Nonsense. We don't just put up statues to commemorate history; we put up statues to commemorate those we wish to remember as *heroes*. For example, I am not aware of any statues in the United States that commemorate the wonderful qualities of King George III - in fact, there were statues of him at one time, but they were all torn down. Nor do we have statues of Charles Cornwallis, Erwin Rommel, or Vo Nguyen Giap...and yet their names and roles have not been lost to history. So why should we have statues commemorating leaders of the Slave Holders Rebellion any more than those other enemy generals?
I went in the U.S. Army, at 17 years old, in the Summer of 1980. Fort Benning, Georgia was very hot, that Summer, 8 days after high school graduation! I was surrounded by alot of Southerners, throughout Infantry training. It still amazes me, about their love, and respect, for Robert E. Lee! It still amazes me, how they accepted me, a Yankee, from the state of Michigan, and we became friends! They were older than I was. But, I learned an awful lot, about soldiering, and friendship, from those far out guys! I don't know whatever happened to most of them? But, I sincerely hope,.that life's been good to them!
It’s not the fault of these southern peoples for there ignorance, the United states government allowed the daughters of the confederacy to brainwash the southern peoples, so may god have mercy on all of our southern and northern brothers and sisters for harboring the sentiments of the present, we can thank good ole Uncle Sam! Reparations
Exactly! The Southern states did what the Declaration of Independence instructed them. " But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
@@martyyoung3611 It's always cute to read about literal slave owners whining about being reduced to absolute slavery because...hmm, what were these big bad abuses and usurpations? If only the rebels had written some documents telling us what those abuses and usurpations were.... "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union...." - State of Mississippi, Declaration of Causes
No General Winfield Scott did. He told Linclon that command should be given to Lee. Lincoln allow it and Scott presented him the offer which he refused.
For the record, Robert E Lee was one of the most honorable and honest persons in history. Lee was a thinking man and very honorable. I believe he was a tragic person torn between beliefs and what he perceived as duty. Remember that in 1860 we identified ourselves as citizens of a state rather than Americans. Typically, Lee identified himself as a Virginian, not an American. Like all people, he was molded by the world in which he lived. No one should judge people from previous periods by the standards that are in vogue today.
Well said. Today, it is nearly impossible for us to imagine the importance and the degree of sovereignty and independence each state had prior to the Civil War. Also, looking back, it is impossible to answer the question of our ancestors, "Why didn't they know better?"
Amen. It amazes me how quick we are to judge those who came before us who were trying to make sense of things during their own times. Everything is different in today's world than it was last century and certainly the century before.
And yet George Thomas - and tens of thousands of other southerners - disagreed with Lee. So it's not as if the standard of loyalty to the Union didn't exist; therefore we may judge Lee by that standard even if we accept your premise that morality is culturally conditioned. Similarly, Lee was well aware of arguments in favor of abolitionism, so we may hold him accountable for his slave owning as well. It's also worth noting that the "citizens of a state rather than Americans" argument doesn't hold up very well in the case of Jefferson Davis. He was born in Kentucky, yet became a senator from Mississippi. When and by what process did he change citizenship so that he could hold office in a nation other than his native country? Of course he *didn't* change his citizenship, he merely changed his residency. Why? Because his citizenship was in the United States, not in Kentucky.
You can say what you want about Lee but as a General he was loved by his men and in war few generals are loved by there men and Lee stayed humble when much power was given to him which few men given power will do.
Umm...not many generals have cult-level sentimentality attached to them after losing a war, but almost every successful Civil War general was loved by his men. Even relatively unsuccessful generals like McClellan and McClernand were loved by their men.
@@aaronfleming9426 You mean like your cult level devotion to Lincoln? Lincoln called slaves the n word during the Lincoln Douglas debates and suggested sending them back to Africa.
@@marknielsen2482 I'm not aware of any documentary evidence that Lee freed his personal slaves. We know for certain that he petitioned the courts to allow him to keep his father-in-laws slaves for longer than the five years stipulated in the will. And then of course he abandoned the United States to take a command in the army of a foreign nation that was founded for the express purpose of perpetuating slavery. These are not the actions of a man who has strong anti-slavery convictions.
