Options
POLL - Would you agree with a measure to put Robert E. Lee on a commemorative?
cherrypickincoin
Posts: 1,760 ✭✭
Vote, post your thoughts about why you think he should be commemorated or why you think he shouldn't. This may be a tad bit controversial but it should make for interesting conversation. 
0
Comments
David
He is also on the Antietam. The early commem's were more about commemorating events rather than people. Modern commem's are starting to commemorate people, like Robert F. Kennedy, Washington, etc. Do you feel Lee warrants his own commemorative?
Joe
He never fought for slavery, he never fought to leave the Union, he fought to protect what he felt was his HOME? While others dreamed of glory, it upset him how many men died on BOTH sides.
Could any of us do any better when given such a choice? Especially for the times they were in?
It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman and in a wide house. - Proverbs 25:24
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.
matt
Of course I live in LEE county, Mississippi . . .
I voted no, unless we have a Benedict Arnold coin also. It's only fair...
Maybe some day in the future. But at a time in our history when we are discussion getting the Confederate Battle Flag off of state flags, I can't imagine that a Robert E. Lee commemorative would be regarded as anything but unnecessarily provocative.
For all my admiration of Lee as a man and a general, it's hard to separate the man from the cause he fought for. I voted no.
Here's a warning parable for coin collectors...
Before the War . . .
General Lee was born at Stratford, Virginia, January 19, 1807, and was eleven years old on the death of his chivalric father, General Henry Lee, the "Light Horse Harry" of the American revolution. In boyhood he was taught in the schools of Alexandria, chiefly by Mr. William B. Leary, an Irishman, and prepared for West Point by Mr. Benjamin Hallowel1. He entered the National military academy in 1825, and was graduated in 1829, without a demerit and with second honors. During these youthful years he was remarkable in personal appearance, possessing a handsome face and superb figure, and a manner that charmed by cordiality and won respect by dignity. He was thoroughly moral, free from the vices, and while "full of life and fun, animated, bright and charming," as a contemporary describes him, he was more inclined to serious than to gay society.
He married Mary Custis, daughter of Washington Parke Custis, and grand-daughter of Martha Washington, at Arlington, Va., June 30, 1831. Their children were G. W. Custis, Mary, W. H. Fitzhugh, Annie, Agnes, Robert and Mildred.
At his graduation he was appointed second-lieutenant of engineers and by assignment engaged in engineering at Old Point and on the coasts. In 1834 he was assistant to the chief engineer at Washington; in 1835 on the commission to mark the boundary line between Ohio and Michigan; in 1836 promoted first lieutenant, and in 1838, captain of engineers. In 1837 he was ordered to the Mississippi river, in association with Lieutenant Meigs (afterward general) to make special surveys and plans for improvements of navigation; in 1840 a military engineer; in 1842 stationed at Fort Hamilton, New York; and in 1844 one of the board of visitors at West Point. Captain Lee was with General Wool in the beginning of the Mexican war, and at the special request of General Scott was assigned to the personal staff of that commander. When Scott landed 12,000 men south of Vera Cruz, Captain Lee established the batteries which were so effective in compelling the surrender of the city. The advance which followed met with serious resistance from Santa Anna at Cerro Gordo. Here Captain Lee made the reconnaissances and in three days' time placed batteries in positions which Santa Anna had judged inaccessible, enabling Scott to carry the heights and rout the enemy. In his report Scott wrote: "I am compelled to make special mention of Captain R. E. Lee," and the brevet as major was accorded the skillful artilleryman. The valley of Mexico was the scene of the next military operations, and here Lee continued to serve with signal ability and personal bravery. One act of daring General Scott afterward referred to as" the greatest feat of physical and moral courage performed by any individual in my knowledge pending the campaign." Having participated in the daylight assault which carried the entrenchments of Contreras, Captain Lee was soon afterward engaged in the battles of Churubusco and Molino del Rey, gaining promotion to brevet lieutenant-colonel. In the storming at Chapultepec, one of the most brilliant affairs of the war, he was severely wounded, and won from General Scott, in his official report, appreciative mention as being "as distinguished for execution as for science and daring." After Chapultepec he was recommended for the rank of colonel. The City of Mexico was next taken and the war ended.
