Lee Deification of Robert E Lee

Your ancestors must have taken a look at the new model army and thought to themselves, 'we picked the wrong side'.
When you look at some of the things that Cromwell did or caused to be done, especially in Ireland, I cannot agree that it was the right side. Intolerance and destruction are never good things. He was a vandal.
 
Lee and Jackson, and Lincoln, were all what we call today "manufactured saints". (And I am an admirer of all three)
Later on FDR became one, as did John Kennedy and Martin Luther King. Some may say that the Republicans have tried to make Ronald Reagan one too. The point is that they were men, doing what they felt had to be done according to their moral stances. Neither deifying them or demonizing them serves much purpose. I know its been said, but worth repeating - we need to see them all in the context of their times. "Temporal arrogance" serves little good.
 

I liked that bio. That nickname, I think, came from Lee's reserve, which some people interpreted as coldness - marble. He followed the rules, walked on the sidewalk not across the lawn, parked in his parking space, didn't leave his tray on the table at McDonald's... Kind of reminds me of the British sit-com Keeping Up Appearances! And, to be fair to Lee, even though it might seem he was making the effort, it would have been more of an effort not to make it.
 
Oh, it's Saint Bobby we're talking about. I'm sure it was only meant with love, respect, reverence, and awe. :smile:

THAT was funny. I liked the biography review, but did not agree with this part being a possibility :smile:

Gettysburg could have been won, along with the war, says Thomas, if Longstreet had augmented Pickett's charge with strong supporting units, if Ewell had seized the commanding ground of Cemetery Hill.
 
THAT was funny. I liked the biography review, but did not agree with this part being a possibility :smile:

Gettysburg could have been won, along with the war, says Thomas, if Longstreet had augmented Pickett's charge with strong supporting units, if Ewell had seized the commanding ground of Cemetery Hill.
But it was not practicable!:bounce:
 
When you look at some of the things that Cromwell did or caused to be done, especially in Ireland, I cannot agree that it was the right side. Intolerance and destruction are never good things. He was a vandal.
With regards to Ireland, 'We blamed him for killing the ordinary men, women and children of Ireland. But only two individuals from 1649 and for the next 11 years make that allegation, and those two are unreliable. It didn't happen."
 
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.
I've read this many times and still find it ambiguous:

'There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy.'
R. E Lee.

Its like Lee is saying that Slavery is wrong but it is also a necessary evil. That the 'blacks' are suffering but its for their own good. That their servitude will end but only when a merciful providence decides and that complaining/protesting about slavery will not bring it to an end, only the kindness and influence of Christianity will do that.

That's deep man.
 
Last edited:
With regards to Ireland, 'We blamed him for killing the ordinary men, women and children of Ireland. But only two individuals from 1649 and for the next 11 years make that allegation, and those two are unreliable. It didn't happen."
Maybe he didn't kill, but he surely did destroy.
 

Learn About Us
About CivilWarTalk
Contact the Webmaster
Meet the Staff
Link to CivilWarTalk
Join Our Community
Register
Browse Forums
View Today's Discussions
Search the Forum
Get Help
FAQ
Student Guide
Forum Rules & Etiquette
Copyright / DMCA

     Contact Us CivilwarTalk on Facebook CivilWarTalk on YouTube CivilWarTalk on Twitter RSS Feed

Bringing the American Civil War and More to Life.
© 1999 - , CIVILWARTALK, LLC - Site Version 10.0

SlaveryTalk.com - SecessionTalk.com - CivilWarTalk.com - ReconstructionTalk.com
Back
Top