# US Army War College Considers Removing Paintings of Lee & Jackson and that is a good thing. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 19, 2013, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742 "2013-12-19T18:10:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![zoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zoid/32/336_2.png) [@zoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zoid)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 10:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/101 "2013-12-23T10:59:13Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > If people want to be offended by history, I guess that’s their problem. > > My point was that I can’t tell from reading the article if this is just a collection of historical portraits or if it’s meant to be “Honored US Military Leaders”. If it’s the former, I don’t see any big deal. If it’s the latter, then they should be taken down. For instance, I wouldn’t see any problem with a portrait of Gen. Gage in a collection of military men connected with US History. Keep the portraits up and either drape them over with black cloth or turn them to face the wall. Now everyone’s happy. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 11:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/102 "2013-12-23T11:44:13Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > ^ > Nearly 100 years before the US backed South Vietnam. Hey, you won’t catch me arguing that we should be celebrating that black mark in our history either. ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 12:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/103 "2013-12-23T12:46:45Z")
How about if they put up memorials to the Confederate Generals, but don’t actually name them? Sort of memorials to people we don’t want to actually remember? They did this with Benedict Arnold. Although he’s remembered chiefly as a traitor\*, he was an able commander, popular with his troops and with Washington. If he’d been killed at the battle of Saratoga, he might be revered today. But bitter, and thinking himself ill-used (and also having a penchant for high living, and a high maintenance wife), he contrived to betray West Point. He escaped just ahead of arrest, then joined the other side and lead raids against Virginia and Connecticut, burning New London. Nevertheless, there’s a monument to his injured foot at Saratoga battlefield, which manages to not actually name him: > **[Boot Monument](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boot_Monument)** > > The Boot Monument is an American Revolutionary War memorial located in Saratoga National Historical Park, New York. Erected during 1887 by John Watts de Peyster and sculpted by George Edwin Bissell, it commemorates Major General Benedict Arnold's service at the Battles of Saratoga while in the Continental Army, but he is not named on the monument because Arnold later defected from the Americans to the British. Instead, the monument commemorates Arnold as the "most brilliant soldier of the Cont... > [@](#): > > Though apocryphal, a story that has circulated in various versions states: > When Benedict Arnold was leading the forces of the King against his former compatriots in Virginia, among his prisoners was a certain plucky and witty officer, who, in answer to Arnold’s question, “What will the Americans do with me if they catch me?” replied, “They will cut off the leg which was wounded when you were fighting so gloriously for the cause of liberty, and bury it with the honors of war, and hang the rest of your body on a gibbet.”[1] - \*As a Footnote (Ha!), I’ll add that Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna lost a leg in battle defending Mexico against France at the Battle of Vera Cruz. He had his own leg buried with honors. Later on, when the Mexicans got fed up with him, they disinterred the leg and got rid of it. So even a leg lost honorably in battle might get thrown out if a general’s subsequent actions bring him out of favor. ---
**Author:** ![dtriebel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@dtriebel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dtriebel)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/104 "2013-12-23T14:45:11Z")
Robert E. Lee was a man of great character, and maybe the best general this country has ever had. It is unfortunate that he fought for the south, he was viewed with great respect by most everyone on both sides of the conflict. It’s easy to have a myopic view when looking at history, obviously he chose the wrong side, but for those who have studied his role in history, his portrait certainly belongs. The only argument that makes sense to me to take it down is that we are as a country pretty ignorant of history and it may make more sense to take down a symbol that has negative connotations for many as that is much easier than fighting ignorance. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 3:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/105 "2013-12-23T15:33:48Z")
If an American Nazi sympathizer had switched sides during WWII and become the most decorated German commander, would you call for his portrait to be hung in the war college? ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/106 "2013-12-23T16:19:59Z")
