Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-03-17
THE R. E. LEE STATUE
TWO OPPOSING VIEWS OF THE
CASE PRESENTED.
Gen. Lee Declared to Be No "Tradtor''
Patrick Henry Named
in His Stead.
% the EDITOR Of The Evening Star:

To the Editor Of The Evening Star:
I regret that any opposition should be
made to the placing Of a statue OF Gen.
Robert e. Lee in the Capitol. that any one
should become so lost to a sense OF Justice
and honor as to attempt to cast aspersions
upon a man whose lips are closed In death
During the civil war and the reconstruction
period there was some license permitted In
the use Of the words rebel and traitor"
But there is time when the elements OF
hatred and discord should be cast into OBJ
livion and a spirit of amity, fraternity and
justice should prevail. Out OF the dreadful
conflict between warning states a new ma
ton was born. new citizenship was Great
ed, new rights and duties arose.
The Constitution Of the United States de-
fines treason as levying war against the
country or giving aid and comfort to Its
enemies. This provision, like all others Of
its kind must be construed In the light OF
attending circumstances. No court in this
country has ever defined treason as to
implicate Gen. Lee or any officer, soldier or
member Of the confederate government
From the adoption of the Constitution until
the war between the states. some of the
ablest legal minds Of the country contended
that the states might secede from the union
at will. Benedict Arnold, who attempted to
betray West Point to the British, and Aa-
ron Burr who attempted to incite an insur
cause, while owing allegiance to the coun-
try-and the former was an officer of the
Continental army-they were recreant to
their trusts. But in Gen. Lees case the
facts were different. He gave up his COM
mission. renowned his allegiance to the
United States and Joined in an organized
government which sought to secure the in
dependence Of the confederate states. The
confederate government did not levy. war
against the United States: it simply equip
ped an army and navy as an incident Of it's
right as bellfgerent power and employed
the land and naval forces so organized to
maintain and perpetuate its existence and
to secure independence. There Is an OBJ
vious and well defined distinction between
wag1ng war to assert independence on be-
half of seeding states, and an attempt to
overthrow and supplant an established gov
eminent.
The confederate states occupied with ref
erence to the United States precisely the
same position as that occupied by the Gu
ban insurgents in relation to Spain.
The war maintained by the confederate
government was chiefly defensive. Often
sive operations-as the invasion Of Penn
sylvanda. for instance-were mere incidents
OF warfare. But the confederate govern
ment neither desired nor sought the per-
manent overthrow of the United States gov
eminent, nor conquest Of territory.
Gen. Lee can be termed a rebel or in
surgent, since he was engaged In rebellion
against the authority of the federal gov
eminent In the seeding southern states.
But he was in sense a traitor. His
sword was never stained with dishonor; he
betrayed no trust, but acted upon an hon
est belief that the southern states had
right under the Constitution to secede from
the Union. And throughout the contest
he acted in accordance with the laws of
civilized warfare and in the mode recog-
nized by public international law for the
separation of states from the mother coun-
try for the purpose Of attaining independ-
ence. When he played his part in a great
tragedy the question of the right of states
to secede from the Union was open and
clearly debatable. Now, however the
harsh agencies Of war have hammered into
the Constitution force which cannot be
doubted. misconstrued or ignored. Gen
Lee was typical American. He belongs
to the nation. His name and fame are the
heritage of our people. The nation re-
ceived him again; 1t welcomed him back
again, with his virtues and his shortcom-
ings. GEORGE A. BENHAM.