Among the officers with Lee in Mexico were Grant, Meade, McClellan, Hanc-ck, Sedgwick, Hooker, Burnside, Thomas, McDowell, A. S. Johnston, Beauregard, T. J. Jackson, Longstreet, Loring, Hunt, Magruder, and Wilcox, all of whom seemed to have felt for him a strong attachment. Reverdy Johnson said he had heard General Scott more than once say that his "success in Mexico was largely due to the skill, valor and undaunted energy of Robert E. Lee." Jefferson Davis, in a public address at the Lee memorial meeting November 3, 1870, said: "He came from Mexico crowned with honors, covered with brevets, and recognized, young as he was, as one of the ablest of his country's soldiers." General Scott said with emphasis: "Lee is the greatest military genius in America." Every general officer with whom he personally served in Mexico made special mention of him in official reports. General Persifer Smith wrote: "I wish to record particularly my admiration of the conduct of Captain Lee, of the engineers--the soundness of his judgment and his personal daring being equally conspicuous." General Shields referred to him as one" in whose skill and judgment I had the utmost confidence." General Twiggs declared" his gallantry and good conduct deserve the highest praise," and Colonel Riley bore "testimony to the intrepid coolness and gallantry exhibited by Captain Lee when conducting the advance of my brigade under the heavy flank fire of the enemy."
In the subsequent years of peace Lee was assigned first to important duties in the corps of military engineers with headquarters at Baltimore, from 1849 to 1852, and then served as superintendent of the military academy at West Point until 1855, when he was promoted brevet lieutenant-colonel and assigned to the Second cavalry, commanded by Colonel Albert Sidney Johnston This remarkably fine regiment included among its officers besides Johnston and Lee, Hardee, Thomas, VanDorn, Fitz Lee, Kirby Smith, and Stoneman, later distinguished in the Confederate war. With this regiment Lee shared the hardships of frontier duty, defending the western frontier of Texas against hostile Indians from 1856 until the spring of 1861. In October, 1859, he was at Washington in obedience to command, and fortunately so, as during his visit occurred the John Brown raid. President Buchanan selected him to suppress the movement, which he did with prompt vigor, after giving the proper summons to Brown to surrender. Returning to Texas, he was in command of the department in 1860 and early in 1861, while the Southern States were passing ordinances of secession, and with sincere pain observed the progress of dissolution. Writing January 23, 1861, he said that the South had been aggrieved by the acts of the North, and that he felt the aggression and was willing to take every proper step for redress. But he anticipated no greater calamity than a dissolution of the Union and would sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. He termed secession a revolution, but said that a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets had no charms for him. "If the Union is dissolved and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native State and share the miseries of my people; and save in defense will draw my sword on none."
After . . . .
Lee returned to Richmond as a paroled prisoner of war, and submitted with the utmost composure to an altered destiny. He devoted the rest of his life to setting an example of conduct for other thousands of ex-Confederates. He refused a number of offers which would have secured substantial means for his family. Instead, he assumed the presidency of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University) in Lexington, Virginia, and his reputation revitalized the school after the war. Lee's enormous wartime prestige, both in the North and South, and the devotion inspired by his unconscious symbolism of the "Lost Cause" made his a legendary figure even before his death. He died on October 12 1870, of heart disease which had plagued him since the spring of 1863, at Lexington, Va. and is buried there. Somehow, his application for restoration of citizenship was mislaid, and it was not until the 1970's that it was found and granted.
off the coinage), I do not believe that Lee's actions and beliefs should be held as an example
to people today. The man should be judged on the criteria of his own time, and by these
criteria he truly was a great man. He was also very capable and a true military genius. He
did, however, agree to fight a war against his own principals due to patriotism. While this
was "admirable" behavior when man fought with rifles and cannon it is not in the age of the
hydrogen bomb. It is not tolerable and we should take no chances of sending the wrong mes-
sage to the world or to the future. If we must commemmorate people then it should be first
and foremost men of peace like Martin Luther King Jr or Mahatma Ghandi or men or fought hard
and successfully where it was necessary and unavoidable.
JANUARY 19th.
NEVER LET HIPPO MOUTH OVERLOAD HUMMINGBIRD BUTT!!!
WORK HARDER!!!!
Millions on WELFARE depend on you!
Russ, NCNE
<< <i>apoplexy >>
Please Russ. Children may read this
My vote is also a yes. It's strange to see this thread after just passing his old headquarters in Gettysburg, PA the other day. . .
While everyone likes to label it as a war over slavery, it was actually a war over state's rights with slavery being one of the issues that some of the states didn't believe the federal government had a right to control based on the Constitution and their interpretation of it. The industrial north also was quite envious of the rich resources in the south. There were many factors other than just slavery.
If the truth be known, Abe Lincoln didn't help much either. If anyone is responsible for taking the country down that dark path to doom, despair, and destruction, it was him. Had he stepped back and approached the issues with a cooler head rather than pushing the fight at Ft Sumpter, we may not have endured the death and destruction of the Civil War. In my view, if we can put up with Abe on a cent for over 90 years after all he did to try and destroy the country, then Robert E. Lee certainly deserves a place in numismatic history.
Lee was born a Virginian and an American. He served his country valiantly when called upon, and served the Confederacy (also his homeland) as well. He was a fair man and took no glory in the dissolution of the Union. The US recognized his contributions and restored his citizenship, thus recognizing that he was a contributor to the America we now have.
