What are your thoughts on the Confederate memorials being taken down in NOLA?

Bamaro said:

Bottom line, he had a choice which side to support. He chose the wrong side and took up arms against the United States.

Click to expand...

Yes, he chose to defend the self-determination rights of Virginia, which, you might notice, is where most statues of him are found.

cbi1972 said:

He chose the losing side.

Click to expand...

Marcus Porcius Cato said:

Victrix causa diis placuit sed victa Catoni.

Click to expand...

The inscription on the Confederate monument at Arlington.

cbi1972 said:

He chose the losing side.

Click to expand...

AUDub said:

as the romantic notion of the antebellum south is pretty laughable.

Click to expand...

And making some fetish out of the Federal government is also pretty laughable (maybe even more so under current management).
Even the Union of states is laughable as a talisman. Properly understood, it is a means to the ends of "the means of securing liberty and happiness," as John Randolph of Roanoke said, not an "end to which these should be sacrificed."

When I go to the Lincoln Memorial, I expect to see 92tide or Bamaro waving incense in front of the statue.

Intl.Aperture said:

Click to expand...

He chose the only option he could have with honor. When the general government declares it is going to violate the Constitution, those who serve in office under it should resign and refuse to take part.

Tidewater said:

Gosh, where to begin?
First, just for the record, we have U. S. Grant on the $50 bill to this day and Grant owned more slaves than R. E. Lee. Grant owned a slave when he lived in Missouri before the war. Here is Grant’s manumission paper. Anybody who suggests the U.S. Treasury put Grant on the $50 is being silly.
As far as I can tell, Lee never owned a slave himself at all. He was the executor of his father-in-law’s will, an estate which included Arlington (& White House on the Pamunkey & Romancoke) and 170 slaves. Lee was actually filling out manumission papers during the Fredericksburg campaign in 1862.

Click to expand...

Grant was a tool and shouldn't be on the $50 note so you'll get no argument from me there.

Tidewater said:

The victory of the United States did mean terrible things for people of color. Look at the next 100 years of American history. It is impossible to say what would have happened over the subsequent century if the United States had not invaded and overthrown the elected state governments of ten states and replaced the elected governments with military governors. Maybe, with peaceful secession, northern states would have said, “Alright. Now that the slave states are out of the Union, we are no longer obligated to return fugitive slaves,” and violence-minded radicals like John Brown would have said, “I am no longer morally responsible for slavery now that it exists in a foreign country, so I’m moving on to the next radical cause, prohibition (or whatever) …” With the ending of northern attacks (both violent and rhetorical) on the South for being a slaveholding republic, maybe white southerners would have been less defensive about it and would have started ameliorating the institution (e.g. legally recognizing slave marriages, outlawing the breaking up of slave families, and maybe starting gradual emancipation schemes like the northern states had adopted in the early 1800s: slaves born after a certain date are free on the 21st birthday, etc. We’ll never know those elected governments were overthrown by military force and replaced by military governors.
Unless you are 152 years old, that could not happen. There is no reason to suppose slavery would have survived to the present day. It did not survive 25 years past the American Civil War in Cuba or Brazil and neither the Cubans nor the Brazilians needed to kill 620,000 people to get it done either.

Click to expand...

You make salient points but there is also no way to prove that it WOULDN'T have continued on for some time - and for it to exist for a millisecond past what it did would have been inexcusable. So while things didn't go great for people of color post-civil war, it beat being the legal property of another man. You supply a lot of "maybes" and "could haves" when the only known fact is that one of the things the South hoped to gain from a successful campaign was their right to retain slaves. It's not hard to understand why people wouldn't be thrilled about anyone who chose to represent that side of the conflict.

Tidewater said:

Lee, in 1870, said this ongetting rid of slavery(REL by Freeman, vol. IV, p. 401):
“So far from engaging in a war to perpetuate slavery, I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the south. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”

If Lee was only about defending slavery, as his less-than-well-informed detractors would have us believe, then once the Deep South seceded, he would have hot-footed it to South Carolina, and volunteered his services to Go. Pickens. Yet, for some reason, he did not.
If Lee was all about keeping After Virginia seceded and thoughtless people were celebrating, Lee said “I must say, that I am one of those dull creatures that cannot see the good of secession.” John S. Mosby: Memoirs, 379.
In a letter to his son in January 1861, Lee wrote, “I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of, and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honour for its preservation. …Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil war are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved and the Government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people, and, save in defense will draw my sword on none.” So, Lee, before the war even started, was declaring that he did not support secession, but he also opposed the Federal government unconstitutionally using force to keep together peoples who had legally and constitutionally declared they preferred separation. This was a quintessentially Virginian position.