Robert E. Lee was a great American, a great general, and a great human being. "A union that must be stitched together by bayonets holds no charm for me." -- Robert E. Lee
Great quote from a guy who literally used bayonets to keep four million people enslaved. Incidentally, that quote comes from a letter in which he tells his son that secession is illegal and even treasonous. Here's the paragraph right before your quote: "The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?"
@@NDB469 The whole country has gone downhill. The school doesn't exist anymore. It let its students do 3 years in 2 because they were smart. Can't have that. It's discrimination, don't you know?
Was Gen. MacArthur, who fought against Japan in WWII, wrong to insist that Emperor Hirohito NOT be tried as a war criminal? If he was wrong, why? Was Lincoln wrong to propose that the Southern States should be eligible for readmission to the Union after the War once a mere 10% of the citizens took an oath of loyalty? Do any of us in 2024 know better than MacArthur or Lincoln in the decisions they made?
tonymallers9628 - General MacArthur's decision that Emperor Hirohito not be tried as a war criminal was the right decision that anybody with half a brain in his head who understood the situation at that time would have made. Regarding your second question, it's ridiculous! After all, the Civil War was all about keeping the South in the Union, not about freeing the slaves.
For 4 years the North claimed the South could not leave the Union. Then when the war was over, it made the South be readmitted, which is a tacit admission the South did leave and had the right to leave the Union. "A union that must be stitched together by bayonets holds no charm for me." -- Robert E. Lee
@@unbreakable7633 That wasn't an admission of anything of the sort. It was a practical consideration that rebels ought to go through some sort of process of rehabilitation. Your Lee quote is ironic in two important ways: 1. Robert E. Lee literally used bayonets to hold the Union together - as long as that meant denying freedom to black people. 2. The quote is taken out of context; it directly follows his explanation of why secession is treasonous.
All "soldiers" of the south were not bad. By percentage, few in the south actually had slaves. And when it comes down to it, we are ALL a REPUBLIC and ONE NATION UNDER GOD.
Thirty percent of southern households held slaves. That is a minority, but not a small percentage. Those who didn't hold slaves had been indoctrinated by the wealthy class with paranoia about race war and miscegenation. Rarely have the words "Rich man's war, poor man's fight" been more true than about the brain-washed poor whites of the south. Us poor folk really need to wise up about that stuff.
It's a west point thing, obviously. My own personal opinion is that the Rebels don't deserve any celebrity status but those West Pointers are obsessed with the long gray line, thats why so many army posts were named after Rebels.
Mt grandma on my dad's side was a distant cousin of Lee. Therevwas much admiration for him when i was growing up. I was told hecwas the 1st choice to lead the Union but chose to not fight against the people he grew up with. I have mixed emotions, but wanting to hold on to the South, Slavery, and Racism is not worth keeping. Maybe because is have a small amount of Choctaw Indian from my mom's side in me makes me realize we must move forward, adapt, or not survive the present times we live in!
I only disagree with Churchill's assessment in that Lee is probably second to Washington in nobility, (but in not military genius). Even King George said that Washington might be the greatest man who ever lived.
@@alecfoster4413 these idiots don’t care for truth. Abe Lincoln, Lincoln himself could say 1000x (and he did) it wasn’t about slavery, and they’ll still refuse to accept the fact.
@@alecfoster4413 these idiots don’t care for truth. Abe Lincoln, Lincoln himself could say 1000x (and he did) it wasn’t about slavery, and they’ll still refuse to accept the fact.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 If I find squatters in my living room and I drive them out, am I "invading" my own house? Lincoln had a constitutional DUTY to suppress insurrection. He did. If he, like Buchanan before him, had allowed rebellion, America would have literally been torn in two, and there would now be (at least) two separate nations between Mexico and Canada. You understand what the secessionists were trying to do, right?
@@aaronfleming9426 The Constitution nowhere says that states that voluntarily joined the Union could not then secede from that voluntary action of joining.
Maybe. His record doesn't indicate a strong grasp of the strategic situation, and his offensive campaigns are not exactly inspiring. Would those weaknesses have been adequately offset by access to greater resources? I would say it's 60-40, but not at all certain.
Lee was a wonderful man, an inspiring commander, and by all accounts a very kind gentleman, all in all a very rare man. As an old soldier of 27 years with the colours , and 4 wars, I personally would have considered it a very great honor to have served with general Lee. For those who served on his staff and to have observed his inspirational command must have made their hearts glow. I have been a senior staff officer , I can assure anyone reading this, that few today have such quality .
