General Lee and Jefferson Davis are the figureheads and faces of the bloodiest war ever fought in American History.

Lee strategized how to inflict mass casualities.

Lee was against allowing black people the right to vote.

Additionally historians of the south attempt to fondly soften his image as being anti-slavery despite that the extent of his anti slavery values were to give some freedom if they would fight.

He wasnt a great guy. He got fuckloads of people killed.

". It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence."

— Robert E. Lee, to Mary Anna Lee, December 27, 1856

"Lee strategized how to inflict mass casualities."

Ummm... yes? That's what generals do. It's called winning a battle.

"He got fuckloads of people killed."

Again, battles are usually won by killing enemy soldiers, not reasoning with them.

Also I dont necessarily agree that Carthage being destroyed instead of rome is a good thing. Rome did provide the world much greatness but also much unnecessary bloodshed. The Pheonicians were the Carthaginians. There is no argument to be made that they were a failure at innovation. The world is better because of Rome perhaps but certainly is not better simply because Carthage fell. Such an argument implies the Carthaginians couldnt have devised the Aqueduct, the Dome, the Paved road, the pointed arch, groin vualts, barrell vualts.

I dont think you can assume those innovations wouldnt have come into existence if Rome fell in the Punic wars. Concrete is a heck of an innovation but may have been an inevitable one for anyone lucky enough to live by a volcano.

Uh Zmaj, you are essentially arguing that because he did his job well that he should be honored.
So explain why putting up a statue of Rommell should be gloriously well received...

But I believe we are neglecting a very important part of the discussion.

Brainbomb said:

"We are not a nation that can claim that we support life liberty and the pursuit of happiness while also praising people who made their way of life completely opposite what we stand for."

Let me focus on this: "people who made their way of life." They didn't "make" it. They inherited it. Less than a hundred years before the Civil War, it was the way of life of the entire American nation.

The South didn't "make" anything new. It's the opposite: they wanted things to stay as they were. It doesn't change the fact that they stood for the wrong things. But it does make them more human, at least in my eyes.

Im not disputing THEIR HUMAN EXISTENCE. I AM DISPUTING THE NEED TO HAVE GIANT STATUES HONORING THE FACT THEY LIVED FOUGHT AND DIED FOR THE CAUSE OF PRESERVING KEEPING AFRICAN AMERICANS IN FUCKING CHAINS .

How do you not fathom this?

What the hell do you think Robert E Lee was fighting for? Survival? Pffft

@brainbomb

"Uh Zmaj, you are essentially arguing that because he did his job well that he should be honored."

Yes, that's what I'm arguing for. We should honor great achievements.

"So explain why putting up a statue of Rommell should be gloriously well received..."

I don't know about you, but I admire the man. He was a great general and did wonders in Africa. Even the American army admired him.

BB, they're just getting mental exercise. The forum is no fun when everyone agrees. It is diversity that keeps it interesting.

And yeah, you could say Rommel lived, fought and died for the cause of killing Jews in Nazi death camps.

But I think you're wrong. Both Lee and Rommel lived, fought and died to win battles.

Lets build monuments to the great generals of doing their job well : Slobodan Milošević, Polpot, Momar Ghadafi, Saddam Heussein.

Great leaders bro. Got lots of their enemies killed

Those people you listed are politicians, not generals.

Pol pot was a commie you should like him bb he censored stuff

Oh okay so as long as its a military commander inflicting fuckloads of death its heroic. If its a politician who gets their enemies killed thats something else.
Got it.

So by that distinction you must think any atrocity committed in wartime by a general is something to smile about. Ghengis khan flinging plague rotted corpses into persian cities is an act of heroism. We should tell turkey to erect tons of statues of plague bodies to honor how well he fought.

Brainbomb, you lost me there. Who aid anything about atrocities? What atrocities were committed by Lee or Rommel? If you mean killing enemy in battle, they're no different from Grant or Patton.

Or do you condemn all military commanders alike? Maybe Grant and Patton are also bad guys in your book because they had people killed.

