It was sad to read this headline - Forgive me but as a historian, I feel something has to be said in Lee's defense.

It is true that Robert E. Lee personally owned slaves that he inherited upon the deaths of his mother and his father and that he fought on the 'wrong' side during the civil war.

In an 1856 letter to his wife the deployed soldier wrote: “In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages.”

But his political opinion is never cited and his actions (honorable in its time) on behalf of his state is given as proof of his evilness. It is like saying the USSR soldiers fought for the glory of communism and Stalin rather than the fact that they were being invaded by Nazis.

Like many monument ceremonies, the unveiling of the Lee statue served as a moment of reconciliation for Americans. Union and Confederate veterans gathered together on the same platform, honoring a man many Americans, north and south, regarded as the epitome of military brilliance, bravery, and honor.

But Lee's greatest achievement was not on the battlefield, it was at Appomattox and afterwards.

Civil wars are the worst of all wars. They raise memories that are best laid quietly to rest. Their effects remain as scar tissue; often enough, as a matter of fact, the wounds they create really never do heal, the hatreds and antagonisms that caused and were increased by rebellion never die out but remain generation after generation to breed a sullen anger and suspicion that at last become wholly poisonous.

Davis wanted Lee to continue the war guerrilla style but he declined. Guerilla warfare, would have brought eternal enmity with crossroad ambushes and midnight reprisals, with armies harrying the countryside across state after state, increasing the pressure that would evoke another explosion. The war itself would have been ended, but it would not have been settled.

Lee saw that danger, spoke against it, flatly refused to countenance any suggestion that the struggle be kept alive after the formal fighting had ended, and threw his immense influence into the scales on the side of peace and reconciliation.

At Appomattox Grant and Lee set the terms for the peace: No reprisals on the one hand, full acceptance of the result on the other. Bear in mind here is that civil wars usually don’t end that way. They bring an imposed peace that has to be supported by force for years, sometimes forever, and the settlement usually intensifies the passions that brought the trouble in the first place.

Lee returned to his own army, composed a brief, temperate address telling his men to accept what had happened and to look to their future as citizens of a nation they had tried so hard to tear apart. Then he rode quietly off into legend.

The glorification of the Lee legend drew a great part of its strength from the fact that Lee admitted the loss of the war. He admitted it and accepted it. His action contained no hint that enmity should be kept alive and that the wrongs of war should be avenged.

It became a form of adjustment to a reality that was unpleasant; the passion that might so easily have poisoned American life forever spiraled off, or at least the major part of it did, into the enshrinement of a beautiful and romantic legend which over the years saved the country a great deal of trouble.

The memory of the Civil War did not become a divisive force in this country. Incredibly, the greatest and most terrible war we ever fought—the one we fought with each other—gave us a more enduring
unity. It gave us a common tradition that go to the very roots of our existence as a people.

Maybe the legend of Bobby Lee has outlived its usefulness but the mob demanding his ouster will never come close to unifying anything.

It's all about attitude.
If you are looking for the good or the positive, you will find it.
If you are looking for the bad or the negative, you will find that too!

Are you going to drink the sweet lemonade, or suck on the sour lemon?
It's what you make of it.

If the people of Richmond, and in a broader sense, the people of Virginia, want the monuments removed, nothing will happen to the elected officials who made the decision. On the other hand, if a majority does not want it, it will reflect at the polls. My guess is most of the political establishment there are safe.

Best
Rob

As we as a nation or state continue to remove confederate memorials and statues, should we go ahead and remove the Vietnam Memorial?.
That was a very unpopular war, many disagreed with why we were fighting.

Do we need to add names to those Civil War monuments of the soldiers of the community or states where those monuments are located?
People are misinformed when they believe those are only monuments to states rights and slavery.
They are memorials to people who may not have agreed to the political reasons for the war, (just like Vietnam), but were fighting for their state, community and their homes.
There are so many books, letters articles about those who sacrificed, showed courage, bravery, loyalty, mercy, determination, love and more on both sides of the war.
But most of those are hidden away on dusty bookshelves, and digital archives. They are mostly forgotten.
We need public reminders of the virtues and qualities of character these people had.
That's what I see that we are pulling down and replacing them with emptiness.

Quote:People are misinformed when they believe those are only monuments to states rights and slavery.

Read this, and then see how you feel.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/c...180970731/

No one is denying a private citizen who wants to put up a monument on his or her own property. It's only on public grounds, owned by us all, that the community feels does not represent its values (and in the particular case of African-Americans, never did). Hence, why I made the comment about the political ramifications of taking them down.

Best
Rob

Rob, I'm going to pass on responding. This is a discussion I can't boil down to fit in these dialog boxes.
Plus you and I are good friends and I want it to stay that way. We can find points we agree on when look for them.

But the real reason is Joy says I'm giving to much attention to the news and it's making me cranky. (which effects my blood pressure)
So before I get placed with even more restrictions, I will have to take a break and focus my attention on something else.