Not such a kind gentleman if you happened to have the wrong skin color, but he was apparently very inspiring to his soldiers. I would personally have preferred to serve under a better general who was less reckless with his men's lives and also wasn't a rebel...George H. Thomas comes readily to mind. Called "Old Pap" by his men who appreciated that he won battles without recklessly wasting their lives, Thomas was from a very similar background, was similarly gentlemanly, was actually good friends with Lee before the war, but managed to see beyond his own social and financial advantage and stayed true to his country no matter the personal cost.
@@danherrick5785 For the last time...the War of Southern Succession was NOT fought over slavery. Both Lincoln and Grant are on record on this issue. It was in support of the tyrannical concept of "preserving the Union" by force. Best analogy is a man denying his wife a divorce and then raping her as punishment for wanting to leave. Prove me wrong!
Lee was a man of high character, but his abilities as a general have been inflated by the passage of time. He was an excellent tactician, but a poor strategist, an aggressive commander who fought the war as if he, rather than his opponents, had unlimited men and resources to draw on, and he squandered irreplaceable men by taking the offensive when he should not have. Despite the lessons he should have learned from his greatest successes in places like Fredericksburg and Cold Harbour. It's why Grant beat him in the end.
Well said, at least about his generalship. He had many strengths, and a few glaring weaknesses. As to character...he was well aware that secession was illegal and that Virginians had traditionally considered it treasonous. I'm not sure how he got from that position to siding with the rebellion in just a few short months. I hate to say it, but he was part of the slave holding Virginia aristocracy, and that may well have factored in his decision.
@@adamirishconundrum851 I'd say that's overstating things. I mean, overall, yes, Grant was a better general. But Lee certainly had some very strong qualities. Just because he fought for a lousy cause doesn't mean he wasn't an effective general.
@@aaronfleming9426 the lousy cause he fought over was for human ownership that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands. Grant was no angel by any means, as seen by his treatment and wars against Native Americans, but he did put his country first, unlike Lee.
Apparently Eisenhower was unaware that Lee considered secession to be illegal and even treasonous: "The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labour, wisdom & forbearance in its formation & surrounded it with so many guards & securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the confederacy at will. It was intended for pepetual [sic] union, so expressed in the preamble, & for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established & not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison & the other patriots of the Revolution. In 1808 when the New England States resisted Mr Jeffersons Imbargo law & the Hartford Convention assembled secession was termed treason by Virga statesmen. What can it be now?" - Lee, letter to son Rooney, January 23, 1861 I couldn't say how Lee convinced himself just a few months later that secession was legal and honorable. The cynical side of me wants to point to the fact that his family's wealth and status was deeply rooted in slave ownership. It's too bad that Eisenhower didn't have a portrait of George Henry Thomas instead; a Virginian who stayed loyal to the Union and who quite arguably was the best general of the war on either side.
@@cchenish Go back and read the quote again. If you read it in the first place. If you think secession is legal you aren't arguing with me, you're arguing with Robert E. Lee.
Lee wasn’t fighting for the rebel cause, he was fighting to defend Virginia, his home. And unless you are a coward I might say you would do the same thing.
Your cynicism about Lee is unfounded. Lee as executor of his Father in Laws estate freed his Fatherin Laws slaves as the will directed. At the end of the CW Lee reflected that the South should have emancipated their slaves at the beginning of the war so that it would not become the Unions rational for its causation.
@@tabs9213 1. Lee freed his father-in-law's slaves as the will directed...because he was ordered to do so by a court...a court he had petitioned to lengthen their term of servitude. 2. Lee had the whole course of the Civil War to call for the emancipation of slaves. Whereas Patrick Cleburne had the courage to do so, Lee did not. I'm not impressed by Lee's post-war reflections when his pre-war and wartime actions were pro-slavery.
Lee also believed in slavery. Among those that said he violated his oath to the constitution was US Grant. Unlike Longstreet, Lee was unrepentant which makes him typical of many confederates.
If Lee believed in slavery, why was he in the process of manumitting his wife's inherited slaves at the time the war broke out? And why should he be repentant when he was right about the South's right to secede?
