Robert E Lee The Great Emancipator

[My Name Is Kate]

I don't know if Liz intentionally compared Lee with Hitler, or not. All I know is that in another recent thread, some people got the impression that I was comparing Booth with Bundy, when I had no intention of doing that. Depending on one's life experiences, or possibly historical background, some people may be easily triggered by any mention of certain topics. It's not always easy for other people to understand. Anyway, being triggered is something I have to watch myself.

[L Verge]

I said that I would not post on this thread again, but I just have to congratulate Rick, brtmchl, and Joe for their great posts. It shows that we ARE all adults here -- well-read, intelligent, and talented in putting knowledge and thoughts in writing that reflect a full understanding of what caused the worst period in American history. Thank you, gentlemen.

P.S. brtmichl, that was one of the best synopses of causes of the war that I could ask for. This old teacher gives you an A+ and wishes that you could write chapters on the war for textbooks. Are you a teacher by profession? If not, you should be.

[Eva Elisabeth]

Liz, IMO comparing evils is more dangerous than useful or enlightening. Evil is evil, but each has unique roots, developements, agony and consequenses. IMO nothing was/is worse than the Holocaust, thus what sense does it make always to compare other evil acts of mankind with it? It could easily lead to a sort of "belittlement" of the latter. If not, what does it help? It is important not to forget, but moreover to look forward, to make people sensitive and aware of doing whatever possible in their life and scope that such will never happen again. And this goes for each single kind of evil, whether you compare them with each other or not.
(I'm sure the Southeners are as tired of carrying slavery as their original sin as I'm of being stigmatised with the Holocaust.)

To get clear: I'm not denying facts or seriousness of the issues, far from it! Nobody can. But I think repeating and comparing over and over makes more sense if it serves as a basis for consideration of present and future situation, actions and ways.

[L Verge]

Beautifully said, Eva.

[J. Beckert]

Ditto, Laurie. That was very nice, Eva. Slavery was a Northern, Southern and African sin. If you're going to tell a true story, you can't leave anything out because it doesn't suit your agenda.

[Rick Smith]

(06-10-2013 06:51 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I said that I would not post on this thread again, but I just have to congratulate Rick, brtmchl, and Joe for their great posts. It shows that we ARE all adults here -- well-read, intelligent, and talented in putting knowledge and thoughts in writing that reflect a full understanding of what caused the worst period in American history. Thank you, gentlemen.

Laurie,

That is very kind.

Thank you,

Rick

---

[quote='Eva Elisabeth' pid='19992' dateline='1370908943']
Liz, IMO comparing evils is more dangerous than useful or enlightening. Evil is evil, but each has unique roots, developements, agony and consequenses. IMO nothing was/is worse than the Holocaust, thus what sense does it make always to compare other evil acts of mankind with it? It could easily lead to a sort of "belittlement" of the latter. If not, what does it help? It is important not to forget, but moreover to look forward, to make people sensitive and aware of doing whatever possible in their life and scope that such will never happen again. And this goes for each single kind of evil, whether you compare them with each other or not.
(I'm sure the Southeners are as tired of carrying slavery as their original sin as I'm of being stigmatised with the Holocaust.)

Eva,

Well done.

Rick

[brtmchl]

(06-10-2013 06:51 PM)L Verge Wrote:  I said that I would not post on this thread again, but I just have to congratulate Rick, brtmchl, and Joe for their great posts. It shows that we ARE all adults here -- well-read, intelligent, and talented in putting knowledge and thoughts in writing that reflect a full understanding of what caused the worst period in American history. Thank you, gentlemen.

P.S. brtmichl, that was one of the best synopses of causes of the war that I could ask for. This old teacher gives you an A+ and wishes that you could write chapters on the war for textbooks. Are you a teacher by profession? If not, you should be.

Thank you Laurie that is a very nice compliment and thank you for the grade. I am not a teacher; but my wife is. She teaches fifth grade and invites me as a guest speaker when she is teaching The Civil War. I always do one class on the assassination and one on whatever topic she wants. Thank you to all of you who have said such nice things. A good arguement is a chance to learn something new, and I always look forward to the posts on this site.

