Robert E. Lee Day

[USS Monitor]

Are you equating war with sports now?

I think its important that when talking about culture, we understand both the insider and the outsider perspective.

I suppose for Americans referring to the civil war as "we" seems like a normal thing to do - an Americanism. But to the outsider, it comes of rather oddly. As if the country is still fixated with 100 year old conflicts. Perhaps imaging another country using your same "Americanism" will help you understand an outsiders perspective.

I don't say 'we' personally since I do what I can to disassociate myself from the traitors.

I call the Union "we," and probably would continue to do so even if I lived in the South. My family is from Massachusetts, though. I can see how it would be weird to call the Union "we" if you don't have any ties to the North, and why you don't want to call the Confederates "we" if you disagree with their cause.

I also rooted for the Red Sox based on family tradition, even when I lived in Maryland. So it kind of is like sports teams, like East Marches said.

[Atomic Utopia]

He committed treason and fought for a side counter to civil rights and morality. He prolonged a civil war, killing thousands and for a side that was the very definition of backwardness. By all rights he should have been executed after a rather short trial for treason.

To be quite frankly with you the celebration of him as any sort of hero in the U.S. is absurd, though regrettably it occurs.

[Delator]

But the legend of Lee isn't justified by his record.

Indeed. After Seven Days, the Newspapers were all hailing "The Saviour of Richmond", but were I in Davis' shoes, I'd have probably replaced Lee after his failure at Malvern Hill.

Seven Days was an incredibly mismanaged battle, the brilliant early successes overshadowed by a botched pursuit. The South should have handily won, instead of letting their enemy slip away. The pointless losses assaulting Malvern Hill would have sealed the issue for me.

Those assaults highlight the principle issues Lee had as a commander. He was fixated on the Attack...even in battles in which his forces were nominally defending, and his attack plans were usually quite complicated, especially considering the logistical limitations of the era.

These tendencies shaped his two greatest defeats. He was unable to properly counterattack at Antietam because he'd chosen poor ground near the Potomac river that left him unable to flank the enemy. When fearful of the Union pursuit of his divided forces during the invasion of Pennsylvania, he ordered his troops to consolidate in an effort to engage the pursuing Union army, rather than crossing the Susquehanna River and threatening Philadelphia, which might well have forced a political settlement. Instead the loss at Gettysburg left Lee with an army that no longer had the numbers to engage in the types of offensive actions Lee favored.

Stonewall Jackson recognized that tactics had fallen behind technology. That rifle fire was now too effective at longer ranges to expect offensive success against prepared positions. Jackson demonstrated repeatedly prior to his death that the way to victory was to maneuver into a position where the enemy is forced to attack you, then exploit the advantage when his attack fails. Sherman saw this as well, and used the tactic to great effect prior to and during his famous march.

Lee never learned these lessons. He kept his offensive mindset until it became unsustainable, then fought a two year holding action.

Overrated...and certainly not deserving of any holiday.

[USS Monitor]

But his tactics were great. Thats why my country's tank commanders kept pictures of him in their tanks during Gulf War 1. There is no harm in learning from your enemy and using those tactics if they are superior to your own. To ignore that potential utilization of knowledge is to doom yourself to defeat.

One of my friends did a research assignment on Rommel. He told me that Rommel was an average general but nothing spectacular. It seems interesting there is a lot of hero worship of him.

Perhaps its an human instinct to believe in a shred of good in a tundra of dark. I mean they called Albert Speer the "good nazi". Maybe that's the same with Robert Lee.

There were some decent people in the Wehrmacht. Rommel was one of them, even if his military brilliance is overrated. Guderian was all right too. Rommel gets more hero worship because his death makes for a good story. Guderian just got pushed to the sidelines because he gave Hitler his honest assessment of how the war was going, and Hitler didn't want to hear it -- much less romantic than committing suicide to save your family.

[Infected Mushroom]

He inspired and led thousands of men into battle.

So? Why is this necessarily a thing to be praised?

