Lee, Virginia, and the Union

https://www.abbevilleinstitute.org ^ | March 27, 2019 | Fred H. Cox

[NKP_Vet]

The Hall of Fame recently dedicated at New York Uni­versity was conceived from the Ruhmes Halle in Bavaria. This structure on University Heights, on the Harlem river, in the borough of the Bronx, New York City, has, or is in­tended to have, a panel of bronze with other mementos for each of one hundred and fifty native-born Americans who have been deceased at least ten years, and who are of great character and fame in authorship, education, science, art, soldiery, statesmanship, philanthropy, or in any worthy un­dertaking. Fifty names were to have been chosen at once; but, on account of a slight change of plans, only twenty-nine have been chosen, and twenty-one more will be in 1902. The remaining one hundred names are to be chosen during the century, five at the end of each five years. The present judges of names to be honored are one hundred representa­tive American scholars in different callings. They are most­ly Northern men, although at least one judge represents each State.

[an amused spectator]

The well-known traitor Dwight Eisenhower tlaks about the traitor Robert E. Lee:

Dwight D. Eisenhower in Defense of Robert E. Lee
https://www.civilwarprofiles.com/dwight-d-eisenhower-in-defense-of-robert-e-lee/

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
====================

Let's see: who are we going to believe about the great American Robert E. Lee?

Anonymous Internet smear artists and gasbags, or General Dwight D. Eisenhower? ;-)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

The election of a U.S. President is quite different from the adoption of a constitutional amendment per the constitution.

Yes, but the election of a administration and congressional majorities that will push for a constitutional amendment is usually the first step to making such a thing happen.

Lincoln had the votes to become president but he did not believe he had the votes to abolish slavery peacefully by constitutional amendment. What Lincoln needed was a war.

Wait, I thought Lincoln didn't care anything about slavery and the war was only about tariffs.

I'm having trouble keeping y'alls theories straight.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Let's see: who are we going to believe about the great American Robert E. Lee?

You can believe who you want to. And I'll grant that Lee was, in many ways, an honorable man. But that still leaves these simple facts: An officer of the United States Army left that Army in a time of crisis to take up arms against the United States, leading forces that caused hundreds of thousands of deaths of soldiers wearing the uniform and carrying the flag he had forsaken.

[an amused spectator]

I’m glad that Eisenhower was thoughtful enough to leave a smackdown to take care of the Internet Antifa SJW smearbots like yourself. ;-)

[sparklite2]

Wait, I thought Lincoln didn’t care anything about slavery and the war was only about tariffs.

---

Lincoln himself said he was about preserving the Union, not abolishing slavery. But believers gonna believe.

[an amused spectator]

Lincoln himself said he was about preserving the Union, not abolishing slavery. But believers gonna believe.

It's not what Lincoln said that's important.

It's what today's Marxist indoctrinators have hypnotised the Woke SJW sewer rats on the Internet into believing. ;-)

[sparklite2]

It’s what today’s Marxist indoctrinators have hypnotised the Woke SJW sewer rats on the Internet into believing. ;-)

---

That’s why I like my media bubble. I can’t hear their laments.

[an amused spectator]

Today's Good News:

The Wisconsin Lefty-Media smear campaign against Judge Brian Hagedorn [Wisconsin Supreme Court] failed, and he was elected yesterday over a Planned Parenthood Democrat Machine Commie hoe.

There is much lamenting today in the Berkeley of the Midwest, Dane County.

Hagedorn's margin appears to be "ballot harvesting"-proof, too. :-)

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

So apparently you’re cool with officers leaving the US Army to fight against the United States. Good to know. There are people in prison for that right now who weren’t even in the armed forces. I guess we should let them out, right?

[an amused spectator]

Note to self:

The yellow on the backs of Internet Antifa SJW smearbots is the same color as the yellow staining their underwear at the thought of engaging in the battles that Eisenhower and Robert E. Lee fought.

[jeffersondem]

“And I’ll grant that Lee was, in many ways, an honorable man.”

In your post 119 you state: “Let’s see...left the army to take arms against the United States. Sounds like a traitor to me.”

You have styled General Lee as an honorable man and a traitor. How do you reconcile those conflicting views?

[BroJoeK]

BJK to jeffersondem: "So let's ask you, jeffersondem, what do you think?"

jeffersondem: "Lincoln was wrong to take up arms to overthrow the pro-slavery provisions of the United States Constitution - if that was what he was doing."

So, IOW: foolish of me to ask a question jeffersondem is never, ever going to answer, right?

And that question is?

"Constitutionally, should Union troops have returned fugitive slaves to Confederate 'masters'? "

I'll even stipulate that Lincoln originally opposed keeping "Contrabands", but the Army insisted and Congress passed the Confiscation Act in August 1861. then in March 1862 the Act Prohibiting Return of Fugitive Slaves.

So what do you think, jeffersondem: should fugitive slaves be returned to countries or states at war against the United States?

Think long & hard before you answer, FRiend.

[BroJoeK]

jeffersondem: "What Lincoln needed was a war.
But first he needed a pretext for war."

