Jump to content

R. E. Lee is not PC

Recommended Posts

  • 11 months later...
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A&E had an A&E Original Movie several years back titled, "The Crossing". Jeff Daniels played George Washington leading our fabulous ancestors across the Deleware River in the dead of night to whip some Hessian butt!!! I'm going to find that Johnny Tremain DVD soonest. Being ever mindful of a well rounded education for my growing 6 year olds, tonight, we've rented an educational video, "The Sands of Iwo Jima".

Link to post
Share on other sites

le Voyageur and anyone else who is interested in history. Dr. Robert Edgar of U. of South Carolina wrote a history of SC a few years ago called, 'South Carolina: A History'. The book is a lengthy but fascinating read. It answered a lot of my questions on how everything turned out the way it did. Many of the misconceptions of the root causes of the 'Civil War' can be laid to rest in its meticulous detail. But a quick test can be posed by the hypothetical question: If slavery had not existed would that war have been inevitable?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I watched Gods and Generals on HBO yesterday. Good movie for those that like war movies, the Civil War, or American history related films.


It was actually the second time I had seen it. I went to see it when it came out to theaters. First time I had ever seen a film with an intermission.


Lee is certainly not politically correct, but I would take him over a raft load of Congressmen any day of the week.


As to weather the war would have happened without slavery, that is nearly impossible to determine. Would the Republican party have been formed and succeeded in placing a president in the White House? Hard to say. That would certainly have changed things a bit. The only answer I can provide is a maybe. There were certainly other issues, but perhaps had there been one less issue of contention there would have been no war. My guess would be there would have been a war of some sort, but that it may not have been at that exact point in time, and some of the other variables would have been different as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know that anything is inevitable. But I do believe that some bad things that happen are neccessary. The Civil War comes to mind in the second vein.


In fact, there's a scene in the movie 1776, which I've read is actually grounded in the truth. Jefferson tried to wipe out slavery in his draft of the Declaration. It was met with a lot of reistance from the Southern delegates and was crossed out.

Adams, siding with Jefferson, said, "A hundred years from now there will be Hell to pay!"


His alleged words were prophetic.



Link to post
Share on other sites

The Soviet Union recently dissolved into individual states without such a war.


Uncleguinea, I saw the movie and the play as well. While I don't know if that statement is historically accurate, I do understand that an argument of that nature did take place. His premonition came true in 1861. I offer a link to Lincoln's inaugural address on 4 March 1861:


It is a little lengthy but in it Lincoln outlined a legal argument regarding slavery, the law, the union, secession, and war. The last three paragraphs are rather clear. He reached out to the South in a conciliatory manner on 4 March, but on 12 April he was answered by an attack on Ft. Sumter.


As to the importance of slavery as a root cause, consider the entire nature of the Connecticut compromise during the Constitutional Convention, including the ominous part to which some of us pay little attention. Consider the entire nature of the Missouri compromise, the Dred Scott decision, the political importance of westward expansion and future new states, bloody Kansas. Read the book. There is practically no issue leading to the conflict that did not relate to 'the peculiar institution of the South'. This was clear to those bold South Carolinians who led the South to ruin even if it isn't clear to many of us today. And it ruined so much.

Some excerpts from Edgar's book, pages 374-376:

Quote: The state's leaders, said William J. Grayson, had misled the people "to plunge into the volcanic fires of revolution and war," promising them that, "not a drop of blood would be spilled; that no man's flocks, or herds, or negroes, or houses, or lands would be plundered or destroyed."

South Carolina lost a generation of young men in the war that its leaders swore would never take place. South Carolinians were willing to sacrifice cherished principles (independence, property rights, republicanism) in order to preserve their society. The revolution that Carolinians launched in 1860 assumed a life of its own, one they could not control. It ended, not in victory as had those in 1719 and 1775, but, as Joel R. Poinsett had feared it would, in defeat and humiliation. :Unquote


Such tragic arrogance.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"The Soviet Union recently dissolved into individual states without such a war."


They didn't have a wacko with a stovepipe hat that was willing to throw the country into a destructive war to preserve a union.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Such gobbledygook!


It would be refreshing to hear the council executive board explain in plain straightforward language the reasons for abandoning the old name. What problem are they trying to solve? What incidents led to their conclusion that the old name is no good? In the absence of compelling reasons, were left to speculate.


The council website has a Q&A section discussing the change. Here's the reasoning they cite:


- They want a name that is equally welcoming to the diverse population of families and youth who desire to participate in Scouting.