Click to expand...

To be clear if you read my posts I have never been one of those people. So I have nothing to argue about here. He was defending Virginia who were fighting on the side of the Confederacy who hoped to retain slavery. It was a mistake on his part - not one I'm damning him for, but it was a mistake to fight for Virginia.

Tidewater said:

Let’s see, served the US Army well and faithfully and with distinction in the War against Mexico, saved St. Louis from the silting up of the Mississippi, built Fort Pulaski in Savannah, built Ft. Monroe in Virginia, commanded the 2nd Cavalry Regiment of the U. S. Army, after the war, he refused to be baited into rehashing old wounds and urged southerners to do likewise, and served as president of Washington College.

Click to expand...

This question was bait. There are many great men who don't have as much as a paver stone or a paragraph in a history book to denote their deeds. Lee gets his statues for his time during the Civil War. Nobody sees a statue of him and is thankful for his service in the War against Mexico. He should absolutely have a statue on the campus of Washington College and his namesake university.

Tidewater said:

Have a lot to learn about the nature of the Union. Virginia wasn’t rebelling against the Union, the Federal government was rebelling against the Constitution. Which is all the more reason to have a monument to Lee and other Confederate soldiers, because they give us an opportunity to pause and think about the nature of the Union.

After the war, Lee said, “I have fought against the people of the North because I believed they were seeking to wrest from the South its dearest rights. But I have never cherished toward them bitter or vindictive feelings, and have never seen the day when I did not pray for them.” (J. William Jones, Life and Letters of Robert E. Lee, 401)

Immediately after the war, when relations between freedmen and white southerners were still being determines, a black man went to to communion rail at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Richmond. White parishioners were aghast and not sure what to do. Lee quietly got up and went to the communion rail next to the black man. This quiet act of Christian charity, humility, and decorum set the example for the other parishioners.

Lee on the definition of a gentleman: “The forbearing use of power does not only form a touchstone, but the manner in which an individual enjoys certain advantages over others is a test of a true gentleman. The power which the strong have over the weak, the employer over the employed, the educated over the unlettered, the experienced over the confiding, even the clever over the silly — the forbearing or inoffensive use of all this power or authority, or a total abstinence from it when the case admits it, will show the gentleman in a plain light. The gentleman does not needlessly and unnecessarily remind an offender of a wrong he may have committed against him. He cannot only forgive, he can forget; and he strives for that nobleness of self and mildness of character which impart sufficient strength to let the past be but the past. A true man of honor feels humbled himself when he cannot help humbling others.”

Click to expand...

Here's the part I really wanted to get to because every person who defends public memorials or statues gets to this point. In the eyes of the public, this is pedantry and there is a level of understanding and nuance that the American public will NEVER have about this conflict or this man. I really wish it would be clear that I'm an admirer of Lee - as were every single one of his contemporaries

He was a foe without hate; a friend without treachery; a soldier without cruelty; a victor without oppression, and a victim without murmuring. He was a public officer without vices; a private citizen without wrong; a neighbour without reproach; a Christian without hypocrisy, and a man without guile. He was a Caesar, without his ambition; Frederick, without his tyranny; Napoleon, without his selfishness, and Washington, without his reward. - Benjamin Harvey Hill, 1874

Click to expand...

The only man I've seen honored in the same way with the same personality traits is Sir John Chandos, a founding Knight of the Garter.

Your in-depth knowledge of the conflict and of the character is deeper than that of the average citizens ever will be and they will only ever hold 2 thoughts in their mind at one time. 1. Robert E. Lee, General of the Confederacy. 2. The South was for slavery. And that's sad. I'm obviously not rah-rah about the Confederacy but I am an advocate for men like Lee.

Tidewater said:

I understand why people who would not recognize a noble generous instinct see Lee as a riddle and a cipher. I wish we had more men like him in this graceless age.

After the war, Lee to Lord Acton “…while I have considered the preservation of the constitutional power of the General Government to be the foundation of our peace and safety at home and abroad, I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

Click to expand...

I don't think people regard Lee as a riddle or a cipher, I don't think they try to understand him at all - I think they are only capable of reasoning what I listed above. I agree with you that I wish we had more men like him in "this graceless age."

