OT Was Robert E. Lee really all that evil?

[EL PRESIDENTE]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Lee#Legacy

Lee was a top graduate of the United States Military Academy and an exceptional officer and military engineer in the United States Army for 32 years. During this time, he served throughout the United States, distinguished himself during the Mexican–American War, and served as Superintendent of the United States Military Academy.

When Virginia declared its secession from the Union in April 1861, Lee chose to follow his home state, despite his desire for the country to remain intact and an offer of a senior Union command.[1] During the first year of the Civil War, Lee served as a senior military adviser to President Jefferson Davis. Once he took command of the main field army in 1862 he soon emerged as a shrewd tactician and battlefield commander, winning most of his battles, all against far superior Union armies.[2][3] Lee's strategic foresight was more questionable, and both of his major offensives into Union territory ended in defeat.[4][5][6] Lee's aggressive tactics, which resulted in high casualties at a time when the Confederacy had a shortage of manpower, have come under criticism in recent years.[7] Lee surrendered his entire army to Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House on April 9, 1865. By this time, Lee had assumed supreme command of the remaining Southern armies; other Confederate forces swiftly capitulated after his surrender. Lee rejected the proposal of a sustained insurgency against the Union and called for reconciliation between the two sides.

After the war, Lee supported President Andrew Johnson's program of Reconstruction and intersectional friendship,[citation needed] while opposing the Radical Republican proposals to give freed slaves the vote and take the vote away from ex-Confederates. He urged them to rethink their position between the North and the South, and the reintegration of former Confederates into the nation's political life. Lee became the great Confederate hero of the War, a postwar icon of the "Lost Cause of the Confederacy" to some. But his popularity grew even in the North, especially after his death in 1870.[8] Barracks at West Point built in 1962 are named after him.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Doesn't seem like the "American Hitler" the left is trying to paint him as and erase him from the history books.

 

[Minstrel]

Doesn't seem like the "American Hitler" the left is trying to paint him as and erase him from the history books.

Jefferson Davis was probably the "American Hitler," if that's the label you want to use. I've never seen or heard anyone compare Lee to Hitler or consider him overtly evil. Lee is simply the icon of the Confederacy that the South commemorates the most and therefore, when those who believe that Confederate monuments don't belong on public land because the Confederacy was a stain on US history, a lot of them end up being Robert E. Lee statues.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Jefferson Davis was probably the "American Hitler," if that's the label you want to use. I've never seen or heard anyone compare Lee to Hitler or consider him overtly evil. Lee is simply the icon of the Confederacy that the South commemorates the most and therefore, when those who believe that Confederate monuments don't belong on public land because the Confederacy was a stain on US history, a lot of them end up being Robert E. Lee statues.

There was probably good reason Lee's statues stayed up. While the war was inevitable, it seems like he surrendered rather colloquially for such a bloody war.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

His side lost. So he can rot in hell.

The winning side's slave owners get a pass for some reason. For now.

 

[Minstrel]

There was probably good reason Lee's statues stayed up. While the war was inevitable, it seems like he surrendered rather colloquially for such a bloody war.

I'm not sure what you mean by "stayed up." Lee was the most successful figure for the South during the Civil War, so he got a lot of monuments. It's true that he probably turned out to be their best statesman after losing, but it's not like he had all that much choice in surrendering.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Rommel was a highly respected general but you don't see Germans putting up statues of him.

Or naming high schools after him.

 

[Minstrel]

Rommel was a highly respected general but you don't see Germans putting up statues to him.

Or naming high schools after him.

Fantastic comparison.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Rommel was a highly respected general but you don't see Germans putting up statues to him.

Or naming high schools after him.

And yet we still remember who he is.

 

[Nikolokolus]

His side lost. So he can rot in hell.

The winning side's slave owners get a pass for some reason. For now.

Which Union officers owned slaves after the start of the Civil War? I don't remember that bit from U.S. History, but I confess, it's been awhile.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

And yet we still remember who he is.

never heard of him.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Which Union officers owned slaves after the start of the Civil War? I don't remember that bit from U.S. History, but I confess, it's been awhile.

Right, every Union side slave owner died years before the war.

If a man robs banks and decides to stop is he better than the guy who robbed one this morning?

 

[Nikolokolus]

Rommel was a highly respected general but you don't see Germans putting up statues of him.

Or naming high schools after him.

Terrible example. Rommel was a race traitor and betrayed his Führer, joining the conspiracy to assassinate the rightfully chosen leader of the Reich.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Terrible example. Rommel was a race traitor and betrayed his Führer, joining the conspiracy to assassinate the rightfully chosen leader of the Reich.

When you put it that way, maybe they should.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Right, every Union side slave owner died years before the war.

If a man robs banks and decides to stop is he better than the guy who robbed one this morning?

