Eisenhower letter on Robert E. Lee

[Truckman]

I've said it many times. The worst mistake you can make in the study of history is to judge it by the standards of today.

The future is forged on the anvil of history...The interpreter of history wields the hammer... - Unknown author......Ben

 

[03hemi]

I wish I could write like Ike.

Rusty, I've seen some of your post, don't be so hard on yourself?
We all do. lol bawhahahahaha

 

[BB57]

Since a few hundred thousand US soldiers died back then fighting the army commanded by Robert E. Lee, it’s hard to make any case that seeing him as an enemy of the United States is “judging him by the standards of today”.

FWIW I agree with you. He violated his oath as an officer.

That oath was adopted in 1789 and had two parts:

"I,_____, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) that I will support the constitution of the United States."

The second part read:

"I,_____, do solemnly swear or affirm (as the case may be) to bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and to serve them honestly and faithfully, against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and to observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States of America, and the orders of the officers appointed over me."


That would have been the oath Lee took when he entered the US Army in 1829.

In 1830 the oath was changed to this:

I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

I’m not aware of whether serving officers were required to swear the new oath or not.

With 32 years of service in the US Army when he left to join the confederate army, Lee clearly violated his oath. I could have accepted Lee resigning and refusing to fight against Virginia or refusing a senior command on the grounds that he would not raise a hand against his home state.

But that is not a route he chose. Instead he chose to fight against a nation he swore to defend, citing loyalty to his home state of Virginia. None of that suggests Lee made the correct decision.

Lee had a bad habit of not wanting to offend or disagree with others, and while that probably made him a beloved general, it is none the less not a desirable trait in a senior officer. Lee often didn’t act like one.

It’s true that a large number of serving officers and enlisted men left the Union army to fight for the confederacy, but as you point out few senior officers made the same choice. Not to get political, but we did see a similar split in senior versus junior officer positions around the most recent peaceful transition in power. Senior officer after senior officer came out and made it clear the military had no role in the transition of power and would support the Constitution. Not all junior officers felt the same way. That wisdom and understanding of the bigger picture is a key difference between flag rank officers and junior officers. Lee seems to have lacked that wisdom or at least clarity about where his duty truly lay.

—-

To be fair his decision did reflect the controversy of the day that had festered since the Constitution had been ratified regarding to what extent the federal government held sway over states rights.

However that states rights argument needs to be tempered with the cold hard fact that the right in question was whether humans had a right to own other humans in chattel slavery.

——-


On the other hand, in the context of the time, Lincoln believed in pardoning all those involved in order to bind the nation together, thinking that pardoning those responsible would cause them to be loyal to the Union.

It didn’t work that way. Instead, former confederates saw it as a justification that they had been fighting for a worthy cause. That mis perception led to both the discrimination in the Jim Crow era in the south and the rise of the “lost cause” myth that led to the numerous statutes that went up in the 1890s, and frankly still persists today.

Hanging the southern leadership as traitors and criminals who directly or indirectly caused the death of 600,000 Americans would have been harsh in the short term, but would have sent a clear message that probably would have prevented a great deal of the problems we have faced since.

 

[WCCPHD]

Col. Robert E. Lee resigned his commission from the Federal Army on April 20, 1861; therefore, he was no longer bound by his oath.

 

[BB57]

Col. Robert E. Lee resigned his commission from the Federal Army on April 20, 1861; therefore, he was no longer bound by his oath.

That’s a popular misconception.

I’ve taken the oath of office on three separate occasions. It *NEVER* expires. It’s an oath that binds you for life. You can’t conveniently resign to avoid violating it.

In that regard Lee became and irrevocably remained a traitor to the US government and the Constitution.

He could have been hung as a traitor, and enduring myths like the one you are promoting suggest that would have been a much wiser course of action.

___


Lee did what he felt was “honorable” by some slightly twisted inner reasoning and sense of honor to Virginia. I’ve tried to be fair and illuminate why he may have felt that way. But that isn’t apologizing for his actions or justifying them.

He chose Virginia and the confederacy over his country and violated his oath of office. That made him a traitor who could have been and probably should have been hung as a consequence of his freely taken decision to violate his oath.

 

[WCCPHD]

That’s a popular misconception.

