In Memoriam: Robert E. Lee, 19 January 1807- 12 October 1870

[Smaland]

Instead of honoring a "preacher" who was both a plagiarist and an adulterer, Americans could take a few moments to remember a man described as ...

... 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

Wikipedia biographical article about Lee

[Magister Eckhart]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Jackson_Day


Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson
January 21, 1824 – May 10, 1863

Honour brave warriors who served their country, not communists who wanted the country to serve them.


As long as we're on the subject, I think the Western commanders deserve a little attention as well, even if they were not born so close to these two great leaders of the South. Perhaps we ought to have a Quantrill-Forrest day in July. Considering the dates of their birth it would not be inappropriate.



General Nathan Bedford Forrest
July 13, 1821 – October 29, 1877


Captain William Quantrill
July 31, 1837(1837-07-31) – June 6, 1865(1865-06-06)

[The Lawspeaker]

Lee is a man I would have saluted and followed. I don't agree with a lot the South stood for (slavery) but a country has the right to be independent.

At least Lee was a gentlemen and he fought for clear ideals: his country.

[Smaland]

Robert E. Lee's birthday is actually on January 19th, but at least I wouldn't forget to bump this thread if I did so now.

Yes, Michael King day is an excuse for a holiday, but my bank was closed when I wished it was open. Oh well ...

[Logan]

The Southerns ought to have a day. Respected, but might not be too popular in the North to this day.

'Lee was the noblest American who had ever lived and one of the greatest commanders known to the annals of war.'

Churchill

[Contra Mundum]

The Southerns ought to have a day. Respected, but might not be too popular in the North to this day.

The only northerners who hate Lee are very ignorant people.

Instead of honoring a "preacher" who was both a plagiarist and an adulterer, Americans could take a few moments to remember a man described as ...

... 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

One of my history professors was from Ohio and idolized Lee. He was glad the Union won, but he told us Lee was a saint. Lee never uttered a negative word about anyone, and always took the blame, even when his subordinates failed him in battle.

The professor used the word "Christlike" to describe him. At the time, I thought it was an absurd exaggeration, but after reading more about Lee, I could understand why he felt that way.

[Xenomorph]

Lee was a great soldier and good guy, but he wasn't some godlike figure that deserves nothing but reverence. Also, had his side won, it's a good chance that the area which is currently the continental US would have become Balkanised and suffered from long-term political disorder and chaos.

[Xenomorph]

Lee is a man I would have saluted and followed. I don't agree with a lot the South stood for (slavery) but a country has the right to be independent.

It all depends on the justifications for becoming independent. I agree that it's good sometimes for certain regions to break off and become independent, but if any unit could just up and break off from the whole at the drop of a hat, it would lead to chaos. Also, the South's justifications for seceding were based largely on hysteria and paranoia, not real problems.

[The Lawspeaker]

It all depends on the justifications for becoming independent. I agree that it's good sometimes for certain regions to break off and become independent, but if any unit could just up and break off from the whole at the drop of a hat, it would lead to chaos. Also, the South's justifications for seceding were based largely on hysteria and paranoia, not real problems.

That does, however, not negate the justness of their cause. They wanted independence and they were willing to fight for it.

[Xenomorph]

That does, however, not negate the justness of their cause. They wanted independence and they were willing to fight for it.

There was nothing just about their cause. It was all unjustified paranoia and an obsession with the concept of a racially hierarchical society (one which the North wasn't threatening as a whole). South Carolina and other Deep South states seceded immediately after Lincoln was declared the winner in the 1860 election; he hadn't even entered office yet. Yes, they were willing to fight for their independence, but it was a wholly pointless and unjustified fight.