Lee Lee's portrait at West Point

[JerryD]

I suppose I am not suprised by this development, and am glad that they seem to be drawing a distinction between his tenure in the US military and his time supporting the CSA against the US.

West Point expected to be ordered to take down portrait of Robert E. Lee

A congressionally established commission is likely to recommend the removal, sources say.

www.politico.com

 

[Norman Dasinger Jr]

"Quote from article:
For 70 years, the slave-owning Confederate general Robert E. Lee has stared down at West Point cadets from a massive portrait in the academy's library, a slave guiding his horse in the background."

Lee and Lincoln both had slave owning in-laws. Lee's slaves were not his but his wife's. Lincoln's wife received some of the Todd family slaves in the same way.

 

[Elliot Crumblemuffin]

. There is no critical thinking anymore, it seems. This decision is another knee-jerk reaction in a contest to see who can race to the PC finish line first. It seems an avalanche had begun to accumulate momentum.

But....the reality is the victors write history AND times are changing. I don't have to like it, but getting upset at a story on my phone just isn't worth the frustration.

 

[Norman Dasinger Jr]

But you can let others know what is going on. Ignorance of facts causes people to agree with what ever fact is offered. If we dont educate and attempt to preserve, then what? It is frustrating but we have the power (in a modern world) to at the least let others know what is going on--even if they disagree or dont understand.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

"Quote from article:
For 70 years, the slave-owning Confederate general Robert E. Lee has stared down at West Point cadets from a massive portrait in the academy's library, a slave guiding his horse in the background."

Lee and Lincoln both had slave owning in-laws. Lee's slaves were not his but his wife's. Lincoln's wife received some of the Todd family slaves in the same way.

Sure like to see a source on Mary Todd receiving or using the family slaves after she married Abe. My understanding is that she was pro-colonization, but against slavery. I can find no mention in my many Lincoln biographies that Mary ever used the services of a family slave or any slave.

 

[Bonny Blue Flag]

My brother is a real corker. He leans heavily on focusing on the future. He makes fun of me studying "the past", saying, "They are all dead. Why would you want to study them?" Geez. My comment to him is, "Don't study the past or it's reflection will return to haunt you."

--BBF

 

[dlofting]

Should an institution that educates future officers of the American armed forces display the portrait of a man in the uniform of an army that fought against the United States ? Images of Lee, or references to him, when he was part of the US Army and superintendent of West Point may stay but I think this one should be removed. I admire certain of Lee's traits, and would even love to have the portrait in my home, but I don't think it belongs at West Point.

 

[JerryD]

"Quote from article:
For 70 years, the slave-owning Confederate general Robert E. Lee has stared down at West Point cadets from a massive portrait in the academy's library, a slave guiding his horse in the background."

Lee and Lincoln both had slave owning in-laws. Lee's slaves were not his but his wife's. Lincoln's wife received some of the Todd family slaves in the same way.

Technically, you are incorrect. As executor of his father in laws estate Lee actually held legal title to all of the estate, including the slaves. Legally he had to have legal title so he could use and dispose of assets. That is why he had to be the one to manumit them when the five year period was up. The beneficial owner of the slaves was actually the estate, not his wife. Lee used the benefit of their labor to increase the value of the estate so he could avoid selling land that he and his family would inherit. That is why he kept them enslaved for the full five years, and actually asked to extend that period until the estate could pay all its debts instead of having to sell land.

 

[JerryD]

"Quote from article:
For 70 years, the slave-owning Confederate general Robert E. Lee has stared down at West Point cadets from a massive portrait in the academy's library, a slave guiding his horse in the background."

Lee and Lincoln both had slave owning in-laws. Lee's slaves were not his but his wife's. Lincoln's wife received some of the Todd family slaves in the same way.

I cant find any reputable source that says Mary Lincoln ever owned slaves. Her father actually owned very few slaves, according to the 1840 census. Reports that he was a large slaveholder are false.

