Lee Deification of Robert E Lee

[Waterloo50]

the yankees wouldn't have done it either if jeff davis has had a couple of nukes* lying around

---

or something similar for those times

What would a weapon of mass destruction looked like back then, a 3 ton keg of Black Powder perhaps or a pair of used socks (Chemical Warfare), either way the outcome would have been nasty.

 

[brass napoleon]

What would a weapon of mass destruction looked like back then

Expired Image Removed

(Sorry, couldn't resist. )

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

Confederate WMD

 

[Schwallanscher]

What would a weapon of mass destruction looked like back then, a 3 ton keg of Black Powder perhaps or a pair of used socks (Chemical Warfare), either way the outcome would have been nasty.

obviously there was nothing like a nuke, but the south did not have any real chance to deter the north and thus prevent the war - their only chance to militaryly win* the war was a lucky punch (like burning washington) early on.

---

* at best they could hope for a military stalmate and thus a political win

 

[Northern Light]

I guess the point that I am trying to make is that regardless of Lee's views on slavery or the legality of secession, he stood by his home state and their right to make a decision, of course people will argue that nobody had the right to enforce secession through war but like I keep saying, look at it in the context of its time, I think Lee had his principles and beliefs and stood by them, that is honourable.

Does that make those like Thomas, Anderson, and Buford, to name a few who took a different path, dishonourable? I am not arguing with your viewpoint, just posing a question for consideration. They stood by their vow to defend their country, but Lee chose not to. It was a hard decision for him to make, arguably. I'm not sure that I think he acted in an honourable manner, but it was his choice and I won't judge him for it. It seems to me, though, that if he stayed in the Union, and used his gifts for battle against secession, the war might have been a lot shorter and much less destructive to his native state. In my humble opinion.

 

[Reb]

How do you figure?

I cannot tell you when he received his nickname, Marble Man, but his exemplary record at West Point was that he graduated with zero demerits, as did his classmate. Robert E. Lee went on to great fame, his classmate, not so. He was also called the King of Spades, but that's not as romantic.

 

[Reb]

Exactly, we deal with the here and now but the past influences our future, maybe its a British thing but we take pride in our past both good and bad, its what made us who we are today.

I have the distinction of coming from a family that was on the losing side of two civil wars. First, in the English Civil War, and then in the American Civil War. Still trying to keep a stiff upper lip here.

 

[Waterloo50]

I have the distinction of coming from a family that was on the losing side of two civil wars. First, in the English Civil War, and then in the American Civil War. Still trying to keep a stiff upper lip here.

Got to keep that stiff upper lip, I guess that those English ancestors of yours were either Royalists or fought on behalf of the Pitchfork rebellion, which Englishh Civil War?

 

[diane]

obviously there was nothing like a nuke, but the south did not have any real chance to deter the north and thus prevent the war - their only chance to militaryly win* the war was a lucky punch (like burning washington) early on.

---

* at best they could hope for a military stalmate and thus a political win

That early burning of Washington might well have been done if Stonewall Jackson had had his way. He wanted to pull no punches, go all out war, right from the start. Could have been done when he saw it could be done - Washington was virtually undefended - his Valley campaign scared 'em good. All of a sudden the rebs were at the gates. Then they set about making it the most fortified city on the planet - there was no getting at the Yankee capital after that.

 

[Reb]

Got to keep that stiff upper lip, I guess that those English ancestors of yours were either Royalists or fought on behalf of the Pitchfork rebellion, which Englishh Civil War?

The Lancashire Royalists, or Cavaliers who fought Cromwell.

 

[Schwallanscher]

That early burning of Washington might well have been done if Stonewall Jackson had had his way. He wanted to pull no punches, go all out war, right from the start. Could have been done when he saw it could be done - Washington was virtually undefended - his Valley campaign scared 'em good. All of a sudden the rebs were at the gates. Then they set about making it the most fortified city on the planet - there was no getting at the Yankee capital after that.

that's why i said early on. ijn made the same mistake - you can't win against a (part of a) country with a much broader base in industry and population

 

[Waterloo50]

Does that make those like Thomas, Anderson, and Buford, to name a few who took a different path, dishonourable? I am not arguing with your viewpoint, just posing a question for consideration. They stood by their vow to defend their country, but Lee chose not to. It was a hard decision for him to make, arguably. I'm not sure that I think he acted in an honourable manner, but it was his choice and I won't judge him for it. It seems to me, though, that if he stayed in the Union, and used his gifts for battle against secession, the war might have been a lot shorter and much less destructive to his native state. In my humble opinion.