He's shown true courage and valour.

Did he? Also so?

Also, the Army of Northern Virginia is one of the greatest military formations in the history of the United States (and probably globally).

Debatable, also so?

They fought against overwhelming odds, despite being outnumbered, they showed resourcefulness, courage, and determination.

No that is not the take home message, at all. The takeaway message is that he fought for a shitty cause, a cause that he lost. A cause that is directly contrary to the current US since you know he was fighting to destroy the Union which became the current nation. So once again why should the US have a holiday celebrating a man who was a failed traitor, who was good enough that he created a war killing way too many reasons to support a terrible cause?

he fought to defend his homeland, just as any good southerner would have

and he did with nobility, valour, and honour

those are very American values

[Genivaria]

I don't say 'we' personally since I do what I can to disassociate myself from the traitors.

I call the Union "we," and probably would continue to do so even if I lived in the South. My family is from Massachusetts, though. I can see how it would be weird to call the Union "we" if you don't have any ties to the North, and why you don't want to call the Confederates "we" if you disagree with their cause.

I also rooted for the Red Sox based on family tradition, even when I lived in Maryland. So it kind of is like sports teams, like East Marches said.

Well when I say 'we' in regard to the Civil War I mean we as in Americans, I don't associate traitors as Americans.
Regardless of the fact that I'm a Texan.

[Mer Salcia]

I find it odd that a state would celebrate the birthday of one who waged war against it. You don't see birthday celebrations for George III, or Hitler, or Osama Bin Laden.

None of them were Americans.

Lee may have been an American, but he also took up arms against his country. Does the US, or any other country, also celebrate the birthdays of traitors?

[Neutraligon]

So? Why is this necessarily a thing to be praised? Did he? Also so? Debatable, also so? No that is not the take home message, at all. The takeaway message is that he fought for a shitty cause, a cause that he lost. A cause that is directly contrary to the current US since you know he was fighting to destroy the Union which became the current nation. So once again why should the US have a holiday celebrating a man who was a failed traitor, who was good enough that he created a war killing way too many reasons to support a terrible cause?

he fought to defend his homeland, just as any good southerner would have

His homeland was the United State of America, he fought against that.

and he did with nobility, valour, and honour

Again debatable

those are very American values

None of those are American values, nor are they particularly American ideals. None of those are reasons to have a holiday for a traitor to the the US. So once again why should a traitor be celebrated by the country he attempted and failed to betray?

[Infected Mushroom]

he fought to defend his homeland, just as any good southerner would have

His homeland was the United State of America, he fought against that.

and he did with nobility, valour, and honour

Again debatable

those are very American values

None of those are American values, nor are they particularly American ideals. None of those are reasons to have a holiday for a traitor to the the US. So once again why should a traitor be celebrated by the country he attempted and failed to betray?

he's not a traitor, he's just defending his homeland and the Constitution

unfortunately, the tyranny of Lincoln prevailed

[Neutraligon]

His homeland was the United State of America, he fought against that.

Again debatable

None of those are American values, nor are they particularly American ideals. None of those are reasons to have a holiday for a traitor to the the US. So once again why should a traitor be celebrated by the country he attempted and failed to betray?

he's not a traitor, he's just defending his homeland and the Constitution

He was a traitor against the Union, fighting for a group rebelling against the Constitution and crating a supposedly new one, one which enshrined slavery into it's the laws making it illegal to repeal. You are factually incorrect here.

unfortunately, the tyranny of Lincoln prevailed

The tyranny of Lincoln? Lincoln was the president of the United States of America, elected by the laws of that time, and the southern states where so scared of him they attempted to secede thus betraying the country. Exactly what tyranny where they fighting against?

[USS Monitor]

unfortunately, the tyranny of Lincoln prevailed

The tyranny of Lincoln? Lincoln was the president of the United States of America, elected by the laws of that time, and the southern states where so scared of him they attempted to secede thus betraying the country. Exactly what tyranny where they fighting against?

