Author Topic: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?  (Read 3934 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

rangerrebew

  • Guest

What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?

Jimmy Byrn and Gabe Royal | June 22, 2020

    In spite of the sight of the Stars and Bars flying from the radio masts of occasional automobiles coming out of Dixie, few fair-minded men can feel today that the issues which divided the North and South in 1861 have any real meaning to our present generation.

Those were the words spoken by famous World War II general Maxwell Taylor in 1952, at the dedication of Gen. Robert E. Lee’s portrait in the West Point library. This portrait has since become the topic of controversy from many who question the reverence for Lee at West Point in the form of a barracks, a gate, and multiple paintings.

Articles exploring this veneration and petitions calling for the removal of displays of Lee at West Point often fall short in addressing exactly how the Confederate leader became ingrained in academy culture. Lee’s return to a place of honor at West Point occurred as a result of a reconciliation process that downplayed the Confederacy’s treason as the primary transgression for which southern officers required forgiveness, papered over the issue of slavery, and ignored the underrepresented black officers of the US Army. The reverence shown, though, is no longer unchallenged by the diverse, twenty-first-century officer corps, and as a result, West Point now faces a decision: What should it do with displays of Lee’s person and his name? And more broadly, what place should this controversial figure—and former academy superintendent—occupy at the academy?

https://mwi.usma.edu/west-point-robert-e-lee-problem/

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #1 on: July 02, 2020, 11:30:19 am »
>sigh<

The word "treason" is easy to bandy about in a time when it has been largely forgotten that our Federal Government was not a National Government prior to 1865. That distinction may be lost on many, but here goes.

These United States were a federation of individual sovereign and several States, (State being another word for "nation".) You were a citizen of your State, and by agreement, also a citizen of the United States, which had come together under Articles of Confederation first, and later a mutually agreed upon Constitution that reserved most power to those States, and to the People. The duties of that Federal Government were limited in scope, Constitutionally, and power was granted to it for the express purpose of carrying out those duties. All else was reserved, as noted, to the States, and the People. Each State (or Commonwealth, as the case may be), had its own legislature, executive branch, Constitution, Laws, and Bill of Rights, Secretary of State, Judiciary, and even an Army. Although the current forces retained by those States are a pittance compared to what they were then, and can be Federalized, that was not the case then.

Prior to the War Mr. Lincoln engaged in, not to free slaves, but to bring those states which decided the compact no longer worked for them back into the Federation, by Conquest, at gunpoint, anyone served in the Federal Army as a separate entity, the one army which would be the basis for the common defense mentioned in the Constitution, from 'marauding savages' on the frontiers, to the avaricious aims of the adjacent French colonies to the West (later purchased) and North or the Spaniards to the South. State Militias (Armies) would add to that effort as they saw fit. These conflicts had happened or would take place. The other duty of the Federal Army was to prevent the squabbles between the States from erupting into all out warfare, or from any State seizing (militarily) territory from another. That was discussed in the Federalist before the ratification of the Constitution.

Robert E. Lee served in that army, not so much a National Army, but the Federal Army, which existed for the purposes above. His home State (the Commonwealth of Virginia) had an Army, too.
When his State decided to no longer abide by the compact that was the US Constitution, it, like many others before it, seceded politically from the Federation known as the United States. There was nothing in that Constitution which said a State could not leave that Federation or those who so jealously guarded and prized their freedom from the chains of British rule would never have ratified it. It was predicated on the concept that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That consent was withdrawn by the legislatures of 11 States, and others were Militarily occupied by what amounted to be foreign troops (from other States, under a growing penumbra of Federal Power, something which changed even the reference to the union) before they could consider if they, too, wanted to leave.

Lee's choice, especially when offered command of the Army of the Potomac for the Federal Army, was one of leading Federal and other troops against those from his home State, his countrymen, of being at the head of the Army which was to be used to defend the Federal Capital and subjugate his fellow Virginians, or to choose lead the army which would defend his home State, his own lands, and his fellow Virginians from that invasion which was sure to come, despite all hopes of being left alone.

Not much choice, imho. Under those circumstances, I would have also resigned my Commission and gone home, rather than be reviled in perpetuity by my neighbors, family and friends, and out of loyalty to my country (Virginia).