> [@dtriebel](#): > > Robert E. Lee was a man of great character, and maybe the best general this country has ever had. It is unfortunate that he fought for the south, he was viewed with great respect by most everyone on both sides of the conflict. > > It’s easy to have a myopic view when looking at history, obviously he chose the wrong side, but for those who have studied his role in history, his portrait certainly belongs. The only argument that makes sense to me to take it down is that we are as a country pretty ignorant of history and it may make more sense to take down a symbol that has negative connotations for many as that is much easier than fighting ignorance. Anytime you use modern paradigms rather than trying to understand history from the point of view of the people who lived it you risk misunderstanding what actually happened. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/107 "2013-12-23T19:43:44Z")
> [@the\_diego](#): > > Lee’s living relatives say “sure thing,” provided they return Arlington to them. > [@madmonk28](#): > > Tell them next time, don’t back the losing side. Very few people know the second half of the Custis Arlington Estate story. It’s often noted as being “Robert E. Lee’s home” or his estate, it was in fact where he lived prior to the war so in that sense it was his home. He did not, in fact, own it. Under common property inheritance laws at the time and as stipulated in George Washington Custis’s will, Mary Custis Lee owned the property. Robert E. Lee of course as her husband had obvious use of and could derive benefit from the property, but he couldn’t have sold it without the consent of his wife. Further, if it had never been confiscated and Mary Lee had predeceased Robert, the lands would have passed to his children–not to Lee as the widower (as a matter of fact it was confiscated and Lee died before Mary, so moot point.) Most likely as would have been typical of such arrangements, Mary Lee would have had a will that stipulated Robert could maintain use/residence of the property for his natural life but if he later married and had children neither his new spouse or children of that union would have any legal claim to the property. So technically, while it was his home, Lee never really “owned” that land, his wife did. Anyway, Lee’s son sued the Federal government arguing the seizure was illegal. Ultimately the SCOTUS **agreed** and required title be given back to him. At that point it was the 1880s and it was Arlington National Cemetery, and G.W. Lee had no intention of actually physically reoccupying his land. He sold it back to the Federal government, essentially immediately, for $150,000. (A massive sum at the time, and probably far better than owning the actual land was having that much capital in that era.) Robert himself never wanted to contest the land seizure because he didn’t want to stir up problems in the newly unified country and was concerned as to how it would look. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 23, 2013, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/108 "2013-12-23T19:52:20Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > If an American Nazi sympathizer had switched sides during WWII and become the most decorated German commander, would you call for his portrait to be hung in the war college? Probably not, but that was a different war and a different situation in a few ways: 1. Loyalty to State over country was not seen as a pernicious wrong in the mid-19th century. Most of the people who founded the United States felt greater loyalty to their own State than their country. The thirteen colonies were thirteen colonies subordinate to the crown. They were not a unified body until the AoC was signed and then only barely. It’s not like the year 1940 when the Civil War had already happened. Lee had genuine dual responsibilities. In the modern era I could never defend someone who would favor his loyalty to his State over his country as the States should be viewed as sovereign parts of the country and not their own separate polities. 2. “During” WWII is key too. Lee did not switch sides after having fought for the Union at the beginning of the conflict. Lee remained neutral until Virginia seceded, then he decided to enter on that side of the conflict. To me that would be a lot different from a Benedict Arnold situation where you had actually lead troops on one side of the conflict and then you sell out to join the other side. 3. Nazi-sympathy is loyalty to an unequivocally evil ideology. Slavery and slaveocracy were true evils, but as I said upthread while the Civil War was started by the slave power to defend slavery, you cannot imprint on every participant of the war motives based on that. As in all wars individual participants have a wide range of motives. On the Union side you certainly had soldiers fighting for emancipation/abolition, national unity, in revenge for perceived Southern wrongs, loyalty to State and country, and certainly some just interested in the potential economic prospects of warring. Likewise on the Confederate side there were many reasons individuals signed up. Since Lee is the most famous Confederate military officer and we know much of his personal opinions as part of the historical record we know he was not motivated by a desire to defend slavery. That puts him a different category than someone wanting to work to spread Nazism out of ideological loyalty to the Nazi cause. A more apt comparison to Lee than your hypothetical, would be a man who say, was born and raised for a time in America but born to German parents. But then he later moves to Germany and lives, and when war breaks out he decides that while he is both a German and an American citizen he feels greater loyalty to Germany and goes on to be a great general. I can get behind some portrait hanging of that guy, sure. It’s not a realistic scenario given the mechanics of becoming a General in that era, though. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/109 "2013-12-25T20:30:09Z")