Besides, everybody knows that Lee really didn't surrender his sword at Appomattox - that drunken Grant stole it!
Since the government slaps both white & black people from the South in the face by calling Jan 20 Martin Luther King/Robert E Lee day let's make a politically correct Commem with King on 1 side & Lee on the other.
<< <i>Comparing Robert E. Lee to Benedict Arnold is about the dumbest remark I've seen here. While we can agree or disagree on the man, a Benedict Arnold he wasn't. If you truly believe that, then you also believe George Washington and the rest of the Revolutionary War "rebels" were traitors as they also had a government over them and chose to betray it. >>
Thank you. Yes, George and friends were traitors to England. Do you deny that? Why don't you ask if Geo Washington should be on a commemm coin in the UK? Think you'll get muych support?
<< <i>Lee was born a Virginian and an American. He served his country valiantly when called upon, and served the Confederacy (also his homeland) as well. >>
And he fought against the USA for another country, homeland or not.
Sorry all you Dixie Chicks. That's how this Yankee views it. 'nuff said. Back to coins...
A commemorative coin is issued to praise a person or event. Does this country really want to praise a man for what he did in my statement? I vote No.
Numonebuyer
Proves my point that I made a few posts up doesn't it?
Thank you.
We each have our own views of the man and the war and what makes a man
worthy of being commemmorated on a coin.
Whatever we think of as the cause or justification for the war has little bearing
on the issue at hand: Should Lee be honored on a US coin?
I believe that coinage sends a powerfull message to those who use it, those who
will collect or see it in the future and to the rest of the world. Times change. This
is not the same world that it was in 1863. With our accute hindsight we can look
back and see that things could have gone much differently. We can certainly say
that millions need not die everytime changes have built up to the point that stuct-
ural changes must occur.
Certainly Lee was a great man, but the message we need to be making is that the
world no longer can afford to honor those who will rush to war in defense of home-
land, kin, and kith. Certainly these can be rational causes of war, but not when we
take up arms to defend ideas that we are in disagreement with. Lee really bears no
responsibility for the war, but isn't it possible that without his willingness to lead that
the Confederacy might have tried harder to find a peacefull solution? Isn't it possible
that if he had led the Union forces (as he was asked) that the South might have capit-
ulated and saved the death and agony of those terrible years?
Do we want to send the message to the Saddam Husseins and Adolph Hitlers of the world
that so long as they are fighting for their country or their race that they can have their
forty virgins in the after life and be great leaders?
I hate it when you see my post before I can edit the spelling.
Always looking for nice type coins
my local dealer
In February 1865 Lee was made commander in chief of all Confederate armies; two months later the war was virtually ended by his surrender to General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House.
It's neither necessary nor appropriate to label Southerns as traiters like Benedict Arnold.
It's neither necessary nor appropriate to further label them "Dixie Chicks" who were booed off stage and called modern day traitors for bashing their President.
Proves my point about who's prejudiced and who the bigots are.
Also, you can argue the same points about anyone in history. Our founding fathers all drank very heavily, many of our presidents were involved in affairs, including Jefferson. They lived in a time where the national census only counted blacks as 2/3rd's of a person and yet Jefferson has been commemorated, Washington has, Madison, etc. What is any different about Lee? They simply lived in a different time.
<< <i>Lee should have been hung as a trader to his country. An Amercan army officer that turn on his country. when his country need him the most he turned his back on us. >>
Boy that's kinda harsh. What was he trading, ACG slabs?
gone much differently if the greatest military mind of the age had fought
with the side which had overwhelming superiority. And which just happen-
ed to be the side with which he more closely agreed.
The man did what he thought was right, and deserves no criticism for that
reason. Certainly he doesn't deserve to have the blood of millions of peo-
ple on his hands.
I hate it when you see my post before I can edit the spelling.
Always looking for nice type coins
my local dealer
The importance of the Civil War as it applies today is that we realize how foolish it was to kill each other, and there are better ways to work out our differences. It is important that we commemorate the lessons learned and the heros of both sides that represent what makes our American culture what it is: freedom to express our different opinions.
As a part of the federal government's efforts to help the Memorial Committee create a memorial to honor the men who fought for the Confederacy, President Calvin Coolidge signed the1924 Stone Mountain Memorial Coinage Act. The Act provided for the minting of 5 million Confederate Half Dollars by the federal government, to be sold to the Memorial Association at face value. The Association planned to sell the coins for $1 apiece, making 100% profit, or 2.5 million dollars (although only about 2.3 million coins were ever struck).
Do you consider the President of the United States, and the US Federal government traitors to themselves???
