Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

President Eisenhower Letter-Honor Robert E. Lee
The Citizen ^ | 9 Oct 2006 | James W. King

Posted on 10/17/2006 5:18:26 PM PDT by bushpilot1

Eisenhower letter regarding Robert E. Lee

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:

“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?

Sincerely yours,

“Leon W. Scott”

Eisenhower's response, written on White House letterhead on August 9, 1960 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.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: ilikeike; lee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-216 next last
To: PeaRidge
It is quite apparent that you have no idea if Lee was influenced by Rawle.

Nor do you. Admit it.

You do not know that to be fact.

And you don't know it to be wrong. Admit it.

The point is you are pushing a non-peer reviewed essay by an obscure writer which only quotes one source, Dudley, wherein he uses the term "probably" to summarize his work.

Which is still more than you've been able to offer in rebuttle.

More of your panic stricken efforts to mislead.

This from the master.

101 posted on 10/18/2006 5:11:39 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur


Quote: Rawle's view was accepted by the mass of both students and instructors (At West Point Military Academy)
That was from Charles Francis Adams grandson of President John Q. Adams


102 posted on 10/18/2006 5:28:12 PM PDT by StoneWall Brigade (Newt/ Rick Santorum 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
I don't believe Lee's conversion was a deathbed experience. I've never read anything that cast doubt on Lee's Christian's beliefs.

Lee didn't own any slaves, he freed the slaves that were inherited from Mrs. Lee's side. He did what he thought was his duty. What would you do if an army was heading toward your home? Your hatred of Lee has skewed your sense of historical perspective.

Lee didn't start the war, he didn't want the war but felt bound by the sense of duty that was part of the chivalric code of the era.

You need to cite the verses Paul wrote condemning slavery. The verses I'm familiar with that he wrote told the masters to treat their slaves well and for the slaves to obey their masters.

Slavery of course is bad, but back in history many thought it was good because it introduced the slaves to Christianity. That's why it's difficult to judge those who lived in the past by today's standards.

103 posted on 10/18/2006 5:28:36 PM PDT by Smittie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Smittie

Good Point


104 posted on 10/18/2006 5:44:38 PM PDT by StoneWall Brigade (Newt/ Rick Santorum 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Smittie

The much-abused phrase of jefferson in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal" is explanied here in its histroical context. As Rawel states under the system of monarchy the king is supreme to all citizens, and above the common law. The king is declared and denoted as the "Sovereign." Therefore his will is law whereas his subjects are bound by law. Under the republican system, the people of the sovereign community are sovereign; there, no one person is above the law, hence "all men are created equal." Nowhere in Jefferson's statement is there to be found the notion absolute human equality. Jefferson belived in human inequality and in a society of degrees. Jefferson advanced the principle that the people of a political community were equal, and he promoted the idea of equality of opportunity.







105 posted on 10/18/2006 6:07:24 PM PDT by StoneWall Brigade (Newt/ Rick Santorum 08!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: ABG(anybody but Gore)
I think to really delve into an answer to that you would have to separate the role of Generals into two categories: Field Generals vs. Organizational Generals. My nominees would be:

Patton and Lee as Field Generals and Marshall and Ike as Organizational Generals

However, Lee filled the role of an organizational General during the early years of the CW. I am not sure which other Generals accomplished both tasks.

I would also scratch Sherman. The actions of his troops on the March to the Sea should have resulted in his Court Martial.

106 posted on 10/18/2006 6:41:29 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (Liberals would let Mark Foley be a Boy Scout leader.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Smittie
By your logic, Osama Bin Laden is the most honorable man alive today.

He is fighting because his code of honor requires it. An army of westerners has invaded his homeland in the Arabian peninsula and the middle east generally. Israel, supported by the US, occupies Muslim land, as does Spain, Greece and Serbia.

Osama didn't start the war, the west did, in the 1920s by destroying the caliphate, in 1948 by establishing Israel, and in 1492, by driving the Moors from Spain.

Osama, by Muslim belief, culture and logic, is an honorable, valiant, brave and just warrior. His religion commands him to do what he does, and it is a duty upon all Muslims.The brave and moral among the Muslims, though, are the ones that refuse to kill innocents, or convert by the sword, or wage violent jihad.

