Was Robert E. Lee Morally Straight?

[johndaigler]

Hunt, good post. I've recently listened to Ellis' "Patriots" lecture series for Barnes and Noble Audio. It's a great listen and a great learning.

 

I'd more likely give a "slavery" pass to Lee than Adams, Franklin, Jefferson or even Washington. AFJ were intimately involved in the decision to avoid the slavery issue. They purposefully kept "property" out of the list of inalienable rights - a right included by G. Mason in his work for Virginia (though he undoubtedly lifted it from someone else - A Smith, I think) which was the basis of that section of the D of I. AFJ chose to leave slavery out of the formation process of the new nation, so that they could actually achieve a new nation. Apparently, they believed that slavery would have created such a conflict the founding fathers would have turned against each other. They were willing to change (and fight amongst themselves about) many aspects of govt. and law as they tranformed from royal colonies to a united republic - they just weren't willing to fight the slavery fight.

 

By the Time we get to RE Lee, slavery was an institutionalized part of the south's culture and economy as part of the young nation. He was - what he was raised to be.

 

BTW, though they reconciled before dieing (same day - 50th anniversary of the D of I), Jefferson didn't consider Adams "morally straight" for most of their post-revolution days. Something about Court stuffing . . .

 

jd

 

 

[OldGreyEagle]

Rooster, I was not aware "Thou Shalt Not Kill" was mis-translated and its supposed to read "Thou shall not murder" You are right, that is a different situation entirely. But it does give one pause to wonder what other biblical "truths" our society honors that are mis-translated.

 

It also makes me wonder what we are doing talking old testament anyway as you have said that the new testament wiped out the old testament or least thats what I understood you to say

[jkhny]

"To be a person of strong character, your relationships with others should be honest and open. You should respect and defend the rights of all people. "

 

Of note, Lee took FULL responsibility for his actions as a commander. He NEVER "blamed" others for failures or cast aspersions on his subordinates - even when their failures cost him dearly.

 

A recent book "explains" the disaster at Gettysburg - the seeming pointlessness of Picketts Charge - by showing that Lee was following the "game plan" of other Napoleanic battles (well studied by Lee and his contemporaries). If the plan postulated (and supported by evidence) HAD worked, Hood's cavalry lost off on the perhiphery (to the bewilderment of most historians) - would have been hitting Seminary Ridge from behind just as Pickett hit from the front. Instead a brash young commander led a few hundred of the 7th Michigan straight into Hood's force of thousands, rallying other demoralized Union forces into holding Hood far away from the main battle. Ironically, that man was George Armstrong Custer - remembered only for his failure at Little Big Horn (one born of arrogance).

 

Yet Lee NEVER "blamed" others or even tried to explain what his intentions were. He pointedly stated it was HIS "fault".

 

He took DIRECT responsibility as Commander for this and other failures - many beyond his capabilities with the limited resources available to him.

 

Contrast that behavior to current BSA leadership. The ACLU is responsible for "missing" units in Alabama. "The media" is making BSA look bad. Continued enrollment fraud and other problems are whitewashed - NOT "fixed". The panel to "fix things" in Atlanta pointedly EXCLUDES the local leaders that HAVE been successful in running units for "disadvantaged youth" - and who have been BSA's biggest critics in this fraud. DE's have been fired for NOT going along with fraudulent claims.

 

BSA's leadership is not being morally "straight" - throwing out volunteers and paid staff who try to do what is right, covering up problems instead of fixing them.

 

[jkhny]

 

duplicate post (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Trevorum]

I am not a biblical scholar by any means, but Roosters interpretation makes a lot of sense to me. This commandment has historically been interpreted to mean:

 

"Do not take the life of another human being (unless necessary to preserve your own life or unless you are legally empowered to do so by a secular authority)".

[Rooster7]

OGE,

 

The Old Testament is still relevant. Its the old covenant which is no longer tenable. Or rather, one might say - we have been offered the new covenant as a means of meeting the demands of the old.as a means to opting out so to speak. We can stand before God as sinless beings. Our inability to conform to the Law will not be our undoing because Jesus blood will make us righteous men before the Father. Consequently, Gods Righteousness will not result in our condemnation. Nevertheless, the moral law taught in the Old Testament is still valid. In fact, for those who reject the new covenant, they will be appear before God without the covering of Jesus blood and thus they will be judged by the old covenant. Given Jesus Sermon on the Mount, it seems implausible to me that any ordinary man can conform to the Law. Without Gods intervention that is, Jesus; meeting the tenets of the Old Testament would be our only hope for salvation. And of course, this is like saying the only hope of a drowning man is the ship that is sinking beneath him and in which his leg is entangled.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

[Fuzzy Bear]

Which person in the Bible comes the closest to being like Robert E. Lee?

 

This is easy and is worth only one point. It is like shooting from directly in front of the basket.

[John-in-KC]

Someone mentioned Lee's loyalty.

 

Colonel Robert E Lee, before offering his sword to the Confederacy, transferred Federal property under his stewardship, ensured his successor was qualifed for and prepared to command, and tendered his resignation from the Army. Only then did he offer himself to the service of Virginia.

 

We also have to look at the object of loyalty: In 1860, loyalty to the Federal government as an absolute was not a solidified concept. It took the War of Northern Aggression to make that happen.

 

There are far worse examples of leadership for a young man (or a young Army officer) that Robert Edward Lee.

