Posted on 10/17/2006 5:18:26 PM PDT by bushpilot1
Eisenhower letter regarding Robert E. Lee
President Dwight Eisenhower wrote the following letter in response to one he received dated August 1, 1960, from Leon W. Scott, a dentist in New Rochelle, New York. Scott’s letter reads:
“Dear Mr. President:
“At the Republican 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 hailed as one of our heroes.
“Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?
Sincerely yours,
“Leon W. Scott”
Eisenhower's response, written on White House letterhead on August 9, 1960 reads as follows:
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 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 belief 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 caliber 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
Nor do you. Admit it.
You do not know that to be fact.
And you don't know it to be wrong. Admit it.
The point is you are pushing a non-peer reviewed essay by an obscure writer which only quotes one source, Dudley, wherein he uses the term "probably" to summarize his work.
Which is still more than you've been able to offer in rebuttle.
More of your panic stricken efforts to mislead.
This from the master.
Quote: Rawle's view was accepted by the mass of both students and instructors (At West Point Military Academy)
That was from Charles Francis Adams grandson of President John Q. Adams
Lee didn't own any slaves, he freed the slaves that were inherited from Mrs. Lee's side. He did what he thought was his duty. What would you do if an army was heading toward your home? Your hatred of Lee has skewed your sense of historical perspective.
Lee didn't start the war, he didn't want the war but felt bound by the sense of duty that was part of the chivalric code of the era.
You need to cite the verses Paul wrote condemning slavery. The verses I'm familiar with that he wrote told the masters to treat their slaves well and for the slaves to obey their masters.
Slavery of course is bad, but back in history many thought it was good because it introduced the slaves to Christianity. That's why it's difficult to judge those who lived in the past by today's standards.
Good Point
The much-abused phrase of jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal" is explanied here in its histroical context. As Rawel states under the system of monarchy the king is supreme to all citizens, and above the common law. The king is declared and denoted as the "Sovereign." Therefore his will is law whereas his subjects are bound by law. Under the republican system, the people of the sovereign community are sovereign; there, no one person is above the law, hence "all men are created equal." Nowhere in Jefferson's statement is there to be found the notion absolute human equality. Jefferson belived in human inequality and in a society of degrees. Jefferson advanced the principle that the people of a political community were equal, and he promoted the idea of equality of opportunity.
Patton and Lee as Field Generals and Marshall and Ike as Organizational Generals
However, Lee filled the role of an organizational General during the early years of the CW. I am not sure which other Generals accomplished both tasks.
I would also scratch Sherman. The actions of his troops on the March to the Sea should have resulted in his Court Martial.
He is fighting because his code of honor requires it. An army of westerners has invaded his homeland in the Arabian peninsula and the middle east generally. Israel, supported by the US, occupies Muslim land, as does Spain, Greece and Serbia.
Osama didn't start the war, the west did, in the 1920s by destroying the caliphate, in 1948 by establishing Israel, and in 1492, by driving the Moors from Spain.
Osama, by Muslim belief, culture and logic, is an honorable, valiant, brave and just warrior. His religion commands him to do what he does, and it is a duty upon all Muslims.The brave and moral among the Muslims, though, are the ones that refuse to kill innocents, or convert by the sword, or wage violent jihad.
Neither Robert E. Lee or Osama Bin Laden used their talents in the service of what we would consider good, and as a result, are not deserving of honor or glory. They had personal honor, under their own moral codes, that I will readily admit, and said as much several times.
My point regarding conversion was not to claim that Lee made a deathbed conversion, but to state the true fact that not all Christians believe that just because someone repeats the tenets of faith do they get a free pass into heaven. Some crimes might just be deserving of hell no matter how truly you believe in Jesus Christ, perhaps because if you truly believed in Him, you would not be capable of committing the sinful acts. You deny Him with such acts.
From the letter to Philemon:
“For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love— and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus.” (1:8-9 NRSV)
“I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me. I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.” (1:10- 14 NIV)
Paul is saying that his correspondent should release Onesimus from slavery. Paul will not command it, but ask him to do so, as a Christian doing the right thing. Funny that there are still Christians who try to justify the practice of slavery 20 centuries later. It was and remains a sin for a Christian to enslave another human. The Spanish recognized this; their priests argued that the Indians were humans and not animals, and so not subject to slavery, but to conversion. Once it was admitted that they were human, slavery was forbidden.
Patton and Lee as Field Generals and Marshall and Ike as Organizational Generals
Can't argue with that. Patton and Lee were masters on the battlefield, Ike and Marshall did their best work in anonymity while MacArthur and Patton got the headlines.