Neither Robert E. Lee or Osama Bin Laden used their talents in the service of what we would consider good, and as a result, are not deserving of honor or glory. They had personal honor, under their own moral codes, that I will readily admit, and said as much several times.

My point regarding conversion was not to claim that Lee made a deathbed conversion, but to state the true fact that not all Christians believe that just because someone repeats the tenets of faith do they get a free pass into heaven. Some crimes might just be deserving of hell no matter how truly you believe in Jesus Christ, perhaps because if you truly believed in Him, you would not be capable of committing the sinful acts. You deny Him with such acts.

From the letter to Philemon:

“For this reason, though I am bold enough in Christ to command you to do your duty, yet I would rather appeal to you on the basis of love— and I, Paul, do this as an old man, and now also as a prisoner of Christ Jesus.” (1:8-9 NRSV)

“I appeal to you for my son Onesimus, who became my son while I was in chains. Formerly he was useless to you, but now he has become useful both to you and to me. I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do will be spontaneous and not forced.” (1:10- 14 NIV)

Paul is saying that his correspondent should release Onesimus from slavery. Paul will not command it, but ask him to do so, as a Christian doing the right thing. Funny that there are still Christians who try to justify the practice of slavery 20 centuries later. It was and remains a sin for a Christian to enslave another human. The Spanish recognized this; their priests argued that the Indians were humans and not animals, and so not subject to slavery, but to conversion. Once it was admitted that they were human, slavery was forbidden.

107 posted on 10/18/2006 7:42:19 PM PDT by Defiant (The War on Terror is not a football game with a clock. It is a Steel Cage Death Match.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
I'm not saying Sherman was a saint by any means, his name is still anathema in Georgia for what he did, but he was probably the foremost visionary when it came to the way warfare had evolved from the Napoleonic to modern era. His march to the sea is probably the first instance since Rome overran Carthage that we've seen what "Total War" is.

Patton and Lee as Field Generals and Marshall and Ike as Organizational Generals

Can't argue with that. Patton and Lee were masters on the battlefield, Ike and Marshall did their best work in anonymity while MacArthur and Patton got the headlines.

The best at both jobs? Omar Bradley, perhaps?

108 posted on 10/18/2006 7:51:11 PM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) ("By the time I'm finished with you, you're gonna wish you felt this good again" - Jack Bauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.

BTW: Bradley and Patton could, and often did, run circles around Ike when it came to operations in 1944-45. Patton was put on a leash by SHAEF, so Bradley, knowing he was planning an offensive, would instruct him to not "be able" to contact him for 48 hours. Then the 3rd Army would roll...


109 posted on 10/18/2006 7:57:13 PM PDT by ABG(anybody but Gore) ("By the time I'm finished with you, you're gonna wish you felt this good again" - Jack Bauer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
As for Lee, he lost pretty convincingly up at Gettysburg, to an army of roughly equal size, and to a general that few would consider his equal. In fact, Lee lost to inferior generals to end both his campaigns in the North.

Lee had a bad week. No question about it.

But he had lots of help. Virtually all of his chief subordinates let him down: Stuart, Hill, Heth, Ewell...and (albeit not to the extent Early argued) Longstreet.

And being on the defensive, Meade had very little to do. It was left to subordinate commanders to simply stand firm at critical moments. Most of the credit, such as it is, goes to Buford, Reynolds, Hancock, Hunt, Custer, and Chamberlain.

110 posted on 10/18/2006 8:26:30 PM PDT by The Iguana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: x
But you can't throw slavery out of the picture and understand the Civil War.

Thank you for that. Now, it all makes sense. (sarcasm off)

111 posted on 10/18/2006 9:44:13 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana

Bump to this...I will answer you later this morning. I have some historical writings that you might find interesting.


112 posted on 10/18/2006 9:49:50 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: The Iguana; stainlessbanner; StoneWall Brigade
I am probably not going to be sharing anything new, but Lee did not have a bad week - he suffered a paradigm shift and those aren't easy to predict.

He did not understand that the aggressiveness that was attributed to Hill and Ewell came from Stonewall Jackson. Without his leadership Hill and Ewell were lost. They were not Corps commanders. They were good at saying "how high" when Jackson told them to jump. After Gettysburg, Lee understood that, and you can see the changes he made in his leadership style.