 

My thoughts; others will differ. That's ok.

[packsaddle]

Do not take the life of another - unless you can catch them absconding with an armload of soggy t-shirts from a souvenir shop in New Orleans.

 

Robert E. Lee was a traitor to his country who received far better treatment for his crime than he deserved. I am a Southerner, born and raised. But I am amazed at the apologists I am reading here. There is no excuse for cowardly acts by people defending an immoral cause.

 

Have a nice day

[ehcalum]

Why do so many people believe the Civil War was about slavery. It was a cause and factor of the war but not the purpose of the war. Lee was a great man, loved by all of his Army. Stonewall Jackson was a man of undying devotion to God and his family. These men were fighting for their homes and because war is their job.

 

How is the Old Covenent not a means to salvation? I would highly suggest not telling our Jewish friends that the Old Testament and the Old Covenant has become null and void.

[John-in-KC]

I think a few folks need to re-read Lincoln's Second Inagural address:

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.

 

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without warseeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

 

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

 

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The issues underlying the Civil War are numerous, deep, and even now, tough to fathom. How we lay the nation down between is difficult, even today. Just as the 13 colonies decided to break ranks with Britain, BY FORCE OF ARMS, so did the Southern states attempt to break ranks with the Union ... only the South failed.

 

Lee RESIGNED HIS COMMISSION. He left Union service of his own free will. He fought for matters that gave him a "gut check."

 

So far as I know, no one ever came forward with the eyewitnesses to make the case of TREASON against RE Lee. Remember, the standard of proof for treason is defined in Article III, Section 3 of our Constitution.

[Trevorum]

"... a traitor to his country ...

 

Pack, isn't this perspective a classic case of history being written by the winners? Had the rebels won, Lee would have lionized as a hero to his country

[packsaddle]

ehcalum, because it was. Without slavery as an issue, the war would never have happened. The roots of the conflict extend to the times of the earliest colonization of the South and the manner in which it was settled and from where - and then the issue of slavery was revisited at nearly every major decision leading to the formation of our country.

 

John-in-KC, good post. No one knows for sure the rationale that led to Lee's treatment. The use of the term 'treason' is mine and I know it is a minority opinion.

Lincoln's first innaugural ended with:

"My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.

 

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."

 

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature."

 

http://federalistpatriot.us/histdocs/lincoln_first_inaugural.asp

 

The "sensitive point" to which Lincoln referred was clearly slavery.

 

But the South was itching for a fight that they arrogantly thought they would win in a short time and they did not have the benefit of "the better angels of our nature". Lincoln delivered these conciliatory words on 4 March 1861, AFTER South Carolina had already issued a declaration of secession (24 Dec 1860) having tried to instigate secession perhaps twice before (and failed). In answer to Lincoln's words of 4 March, on 12 April the South fired the first shot to seal the deal.

 

Lee was an officer in the U.S. Army. He left that post to fight with an enemy that had initiated a conflict against the country that Lee had previously sworn to serve. If Lee had not betrayed his country, the war probably would have been much less costly to both sides. In a way, he is partly and knowingly responsible for the horrible destruction of the South and the many thousands of families on both sides. General Meigs placed Arlington Cemetary at the back door of Lee's former home so Lee could view the fruit of his life. It was indeed a fitting gesture but it was also nearly the least that could be done.

 

Trevorum, I understand your point and had they won, you probably are right. It would not diminish the immorality of the South's cause. My grandmother kept a portrait of Lee and one of Davis on the wall of our house during my youth. I sometimes think she sincerely thought that the South had won...her self-deceit was, at least, obvious to all.

[jr56]

All you people have way too much time on your hands.

[Rooster7]

How is the Old Covenant not a means to salvation? I would highly suggest not telling our Jewish friends that the Old Testament and the Old Covenant has become null and void.

 

Ehcalum,

 

Are you a believer a Christian? If so, I must ask what exactly do you believe about Jesus?

 

The Old Testament is not null and void. I never said differently. To the contrary, if it were not for the Old Testament, we would not have Gods precepts. And Jesus himself noted that all of the law will remain until heaven and earth pass.

 

As to the Old Covenant, here again I never said that it was null and void. I did say that it was essentially superseded by the New Covenant. If my Jewish friends insist on earning their salvation by attempting to conform to Gods Laws, that is their prerogative and I wish them the best. However, if you take the time to read the book of Matthew and in particular the Sermon on the Mount, I think you will find that obtaining salvation by that means is unlikely. Jesus makes it abundantly clear that conforming to Gods precepts is not only a matter of remaining faithful to all of his commands, but doing so with unmixed motives a pure heart for God. This essentially invalidates anyone Ive ever met as being worthy for salvation. Does it nullify the Old Covenant? No. But who do you know that is capable of obtaining salvation through the Old Covenant, other than Jesus? His blood is the only way in which I will ever see salvation. I know my heart all too well. I would love to say that I intuitively respond with Gods love and seek his ways in everything I do, but making that claim would only add to my already long list of sins. And I havent met anyone yet who can make that claim.

 

I have many friends and not all of them are Christians, but my faith which I know in my heart to be true, will not be subjugated to political correctness so to not offend. My Jewish friends worship and believe as they please and with no criticism from me when they do. But my beliefs are mine to keep. I think its quite possible that most Jews feel the same way about their faith.