The Last/Worst Act

Retired General and current White House Chief of Staff John F. Kelly appeared on Fox News Channel's new show The Ingraham Angle, starring Laura Ingraham.

That's the full interview if you are inclined to watch it in its entirety.  Here is the full transcript of his remarks specific to a question about the removal of Confederate statues:

"Well, history's history. And there are certain things in history that were not so good and other things that were very, very good.
I think we make a mistake, though, and as a society, and certainly as individuals, when we take what is today accepted as right and wrong and go back 100, 200, 300 years or more and say, 'What Christopher Columbus did was wrong.'
You know, 500 years later, it's inconceivable to me that you would take what we think now and apply it back then. I think it's just very, very dangerous. I think it shows you just how much of a lack of appreciation of history and what history is.
I would tell you that Robert E. Lee was an honorable man. He was a man that gave up his country to fight for his state, which 150 years ago was more important than country. It was always loyalty to state first back in those days. Now it's different today. But the lack of an ability to compromise led to the Civil War, and men and women of good faith on both sides made their stand where their conscience had them make their stand."

General Kelly is a graduate of the University of Massachusetts Boston and also has a Masters in National Security Affairs from Georgetown's School of Foreign Service, as well as a Masters of Science in Strategic Studies from the National Defense University.

Apparently he didn't do too well in studying history, or else he's decided to forget about some significant events in our nation's history that took place before the Civil War began.  Like something called The Missouri Compromise.  The fact it was repealed by the Kansas-Nebraska Act and ultimately determined to be unconstitutional by the decision in Dred Scott v Sandford does not change the fact that there were attempts at compromise.

In the end, there was no way to reach a compromise between the North and South on the issue of slavery.  There had been an earlier compromise during the 1787 Constitutional Convention that black men would only be counted as 3/5ths of a man.  That's an abhorrent compromise viewed today and even at the time was considered somewhat controversial by those who gave in to the entreaties of those who represented slavery proponents.

There should be no statues of Robert E. Lee for the sole reason that people are usually judged by our worst act.  All of what Benedict Arnold may have accomplished prior to his turning traitor is forgotten by history because he was a traitor.  The accomplishments of Richard M. Nixon are many and yet largely ignored because of the stain of Watergate and his complicity in it.  

Like it or not, Robert E. Lee supported slavery.  Embraced it in fact, when he was administering the estate of his father-in-law, in spite of that man's will calling for emancipation of his slaves upon his passing.  Robert E. Lee publicly opposed racial equality.  After his graduation from West Point, he took the following oath:

"I, _____, appointed a _____ in the Army of the United States, do solemnly swear, or affirm, that I will bear true allegiance to the United States of America, and that I will serve them honestly and faithfully against all their enemies or opposers whatsoever, and observe and obey the orders of the President of the United States, and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the rules and articles for the government of the Armies of the United States."

He abandoned that oath when he took up arms against the Union.

There is an argument to be made that honors earned prior to one's last/worst act should not be revoked without review.  We don't necessarily strip a soldier of their awards and decorations when they are court-martialed, although they can are often are removed from the service.  Rank may be reduced in some cases, even for officers.

Is it fair to judge a person by their last/worst act?  I think it is.