"Where Robert E. Lee's portrait belongs" Topic

"I was seated across from a senior cadet at West Point, marveling at her energy, idealism and desire to serve after she reached out to me for career advice. While I'm an older white male, the young, mixed-race woman reminded me so much of myself some three decades ago.

As she shared her goals and aspirations with me in the library, my eyes drifted up past her right shoulder and settled upon a familiar figure. It was a portrait of Robert E. Lee, commander of the Confederate Army and famous West Point graduate from the Class of 1829. Lee also was West Point's superintendent from 1852 to 1855, and I remember living in barracks bearing his name while I attended the academy.

As my gaze settled upon the portrait, the irony washed over me in waves. The juxtaposition was astounding. Here was the image of a man who fought to defend slavery, hovering over the shoulder of an excited cadet whose African-American father was a noncommissioned officer assigned in Europe when he met and married her mother, a Caucasian German national…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

This is one of those curious US military things like naming the largest military installation in the world (that would be Fort Hood) after a Confederate Lieutenant General – and it's not like it's unique, there are 9 other US Army bases named after Confederate Generals (including Fort Lee in Virginia)

I respectfully disagree with Gen.(?) Gagliano.

ok I was stupid enough to go read the link. This idiot now teaches on the college level. No wonder kids are hitting adulthood clueless.

Nothing wrong with the article.It's past time to stop venerating CSA generals/politicians.

While I disagree with the article, I can't see what this has to do with wargaming anyway.. Is this going to change any combat modifiers? I think not. 😄

I see your point, llyodthegamer, but think it focuses on one aspect of Lee (and other CSA generals), and demands we ignore other, more admirable aspects. I certainly admire Lee for his military accomplishments as an American, not as a defender of slavery.

Once again we have an example of a high ranking American military officer playing the PC game which does nothing to advance the overall effectiveness of the armed forces…as the President has accurately characterized most of the general staff, these men are losers.

Iloydtheganer…just what is it about Confederate generals that bothers you so much? They generally ran circles around their Union counter parts.

I'm blown away that people who actually fought the war and were able to work out their differences and live with the outcome and each other but generations later, people who had nothing to do with the conflict are incensed and fighting with each other over it.

Most of The General Staff?

You mean the ones who actually served in Iraq and Afghanistan as opposed to the person that is their Boss?

Who never served.

A single day.

I don't know what Army you served in Old North State, but both you and The Very Stable Genius are both wrong on that count.

My two shillings.

Eric

As an Australian I have no dog in this fight but I'd like to correct one small detail in the intro that Armand cut and pasted to start the thread. I admire the men and officers on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line but from what I've read on Lee he was fighting specifically for Virginia and not specifically to "…defend slavery …"

My 2 cents

The General staff is as divided in political opinion as much as the rest of the country. There is no shortage of retired generals lining up on various news channels to espouse their opinions. Every four years in this country each Presidential candidate from both parties has a list of retired generals that support him or her. I've now been around long enough to know a few generals, I'm not impressed with about half of them.

As for Robert E. Lee, one can respect his many talents as a brilliant general and at the same time be critical of him. He has a significant place in American history.

"Lee led a rebellion that ripped our nation asunder in 1861."

I think we should get the money our country spent on this man's education at West Point. Apparently he slept through history class. Lee did not lead the rebellion. He didn't even resign his commission until after Virginia left the union in April 1861. He commanded one army of the Confederate army until the very end of the war. And, he didn't even take command of that army until spring 1862. I didn't read any further, does he even mention Lee's service during the Mexican-American War.

Shoddy work like this really makes me wonder if we're getting our money's worth out of our military academies.

By the way; +1 to TGerritsen.

Yes. Everything in the history of the US was bad and racist and exploitive.

We get it.

Source: cnn. Really? Must we be subject to the personal opinions of another political general. The pentagon is bursting with his type.

Oldnorthstate, they were traitors to their country.

Actually using the term "traitors" is technically not correct. From their perspective they were loyal to their country, which is to say in Lee's case he was loyal to Virginia. One must remember that before the civil war we were the "united States of America", and only afterwards was the "u" capitalized to United States of America.

From their perspective they were loyal to their country,

And from his own perspective, Al Capone was a businessman. And no, I'm not equating Lee with Capone, I'm just pointing out that the individual's perspective can be wrong.

During the post-Reconstruction era it became popular to look back on the war as just a gentlemen's disagreement -- "The Late Unpleasantness" -- but many thousands of men died in that war and thousands of others were maimed. Hanging the enemy's portrait on the wall does seem a bit too much.