It is easy to forget, after the invasion and subjugation of the South, the many distortions if looked at through the lens of the present that even the structure of our government has been so fundamentally altered, not just since 1865, but again and again in the intervening years. Judging history by a standard which did not exist when the events unfolded is easy, but historically lazy and grossly inaccurate.

As an example, even recently, the Supreme Court decided "sex" meant not the male or female nature of a person, but the practices they engage in, for the purpose of eliminating 'discrimination'. (When I was a child, discrimination (making careful, informed, choices) was a virtue, not a racial (etc.) thing to be despised.) If, in those few decades, something that fundamental can become so twisted from its original meaning, imagine what has happened in the 160 years since Lee made his choice.

So for those who think Lee a "traitor", proceed, show your ignorance of history.  I have little doubt the man did not lightly leave a highly promising career in the Federal Army, nor was his departure one of casual hatred for the Federation his country had departed, but rather his decision was one of love for the land his roots were firmly in: Virginia.

If one wants to look for treason, there is plenty around, in a more modern context, and perhaps it would be more worthwhile to turn our national focus on that.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #2 on: July 02, 2020, 11:35:34 am »
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline EdinVA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,584
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #3 on: July 02, 2020, 11:37:20 am »
>sigh<

The word "treason" is easy to bandy about in a time when it has been largely forgotten that our Federal Government was not a National Government prior to 1865. That distinction may be lost on many, but here goes.


If one wants to look for treason, there is plenty around, in a more modern context, and perhaps it would be more worthwhile to turn our national focus on that.
Perfectly stated and totally accurate  :patriot:

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,365
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #4 on: July 02, 2020, 12:01:02 pm »
MLK had ties and took money from Communists in the height of the Cold War.  Where's the same outrage.

Calling R. E. Lee treasonous rings hollow to me.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #5 on: July 02, 2020, 12:28:08 pm »
It frustrates me to no end the number of people who view all things related to the Civil War as an either/or, black or white, good or evil.  Like all things there are multiple shades of gray.   

Did the southern STATES secede due to slavery?  Yes.  Did the political leaders of those states push for secession due to slavery?  Yes.  But even that has shades of gray.   Wrapped up in the discussion of slavery is taxation, property rights (to their mind), representation in Congress, etc.  Do all those stem from the evil of slavery?  Again, yes.  But that still is viewing that institution thru the glasses of today.   

Now step back from the political and governmental decisions, and contemplate the individual soldier...be it Gen. Lee or Pvt. Smith....do they automatically support and defend slavery simply by virtue of their fighting for the Confederacy?  And are they demonstrably evil for that choice?  Or could their be multiple shades of gray?  Things like: I will not draw my sword against my home of Virginia.  Or: Lincoln has no right to compel us to stay in the Union. Or: We have the right to choose our own course.  Or even:  I am an 18 y.o., full of piss and vinegar, I’m gonna get off of this god forsaken farm, get away from my father and go join the glorious contest of my day!

My point is that there are myriad reasons, all good and honorable, that a man may have taken up his sword and rifle for the Confederacy that have not a thing to do with the slavery.    Much like today, soldiers serve at the whims of their political leaders, with little knowledge of “the real” reasons they are called to war.   Why do we assume it was so different then? 

Here’s a question to consider:
Should we now denigrate and reduce to ignominy General Tommy Franks for leading the war in Iraq because there were no WMDs found?
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #6 on: July 02, 2020, 12:41:12 pm »
@Axeslinger How was Tommy Franks to know Saddam had used them up against the Iranians and the Kurds? (The ones the Russians didn't haul out, anyway.)
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,365
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #7 on: July 02, 2020, 12:49:08 pm »
It frustrates me to no end the number of people who view all things related to the Civil War as an either/or, black or white, good or evil.  Like all things there are multiple shades of gray.   



Here is a 1861 time line to put in perspective..

SC secedes- December 20, 1860
GA, MS, AL, LA, TX, FL secede- January 9 to February 1, 1861
Sumpter fired upon - April 12, 1861 No causalties
Lincoln asks for 75,000 volunteers to quell rebellion- April 15, 1861
Virginia secedes- April 17, 1861
Lee is offered command of Union Forces- April 18,1861
Lee turns down that offer- April 20,1861, and soon gets commission to lead Confederate Army

Now think about it.  Plausibly does Lee march 75,000 troops into his own state and homeland  as an invading aggressor?
Doesn't sound much like a traitor to me.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #8 on: July 02, 2020, 01:34:03 pm »
Here is a 1861 time line to put in perspective..

