General Stanley McChrystal explains why he changed his mind about Robert E. Lee
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 лип 2020
- This clip comes from a Jan. 2019 program featuring General Stanley McChrystal. His new book, Leaders, Myth and Reality, four-star general and former commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal, profiles 13 of history’s greatest leaders, including Martin Luther King Jr., Harriet Tubman, and McChrystal’s former hero Robert E. Lee, to show that leadership is not what you think it is-and never was. Jeffrey Rosen, President and CEO of the National Constitution Center, moderated.
Check out the full America’s Town Hall program, General Stanley McChrystal: History’s Greatest Leaders, here: • General Stanley McChry...
Register for upcoming programs: constitutioncenter.org/debate
Visit our media library to discover more online classes, podcasts, and Town Hall conversations: constitutioncenter.org/intera...
Subscribe to the National Constitution Center on UA-cam: ua-cam.com/users/Constitu...
Follow the National Constitution Center on social media!
Facebook: / constitutionctr
Twitter: / constitutionctr
Instagram: / constitutionctr
Sign up for our newsletter: visitor.r20.constantcontact.c... - Розваги
You gave in to the Woke people shame on you
This was very helpful for me to understand why people held General Lee in high regard.
Before the Civil War These United States , the United States came after the Civil War,New England threatened to seceed years before so most people thought the Union was volunteerly held together.We were a Nation of Nations.Most people sided with their states as Robert E Lee did for the same reason.As for Slavery we always hear about what Southern politicians say about Slavery but we never hear that Grants wife owned 4 slaves until 1864 when the last one ran off while she was in Kentucky. We never hear about what Lincoln said about Blacks in the debates with Douglas. Or the Jim Crow North.I personaly would not want to own a slave the only ancestor I have that did if my cousin's genealogy is correct was a GG Grandfather that owned 1 and he fought for the Union and died in Andersonville.My Confederate ancestors did not own slaves...Most of the people that knew Robert E Lee respected him.President Eisenhower had a picture of Robert E Lee in his office was questioned about and gave a Great response......God bless Robert E Lee. A Great American
And do YOU know what LEE said about New England's threat to secede (commonly called the Hartford Convention)? He called it treason.
"In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?" - Robert E. Lee
And do YOU know how many people supported the Hartford Convention? Enough that the political party that pushed it collapsed shortly thereafter. By which I mean, not very many.
If someone came to my house and was offended because I have a picture of Robert e Lee on the wall I would say there's the door, don't slam it on the way out
You idolize a traitor to the US? Perhaps, you should pack your bags and GTFO. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
@@backcountrynomad5109 ROFL. No. They were not traitors. Eisenhower was once asked about that and he pointed out that secession was not illegal in 1861 so to say that they were traitors is incorrect. Even Grant said that he never doubted the sincerity of those that fought against the union. General Pershing eulogized both Jackson and Lee and frequently visited their tombs and called them some of the greatest Americans to ever live. Now, unless you think yourself more knowledgeable then Grant, Pershing, or Eisenhower....
Its not that hard to understand but maybe it is for you. Lee had taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He did not take an oath to be a slave of the federal government. If the federal government were to violate the Constitution and he did nothing then that would be breaking his oath. If he had stayed in the union and then did not oppose the trials of civilians in military courts or the mass arrest of political dissidents or the deportation of a sitting US congressman for his speech then that would be treason as the Constitution expressly prohibits such actions and his oath was to the Constitution not the the federal government.
@@thefreeman8791 Article 3, Section 3 (US Constitution) Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort.
Traitor (Merriam - Webster) : one who commits treason
Traitor (Oxford Language) : a person who betrays a friend, COUNTRY, principle, etc.
The only thing that saved Lee, Jefferson Davis, and other traitors in the confederacy, was the desire of the nation for reconciliation.
@@thefreeman8791 When the confederacy formed what had the fed govt done that violated the Constitution? SC left immediately after Lincoln's election, before he had taken office. One can't claim Lee was fighting back against fed govt wrongs when the only change was Lincoln.
The South became traitors due to fear not substantive central govt actions. Lee himself wrote "I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. . . and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation." He chose honor NOT allegiance to the Constitution---an honor to a state, an honor that outranked any devotion he once had to constitutional ideals.
@@backcountrynomad5109 Tell me where secession was banned in the Constitution at that time. Abraham Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus, had the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrested, had a sitting Ohio Congressman exiled, closed 300 Northern newspapers, held Representatives of Maryland jailed so they could not vote to secede, illegally raised war funds and brought war against States, the very definition of Treason. Then your blessed Constitution was perverted by the radical Republicans who unseated and removed State Delegations in the South and removed a New Jersey Senator to pass the Resolution number 48, which allowed the 14th Amendment to go to the States for ratification(In violation of Article V). When it was not passed, the republican filth replaced the duly elected Governments in Southern States with Military Governments and threatened citizens with property seizure if the Amendment was not ratified. In spite of this they had to change the 2/3 of registered voters to actual voters to ratify the Amendment despite having purged the roles of White males. They held 9 million people under a Bill of Attainder in violation of the 5th Amendment as procedural due process was violated. You just got an "F" in Con Law and History simultaneously, a Herculean feat of Idiocy.
I appreciate General McChrystal's thoughtful reappraisal of General Robert E. Lee. He left out one major aspect of Lee's life: the five years Marse Robert lived after the Civil War, when the former general was serving as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University). By this time, Lee had become embittered of his military career, calling it the biggest mistake of his life. In his postbellum career, he tried to bring North and South back together, urging his fellow vanquished Confederates to "make your sons Americans." Was his secession from the Union and his implied support of slavery wrong? Unquestionably. Did he try to rectify his error after the war? Yes. In judging Lee and other Confederates, we need to keep in mind a principle first stated in Ezekiel 18:21, "But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed, if he keeps all my (God's) statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live."
Religious nonsense.
I appreciate your post, but it's a case of too little too late.
Very good comment.
It was General Longstreet who tried to reconcile the South to the end of slavery and the equality of all Americans regardless of their former condition of servitude.
No General Mcrystal, you are wrong General Lee made the only decision that his honor would allow, rather you agree with it or not. He made the decision to defend his homeland as his duty called. Please don't be political on this and accept the fact that General Lee was simply one of the greatest field commander in US History, up there with General Patton and others!
