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
Grant as a good guy and there is just as much to admire in his life as there is in Lee's life. There were no villians in the Civil War... okay except for Sheridan. There was honor and valor in the Union and the Confederacy. That's why studying the men who fought it is so rich and deep.
This is a misleading statistic. My dad, before he became ill, did a great deal of genealogical research on our family. In Georgia, Louisiana and Texas he says about one family in four or five had slaves. Meaning 20 or 25% of families had them. However as only the head of household owned them, and family's were large, people use numbers like this to cover the truth.
BTW before you start on me, some of my family were among the largest slave holders in the South.
Why are you posting to me?
Because the agreement was that you wouldn't post to me...not the other way around. And since you pride yourself on your 'rightness', I just thought I would make sure you had all the facts.
Same here. Nice to know there were a few seminar trollers in the 50's too. ;^)
When I was growing up we had one car. My mother didn't drive and the title to the car was in my father's name alone. So one could say that in the eyes of the state only 20% of the people in the family owned a car, but but the entire family benefitted from car ownership. Likewise with slavery. Only 6% owned slaves. But virtually all of that 6% had wives and children and, perhaps, extended family who gained benefit from the slave ownership. In some states the 1860 census indicates that upwards of half the families in some states held slaves. Many more families who did not no doubt drew economic benefit from those that did. So if it's hard to understand why people would fight so only 6% could own slaves, it's much easier to understand fighting to protect an institution that 50% or more drew benefit from.
There'll always be an argument as to who the greatest general in American history is. Some would argue MacArthur while others will scream for Patton. A few could make an argument for Bobby Lee while some would say it was WT Sherman.
IMHO, the most brilliant general in American history is George C. Marshall. This guy managed to keep such disparate personalities as Mac, Ike, Patton, Bradley, and Clark on the same wave-length without going insane.
Well, if it's facts you want then let me correct my earlier post and blow your theory right out of the water. Jacob Kobrick from Villanova wrote a paper on the failure of nationalism at antebellum West Point. His research showed that Rawle's book was used for a single year at West Point, 1826. While Lee would have been there but before Lee would have taken the Constitutional law course. In fact, the only confederate general or leader who might have taken that class was Albert Sidney Johnson. So if Lee ever heard of Rawle, he doesn't appear to have taken the course and could hardly be expected to be influenced by the book. Link.
Now, if you want to declare a joint cessation of posting to each other then I agree.
If you want to draw an analysis between Grant and Lee, Grant graduated from West Point in 1843, ranking 21st in a class of 39. Lee graduated second in his class of 46.
Grant was under educated.
Some more of your take no prisoners attitude...
You think you got me. You don't. I deeply admire Robert E. Lee. That won't change because you blew my theory out of the water. The reason I asked you not to post to me anymore is I am tired of your hate toward anything Southern.
So, if you need to post one more time to me please have at... it will ust be more of the same.
Then we can stop posting to each other.
And Lee did not have any demerits. Do you realize what an accomplishment that is? (of course you do)
Grant never beat Lee on a battlefield on equal terms. Grant overwhelmed Lee with superior manpower and firepower.
In my house, my father is a Grant man and I am a Stonewall Jackson person...so I have heard alot about Grant. There was military genius in Grant. It was different from Lee, but it was there.
Lee would not allow anyone to say anything negative about Grant after Appomattox.
Okay, but try this: "Had the Japanese or Germans or Russians or Al Quaida won, the US would still have existed....but somewhat smaller." I'm not saying that the analogy is exact, but wonder if people aren't extending to the Confederacy a degree of trust that they don't give to other powers that may have wanted to make our country "somewhat smaller."
So did mine. And it started from the roof to begin with.
Grant and Sherman were the first generals to grasp that Napoleonic tactics were outdated and their was a new form of warfare emerging, Total War. European observers completely missed it because they dismissed it as American amateurism, but the war in late 1864-early 1865 was a complete preview of what the Western Front would look like in WW1.
Not entirely.
The editors at the Charleston Mercury agreed. They had anticipated the threat that a Republican victory would pose when in early November they warned South Carolinians and the entire South that “[t]he issue before the country is the extinction of slavery.” “No man of common sense, who has observed the progress of events, and is not prepared to surrender the institution,” they charged,“can doubt that the time for action has come—now or never.” The newspaper editors, like most Southerners saw Lincoln’s election as lifting abolitionists to power, and like most southerners they understood, as they plainly stated, that “[t]he existence of slavery is at stake.”
“What Shall the South Carolina Legislature Do?,”The Charleston Mercury, November 3, 1860. Source
Lee realized even before First Manassas that the South could not win a war of attrition. That is why he continually sought to go North. Stonewall Jackson's writings show a man who knew that the Napoleonic warfare was no longer viable. His style of fighting changed warfare as well.
I'll always admire Bobby Lee, but Stonewall was probably better suited to the type of warfare that this one brought.
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.