> [@dtriebel](#): > > Robert E. Lee was a man of great character, and maybe the best general this country has ever had. It is unfortunate that he fought for the south, he was viewed with great respect by most everyone on both sides of the conflict. > > It’s easy to have a myopic view when looking at history, obviously he chose the wrong side, but for those who have studied his role in history, his portrait certainly belongs. The only argument that makes sense to me to take it down is that we are as a country pretty ignorant of history and it may make more sense to take down a symbol that has negative connotations for many as that is much easier than fighting ignorance. Your post highlights a split in this issue - that between understanding history and honoring historical figures. In this case, nobody is arguing for erasing Lee from the history books. We should definitely learn about him. But we don’t have to honor him in the process. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/110 "2013-12-25T20:33:05Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > Anyway, Lee’s son sued the Federal government arguing the seizure was illegal. Ultimately the SCOTUS **agreed** and required title be given back to him. At that point it was the 1880s and it was Arlington National Cemetery, and G.W. Lee had no intention of actually physically reoccupying his land. He sold it back to the Federal government, essentially immediately, for $150,000. (A massive sum at the time, and probably far better than owning the actual land was having that much capital in that era.) > > Robert himself never wanted to contest the land seizure because he didn’t want to stir up problems in the newly unified country and was concerned as to how it would look. And imagine what he would have to do to reoccupy the land - either live with a huge cemetery full of war dead in his yard to remind him of his father’s role in the war (put there precisely for that purpose), or somehow dig them up and relocate them. ---
**Author:** ![dougie\_monty](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/439d5e/32.png) [@dougie\_monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougie_monty)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/111 "2013-12-25T22:13:26Z")
My forbears are Southern on both sides. Mom’s ancestors are kin to Lee’s family. What does that make me? “It is well that war is so terrible–we should grow too fond of it.” --Lee ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [December 25, 2013, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/112 "2013-12-25T22:18:11Z")
Well I am going to let President Ford weigh in > [@](#): > > I am very pleased to sign Senate Joint Resolution 23, restoring posthumously the long overdue, full rights of citizenship to General Robert E. Lee. This legislation corrects a 110-year oversight of American history. It is significant that it is signed at this place. > Lee’s dedication to his native State of Virginia charted his course for the bitter Civil War years, causing him to reluctantly resign from a distinguished career in the United States Army and to serve as General of the Army of Northern Virginia. He, thus, forfeited his rights to U.S. citizenship. > Once the war was over, he firmly felt the wounds of the North and South must be bound up. He sought to show by example that the citizens of the South must dedicate their efforts to rebuilding that region of the country as a strong and vital part of the American Union. > In 1865, Robert E. Lee wrote to a former Confederate soldier concerning his signing the Oath of Allegiance, and I quote: “This war, being at an end, the Southern States having laid down their arms, and the questions at issue between them and the Northern States having been decided, I believe it to be the duty of everyone to unite in the restoration of the country and the reestablishment of peace and harmony…” > As a soldier, General Lee left his mark on military strategy. As a man, he stood as the symbol of valor and of duty. As an educator, he appealed to reason and learning to achieve understanding and to build a stronger nation. The course he chose after the war became a symbol to all those who had marched with him in the bitter years towards Appomattox. > General Lee’s character has been an example to succeeding generations, making the restoration of his citizenship an event in which every American can take pride. > In approving this Joint Resolution, Congress removed the legal obstacle to citizenship which resulted from General Lee’s Civil War service. “Although more than a century late, I am delighted to sign this resolution and to complete the full restoration of General Lee’s citizenship.” ” **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/113 "2013-12-26T00:51:00Z")
> [@LawMonkey](#): > > I’m not sure that those of us who would remove honor from the Confederates would do so because they lost. Even if they’d won, they’d still kinda be a bunch of jerks who pledged “their lives, their liberty and their sacred honor” to the cause of making the world safe for slavery. Well the thing is that just seems to be the straw man version of the Confederacy created by the victors. From the point of view of the rebels, I don’t think the American Civil War was fought over slavery any more than the American War of Independence was fought over tea. ---
