If the war had gone the other way, the continuation of slavery in the United States would have been the end result.
Lee appears to have been more concerned with his "home state" as a collective than with the freedom of the individuals in it.
I do not intend to try to maintain that he was a monster, I just do not think a statue of him as a military hero should continue to be maintained at public expense.
I live in Richmond, where we have Monument Ave. It might cost too much to remove those Confederate statues, but perhaps we could donate them to the Confederate Museum, to be taken there at the Museum's expense. And then signs could be put up, naming the "heroes" whose statues had stood there, how long they were there, and the address of the museum(s) where they were to be found. Or, if this is not feasible, perhaps we could put a sign above them, reading "Confederate Museum--Outside
Branch".

We also can evaluate their personal letters to each other and commentary's in the news papers.

Jefferson wondered if they could learn like everyone else. He taught them to read and write, taught them skills and found them to be no different than anyone else...that's what changed his mind about slavery. Unfortunately, Virginia law prohibited him from freeing the slaves he inherited from his father...same goes for Adams and Washington...they inherited slaves from their fathers as well.
What many do not know is that during those times there were many Black Americans involved in the revolution, in state, federal governments not to mention, The Congress in Session. Any one of those people would make our present day government look like kindergartners.

"Holding human beings as slaves has always been evil." We know and acknowledge slavery of human beings as evil in these more enlightened times. However, that enlightenment has not always been the case in times past and to pass a judgment on a slaveholder of the past the same as we would judge a slaveholder today would be disingenuous.

The speed limit analogy was simply to illustrate accountability and rational assignment of guilt could change over time for various reasons. Sorry you missed it. Here's another example: We know today that human sacrifice is murderous evil, but try explaining that to an Aztec priest 700 years ago. Their descendants are now more enlightened and no longer practice such things. Accountability has changed with knowledge. We don't burn witches anymore, either.

Here's a hypothetical based on your phrase "...in this case the slavery of rational beings...". What if at some future time that definition is expanded to include non-rational beings, such as dogs, cats, horses, et al? What if pet ownership is looked upon as an evil subjugation of another species and pet owners of today are referred to as vile hateful people whose statues should be torn down regardless of any other positive or historical contribution the individual may have made? Oh wait, I think this expanded definition is already under way.

Do we assign guilt and erase all history because our ancestors may have committed some "crime" by TODAY'S standards? Let's face it, by today's standards in Western Civilization the whole past world was pretty nasty and a large portion of the contemporary world continues to be just as nasty. We should learn from the past with a mind towards understanding and take care in how we judge those who came before us.

Judging by the "meme of the time" is collective subjectivism. Objective standards are the opposite of "prejudice" and "blind". One can understand why a person did something, or thought he had to do it as all that was politically possible at the time in the face of multiple problems, without abandoning moral standards in the name of avoiding "prejudice"; and one can understand errors by otherwise thoughtful people who also did something good without either abandoning moral principles or denouncing them as "Hitler".

Holding human beings as slaves has always been evil. Jefferson's early views held those enslaved as inferior by nature and in need of being told how to live while treating them well because of what he observed them to be. He overlooked how they got that way and how they were kept down at that level. It was an understandable error and much different than those who held no principles of the rights of the individual, but the slavery itself was still wrong. The principles are based on the facts -- in this case the slavery of rational beings -- not what people thought of it then or any other time. The slavery was morally wrong.

Jefferson himself is judged as a great man because of how he thought and fought to implement his superior ideas over the course of his career. It isn't based on a single trigger word and no context, followed by an hysteria to tear down the Jefferson Memorial.

This moral judgment has nothing to do with prosecuting speeders under whatever the current legal speed limit is. Speed limits are optional within a range and set for the current road conditions; they are not moral principles. The moral principle is not endangering others' lives and the necessity to judge what driving actions do that.

He gave in because he lost and had to surrender. Agreeing with terms of surrender that did not include perpetual mayhem and destruction does not make him a moral hero for the surrender.

State versus national loyalty is a collectivist power struggle, not a moral principle. Whether someone "holds himself" to be a Southerner or an American, or a Belgian or a European, is irrelevant to the moral choice and the judgment of it. To put that first is to put a tribal duty premise above morality. If there are mitigating moral considerations for Lee they do not include that he was a question-begging statist. The conservative apologists arguing that way are consistent with their common "states rights" collectivist premise.

... and objective understanding of why they did what they did and thought they had to with the choices and influences confronting them. We can do that and still recognize what was right and wrong.

Did Jefferson? Who knows what they informally said to any individuals? We can only discuss and evaluate what they publicly said their beliefs and motives were in conjunction with their actions and what they thought that meant at the time and for the future. But Lee was no Jefferson.

