New World Order
See other New World Order Articles
Title: Robert E Lee himself was opposed to Confederate Monuments
Source:
Business Insider
URL Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/robe ... d-confederate-monuments-2017-8
Published: Aug 16, 2017
Author: Daniel Brown
Post Date: 2017-08-16 18:30:42 by Willie Green
Keywords: None
Views: 4793
Comments: 26
The violence that erupted in Charlottesville over the weekend, which left one woman killed and dozens more injured, stemmed from a white nationalist and alt-right protest over the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Debates about the removal of Confederate statues have been ongoing for many years, and opponents of removing the monuments often decry such attempts as an attempt to erase history. In light of all this, it's probably best to remember one relevant historical fact: Robert E. Lee was opposed to Confederate monuments. “It’s often forgotten that Lee himself, after the Civil War, opposed monuments, specifically Confederate war monuments,” Jonathan Horn, a Lee biographer, told PBS. After the Civil War, Lee received a number of letters requesting support for the erection of Confederate memorials, according to Horn. In June 1866, he wrote that he couldn't support a monument of one of his best generals, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, saying it wasn't "feasible at this time." "As regards the erection of such a monument as is contemplated," Lee wrote in December 1866 about another proposed Confederate monument, "my conviction is, that however grateful it would be to the feelings of the South, the attempt in the present condition of the Country, would have the effect of retarding, instead of accelerating its accomplishment; [and] of continuing, if not adding to, the difficulties under which the Southern people labour." Not only was Lee opposed to Confederate memorials, "he favored erasing battlefields from the landscape altogether," Horn wrote. He even supported getting rid of the Confederate flag after the Civil War ended, and didn't want them them flying above Washington College, which he was president of after the war. "Lee did not want such divisive symbols following him to the grave," Horn wrote. "At his funeral in 1870, flags were notably absent from the procession. Former Confederate soldiers marching did not don their old military uniforms, and neither did the body they buried." “His Confederate uniform would have been ‘treason’ perhaps!” Lee’s daughter wrote, according to Horn. "Lee believed countries that erased visible signs of civil war recovered from conflicts quicker,” Horn told PBS. “He was worried that by keeping these symbols alive, it would keep the divisions alive." Poster Comment: It's understandable that he didn't want any shameful reminders that he was a LOSER.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Willie Green (#0)
Which should be noted that the left/communist started. Kinda of hard to care too much when you have communist shit on one side and KKK on the other. But the KKK has a right to assemble peaceable and communist have a right to protest peaceable. I blame the governor, the mayor and the police chief for what happen. That little girl died and they have blood on their hands. BTW while we are at it I think we should remove all confederate monuments, Mexican monuments and Indian monuments since they lost the war against USA. Take down Crazy horse Monument! Lets just purge history books so we just do not have to give people a chip they can put on their shoulders! In the end this will never satisfy the left because its not what they desire. They want to crush anyone that defies them in their road to turn US into a socialist/communist state where all are peons ruled by an upper class. Oh wait isn't that Fascism?
Indeed --- I think we should remove all confederate monuments, Mexican monuments and Indian monuments, ---- from public property, --- since they lost wars against USA. Of course private organizations, and property owners could still display what they wished, subject to reasonable zoning regs.
As it would be property rights but communist are not interesting in property rights.
Yep, and that's what we're REALLY fighting about here, the socialization of our republic.