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

Rather condescending donlowry. I think everyone on TMP knows rather well the history of the civil war and that more Americans died in that war than any other. And yes you did just compare Lee to Capone. Lee is still studied at military schools for good reason.

I have a number of problems/issues with the article: it reads more like a politician's doublespeak than a considered opinion.
For example: in paragraph 4 he asserts "Lee led a rebellion that ripped our nation asunder in 1861"; and then several paragraphs later says "I acknowledge that Lee was a reluctant champion of secession, and historians still disagree about Lee's thoughts on slavery". I don't think you can have him 'leading' a rebellion and being 'reluctant' at the same time. [I think there is plenty of evidence to show that R.E. Lee didn't lead the rebellion and that he was reluctant to resign his USA commission in order to join his state of Virginia.]

I can see why 'Lee is still studied at military schools and for good reason' and the study of his actions would probably not be solely restricted to military schools in the USA.

The article, and many other events in the USA in the last decade or so remind me of the quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." It seems more than that though: there seems a determination by many to sanitise and obliterate the past so it can not be remembered. I am unsure whether this is through ignorance or purposeful intent, probably a combination of the two.

Ehhh, Tango, I think it's spelled, "Gulp."

Oldnorthstate-
Here's what it has to do with combat effectiveness.
See: link

A substantial portion of the US Armed forces is African American. Perhaps you should look at the past veneration of
CSA generals through the eyes of those whose families were held as property in the system these generals defended.

TGerritsen- They worked out their differences because most share deep racism towards blacks, and the end of Reconstruction allowed the former CSA to revert to a system of legal racial oppression.
There are more than a few books on how whites "buried the hatchet" in the late 19th century by a shared need to oppress nonwhites.

I'm blown away that people who actually fought the war and were able to work out their differences and live with the outcome and each other but generations later, people who had nothing to do with the conflict are incensed and fighting with each other over it.

There is a segment of our society which is trying to erase our collective history and rewrite it is an Orwellian manner. It starts by removing portraits of Lee, but it doesn't stop there. I have heard that portraits of George Washington have been removed because his image is considered offensive. Aristotle once said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Nuisance of thought is not allowed by the PC police. They care more about feelings than intellectual truth; and emotions over logic.

USAF-
Can't comment on "what you heard" about GW, but when it comes to CSA generals, I can only say that you'd likely feel differently if someone had owned your relatives. I've come to defer to African Americans on this issue, as they are the ones with real "skin in the game".

And please. Orwellian? To relegate CSA generals to museums? That's hardly what Big Brother would have done.
I suggest that the attitude of allowing the statues to stay in the public square is more Orwellian, for it suggests "Freedom is Slavery".
No one puts up statues for historical reasons. They are put up to celebrate the person portrayed.

PanMarek, slavery didn't end yesterday. There is no one currently alive who has "real ‘skin in the game'". Please stop with the PC nonsense.

USAF-
I find it interesting that you ignore what I suggested.

And accusing people of "PC", because they suggest talking to others with a different perspective, is lazy.

There is a segment of our society which is trying to erase our collective history and rewrite it is an Orwellian manner

PanMarek, slavery didn't end yesterday.

These two statements seem to be at odds with one another. Either the historical record is important or it isn't.

Indeed, I'd suggest cherry picking the bits you like is at best lazy and at worst manipulative.

ochoin, I'm not understanding what you are trying to convey. I don't see how my statements are at odds.

USAFpilot, seeing you ask…… I would think an historian (or even we amateur historians that populate TMP) need to embrace all of history, the warty & the festering bits, as well as the glory & the patriotic triumphs.

Recently, on the Vietnam page, someone suggested I was anti-American. The truth is the opposite. I embrace American culture. I see the US as a staunch historical ally. I see an incontrovertible need to have the US stand up to authoritarian super powers on behalf of the rest of the world.

What this doesn't mean is that I'm uncritical. Both in current affairs (a tabu subject here on TMP as your present incarceration marks) and in history, I can see places to criticise. The US condoned slavery. The Confederacy fought to maintain it. You can't ignore this in an attempt to venerate individuals such as Lee. Was he, in many ways, a great & noble man? Yes, but his wife's family also owned slaves.One of those inconvenient dichotomies.

Some people, and I sincerely trust you are not in their number, close their eyes to the dark side in some misplaced sense of patriotism. Pan Marek's case is not weakened by your refusal to acknowledge the historical reality of slavery. And you can delete the word "historical" in the previous sentence.

