Eisenhower Explains About General Lee (1957)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 кві 2014
- Unissued / Unused material.
Title - 'Ike "explains" about Gen. Lee'.
Washington DC, United States of America (USA).
Back view press reporters rising as President Dwight Eisenhower arrives. High angle shot of Eisenhower walking to stand.
MS Eisenhower listening to woman reporter asking question. CU Eisenhower replying (natural sound).
Cataloguer's note: American commentary.
FILM ID:2872.21
A VIDEO FROM BRITISH PATHÉ. EXPLORE OUR ONLINE CHANNEL, BRITISH PATHÉ TV. IT'S FULL OF GREAT DOCUMENTARIES, FASCINATING INTERVIEWS, AND CLASSIC MOVIES. www.britishpathe.tv/
FOR LICENSING ENQUIRIES VISIT www.britishpathe.com/
British Pathé also represents the Reuters historical collection, which includes more than 136,000 items from the news agencies Gaumont Graphic (1910-1932), Empire News Bulletin (1926-1930), British Paramount (1931-1957), and Gaumont British (1934-1959), as well as Visnews content from 1957 to the end of 1984. All footage can be viewed on the British Pathé website. www.britishpathe.com/
Two terms and an approval rating of 78% when he left office. What a guy.
And he only left office because he was the first president limited to two terms!
Last good Republican President
I won't forget how badly he treated German POWs in his death camps, even after the war was long since done
@@wyattwilbourne530 I just heard bout this. It's hard to find much published information about it, but there is even less refutting it.
@@wyattwilbourne530 he was Noh the only one.. French treated Even worse... British.. well it depends..
There is no way anyone should graduate from high school with out learning Ike's farewell speech to congress. Greatest president ever. Thank him every time you drive on an interstate highway.
Everytime I'm on the interstate and not on a high speed rail, I'm cursing him.
@@mandoman2874 The high-speed rail craze did begin a bit later In the 60s with the Japanese bullet train. The 1950s was also, to rail fans, the last major golden age of passenger trains. I do agree that we need high-speed rail, yet after learning the story of the French TGV and how it virtually put local airline traffic out of business, is why special interests will fight against it. It will take we the people to fight for it. Thank goodness some local private interest has taken a stand like in Florida, and the ongoing debacle of California’s high-speed rail that I hope will see the light of day.
@@rypatmackrock high-speed rail was a vehicle to resolve congestion issue on Tokaido main line (quadruple-tracked and completely electrified back in the 1930s). Shinkansen was always about capacity, not speed. Same can be said about SNCF in France that took up huge electrification and rail modernization projects in the 1950s. Several American rail companies had ideas regarding higher-speed trains and they even started implementing them. Look at Lackawanna Cut-Off in NJ and PA (abandoned by Conrail in the 1980s) allowed 1920s steam trains to run at speeds above 80 mph. The cut-off was built before WWI, when it took 13 hours at best to get from Tokyo to Osaka (today it takes under 3 hours). After the war the USA had many lines that were running over capacity, but instead of subsidizing or simply letting rail companies be, Truman and Eisenhower either fought them or completely obliterated their slim profit margins. As a result, US got a white elephant of federal highways that destroyed lively neighbourhood and empty cities where there once was a railroad. Now the US has 2000 miles of electrified track. In 1920 the state of Connecticut alone had more electrified track owned by private interurban railroads (it is excluding mainline railroads that survived till now). Ironically, in the 1950s people where terrified of the Soviets levelling their cities, while they idly watched the very same cities bulldozed for a highway. Pathetic, really.
@@ramzanninety-five3639 good to hear. I recently learned about the Lackawanna cut off through another UA-cam video, yet forgot about it. I have also been aware of the neighborhood bulldozing mainly as a product of urban renewal, and I am not surprised that highway construction was a part of that. (Many minority communities were bulldozed while others fought back with mixed results as far as I know). It was also the car companies like GM that marketed a romantic vision of freeways for cars since it would mean more car sales for them.
I guess I’ve been blinded a bit from the many train videos I have seen, including here on UA-cam and even some ironically from the 50s and 60s. The last hurrah of classic passenger trains that spanned continent Included:
The 20th century Limited from New York to Chicago.
The Southern Crescent from New York to New Orleans.
The sunset limited from New Orleans to Los Angeles that Amtrak still operates.
The Santa Fe super chief and El Capitan from Los Angeles to Chicago.
The city of San Francisco from Chicago to San Francisco likely.
The Portland rose from Chicago likely to Portland Oregon.
The Empire builder from Chicago to Seattle. (Still operated by Amtrak).
The coast daylight or daylight limited between San Francisco and Los Angeles.
The list goes on.
I need to fact check myself on these historic passenger trains, yet those are the ones off the top of my head.
The US was certainly a pioneer in building transcontinental railroads, (sadly of course with indigenous genocide throughout much of US history), and some companies from back then like the union pacific are still some of the big railroad companies today. Many did indeed become corporate machines, as I call them, back in the Gilded Age, were likely reined in during the new deal and Great prosperity (as Thom Hartmann describes it) up until the 70s, and in recent years once again, even if they could’ve been doing this the entire time, becoming corrupt, corporate machines all about the money instead of the general welfare of all its workers like GM and GE once were.
Indeed public transit, let alone expansion are ways to relieve passenger and freight traffic depending on how much there is in the first place, and of course to a degree, the civil rights movement and subsequently passed laws provided some recourse for neighborhoods and communities that were the targets of bulldozing for urban renewal. The story of San Francisco’s international hotel, though a long struggle, is the example I use to say mixed results, yet many neighborhoods have been bulldozed as you know.
All I can say is now before I fact track myself, is that it is up to we the people to organize, hold our politicians accountable that way, and maybe even run for office on top of all the organizing while remaining grounded in the original vision, and not being too corrupted by the system. It’s up to us to keep US history going with the fight to create a more perfect union.
The story of San Francisco activists protesting freeway construction and successfully winning over the course of the struggle, is an inspiring story.
Greatest? As in he was the key architect in the creation of a military which first betrayed and then destroyed the Constitution?
The White House was occupied only by traitors between the years 1945 -2016 when the USA ceased to exist at all. Ike was just one of a very long line of hypocrites, liars, cheats and traitors.
Biden was the direct and predictable outcome of that line of succession.
President Eisenhower was born 20 years after General Lee died.
“It’s hard to argue with victory.”
Pyrrhus would make the effort.
Agreed, but Lee wasn't the victor. He not only lost at Gettysburg, he left two whole divisions dead on the field while what was left of his army slinked back to Virginia. Pickett's Charge in particular was a ludicrous, suicidal attack that no lieutenant would have even considered.
Lee did well with what he had, but remember he was the losing commander of a defeated rebellion. He also turned his back on multiple solemn oaths he'd made to the United States to take command of the Virginia State Militia, so let's be clear about the "man of honor" thing.
@@jdstewart7802 It was not a suicidal attack the day before, however, the Union tripled the number of men and guns at their center overnight, having come to the conclusion that that would be were Lee would attack (it was, after all their weakest point, defensively). The attack also was supposed to have been called off, but the officer that Longstreet had delegated command of the attack to gave the order to advance before the Union's guns were suppressed or silenced. This was because they were running dangerously low on munitions for their own guns.
Had the attack been called off, since the prerequisite for them attacking was supposed to have been the silencing of the Union's batteries, then the battle likely would have dragged on into a fourth or even fifth day.
Would the final outcome of Union victory have been changed? Perhaps not, but it may have.
@@dredlord47 I don't know how JD came to the conclusion I was referring to Lee, when Ike and Monty defeated Hitler, but your argument that Pickett's charge was a great idea doesn't hold water. Lee's aversion to clear written orders simply did more damage to an ill conceived battle, attacking a fortified position uphill against a numerically superior force. Even if he won, do you really believe it would have been worth it?
@@jdstewart7802 You misunderstand. I actually like the way Eisenhower diplomatically(the way he's famous for) responds to a reasonable assertion by his ally that defies his worldview, by saying essentially, that whatever your reasons are, I must believe what I believe. Patton might have gone on the counterattack and harmed the vital relationship with the British. That's the real victory.
I would give anything to have a man of his caliber in office today
No way today’s GOP/Nazi Party would let a good man of integrity like Ike anywhere near power today .
And think about this : A LOT of Republicans would not vote for Ike today because he’s not bat&hit crazy enough for them
@@natashatomlinson4548 Agree with you there, Nat. Even Reagan (for whom I voted once...god save me) tried to distance himself somewhat from Ike's calmer approach to world problems. Looking at the current state of the GOP even a (mostly) Democrat like me misses both George Bush's.
@@natashatomlinson4548 You poor little liberal cupcake.
@@boblozaintherealworld3577 You've clearly been brainwashed by MSNBC, little buddy
@@natashatomlinson4548 more cowbell from the communist party 😂
Ike warned us about the military industrial complex. Great general. Great prez.
Ike was dead on right about the military-industrial complex, but he did nothing about it while he was president.
He wasn't warning about that. Go back and listen to what he was really saying.
He overthrew the democracies in Guatemala and Iran setting up the problems we have today. He also let the Russians beat us to space (the rocket that we finally used had been sitting in storage for 2 years).