Well, Pickett's charge was a pretty serious error and even Pickett knew it would fail, yet Lee persisted.
It was not the only decision he could make to defend his honor. George Thomas, also from Virginia, defended his honor by not betraying the oath he made to the U.S.. When he graduated from West Point Lee did not take an oath to defend Virginia but he did take an oath to defend the U.S. against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. The same oath that George Thomas took and upheld.
Whether fair or not, you are often remembered for the last bad thing you do.
That's true. Most of us would really not like to be known for the worst thing we did.
General Lee was a great man!
Except for the part where Lee killed thousands and thousands of real Americans who fought for the Union.
He was given an opportunity to lead the Union Army, but declined it in order to lead the Confederate traitors. His conduct has ultimately left a scar upon this nation that may never be fully healed. For what that has done to the lives of my ancestors, I can never fully forgive. Not that it matters to history, but I do appreciate Gen. McChystal for explaining so eloquently his feelings on the matter. Perhaps we all can one day put aside the pain and bitterness of that awful chapter in our nation's history. May God bless our United States.
The retired General certainly knows his history. I appreciate how he spoke of General Lee. He is correct in his analysis that General Lee was a human being. General McChrystal spent his life defending what he thought was right. Maybe someday, someone will throw his picture in the trash.
If so, it won't bother McChrystal one iota.
@@manilajohn0182 It wouldn't have bothered Lee to have his thrown in the trash either. He himself was adverse to the idea of memorializing the Civil War... ""I think it well, moreover, not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife and to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered."
Good comment.
@VCR Time Machine Lee never encouraged his fellow southerners to keep using symbols of division, such as the confederate battle flag, but rather the opposite. He believed that the outcome of the war was God's will, and that people should put the war behind them, and move on with their lives.
That's a very peculiar and foolish take -- as if those remaking the South's memorialization are not the ones keeping open the sores of war. @@TheVCRTimeMachine
Contrast Lee with my favorite General from Virginia George Thomas. Thomas stayed loyal to the Union at great personal cost, (his sisters never spoke to him again). Also Thomas was one of the best generals of the Civil War. He never lost a battle and he is the only Civil War general that destroyed an opposing army in battle when he crushed the Confederate Army of the Tennessee in the 2 day battle of Nashville, (Dec. 15 + 16, 1864). Because Thomas died in 1870 and because Grant, Sherman, and Sheridan always belittled his contributions to the victory of the Union he has never been given the credit that he deserved. If the citizens of Virginia want to honor a loyal son of their state perhaps they should place a statue of George Thomas in Richmond.
Thomas was a great soldier. Did he lose a battle? He lost at Chickamauga, but he still made a good showing there. Bragg could have chased the yankees out of Chattanooga after Chickamauga, but he decided to sleep instead. In retrospect, Bragg was the best general the yankees had.
@@butchyboy69 I think his point was that he never lost a battle that he personally commanded. He was not in overall command at Chickamauga and had to try to salvage a situation caused by his superior.
It’s a shame Thomas and Grant had such a petty disagreement. They were both great generals and men integral to Union victory.
An excellent point.
Thomas didn’t help himself by burning his letters and not writing a personal memoir.
Thomas was a great general and should be remembered as such but the antipathy Grant had for him was earned. Thomas came very close to being relieved at Nashville by Grant for not following his orders. In fact Grant did order Thomas to be relieved from command but Thomas had, at that time, finally had moved and defeated Hood at Nashville. To be fair to Thomas Grant was not fully informed as to conditions on the ground at Nashville.
Grants major concern was that if hood had by-passed Thomas to invade Kentucky and Ohio that it would cause serious damage to his war strategy.
Also, keep in mind that twice Grant would have ended the war earlier had not two of his generals, Meade and Kirby Smith, had not followed his orders, once when the Army of the Potomac stole a march on Lee when it crossed the James River. Had Meade followed up with an immediate attack on Richmond the war would have ended there as Lee’s army was not in place to defend Richmond. Meade did not follow up on his orders, gave his men a days rest and completely lost the initiative as Lee’s Army had arrived.
The same thing happened at Petersburg where when Kirby Smith had advanced to Petersburg instead of immediately attacking as he had been ordered to do he also delayed a day to give his tired men a rest before assaulting Petersburg. Petersburg was lightly defended and had Smith had attacked as ordered he would have cart Petersburg and the war would have ended. He didn’t and thanks to Beauregard the ANV was able to get troops to defend Petersburg which resulted in the siege. Grant promptly relieved Kirby Smith of command and Smith was no mean general.
Then keep in mind the military disasters the Union forces suffered under the commands of generals with the slows, such as, McClelland and Rosecrans.
So it’s understandable why Grant was extremely angry with Thomas for taking his time to attack Hood and the army of the Tennessee as Thomas had nearly double the manpower Hood had.
So from Grants point of view it was very understandable why he was so upset with Thomas as though Thomas did indeed prevail against Hood to many other Union Generals who had behaved similarly to Thomas had failed spectacularly.
So though Thomas had won a great victory his methods had he not succeeded could have undermined Grants grand strategy and Grant was not happy with Thomas.
Thus Grant held a significant animosity towards Thomas. The fact is, if Thomas waited one more day to attack Hood he would have been relieved as Grant had left the Peninsula and was traveling to Nashville to take personal command at Nashville but had only made it to Washington when Thomas finally attacked and routed Hood. Grant then returned to the Peninsula campaign but there was no love lost towards Thomas.
who cares what people think. never turn your back on your home
make confederates scared again
@@Armed-Forever try it
@@Armed-Forever oh I'm sorry did you delete your comment because I responded you coward
@@madeinAmericasince-rz9cp no this is my 2nd reply, any idea why u and ur ancestors hated black ppl so much ?
Wouldn't it have been better to use the picture to educate people who question it about his own views on history instead of simply throwing it out?
Don´t be dumb.
I agree
@@gabrielbarrenarodriguez8553 how is that dumb?
Agreed.
Not woke enough
I agree he was not the Marble Man, but also understand his decision-based on the Context of Thought of the day-to go with his State. He didn’t make that decision easily. As regards betraying his Oath…when he took that Oath, was he doing so for Life, or for the
Length of his service? Now, it is regarded as Lifetime. Then, not. When Lee resigned his commission, he was no longer bound by the Oath, per the thinking of those days.