**Author:** ![silenus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/silenus/32/166_2.png) [@silenus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/silenus)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 12:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/114 "2013-12-26T00:55:46Z")
And that point of view would be wrong, just as it was then. Traitors and losers, the lot of them. ---
**Author:** ![Capt\_Kirk](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/779978/32.png) [@Capt\_Kirk](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt_Kirk)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/115 "2013-12-26T01:49:51Z")
> [@silenus](#): > > And that point of view would be wrong, just as it was then. > > Traitors and losers, the lot of them. So the guy who only declines an offer to lead the Union Armies only when he knows that he has to invade his home State, Goes through the process, during the war, of Manumission and frees all of his recently inherited slaves, Educates those same slaves, which is against Virginia law, Refuses to conduct guerrilla warfare when ordered to by Jeff Davis, Repeatedly reminds his fellow combatants that they are back in the Union and urges them to act as such after the War, Brings Northern students to Washington College(Washington and Lee University) to foster harmony, Vocally advocates for the education of Black Americans(though sadly not the right to vote, yet), That Man is worth of our praise and adoration, he helped heal a Nation broken by Civil War, was a brilliant tactician and an honest a forthright Gentleman. Bless you Robert E. Lee, may you rest in peace, your Nation thanks you (not the cause you fought for) We have a statue in the Capitol of you BTW **Capt** ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 2:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/116 "2013-12-26T02:49:45Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Well the thing is that just seems to be the straw man version of the Confederacy created by the victors. From the point of view of the rebels, I don’t think the American Civil War was fought over slavery any more than the American War of Independence was fought over tea. Well said. I tried to make that point earlier, but you said it better. ---
**Author:** ![chacoguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/50afbb/32.png) [@chacoguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chacoguy)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/117 "2013-12-26T03:55:11Z")
> [@Capt\_Kirk](#): > > So the guy who only declines an offer to lead the Union Armies only when he knows that he has to invade his home State, > > Goes through the process, during the war, of Manumission and frees all of his recently inherited slaves, > > Educates those same slaves, which is against Virginia law, > > Refuses to conduct guerrilla warfare when ordered to by Jeff Davis, > > Repeatedly reminds his fellow combatants that they are back in the Union and urges them to act as such after the War, > > Brings Northern students to Washington College(Washington and Lee University) to foster harmony, > > Vocally advocates for the education of Black Americans(though sadly not the right to vote, yet), > > That Man is worth of our praise and adoration, he helped heal a Nation broken by Civil War, was a brilliant tactician and an honest a forthright Gentleman. > > Bless you Robert E. Lee, may you rest in peace, your Nation thanks you (not the cause you fought for) > > We have a statue in the Capitol of you BTW > > **Capt** I gotta go with this, 'cept I’m in Colorado and grew up in Nebraska. ---
**Author:** ![madmonk28](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/madmonk28/32/20811_2.png) [@madmonk28](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/madmonk28)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/118 "2013-12-26T03:55:47Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > Well the thing is that just seems to be the straw man version of the Confederacy created by the victors. From the point of view of the rebels, I don’t think the American Civil War was fought over slavery any more than the American War of Independence was fought over tea. Wow, that’s an extraoridniary claim and one I’m sure you can support with cites. Someone needs to go back in time and tell the Confederacy that they didn’t secede over slavery, because they totally said that was the reason: > [@](#): > > (T)he original documents of the Confederacy show quite clearly that the war was based on one thing: slavery. For example, in its declaration of secession, Mississippi explained, “Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world … a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization.” In its declaration of secession, South Carolina actually comes out against the rights of states to make their own laws — at least when those laws conflict with slaveholding. “In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals,” the document reads. The right of transit, Loewen said, was the right of slaveholders to bring their slaves along with them on trips to non-slaveholding states. > In its justification of secession, Texas sums up its view of a union built upon slavery: “We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.” > **[6 Civil War Myths, Busted](https://www.livescience.com/13673-civil-war-anniversary-myths.html)** > > Why the Civil War was really about slavery and other Civil War myths busted. > [@](#): > > Four days after South Carolina seceded on Dec. 20, 1860, the state adopted a second