Most Americans (and foreigners) for majority history knew that….. up until political correctness and marxist propaganda took over the education system.
Wrong answer. Lee worked to uphold the institution of slavery in the existing Southern States and worked to expand it into the newly acquired territories.
@@danielkitchens4512 Lee didn't "own" the slaves. He was just entrusted with managing his Father In Laws Plantation as the man's death approached. The problem he had - was that he was supposed to put the Plantation back on a sound economic foundation - AND - free It's Slaves. These were mutually exclusive goals. In trying to help the Plantation - he kept the slaves longer than they wanted - and they sued him for their freedom - which they won. The Plantation was never put back on a sound footing but - that didn't matter - because during the war the North Occupied it and the Officer Commanding that Area - turned it into the National Cemetery of the United States - which it still is today. That's what Arlington National Cemetery is. Arlington - was the name of Lee's Father In Law's Plantation. .
No he didn't. The war was not about Slavery. It was about preserving the Union. Lincoln said that he was not trying to free the slaves - only Preserve the Union. The Emancipation Proclamation - was only made after Lincoln gave up on the South ever coming back on it's own. The Emancipation Proclamation - did nothing. It did not apply to the Slaves in Slave States which had NOT seceded - only to slaves in states that had Seceded. The Slaves in the States that had not seceded - were freed either by the States themselves during the war - or - by the 13th Amendment after the war. As to the Slaves in the States that had seceded - Lincoln had no authority over them - because their States were no longer part of the Union. They could no more escape Slavery after the Emancipation than they could have before it - as they were still held in Slavery by the same authorities they always had been. The Civil War was fought over money. The Businessmen of the North wanted Protection from British Competition and the South wanted Free Trade so they could get the best prices for their Cash Crops - and the Industrial Products they bought with the money. That's what 600,000 Americans died for and what the South was raped for. The North is not the Good Guys in all this - they are just the ones who won. The Victors Write the Histories - and it sounds more noble to say they were fighting to free the slaves. _The Battle Hymn of the Republic_ - is a lie. As to the Slaves - they were all still doing the same jobs they'd been doing before the war - they just had to pay fro their own food, clothing and shelter out of the pittance they were paid by the Businessmen they were working for - just like the Northern Factory Workers. They were materially better off - as slaves. They had their freedom and could leave but - did they have the money to do so? No more so than the Northern Factor Workers did. All those people who settled the West? They had to come up with the Money to pay for doing so. So - it wasn't poor people that did that. .
Eisenhower had a very shallow understanding of U.S. history. An example of this is the question of whether secession was a Constitutional right. There was a provision for unilateral withdrawal from the union in the Articles of Confederation. During the writing of the Constitution 13 years later the topic came up and was almost unanimously voted down. States didn't have to join, but once joined they could not unilaterally withdraw. Anyone who read the original records of the convention would know this. Ike didn't.
Tell us, pray, Mr Williams, where Ike was "somewhat incorrect." Those of us who are former US Army officers, knowledgable about American military history, and admiring of Ike as a person & as a US Army leader would like to hear your amplified perspective.
This video is excellent on several levels, but wanting in one very important aspect. I found it refreshing to hear from a president who actually was a student of history - a quality so lacking in our leaders or would-be leaders today. Another fine aspect of this video was that it showed that our current debate over whether to honor Confederate did not start in the 21st century, but was actually being discussed (in a scholarly manner) even in the 1950's. The major minus of this video was that slavery was not even mentioned once. Lee's view of greater loyalty to one's state than to the United States was widespread in 1860 - even in the North. However, by siding with the rebellion, he sided with slavery and the perpetuation of "the peculiar institution." Further, he had been a slaveowner himself and had even personally flogged a slave. This part of Lee's character was generally unknown in Eisenhower's day and has only come to light recently. Despite what I just mentioned, I still agree with Eisenhower's admiration of Lee - in general - largely because of the way Lee conducted himself AFTER the Civil War. Eisenhower did touch upon how Lee tried to heal the nation in the last five years of his life, particularly in his role as president of Washington College (now Washington and Lee University). This is the Robert Edward Lee to be admired, the uniting college president, not the secessionist, slave-supporting general.
What exactly did Lee do to encourage reunification? Grant became pretty exasperated with him. Then there's the hideous story about how some of Lee's students raped a local black girl and Lee made no complaint about that, but was pretty bent out of shape about how many students got back to school late after Christmas break.
