They don't want to recognize that fact because they know it undercuts the argument that it is a travesty to remove statues of Robert E. Lee on federal lands. It's not a travesty to say that, at the very least, if the United States as a nation is going to lionize someone and put up (or maintain) a statue, it be someone who wasn't a traitor to that very organization. Pretty minimal requirement, I think.I don't get what you think is divisive about recognizing the fact that he was a traitor by definition. This takes me back to my US Army Command and General Staff College days. We're divided into Staff Groups and we have a Navy or Marine officer in each, and an Air Force officer, two foreign military army officers (ours was a German and a Spaniard - lot of interesting dynamics there) and the final 14 people are US Army officers. Among the Americans it was clear we were all gun-loving patriotic conservative and almost certainly Republicans from our interactions with each other. The US Army officer corps is predominately southern. I'd say at least 10 of our Army officers were from the old confederacy states and exposed to the "Lost Cause" narrative their entire lives. When we discussed the Civil War and the important players there was no question among any of us that the Confederate Officers were traitors to their country, but we could certainly recognize that they were people who believed in their cause at the time (which of course was almost completely about slavery). I honestly don't understand this refusal by some of us here to recognize that Lee was a traitor by definition. It's just an historic fact. It doesn't reflect badly on anyone to recognize that. We can still recognize what was good about him as a military officer. That doesn't change either.he was a traitor by law.
For which he was forgiven and welcomed back to the fold. What is to be gained by continuing to refer him as a traitor as if he was never forgiven? Seems to me that is a deliberate fake.
The notion that people taking down a statue of Lee are the ones being divisive is rich. A vast majority of black citizens find statues of Robert E. Lee pretty damn divisive--their tax dollars going towards the lionization of a guy who actually fought and killed hundreds of thousands of people so that slavery of black people could continue. In fact, the only reason Lee is even famous is because he did that--it's not like anyone was going to erect a statue of Lee based on his accomplishments before his treason.
I think that’s pretty spot on.They don't want to recognize that fact because they know it undercuts the argument that it is a travesty to remove statues of Robert E. Lee on federal lands. It's not a travesty to say that, at the very least, if the United States as a nation is going to lionize someone and put up (or maintain) a statue, it be someone who wasn't a traitor to that very organization. Pretty minimal requirement, I think.I don't get what you think is divisive about recognizing the fact that he was a traitor by definition. This takes me back to my US Army Command and General Staff College days. We're divided into Staff Groups and we have a Navy or Marine officer in each, and an Air Force officer, two foreign military army officers (ours was a German and a Spaniard - lot of interesting dynamics there) and the final 14 people are US Army officers. Among the Americans it was clear we were all gun-loving patriotic conservative and almost certainly Republicans from our interactions with each other. The US Army officer corps is predominately southern. I'd say at least 10 of our Army officers were from the old confederacy states and exposed to the "Lost Cause" narrative their entire lives. When we discussed the Civil War and the important players there was no question among any of us that the Confederate Officers were traitors to their country, but we could certainly recognize that they were people who believed in their cause at the time (which of course was almost completely about slavery). I honestly don't understand this refusal by some of us here to recognize that Lee was a traitor by definition. It's just an historic fact. It doesn't reflect badly on anyone to recognize that. We can still recognize what was good about him as a military officer. That doesn't change either.he was a traitor by law.
For which he was forgiven and welcomed back to the fold. What is to be gained by continuing to refer him as a traitor as if he was never forgiven? Seems to me that is a deliberate fake.
The notion that people taking down a statue of Lee are the ones being divisive is rich. A vast majority of black citizens find statues of Robert E. Lee pretty damn divisive--their tax dollars going towards the lionization of a guy who actually fought and killed hundreds of thousands of people so that slavery of black people could continue. In fact, the only reason Lee is even famous is because he did that--it's not like anyone was going to erect a statue of Lee based on his accomplishments before his treason.
Grant,Lincoln, and maybe Scott showed more respect to Lee than you do. And those guys lived the war with Lee as their enemy.
@boogie I have no idea what or who Murt is. Apparently there is a history or language that I haven't been privy to. And no Mayor Sue did not ask me to be here. There seems to be about half a dozen contributors to this website that are either incels or old men. None of whom have offered any help in regards to Rose Bowl tickets. And none of whom will make a difference in any races.
As you know, both were politicians and both had the healing of the nation on their minds. I'm pretty sure that drove them much more than any personal issues with Lee. Lincoln never saw the disgraceful way Lee argued his case for posterity after the war; Grant was probably drunk most of the time, but I don't think he had as high an opinion on Lee as you seem to:Grant,Lincoln, and maybe Scott showed more respect to Lee than you do. And those guys lived the war with Lee as their enemy.
- Compassion, Not Just Victory: Grant felt no joy in Lee's defeat, focusing instead on reconciliation and allowing Lee's soldiers to return home,.
- Generous Terms: He offered generous surrender terms, letting Confederate officers keep their sidearms and horses, and paroled soldiers, preventing mass imprisonment and prosecution,.
