Confederate Monuments

Robert E. Lee

Each year on the 19th of January there is renewed effort to canonize Robert E. Lee, the greatest confederate general. His personal comeliness, his aristocratic birth and his military prowess all call for the verdict of greatness and genius. But one thing–one terrible fact–militates against this and that is the inescapable truth that Robert E. Lee led a bloody war to perpetuate slavery. Copperheads like the New York Times may magisterially declare: “of course, he never fought for slavery.” Well, for what did he fight? State rights? Nonsense. The South cared only for State Rights as a weapon to defend slavery. If nationalism had been a stronger defense of the slave system than particularism, the South would have been as nationalistic in 1861 as it had been in 1812.

No. People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege and that was what Virginia fought for in the Civil War. And Lee followed Virginia. He followed Virginia not because he particularly loved slavery (although he certainly did not hate it), but because he did not have the moral courage to stand against his family and his clan. Lee hesitated and hung his head in shame because he was asked to lead armies against human progress and Christian decency and did not dare refuse. He surrendered not to Grant, but to Negro Emancipation.

Today we can best perpetuate his memory and his nobler traits not by falsifying his moral debacle, but by explaining it to the young white south. What Lee did in 1861, other Lees are doing in 1928. They lack the moral courage to stand up for justice to the Negro because of the overwhelming public opinion of their social environment. Their fathers in the past have condoned lynching and mob violence, just as today they acquiesce in the disfranchisement of educated and worthy black citizens, provide wretchedly inadequate public schools for Negro children and endorse a public treatment of sickness, poverty and crime which disgraces civilization.

It is the punishment of the South that its Robert Lees and Jefferson Davises will always be tall, handsome and well-born. That their courage will be physical and not moral. That their leadership will be weak compliance with public opinion and never costly and unswerving revolt for justice and right. it is ridiculous to seek to excuse Robert Lee as the most formidable agency this nation ever raised to make 4 million human beings goods instead of men. Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel–not indeed to his country, but to humanity and humanity’s God

-W.E.B Dubois 1928

people used to write
 
"On the subject of slavery, he (General Lee) assured me that he had always been in
favour of the emancipation of the negroes, and that in Virginia the
feeling had been strongly inclining in the same direction, till the
ill-judged enthusiasm (accounting to rancour) of the abolitionists in
the North had turned the southern tide of feeling in the other
direction. In Virginia, about thirty years ago, an ordinance for the
emancipation of the slaves had been rejected by only a small majority,
and every one fully expected at the next convention it would have been
carried, but for the above cause. He went on to say that there was
scarcely a Virginian new who was not glad that the subject had been
definitely settled, though nearly all regretted that they had not been
wise enough to do it themselves the first year of the war."

"Turning to the political bearing of the important question at issue,
the great Southern general gave me, at some length, his feelings with
regard to the abstract right of secession. This right, he told me,
was held as a constitutional maxim at the South. As to its exercise
at the time on the part of the South, he was distinctly opposed, and
it was not until Lincoln issued a proclamation for 75,000 men to invade
the South, which was deemed clearly unconstitutional, that Virginia
withdrew from the United States."
 
Jaw said:
"On the subject of slavery, he (General Lee) assured me that he had always been in
favour of the emancipation of the negroes, and that in Virginia the
feeling had been strongly inclining in the same direction, till the
ill-judged enthusiasm (accounting to rancour) of the abolitionists in
the North had turned the southern tide of feeling in the other
direction. In Virginia, about thirty years ago, an ordinance for the
emancipation of the slaves had been rejected by only a small majority,
and every one fully expected at the next convention it would have been
carried, but for the above cause. He went on to say that there was
scarcely a Virginian new who was not glad that the subject had been
definitely settled, though nearly all regretted that they had not been
wise enough to do it themselves the first year of the war."

"Turning to the political bearing of the important question at issue,
the great Southern general gave me, at some length, his feelings with
regard to the abstract right of secession. This right, he told me,
was held as a constitutional maxim at the South. As to its exercise
at the time on the part of the South, he was distinctly opposed, and
it was not until Lincoln issued a proclamation for 75,000 men to invade
the South, which was deemed clearly unconstitutional, that Virginia
withdrew from the United States."
Click to expand...

No matter what you post leftists will say it was all about slavery, because they love playing the moral superiority card.

in reality, Lee's motivations were state's rights, which leftists also hate because they support more government control
 
which state right? At this point in time moral superiority has absolutly nothing to do with the Civil War.
Actually we have history and political/military science to tell the story. Rather than ambiguous terms like "moral gobbledeee gook "

As DuBois insightfully wrote , " People do not go to war for abstract theories of government. They fight for property and privilege .. "

That line kinda applies / explains much of history. From 2016 going backward.