Furthermore, if Jackson had been present, there was a good chance there would be no Gettysburg. Two reasons - Jackson understood that Hooker lost at Chancellorsville moment the he sent his cavalry away. Second, the objective was Harrisburg... Ewell approached tentatively, slowly allowing the militia time to burn the bridge at York and stopping the forward advance.

Of course the beauty of discussing tactics after a battle is that we can see so clearly what should have happened and what did not. Because we see with such clarity, we sometimes believe that the Lee or Meade should have seen equally clear.

The facts were that on July 2, Lee told Longstreet to attack up the Emmittsburg Road in a flanking movement to conquer the high ground at the Peach Orchard to use artillery to support the flanking move on Cemetery Ridge. Even though the movie Gettysburg shows the brilliance of Chamberlain on Little Round Top, this was not the thrust of the attack. I believe General Evander Law writes after the battle, that when his men began the attack on Round Top, he knew they out of position, and he tried to turn them back up the Emmittsburg Road.

On July 3, Lee attempted the flanking move again starting closer to Cemetery Ridge than he did on the 2nd. He began his attack with a feu d'enfer and then had his men step off.

Two things changed during the course of time. Lee's objective on that day was not a little clump of trees. That little myth would come at the turn of the century after some cosmetic changes had occurred on the battle field. The move Gettysburg shows Pickett walking directly from Seminary Ridge to Cemetery Ridge.

This is not true. Walk Seminary Ridge and you will see the markers for Armistead, Kemper, and Garnett down almost in front of the Round Tops. Look at the magazines that were printed right after the battle, and they reveal a huge sweeping flank movement. Pickett came up the Emmittsburg Road. Furthermore, Hancock wrote that he believed Lee was going to go through his flank.

Now, Hancock also wrote that he believed Lee was flanking him to get to the large wooded area on top of Cemetery Hill and not some tiny clump of trees.

Change these two things - Where the ANV were positioned and where they were going...and the battle change immensely.

Back to JEB Stuart. Stuart has gotten a raw deal throughout history and because of the movie Gettysburg in my opinion.

(I took a course in the Civil War at university and before I realized that the prof's opinion was the only one he wanted to hear because it was the only one ((in his opinion)) that mattered - I opined on Stuart's motives. The Proftold me I was wrong about Stuart and didn't I see the movie Gettysburg. When I said, it was a movie and not history, I actually thought he was going to attack me ((seriously)). So, he spent the next few weeks humiliating me, but I didn't care.)

Any student of the Civil War knows that after Lee's death (and only after Lee's death), Longstreet wrote a series of articles defending his actions at Gettysburg and putting the blame for the defeat on Robert E. Lee. Lee's aides fought back through the papers.

JEB Stuart's name was dragged into the argument. Soon, it became Stuart's absence that caused the loss. Stuart has been blamed for being AWOL or tryng to redeem himself for the draw at Brandy Station, or taking advantage of vague orders to gain more glory. As Harrison the scout/actor says in the Gettysburg that JEB Stuart was only trying to get his name in the paper.

When Stuart's actions as Gettysburg were questioned, John Mosby, Stuart's aides and Jubal Early then entered the fray.

Lee wrote in his official report that the lack of cavalry contributed to the loss. I do not disagree with Lee alot, but I do here.

There are two main issues to take up. What were Stuart's orders? First of all, John Mosby, scouting the Union position came to Stuart and told him that he could inflict damage by riding between Hooker and Washington. Stuart sent an inquiry to Lee asking if this was possible. Lee and Longstreet said yes, with conditions, but it was up to Stuart to use his discretion.

Stuart took three brigades with him...leaving Lee two brigades, plus Jenkin's brigade to go with Early, who was in front of the army. This gave Lee 2500 horsemen. So, Lee had cavalry. Lee chose not to use Jones and Robertson leaving them in the Valley, yet Stuart left them with Lee to be his eyes and ears. If Lee was blind; it was self inflicted. Jones and Robertson would surely have discovered Buford's forward movement if Lee had called for them. He eventually did, but only after the armies had made contact.

Stuart's objective, the army's objective was not Gettysburg. Gettysburg was where Lee turned around because of the ground and the roads. Stuart's orders were to go to York and meet up with Early.

I do not have the source from the quote (I am not at home), but after Mosby made his case, Longstreet wrote Stuart's defenders and told them that he was wrong, and the battle was not lost because of Stuart.

