Robert E. Lee: Icon of the South -- and American Hero

American Spectator ^ | 1/30/07 | HW Crocker III

[stainlessbanner]

Marse Robert

[the OlLine Rebel]

I know there is a celebration - I think sponsored by the SCV - at a monument in Baltimore every year. A friend/co-director from a mutual organization goes there every year for it.

[relee]

Well he did get a riverboat named after him.

And this boat too

[Boiler Plate]

How about that.

Well, in the totally insignificant category, I went to HS with his Great Great Grandson. He never talked much about it.

[stainlessbanner]

Setting a few fires in his honor, NS? :)

Now that's funny, I don't care who you are.

[Alberta's Child]

Interestingly enough, Lee's father Harry was the former Virginia governor assigned by George Washington to lead the Federal troops that quelled the Whiskey Rebellion in the early 1790s.

I guess it only took one generation for the Lee family to see what kind of damage a powerful Federal government could do to the rights of free people.

[Tijeras_Slim]

I didn't know that. Thanks.

[Publius Valerius]

As a W&L grad, I note that we're a University--and the entire University celebrates Lee's birthday (it's called Founders' Day).

http://lee200.wlu.edu/Educator.html

http://news.wlu.edu/news/page/normal/1623.html

[Alberta's Child]

The U.S. Civil War (which is actually named incorrectly, because it wasn't a "civil war" in the true sense of the term) was fought over much bigger issues than slavery. Lincoln himself had said that he'd accept legalized slavery in all U.S. states if that was the price to be paid for "preserving the Union."

The need for a powerful Federal government to implement a national rail system -- and the need for a powerful Federal government to maintain the commercial viability of the Ohio River Valley and the Midwestern states by ensuring free maritime access along the Mississippi River system -- were far bigger issues at the time than slavery was.

[Non-Sequitur]

The need for a powerful Federal government to implement a national rail system -- and the need for a powerful Federal government to maintain the commercial viability of the Ohio River Valley and the Midwestern states by ensuring free maritime access along the Mississippi River system -- were far bigger issues at the time than slavery was.

Can I ask what you base this on?

[Alberta's Child]

That was a fascinating chapter in U.S. history, for sure.

[gop4lyf]

If I recall correctly, MLK day was not a holiday in Arkansas until the late 80's -early 90's when Bill Clinton as governor made it a holiday. He made it a holiday with one condition though....Robt. E. Lee's birthday would be celebrated as well, as a joint offcial state celebration. I may be wrong, but this is what I have been told.

[NavyCanDo]

This will be of Interest to you southerners or decedents there of.

The Politically Incorrect Guide to THE SOUTH (and Why it Will Rise Again)

By Clint Johnson

From the Cover:

• Why the South is more important to America’s founding than the North
• The first of the thirteen colonies to legalize slavery? (Hint it’s not in the South)
• The South is the center of American culture and history
• Why faith and family come first in the South
• Why limited government and low tax rates are a Southern tradition


http://www.amazon.com/Politically-Incorrect-Guide-South-Again/dp/1596985003

[Alberta's Child]

A thorough review of Lincoln's background offers some pretty fascinating insight into the man. He was a political nobody through most of his career leading up to 1860 -- having served a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1840s (where he made a name for himself as a vocal opponent of the Mexican-American War).

Lincoln was supported in politics by very powerful business interests in this country -- mainly because he had an extensive background in railroad and maritime cases in his career as a lawyer.

A great book on this subject -- from both a historical and an engineering standpoint -- is Stephen Ambrose's Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869

[sam_paine]

Right now, they are trying to gin up interest in destroying the memorial at Stone Mountain.

Oh no! I remember being taken to see it when I was maybe 6 or 7 on our way to or from DC near the bicentennial.

FGS, why must our ignorant kids rewrite history?

[Non-Sequitur]

A thorough review of Lincoln's background offers some pretty fascinating insight into the man. He was a political nobody through most of his career leading up to 1860 -- having served a single term in the U.S. House of Representatives in the 1840s (where he made a name for himself as a vocal opponent of the Mexican-American War).

He was actually a political heavy-weight in Illinois. He served a number of terms in the legislature and was twice candidate for the Senate. He was one of the founders of the Republican party in the state and one of the leading attorneys. His speeches made nationwide between his second Senatorial bid and his presidential bid gave him a national follwoing. He was not a 'political nobody.'

Lincoln was supported in politics by very powerful business interests in this country -- mainly because he had an extensive background in railroad and maritime cases in his career as a lawyer.

Who were those supporters and how did that support manifest itself?

A great book on this subject -- from both a historical and an engineering standpoint -- is Stephen Ambrose's Nothing Like It in the World: The Men Who Built the Transcontinental Railroad, 1863-1869

I've read it. But I'm still puzzled over your statement about the national rail system, something many would argue we still don't have today, and your statements about the improvements for the Ohio River valley. Are you saying that the improvements the federal government made along the Mississippi did not also benefit the South?

[x]

I'm not convinced that Lee's duty required taking up arms against the country he'd taken an oath to years before. As a child, I accepted that in some way Lee thought of Virginia as his "country," but that doesn't look like a very convincing argument now. I don't say that he should have fought against his neighbors, but the alternative wasn't war against those he'd served with.

Moreover, let's say that Lee did put duty first and suppressed contrary inclinations. What was the result? The war was prolonged. More men died. And the destruction of the South was greater than it otherwise would have been.

Had Lee sat on his hands, some people have said, the war would have ended after two or three years with much less loss of life and property. What survives is Lee's personal moral example, rather than any benefit to Virginia. So in a strange way, the course described as selfless was worse for the community than for Lee as an individual.

That may have been what Henry Adams was getting at when he said, perhaps in response to his brother, Charles Francis Adams, who eulogized and idolized Lee, "It was all the worse that he was a good man, had a good character, and acted conscientiously. It's always the good men who do the most harm."

[Non-Sequitur]

The Politically Incorrect Guide to THE SOUTH (and Why it Will Rise Again)

News Flash: South Postpones Rising Again For Yet Another Year

[Non-Sequitur]

Right now, they are trying to gin up interest in destroying the memorial at Stone Mountain.

Ok now correct me if I'm wrong but Stone Mountain is...a mountain? In order to get the carvings off you would basically have to level it, right? So how do they propose doing that?

[ichabod1]

The whole bloody thing is a masonic conspiracy - a two hundred year power grab by the nefarious masons and their ilk.