SC secedes- December 20, 1860
GA, MS, AL, LA, TX, FL secede- January 9 to February 1, 1861
Sumpter fired upon - April 12, 1861 No causalties
Lincoln asks for 75,000 volunteers to quell rebellion- April 15, 1861
Virginia secedes- April 17, 1861
Lee is offered command of Union Forces- April 18,1861
Lee turns down that offer- April 20,1861, and soon gets commission to lead Confederate Army

Now think about it.  Plausibly does Lee march 75,000 troops into his own state and homeland  as an invading aggressor?
Doesn't sound much like a traitor to me.

April 19, 1861 Citizens of Baltimore MD attack invading troops from Mass. on Pratt Street in Baltimore, resulting in 4 soldiers killed, 36  wounded, and 12 dead civilians. This was the first lethal engagement of the war, later enshrined in the words of the State Song,  "Avenge the patriotic gore / That flecked the streets of Baltimore".
Whether word of that protest and confrontation had reached Lee or could have is unknown.

By April 20, the buildup of invading troops in Maryland made it clear that invasion of the States in secession was indeed inevitable.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline catfish1957

  • Laken Riley.... Say her Name. And to every past and future democrat voter- Her blood is on your hands too!!!
  • Political Researcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 31,365
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #9 on: July 02, 2020, 01:53:47 pm »
April 19, 1861 Citizens of Baltimore MD attack invading troops from Mass. on Pratt Street in Baltimore, resulting in 4 soldiers killed, 36  wounded, and 12 dead civilians. This was the first lethal engagement of the war, later enshrined in the words of the State Song,  "Avenge the patriotic gore / That flecked the streets of Baltimore".
Whether word of that protest and confrontation had reached Lee or could have is unknown.

By April 20, the buildup of invading troops in Maryland made it clear that invasion of the States in secession was indeed inevitable.

I have a newspapers. com subscription and have filtered literally through 1000's of pages of 18th and 19th century papers doing genealogical reasearch. 
By the 1860's with telegraph, and runners (boys who ran between telegraph offices and newspapers), A major event of the news like the one would have spread fast.  A quick check of my account indicates that this event made the news on April 20th in several dozens  cities, and the furthest location  I could find was in Davenport, Iowa.  So I would bet money Lee knew of this event before making his decison.
I display the Confederate Battle Flag in honor of my great great great grandfathers who spilled blood at Wilson's Creek and Shiloh.  5 others served in the WBTS with honor too.

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #10 on: July 02, 2020, 02:01:46 pm »
I have a newspapers. com subscription and have filtered literally through 1000's of pages of 18th and 19th century papers doing genealogical reasearch. 
By the 1860's with telegraph, and runners (boys who ran between telegraph offices and newspapers), A major event of the news like the one would have spread fast.  A quick check of my account indicates that this event made the news on April 20th in several dozens  cities, and the furthest location  I could find was in Davenport, Iowa.  So I would bet money Lee knew of this event before making his decison.
Then it is likely he knew there would be war. By April 26th the State Capital (Annapolis) was occupied by Northern troops. 
Quote
Mayor Brown and Maryland Governor Hicks implored President Lincoln to send no further troops through Maryland to avoid further confrontations. However, as Lincoln remarked to a peace delegation from the Young Men's Christian Association, Union soldiers were neither birds to fly over Maryland, nor moles to burrow under it.

On the evening of April 20 Hicks also authorized Brown to dispatch the Maryland state militia for the purpose of disabling the railroad bridges into the city—an act he would later deny. One of the militia leaders was John Merryman, who was arrested one month later, and held in defiance of a writ of habeas corpus, which led to the case of Ex parte Merryman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baltimore_riot_of_1861
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,862
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #11 on: July 02, 2020, 02:08:46 pm »
>sigh<

The word "treason" is easy to bandy about in a time when it has been largely forgotten that our Federal Government was not a National Government prior to 1865. That distinction may be lost on many, but here goes.