An interesting historical exercise is to work backward.
Let's start at Charletesville and work backwards from there.
What happened a week before Charlettesville that has direct relation to C-ville
and the week before and the week before that ...
 
sturg33 said:
No matter what you post leftists will say it was all about slavery, because they love playing the moral superiority card.

in reality, Lee's motivations were state's rights, which leftists also hate because they support more government control
Click to expand...

Indeed. I have been reading the first interview Lee gave after his surrender. It's fascinating to read his take on why he fought, and what drew out the war for so long.
http://www.law-rva.com/wp-content/u...rview-with-Thomas-M.-Cook-New-York-Herald.pdf

"The General's attention was directed to his written and spoken determination to draw his sword in defence only of his native State, and the inquiry was raised as to what he considered the defence of Virginia, and what degree of deliberation he had given to that expression. He stated that, as a firm and honest believer in the doctrine of State rights, he had considered his allegiance due primarily to the State in which he was born, and where he had always resided. And, although he was not an advocate of secession at the outset, when Virginia seceded he honestly believed it his duty to abide her fortune. He opposed secession to the last, foreseeing the ruin it was sure to entail. But when the State withdrew from the Union he had no recourse, in his views of honor and patriotism, but to abide her fortunes. He went with her, intending to remain a private citizen."

"With relevance to the war in the abstract, the General declared it as his honest belief that peace was practicable two years ago, and has been practicable from that time to the present day, whenever the General Government should see fit to seek it, giving any reasonable chance for the country to escape the consequences which the exasperated North seemed determined to impose. The South has, during this time, been ready and anxious for peace. They have been looking for some word or expression of compromise or conciliation from the North, upon which they might base a return to the Union. They were not prepared, nor are they yet, to come and beg for terms, but were ready to accept any fair and honorable terms, their own political views considered. The question of slavery did not lay in the way at all. The best men of the South have long been anxious to do away with this institution, and were quite willing to-day to see it abolished."

"In taking leave of the General I took occasion to say that he was greatly respected by a large body of good and true men at the North, and that as a soldier he was universally admired, and that it was earnestly hoped that he would yet lead an army of United States troops in the enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine."

This man is now a symbol of hate?
 
The last time I saw General Lee was in 1865. The curtain had fallen, forever shutting out from our view, I trust, the bloody tragedy of fratricidal war. Satisfied that a surrender was inevitable, I had taken my command out and was on the James River, near Cartersville, in Cumberland County. Here was held a council of war—over which, I think, General Rosser presided.

General Lee had surrendered, but a very large portion of General Lee's army had escaped. What course should we pursue? One proposition before the council was to reorganize as far as possible and form a junction with Johnston in North Carolina, or, failing in this, to join E. Kirby Smith in the Trans-Mississippi department. A larger number advocated our retiring to the mountains and woods, and carrying on a guerrilla warfare all over the country until we could again bring our armies into the field. The first proposition was objected to as under the circumstances impracticable, if not impossible; the second on the ground that although it would necessitate a large standing army on the part of the North, yet it would inflict untold horrors and suffering upon the South. Still it was the favored plan of operations. The discussion was long, earnest, and stormy, and the council, failing to agree, adjourned in the hope of obtaining more light, and especially that it might get some word from General Lee, who, it was reported, had not been required to take the parole.

The next day I learned that General Lee was being escorted out of the Federal lines by about seventy-five cavalrymen. I skirted them for some distance until at length the escort returned, leaving General Lee and his personal staff, with General “Rooney” Lee, his son, and several others to pursue their way to Richmond unattended. The general was riding upon his famous old war-horse “Traveler.” No one would ever have known from his looks that General Lee was not returning from one of his great victories. In physique he seemed much larger than in 1861. He now wore a full beard, which, with his hair, had turned gray. Yet there was not a wrinkle in his face and his form was as erect as when I first saw him, and in every respect he still looked the superb soldier. At this time General Lee was fifty-eight years old.

As I approached him and told him of the council and the propositions, and that we were as sheep not having a shepherd, in unapproachable dignity be answered, “I am on parole of honor; but I do not believe that I would be violating the spirit of that parole if I should say, ‘Go to your homes, take off your uniforms, and return to the peaceful vocations of life.’”

These words were at once taken down and reported. With many fiery and disappointed and desperate spirits they were the occasion of General Lee's being denounced as a traitor to the South. But in the sober second thought his advice became omnipotent.

Thus both his peaceful words and his example after the surrender gained as great a victory over the heart of the South as had his sword many a time over the enemy on the field of battle. And it is little known to-day at the North how much of blood and treasure was saved to the whole country, after he had laid down his arms, by the influence of General R. E. Lee.