I would also think in those days citizens had more of a state identity as I believe they had since the colonial days.
He picked his side from the heart of the south , that was all and he had to live with it
Stop with all the BS excuses. Lee and his relatives had been slave owners and he chose to fight for slavery instead of against it. I wonder why. Duh. That's why his statues will never be on gov property again. He's a fn war criminal when you get down to it.
Literally none of that is true. Oaths don't mean anything to anyone these days. Back then it was a sacred honor.
We're all human. We're all flawed. You play the hand you're dealt to the best of your ability and when all is said and done, some will love you and some won't.
Amen
We’re all flawed but we aren’t all traitors supporting the cause of slavery.
@@antonihardonk8970no but I bet you are a Democrat supporting taxing us into oblivion while spending us to death. Foreign aid is money laundering
I choose to honor great Americans by the things that they have done, not by what the current political climate says I must believe about them.
Yes. Honor Lincoln not Lee.
@@NoName-ml5ykExactly, Lee knowingly broke his oath to protect the U.S. against his enemies and became that enemy by taking up arms against the U.S. Lee is a traitor pure and simple.
Officer Oath 1790-1862:
"I, A.B., 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."
If Eisenhower thought that he was great,then who gives a damn what your opinion is of him. General Lee didn't want to fight against his beloved Virginia. That decision took a lot of courage and guts.
I think one mistake you make about Gen. Lee is that HISTORY was in a different climate than we know today - the States were often higher than the United Gov. in many ways. It's also like different accepting risk - historically life was more difficult AND risk acceptance was different, so the culture was different. People in Milw. would jump on a ship to Detroit and if the ship sunk they were not even known to be there. Culture was totally different historically, so the lens we see it through is very different.
You are exactly right, people look at people like REL through modern eyes and you just can't do that, there whole belief system was different to today and to judge a person based on modern thinking is just wrong. Also as per usual it's always brought back to slavery, it was part of it but it wasn't all of why the south left the union. And it wasn't actually illegal for the south to seceed that was dealt with after the war ended. I will always believe that Robert e Lee was the best of men
Actually, in 1860, the North and most of Western Civilization had outlawed slavery and recognized it as an evil, so the South was morally repugnant even by the standards of the time. I'm also amused when apologists for treason and slavery say "a person's country was their state!" while simultaneously claiming the North only wanted to preserve the Union. If a person's state meant more to them back then, how could Lincoln rally around "saving the Union"? 🤔🤔🤔
This is way back and the culture was very different, so many are seeing today's culture and looking back into a totally different culture without any depth in their understanding - it's not just one or two differences, but there are several. Nevertheless, it was a sad result to have to endure such a destructive war - people should have found a more peaceful way to evolve.
@@dennishassler605 I already addressed your lame "things were different back then" deflection, so I won't bother going over why you're wrong again. Yes, it's tragic; tragic that Southerners thought the "right" to enslave an entire race of people was something worth starting a war and nearly destroying the country over.
It's also tragic that the South undertook an Orwellian rewriting of history after the war which is still believed by people like yourself.
@@stevehalling816 I suppose the Southern states' declarations of secession where they explicitly stated they were seceding because of the threat Lincoln's election posed to slavery aren't valid sources? Secession was illegal, and even Bobby Lee said secession was "nothing but revolution." I'd give a source to that quote, but you people think facts which don't validate your feelings are irrelevant to any discussion. Just like I could quote James Madison rejecting the notion that a state could withdraw from the United States after it had ratified the Constitution......
Oh, and if Lee "couldn't draw his sword against Virginia," why was his first action in the war fighting Unionists in Western Virginia? 🤔🤔🤔
General McChrystal's analysis of Lee, McChrsytal being a flag officer and a West Point graduate, is markedly shallow, and flawed. In Douglas Southall Freeman's seminal, three volume, biography of Lee, he lists and describes the books that Lee checked-out of, and read, from the West Point library. William Rawle (an American with an impeccable record, who served as the first U.S. Attorney for his district after the ratification of the Constitution) published a book in 1825, titled "A View of the Constitution of the United States." This book was in the library at West Point and its subject matter was taught in classes on government there. Lee read this book. It describes a clear and cogent argument that the several States possessed the power and right to succeed from the national union. General Lee's position, that his duty was to his State, before the nation, was not radical or extreme, particularly considering his education and experience. Also, that McChrystal, and his wife, are more concerned about the opinions of others, than their own beliefs, condemns their character.
YES! I couldn’t have said it better myself. Instead of continuing to honor one of the most honorable men in our nations history they’ve chosen to appease the uneducated masses who would ignorantly brand someone a racist over a picture on the wall.
How clever you are, you imply that Rawle's book on the US Constitution was about state's right to secede when in fact that section covers half a page of the 349 page book, and there is no evidence that the half page was ever included in any curriculum at West Point. But you keep on living your best life.
Lee may have read that book, but he certainly didn't agree with it. Here's what he had to say about secession in early 1861:
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
give it a rest Klansman
General Stanley McChrystal changed his mind about Robert E. Lee because that is what it takes in the 21st century to stay relevant. The 21st century requires we turn our backs on our blood, our kin, and our greatest heroes. And what for? Some abstract notion of "democracy." McChrystal couldn't shine Robert's shoes.
How is Lee a hero? My oldest friend is black, so I’d really like to know so I can explain it to him.
Survival requires that we be honest about ourselves and our past. I'm assuming (correctly I'm sure) that when you say, 'blood, kin and greatest heroes' you're talking about the most noted and notable and ancestral figures from the defeated confederacy.
Why will you not accept that these heroes of yours, were attempting to establish a nation, literally identical to the union they just left, except for the ironclad protections to the institution of slavery written into its Constitution?? They wouldn't have those niggling free state representatives casting any unpopular votes, either.
I get it. You have to have something to cling to when everyone thinks you’re a piece of crap. Imagine the Germans and Japanese after WWII.
But you don’t need THEIR identity. You’re free to create an identity of your own.
Beautifully stated. Its a shame. Life is never simple. We are all complex human beings with complex stories.
Extremely well said. This guy abandoned something that was important to him for 40 years because he was scared of what "the mob" would think.
