"Remembering Robert E. Lee's birthday" Topic

And my best friend from High School days, and best man at my wedding, now in Richmond, VA – C. R. Burgess!

GdeP

Are we even allowed to celebrate that anymore?

I think it might be considered racist to even type his name.

Nowt wrong with 'Bobby Lee' in my book! A nice man and the Rommel of his day!

Turned on his country not very cool in my book.

You mean his country, Virginia? I don't think he did. There was a higher calling back then.

"He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbor without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guile. He was a Caesar, without his ambition; Frederick, without his tyranny; Napoleon, without his selfishness, and Washington, without his reward." B.H. Hill, 1874

I'm no fan of the Confederacy but Lee was a skilled general and has no atrocities on his slate. He counseled reconciliation after the end of the war, something generally overlooked by Early and the Lost Cause folks.

Truly a great general, and a Southern gentleman.

You mean his country, Virginia? I don't think he did. There was a higher calling back then.

Winfield Scott, George Thomas, David Farragut, Samuel Lee, and John Newton (to name but a few) would disagree.

He never existed. New revised history textbooks coming soon.

What is up with the persecution fantasies so many people are wallowing I?. Wake up. No one is censoring your right to celebrate Robert E. Lee to your heart's content. In fact, I'm surprised there is even the mild criticism of General Lee seen on this thread, as he is almost universally revered by both pro-Confederacy and pro-Union folks.

Until the federal government rammed MLK Day down our throats,we took great pride in celebrating Lee/Jackson day on the same date.

Many of us still do.

I'm a great fan of MLK, especially his being a life-long member of the GOP, and a staunch conservative. But there were plenty of days to celebrate a"Civil Rights Holiday" instead of such an overt political stunt as placing MLK day on a great Southern Holiday.

Just more Yankee divisiveness and hatred.

Well, Ivan, they like RE Lee, but they *love* feeling like poor, persecuted martyrs.

Well, not sure it was a 'Yankee thing'. They eliminated George Washington's birthday as a holiday to create MLK day. I agree he was a great man. But Washington was imho, the indispensable man without whom this country would not exist. I am also a big fan of RE Lee. But Washington is in a league of his own as far as I am concerned.

I'll second John Leahy's sentiments!

No fan of Lee, a traitor in my book.

If Virginia is a country, than so is Goochland county. Why should we trust that distant federal gov'mint in Richmond?

Even though my heart is on the other side I always considered him to be what a great general should be. There is by the way, a fine statue of him and Jackson together, here in Baltimore. Thanks, John Miller

Take pictures of those statues while you can John. They'll be disappearing soon.

coopman: Sadly, IMHO, that may indeed be the case. Thanks, John Miller

You mean his country, Virginia? I don't think he did. There was a higher calling back then.

It was the U.S., not Virginia, that he took an oath to, and which gave him a free education. I think his loyalty to "Virginia" is over-rated. It was his family he was loyal to. His wife inherited a lifetime interest in Arlington, which was then to go to their oldest son, Custis. The 2nd son, Rooney, inherited White House plantation. Lee was executor of his father-in-law's estate. All of which tied him to Virginia, even though he spent most of his adult life in other parts of the country on duty with the Army.

I would hardly call it a free education. Lee paid for it with his military service. It was more like extensive job training. I would not call West Point a free education any more than I would my navy basic training.

As far as those of you crying about his oath to the US, once Virginia left the union the US Lee swore to no longer existed. Do you have obligations to your in-laws after a divorce?

Revisionism is an ugly thing.

Calling Lee and other U.S. army personnel who left their post to fight for the south traitors is not revisionism. At the time the Federal government and the federal court system as did the Army Staff Judge Advocate all considered them traitors. In fact the big debate at the time was which took precedent; states rights or federal rights. I myself view Lee as an honorable man who was on the wrong side of an argument.

Well put, Texas Jack. Lincoln thought enough of Robert E Lee to have made him his first choice as commander of the Union army. Lee declined on the grounds of his sense of obligation and loyalty to his native state of Virginia.

A comparison of Lee's socio-political outlooks versus those of W T Sherman is quite interesting. I've said this before: the Civil War encompassed a very great deal more than simply a dispute over slavery. Not interested in re-commencing that particular discussion – just sayin'.

B

This is not politically correct.

