Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WALSH: President Trump Is Right - Robert E. Lee Was A Great General
https://www.dailywire.com ^ | April 29, 2019 | Matt Walsh

Posted on 04/30/2019 4:06:09 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

President Trump sent certain segments of population into outraged spasms on Friday when he described Robert E. Lee as a "great general." Trying to lend context to his infamous "very fine people" remark about the 2017 Charlottesville protests, Trump said this:

“I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general. Whether you like it or not, he was one of the great generals. I have spoken to many generals here, right at the White House, and many people thought — of the generals, they think that he was maybe their favorite general.”

Trump is, of course, completely correct. Robert E. Lee has always been regarded as a military genius, and for good reason. This is not controversial to anyone with a sixth grade education in American history. But surveys show that many Americans don't even know when the Civil War took place, and a sizable number think Lincoln led the Allied Forces rather than the Union Army, so it's no surprise that basic statements of historical fact have become contentious in our age of aggressive stupidity.

I found myself in the crossfire of the controversy when I posted on Twitter in support of Trump's statement and provided my personal list of the best Civil War generals. I give Lee the top spot, followed by Jackson, Grant, Sherman, and then Nathan Bedford Forrest. You could certainly make an argument for Longstreet, Sheridan, Thomas, or Cleburne in any one of those spots. But you cannot make an argument for a list of top Civil War generals that completely excludes all Confederates. There aren't five Union generals better than Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson. There isn't even one, in my view. In his Valley Campaign, Jackson marched his brigade of shoeless farm boys 600 miles through the mountains over the course of a month and a half, winning five pivotal battles against a combined force that outnumbered his 2:1. Grant never did anything quite like that, though he was impressive in his own right — and the victor, after all.

But I was informed by hundreds of people that I am a racist, just like Trump, for daring to give the Rebels any credit at all. We have reached a point where we cannot acknowledge any of the achievements of morally flawed historical figures. We must pretend they never existed. Driving this point home, a number of people insisted that ranking Confederates as great generals is like ranking Nazis as great generals. That's ridiculous, because of course some Nazi generals were great generals. Erwin Rommel was a great general, as anyone who has studied WW2 knows. The fact that he was fighting on the side of abject evil does not erase his military genius.

If we cannot acknowledge the greatness of morally compromised military commanders, then we cannot acknowledge the greatness of any military commander. Not a single one of them would pass muster by the standards of today's anachronizing blowhards. Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great — all must be removed from the history books. Even the Union commanders in the Civil War get thrown out with this bath water. Grant was an anti-Semite who tried to evict all the Jews from his military district. Sherman was a war criminal. Lincoln was a racist who publicly professed his bigotry during a debate with Stephen Douglas:

“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

If we are not willing to see things in their historical context, and to accept that people in the past weren't as racially enlightened as we are today, then we will be left with no heroes, no great men at all. But if we are willing to forgive Lincoln his virulent racism, and Grant his predilection for ethnic cleansing, then we must extend a similar generosity to men like Robert E. Lee.

Nothing will make slavery anything less than a moral abomination. And it is true that slavery was a very significant motivating factor behind secession, as Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all made abundantly clear in their Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. But it is equally true that many men who did the fighting on both sides did not perceive themselves to be fighting over slavery. There's a reason Lincoln waited two years to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He said early on that if he could keep the country together by keeping slavery, he would do it. To him, and to the Union soldiers on the ground, it was a fight to preserve the Union. The sad fact of the matter is that most Northerners were racist themselves and would not have charged into gunfire for the sake of liberating the slaves, no matter how distasteful they found the institution.

For their part, many southern soldiers thought they were fighting a war of defense against hostile invaders. There's a reason Jefferson Davis did not send his army to capture Washington, even though perhaps they could have done so after the stunning Confederate victory at Bull Run to start the war. This is the reality Robert E. Lee confronted. He was offered command of Union forces but declined because, as a loyal Virginian, he could not march against his home state. He saw it as a choice between defending his home or the Union. He chose his home.

Perhaps you would have chosen differently. Perhaps you would have taken up arms against your own family. Perhaps you would have been more enlightened than almost everyone else and seen the struggle in the same light that spectators in the future would see it. I congratulate this hypothetical version of yourself, in that case. It's true that Robert E. Lee lacked this sort of enlightenment. It's also true that when he was faced with a difficult dilemma, he made the choice he thought was right, and then proceeded to win battle after battle against a foe with superior numbers, superior weaponry, and superior resources. That's why he's a great general.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: americanhistory; charlottesville; robertelee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-163 next last
To: central_va
You actually think the war could possible have resulted in the CSA conquering the North.

No I don't. In fact there was no possible way for the rebels to prevail. That's what makes their misadventure so insane.