Everyone knows having a president from Illinois is tyranny. It's the same thing with Obama.

[Organized States]

I can respect his evident leadership. However, I feel as if he is a rather minor figure in the grand scheme of things of Military Leaders in American History and a figure who has been hijacked by a historically-revisionist view of the Civil War, at that, who does not need a holiday.

Additionally, as a Republic, we place high emphasis on the fact that there is Civilian Control of the Military. Should we not have more holidays for Civil Servants than our military leaders?

[Hirota]

None of them were Americans.

Lee may have been an American, but he also took up arms against his country. Does the US, or any other country, also celebrate the birthdays of traitors?

Cromwell, albeit muted. Also, Guy Fawkes.

[The Floridian Republic]

he's not a traitor, he's just defending his homeland and the Constitution

He was a traitor against the Union, fighting for a group rebelling against the Constitution and crating a supposedly new one, one which enshrined slavery into it's the laws making it illegal to repeal. You are factually incorrect here.

unfortunately, the tyranny of Lincoln prevailed

The tyranny of Lincoln? Lincoln was the president of the United States of America, elected by the laws of that time, and the southern states where so scared of him they attempted to secede thus betraying the country. Exactly what tyranny where they fighting against?

I reject the idea that people are somehow inherently required to be loyal to a political order or entity merely on the basis of having been born into such a country or system. Does one owe loyalty to a country merely on the basis of having been born, raised or having citizenship in that country? I don't believe so.

I reject the idea of 'Treason' as an idea based in the days when Kings were appointed and ordained by God, with the sovereign right to rule over an entire territory and all it's peoples on the basis of divine birthright. Where men were subjects, wards of the nobility. where your land was merely granted to you by the grace of the King, all law flowed from him like a fountain.

Perhaps betrayal may have been the right word, if one is (voluntarily) part of an organization and then uses subversive means to try to undermine it.
Lee left the Union, put upon himself the dress of a foreign army, and met the troops of the political ideology he opposed when it attempted to assert control over him and the polities he openly declared loyalty to.

I don't believe that the United States is like a King, that this country is anything more than a man-made social construct held together by tradition and social construct. It's legitimacy comes from the consent of the people. Entire geographic entities decided they no longer consented to it's rule, so it's legitimacy in those areas was nullified.

We can sit here and proclaim "TRAITORS!", but we must not look at the U.S. as some indestructible god-created and ordained entity anymore than the King's of old were appointed by God himself. There are no traitors, all morality is subjective. To the English government during the revolutionary war, George Washington and all the founding fathers were traitors to be hung by the necks until dead. They were 'traitors'.

I don't believe in the cause of slavery, why they seceded is not a deciding factor in whether or not secession itself is moral -- that is an entirely different subject.

I don't think it is appropriate to view the 19th century Confederate States or the United States itself, for that matter, from the lens of 21st century moral grandstanding. The idea that somehow those 'negroes' were equal to the white man is a very recent development and didn't gain widespread acceptance according to polls until several decades after the civil rights movement had ended.

Looking back and having not experienced the culture, attitude and slavery firsthand, and with our modern ideas, we attempt to moralize as self-evident the evil of slavery. But let's not forget that even the Union generals and leaders, Including Abraham Lincoln himself, thought that the negro was an inferior race, and that whites and negroes were, in their language, incompatible with one another. Lincoln himself was a follower of the idea of Liberia -- sending all American negroes to Africa for resettlement. He did not believe that blacks were equal to white men. Neither did Grant or Sherman. Infact, Grant himself owned some slaves.

"If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it… what I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union." -- Abraham Lincoln

There is no doubt in my mind that the secession itself was caused by slavery, but the war itself was not over slavery. It was over the restoration of the Union. When Union troops marched into the South, it was to preserve and restore the Union, not over blacks, for whom most whites of the North were apathetic.

[Alvecia]

Lee may have been an American, but he also took up arms against his country. Does the US, or any other country, also celebrate the birthdays of traitors?

