How I Learned to Hate Robert E. Lee (Compares Tea Party to pro-slavery expansion CSA fire-eaters)

Yahoo! News / The Daily Beast ^ | January 21, 2014 | Christopher Dickey

[2ndDivisionVet]

All the time I was growing up in Atlanta, the face of Robert E. Lee was taking shape on the side of an enormous granite mountain just outside town. He loomed like a god above us, as much a presence as any deity, and God knows he was accepted as such. It was only much later that I began to question his sanctity, and then to hate what he stood for.

When I was in elementary school, the face of Lee on Stone Mountain was a rough-cut thing, weathering and wasting as the generation that began it in 1912—a generation that still included veterans of the Civil War 50 years before—gave way to generations with other wars to focus their attention.

Then the carving began again in 1964 in a centennial haze of romantic memories about the Old South and frenzy of fear and defiance provoked by the civil-rights movement. As Martin Luther King Jr. was marching on Washington, Confederate battle flags floated above state houses and sculptors using torches began again to carve the granite features of Lee, along with Stonewall Jackson and Jefferson Davis, taking up three vertical acres on the mountain’s face.

It is this sort of image—the bas-relief nobility of memorial sculpture—that Michael Korda chisels through in his massive and highly readable new one-volume biography: Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee. But, as Korda clearly recognizes, Lee himself could be almost as impenetrable as stone.

He was not cold. He was very loving with his wife and many children. He enjoyed flirting (harmlessly, it seems) with young women. He had the self-assurance of a Virginia aristocrat, albeit an impecunious one, and the bearing of a man born not only to be a soldier, but to command....

[Hulka]

“Hap Arnold, Arthur Harris, and Curtis LeMay”

To be fair, those attacks were done in retaliation, and “Bomber Harris” was vilified in the UK after the war for his bombing campaigns. It wasn’t until relatively recent he was accepted (sort of) and a Bomber Command” memorial was finally constructed.

[DoodleDawg]

To be fair, those attacks were done in retaliation, and “Bomber Harris” was vilified in the UK after the war for his bombing campaigns. It wasn’t until relatively recent he was accepted (sort of) and a Bomber Command” memorial was finally constructed.

Either they were war crimes by the definition that Patriot08 is using or they were not. If Sherman's actions he/she claims were war crimes were indeed crimes, then so were those of Arnold, Harris and LeMay. If Arnold, Harris, and LeMay are not war criminals than neither was Sherman.

[morphing libertarian]

yeah, they just didn’t want them to vote.

[ohioman]

And you fail to realize that under the current regime, this country could use another Robert E. Lee.

[patriot08]

Look upon the ugly face of William Tecumseh Sherman

Sherman was a mass murderer of innocents, his own fellow Americans, a mass murderer of innocent women and children..when there was no need- except to sate the blood thirstiness of a psychopathic killer.

Sherman was a psychopath who mass murdered his own fellow Americans, raped, looted and destroyed all in his bloody march to the sea- including innocent animals by the thousands and thousands.

He should have been hung for crimes against humanity. Ugly sob even looks deranged.

He's roasting in Hell for his heinous crimes.

[RginTN]

Is that all you got? Wow I’m impressed at your ability to teach so effectively!

[DoodleDawg]

Sherman was a mass murderer of innocents, his own fellow Americans, a mass murderer of innocent women and children..when there was no need- except to sate the blood thirstiness of a psychopathic killer.

That line is getting rather tired.

[RginTN]

And you fail to realize that under the current regime, this country could use another Robert E. Lee.

---

The Lee who was a US military officer yes the Lee who was a Confederate military officer no.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

While he was understandably bitter to a degree, unlike many of the Southern Aristocracy, he held to efforts to restore the reunited nation and a civil society. This was one of his more notable efforts;

Yeah, about that story... The original version of the story appeared, that anyone can find, in the Richmond Times-Dispatch, in April, 1906, and was reprinted, basically verbatim, in the "Confederate Veteran Magazine", October 1905. Here's that text:

NEGRO COMMUNED AT ST. PAUL'S CHURCH
Col. T. L. Broun, of Charleston, W. Va., writes of having been present at St. Paul's Church, Richmond, Va., just after the war when a negro marched to the communion table ahead of the congregation. His account of the event is as follows:‘Two months after the evacuation of Richmond business called me to Richmond for a few days, and on a Sunday morning in June, 1865, I attended St. Paul's Church. Dr. Minnegerode [sic] preached. It was communion day; and when the minister was ready to administer the holy communion, a negro in the church arose and advanced to the communion table. He was tall, well-dressed, and black. This was a great surprise and shock to the communicants and others present. Its effect upon the communicants was startling, and for several moments they retained their seats in solemn silence and did not move, being deeply chagrined at this attempt to inaugurate the 'new regime' to offend and humiliate them during their most devoted Church services. Dr. Minnegerode [sic., Minnigerode] was evidently embarrassed.

