Was Robert E. Lee Morally Straight?

[Rooster7]

Upon consulting my bible, although I didnt say it before, the Old Covenant is obsolete. Of course, Jews are free to think otherwise so please spare me the sensitivity training. But according to my faith, this is what the book of Hebrews taught about Jesus and his New Covenant:

 

6But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises.

7For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. 8But God found fault with the people and said:

"The time is coming, declares the Lord,

when I will make a new covenant

with the house of Israel

and with the house of Judah.

9It will not be like the covenant

I made with their forefathers

when I took them by the hand

to lead them out of Egypt,

because they did not remain faithful to my covenant,

and I turned away from them, declares the Lord.

10This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel

after that time, declares the Lord.

I will put my laws in their minds

and write them on their hearts.

I will be their God,

and they will be my people.

11No longer will a man teach his neighbor,

or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'

because they will all know me,

from the least of them to the greatest.

12For I will forgive their wickedness

and will remember their sins no more."[c]

13By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear.

Hebrews 8:6-13

 

Okay, my apologies...we now return you to our regular scheduled programming.

 

[NJCubScouter]

Rooster says:

 

Of course, Jews are free to think otherwise so please spare me the sensitivity training.

 

Speaking for all the "Jews," let me say, we appreciate your permission.

 

However, it seems to me that the last time I mentioned my non-Christian religious beliefs in this forum, I was challenged by at least one poster (not you) to "prove it." I have not seen anyone challenge you to prove your beliefs, nor should they, but I can't help but notice the difference.

[packsaddle]

Actually, I think every last one of the rest of us, regardless of background, is free to think otherwise. Rooster7 is free to change his mind as well. Perhaps in a free society, we're all heretics. Am I missing something?

[Rooster7]

My comments were directed to ehcalum who inferred that the expression of my Christian beliefs concerning the New Covenant may cause Jews to be offended. The point was - while some folks may not like my beliefs, they need not take offense because those beliefs are not being forced on them or anyone else.

 

NJ,

 

You may or may not have reason to be upset with someone else, I don't know. But I don't understand how a single incident constitutes a systemic problem. When I express my opinions, religous or otherwise, I see no difference between my treatment and yours from others on this forum.

[SemperParatus]

Robert E. Lee on slavery...

 

Letter dated December 27, 1856:

 

I was much pleased the with President's (Pierce) message. His views of the systematic and progressive efforts of certain people at the North to interfere with and change the domestic institutions of the South are truthfully and faithfully expressed. The consequences of their plans and purposes are also clearly set forth. These people must be aware that their object is both unlawful and foreign to them and to their duty, and that this institution, for which they are irresponsible and non-accountable, can only be changed by them through the agency of a civil and servile war. There are few, I believe, in this enlightened age, who will not acknowledge that slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil. It is idle to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it is a greater evil to the white than to the colored race. While my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more deeply engaged for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things. How long their servitude may be necessary is known and ordered by a merciful Providence. Their emancipation will sooner result from the mild and melting influences of Christianity than from the storm and tempest of fiery controversy. This influence, though slow, is sure. The doctrines and miracles of our Savior have required nearly two thousand years to convert but a small portion of the human race, and even among Christian nations what gross errors still exist! While we see the course of the final abolition of human slavery is still onward, and give it the aid of our prayers, let us leave the progress as well as the results in the hands of Him who, chooses to work by slow influences, and with whom a thousand years are but as a single day. Although the abolitionist must know this, must know that he has neither the right not the power of operating, except by moral means; that to benefit the slave he must not excite angry feelings in the master; that, although he may not approve the mode by which Providence accomplishes its purpose, the results will be the same; and that the reason he gives for interference in matters he has no concern with, holds good for every kind of interference with our neighbor, -still, I fear he will persevere in his evil course. . . . Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?

 

 

[Greying Beaver]

I have been watching this one with great interest. Going back to Hunt's original question of by which time period do you measure Lee's morality being straight. "Bobby" Lee would have raised his and in the scout sign and repeated the

scout Oath and Law in late January, 1818. Which do we rip out of it's time period and squash it down into the contemporary society with almost 200 years between them, "Bobby" Lee or our interpretation of what is morally straight (the slavery question)? In 1818, SLAVERY WAS LEGAL IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA - AND REMAINED LEGAL UNTIL THE PASSAGE OF THE 13th AMENDMENT, ENACTED DECEMBER 6,1865 (That makes slavey legal in the United States before, during, and after the existance of the Confederate States of America!).

As a scout, "Bobby" Lee could not have owned slaves. He was not yet of age and furthermore did ot own property. As a scouter, Lt./Capt./Maj./Lt.Col/Col. Lee could have owned slaves and be within his rights as a citizen of the United States so to do. Futhermore, given his sense of duty as a man to God and his country, to others, and to himself, and to be mindful of the Scout Law - AS A PRODUCT OF THE EARLY 19th CENTURY, would have made an excellent role model for scout-aged youngsters.