Stuart did know that the Union was on move. He sent word to Lee that Hancock was moving. These couriers were captured and did not reach Lee.

And...Stuart's presence between the army and Washington delayed Sedgwick and the 6th Corp, who was used to keep Stuart from Washington.

The other charge against Stuart is that he had captured 125 wagons and had them with him and with Lee in such need, should have abandoned them and hurried to Lee. Gathering supplies was an important part of his mission. Those wagons and mules and the supplies they carried were needed. So, Stuart comes to York as ordered...no Early and no word left. Stuart had to find the army why? Again Gettysburg not the objective...Harrisburg was. When word reached Stuart that the army was at Gettysburg, he sent Fitzhugh Lee and his brigade to Lee, then followed.

113 posted on 10/19/2006 3:20:54 AM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: carton253

Your explanation of Stuart makes a tremendous amount of sense. The "Gettysburg" version portrays him as being on the verge of insubordination. Never seemed to make the sense that goes with the Stuart and Lee personalities. But then again, folks have re-written this, that, and the other for the fame and glory of it all. This view probably raked in the bucks for the Gettysburg folks too.

All in all, my guess would also be because Jackson was no longer on the scene. One of the leaders was forever gone, and it just hadn't really sunk in to Lee's mind yet!


114 posted on 10/19/2006 10:32:56 AM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
Yeah...I do not think Lee realized how much Ewell's and Hill's reputation was because of Jackson. Both men had fiery reputations of being bold and aggressive. But that came from Jackson.

It only took Lee one battle to figure it out. Unfortunately, it was Gettysburg, but that is war. Jackson could not be replaced, and the Army of Northern Virginia suffered from his loss the rest of the war.

115 posted on 10/19/2006 10:37:15 AM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin

The only thing about movies is that they become accepted truth. It makes us lazy. When a historian goes back to the original sources and tries to correct the record, they are dismissed because (gasp) that's not the way it happened in the movie.


116 posted on 10/19/2006 10:40:40 AM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

The "Gettysburg" version portrays him as being on the verge of insubordination.

Stuart did the job he had always been expected to do. With the army in Northern territory, cut off from their own supply lines, they had to gather provisions by taking them from the Union army. Had he shown up at Lee's headquarters with 125 wagons loaded with supplies and munitions on June 30th instead of a few days later then his reception would have been a whole lot different. As someone else pointed out earlier, Lee had sufficient cavalry to scout the Union army. He just misused it.

All in all, my guess would also be because Jackson was no longer on the scene. One of the leaders was forever gone, and it just hadn't really sunk in to Lee's mind yet!

Had it only been the loss of Jackson the confederacy could have muddled on. But a campaign into enemy territory is a daunting enough challenge without adding an army reorganization (two corps into three), two new corps commanders (Hill and Ewell), half a dozen new division commanders, and a number of new brigade commanders, and so on, and so on. None of Ewells division commanders had worked for him before, and for the most part it was the same with Hill. With as many senior commanders as that new to their commands then confusion is to be expected. It was unfortunate timing.

117 posted on 10/19/2006 10:54:20 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: carton253

Jackson could have motivated the Yankees to fight for the Confederacy! Cause if they didn't, they'd be on the receiving end of...

And therein lies the fear and dread the Yankees had for the Stonewall Brigade...


118 posted on 10/19/2006 11:12:58 AM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

You are such a slow learner. And a bit on the CS side, since you do a take-off from my post, and all the time lack the nerve to actually use my name. Go and post to those who appreciate your twisted, bought and paid for nonsense...


119 posted on 10/19/2006 11:20:42 AM PDT by Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Comparing Lee to Osama Bin Laden is quite a stretch since Lee never attacked innocent civilians, the only general in the war that practiced that form of warfare was Sherman.

I guess it boils down to your beliefs about states' rights, if you don't believe in them than Lee was a traitor, if you do then he was loyal to his country at the time, the C.S.A.

Some crimes might just be deserving of hell no matter how truly you believe in Jesus Christ, perhaps because if you truly believed in Him, you would not be capable of committing the sinful acts.

Under that logic we're all doomed unless you discovered how to live a sinless life. What about the thief on the cross?

I don't know many people who still justify slavery but certainly their views were different back then.

Do you hate George Washington too?

120 posted on 10/19/2006 11:38:31 AM PDT by Smittie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: AFreeBird
Don't misunderstand; I have great admiration for Patton, and I suspect, underneath it all so did Ike and Bradly, or at least shared some of his thoughts on the Soviets, whether they publicaly admitted it (at that time) or not.

Wouldn't it have been interesting to have followed Patton's activities five years after the close of the Second World War, had Patton's life not been taken in the vehicle "accident" that claimed his life.

A Patton-versus-MacArthur brawl to see which was top dog would have been unpleasant, but Patton as a replacement for Mac [instead of former Airborne General Matt Ridgway] would have no doubt terrorized the North Koreans, Chinese and Russian Soviets, as well as their sympathizers at the UN and in the U.S. State Department. But somehow, I suspect he would have gotten along with the tough little former artillery officer from Missouri as his commander-in-chief, and would have performed miracles for him.


121 posted on 10/19/2006 11:43:32 AM PDT by archy (I am General Tso. This is my Chief of Staff, Colonel Sanders....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: archy

Sounds like archy has the makings of a great novel. I want the first draft on my desk within a year... so get crackin'.


122 posted on 10/19/2006 11:45:09 AM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Darla Ruth Schwerin
You are such a slow learner. And a bit on the CS side, since you do a take-off from my post, and all the time lack the nerve to actually use my name. Go and post to those who appreciate your twisted, bought and paid for nonsense...

Charming to the end, aren't you?

123 posted on 10/19/2006 11:49:40 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Smittie
Do you hate George Washington too?

George Washington recognized loyalty to one's country came before loyalty to one's state. Something Lee didn't see to understand.

124 posted on 10/19/2006 11:53:28 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur; carton253
Well, here are your assertions to carton253:

"In fact, the only confederate general or leader who might have taken that class was Albert Sidney Johnson.

That is an assertion that you cannot prove.

Another of yours:

"So if Lee ever heard of Rawle, he doesn't appear to have taken the course and could hardly be expected to be influenced by the book."

Another assertion you cannot prove.

Just keep your non-sequiturs to yourself.
125 posted on 10/19/2006 11:57:50 AM PDT by PeaRidge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
Another assertion you cannot prove.

Nor can you apparently disprove. Evidence apparently being an unknown concept to you, Pea.

126 posted on 10/19/2006 12:01:06 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
I think to really delve into an answer to that you would have to separate the role of Generals into two categories: Field Generals vs. Organizational Generals.

A serious study of such leadership really requires three categories. Try as *Marshals,* those who led entire armies on multiple fronts, then your *Field Generals* leading multi-Corps and multi-divisional Armies, and finally simply *Generals* operating Divisions or Brigades- usually.

My nominees would be: Patton and Lee as Field Generals and Marshall and Ike as Organizational Generals

*Marshals*: George C. Marshall , Halder, Zhukov, F.M. Alexander Suvarov ,von Moltke, Alexander III, king of Macedon, Frederick II of Prussia

*Field Generals*: Patton, Lee, Eisenhower, Douglas MacArthur , George Washington, Napoleon Bonaparte, Gen. Sir Bernard Law Montgomery

*Generals, Brigade and Divisional*: Nathan Bedford Forrest, Patrick Cleburne, Stonewall Jackson, Scipio Africanus, George Henry Thomas, Zhuge Liang, MGen John E. Sloan, Gotthard Heinrici, LtGen. John [Iron Mike] O’Daniel

I would also scratch Sherman. The actions of his troops on the March to the Sea should have resulted in his Court Martial.

Sherman's bungled relief of Burnside at Knoxville takes him out of the running in any event. Ever wonder why there's no major stateside U.S. military base named Ft. Sherman? [Though there's one in Panama...]

Remember Napolean's dictum that a good commander may be forgiven being defeated should superior numbers or resources be thrown at him, but cannot ever suffer being surprised....

And too, it's a mark of a good leader if he sets an example for his troops by surviving the wars in which he's fought.

127 posted on 10/19/2006 12:23:33 PM PDT by archy (I am General Tso. This is my Chief of Staff, Colonel Sanders....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Sounds like archy has the makings of a great novel. I want the first draft on my desk within a year... so get crackin'.

I'm a newspaperman, not a novelist. I'm working on something a bit more recent.