Gaddafi was a colonel, Polpot a dictator, by the way as a side note - most dictators are commander in cheif and the general. So not sure how you came up with the distinction. The commanilty is they all got tons killed for a host of reasons I consider saddam a general he ordered gassing the kurds. Id say slobodan was effectively responsible and acted dictatorially as a general to commit war crimes. By the way pretty hard to be found guilty of war crimes if yer only a politician -right? -right?

And even if you dont count them, think about Juan Peron, or even more modern the members of FARC do you think columbia will allow Farc rebel statues to be built?

No but when I said Lee hoped to inflict max casualities you caed that doing his job. If someone is your enemy thats your job. General-politician-warlord-commander in chief.

I dont have a problem with military commanders effectively gettimg their enemies killed en masse
I do have a problem with what that commander/politician stands for and who he is killing. In this case - No Grant is fighting to defeat an obvious existential evil that is societally counter to the liberty of human decency. He is quite certainly not in the wrong. Patton is fighting the Facists and Nazis. Once again the more dead - the better.

Meh... If you claim you can't see the difference between people like Lee and Rommel and people like Pol Pot and Saddam, you're playing dumb and there's nothing to talk about.

Theres plenty to talk about. You keep throwing examples out of totally morally justified acts of war that theres a very NON GREY very BLATANT good side and blatant evil. Rommell wanted the Nazi regime to win. He is revered only for being a capable tactician. Nobody wants to honor the Nazis bro. Lee is a morally grey/questionable figure who graduated from west point but joined the South and hoped to protect and defend slavery.

He wanted to kill as many of his enemies as possible in hopes slavery would survive. Rommell wanted the mass destruction of Jews and Russians to win. He was a scumbag - great general or not still a scumbag fighting blatantly for the morally corrupt side of the cause

A scumbag, huh? I'll let Ulysses S. Grant answer on my behalf:

"I felt like anything rather than rejoicing at the downfall of a foe who had fought so long and valiantly, and had suffered so much for a cause, though that cause was, I believe, one of the worst for which a people ever fought, and one for which there was the least excuse. I do not question, however, the sincerity of the great mass of those who were opposed to us."

You see the greatness of others when you're a great man yourself. You see others as scumbags when... But I'd better stop. This is a censored forum after all.

You could have at least given me a morally complex one like Obama who was commander and oversaw tons of clandestine killings using drone strikes on what maybe was innocents

Grant was one of the worst if not THE ACTUAL worst presidents of Americsn history. His assessment is well basically like if Churchill defeated the Nazis and said "their cause-was invalid but they were sincere"

Aka (who cares of course your enemy is sincere in the defense of their way of life no matter how morally bankrupt they are

I don't get why you all are harping on Po Pot. Like he was leftist, authoritarian, a censor, didn't want to preserve history. Like that seems to check a lot of boxes with the modern day American left... I am confused?

Brainbomb, since you seem to respect only the opinion of great American presidents, how about Theodore Roosevelt? "Lee was without any exception the very greatest of all the great captains that the English-speaking peoples have brought forth."

Uh ND he murdered like 25% or more of his people. He was a psychopath and a dictator. Nothing resembling whatsoever what the democratic party does for america.

Teddy forgot to add that Lee was morally bankrupt. Must have slipped his mind...

Teddy again: "The world has never seen better soldiers than those who followed Lee"

Damn... I bet he's just been kicked out of your Top 10 presidents, brainbomb.

I also dont consider Teddy Roosevelt that great. The war of 1898 was a senseless waste of life. He got more of his own men killed for nothing from being ill prepared to fight the style of combat in Jungles. He helped build the Panama canal big fuckin deal. He got tons of his rough riders killed not only was he a sub par president who failed to get relected he wasnt much of a general either.

His opinion on Robert E lee is favorable. But again saying he was a good general doesnt mean he fought for a good cause. At all. None of this refutes that Lee fought for the protection of slavery to win. If he had succeeded we would maybe even have slavery still.

He also isnt talking about their morality