I’ve taken the oath of office on three separate occasions. It *NEVER* expires. It’s an oath that binds you for life. You can’t conveniently resign to avoid violating it.

In that regard Lee became and irrevocably remained a traitor to the US government and the Constitution.

He could have been hung as a traitor, and enduring myths like the one you are promoting suggest that would have been a much wiser course of action.

___


Lee did what he felt was “honorable” by some slightly twisted inner reasoning and sense of honor to Virginia. I’ve tried to be fair and illuminate why he may have felt that way. But that isn’t apologizing for his actions or justifying them.

He chose Virginia and the confederacy over his country and violated his oath of office. That made him a traitor who could have been and probably should have been hung as a consequence of his freely taken decision to violate his oath.

Sir, I say with the utmost respect, you are wrong.

I have been a law enforcement officer for 43 years and have been sworn with four agencies, two local and two state. Once I resigned I had no authority to perform the duties of the office upon which I had entered with my oath. I had no responsibility to fulfill the duties of that office. I was no longer covered by the insurance/bond provided by those agencies and they were no longer responsible for my actions.

I have said my peace. My opinion will not change, obviously your opinion will not change so further discussion/debate is unproductive and, on my part, is over.


Have a nice day.

 

[crazyphil]

Most of 1955, the last year of my Air Force enlistment was spent at the National Security Agency, at that time in Arlington,Virginia. Our barracks were in Suitland, Maryland. Very close to the Suitland Parkway. Every now and then Ike's motorcaid would go roaring by either to or from Andrews Air Force Base. The president's limo at that time was a Chrysler Crown Imperial. We once spent most of a day waiting in Lafayette Park, across from the White House, to see Ike return.

 

[Sistema1927]

 

[CAJUNLAWYER]

With all due respect you did not have to add anything to that letter. Ike said in 10 words what you took 58 to say. In writing less is ususally better

 

[Puller]

What some people miss today that was different before the Civil War was the concept of being an American. Before the war, the United States was made up of a number of united individual states. People were mostly referred to by the state they were from, i.e., Virginians, Tennesseans, Illinoisans, New Yorkers, etc. Most, especially those from the antebellum south were indeed more loyal to their state.

It was after the war, won by the North in part to preserve the Union, that it became more common for Americans to refer to themselves as Americans. There was even some concern at the outset of the Spanish-American War some 30 years later if southerners who served would refer to themselves as Americans, but they did.

All I'm saying is I agree you can't judge the motives of those living in the times over a hundred years ago by the standards of today.

 

[Muss Muggins]

That’s a popular misconception.

I’ve taken the oath of office on three separate occasions. It *NEVER* expires. It’s an oath that binds you for life. You can’t conveniently resign to avoid violating it.

Why do military personnel take it again when they re-enlist? And why did you have to take it three times?

Edit: Why does the President take when re-elected? Or any other public office holder?

 

[ameridaddy]

I remember touring the White House with my Cub Scout Den and when we got to the East Room, there were a bunch of other Cub Scouts there too from I don't know where. After milling around for a bit, President Eisenhower popped in and said a few words. I don't remember what he said, but I do remember a smiling man in a gray double breasted suit who was somehow very likeable. I've seen Johnson and Nixon at a distance (passing motorcade), but that's the closest I've ever been to a real live President of the USA.
Years later, in 1969, I had the honor of marching in Eisenhower's funeral procession in Washington DC. It was a suitable day for a funeral, gray, chilly and drizzly at times. Because Ike commanded NG troops on D-day and later on the drive to Germany, our group of Guardsmen representing them marched in combat gear under arms.
As to Lee's statue, I believe the powers that be want to be sure it never appears again, so in a bit of vindictiveness, they plan to cut it into pieces "for transport".
Uh huh. If a Cat D10 can be moved on a lowboy, so can that statue. There are statues of combatants of both sides all over Civil War battlefields all over the country, and I'd think that statue, a remarkable work of the sculptor and casters' art, could find a suitable home at one of them.

 

[59yukon01]

I'm one to let the past be the past and try and learn from it rather than erase history and hide our past.

Over the years I've done extensive Ancestry research and currently have over 15K people listed on our family tree.

Not that I've looked for it specifically, but from my findings I'll almost guarantee the vast majority of Americans have descendants that served on both sides during the Civil War whether you know it or not.