128 posted on 10/19/2006 12:27:55 PM PDT by archy (I am General Tso. This is my Chief of Staff, Colonel Sanders....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
I was referring to Washington owning slaves, but I'd bet ol' King George viewed Washington as something less than a patriot.

Again your perception of Lee depends on your view of states' rights. Lee did work after the war was over to heal the wounds caused by the conflict.

129 posted on 10/19/2006 12:28:14 PM PDT by Smittie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

Ike is one of my American heroes. From what I've read of Ike's speeches and writings, betcha he personally wrote this letter.


130 posted on 10/19/2006 12:33:11 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: archy

Why confine Jackson to Brigade or Division? I think he should be included in the list of Patton and Lee. In my opinion, the Valley Campaign alone solidly puts him there.


131 posted on 10/19/2006 12:50:29 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: archy

Newspapermen can't be novelists? Okay...make it two years. But no more!!!


132 posted on 10/19/2006 12:51:34 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: carton253

The north wants to wrap itself in the cloak of moral superiority. I wonder if the war would have turned out differently if Lee had been willing to make aggressive war on an undefended civilian population and leave a trail of pillage, starvation and smoldering wreckage in his wake as did Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant (among others)? These actions we would condemn today as war crimes. So you have to ask yourself - did the civilized side win?


133 posted on 10/19/2006 1:10:48 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: bushpilot1

BTTT!

Great thread!


134 posted on 10/19/2006 1:13:15 PM PDT by wagglebee ("We are ready for the greatest achievements in the history of freedom." -- President Bush, 1/20/05)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
The responsibility for the total war waged against the South rests with Grant. Sherman and Sheridan were his subordinates and were carrying out orders.

Grant understood that the agriculture of the South kept the Confederates in the field. He wanted to destroy the South's ability to wage war.

It was harsh...but he believed it necessary to end the war as quickly as possible and save lives ultimately.

It was a strategy that Lincoln endorsed, and Lincoln made the right choice. It was the same type of decision that we made in World War II... Total war against Germany and Japan's ability to wage war. If Grant and Sherman are to be held as criminals, then so should the generals who made the decision to drop the bombs on Japan.

Jackson had the same attitude. He said that war was the sum of evil, but if we (the South) were going to wage war, then the South needed to draw the sword and throw away the scabbard. Raise the black-flag. If you read some of the correspondence that Jackson wrote to Lee about going North, you would see the same attitude. Where Jackson and Sherman differed is there was nothing in Jackson's attitude or actions to suggest he would allow his soldiers to burn down homes or steal their wealth. He was strict on looters and wouldn't even allow the destruction of fence rails for fire wood.

135 posted on 10/19/2006 1:25:25 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: carton253

But when we did what we did to Germany and Japan THEY had started that kind of warfare first. That puts the north in some pretty uncomfortable company.

Your comments about Jackson proved my point. He had his starving and cold soldiers bypass food and firewood that were in the hands of noncombatants. And you didn't answer my question. Would the war have ended more quickly (and differently) if Lee have been willing to wage total warfare first?

I only make these remarks to defend Lee from those who would condemn him.


136 posted on 10/19/2006 1:32:10 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
I am sorry...you are right. I did not answer your question.

Lee would have never engaged in that type of warfare. It would have been alien to him.

If he had, would the war have ended differently? I think so because I think his military ability far outweighed any general from the Union. (My father vigorously debates this with me - he's a Grant man).

As for WWII, we did not engage in total war as a revenge tactic. We engaged in total war because it was the only way to end the war quickly and reduce causalities.

137 posted on 10/19/2006 1:40:04 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Newspapermen can't be novelists? Okay...make it two years. But no more!!!

There have been exceptions, some of whom have churned out some pretty good yarns [former Reuters and BBC newsie Freddy Forsyth and Pulitzer Prize winner Stephen Hunter's books make a pretty fair read.

And I once pitched an idea about a possible early-days FBI agent's involvement in the Lindbergh kidnapping, though it's not hit print.

Besides, I've come to the conclusion reached after 35 years in the racket that the real stories are more fantastic than the fictional ones, if usually not as tidy or neatly concluded.

138 posted on 10/19/2006 1:42:38 PM PDT by archy (I am General Tso. This is my Chief of Staff, Colonel Sanders....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
One more thing. I think all wars should be total wars.