The best at both jobs? Omar Bradley, perhaps?
BTW: Bradley and Patton could, and often did, run circles around Ike when it came to operations in 1944-45. Patton was put on a leash by SHAEF, so Bradley, knowing he was planning an offensive, would instruct him to not "be able" to contact him for 48 hours. Then the 3rd Army would roll...
Lee had a bad week. No question about it.
But he had lots of help. Virtually all of his chief subordinates let him down: Stuart, Hill, Heth, Ewell...and (albeit not to the extent Early argued) Longstreet.
And being on the defensive, Meade had very little to do. It was left to subordinate commanders to simply stand firm at critical moments. Most of the credit, such as it is, goes to Buford, Reynolds, Hancock, Hunt, Custer, and Chamberlain.
Thank you for that. Now, it all makes sense. (sarcasm off)
Bump to this...I will answer you later this morning. I have some historical writings that you might find interesting.
He did not understand that the aggressiveness that was attributed to Hill and Ewell came from Stonewall Jackson. Without his leadership Hill and Ewell were lost. They were not Corps commanders. They were good at saying "how high" when Jackson told them to jump. After Gettysburg, Lee understood that, and you can see the changes he made in his leadership style.
Furthermore, if Jackson had been present, there was a good chance there would be no Gettysburg. Two reasons - Jackson understood that Hooker lost at Chancellorsville moment the he sent his cavalry away. Second, the objective was Harrisburg... Ewell approached tentatively, slowly allowing the militia time to burn the bridge at York and stopping the forward advance.
Of course the beauty of discussing tactics after a battle is that we can see so clearly what should have happened and what did not. Because we see with such clarity, we sometimes believe that the Lee or Meade should have seen equally clear.
The facts were that on July 2, Lee told Longstreet to attack up the Emmittsburg Road in a flanking movement to conquer the high ground at the Peach Orchard to use artillery to support the flanking move on Cemetery Ridge. Even though the movie Gettysburg shows the brilliance of Chamberlain on Little Round Top, this was not the thrust of the attack. I believe General Evander Law writes after the battle, that when his men began the attack on Round Top, he knew they out of position, and he tried to turn them back up the Emmittsburg Road.
On July 3, Lee attempted the flanking move again starting closer to Cemetery Ridge than he did on the 2nd. He began his attack with a feu d'enfer and then had his men step off.
Two things changed during the course of time. Lee's objective on that day was not a little clump of trees. That little myth would come at the turn of the century after some cosmetic changes had occurred on the battle field. The move Gettysburg shows Pickett walking directly from Seminary Ridge to Cemetery Ridge.
This is not true. Walk Seminary Ridge and you will see the markers for Armistead, Kemper, and Garnett down almost in front of the Round Tops. Look at the magazines that were printed right after the battle, and they reveal a huge sweeping flank movement. Pickett came up the Emmittsburg Road. Furthermore, Hancock wrote that he believed Lee was going to go through his flank.
Now, Hancock also wrote that he believed Lee was flanking him to get to the large wooded area on top of Cemetery Hill and not some tiny clump of trees.
Change these two things - Where the ANV were positioned and where they were going...and the battle change immensely.
Back to JEB Stuart. Stuart has gotten a raw deal throughout history and because of the movie Gettysburg in my opinion.
(I took a course in the Civil War at university and before I realized that the prof's opinion was the only one he wanted to hear because it was the only one ((in his opinion)) that mattered - I opined on Stuart's motives. The Proftold me I was wrong about Stuart and didn't I see the movie Gettysburg. When I said, it was a movie and not history, I actually thought he was going to attack me ((seriously)). So, he spent the next few weeks humiliating me, but I didn't care.)
Any student of the Civil War knows that after Lee's death (and only after Lee's death), Longstreet wrote a series of articles defending his actions at Gettysburg and putting the blame for the defeat on Robert E. Lee. Lee's aides fought back through the papers.
JEB Stuart's name was dragged into the argument. Soon, it became Stuart's absence that caused the loss. Stuart has been blamed for being AWOL or tryng to redeem himself for the draw at Brandy Station, or taking advantage of vague orders to gain more glory. As Harrison the scout/actor says in the Gettysburg that JEB Stuart was only trying to get his name in the paper.
When Stuart's actions as Gettysburg were questioned, John Mosby, Stuart's aides and Jubal Early then entered the fray.
Lee wrote in his official report that the lack of cavalry contributed to the loss. I do not disagree with Lee alot, but I do here.