R C Nelson and Washington did nothing about the rise of partizanship.
IKE was part of the military industrial complex. He was president and could have done a number of things to prevent it or weaken it. He didn't. Like all presidents he kicked the can down the road for others to take care of.
He was a good general (not a warrior though since he never led troops in combat and functioned as more of an administer), but he was at best a mediocre president who got lucky because in his time in office there were no major crises for him to deal with. He got the luck of the draw in being between Korea and Vietnam in an era of stability. Nobody knows how he would have handled a major crisis as a politician since the military on civilan ways of doing things are completely different.
Context: Eisenhower's first command (Feb 1918) was at Camp Colt near Gettysburg, specifically training tank crews at the site of Pickett's Charge. He loved the area and after his presidency retired to a farm right next to the Gettysburg battlefield. So Monty Monday morning quarterbacking that battle was going to get Ike's attention.
Been to Gettysburg. You can see his former estate the farm from one of the viewing towers on the battlefield. I enjoyed my visit there, stayed the night in Gettysburg a true historical experience.
And guess how Patton and Eisenhower got acquainted? Through the brand new (at the time) tank division of the military. Funny but true story, Eisenhower asked Patton to draw up a uniform for the "tankers" who would be driving these new metal monsters and Patton came up with a qausi-football uniform with golden trim and other stuff. Eisenhower turned it down as "too flashy" 😁
IrishCarney Tell me - *how* did he train tank crews at the site of Pickett's Charge in February 1918 when there was no production of tanks in the USA at this time?
Here's what you can read on the net: "When the US entered the war in April 1917, its army was short of heavy matériel, and had no tanks at all. Because of the wartime demands on French industry, it was decided that the quickest way to supply the American forces with sufficient armor was to manufacture the Renault FT in the US. A requirement of 4,400 of a modified version, the M1917, was decided on, with delivery expected to begin in April, 1918. By June 1918, US manufacturers had failed to produce any, and delivery dates were put back until September. France therefore agreed to lend 144 FTs, enough to equip two battalions. No M1917s reached the American Expeditionary Forces (AEF) until the war was over."
"By June 1918, US manufacturers had failed to produce any" Would you kindly explain to me how Eisenhower trained tank crews without tanks ?
I found this on the net: "Tanks were a technological revolution in 1916 and developing their role and usefulness in battle was a new strategy. They were so new that domestic companies had not yet begun production of an American version in 1918, so the U.S. Army relied on the British-made heavy tanks and the small French tanks referred to as the FT-17 or Renault tanks, a two man vehicle armed with a machine gun or light 37mm gun. Yet for the first three months of Camp Colt’s operation, there were no tanks available and Eisenhower’s men trained on a variety of car chassis made to look like tanks that were built by two innovative Brooklyn soldiers. The first of two real FT-17’s arrived in June."
So basically two Brooklyn soldiers came up with the idea of using cars dressed up as tanks? Not even tracked vehicles? Only two real FT-17 tanks arrived in June 1918. Well, it's a crude cross drill in that case. I doubt the terrain also was similar to what was found on the Western Front during WWI.
Interesting anecdote, but of little value to Eisenhower both as a military commander and politician. He learned the real lessons when he entered the proper war.
Did Monty come to see Eisenhower and together they war games Gettysburg or did Monty just issue this opinion on his own.
I live near Gettysburg and visit his house often. It is a very peaceful place.
The fact that two incredible military commanders were debating and arguing over a conflict nearly 100 years prior.
I was in kindergarten and elementary school when Eisenhower was president (yes, I'm that old)....
Me to I remember him too an I also remember where I was the day j f k
Died there were lots of sad days in our
Great nations past but now days
Seams like some are doing there best to start it all over
Its sad the way things are changing just pray people will wake up
Me too.
So how old are you all??
Ha Ha, I'm just a youngster!....didn't start Kindergarten until JFK :)
People that are of that age , really see through the BS !!!!!!!!
Wow - just - what in the world happened to the Americans ? All these old films - the people are bright and snappy - alert and intelligent.
For the past 60 years or so the media has been infiltrated with smart-asses, that’s what happened!
"Dr" Timothy Leary...and Frankfurt School psychologists taking over the universities...those are the main culprits
Pride, greed, hedonism, godlessness.
Welfare, federal government control of schools, no discipline, no respect for each other or to our nation,the road to hell is paved on good intentions.
Lee's exact words after Pickets charge were "this is all my fault"
That's right, it was his fault. He ordered it. Probably his worst mistake in the war.
Lee made many mistakes. Grant beat him badly, twice.
@@bp4187 Petersburg?
Describe badly. The overland campaign was an absolute mess for Grant he got his butt kicked time after time. It was a miracle Lee did as well as he did. Now I’m not saying Lee is the god of war but you can’t just word it as if it were a one sided campaign. Man lost about 20,000 more.
@@datguy8006 Grant lost more men then Lee had in his entire army. Then he lost roughly the same amount again in from of Petersburg(battles of the crater, reams station etc)
Can you imagine a President complimenting Robert E Lee as a General now? He would get hammered.
Did you miss the note of irony in his voice?
With good reason the man was a traitor...
@@lindsey7951😂😂😂
@@cabanfordChrist it wasn’t irony u idiot it’s just not a man who chooses sides like a little kid
@@lindsey7951 So were our Founding Fathers in the eyes of Great Britain.
Eisenhower lived in a house on the Gettysburg battlefield property.
BabyBoomerChannel just south of Cemetery Ridge. You can visit there if you go to the battlefield. I was an intern there.
Nice house and farmland ...... I've toured there twice. It was a pleasure to see that Ike and Mamie lived much like regular people. He loved having the grandkids visit. Kansas roots run deep ..........
The Secret Service agents on Ike's detail felt that it was a dream assignment, said the ranger. It's very quiet, there, adjacent to the battlefield ........ and not terribly far from the White House, either.
why wouldn't they have lived in the White House?
@@Havanorange they lived in the farmhouse after the presidency. Every president can have secret service protection for life.
Should be burned for championing (incredibly) racist traitor Lee as one of out too four. Just outrageous. He ought not to be on dollar coin and his name and likenesses should be removed from museums, White House, etc. Unreal. Somebody ought to get this to Congressional Black Caucus and media.
When I served in the Army (2014) I had the privilege of working in the same building that he and MacArthur worked in when they were young Lieutenants back in 1919 in what was then known as Camp Meade Maryland. I got to keep an old briefing podium from WW2 that was going to be thrown out. It still has the old DOD labels on it.
Thanks, really interesting....I done Honor Guard @ Purdue Cadre 1965-67 ( SSG), we got touches of History: FORT **Benjamin Harrison ( INDIANAPOLIS ,INDIANA,CLOSED NOW), their PX: Purdue** Armory , and ETC. .. Actually thought I would be career, erc.
How cool. It's amazing what they throw out.
@@robertthomas5906 unimaginable that history like that would be tossed. It makes one wonder how many other items if significant historical value have been thrown away; in spite of the museums all across the country that would have clamored for them.
Did they get along? Truman treated MacArthur wrong.
Nice! I served at Fort Meade 1983-88.
The truth is Ike would have done the same thing if he was in General Lee's shoes at Gettysburg. D- Day was a major gamble and could've easily cost Ike his job as commanding general of all Allied forces if it failed.
Truth is General Robert E. Lee was haunted by his mistake at Gettysburg for the rest of his life. Right after the battle he gave President Jefferson Davis his resignation but Davis wouldn't take it. There wasn't another general in the Confederate army that could've replaced Lee. During the war and after the people on both sides respected Lee and in the end Lee became a fine American role model. He didn't have bitterness in his heart and lead by example to become a honorary citizen in the United States of America. To understand Lee is to understand the complex relationship people have of their country's government.
Not so sure about that. Ike was pretty cautious -- were he not, then he would have let Patton do his thing and WWII would have ended sooner and without an Iron Curtain.
@Carlton Reese yep, just that simple.
Well said except for the first part. Quite apart from the battlefield decisions. I can't see Eisenhower fighting to preserve slavery.
Gettysburg, was a major tactical blunder. When Lee failed to take the high ground on day one, he should have followed Longstreet’s advice to withdraw and juxtapose his forces on better ground. After numerous victories he got caught up in his own press and forced a fight he was destined to lose.
"Ike would have done the same thing if he was in General Lee's shoes at Gettysburg," There is absolutely NO way for you or anyone to know such a thing, your statement is ridiculous.
I love how he spoke with his arms crossed often. You don't see that anymore.
I noticed that too, but not a positively as you did. Speaking with one's arms crossed is a sign of defensiveness (unless the room is very cold). Thankfully, Ike seemed to become more at ease as the press conference continued and thus, uncrossed his arms.
@@josephosheavideos3992 Thats just nu aged b.s.
@josephosheavideos3992 i have to respectfully disagree as well. A lot goes into "body language ". And it's one of those things where everybody is an expert.....
@@bobanderson6656 Yeah "body language" is such BS. Everyone is different.
Most of the time speaking with your arms closed means you don't want to hear what the other side has to say. Rude,if improperly used.
If you are bred into military history and steeped in traditional values as Eisenhower was then you're going to admire a man's victories and his behavior at defeat (which in Lee's case was very good). Which explains Eisenhower's admiration. I mean frankly if anyone else than Lee had been in charge of the Southern army we could have expected continued guerrilla warfare for maybe another year.
