It’s a terrible thing. Robert E. was probably the best general America’s ever had. Just because he was on the wrong side is no reason to take him down.
That’s not exactly a reasoned argument, though. It doesn’t make much sense to me to label one group of rebels as heroes because they won and another as traitors because they lost. I get why this happens, but there’s little justification for it.
Generally, the acclaim comes from what happens after the victory, not the military victory itself: our Founding Fathers drafting the Constitution and creating an Enlightened republic, Ataturk’s Turkish independence and modernization, Mao’s People’s Republic, and so forth.
Rebels that lose never get the chance to do any of that.
Well, and then there’s George Washington. If he’d lost, he’d have been a traitor.
The war college should be concentrating on studying great generals. If they only study the generals that happen to have been on the winning side they will be missing a large part of history. NO generals should be honored, IMO, for their side or their politics, only for their ability to do their jobs well.
That said, I wish, as a Virginian, that they would stop honoring Jackson all together for any reason. The guy was a lunatic and an embarrassment. The fact that his particular brand of lunacy fit well in the in the lunacy of war should be speak against war, not for Jackson.
The war college should study any significant general. That is a completely separate topic as a see no way that these portraits can lead to a better understanding of tactics or strategy.
But hanging portraits of leaders who fought to dissolve the country in order to preserve slavery is offensive. Whatever the good traits as generals or human beings these are men who violated their oaths as officers to defend a despicable cause.
Eh, Jackson was pretty creative tactically. He was an oddball and a religious zealot, but pretty much no one denies his tactical genius. We learned about both Jackson and Lee at West Point FWIW. Nathan Forrest was also one of the somewhat lesser known Confederate tactical geniuses, which is more overshadowed now because of his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Forrest was a Confederate slaveholder who didn’t want blacks to have rights as freedmen after the war so his position on race is both typical and indefensible, but it should be noted that his association with the Klan has always been murky and poorly understood at best.
It doesn’t appear he was opposed to the organized “ghost parades” and “whippings” of blacks and intimidation of black voters, but it also doesn’t seem like he was comfortable with the Klan becoming a “disorganized group of thugs” and he formally disbanded its first incarnation in 1869 and in later speeches showed a more nuanced and progressive view on race such that while he’s no poster boy for good enlightened behavior he also isn’t really an appropriate hero for 20th century Klan members either.
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.
The US Army Heritage Center/Museum is in the same town, practically in walking distance. Why not move the paintings there? They can be put in a historical context in the museum instead of hanging in what would likely be interpreted as a position of honor in the hallways of the War College.
This, precisely. My father studied at the War College and taught at West Point. The military strategy is the point… not the political agenda behind it.
Are they actually “honoring” these guys or just hanging up their portraits as historical figures?
True, the War College could clarify matters by adding a plaque saying “We’re not actually honoring these guys by displaying their portraits; this is just part of the historical record.”
Might be a tough sell though to the officers (in particular, black ones), civilians and foreign guests who visit the place.
For what it’s worth, I can’t see hanging a portrait of Benedict Arnold there either (though before his unfortunate, um, turnabout, he was a skilled and brave military leader).
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.
Is there a painting of Sherman in the college? If so it is a dishonor to anyone else hanging on the wall.
As a history buff with a special interest in the US Civil War, I have mixed feelings about this, despite my pro-North, antislavery leanings. I lack any special outrage over which super organism holds claim to their loyalty, tending to focus on the slavery issue (and their repudiation of democratic rule).
To those who support keeping the portraits, I propose a deal – we’ll keep them on display if you agree to add a portrait honoring Bradley/Chelsea Manning. After all, Manning was a soldier who followed (his?) conscience when he “betrayed” the United States. His revelations may have endangered other American service personnel, but not on the scale of, say Fredericksburg or Antietam. Sound fair?
I do not understand the Southern fetish for hating the Union leader who did more than any other to preserve Confederate lives. And it’s even weirder to complain about him after Forrest has already been brought up, if you’re outraged at raiding into “enemy” territory.
Manning whether you agree or disagree with him was never a military leader or officer, was never in a position of high command. Not really relevant to a group of paintings of famous American Generals.
Hmm…if the Mississippi state legislature decided to hang a portrait of Sam Bowers in the state Capitol, would it be legitimate for them to argue that they’re just recognizing a “historical figure”?
If they can make a case that having “history” jammed in people’s faces is offensive, it’s not “their problem” alone.
As suggested earlier, in terms of public exposure and taxpayer expenditure this is not comparable to using property tax dollars for Bedford Forrest High School or flying the Confederate flag over the Capitol. Then again, I can’t get all weepy about Lee’s portrait at the War College being taken down. For those who find such a prospect horrific and want to be offended, they’re welcome to raise a stink.
History is not on their side.
Well, he did kill more Americans than any foreign general ever managed to.
True. The whole building should be named for him.