Honoring an enemy general with a monument in the United States?

Consider this....

Would most American accept the idea of honoring

1. a general officer of an enemy nation-state...

2. a nation-state that launched a surprise attack on the US....

3. against a US military base, located in a harbor....

4. and that nation-state then engaged in a 4 year long bloody war against the United States?




Now......the man to be honored is EITHER














A. Robert E. Lee?



or B. Isoroku Yamamoto?

 

General Lee commanded the Army of Northern Virginia.

The Army of Northern Virginia didn't attack any U.S. military base in any harbor.

Sounds like another attempt of cultural-marxist revisionist history.

FYI: Yamamoto was never a general but an admiral in the IJN.

 

The Army of Northern Virginia fought for the Confederate States of America, an enemy nation-state that launched a surprise attack on a US military installation.

Yamamoto was a GENERAL OFFICER, general officers include generals and admirals.


Lee was an enemy officer....same as Yamamoto.

 

Lee was a traitor to the US.

Should have been shot after the war and had the body dumped at sea.

Sounds like you relish the memory of traitors.

 

Robert E. Lee was the superintendent of West Point, and a respected officer in the U.S. Army. He was loyal to his state of Virginia. YOu are looking at this with 21st century views, not 19th century views. In the 19th century, people viewed themselves as citizens of states as being more important than being citizens of the United States. Lee was a very honorable man, and due to his honor, the war ended much more gracefully and with less loss of life than it would have without him.

 

Your lack of historical knowledge is showing. The Army of Northern Virginia was fighting for Virginia.

United States of America.

Confederate States of Americas.

Before the American Civil War the United States was made up of individual sovereign states united in the common defense of the Union.

Look at the Union Army's "order of battle." What do you see ? An army made up of state militias and volunteers that have been federalized.

Look at the CSA "order of battle. They are all armies, state armies.

Military 101:

Navies don't have generals. (Except maybe the chi-coms PLAN) Admirals are "Flag Officers" not generals.

 

Have you actually ever studied the man, Robert E. Lee ???

Obvious not, all you know about the man is PC revisionist indoctrination you received. You know how cultural-marxist have no idea what the flag of the CSA looks like and think a Confederate battle flag was the flag of the Confederacy.

When President Lincoln offered Robert E. Lee the command of the Union Army, Lee crossed the river to his home in Arlington and walked the floors all night. If he accepted the command of the commanding general of the Union Army, he would be a traitor to the his home state of Virginia.

(Before the American Civil War most Americans held their loyalty to the state they lived in.)

But I digress.

The next morning Lee crossed the river back into Washington and declined the command of the Union Army and resigned his commission in the U.S. Army no longer owing any allegiance to the U.S. Army.

"Come to pass" What part of that does the radical left in America have a problem understanding ???
The left always agitating and trying to divide America.
That's what Saul Alinsky teaches community organizers to do.

Do you know who Fitzhugh Lee was ? Fitzhugh Lee was Robert E. Lee's nephew, a Medal of Honor recipient .

Fitzhugh Lee was also a professional soldier like his uncle Robert E. Lee who resigned his commission in the U.S. Army and became a general in the Confederacy. -> https://youtu.be/CRHtjjDslKI

Fitzhugh Lee was a Confederate cavalry general in the American Civil War, the 40th Governor of Virginia, diplomat, and United States Army general in the Spanish–American War.



Was Fitzhugh Lee also a traitor ? If so, is it common for Congress to confirm a traitor as a general in the United States Army ???

In fact three other former Confederate Generals would serve as generals in the U.S. Army after the Civil War.

George S. Patton, Chesty Puller, their blood lines go back to the Confederate armies.

Just about every general in the world in the past 150 years studied the man, Robert E. Lee. Even at West Point today they study the man unless Obama has issued another PC executive order.

It's really worth watching. -> https://youtu.be/CRHtjjDslKI

 

Yes, but he did go to West Point (in NY), and years before he did fight for the United States against the Mexicans in the Mexican-American War. So to fight for the Confederate States, he had to fight against the United States.

 

I have another one for you. Generalissimo Pancho Villa. In the center of my hometown is a large bronze statue of Pancho Villa riding his horse. He invaded Columbus, New Mexico and killed several Americans before getting his butt kicked and chased back into Mexico. He then led Blackjack Pershing on a long chase through Mexico. Why do we have a statue of Pancho Villa in the center of town? I got no answer for that. I do know that Lee and Yamamoto were honorable fellas who did not want to get into tangles with the U.S.

 

The State of West Virginia has a parked named after Stonewall Jackson and they left the confederacy. Good luck getting them to rename it after Barrack Obama, Al Sharpton, or any other warm fuzzy black person.

 

Weren't Confederate veterans made US veterans under US law back in the 50's?

I'm not sure what's the point of having a jihad against confederates 150 years after the war. It's not as if there are any confederates now.

 

No, there was a statute providing money for Confederate widows and gravesite maintenance or something, IIRC. Declaring Confederate vets equal to Union vets would be retarded, obviously.