W. W. Page.
 
http://www.vahistorical.org/collect...ginia-history-explorer/robert-e-lee-after-war

Lee arrived in Lexington in mid-September 1865 and went to work immediately. Over the next five years, Washington College grew physically and financially: the faculty increased in size from four to twenty, enrollment grew from fifty to nearly 400 students, and financial contributions poured in from both southern and northern sources. Lee's personal involvement with many of his students reflected his desire to create a new generation of Americans. In response to the bitterness of a Confederate widow, Lee wrote, "Dismiss from your mind all sectional feeling, and bring [your children] up to be Americans."

Wow, this guy is starting to sound like a hero. The kind we should have statues of.
 
quite a guy. Should have been hung

Not a devil, just your common everyday traitor

I guess it isn't "politically correct" to question or criticize the mercy of Lincoln
 
Whereas Grant and Sherman had no compunctions about laying waste to farms and doing harm to civilians standing in their way, Lee did. "It is well that war is so terrible," he said, "lest we grow too fond of it." As his armies advanced northward and captured farms, he instructed his soldiers that whatever food they took from the farmers, they pay for it. He, not grant, won the moral advantage recognized by history.
Seymour Morris Jr., American History Revised: 200 Startling Facts That Never Made It into the Textbooks (2010), p. 161
 
57Brave said:
quite a guy. Should have been hung

Not a devil, just your common everyday traitor

I guess it isn't "politically correct" to question or criticize the mercy of Lincoln
Click to expand...

Theodore Roosevelt, certainly a serious student of history and able to see both sides, being a Northerner with a Southern mother, said Robert E. Lee was our greatest American. Winston Churchill, even more adept at history, said the same. So, too, did Eisenhower. In a 1954 speech to the Boy Scouts of America, President Eisenhower cited Lee as one of his heroes.
Seymour Morris Jr., American History Revised: 200 Startling Facts That Never Made It into the Textbooks (2010), p. 161
 
Jaw, thanks for providing the information that you have. History is so messy. We all do well to pause before we begin wholesale anachronistic moral preening. It's easy to see the flaws in men of the past. It's much harder to see the good. It's also worth pondering, is there an overarching moral standard to judge all men from all eras and cultures? And if there is how any of us would fair...

With that said, and being one who has been encouraged by the good stories of men such as Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain, Robert. E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Booker T. Washington, and George Washington Carver, I think it wise to reconsider the placement of statues that were erected as products of Lost Cause movements, especially in times of ugly white supremacy and segregation. On Civil War battlefields, such monuments, imho, need to stay in place. In front of historical places connected to the Civil War, seem appropriate. Yet, I think even there monuments which also which seek to capture the horror of war and the oppression slaves and blacks faced after the war need to be erected. Let's not remove all vestiges of what our nation has gone through and let's not canonize either.
 
From an African-American friend:

'Negroes were supposed to write about the Race Problem. I was and am thoroughly sick of the subject. My interest lies in what makes a man or a woman do such-and-so, regardless of his color. It seemed to me that the human beings I met reacted pretty much the same to the same stimuli. Different idioms, yes, inherent difference, no.' ~Zora Neale Hurston

#Racefatigue
 
Are both sides honored at the Little Big Horn ?
Yes, but not until 1999. and, a full 110 years after the first commemoration
Which side did the board favor ?

would you be in favor of honoring Japanese pilots shot down over Pearl Harbor ?
Is there a monument to the German soldiers that fought bravely at Normandy ?
As long as we have to honor " both sides "

How is Lee or any of the Confederate's different ?
.....................................
yes, at Civil War battlefields there should be mention and perhaps markers for the " lost cause " with the caveat that is was a rebellion that was put down.
and the reasoning behind the rebellion was clear. the spread of slavery to new states and territories.
Emphasis on slavery.
Perhaps an explanation of slavery and the horrors many of our fellow citizens forefathers endured should be included in any memorial dedicated to the "rebels" as they romantically wish to be called

History is messy.
A wise man once wrote
 
BedellBrave said:
From an African-American friend:

'Negroes were supposed to write about the Race Problem. I was and am thoroughly sick of the subject. My interest lies in what makes a man or a woman do such-and-so, regardless of his color. It seemed to me that the human beings I met reacted pretty much the same to the same stimuli. Different idioms, yes, inherent difference, no.' ~Zora Neale Hurston

#Racefatigue
Click to expand...

Can't speak for others but I am not talking about a "race problem"
I am talking about the glorification of those that fought to preserve the enslavement of human beings .

We can agree Ms Hurston's words are as inspining as MLK dreaming of a day.
End of the day? we are all sick of the "race problem"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top