[HerbS]

Sorry Liz,I am not about,snide remarks.Just History! I am sorry if it was me who offended you!

[Hess1865]

And I've always considered Chairman Mao a bigger mass murderer then Hitler or Stalin.
Not that it makes those 2 any less of of the monsters that they were.

[My Name Is Kate]

Hitler wasn't even German, was he? I thought his nationality was Austrian.

[Eva Elisabeth]

He was Austrian. In 1938, under his command, Germany invaded and annexed Austria.

[Thomas Thorne]

(06-07-2013 12:30 PM)william l. richter Wrote:  Robert E. Lee: The Great Emanciaptor
How many slaves the Proclamation freed and whether it was legal, do not matter. Lincoln had become an abolitionist. He corrected his legal stance by having Congress pass a proposed Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery completely. He was able to do all of this because Robert E. Lee kept the Confederacy alive for two critical years forcing Lincoln to act to deny the South its labor force and the North to accept this reality. In his own way, Lee was the Great Emancipator. He forced Lincoln to act to end slavery to win the war.

It is fascinating how the actions and even the triumphs of famous men and women often produce consequences that would have horrified them. Did Lee ever rue his military successes? Napoleon, who was certainly no Jeffersonian,was described as an "unwitting champion of democracy." Perhaps the ultimate in carrying this line of thought to ridiculousness was Randolph Churchill,the truly obnoxious son of Winston Churchill. Randolph stunned the city fathers of Tel Aviv by suggesting they build a statue of Hitler on the grounds that they owed the existence of Israel to the greatest anti -semite in history.

A comparison of Napoleon, Hitler and Robert E. Lee is instructive. The first two were among the great egomaniacs of history who happily waded thru rivers of blood for their own glory. Lee was raised in the tradition of George Washington which emphasized self abnegation, service to the state and subordination of the military to civil authority.

Perhaps Lee's greatest service to his country was to surrender in 1865 and go home without the slightest desire to renew the contest at some future date. It was better for the United States that Southerners gloried in the Lost Cause than create Confederate Liberation Fronts and either resume the Civil War or engage in the terrorism too often characteristic of people with a national identity but without a country.
Tom

[LincolnMan]

(06-11-2013 09:43 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 12:30 PM)william l. richter Wrote:  Robert E. Lee: The Great Emanciaptor
How many slaves the Proclamation freed and whether it was legal, do not matter. Lincoln had become an abolitionist. He corrected his legal stance by having Congress pass a proposed Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery completely. He was able to do all of this because Robert E. Lee kept the Confederacy alive for two critical years forcing Lincoln to act to deny the South its labor force and the North to accept this reality. In his own way, Lee was the Great Emancipator. He forced Lincoln to act to end slavery to win the war.

It is fascinating how the actions and even the triumphs of famous men and women often produce consequences that would have horrified them. Did Lee ever rue his military successes? Napoleon, who was certainly no Jeffersonian,was described as an "unwitting champion of democracy." Perhaps the ultimate in carrying this line of thought to ridiculousness was Randolph Churchill,the truly obnoxious son of Winston Churchill. Randolph stunned the city fathers of Tel Aviv by suggesting they build a statue of Hitler on the grounds that they owed the existence of Israel to the greatest anti -semite in history.

A comparison of Napoleon, Hitler and Robert E. Lee is instructive. The first two were among the great egomaniacs of history who happily waded thru rivers of blood for their own glory. Lee was raised in the tradition of George Washington which emphasized self abnegation, service to the state and subordination of the military to civil authority.

Perhaps Lee's greatest service to his country was to surrender in 1865 and go home without the slightest desire to renew the contest at some future date. It was better for the United States that Southerners gloried in the Lost Cause than create Confederate Liberation Fronts and either resume the Civil War or engage in the terrorism too often characteristic of people with a national identity but without a country.
Tom

Very much in agreement with your comments, Tom.