The carnage of the CW happened, it was terrible, it was tragic, it was bloody war but when it did come men had to choose sides. Lee would have killed thousands of kindred as a union general no doubt but he chose not to. He was not defending slavery, he said so himself. After the war he was a very sick man with grievous issues with his heart and general health and I believe not able to actively rectify the issues of slavery. He did however speak of reconciliation and healing of the national wounds. Sir, he was an honorable man caught up in the flow of history, who made honorable choices, and did his duty. His image you carried for many years did not deserve to be so unceremoniously thrown into the trash heap.
His army captured and enslaved every black person they came across in Maryland, both times during his invasions. Screw you.
He fought to maintain slavery. It was a horrible choice.
The maintenance and legal protection and continuance of slavery is written right there in the confederate constitution. Constitution. Slavery.
A man caught up in the flow of history, and made a choice to break sworn oaths and lead a fight for the breaking of the country, and the establishment of another nation.
So the impetus for this decision was inspired by the idea a random person may walk into my house and misunderstand me, therefore I should appease them and after the fact backwards rationalize this decision to make it sound more introspective
Yeah, apparently we should all appease the uneducated masses who jump to conclusions and brand people racists because they have the wrong picture on the wall.
You seem to be accusing him of lying about the decision making process he went through with his wife.
Amazingly he admired him, but come to this conclusion, when it’s convenient. He’s my uncle, 4x great that is, was an admirable man, with flaws and caught up with the times. Read where no one in the church would take communion in the church with a freed slave. He stepped up and did it. Many more accounts where he and his wife helped them get educated. Was he perfect? No, but he saw through the evils of slavery. I admire Malcolm x the same way. He saw through the evils of calling the white man a blue eyed devil. He changed and grew from what he’d experienced and was taught. Just my two cents. ✌🏼
I went to airborne school with a guy named Lee that was a West Pointer. It was in 1981.
It might be more than mere convenience. People can change the views they’ve clung to forever. I think that says something quite favorable about an individual.
Gen. Lee blew it at Gettysburg. The South never really recovered after that. Longstreet tried to convince him to take the high ground after that first day...Lee didn't listen.
I’m not sure what that has to do with the conversation but I’ll indulge you. He made mistakes for sure. His overly aggressive tactics at Malvern hill costed thousands of southern boys their lives. Jackson was partially responsible for that debacle too but still went down in history as one of the greatest commanders of the war. Over all, Lee’s record as a soldier and commander was second to none. His expertise in reconnaissance, engineering and organization helped him lead an outnumbered army with less weaponry, less food, less clothing and no pay to defeat the largest US army in history up to that point in every major battle of the east for two years. From the standpoint of a military commander it is an accomplishment worthy of great admiration. In reading the most comprehensive biography ever written about him (Douglas Southall Freeman’s “R. E. Lee”) it is also apparent he was a very honorable man who loved his family and homeland deeply. His sense of patriotism was far deeper I suppose than most people who live today and his accomplishments far greater. His picture definitely does not deserve to be thrown in the trash.
I did not hear McChrystal change his mind about Lee. He is of the same opinion about him still. All he did was get rid of a picture.
And he was a coward for that. He and Seidule can piss off
@@McNair39thNC AWWW butt hurt?
@@TheSellenhut no not at all.
His oath was to the Constitution, not the union.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Slavery was unconstitutional, Lee was a traitor, and what McChrystal seems to be doing here is promoting mindless adherence to American worship of propagandized figures. His comment on how "Lee was apolitical" is a perfect reminder of how dumb Americans are: deny reality, keep the delusion going. Love the defender of slavery by arguing that slavery and war have nothing to do with politics.
And Lee believed that the Constitution called for perpetual union and could only be legally dissolved by the People, not by individual states.
@@aaronfleming9426 No he didn't.
@@ConversationsThatMatterpodcast His words, not mine:
"The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?" - Robert E. Lee, letter to son Rooney, January, 1861
Lee echoes another famous Virginian, Patrick Henry, who argued against ratifying the Constitution precisely because he knew it meant the states were surrendering their sovereignty:
"Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation. It is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government. The question turns, sir, on that poor little thing - the expression, We, the people, instead of the states, of America.....Here is a resolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is radical in this transition; our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the states will be relinquished: and cannot we plainly see that this is actually the case?" - Patrick Henry, from the Virginia ratification debates
@@aaronfleming9426 very interesting. I did not know he said this. Do you know where the quote originated? More specifically who he was addressing?
Well said
Ty Seidule also arrived at similar conclusions regarding Lee after having been a lifelong admirer of the myth/legend, although perhaps a bit more critical of Lee's reputation as a great military leader.
You dont fight against you're own people. I'd rather suceed and die as a traitor then shed the blood of my minnesotan brothers. He was stuck in between a rock and a hard place. He fought a lost cause because he loved Virginia.
What about George Thomas? He was from Virginia and he stayed loyal to his oath to the U.S. and contributed greatly to the defeat of the rebellion.
@@ericdoberstein8872 What abou him?
He captures in his hand who Lee was and then let's it's drain through his fingers.
Dwight Eisenhower had a picture of General Lee in the Oval Office and had the spine and courage to explain why…pandering to the mob.
So slavery was okay, I guess.
@@LardGreystoke The war was not about slavery, Lincoln said so himself. The war was fought over state's rights, (in this case a state's right to leave the Union). The South Carolinians said that if a Republican was elected president they were going to leave the US and when Lincoln won (barely) they went. Then instead of negotiating with South Carolina to address the grievances that caused them to want to leave the US Lincoln decided to raise an Army to force South Carolina into submission. He sent letters to state governors demanding that they provide him with troops for his war against South Carolina and they told him to go pound sand. Faced with the prospect of having to provide soldiers to kill their fellow Americans several states including Virginia and North Carolina (where most citizens wanted to remain in the Union) ultimately voted to secede because they wanted no parts of Mr. Lincoln's war. Maryland probably would have seceded as well but Lincoln sent the Army into Maryland and had most members of the Maryland legislature arrested and thrown in jail so they couldn't vote. Virginia was a very rural state and after more than 250 years of inter marriages most people who lived in Tidewater Virginia before the Civil War were related by blood or by marriage and in some cases both. Lee knew that if Virginia voted to secede and he stayed in the US Army he would soon be fighting his own cousins and in-laws in battle. So when Virginia voted to secede he resigned his commission and left the US Army.