Whether he was in charge or not the guerrilla warfare continued with the Klu Klux Klan Jim Crow laws and segregation
and then we would have won the war.
@@pmcclaren1
Traders and acts of treason are punishable by Death he had no court case at no judge and no jury a peace treaty was signed and he was free to go about his business
General Lee's Behavior after losing wasn't just realizing that he lost and he lost graciously but how history would view him and legally as a treasonous party he should have been put to death him and his fellow generals and commanders ...
he didn't want the remnants of his lost cause to be used to keep a lost cause alive after admitting fault and loss
he himself said statues to a lost cause should not be built in my memory to paraphrase .. paraphrase
@@pmcclaren1 Why am I not surprised. Losers never forget an Ass "Kickin"
@7MGTESupraTurboA
The logic here is simple General Lee that he speaks of was a US citizen who went against the United States all those other leaders are from foreign countries praising them is idiotic and irrelevance to the point that I'm making treason is punishable by Death which is what General Lee and his fellow commanders committed but instead they were given the green light to go about their business which also helped create the Klu Klux Klan Jim Crow laws and segregation that is a fact
You do not catch a snake a venomous snake that has been ravaging your community and then allowed to live and set it free it'll come back and bite you again
Both Robert E. Lee and Dwight Eisenhower were great generals. Eisenhower was one of our great presidents and I would trust his evaluation of a fellow Army officer every time.
Agreed - General Robert E. Lee was on President Eisenhower's Mt. Rushmore of four astonishing Americans.
Funny thing is that when I first heard this I was so astonished at hearing Lee's name, I failed to notice he said "Franklin" instead of "Jefferson."
@@jkrasney1 how ridiculous is it to idealize a treacherous slavery who fought for what he knew was wrong
Only 1 of those 2 honored a sacred oath to the United States Constitution. The other was a traitor and should've been hung.
@@squid.com8927
Tell me what was......
"wrong".
An honourable man that if you’re a soldier or citizen, you can put your full trust in
We as a nation have been blessed with so many giants of men. Eisenhower was one of those giants.
AMEN!
Yes, and we wasted the legacy they gave us.
Young man, from the wrong side of the tracks, in my home town. I will always be amazed at his accomplishments.
Ad Astra.
What a great president he was. Very humble but commands a room without question.
Like Putin?
He governed during the easiest period of time in American history.
@@venividi8523 And? His leadership before his presidency is why it was “easy”.
@@Shatamx Wtf are you talking about, he was a general he wasn't a policymaker.
@@venividi8523 The period after WWII was dangerous because of the Cold War and also the Korean War was a challenge. The 1950's were a much more stable and peaceful time than after WWII, however the US and Russia were in the beginning of a long Cold War. Honestly i don't see your point about the 1950's being the easiest period of time in American history. Our nation has had some periods that were relatively peaceful and properous as the 1990's. But there were also lots of domestic problems in the 1950's after Brown vs Board of Education and President Eisenhower had to send in the National guard in Little Rock, Arkansas to ensure that the laws were enforced.
The same guy who warned us against the the very real threat of the military industrial complex...
And I don't think the USA has done a good job at keeping an eye on that, and I think it's entirely too large and powerful.
Dwight Eisenhower was one of our greatest military general's. I wonder what he would have to say about those who tear down Robert E. Lee statues? What would his response be if he were live today?
I'm glad all the greatest Americans like Ike are deceased so they dont have to witness this sort of bullshit
@@JDP2104 Ike's own statues will be dragged down soon...
He wasn't a fan of racists.
Lee was a slaveholding, white supremacist and a traitor to his country. Why should we have statues to someone who was a leader in an insurrection against our government for the purpose of enslaving others.
@@JDP2104 Why do revere confederate statues and memorials erected by racist democrats ?
And Patton was one heck of a warrior!
When people actually stood up when the president arrived
When Presidents actually took their oath seriously
@@blueclover9918 yes most now arnt worthy of us satnding
@@matthewlee9728 💯💯💯
Montgomery: "Lee should've been fired after Gettysburg."
Bold words for a man who literally sent multiple paratrooper divisions to their deaths in the Netherlands.
Montgomery should have been fired 24 hours after d day
@@brianbrady4496 Why? Monty's plan worked virtually to a T. His plan encompassed drawing the German armour onto the Poles, British & Canadians & grinding them down to shadows of their former selves. This allowed the Americans to then perform their massive sweep out of the Cherbourg sector, and help force the Germans back across the Seine. Monty's plan allowed for 90 days; the Allies did it in what?, 75?
Only one para division took serious casualities and that was because a second division failed to follow its order on the first day. If they had Market Garden would have been very different.
@@bluerock4456 Drawing the German Panzers to the British sector was not part of any plan. The British, and Canadians were unable to achieve the gains Montgomery had planned for them in the initial stages of Overlord. The Reason the Germans concentrated their Panzers in the British sector was the terrain. The American sector was almost entirely bocage. Whereas beyond Caen there was good tank country in the British sector.
The British evacuation at Dunkirk was masterminded by Montgomery. Without him, certain annihilation would have happened in France, and Britain would have lost the war. Before the Americans would have had a chance to defend England. The British don't win in North Africa, without Monty. Genius of a man
Ike was a hell of a leader. Marshall was a hell of a statesman.
Marshall was the best man in WW2 to be army chief of staff. I cannot imagine anyone back then doing a better job. I have often wondered about GCM as supreme commander for Overlord. That begs the question where does Ike go? Army chief of staff? Commander of the MTO?
@@paratrooper629 I believe that GCM was absolutely in the right position as COS, and Ike was right for the eto. My complaint is McArthur, dugout Doug was the wrong man with the wrong ego for the Pacific theater.
I like Ike!
Then you like evil.
You also like a man who never wanted integration or equality for black people, and said so many times.
Is that what you like about him?
@@maskedmarvyl4774 Eisenhower backed and Congress passed the 1957 Civil Rights Act.
This was a major step to allowing Blacks the right to vote. One of the provisions included was to make sure monitoring of the vote was done to allow access and that voters be informed on the proper procedures. To make a sweeping statement that he never wanted integration is a bit absurd. Truman took the first step to integrate the armed forces. FDR did nothing and would never allow voting of any kind and would not even demands to remove "Lynching Laws" in the south.
@@maskedmarvyl4774 In 1957 Ile
P.S. When did Ike say "he never wanted integration or equality for Back people?" PLEASE BE SPECIFIC I cant find the quote??????????????
@@kevinw9073 , Yes, President Eisenhower did, and I couldn't agree with you more about the deeply hypocritical President Roosevelt who refused to sign a single anti-lynching bill out of fear of losing Southern support. He knew of the Nazi extermination camps and only aided the Jews when he absolutely had to.
However, Eisenhower was not a champion of black civil rights. Here is an exhaustively researched piece about Eisenhower's actions during that time: millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/age-of-eisenhower/struggle-civil-rights
I will answer your other texts soon.
Franklin, Washington, Lincoln and Lee. Americans of today, study these examples President Eisenhower offered to you.
Washington was reincarnated as Lee who returned as Eisenhower.
Franklin was reincarnated as Lincoln who returned as Einstein who was reincarnated as... see 7seals.blogspot.com .
Lee would be vilified today by many people because he fought for the South and was a slave owner. He was a great man.
@@hume1963 considering the fact that he was on the side of the confederacy , and you say he owned slaves too !! l don't see how you can call him a great man . He fought to keep slavery intact . My opinion is as follows ;
Had the south won the war , the Emancipation Proclamation wouldn't have been worth the paper it was written on. As a result , slavery would have lasted God only knows how many " MORE" years before it would have "Finally Ended" . Anyone who would have fought to keep slavery as a mainstay , such as General Robert E . Lee is not and l repeat , Not a great man .
@@hume1963
The Problem with those people is they don't Read History...and they live in a Black & White world, and suffer from Presentism...applying today,s standards to historical figures.
Whatever brings southern votes...
But Lee is in mountains now, beyond Appomattox
Listening long for voices that will never speak again
from the poem "Lee In Mountains"
That's what a President should look like.
Trump is way better and would have won Viet Nam.
Right, Bill.
Except for his bone spurs and all his draft dodging he would have made a great commander in chief.
Why have you allowed your brain to be abused like that?
@@terryallen9546 I am sorry about the traumatic event in your past that made you a hater, I truly am! It is sad that emotional events of the past have warped your perception of great leadership and direction. I mean that sincerely. May I ask you a question, and I ask with kindness...what do you think will happen to you after you die? Let's talk.
bald?
@@GB-jc8eo Oh you mean the wars your Bush and your Obama started? How is ISIS doing? Trump said I will bomb the S&## out of them and did. Afghanistan is unwinnable.
Do you consider yourself "Conservative" yet hate Trump? Who is your dream President?"
Ike understood that General Lee was a great man and general. Caught up in the 19th century mores' and politics he ranked Lee among the giants of his era.
He was so good that he lost the war. good one!
Oliver Cromwell was reincarnated as George Washington who returned as Robert E. Lee who was reincarnated as Dwight D. Eisenhower.
