Lee Deification of Robert E Lee

[JerseyBart]

He was a man, like every other man: good/great in some ways, flawed in others.

 

[civilken]

wwhat can be said for a man who turns his back on his country and kills over 300,000 Americans if it wasn't Robert E Lee you would say hang that individual for treason. Everyone wanted a piece so we all walked away and so did he, in the end the North one and the south came out with fairytales to explain the reason they had all their young man killed another 300,000 or more for what so some individuals could stay wealthy How sad isn't this the way of the world and how do we justify it first we say our generals were the purest man and honorable individuals otherwise we have to admit we followed blindly into a war that should have never been aand so we hang a halo on treason and call it wonderful magnificence this is the folly of men.

 

[Reb]

wwhat can be said for a man who turns his back on his country and kills over 300,000 Americans if it wasn't Robert E Lee you would say hang that individual for treason. Everyone wanted a piece so we all walked away and so did he, in the end the North one and the south came out with fairytales to explain the reason they had all their young man killed another 300,000 or more for what so some individuals could stay wealthy How sad isn't this the way of the world and how do we justify it first we say our generals were the purest man and honorable individuals otherwise we have to admit we followed blindly into a war that should have never been aand so we hang a halo on treason and call it wonderful magnificence this is the folly of men.

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.

 

[Tin cup]

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.

He didn't fail, he got the Union back together, the rebellion was crushed, slavery was ended, Jeff
Davis went running with his tail tucked between his legs...Lincoln shines pretty good. Lincoln being a "Statesman" wouldn't have made the Slavocracy listen to him one bit, they didn't want to.

Kevin Dally

 

[leftyhunter]

Apologies if I have placed this in the wrong sub-heading.

Below is an article recently published in my local newspaper. I am open-minded about this, & I would appreciate hearing the views of other Forum members.

IN THE case of Robert E Lee, historians have often lamented the

blurring of the real man due to his deification by some of his more

zealous admirers.

He was a soldier almost without peer and he was a decent man. Some

found him modest and humane, some cold and distant. He had a vicious

temper which he fought constantly to subdue.

The choices he made in his life were unequivocal and made with full

knowledge of the political and moral dilemmas of his time.

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.

To suggest that Lee and ''all other Confederate soliders'', fought

only for ''independence'', is silly and disingenuous.

Lee was offered field command of the Union Army. Though he was

certainly no slavery or secession fanatic, he declined the offer and

chose to draw his sword for his country, Virginia, and the Confederacy.

He fought with the general officers of the Confederacy -- Nathan

Forrest, slave trading millionaire, afterwards first Imperial Wizard of

the Ku Klux Klan and John Hood, ''better to die a thousand deaths than

submit to you and your negro allies''.

He fought for the civilian population of the South. Above all he

fought for the Government of the Confederate States of America.

He was not a stupid man. He knew the nature of the people he was

serving with and the policy of the regime he was fighting for.

After the war a prominent Northerner wrote: ''Lee should have been

hanged. No matter that he was a good man. The good man always causes the

most harm.''

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''.

I would argue that the opinions that matter most about Lee belong to African Americans who's ancestors lived during the Civil War and descendents of Unionists ( Dolly Parton arguably being the most famous one has her GGGf was a cavalry trooper in a Unionist regiment from Tennessee) my folks aren't in either category.
Leftyhunter

 

[unionblue]

You write that as if the future was a forgone conclusion. I prefer to think that he tried to shape the future.

Waterloo,

Lee, in my view, did not fight to shape the future. He fought to preserve the past. At the very least, he fought to freeze his present and stop any future by stopping change.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

Why is that a problem? Do you have a problem with the past, that you had nothing to do with? It's history.

I have a problem with anyone wishing for "the good old days" or complaining about constant change in today's world. Some would have us believe that a certain time and place in the past is better than the world we now live in. What utter fantasy.

Who would want to go back to Polio, Whooping Cough, Yellow Fever, and a dozen other diseases that took millions in it's day? How many would like to travel back to when women couldn't vote, when police would always consider it a man's right to beat his wife to a pulp? How many here could do without the advantages of changes in the law that ensured your right not to be beaten into a bloody mass so you would sign a confession for a crime you did not commit. Or to a time where you had no Miranda Rights? Or forced to drink from a certain fountain, see a movie in certain balcony seats or ride in the back of a bus?

