Lee Eisenhower on Lee

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is a classic example of the appeal to authority fallacy.

Whoa! I’m not trying to convince you (or anyone) to agree with me by appealing to a famous name or appealing to an authority who isn’t really much of an expert. I don’t hold to be true what Eisenhower said because he is an authority/celebrity. I value what he said because of his résumé.

Advertisements are examples of actual authority fallacy, not citing a quote from a graduate of West Point, a Supreme Allied Commander of World War II, a five-star general and President of the United States.
Edited.
 
Some do. The best base their judgments on what those men said and did in a number of places, especially their private writings, which is something Eisenhower didn't do.
Seriously you can detail everything in Eisenhower's life that he based his judgement on? Kinda curious how you accomplish this..............or is this the an example of a opinion missing huge chunks of evidence that you alluded to?
 
Whoa! I’m not trying to convince you (or anyone) to agree with me by appealing to a famous name or appealing to an authority who isn’t really much of an expert. I don’t hold to be true what Eisenhower said because he is an authority/celebrity. I value what he said because of his résumé.

So you don't hold it to be true because he's an authority but merely because he's an authority. I see.
 
"A lot more of history depends on interpretation because we will always be missing huge chunks of evidence. Therefore, it's valuable to look at the evidence from a variety of perspectives. " /QUOTE]



Yes, and something that I have done for years. I read and research all I can get, the good, the bad, the ugly, the pros, and cons, from as many different perspectives that I can get, then......................I decide for myself what history is telling me. I never take spoon fed history without first seeing whats in it.....................Sadly, some will eat whats on that spoon without looking to see whats in it.

Respectfully,
William

One Nation, two countries
Confed-American Flag.jpg[/QUOTE]
 
Seriously you can detail everything in Eisenhower's life that he based his judgement on? Kinda curious how you accomplish this..............or is this the an example of a opinion missing huge chunks of evidence that you alluded to?

He didn't research Lee's letters or the letters and diaries of others. He depended on secondary sources.
 
Most probably Douglas S. Freeman's hagiography of Lee combined with other works influenced by Jubal Early.
If we are going by "most probably" now..........I think Eisenhower most probably had a valuable perspective from both his military and civics experience in politics :dance:


As I said in another thread it concerns me when one says they want diversity in perspectives.......until apparently its a perspective that doesn't fit their narrative.................then doesn't matter even if they are qualified in the fields they are commenting on............a general with over 30 years of service should have perspectives on duty/loyalty/sacrifice and service, so should a US President.............
 
Last edited:
He lost at Gettysburg, but I maintain it wasn't his fault. My position is the Union Army won the battle, and mistakes on the confederate side didn't lose the battle.

No, I think Meade out-generalled him, too! But, it's the commander's responsibility, no matter which way the battle goes. A whole lot of generals would blame everybody from the soldiers to the weather - never themselves! Considering the ego of most of them - and that's a necessary component of a successful general - it's not surprising. Lee, however, shouldered the blame and told his men they had done all he had asked of them. If D-Day had been lost, this is the example Eisenhower had determined to follow.
 
So you don't hold it to be true because he's an authority but merely because he's an authority. I see.

I said I value what President Eisenhower said. How can you disagree with that? I know value conflicts can be hard to resolve, but there are lots of ways to address value conflicts constructively. One of the most appealing resolution strategies for value conflicts is one that seeks a state of coexistence or tolerance. That shouldn't be hard to achieve in this thread if everyone respects each other and the rights of folks to have differing values and/or views. Like the Confederate soldier said in the greatest movie of all time, "I'm fightin' for my rights. All of us here, that's what we're fighting for." :giggle:
 
Most probably Douglas S. Freeman's hagiography of Lee combined with other works influenced by Jubal Early.

No, probably not.

"Dwight D. Eisenhower, devoted a lot of thought to the Civil War. It was a war that wove like a thread through his life, even though he was born 25 years after the Confederate surrender.

Growing up in Abilene, Kansas in the 1890s, "Ike" sat and listened to the old men in town share their stories about "the war." He visited a Civil War battlefield for the first time when his West Point class came to Gettysburg to study the battle in 1915. He later returned in 1918 to assume command of Camp Colt, the US Tank Training Center, where his men trained for the Great War on another war's battlefield; eating, sleeping, and drilling on the same fields Pickett's men died.