A very fair point, Firstly each and everyone of us will have our own interpretation of what honourable means. For me personally it means standing by a personal principle and belief which I hold to be true, not everyone will agree with my principles but I own them. I would argue that each of the men that you mentioned would have had their own personal reasons for staying put, if their decision to stay were based on the oath/vow that they had made then they were men of principle and clearly their priority was to stand by that, and that is also honourable. I guess Lee's own personal principles and values differed, that doesn't mean that he acted dishonourably, it just means that his priorities were different. Just think about the sacrifice that he made, he could have remained, he was offered a good incentive to stay and had he remained, his life would have been a lot easier, but he didn't, he chose the most difficult path. I don't think his decision to walk was based on greed or power but on his own value base and that has to be honourable. If you believe in something regardless of how others may view it, then it is only right that you stand by it.

 

[Waterloo50]

The Lancashire Royalists, or Cavaliers who fought Cromwell.

Your ancestors must have taken a look at the new model army and thought to themselves, 'we picked the wrong side'.

 

[MajGenl.Meade]

His nickname at USMA was "Marble Model". Marble Man came about long after he was dead. May it even have originated with Connelly's book in 1978? Can anyone point me to an earlier source please?

I've seen a claim that at the Southern Historical Society on February 18, 1874, Benjamin Hill (former Georgia Senator) referred to Lee as the Marble Man. But I've read the speech (Rebforever would love it) and if it's there, it escapes my eyes.


I heartily recommend everyone join J-Stor http://www.jstor.org to access free material such as this:

Review: Chipping Away at "The Marble Man": Robert E. Lee in Civil War History
Reviewed Works: Lee Considered: General Robert E. Lee and Civil War History by Alan T. Nolan; Lee and Jackson: Confederate Chieftains by Paul D. Casdorph
Review by: Carol Reardon
Reviews in American History
Vol. 21, No. 3 (Sep., 1993), pp. 415-423
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

 

[civilken]

You are obviously not a fan. I say the same thing about Lincoln. We should have never been in that war. Lincoln was a politician, not a statesman. Had he been a statesman, it wouldn't have happened. The pure and noble Lincoln had a chance, but failed. His halo is kind of tarnished as well.

I am sorry to reb but for the life of me I do not see any similarities between the two men .

 

[DBF]

I cannot tell you when he received his nickname, Marble Man, but his exemplary record at West Point was that he graduated with zero demerits, as did his classmate. Robert E. Lee went on to great fame, his classmate, not so. He was also called the King of Spades, but that's not as romantic.

Don't forget the Yankees called him Bobby Lee.

 

[Reb]

I am sorry to reb but for the life of me I do not see any similarities between the two men .

No similarity. What I was saying is that I'm not a fan of Lincoln's deification. In my book, Old Abe's halo fell off, rolled out the door, and into the river. I think Bobby Lee had more honor and integrity in his little toe than Abe Lincoln ever had.

 

[cash]

According to his record at West Point, he was the Marble Man.

Must have had lots of marble there. Lee was one of five cadets in his own class with zero demerits.

 

[cash]

Lee actually did not like slavery. He fought from the south because he could not bring himself to fight against his homeland.

Lee called the master-slave relationship the best that could exist between the two races while they were intermingled in the same country. That doesn't sound like someone who didn't like slavery.

 

[Old_Glory]

The independence the South was fighting to protect was a system that

held one-third of its population to be mere property, and the agrarian

society they clung to was maintained by human bondage.

I don't believe he should have been hanged. But the conscious

decisions he made at that time of heart-rending conflict surely

disqualify him from the accolade from which his modesty would certainly

have recoiled, of ''the epitome of Christianity''.

Same old drivel and total nonsense. It's the bias, Northern narrative of the War cut and dry. This author obviously did not want to use the brainpower it requires to understand the complexities of an event like the Civil War. Rather preferring to just take the stance of "those racists down South".