- Critique of Lee's Reputation: Grant believed Lee's reputation was inflated by the Southern press and Northern sympathizers, feeling that Lee was a good man who simply benefited from immense public support and an "outside world" that glorified him,.
- A "Foe Who Fought Valiantly": Grant acknowledged Lee's long, valiant fight but clearly stated he thought the cause was "one of the worst for which a people ever fought,".
If we're going to use great Americans thoughts on Lee as a guidepost, I'll take this guy's contemporaneous reading of Lee:Grant,Lincoln, and maybe Scott showed more respect to Lee than you do. And those guys lived the war with Lee as their enemy.
- Traitor: Douglass explicitly called Lee "a traitor and can be made nothing else" after his death, seeing his loyalty to the Confederacy as a betrayal of the U.S. and its ideals.
- Defender of Slavery: Douglass recognized that Lee's efforts were dedicated to preserving the institution of slavery, which oppressed millions, making Lee a figure who fought against liberty, not for it.
- Disgust with "Lost Cause" Narratives: He was appalled by the "nauseating flatteries" and public honors given to Lee after the war, viewing them as dangerous revisionism that whitewashed history and honored treason.
- Opposition to Monuments: Douglass strongly opposed monuments to Lee and the Confederacy, seeing them as symbols of folly and a threat to reawakening the Confederacy's cause, rather than promoting reconciliation.
- Contrast with Grant: In contrast to Lee, Douglass admired Ulysses S. Grant as a champion of civil rights who supported the Reconstruction Amendments, viewing him as a defender of true Union principles.
As you know, both were politicians and both had the healing of the nation on their minds. I'm pretty sure that drove them much more than any personal issues with Lee. Lincoln never saw the disgraceful way Lee argued his case for posterity after the war; Grant was probably drunk most of the time, but I don't think he had as high an opinion on Lee as you seem to:Grant,Lincoln, and maybe Scott showed more respect to Lee than you do. And those guys lived the war with Lee as their enemy.
After the war, Ulysses S. Grant viewed Robert E. Lee with a mix of professional respect for his wartime efforts and disdain for the cause he fought for, recognizing Lee as a capable but overhyped general who benefited from immense public adoration, while Grant himself sought to foster national healing through generous surrender terms, letting Lee's men go home to begin reconciliation, according to posts on the {RLink: US National Park Service Facebook page} and {RLink: the {RLink: American Battlefield Trust https://www.battlefields.org/learn/civil-war/battles/appomattox-court-house} website}.Key Aspects of Grant's View:
- Compassion, Not Just Victory: Grant felt no joy in Lee's defeat, focusing instead on reconciliation and allowing Lee's soldiers to return home,.
- Generous Terms: He offered generous surrender terms, letting Confederate officers keep their sidearms and horses, and paroled soldiers, preventing mass imprisonment and prosecution,.
- Critique of Lee's Reputation: Grant believed Lee's reputation was inflated by the Southern press and Northern sympathizers, feeling that Lee was a good man who simply benefited from immense public support and an "outside world" that glorified him,.
- A "Foe Who Fought Valiantly": Grant acknowledged Lee's long, valiant fight but clearly stated he thought the cause was "one of the worst for which a people ever fought,".
And all of Lee's contemporaries recognized he was a traitor. There's a reason he didn't regain his citizenship until a century after he died.
This great American is pretty spot on, too:
- Moral vs. Physical Courage: Du Bois contrasted Lee's physical bravery with a profound lack of moral courage, suggesting Lee followed public opinion rather than fighting for justice.
- Defense of Slavery: Du Bois insisted Lee fought for slavery, dismissing "states' rights" as a mere cover for protecting slave property.
- "Lost Cause" Antagonist: DuBFS saw the veneration of Lee as part of the "Lost Cause" mythology, a revisionist effort to whitewash the Confederacy's racist foundations, which Du Bois fought against.
- Legacy: Du Bois believed Lee's legacy should be examined honestly, acknowledging his leadership in a bloody war for slavery, a viewpoint he articulated in his writings for The Crisis.
Another person who lived during that time with Lee as an enemy. Not much "forgiveness" here, I don't think. Is it OK to cite all these negatives about Lee, or are those "warts" not relevant to you?
- Prosecution for Treason: Stevens believed the actions of the Confederates met the constitutional definition of treason and they should not be allowed to escape justice. Lee was, in fact, indicted for treason in June 1865, a charge that was eventually dismissed due to President Andrew Johnson's general amnesty.
- Political Disenfranchisement: He argued that rebels should be barred from holding political office or participating in civic affairs in the reconstructed nation.
- Confiscation of Property: A central part of Stevens's plan was to confiscate the large estates of Confederate leaders and planters and redistribute the land to freed slaves and Union loyalists, thereby breaking the economic and political power of the former slaveholding aristocracy.
- Opposition to Leniency: Stevens was a fierce opponent of the conciliatory policies favored by President Lincoln (before his death) and President Johnson. He felt that showing mercy to the "white-supremacist rebels" would fail to address the root causes of the war and lead to future problems.