@@trevorn9381 Revisionist nonsense.
@@trevorn9381 Lost cause revisionism.
@@trevorn9381 "The war was not about slavery, Lincoln said so himself."
Not quite, but he did say _"One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute"_ (1861). But then again, is Lincoln equipped to say what the war was about? The US didn't fire first, the Confederacy did.
"The South Carolinians said that if a Republican was elected president they were going to leave the US and when Lincoln won (barely) they went"
Actually, they said _"The Union of the Constitution, was a union of slaveholding States. It rests on slavery, by prescribing a Representation in Congress for three-fifths of our slaves. There is nothing in the proceedings of the Convention which framed the Constitution, to shew, that the Southern States would have formed any other Union"_
"Then instead of negotiating with South Carolina to address the grievances that caused them to want to leave the US Lincoln decided to raise an Army"
Actually, the US offered the Corwin Amendment in 1861, which South Carolina ignored before they fired on Union territory to start the war.
"Lee knew that if Virginia voted to secede and he stayed in the US Army he would soon be fighting his own cousins and in-laws in battle"
So instead he fought for the continued subjugation of the 3.5 million African slaves in Confederate territory.
What he did he did out of a sense of honor and duty. Even after the war he stated that even if he knew the result he would make all the same decisions again because his duty was to Virginia. Anyone calling him a traitor clearly doesn’t understand what that word means and doesn’t understand that time period in American history. Most people shitting all over Lee’s memory aren’t worthy of walking on the ground he walked on. They have no idea the kind of man he was. Honorable, moral, ethical, loving, devoted, brave, courageous, steadfast, just, fair, humble……. All words I would use to describe his character.
And he was pro-slavery. How ethical of him.
@@Ares99999 Typically arrogant comment from an ignorant person who thinks they have the right to judge everyone from 150 years in the future and has no ability to put history into context.
Actually, Lee knew that secession was treason.
"In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?" - Robert E. Lee
Like the patriots of 1775, he knew he was a rebel. Unlike the patriots of 1775, he had a pretty lousy cause to fight for.
@@aaronfleming9426 I don’t think the patriots of 1775 had a very good reason to plunge the whole continent into war. When you get right down to it, the aristocracy of the colonies didn’t like their pocket books getting messed with by the king’s taxes and tariffs. The British crown was hemorrhaging money trying to protect the colonies from the many threats they faced. The taxes and tariffs were actually necessary to an extent. Either way, it wasn’t a very good reason to take up arms. Ultimately it was a rich man’s war fought by poor men just like most wars.
The civil war was very similar. The aristocracy of the south didn’t like the prospect of losing their wealth by losing their slaves so they fought tooth and nail against it for decades until they finally seceded. It wasn’t a good reason but that doesn’t take away from the honorable men who did their duty and fought to defend their country, their homes, their communities from the northern invasion. If Lee was a traitor then so was every so called patriot that we call founding fathers.
@@davidkomyate8014 I think plunging the whole continent into war is stretching it a bit, but I get your point. And yes, generally speaking war does work out to be rich man's political squabble, poor man's blood. Canada managed to get its independence without bloodshed, and it seems like a pretty nice country.
But like I said, the rebels of 1775 knew and admitted that they were rebelling against the established order. They thought - and almost everyone else in the world thinks too - that they had a more noble cause than the rebels of 1861. The rebels in 1775 didn't have representation in parliament; the rebels in 1861 were actually over represented in Congress. The American Revolution moved (imperfectly) toward freedom and representative government; the rebellion of 1861 was regressive.
Maybe poor men would be less eager to fight in rich men's war if we stopped repeating the rich men's propaganda and lavishing "honor" on the poor saps who bought the propaganda and got killed or maimed for their trouble.
Why didn’t u use the picture as a conversation piece like u just did instead of throwing in the trash a great leader
He must be availed
Lee was an incredibly honorable man, except in the one moment of his life where it actually mattered.
I believe R.E. Lee decided to be loyal to Virginia in order to atone for the faults of Light Horse Harry. If Lee had accepted Lincoln's offer to command U.S. troops then his family would have been forever disgraced and despised in Virginia and throughout the South. I can't imagine having to resolve such a dilemma. He still deserves our honor and respect.
Why does he deserve it?
@@Ares99999 Shortly after the end of the war, while at Sunday worship, a black man went up first for Communion, when the custom had been for them to wait until all the whites received first. Nobody joined him at the communion rail except for Lee. He was a man of honor and grace. His father, Henry "Light Horse Harry" Lee had been somewhat disreputable after the American Revolution and Robert E. was left to salvage what he could of the family name. If he had taken supreme command of US troops against Virginia what could the Lees have done then? He had more than himself to consider. Thanks for asking.
@@timothymooney4466 That's quite kind of Lee, but he also led an army whose overarching political goal was to ensure that same black man would never be free, and he lost. That story only exists because better men beat Lee in the field of battle.
@@Ben00000 Not necessarily true. The Confederacy was at a distinct disadvantage in myriad ways. Why should there have been the siege at Petersburg if the Union leadership was so much better? In any case, Lee was not in favor of slavery and knew that it would take a catastrophic occurrence for it to be abolished. He may be faulted for being loyal to Virginia first, but as I wrote earlier, he had to consider more than himself. How would his siblings and children be treated if he'd stayed in the U.S. Army? The South wouldn't have stood a chance without him and the Lee name would have been reviled. I repeat, I wouldn't want to have been in his shoes!
@@timothymooney4466 How would the 3.5 million black people be treated if he didn't lose? He wasn't not-in-favor of slavery enough to choose those souls over his love of a state that saw black people as subhuman. He owned slaves and by accounts was vicious to them. We can't overlook what he fought for merely because he took defeat with relative grace.
General, you are incorrect.you may want to finish reading the story of his life. You may want to read his view about slavery. Remember, slavery was still a large part of the north long after the civil war was over.
What was his view on slavery? Lee's, that is.
Every northern state emancipated and outlawed slavery within twenty years of Independence. Most much sooner. The Constitution of the Confederacy mimicked the US Constitution except for stating the right of human bondage, i.e., slavery. Easy enough to look up and verify.
States had much greater weight during the Civil War. Lee thought of himself as a Virginian first, American second. We shouldn't judge him with today's standards.
Many people made other choices then.