A LOSER? That is as uncharitable as it is untrue. Robert E. Lee justly deserves the warm regard in which he has been held for nearly a century and a half by citizens on both sides of the old Mason-Dixon line. He was a man of principle who did what he did out of a deep sense of duty. He was the most effective commanding general of the war on either side. He made errors, of course - all commanders do - but the errors he made were in daring great things, to try and win what was essentially an unwinnable war. The South was overwhelmed in the end by the superior manpower, industrial power and economic power of the North, and by its own intrinsic contradictions, but none of that can be laid at the feet of Robert E. Lee. He did as well as any American general could under the circumstances he was presented, and bested every Union commander thrown at him until Grant. In defeat, Lee made the wise choice for all of the people of America - to NOT continue the war as a guerrilla, to accept that it was over and lay down arms peacefully in surrender, and then to seek to repair the country to the extent that it could be done. Robert E. Lee was no loser. He was the embodiment of the greatest and noblest aspects of the American character. His Cause was wrong, but he believed it his duty to fight for his country. Lee does not deserve to be vilified and insulted any more than Grant does. They were military men, doing their duty, and because they were both very good at it, unfortunately the war was prolonged and the bloodshed was terrible. Neither was the cause of the war, neither wanted the war, neither enjoyed fighting it, both thought - correctly - that it was an utter tragedy. Each did his duty. Each did what he believed he had to do. Each did it well. And they both deserve the honor that is due to American fighting men who do their duty in the face of death and destruction. Lee's character is one of the key reasons that the Civil War is in the history books, finished in 1865. If Lee had been an aggressive, fanatical, mean-spirited bastard he COULD HAVE done what Bedford Forrest sought to do - break up his army and fight an ongoing guerrilla war. Then there would have never been peace, just as there was no peace in Ireland for centuries. BECAUSE Lee was a man of honor, that didn't happen. He saw that the war could not be won, he surrendered with dignity to spare his men, and he spent the rest of his life holding the stance that the peace must be respected and restored. That "loser", as you call him, is a key reason that the fight was really OVER in 1865, and we haven't had the misery of ongoing low-level civil war ever since. Character matters, and the character of Lee mattered a great deal - probably more than any other single man - for the ultimately peaceful post-war settlement. He COULD have poured oil on the fire and prolonged the agony for years. Instead, he retired and urged peace and reconciliation. If only the whole country were filled with such "losers", what a great country we would have. I am so Northern that I should live on a glacier, but even I have the greatest respect for General Robert E. Lee, because he EARNED it. You should not call him a loser. It's not right. There were plenty of other Confederate generals, and even more Union generals, who deserve that title. Lee does not. I can understand why blacks will always oppose Confederate monuments. That is their right. Statues to Bedford Forrest and the Ku Klux Klan are not honorable. But it is not honorable either to pull down statues of Robert E. Lee. He WAS honorable, and we all would do very well to emulate him. No, I don't like it at all when people pick on Robert E. Lee. I don't look up to many men. I DO look up to him, and that's saying something given my "Burn them to the ground" attitude about slavery.
Good analysis of Lee.
Thumbs up.
Ditto. Lee was the only Confederate of any real standing.
Very well written! I could almost ask if you copied it from somewhere else.
Excellent review of Robert E. Lee, but I have one nit to pick. I believe a cause, or The Cause, is wrongly attributed to Lee. A soldier who fights a war for his country does not automatically adopt a political cause. Lee did not fight for a cause, or The Cause, He fought in defense of his State, Virginia. Lincoln declared a blockade against seceded states on April 19, 1861, which did not include Virginia. He declared a blockade against Virginia and North Carolina on April 27. Great Britain granted belligerent status on May 13, 1861. On May 23, 1861, Virginia voted to secede. As can be readily seen, Lincoln declared a blockade on Virginia before it had seceded. A blockade is an international act and is an act of war. The U.S. Supreme Court later ruled that Lincoln's proclamations of blockade officially denoted the start of the war for those states covered by each proclamation. The Union committed an act of war against Lee's state before it had seceded. When it did secede, Lee's allegiance went to his State. What is referred to as The Cause was not Lee's cause. He was a soldier doing his duty, as the rest of what you wrote would imply. I believe The Cause belonged to certain politicians.
A reminder that Lee and many many others stood up for the rights of states to govern was important enough to warrant at least a statue. People should remember that those statues were erected in states that seceded and not in that bastion of liberalism: the north east. As far as Lincoln is concerned I, and many others, never believed him to be a great president. Any president, desirous of bullying citizens into believing the monolithic central government was good for them, would have marshaled the millions of Irish immigrants to join the army and invade the south. Destroy history and destroy America. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
The worthless, even dangerous News Media is rolling around on this like a dog on a dead possum! They are taking the words of President Trump and parsing and even misrepresenting them.
Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Yes, Pickett's Charge was Lee's fault. It was a costly mistake. So was Reagan's sending of the Marines into Beirut. That doesn't make either man a "loser". To lead is to make decisions. Some will be mistakes.
You're the one who's twisting & distorting history... Our Founding Fathers "original intent" of our Constitution was to strengthen the central government because the Articles of Confederation were considered much too weak... The Anti-Federalists LOST the debate... And 75 years later, Lincold SAVED our Federal Union by defeating the Confederate TRAITORS.
Egads, Willie. You're as screwed up as a government-loving liberal can be. The central government was to be kept lean and NEVER interfere with the workings of the states. We have the Second Amendment to insure that the government doesn't morph into the monster it has become. Lincoln was, as Mast cartooned him, an ape. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
Your ignorance knows no bounds... Have you ever heard of the Supremacy Clause? FedGov RULES.... StateGovs must comply...