You are getting too far off the point. I’m not posting in this thread to defend Lee. I am posting to point out the disgusting behavior of many Democrats to resurrect the divisions of a horrible time in our history for political gain. I think it is undisputed that divisions are now worsening and the discussion in this thread is part of the reason.
Scott thought Lee was the best, and that is why Scott asked Lee to lead te Union army. Lee remained loyal to Virginia, not an unusual feeling in pre 14th Amendment America. That loyalty did not turn Lee into trash. Lee was forgiven as part of the post war national healing. The George Floyd fallout resurrected the old divisions and the Democrats seized the opportunity presented by that. Candidate Biden lied about Charlottesville, which was about Lee, and rode that hoax often during the campaign into the White House.
Im not here to defend Lee. The record about him is known and it is complicated. Despite the effort of post war leadership to “bind the nation’s wounds” certain interests are opening up old scars hoping to gain an advantage.
@boogie I have no idea what or who Murt is. Apparently there is a history or language that I haven't been privy to. And no Mayor Sue did not ask me to be here. There seems to be about half a dozen contributors to this website that are either incels or old men. None of whom have offered any help in regards to Rose Bowl tickets. And none of whom will make a difference in any races.
Ms. Washburn, Murt was a great man. Some say the best of men. If you hadn't ran across Mr. Washburn, you most likely would have fell in love with him. Now the love wouldn't have lasted because Murt was a bit of a wildcat and nobody ties down a wildcat forever. He also liked Lulu pants and New Balances, in case you were curious about his attire.
Weird pivot. You've been defending Lee this whole time. That post further defends him.You are getting too far off the point. I’m not posting in this thread to defend Lee. I am posting to point out the disgusting behavior of many Democrats to resurrect the divisions of a horrible time in our history for political gain. I think it is undisputed that divisions are now worsening and the discussion in this thread is part of the reason.
s
Scott thought Lee was the best, and that is why Scott asked Lee to lead te Union army. Lee remained loyal to Virginia, not an unusual feeling in pre 14th Amendment America. That loyalty did not turn Lee into trash. Lee was forgiven as part of the post war national healing. The George Floyd fallout resurrected the old divisions and the Democrats seized the opportunity presented by that. Candidate Biden lied about Charlottesville, which was about Lee, and rode that hoax often during the campaign into the White House.
Im not here to defend Lee. The record about him is known and it is complicated. Despite the effort of post war leadership to “bind the nation’s wounds” certain interests are opening up old scars hoping to gain an advantage.
As for the point, I'm directly over the target and bombing you to pieces. Remember, you brought up the fact that some historical figures "forgave" Lee. I pointed out that a lot did not, including a hell of a lot of black Americans during that time. Do those Americans opinions on the matter not count? If not, why not?
As for division, you're ignorant of the history here, it seems, or just ignoring it because it undercuts your argument. The people who put up those statues in the first place were sowing dissension in the US. It's historical fact that this nation has been divided about the treatment and interpretation of Lee--including those statues--since the Civil War. At this point, I'm left wondering if you've ever read any works by black AMERICANS from 1860 through about 1930 or have any idea as to what black AMERICANS thought about this, let alone the white Americans who lost their loved ones because of Lee's treachery. It appears you've not only bought hook, line, and sinker into the "Lost Cause" myth, you've somehow convinced yourself that everyone always agreed to it. They did not and have not. And there's no reason they should.
By the way, all of the history I laid out can be true (it is) AND the Dems can be guilty to trying to sow division--but on this one, at least, they've got a great argument on the underlying point. Do you believe that people shouldn't argue for what they believe is right if by doing so it hurts other people's feelings? With respect to yourself, I know you don't. Why should the standard be different for others?
There is no pivot. My constant theme is that the Democrats have an interest in keeping racial divisions on the front burner, and one of the ways they do this is the relatively recent negativity about Lee. The Lee memorial and home is a national park. Should we jettison that park?
The negativity isn't recent--I've given you quotes from prominent Americans in the 19th century.There is no pivot. My constant theme is that the Democrats have an interest in keeping racial divisions on the front burner, and one of the ways they do this is the relatively recent negativity about Lee. The Lee memorial and home is a national park. Should we jettison that park?
Yes, we should not fund that park with federal funds. If the state of Virginia through the democratic process wants to do so, let them. I'd vote against even that, though, were I Virginian.
The inevitable Sharon v. Zeke Debates are going to be legendary.@boogie I have no idea what or who Murt is. Apparently there is a history or language that I haven't been privy to. And no Mayor Sue did not ask me to be here. There seems to be about half a dozen contributors to this website that are either incels or old men. None of whom have offered any help in regards to Rose Bowl tickets. And none of whom will make a difference in any races.
Ms. Washburn, Murt was a great man. Some say the best of men. If you hadn't ran across Mr. Washburn, you most likely would have fell in love with him. Now the love wouldn't have lasted because Murt was a bit of a wildcat and nobody ties down a wildcat forever. He also liked Lulu pants and New Balances, in case you were curious about his attire.