Eisenhower letter on Robert E. Lee

Status
Not open for further replies.

johngross

Member
Joined
Dec 23, 2010
Messages
647
Reaction score
2,892
Today is probably an appropriate day to post this. The first letter below was written to Eisenhower in 1960 by a dentist, Leon Scott. Eisenhower's reply follows. The bold emphasis in Eisenhower's letter is mine, as it's important to note that at the time of the Civil War the Constitution was silent on secession.

***********************

August 1, 1960
Mr. Dwight D. Eisenhower
White House
Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. President:

At the Republication Convention I heard you mention that you have the pictures of four (4) great Americans in your office, and that included in these is a picture of Robert E. Lee.

I do not understand how any American can include Robert E. Lee as a person to be emulated, and why the President of the United States of America should do so is certainly beyond me.

The most outstanding thing that Robert E. Lee did, was to devote his best efforts to the destruction of the United States Government, and I am sure that you do not say that a person who tries to destroy our Government is worthy of being held as one of our heroes.

Will you please tell me just why you hold him in such high esteem?

Sincerely yours,

Leon W. Scott


******************************

August 9, 1960

Dear Dr. Scott:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War between the States the issue of secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was a poised and inspiring leader, true to the high trust reposed in him by millions of his fellow citizens; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his faith in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction, I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s calibre would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the Nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Such are the reasons that I proudly display the picture of this great American on my office wall.

Sincerely,

Dwight D. Eisenhower
 
Register to hide this ad
The cancel culture is not satisfied with cancelling current people who don't un-waveringly agree with them, they have to go back in history and cancel and erase those who can no longer defend themselves.

History is being rewritten and through unending propaganda people are believing the revised history.
 
Lee should be judged by the morals and ethics of the time, instead of being judged under a modern context. That’s essentially what Eisenhower is saying.

Lee, as a serving army officer of 32 years and one offered a senior command in the Union army, was forced to choose between the US Army and the country he had sworn to defend and his home state of Virginia when Virginia chose to secede from the Union.

That certainly illustrates the loyalty toward one’s home state that was common at the time, and it underscores the still somewhat unsettled concept of federal preeminence versus states rights and where that line should be drawn.

But make no mistake, the issue in disagreement was regarding where that line should be drawn relative to property ownership.

That issue was never fully addressed when the Constitution was drafted and ratified and the result was a compromise that all involved knew would not last. Eisenhower is clearly referencing that as well.

The people who wrote theArticles of Confederation (our first constitution) were for the most part the same individual liberty and freedom folks who wrote the Declaration of Independence. However that constitution didn’t work well for interstate commerce given the e trembly weak role of the central government.

Our current Constitution was written by an almost entirely different group of people for different, commerce driven reasons and individual liberty and freedom was an afterthought, added as the Bill of Rights only to get enough support to ratify the Constitution. It left a lot of issues unsettled and was in fact the inevitable prelude to the Civil war. Don’t forget that 1780 to 1860 was only 80 years and if you didn’t live through the revolutionary war, you certainly heard about it from your parents or grandparents and had strong opinions on the subjects that were still in debate.
 
Last edited:
My view: Regardless of the General's character, reasoning, thoughts or actions, his place in history is firm...Attempts to erase history by its removal from public sight only rob future generations when they try to solve the problems of their own time...

You can't learn from history by removing it from view...:(...Ben
 
"Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel – not just to his country, but to humanity and humanity's God."-W.E.B. Du Bois, 1928
 
...Attempts to erase history by its removal from public sight only rob future generations when they try to solve the problems of their own time...

You can't learn from history by removing it from view...:(...Ben

Maybe someone should have mentioned that to the Patriots when they went after King George's statue in New York in the summer of 1776 ... ;)


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • William_Walcutt_statue_George_III-1200x770.jpg
    William_Walcutt_statue_George_III-1200x770.jpg
    97.8 KB · Views: 591
"Either he knew what slavery meant when he helped maim and murder thousands in its defense, or he did not. If he did not he was a fool. If he did, Robert Lee was a traitor and a rebel – not just to his country, but to humanity and humanity's God."-W.E.B. Du Bois, 1928

I'll qualify this statement by saying that I believe slavery is wrong-whether it was 1760, 1860, or today (and it does still exist). That being said, slavey was a hot issue in 1861, but it was not the ultimate cause of the civil war. Ultimately, it was a states rights issue stemming from economics and tariffs. Like all wars, it was about money and power. There is an old saying, "victors write the history." Slavery was a politically correct justification of the war. It was not justified by the South's secession. When Jefferson Davis was arrested and held, Pres. Andrew Johnson was warned by a US Supreme Court justice not to try Davis for treason, because the US government would lose and it could have a destabilizing effect.
 
Posts have been deleted. For those of you who cannot read or chose not to:

The following topics are BANNED on this Board:
Abortion
Religion
Racial issues
Gay rights/homosexuality
General LEO bashing
Political Discussion and Comment
Do NOT participate in discussion of banned topics.
Wander into politics again and infractions will be issued!