No. I wrote it myself. And I'd amend one remark in it if I could. Bedford Forrest was himself a really brilliant general, and he, too, did the honorable thing at the end of the war - surrendering rather than fighting a guerilla. The guerilla came later, when he headed up a branch of the KKK. This was despicable. BUT - and this is important - Forrest himself eventually came to see things in a different light, and ultimately agreed that Blacks should be treated equally, standing for grad school admissions for black men. Is that not precisely the sort of evolution that Christians want to see in people? We're all bad, we all sin. If we're looking for sinless men we have to look to novels. Men sin. Men make bad decisions. And many of the bad decisions that men make are not themselves sins - the motivation for the decision is everything. The grandees of the Confederacy were indeed about preserving and expanding slavery. But Lee and Jackson and Longstreet, and Forrest, were about defending their nation. We can, likewise, recognize the honor of men like Erwin Rommel or the Baron von Richtofen EVEN THOUGH they fought for the other side. Some of the French officers who fought to help free America had fought alongside the Indians against the same American colonists during the preceding French and Indian war. Men who do their duty deserve some degree of honor, even if their cause is wrong. Now, returning to Forrest - he fought to protect his country. He lost. He called, as did Lee, for men to lay down their arms and cooperate with the government rather than continue the bloodshed. Later, contaminated by the racial beliefs of the time, he led a part of the Klan, but longer experience in life caused him to change his mind. That's all we can ask of any man - that he do his duty as he understands it, and that, if he has made a mistake, when his eyes and mind clear on the issue, that he correct it. Forrest did just exactly that - his statues should also stay up. Is that not, after all, what we WANT of men when we complain about racism, or sexism, or greed, or immoral conduct? Don't we complain because we want them to act right and stop doing the wrong thing? Don't want want repentance and reformation? It appears that the alt-Left does not want that. Rather, they want what they call "Justice", not for themselves and their own sins, but for anybody they disagree with. Their approach to "justice" looks a whole lot more like revenge, and that is not a good thing - IF one is hoping for a civil society that moves forward in peace. In that regard, I retract my statement about Forrest. He did his duty too. He made some really bad political decisions later in life. But in the end he came to his senses. And THAT is the moral and lesson of the Civil War. Don't pull down the statues. Instead, put longer plaques on them that not only say what they did in the war, but also what they did AFTERWARDS. Lee didn't have to redeem himself. Forrest fell, but he did redeem himself. Jackson, of course, never got the chance to redeem himself. And the boys in grey, and in blue, who were splattered all over the fields of the Eastern USA deserve their little monument. Having it there, with the proper plaque that gives perspective, means that what they did and why can stand as an example both of duty and of folly - and if presented right, can teach us all to become like Bedford Forrest and "get it". Pull down these statues, erase the history because the motivations of many men were bad - this is not good. At any rate I don't like it. If we were talking about conquered barbarians and heathens, like the Nazi Germans, then yes, victor's justice permits the complete wiping out of Nazi symbology, and laws that establish, by terror, that the German will not be PERMITTED to think Nazi thoughts and organize himself socially in that way again. After two world wars, Americans and French, and others, have the RIGHT to put a collar around the neck of Germany and set the limits as to what those people may do with their self-government. But the Confederates were not self-worshiping German nihilists. They didn't crater the world. And their enemies were not foreign peoples liberally slaughtered by them, twice in as many decades. The Confederates were Americans. Our system itself was broken from the beginning, incorporating the slavery of the British Empire into the fabric of a nation founded on the principle of individual liberty. In the end liberty won out, but it could not do so without destroying the old fabric of a society built on slavery. The war destroyed that fabric. Slavery was not restored. There was no "second act" in which Lee and Longstreet, or Forrest, sought to return to slavery by force of arms. They surrendered to restore the peace, and two of them kept it. One didn't, for a time, but came to regret that. We cannot expect more from men than that. The Alt-Left DEMANDS more from the world than that, and they do it by their own hypocritical standard of "Justice". But there is no justice in their "justice". It's arbitrary and brutal, and it should be opposed. Leave the statues up. Put an additional plaque on them detailing how those men contributed to the peace, how they ultimately redeemed themselves in the eyes of any Left wing Christian: repentance and contrition, a change of heart. That's why those monuments must stay up. Look at America now. We HAVE changed. We DID learn. If we let the Alt-Left simply tear down the past, the "justice" we're getting is the justice of the Taliban, and this country never was and is not even remotely a Muslim country, so that sort of absolutist Muslim "justice" has no place here.