 

[Nathan Stuart]

Regardless of what one thinks of Lee and his military abilities or personal virtues, the reasons are understandable why any highly visible tangible symbols, like portraits and statues, might be removed from Federal institutional settings and certain public places. Such physical work representations of leaders of the rebellion in the modern era could serve as constant reminders of division and inequality, or even possible rallying points for extremists. Lee was considered a traitor by the U.S. government, notwithstanding his efforts to secure peace and promote unity after the surrender.

Can see that evidence of Lee's involvement in past events is slowly and surely being confined to entries in the history books.

The real concern for me would be if they started tampering with the truth of history by mandating changes in the content of the history books. Like their Union counterparts, Lee and other Confederate leaders were an integral part of what happened during the war, notwithstanding any differences in beliefs and motivations. References to their names and actions must never be expunged, or otherwise distorted, from the records of the past, if understanding, awareness and freedom is to be valued.

 

[Florida Rebel]

Hmmm, so the picture of Lee was just fine in the 1960's, the 1970's, the 80's and 90's and all the way to now? Just par for the course..... The "in thing" to do today is degrade Lee. No matter that the entire South loved and admired the man for 100 plus years after his death, and many in the North too, with our crazy standards today on how we rate and evaluate people from an earlier era, what else is new? What's next, is someone going to knock on my door and demand that I remove all Confederate prints, pictures and books on Lee? Those of us who know better - will always love Lee until we die. Forest Gump had it right, stupid is as stupid does.

 

[JerryD]

Hmmm, so the picture of Lee was just fine in the 1960's, the 1970's, the 80's and 90's and all the way to now? Just par for the course..... The "in thing" to do today is degrade Lee. No matter that the entire South loved and admired the man for 100 plus years after his death, and many in the North too, with our crazy standards today on how we rate and evaluate people from an earlier era, what else is new? What's next, is someone going to knock on my door and demand that I remove all Confederate prints, pictures and books on Lee? Those of us who know better - will always love Lee until we die. Forest Gump had it right, stupid is as stupid does.

I think its pretty clear that the "entire South" did not love and admire him. That statement ignores the large number of black and white people who live in the South who see all things Confederate as symbols of racism, and treats them like they do not count. You may disagree, of course, but you can't ignore they exist.

The reality is, perception's and attitudes change over time. Throughout the same period you spoke of many other attitudes changed, like access to birth control, inter race marriage, women's rights and many other things. I know some folks want to go back to how things were in the 1960's, but that is just not realistic, nor is it preferable.

I also hope you can understand the difference between what you do in your home, and what the government does in public. So that analogy is not persuasive. The issue is not what you think. Its about what message the government, who represents everyone, sends.

 

[JerryD]

Regardless of what one thinks of Lee and his military abilities or personal virtues, the reasons are understandable why any highly visible tangible symbols, like portraits and statues, might be removed from Federal institutional settings and certain public places. Such physical work representations of leaders of the rebellion in the modern era could serve as constant reminders of division and inequality, or even possible rallying points for extremists. Lee was considered a traitor by the U.S. government, notwithstanding his efforts to secure peace and promote unity after the surrender.

Can see that evidence of Lee's involvement in past events is slowly and surely being confined to entries in the history books.

The real concern for me would be if they started tampering with the truth of history by mandating changes in the content of the history books. Like their Union counterparts, Lee and other Confederate leaders were an integral part of what happened during the war, notwithstanding any differences in beliefs and motivations. References to their names and actions must never be expunged, or otherwise distorted, from the records of the past, if understanding, awareness and freedom is to be valued.

I tend to agree. I'm glad they are not touching his antebellum portraits.

 

[Elliot Crumblemuffin]

Hmmm, so the picture of Lee was just fine in the 1960's, the 1970's, the 80's and 90's and all the way to now? Just par for the course..... The "in thing" to do today is degrade Lee. No matter that the entire South loved and admired the man for 100 plus years after his death, and many in the North too, with our crazy standards today on how we rate and evaluate people from an earlier era, what else is new? What's next, is someone going to knock on my door and demand that I remove all Confederate prints, pictures and books on Lee? Those of us who know better - will always love Lee until we die. Forest Gump had it right, stupid is as stupid does.

