[dinoparty]

I've always thought it a little strange that Lee would recieve nearly universal acclaim in the United States after leading the most deadly war AGAINST the United States. (Waiting to be flamed.) I guess it speaks to the fact that a whole segment of our population fought and died for the cause that he led, and human nature demands that meaning be ascribed to such sacrifice.

But I agree that the worship of Lee is no worse than the worship of the traitorous anti-Vietnam War leaders.

[altura]

You should really wait to post until you have a vague idea of what you're talking about.

[billbears]

Lee led a noble cause, fighting for at least part of the Republic to be governed as the Framers designed it. I consider Robert E. Lee to be one of the greatest men this nation of states has ever seen. God bless his memory

[Alberta's Child]

You have to understand these things in the context of their time. Lee was a Virginian first, and an American second (that's the way this country existed for its first 70 years). If the Virginia legislature had voted to join the Union instead of voting to secede, he would have been a Union general.

To this day, Robert E. Lee is remembered as one of the the best students ever to graduate from the United States Military Academy at West Point.

[CatoRenasci]

Our civil war was unique. The only things remotely similar, are the English Civil War -- and many to this day honor the Royalists -- and the '45, the Stuarts again, but also romantiziced in way not dissimilar to our romanticization of the (variously styled) War of the Rebellion, Civil War, War Between the States, War of Northern Agression (which is modern) and (my favorites) The War (I grew up knowing many Southerners who had grown up during Reconstruction, and their usual way of referring to it was as "THE War", sometimes with an emphasis on the "THE") and (sometimes heard in the late 19th and early 20th centuries) the Late Unpleasantness.

[SouthernBoyupNorth]

I will not flame you. General Lee was a tactician, a scholar, a man of principles who fought for what he saw as the truth. He fought with honor and nobility, unlike some Northern Generals. When he finally surrendered he did so knowing that the cause he fought for was lost. At that point he bent his will toward healing the wounds that the war had made, unlike certain Northern leaders who took advantage of the war torn and ravaged south. If you read your history... not the leftist revisionist kind.... but real history you would know.
Ever read about the burning of Atlanta? The salting of fields by that oh so noble Northern General Sherman? Its not covered in a lot of history books and is generally a side issue. But that "honorable" general sacked, burnt, raided, and looted his way south, sowing fields with rock salt and making good farm land unusable for decades to come.... I could go on but whats the point... its history and done with. Time to leave the scars alone and get on with life....

[Panic in the Streets]

So if it weren't for Lee, there wouldn't have been a war??

LOL, get a clue!

[KC_Conspirator]

I know it may seem strange that Lee led the army of a such a disgraceful cause and was let go scot-free, but thats the way it had to be. In fact, there were calls for mass executions of southern traitors at the time, but complete and total absolution was the way that won out because some people realized that it was the only way to start the healing process.

[altura]

You said, "But I agree that the worship of Lee is no worse than the worship of the traitorous anti-Vietnam War leaders"

There are a lot of really stupid comments made in Free Republic, and you probably are not in the top ten or even twenty, but then, maybe you are.

Obviously, you know very little about Robert E. Lee or the War Between the States, or, as we call it, the War of Northern Agression.

That being said, I wonder that you would post.

If you expect me to give you a biography of Lee or a history of the Civil War, I don't have time, and you wouldn't read it, but if you want to be informed, it's relatively easy to find out a few things.

There!

Happy now?

[ExGeeEye]

Personal opinion: it is a key part of the post-war reconciliation (to which some on both sides will not agree to this day) to recognize that both sides consisted of Americans who revered, in conflicting ways, the ideals of the founders of the United States. By that standard, R.E. Lee, T.J. Jackson, et al can be called today "patriotic Americans" even if, for a time, their patriotism was applied to other than the government in Washington.

This from th Gt.Gt. Grandson of a member of the 161st NY Vols.

Then there is the fact that students of history and military men can admire the skill and bravery even of their opponents, even in the midst of conflict; Patton and Montgomery cordially hated each other, and admired Rommel, Monty to the point of keeping Rommel's portrait in his HQ.

This from the nephew of a member of the 101st Abn Div, wounded at the Bulge.

And I did my time too :)

[MikefromOhio]

Without Lee, the Confederacy would have been very hard pressed to hold off the Union forces as well and as long as they did under Gen. Johnson or anyone else other than Lee, especially in that first campaign when McClellan brought so many soldiers onto the Peninsular.....

His tactics, his motivations and his part in making the spirit of the Confederate soldiers went a LONG way to almost winning the war.

As for Grant, He was a brilliant tactician, but had Grant and Lee faced off BEFORE Gettysburg, it would have been very interesting to see who won. After Gettysburg, Grant just did what was obvious and what needed to be done for his side to win.