Point being is if you were born in the country you are an American regardless of race or ethnicity and it's time we all start acting like it and accept it.

This constant division using race for political gains should have been extinct by now as far as I'm concerned.

I can't help but think about a quote from Malcolm X as to whom he blames for that.

 

[Grayfox]

Every time the Civil War comes up on this board there's always a great deal of division among our members on the subject. And its generally divided North vs South.
You have your version of history and we have ours. So why don't we just let it go at that? Let's just agree to disagree and be done with it, shall we?
These threads always end up getting locked anyway. Mods, please do your thing before this gets worse and causes hard feelings among the good folks here.

 

[BB57]

Sir, I say with the utmost respect, you are wrong.

I have been a law enforcement officer for 43 years and have been sworn with four agencies, two local and two state. Once I resigned I had no authority to perform the duties of the office upon which I had entered with my oath. I had no responsibility to fulfill the duties of that office. I was no longer covered by the insurance/bond provided by those agencies and they were no longer responsible for my actions.

I have said my peace. My opinion will not change, obviously your opinion will not change so further discussion/debate is unproductive and, on my part, is over.


Have a nice day.

That’s a different oath. The oath taken by federal officers and military officers is to the Constitution and does not expire.

 

[BB57]

Why do military personnel take it again when they re-enlist? And why did you have to take it three times?

Edit: Why does the President take when re-elected? Or any other public office holder?

The oath for enlisted personnel is different and they take it each time they re enlist. Technically, the enlisted oath can’t legally be enforced once the term of enlistment expires. What the. binds a former enlisted soldier to that oath is just his honor - or lack of it.

For officers it’s traditional to repeat the oath upon promotion, but it is not required once that oath has been taken once, and it does not have an expiration date. The same tradition is true for the president, senators and congressman upon reelection.

It’s also the norm in federal service to recite the oath of office for each new position, regardless of whether you have taken the oath before. In that case it is both tradition and checking a box on the personnel form to ensure the incumbent in the position has in fact taken the oath of office, and repeating it is a lot easier, faster and more efficient than reviewing a personnel file to verify the oath was taken

 

[Rustyt1953]

Every time the Civil War comes up on this board there's always a great deal of division among our members on the subject.

Many times I have read that the war is over. Long over.

Documents signed...promises made...gifts exchange...but there are those who won't accept that it is over and some even wish to rekindle it.

And, in every previous thread about this subject, folks even argue and take offense as to what to call the conflict.

In a past life I got a glimpse of the elephant. I don't relish seeing it again.

As a great man one said: "Remember, I'm pulling for ya. We're all in this together!"

Gunga Galunga ✌

 

[ladder13]

As I tell all my Yankee brethren from up north.
Why did you move here, and do you know I95, I75 and all the other odd numbered interstates go northbound? Now, if living in the south with its blemishes bothers you, GO HOME.

 

[Absalom]

Every time the Civil War comes up on this board there's always a great deal of division among our members on the subject. And its generally divided North vs South.
You have your version of history and we have ours. So why don't we just let it go at that? Let's just agree to disagree and be done with it, shall we?

As Daniel P. Moynihan famously said, much quoted and often misattributed to Reagan, everybody is entitled to their opinion, but not their own facts.

And specifically regarding saintly Robert E. Lee, many facts as they were pretty successfully created by Southern historians, and generally accepted by the nation over a century, are increasingly shown to not be factual after all.

That will cause, and indeed make unavoidable, continued debate.

Unfortunately, all too many people see this as an attack on their dearly held cultural identity, rather than just re-examining historical evidence.

But discomfort with disagreement, and having beliefs questioned, is certainly no reason to avoid such discussions. It may actually make them more fruitful, even if no agreement emerges.

 

[Jellybean]

One of my favorite quotes is from Napoleon Bonaparte and goes loosely, "The victors of wars are the ones that write it's history." Go to a public school and sit in on a history class that you lived through and you will see what he meant.

The real shame of General Lee's statue being removed is that slavery, nor anything else that happened in the 1800's, has nothing to do with the reason. After they are done with the Confederates they are going to remove the Union statues as well. The "Yankees" or "Rebels" are no longer the enemy and both sides of the argument need to understand who the real enemy is or history will certainly repeat itself...but not necessarily "our" history.