No need for a "pretext" when real acts of war were being committed by Confederates for months, from seizures of major Federal properties, to firing on Union ships, to threatening Union officials.

So Fort Sumter was not the first "pretext", it was simply the largest & latest of many.
And on Fort Sumter, President Buchanan announced publicly in January 1861 that the US would not surrender Fort Sumter without a fight, and a "fight" there would mean war, a fact which cannot have escaped Confederate leadership.
Confederate Secretary of State, Robert Toombs to Jefferson Davis:

"Mr. President, at this time it is suicide, murder, and will lose us every friend at the North.
You will wantonly strike a hornet's nest which extends from mountain to ocean, and legions now quiet will swarm out and sting us to death.
It is unnecessary; it puts us in the wrong; it is fatal."[18]"

So Davis knew exactly what he was doing when he started war at Fort Sumter.

[BroJoeK]

wbarmy: "“Lincoln might have set a trap . . .”

jeffersondem: "Yes he did and it has a name: the Gulf of Tonkin Incident.
Errrr . . . I meant to say the Fort Sumter Incident."

If Fort Sumter was a "trap", then it was set by Jefferson Davis and his cronies like SC Governor Pickens, who for months demanded Fort Sumter's surrender, threatened Union officials and fired on Union ships there.
Outgoing President Buchanan could have used any such incident as his "pretext" for war, but preferred to hold the status quo until Lincoln's inauguration.

So it's ludicrous to call that "Lincoln's trap", when he did nothing more than attempt to resupply Union troops in that Union fort.

In the past I've used the example of FDR sending the US Navy to protect Hawaii in 1940, it immediately provoked the Japanese to begin planning their December 7, 1941 attack.
Well... our Lost Causers don't like that example, so let's chose another, more "neutral" one:

In 1948 Joseph Stalin decided that Berlin, by rights, belonged to him, not the western allies, so he closed the borders and all land access routes to the city.
The western allies responded with the Berlin Airlift.
It worked and Stalin eventually caved, no incident, no pretext, no war.
Stalin had the good sense Jefferson Davis lacked.

The Berlin Airlift equates to what would have happened if Jefferson Davis had followed his Secretary of State's advice.

[BroJoeK]

an amused spectator: "The Fort Sumter incident appears to have been a threat to force Southern ports to respect the Morrill Tariff of the insolent Northern industrial godfathers."

Only to Lost Cause blinded partisans.
In reality, Lincoln had only two choices -- resupply his troops in Fort Sumter or give it up without a fight, something President Buchanan had promised in January not to.
Lincoln chose the former.

[BroJoeK]

an amused spectator quoting Eisenhower "... 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."

an amused spectator: "Let's see: who are we going to believe about the great American Robert E. Lee?
Anonymous Internet smear artists and gasbags, or General Dwight D. Eisenhower? ;-)"

I share Eisenhower's views on Lee as a soldier, but on this particular point, Eisenhower is wrong.
The fact is no Founder ever proposed unilateral unapproved secession at pleasure, meaning without a "long train of abuses and usurpations" such as listed in our Declaration of Independence.
For a detailed discussion on this, see James Madison's letter to Nicholas Trist.

And yet "at pleasure" is exactly what Deep South Fire Eaters did beginning in November 1860 while their own party still ruled over Washington DC.

So Eisenhower was simply wrong is saying the issue was unresolved from the beginning.
In fact, our Founders understood clearly what did or did not justify disunion, and none would agree that Fire Eaters had it right in 1860.

[BroJoeK]

an amused spectator to Bubba Ho-Tep: "The yellow on the backs of Internet Antifa SJW smearbots is the same color as the yellow staining their underwear at the thought of engaging in the battles that Eisenhower and Robert E. Lee fought."

It's been awhile since we've seen a poster as devoted to insults as an amused spectator.
Seems to me those insults are not just an occasional thing, not even the main thing but apparently the only think he truly cares about.

But there is a silver lining to an amused spectator's dark cloud -- some on these threads trash Eisenhower for any of several reasons.
It appears that an amused spectator is an Eisenhower fan-boy, as am I.

So, we'll take our little points of agreement wherever we might find them, improbable as they can be... ;-)

[an amused spectator]

Anonymous Last-Worder dude on Internet:

"but on this particular point, Eisenhower is wrong."

Okey-dokey, anonymous Last-Worder dude.

[an amused spectator]

BTW, anonymous Internet dude BroJoeK.

I'm beginning to tire of your little act of stirring up trouble on these threads, so quit posting to me, OK?

Thanks in advance.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You have styled General Lee as an honorable man and a traitor. How do you reconcile those conflicting views?

Gosh, you caught me trying to say something nice. I thought the "in many ways" covered it, but okay, if you insist on more detail.

Lee appears to have acted with great rectitude in many aspects of his life, but in his abandonment of the nation to which he had been born, and to which he had dedicated years of service, in order to take arms against that same nation and fight against the flag he once served under, killing men whose uniform he once claimed to wear proudly, he failed to live up to that standard.

Does that satisfy you?