Robert E. Lee
Retired Army General Stanley McChrystal has a new book, called Leaders, Myth and Reality. He also had some things to say about the President’s plan to send 5000 plus regular US Army troops to the Southern Border. In an interview with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell, the General spoke about what the troops could do, mainly support operations like erecting tents and building barricades, and what they couldn’t do; act as the “Border Patrol.” He made a significant point: while all of the things the Army could do at the border some other force, the National Guard or even civilian contractors could do as well; sending “TROOPS TO THE BORDER” was the point. McChrystal did not come out against the President, but he made it clear that the President’s actions were much more symbolic than necessary.
It fits the “caravan invasion” scenario that Mr. Trump has been touting on the campaign trail, just as his threat to repeal birthright citizenship is a political ploy. The 14thAmendment to the Constitution in “black letter law” states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
While it’s clear that a few of the President’s advisor would like to quibble about “subject to the jurisdiction,” claiming that illegal immigrants who have children here are in fact not subject to jurisdiction and therefore their offspring do not have the right to citizenship; the Courts immediately claim jurisdiction when those same immigrants cross the border, are found “guilty” and sent to jail.
And of course, if you really want to quibble with wording, than let’s look at the Second Amendment, with the hanging opening clause: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If jurisdiction applies to citizenship, then well-regulated militia must apply to bearing arms. The Court decisions for over one hundred years argue that neither is true.
It’s all about optics and politics. It is unlikely that the President would try to change the Constitution through Executive order, nor is it likely that he will even bother to pick the fight after November 6th(though with Trump it’s hard to tell.) Even Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh would have a tough time agreeing with him on that.
But it was something that McChrystal said later in the interview that caught my ear. The General said that for decades he had a portrait of Robert E. Lee in his office, given to him by his wife. He saw Lee as the kind of leader that America can produce, and the kind that McChrystal wanted to emulate.
Four Star General McChrystal had a storied career, completing Special Forces training and ultimately commanding US Special Operations, but was removed from his last command as Chief of Forces in Afghanistan. He said “too much” to the press, ridiculing his civilian commanders including Vice President Joe Biden, and President Obama asked for his resignation. It was a sad way for a great General to leave service, but just as necessary as General MacArthur being removed by President Truman during the Korean War. The foundation of the American military is civilian control, both MacArthur and McChrystal were reminded of that the hard way.
So McChrystal, a General who made a serious mistake, was an admirer of Robert E. Lee, the storied leader of the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia. But McChrystal said that he re-evaluated him, after the Charlottesville incident last year, where right-wing Nationalists rioted over the removal of a statue of Lee.
At the beginning of the Civil War, Lee, a career officer in the United States Army and top of his generation, chose to turn down US command and offer his services to the Confederacy. Our history books have always taught this as “honorable,” choosing to serve Virginia rather than the nation. But evaluating this decision today, Lee’s actions prolonged the war (by his generalship) and cost hundreds of thousands of lives. McChrystal saw Lee as committing a tragic mistake, and after Charlottesville took the picture down.
I am a Civil War “buff;” trooping battlefields to imagine the struggle and sacrifice. And I too saw Lee’s actions in a “neutral” way; making a difficult life choice in a time when all were forced to chose. But, after listening in General McChrystal, I see a different analysis. Lee, a tremendous strategist and tactician, got the great question of his time wrong. He chose the past, the “Southern cause;” rather than the future that even his own father’s peers saw for America. Lee was the next generation from the founding fathers, his father, “Light Horse Harry” Lee was a Revolutionary hero and friend of George Washington.
Those men saw the future of the United States, and while they did not (or could not) end slavery, they compromised to get a nation based on “all men created equal.” Robert E. Lee, did not see this future; instead he saw a past that he tried to defend. He failed, both in his decision, and his effort to maintain the slave South.
While we can look with sadness and admiration at the great sacrifices the Confederates made in Lee’s honor, we must also see that the greater tragedy was the decision Lee made in the first place. Like the career of General McChrystal, Lee earned the right to be respected, but must ultimately be judged on failure: not his failure to win at Gettysburg or the rest, but his failure to see America’s future. I don’t have any portraits of Lee hanging in my office, but I have taken one down in my mind.
This is the same standard we should hold our own leaders to today. We should stop thinking of “moral neutrality” in our choices, for the past or future. Whatever you think of President Trump, “Make America Great Again” is a march to the past. That is how he should be judged.