My question is why did he place Lee in the top 4? I wish he went into detail. Does anyone knows why! Thanks
John Mac he was a traitor simple as that
David Vazquez Thats right , he didn’t do it secretly. He openly stood for his state .He wouldn’t fight against Virginia, his home. He was actually a patriot because he didn’t turn his back on his state and people. I know it’s hard for some people to understand in this day and age of a big , centralized government, but it wasn’t always like this. States have a much better grip on what their residents desire and need than the federal government ever will...
There are no American leaders who are this well-spoken any more.
Citizens either!
Pres. Obama was well spoken & funny off the cuff (I'll give him that), but his sleepy ol' sidekick can't put one coherent sentence together without the teleprompter. America is past its best it seems... 😢 Where are all the good men (and patriots to vote them in)?
Funny you say that because Democrats of the day claimed Ike was a tongue-tied amateur politician
@@gringo19860 Nah! Joe has the gift of blarney, and his tales and slight exaggerations have always had something of the style of a tale told in an Irish bar somewhere in blue collar Delaware or Pennsylvania! But yeah, maybe not Presidential sounding. He's no FDR or JFK.
Lee said there shouldn't be any civil war monuments anywhere, north or south. He believed it was better forgotten.
Lee also said to never use a sand wedge when chipping.
Course he did he lost.
@@busydem6161 Lee was huge off the tee though...it could pound out that feathered ball 125 yards which was big back then
@@busydem6161 I also don't think he entirely agreed with the reasons for the war. He called slavery a great evil because of what it did to the slave and the master.
@Green Giant He also was half-chinese, but the history books never said that...
I walked by his grave last week and I could hear him spinning.
No, what you heard was the fires of Hell crackling.
By far best modern president the USA has had.
When there were principles and morals.
IKE was the first President that had to deal with the full scale cold war. Also, he was the first to enforce desegregation laws when he sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to Trump Governor Orville Faubus so that black students could attend high school. IK never shirked his duty wherever it was. What impresses me most is that he went.to West Point since.his parents could not afford.to send him to college. He was willing.to trade a few years in the army for an education. Well after.he graduated he spent.the rest of his life serving the country. A truly great man.
@Tim Cantrell
He was forced to change what he intended to say: it was "the military-industrial-congressional complex"!
@@WMJCPA
I wouldn't say that. I would say that would be Truman who confronted Stalin and squarely too. The only mistake I believe Truman made was he didn't use the bomb on China. that , however is arguable.
Depends on what you mean by “modern”.
I love that 50s accent
What on Earth is a 50's accent? It is exactly how I speak today.
What might be mistaken for an "accent" is actually someone who can speak clearly, coherently and directly to a question posed to them and not some rambling tirade of a narcissist that goes goes nowhere and doesn't even answer the question.
It’s really more of a Kansas accent
@Jim lastname you think he was referring to the Bern.
@Jim lastname good for you, my mom use to pack me a lunch every morning and make me look for a job, times sure has changed since the late seventies.
Great man!
I humbly suggest that George C. Marshall should be mentioned in the same breath as Robert E. Lee and General Eisenhower.
Absolutely. Gen Marshall was a quiet giant.
One our best presidents.
Him Kennedy FDR Truman and Reagan were the best presidents of all the 1900s combined IMO....Carter Hoover and Buchanan were the worst IMO....
The best - period
Ever the politician, Eisenhower never would have criticized General Lee because Lee was: (1) dead; and (2) extremely popular especially in the South which was going to be in play in future elections. Eisenhower understood where the real power centers were and cultivated them, always. This was his one main skill (besides being a good poker player). It enabled him to overcome all his shortcomings in rising to power. Thus he rose to be Supreme Commander in the European Theater of Operations in World War II despite never having shown any particular talent in warfare and despite never having commanded troops in combat, ever.
You forget when Churchill harrassed him on this lack of war experience, he responded he never designed any failed invasions[ like Churchill's Gallipoli ] . He was an expert administrator and politician which is why he filled those positions during his career. Which were pretty much his job description as Supreme Commander dealing with many generals, Prime Minsters and Presidents.
@@SandfordSmythe was that before or after Eisenhower signed off on Montgomery's disastrous Operation Market Garden? What about the Bay of Pigs fiasco, a plan hatched during the Eisenhower administration, which JFK later authorized. Military brass holdovers from before JFK took office told him it would work and it led to the Cuban Missile crisis. According to JFK he went ahead despite qualms against his better judgment. Eisenhower doesn't deserve all the blame for these disasters but he bears some responsibility for them.
Eisenhower was extremely lucky both as ETO Supreme Commander and later as U.S. President. He had overwhelmingly superior American industrial might behind him giving him huge margin for error. But relations with England and France never fully recovered from his mishandling of the 1956 Suez crisis. He was totally schooled, manipulated, and outwitted by Egypt's President Nasser in the Suez crisis.
No Eisenhower certainly wasn't the worst military Commander or President, far from it. But greatness is not a word I would associate with him. Churchill made mistakes too, no one is perfect. But Churchill may have saved England in 1940. I would take Churchill's leadership over Eisenhower's any day.
@@Steveross2851 Eisenhower was very morally correct to stay out of the neo-colonialism in the Suez Canal fiasco.
@@SandfordSmythe Eisenhower didn't "stay out" of the Suez fiasco. He threatened the British, French, and Israelis with severe economic sanctions unless they withdrew. He wanted a "quiet" 1956 abroad so he could be uneventfully reelected. But by siding with radical Pan Arab Nationalists and the Soviets against England, France, and Israel, Eisenhower guaranteed future Middle East wars. He signaled NATO that the U.S. under Eisenhower was an unreliable ally. No, the much later Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt and even later Oslo Accords between Israel and the PLO did not herald Middle East peace. But Eisenhower may have damaged any chance of a stronger more durable peace in the 1950s. Eisenhower's actions also signaled the Arab world that radicalism not moderation was most politically pragmatic for them. Eventually that led much later to Al Qaeda, ISIS, and all kinds of oppression much worse than any Western 20th century colonialism.
Throughout his administration Eisenhower, the "great poker player" sent mixed signals which confused and frustrated friends and foes alike. This led opposing sides in the Suez crisis and later in the fall of 1956 in the Hungarian Revolution to miscalculate. To be fair to Eisenhower, he wasn't the only U.S. President to play a double game with disastrous long term consequences in places like Vietnam and elsewhere. And since the world is a tyranny filled mess there are never easy answers. But again, Eisenhower though politically skilled was far from a great leader.
@@Steveross2851 By your standards; If Ike was not a great leader, then no president was after G.Washington.
In a way, Ike may have presided at the peak of American prosperity. It can return.
No It can’t, the country has been lost. Ike and Monty both fought on the wrong side, and now the world has been handed over to a communist hell.
@@michaeldangelo4521 they are trying to take guns, pack the supreme court, letting in millions of ill eagles. People have to see what theyre doing, we do.Wait till riots and market crash.
@Tom AZ I think the attempt to take guns may be the tipping point. I just read about project Looking Glass on Disclosure Library yesterday on bitchute. Very eye opening , tell me what you think
you got that right - next was a catholic president and a catholic war in Vietnam that was the beginning of the end
that would require the US to be a net exporter.
Imagine if General Lee accepted Lincoln’s offer to command the Union Army. The war may have been over in a year or so. Unfortunately, his allegiance was to the state of Virginia and caused 4 years of absolute carnage. With that said, Lee was a great General and made Union Commanders look like fools until he met Meade at Gettysburg and later on General Grant.
His allegiance was to where his money and property were.
His Generals burnt my Families and their neighbor's(down the way) in the Valley, homes to the ground after they stole everything that was not nailed down! 7 generations later, never forget!!!
Lee, was a Traitor!!!!
Allegiance to one’s state before national government is a founding American principle that we have sadly forgotten.
@@SandfordSmythe and family
I think Monty was commenting solely on Lee’s generalship at Gettysburg, not Lee’s overall abilities during the entire Civil War. That is a separate issue. I agree there were errors Lee made in deciding to attack the entire Army of the Potomac at Gettysburg which was holding the high ground. I know he was looking for “a knockout blow”, but it turned out be a suicide, not a homicide. However, overall, I think Lee was a masterful General, and, given the resources available, defended his State of Virginia brilliantly, which, sadly, only prolonged the inevitable.
Jefferson Davis basically pushed Lee into his mindset at Gettysburg. Davis knew it too.
Thank god he took a fat L to the greatest general of the civil war, U.S. Grant. Who won and strategized every major Union victory.
Grant looked beyond the army he was traveling with and always focused on the entire strategy.
@@keeganbehrens1667 Sure, then grant and sherman proceeded to exterminate the American indians.
@@keeganbehrens1667 The thing about Grant though is that he had at his disposal way, way, way more and better resources to use. In the end he did a great job with that advantage and won the war but a big advantage it was. Lee had nothing like that and did a splendid job none the less. Except at Gettysburg.
General Lee was a master tactician, and he was one of the finest officers USMA (West Point) ever produced.
Yeah and how did that work out for him?
Will Scrudato great military commanders not always win- look at Napoleon and Rommel. McArthur lost the Philippines in 42 before reclaiming it in 45.