document titled “Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union.” Loewen considers the record, central to his new collection, one of the five most important documents in the history of the country, launching as it did a seminal chapter in America’s ongoing struggle to define itself. > > …. > > “They are against states’ rights,” Loewen said. “And they name the states and they name the rights that really upset them.” > Specifically, South Carolina spells out grievances with 13 Northern states that had passed local laws that “render useless” the federal Fugitive Slave Act. South Carolina is miffed at New York for denying slaveholders the right to transport slaves through its territory, and at Ohio and Iowa for refusing to surrender escaped slaves charged with crimes in Virginia. It’s angry at several Northern states for giving freed blacks citizenship and even the right to vote (a decision that was then the responsibility of the states, not the federal government). These northern laws were essentially an attempt to hold federal slave policy at bay — using states’ rights. > **[Of Course the Civil War Was About Slavery](https://psmag.com/education/of-course-the-civil-war-was-about-slavery-26265/)** > > Concrete concerns about saving and expanding slavery, and not the nebulous theology of states’ rights, ignited the U.S. Civil War. Why does that message keep getting lost? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/119 "2013-12-26T13:28:41Z")
Going to original sources, there’s CSA VP Alexander Stephens’ [“Cornerstone Speech”:](http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/cornerstone-speech/) > [@](#): > > The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the “rock upon which the old Union would split.” He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with, but the general opinion of the men of that day was that, somehow or other in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away. This idea, though not incorporated in the constitution, was the prevailing idea at that time. The constitution, it is true, secured every essential guarantee to the institution while it should last, and hence no argument can be justly urged against the constitutional guarantees thus secured, because of the common sentiment of the day. Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the government built upon it fell when the “storm came and the wind blew.” > > Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner- stone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery subordination to the superior race is his natural and normal condition. This, our new government, is the first, in the history of the world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral truth. This truth has been slow in the process of its development, like all other truths in the various departments of science. It has been so even amongst us. Many who hear me, perhaps, can recollect well, that this truth was not generally admitted, even within their day. The errors of the past generation still clung to many as late as twenty years ago. Those at the North, who still cling to these errors, with a zeal above knowledge, we justly denominate fanatics. All fanaticism springs from an aberration of the mind from a defect in reasoning. It is a species of insanity. One of the most striking characteristics of insanity, in many instances, is forming correct conclusions from fancied or erroneous premises; so with the anti-slavery fanatics. Their conclusions are right if their premises were. They assume that the negro is equal, and hence conclude that he is entitled to equal privileges and rights with the white man. If their premises were correct, their conclusions would be logical and just but their premise being wrong, their whole argument fails. I recollect once of having heard a gentleman from one of the northern States, of great power and ability, announce in the House of Representatives, with imposing effect, that we of the South would be compelled, ultimately, to yield upon this subject of slavery, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics, as it was in physics or mechanics. That the principle would ultimately prevail. That we, in maintaining slavery as it exists with us, were warring against a principle, a principle founded in nature, the principle of the equality of men. The reply I made to him was, that upon his own grounds, we should, ultimately, succeed, and that he and his associates, in this crusade against our institutions, would ultimately fail. The truth announced, that it was as impossible to war successfully against a principle in politics as it was in physics and mechanics, I admitted; but told him that it was he, and those acting with him, who were warring against a principle. They were attempting to make things equal which the Creator had made unequal. The notion that the war was \*not \*about preserving slavery is one of the several rationalizations embraced by those who wish to admire those who fought for it, for whatever reason they may have. But it was. ---
**Author:** ![LinusK](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/258eb7/32.png) [@LinusK](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LinusK)\ **Post date:** [December 26, 2013, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742/120 "2013-12-26T16:07:31Z")
Except, of course, that Lincoln said it was not. Was he lying? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/us-army-war-college-considers-removing-paintings-of-lee-jackson-and-that-is-a-good-thing/676742.md?page=7)