The Dedication of the Lee Statue in Richmond
- Thread starter Tidewater
- Start date
Here is an excerpt from the speech given at the dedication of the Lee statue in New Orleans.
Ceremonies Connected with the Unveiling of the Statue of General Robert E. Lee, at Lee Circle, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 22, 1884. Oration by Hon. Chas. E. Fenner.
… Lee loved the Union. It was emphatically the Union of his fathers, whose cunning hands had wrought in its construction. It was the Union of Washington, the idol of his worship. It was his own Union for which he had fought, and in whose service the "dearest action" of his life had been spent. The tenor of his way had removed him from the growing exacerbation of political strife. The bitterness of sectional hate had not entered his soul. He loved the whole Union. To his acute prevision, its threatened disruption meant chaos and inevitable, desperate war. He opposed secession. He lifted his voice against it in words of solemn warning and protestation. …
At last, with mighty effort, Virginia tore asunder the "hoops of steel " which encircled her, and, standing in the solitude of her original sovereignty, with imperial voice, in her hour of peril, summoned all her children to her side. Lee she called by name, singled him out as chiefest of her sons, her Hector, the pillar of her house. Stern mother, as she was, she held out to him the baton of her armies and bade him take it and protect her honor, or die in its defence. …
With gracious mien he put aside all contrary solicitations, surrendered to the Union the unstained sword which he had worn so worthily, and parting from the friends and associations of his youth and manhood in sorrow, but not at all in anger, bent his steps to his mother, Virginia, and kneeling reverently at her feet received from her hand the chieftain's sword, and there, kissing its hilt, swore eternal fealty to her cause.
For this act he has been denounced as a deserter from his flag and a traitor to his country. For this act he went down to his grave a disfranchised citizen of a restored Union. … If these charges against Lee are true, the urgent question presents itself: What do we here to-day; erecting a monument to a deserter or a traitor?
To magnify the deeds of our heroes, without at the same time vindicating the cause for which they were done, would be to ignore that which gives to those deeds their highest merit and grace and beauty. Mere brute courage, and even the highest military skill, are not, of themselves, fit subjects for commemoration in monumental brass. A pirate captain has often fought in defence of his black flag with as desperate bravery and as consummate art as Nelson at Trafalgar or Lawrence on the decks of the Constitution.
A bandit chief might display as much devotion, skill and courage in defending some mountain pass, the key to the lair of his band, as were exhibited by Leonidas at Thermopylae. But we do not build monuments to these.
We cannot afford to sink our heroes to the level of mere prizefighters, who deluged a continent in blood without just right or lawful cause. … We, the people of the South, have renewed our unreserved allegiance to the Constitution as thus authoritatively construed. By the bloody Caesarian operation of the war, the right of secession has indisputably been eviscerated from the fundamental law. …
Standing by the grave of this dead and buried right of secession, we inscribe upon its tomb the solemn "requiescat in pace" we admit that the sepulchre wherein it is "inurned" may never "ope his ponderous and marble jaws to cast it up again;" but fanaticism itself cannot deny us the privilege of asserting that it once "lived and moved and had its being," sprung from the womb of the Constitution, begotten of the loins of the Fathers, in its day a leader of hosts as true and valiant as ever struck for the "altars of their country and the temples of their gods.”
The cause of Lee … presents this singular claim to the considerate judgment of its adversaries, that we, who fought for it, have done and will do what in us lies to gild their triumph by making the restored Union so prolific in benefits to all coming generations that our posterity, while respecting the principles and convictions for which we fought, may rejoice in our defeat.
Proudly, then, we unveil this monument, fearless of any denial that it perpetuates the memory of a man justly entitled to rank as one of the princes of his race, and worthy of the veneration of the world.
The Christian may point to it as commemorative of one who faithfully wore the armor of Christ, and who fashioned his life as nearly after that of the God-Man as human imperfection would permit.
The moralist may recognize in it a tribute to a friend of humanity [start of p. 95] to whom pride and self-seeking were unknown, and whose unconscious nobility of conduct answers to the description of a virtuous man given by the imperial philosopher, Marcus Antoninus: "He does good acts as if not even knowing what he has done, and is like a vine which has produced grapes and seeks for nothing more after it has produced its proper fruit. Such a man, when he has done a good act, does not call for others to come and see, but goes on to another act, as a vine goes on to produce again the grapes in season.”