121 posted on 05/03/2019 7:00:45 AM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

Yep. It’s all about the money. People like to wrap their money grabs in a cloak of false legitimacy. We see this all the time today. Really though, everybody knows it was all about the money all along.


122 posted on 05/03/2019 7:10:04 AM PDT by FLT-bird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird

“Easter worshippers” are high on the list, bet on it.

*Why* people keeping focusing on the petty historical grievances served up to them by the lefts’ MSM agent provocateurs is beyond me.

We are in the midst of a soft crusade to destroy America from within and people want to argue whether Lee intended to “conquer the north”, of all stupid things.

England is now run by Muzzies.

They conquered Britannia without firing a shot.

“PC” did them in and we’re next, but no, let’s devote hours of bickering to Robert E Lee, “racist songs” and every other slick diversion they toss on the ground, like mindless pigeons fighting over bits of bread.


123 posted on 05/03/2019 7:33:50 AM PDT by Salamander (Death makes angels of us all, and give us wings where we once had shoulders, smooth as ravens' claws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

Well said.


124 posted on 05/03/2019 7:34:47 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Joe 6-pack
Dickens was a fine novelist, but if I were to seek the political analysis of a 19th century Englishman, I would defer to what John Stuart Mill had to say on the matter.

"The present Government of the United States is not an abolitionist government…. But though not an Abolitionist party, they are a Free-soil party. If they have not taken arms against slavery, they have against its extension. And they know, as we may know if we please, that this amounts to the same thing. The day when slavery can no longer extend itself, is the day of its doom. The slave-owners know this, and it is the cause of their fury…."

I see this claim over and over in discussions on the Civil War. I see it always alleged that if slavery couldn't expand, it would perish. I used to believe this claim. I stopped believing it a couple of years ago when I actually looked at the evidence.

The primary industry of slavery was agriculture, specifically crops like Cotton, Tobacco and Indigo. I wondered to myself if cotton would even grow in the territories. I decided to look up a modern map of cotton producing states.

Other people who were knowlegable on the subject informed me that the Cotton shown growing in West Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Southern California can only be grown as a consequence of modern irrigation systems which wouldn't have been possible in the 19th century. So what does that leave? Apart from a tiny bit in Kansas, it leaves exactly the same area in which Cotton was already grown.

Wait! You mean slavery *COULDN'T* expand into the territories because it was physically impossible? Well what about all these people saying it can't be allowed to expand? The true barrier to the expansion of slavery was the agricultural reality of the territories, not laws passed by men.

According to this Wikipedia article, "Regardless of its official status, slavery was rare in antebellum New Mexico. Black slaves never numbered more than about a dozen"

And this was during the time "New Mexico Territory" looked like this:

So we've been misled. For some reason a lot of people have been lying about the danger of slavery expanding into the territories. Since slavery couldn't possibly expand into them to any significant degree, what then was their motivation for putting forth this claim?

Well what is different? If you have a state into which slavery cannot expand in actuality, but in which slavery is legal there, what does this affect? Does it not affect the voting blocks in Congress?

The Northern States, Led by New York, had managed to obtain a significant majority in Congress, and as a result could set the tariff's high, (73-85% paid for by the Southern State export industry) and they had jiggered the laws to make certain almost all the import traffic came into New York. New York had all the slave produced income funneling through the hands of their major citizens, and they were extracting about 40% of the total revenues from all slave production in the South.

Washington DC was collecting it's taxes in the port of New York, and so they were getting a good 20-40% right off the bat from goods imported to the US in exchange for Southern exports. Both New York and Washington DC were making a whole lot of money on the existing status quo.

What would happen if "slave" states were added to the Union? That majority they had in Congress would be diminished, and this cushy system they had rigged up which resulted in money funneling through their hands might be endangered.

I now believe they spread the claim that slavery needed to expand to keep it from perishing because the status quo was making them money, and if any states were admitted that would vote with the Southern states, their money funneling system would fail.

I note John Stuart Mill mentions the "Free Soil Party."

Funny thing about the "Free Soil Party." It's headquarters were in New York city, rather than Topeka Kansas. For some reason big city folk in New York decided to concern themselves with the doings 1,000 miles away in Kansas and other territories.

Now why would New Yorkers want to worry about "Free Soil" in Kansas, Nebraska, etc.? You might think it is as a consequence of the milk of human kindness, but it coincidentally keeps the US Congressional representation favoring what is best for the Robber Baron elite of New York city.

Odd coincidence.

125 posted on 05/03/2019 7:34:57 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: trisham

Thank you, but judging by the posts in this thread, it was a rather pointless place to say it.

:)


126 posted on 05/03/2019 7:37:19 AM PDT by Salamander (Death makes angels of us all, and give us wings where we once had shoulders, smooth as ravens' claws)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Salamander

:) I hear you.