These United States were a federation of individual sovereign and several States, (State being another word for "nation".) You were a citizen of your State, and by agreement, also a citizen of the United States, which had come together under Articles of Confederation first, and later a mutually agreed upon Constitution that reserved most power to those States, and to the People. The duties of that Federal Government were limited in scope, Constitutionally, and power was granted to it for the express purpose of carrying out those duties. All else was reserved, as noted, to the States, and the People. Each State (or Commonwealth, as the case may be), had its own legislature, executive branch, Constitution, Laws, and Bill of Rights, Secretary of State, Judiciary, and even an Army. Although the current forces retained by those States are a pittance compared to what they were then, and can be Federalized, that was not the case then.

Prior to the War Mr. Lincoln engaged in, not to free slaves, but to bring those states which decided the compact no longer worked for them back into the Federation, by Conquest, at gunpoint, anyone served in the Federal Army as a separate entity, the one army which would be the basis for the common defense mentioned in the Constitution, from 'marauding savages' on the frontiers, to the avaricious aims of the adjacent French colonies to the West (later purchased) and North or the Spaniards to the South. State Militias (Armies) would add to that effort as they saw fit. These conflicts had happened or would take place. The other duty of the Federal Army was to prevent the squabbles between the States from erupting into all out warfare, or from any State seizing (militarily) territory from another. That was discussed in the Federalist before the ratification of the Constitution.

Robert E. Lee served in that army, not so much a National Army, but the Federal Army, which existed for the purposes above. His home State (the Commonwealth of Virginia) had an Army, too.
When his State decided to no longer abide by the compact that was the US Constitution, it, like many others before it, seceded politically from the Federation known as the United States. There was nothing in that Constitution which said a State could not leave that Federation or those who so jealously guarded and prized their freedom from the chains of British rule would never have ratified it. It was predicated on the concept that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That consent was withdrawn by the legislatures of 11 States, and others were Militarily occupied by what amounted to be foreign troops (from other States, under a growing penumbra of Federal Power, something which changed even the reference to the union) before they could consider if they, too, wanted to leave.

Lee's choice, especially when offered command of the Army of the Potomac for the Federal Army, was one of leading Federal and other troops against those from his home State, his countrymen, of being at the head of the Army which was to be used to defend the Federal Capital and subjugate his fellow Virginians, or to choose lead the army which would defend his home State, his own lands, and his fellow Virginians from that invasion which was sure to come, despite all hopes of being left alone.

Not much choice, imho. Under those circumstances, I would have also resigned my Commission and gone home, rather than be reviled in perpetuity by my neighbors, family and friends, and out of loyalty to my country (Virginia).

It is easy to forget, after the invasion and subjugation of the South, the many distortions if looked at through the lens of the present that even the structure of our government has been so fundamentally altered, not just since 1865, but again and again in the intervening years. Judging history by a standard which did not exist when the events unfolded is easy, but historically lazy and grossly inaccurate.

As an example, even recently, the Supreme Court decided "sex" meant not the male or female nature of a person, but the practices they engage in, for the purpose of eliminating 'discrimination'. (When I was a child, discrimination (making careful, informed, choices) was a virtue, not a racial (etc.) thing to be despised.) If, in those few decades, something that fundamental can become so twisted from its original meaning, imagine what has happened in the 160 years since Lee made his choice.

So for those who think Lee a "traitor", proceed, show your ignorance of history.  I have little doubt the man did not lightly leave a highly promising career in the Federal Army, nor was his departure one of casual hatred for the Federation his country had departed, but rather his decision was one of love for the land his roots were firmly in: Virginia.

If one wants to look for treason, there is plenty around, in a more modern context, and perhaps it would be more worthwhile to turn our national focus on that.

@Smokin Joe

VERY precise and educational posting,but facts are inconvenient things that can get in the way of today's agenda,so they will be ignored. Hell,probably 30 percent or more of the people you would try to educate with these historic facts can't even read,and the ones that can will dismiss it as "white man's history".
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline corbe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38,072
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #12 on: July 02, 2020, 02:13:09 pm »
   160 years later they're still trying to stick a bayonet into the Heart of Dixie.

The Last Waltz (1978) - The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down Scene


Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
No government in the 12,000 years of modern mankind history has led its people into anything but the history books with a simple lesson, don't let this happen to you.