The social philosopher will see in it a tribute to the highest type of gentleman, in birth, in manners, in accomplishments, in appearance, in feeling, in habit.
The lover of the heroic will find here honor paid to a chivalry and courage which place Lee by the side of Bayard and of Sidney, "from spur to plume a star of tournament.”
It is fitting that monuments should be erected to such a man.
The imagination might, alas! too easily, picture a crisis in the future of the Republic, when virtue might have lost her seat in the hearts of the people, when the degrading greed of money-getting might have undermined the nobler aspirations of their souls, when luxury and effeminacy might have emasculated the rugged courage and endurance upon which the safety of States depends, when corruption might thrive and liberty might languish, when pelf might stand above patriotism, self above country, Mammon before God, and when the patriot might read on every hand the sure passage:
''Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay! “
In such an hour — quam Dii avertite — let some inspired orator, alive to the peril of his country, summon the people to gather round this monument, and, pointing to that noble figure, let him recount his story, and if aught can arouse a noble shame and awaken dormant virtue, that may do it.
Source: J. William Jones, (ed.), Southern Historical Society Papers, vol. XIV, January to December, 1886. Richmond, Va.: (Richmond: Wm. Ellis Jones, 1886)
Three things stand out:
1. Confederate veterans like the orator could acknowledge that they were content to have lost, on the condition that they would be permitted to honor the memory of the men who had led them in the war.
2. While they acknowledged that secession had been settled by the war they asserted that the idea had not been a settled idea beforehand.
3. Their real reason for erecting a monument to a war veteran was inspire future generations to similar feats of military prowess.
Ceremonies Connected with the Unveiling of the Statue of General Robert E. Lee, at Lee Circle, New Orleans, Louisiana, February 22, 1884. Oration by Hon. Chas. E. Fenner.
… Lee loved the Union. It was emphatically the Union of his fathers, whose cunning hands had wrought in its construction. It was the Union of Washington, the idol of his worship. It was his own Union for which he had fought, and in whose service the "dearest action" of his life had been spent. The tenor of his way had removed him from the growing exacerbation of political strife. The bitterness of sectional hate had not entered his soul. He loved the whole Union. To his acute prevision, its threatened disruption meant chaos and inevitable, desperate war. He opposed secession. He lifted his voice against it in words of solemn warning and protestation. …
At last, with mighty effort, Virginia tore asunder the "hoops of steel " which encircled her, and, standing in the solitude of her original sovereignty, with imperial voice, in her hour of peril, summoned all her children to her side. Lee she called by name, singled him out as chiefest of her sons, her Hector, the pillar of her house. Stern mother, as she was, she held out to him the baton of her armies and bade him take it and protect her honor, or die in its defence. …
With gracious mien he put aside all contrary solicitations, surrendered to the Union the unstained sword which he had worn so worthily, and parting from the friends and associations of his youth and manhood in sorrow, but not at all in anger, bent his steps to his mother, Virginia, and kneeling reverently at her feet received from her hand the chieftain's sword, and there, kissing its hilt, swore eternal fealty to her cause.
For this act he has been denounced as a deserter from his flag and a traitor to his country. For this act he went down to his grave a disfranchised citizen of a restored Union. … If these charges against Lee are true, the urgent question presents itself: What do we here to-day; erecting a monument to a deserter or a traitor?
To magnify the deeds of our heroes, without at the same time vindicating the cause for which they were done, would be to ignore that which gives to those deeds their highest merit and grace and beauty. Mere brute courage, and even the highest military skill, are not, of themselves, fit subjects for commemoration in monumental brass. A pirate captain has often fought in defence of his black flag with as desperate bravery and as consummate art as Nelson at Trafalgar or Lawrence on the decks of the Constitution.
A bandit chief might display as much devotion, skill and courage in defending some mountain pass, the key to the lair of his band, as were exhibited by Leonidas at Thermopylae. But we do not build monuments to these.