@@Will-tm5bj oh nice comment. You are saying he was a bad commander because he lost at Gettysburg? He was outnumbered and the battle was really a draw. He decided to attack the center with his last untested infantry. It didn't work. It doesn't mean he was a bad commander. The war did NOT END there now did it? The war raged on another year and a half, almost 2 years. Jeb Stuart his much needed calvary didn't show up until the last day.. was that his fault? so how did your knowledge of the civil war work out for you?
I agree 100 percent
He may have had better results if it werent for the navy blockades depriving him of his supplies.
Gen Lee was chosen to lead the Army of the Republic by President Lincoln, but had to respectfully decline. He was a native Virginian, and unfortunately couldn’t turn his back on his family. Lee was a highly respected military leader.
Hey ummmm
Traders and acts of treason are punishable by Death he had no court case at no judge and no jury a peace treaty was signed and he was free to go about his business
General Lee's Behavior after losing wasn't just realizing that he lost and he lost graciously but how history would view him and legally as a treasonous party he should have been put to death him and his fellow generals and commanders ...
he didn't want the remnants of his lost cause to be used to keep a lost cause alive after admitting fault and loss
he himself said statues to a lost cause should not be built in my memory to paraphrase .. paraphrase
@@ThePauprinceaz09 he was actually pardoned so hes not a traitor lol
@@C0NSTANTINUS
The pardon does not change the act that he committed that's like ssaying President Nixon didn't obstruct Justice because President Ford pardon him I know white privilege is hard to deny
@@ThePauprinceaz09 yes it does , it removes you from said crimes.
@@ThePauprinceaz09 it absolves you of said crime . Yea it can , but people can still think he’s a murderer
Lee went the way his state went. If Virginia had gone with the union, he would have been a union General. His politics didn't enter into it much. He went the way his home went.
But he didnt stay at home. Not taking arms against your state is one thing, but he choose another path. He betrayed his oath and fought against his country.
@@bluegoose1342 Actually because of his actions, he lost his home.... literally. It was confiscated and became Arlington National Cemetery. It is highly unlikey that his home would be taken had he not unsheathed his sword against the Stars and Stripes. So his traitorous actions were counterproductive.
Yes, he did have a choice. And few in the 19th or 21st centuries would think it unjust had he sat it out. But he didn't. The armies he led killed all most as many US serviceman as WWII, and thats the difference.
@@robertmoore6149 Very odd calling Southerners traitors when they had the same principles our founding fathers did.
@@Shatamx Which side was the US and which side specifically said it was not? Rather easy math. Also not sure how "no taxation without representation" is the same as "unlimited expansion of slavery"
"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."-Article III, Section 3, Clause 1
US Constitution
Thomas Jonathan Jackson and Nathan Bedford Forrest were the Confederacy's best generals. Any serious student of Civil War military history knows this.
Lee's hubris was responsible for the disaster at Gettysburg. He knew it, which is why, to his credit, he tried to resign his command days later.
Jackson and Forrest were superb tacticians, but tactical expertise is not the same as strategic/operational vision.
Gettysburg happened in part because Stuart was not present to screen the Confederates movements and provide information on the Union's position, with Pickett's Charge being the final gamble of an army that could ill-afford fleeing back to the Confederacy without a victory under its belt, and for whom even retreating would be a perilous task (one of the reasons why Meade did not pursue Lee as he retreated was because his own corps were chopped to hell, and he wasn't certain how damaged the Confederates were in comparison).
The risks Lee took were dangerous, but calculated and necessary when fighting a war against a nation which cannot be beaten by attrition. Jackson's greatest talent was his ability to execute Lee's directives, and along with Longstreet, consult and critique his plans. When Jackson died, Lee lost what had been a key part of his planning process, not just an excellent subordinate.
This is not to say that Gettysburg (or an analogous confrontation) would have been won had Jackson lived. After all, Antietam wasn't exactly a stellar success either, and the sole reason why the Union didn't crush them there was because McClellan's information on the Confederate's strength was seriously skewed. But there are a variety of factors which make victory impossible, even for the general who does everything right. And Ewell (who replaced Jackson as commander of the Second Corps) was far less proactive and aggressive a commander, something which Lee could hardly help.
As you know Lee was trying to make Gettysburg the last battle of the War. Unfortunately it didn't work out that way. "We are drowning in a sea of blood. I want this to be the last battle."
Robert don't mention Forrest with Jackson. Jackson was legitimate and Forrest cherry picked battles and knew damn well when not to be around
@@SocratesTheWiseOne-tr3uf you need to read Rebel Yell by S.C. Gwynne. Jackson in the Shenandoah Campaign where he won around 11 out of 12 battles made sure he always had more troops during those battles. It was truly remarkable considering he had around 19,000 troops compared to around 80,000 Union Troops between 3 Armies. Jackson made sure he had the upper hand. Also Forrest captured more supplies and prisoners than any other General on both sides during the war. When he surrendered Forrest has over 30,000 names of the Union Troops he captured. Now how could he has done that running. Study His Victory at Brices Crossroads. He attacked being out numbered 5 to 1 in Cavalry and 4 to 1 in Infantry. Over 30% of the Union Troops had repeating and Cartridge Rifles. Forrest kicked Sturgis's butt. So being a student of both these great Generals your claims are not correct.
As the war drug on.... a Gettysburg type defeat was bound to happen for the south. They were outmanned and outgunned and their wits and luck were only going to carry them so far.
Well spoken man
Question asked by a reporter from the Press Herald, the newspaper of my hometown Portland, Maine.
Yeah, so..?
Yeah, so..?
@Graf von Losinj I thought "Weekend Analysists" was just a mistaken rendering of "Weekend Analysts"
I thought Gettysburg was where Lee screwed up & it was all downhill for the Confederacy from there. Pickettt never forgave him for ordering the charge.
That was a bad week for the Confederacy. (It happen during the 4th of July weekend) Not only did they lose at Gettysburg, but also suffered a major defeat at Vicksburg which gave control of the Mississippi to the Federals and cut the Confederacy in two.
Monty loved to step in it.
Well said Ike!
He was a great man.
If Lee was great American general what is the definition of a Confederate general who attacked America?
I Like Ike!
IKE served his country not by party but as a patriot; even JFK sought his counsel during Cuban crisis...
Kennedy should have sought his counsel before invading Cuba at Bay of Pigs. That brought on the Soviets placing missiles in Cuba, and the subsequent Missile Crisis.
When an American recognises a fellow's American bravery and valor. RESPECT
He wasn't acting as an American at the time. Treason is not valor.
During the War Lee wasn't an American, he was a Confederate. He even said so himself.
@@flipadavis Call 911
Montgomery was asked to become Governor General of Canada after the war, but turned it down when he found out that the job didn’t come with any real power. Could have been interesting if he did take the position and would have had to host Ike at a state visit, probably annoying him one more time.
I imagine the offer was because so many Cdn. servicemen served under Montgomery during WW2, including two of my uncles. Canada would have been glad to have him on board, take him walleye fishing, and it was probably a thank you.
@@user-ov4mk9ox8y well, you’re probably right, but there was some controversy during the war, (probably referring to the delay in closing the Falaise gap) when he criticized the Canadians fighting under his command as part of his army group. He modified his criticism by claiming it was the fault of the Canadian generals. He did it again during Market Garden, when Canadians had virtually no role to play, yet it was the Canadian combat engineers who saved the surviving British airborne in the evacuation. Still a serious insult in my opinion.
@@MyLateralThawts Monty did nor criticise Canadian soldiers EVER...he did criticise the leadership from Crerar down and with good reason on occasions. He also berated many of the British commanders during the NW Europe campaign.
@@jameshunter7980 You haven’t been studying your history of Monty then. He ALWAYS found blame with others when something went wrong under his command. As I said, he blamed us on at least two occasions, with him “clarifying” that he meant the Canadian generals under his command the first time (let’s be honest, he blamed the Canadian army). He did it again at the end of Market Garden, after the Canadians saved the remnants of the British Airborne at Arnhem. He wasn’t deflecting on our generals then. He was a prima donna that owed his success to Enigma decrypts and backstabbing his subordinates, nothing more.
Notice Franklin was in the mix. Ike put country before party, and gave credit where credit was due.
@Brock Carlson you're right. I was trying to point out how Ike put country first, and was not partisan beyond reason.
@Brock Carlson Blessed Benjamin Franklin was an AMERICAN--and that is all.
Benjamin Franklin--not FDR. Ben saved the supply line of the French and Indian War almost single handedly by his own fortune and reputation--and the British were so used to the universal corruption of thievery and kickbacks in military supply chain even back in their own day in England affairs--they would never believe what the Great American man accomplished or how much he personally paid for wagons, food, blankets supplies for the campaigns and the men. Disgusting military industrial complex back in 1750's and today.
tom robbins you appear to be confused. He meant Benjamin Franklin. He did not mean Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
Franklin died before political parties were a thing.
Fun Fact: Eisenhower was the last Republican President to balance the budget. That was over 60 years ago.
True because the 1% paid their fair share of taxes not like now
There’s usually a recession after the budget is balanced. That’s interesting to consider.
@David Tucker look up what the tax rates were in the ‘50s. They were even higher than what any democrats want today, and what republicans call socialism. As for takers, the states that take more than they put in are almost all red states.