When Ronald Reagan was asked how we should fight in Vietnam, he replied..."We should go in at breakfast, pave it over by lunch, and be home by dinner."

139 posted on 10/19/2006 1:42:41 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: carton253

"As for WWII, we did not engage in total war as a revenge tactic. We engaged in total war because it was the only way to end the war quickly and reduce causalities."

Perhaps, but we would never have been able to justify doing it without the other side sinking so low first.

Just to be clear: I fully support the dropping of the bomb to end the war as my father was in the Navy and in Pacific and that let him come home sooner rather than later. Fortunately, as someone with an engineering degree, he was on the destroyer tender U.S.S. Dixie and wasn't shot at much, but, still.


140 posted on 10/19/2006 1:44:18 PM PDT by Locomotive Breath (In the shuffling madness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: archy

Okay...but I still think it you should consider it.


141 posted on 10/19/2006 1:44:37 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Locomotive Breath
Justify it? Justify why we fought or how we fought. No, that type of justification did not come until Vietnam. Now we have justify every bullet out of a soldier's gun.

World War II was total war from the Doolittle Raid on...

I agree with dropping the bomb as well.

142 posted on 10/19/2006 1:48:18 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: carton253
Why confine Jackson to Brigade or Division? I think he should be included in the list of Patton and Lee. In my opinion, the Valley Campaign alone solidly puts him there.

He earned the spot, I agree, and he certainly outshone several of those who outlived them [Bragg and Hood, just off the top of my head]

But as the commander of Virginia's First Brigade he made it what it was, and as that Brigade's creator and leader, set the textbook example for those tasked with that job. He did indeed go on to greater things, but he may well have been the finest brigade commander who ever lived, and most certainly is near the top of any respectable list of great brigadeers of any time.

143 posted on 10/19/2006 1:49:06 PM PDT by archy (I am General Tso. This is my Chief of Staff, Colonel Sanders....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: archy


Okay, I accept that. But the Army of the Shenandoah was one lethal fighting machine. Just ask the five Union generals that he whipped with regularity.


144 posted on 10/19/2006 1:56:34 PM PDT by carton253 (Sadness is just another word for not enough chocolate.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Smittie
I never said Lee attacked innocent civilians. I said Lee fought to ensure the preservation of the institution of slavery. He fought under his moral code; Osama fights under his. Osama's prophet also killed innocent civilians, after giving them fair warning, suggesting they convert, and declaring jihad. He is as honorable under his moral code as Lee was under his. The question is, were they moral under a universal or objective view of morality? Did they rise above their upbringing and cultural milieu to be a better person? Do they bring glory to humanity or show humanity for its faults and imperfections?

People who like to twist another's words are usually losing the argument. I never once said anything evidencing a hatred of Lee. He was a man with the moral character of his time, he was a great general, honest in his personal dealings and loyal to the causes he believed in. What I said about him is that he is not worthy of honor. Respect, pity and magnanimity, yes, but not honor or emulation. He fought in the cause of evil. And that you don't recognize that he fought for evil means that you have not fully reconciled yourself with the loss by the south of the Civil War. That is very strange in the year 2006, and usually evidence of either a problem with race relations or of living in a fantasy world of chivalrous southern glory days that were extinguished when the ruthless Yankees exceeded their Constitutional mandate by preventing the free people of the south from leaving the Union.

Regardless of where you come out on states rights, Lee fought for evil. States rights were asserted in 1860 in order to preserve slavery, not for some grand general principle. They were asserted throughout the 1900s in order to preserve Jim Crow. As Barry Goldwater asserted, it is a shame that states' rights have been historically touted by villainous people in dastardly causes, because states' rights in theory are an important part of a federal system. It's when states' rights are used in order to betray the rights of citizens, to perpetuate a system that denies US citizens their rights as Americans, that states' rights come into disrepute. In other words, it's not the concept, but the practice of states' rights as a shield for unlawful treatment of fellow citizens that has been the problem.

The most damage to the federal system came not from the civil war, but from the Roosevelt era, when the commerce clause was expanded to mean anything the Congress wanted it to mean. The Civil War demonstrated that as a practical matter, states could not secede. It did not destroy the federal system, and after the war, states went back to doing the things they do, and the federal government went back to what it did, regulating railroads and shooting Indians. The nature of the relationship between states and the feds did not change substantially until the depression and Roosevelt's radical leftist response.