Lee should have been court marshalled after the war for abandoning his post and duties as an Army officer prior to it. He’s no hero. Misapplication of his gifts cost tens of thousands of lives.
Nah. The person that should have been put on trial and/or impeached was that closeted, hypocritical, grasping tyrant A. Lincoln. But, in the end, karma caught up with him.
You are either misinformed or a liar because Lee resigned from the U.S. military, and when his state of Virginia succeeded from the U.S., he was offered command of Virginia state forces before Virginia joined the confederacy. A person who is in the military and resigned from the military is now a private citizen. Therefore, he could not abandon his post or his duties.
@@danielkitchens4512 I am neither misinformed or a liar. Lee’s resignation had not been accepted: He left his post without permission, making him a deserter. A case could also be made for him being a traitor, and a mutineer-all for things he did prior to taking command of the The Army of Northern Virginia. Political circumstances, an unclear constitution, and terms granted at his surrender prevented prosecution after the war--which in my option is too bad. Nonetheless, Lee’s decision to go with Virginia, for those who seek to know the facts, is shameful.
@@danielkitchens4512 1) Yes, Grant prevented Lee’s court Marshall-an honor thing. 2) Pres Johnson was in no position to alienate Grant, so he had to do it Grant’s way, 3) Lee would likely have been tried in Virginia-good luck getting a conviction there, 4) The constitution was unclear as to whether someone was a citizen of the country, or their state: An argument can be made that Virginia leaving the Union took Lee with her. One cannot argue that Lee did not fulfill the duties of an Army officer prior to the war, and it’s too bad he wasn’t punished harshly for it. One cannot deny that he fought to dissolve his nation. One cannot deny that he wasted the lives of tens of thousands of people.
@@FordHoard They sure did, and they were aware that if they lost they'd be hanged. They believed they had sufficient justification, namely, that all men ought to have representation in their own government. The slave holders' rebellion of 1860-65, on the other hand, was undertaken by men who already had representation in their own government, but who wanted a different government for the express purpose of protecting the legal status of their human "property".
@aaronfleming9426 Funny, I don't see you saying anything about the founders and the northern states owning slaves in the Civil war. It's only when southern people do it, you have a problem with it.
@@FordHoardWell then, for the record, I think it's a disgrace that the Founders compromised and enshrined slavery in the Constitution. And it's a disgrace that any state in the Union still had slavery in 1860. And it's a disgrace that factory owners were so cruel to their workers, although of course almost anyone would rather be a free factory worker than a slave. I do think it's worth noting that most northern states had banned slavery in their own states, and most northerners at the very least wanted to prevent the extension of slavery to the territories. In many cases that wasn't rooted in some altruistic love for people of all races, but at least there was a growing consensus that slavery was bad, and a more radical abolitionist movement was growing rapidly, and in fact a powerful new political party based on anti-slavery policy had just emerged and elected a president. Meanwhile, in the south, the Founders' position that slavery was a necessary but temporary evil that would somehow go away on its own, had been replaced by widespread indoctrination that slavery was actually good, God-ordained, and should be spread far and wide - not just to the territories, but to Cuba, Dominica, Mexico, and even the whole Carribean basin. For decades slave states had been actively quashing the First Amendment rights wherever they could, from the U.S. mail to the halls of Congress to, of course, routine violence against anyone in a southern state who dared discuss emancipation. So, how about you? Can you condemn slavery everywhere, and speak out against the slave holders' rebellion? Because it's funny, I don't see you condemning slavery in the north or the south or anywhere else, I just see you drawing false parallels between the Revolution and the Slave Holders' Rebellion, as if the Founders owning slaves justifies the continued owning of slaves.
@@alanlamm5904 Yes, but they recognized it and gave a moral-philosophical justification for it. In short, that justification was that all men ought to have representation in their own government. Lee, on the other hand, committed treason in support of a would-be nation founded by men who were already over-represented in their own government, for the express purpose of making sure that other men remained slaves.
@aaronfleming9426 what's the difference from those of 1776 who were English men or British subjects who rebelled against their King and Mother Country and those 13 states did not end slavery and that nation had slavery for almost 90 years but you can only see the 4 years of Slavery in the confederacy even during the war between the states both nations had slavery.