I don't have a problem with the past as I use it for a lesson for my life today and for my grandchildren's future. The lesson I learned from Lee was don't try to preserve a past that left human beings in bondage.

Unionblue

 

[Martini-Henry]

Isn't that the peculiar doom of men, that we always hark back to some golden age? The Romans regarded the days of the Republic as one such. Even though history teaches us it was often the scene of internecine strife between powerful families & the plebs.

 

[Karen Lips]

I personally find much to admire in the man, in the way he accepted the blame for the disaster on the third day of Gettysburg. Though, I have weigh against that his support,in essence, of slavery.

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

 

[Eagle eye]

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.

-------------------------
And this makes Jeff Davis what?…a politician or a statesman ? Why throw Lincoln into this stew since he's nowhere listed as an ingredient in the OP?

 

[JPK Huson 1863]

I don't know. One of the reasons these discussions occur is an inability to accept there was something extraordinary about a handful of men at a certain time in our country. Lee sure was one. Deify? Maybe. If men like Lee are it is because they tend to be rare, seems to me he was put into this category in his lifetime. There are others, weirdly gifted as Lee was where this occurred and occurs, mere men somehow 'more' than others, gave of themselves at exactly the right time.

What I don't get is this need to point out that after all, they were human and gosh, what a disappointment, and how being human somehow makes them unfitted to be in their place in History. Setting the bar a little high, aren't we?

 

[Martini-Henry]

I truly believe Robert E Lee to be an admirable man. Though, I say again, I do not endorse the darker side of Human bondage.

 

[KeyserSoze]

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

Lee's opposition to slavery was tepid at best.

 

[KeyserSoze]

I truly believe Robert E Lee to be an admirable man. Though, I say again, I do not endorse the darker side of Human bondage.

Lee was a man of his times, better than some and worse than others. He was not the marble man that he has been made out to be. Few men are.

 

[Reb]

Lee was a man of his times, better than some and worse than others. He was not the marble man that he has been made out to be. Few men are.

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

 

[Waterloo50]

Shaping the future for preserving slavery, is not going to look very good.

Kevin Dally

I think that your response is valid but Lee's reasons for fighting/shaping the future are far more complex. I don't recall ever reading that Lee fought to preserve slavery, his views on slavery and secession are well known and have been debated a great deal and will probably always be debated, clearly, I'm no expert on Lee but even I understand that Lee would never raise arms against his native state, '"If the Union is dissolved, and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and save in defence will draw my sword on none.''

Brooks D Simpson said it best when he wrote 'It's time to try to understand Lee as he was and to gain some insight into how he understood himself and the world around him. That would be the best way to honor him, by viewing him as the man he was rather than the icon some need him to be.'

As I have always maintained, when it comes to debating historical figures, they should only be examined in the context of their time, if we place modern values and ethics on men like Lee, we run the risk of making huge assumptions and the end result will nearly always be a negative outcome.

 

[Rio Bravo]

After the War Lee rejected bitterness, rancour & pity, and devoted himself to healing the Nation's wounds. A True Class Act!

 

[Waterloo50]

Isn't that the peculiar doom of men, that we always hark back to some golden age? The Romans regarded the days of the Republic as one such. Even though history teaches us it was often the scene of internecine strife between powerful families & the plebs.

Or, we have withdrawn from the European Union, thankfully we don't have the Union pointing guns at us and telling us that we are not allowed to make that choice, regardless of my opinions on the vote to leave, I would defend every British persons right to make that decision, 'ain't no Union gonna tell me or my countrymen what we can and Can't do', sounds familiar doesn't it.

 

[DBF]

I have always wondered what exactly the Confederate envisioned as their future. Their whole existence was during a war mentality, although they had thoughts about living in peace-time, they didn't. There were already growing pains in the new government and dis-satisfaction with their leaders, I'm not sure how this have worked out. I believe General Grant's surrender terms to General Lee was the right tone for healing, but things changed rapidly 5 days later and the rest is history.

 

[Waterloo50]

Or, we have withdrawn from the European Union, thankfully we don't have the Union pointing guns at us and telling us that we are not allowed to make that choice, regardless of my opinions on the vote to leave, I would defend every British persons right to make that decision, 'ain't no Union gonna tell me or my countrymen what we can and Can't do', sounds familiar doesn't it.

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.