And that’s true today as well.
The idea that one' loyalty is to one's government is expected of military leaders. Generals are remembered for how effective they were at executing orders, not at how effective they were at questioning them. In Lee's view, the secession was legal and his loyalty to his new government thus demanded he fight for it. Lee may have had many flaws, but trying to make this the foremost among this is rather disingenuous. Especially coming from a man who has probably never refused an order himself.
Many speak of the context of his decision. By then, abolition was not a fringe theory, and it is the reason for the war. He and his confederates killed to preserve the abomination of slavery. That he did the wrong thing in the right way when he had the choice is no excuse. The question of slavery had already been solved by many major nations by then.
Lee was very courageous with other peoples lives
He wouldn’t fight his family. Would you????
George Thomas a Virginian who stayed loyal to the Union didn't fight his family but his sisters never talked to him again. Also many families did split and fought on separate sides.
To thine own self be true.
He removed it, but I bet he did not throw it away.
this is an interesting discussion by GEN McCrystal. But, it is my understanding that the oath Lee took as a cadet in the 1830s was different than the one McCrystal took at USMA in the 70s or 80s. I also note that moral heroes such as Eisenhower and Churchill, while opposed to slavery and secession, admired and honored Lee. So, it would have been interesting tom hear GEN McCrystal discuss this.
The is America, and we all have a right to our opinion and to speak that opinion. I do not share his.
Should his stature be removed and his name removed from buildings, roads, and schools?
IT sounds like you jumped on the bandwagon of public sentimate, rather than basing your ideas on the actual history of the events..
that is what weasels do
Throwing a picture away because your worried about what people think?Wow
Thinking of others' feelings. What a concept. Must be a New Testament type of man...
Just to clarify , a person makes decisions about what they think is right or wrong, not based on what other people may think about it, unfortunately, when you take a stance on an issue, someone will be offended
A) Lee was not going to fight or support a fight against his family, friends and neighbors.
B) When you allow mob rule to dictate your actions, you have given in to their ideals rather than defend your own.
Lee had no choice, McChrystal did.
I am glad that I saw this. Helpful.
History is complicated and judgement is complicated. Just let it be what it was...the evolution and progress of the human race.
His wife got him whipped
General Eisenhower would disagree.
Find it interesting the people who denounce various confederate leaders as traitors, etc. By that same metric and logic one should also denounce Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, etc. as traitors to their nation of Britain.
Yes. Washington et. al knew they were traitors. That's why Franklin quipped, "We must all hang together, or we shall all hang separately."
Lee also knew secession was treason. That's why he wrote to his son Rooney saying, "In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
The difference is in their causes. The patriots of 1776 said, "It's unjust that Britain taxes us when they give us no representation in the parliament which rules us; therefore we are founding a radically different nation where we can vote for our own representatives and no one has hereditary power."
In 1861, the secessionists said, "We're angry because we lost an election to someone who's anti-slavery; therefore we are starting an almost identical nation, except in the new one we'll never have to worry about those darn abolitionists spoiling our fun."
@aaronfleming9426 then I'd say people should denounce their perceived cause and not the action of treason itself.
@@tristaneuritt9556 I think you have a point there! Realistically speaking, we are pretty quick to cheer for rebels when we like their cause. Who doesn't like an underdog?
But when you rebel to protect the interests of a slave-owning aristocracy, that's not very cool.
And they owned slaves so are not worthy of admiration any longer. Such a shame, because our nation was so lucky to have them, “flawed” as they may have been!
BOOM!
Lee broke his oath and took up arms as an enemy to the very country his oath committed him to protect. He voluntarily took the oath and the oath says nothing about his home state of Virginia. Lee is a traitor pure and simple.
The oath he broke was in use from 1790-1862: "I, A.B., 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."
This whole discussion seems a bit condescending and childish, especially since most other Virginians in Lee's situation made the same choice. When I was teaching at John Jay College I had a big poster of Geronimo hung up in the office I was using, but this was not intended to convey the idea that I approved of raids on Mexican villages, torturing captives, etc. -- or even that I was a particularly tough grader. President Eisenhower kept a portrait of Lee on his wall, but I don't think Mamie gave him any guff about it.
That’s the most honest answer I’ve heard about the totality of Lee
Disagree. Lee was great, and this speaker buckled under political correctness.
@@jackremington3397 How is he wrong about Robert E Lee fighting for the side who tried to destroy America and preserve the institution of slavery? That's objectively true
Brad Pitt did a fantastic portrayal of this general. He will not be remembered as one of history's great leaders. Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.
Rommel was a brilliant soldier. Unfortunately, he fought on the wrong side. There are actions that can’t be forgiven and are dangerous if forgotten. There’s a woman in the House who believes a state can leave the Union whenever it wants. This speaks of the low caliber of intellect presently running part of the Gov. We are in crisis because far too many Americans don’t know how our government works. We live in a tech society, it scares people who are not educationally agile. It’s what drives bigotry even if the fear really economical.
Many of our present divisions would wane if we
Teach Civics. And teach people how to read V properly. We don’t read a newspaper the same way we read a mystery or a math text. We also need to teach speed reading which trains the eye muscles. Our world is smaller, the days are shorter, and the need to read has quadrupled. We need train people to manage complexity.
What incredible self-righteous hypocrisy of the sad bigotry that would tar and feather and cancel Lee. Lee had zero demerits, not McChrystal, and yet this gives the right to sit in judgment!? The delusion of that position is sadly self-refuting and if honest we'd not demand Lee live up to a standard we ourselves don't meet. I've not encountered a Lee critic for whom this wasn't the same sad case: failing to be better than he whom they judge and pretending it's not hypocrisy! I grant slavery was a great evil for which God clearly judged the South as He did Miriam in Numbers 12 (incredible the South had this terrible judgment of God of leprosy against them in their Bibles but ignored it), but the Union was no less guilty of treating their slaves, the old story of if I point one finger at another there are three pointing back at me, and, worse, the biggest finger pointing up to God to call down his judgment on ME. None of the few who seriously address the issue avoid the serious issue of states rights shredded by an authoritarian central government that shredded the Constitution it vainly claimed to defend, with its few and enumerated rights versus the many and unnumbered rights for the states. This is not to ignore slavery but to realize the complexity of the issue that most blindly refuse, whatever the position.