Tidewater said:

We need more R. E. Lees not less. Statists or consolidationists (then and since) hate R. E. Lee because he shows it is possible to oppose the overreach of the Federal government and protect local self-government and do so honorably.
If you choose not to honor Lee's memory, you are free to do so, but this reasoning that "anybody who honors Lee's memory is celebrating slavery" is dishonest and it should stop.

Click to expand...

It will not stop.

Tidewater said:

He chose the only option he could have with honor. When the general government declares it is going to violate the Constitution, those who serve in office under it should resign and refuse to take part.

Click to expand...

Sure. He did refuse to take part. He also went a step further and took up arms.

Intl.Aperture said:

Grant was a tool and shouldn't be on the $50 note so you'll get no argument from me there.



You make salient points but there is also no way to prove that it WOULDN'T have continued on for some time - and for it to exist for a millisecond past what it did would have been inexcusable. So while things didn't go great for people of color post-civil war, it beat being the legal property of another man. You supply a lot of "maybes" and "could haves" when the only known fact is that one of the things the South hoped to gain from a successful campaign was their right to retain slaves. It's not hard to understand why people wouldn't be thrilled about anyone who chose to represent that side of the conflict.


To be clear if you read my posts I have never been one of those people. So I have nothing to argue about here. He was defending Virginia who were fighting on the side of the Confederacy who hoped to retain slavery. It was a mistake on his part - not one I'm damning him for, but it was a mistake to fight for Virginia.


This question was bait. There are many great men who don't have as much as a paver stone or a paragraph in a history book to denote their deeds. Lee gets his statues for his time during the Civil War. Nobody sees a statue of him and is thankful for his service in the War against Mexico. He should absolutely have a statue on the campus of Washington College and his namesake university.


Here's the part I really wanted to get to because every person who defends public memorials or statues gets to this point. In the eyes of the public, this is pedantry and there is a level of understanding and nuance that the American public will NEVER have about this conflict or this man. I really wish it would be clear that I'm an admirer of Lee - as were every single one of his contemporaries


The only man I've seen honored in the same way with the same personality traits is Sir John Chandos, a founding Knight of the Garter.

Your in-depth knowledge of the conflict and of the character is deeper than that of the average citizens ever will be and they will only ever hold 2 thoughts in their mind at one time. 1. Robert E. Lee, General of the Confederacy. 2. The South was for slavery. And that's sad. I'm obviously not rah-rah about the Confederacy but I am an advocate for men like Lee.


I don't think people regard Lee as a riddle or a cipher, I don't think they try to understand him at all - I think they are only capable of reasoning what I listed above. I agree with you that I wish we had more men like him in "this graceless age."



It will not stop.

Click to expand...

Thank you for a thoughtful reply.
I would honestly suggest reading R. E. Lee by Douglas Southall Freeman. It is available online for free, and Freeman won a Pulitzer for this work.

Intl.Aperture said:

Sure. He did refuse to take part. He also went a step further and took up arms.

Click to expand...

Because he was asked.
He was not a supporter of secession, but once Virginia had seceded and was threatened with armed invasion (in violation of the Constitution and the principles of self-determination), Virginia asked him to help defend the Commonwealth. He had said that defending Virginia was the only reason he would "draw his sword ever again."
So he did.
And it cost him mightily.


For those interested in the legal battle over Arlington, I would recommend The Last Battle of the Civil War by Gaughan

Here is an op-ed from the Republican New York Tribune the morning after it was known Lincoln had won:

We must ever resist the asserted right of any State to remain in the Union and nullify or defy the laws thereof. To withdraw from the Union is quite another matter; and whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures designed to keep it in. We hope never to live in a republic whereof one section is pinned to the residue by bayonets. Let them have both sides of the question fully presented; let them reflect, deliberate, then vote; and let the action of secession be the echo of an unmistakable popular fiat. A judgment thus rendered, a demand for separation so backed, would either be acquiesced in without the effusion of blood, or those who rushed upon carnage to defy and defeat it would place themselves clearly in the wrong.

Click to expand...

So here we have a northern man arguing that one used force and spilt blood to force seceded states to remain in the Union against their will was "clearly in the wrong."
Mr. Greeley changed his tun a few weeks later when changes to Federal and Confederate tariff laws meant New York was going to lose a lot of money.

They removed one of Davis too.

Tidewater said:

Because he was asked.
He was not a supporter of secession, but once Virginia had seceded and was threatened with armed invasion (in violation of the Constitution and the principles of self-determination), Virginia asked him to help defend the Commonwealth. He had said that defending Virginia was the only reason he would "draw his sword ever again."
So he did.
And it cost him mightily.