In addition to that, my beloved "Fido" recently passed away. We used to have some great conversations and just quiet time together. I really miss her. Most of you have been though that and can understand.

So sorry to hear about Fido, Gene. You, above all others, know that I know how it feels.

Best
Rob

"unveiling of the Lee statue served as a moment of reconciliation for Americans."
Perhaps that should be changed to "some Americans." I doubt any Black Americans attended the unveiling. This is a defining moment in this countries's history and a chance to heal centuries old problems. The removal of this statue along with all the others and banning of confederate flags at NASCAR events and changing of army bases named after southern generals will help in the healing. If you believe these icons should remain during these pivotal times, take a good look at yourself; you just may be part of the problem.

(06-06-2020 11:49 AM)Gene C Wrote:  My beloved "Fido" recently passed away. We used to have some great conversations and just quiet time together. I really miss her. Most of you have been though that and can understand.

Gene, I am sorry to hear about the loss of your dog. Animals are important in our lives.

(06-05-2020 12:28 PM)JMadonna Wrote:  It was sad to read this headline - Forgive me but as a historian, I feel something has to be said in Lee's defense.

Davis wanted Lee to continue the war guerrilla style but he declined.

I read JMadonna's post for the first time today. It is extremely well-written and highly informative. In the moment of now, it had escaped my memory of what General Lee did not do that so benefited this entire nation in reconciliation.


President Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address:

"One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves not distributed generally over the union but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen perpetuate and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered ~ that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses for it must needs be that offenses come but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which in the providence of God must needs come but which having continued through His appointed time He now wills to remove and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him. Fondly do we hope ~ fervently do we pray ~ that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said 'the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.'

"With malice toward none with charity for all with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish the work we are in to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan ~ to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations."

What would this nation be like now if General Lee had followed the express orders of his Commander-in-Chief, President Jefferson Davis, and committed his army to guerilla warfare?

The answer to that question must be put on the scale of justice in defense of the character and reputation of Confederate General Robert Lee.

Even then, as historian JMadonna notes: “[T]he unveiling of the Lee statue served as a moment of reconciliation for Americans. Union and Confederate veterans gathered together on the same platform, honoring a man many Americans, north and south, regarded as the epitome of military brilliance, bravery, and honor.”

I believe that General Lee’s statute should remain where it is, in order to honor his noble act of moral courage. I believe that President Abraham Lincoln would have agreed with this assessment.

The following are excerpts from Doris Kearns Goodwin’s book, Team of Rivals, at pages 731-32.

Good Friday, April 14, 1865, was surely one of Lincoln’s happiest days. The morning began with a leisurely breakfast in the company of his son Robert, just arrived in Washington. . . . As the father imparted his advice, Elizabeth Keckley observed, “his face was more cheerful than [she] had seen it for a long while.”

At 11 a.m., Grant arrived at the White House to attend the regularly scheduled Friday cabinet meeting. He had hoped for word that Johnston’s army, the last substantial rebel force remaining, had surrendered to Sherman, but no news had yet arrived. Lincoln told Grant not to worry. [Note: Johnston followed the lead of General Lee; there would not be many years of guerilla warfare following the American Civil War. General Johnston signed the surrender of his army to General Sherman on April 26, 1865.] [Lincoln] predicted that the tidings would come soon, “for he had last night the usual dream which he had preceding nearly every great and important event of the War.” . . . Grant remarked that not all those great events had been victories, but Lincoln remained hopeful that this time this event would be favorable.

The complexities of reestablishing law and order in the Southern states dominated the conversation [of the subsequent cabinet meeting]. . . . Lincoln said that “he thought it providential that this great rebellion was crushed just as Congress had adjourned,” since he and the cabinet were more likely to “accomplish more without them than with them” regarding Reconstruction. He noted that “there were men in Congress who, if their motives were good, were nevertheless impracticable, and who possessed feelings of hate and vindictiveness in which he did not sympathize and could not participate. He hoped that there would be no persecution, no bloody work, after the war was over.”

As for rebel leaders, Lincoln reiterated his resolve to perpetrate no further violence. “None need expect he would take any part in hanging or killing those men, even the worst of them.” While their continued presence on American soil might prove troublesome, he preferred to “frighten them out of the country, open the gates, let down the bars, scare them off.” To illustrate his point, he shook “his hands as if scaring sheep,” and said, “Enough lives have been sacrificed. We must extinguish our resentments if we expect harmony and union.”

Stanton later wrote that Lincoln seemed “more cheerful and happy” than at any previous cabinet meeting, thrilled by “the near prospect of firm and durable peace at home and abroad.” Throughout the discussion, Stanton recalled, Lincoln “spoke very kindly of General Lee and others of the Confederacy,” exhibiting in marked degree the kindness and humanity of his disposition, and the tender and forgiving spirit that so eminently distinguished him.”

I want to note that I changed the last paragraph of my previous post to read:

"I believe that General Lee’s statute should remain where it is, in order to honor his noble act of moral courage. I believe that President Abraham Lincoln would have agreed with this assessment."