127 posted on 05/03/2019 7:44:30 AM PDT by trisham (Zen is not easy. It takes effort to attain nothingness. And then what do you have? Bupkis.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
This is a false position.

What is false about it? If the Corwin amendment passed, slavery would remain legal in the United States until the very last state decided to give it up voluntarily. Lincoln urged the passage of the Corwin amendment. This looks like selling the slaves down the river to maintain the status quo.

A second false position.

And what is false about this position? I note that the United States allowed the Philippines to have their independence. It allowed Cuba to have it's independence, and there is still an open invitation for Puerto Rico to have it's independence at any time if it should so wish it.

What is different between these countries and the Southern states? Oh yes. The Southern states were providing about 73-85% of all the revenue spent by Washington DC, and a significant chunk of the revenue coming into New York city in the 1850s and 1860s.

Third false position

The ships of the fleet were Powhatan, (Warship), Pawnee, (Warship) Pocahontas, (Warship) Harriet Lane, (Armed Cutter) Baltic, (Ocean transport converted to a troop carrying ship with several hundred riflemen on board) Yankee, (Armed tug) Thomas Freeborn (Armed Tug) and Uncle Ben. (Not sure if it was armed or not.)

So you have 4 cannon platform Warships, one troop carrier, two armed tugs and one possibly ordinary tug. Sounds like a belligerent collection of ships to me. Here is a picture of one of them.

Clearly not a "supply ship".

Fourth false position.

Seward answered the same day: “The attempt must be made with the employment of military and marine force, which would provoke combat, and probably initiate a civil war. . . I would not provoke war in any way now.”

Chase replied to the same question: “If the attempt will so inflame civil war as to involve an immediate necessity for enlistment of armies. . . I cannot advise it.”

Cameron replied: “I am greatly influenced by the opinions of Army officers [that] it is now impossible to succor the fort.”

Welles replied: “The military gentlemen represent that it is unwise. I am not disposed to controvert their opinions.”

Smith: “It would not be wise under the circumstances.”

Blair: “The evacuation of Sumter will show the government lacks firmness.”

Bates: “I am willing to evacuate Sumter, rather than be a active party in the beginning of civil war.” (p. 285)

In case you didn't realize it, those are the words of Lincoln's cabinet officials regarding his intention of sending a fleet of warships into Charleston harbor.

So, can you do anything other than claim "false!" ?

I've provided evidence to support every single point I made. Now you show me where any of them were false.

128 posted on 05/03/2019 7:56:06 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: FLT-bird
Yep. It’s all about the money. People like to wrap their money grabs in a cloak of false legitimacy. We see this all the time today. Really though, everybody knows it was all about the money all along.

The constant propaganda promulgated by every Northern source of News or Publishing has had the intended effect on the populace. Nowadays, the vast majority of the public are convinced the Civil War was about the oppression of slaves, and not about the South becoming an economic threat to the Northern power block of New York/Washington DC.

Even when you present the evidence, people fight against seeing it.

129 posted on 05/03/2019 8:00:10 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

They wanted separation and their goal was to make it too expensive for the North to force their tyranny on the South. So yes did underestimate the Illinois Butcher™.


130 posted on 05/03/2019 8:05:32 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

And finally an admission for the North the war was a war of conquest. We are making progress.


131 posted on 05/03/2019 8:07:09 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Salamander
“PC” did them in and we’re next, but no, let’s devote hours of bickering to Robert E Lee, “racist songs” and every other slick diversion they toss on the ground, like mindless pigeons fighting over bits of bread.

People allege that the Civil War was "long ago" and no longer plays a role in anyone's life, but I disagree. Most of the judicial activism that conservatives hate is a consequence of the Civil War. Washington DC having such an expansive role in our lives is the consequence of the Civil War.

In fact I think most of our modern day troubles are extensions of the events of the Civil War.

Abortion. (14th amendment.) Homosexual Marriage. (14th amendment.) Anchor babies. (14th Amendment.) Ban on prayer in Schools. (14th amendment.) President not required to be a "natural born citizen." (14th Amendment) And so forth.

The "Incorporation doctrine" regarding the 14th amendment has caused an immense amount of damage to the social and financial structure of American Society.

The fact that Washington DC now taxes it's citizens directly, and that it has powers far beyond anything that the founders ever intended, is a consequence of the Civil War.

No, the Civil War is still with us, and still damaging modern American society to this very day.

132 posted on 05/03/2019 8:08:38 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
McClellan was not interested in winning the war. He sympathized withthe other side.

This I believe. He was considered awesome in his ability to organize and train the military, but terrible in his efforts to actually use it. I have long believed he was not so good at this because his heart really wasn't into it.

