WP: Dispelling the myth of Robert E. Lee

[Henry]

I don't see anybody saying that Lee shouldn't get more respect than the common Confederates.

OTOH, I suspect that there are very few schools, parks, highways, or similar structures named in honor of Rommel, either.

Just as I suspect that there are very few elementary schools in England named for George Washington.

I've said I agree that the reverence for Lee is a bit overblown, but if the South wants to keep a hero Lee's a good choice. I'd rather see his name on a school than, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest.

[GhostofSparta]

Actually, I believe it was Ewell who didn't take that hill. Ironically Ewell replaced Stonewall Jackson who, I'm guessing, would have taken it.

I couldn't remember who the general was, so I'm most likely wrong on the name. But yes, Stonewall would have taken it without orders, his replacement didn't even with orders.

I think Chamberlain got his due. He received the Medal of Honor for his actions that day, was promoted to Major General by the end of the war, and received the honor of presiding over the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia after Appomatox. Plus, he gets to deliver one of my favorite movie speeches of all time:

I'm not saying he wasn't given his due in his day (and that speech from Gettysburg was great, on par with Patton's opening speech), but I think he's been unfairly forgotten from a historical aspect. Most Americans when they think of the Civil War know Lincoln, Lee, Jackson, Grant, and Sherman. Some might remember Stuart, McClellan, and Longstreet. But people who don't study the Civil War are often completely ignorant of the most important man of the most important battle of the Civil War. I just think it's a shame that Chamberlain and the 20th Maine are overlooked by most.

I've said I agree that the reverence for Lee is a bit overblown, but if the South wants to keep a hero Lee's a good choice. I'd rather see his name on a school than, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest.

I had a friend in college from Florida who went to NBF High School. She said the school was about 55-60% black. I'd have to imagine that causes some tensions.

[Chicken Fried]

I think he was relying on the common sense of the readers.

Sounds more like southern denial on your end than a Yankee hissy fit.

Denial of what? I have yet to hear anything relating to "common sense."

[RedskinsTime]

I don't see anybody saying that Lee shouldn't get more respect than the common Confederates.

OTOH, I suspect that there are very few schools, parks, highways, or similar structures named in honor of Rommel, either.

Just as I suspect that there are very few elementary schools in England named for George Washington.

George Washington was from Virginia, not England.

I doubt there are many schools in New York named after Robert E. Lee.

[pjfootballer]

George Washington was once known as a "traitor" as well.......

I was going to add this. Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves. Alot of great men of our country owned slaves well before the Civil War. Should we remove all monuments to them also? Food for thought.

[Larry]

I've said I agree that the reverence for Lee is a bit overblown, but if the South wants to keep a hero Lee's a good choice. I'd rather see his name on a school than, say, Nathan Bedford Forrest.

Isn't that like saying that you'd rather see Germans honoring Rommel than Goebels?

How about, oh, I don't know, not honoring the Confederacy at all?

Where did we get the standard of "well, they had to honor some Confederate, so I guess Lee is the best of the bunch"?

Last I checked, there's no rule that says that declaring War against the Unites States was the greatest thing that anybody in the South has ever done, in 200 years.

Isn't there something the South can honor that doesn't involve racism and treason?

(Maybe that's a good topic for a thread.)

---------- Post added April-27th-2011 at 01:23 PM ----------

I was going to add this. Washington and Jefferson both owned slaves. Alot of great men of our country owned slaves well before the Civil War. Should we remove all monuments to them also? Food for thought.

How many of them declared war against the United States, because they had a hunch that the government was gonna take their slaves away?

Or, if you're tired of trying to pretend that that fact doesn't exist, here's another flaw with the campaign of "Well, Lincoln and Washington weren't perfect, therefore declaring war against the US is OK":

Last I checked, Lincoln, Washington, and Jefferson are famous for things other than not being perfect. Yeah, they weren't saints. But they did Great Things for this country. They gave us the country we have today.

Jefferson owned slaves. He also wrote the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

Washington owned slaves. He also commanded the Continental Army, defeated the most powerful military in the world, and gave our country it's independence, before going on to serve as it's first President, creating many of the traditions and precedents we still follow today.