@@danielkitchens4512 Besides the differences I already pointed out...another difference is that a lot of the men in 1776 were opposed to slavery, but were willing to cut a deal with the southern states to gain independence. Even a lot of those slave owners - like Washington and Jefferson - realized that slavery was contradictory to their ideals, and hoped that slavery would die a natural death. But by 1860, the slave owners had doubled down in almost every way imaginable. Slavery wasn't just a necessary, temporary evil - they'd worked out a whole system of why it was necessary, good, and even God-ordained. And they weren't hoping it would die a natural death; they were hoping to spread it westward into the territories, and some of them, like Jefferson Davis, dreamed of annexing Cuba and making it a new slave state. And some of them even dreamed of a slave empire that would encompass the whole Caribbean basin! So those are some of the differences.
I totally understand why Eisenhower would say good things about the Lee he was a great Union leader, but I hope Eisenhower also understood that he was a traitor to the Union and the constitution. Lee swore an oath when he was in the union Army to protect the union, but he turned his back on it.
When the Union Army wants to invade your country and state, hell with them and their oath. Lee resigned respectfully and went to defend his country and people. The Union gov’t betrayed Lee. The US Gov’t is not a god.
He could not be a traitor as he resigned from the U.S military making him a private citizen and now a citizen of Virginia and later the confederacy, you can't be a traitor to a nation that you are not a citizen of , after Lee surrender he did not have U.S. citizenship so the claim of traitor can not apply.
Eisenhower was the best damn clerk like General MCArthur said. Eisenhower was not fit to be the President for he was a small man with small mind. Eisenhower’s inability to grasp the gravity of the situation in Korea caused Korea to remain divided and someday soon US will have to lose many lives in the next Korean War to fight against the evils of North Korean leader. Eisenhower fired General MacArthur just when MacArthur was so needed in Korea. The fact that Eisenhower admired Lee says a lot about his allegiance and lack of intelligence to grasp what Lee stood for.
People like you are the reason there was a war and why America is more divided than ever. Ike, MacArthur, Patton and the best Americans in history have admired Lee and his troops as American patriots. Even the best men in the Union Army thought so. American patriotism is not loyalty to the US Gov’t above all. To hell with the gov’t. Loyalty to your state and home and family come first. THAT is American patriotism. Otherwise we’d still be subjects of England.
@@classicgunstoday1972 Project much, small brained little man. You think that way Lee sycophant. Rest of us know Alex was a traitor and Southerners embellished Lee to someone he was not. He was an incompetent tactician who lost to a better man, General Grant.
First, kudos, Mr Airspace, for knowing the quote from MacArthur (your spelling of his name was incorrect). On the other hand, with regard to your remarks above you may not be completely, totally, & unambiguously FOOLISH & IGNORANT in all of your opinions, but on this particular topic you are -- without putting too fine a point on it --- FOOLISH & IGNORANT! If you are, as I am, a graduate of the Infantry OCS School at Ft Benning (I likely graduated at a time prior to when you were born) you will know that military historians (whose opinions I trust much more than yours) believe that Ike kept the US out of a much broader, disastrous land war in Asia. You & I may both agree that GEN MacArthur was an accomplished military leader & strategist (which I certainly believe to be the case), but if he'd been allowed to expand the war from the Korean Peninsula to China there would have been hell to pay. As for your final paragraph, this confirms to me that about the topic of GEN Lee you are foolish & ignorant -- but mostly ignorant. However, ignorance is curable. I suggest that you read a biography of Lee.
MacArthur is vastly overrated. He ignored the planning tenants of War Plan Orange and incompetently deployed his forces in The Philippines. Despite prior warning, he sat paralyzed in the early stages of the attack. He could have destroyed Japanese air forces on the ground in Formosa, but they destroyed his through his inaction. His vaunted island hopping campaign was actually developed in Washington and forced on him. His gross insubordination to President Truman led to his dismissal, which was agreed to by all the most senior military officers, including George Marshall. His opinion on Eisenhower was driven by his very vain jealousy. Anyone with any real knowledge of military history disregards it at best, and at worst sees it as evidence of MacArthur’s deficiencies.
You seem to have forgotten that Harry S Truman was the president who fired MacArthur as the Korean commander. Eisenhower was serving as president of Columbia University at that time.