General Robert E. Lee was present, and, ignoring the action and presence of the negro, arose in his usual dignified and self-possessed manner, walked up the aisle to the chancel rail, and reverently knelt down to partake of the communion, and not far from the negro. This lofty conception of duty by Gen. Lee under such provoking and irritating circumstances had a magic effect upon the other communicants (including the writer), who went forward to the communion table. By this action of Gen. Lee the services were conducted as if the negro had not been present. It was a grand exhibition of superiority shown by a true Christian and great soldier under the most trying and offensive circumstances."

So, far from being a story about Lee's racial tolerance, in it's original form, it was a story about Lee's demonstration of superiority over the "trying and offensive circumstances" of a black man having the temerity to show up in his church, basically by ignoring him, or acting "as if the negro had not been present."

[BroJoeK]

AEMILIUS PAULUS: "Lee left with his state, an organized government, whose lawfully elected representatives voted to secede.
The issue was not really slavery but did the national government or the state interpret the constitution correctly?"

This can get confusing if you forget important facts and the precise sequence of events.

• March 3, 1861: Jefferson Davis orders General Beauregard to prepare to assault & seize Union troops in Fort Sumter.

• March 4: Lincoln announces in his inaugural address that secessionists cannot have war unless they start it.

• March 6: Confederate Congress calls up a 100,000 man army, at a time when the entire Union army was just 16,000 most scattered in small posts out west.

• April 4: Virginia's state convention votes 89 to 45 against secession.

• April 6: Lincoln notifies South Carolina Governor Pickens that he is sending ships to resupply -- not reinforce -- Union troops in Fort Sumter.

• April 11: General Beauregard is ordered to demand immediate surrender of Union troops in Fort Sumter.
  When Major Anderson refuses, shelling begins.

• April 14: Anderson surrenders.

• April 15: Lincoln calls up 75,000 troops to retake the Fort Sumter, and others.

• April 16: Virginia Governor John Lechter tells Lincoln to pound salt, he will supply no troops to "subjugate" the South.

• April 17: Virginia reverses its vote, now 88 to 55 for secession.
  Virginia's voters will not confirm this secession until May 23.

• April 18: Robert E Lee declines Lincoln's offer to command all Union forces.
  His response to Lincoln's emissary was:
  "Mr. Blair, I look upon secession as anarchy.
  If I owned the four millions of slaves in the South I would sacrifice them all to the Union; but how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?[75]"

  Two days later, Lee resigns from the Union army.
  At the same time, Lee's close friend and fellow Virginian, George Thomas, remained with the Union Army, eventually becoming one of its best generals, the "Rock of Chickamauga".

So let's pause for a moment here.
At this point in time, war/rebellion has clearly begun but is not yet formally declared, no soldiers have yet been killed in battle.
Yes, Virginia's convention declared secession, but that is not yet confirmed by voters, and it may not even be clear yet if Virginians intend to join the rebellion.
Remember, just five months before, Virginians had voted for neither Southern Democrats nor Northern Republicans, but for John Bell's Constitution Union third party.
Virginians were hoping to steer a "middle road".

So Lee's resignation did not necessarily mean that he was intending then to make war on the United States.
He may simply have hoped to stay out of a war against former states.

Of course, the situation soon clarified:

• April 23: Jefferson Davis offers military aid to Confederates in the Union state of Missouri.
  At the same time, captured Union troops in Texas are treated as POWs.

• April 29: Confederate Congress authorizes war powers to Jefferson Davis.

• May 3: Lincoln calls for another 42,000 Union troops, now 156,000 total.

• May 6: Confederacy formally declares war with the United States.

• May 9: Confederate President Davis calls up another 400,000 troops, now 500,000 total.

• May 10: Davis orders six warships from abroad.
  Lee is appointed commander of Virginia's state forces.

• May 23: Virginia votes 97,750 to 32,134 for secession, to join the Confederacy and its formally declared war on the United States.

• May 24: The first Union troops cross into Virginia, producing their first fatality (though not in battle), Union Col. Elmer Ellsworth.

• June 10: Battle of Big Bethel, Virginia produces the first actual battle deaths of the war.