Lincoln didn't want a black to marry his daughter. He jailed dissenting newspaper editors. He probably did more damage to the Constitution than any President in our nation's history. But he also successfully saw the country through the greatest threat to it's existence in it's entire history.

Lee declared war against the United States, on behalf of the cause of preventing the end of racial slavery. The other thing he's famous for, the good that outweighs than minor, pesky, detail, is . . . ?

[RiggosMohawk]

And the high ground?

Seems like the Lee from earlier in the war would have flanked the Union and attacked an unprotected Washington. That would have royally ****ed the Union. Isn't that what Longstreet pleaded with him to do?

You're right. Lee with SWJ would have tried this. Leave Longstreet behind to play a defensive stalling action, which he would have been absolutely perfect at. Loose Jackson down US-15 towards Frederick (and thats even if SWJ came up into PA at all). Stuart keeps their cavalry at bay.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just as I suspect that there are very few elementary schools in England named for George Washington.

Why would there be? GW represented America, not England. Just as Lee represents southern states or Virginia, not any place in the Union. Just because you lose a war, doesn't mean you can't be a hero to the people you represented. William Wallace probably has a statue despite being a traitor. Is that wrong?

[Larry]

Why would there be? GW represented America, not England. Just as Lee represents southern states or Virginia, not any place in the Union. Just because you lose a war, doesn't mean you can't be a hero to the people you represented. William Wallace probably has a statue despite being a traitor. Is that wrong?

:secret: The country he fought against was the United States.

And I know this may be a tough concept to grasp. But "the South" is part of the United States. In fact, they're allowed to name schools after people like George Washington. Or Neil Armstrong or the Wright Brothers, for that matter. You know, people who are famous for being Americans.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

:secret: The country he fought against was the United States.

And I know this may be a tough concept to grasp. But "the South" is part of the United States. In fact, they're allowed to name schools after people like George Washington. Or Neil Armstrong or the Wright Brothers, for that matter. You know, people who are famous for being Americans.

I understand all of that, thanks for the dose of condescension.

My point was only that it's not uncommon for places to honor local heroes even if their cause or whatever was unsuccessful. Many southerners adore Lee, so why can't they name a school or road after him? I have no issues with any of the people you mentioned either. I guess I just don't get the outrage since many of the people we do honor were traitors at one time or another. George Washington felt more loyalty to the American cause since he lived here. Lee felt more loyalty to the Virginia/Confederate cause since he lived there.

[Predicto]

I understand all of that, thanks for the dose of condescension.

My point was only that it's not uncommon for places to honor local heroes even if their cause or whatever was unsuccessful. Many southerners adore Lee, so why can't they name a school or road after him? I have no issues with any of the people you mentioned either. I guess I just don't get the outrage since many of the people we do honor were traitors at one time or another. George Washington felt more loyalty to the American cause since he lived here. Lee felt more loyalty to the Virginia/Confederate cause since he lived there.

Maybe the question is whether so many southerners should adore Lee in the first place? :whoknows:

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Maybe the question is whether so many southerners should adore Lee in the first place? :whoknows:

Possibly...but what can you do? I don't get it myself, but there's nothing wrong with having local heroes to adore. I assume most (and wish that all) are smart enough to disregard the ignorance that a lot of men from that period of time had when it comes to slavery, racism, etc. If we overlook it for other national heroes, we can overlook it for Lee. When you strip that away, yes Lee was still a traitor but, like some of our other heroes, he was simply fighting for what he believed was fair.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

Should we also get rid of monuments, roads, schools, etc. named after Native Americans who took up arms against the United States? After all they lost a war too.

[DCsportsfan53]

Should we also get rid of monuments, roads, schools, etc. named after Native Americans who took up arms against the United States? After all they lost a war too.

I thought about addressing this seriously and then realized it has to be a joke....right?

[Predicto]

Possibly...but what can you do? I don't get it myself, but there's nothing wrong with having local heroes to adore. I assume most (and wish that all) are smart enough to disregard the ignorance that a lot of men from that period of time had when it comes to slavery, racism, etc. If we overlook it for other national heroes, we can overlook it for Lee. When you strip that away, yes Lee was still a traitor but, like some of our other heroes, he was simply fighting for what he believed was fair.