After states in the north abolished slavery and slave-holders relinquished their slaves I'm not sure what else we're supposed to do with them from a historical perspective. It's taking up arms to defend a despicable inhumane practice that gives the confederacy it's tainted legacy to this day. If it had only been about state's rights, the statues wouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Minstrel]

Right, every Union side slave owner died years before the war.

If a man robs banks and decides to stop is he better than the guy who robbed one this morning?

I don't know about "died years before" but slavery had been abolished in the Northern states, with the exception of Delaware (where even there over 90% of the black residents were free) long before the Civil War began. So yes, there were a very, very few slave owners in the North--but no monuments have been built to them. If there had been, those would be removed too. I'm not sure how that can be construed as "only the losing slave owners get their statues torn down."

 

[Nikolokolus]

Right, every Union side slave owner died years before the war.

If a man robs banks and decides to stop is he better than the guy who robbed one this morning?

Also, what if robbing banks wasn't illegal the day before?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

After states in the north abolished slavery and slave-holders relinquished their slaves I'm not sure what else we're supposed to do with them from a historical perspective. It's taking up arms to defend a despicable inhumane practice that gives the confederacy it's tainted legacy to this day. If it had only been about state's rights, the statues wouldn't be a big deal.

Call them what they are, slightly better than the people they fought.

From a historical perspective they're all trash. During their time the Union was the good side. So what?

I'm sure sometime in history that isn't recorded two tribes of cannibals fought and one was somehow better. Maybe they repurposed more of the person they just ate?

I saw one black girl say she could see that statue from all over the city as if it looked down on her. If so, I'm for taking it down.

I'm not for mobs tearing them down while cops watch.

 

[barfo]

Why aren't there a lot of Benedict Arnold statues, if we really want to celebrate traitors like Robert E. Lee?

Where are all the angry white guys carrying British flags?

barfo

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Also, what if robbing banks wasn't illegal the day before?

Nothing was illegal at one point in time.

Should we hide anything from history before laws came to be?

Was a caveman who smashed a woman with a club and dragged her home evil?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Why aren't there a lot of Benedict Arnold statues, if we really want to celebrate traitors like Robert E. Lee?

Where are all the angry white guys carrying British flags?

barfo

If it wasn't for modern American dentists we'd so be for England.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Winner writes the history.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Why aren't there a lot of Benedict Arnold statues, if we really want to celebrate traitors like Robert E. Lee?

Where are all the angry white guys carrying British flags?

barfo

Everywhere.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

I don't know about "died years before" but slavery had been abolished in the Northern states, with the exception of Delaware (where even there over 90% of the black residents were free) long before the Civil War began. So yes, there were a very, very few slave owners in the North--but no monuments have been built to them. If there had been, those would be removed too. I'm not sure how that can be construed as "only the losing slave owners get their statues torn down."

Who needed slaves in the North? What huge money making crops were there that required tons of slaves?

 

[barfo]

Who needed slaves in the North? What huge money making crops were there that required tons of slaves?

Are you saying that agriculture required slavery?

barfo

 

[Minstrel]

Who needed slaves in the North? What huge money making crops were there that required tons of slaves?

Okay. So you're arguing that the Northern slave owners get a free pass despite not existing because who needs slaves in the North anyway?

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Are you saying that agriculture required slavery?

barfo

If the south wanted to build pyramids all day every day and the north didn't, who would benefit from slavery most?

Today agriculture may not require human beings at all. If I lived in a world where slavery was a common thing and stumbled on a huge coal mine, wouldn't that seem like a good way to go at that point in time?

Today we decide it is cheaper to make stuff in China and ship it here. What is the difference? We don't want to do it ourselves or pay someone a good wage.

 

[Nikolokolus]

Nothing was illegal at one point in time.

Should we hide anything from history before laws came to be?

Was a caveman who smashed a woman with a club and dragged her home evil?

Morality and ethics are always evolving and changing, it's never been a fixed object. And who is hiding anything? Nobody has tried to hide the fact that Washington and Jefferson held slaves; it's just part of history, and frankly I don't think Lee or any other general owning slaves makes them inherently evil.

The issue isn't that the statues should come down to whitewash history, it's that these men are now as much symbols as they are historical figures; symbols of defiance against abolition. Symbols of a long and bloody history of oppression and subjugation. And right now a lot of these symbols are on public property. I'm almost 100% sure removing these statues isn't going to improve race relations, or change the day-to-day lives of a single person, and it would be purely a symbolic gesture, but it's the right thing to do. If private individuals want to display these statues/symbols then I say let them, but these statues probably shouldn't state-sanctioned memorials.

 

[bodyman5000 and 1]

Hell, you people just make me Google shit that seems obvious. Wikipedia (the be all end all of knowledge) says what I'm saying. COTTON. The end.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

you people