@@KevyNova True. The top tax bracket in 1956 paid 91 percent.
I was once on an aircraft carrier named after him.
you have the face of a pitbull
I live on the same planet 🤯
Thank you for your service to our Country.
So was a buddy of mine
Served on IKE precommunit where Mamie commisioned the ship plus lived a year has a military brat in Abiline. Only got one MED cruise then went to indian ocean for IRAN. Most of the Navy hated naming ships after any General. Same for politicians even if Ford served. Franklin Roosevelt not Teddy should be the name. Too many Repukes hate him. I remember when I was on the USS Detroit and went in the persian gulf at night. Noticed all the tankers knew then Reagan was not going to do jack. Turns around and makes deals with terrorists while now Trump makes deal with KGB.
Regarding General Lee @ Gettysburg...
J.E.B. Stuart and his cavalry was SUPPOSED to be conducting reconnaissance for the Army of Northern Virginia but instead he was off just raising hell.
A proper recon job would've alerted Lee to the presence of Buford's cavalry which Stuart could've engaged.
Instead Gen. Buford was able to delay the Confederate advance and allow Union troops to gather in strength.
So, Lee shouldn't have been fired (and wasn't) but J.E.B. Stuart should've been.
@Samwell Stuart done Lee the best he could. No one is perfect.
I agree Stuart was a big reason for lee's lack of intelligence at the battle...
This was awesome.. Ike respected general lee.. Now liberals pull down his statue...
No we just stopped believing your lost cause mythology and my generation realized it's kinda ridiculous to build statues honoring men who put their lives on the line to preserve the institution of slavery. Grant was a much better man, and general anyways, build more statues of him!
Lee and some 30 other generals were indicted in Virginia for treason shortly after the war. They were just never prosecuted. It was thought at the time if they prosecuted Lee they would have to prosecute all the confederate soldiers and that was an impossible task. Lee and all the confederates were the very definition of treason as it is described in the constitution.
I mean this was the 1950s lmao of course these white people are still respecting good ol slave supporter General Lee 🤷🏾♂️
@Wjbchuk Kuhcbjw lol why?
Eisenhower didn't like some generals such as Mcarthur, but they had political differences.
I like Ike.
I wish I could ask him, why Lee and not Grant?
I can't speak for Ike, but Lee achieved incredible victories with less men and fewer resources than Grant. Grant was a brutal and lavishly supplied General that simply bludgeoned his enemies into defeat. This takes nothing away from Grant and his understanding and application of force. Grant as president was also very good at reconciliation. In the end I think Lee was a tremendously gifted general and true gentleman and in the final analysis we all choose our own favorites from history.
@@alexanderkaminsky6811 Oh boi here we go again
"Lee won with less resources and manpower"
Not entirely right although I'll admit his Chancellorsville battle was pretty good. However a closer analysis of his battles indicates Lee was rather inconsistent with his usage of manpower. Malvern Hill, 3rd day at Chancellorsville, Picketts Charge, were all blunders Lee shouldn't have made especially his Antietam and Gettysburg campaigns which Lee shouldn't have launched in the first place. The 7 days battle is a good example that Lee would've used his manpower disproportionately in some cases.
"Grant was a brutal and and lavishly supplied general"
Grant wasn't brutal all you need to look at is his Vicksburg Campaign which a US military report stated that it was "the most brilliant campaign ever fought on American soil."
Grant was a vastly better logistican than Lee. This becomes even more apparent in his Vicksburg Campaign where he lived off the land and kept his troops supplied throughout it all.
In the Overland Campaign Grant utterly crushed defeated Lee. Now Lee wasn't bad general don't get me wrong, but a closer look at the casualties indicates that they were even in total losses. (16,000 killed/captured/missing Union vs 14-15,000 killed/captured/missing Confederate with 38,000 Union wounded and 19,000 Confederate wounded). In all Grant was the better general and I believe Eisenhower also admired Grant as well.
@@generalfred9426 Agree with everything you said , I was commenting more on the overall strategic position of the Union vs Confederacy. Grant was certainly an excellent commander and no less in any respect than Lee. Grant fundamentally understood his strengths and weaknesses and used them brilliantly, but he did have the lavish supplies, and ability to deliver them where needed, comparatively to all Confederate forces. He also had the larger population to draw soldiers from so losses were not nearly the concern that they were for Lee and other Confederate Generals. Ironically, a similar situation to the US vs the British in WWII.
@@alexanderkaminsky6811 Grant still better. Kicked Lee's butt twice. Less resources, etc., often used to cover bad judgement.
Lee was humble in defeat and worked toward reconciliation without animosity nor bitterness.
We should have heeded his warning
I love this video a lot because my grandma knows one of Eisenhower’s granddaughter
Oh cool!
Nice!
finchborat I know like my grandma sort of grew up with her and what I mean by that is she knew Eisenhower’s granddaughter very well
1957 must have been a slow news year
Sputnik was launched that year.
Little Rock. The deployment of the 101st Airborne Division to get nine African American teenagers into high school.
As opposed to the top news stories of today, concerning Kim and Kanye?🙄
I never figured out why all the noise about Lee . At the time ALL citizens owed allegiance to their home State FIRST and the US second . They still do if folks would bother to read our founding documents themselves instead of listening to someone with a political agenda telling them what it says , then again that could be said for ANY topic today .
Big Bill O'Reilly you really are a pathetic dipshit. LMAO
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
@@michaeloneil2379 The pledge of allegiance was written years after the war between the states ended.
Some did. It’s arguable, but most people supported loyalty to the Nation.
The Supreme Court settled the question in 1869. Texas vs. White.
Read that.
Exactly. The Declaration of Independence defines us as a union (not THE union as there is a huge difference) of free and INDEPENDENT states that have the rights that free and independent states ought to have including the right to wage war, negotiate treaties and conduct commerce. But that all changed with the Civil War when we became THE union where the states are no better then counties.
I like Ike
Ike declared that General Lee was one of the top 4 Americans of all time. Now the liberals are tearing down his statues in the middle of the night. I like Ike!
How could he be one of the top 4 Americans of all time when he fought in a rebellion to not be an American? You can’t secede from America and be a great American at the same time that’s not how it works lol
Not to mention considering General Lee himself hated the idea of statues glorifying the civil war, he himself would be first in line to tear those statues down. So who are you to say otherwise?
If an officer today renounced their oath to go fight for another country that resulted in the death and wounding of hundreds of thousands of Americans there's no doubt in my mind they would be deemed a traitor.
For any who say otherwise, Lee held American ideas dearly to the point that he WOULD go to war for them. He opposed secession, but was not about to ditch his loyalty to his home state. I feel that loyalty is deserving of respect and can be seen as a part of why every Southern soldier fought.
@@thatreddude8796 His greatness resided on the battlefield other than that he was a traitor.
i love this man
“Crusade in Europe” provides insight to him as a man and leader.
@ tugquarles,
You are aware that Eisenhower was the leader
of the D-Day invasion at Normandy?
Yes, it was a righteous cause (a "Crusade") to
end the terror of the Nazis! The unfortunate
result of the end of WW2 was that it allowed
Josef Stalin and his Communist thugs to put
their feet on the necks of half the central
Europeans and all of the eastern Europeans.
I found it interesting that Eisenhower's angus farm is located in Gettysburg, PA.
And his family still has close ties to Gettysburg College.
The Gettysburg area is very good
farmland. And, being a military
officer (WW1 and WW2) whose
heros were the military men of
the Civil war .....
Born in Denison, Texas on October 14, 1890. The Eisenhower Birthplace State Historic Site is located at 609 S. Lamar Avenue in Denison, Grayson County, in the U.S. state of Texas. President Dwight D. Eisenhower was born in the house on October 14, 1890, the first United States President to be born in Texas.
His family had moved to Kansas when he was two years old, and until he received Jackson's letter, he was unaware he had been born in Denison.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eisenhower_Birthplace_State_Historic_Site
@@professorspf He trained there early in his career and liked the area, and, of course, the history.
We all like Ike! It doesn’t matter if one was born after him or not!
Thats Respect. Something America needs A LOT more of in country !
No need to respect traitors and Lee was one. That dishonors patriots.
@@bp4187 That's not what Abraham Lincoln said. Abe had TOTAL respect for the man. Now snowflake... What makes your opinion better ?
@@njrebel6320 Didn't you hear? Those idiots are trying to cancel Lincoln too.
@@bp4187 Funny how we call the colonial traitors of 1775 "patriots" while calling southern patriots who were attempting exactly the same thing "traitors".
6000 people died from NJ during the Civil War. How about showing them some respect NJ REBEL.
Would be nice to have an intelligent, accomplished, well-spoken individual running the country right about now
I hear you there does seem to be a lot of very belligerent guys out there running for office
You’ve got one.
James Jones Well spoken, intelligent people don’t suggest injecting disinfectant to a leading healthcare official as a response to a global pandemic. This is just one of literally thousands of examples. Maybe you’re being sarcastic but nowadays the difference between sarcasm and statements from stupid people is basically indistinguishable. Same with religious extremism and religious parodies.
@@massageadventurist9804 Bruh, say whatever you want about Trump, but that thing about injecting disinfectant was obviously a joke.
