Replies

Above article was originally published in the Sewanee Review in 1903.

“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........ 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.” -Pres. Dwight Eisenhower, 8-9-1960

In order to argue that Independence is a constitutional issue, one must claim that the US Constitution rebukes the Declaration of Independence, which is the foundation of our own country.

Coming 11 years after the Declaration was signed by many of the same people who participated in the Constitutional convention, it is unlikely they had forgotten what they did in 1776.

Gen Lee was an oathbreaker, if nothing else.

He swore an oath to the United States and broke it.

He swore to not serve in the Confederate military and broke his oath.

He swore to only join to defend Virginia and broke it.

He swore to win the war and failed.

There is little if nothing to emulate in Gen Lee.

Eisenhower was born in 1890 when memories of the war were beginning to fade. He graduated West Point in 1915, when the country was trying to sew North and South back together and Civil War revisionism was in full swing. West Point, the alma mater of Lee and Grant (and Sherman and Davis) which educated officers for the arm had to be especially devoted to keeping North and South together and blurring the differences that had caused the war. So it's not surprising that Ike thought as he did. If he - and many others - didn't, who knows what would have happened to the country?

By the time Ike passed away (1970), people were beginning to question the revisionist ideas that had predominated in the previous decades, so it's not surprising that fewer people nowadays think is he did. Holding the country together now seems to involve keeping different races, rather than different regions, together and that's altered views of the past. But it's not really a modern distortion. It's also a recovery of bitter past divisions that early 20th century Americans papered over in the name of national unity.

The interesting thing about past views of Lee is how modern they are. Lee was admired because of his personal qualities and because of the deep personal conflicts and sufferings that people believe he endured. He wasn't really examined in light of whether he was right or wrong or of what effects his actions had, but according to subjective and emotional criteria. People who were quite severe in their judgments of other historical figures had something of a soft spot when it came to Lee.