Skip to comments.CHURCHILL VS. ROBT. E. LEE
Posted on 01/17/2014 5:55:06 PM PST by DIRTYSECRET
OK my friends: In case you forgot: It was the Prez who returned the bust of Churchill to London. We ALL know it was petty. Am I right? Just remember that 2 can play this game. It all depends on which of us is in the W.H.
I don't think we should bring it back. Some GOP debater tried to make points on that issue-didn't work. Just put a bust of Americas greatest General in the same spot. Just watch the Great Ones friends react. Tit for tat. Thoughts?
They were both the right men at the right time. I can’t pick a favorite between the two...and I admire them both.
COME ON! It was meant to be provocative! Aimed at Obama. Where do you stand?
Lee lost. I don’t think you can be the greatest if you lost the war you were supreme commander for.
Maybe Ike, who belongs there because he c was also an American President
That's the first time I ever heard anybody suggest putting a bust of Winfield Scott in the White House.
I'd support more George Washington in the WH. I would heavily redecorate with the Founding Fathers. I'd go full-on limited government, let's have a budget the size of the one in 1796 (or whatever).
Hard to criticize such an approach, and it is the right path to travel.
That’s even worse! We’re talking Generals. He was offered command of the Union Army. Declined. Took on a bunch of rag tags and did exceptional. We need more input.
Nathan Bedford Forrest ?
Taking out Churchill didn’t cost him anything. Reagan was not afraid to take it to them.
McArthur lost the Philippines in 1942. Ordered to flee, then came back.
Lee lost at Gettysburg, he did more with less prior to that. He really screwed up there. Had he taken the heights when he got there, history would read quite differently. Either way, he was a master warrior. Churchill was an anachronism that save Britain...and they booted him out of power at their first opportunity in gratitude.
Look, Lee lost his war. He was a slaveholder. You think making him a team mascot in the 21st century -- directly after our first black president leaves office -- you think that would a super clever political strategy??
You are not a serious person.
So a bust of Patton?
And how is any of this tit for tat? Who is returning something from Britain?
Churchill descended from nobility. Bobby Lee was an upper class twit.
It belabors the obvious to point our any of Obama’s shortcomings.
Lee was a Confederate hero, not a United States hero, hence his image does not belong in the oval office. He was a brilliant mind and an honorable man but the cause he fought for was morally ambiguous at best. Also, would a confederate general really be pleased to have his image displayed in the high office of the government he set out to dissolve?
There is no shortage of patriotic US generals we can put on display at the Oval Office, Lee is poor choice. I second the call for Patton.
Ronald Reagan: 1) “Unemployment insurance is a paid vacation.” 2) “ Viet Nam was a noble cause”. There are others.
Statue of Patton would not put the left in it’s place. Remember: I’m talking’ Generals. Let the historians decide who was the greatest-u would b disappointed.
U folks r timid-Mccain types.
Hey, what happened to the text?
The White House has had a bust of Winston Churchill since the 1960s. At the start of the GW Bush administration Prime Minister Blair lent President Bush a bust that matched the one in the White House, which was being worked on at the time and was later returned to the residence. The version lent by Prime Minister Blair was displayed by President Bush until the end of his Presidency. On January 20, 2009 -- Inauguration Day -- all of the art lent specifically for President Bushs Oval Office was removed by the curators office, as is common practice at the end of every presidency. The original Churchill bust remained on display in the residence.
As a son of the South, and the progeny of a wonderful pairing of a Maine Yankee and Alabama Rebel, why bring Robert E. Lee into this discussion? We are still in the midst of the Sesquicentennial of the Civil War, and I know folks outside of the South don't care, and I suspect most folks in the South are not even aware. Time to let it go.
However, the Army bases named after Confederate generals should remain.
They wouldn’t get it - it’s too subtle. Go with N.B. Forrest
In some ways it was the reverse.
