By John Q. Hosedrinker 
West Point is reinstating Confederate imagery, including a portrait of Robert E. Lee and his quote, after being removed in 2022 due to a Department of Defense directive. This decision aligns with a broader effort to restore Confederate names and monuments, as championed by the Trump administration, which argues for honoring and learning from history rather than erasing it. While the Army asserts that this complies with federal law, some, like retired Brigadier General Ty Seidule, argue that these symbols contradict the values taught at West Point and question the legality of the restoration, as a congressionally mandated commission recommended the removal of Confederate symbols.
Read the original article here
Robert E. Lee portrait back up in West Point’s library, a decision that’s clearly sparking a lot of debate and raising some really valid questions. It’s a curious move, isn’t it? Especially when you consider the history and the principles at stake. The fact that this portrait, showing a Black man leading Lee’s horse, was placed in storage and then re-hung is definitely something to unpack. Why now? What message is this sending?
It’s hard not to be struck by the sheer audacity of celebrating someone who actively fought against the United States, leading an army that resulted in so much bloodshed. The Confederate Army, led by Lee, caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American soldiers. The irony is glaring, particularly in an institution like West Point, which is designed to train U.S. Army officers. Why is a figure who embodies the destruction of the Union being honored within the very organization sworn to defend it? It raises the question of what values are being prioritized.
There’s a visceral reaction to this, a sense that it’s a betrayal of the very ideals the country stands for. The Confederacy stood for the right to own slaves, which contradicts the fundamental American principles of equality and freedom. Glorifying Lee, in this context, seems like an endorsement of those values, which is frankly, difficult to fathom. And the fact that this decision comes at a time when the release of other sensitive documents is being avoided, raises further questions, doesn’t it?
The argument that this is about honoring history and learning from it, as some have stated, feels insufficient. It’s easy to see that under this logic, anyone could be justified in creating memorials for enemies of the United States. It’s about more than just acknowledging the past; it’s about celebrating, and possibly even glorifying, a figure who actively worked to destroy the nation. It’s a matter of priorities, and the optics are… well, they’re terrible. It’s hard to imagine similar displays of respect for other figures who actively opposed the US.
It seems like the idea of “honoring history” is being used selectively. If the goal is to learn from the past, why not include plaques and information that offer a more comprehensive and unvarnished account of Lee’s actions, including the moral implications of his choices? How about acknowledging that Lee was a traitor? A portrait alone can be interpreted as a form of celebration. I would expect the military would want to teach these things.
And what about the historical context? Lee was a slaveholder, and it’s impossible to separate his actions from that reality. It’s not about “erasing” history; it’s about providing context and acknowledging the full scope of a person’s actions. It’s about ensuring that the narrative is honest and doesn’t shy away from the uncomfortable truths of the past. The idea of putting Lee up alongside other figures like Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin? I mean, it’s a provocative suggestion, but it underlines the moral ambiguity of the situation.
It also prompts you to consider the hypocrisy. Those advocating for the celebration of Lee often criticize others for actions they see as unpatriotic. If the Confederacy is considered treasonous, how can its leaders be celebrated? It just doesn’t align. The underlying reasons for this celebration are likely to be about something else than acknowledging history. It’s a deeply problematic situation, isn’t it? What about the Confederate flag? Perhaps a stark warning might be needed for that flag.
If we’re honest, Lee himself probably wouldn’t have liked this. He knew he’d lost, and he knew the world had changed. He was also wary of being turned into a symbol, and he certainly wouldn’t have wanted to be a cause for division. Isn’t it fascinating that this isn’t the end of it? He would probably be shaking his head at the way his image is being used and the meaning it’s being given. He may have been a talented military officer, but his cause was rooted in slavery, in hatred and division.
The lack of real accountability in the aftermath of the Civil War is a significant piece of this puzzle. The South, instead of facing true consequences for its actions, was allowed to retain a great deal of its power. Had those Confederate officers been held fully accountable, the social landscape might look very different today. It might not have eliminated all of the hatred, but it may have helped. It’s hard not to wonder what might have been.
So, what’s the takeaway here? It’s that the decision to put Lee’s portrait back up requires a lot more explanation, context, and frankly, self-awareness. Ignoring the complexity of his actions and their moral implications is a disservice to history and the very ideals the United States is supposed to stand for. Lee was a traitor. His actions, and the cause he championed, should be remembered and studied. They should not be glorified.