Consider this: One of my ancestors had to re-pledge her affirmation to the US after the Civil War to start getting her widow pension again. Why was she getting a pension? Because her husband had fought in the REVOLUTIONARY WAR.
We were all American brothers before, during, and after the Civil War.
<< <i>
Also, you can argue the same points about anyone in history. Our founding fathers all drank very heavily, many of our presidents were involved in affairs, including Jefferson. They lived in a time where the national census only counted blacks as 2/3rd's of a person and yet Jefferson has been commemorated, Washington has, Madison, etc. What is any different about Lee? They simply lived in a different time. >>
Your points are very true, but there is a difference. We no longer have slavery
and we do have nuclear weapons. Jefferson was opposed to slavery yet owned
slaves. While this could easily be construed as hypocracy, honoring him on a coin
seems hardly to be promoting slavery. It is his ideals which made Jefferson a great
man and it is for this that he is on the coinage. Certainly Lee may be a great man
for the same reasons, but his ideals led to war, or at least failed to prevent war.
It should be remembered that not only need men be judged by the standard of
their own time but that Jefferson treated his slaves very well and is said to have
intended to free them at his death.
Or phrased another way; More people thinking like Jefferson would not lead to
slavery, but more people thinking like Lee could lead to more war.
Frank
Just an afterthought: If the south had won and the country had been split into two, let's say U.S.A and C.S.A. Then the POWER we now know as our country would not have existed unless by some chance we later reunited. Then we could not have been such a HUGE influence on WWI and again in WWII. Who knows, if we hadn't been the GREAT and POWERFUL U.S., Germany may very well have won in Europe and then successfully invaded the two smaller countries. We could all be speaking German now for God's sake. Just a thought.
The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.
Guns have only two enemies, rust and liberals.
Criminals love gun control, it makes their profession safer.
If guns are outlawed can we use swords?
A gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone
For all of you who voted "no," you should have written your letters to the President before March 17, 1924, when the President authorized a commem with Lee and Jackson on it.
As an aside, does anybody know the real reason Jefferson Davis was left off the Stone Mountain Coin? All three are on the real Stone Mountain. I don't know the answer, so it's not a trick question.
One must also keep in mind that at that time transportation and communication were not easy. Few people ever traveled far from their home–which in most cases was a farm. This led to sentiments such as that expressed by a prominent Virginian (I can't recall exactly who but it might have been Lighthorse Lee, Robert E. Lee's ancestor—somebody can correct me on this) saying that his patriotism waned when he left Virginia.
As to General Lee, I think Sen. John McCain, whose family is from the South, said it best. As you may recall, the flying of the Stars and Bars over the state house was a hot issue in the 2000 South Carolina primary (the history there is that after the Civil War it was first flown over the state house as part of the Civil War Centennial and was supposed to have come down after 1965 but nobody remembered that so they kept flying it out of force of habit). McCain parrotted George Bush's stance, saying that the question was up to the people of South Carolina and was not a Federal issue and that the President should not get involved. After the primary he castigated himself for not speaking out against the flying of the flag, saying that his family "stood on the wrong side in history." Sadly, the same is true for General Lee.
CG
That's just politics. It's like the Democrats apologizing for not going to that NAACP meeting awhile back. There was no way for these men to have known what side was going to be the "winning side". You have to see things from their point of view, not ours. If Lee had the upperhand, they could have been the winning side of history and now the North would be apologizing. Like I said, times change. You need to see things from their perspective. Don't look beyond 1865.
Stone Mountain has had several design changes. The design on the Commem was the original by Gutzon Borglum (Mt Rushmore). He was the first of several sculptors to work Stone Mountain. He was fired shortly after 1925 when very little work had been completed. The work that he had completed (Lee's Head) was blown off and the new design with Jeff Davis was begun. Work on the carving was stopped many times. Today's Stone Mountain was completed in 1972 and has little in common with the design on the Commem.
I live 10 minutes from the big rock. If your ever in the area look me up, I'll give you the 5 cent tour.
My point is simply that things could have gone much differently if the greatest military mind of the age had fought with the side which had overwhelming superiority.
I'm glad Washington and the Patriots didn't think like this during the Revolutionary War!
While this could easily be construed as hypocracy, honoring him on a coin seems hardly to be promoting slavery.
And honoring Lee hardly seems to promote slavery or subversion. Like Jefferson, it is to honor the man and his contributions. Even the greatest of men that have been honored had their faults, yet we look beyond them for the great things they accomplished.
And then this one is for Dog97
<< <i>You need to see things from their perspective. Don't look beyond 1865 >>
That would be fine if you were talking about striking a coin in 1865. We are talking about striking a coin today. Causes and the people who fought for them are perceived today from contemporary perspectives. What ever a man may have meant to his state or nation in 1865 is not the question. The question is what does he mean to our country today.
CG