We cannot afford to sink our heroes to the level of mere prizefighters, who deluged a continent in blood without just right or lawful cause. … We, the people of the South, have renewed our unreserved allegiance to the Constitution as thus authoritatively construed. By the bloody Caesarian operation of the war, the right of secession has indisputably been eviscerated from the fundamental law. …
Standing by the grave of this dead and buried right of secession, we inscribe upon its tomb the solemn "requiescat in pace" we admit that the sepulchre wherein it is "inurned" may never "ope his ponderous and marble jaws to cast it up again;" but fanaticism itself cannot deny us the privilege of asserting that it once "lived and moved and had its being," sprung from the womb of the Constitution, begotten of the loins of the Fathers, in its day a leader of hosts as true and valiant as ever struck for the "altars of their country and the temples of their gods.”
The cause of Lee … presents this singular claim to the considerate judgment of its adversaries, that we, who fought for it, have done and will do what in us lies to gild their triumph by making the restored Union so prolific in benefits to all coming generations that our posterity, while respecting the principles and convictions for which we fought, may rejoice in our defeat.
Proudly, then, we unveil this monument, fearless of any denial that it perpetuates the memory of a man justly entitled to rank as one of the princes of his race, and worthy of the veneration of the world.
The Christian may point to it as commemorative of one who faithfully wore the armor of Christ, and who fashioned his life as nearly after that of the God-Man as human imperfection would permit.
The moralist may recognize in it a tribute to a friend of humanity [start of p. 95] to whom pride and self-seeking were unknown, and whose unconscious nobility of conduct answers to the description of a virtuous man given by the imperial philosopher, Marcus Antoninus: "He does good acts as if not even knowing what he has done, and is like a vine which has produced grapes and seeks for nothing more after it has produced its proper fruit. Such a man, when he has done a good act, does not call for others to come and see, but goes on to another act, as a vine goes on to produce again the grapes in season.”
The social philosopher will see in it a tribute to the highest type of gentleman, in birth, in manners, in accomplishments, in appearance, in feeling, in habit.
The lover of the heroic will find here honor paid to a chivalry and courage which place Lee by the side of Bayard and of Sidney, "from spur to plume a star of tournament.”
It is fitting that monuments should be erected to such a man.
The imagination might, alas! too easily, picture a crisis in the future of the Republic, when virtue might have lost her seat in the hearts of the people, when the degrading greed of money-getting might have undermined the nobler aspirations of their souls, when luxury and effeminacy might have emasculated the rugged courage and endurance upon which the safety of States depends, when corruption might thrive and liberty might languish, when pelf might stand above patriotism, self above country, Mammon before God, and when the patriot might read on every hand the sure passage:
''Ill fares the land, to hastening ills a prey,
Where wealth accumulates and men decay! “
In such an hour — quam Dii avertite — let some inspired orator, alive to the peril of his country, summon the people to gather round this monument, and, pointing to that noble figure, let him recount his story, and if aught can arouse a noble shame and awaken dormant virtue, that may do it.
Source: J. William Jones, (ed.), Southern Historical Society Papers, vol. XIV, January to December, 1886. Richmond, Va.: (Richmond: Wm. Ellis Jones, 1886)
Three things stand out:
1. Confederate veterans like the orator could acknowledge that they were content to have lost, on the condition that they would be permitted to honor the memory of the men who had led them in the war.
2. While they acknowledged that secession had been settled by the war they asserted that the idea had not been a settled idea beforehand.
3. Their real reason for erecting a monument to a war veteran was inspire future generations to similar feats of military prowess.
Brown was a terrorist, murderer, thief, and liar.
In Pottawatomie, Kansas, in 1856, Brown went to the cabin of a nonslaveholding settler named Doyle, took Doyle and two of his minor sons out at gunpoint and hacked them to death with a cutlass.
He was not tried for freeing slaves. He freed none. He was tried for murder, insurrection, and treason against Virginia. (A big part of the last charge was that he had drafted a new "constitution for the United States," the so-called Chatham Constitution, from Chatham, Canada West/Ontario) that he would put in place once had had overthrown the government of the United States.
