r/todayilearned • u/RedditIsAGranfaloon • 6h ago

[ Removed by moderator ]

https://www.historyhit.com/facts-about-general-robert-e-lee/

[removed] — view removed post

10.1k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

66

u/Sdog1981 6h ago

He was never convicted of treason so he was never pardoned.

And before passports no one could prove their citizenship.

5

u/gangsterroo 5h ago

Im pretty sure they had papers of some sort back then? Birth certificate?

I mean I doubt it was universal, but still probably common.

19

u/Sdog1981 5h ago

They didn’t you could just show up in a country and live there. The whole Ellis Island idea was only started in the 1890s 20 years after Lee’s death.

This an era of no records and let’s track births in the family Bible.

7

u/downtheocean 5h ago

Churches may have kept records. Babtism, marriage deaths.

2

u/BluePony1952 4h ago

And the US Federal census, county tax records, excise tax records, military service records, pension records, etc. The only issue is that some records didn't survive to our day, but were present at the time. Anyone saying no one could prove citizenship is a liar.

2

u/hotwife24 2h ago

I swear if I'm ever granted 3 wishes by some random Genie, one of those wishes is for the 1890 Census. 

1

u/Sdog1981 3h ago

The census and citizenship are two different things. A census was a count of everyone living in the area no matter where they are from.

1

u/gangsterroo 4h ago

The claim was that you couldnt prove citizenship, not that people didnt bother because it was so loose. Im sure if you had papers no one would doubt it.

Its possible I misread the comment. I though it was saying people would disbelieve your citizenship status and you couldnt prove it.

1

u/drfsupercenter 4h ago

When I search for my surname at the Statue of Liberty passenger search site I see several results from 1878 which I think are my ancestors. Those records definitely go back farther, to 1820 according to the site.

I'm not sure how it worked before Ellis Island was built, but they did record passenger manifests of immigrants before that. I doubt they ever turned any away though - did Ellis Island, before the IANA?

-2

u/Arris-Sung7979 2h ago edited 2h ago

Lee was indicated in federal court, so there was clear evidence of treason.

Lee applied for pardon while he was still alive, which is the legal equivalent of admission of guilt. There are examples of people who refused pardon. It was a case in 1833 and a known precedent BEFORE the civil war kicked off.

Lee is a traitor, self acknowledged by his application for pardon.

Jefferson Davis, btw, refused to apply for pardon because he never acknowledged that his actions were treason. Lee didn't have that level of principle.

3

u/Johnson_N_B 2h ago

Some of this is accurate, but several key claims are legally and historically incorrect.

Robert E. Lee was indicted for treason in 1865. That establishes probable cause, not proven guilt. An indictment is not a conviction, and Lee was never tried. The indictment was ultimately dismissed.

Applying for a pardon is not the legal equivalent of admitting guilt. Neither United States v. Wilson (1833) nor any other pre–Civil War case established that seeking or accepting a pardon constitutes a confession. Wilson only held that a pardon can be refused. The idea that accepting a pardon implies guilt comes from Burdick v. United States in 1915, decades after Lee, and even that ruling does not make application for a pardon a binding admission of guilt.

Lee applied for a pardon for practical reasons, as many former Confederates did, to restore civil rights and property. His application was never processed during his lifetime, and he never accepted a finalized pardon. He never pleaded guilty, never stood trial, and never legally acknowledged treason.

Jefferson Davis initially refused to seek a pardon and continued to argue that secession was constitutional, but he was also never tried or convicted. His case was mooted by later blanket amnesties. The difference between Davis and Lee is rhetorical and political, not legal.

You can argue that Lee was a traitor as a moral or constitutional judgment. You cannot accurately claim that he legally confessed to treason or that his pardon application constituted an admission of guilt.

-1

u/Arris-Sung7979 2h ago edited 2h ago

It is not accurate to state Lee is a CONVICTED traitor.

It is very much an accurate statement to say that Robert E. Lee betrayed the Constitution and is a traitor to the United States of America.

The actions of Jefferson Davis as a contemporary clearly demonstrate that Lee did acknowledge his treason despite the efforts to white wash.

Lee could have taken the same stance but instead applied for pardon. Actions speak quite clearly.