Offline Axeslinger

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,538
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #13 on: July 02, 2020, 06:51:31 pm »
@Axeslinger How was Tommy Franks to know Saddam had used them up against the Iranians and the Kurds? (The ones the Russians didn't haul out, anyway.)
@Smokin Joe
He absolutely wasn’t.   And it wouldn’t have mattered anyhow.  My point was that he was ordered by his civilian leadership to execute a mission.  He wasn’t asked his personal opinion on the existence of WMD.  How tragic would it be for him to get excoriated 150yearw from now for executing that (in hindsight, faulty) mission?
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson

Offline mountaineer

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 78,125
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #14 on: July 02, 2020, 06:58:53 pm »
The authors of this piece graduated from USMA in 2012 with history degrees. Too bad they didn't actually learn history (on a par with AOC's economics degree).
Support Israel's emergency medical service. afmda.org

Offline Smokin Joe

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 56,416
  • I was a "conspiracy theorist". Now I'm just right.
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #15 on: July 02, 2020, 07:40:22 pm »
@Smokin Joe
He absolutely wasn’t.   And it wouldn’t have mattered anyhow.  My point was that he was ordered by his civilian leadership to execute a mission.  He wasn’t asked his personal opinion on the existence of WMD.  How tragic would it be for him to get excoriated 150yearw from now for executing that (in hindsight, faulty) mission?
Like many events in history, "studied" only in superficiality, that is a possibility, even though it is his sworn duty to carry out the mission set forth by his civilian commanders.
See also: Korea, Vietnam.
Unfortunately, the civilians running the show snatched defeat from the jaws of victory there also, and in every major conflict since.
How God must weep at humans' folly! Stand fast! God knows what he is doing!
Seventeen Techniques for Truth Suppression

Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.

C S Lewis

Offline Absalom

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4,375
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #16 on: July 02, 2020, 07:59:20 pm »
[quote author=Smokin Joe link=topic=407103.msg2241308#msg2241308 date=1593689419

The word "treason" is easy to bandy about in a time when it has been largely forgotten that our Federal Government was not a National Government prior to 1865. That distinction may be lost on many, but here goes.
These United States were a federation of individual sovereign and several States, (State being another word for "nation".) You were a citizen of your State, and by agreement, also a citizen of the United States, which had come together under Articles of Confederation first, and later a mutually agreed upon Constitution that reserved most power to those States, and to the People. The duties of that Federal Government were limited in scope, Constitutionally, and power was granted to it for the express purpose of carrying out those duties. All else was reserved, as noted, to the States, and the People. Each State (or Commonwealth, as the case may be), had its own legislature, executive branch, Constitution, Laws, and Bill of Rights, Secretary of State, Judiciary, and even an Army. Although the current forces retained by those States are a pittance compared to what they were then, and can be Federalized, that was not the case then.
Prior to the War Mr. Lincoln engaged in, not to free slaves, but to bring those states which decided the compact no longer worked for them back into the Federation, by Conquest, at gunpoint, anyone served in the Federal Army as a separate entity, the one army which would be the basis for the common defense mentioned in the Constitution, from 'marauding savages' on the frontiers, to the avaricious aims of the adjacent French colonies to the West (later purchased) and North or the Spaniards to the South. State Militias (Armies) would add to that effort as they saw fit. These conflicts had happened or would take place. The other duty of the Federal Army was to prevent the squabbles between the States from erupting into all out warfare, or from any State seizing (militarily) territory from another. That was discussed in the Federalist before the ratification of the Constitution.
Robert E. Lee served in that army, not so much a National Army, but the Federal Army, which existed for the purposes above. His home State (the Commonwealth of Virginia) had an Army, too.
When his State decided to no longer abide by the compact that was the US Constitution, it, like many others before it, seceded politically from the Federation known as the United States. There was nothing in that Constitution which said a State could not leave that Federation or those who so jealously guarded and prized their freedom from the chains of British rule would never have ratified it. It was predicated on the concept that "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That consent was withdrawn by the legislatures of 11 States, and others were Militarily occupied by what amounted to be foreign troops (from other States, under a growing penumbra of Federal Power, something which changed even the reference to the union) before they could consider if they, too, wanted to leave.
Lee's choice, especially when offered command of the Army of the Potomac for the Federal Army, was one of leading Federal and other troops against those from his home State, his countrymen, of being at the head of the Army which was to be used to defend the Federal Capital and subjugate his fellow Virginians, or to choose lead the army which would defend his home State, his own lands, and his fellow Virginians from that invasion which was sure to come, despite all hopes of being left alone.
Not much choice, imho. Under those circumstances, I would have also resigned my Commission and gone home, rather than be reviled in perpetuity by my neighbors, family and friends, and out of loyalty to my country (Virginia).
It is easy to forget, after the invasion and subjugation of the South, the many distortions if looked at through the lens of the present that even the structure of our government has been so fundamentally altered, not just since 1865, but again and again in the intervening years. Judging history by a standard which did not exist when the events unfolded is easy, but historically lazy and grossly inaccurate.
As an example, even recently, the Supreme Court decided "sex" meant not the male or female nature of a person, but the practices they engage in, for the purpose of eliminating 'discrimination'. (When I was a child, discrimination (making careful, informed, choices) was a virtue, not a racial (etc.) thing to be despised.) If, in those few decades, something that fundamental can become so twisted from its original meaning, imagine what has happened in the 160 years since Lee made his choice.
So for those who think Lee a "traitor", proceed, show your ignorance of history.  I have little doubt the man did not lightly leave a highly promising career in the Federal Army, nor was his departure one of casual hatred for the Federation his country had departed, but rather his decision was one of love for the land his roots were firmly in: Virginia.
If one wants to look for treason, there is plenty around, in a more modern context, and perhaps it would be more worthwhile to turn our national focus on that.
[/quote]
-----------------------------
Smokin, outstanding post! Well done.
Permit me to add a related/supporting comment.
Sadly, so few are aware that many of our Founding Fathers were Southerners,
among them Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, Agrarian and Rural Democrats of
our only principled conservative party.
Their guiding precepts included the independence and sovereignty of the States
(States Rights), a precept paramount in our Articles of Confederation of 1777;
and some 250 years later, a notion sadly forgotten and ignored.

