"Ike on Lee" Topic

President Eisenhower had a portrait of Robert E. Lee in his office. One Dr. Scott wrote Eisenhower to ask why he so honored a Confederate. Eisenhower wrote a rather lengthy reply that seems like a relic of a better time, but perhaps can serve as a guide in our present difficulties:

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 [1960] 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 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.

Sincerely,
Dwight D. Eisenhower

From an era of compromise and understanding.
Today's world is black and white thinking; there is no ability or willingness to take the middle ground.

Doesn't the argument presuppose that Ike was correct, and that social norms haven't changed in the last 60 years?

Thanks for sharing doc mcb.

Don't know about "social norms" 79th: so nearly as I can tell, the left orders up a new set about every five years and then declares historical figures villains for not having adhered to them.

Whe we on the conservative side call "morality" is a little less changeable, and much less subject to retconning.

The haters are going to love this one. lol

That was pretty much the standard take on Lee in Ike's (and my) time. If you ignore the question of slavery and racism, which were standard in Lee's time, it's fairly valid.

However, Lee admitted, in a letter to his oldest son, that the founders had meant the Union to be perpetual and that secession was revolution.

Sorry I'll take the view of the Rock of Chickamauga:

"The greatest efforts made by the defeated insurgents since the close of the war have been to promulgate the idea that the cause of liberty, justice, humanity, equality, and all the calendar of the virtues of freedom, suffered violence and wrong when the effort for southern independence failed. This is, of course, intended as a species of political cant, whereby the crime of treason might be covered with a counterfeit varnish of patriotism, so that the precipitators of the rebellion might go down in history hand in hand with the defenders of the government, thus wiping out with their own hands their own stains; a species of self-forgiveness amazing in its effrontery, when it is considered that life and property—justly forfeited by the laws of the country, of war, and of nations, through the magnanimity of the government and people—was not exacted from them."

— George Henry Thomas, November 1868

+1 to The Rock of Chickamauga.

Three cheers and a tiger for the Rock of Chickamauga! A true patriot who stood by his country and his oath during that rebellion. A shining example to us all in his time and today.

George Thomas was a Virginian who understood his duty.

As per Ike's assessment, Great Commanders often have blind spots when considering other Great Commanders. Appreciation for genius often gives way to hagiography. Ike came of age when the Lost Cause and the Marble Man were much in vogue.

The opposite is also true, I believe, in that Great Commanders often slight other Great Commanders for differences of doctrine, ethos, etc. Lest we forget Montgomery's summation of Eisenhower: "Nice chap. No soldier."

Lee was one of the few prominent Confederate Generals that actually acknowledged that the South was wrong and that the Confederacy was best left as a relic of the past after the war. Ironically, Lee probably wouldn't have been opposed to his statues being taken down when he was actually reported to have been against putting them up in the first place.

Personally, I think Lee was… Just Ok. He did some cool stuff when he was a US General in the Mexican War. He acknowledged that the rebellion was wrong later in life, and you can even make a compelling argument that his strict commitment to fighting solely conventional warfare against a vastly superior force is the whole reason the Confederates lost. He did really well against second rate Union generals; not so good against competent union generals.

Doesn't excuse his participation in the rebellion. But his insistence on offensive actions which bleed his army gets some points.

With all respect to Thomas, I've never cared to apply "treason" to the Confederacy. If the United States were to withdraw from the United Nations tomorrow, I certainly wouldn't apply it to officers defending the US, even if the World Court came down on the UN side and decided it too was indissoluble.

Turning in a letter of resignation and taking service with another power isn't on a par with deserting to take service with the enemy in wartime (Benedict Arnold, or the San Patricios) or committing espionage on behalf of a foreign power while wearing a US uniform and collecting US pay (Arnold again, and James Wilkinson.)

Doesn't mean Lee made the right call. No telling when--or whether--slavery would have ended in the future Lee fought for. But not all ways of being wrong are the same.