Ill buy that. It is the over-deification of Lee that bugs me. He was an excellent general, but he is held up by southerners as an example of how the Leaders of the Confederacy were superior men, and thus the Lost Cause was more noble and wonderful than it actually was. That part is bogus.

[Larry]

I understand all of that, thanks for the dose of condescension.

My point was only that it's not uncommon for places to honor local heroes even if their cause or whatever was unsuccessful. Many southerners adore Lee, so why can't they name a school or road after him? I have no issues with any of the people you mentioned either. I guess I just don't get the outrage since many of the people we do honor were traitors at one time or another. George Washington felt more loyalty to the American cause since he lived here. Lee felt more loyalty to the Virginia/Confederate cause since he lived there.

But if Washington had lost, and if Virginia were still part of England, and Virginia still named schools after him, anyway?

[Henry]

Maybe the question is whether so many southerners should adore Lee in the first place? :whoknows:

Well and that's the question.

He was revered as almost god-like during the war, and I guess that has been passed down through the years and still exists today. Is it justified? Probably not. But I think it's a reflection of history, and for that reason it doesn't bother me as much as most southern apologism.

The adoration of Lee isn't an attempt to re-write history. It's not suddenly deciding Lincoln was racist imperialist warmonger. It's not claiming slavery was a 'surface issue' to the war and if left alone the South would have ended it on their own and rejoined the Union. It's something real. Something that was already there. In some way I can respect that. Or at least not attack it as something fabricated to gloss over what the CSA really fought for.

[Larry]

I assume most (and wish that all) are smart enough to disregard the ignorance that a lot of men from that period of time had when it comes to slavery, racism, etc. If we overlook it for other national heroes, we can overlook it for Lee. When you strip that away, yes Lee was still a traitor but, like some of our other heroes, he was simply fighting for what he believed was fair.

Again: Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, had negatives and did great things.

With Lee, the negatives are the only thing he did.

The folks honoring Lee aren't overlooking the fact that he was a traitor and a slaver, they're endorsing the fact that he was a traitor and a slaver. They are the only items on his resume.

[LeesburgSkinFan]

I thought about addressing this seriously and then realized it has to be a joke....right?

Absolutely serious.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

But if Washington had lost, and if Virginia were still part of England, and Virginia still named schools after him, anyway?

I could see people in VA wanting to do so. You don't think there would be any groundswell of local pride even if we never won our independence from England?

[Larry]

I could see people in VA wanting to do so. You don't think there would be any groundswell of local pride even if we never won our independence from England?

Sure.

Among people who still wanted the rebellion to have succeeded.

Among people who wanted their government to officially, publicly, endorse the rebellion.

[sundown]

But if Washington had lost, and if Virginia were still part of England, and Virginia still named schools after him, anyway?

Hard to say, he gained a lot of credit for beating Cornwallis at Yorktown but he was hardly the best general in the war.

[Larry]

Should we also get rid of monuments, roads, schools, etc. named after Native Americans who took up arms against the United States? After all they lost a war too.

How many of them were citizens of the United States, and actively held command in the US military, at the time?

[Henry]

Isn't that like saying that you'd rather see Germans honoring Rommel than Goebels?

Well, I would.

Rommel was not a Nazi. He protested against his country's treatment of Jews and refused to kill Jewish prisoners despite orders to the contrary. Still, he fought for Germany, and when I think of Rommel, I shake my head and wonder how the hell a man like him could ally himself with such a horrible cause. I wouldn't build a monument to honor the man because it would in some way legitimize that cause for which he fought. But if one was built it wouldn't bother me nearly as much as if someone built one to honor Goebels, who's personal life much more greatly reflected the despicable state of his culture. Unlike with Rommel, there's no mistaking what a monument to Goebels would honor.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Again: Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln, had negatives and did great things.

With Lee, the negatives are the only thing he did.

The folks honoring Lee aren't overlooking the fact that he was a traitor and a slaver, they're endorsing the fact that he was a traitor and a slaver. They are the only items on his resume.

I see your point. I'm sure the being a great general part is something that they are honoring as well, but I see your point.