Shhhhhh. Don't tell anyone you have those "things" in your home!! You'll have a visit from the Thought Police

 

[7thWisconsin]

West Point is a Federal institution. I´m honestly surprised that it took this long to put 2 and 2 together and come to the conclusion that maybe it would be more appropriate to depict Lee as antebellum superintendent rather than in the uniform of the enemy of the very officers and men that he trained. I´ve always felt that the primary reason Lee was not pardoned in his lifetime is that he previously had been West Point superintendent: where a startling number of future Confederate officers were trained.
The interpretation of history changes over time: would we be OK with telling one another that the Battle of Gettysburg was fought over shoes? Or that the Siege of Troy was fought over one woman´s beauty and ended with the improbable gift of a huge toy horse?

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Hmmm, so the picture of Lee was just fine in the 1960's, the 1970's, the 80's and 90's and all the way to now? Just par for the course..... The "in thing" to do today is degrade Lee. No matter that the entire South loved and admired the man for 100 plus years after his death, and many in the North too, with our crazy standards today on how we rate and evaluate people from an earlier era, what else is new? What's next, is someone going to knock on my door and demand that I remove all Confederate prints, pictures and books on Lee? Those of us who know better - will always love Lee until we die. Forest Gump had it right, stupid is as stupid does.

I believe that the portraits of Lee in his United States uniform are going to remain at West Point. It is the portrait of Lee in his Confederate uniform that is being removed. I am surprised that was ever allowed to be displayed in a United States Military Academy.

 

[Elliot Crumblemuffin]

I believe that the portraits of Lee in his United States uniform are going to remain at West Point. It is the portrait of Lee in his Confederate uniform that is being removed. I am surprised that was ever allowed to be displayed in a United States Military Academy.

I never understood why the U.S. government named bases after Confederate generals until I came to understand that the U.S. needed soldiers from the entire country for our participation in WW1. From what I understand, naming such bases was a way for the DoD to attract soldiers from the South.

It makes sense to me why Lee's large portrait was displayed at West Point for so long. It takes time, and maybe a few generations, for wounds to heal. Taking also into account the strong sense of tradition in the U.S. Army (and also at West Point) the portrait may have 'hung out" for a little while longer than it should have.

 

[Silverfox]

I think folks forget that the winner writes the history-----Had the South won its independence, how many Grant portraits would be hung at VMI or the Citadel or North Georgia College or the many other military schools of the South? It is a shame that the current winners have to demolish any trace of "the enemy". The Taliban is busy destroying previous winners --and their monuments----will this really change history? The real issue is maybe the U.S. now has its own version of the Taliban.

 

[Scott1967]

I'm not a fan of Robert E Lee and never have been however I cant deny his effectiveness as a General and Leader.

The purpose of West Point is to train officers using good examples of great soldiers and Lee no matter how I dislike him as a person was just that a great soldier.

So to the surprise of some people on this forum I actually disagree about taking his portrait down I personally think its a step to far and while I agree Confederate monuments of individuals should be removed in public spaces this portrait is about Lee as a soldier and not the cause he fought for.

 

[JerryD]

I think folks forget that the winner writes the history-----Had the South won its independence, how many Grant portraits would be hung at VMI or the Citadel or North Georgia College or the many other military schools of the South? It is a shame that the current winners have to demolish any trace of "the enemy". The Taliban is busy destroying previous winners --and their monuments----will this really change history? The real issue is maybe the U.S. now has its own version of the Taliban.

I'm actually kind of confused by your post. If the South won I seriously doubt VMI or the Citadel would hang any portraits of Grant, ever. Whereas Lee has had his portrait hanging at West Point for many decades. So the winners did not demolish any trace of the enemy, nor are they. If you read the article you will see that his portrait in his US uniform is being retained. Its just that the subject one shows him in the uniform of an enemy of the US, which makes it inappropriate. I analogize it to the fact we dont have any portraits of Benedict Arnold up at West Point.