President Eisenhower Letter-Honor Robert E. Lee

The Citizen ^ | 9 Oct 2006 | James W. King

[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

[archy]

Don't misunderstand; I have great admiration for Patton, and I suspect, underneath it all so did Ike and Bradly, or at least shared some of his thoughts on the Soviets, whether they publicaly admitted it (at that time) or not.

Wouldn't it have been interesting to have followed Patton's activities five years after the close of the Second World War, had Patton's life not been taken in the vehicle "accident" that claimed his life.

A Patton-versus-MacArthur brawl to see which was top dog would have been unpleasant, but Patton as a replacement for Mac [instead of former Airborne General Matt Ridgway] would have no doubt terrorized the North Koreans, Chinese and Russian Soviets, as well as their sympathizers at the UN and in the U.S. State Department. But somehow, I suspect he would have gotten along with the tough little former artillery officer from Missouri as his commander-in-chief, and would have performed miracles for him.

[carton253]

Sounds like archy has the makings of a great novel. I want the first draft on my desk within a year... so get crackin'.

[Non-Sequitur]

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...

Charming to the end, aren't you?

[Non-Sequitur]

Do you hate George Washington too?

George Washington recognized loyalty to one's country came before loyalty to one's state. Something Lee didn't see to understand.

[PeaRidge]

Well, here are your assertions to carton253:

"In fact, the only confederate general or leader who might have taken that class was Albert Sidney Johnson.

That is an assertion that you cannot prove.

Another of yours:

"So if Lee ever heard of Rawle, he doesn't appear to have taken the course and could hardly be expected to be influenced by the book."

Another assertion you cannot prove.

Just keep your non-sequiturs to yourself.

[Non-Sequitur]

Another assertion you cannot prove.

Nor can you apparently disprove. Evidence apparently being an unknown concept to you, Pea.

[archy]

I think to really delve into an answer to that you would have to separate the role of Generals into two categories: Field Generals vs. Organizational Generals.

A serious study of such leadership really requires three categories. Try as *Marshals,* those who led entire armies on multiple fronts, then your *Field Generals* leading multi-Corps and multi-divisional Armies, and finally simply *Generals* operating Divisions or Brigades- usually.

My nominees would be: Patton and Lee as Field Generals and Marshall and Ike as Organizational Generals

*Marshals*: George C. Marshall , Halder, Zhukov, F.M. Alexander Suvarov ,von Moltke, Alexander III, king of Macedon, Frederick II of Prussia

*Field Generals*: Patton, Lee, Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur , George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Gen. Sir Bernard Law Montgomery

*Generals, Brigade and Divisional*: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Patrick Cleburne, Stonewall Jackson, Scipio Africanus, George Henry Thomas, Zhuge Liang, MGen John E. Sloan, Gotthard Heinrici, LtGen. John [Iron Mike] O’Daniel

I would also scratch Sherman. The actions of his troops on the March to the Sea should have resulted in his Court Martial.

Sherman's bungled relief of Burnside at Knoxville takes him out of the running in any event. Ever wonder why there's no major stateside U.S. military base named Ft. Sherman? [Though there's one in Panama...]

Remember Napolean's dictum that a good commander may be forgiven being defeated should superior numbers or resources be thrown at him, but cannot ever suffer being surprised....

And too, it's a mark of a good leader if he sets an example for his troops by surviving the wars in which he's fought.

[archy]

Sounds like archy has the makings of a great novel. I want the first draft on my desk within a year... so get crackin'.

I'm a newspaperman, not a novelist. I'm working on something a bit more recent.

[Smittie]

I was referring to Washington owning slaves, but I'd bet ol' King George viewed Washington as something less than a patriot.

Again your perception of Lee depends on your view of states' rights. Lee did work after the war was over to heal the wounds caused by the conflict.

[colorado tanker]

Ike is one of my American heroes. From what I've read of Ike's speeches and writings, betcha he personally wrote this letter.

[carton253]

Why confine Jackson to Brigade or Division? I think he should be included in the list of Patton and Lee. In my opinion, the Valley Campaign alone solidly puts him there.

[carton253]

Newspapermen can't be novelists? Okay...make it two years. But no more!!!

[Locomotive Breath]

The north wants to wrap itself in the cloak of moral superiority. I wonder if the war would have turned out differently if Lee had been willing to make aggressive war on an undefended civilian population and leave a trail of pillage, starvation and smoldering wreckage in his wake as did Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant (among others)? These actions we would condemn today as war crimes. So you have to ask yourself - did the civilized side win?

[wagglebee]

BTTT!

Great thread!

[carton253]

The responsibility for the total war waged against the South rests with Grant. Sherman and Sheridan were his subordinates and were carrying out orders.

Grant understood that the agriculture of the South kept the Confederates in the field. He wanted to destroy the South's ability to wage war.

It was harsh...but he believed it necessary to end the war as quickly as possible and save lives ultimately.

It was a strategy that Lincoln endorsed, and Lincoln made the right choice. It was the same type of decision that we made in World War II... Total war against Germany and Japan's ability to wage war. If Grant and Sherman are to be held as criminals, then so should the generals who made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan.

Jackson had the same attitude. He said that war was the sum of evil, but if we (the South) were going to wage war, then the South needed to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard. Raise the black-flag. If you read some of the correspondence that Jackson wrote to Lee about going North, you would see the same attitude. Where Jackson and Sherman differed is there was nothing in Jackson's attitude or actions to suggest he would allow his soldiers to burn down homes or steal their wealth. He was strict on looters and wouldn't even allow the destruction of fence rails for fire wood.

[Locomotive Breath]

But when we did what we did to Germany and Japan THEY had started that kind of warfare first. That puts the north in some pretty uncomfortable company.

Your comments about Jackson proved my point. He had his starving and cold soldiers bypass food and firewood that were in the hands of noncombatants. And you didn't answer my question. Would the war have ended more quickly (and differently) if Lee have been willing to wage total warfare first?

I only make these remarks to defend Lee from those who would condemn him.

[carton253]

I am sorry...you are right. I did not answer your question.

Lee would have never engaged in that type of warfare. It would have been alien to him.

If he had, would the war have ended differently? I think so because I think his military ability far outweighed any general from the Union. (My father vigorously debates this with me - he's a Grant man).

As for WWII, we did not engage in total war as a revenge tactic. We engaged in total war because it was the only way to end the war quickly and reduce causalities.

[archy]

Newspapermen can't be novelists? Okay...make it two years. But no more!!!

There have been exceptions, some of whom have churned out some pretty good yarns [former Reuters and BBC newsie Freddy Forsyth and Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Hunter's books make a pretty fair read.

And I once pitched an idea about a possible early-days FBI agent's involvement in the Lindbergh kidnapping, though it's not hit print.

Besides, I've come to the conclusion reached after 35 years in the racket that the real stories are more fantastic than the fictional ones, if usually not as tidy or neatly concluded.

[carton253]

One more thing. I think all wars should be total wars.

When Ronald Reagan was asked how we should fight in Vietnam, he replied..."We should go in at breakfast, pave it over by lunch, and be home by dinner."

[Locomotive Breath]

"As for WWII, we did not engage in total war as a revenge tactic. We engaged in total war because it was the only way to end the war quickly and reduce causalities."

Perhaps, but we would never have been able to justify doing it without the other side sinking so low first.

Just to be clear: I fully support the dropping of the bomb to end the war as my father was in the Navy and in Pacific and that let him come home sooner rather than later. Fortunately, as someone with an engineering degree, he was on the destroyer tender U.S.S. Dixie and wasn't shot at much, but, still.