Let us not forget that Lee also left over the slavery as well as Virginia. There direct quotes on Lee's support of the institution. More evidence has also emerged that while having slaves he was a fairly brutal master. Had no trouble whipping or selling families apart.

I would hardly call it a free education. Lee paid for it with his military service.

And Lee got paid for his military service, it's called a salary. There's nothing in the oath he took that says, "not valid if your home state secedes." Lee himself admitted, in a letter to his son, Custis, that secession was rebellion, that the founding fathers intended the federal union to be perpetual.

The education was necessary to do the job, itīs called training. You make it sound like he got the degree, gave West Point the bird, and took off to fight for the CSA.

Of course the founding fathers intended a perpetual union, but how is that relevant? I think it would be quite a surprise if they hadnīt. I am sure Britain thought their American colonies would be perpetual as well, but that did not seem to worry the founding fathers. So I really donīt see the point here.

Exactly when did the United States cease to exist after Lee resigned? He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution and defend the United States. The Constitution and the United States were still there when he turned his back on this. So most for this near-god man of Honor stuff.

His state was no longer united with the others, he followed his state like any sane person would. Like I said, itīs like getting a divorce. Of course in divorces your in-laws donīt usually invade your home and try to destroy you like Mr Lincoln did.

For all of you who think it more honorable to fight against your friends and family, would you have done that? I would have found fighting for the Union in that situation to be utterly immoral.

I have found that if you walk around with a chip on your shoulder looking for a fight you will usually get it. One thing should be terribly clear to anyone who has studied history honestly and carefully. No one has clean hands. The train of blame stops at every station and there is guilt enough or all. Let us therefore honor those who exhibit virtue as best they can and could, and not trouble over aspects which might not be to our liking. As it says in scripture. "If thou or Lord wilt judge, who shall stand."

BZ, Otto.

B

Texas,

You analogy just doesn't wash. What you are saying is Lee got married a sworn to stay married to his wife forever. Then, he met someone else and left with her saying "Well, I am divorced now". No, just because you say that does not mean you are legally divorced. He swore an oath to the Union period.

Also, So, George Thomas from Virginia whose family disowned him for staying with his country he is utterly immoral to you? Winfield Scott on of the greatest generals in our history, from Virginia, who stayed with his country is totally immoral to you?

And let's be clear here. Those Southern states that seceded, and not all of them did, left to protect the institution of slavery, which kept millions of people enslaved, because the federal government would not agree to allow it to expand into the West. This is your honorable cause that Lee fought for. But fighting for the Union and keeping it together, that is immoral.

First of all, I think when we get married there is a bit about it being forever, so it does indeed wash, as you say. Here in the Beautiful Czech Republic, the countryīs separation with Slovakia is known as the Velvet Divorce, so the analogy is not mine alone.

Second, I can respect no one who does not respect their family. And history has shown us being a good general does not automatically make you a fine person.

And finally, I will not open the can of worms about the causes of the Civil War. I have fought that battle many times here, and it all comes down to the usual suspects on each side pontificating about how the other side is wrong.

When I look at this thread it amazes me the things Lee is criticized for. He was not loyal to a country his state no longer belonged to.
When his family and treasure were put in mortal danger, he had the audacity to defend it.
And even his loyalty to his state was questioned. He was accused of looking after the best interests of himself and his family. I hazard to guess that the vast majority of us here do the same thing everyday.
And for all that terrible behavior, General Lee is being criticized. Really.

Dear Blutasrsk8

Sorry I am not up to date on the latest twaddle speak. What does BZ mean?

Hi Otto,

BZ (Bravo Zulu) is actually old naval twaddle -

"Bravo Zulu, also referred to as "BZ," is a naval signal, typically conveyed by flaghoist or voice radio, meaning "Well Done"; in addition to U.S. naval forces, it has also been used as part of vernacular slang within NATO and other Allied naval forces."

- consider it a compliment.

B

*SLAVERY*… and it's expansion/containment.

No more. No less…

Reason for the ACW.

Lee IS a "traitor" to his Officers Oath.

Good General.

But a "traitor" nonetheless.

*NO* attempt at describing his turn-coat behavior in terms of a civil marital "divorce" can excuse this simple fact.

What would've "Light Horse" Harry have done?