[Laurie Verge]

Me, too! Thank you for a logical analysis.

[brtmchl]

(06-12-2013 06:02 AM)LincolnMan Wrote:  

(06-11-2013 09:43 PM)Thomas Thorne Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 12:30 PM)william l. richter Wrote:  Robert E. Lee: The Great Emanciaptor
How many slaves the Proclamation freed and whether it was legal, do not matter. Lincoln had become an abolitionist. He corrected his legal stance by having Congress pass a proposed Thirteenth Amendment, which ended slavery completely. He was able to do all of this because Robert E. Lee kept the Confederacy alive for two critical years forcing Lincoln to act to deny the South its labor force and the North to accept this reality. In his own way, Lee was the Great Emancipator. He forced Lincoln to act to end slavery to win the war.

It is fascinating how the actions and even the triumphs of famous men and women often produce consequences that would have horrified them. Did Lee ever rue his military successes? Napoleon, who was certainly no Jeffersonian,was described as an "unwitting champion of democracy." Perhaps the ultimate in carrying this line of thought to ridiculousness was Randolph Churchill,the truly obnoxious son of Winston Churchill. Randolph stunned the city fathers of Tel Aviv by suggesting they build a statue of Hitler on the grounds that they owed the existence of Israel to the greatest anti -semite in history.

A comparison of Napoleon, Hitler and Robert E. Lee is instructive. The first two were among the great egomaniacs of history who happily waded thru rivers of blood for their own glory. Lee was raised in the tradition of George Washington which emphasized self abnegation, service to the state and subordination of the military to civil authority.

Perhaps Lee's greatest service to his country was to surrender in 1865 and go home without the slightest desire to renew the contest at some future date. It was better for the United States that Southerners gloried in the Lost Cause than create Confederate Liberation Fronts and either resume the Civil War or engage in the terrorism too often characteristic of people with a national identity but without a country.
Tom

Very much in agreement with your comments, Tom.

I also agree with you Tom

It does make one wonder why the Confederacy did not create Liberation Fronts, resorting in terrorism or small bands continuing to conduct guerrilla warfare like so many South American countries still do today. As well as many liberation movements in the Middle East or Eastern Europe. Does anyone have a thought about this? I find it interesting that a Rebellion wouls just ceas.
Was it the overly generous terms of surrender that Lee accepted from Grant. " To go back home to their families and live in peace. unmolested." And the "Honor" of the time period kept their deal intact?
Was it the sheer devastation that the Southern people were facing from the North's policies after Emmancipation to conquer the South. And the system of "Total War" that was sweeping the South in the wake of Vicksburg?
War it war wearisome?
Was it States Rights? It was difficult for Davis to create a Confedrate Nation while still having one leg tied to States Rights. Was there never a solid ideal of Nationalism? I have heard this arguement before and don't agree with it simply because, Guerrilla bands did not spring up in different areas of the South trying to further the war. I think a Southern Nationalism was present.
Was it General Lee himself? "Obedience to lawful authority is the foundation of manly character," - Robert E. Lee.


Lee resisted calls by some officers to reject surrender and allow small units to melt away into the mountains, setting up a lengthy guerrilla war. He insisted the war was over and energetically campaigned for inter-sectional reconciliation. "So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South."[79] - from wikipedia

I think in the end it was honor. We fought, we did our best, we have accepted defeat, and we will comply with the terms we have made.

Lee was a true leader even after the war. I know that it would have been better for everyone, had Lincoln lived and Lee knew that as well. He spoke often, supporting Johnson's Reconstruction plans knowing that Radical Republicans would hurt the South as we know inevitably happened.

Lee in a letter claimed paternalistic concern for the welfare of freed Southern blacks, stating that "The idea that the Southern people are hostile to the negroes and would oppress them, if it were in their power to do so, is entirely unfounded. They have grown up in our midst, and we have been accustomed from childhood to look upon them with kindness."