Posted on 01/18/2009 8:58:52 PM PST by GonzoII
January can be a depressing month. The Christmas decorations come down, the creche is returned to its box (save for those hardliners, like the Crocker family, who leave the nativity set up until 2 February, the Presentation of the Lord), and the tree is dragged unceremoniously from the house. If you've had any time off of work, it ends; the spirit of Christmas can deflate pretty fast, if you're not careful. Even if you are, and you're returning to a desk job, you might start day-dreaming (as I always do) about whether you could, in good conscience, risk the family finances and try your hand at farming or ranching or doing anything that would get you out of an office and away from the corporate crowd.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
bttt
Great article, but I still think he basically chose tribe over country. Not the American thing to do.
He was loyal to his state. That meant a lot more back then.
One of my ancestors, it turns out.
He obviously chose country over country, CSA over USA.
Great point. Most people forget that while Lee was loyal to the Union at the start - he simply could not have turned against his own Virginia citizens like a traitor.
2009 is one of the rare years when Lee's birthday is a national holiday. It only happens when Jan. 19 falls on a Monday.
Think about it, his Father, Light Horse Harry Lee, was about as Virginia as it gets. The concept of "United States" was more like "united States".
Still, he did take up arms against the union. But on his birthday, I won't say anything negative about him.
Ping of interest.
In 1861 Virginians truly believed they were conducting a second American Revolution. Lee might have seen himself to be a second George Washington(his hero) leading a fight for freedom against his country usurping natural rights owned by virtue of being English or, in 1861, by virtue of Washingon’s (and, not incidently, Lee’s own father, Light Horse Harry)sucessful rebellion against his country, England.
The equation for Lee was simple if not easy: When the mother country invaded Virginia, his father fought. If the Union now invades Virginia, he too will fight for the same liberty and independence.
Our problem comes when we judge men upon facts which they could not have known, or upon values which did not exist. The problem of the historical RE Lee is two fold:he lost and he is seen to have fought for slavery. But Washington and Jefferson, both slave holders, are not generally seen to have fought for slavery. As winners, they got to write history. The historial R.E. Lee has not been so fortunate.
We might remenber that George Washington, too, fought for slavery, one might argue, as much as did Washington and Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, papering over the peculiar institution.
Finally, the author’s insights about Lee’s Christian bearing are apposite. His faith animated the man and infuriates the modern liberal.
My daughter goes to Robert E Lee High School and the school is closed tomorrow Jan 19 in celebration of MLK not Robert E Lee... that’s interesting....
My own great-great grandfather and his eldest son left their home to fight what was perceived to be an invasion from hostile forces.We cannot fairly judge 19th century thought from our 21st century, we weren’t there.Americans owe Lee a debt of gratitude.There were those advocating guerrilla warfare as the war was winding down, Lee rejected this and instructed his men to go home,and become good citizens. Lee spent his last years at Washington University (now Washington and Lee Univ.)educating young men so Virginia could rebuild.We should all live our lives with such devotion to duty and selfless service. As a native of the Commonwealth of Virginia, I revere Gen. Lee.
Posting that for the benefit the public-school educated who probably don't know a thing about either man.
There was a time long, long ago, when Americans understood that the fundamental building block was the state. This time long ago, these people considered themselves “Virginians” or “Pennsylvanians” first, and American’s afterward. They were proud to be Americans but also proud to be “Virginians”.
From a modern perspective, the US federal government has been allowed so much power and abuse of power over the separate, sovereign states, progressively crushing their authority for over 150 years or possibly more, that the modern American is generally clueless as to how vital the states were to people at the time of the Civil War and before.
(I hate the term Civil War as the war was most certainly not a Civil War. The South was not trying to control this nation, but trying to separate from this nation. It was a rebellion for southern freedom from US oppression, not a civil war for control of the USA. But I digress...)
For a small example of how important the separate states used to be, look only at the electoral college. Many modern Americans think national elections should be based on the popular vote. But we were not intended to be a raw democracy, with it’s mob rule. We were meant to be a republic. The foundation of that republic was the state. So, voters do not elect national office-holders. The separate states elect national office-holders, and the candidate who gets the most votes from the separate states, via the electoral college, wins the election. In this manner, states with tiny populations have a disproportionate strength relative to their populations. The wisdom of the founders is never-ending.
Back to Lee. You say he followed his tribe. He followed his state. Lee was already a national hero, having captured the abolitionist John Brown.
Lee believed that slavery was immoral and sinful...
“Robert E. Lee vigorously opposed slavery and as early as 1856 made this statement: “There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil.”
“Robert E. Lee was offered command of the Union Army, but he chose instead to remain loyal to his state of Virginia, which voted to join the southern cause.
“On April 17, General Winfield Scott, Virginia-born hero of the War of 1812 and captor of Mexico City in the Mexican War, offered command of the U.S. Army to Robert E. Lee. Lee declined on the grounds that he could not participate in what he called “an invasion of the southern states.” Scott said that if Lee could not command U.S. troops he should resign his commission. He did, explaining, “If Virginia stands by the old Union, so will I. But, if she secedes (though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, or that there is sufficient cause for revolution), then I will still follow my native State with my sword, and if need be with my life.”
“Lee believed he was defending Virginia, not slavery.”
http://www.vahistorical.org/sva2003/confederates.htm
Interestingly, many Virginians sympathized with the north, so much so that part of Virginia seceded from the main state and became West Virginia. More interestingly, had Virginia stayed with the Union, Lee would have commanded Lincoln’s Army.
It is not that far-fetched to believe that Virginia could easily have joined the Union rather than the Confederacy. Viginia was the 8th state to secede from the Union, long after South Carolina’s initial move. Central to the decision of Virginians to secede from the Union, was their outrage over Lincoln’s behavior violating the Constitution, which they viewed as tyrannical behavior.
http://www.virginiavignettes.org/?p=93
Robert E. Lee did not follow his tribe, as you believe. He followed his state because his loyalty to his state was paramount, as was true of most people living in the 1960s. This was a no-brainer for most. Yes, brother fought brother but for the most part, people fought for their states during the “Civil War”, not against them. Lee did the same. He basically had no choice. As Virginia went, so did he.
It's awfully presumptuous of the author to assume that Lee was a liar.
The current (Feb. 2009) issue of Civil War Times contains a very pursuasive article which suggests that Lee was an adamant supporter of slavery who was very hard on the slaves he held.
Sure we can. Some 19th century people made a decision to support slavery and others did not. The Free Soilers who fought for the Union deserve special credit for both being way ahead of their time and for putting their lives on the line for the liberty of all Americans.
It's presumptious for anyone to claim knowledge of the motives of dead men.
So, if something goes wrong in DC under the usurper, we'll need another Robert E. Lee for the third American Revolution against the excesses of a central government, not a second Civil War against those excesses?
I admire Lee. He, like many of his Confederate soldiers, was too good for the power-mad, slavery loving regime he felt compelled to fight for.
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.