- The Robert E. Lee Council name has emerged as a possible obstacle to serving all youth.


"A name descriptive of the service area would enhance the ability of the council to capitalize on the Boy Scouts of America brand and to communicate the attractive features of its camps to Scout groups outside Virginia."


It would be interesting to hear some concrete examples of how the name is an obstacle. Please explain how the council name hinders serving youth. Is there any evidence to support that statement? Any surveys or statistics? And explain how the name hinders their ability to communicate about their camps. What could that possibly mean?


Surely the council decision-making board can communicate better than this. If they want to be politically correct, why not say so up front and skip the mumbo-jumbo? Personally, I'm offended when decision makers without backbone stumble for words to explain their decisions.


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like to see if there is a significant increase in the number of black Scouts in Richmond over the next couple of years. I'd be willing to be a buck or two that any increase will be insignifcant or closely related to an increase in Scouts of races.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

well im from the Stonewall Jackson Area Council, next


door neighbor to the former R.E. Lee Council in the


good ol' Shenandoah Valley, Breadbasket of the


confederacy. Anyway,with the Robert E. Lee Council


changing its name, most of the people people in SJAC


wooried about our anme changing. Most of the


discussions that i have had with District execs, OA


advisors, and even the Council exec and Council


President have said that there has been no and there


will be no discussion about changing the name for a


loooooooooong time. The Robert E. Lee flaps arent that


hard to get...everyone ahs bulked up on them and are


selling them for less than what they are worth...





o...i ma alos a confederate reenactor and ive been


reading some of the hisorty stuff posted... slavery was


not much of an issue...it was more States Rights and


all that... Also the North and the South evolved very


differently economically wise and states would have


wanted out anyways...the slavery thing though is


crock...Abe Lincoln, the great Emancipator, siad if i


have to free every slae to keep this nation together i


will, if i have to continue slavery to keep the nation


together, then i will" Also, Yankee troops had the


saying...(excuse the language...but this is one of


those History not PC things)..."we fight for Uncle Sam


not Uncle Sambo/ Nigger (ive heard both) Jeffereson


Davis also had a clause in the CSA government document


thing about freeing slaves after the end of the war and


there were numerous blacks who fought for the CSA, just


because you can still fight for the love of your



Link to post
Share on other sites

This is NOT a troll . . . it's an honest question, and part of my ongoing attempt to understand Lee's public image.


Being in the history business, and living in Georgia (a Yankee in exile), I've heard these arguments many times

. . . and I still don't understand the fascination with Robert E. Lee. Can somebody who *likes* the guy explain to me why they find him admirable?


I'll grant you that he was a brilliant commander . . . but so was Isoroku Yamamoto, who planned the attack on Pearl Harbor.


I'll grant you that he was (by all accounts) a nice guy

. . . but so (by all accounts) was Karl Donitz, whose U-boats shot our merchant ships to pieces in 1942-43.


I'll even grant you that he deeply and truly believed he was doing the right thing, and that God was on his side . . . but so did Tim McVeigh.


We don't name stuff after foreigners who took up arms against the U. S. government in organized warfare, or wackos like McVeigh who did it on their own. We don't celebrate the more odious members of the Confederacy ("Bloody Bill" Anderson or Nathan Bedford Forrest, say) . . . at least most people don't any more. Why is Lee exempt from thi

Link to post
Share on other sites

VH_50, a quick note about Lee - I would say he is not immune but that he has benefitted from time...and the ignorance of later generations. He did not support secession but nevertheless joined the Confederacy and indeed foresaw the carnage about to be wrought. After the war he applied for but did not receive the amnesty that most of his surviving soldiers did.


His colleague, Gen. Montgomery C. Meigs (who was born in Augusta, GA) did not join the Confederacy. Instead Brigadier General Meigs took over as Quartermaster General and responsibility for Lee's estate (which had been taken by the Federal Government for non-payment of taxes). Meigs's hatred for the Confederacy predated the death of his son during the war and it was his idea to use the former Lee estate as the site of a cemetary for Union soldiers. He began in August 1864 by ordering 26 Union soldiers to be moved from the morgue to the doorstep of the former Lee mansion (actually Mrs. Lee's rose garden). By the end of the war more than 16,000 Union dead had been buried there, including his own son. It has been written that Meigs looked on with "grim satisfaction" as the soldiers were buried on Lee's former estate. This was the beginning of Arlington National Cemetary, a fitting tribute to the war and to Lee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...