Many "blacks" are moving back to the South from the North because they're treated better there, and the supposedly horribly "racist," pro-slavery South is now staunchly pro-life while the supposedly nobler anti-slavery North is ow staunchly pro-abortion (never pro-"choice" since the only "choice" must be abortion, never adoption or birth where PP loses $). The pro-abortion position vainly pretends to empower women but they must do what their PP slave-owner decrees, just like with slavery.
you would think someone with his supposedly superior education would understand at the time people were devoutly loyal to their states, the civil war was about states rights, the "states right" to maintain slaves and the "states right" to govern with a degree of autonomy from the federal government. It wasn't 20 years prior to the civil war Texas was its own republic. "Remember the The Alamo!" was for Texas Independence. McChrystal basically caved to his wife (who believed the lies from the media about Charlottesville) and turned his back on his heritage. He is or was just another politicized flag officer and why the military is becoming impotent.
George H. Thomas disagrees with you.
He was a traitor plain and simple. No better than any other person who decides that maintaining slavery was more important than his country.
Through it away!!!! You might as well pissed on his grave . Could have put it away or in a album.
Hate to tell you, but the oath you take is to the Constitution, not the Federal government. Lincoln did not have the constitutional authority to call out troops, and did Congress, since the southern states were no longer represented? McChrystal is playing politics.
Jeffrey Rose, sweetie, you need some longer socks.
I think this is a perfect explanation as to why most people, not the white supremist kind, admire Lee. But like many of us, Lee was a flawed man indeed. McChrystal is 100%. I can listen to him all day, everyday.!
supremist?
Stanley McChrystal could not be more wrong about what the South was fighting for. Not Slavery. Independence! Economic freedom from the general government in Washington D.C. . Stanley needs to listen to a Brion McClanahan podcast, take some of his courses and listen to Abbeville Institute podcasts. Lincoln’s war of 1860 was to prevent southern states their independence.
The only difference between George Washington and Robert E. Lee is that Washington won his war and Lee lost his.
@@trevorn9381 The other difference is the country Lee fought to establish had already written ironclad protections to the institution of slavery into its Constitution; something many of the south's leading politicians called 'a mistake' in the original Constitution. The original one they were currently at war against. The Constitution that all West Point graduates swear an oath to defend, until their state says no, apparently.
Secessionists' Declarations of Clauses: It's all about slavery!
Modern Confederate Fanboys: It wasn't at all about slavery!
Agreed. Everyone wants to leave out Lincolns own words. Before the war ever started, he offered to leave slavery intact (Permanently) if the south would turn away from the thought of succession. If it was only about slavery, simple. But it was about so much more. They also leave out Lincolns own words and plan to deport all Slaves to Liberia in multiple stages. Its chilling to read his words. I wonder how many folks would literally be floored if they would simply read some of these historical documents.
Wrong. Re-read History and not HIStory. Look up the Confederate Constitution. It lays why they formed the Confederacy.
I bet you miss that picture now..
It's funny how the audience just went quiet after he said he threw it in the trash. Lol
This is a very remarkable character flaw that shows itself in both Mc Chrystal and his wife as well. You admire and stand for something you truly believe in, like the spirit of Gen. R.E. Lee only to toss your principled feelings and position, literally in the trash, because you fold to the erroneous beliefs of others and are only concerned with what others think, rather than standing up for principals you believed in all your life and defending them to those who are ignorant and need education. Shame on you McChrystal, this shows you are truly no man of principal at all and can be bought like a cheap 5.00 cigar. You are a shining example of the dead military leadership we have today among the flag ranking officers. We used to say the two most worthless officer ranks in the military were both gold insignias, second lieutenants and majors. Today it is more accurate to say the most worthless ranks are those that wear any number of stars on their collars. God help our military, a ship with no rudder.
It was his own choice to throw it in the trash, which decision he eloquently defended in the video you just failed to understand.
@@LardGreystoke I understood everything actually, he showed his true colors as a man with no conviction and no backbone. He bends like jelly and moves in the direction that the wind is blowing at the moment. No integrity and no leader. That is probably part of the reason he was dumped and striped of his command, forced to resign from the Army by Obama no less. The guy is worthless and not worthy of comment, really.
Barf... Long live the glorious memory of RE Lee.
The General made a decision based on what others may think.
Did he not say Lee broke his oath and tried to destroy America? Some ppl are capable of doing things for multiple reasons.
@@JT_314_MO 😄
Good point
He is a four-star General..but in the General's house, she's the five-star General...
The general made a decision based on his understanding that leaders have influence, and everything they say and do has power. He saw Lee as being flawed enough that he didn't want to influence other people to admire Lee.
Worshiping at the altar of political correctness.
Nonsense.
Reconstruction was a terrible terrible time for the south. He was right to oppose it . And this kind of virtue signaling is sad .
In what way was it terrible? They got slavery back didn't they? They called it something else, but Jim Crow was slavery, it's that simple. They created a ferocious racist society that even Hitler admired, right?
Deluded. He was a traitor and you are a supporter of apartheid human rights violations
🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎🍎!!!!!!!!!!!
Now this is good 'woke'.
Sir, you folded.
Robert E Lee folded by joining the traitors wanting slavery.
Sounds as if he saw the light. With a little nudge from his wife.
He's a historical figure - just stop there....heroes...villains...not worth the effort in 2024...
of course by the standard of a historical figure - his statues should stay - but we all know it won't be that easy.
He may have stars on his shoulder but, at the end of the day, we all know who wears the pants in that house.
Les chaussettes on en parle?
The South left the union by the same legal process by which it entered. That wasn't good enough for the yankees who then attacked the Confederate states. The South was wealthy and elected many of its sons to the US presidency. The yankees resented the southern wealth and influence, and wanted to subjugate the South and tax it , of course. When South Carolina seized the US Customs House in Charleston, that hit Sam in his back pocket, and that is the reason for the war.
Slavery was a cause, but it was not the big one. Lincoln advocated a tariff increase to fund internal improvements, and the South saw that as not constitutional which it was not. Lincoln, like Lee, did not favor slavery, but was content for it to remain in effect where it existed.
The only fault of Lee was attacking the yankee front at Gettysburg at the wrong time.
It was the south who fired on Fort Sumter. Idiot.