When 'Light Horse' Harry Lee took up arms against King George III he was acting traitorously – only the victory of the USA subsequently legitimised his actions and those of Washington &c…

Similarly with Oliver Cromwell, Bolivar, San Martin and many others in history.

Had the CSA been successful, there would be no question of their generals or Jefferson Davis being 'traitors'.

Losers are traitors; winners are Patriots. Simples!

….. Classification of anyone from the South as a traitor all depends upon one's views on the legality of the right of secession.

B

Lee considered his duty to his state (or country as he often refers to it) a higher calling. Virginia came first. While states began to secede. Lee held back until Virginia voted to secede. In his way of thinking as well as others, the oath they took as cadets was invalid when it came to their home state.

In the context of the period it was not uncommon for someone North or South to consider themselves New Yorkers, Virginians, Texans, Iowans before they considered themselves Americans.

In our time this seems backwards but in the context of the period it was not unusual. The Civil War changed that.

He was not loyal to a country his state no longer belonged to.

Whether "his" state still belonged to the Union or not was a matter of contention.

Losers are traitors; winners are Patriots.

Yep. And Lee lost.

Let us also be clear that is was not just because Lee was from Virginia that he went with the Confederacy. In his letters and writings he does support the institution of slavery and the right for a state to secede. This idea that "Lee was above it all and only left for his love of Virginia"
comes straight out of the Lost Cause myth.

Let us read what Robert E Lee himself had to say about the institution of slavery -

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856:

I was much pleased the with President's message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. 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. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions.

B

Southerns often wrote such things as a way of expressing the peculiar institution. Rarely did they ever make a move to end slavery. Lee writing in 1865, "Considering the relation of master and slave, controlled by humane laws and influenced by Christianity and an enlightened public sentiment, AS THE BEST THAT CAN EXIST BETWEEN WHITE AND BLACK RACES." Lee was a slave owner and was considered to be a hard master using whipping and selling families apart. He went on to write that ending slavery would have "evil consequences."

In 1856 Lee wrote that he was critical of "certain people of the North" who would interfere with "the domestic institutions of the South" calling such interference "unlawful" and "intolerant."

In 1863, writing about the Emancipation Proclamation Lee defended slavery calling emancipation a "savage and brutal policy" and that the South now must win or face "degradation worse than death" and that we must save our families "from pollution and our social system from destruction."

Readers are invited to draw their own conclusions

Duplicate Post

Lee freed all his slaves in December 1862, in accordance with the wishes of his father-in-law.

Lincoln did not care one iota that Lee was a slave holder when he offered him command of the Union Army. Your argument superimposes current social mores and views upon conditions of 150+ years ago. It is a sterile exercise.

B

I am reminded of a statement by my father, who was NOT in the Civil War, but who was in fact a Colonel in the Austrian Army of 1914.

This recollection was from the late 60's and my father, then was in his late 70's. He was born in 1892.

Anyway a friend of mine from High School was visiting and he heard about fathers stint "Fur Gott und Kaiser." and he proceeded to tell my father ALL about the Austrian army and World War One, clearly contradicting him at many points.

My father responded, in his still heavily accented English, "Vass you dere Charlie?"

Point, game, and match.

I think it's marvelous how some people today can know with a degree of certainty approaching the divine what people of hundreds of years ago meant and felt by the words they used and the tone they used. I really envy them. I spent all those years in academia learning how to read texts and couch the words into the spirit of the time and what they meant and trying to make sense of them in the context of discourse and society, mores and virtues of the time, at the time, and somehow, it seems, almost by divine illumination, so many people are expert on this without any training at all!

How lonely they must feel sitting there at the top.

"Vass you dere Charlie?"

I don't think the secession of the southern states was a matter of treason. I believe it was only some years after the conclusion of the ACW that the US Supreme court ruled against the individual states having the right to withdraw from the "union."

My recollection is that there was no law or regulation that restricted any state from withdrawing from the "union." I thought the Articles of Confederation did allow for it through poor, incomplete and/or vague wording. When the Constitution was adopted to replace the Articles, there was much more detail on framework and style of govt. but again not specifics on withdrawal. The fear all around at the time was a strong central govt. vs individual states govt. There was a recognition by the states that some form of federal level of govt. was necessary, but when enacted it was weakly and again poorly framed out.