So Lee's appointment to command Virginia's forces came after the Confederacy's formal declaration of war, but well before Virginia voters ratified secession & war, and before the first Union troops crossed into Virginia, or fought their first battle there.

Of the two Virginia generals -- Lee & Thomas -- I actually like Thomas better: solid as a rock, methodical, accused of being slow (due to prewar wounds & injuries), but always victorious, he was distrusted as a Virginian (and totally rejected by his family), but in the end highly praised by other Union generals, including Grant & Sherman, and by historians.

George Thomas proves that Lee had a choice, and the war's outcome that, as the Grail Knight told Indy: "he chose poorly."
Had Lee as ably served the Union as Thomas, the war would most likely have ended sooner, with far fewer Confederate deaths, especially those of his most beloved Virginians.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Taxes unequally imposed upon the industrial and successful South were used solely in Northern States.

The industrial south? And please, tell us that the government was spending all that money in the north on. You can find the annual reports of the U.S. Treasury here. Perhaps you can point to where that money "used solely in the north" is being spent. Especially when the reports show most of the budget going to the military and the post office.

[x]

His enemies are those that lack hence hate honor.

The idea of Lee's personal honor and general saintliness was promoted for a long time to get around the morally questionable way he turned his back on his oath and long-standing loyalties. Today, we can finally have the discussion about his actions that was put off for so long.

[rockrr]

Just goes to prove the old adage that the history books are written by the victors.

And the losers write the mythologies...

[x]

Lee considered himself a Virginian before American.

When he took his oath as an officer? When he was fighting in the Mexican War? When he was head of West Point?

I can have some sympathy for the difficult choice Lee had to make, but his decision was a questionable one for someone who didn't really believe in secession.

Maybe the fact that so many members of his family opted for secession and the Confederate forces influenced him.

[rockrr]

He's roasting in Hell for his heinous crimes.

If so he's probably trading stories with jeff davis.

[x]

Christopher Dickey is the son of the poet James Dickey, who also wrote the novel Deliverance.

Like Lee, Christopher Dickey gave his life over to a Lost Cause (in his case, Newsweek magazine), and he may be pretty bitter about the magazine meeting its own Appomattox.

Writing penny ante articles for The Daily Beast must also be a comedown from the big expense account days at the magazine.

Apparently, Dickey still lives in Paris, so he may not have much of a clue about present-day US politics.

[CatherineofAragon]

Teach what? Are you drinking? I responded to a claim you made.

You claimed Lee created the Confederacy. Since you made the claim, the burden is on you need to tell us how he did it.

Have you realized what you said was abysmally stupid? Are you desperately trying to save face by deflecting?

2nd fail for RginTN.

[Hulka]

We must, in my opinion, always try and consider the time and place before we try to apply judgments concerning motivations, and that includes the relationship between the federal government and states, especially when we are very different today than what we were as a people back then.

Retrospective conjecture is difficult when we over-lay our own contemporary biases.

We were, back then, “American” but at the same time very much sovereign citizens of our states (10th amendment and all that).

We are so much different today than before that it is very difficult to appreciate/identify the pressures one was under when having to choose between remaining loyal to the federal government or to remain loyal to one’s state.

Therein is the problem.

Even back then, from a federal perspective and a states rights perspective, they both had difficult choices to be made. Whatever choice that was made was not perceived as evil or disloyal, but one made of conscience. Both sides understood that and that is why, I think, so many Northern and Southern officers and men remained friends through-out the struggle. . .especially West Point peers and friends.

Back then and today, how people and the states view their relationship with the federal government is so very much different that we can hardly grasp it (for most anyway).

Please see Post 70 to get an idea as to why I think this.

Post 70 is a quote from an 1896 Congressional Record that proves my point about how much the federal government respected state’s sovereignty, respected it so much the president used the Secretary of State to communicate with the governors. For the federal government and the South to fight was an extraordinary step borne by men of conscience, both sides.

Just my opinion. . .

Cheers.

[RginTN]

You’re very boring dear. Go troll someone else with your pointless posts. Have a good night now.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Have you read Lee's letter of resignation?

Your position and that of others is anachronistic. The issue of primary loyalty in those days was generally towards the state and the county. There was no intent to be disloyal towards the Nation, but the intent was loyalty to the State of Virginia. (By the way I am a Union man.)I'm merely supporting Lee who is becoming a victim of PC. He is part of American greatness.

With regard to Lee there is nothing to discuss, debate or to state "different points of view." It is extremely important to those who are at war with America to denigrate America's great men. Hence, the attack on Washington, Jefferson, Lee etc.