Oh, we do, you just don't like him.
Victory breeds contempt.
Oh..... so that’s how a president is supposed to be have...
The press were dealing with a legendary figure and arguably the greatest American of the 20th century. That ensured a good atmosphere at the press conference.
And equally--the inquirer I think is Dorothy Kilgallen--and she was murdered over her JFK assassination sleuthing-- because she was how, professionally, a reporter/investigative journalist was supposed to behave--hence asking Ike to clarify what she likely knew was a promulgation of petty FAKE NEWS of the day--now cleared up by her question.
@Clark Hull Eisenhower was asked at the end of his second term about the press and whether they hurt him at times, and he chuckled and replied - well, when you get right down to it, can any reporter actually hurt the President of the United States?
Achievements - Failures = Presidential Quality
Most American Presidents since Wilson are firmly in the negative range.
John Babuka Americans behaved differently then also .
The thing is, he is mistaken. Grant and Sherman were the ones directly and indirectly responsible for the execution of WWII, specifically in Grant's ability to relieve, replace, or manage generals who were less competent than others in the field. Grant was on his way to Nashville to take over from general "Slow Trot" Thomas when Thomas finally got up the gumption to defeat Hood, surprising Grant. Grant himself was "never afraid of Lee." He feared Joe Johnston "twice as much" as Lee, because Johnston had a strategic view, which, ironically, got him replaced by the feistier yet not-so-bright Hood, "playing right into our hands," according to Sherman, because he could only defeat the Rebs if they came out to fight.
I'm sorry but this comment hurt my brain, how did Civil War mix in with ww2...
@@robertf.atrozskin3596 My original point was that Grant and Sherman respected Lee not nearly as much as Lee respected himself. Eisenhower was wrong about him, and I can't understand why he would say that unless it was for political purposes (the Southern vote was important). The other point is the idea of what it is like to be and fight in a war, as told by those who were there. Read "Band of Brothers" (or watch it on HBO Max) and then read, say, Grant's memoirs. (A more fulsome account might be Allen J. Ottens' "General John A. Rawlins: No Ordinary Man," but it's a bit pricey. Rawlins was Grant's chief of staff and Ottens weaves in other narratives.) The last point is that the military training at West Point was overhauled by Grant's generalship and campaigns, both in front of the line, and, more importantly, behind the lines and in human resource allocation. Officers were selected and reassigned based on results and not rank, something which made Eisenhower more effective than Montgomery on multiple occasions.
Getting votes from the South? Wasn't this the POTUS who oversaw Brown vs Schoolboard of Topeka, and implemented racial diversity in some public schools? One would think that Southerners would despise him!
@@johnjamesbaldridge867 grant never faced stonewall it would have been bloodshed
Is the WWII a typo? Lil thrown off by the juxtaposition of WWII, Grant & Sherman.
Hindsight is 20/20. Secondly, and no matter how generally played it in the Civil War the end would have been the same if the South Woulda lost they simply didn't have the manufacturing strength to beat the north. They had no foreign recognition those were the most crippling factors.
@Vulvasaurus Lix at the end they did vote to do it but me and equation the blacks never would have fought for the Confederacy. You have trouble getting black people to do anything for a country nowadays.
@trublu97: Lincoln hated slavery, but he loved the Union more. So he promised in his Inaugural Address that he would do nothing to take slaves away in present day slave states as long as they didn't try to secede. The South tried to secede anyway, so Lincoln was no longer bound by his promise to let them keep slavery.
Too bad South, you blew it.
@trublu97: Lincoln hated slavery. The only reason he did not take an abolitionist stance is because he didn't want to fracture the Union over any issue. If you doubt Lincoln detested slavery, consider the following statements he made:
_"“What natural right requires Kansas and Nebraska to be opened to Slavery? Is not slavery universally granted to be, in the abstract, a gross outrage on the law of nature? Have not all civilized nations, our own among them, made the Slave trade capital, [punishable by execution] and classed it with piracy and murder? Is it not held to be the great wrong of the world?"_
_"My ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal;’ and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave of another.”_
_"“I have always hated slavery Ithink as much as any abolitionist.”_
Lincoln made clear, however, that in order to save the Union, he was willing to let slaveowners in presently existing slave states keep their slaves. He remained committed to preventing slavery from spreading to any territories which had not yet achieved statehood.
However, after the Civil War broke out nobody had to worry about preventing the South from attempting to break away over slavery anymore. At that point Lincoln was no longer bound by his pledge to let the Southern slaveowners keep their slaves in return for not trying to break away, so as soon as the Union gained some sizable territory in the South, the Emancipation Proclamation was made.
As far as your deceptive nonsense about slavery remaining in the North after the Civil War, the answer is that slavery among the slave states who remained loyal to Union was allowed to persist for a few months until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed. Then it ended. You are trying to make a big deal about a short transition from the end of the Civil War until the Thirteenth Amendment was passed and ended slavery forever.
.
@Vulvasaurus Lix Greatest @ ever seen. Screw Lee after that I cannot give a damn. Good work, lad.
Wow, this was the same year my aunt was born!! Lol 😂
My eldest uncle was born in 1937. So he was already 20 here. What happens when your dad is youngest of 8, born in 1954. Have lot older uncles aunts and cousins and 2nd cousins your age
And that has any relevance, any relevance at all?
Vince Johns Relevance means nothing to millennials who spend 12+ hours a day staring slack-jawed at their phones.
Alejandro Sosa : You are so right!
I still like Ike!
So does everyone I think. President Eisenhower personified everything good about being American. He exuded positivity and charm combined with an innate sense of duty and a love of freedom. One admirable quality he had was a healthy respect for his allies. That helped to hold the alliance together. Prima donnas like Montgomery, Patton and de Gaulle didn't have these qualities. It is fortunate for the allies that Ike was the main man. As president Ike upheld international law by telling the British and French to leave Suez in 1956. He also warned of the dangers of the military industrial complex in his farewell address. too. He more than anyone knew of the sufferings of war. I like Ike.
Traders and acts of treason are punishable by Death he had no court case at no judge and no jury a peace treaty was signed and he was free to go about his business
General Lee's Behavior after losing wasn't just realizing that he lost and he lost graciously but how history would view him and legally as a treasonous party he should have been put to death him and his fellow generals and commanders ...
he didn't want the remnants of his lost cause to be used to keep a lost cause alive after admitting fault and loss
he himself said statues to a lost cause should not be built in my memory to paraphrase .. paraphrase
@@ThePauprinceaz09 Let's get this 'traitor' nonsense dealt with, shall we?
A man joins a Golf Club which only contains single men.
This man has a wife. The club committee agrees that he can join anyway.
Later on, the committee decides that being married is not acceptable. The man resigns, but continues to be married.
TRAITOR!...
@@tooleyheadbang4239
Here's a better analogy you and I form a country legally binding documents are formed lands are conquered and in the documents that we signed and formed the Constitution we leave room for growth and Independence of all citizens
together we build an army and through that army we conquered another people enslaved them then our grandchildren grow up still in charge says to the other grandchild I don't want any more slaves and the other say well guess what I still want slaves ..
Who's the traitor me wanting to expand the nation that we have begun or you wanting to keep it a slave state selfish and morally bankrupt not following the original document that designed was leaving room for growth for all citizens and mind you at the time slaves were not citizens yet but as the amendments amended the Constitution things changed traders don't want things to change
The analogy of the golf club makes no sense if all the other members were single men and he was the only one married and then joined he is not a traitor they can just kick him out because he wasn't following the original constitution of the golf club or else they need to amend it like the Constitution was amended mind you it was the 13th amendment that finally freed the slaves 12 more amendments were more important than giving a black man freedom
Our good old friend, the media, raised its head in Eisenhower's time too. The "controversy" wasn't really Monty saying he would have fired Lee (and Meade), but the press reported Eisenhower "agreed", which he had not. I am shocked, shocked, you hear, to find that the press gets things wrong!
I would have executed the traitors.
But not shocked at the voice asking him to set things straight in person and on the record--I think that is the amazing Dorothy Kilgallen--murdered/poisoned for looking into JFK assassination affairs.
Hey IKE ...IKE ...ummm
Traders and acts of treason are punishable by Death he had no court case at no judge and no jury a peace treaty was signed and he was free to go about his business
General Lee's Behavior after losing wasn't just realizing that he lost and he lost graciously but how history would view him and legally as a treasonous party he should have been put to death him and his fellow generals and commanders ...
he didn't want the remnants of his lost cause to be used to keep a lost cause alive after admitting fault and loss
he himself said statues to a lost cause should not be built in my memory to paraphrase .. paraphrase
So, this video is not about the General Lee from The Dukes of Hazzard?
Apple Teck sorry buddy
😆
It must be, they had the same name!!
You may have noticed in my office there are four pictures, of the four most important cars.
Is ya ignert?
I don't think anybody leaving a comment actually knows what the term military-industrial complex refers to.
The military-industrial complex (MIC) is an informal alliance between a nation's military and the defense industry that supplies it, seen together as a vested interest which influences public policy.
False. The military industrial complex is the garage where all our tanks are stored.
If you have no military-industrial complex, you probably have to buy weapons or buy protection or sign in a club.