Cromwell, albeit muted. Also, Guy Fawkes.

To be fair, we do burn effigies of Guy Fawkes. Or rather, it is the tradition to.
I wasn't aware Cromwell had a celebration. Is it an official day, or....?

[Thermodolia]

I'm not sure he was that great a general, frankly. He had the good luck to spend the early part of the war fighting a collection of terrible Union generals. He was also lucky enough to have a number of quite brilliant subordinates. Without them, the ANV would probably have been beaten badly at Antietam. And yes, he shouldn't have a commemorative day.

It's somewhat subjective, really. Some people might swear by Patton and forget that Zhukov made him look like a rookie Risk player.

People love to play favorites with historical generals, especially history nerds like myself, and Civil War-era generals tend to be favorites, especially among the "South's gon rise again" crowd.

Bradly, Eisenhower, and Sherman are best generals

[Thermodolia]

*looms ominously & points at an equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee*

A mountain carving is better

[Thermodolia]

He was an honourable man.

The holiday should be kept. He fought to defend the South from the Northern invasion. Regardless of the politics, he fought with honour, valour, and strong spirit.

I say this as a southerner. Fuck him, fuck the CSA, and fuck his racist holiday.

[Thermodolia]

This is ironic, given that Lee made it pretty clear he was not a "South shall rise again" type after the war, and would probably not approve of this sort of nonsense as a result.

Almost nobody was a "South shall rise again" type. That started appearing in the 1950's and during the civil rights movement.

[Thermodolia]

Well I only celebrate MLK day.

So does most of the US.

All but three states and Florida who celebrates Lee day on his actual birthday January 19th.

[Thermodolia]

I don't say 'we' personally since I do what I can to disassociate myself from the traitors.

I call the Union "we," and probably would continue to do so even if I lived in the South. My family is from Massachusetts, though. I can see how it would be weird to call the Union "we" if you don't have any ties to the North, and why you don't want to call the Confederates "we" if you disagree with their cause.

I also rooted for the Red Sox based on family tradition, even when I lived in Maryland. So it kind of is like sports teams, like East Marches said.

I'm not from the North and I still call the Union "We"

[Empire of Cats]

He was an honourable man.

The holiday should be kept. He fought to defend the South from the Northern invasion. Regardless of the politics, he fought with honour, valour, and strong spirit.

I saw this as a southerner. Fuck him, fuck the CSA, and fuck his racist holiday.

Personally, if you ask me, we should venerate the men and women who were Southerners who fought for the Union, rather than against it.

But it does beg the question: how would he be viewed today, by both sides, if he had accepted the generalship Scott had offered him at the beginning of the War? He could very well have been the General in charge of all the Union Armies.

[Empire of Cats]

I call the Union "we," and probably would continue to do so even if I lived in the South. My family is from Massachusetts, though. I can see how it would be weird to call the Union "we" if you don't have any ties to the North, and why you don't want to call the Confederates "we" if you disagree with their cause.

I also rooted for the Red Sox based on family tradition, even when I lived in Maryland. So it kind of is like sports teams, like East Marches said.

I'm not from the North and I still call the Union "We"

Likewise. "We" are all Americans now. Regardless of any war.

[The Blaatschapen]

Robert E Lee is like general Rommel. A good general on the wrong side of history.

And since nobody is celebrating a Rommel day, I fail to see why we should celebrate a Lee day.

[Thermodolia]

I saw this as a southerner. Fuck him, fuck the CSA, and fuck his racist holiday.

1. Personally, if you ask me, we should venerate the men and women who were Southerners who fought for the Union, rather than against it.

2. But it does beg the question: how would he be viewed today, by both sides, if he had accepted the generalship Scott had offered him at the beginning of the War? He could very well have been the General in charge of all the Union Armies.

1. I don't celebrate or venerate traitors. So fuck him and fuck the rest of the CSA traitors.
2. I'd probably end up supporting him but not really caring enough to give him anything else. Just like most Union generals except for Grant and Sherman they are bae.