And, for the record, although he had hundreds of lever action rifles in hand at Harper's Ferry, he issued pikes (poles with knives affixed to the end) to the slaves he "liberated." The slaves were less than impressed with this way of proceeding. most of the people his men murdered at Harper's Ferry were nonslaveholders and the first man they murdered was a free black man named Hayward Shepherd, a baggage handler for the railroad. He called out in the darkness when he saw his man sneaking around, so his man shot him. One of the last men Brown's men murdered was one of the "liberated" who realized how stupid his liberators were and tried to run away, so Brown's men shot him, too.
If he is your "hero" then God help the country.
You do not know what your are talking about. You should hold your tongue and try to learn something.
Odd. General Lee was a traitor and murderer, but that doesn't seem to bother you. He supported those who overthrew the authority of the US government and wrote their own constitution with slavery as a central tenet. That also does not seem to bother you. Spare me another lecture.
You could argue Brown used harsh measures and poor judgement in fighting to free slaves.
Lee knew what he was doing when he betrayed his country and led thousands to their death fighting to keep slaves enslaved. But once again, harsh measures and poor judgement dominate his legacy.
Everybody gets to pick which value they admire and which goals they preferred.
Lee knew what he was doing when he betrayed his country and led thousands to their death fighting to keep slaves enslaved. But once again, harsh measures and poor judgement dominate his legacy.
Everybody gets to pick which value they admire and which goals they preferred.
Here is the Wiki page of Charles Erasmus Fenner. While it doesn't state that this is the orator of the speech you posted, there is enough evidence in the body of the wiki to satisfy me that he was. This man was a skilled orator, but also extremely prejudiced. Because of this, I cannot draw the same three conclusions you have.
Charles Erasmus Fenner - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
i don’t really give a damn what they said when they put up that statue, the intent was obvious.
It’s worth noting Trump was attracted to Lee’s legacy.
It’s worth noting Trump was attracted to Lee’s legacy.
Last edited:
"The General Removal of Statues" thread is locked, so I'm going to leave this here.
good on you, PA
www.spotlightpa.org
Pennsylvania revises Confederate markers, recasts forces as “enemy” soldiers
Pennsylvania has revised or removed historical markers and plaques about the Confederacy amid a nationwide reckoning over how the army is remembered.
Okay so Trump is saying that Afghanistan would have been different if we had a guy like Lee?
Its odd that when statisticians were ranking every general in history based on casualties, W/L, and number of battles that Grant was the only American general to make the top 10. Of course Napoleon is #1 but Grant ranked higher than both Alexander and Zhukov.
Rankings
The thing about Grant that people Miss is that between him and Lee, lee was actually the bigger butcher of his own men by ratio.
I always laugh at neo-confederates who(to this very day) whine about Sherman's march to the sea.
It is like the kid in high school who picks a fight, then whines because he is getting his arse beat.
'Shouldn't'a picked the fight, dude.
f'ed around and found out didn't they?I always laugh at neo-confederates who(to this very day) whine about Sherman's march to the sea.
It is like the kid in high school who picks a fight, then whines because he is getting his arse beat.
'Shouldn't'a picked the fight, dude.
they also "don't believe" that they live in States that get more from the feds than they pay, all evidence that proves this doesn't matter. Logical thinking isn't their strong suit
As with many elements of what Robert Penn Warren called "The Treasury of Virtue," (the northern counterpart to the Lost Cause), this bit is bovine scatology.
Nobody in February 1861 disputed that Abraham Lincoln had been elected president. What was asserted by the peoples of the southern states was whether they had the right to leave the Union.
As Jefferson Davis said in Richmond in April 1861, “We seek no conquest, no aggrandizement, no concession of any kind. All we ask is to be left alone.”
And the war wasn't about slavery.
Despite the fact that this was emphatically stated in every seceding state's articles of secession.
I won't waste time digging up the 1000 page thread we had here on the subject many years ago. I really got tired(at the time) of arguing something that was blatantly obvious, but intentionally ignored.
Latest threads
-
Question: Shouln't Michigan's National Championship come with a huge Asterisk?- Started by CHATTBRIT
- Replies: 9
-
Alabama Suffers 9-8 Loss in Back-and-Forth Contest with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
-
I'm too busy! Make it stop! Make it stop!
- Started by Bodhisattva
- Replies: 0
-
-