133 posted on 05/03/2019 8:10:19 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
But the South was fighting to EXPAND slavery into Kansas, Nebraska, and anywhere else they wanted to move their 'money' to.

See my previous post on this issue. It wasn't possible to expand slavery into Kansas or Nebraska to any significant degree. The claimed threat of slavery in these territories was virtually non existent.

The fight was over representation in Congress, because if the Southern states managed to get a majority, they would overturn the laws that were currently funneling the bulk of their production through New York and Washington DC, where the lion's share of the slave produced money was skimmed off for the benefit of the same power structure we are fighting today. (New York and Washington DC.)

134 posted on 05/03/2019 8:13:58 AM PDT by DiogenesLamp ("of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: central_va

I’m so very pleased that none of their idiotic plans succeeded.


135 posted on 05/03/2019 8:19:20 AM PDT by rockrr ( Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: rockrr

The great preserve the union, wait lets free the slaves....


136 posted on 05/03/2019 8:36:38 AM PDT by central_va (I won't be reconstructed and I do not give a damn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp

There is a long history of dislike between Iowa and Missouri from the earliest days.

Davenport, IA had the first MI River bridge, that effectively stopped riverboat traffic to the north from St. Louis.

Lawsuits began, war was threatened. Guess who the two protagonists were? Abe was the railroad bridge company lawyer and Jeff Davis was the Secretary of War, representing the southern route for the railroad west.

MI was a slave state, that was a big problem. There were frequent outlaw raids from MI. MI cattle and hogs were outlawed in IA because of disease problems, that is still an issue.

MI represented the old plantation south, while IA was full of homesteading immigrants, big cultural difference.

Also.....IA had lots of Irish.....railroad builders, Catholics, geez.....


137 posted on 05/03/2019 9:03:46 AM PDT by gandalftb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: central_va

You are correct about Lee’s decision to invade MD.

Lee’s invasion into PA was quite a different matter. Lee’s second in command, Longstreet, strongly and loudly opposed the move and said so for the rest of his life.

In some respects Gettysburg was an accident and an opportunity, driven by Lee’s notion to capture many needed supplies and after a great victory over Union forces at Chancellorsville.

Lee also saw a need to divert Union forces from Vicksburg.


138 posted on 05/03/2019 9:17:02 AM PDT by gandalftb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: DiogenesLamp
So other than the ten years of bloody fighting in Kansas...

Please DO keep up !

See my previous post on this issue. It wasn't possible to expand slavery into Kansas or Nebraska to any significant degree. The claimed threat of slavery in these territories was virtually non existent.

"Bleeding Kansas, Bloody Kansas or the Border War was a series of violent civil confrontations in the United States between 1854 and 1861 which emerged from a political and ideological debate over the legality of slavery in the proposed state of Kansas. The conflict was characterized by years of electoral fraud, raids, assaults, and retributive murders carried out in Kansas and neighboring Missouri by pro-slavery "Border Ruffians" and anti-slavery "Free-Staters". At the core of the conflict was the question of whether the Kansas Territory would allow or outlaw slavery, and thus enter the Union as a slave state or a free state. The Kansas–Nebraska Act of 1854 called for popular sovereignty, requiring that the decision about slavery be made by the territory's settlers (rather than outsiders) and decided by a popular vote. Existing sectional tensions surrounding slavery quickly found focus in Kansas, with the pro-slavery element arguing that every settler had the right to bring his own property, including slaves, into the territory; anti-slavery "free soil" proponents argued not only that slavery was unethical, but that permitting slavery in Kansas would allow rich slaveholders to control the land to the exclusion of non-slaveholders. Missouri, a slave state since 1821, was populated by a large amount of settlers with Southern sympathies and pro-slavery attitudes, many of whom tried to influence the decision in Kansas. The conflict was fought politically as well as between civilians, where it eventually degenerated into brutal gang violence and paramilitary guerrilla warfare. The term "Bleeding Kansas" was popularized by Horace Greeley's New York Tribune.[2]

139 posted on 05/03/2019 9:20:43 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Roman_War_Criminal
The other two were Merritt and Farnsworth.

Oh, now there is something new. I did not know that Pleasonton was jumped up on June 22, 1863 !

Pleasonton was promoted on June 22, 1863 to Major General of U.S. Volunteers. On June 29, after consulting with his new commander, George Meade, Pleasanton began replacing political generals with "commanders who were prepared to fight, to personally lead mounted attacks".[13] He found just the kind of aggressive fighters he wanted in three of his aides: Wesley Merritt, Elon J. Farnsworth (both of whom had command experience) and George A. Custer. All received immediate promotions; Custer to brigadier general of volunteers, commanding the Michigan Cavalry Brigade ("Wolverines").

140 posted on 05/03/2019 9:30:21 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad ("the media are selling you a line of soap)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-163 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson