Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The National Park Service has been given $12.3 million to restore Robert E. Lee's house, known as Arlington House, and the Slave Quarters. The exhibits will also be overhauled.
"David Rubenstein, a billionaire history buff and co-founder of The Carlyle Group, said he is giving the National Park Foundation the funds needed for a full restoration of the historic house, grounds and slave quarters to how they appeared in 1860, as well as an overhaul of the site's museum exhibits. Rubenstein said the site crowns the most sacred land in the country, Arlington National Cemetery, but needed major repairs."
Rubenstein considers it the "most sacred land in the country." I disagree because I don't think our country has one most sacred, or special, piece of land. Different people may consider a particular place sacred or the most sacred. Others may not consider any place sacred or have a place that is the most special to them. Arlington House and the Slave Quarters are part of an important place. They should be preserved and their stories told.
It would be fun to be a fly on the wall during the exhibit overhaul to get to see the rewrite of Arlington's history. Undoubtedly there will be different opinions and lively discussions about how the stories should be told.
I can't link the article here because I'm too new to City-Data, but have copied the link info below.
The Park Service has also generally been fair and objective in it's historical sites I think. The fact that they turned Robert E. Lee's former estate into a graveyard is enough to show one part of his legacy. A great general, a true gentlemen, that fought for a flawed cause.
Should be nice to see once its finished. The last time I was at Arlington (~3 years ago) you could get on the front porch and all around the house, you simply could not go inside.
The Park Service has also generally been fair and objective in it's historical sites I think. The fact that they turned Robert E. Lee's former estate into a graveyard is enough to show one part of his legacy. A great general, a true gentlemen, that fought for a flawed cause.
I'm unclear as to what you mean with "show one part of his legacy." Does that reference Lee's siding with the rebellion against the government, or reference recognition of the virtues you list above?
They didn't turn the estate into a cemetery as a tribute to Lee, quite the reverse, they seized his home and nationalized the property. It wasn't his "former estate" until the Feds decided to treat it as contraband of war. That was his home, where six of his seven children were born, where his family lived. No one wants their home turned into a national park while they still reside there.
When the National Cemeteries were started after the Civil War, they wouldn't bury the Confederate dead there (not that the South would have wanted that). The Federal government paid people to rebury the Union dead, but left the south to rebury its dead, which is one reason there are so many Confederate cemeteries scattered through the South. Making Arlington a cemetery was an in-your-face move, even if neither side wanted to bury their dead with the other. (Yes, I know there are places where they were buried in the same cemetery, but that is the exception.)
A quote from the article about the restoration: "The 200-year-old house and grounds symbolize the nation's reconciliation after the Civil War, said National Park Service Director Jonathan Jarvis, but it is in poor condition." Thinking of the house and grounds as a symbol of reconciliation is interesting in light of the harsh conditions under which Arlington was created. I wonder if they will address this when they redo the exhibits.
I'm a huge fan of the National Park Service and have visited many National Parks and National Monuments. I think they do a good job with the limited resources they have.
I don't think of it as a symbol of reconciliation, since I think Reconstruction was more about learning to coexist with a new set of rules than reconciling the put back together union. How they portray Lee will not please everyone. While loyalty to something can be admirable, it doesn't excuse being on the wrong side of history.
I'm unclear as to what you mean with "show one part of his legacy." Does that reference Lee's siding with the rebellion against the government, or reference recognition of the virtues you list above?
They didn't turn the estate into a cemetery as a tribute to Lee, quite the reverse, they seized his home and nationalized the property. It wasn't his "former estate" until the Feds decided to treat it as contraband of war. That was his home, where six of his seven children were born, where his family lived. No one wants their home turned into a national park while they still reside there.
I meant the former context - Lee siding with the rebellion and thus being complicent in a civil war costing hundreds of thousand of lives (in contrast to his also well deserved reputation for being a good general and gentleman). So of course I agree they didn't turn his estate into a graveyard for the civil war dead (originally) as a tribute to Lee, but to spite his legacy.
I just didn't word it clearly.
I meant the former context - Lee siding with the rebellion and thus being complicent in a civil war costing hundreds of thousand of lives (in contrast to his also well deserved reputation for being a good general and gentleman). So of course I agree they didn't turn his estate into a graveyard for the civil war dead (originally) as a tribute to Lee, but to spite his legacy.
I just didn't word it clearly.
After reading a biography of Robert E. Lee's early years, I had a new appreciation for him and an understanding of what it cost him to take the stand he did.