Au contraire, mon ami! (A little French lingo there to demonstrate my fondness for little froggies.) Read this, ass: Article Six of the United States Constitution establishes the laws and treaties of the United States made in accordance with it as the supreme law of the land, forbids a religious test as a requirement for holding a governmental position and holds the United States under the Constitution responsible for debts incurred by the United States under the Articles of Confederation. You postings are mere ramblings of an uneducated and sick mind. Methinks you're on the wrong website. I'm certain you can find one for feeble-minded socialist scumbags. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
So what the f*ck don't you understand about "supreme law of the land," dumbass? FedGov RULES... States must comply.
How dare you call me a dumb ass, you dumb ass! The states were supposed to have exponentially more rights than they now have, but congressrats that states voters elect and send to Sodom or Gomorrah (Sodom=House; Gomorrah=Senate) decided that they work for something called the central socialist government and their ill gotten 'pay and benefits' are drawn against the U. S. bankrupted treasury. Their job, as they see it, is to increase the size of government. They bear almost all responsibility for the horrible lopsided state our nation finds itself today. If their 'stipends' were paid by the states from which they're elected it would be a much different situation today. I've grown tired of attempting to educate you on the fact that the federales were to have very little power over the states. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
So tell me one more time, dumbass... What the f*ck don't you understand about "supreme law of the land?" FedGov RULES... the states must comply.
Not only do you possess a dumb ass, but your noggin is missing a large quantity of matter. I won't engage in beating this dead horse with you any further. You read one way and then I read quite another. You big government guys are always wrong. Liberals are like Slinkys. They're good for nothing, but somehow they bring a smile to your face as you shove them down the stairs.
We have maintained National Memorial Parks such as Gettysburg, covered with statues of both Union and Confederate participants in the battle. Reenactments take place all over the country. According to one YouTube video in which a friend of the YouTuber who was interviewed works in Charlottesville, the people of that town voted to keep the statue. After all these years, very few paid much attention to it, which is typical of too many statues and other memorials. People forgot about the Confederate flag outside the capitol building in South Carolina until someone scapegoated it for what the LOSER Dylan Storm Roof did.
Have you ever been to Gettysburg? There are over 1300 statues & monuments erected there... with a mere 30 or so dedicated to the fallen sons of the Confederacy... IMHO it is an appropriate ratio.
The violence that erupted in Charlottesville over the weekend, which left one woman killed and dozens more injured, stemmed from a white nationalist and alt-right protest over the removal of a statue of Confederate General Robert E. Lee.
#2. To: Justified, yall (#1)
BTW while we are at it I think we should remove all confederate monuments, Mexican monuments and Indian monuments since they lost the war against USA.
#3. To: tpaine (#2)
Of course private organizations, and property owners could still display what they wished, subject to reasonable zoning regs.
#4. To: Justified (#3)
but communist are not interesting in property rights.
#5. To: Willie Green (#0)
(Edited)
It's understandable that he didn't want any shameful reminders that he was a LOSER.
#6. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
#7. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
#8. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
#10. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
His Cause was wrong, but he believed it his duty to fight for his country.
#11. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
Robert E. LOSER surrenders at Appomattox Courthouse
#12. To: Willie Green (#0)
It's understandable that he didn't want any shameful reminders that he was a LOSER
#13. To: Justified (#1)
#14. To: Vicomte13 (#5)
“It’s All My Fault”
~Robert E. LOSER @ Gettysburg
#15. To: Willie Green (#14)
#16. To: IbJensen (#12)
Destroy history and destroy America.
#17. To: Willie Green (#16)
Our Founding Fathers "original intent" of our Constitution was to strengthen the central government
#18. To: IbJensen (#17)
Article 6, Clause 2
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
#19. To: Pinguinite (#9)
Very well written! I could almost ask if you copied it from somewhere else.
#20. To: Willie Green (#18)
Your ignorance knows no bounds...
#21. To: IbJensen (#20)
#22. To: Willie Green (#21)
#23. To: IbJensen (#22)
I've grown tired of attempting to educate you on the fact that the federales were to have very little power over the states.
#24. To: Willie Green (#23)
#25. To: Willie Green (#0)
#26. To: Farrier (#25)
We have maintained National Memorial Parks such as Gettysburg, covered with statues of both Union and Confederate participants in the battle.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]