Lee Deification of Robert E Lee

[Martini-Henry]

It is, I suppose all down to your perspective. From a British one - the Rev War was treason. We do not carry any bitterness over it. The fact that some many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were Slave owners, again is barely mentioned in the UK.

 

[Schwallanscher]

It is, I suppose all down to your perspective. From a British one - the Rev War was treason. We do not carry any bitterness over it. The fact that some many of the signatories of the Declaration of Independence were Slave owners, again is barely mentioned in the UK.

let me guess: ghandi, n'komo & mugabe, amin, kenyatta - all traitors?

 

[Tin cup]

that doesn't change that both are technically traitors when they start their 'projects'

If you are going to rebel, do so with a GOOD, and honorable reason.

Kevin Dally

 

[Schwallanscher]

If you are going to rebel, do so with a GOOD, and honorable reason.

Kevin Dally

wanner bet, those csa-types thaught to do exactly that?

 

[Tin cup]

wanner bet, those csa-types thaught to do exactly that?

Then why did they work SO HARD getting the "Lost Cause" established? They realized that fighting to gain independence to perpetuate slavery for all time, wasn't cutting it after the war!

Kevin Dally

 

[Schwallanscher]

Then why did they work SO HARD getting the "Lost Cause" established? They realized that fighting to gain independence to perpetuate slavery for all time, wasn't cutting it after the war!

Kevin Dally

because by then they had realized what they had done - it's a bid like the dolchstoßlegende after wwI - those who make up that kind of stuff know exactly what they are doing (and have done)

 

[Rebforever]

I don't understand how people can even compare the Rev War folk with the Confederate folk. The folk who became "Confederate", did so for a cause so bad, and for such a terrible reason, that I dare not insult the Rev War folk with the comparison.
The Folk wishing to gain independence for perpetual slavery, HAD representation, (prior to the Civil War) the Rev War people only dreamed of having, prior to their war!

The comparing of the two, needs to stop.

Kevin Dally

What was terrible was the voting of the yankees along with the South, to allow slavery for the money and then turn on the hand that fed them!!

 

[Rebforever]

let me guess: ghandi, n'komo & mugabe, amin, kenyatta - all traitors?

If you are going to rebel, do so with a GOOD, and honorable reason.

Kevin Dally

I think Independance was a pretty good reason. And just because there was slavery that had yankee blessings to start with
went with their cause. That was what they thought in 1860.

 

[Rebforever]

"Lee was legend incarnate—tall, gray, one of the handsomest and most imposing men who ever lived, dressed that day in his best uniform, with a sword belted at the waist."
Bruce Catton's description of Robert E. Lee at Appomattox Courthouse"

http://www.patriotshistoryusa.com/t...terials/american-heroes-general-robert-e-lee/

 

[CMWinkler]

i question all christian claims because if christians really and truly believed that their soul and eternal life were at stake they would not do the things they do. christianity shares cause with slavery in this struggle .

This really isn't the place to argue Christianity or its virtues and shortcomings, but most Christians I know believe that we all sin and that if they confess their sins before God and truly repent that their sins are forgiven. To suggest Lee was not Christian or at least not Christian enough by your standards, seems to me to be an odd assertion.

 

[matthew mckeon]

As for Lee the general, I agree with cash, he had the right strategy, operational sense, and could fight a battle. Two years after the 7 Days, when he took command, the Union was no closer to Richmond.

I think he was a radical war maker, a bit of a surprise considering his reputation as a old school gentleman. He called for an unprecedented level of sacrifice and organization by the whole of Confederate society to support the war effort, something we associate with the mass wars of the 20th century. He made the largest scale proposal to employ black soldiers. His president and government were not able to deliver what their talented and dangerous general demanded.

He had his flaws and made mistakes. The biggest was probably not emulating George Thomas.

 

[Rebforever]

August 1, 1960
Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower
White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

At the Republication Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.

I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.

The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did, was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being held as one of our heroes.

Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?

Sincerely yours,

Leon W. Scott


Return letter-

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee's calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation's wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

http://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-in-defense-of-robert-e-lee/

 

[Bee]

What was terrible was the voting of the yankees along with the South, to allow slavery for the money and then turn on the hand that fed them!!

I am not sure what this means. Does it refer to the North changing their minds about slavery?

 

[unionblue]

that doesn't change that both are technically traitors when they start their 'projects'

Schwallanscher,

No, it doesn't, nor should it.

The American colonies rebelled against their King and country and were traitors to the English crown. They were fortunate enough to win their independence and not be tried as traitors. None should try to deny that fact or feel ashamed of it.

The Southern slaveholding states rebelled against the United States government and were traitors to that government. They lost and were pardoned for the crime of treason. None should be ashamed of this fact either.

Like I said, it's historical fact.

Sincerely,
Unionblue

 

[unionblue]

What was terrible was the voting of the yankees along with the South, to allow slavery for the money and then turn on the hand that fed them!!

No, what was terrible was the slaveholding South thinking they could fight their way into keeping slavery forever instead of facing reality and the future that was coming despite all their efforts to keep it at bay.

 

[unionblue]

I am not sure what this means. Does it refer to the North changing their minds about slavery?

Bee,

It refers to the slaveholding South being unable to changing their minds.

Unionblue

 

[Scott Bowden]

…from James McPherson's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Battle Cry of Freedom…

"Thus when secessionists protested that they were acting to preserve traditional rights and values, they were correct. They fought to protect their constitutional liberties against the perceived northern threat to overthrow them.

"The South's concept of republicanism had not changed in three-quarters of a century; the North's had. With complete sincerity the South fought to preserve its version of the republic of the founding fathers---a government of limited powers that protected the rights of property, and whose constituency comprised an independent gentry and yeomanry of the white race undisturbed by large cities, heartless factories, restless free workers, and class conflict.

"The accession to power of the Republican party, with its ideology of competitive, egalitarian, free labor capitalism, was a signal to the South [that] the northern majority had turned irrevocably toward this frightening, revolutionary future."

By 1860, the South had lost all political power, and they knew it.

Regards,

 

[Rebforever]

No, what was terrible was the slaveholding South thinking they could fight their way into keeping slavery forever instead of facing reality and the future that was coming despite all their efforts to keep it at bay.

Slavery was not illegal in that time frame. It took 4 years for your today's conclusion.

 

[Rebforever]

Bee,

It refers to the slaveholding South being unable to changing their minds.

Unionblue

You don't speak for me.

I am not sure what this means. Does it refer to the North changing their minds about slavery?

No. for helping the South to keep their slaves.

 

[John Winn]

…

By 1860, the South had lost all political power, and they knew it.

I wouldn't go that far but many could certainly see the day in the not-so-distant future. Without new slave states, and with increasing populations in the north, they'd simply lose control of Congress and the Senate (which the 3/5 clause had allowed them to keep longer than they would have otherwise).

I've often wondered how the Confederacy would have got along as a separate country if they'd somehow been successful in separating. They'd still be dependent on northern industry and commerce since they didn't have much of their own and didn't seem inclined toward internal improvements. Also, they'd have had to fight somebody to expand slavery which they wouldn't have been much prepared to do. It's a sort of "what were they thinking" kind of thing and just saying they thought cotton was king doesn't really answer it for me.

McPherson is certainly right in his summary methinks.