|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
Posted on 01/22/2003 11:13:33 PM PST by hoosierskypilot
This week we should have remembered, and should have celebrated, the birthdays of two of America's greatest Christian soldiers, Robert E. Lee and Thomas Jonathan (Stonewall) Jackson. It is poor tribute to us as a country that we neglect to remember Christian men of their caliber and prefer instead to celebrate the birthdays of socialists and apostates. Douglas Southall Freeman has written of Lee that: "In early boyhood he had been drilled in his catechism by Rev. William Mead. From his youth he had lived in the spiritual atmosphere Meade had created in Northern Virginia, but had not joined any church. As he grew older, all his religious impulses were deepened, and he felt an increasing dependence on the mercy of a personal God." Lee felt that no man could truly be a gentleman unless he were first a Christian. Freeman noted " [Lee] could not have conceived of a Christian who was not a gentleman." Rev. Steve Wilkins, in his book "Call of Duty" which deals with the life of Robert E. Lee, noted that: "To Lee, there was no contradiction between the two at all. There was no possibility of being a gentleman without first being a Christian. And there should be no such thing as a Christian who was not a gentleman."
Lee joined the Episcopal Church in 1853 and remained therein throughout the rest of his life. All his years thereafter he lived as a humble and devoted Christian and stated: "My chief concern is to try to be an humble, earnest Christian." This motive was at the bottom of all that Lee did in his life. In response to a pastor he once talked to, General Lee said "..I can only say that I am a poor sinner, trusting in Christ alone for salvation and that I need all the prayers you can offer for me." With Lee, this was genuine, heartfelt concern, and not just so much political verbiage.
Many lesser men and "historians" in our day have sought to tarnish Lee's image, trying to tell us he really fought only to perpetuate the institution of slavery. Actually Lee had little use for slavery. He had freed his slaves and wrote: "In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral and political evil in any Country." Lee fought, in the War of Northern Aggression, out of devotion to his home state of Virginia and to the principles of state sovereignty that this country was originally founded upon. That in our day many would seek to besmirch the character of this great man rather than recalling his virtues is a sad sign of how far America has degenerated in the past 150 years. We fail to produce men of the character of Robert E. Lee in this generation, and we are infinitely worse off as a country for that lack.
Stonewall Jackson came from what is now West Virginia. He was not born into affluence by any stretch of the imagination and his early years were extremely difficult. He served in the Mexican War and after that he was sent home and stationed at Fort Hamilton, about seven miles from New York City. Author Mary Williamson wrote of him: "While there, he was baptized and began to live his life for the glory of Christ. God had changed the heart of this brave soldier and gave him wisdom to see that life should be lived for the glory of God--not for the glory of self."
>From that point on Jackson did, indeed, seek to live for the glory of God, both as a professor at Virginia Military Institute and as a soldier. Jackson was a member of the Presbyterian Church in Lexington, Virginia, where he founded and taught a black Sunday School class each Sunday afternoon. Even after he left to go to war, Jackson continued to be concerned for the black youngsters that had been in his Sunday school class and he wrote back whenever possible to check on their progress. It is said that several black preachers eventually came out of Jackson's Sunday school class.
Like General Lee, General Jackson was a sincere and humble Christian that gave thanks to God for everything, even down to a glass of water. He always sought to observe the Sabbath as strictly as possible, not wanting to fight or march on the Lord's Day unless emergency dictated that he do so. Jackson was a strict disciplinarian, not only with his soldiers, but with himself as well. Yet he manifested care and concern for his men, and, like General Lee, was much concerned for their spiritual welfare, promoting church services for them whenever possible, that they might be further exposed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Jackson had something most of our military men, with their spirit of compromise today do not have--a desire to win the battles he fought in. His detractors, "historian" Ken Burns among them, have labeled Jackson a "cold-eyed killer." Interesting they choose to say such things about Jackson the Christian but they overlook the abberations of Sherman, the agnostic and would-be military dictator, Sheridan the arsonist of the Shennandoah Valley, and Grant, the often barely sober General who has been referred to as a "butcher" for his willingness to send men into battle in certain situations where he might have done otherwise. Jackson, to his credit, never sought to wage war on women, children, and private property as Sherman did. Jackson's Christian worldview prevented such heinous activity, which, by the way, the Lincoln administration gave tacit approval to.
Again, it is to our national hurt that we refuse to recognize and remember such good Christian men. In their efforts to preserve the Constitutional Republic the founders bequeathed to us and which they saw being destroyed by a galloping centralism from Washington, they did all that they did within the framework of their Christian faith. They have nothing of which to be ashamed in their actions. Their detractors can not say as much. Robert E. Lee was born on January 19th and Stonewall Jackson on January 21st. Let us remember these faithful men this week.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gods and Generals, the epic screen adaptation of Jeff Shaara's heralded best-selling novel, is a dramatic look back at the Civil War - America's bloodiest conflict, in which more than 620,000 lives were lost. A prequel to the acclaimed screen drama Gettysburg, also directed by Ron Maxwell, the film is based on events that are sweeping in scope and made all the more compelling by the human-scaled drama it depicts. A moving portrayal of a nation divided, Gods and Generals begins in early 1861 and continues through 1863, climaxing with the stunning Battle of Chancellorsville. The film illuminates heroes from both sides of the war, such as Colonel Joshua Chamberlain (JEFF DANIELS), a professor at Maine's Bowdoin College who gave up a promising academic career to enlist in the Union army, then went on to become one of the North's finest military leaders; Confederate Generals Robert E. Lee (ROBERT DUVALL), a distinguished 25-year veteran of the United States Army and native Virginian, forced to choose between allegiance to his country and loyalty to his home state; and Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson (STEPHEN LANG), a devoutly religious man whose faith and courage and audacity made him an outstanding soldier and Lee's most trusted lieutenant. The tremendous suffering and bravery of the Civil War was not confined to the battlefields. Gods and Generals also tells the story of the wives and families who were forced to assume responsibility at home, often in cities under direct attack from the opposition. Joshua Chamberlain's wife Fanny (MIRA SORVINO), Thomas Jackson's wife Anna (KALI ROCHA) and Jane Beale (MIA DILLON), whose family was caught in the Battle of Fredericksburg, reflect the spirit, courage and anxiety of those who were left behind. Encompassing 158 speaking roles and thousands of battlefield "re-enactors," Gods and Generals vividly brings to life not only the Civil War's legendary leaders, but also the legions of anonymous soldiers and citizens who fought passionately and courageously for their vision of freedom. TED TURNER PICTURES presents, an ANTIETAM FILMWORKS production of a Ron Maxwell film, Gods and Generals, starring JEFF DANIELS, STEPHEN LANG and ROBERT DUVALL as Robert E. Lee. Gods and Generals also stars MIRA SORVINO, KEVIN CONWAY, C. THOMAS HOWELL and FRANKIE FAISON. Directed and written for the screen by RONALD F. MAXWELL, based on the book by JEFFREY M. SHAARA. Produced by Ronald F. Maxwell; co-produced by NICK GRILLO; co-executive produced by RONALD G. SMITH; executive produced by TED TURNER, ROBERT KATZ, ROBERT REHME, MOCTESUMA ESPARZA and MACE NEUFELD; associate executive produced by ROBERT J. WUSSLER. The talented creative team includes director of photography KEES VAN OOSTRUM A.S.C.; editor DONALD "CORKY" EHLERS; production designer MICHAEL Z. HANAN; visual effects producer THOMAS G. SMITH; music by JOHN FRIZZELL and RANDY EDELMAN; music production and supervision by DAVID FRANCO. Terms of Use/Privacy Policy © 2002 Warner Brothers.
FRee dixie,sw
Here. And you are most welcome.
A salute to two gentlemen and God-fearing soldiers/leaders. Their light still shines in the hearts of Southern men.
The underlining and emphasis in General Lee's letter are mine.
Thanks
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Bologna
November 4, 1866
Sir,
The very kind letter which Mrs. Lee wrote to my wife last winter encouraged me to hope that you will forgive my presuming to address you, and that you will not resent as an intrusion a letter from an earnest and passionate lover of the cause whose glory and whose strength you were.
I have been requested to furnish private counsel in American affairs for the guidance of the editors of a weekly Review which is to begin at the New Year, and which will be conducted by men who are followers of Mr. Gladstone. You are aware, no doubt, that Mr. Gladstone was in the minority of Lord Palmerston's cabinet who wished to accept the French Emperor's proposal to mediate in the American war.
The reason of the confidence shown in my advice is simply the fact that I formerly traveled in America, and that I afterwards followed the progress of the four years' contest as closely and as keenly as it was possible to do with the partial and unreliable information that reached us. In the momentous questions which have arisen since you sheathed the sword, I have endeavoured to conform my judgment to your own as well as I could ascertain it from the report of your evidence, from the few English travelers who enjoyed the privilege of speaking with you, and especially from General Beauregard, who spoke, as I understood, your sentiments as well as his own. My travels in America never led me south of Maryland, and the only friends to whom I can look for instruction, are Northerners, mostly of Webster's school.
In my emergency, urged by the importance of the questions at issue in the United States, and by the peril of misguided public opinion between our two countries, I therefore seek to appeal to southern authorities, and venture at once to proceed to Headquarters.
If, Sir, you will consent to entertain my request, and will inform me of the light in which you would wish the current politics of America to be understood, I can pledge myself that the new Review shall follow the course which you prescribe and that any communication with which you may honor me shall be kept in strictest confidence, and highly treasured by me. Even should you dismiss my request as unwarranted, I trust you will remember it only as an attempt to break through the barrier of false reports and false sympathies which encloses the views of my countrymen.
It cannot have escaped you that much of the good will felt in England towards the South, so far as it was not simply the tribute of astonishment and admiration won by your campaigns, was neither unselfish nor sincere. It sprang partly from an exultant belief in the hope that America would be weakened by the separation, and from terror at the remote prospect of Farragut appearing in the channel and Sherman landing in Ireland.
I am anxious that you should distinguish the feeling which drew me aware toward your cause and your career, and which now guides my pen, from that thankless and unworthy sympathy.
Without presuming to decide the purely legal question, on which it seems evident to me from Madison's and Hamilton's papers that the Fathers of the Constitution were not agreed, I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy. The institutions of your Republic have not exercised on the old world the salutary and liberating influence which ought to have belonged to them, by reason of those defects and abuses of principle which the Confederate Constitution was expressly and wisely calculated to remedy. I believed that the example of that great Reform would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics. Therefore I deemed that you were fighting the battles of our liberty, our progress, and our civilization; and I mourn for the stake which was lost at Richmond more deeply than I rejoice over that which was saved at Waterloo.
General Beauregard confirmed to me a report which was in the papers, that you are preparing a narrative of your campaigns. I sincerely trust that it is true, and that the loss you were said to have sustained at the evacuation of Richmond has not deprived you of the requisite materials. European writers are trying to construct that terrible history with the information derived from one side only. I have before me an elaborate work by a Prussian officer named Sander. It is hardly possible that future publications can be more honorable to the reputation of your army and your own. His feelings are strongly Federal, his figures, especially in estimating your forces, are derived from Northern journals, and yet his book ends by becoming an enthusiastic panegyric on your military skill. It will impress you favourably towards the writer to know that he dwells with particular detail and pleasure on your operations against Meade when Longstreet was absent, in the autumn of 1863.
But I have heard the best Prussian military critics regret that they had not the exact data necessary for a scientific appreciation of your strategy, and certainly the credit due to the officers who served under you can be distributed and justified by no hand but your own.
If you will do me the honor to write to me, letters will reach me addressed Sir J. Acton, Hotel [Serry?], Rome. Meantime I remain, with sentiments stronger than respect,
Sir,
~ Your faithful servant
John Dalberg Acton
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lexington, Vir.,
15 Dec. 1866
Sir,
Although your letter of the 4th ulto. has been before me some days unanswered, I hope you will not attribute it to a want of interest in the subject, but to my inability to keep pace with my correspondence. As a citizen of the South I feel deeply indebted to you for the sympathy you have evinced in its cause, and am conscious that I owe your kind consideration of myself to my connection with it. The influence of current opinion in Europe upon the current politics of America must always be salutary; and the importance of the questions now at issue the United States, involving not only constitutional freedom and constitutional government in this country, but the progress of universal liberty and civilization, invests your proposition with peculiar value, and will add to the obligation which every true American must owe you for your efforts to guide that opinion aright. Amid the conflicting statements and sentiments in both countries, it will be no easy task to discover the truth, or to relieve it from the mass of prejudice and passion, with which it has been covered by party spirit. I am conscious the compliment conveyed in your request for my opinion as to the light in which American politics should be viewed, and had I the ability, I have not the time to enter upon a discussion, which was commenced by the founders of the constitution and has been continued to the present day. I can only say that while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it. I need not refer one so well acquainted as you are with American history, to the State papers of Washington and Jefferson, the representatives of the federal and democratic parties, denouncing consolidation and centralization of power, as tending to the subversion of State Governments, and to despotism. The New England states, whose citizens are the fiercest opponents of the Southern states, did not always avow the opinions they now advocate. Upon the purchase of Louisiana by Mr. Jefferson, they virtually asserted the right of secession through their prominent men; and in the convention which assembled at Hartford in 1814, they threatened the disruption of the Union unless the war should be discontinued. The assertion of this right has been repeatedly made by their politicians when their party was weak, and Massachusetts, the leading state in hostility to the South, declares in the preamble to her constitution, that the people of that commonwealth "have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves as a free sovereign and independent state, and do, and forever hereafter shall, exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not, or may hereafter be by them expressly delegated to the United States of America in congress assembled." Such has been in substance the language of other State governments, and such the doctrine advocated by the leading men of the country for the last seventy years. Judge Chase, the present Chief Justice of the U.S., as late as 1850, is reported to have stated in the Senate, of which he was a member, that he "knew of no remedy in case of the refusal of a state to perform its stipulations," thereby acknowledging the sovereignty and independence of state action. But I will not weary you with this unprofitable discussion. Unprofitable because the judgment of reason has been displaced by the arbitrament of war, waged for the purpose as avowed of maintaining the union of the states. If, therefore, the result of the war is to be considered as having decided that the union of the states is inviolable and perpetual under the constitution, it naturally follows that it is as incompetent for the general government to impair its integrity by the exclusion of a state, as for the states to do so by secession; and that the existence and rights of a state by the constitution are as indestructible as the union itself. The legitimate consequence then must be the perfect equality of rights of all the states; the exclusive right of each to regulate its internal affairs under rules established by the Constitution, and the right of each state to prescribe for itself the qualifications of suffrage. The South has contended only for the supremacy of the constitution, and the just administration of the laws made in pursuance to it. Virginia to the last made great efforts to save the union, and urged harmony and compromise. Senator Douglass, in his remarks upon the compromise bill recommended by the committee of thirteen in 1861, stated that every member from the South, including Messrs. Toombs and Davis, expressed their willingness to accept the proposition of Senator Crittenden from Kentucky, as a final settlement of the controversy, if sustained by the republican party, and that the only difficulty in the way of an amicable adjustment was with the republican party. Who then is responsible for the war? Although the South would have preferred any honorable compromise to the fratricidal war which has taken place, she now accepts in good faith its constitutional results, and receives without reserve the amendment which has already been made to the constitution for the extinction of slavery. That is an event that has been long sought, though in a different way, and by none has it been more earnestly desired than by citizens of Virginia. In other respects I trust that the constitution may undergo no change, but that it may be handed down to succeeding generations in the form we received it from our forefathers. The desire I feel that the Southern states should possess the good opinion of one whom I esteem as highly as yourself, has caused me to extend my remarks farther than I intended, and I fear it has led me to exhaust your patience. If what I have said should serve to give any information as regards American politics, and enable you to enlighten public opinion as to the true interests of this distracted country, I hope you will pardon its prolixity.
In regard to your inquiry as to my being engaged in preparing a narrative of the campaigns in Virginia, I regret to state that I progress slowly in the collection of the necessary documents for its completion. I particularly feel the loss of the official returns showing the small numbers with which the battles were fought. I have not seen the work by the Prussian officer you mention and therefore cannot speak of his accuracy in this respect.– With sentiments of great respect, I remain your obt. servant,
~ R.E. Lee
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.