In his early life his was plagued by the shame that his war hero father brought on the family and the poverty he brought on his mother and young Robert. Hero father either bilked friends and relations of financial assets or was hoodwinked by those smarter than he into doing so and had to run away to Barbados to escape imprisonment; leaving 8/9 year old Robert and his mother with nothing but the good will and charity of the very same people that hero father had bilked.
Robert and his mother were 'guests' of various family members and through his whole growing years young Robert undertook to make up to his hosts for their charity. If he was afforded riding lessons he worked at it to be the best rider he could be, swordsmanship...the best, academics...the best, dancing, manners, character, honor in all forms this little boy strove to be the best he could be and undertook to erase the shame that his father had brought on his mother.
As it worked he married into the Custis family and Arlington was her city house. He had put paid to the shame and went about doing the best he could in that regard including manumission. Considering he was a distant owner fighting Mexico or at West Point, I give him leeway on some things but he appeared to have been decent in his dealings.
When the war came and the decision must be made, I doubt he could have turned his back on those who had fed and clothed him and his mother in their poverty. Regardless of his personal feelings, I just don't see it. So for the Union to take Arlington and make it a cemetary for the Union was a double slap to GEN Lee. and probably GEN Lee felt it was the accepted value for the decision he made.
But I think it was also bad that the Union Army encamped on Christ Church property in Alexandria and desecrated the grave yard because GEN Lee had gone to church there. They didn't burn the church because Pres Washington had gone there but they camped in the graveyard, torn down the tombstones and cracked the vaults and stabled their horses there. I call any burial ground sacred ground, hallowed, and think that is a disgrace myself. just my viewpoint.
So if the park service is going to take this property and fix it up, fine. It is an historical house and if it can be maintained great. But I think IMO GEN Lee knew he was losing his house and all he worked for when he made his choice and wouldn't begrudge it one way or another.
Because he was so gifted at concealing his emotions and showing a strong face regardless of dire circumstances, we tend to think of Lee as a man devoid of emotions apart from the most basic, virtuous ones.
It seems clear that Lee was a man devoted to duty, but within that devotion was a real love of warfare. War was the means for releasing an aspect of Lee's character which was otherwise masked, his incredible boldness and aggression. Lee loved to fight and he especially loved seizing the initiative and striking his opponent a hard, surprise blow.
An episode which was quite revealing took place after the Confederate victory at Fredericksburg. This had been the most one sided rebel win of the war. At very little cost to the South, the Army of the Potomac was severely bloodied and sent back across the river. You might think that this was very satisfying for Lee, but that was not the case. Lee hadn't wanted to fight the battle there at all and only did so because his opponent was so foolishly setting himself up for easy slaughter. Lee recognized that after any Union assault against his lines behind Fredericksburg failed, because the Federals could then retreat across the river where they were protected by their heavy artillery, Lee could not follow and strike a counter blow. And because of this, Lee viewed the Fredericksburg battle as a waste, no chance for him to alter the strategic situation with one of his lightning maneuvers and attacks. Further, Lee took no personal satisfaction from fighting a strictly defensive battle where the enemy held the initiative. The whole South was delighted by the Fredericksburg victory, except the man who won it.
Lee was indeed a gentleman of the first order, was a man who would never turn his back on a duty, and was probably the most gifted American battle tactician of his Century...perhaps of any Century.
Lee's great personal crisis arose when he was faced with conflicting duties. He was a career soldier, educated at the public expense at West Point and had served splendidly for two decades plus when the Civil Ware began. Lee was opposed to secession and was not a champion of slavery. Those were factors which placed him in the Northern camp. But Lee could not imagine himself leading an army against his family and neighbors, thus he was forced to turn his back on one duty in order to serve another.
But....did he have to fight at all? And did he have to fight so well on behalf of a cause he rejected? I think everyone would be understanding of Lee's refusal to lead an attack against his home and people, but he could have just retired and sat out the war, he didn't have to offer his services to the cause he did not support.
So, why did Lee decide to fight? I think it was because he could not have stood to not fight. Lee was too gifted at war to watch from the sidelines when the largest war ever on the American continent was raging. I do not think Lee's hyper developed sense of duty and honor would have permitted him to be viewed by his neighbors as a Union loyal neutral who was ducking the great war.
Consequently, I view at least a portion of Lee's decision to fight for the South as selfish rather than noble. He believed in the United States of America but he believed in the reputation of Robert E. Lee just a bit more. One could contrast Lee's decision with that of General George Thomas, another Virginian who stayed loyal to the US and suffered shunning by his family in Virginia for the remainder of his life as a consequence. Two men, identical circumstances, and two different decisions regarding where their highest loyalties lay.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