Rather condescending donlowry. I think everyone on TMP knows rather well the history of the civil war and that more Americans died in that war than any other. And yes you did just compare Lee to Capone. Lee is still studied at military schools for good reason.

No intention to be condescending. But perhaps it wouldn't hurt to remind the people who name bases after enemy generals what those generals cost our side (and, yes, the Union was "our" side, that is the U.S.A.'s side, no matter where you or your ancestors were born).

There is a segment of our society which is trying to erase our collective history and rewrite it is an Orwellian manner. It starts by removing portraits of Lee, but it doesn't stop there.

I don't advocate removing Lee's portrait from everywhere, but I do think it is in bad taste to hang it on the wall at the U.S. Military Academy. On the other hand, studying Lee's strategy and tactics there is not only proper but useful.

As for rewriting history, the Southern apologists, led by Jubal Early, did that after the War, leading to the Lost Cause idea that the Confederates were in the right and were only overwhelmed by vastly superior numbers. Now things are swinging a bit too far the other way, but that's human nature.

As for the Lee/Capone thing, I was just pointing out that hardly anyone ever thinks of themselves as the bad guys, even when they are. Lee had his reasons, of course, just as other Virginians, such as George Thomas, had their reasons for sticking with the U.S. Army rather than going with his state.

I can only say that you'd likely feel differently if someone had owned your relatives.

Someone did. Many of us are descended from people who were involuntarily transported here and forced to work for others without compensation. It isn't as simple as whether your ancestors were held in bondage. Once the bondage ended those who were white or were light enough to pass, and that includes some native Americans, were able to assimilate into the mainstream of American society if they chose. That option was not extended to those transported here, free or slave, from sub-Saharan Africa.

Gulp = English

Glup = Spanish

Amicalement
Armand

Goop= Gwyneth Paltrow

Crikey = Australian

Garp- Robin Williams

I'm blown away that people who actually fought the war and were able to work out their differences and live with the outcome and each other but generations later, people who had nothing to do with the conflict are incensed and fighting with each other over it.

There is a segment of our society which is trying to erase our collective history and rewrite it is an Orwellian manner. It starts by removing portraits of Lee, but it doesn't stop there. I have heard that portraits of George Washington have been removed because his image is considered offensive. Aristotle once said "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Following this "logic" it is alright for the German army to use a swastika because it is part of their history and anyone offended by it are whiners?

Incidentally, it is also the mark of an educated mind to be able to challenge, evaluate and analyze. If a tradition is worthwhile it can withstand some criticism.

Nuisance of thought is not allowed by the PC police. They care more about feelings than intellectual truth; and emotions over logic.

The intellectual truth of what? Is slavery logical?

This heroes, statues, Founders, icons battle is more about fashion that truth or history. When women started wearing short skirts around 1925 it caused a scandal because the female ankle was so hyper-sexualized and tabooed that short, flapper dresses were literally considered porn on the hoof. Women have returned to wearing long skirts but before they could, they first had to make the political statement that they had the right to wear their skirts short.

I understand that the "N" word is off limits for all except for African Americans who have now adopted it as their word and no one else's. The idea is to take the pain out of the word by making it off limits to all but the victim who can then sanitize and quarantine it.

Similarly, I would imagine once people have the right to punish the past in effigy for both racism and slavery, the political part will get purged and we will be free to re-hang Lee in effigy both on the walls of West Point and on the side of a bucket of fried chicken.

You mean that's Robert E. Lee on a KFC bucket and not Colonel Sanders?
I suppose MacDonalds is named for one of Napoleon's Marshals?

Fried chicken was Lee's delight. I understand he was particularly fond of dark meat.

I am surprised no one ever started a General Lee's chicken franchise. The slogan for the spicy recipe could be, "One bite and a couple hours later, the rebellion begins!"

There really should be food named after all of Napoleon's marshals. Ney's horse steaks; they neigh when you broil 'em. Muratatouille, Eggs Bernadotte, Soult-y pork chops, Bessières candy kisses, Crepes Suchet…

I wonder if Napoleon himself could have short fries named after him?

Ha!….

Napoleon wasn't short… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

accurately characterized most of the general staff, these men are losers.

I'd have to disagree with this … but I'll freely admit I'm biased.

Napoleon wasn't short

According to my DNA test, we are related to Napoleon on my Father's side. would be so disappointed in me as I only made the rank of Army CPT …