Not sure I'm following your thinking. You are determined to dig yourself deeper into the hole but as you rely on chronological complexities to prevent your subduction into the earth, keep in mind two dates: March 4, 1861 - Lincoln's inauguration and April 12, 1861 when Lincoln staged the Gulf of Tonkin incident, err, I mean the Fort Sumter incident. Between those two dates Mr. Lincoln was busy with his planned usurpations. As others have documented here with facts too clear to deny, the northern states had for years violated the Constitution to the detriment of Southern states. The South had had enough.
You are not the first to wave the bloody shirt and scream “traitor.” Before you and Nikki Haley there was Mr. Leon Scott.
August 1, 1960
Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower
White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
At the Republication Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.
I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.
The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did, was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being held as one of our heroes.
Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?
Sincerely yours,
Leon W. Scott
President Eisenhower replied:
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 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 I 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
To you Hamilton doesn't matter; Jefferson doesn't matter; history doesn't matter. Now you'll say Eisenhower - Kansas boy, graduate of West Point, Supreme Allied Commander of World War II, five-star general, and President of the United States - doesn't matter.
And the reason none of it matters is because you say Robert E. Lee was a traitor. Well, this thread is titled Historical Ignorance.
So, please explain to me how Lincoln “staged” the Fort Sumter incident? Fort Sumter was a United States Army facility, staffed by the US Army under Major Anderson. It was attacked by Confederate forces under General BGT Beauregard. The only thing that the Union forces did to “stage” the battle was to refuse to surrender the fort when demanded to do so by Governor Pickens on January 31, 1861, and attempt to re-supply the fort via the steamer Star of the West on January 9, 1861. Is it your claim that refusing to surrender is a provocation?
You state that between March 4, 1861, when Lincoln was inaugurated, and April 12, 1861 when the Confederacy staged an unprovoked attack at Fort Sumter, he was busy planning his usurpations. Again, this takes us into Back to the Future land as, somehow, Lincoln’s actions in March and April of 1861 caused South Carolina to secede on December 20 1860.
I do think that Eisenhower matters. I think that Hamilton and Jefferson matter. I also think that Grant, who declined to prosecute Lee or any of the other men who fought for the South matters. Heck, I suspect Lincoln, if he had survived, would also have declined to prosecute, and he matters as well. I also happen to believe that Lee was a honorable gentleman and a great general (the third best general of the Civil War, after all). However, the opinions of all these fine gentlemen do not trump the plain language of the Constitution which defines treason as follows: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.” I believe that the plain and unambiguous language of the US Constitution matters much more than the opinions of any of these men, no matter how august or honorable they happen to be. Do you think that we have the right to ignore the language of the Constitution because we don’t like the results in a particular case?
It is beyond ludicrous for anyone to claim that the Army of the Confederacy was not waging war on the United States (the use of the word Army in the title is a giveaway, unless they have red kettles and collect money at Christmas). So, we’re back to the fact that the soldiers and politicians of the Confederacy committed treason ACCORDING TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE CONSTITUTION, and we’re back to the fact that the decision of the government to not prosecute does not alter the fact that the treason occurred.
Ans: 1195 Baltimore Pike.
Yes, the General actually resided in Gettysburg, PA. I had the pleasure of seeing him there in person during the Centennial Commemoration of 1963. Yes, the one hundred year commemoration of the three days battling.
Then he appeared again in Nov 1963 to speak at the 100yr commemoration of Lincoln's Gettysburg Address. If Nov 1963 rings a bell; it should. Kennedy was shot within 3 days of Eisenhower's commemorative address so we little note what Ike said.
I am glad to hear he held Lee in such high regard. I do too. I am a yankee, but somewhat of a southern sympathizer. My heroes are all of those that fought in the Civil War.
When I read that Lee, who never spoke about the War, but led a very quiet life as the president of a college, called out to A.P.Hill on his deathbed....... I shed a tear. When I read that Stonewall Jackson's last words were, "let us cross the river and rest in the shade of the trees." I shed a tear.
Lee didn't turn down Lincoln's offer to lead the Union Army based on politics. Lee considered himself a Virginian. Lee's allegiance was to his State.
And Joshua Chamberlin of the 20th Maine.....
Lincoln spoke of a "new birth of freedom" in The Gettysburg Address. Lincoln had a complete and unwavering perspective on his times. He knew that the turmoil was the forging of the new nation, an issue not quite resolved in 1776.