The National Cathedral is removing the stained glass windows honoring Generals Lee and Jackson

(09-07-2017 09:15 AM)Thomas Kearney Wrote:  The National Cathedral is removing the stained glass windows honoring Generals Lee and Jackson

Hard to believe that the alt-left go there to pray.

Other than that I have no problem removing the image of anybody on the stained glass windows.

On my maternal family's side, we have been Episcopalians for over 200 years. I was the organist at our home church for 28 years, starting at age 12 - and did it for free. The National Cathedral is (in reality) an Episcopal church, and millions of dollars have been given by faithful Episcopalians over the years for its construction and then its ongoing repair of earthquake damage.

The Cathedral can compete in architecture and beauty with many of the fine and ancient cathedrals of Europe. Those windows and the many others in the building are magnificent. Their removal smacks of the desecrations being done in the Middle East by our "religious enemies." Have we become a nation of hypocrites? As of today, I have become non-denominational and am withdrawing support from my ancestral, religious roots.

(09-07-2017 04:22 PM)L Verge Wrote:  On my maternal family's side, we have been Episcopalians for over 200 years. I was the organist at our home church for 28 years, starting at age 12 - and did it for free. The National Cathedral is (in reality) an Episcopal church, and millions of dollars have been given by faithful Episcopalians over the years for its construction and then its ongoing repair of earthquake damage.

The Cathedral can compete in architecture and beauty with many of the fine and ancient cathedrals of Europe. Those windows and the many others in the building are magnificent. Their removal smacks of the desecrations being done in the Middle East by our "religious enemies." Have we become a nation of hypocrites? As of today, I have become non-denominational and am withdrawing support from my ancestral, religious roots.

It seems almost sacrilegious for the National Cathedral to remove the Lee and Jackson windows, particularly since Lee was a devout Episcopalian and Jackson was baptized as one (later becoming a Presbyterian).

Recently, I learned that Robert E. Lee had the most bizarre, paternalistic and religious, view of the southern institution of slavery of which I have ever learned in detail. Robert E. Lee's opinion regarding slavery was expressed in a letter to his wife written in response to a speech given by then President Pierce. In this letter, Lee predicted the probable outcome of civil war as a result of this divergence in opinion. Lee was 49 years old at the time and the letter was written less than five years before the American Civil War began.

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856 reads (in pertinent part) as follows:

"I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy."

Then, along came the Civil War and, eventually, the Emancipation Proclamation promulgated by President Abraham Lincoln as a result of the intransigence of the Southern cause and the loss of life and "effusion" of blood on both sides.

Subsequently, in Spielberg's movie "Lincoln," the character of Mary Lincoln falsely stated to President Abraham Lincoln that he had not done enough to bring about the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This was an unadulterated "fiction of history" inflicted upon the viewing public by Director Spielberg and his movie playwright, Tony Kushner.

This false characterization of President Abraham Lincoln's actions regarding the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is almost unforgivable and needs to be properly addressed in sufficient manner by Director Spielberg as soon as possible.

(09-09-2017 01:03 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Recently, I learned that Robert E. Lee had the most bizarre, paternalistic and religious, view of the southern institution of slavery of which I have ever learned in detail. Robert E. Lee's opinion regarding slavery was expressed in a letter to his wife written in response to a speech given by then President Pierce. In this letter, Lee predicted the probable outcome of civil war as a result of this divergence in opinion. Lee was 49 years old at the time and the letter was written less than five years before the American Civil War began.

Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856 reads (in pertinent part) as follows:

"I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy."

I'm curious as to why you consider Lee's view of slavery as bizarre. Overall, his comments don't strike me as particularly unusual for an upper-class Virginian in the antebellum era. My understanding is that viewing slavery as a "positive good" and part of God's plan was not uncommon among Lee's social class. (Therefore, I'd agree with your other two descriptors of Lee's view, i.e., paternalistic and religious.)

(09-09-2017 05:37 PM)Darrell Wrote:  

(09-09-2017 01:03 AM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  Robert E. Lee letter dated December 27, 1856 reads (in pertinent part) as follows:

"I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy."

I'm curious as to why you consider Lee's view of slavery as bizarre. Overall, his comments don't strike me as particularly unusual for an upper-class Virginian in the antebellum era. My understanding is that viewing slavery as a "positive good" and part of God's plan was not uncommon among Lee's social class. (Therefore, I'd agree with your other two descriptors of Lee's view, i.e., paternalistic and religious.)

It goes to show you the power of political propaganda.

Calhoun came up with the "positive good" cliche to hold his political base in the South. Slavery was the least common denominator holding it together and at the time the South was losing the moral argument. Virginia was one state where the majority didn't give a wit about slavery and was close to outlawing it. They did not secede over the slavery issue but ended up fighting for it.

Calhoun's "positive good" argument turned slave owners into the sisters of mercy overnight.

