Honoring Our Heroes

[Dill]

(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.

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.