Put Robert E. Lee into the early 21st century and tell him that slavery is now illegal, first, he would be aware of it, second, he would tell you that he is in compliance with the law, third, would make no apologies for having owned slaves, and forth, whisper in your ear that he's glad for the fact because it would remove from the ecomonic burden of owning slaves (But that's another arguement not related to scouting.)!

Me? I would have no problem with accepting Mr. Lee's application to be a scouter in my troop, district, or council. Or any other major figure in U.S. History who was associated with the Confederate States of America. Well, maybe not Jubal Early. He spent his old age being angry at everybody. And while I'm up here on the soap box, can anybody tell me which general officer of the Federal army was in favor of slavery (Hint: He served as president of what is now L.S.U. before the War Between the States.)? I wouldn't mind having this guy in my troop, district, or council, either.

 

[SemperParatus]

Why William Tecumseh Sherman, of course.

[Hunt]

Semper, thanks for the letter from Lee. I think it shows the degree of rationalization that a person can resort to in order to defend behavior that he knows, in his deepest soul, is wrong. I particularly like: "Is it not strange that the descendants of those Pilgrim Fathers who crossed the Atlantic to preserve their own freedom have always proved the most intolerant of the spiritual liberty of others?"

He's criticizing Northerners for being "intolerant" of the "spiritual liberty" of Southerners to enslave people!

 

[Trevorum]

As quoted by Semper, Lee says, "The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, physically, and socially. The painful discipline they are undergoing is necessary for their further instruction as a race, and will prepare them, I hope, for better things."

 

While clearly an apologetic excuse for slavery based on "The ends justifies the means", this quotation is also an excellent example of the 19th philospophy we now refer to as "The White Mans Burden".

 

Lee was a product of his time and culture. While he was most certainly a racist, he was also a compassionate man and evidently struggled with the contradictions he saw between his society and the teachings of Christianity. At the same time, many fundamentalist Christians in the South were twisting biblical quotations to justify slavery.

 

[packsaddle]

Looking at the deeds, not the creeds: General Winfield Scott persuaded Lincoln to offer Lee the position of Field Commander for the Union just before Virginia seceded. Lee not only rejected the offer, he abandoned his post and took his military genius to command the rebellion, thus ensuring a long, devastating conflict. A betrayal that deserves infamy.

[Trevorum]

This is fun: finding an issue for which I passionately disagree with packsaddle!

 

With due resepct towards your argument for Lee's betrayal of his country and sworn duty, I think the same argument could be made for George Washington. There was the time when George was a loyal subject of his country with a sworn alliegance to his king. Like Bob, he, too, made the difficult choice to betray his country and take up arms against it. The major difference of course, was that George ended up on the winning side while Lee ended up on the loosing side.

 

Today we don't care that George Washington was considered a traitor by the British. Had his side lost, he most certainly would have been hanged. Instead, he is a hero of the side that won. Had the south won the War Between the States, Lee would have been championed as a hero and the saviour of the South. And slavery in the South would have been ended in another way at another time for other reasons.

 

As I alluded to previously: "History is written by the winners."

[SemperParatus]

Good tie-in with GW,

 

...and lest we forget...

 

Mary Custis Lee (Robert's wife) was the granddaughter of George Washington...and of course Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee (Robert's father) was a close friend of the G-man, giving us those famous words at Washington's eulogy...

 

"First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen...second to none in the humble and endearing scenes of private life."

 

 

[packsaddle]

OK Trevorum, it's you and me...meadow muffins at 20 paces

 

I offer the following from GW's biography: "From 1759 to the outbreak of the American Revolution, Washington managed his lands around Mount Vernon and served in the Virginia House of Burgesses. Married to a widow, Martha Dandridge Custis, he devoted himself to a busy and happy life."

I'm thinking about that part connecting the "busy and happy life" to being married to a widow. H'mmm.

The important differences are that GW was living life in quite a different capacity just prior to 1776 than Lee was. Lee WAS an officer in the Army and was therefore subject to the military code.

And GW was not asked by a superior officer to take a command whereas Lee WAS asked and he refused. GW was elected to command and was not forced to abandon any previous command (except over his crops and, perhaps, his love muffin..it does make you think, though, doesn't it).

I agree with you though, he would have been hanged and I do appreciate the point about history being written by the winners. Isn't it interesting then, that the winners in this case seem to apologize for one of those persons primarily responsible for the waste and destruction of that war?

[packsaddle]

Here's a suggestion, let's try on some other possibilities. How about:

 

William Westmoreland?

Richard Nixon?

 

Any other suggestions?

[scoutingagain]

Pack,

 

Can't help but think you have an interesting social circle down there in Georgia.

 

SA