I don't see anything "religious" about Robert E. Lee's attempt to justify slavery using religion. What I do see is the abuse of religion. Not to single Lee out though, since I'm sure there were plenty of people around the country at the time, who were guilty of doing the same thing to one degree or another. It's the kind of thing that gives religion (Christianity, in particular) an undeserved bad name.

How bad was life in Africa in 1856, when Lee wrote the aforementioned letter to his wife, stating that the American slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa?

Some months ago, I read an essay on Africa in the February 23, 1987 issue of Time magazine. The essay was written by senior writer Lance Morrow, who travelled to Africa to do the story. He reported that there were tribes who lived in huts with walls made of animal dung, wore little or no clothing, hunted with a spear, and after the kill of a goat, "slurped" up the flowing blood with relish. Morality was simple for some tribes, such as the Masai, who believe that in the beginning, God bestowed all the world's cattle upon them, so when they raid a rival village, they are only taking back what rightfully belongs to them.

The foregoing may be shocking to first world inhabitants, but these African tribes seem to like their way of life well enough. It's hard to imagine anyone preferring enslavement over freedom, no matter what the other contingent "benefits" of the enslavement may be.

(09-10-2017 09:55 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  I don't see anything "religious" about Robert E. Lee's attempt to justify slavery using religion.

I quoted Robert E. Lee's 1856 entire letter in my post of Sept. 5. I copy over the "religious" portion of this letter immediately below.

"The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy."

"The doctrines and miracles of our Saviour have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day."

It may be of interest to note that in other parts of the Christian world, "a merciful Providence" appears to have been moving much more swiftly. In 1807, Britain’s Parliament enacted the Abolition of the Slave Trade Act. Britain followed this with the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 which freed all slaves in the British Empire. I am certain that Robert E. Lee was aware of these historic facts at the time he wrote his letter in 1856.

I agree with you, Kate: "It's hard to imagine anyone preferring enslavement over freedom, no matter what the other contingent "benefits" of the enslavement may be."

And, I think that President Lincoln was also in agreement with you and expressed as late as March 17, 1865 his own "Christian" view on the imposition of slavery upon other people to an Indiana regiment:

"I have always thought that all men should be free; but if any should be slaves, it should be first those who desire for themselves, and secondly, those who desire it for others. When I hear anyone arguing for slavery, I feel a strong impulse to see it tried on him personally."

(09-10-2017 09:55 PM)My Name Is Kate Wrote:  I don't see anything "religious" about Robert E. Lee's attempt to justify slavery using religion. What I do see is the abuse of religion. Not to single Lee out though, since I'm sure there were plenty of people around the country at the time, who were guilty of doing the same thing to one degree or another. It's the kind of thing that gives religion (Christianity, in particular) an undeserved bad name.

How bad was life in Africa in 1856, when Lee wrote the aforementioned letter to his wife, stating that the American slaves were immeasurably better off here than in Africa?

Some months ago, I read an essay on Africa in the February 23, 1987 issue of Time magazine. The essay was written by senior writer Lance Morrow, who travelled to Africa to do the story. He reported that there were tribes who lived in huts with walls made of animal dung, wore little or no clothing, hunted with a spear, and after the kill of a goat, "slurped" up the flowing blood with relish. Morality was simple for some tribes, such as the Masai, who believe that in the beginning, God bestowed all the world's cattle upon them, so when they raid a rival village, they are only taking back what rightfully belongs to them.

The foregoing may be shocking to first world inhabitants, but these African tribes seem to like their way of life well enough. It's hard to imagine anyone preferring enslavement over freedom, no matter what the other contingent "benefits" of the enslavement may be.

Your mention of the Time magazine article reminds me of the book "Out of America: A Black Man Confronts Africa," by Keith Richburg. However, instead of happy tribes, that author described Africa as a continent of "famine, war and misery." (He was in Africa from 1991 to 1994 as the Washington Post's bureau chief, during the civil wars in Somalia and Rwanda.)

The book stirred up quite a controversy in the African-American community as the author also made a "slavery as a positive good" argument - albeit one from a historical perspective. Richburg said that, although embarrassed to admit it, he was secretly glad that his slave ancestor made it out of Africa -- "because, now, I am not one of them."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/ina...chbrg1.htm

Interesting article: http://ic.galegroup.com/ic/suic/Referenc...31407f1f3d

It's a great informative article, Laurie - thank you.
As for "Colonialism may have been an abrupt and rude awakening to the industrialized world, but it did bring several benefits."
This is from out point of view, and was our decision. Why do benefits (or what we think they are/were - ignoring the flip sides) legitimate or justify to force someone therero that way? Likewise I'd think the gentleman above would possibly have been "glader" if his ancestor had come as an immigrant by his own. (And overall I think we too often forget in the end we all originate out of Africa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_A...ern_humans )

Here's another interesting article on slave trade (just lately a Dutch gentleman and acquaintance in a conversation mentioned the Dutch, like all peoples some(or more)times in history, had quite the skeleton in the closet due to their big scale slave trade), and I appreciate that it distincts between (not) putting the blame on someone and (not) justifying, the one doesn't mean the other.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html

(09-11-2017 12:08 PM)David Lockmiller Wrote:  I agree with you, Kate: "It's hard to imagine anyone preferring enslavement over freedom, no matter what the other contingent "benefits" of the enslavement may be."