For those interested in the legal battle over Arlington, I would recommend The Last Battle of the Civil War by Gaughan

Click to expand...

Hindsight being 20/20 it's easy to judge from so far in the future. It's why I'm not in favor of taking down plaques or memorials to men on private university campuses who had a hand in their formation. The societal climate in which these actions occurred are completely alien to the world we live in today. We can't judge or punish men of the past based on today's ethics. There was a heated debate recently at Oxford to discuss whether Britain owed India reparations. The answer is obviously, "No." but it's a similar exercise. Lee couldn't possibly have foreseen how the war would be viewed in hindsight when making his decision to defend Virginia. And most people can't understand WHY he would fight for Virginia instead of against slavery - because that's all the issue will ever be; the average citizen will never grasp the complex and machiavellian maneuvering of the federal government in the months and weeks leading up to the conflict, which is why most to scoff at the idiom 'The War of Northern Aggression'. And I think the greatest casualty of the war's fallout are the characters of men like Lee and Jackson.

I think public settings are not the right place to have statues to the Confederacy or Confederate soldiers. And I don't mind the statues of Lee and, to an extent, Jackson. But it wouldn't surprise me if they all disappeared at some point.

I think sometimes the SJWs and regressives go too far with the CSA stuff, but I can't blame the removal of a statue in NOLA even though it's a pretty iconic part of the city. But I hope west point doesn't take Lee's window away.

Fwiw when I'm talking about too far I'm talking about the removal of flags in national parks.... Gettysburg is a national park.

Don't like it.

Whether we like it or not, it is our history. We became a better country in the end because of it. Eventually kids will NOT be taught the Civil War or at least "why" the South seceded because people will find it "offensive". It won't be long and Vietnam will be on the same list as well since it was not a popular war. Truly a shame.

Keep them up. Screw the left.

230kv_barehand said:

Don't like it.

Whether we like it or not, it is our history. We became a better country in the end because of it. Eventually kids will NOT be taught the Civil War or at least "why" the South seceded because people will find it "offensive". It won't be long and Vietnam will be on the same list as well since it was not a popular war. Truly a shame.

Click to expand...

The word revisionism gets bandied about a bunch in the debates on this matter, which I find I bizarre. That argument implies that monuments and the like are historical sources or contemporaneous artifacts with something of value to historians today. Most of these monuments were built more than 50 years after the Civil War ended. It tells us nothing about the Civil War itself. Any value it does provide is served better in a library or a museum, not in a public place implying government endorsement.

"We can't judge or punish men of the past based on today's ethics."

Thank you for this statement! That should end the discussion right there. General Lee was an honorable Christian man and to judge his decisions based on today's standards is wrong.

230kv_barehand said:

Don't like it.

Whether we like it or not, it is our history. We became a better country in the end because of it. Eventually kids will NOT be taught the Civil War or at least "why" the South seceded because people will find it "offensive". It won't be long and Vietnam will be on the same list as well since it was not a popular war. Truly a shame.

Click to expand...

I have one daughter with a PHD and one with a Masters, neither knew about Saigon, the DMZ, Da Nang, TET, Haiphong, Hanoi or the Hanoi Hilton. I told them I wasted a bunch of cash.

AUDub said:

The word revisionism gets bandied about a bunch in the debates on this matter, which I find I bizarre. That argument implies that monuments and the like are historical sources or contemporaneous artifacts with something of value to historians today. Most of these monuments were built more than 50 years after the Civil War ended. It tells us nothing about the Civil War itself. Any value it does provide is served better in a library or a museum, not in a public place implying government endorsement.

Click to expand...

The notion of revisionism refers to the attempt to excise an unpleasant idea from our collective consciousness, allowing the modern agenda-driven narrative to supplant historical truth. Allowing monuments to be dismantled is to give in to ignorant cultural bullying. It will be a shame if "progressives" succeed in erasing the historical record of our cultural heritage just so someone's feelings are spared from perceived microaggressions.

AUDub said:

The word revisionism gets bandied about a bunch in the debates on this matter, which I find I bizarre. That argument implies that monuments and the like are historical sources or contemporaneous artifacts with something of value to historians today. Most of these monuments were built more than 50 years after the Civil War ended. It tells us nothing about the Civil War itself. Any value it does provide is served better in a library or a museum, not in a public place implying government endorsement.

Click to expand...

Then why put a monument of any kind in a public place?