Offline EdinVA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,584
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #17 on: July 02, 2020, 08:14:58 pm »
I would be willing to bet that the folks at WP never realized they ever had a R. E. Lee problem...

rangerrebew

  • Guest
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #18 on: July 03, 2020, 10:26:45 am »
@Smokin Joe

In his final speech to southern troops, Lee told his troops them to go home and be as good a citizen and they were soldiers which went a long way toward reconciliation of the two sides.  He was also one of the first white southerners to kneel next to a black man to receive communion in a Virginia church, no small occurrence.  While he, no doubt, was bitter at losing the war, he exhibited the qualities of reconciliation he had encouraged his troops to do.  He was a leader by example.

Offline The_Reader_David

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,275
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #19 on: July 03, 2020, 12:29:07 pm »
It frustrates me to no end the number of people who view all things related to the Civil War as an either/or, black or white, good or evil.  Like all things there are multiple shades of gray.   


My favorite way of pointing out the nuances of the Civil War it to note that for each side, the primary issue was the opposite of what the latter-day partisans of the two sides say it was.  For the South the issue was slavery, and the Confederacy was formed to defend that institution.  For the North the issue was states rights, the Union going to war to vindicate the position that states do no have the right to secede uniliaterally.
And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know what this was all about.

Offline EdinVA

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,584
  • Gender: Male
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #20 on: July 03, 2020, 12:47:25 pm »
My favorite way of pointing out the nuances of the Civil War it to note that for each side, the primary issue was the opposite of what the latter-day partisans of the two sides say it was.  For the South the issue was slavery, and the Confederacy was formed to defend that institution.  For the North the issue was states rights, the Union going to war to vindicate the position that states do no have the right to secede uniliaterally.
Life is simple when your choices are binary

Offline Bigun

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 51,331
  • Gender: Male
  • Resistance to Tyrants is Obedience to God
    • The FairTax Plan
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #21 on: July 03, 2020, 02:02:48 pm »
What problem?  Robert E. Lee is likely the most principled man ever to attend that place so I don't see any problem.
"I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us."
- J. R. R. Tolkien

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,862
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #22 on: July 03, 2020, 04:34:30 pm »
My favorite way of pointing out the nuances of the Civil War it to note that for each side, the primary issue was the opposite of what the latter-day partisans of the two sides say it was.  For the South the issue was slavery, and the Confederacy was formed to defend that institution.  For the North the issue was states rights, the Union going to war to vindicate the position that states do no have the right to secede uniliaterally.

@The_Reader_David

Yeah,but,no. Not even close. It was about MONEY.

