Dwight Eisenhower on Lee and Secession


(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,182
Location
Nashville
#43
Lee had a considerably vested interest in the Constitution, as I sincerely hope do we all. Not only did his ancestors help create the constitution and form the nation from which it emerged, but he had spent a long life in defense of that freedom and its considerations. His opinion was a bit more educated than mine.
 

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,182
Location
Nashville
#44
Paint by numbers?
Yes, imagine the numbers that piece of canvas would feth at auction. The art work perhaps doesn't rank with the masters or even the few known photos of Lee, but with Ike's signature at the bottom and that subject matter, I'd be willing to at least make the first bid.
 
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,837
Location
California
#46
Major Elennsar and Trice vs. 5 star General and President of the United States

Hmmmm ...............
Major?

Being a five star general and president does not mean he is an expert on the Constitution, on history, or on anything else related to this issue.

If you want to praise Ike as a five star general or president, and as someone who displayed great judgment in one or both of those positions, that's a horse of another color. But if you want to argue that Eisenhower being praiseworthy there has any bearing on whether or not it was up for question, I couldn't disagree more if I did agree with Eisenhower's position.

RobertP said:
Major, I had copies of both letters, with the Archives cover page emailed to me last night. They are in PDF form and me, not being adept with computer files, will need some help to post them if you are still interested.
Major?

And there we go, thank you for answering my question.

And I'm not much more computer savvy either when it comes to pdfs, unfortunately.
 

whitworth

2nd Lieutenant
Joined
Jun 18, 2005
Messages
2,514
#47
That clearly explains why the ultimate of political politicians, Roosevelt, appointed Eisenhower, Supreme Allied Commander, over more military experienced American and British generals. Eisenhower was a supreme politician, a rare quality found in a general.

If Lee had won, the U.S. would have been a minor country, even if involved in WWII. The Confederacy would have never forgiven Great Britain for not supporting Robert E. Lee in the Civil War. Eisenhower would have never seen the rank and office he obtained. So his letter would have been unimportant.
 
Joined
Sep 24, 2008
Messages
6,367
Location
Alabamian, living behind enemy lines in Illinois
#48
Nathanb, the thought of UB down in the Carolinas needing another swig of 'shine did cross my mind.:smile:

Had Eisenhower been just another G.I. in WWII, and had written that letter at a desk with a portrait of General Lee looking down on him, many of our revisionist friends here would dismissively call him a Neo-Confederate!
Well said sir!...
 
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,837
Location
California
#49
Funny how no one is even approaching the term neo-Confederate. I blame the fact no one thinks admiring Lee makes someone a neo-Confederate.

Stupid fact, stop getting in the way of the prejudices of the Southern members.
 

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,182
Location
Nashville
#50
Had some of you younger folk been alive when most of the people of the world were depending on Eisenhower to successfully complete the seond world war, your views might be a little different. As for Lee, he just gets admired for what he was: honorable.
 

larry_cockerham

Southern Gentleman, Lest We Forget, 2011
Honored Fallen Comrade
Joined
Feb 20, 2005
Messages
10,182
Location
Nashville
#51
I do have to agree with the person who wrote to Ike, though Lee had many admirable traits and a fine example of a Southern Gentleman he did resign from the US army and took up arms against it.. His generalship of rebel forces caused the death of tens of thousands of US troops..
Marsh Robert didn't take up arms against the US Army, but rather in defense of Virginia. That's the distinction on which his history rests. I'll concede that he commanded men who may have had a more complicated opinion on the matter.
 

Nathanb1

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Dec 31, 2009
Messages
32,909
Location
Smack dab in the heart of Texas
#52
I do have to agree with the person who wrote to Ike, though Lee had many admirable traits and a fine example of a Southern Gentleman he did resign from the US army and took up arms against it.. His generalship of rebel forces caused the death of tens of thousands of US troops..


Whoa Nellie.......I guess that's THEIR problem. He did what he had to do, and some Union generals failed pretty miserably in the beginning at what they were SUPPOSED to do....which would have ended up changing the numbers considerably. Don't blame him because the dimwits couldn't whip him in the first battle, take Richmond and end the thing.
 
Joined
May 14, 2008
Messages
14,837
Location
California
#53
Marsh Robert didn't take up arms against the US Army, but rather in defense of Virginia. That's the distinction on which his history rests. I'll concede that he commanded men who may have had a more complicated opinion on the matter.
I don't think I have enough imagination to make the distinction between defending Virginia from the US army and taking up arms against the US army, but no one has ever said I had a surplus of imagination.

Nathanb1 said:
Whoa Nellie.......I guess that's THEIR problem. He did what he had to do, and some Union generals failed pretty miserably in the beginning at what they were SUPPOSED to do....which would have ended up changing the numbers considerably. Don't blame him because the dimwits couldn't whip him in the first battle, take Richmond and end the thing.
If I may respond here, it is his "problem" that he what he chose to do made him responsible for a lot of dead Union troops - because of his skills. He was an enemy of the US for four years, for whatever motives.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,353
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
#54
[/COLOR]
Whoa Nellie.......I guess that's THEIR problem. He did what he had to do, and some Union generals failed pretty miserably in the beginning at what they were SUPPOSED to do....which would have ended up changing the numbers considerably. Don't blame him because the dimwits couldn't whip him in the first battle, take Richmond and end the thing.
Dont blame him? He did what he had to do in his eyes what was right, but what he thought was right was leading an army that fought against the US..He could have stayed neuteral and stayed out of the fighting or he could have stayed loyal to the Union like Thomas and others, he chose to fight against a government that had educated and fed and clothed him for years..So yes the actions and leadership he provided to the ANV helped cause thousands of Union deaths..
On the other hand we could use your same logic and say that Confederate leadership was the blame for Shermans actions since they failed miserbly in trying to stop him...
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,353
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
#55
Marsh Robert didn't take up arms against the US Army, but rather in defense of Virginia. That's the distinction on which his history rests. I'll concede that he commanded men who may have had a more complicated opinion on the matter.
Hmmm I might agree with you if he hadn't planned and led offensives out of Virginia into other states.. Thats more then just trying to defend his native state, its trying to defeat the Union.
 

wilber6150

Brev. Brig. Gen'l
Retired Moderator
Joined
Apr 1, 2009
Messages
19,353
Location
deep in the Mohawk Valley of Central New York
#59
It's the wording I object to.
Ok, the wording might have been bad, but if his genius hadn't let the ANV survive longer then it should have how many lives did that cost, or just think if he had accepted the position that Scott offered and defeated the Confederacy within the first year,(hypothetically thinking) how many lives on both sides would have been saved.. But he went where he thought his honor and duty belonged and thats all a man can really do in such a situation..
 

K Hale

Colonel
Civil War Photo Contest
Annual Winner
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
16,538
Location
Texas
#60
Yes, imagine the numbers that piece of canvas would feth at auction. The art work perhaps doesn't rank with the masters or even the few known photos of Lee, but with Ike's signature at the bottom and that subject matter, I'd be willing to at least make the first bid.
I'll say this, it's better than the portrait of Lee that's hanging in the National Portrait Gallery in DC.
 

Similar threads




(Membership has it privileges! To remove this ad: Register NOW!)
Top