There are two main issues to take up. What were Stuart's orders? First of all, John Mosby, scouting the Union position came to Stuart and told him that he could inflict damage by riding between Hooker and Washington. Stuart sent an inquiry to Lee asking if this was possible. Lee and Longstreet said yes, with conditions, but it was up to Stuart to use his discretion.
Stuart took three brigades with him...leaving Lee two brigades, plus Jenkin's brigade to go with Early, who was in front of the army. This gave Lee 2500 horsemen. So, Lee had cavalry. Lee chose not to use Jones and Robertson leaving them in the Valley, yet Stuart left them with Lee to be his eyes and ears. If Lee was blind; it was self inflicted. Jones and Robertson would surely have discovered Buford's forward movement if Lee had called for them. He eventually did, but only after the armies had made contact.
Stuart's objective, the army's objective was not Gettysburg. Gettysburg was where Lee turned around because of the ground and the roads. Stuart's orders were to go to York and meet up with Early.
I do not have the source from the quote (I am not at home), but after Mosby made his case, Longstreet wrote Stuart's defenders and told them that he was wrong, and the battle was not lost because of Stuart.
Stuart did know that the Union was on move. He sent word to Lee that Hancock was moving. These couriers were captured and did not reach Lee.
And...Stuart's presence between the army and Washington delayed Sedgwick and the 6th Corp, who was used to keep Stuart from Washington.
The other charge against Stuart is that he had captured 125 wagons and had them with him and with Lee in such need, should have abandoned them and hurried to Lee. Gathering supplies was an important part of his mission. Those wagons and mules and the supplies they carried were needed. So, Stuart comes to York as ordered...no Early and no word left. Stuart had to find the army why? Again Gettysburg not the objective...Harrisburg was. When word reached Stuart that the army was at Gettysburg, he sent Fitzhugh Lee and his brigade to Lee, then followed.
Your explanation of Stuart makes a tremendous amount of sense. The "Gettysburg" version portrays him as being on the verge of insubordination. Never seemed to make the sense that goes with the Stuart and Lee personalities. But then again, folks have re-written this, that, and the other for the fame and glory of it all. This view probably raked in the bucks for the Gettysburg folks too.
All in all, my guess would also be because Jackson was no longer on the scene. One of the leaders was forever gone, and it just hadn't really sunk in to Lee's mind yet!
It only took Lee one battle to figure it out. Unfortunately, it was Gettysburg, but that is war. Jackson could not be replaced, and the Army of Northern Virginia suffered from his loss the rest of the war.
The only thing about movies is that they become accepted truth. It makes us lazy. When a historian goes back to the original sources and tries to correct the record, they are dismissed because (gasp) that's not the way it happened in the movie.
Stuart did the job he had always been expected to do. With the army in Northern territory, cut off from their own supply lines, they had to gather provisions by taking them from the Union army. Had he shown up at Lee's headquarters with 125 wagons loaded with supplies and munitions on June 30th instead of a few days later then his reception would have been a whole lot different. As someone else pointed out earlier, Lee had sufficient cavalry to scout the Union army. He just misused it.
All in all, my guess would also be because Jackson was no longer on the scene. One of the leaders was forever gone, and it just hadn't really sunk in to Lee's mind yet!
Had it only been the loss of Jackson the confederacy could have muddled on. But a campaign into enemy territory is a daunting enough challenge without adding an army reorganization (two corps into three), two new corps commanders (Hill and Ewell), half a dozen new division commanders, and a number of new brigade commanders, and so on, and so on. None of Ewells division commanders had worked for him before, and for the most part it was the same with Hill. With as many senior commanders as that new to their commands then confusion is to be expected. It was unfortunate timing.
Jackson could have motivated the Yankees to fight for the Confederacy! Cause if they didn't, they'd be on the receiving end of...
And therein lies the fear and dread the Yankees had for the Stonewall Brigade...
You are such a slow learner. And a bit on the CS side, since you do a take-off from my post, and all the time lack the nerve to actually use my name. Go and post to those who appreciate your twisted, bought and paid for nonsense...
I guess it boils down to your beliefs about states' rights, if you don't believe in them than Lee was a traitor, if you do then he was loyal to his country at the time, the C.S.A.
Some crimes might just be deserving of hell no matter how truly you believe in Jesus Christ, perhaps because if you truly believed in Him, you would not be capable of committing the sinful acts.
Under that logic we're all doomed unless you discovered how to live a sinless life. What about the thief on the cross?
I don't know many people who still justify slavery but certainly their views were different back then.
Do you hate George Washington too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.