The entire southern economy at that time was based on agriculture,and farming was entirely dependent on manual labor. If you wanted to expand your farm much beyond the bare substance level,you either had to  pump out a LOT of kids really quickly,or hire farm laborers.

There was no such thing as farm laborers to hire back then. People back then,just like people of today,needed jobs that were daily jobs,not seasonal jobs.

The answer,was slaves. Nobody in the south captured and enslaved anyone,with ONE exception. That exception was a black man named Johnson who came to America like every other immigrant at that time who didn't have a title and wasn't in the military. He came here as an indentured servant,and once he worked off the expense of his passage,food,shelter,housing,as a laborer,he became a free man and was given acreage to create a farm.

He "hired" another indentured servant to help him by paying his passage to America,and when the man he hired (also a black man) had worked his time out,Johnson went to court to prevent him from being freed. He won the court battle,and slavery became legal in the original colony of Virginia. Which meant it became legal everywhere in America at that time.

Anyhow,the entire economy of the south revolved around slave labor at that time.

Guess who else profited from slavery. Can you say "Northern Bankers"? ALL of whom were based in NYC. Still are,AFATG.

THEY profited because they not only lent money to the plantation owners to buy seeds,tools,SLAVES,etc,etc,etc,
they also brokered all the foreign sales of tobacco,corn,and the other crops the southern plantation owners sold internationally.  This was because all the banking houses at that time were owned by European banking families with financial ties to Royalty,and let's not forget this started prior to 1607. These were the same banking families that lent the English the money to come to America and create the original colony on Roanoke Island in what is now called "The Outer Banks of NC".

200 years later the southern agricultural economy is a booming established business,and pretty much have a lock on the sale of some items to Europe,like corn and tobacco.

So the wealthy southern planters decide to cut out the middleman and sell directly to European brokers,bypassing NYC.

Which,as you may have guessed,caused the NYC bankers to start having spasms.

Yes,there WERE other factors involved,including opposition to slavery on moral grounds by people who could afford to be moral because it wasn't THEIR horse that was being gored,but it really boils down to the rich European banking families based in NYC didn't like having their fingers snatched out of the pie,and the rich plantation owners in the south (who mostly owned the local banks,also) didn't like having to pay a ransom to the NYC bankers when they now had the money and the means to do their own shipping and financing.

And,as always,everyone else got pulled into the squabble over greed and money,and we went to war. The Northern politicians tried one thing and then another,but nothing worked until they decided to cloak their aggression in religious terms,and declared slavery to be immoral. They then demanded the south outlaw slavery,knowing full-well that if they did so,their banks would fail and so would their economy.

The southern bankers resisted because they would be the ones that the most if slavery became illegal at that time. Don't forget,at that time it was ALL stoop labor. No machines. A few years later the Cotton Gin was invented,and THAT was the death knoll for slavery even if there had been no Civil War.

The northern foot soldiers were mostly ignorant,but sincere religious people who volunteered  for moral reasons.
Since there weren't enough of them,the north started the first draft,which led to draft riots in NYC,with lots of black people being killed in the riots. So the north solved this little "lack of volunteers" problem by basically making enlisting in the army a requirement for new refugees at Elis Island hoping to find new homes in America. They either "volunteered" or reasons were found to reject them,and put them on boats back to Europe,losing everything they sacrificed to come here in the first place.

The typical rebel foot solider volunteered because they were Scots-Irish,and somebody told them there were Englishmen coming into the south that needed killing.

It ain't pretty,but history never is.







« Last Edit: July 03, 2020, 04:35:22 pm by sneakypete »
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline sneakypete

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 52,862
  • Twitter is for Twits
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #23 on: July 03, 2020, 04:37:47 pm »
What problem?  Robert E. Lee is likely the most principled man ever to attend that place so I don't see any problem.

@Bigun

That IS the problem.
Anyone who isn't paranoid in 2021 just isn't thinking clearly!

Offline mystery-ak

  • Owner
  • Administrator
  • ******
  • Posts: 381,863
  • Gender: Female
  • Let's Go Brandon!
Re: What Should West Point Do About Its Robert E. Lee Problem?
« Reply #24 on: July 03, 2020, 04:42:53 pm »
Better yet...what happens when the rioters discover the history of Arlington Cemetery?
Proud Supporter of Tunnel to Towers
Support the USO
Democrat Party...the Party of Infanticide

“Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own.”
-Matthew 6:34