Sure, go ahead and judge all you want. Just make sure the criteria is valid when applied to the one being judged. If last week it was legal to drive 55mph on a stretch of highway, but the law is changed this week to 35mph, it would be invalid to judge guilty those that drove that stretch at 55mph last week. When studying history we have to be careful of those kinds of judgements even if parts of the historical figure's behavior assaults our sensibilities by today's standards. For example, it would be easy to judge the Nazis as evil even in their own time, but Thomas Jefferson evil for being a slave holder in his time? Nah.

The primary participants of both sides should be studied, not erased. It does not follow that they should not be judged. If we are entitled to make judgments about the founding fathers (most of them positive), we are certainly entitled to make judgments about participants in the Civil War (many of them negative).

Hence the need to evaluate beliefs using objective moral standards.

You're right, CBJ, and I agree with you on that today now that the hard work has been done and hind sight can be so clear. However, in the past that belief wasn't always agreed with. For example, Grant's disbelief in racial equality was to the point negro slavery or servitude didn't seem to bother him, yet he believed in the Union strongly enough to make war on States desiring to leave it. The opposite of Lee.

The American Civil War was a defining point in US and world history and the primary participants of both sides should be studied, not erased. One interesting point is the fact that the states that had an estimated 4.5 million slaves to contribute to their war effort still couldn't beat the free states. America was becoming a powerful nation with slavery, but in the end became a far more powerful nation without it.

Repeat: Everyone , in those times, grew up and lived with slavery, they all were enslaved by Kings and Queens; thoughts otherwise was a recent development, radical, so to speak, for those times...memes or paradigms do not change quickly.
Are we not having a similar battle today? A paradigm of Freedom will not give way to a paradigm back into slavery...I think most have learned that lesson but are still blinded by the fact that the reverse fight never ended...example: big government, collectivism, political correctness (making anyone wanting to discuss the matter an instant criminal), global warming, Big City states, dumbed down education, revised history and all manner of disempowerments.

Thanks mccannon01
Everyone , in those times, grew up and lived with slavery, they all were enslaved by Kings and Queens; thoughts otherwise was a recent development, radical, so to speak, for those times...memes or paradigms do not change quickly.
Are we not having a similar battle today? A paradigm of Freedom will not give way to a paradigm back into slavery...I think most have learned that lesson but are still blinded by the fact that the reverse fight never ended.

Frederick Douglas was an amazing man...would show up many today. He was right, of course, they were enslaved by their own enslavement of others and at dissonance with that fact.

Fine, but one doesn't have to believe in "the equality of the negro and the white man" in order to believe that enslaving the black man is wrong. And to act on that belief.

How nice for him. Did he ever apologize to any former slaves for attempting to extend their period of servitude?

Thanks AJ, I am so attracted to the writings of those times, it sometimes, creeps into my work. I must remember to enclose them with 'Scare' quotes...that's what the kids call single quotes these days...us doubles? and they quickly soil their pants.

That PC purging is beginning to be a big problem...sometimes I wonder if I should just go to the library like the olden days...but some have been purged as well.

Even by the German meme of those times...Hitler was Evil...Lee on the other hand, was not and faced with an internal conundrum he tried his best to reconcile. In the end, even though it may be judged to be to late, it would seem he came to terms with that internal conflict.

Replace the word "commoner" with serf and you've got it nailed.

As soon as government took upon itself the right to tax and confiscate, it infringed on freedom - the level of infringement rising with the depth and breadth of taxation. The only way to restore freedom is to restrain taxation and the infringement it brings.

I think the problem here, CBJ, is Objectivist principles and widespread belief in the equality of the negro and the white man didn't exist in 1861. If Lee had the advantage of knowing these things as we do today, I'm sure his decision would have been different. If you read his letter, as supplied by MikeMarrotta above, you can plainly see even though Lee didn't like slavery there was little doubt he believed the white man and the negro were somehow much different. His decision, IMHO, was about his disagreement with white men in the Union telling white men in the States what to do. (I use the term "negro" as apposed to "African-American" because the latter term didn't exist in 1861)

And another tidbit...

One of my ancestors was an Irishman conscripted into the British army and sent to the Colonies to kill George Washington and any other rebel, but after he got here realized what the patriots of true freedom were all about. He was a commoner who owned NOTHING, but had to work to pay the royal rent on everything he had. He was virtually a slave. He changed sides and fought in the Colonial army for freedom and a piece of land to call his own near Elmira, NY. He paid no property tax, no income tax, and could build his home as he saw fit and grow the crops he saw fit and no man or government could take it away. He paid NO royal rent to anyone. He was a FREE MAN. Didn't last long, I guess. If I don't pay the "Royal Rent" I will soon learn I actually own NOTHING and, in that respect, am as much a virtual slave as my ancestor before he fought in the Colonial army. The majority of the people have returned to being "commoners" again.

And another tidbit...

I read that Frederick Douglas was asked why the negro wasn't set free at the conclusion of the American Revolution and his response was the white man had to free himself first.

Not the reference I was searching for but it still contains the content I refer to.
http://www.nytimes.com/1862/08/24/new...