What does it say about an organization that structures a conference around a mutually exclusive choice? This is a perfect conference for those of you who like your history overly simplistic and based around a strawman argument:
But opinions are changing in this era of Political Correctness. Was Lee a hero whose valour and leadership were surpassed only by his honour and humanity? Or, as some suggest today, was he a traitor whose military skill served a bad cause and prolonged an immoral rebellion against his rightful government?
To many, Robert E. Lee is a remote figure, a marble icon. To others he was simply a great battlefield commander. But Lee was much more; his character shines brightly from the past, illuminating the present. The Symposium will cover Lee the man, his views on government and liberty, his humane attitudes toward race and slavery, Lee and the American Union, Lee as inspired commander and his relationship with the Army, Lee as a Christian gentleman, and the meaning of Lee for today.
Am I to believe that it is possible to have an analytical discussion about these issues? Given the list of speakers is this really going to be a serious discussion with panelists taking different positions or are they simply going to sit around and toast the general with their words? At least they were smart enough to invite Bob Krick and Kent M. Brown who are the only two on the list qualified to talk about Lee’s generalship. I think I will pass on this one and spend some time Saturday reading a history of Lee.