(03-20-2017, 01:28 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Jackson_Day

(03-20-2017, 03:20 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Lee was far more honorable of anyone mentioned on that list with maybe the exception of Rommel. But his greatest misfortune was that he was born in Virginia, and was a product of the times of his state as he would own slaves himself through his wife. He was against secession though and was not a proponent of it, but that wasnt enough to persuade him to fight against his own state after they seceded as he couldnt raise his hand against Virginia when it came down to it.

Now should he be honored on MLK day, no. Should Lee be typecasted as a historical bad guy, no. When his army invaded the north, they were forbidden to rape and murder the northern civilians, unlike what the northern armies did when they were invading the south. And when the time came to surrender, he did so honorably and urged the rest of the south to do so peacefully as he backed President's Johnson's reconstruction plan.

(03-20-2017, 03:05 PM)BengalHawk62 Wrote: What about Jefferson Davis?  or Henry Wirz?

(03-20-2017, 03:20 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Lee was far more honorable of anyone mentioned on that list with maybe the exception of Rommel. But his greatest misfortune was that he was born in Virginia, and was a product of the times of his state as he would own slaves himself through his wife. He was against secession though and was not a proponent of it, but that wasnt enough to persuade him to fight against his own state after they seceded as he couldnt raise his hand against Virginia when it came down to it.

Now should he be honored on MLK day, no. Should Lee be typecasted as a historical bad guy, no. When his army invaded the north, they were forbidden to rape and murder the northern civilians, unlike what the northern armies did when they were invading the south. And when the time came to surrender, he did so honorably and urged the rest of the south to do so peacefully as he backed President's Johnson's reconstruction plan.

(03-20-2017, 04:06 PM)Dill Wrote: As a "product of his times," Lee certainly forced his slaves to work for him as long as he could. He does not seem to care whom he got them from.

Lee's treatment of white, northern civilians was indeed very respectful. But what happened to northern blacks caught fleeing before the Army of Virginia in 1863?

Seems a little unfair to compare "northern armies" behavior to Lee's behavior.  What happens if we compare armies to armies? Or Lee to Grant or Lincoln, who freed the slaves? And by the way, I am aware of no "northern army" not forbidden to rape and murder civilians.

The real question is whether Lee should be held forth as a neo-Confederate icon, his "honor" used to revise our history of the "Great War of Northern Aggression."  That is what is at stake in celebrating him on MLK day, and also what is at stake in "honor comparisons" between the north and south.  

I say no.

(03-20-2017, 03:20 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Lee was far more honorable of anyone mentioned on that list with maybe the exception of Rommel. But his greatest misfortune was that he was born in Virginia, and was a product of the times of his state as he would own slaves himself through his wife. He was against secession though and was not a proponent of it, but that wasnt enough to persuade him to fight against his own state after they seceded as he couldnt raise his hand against Virginia when it came down to it.

Now should he be honored on MLK day, no. Should Lee be typecasted as a historical bad guy, no. When his army invaded the north, they were forbidden to rape and murder the northern civilians, unlike what the northern armies did when they were invading the south. And when the time came to surrender, he did so honorably and urged the rest of the south to do so peacefully as he backed President's Johnson's reconstruction plan.

(03-20-2017, 05:57 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The comparison to Rommel is a good one.  As a career military man, especially in a country in which the military and political system are inviolately separate, how do you reconcile your loyalty and commitment to a cause that you find to be unjust?  Both men did their best to maintain personal integrity under difficult circumstances.

As to OP, celebrating anything Confederacy related on MLK day smacks of either stupidity or, far more likely, deliberate provocation.

(03-20-2017, 05:30 PM)xxlt Wrote: Millhouse said, "No," too, to be fair.

My bigger concern is why Millhouse? Is he paying homage to Bart's little weiner friend or America's icon of integrity and leadership, Richard Milhous Nixon? Or is it something even more sinister - both?

(03-20-2017, 02:08 PM)xxlt Wrote: USA!USA!USA!

(03-20-2017, 05:30 PM)xxlt Wrote: Millhouse said, "No," too, to be fair.

My bigger concern is why Millhouse? Is he paying homage to Bart's little weiner friend or America's icon of integrity and leadership, Richard Milhous Nixon? Or is it something even more sinister - both?

(03-20-2017, 06:04 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Neither, just an old high school nickname actually.

(03-20-2017, 06:42 PM)Nebuchadnezzar Wrote: I find it interesting that the OP didn't mention Stalin, Lenin, Amin, Pol Pol, Mao, Castro and others.

I'm not saying that days celebrating any evil is needed or wanted, I'm just saying its interesting.

(03-20-2017, 10:22 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't necessarily disagree with Milhouse. I just found the presentation a little ambiguous and wanted to nudge his point away from any defense of the Confederacy.