Lee came from a long line of famous Lees -- nobility for this land. His family had fallen on hard times and he chose military service and worked long and hard to rise to the place he earned and a foremost soldier on the eve of war.
Churchill was the son of the second son, raised in privilege and somewhat a child without direction until he finished Sandhurst. Hardly a noble beginning but he went to India then to Africa and made a instant youthful success of himself gaining visibility as a correspondent partly with his famous name and the promotion of his mother who was a Kardashian of her day.
nobility for this land.
In their own mind. Looked down on anyone not of their “class”.
Which leads me to ask a question...Who would have made a better US President?
Grant or Lee, if he had lived long enough.
Lee was definitely a brilliant tactical commander, but his strategic sense was lacking. He had a tunnel vision in regards to Virginia. His total disconnect from the war in the West probably one of the biggest factors in the South losing the war.
Some vanities live forever, even if they don’t make much sense. So here’s my reply:
YES ! Excellent poin’t! One MUST be returne’d, the other forsaken! SCREW tCromwell etc.
THIS one made sense:
What does this have to do with what I stated. This linked opinion piece is an apologia for the Confederate cause when I was just commenting on pure military strategy.
With apologies to General Eisenhower, he was never under fire during WWII, so even though he, as you say, lost, I would prefer General Wainwright. He took enemy fire, and suffered with his men. They loved him, as Marse Robert was loved by his men. I know this because my father was one of the men of Corregidor. I don't question Ike's courage or brilliance, but when MacArthur accepted the Japanese surrender on the deck of the Missouri, he handed the pens the Japanese signed with to Generals King (Bataan) and Wainwright (Bataan/Corregidor). Ike wasn't abandoned by his government, nor did he suffer the ordeal of being a prisoner of the Japanese.
Lee was the best general in that time by a long shot, even according to his enemies.
Ike was a traitor to America. Patton wasn’t.
Patton should of been running the show, but he somehow had a terrible accident.
Huh? If you're speaking of the bonus army, they were infiltrated by communists by that time, good riddance.
I figured that if we were going for the stick in the eye, we might as well be as offensive as possible
WTF, put it in Reggie's room.
“Any president who puts a bust of Lee in the WH will lose political power. Just a fact.”
I’d say history indicates otherwise-
President Dwight Eisenhower wrote the following letter in response to one he received dated August 1, 1960, from Leon W. Scott, a dentist in New Rochelle, New York. Scott’s letter reads:
August 1, 1960
Dear Mr. President:
At the Republican Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.
I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.
The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being hailed as one of our heroes.
Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?
Leon W. Scott
Eisenhower’s response, written on White House letterhead, reads as follows:
August 9, 1960
Dear Dr. Scott:
Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.
General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.
From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.
Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.
Dwight D. Eisenhower
Churchill had a great interest in the American Civil War and was an admirer of R.E. Lee.
He wrote a provocative little essay titled “If Lee Had Not Won the Battle of Gettysburg” which you can read here:
“Lee was a Confederate hero, not a United States hero, hence his image does not belong in the oval office. “
It’s already been there, during the Presidency of Dwight Eisenhower who knew a thing or two about patriotism. See post #39.
” I second the call for Patton”
Is that George S Patton the Confederate officer, or his grandson in WWII?
No way Lee could ever have lived long enough to be elected President. Even if he had, I doubt we'd elect a 170 year old to any office (Lee got his citizenship back in 1975, and Southerner Jimmy Carter got elected the next year).
But if you're assuming that Lee would have been a excellent president of the country he'd rejected, that's also a dubious assumption. He didn't have much more of a political mind than Grant -- if that.
I can't take he question very seriously in any case. Lee's health was in decline even during the war. He didn't have all his powers by war's end and didn't have much time left.
Scott’s Mexico City campaign was so audacious, even the aged Wellington thought Scott was sure to be beaten. And even when elderly and obese, Scott had a role in building the army and the strategy used against the Confederates.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.