As I said in a prior post, which you apparently like to twist or ignore, I am understanding of people who were products of their time, including some of my forebears. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and the southern gentry in general grew up in a world that had never known anything but slavery. It was accepted in the ancient world, the medieval world, in the renaissance and in the colonial period. It was done in the east, in China, Mongolia, Malaysia and India, and in the west, in Europe, Africa and Arabia. From time immemorial, a conquered people were sold into slavery, if they were not killed outright. It is not unusual or condemnatory that people from the south who prospered or who were born into prosperous families had slaves. But....by 1850 and after, though, once the slavery debate had become well known in educated and relatively modern lands, people in the south needed to start examining their souls and their consciences and thinking a little harder about it.

Part of the glory of the English-speaking peoples is that they were the first to recognize slavery as universally immoral, and to work for its abolition worldwide. That movement was in its infancy in the late 1700s, but became widespread in the 1800s, and it became clear by the middle of that century that slavery was not compatible with a modern, thinking society. Had southerners been willing to phase out slavery over 30 or even 50 years, there probably could have been some kind of compromise that would have prevented war. But they were not--no one was going to tell them to get rid of their slavery! And with the expansion into the west, they were not going to allow new states that were not slaveholding into the Union, because then, in 30 or 50 years, they'd be outvoted, and would lose the institution then!

So they got out while the gittin' was good, while they were still close enough in size to the rest of the Union that they couldn't be outvoted and that they couldn't be conquered--so they thought.

The war was fought entirely to protect slavery, and states' rights were the vehicle to protect slavery, and you apparently regret that slavery was ended. Too bad for you. I am glad that you are among a tiny, tiny percentage of Americans who wish the south had won the civil war, or that the north had let the south secede.

It really bothers you that I think that Lee might have some explaining to do in the hereafter, doesn't it?

Jesus forgave a petty thief who was beside him on the cross. He did not forgive a mass murderer, so it remains unknown and unknowable whether there are crimes that are unforgivable, no matter your view of Jesus as Lord and Messiah. Most denominations believe that faith alone is enough, but not all. I don't profess to know the answer to that one but personally, I hope that child molesters, mass murderers, Islamofascists and the guy who cooked his girlfriend don't get to go to heaven by making a profession of faith. I'll do my best in this life and hope I come out all right. I will try to be as honorable as Lee in my personal dealings, and also try to use whatever talents I have to advance good in this world, instead of slavery or oppression or some other immoral object.

145 posted on 10/19/2006 2:16:51 PM PDT by Defiant (The War on Terror is not a football game with a clock. It is a Steel Cage Death Match.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge
I would have left that in if I'd had the original text. I do notice that different versions of the quote appear on the Internet.

It doesn't change the meaning and import of what the Mercury was saying, though. Nobody doubts that they put things this way: "The issue before the country is the extinction of slavery."

146 posted on 10/19/2006 2:44:30 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: PeaRidge; Non-Sequitur
"Peer review" doesn't seem to be a qualification for any number of neo-confederate screeds that people link to here.

Kobrich's article is pretty good for a college student's. He deals well with the Rawle question, but his article isn't all one-sided.

I'd disagree with his citation of Degler to the effect that US nationalism wasn't a major force in early 19th century America, but his assertion that fostering national feeling in cadets wasn't an important function at West Point is an intriguing one. Maybe the academy promoted an army esprit de corps that outsiders took for strong national feeling.

147 posted on 10/19/2006 2:54:37 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Defiant



























































































































































Please read "Cotton in A Global Economy: Mississippi 1800 - 1860", posted on another thread.
























148 posted on 10/19/2006 3:18:48 PM PDT by bushpilot1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Smittie

Very Good point


149 posted on 10/19/2006 3:54:48 PM PDT by southland (Isaiah 17:1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: archy
I will readily admit that you know the subject better then I, but should Ike not be classified as a Marshal rather then a Field General? Did Ike ever serve as a Field Commander? I am classifying his role in WWII as a Marshal, perhaps that is an error?
150 posted on 10/19/2006 6:27:55 PM PDT by Michael.SF. (Liberals would let Mark Foley be a Boy Scout leader.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-216 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson