Posted on 10/17/2006 5:18:26 PM PDT by 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
"I felt...sad and depressed at the downfall of a foe who had fought as long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought."
~Ulysses Grant
Grant was simply under-educated, and therefore ignorant and unfamiliar with the peoples, politics, and events of the times. Here is a quote with the understanding of a witness, not the rhetoric of a general turned politician:
From the Charleston Mercury, December 21, 1860:
“The State of South Carolina has recorded herself before the universe. In reverence before God, fearless of man, unawed by power, unterrified by clamor, she had cut the Gordian knot of colonial dependence upon the North—cast her fortune upon her right, and her own right arm, and stands ready to uphold alike her independence and her dignity before the world.
“Prescribing to none, she will be dictated to by none; willing for peace, she is ready for war. Deprecating blood, she is willing to shed it.
"Valuing her liberties, she will maintain them.
“Neither swerved by frowns of foes, nor swayed by timorous solicitations of friends, she will pursue her direct path, and establish for herself and for her posterity, her rights, her liberties and her institutions.
Though friends may fail her in her need, though the cannon of her enemies may belch destruction among her people, South Carolina, unawed, unconquerable will still hold aloft her flag, “ANIMIS OPIBUSQUE PARASSTI’ “ (the South Carolina state motto, “Ready in soul and resource”).
That "worst...cause" was Liberty, the same cause that led the South to victory over the British 80 years earlier.
“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."
Perfect! Dr. Scott has a Ph.D. which means the BS that's been fed to suckers has been piled that much higher and deeper in his brain.
As for Eisenhower, pfooey, pfooey pfooey. He is simply mimicking what Presidents are instructed to say. He knows very well what a scummy administration policy Lincoln had toward the South. But in order to protect the long-held and praised powers that Lincoln bestowed upon all succeeding administrations he continues the farce.
...Lincoln would be quite proud of him...
But what did Virginia and the Confederacy stand for?
The split came because the south knew that if slavery did not extend to the territories, they would lose their power in Congress, and would eventually be outvoted and then lose the ability to control their way of life in the South. What was their way of life? Sitting on the veranda sipping cold beverages? Well, yes. Good manners and chivalrous behavior? Yes. A strong honor code? Yes. Love of family and loyalty to the extended clan? Yes.
An economic system based on two main cash crops, tobacco and cotton? Yes. An economic system that depended on slave labor in order to function? Yes. A system that the people who fought for the Confederacy fought to preserve from extinction through expansion of the Union into the west? Yes.
Did it matter that most people didn't own slaves although their economy was dependent on slavery? I don't know, did it matter to the Germans that most Americans don't own factories when we fought to defend free market capitalism against fascism? Our way of life, personal freedom, leads to a large middle class and a smaller group of very rich people who are among the best entrepreneurs, or who got lucky, or who were born to the right parents. In any event, we like our way of life, and have fought to protect it in recent generations even when we weren't the ones who controlled the economic levers.
So did Confederate soldiers. They liked their way of life in the south. They had a large degree of personal freedom, they had a cultural heritage, including but not limited to slavery and concern with social status, that differed significantly from the North's, and they weren't going to have Yankee values and moralizing imposed upon them. They had an economic system that they wanted to maintain, whether it benefitted them or not. Small farmers, artisans, backwoodsmen, merchants, professionals, all fought for their county, and their state. Their states fought to preserve the "freedom" of the southern states to oppose the gradual destruction of the insitution of slavery, which is what they saw coming in 1861. They knew they had to get out of the Union then or eventually be outvoted in Congress. So they got out. The North demurred, and war ensued.
We can argue until the cows come home over whether the Southern states had the legal right under the Constitution to secede. But the reason they wanted to secede was to preserve something that was inherently evil. And when Lee made his choice which side to fight for, he chose to lend his considerable talents to the forces that sought to preserve evil in this world. For that, he is still explaining his actions to his maker, who may or may not have forgiven him. The several hundred thousand dead American soldiers who Lee played a part in killing may not be so forgiving.
Being magnanimous in victory is different from honoring the cause of the loser. Eisenhower's correspondent understood this better than Eisenhower did. Lee should be remembered as a great general for an evil cause (like Rommel?), a man therefore of flawed character, a man who could not rise above the morays of his time to achieve a higher destiny. Like Lincoln did.
"Lee should be remembered as a great general for an evil cause (like Rommel?), a man therefore of flawed character, a man who could not rise above the morays of his time to achieve a higher destiny"
The fact we yet debate this is testament to the integrity of the issue and cause. That it has been fought and resolved, has preserved and stregthened as a country to this day. That you cannot grant this or see this, is your decision to be that much less of an American.
"That you cannot grant this or see this, is your decision to be that much less of an American."
Perfect words. The whole lot of them quite willingly choose to believe that Lincoln was utterly righteous in his campaign to slaughter the South. Oh yeah, he put many Northerners in the grave too! All to make himself the, "Emperor" of the Union, and to let all succeeding administrations do the same...
We can agree that war is not a legal solution to a legal problem. Madison argued that the states could arm themselves against the federal armies, and the convention voted down proposals allowing the use of force against a state.
I see. If I don't grant the "integrity of the issue or the cause" then I am less an American, than, by implication, you are, in your wisdom for seeing the truth of the matter. The truth of the matter is that, to this day, nearly150 years after that war, after all the emotions should have been erased and it can be viewed in the clear light of history, you remain an apologist for evil and evil-doers. It disgusts me that you can't have pride in your heritage without recognizing that Lee and the Southern cause were evil. We should be beyond that as a country. I think you and other such apologists must have some other issue muddying your thinking.
Apparently most of the Founders believed it was a right, if you say they didn't then why then did they write their beliefs in the Declaration of Independence, and why did they put the 9th and 10th Amendments in the Bill of Rights? Keep in mind at the time the Bill of Rights was written, it was viewed as a prohibition against the Federal Government, and remained so up until 1867.
Please tell me a little more about yourself.
Arlington is right.
The North demurred... I guess that is one way to put it.
And with that one line, there is nothing more to say.
For me there is great honor and dignity in Robert E. Lee. Hw was not an evil man. Neither was Stonewall Jackson or JEB Stuart. Anyone reading their life stories will know that to be true.
You don't need to respond back. I already know where you stand. I just wanted you to know that I stand proudly with the three men that I mentioned.
Lee graduated in 1829, the same year that the more common 2nd edition of Rawle's book was published. I doubt Lee ever even heard of Rawle, much less read his book.
Hey you two, get a room why don't you? This is a family forum.
I thought we had an agreement that you would not post to me. You have nothing to say that I want to hear.
My dad, a fellow FReeper, has a very high opinion of Ike. He argues that Ike made it OK to vote for a Republican in the South. Millions of men followed him to war and when he ran in 1952 it was the first time many Southerners had voted Republican.
Lee served as commandant of West Point. 1852-1855.
Grant was a West Point graduate, just as Lee was.
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.