Posted on 04/30/2019 4:06:09 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
President Trump sent certain segments of population into outraged spasms on Friday when he described Robert E. Lee as a "great general." Trying to lend context to his infamous "very fine people" remark about the 2017 Charlottesville protests, Trump said this:
“I was talking about people that went because they felt very strongly about the monument to Robert E. Lee, a great general. Whether you like it or not, he was one of the great generals. I have spoken to many generals here, right at the White House, and many people thought — of the generals, they think that he was maybe their favorite general.”
Trump is, of course, completely correct. Robert E. Lee has always been regarded as a military genius, and for good reason. This is not controversial to anyone with a sixth grade education in American history. But surveys show that many Americans don't even know when the Civil War took place, and a sizable number think Lincoln led the Allied Forces rather than the Union Army, so it's no surprise that basic statements of historical fact have become contentious in our age of aggressive stupidity.
I found myself in the crossfire of the controversy when I posted on Twitter in support of Trump's statement and provided my personal list of the best Civil War generals. I give Lee the top spot, followed by Jackson, Grant, Sherman, and then Nathan Bedford Forrest. You could certainly make an argument for Longstreet, Sheridan, Thomas, or Cleburne in any one of those spots. But you cannot make an argument for a list of top Civil War generals that completely excludes all Confederates. There aren't five Union generals better than Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson. There isn't even one, in my view. In his Valley Campaign, Jackson marched his brigade of shoeless farm boys 600 miles through the mountains over the course of a month and a half, winning five pivotal battles against a combined force that outnumbered his 2:1. Grant never did anything quite like that, though he was impressive in his own right — and the victor, after all.
But I was informed by hundreds of people that I am a racist, just like Trump, for daring to give the Rebels any credit at all. We have reached a point where we cannot acknowledge any of the achievements of morally flawed historical figures. We must pretend they never existed. Driving this point home, a number of people insisted that ranking Confederates as great generals is like ranking Nazis as great generals. That's ridiculous, because of course some Nazi generals were great generals. Erwin Rommel was a great general, as anyone who has studied WW2 knows. The fact that he was fighting on the side of abject evil does not erase his military genius.
If we cannot acknowledge the greatness of morally compromised military commanders, then we cannot acknowledge the greatness of any military commander. Not a single one of them would pass muster by the standards of today's anachronizing blowhards. Napoleon, Julius Caesar, Alexander the Great — all must be removed from the history books. Even the Union commanders in the Civil War get thrown out with this bath water. Grant was an anti-Semite who tried to evict all the Jews from his military district. Sherman was a war criminal. Lincoln was a racist who publicly professed his bigotry during a debate with Stephen Douglas:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
If we are not willing to see things in their historical context, and to accept that people in the past weren't as racially enlightened as we are today, then we will be left with no heroes, no great men at all. But if we are willing to forgive Lincoln his virulent racism, and Grant his predilection for ethnic cleansing, then we must extend a similar generosity to men like Robert E. Lee.
Nothing will make slavery anything less than a moral abomination. And it is true that slavery was a very significant motivating factor behind secession, as Texas, Mississippi, Georgia and South Carolina all made abundantly clear in their Declaration of Causes of Seceding States. But it is equally true that many men who did the fighting on both sides did not perceive themselves to be fighting over slavery. There's a reason Lincoln waited two years to issue the Emancipation Proclamation. He said early on that if he could keep the country together by keeping slavery, he would do it. To him, and to the Union soldiers on the ground, it was a fight to preserve the Union. The sad fact of the matter is that most Northerners were racist themselves and would not have charged into gunfire for the sake of liberating the slaves, no matter how distasteful they found the institution.
For their part, many southern soldiers thought they were fighting a war of defense against hostile invaders. There's a reason Jefferson Davis did not send his army to capture Washington, even though perhaps they could have done so after the stunning Confederate victory at Bull Run to start the war. This is the reality Robert E. Lee confronted. He was offered command of Union forces but declined because, as a loyal Virginian, he could not march against his home state. He saw it as a choice between defending his home or the Union. He chose his home.
Perhaps you would have chosen differently. Perhaps you would have taken up arms against your own family. Perhaps you would have been more enlightened than almost everyone else and seen the struggle in the same light that spectators in the future would see it. I congratulate this hypothetical version of yourself, in that case. It's true that Robert E. Lee lacked this sort of enlightenment. It's also true that when he was faced with a difficult dilemma, he made the choice he thought was right, and then proceeded to win battle after battle against a foe with superior numbers, superior weaponry, and superior resources. That's why he's a great general.
Napoleon is a poor example.
At least start with Alexander the Great. His Empire & influence lasted well over 5 centuries in a good portion of what he conquered.
Publius Scipio Aemilianus.
Julius Caesar is a good one. Justinian had his moments.
Charlemagne too.
Pizarro, Cortes, Diego Velazquez de Cuellar.