Agreed, however, I think that begs the question of whether Lee's comment about blacks being better off here than in Africa was merely a hypocritical justification for slavery - or one based on a sincerely held religious belief.

Viewed from a mid-19th century Christian worldview, perhaps Lee believed the "mild & melting influence of Christianity" (as he put it) would result in everlasting salvation for the slaves - as opposed to their eternal damnation (had they remained in Africa). If that was indeed the case, one could conceivably argue that enslavement in America would be preferable to freedom in Africa - at least from the spiritual, if not the temporal, perspective.

Of course, we'll never know with absolute certainty whether Lee's comment was merely disingenuous or if it represented a real sentiment. However, I'm inclined to believe the latter is more likely based on the following:

1) The letter was a private one that Lee sent to his wife - not an argument made to the public at-large.

2) IMO, it's unlikely that Lee was trying to propagandize Mary Custis Lee with his view of slavery. She was from a slave-holding family and, as I understand it, held essentially the same opinion of the peculiar institution as her husband.

3) The letter was written in 1856, well before the start of the war and the even later abolishment of slavery. Therefore, it was not an "after the fact" justification for slavery.

At any rate - leaving the above issue aside - another part of Lee's 1856 letter to Mary struck me as particularly prescient. In speaking of the Northern abolitionists' plans "to interfere with & change the domestic institutions of the South," Lee said that their goals "can only be accomplished by them through the agency of a civil & servile war."

(09-11-2017 05:45 PM)Eva Elisabeth Wrote:  It's a great informative article, Laurie - thank you.
As for "Colonialism may have been an abrupt and rude awakening to the industrialized world, but it did bring several benefits."
This is from out point of view, and was our decision. Why do benefits (or what we think they are/were - ignoring the flip sides) legitimate or justify to force someone therero that way? Likewise I'd think the gentleman above would possibly have been "glader" if his ancestor had come as an immigrant by his own. (And overall I think we too often forget in the end we all originate out of Africa. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recent_A...ern_humans )

Here's another interesting article on slave trade (just lately a Dutch gentleman and acquaintance in a conversation mentioned the Dutch, like all peoples some(or more)times in history, had quite the skeleton in the closet due to their big scale slave trade), and I appreciate that it distincts between (not) putting the blame on someone and (not) justifying, the one doesn't mean the other.
http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/slavetra.html

On the eve of the transatlantic slave trade

"In most parts of Africa before 1500, societies had become highly developed in terms of their own histories. They often had complex systems of participatory government, or were established powerful states that covered large territories and had extensive regional and international links.

"Many of these societies had solved difficult agricultural problems and had come up with advanced techniques of production of food and other crops and were engaged in local, regional or even international trading networks. Some peoples were skilled miners and metallurgists, others great artists in wood, stone and other materials. Many of the societies had also amassed a great stock of scientific and other knowledge, some of it stored in libraries such as those of Timbuktu, but some passed down orally from generation to generation.

"There was great diversity across the continent and therefore societies at different stages and levels of development. Most importantly, Africans had established their own economic and political systems, their own cultures, technologies and philosophies that had enabled them to make spectacular advances and important contributions to human knowledge.

"The significance of the transatlantic slave trade is not just that it led to the loss of millions of lives and the departure of millions of those who could have contributed to Africa's future, although depopulation did have a great impact. But just as devastating was the fact that African societies were disrupted by the trade and increasingly unable to follow an independent path of development. Colonial rule and its modern legacy have been a continuation of this disruption.

"The devastation of Africa through transatlantic slavery was accompanied by the ignorance of some historians and philosophers to negate its entire history. These ideas and philosophies suggested, that among other things, Africans had never developed any institutions or cultures, nor anything else of any worth and that future advances could only take place under the direction of Europeans or European institutions." Source: http://www.understandingslavery.com/inde...d=151.html

I just have one question: Why do we continually place the onus of slavery on just Americans, and specifically on those in southern regions of the U.S? It was traders from Europe who first brought them to our shores and after they had also exploited the Africans in varying European and Asian countries.

You will also notice as you read more and more African history that the Muslim religion played a big role in enslavement also. It was not just Christians who contributed to the institution.

Also, don't forget that the great civilization of the Egyptians was also a part of African history. Is it safe to say that the American institution of slavery was based on those who had been conquered on their home turf - by both Europeans and Africans themselves? Therefore, American society developed the belief that those held in slavery were too weak to make it on their own?

I never meant to imply that Lee was being hypocritical or expressing anything but sincere beliefs in the letter to his wife. I was just trying to say that I don't think the Christian religion supports his beliefs. But that is how many people thought in those days, both in America and around the world in Christian countries. I don't know whether the Muslim religion or any other religion supports slavery, so I didn't mention them.