Do you have any idea of how many nosebleeds or cerebral hemorrhages you've just caused? (grin)
"It's hard to argue with victory." It's pretty easy to argue with the Battle of the Hurtgen Forest. Can't blame that one on Monty.
Nick Cipollone yes you can. It was Monty that insisted that the allies move a one unit to press the Huns back. Patton wanted to cut across the base and bag the whole lot. We lost more men in that press back exercise than we did in the bulge phase.
@@bodydriver Well, if you want to blame Monty... OK.
The Reichswald was just as bad, and just as unnecessary. Left the Germans once again scratching their heads as to what the Allies were thinking as much, if not more being so late in the conflict, as the Hurtgen debacle.
I really wonder how the battle of the Atlantic impacted WW2? I mean how much equipment and supplies ended up on the bottom of the ocean? The Germans sunk over 700 ships one year!
Ike had a press conference just to give his opinion on a historical issue?
If you are President, you can have a press conference on any old think. And people will come and listen, too.
Being President is a great way to get people’s attention.
He was asked a question which lead into his broader answer.
The asking of stupid questions of the President is not new
Ike was general. How could he not respect Lee’s tactical Genius? Ike, like Lee, was outnumbered, undersupplied, and at a great disadvantage. Lee, the underdog... led a four year war that the Union thought it would win in a month. The US defeated a regime that held all of continental Europe in its grasp. Ike was a student. Forget about politics for just a second and realize Lee’s undeniable impact on the battlefield.
Lee - unlike Ike - was outnumbered, out supplied, and fought at a great disadvantage. Which was one of the big reasons Ike respected Lee's sucsess on the battlefield.
In no way was Ike outnumbered, undersupplied. I might give the disadvantaged
Merritt Singleton Clearly Ike wasn’t outnumbered or under supplied. The whole deal with the Axis not wanting the US on the Allied side is because the US has lots of industrial capabilities and manpower that can flood Europe with soldiers and weapons until the Axis ran out of bullets and bombs.
Eisenhower was more like Grant, IMO. At least in situation.
@Peter Laughton
Patton respected the German army too.
This is when you could admire Washington, Lincoln and Lee and not be totally slammed for doing it and called every name the PC mafia can cook up.
You misunderstand the “PC mafia,” as you put it. As a member of said group, I greatly admire Robert E. Lee as a gentleman, general, and tactician. I also admire Field Marshal Edwin Rommel as a general and tactician. However, the underlying cause for which both men dedicated their talents was immoral. I don’t see how anyone can disagree. If that’s being a PC mafioso, then so be it.
Lee should have been fired after Gettysburg. The entire Confederate leadership, including Lee, should have been hung for the continued death and destruction after it was clear the war was lost.
The period you are referring to was also when Jim Crow laws and right-wing terrorism ruled the South, when citizens were beaten and shot when they tried to register to vote, just because of the color of their skin. Neo-Confederates love to extol history, and "heritage" but they somehow conveniently forget this part of it.
@@roto5927, Lee was serving Virginia, his home state; his country... Even then, the agonizing decision to not serve the Federal government was indeed agonizing..... As an in-law to Washington's legacy, the weigh of the decision he made must have been the bulk of the planet on his shoulders... These individual "States" comprise the Union as a whole. I hope that I did not hurt your feelings, send you to a safe space or broach any of your 32 possible genders and, defame your inner child....
@@johnalden5821, when you refer to the actions of "only the South" you better take a look at where the bulk of the 20th Century, White Robe and Cone Hat Klan hailed from....... They even marched in FDR's Inaugural Parade, the group from New York and Connecticut.....that is....
A great man.
General Marshall was going to fire Eisenhower during WW 2. It is in Truman's book, "Plain Spoken."
Oddly, Truman would not allow it to be printed until posthumously.
Because he didn't want to hurt Mamie.
The book was "Plain Speaking" not what you posted. And it wasn't Truman's book. He did not write it, and it was the rambling's of an old man's faulty memory. There was NEVER a chance that Marshall was going to fire Eisenhower.
@@garymorris1856
Did you read it?
Does the Press Corp. In Washington still stand when the present POTUS enters the press gallery? Curious Canadian.
Yup, when the President enters a room people stand. Even this pos
boffo63 Thanks for the info!
Why would they stand up when Trump walks into the press briefing room? Trump is just an ignorant low life criminal pretending to be a president.
@@willoutlaw4971 They stand up to stretch their legs. Trump is always an hour an a half late to his press meetings. That's a lot of sitting.
Yes, you stand when the President of your country enters the room. It doesn't mean you like the man or agree with his views. It means you respect the office of the President and what it represents to the American people.
Eisenhower admired Lee as a fellow general. I admire Erwin Rommel but that doesn't mean I think there should be statues erected to a general who fought for Hitler, for Jewish people to see.
Thats how I feel. I admire Lee's tactical genius, but loathe his ideas. Thats why I like Grant more. I like him as a general and he seemed like a good man.
What you don’t know about Lee speaks volumes. His life was much, much more than war. Indeed he was a man, principled, teacher,, preacher, and a family man, who was so honored in his lifetime he was revered by the conquering nation. By his very being,where the nation was badly torn, he helped to mend the way, bringing the two parts together again.
@@kangaroobooks7206 I admire aspects of Rommel's character as well (not just his generalship, though I think the two go together). It is possible that - had Rommel not been ordered to commit suicide by Hitler - he would have been a significant figure in the post-war world, perhaps Secretary General of NATO. At any rate he was widely admired by the western allies, including very publicly by Churchill. But because, like Lee, he patriotically served an evil cause, I don't think there should be statues erected to him. Do you hold a different opinion with respect to statues of Lee?
@@kangaroobooks7206 yes, but he also owned slaves, fought for slavery and after the war tried his best to make sure black people didnt get the vote. He believed black people were better off slaves in America than free in Africa. He did free many of his slaves, but he also believed that slavery was good for black people. And of course, he was a traitor. I know many people love him, but he was. He filled out the exact definition of treachery and even if he didn't like slavery, he fought for a nation who, in their own words was, "thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery". I count that as fighting for slavery.
Chester Parish, A man fights for his God, his family, and his country. But I suppose, with all these broken homes in America, and for many Non Believers, the land is nothing more than what grows between the toes. Personally, I fight for love, and try not to judge the motives of others.
Hope the woke brigade don't find this channel...Imagine their response when they discover that a Confederate General is one of Eisenhower's top 4 Americans of all time, and had the audacity to have a print of him on his wall in the Oval Office!
God bless general Robert E. Lee!!
Attaboy, Ike!
Should have listened to Longstreet.
Honestly Id think there was any good options at Gettysburg
@@scl1332
How about: swing south of the Union left (their weak side) and March to Washington while carrying on a mild rear guard action?
Virtually the entire Federal army would have been behind Lee, with next to nothing ahead of him.
@@markthomas9769 Uh huh. And string his army out for miles along the single road available to him. Ewell alone would have had to have marched seven miles to the east before he could have even begun such a movement, and every bit of such a general movement by the Confederates would have been observed by the Federals. And that doesn't even take into account the livestock and supply train either. So, ok, Lee tries to disengage and march around the flank of a much larger Federal army that certainly is not going to simply remain on the heights and wave as he passes. Where exactly is he going to go and how is he going to get there? Washington was never an option. It was at that time the most heavily fortified city on earth, and in the incredibly unlikely event that he even got there with his army intact, he would have had the entire Army of the Potomac behind him. Longstreet's supposed suggestion was unrealistic and frankly irresponsible, and Lee wisely chose to ignore it as it certainly would have resulted in a military disaster even greater than the one that occurred. The truth is that neither Meade nor Lee were looking for a fight at Gettysburg, but once engaged Lee was in a strategic position that virtually required him to fight it out. It is precisely for this reason that Lee kept ordering his generals to avoid precipitating a general action on the first day. Simply by virtue of having marched his army into Pennsylvania he placed himself in a strategic position that required him to attack the Army of the Potomac wherever he encountered it, as the only rational strategic goal for marching that far north in the first place was the destruction of that army. So he needed to be able to dictate the ground and circumstances of any such general engagement. His problem was that he had been marching blind for several days and once a general engagement was unexpectedly begun he was left with few realistic options and none of them were very good.
@@markthomas9769 There were 300,000 US troops guarding Washington. Lee would have been trapped with no escape to Virginia.
Lee understood how to maneuver...and bought time for the South, but that doesn't mean he was on the right side of history! He wasn't!!
Thanks, yes maybe a hard story for Lee: culture, Friends *& “ STATE” calls for “Service”.......
He fought for his home state. It was a hard decision for him. He still was one of America's greatest generals.
Robert E Lee > Benedict Arnold both traitors only one is celebrated interesting
@@methos1592 Pffft
I wonder if Ike would stand up for General Lee in 2020 (today). Or if he would cave like every other politician we have representing us today.
He would. My parents said that he was an honorable man.
Yes he would, because he too was a General, not a politician.
Taking down statues of Gen. Lee isn't really about Gen. Lee. It's about the people who put the statues up (usually 1890-1940s) and what they meant by it (celebrating their own return to power in the South and underlining their Jim Crow laws).
@@sammartland932 Never heard that before. Stop making up things
A talented general is immortalized on the battlefield, not in statues