Every single one of these Generals had impacts that lasted centuries.
President Lincoln recognized Lee’s great military skills, indeed Lincoln offered Lee the command of the entire American armies (before Virginia, Lee’s home state, seceded).
“Lee was fighting for STATES RIGHTS.”
States don’t have rights, they have powers. Lee fought for only his state of Virginia and yet only commanded the Army of Northern Virginia.
States don’t have state citizens, we are all American citizens, we have the rights.
One of them is freedom.
Slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that “vehicle” killed 700,000+ to get it stopped.
Lee was a decent general, so was Rommel. Of the 383 Confederate generals, arguably Longstreet was better. Where are his statues?
“Slavery was the cause of the Civil War, that “vehicle” killed 700,000+ to get it stopped.”
That is an interesting comment.
If the South was fighting for slavery, who was fighting against slavery?
You did notice Jim Thompson himself today on his forum expressed his happiness over the monuments decision in Old Dominion
These cretins have run here for too long....honestly I don’t care but I’d love to know their real reason and organization
It’s not happenstance
I bet these South haters here don’t know Kennedy liked LQC Lamar in his Profiles In Courage
Course they know better than JFK
He wasn’t trying for Empire
He was trying to make the North go home
Not comparable
Yes or take your guns
He was a great general. But he made mistakes at Gettysburg.
You just like Longstreet cause he turned republican
Not one whit based on his generalship
He sure did.
He let the Yankees get the high ground
One mistake can have major implications
Hood let Schofield slip by in the night at Spring Hill which was incredible feat by Schofield and the next evening just 1000 yards from where I’m sitting in my jacuzzi freeping the war was lost forever after unimaginable slaughter
Battle of Franklin
His circumstances would’ve equated him to Washington.
Freedom from an oppressive aggressor nation.
Washington wasn’t exactly a stellar general either.
Now, if he would’ve conquered the North and created a United CSA - that would’ve made him great.
No, that was U.S. Grant, but only after Lincoln and Stanton had tried McClelland and Hooker and i can't remember who else and they had all failed.
well you know a LOT more than me about that war!
But it’s worse than you think.
A sizable number of people think he led the WWII ALLIES!!!!
Hoooo boy. The Yankeefa brigade on here will have a giant giant meltdown over this.
Not equating the 2 but Ghengis Khan was a great general, too. But I’m sure that old Ghengis’ ideas about personal liberty and the Laws of Warfare are not up for debate today. So why should R.E. Lee’s be relevant? If you’re looking for perfect people among historical figures you might find 1, but no more than that.
Well the last time Trump called General Lee great - it was to extol the virtues of General Grant !
So... lets get the full context !!!
Which one. Teddy was a Colonel-of-Volunteers. His son Ted, Jr. died a Major General less than a week after D-Day while commanding the 4th Infantry Div.
‘Rights’ are fine, but sometimes exercising those rights is a bad idea.
Except the Union had not forced anything.
The democrats (under the Al Gore of his time - Breckenridge) left the Union upon their first wiff of loss of power to Republicans.
The Republicans were a brand new party, formed in opposition to the horrific Kansas-Nebraska act. This act repealed the Missouri compromise of 30-40 years earlier. It was proposed by Douglas (D) - it allowed the territories of Kansas and Nebraska to vote if they were to be free or slave.
The end result was ten years of bloody strife in Kansas as both sides fought for supremacy.
Breckenridge allowed the Republicans to win in 1860 by SPLITTING THE DEMOCRAT PARTY between himself and Douglas. A United party may have very well won the Presidency.
The democrats lost the House, but retained control of the Senate by ONE seat, and the Judiciary (by virtue of having been in control for decades).
So rather than tough out a split government for four years due to their idiotic election policy.
Breckenridge led his followers into secession. And from there into total defeat.
Breckenridge did get himself appointed to the Senate - via Kentucky - after he lost the Presidency. He tried to lead Kentucky into rebellion also, but failed.
Eventually, the Senate grew tired of his treachery and expelled the lout for treason !
See the Senate web site.
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/expulsion_cases/038Breckinridge_expulsion.htm
“Response of the Senate
A brief discussion followed, in which Lyman Trumbull (R-IL) inquired of Breckinridge’s Kentucky colleague, Democrat Lazarus Powell, whether it was true that Breckinridge had become a general in the Confederate army. After first trying to avoid a direct answer, Powell finally confirmed that Trumbull’s information was correct. Because Breckinridge had accepted a prominent military position in the Confederacy, Trumbull asked that the resolution be amended to state:
Whereas John C. Breckinridge, a member of this body from the State of Kentucky, has joined the enemies of his country, and is now in arms against the Government he had sworn to support:
Therefore, Resolved, That the said John C. Breckinridge, the traitor, be, and he is hereby, expelled from the Senate.
That same day, the Senate voted 36 to 0 to pass the resolution as amended and expel Breckinridge.”
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.