Let me start my little diatribe by saying that the whole idea of “cancel culture” seems to be a misnomer, and in the worst possible way. First there is the changing of names of military bases and other institutions which sport the names of slave owners and others of disrepute. There are those among them who are quite deservedly being brought to task. There are people today, both Democrat and Republican, are taking a very narrow view of our ancestral leadership.

I start with a man who is know as a great patriot of our early nation. His name was Major General Henry Lee, or, Light Horse Harry Lee as he became known. Lee was an important figure in our country’s struggle for freedom during the Revolution. He later served as the governor of Virginia and a representative to Congress. Importantly, he was also the father of General Robert E. Lee.

I have a master’s degree from Harvard University where I studied U.S. History. A lot of time was spent in my studies in dealing with various reform movements, slavery and the Civil War. Now, there are a lot of people who want Fort Lee’s name changed. To what and why? The why is simple, he was a slave owner and prominent soldier for the Confederacy. But Lee was not an idealogue. Prior to the outbreak of hostilities, President Lincoln spoke long and personally to Lee, offering him the position as Commander of the Armies of the Potomac. In today’s lingo, he who be one of the joint chiefs of staff. Lee and Lincoln were friends and Lincoln knew full well that Lee was a slave owner but still asked him to serve. Why? Because he was the best candidate, by a lot. Lee went home and spent many a sleepless night angonizing over what his answer should be. Lee graduated in 1829 from West Point second in his class. Conversely, U. S. Grant, class of 1839 at West Point, graduated 21 of 39 graduates. In the end, Lee chose the Confederacy only because of his desire to honor his home state of Virginia. Lee was never a politician, except as his military duties demanded, but the ultimate soldier. His devotion was to his men and the uniform he wore. Once he accepted his role as an officer from Virginia, he assumed his role as a military leader but never a political leader.

An example of a more modern time General who had the same issue was the German General Erwin Rommel. Rommel was the hero of World War One for the Germans and got swept up in the Nazi wave. Like Lee, Rommel knew only the Army and did not care at all for the politics involved. He was constantly at odds with the political hieracy, finally plotting to kill Hitler which brought about his own death.

Even later, many us, myself included, fought in the Vietnam War, a widely unpopular war. But as soldiers we knew our duty to the military and to follow all legal orders, We did that even though many of us, if not most, hid silent views of being against the war. I suspect, although this is not written anywhere, that General Lee harbored similar views. What to do? When the hostilities of the Civil War broke out, both sides thought the war would be a very short one. Neither side anticipated the future.

When the war was over, all officers and politicians of the Confederacy were barred from any further military or political service. This was their sentence, similar to one a court would hand down, for life. I suspect, had anyone asked, Lee would have abandoned slavery.

This brings me to General Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson. Was Jackson really a slave owner or one who had an indentured servant. Jackson may be the most peculiar of all the famous southern generals. He was born in Virgina, now West Virginia. As the other generals, Jackson graduated from West Point in 1846. Jackson held a seven slaves, who are described in a paper written by Larry Spurgeon, Stonewall Jackson’s Slaves. One slave, Albert, begged Jackson to buy him and free him once his debt was paid. Another slave, Amy, was sold to Jackson so her owner could pay a debt. Amy became the cooks for the Jacksons. Other such accounts can be found and in every case of a male slave, Jackson insisted up their becoming well educated. And in the end, you find that each took a place in the Jackson house much like servants and not of slaves. And like so many of those in the north who in the mid-1700s held “slaves,” each were allowed to live in the main house, frequently the only house. Jackson steadfastly believed in both freeing all slaves and embracing state’s rights. That dichotomy is an anathema to most today but it is good to remember that he was a product of his times. Jackson’s only desire was to become a general in the army and be the ultimate soldier. He had absolutely no political inclinations. And like Lee, his allegiance to Virginia was unassailable and so he felt the obligation to join the Confederacy.

By today’s logic, we must also include George Washington, the father of our country, in that group. We must also included every President from Washington through Grant because all owned slaves! Washington, Jefferson, each owned over 600. Others who owned over 100 include Madison, Jackson and Taylor. Even U. S. Grant owned a slave.

Before we go off and start renaming any installation because of their relationship with slavery, and “worse,” to the confederacy, we necessarily must ask ourselves, “Where these men of their day?” To answer in any was but the positive is to deny the truth. In a cursory look at various fort names, only a few seem to arise to the level that whom they were named after were nafarious enough to warrant change; Fort Gordon, GA, Fort Bragg, NC, and Fort A. P. Hill, VA. Both Washington and Jefferson were aggregious in their slaveholdings. Should we tear down the Washington Monument and the Jefferson memorial? Should every “Washington Street” in our country be renamed? I think not! The era of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were quite different from those of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson, but each must be given fair consideration as men of their times. Today, we do not see things in the same light as any of the aforementioned men. It would be foolish to thing otherwiase. It is necessary to treat each very evenhandedly.

As sort of an addendum, which I find most distasteful, but which Sen. Cruz is hell-bent about, is this idea that “liberals” are trying to rid us of a Dr. Seus on the premise that he was either racially or gender biased. They do not nor does anyone else. It serves no purpose to create such scenarious other than to promote self-interest and to appeal to those who allow that person to think for them