The Montgomery advertiser., 1907-01-20

man. Nay, morei A distinguished Of Massachusetts, speaking in the Senate of the United States, shortly after Lees death. upon the question of a return to Lees fam fly of the ancestral estate of Arling- ton. used these words: Eloquent Sem ators have already characterized the proposition and the traitor 1t seeks to commemorate
 q am not disposed to speak of Gen eral Lee. It is enough to say he stands high in the catalogue of those who have imbrued their hands in their country's blood. I hand him over to the averaging pen of history It so chances that not only am I also from the State of Massachusetts Jut, for more than a dozen years, I have been the chosen head of its typical histori- cal society--the society chartered un- der the name and seal of the Common wealth considerably more than a centu- ry ago--the parent of all similar so- cieties. By no means would on that account seem to ascribe to myself any representative character as respects the employment of history's pen, whether averaging or otherwise; nor do appear here as representative of the Massahu- setts Historical Society; but, whole generation having passed away since Charles Sumner uttered the words have quoted. I do. on your invita- tion. chance to stand here today, as I have said, both Massachusetts man and the head of the Massachusetts upon General Lee. The situation Is thus to degree dramatic.
 Speaks as a Taukee.
 80 far as I am aware, neve. untIT now has one born and nurtured in Massachusetts--a typical bred-ln. the- bone Yankee if you please --addresst d at It's invitation a fTirgialan audierce. on topics relating to the War of Be- cession and It's fore nrst Con sedcr te military character.
 The charge still most commonly made against Lee in that section of the common country to which I belong and with which I sympathize. Is that. in plain language, he was false to his flag-educated at the National Acad emy, an officer of the United States army, he abjured his allegiance and bore arms against the Government he had sworn to uphold. In other words, he was military traitor. I state tho charge in the tersest language possi- bit. Having done so, and admitting the facts as technically true, I add as the result of much patient study and most mature reflection, that under similar conditions would myself have done exactly what Lee did.
 Coming directly to the point, main tain that every man in the eleven States seeding from the Union had in 1861, whether he would or no, to de- eide for himself whether to adhere to his State or to the nation: and l finally assert that whichever way he decided, if only he decided honestly, putting elf-lnterest behind him, he did right.
 But this. 1t will be replied, though true of the ordinary man and citizen, should not have been true of the grad uate of the military academy, the of ficer of the army of the United States. Winfield Scott and George c. Thomas did not so construe their allegiance: when the issue was presented, they re- mained true to their flag and to their oaths. Robert E, Lee, false to his oath and flag, was a renegade! The answer is brief and to the point-the condi- tions in the several cases were not the same--neither Scott nor Thomas was Lee It was our Boston Dr. Holmes who long ago declared that the child's education begins about 250 years /be- fore 1t is born; and 1t Is quite impos- sible to separate any man--least of all, perhaps a full-blooded virginian-