After a thirty year military career, Ike and his wife, Mamie, bought the first and only home they ever owned - a Gettysburg farm on which Confederate troops had camped before moving up to the front lines. A Confederate body was found buried in the backyard during reconstruction and landscaping of the farmhouse and grounds. The General liked to sit on his porch and muse how the two great armies confronted each other here at this very spot after traveling for hundreds of miles at a pace no greater than Caesar's legions traveled 19 centuries before.

As President, Eisenhower delighted in inviting world leaders to the farm and giving them tours of the battlefield. Field Marshal Montgomery, Charles De Gaulle, and Winston Churchill (by helicopter) are among those that accompanied him. He enjoyed sharing his assessments of the battle and its commanders with friends, associates, and reporters."

Source: https://www.nps.gov/eise/learn/historyculture/ike-and-the-civil-war.htm
 
President Eisenhower's opinion is certainly valuable.
Unfortunately, despite General Lee's christian piety, and his intrepid willingness to take risks, he was fighting to establish a sovereign power that would prolong the existence of slavery in the western hemisphere. Furthermore the success of the Confederacy would have proven that bullets are more expedient then ballots in deciding critical national issues.
Edited.
 
He didn't research Lee's letters or the letters and diaries of others. He depended on secondary sources.

Let us not discount the influence two years under Fox Conner had on Dwight D. Eisenhower. He referred to this as his most profound period of military education. Fox Conner introduced him to the principles of precise and methodical military staff work and started Eisenhower on an intense military history reading program, instructing him to discuss each book and its lessons for modern warfare in detail.

Among other things, Conner made Eisenhower read about the American Civil War and Carl von Clausewitz’s, On War repeatedly. He sought to expand Eisenhower’s intellectual horizons by introducing him to the works of Plato, Tacitus, Nietzsche, and Shakespeare—who frequently portrayed soldiers in his plays. “In describing these soldiers, their actions, and giving them speech,” Conner told Eisenhower, “Shakespeare undoubtedly was describing soldiers he knew at first hand, identifying them, making them part of his own characters.”

Drawing on his own experiences with coalition warfare during the Great War, Conner impressed upon Eisenhower three important war-fighting lessons:

1. Never fight unless you have to.
2. Never fight alone.
3. Never fight for long.

Fox Conner died on October 13, 1951, a little more than a year before Eisenhower was elected president of the United States. While he never wore more than two stars on his shoulders, three of his understudies accounted for a cumulative total of 14 stars.


Source: September/October 2016 issue of World War II magazine.
 
If we are going by "most probably" now..........I think Eisenhower most probably had a valuable perspective from both his military and civics experience in politics :dance:

How is that a study of Lee's private writings or the writings of those who knew him?
 
No, I think Meade out-generalled him, too!

:smile:

If I may respectfully disagree by clarifying my position. I don't think Lee was out-generaled. I think the ANV was out-fought. In my view, the subordinate commanders and their men won that battle.

But, it's the commander's responsibility, no matter which way the battle goes. A whole lot of generals would blame everybody from the soldiers to the weather - never themselves! Considering the ego of most of them - and that's a necessary component of a successful general - it's not surprising. Lee, however, shouldered the blame and told his men they had done all he had asked of them. If D-Day had been lost, this is the example Eisenhower had determined to follow.

Sure, it's the commander's responsibility, and Lee was right to assume the responsibility, though in a later letter he sought to escape the responsibility a bit. My point was NOT that Lee didn't do the right thing, but rather my point was that in actuality it wasn't his fault. The commander is always held responsible, but sometimes he loses for reasons outside his control. My point is that's the case with Gettysburg.
 
Still an assumption, and is it possible to discount other influences, such as military indicated in my earlier post?

If he's making a judgment on Lee as a man, it's nearly impossible to do so without an idea of what Lee was thinking, and one can only do this with Lee's words.

Ike's judgments on Lee as a commander are highly warranted. He has the training, perspective, and experience to make that assessment. But the other things are beyond his expertise, and he's being quoted on this not because of any perceived expertise in character assessment but because he was a famous general and president. It's the exact definition of the appeal to authority fallacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top