decided to stay in at least until retirement. He's now a battalion commander.

In these situations I always ask why the statue was there in the first place. People make speeches or write proclamations when erecting statues or donating then to the Capitol. I looked around for something about the original donation and couldn't find anything definitive. I found a lot of stuff about his service to the state and reluctant leadership of the Confederacy. It was donated in 1909. It is a bit curious why a state that boasts about more Presidents than any other (8) would choose Lee.

Here's an example of a confederate statue that was erected for terrible reasons and was rightly taken down to represent my point.
https://docsouth.unc.edu/commland/monument/41/

Quote:

---

Julian Carr spoke at the dedication of the monument in 1913. His speech recounted the heroic efforts of the men the monument honored as well as the women on the home front. The speech also spoke to the racialized nature of the commemoration as Carr tells this story: "100 yards from where we stand, less than 90 days perhaps after my return from Appomattox, I horse-whipped a negro wench, until her skirts hung in shreds, because upon the streets of this quiet village she had publicly insulted and maligned a Southern lady."

---

He should be ready to drop that retirement package now I imagine

Good for him.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

Once a person is no longer an officer, the contract is void.

---

That's the issue, but is that the correct answer? There is some indication that it might not be since once one becomes an officer, one can be called up again involuntarily after resignation or retirement. There's nothing in the oath itself that establishes any time limit.

---

My understanding is that Lee was troubled by the possibility that God might consider him in violation of his oath if he left the U. S. Army, but decided that the crux of his oath was "to defend".
Again, the Southern States all had conventions and LEGALLY left the Union rather than being simple rebels - the Confederate States enjoyed the same history and the same coverage of "to defend" as the Northern States.
Breaking his oath would have been if he cowardly ran off and failed "to defend" either side.

Consideration to the person they are an officer in the USA
Consideration to the government defend and protect

I'm just telling you how most officers of the time viewed it based on reading many letters. No one ever on the Federal side at the time considered prosecuting any Confederates for violating their oath as officers in the USA. Everything they talked about in that regard was based on straight up treason, which would have applied to everyone who took up arms for the Confederacy.

It's amazing to me that there are those who think that, just because a statue is removed, that the person it represents won't still be admired. I would think it would raise questions which would allow for their virtues to be discussed.

Bucketrunner said:

---

It's amazing to me that there are those who think that, just because a statue is removed, that the person it represents won't still be admired. I would think it would raise questions which would allow for their virtues to be discussed.

---

It's amazing to me that so many think that removing a statue erases history? Did people forget who REL was before the statue was installed?

BQ78 said:

---

Because it isn't just stopping with removal of statues, the plan is to erase history. This is just a symptom of the bigger problem. The removal of the REL statue in the Capitol is not really the issue. REL does not represent the Virginia of 2021 anymore. Certainly not with the likes of Governor Blackface getting elected in that state. Those people should remove his statue as no longer representative of them anymore.

But the congress already has legislation in place to remove every monument and marker on every national park that refers to Confederates from the battlefields. So removing a metal marker that says here is where the 1st Texas stepped off to enter the cornfield at Antietam, will be removing history and that is where we are headed.

---

Is that legislation proposed or passed?

Proposed, but I know for a fact the NPS is looking at the cost of doing it.

BQ78 said:

---

Proposed, but I know for a fact the NPS is looking at the cost of doing it.

---

I can understand with it being proposed but anything can be proposed. The proposed law is foolish and short-sighted, like many laws that get proposed and never see the light of day.

I guess it's a good thing I'll be in Gettysburg and Antietam this summer.

I went to a wedding in Hershey, PA a couple of years back. Wish I was able to take the side trip to Gettysburg then but I was not able to.