Oh. Never a US general, pro from dover. In the Mexican war, a permanent Captain and brevet Colonel. Didn't make Colonel in the regulars until 1861. And guerilla warfare isn't really an option when you have slavery as a primary institution. Also, guerlla war is atrocity if not massacre-prone. If the South looked devastated in 1865, imagine, say, ten years of guerilla warfare. I think I could also make a good case that several of his opponents didn't look so "second rate" when opposed to anyone else.

I would think that the pairing of huge ego & military command ability would be the norm.

Lee is known for his humility – credit to him. Eisenhower's generous assessment of Lee speaks even more of his humanity.

I would suggest, however, both gentlemen would have been appalled by both contemporary sides of US politics, seeing nothing they can relate to the extremism apparent.

"I would think that the pairing of huge ego & military command ability would be the norm."

Certainly often the case--and maybe the rank is more important than the command ability. It takes a special kind of thinking to look at 10,000 casualties, and say "well, that didn't work: I'll try something else tomorrow."

But as for recruiting dead men to support or oppose a cause about which they said nothing specific in their lifetimes, I believe that should be confined to Chicago elections. Even in Chicago, the dead only vote: they don't make endorsements.

Apart from the nonsense about Chicago, I agree with your sentiments, RP.

With all due respect to President Eisenhower, his letter reflects the conciliatory tone typical of postwar interpretations of the Civil War. It overlooks the fact that Robert E. Lee was a member of the slaveholding aristocracy, deeply loyal to his class and to the institution of slavery. His reaction to the Emancipation Proclamation underscores this.

In a letter to the Confederate Secretary of War dated January 10, 1863, Lee wrote:

"In view of the vast increase of the forces of the enemy, of the savage and brutal policy he has proclaimed, which leaves us no alternative but success or degradation worse than death, if we would save the honor of our families from pollution, our social system from destruction, let every effort be made, every means be employed, to fill and maintain the ranks of our armies, until God, in his mercy, shall bless us with the establishment of our independence. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, R. E. Lee, General."

This statement reflects Lee's unwavering commitment to the Confederate cause and its foundational social order—slavery included. He was a fervent Confederate nationalist.

As to what Lee said after the war, I can paraphrase what a history professor once said to me, "Don't bring me what they said after the war, I only want what they said before or during the war." What post war Lee said in public is different from what he said in private.

When I was a young lad I put Lee on a pedestal. I don't hate Lee now. I just see him fully in context.

Robert E. Lee refused Lincoln's commission to lead the Union out of loyalty to Virginia. Yet, nearly half Virginia's officers remained loyal to the Union cause. General-in-chief Winfield Scott Hancock and admiral David Farragut were two proud Virginians who served admirably for the Union. More damning, Lee was the son of founding father Henry Lee, who had championed the Constitution that bound the states together. Many men prized national interests over regional ones, the Constitution itself is the very product of those men.

As to the cause that Preflight for and defended, Grant summed up the Confederacy: "the cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse." or as Confederate Vice President Alexander Stephens wrote:
"Our new government is founded…upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth."

More damning, Lee was the son of founding father Henry Lee, who had championed the Constitution that bound the states together.

Of course, your very phrasing of the matter is a post Civil War understanding. I don't think those Virginians who voted in favor of the 1787 Constitution would have understood what they were doing was binding their state to a federal government without recourse to later withdrawal. And the proof of that is found in how the states left the Articles of Confederation to join the new constitutional order of 1787.

Wikipedia on Lee: link

Lee is my 9th cousin twice removed.

Same here OC. So much history has come to light that was buried under the pile of Lost Cause narrative revisionism that Ike, one of my heroes, may be better understood in the context of the times and the evasion of reality that still held sway in the history of slavery and its long aftermath. Right through the Centennial my heroes were rebels, gallant gentlemen fighting for the right of states to be free.

Among the many new heroes who came to my attention later on was Thomas, one of the greatest soldiers on either side, I think. Thank you 138RAF. James Longstreet, the cancel culture victim of Lost Causery, later came to understand slavery in a different light, I believe. Lee seemed to have been on this path as well. Old men can change their minds. Perhaps Ike wanted no part of the bitter tragedy and its aftermath in remembering Lee.