 
I LIKE IKE!

I remember the 1956 campaign as a little boy. This country was at the pinnacle of success. Folks that seek to "erase history" should paint a picture on their rear view mirror, something they like like the mountains or the lake. It's already past, right? American history reads better than any Hollywood script. Backstabbing, treachery, graft, embezzlement, wife stealing, nepotism, favoritism, bribery... and that's only what I can list here. Folks need to get over the "facts of the past" and start trying to create a better future. Which to us "old knots" looks a lot like the past (1948-1970). Joe
 
I was all of 2 years old when Ike died, but he is a personal hero of mine.

When Mrs. QD67 and I visited Gettysburg we went to the Eisenhower house.

Looking at the modest room where Ike and Mamie ate dinner on trays while watching TV gave a good insight into the nature of the man.

His love of grilling outdoors and seeing his den cinched it.

We would be lucky to have a leader like Dwight D. Eisenhower again.
 
Saw Ike as a kid. After about 60 years of studying US military history Ike as Lee were once in a lifetime men. Refreshing to see some know slavery was not the base cause of the “ war of northern aggression” but States Rights. Sadly centralized government has and is diminishing States Rights.
 
As to Ike.... my dad served in the ETO and would have gladly thrown himself over barbed wire for Ike. Dad held him in high regard.

When Ike died in '69 dad suggested that I read up on him. Coincidentally, my HS history teacher was a fan of Ike's and also recommended studying him.

I started reading works about and by him and thus began my admiration that has lasted 52 years. He knew what to do with a pen.

So, yes, I, too, like Ike.
 
I'll qualify this statement by saying that I believe slavery is wrong-whether it was 1760, 1860, or today (and it does still exist). That being said, slavey was a hot issue in 1861, but it was not the ultimate cause of the civil war. Ultimately, it was a states rights issue stemming from economics and tariffs. Like all wars, it was about money and power. There is an old saying, "victors write the history." Slavery was a politically correct justification of the war. It was not justified by the South's secession. When Jefferson Davis was arrested and held, Pres. Andrew Johnson was warned by a US Supreme Court justice not to try Davis for treason, because the US government would lose and it could have a destabilizing effect.

Sorry, but that belief was post reconstruction revisionist history.

When I commented above on secession being about states rights and the right to own certain property, slaves were the property in question.

The right to own slaves was repeatedly and explicitly mentioned time after time in document after document related to secession, and it wasn’t just “politically correct” justification.

That said, Lee did not support secession but followed Virginia anyway. He should be held accountable for that.

Lee’s views on slavery were perhaps well intended by the standards of the day but were undeniably condescending and parochial. However he was generally described as antislavery. This assumption is based on a passage in an 1856 letter to his wife. You’ll have to google it. I’d quote it but it would get me banned for raising a certain issue. Suffice to say he felt subjugation was necessary to teach slaves discipline and they were better off here morally, socially and physically.

I suspect Lee also felt or recognized that slavery was on the decline anyway. It was waning in the border states and even in parts of the Deep South. Denote 35-40% of the population being slaves, 3/4s of southern households did not own slaves. Of those that did only 15-20 percent owned 20 or more, meaning only about 3 to 3.5% of southern households would have been considered “plantations”.

By 1860 the south was facing stiff competition in foreign markets for tobacco and cotton, and the sugar industry in the US only existed due to sharp import tariffs. Southern wealth was accumulated in slaves held by that small percent of the southern population at the expense of infrastructure and technological innovation. It’s likely they slavery would not have survived another 50 years as the south became an increasingly irrelevant backwater economy. Lee may, or may not, have seen that writing on the wall and viewed slavery as an evil, but one that was both temporary and secondary to honor and loyalty to his state.


Lee also opposed secession and told a friend, “But if she [Virginia] secedes, though I do not believe in secession as a constitutional right, nor that there is sufficient cause for revolution, then I will follow my native State with my sword, and, if need be, with my life.” Lee was clearly driven by loyalty and devotion to his home state, even if he didn’t support Virginia in secession.

At the end of the day, Lee followed his own concept and standards of honor to lead the armies of the confederacy in a war he didn’t really believe in, fought over slavery that he felt was ultimately an evil enterprise.

If you read Lee’s quotes at various times during the war, you can sense his moral confusion and if you look at some of his decisions on the battle field you have to wonder if he wasn’t his own worst enemy. Eisenhower once took Montgomery to visit the Gettysburg battlefield and looking at the spot Lee picked - directly across from Meade’s headquarters in the thick of the Union line - both marveled at why Lee would make such a poor choice. Lee was. A religious man and felt God would determine the victor.

I think subconsciously Lee felt the need to help God out from time to time snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
 
I'm going to keep this brief to avoid insulting anyone, or getting into an endless debate, but when I heard they removed General Lee's statue this morning I was torn between being happy or angry. I won't go into the reasons but I will say that if they want a place to store the statue they can set it in my front yard.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top