I’d rather support my state than this country
Mine in Sherman
What a spineless weasel. This story is obviously false. He “admired” Lee when it was fashionable to do so and he withdrew his admiration when it fell out of fashion. He’ll do the same with Washington and Jefferson at that point in the future.
Lost ALL respect for Gen. McCrystal. The guy is pandering to the populist view about race. Gen.Lee fought for his State. He was totally against slavery, but after being offered to head up the union forces by Lincoln, he declined. He could not wage war against his home state. The war between the states was not fought primarily about slavery. The South wanted autonomy to run their collective states their way, and the north wanted inclusion. Much like today, Federal government trying to over reach into what shroud be state issues. Lee was a classic General in all respects. I am EXTREMELY disappointed in McCrystals decision to take down Lee's picture, and even more disappointed in him for letting his wife convince him....WIMP.
Here is proof of this military man's lack of historical knowledge. Before The War citizens thought of the USA as "the United States are." After The War they thought of the USA as "the United States is." One third of West Point cadets enrolled in 1861 quit, and then fought for the South, as did scores of West Point graduates. Their families came first and were located in the South. Gen George Thomas was a Virginian who fought exceedingly well for the Union. Grant knew about his native state origin and never liked or really trusted him. After The War Thomas' entire family in Virginia refused to have anything to do with him. Lee's wife was a direct descendant of Martha Washington. Seven US Presidents were Virginians before The War including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Monroe, and James Madison. Those were very prestigious men and still are today. All owned slaves which was the normal state of affairs for men of their backgrounds during their day and age. Former President John Tyler served as a Confederate Congressman for a time. Had it been possible to ask the other 6 what they thought of the North and secession, they may well have said the Southern states had legitimate grievances, had to right to leave, and were correct in doing so.
Our General here should view the short UA-cam video where President Eisenhower, who lived in Gettysburg, was asked who he thought were the four greatest Americans. He said Franklin, Washington, Lincoln, and Lee.
So much for this General's "opinion" of Lee and Lee as a traitor. Lee opposed secession but when it came he went with his state and family. It also speaks volumes about him that Lincoln offered him the generalship over the entire US military.
Despite his beliefs, no one has ever seriously questioned Lee's integrity. Grant thought highly of and was very respectful toward Lee and threatened Presiden Johnson with his resignation if the US government prosecuted Lee after The War. In fact no Confederates were ever tried as traitors and all who wanted US citizenship got it back after The War. The sole exception was Jefferson Davis. Lee's application for citizenship was lost or hidden by Stanton, found in 1976, and signed by President Gerald Ford the same year. Henry Wirz was hung for war crimes regarding him being the commandant of Andersonville, not as a traitor.
The problem with videos like this are the scripted situations where no one challenges the views presented by the guest. The audience applauds politely and no one in the crowd tells the guest " heh, dumbass, you got it wrong or at best half right."
This analysis makes me want to throw up- it's so atrocious on so many diff levels i don't know where to begin
Gutless wonder. Poor representative of our military. He certainly would not appear in JFK's "Profiles In Courage".
This man is afraid. He'd rather be another dead fish that just goes with the flow or else his own legacy will be tarnished by the rabid mob.
I have come to the conclusion that Grant was the better general. Be that as it may I'm not sure that Lee's sole motivation was to preserve slavery. The North was becoming more powerful both politically and economically than the South. The South wanted out of the Union rather than be dominated by the North. Most Confederate soldiers didn't own slaves. Nevertheless, I also believe slavery was a crucial issue especially for the planters.who dominated Southern politics.
30% of confederates came from slave-owning households, so while still a minority, the percentage of slave owners was pretty high. But I think you're probably right, Lee had a mixture of motivations and not solely to preserve slavery.
@@aaronfleming9426 Didn't know it was that high. Were they mostly small holders with few slaves?
@@trajan75 I should correct myself...that should read "households", not "families". And I think most probably had just a few slaves...haven't seen the specific stats for awhile, but it stands to reason that the huge plantations with hundreds of slaves would have been the statistical outliers.
I do know that half of the Mississippi secession delegates owned at least ten slaves. It certainly shows the political power of the larger slave owners.
@@aaronfleming9426 Yes,no doubt. If you haven't done so you might want to read William Faulkner's great short story "Wash".
@@trajan75 He's pulling that number out of his rear-end.
"but he's human".
He is human. And all of humanity is a practice of errors and evils. Our society can't stand on a high pedal, any more than a slaver can stand on a high pedal over us. Their sin was slavery. Our sin is a culture that finds it acceptable to kill a baby in the womb. See how the human race hasn't advanced in terms brutalities and evil, but rather redefined it as a necessary medical procedure? Morality, to the human race, is considered relative. Only the absolute morality of God can save us from the evils mankind commits.
God Bless
This general is heroic in his position. Lee was not.
It's very much a cliche about- behind every great man there's a woman or something like that, in this case there is definitely the infasis on character, and Stanley McChrystal didn't get to the level he did by himself self that's for sure.
He is wrong. Here is why. Peoples perception of what you are and what you support doesn't matter. What people think you support doesn't matter. What matters is truth. You can admire Lee and not admire some of his actions. Lee was defending his state. Washington and Jefferson very well may have done the same thing. Lee was flawed. He was a man. But we celebrate men. It is not Lee's fault that bigots and racists use his image and others as a battle cry. Are we going to take down Washington's statues too?
What bigots and racists are using Washington’s image as a battle cry?
@@Kaddywompous the ones who started the Civil War were. Lee was Washington's grandson in law you know and the son of his friend. The south saw Washington as Virginia's
@@justinp5661 I’m not sure if you remember your comment and what I was referencing. You implied that we might take down statues of Washington because, like they do with Lee, “bigots and racists use his image…as a battle cry”, and I don’t know what you are talking about.
@@Kaddywompous I am saying that if Lee and the south are bigots and racists, they in fact used Washington's image and memory as a battle cry
@@Kaddywompous I will give you another example. Hitler used to invoke the words and his admiration for friedrich nietzsche. I don't care for Nietzsche but he and his work cannot help that evil people commandeered it
Blessings to his wife for making that comment to him. Blessings to him for caring enough to come to that realization.
His bad decision was to kill American Soldiers
Is this how the Wind Blows , you did not live in his world !!! What blm !!!
Whipped
So in the end McChrystal just followed the herd.