Pentagon Is Reinstalling Portrait of Confederate General at West Point Library
By: Greg Jaffe (nytimes)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Pentagon is putting back up a portrait of Gen. Robert E. Lee at the military academy, as the Trump administration seeks to restore honors for American figures who fought to preserve slavery.
The United States Military Academy, in West Point, N.Y.Credit...Kenny Holston/The New York Times
By Greg Jaffe
Aug. 28, 2025
The Pentagon is restoring a portrait of Gen. Robert E. Lee, which includes a slave guiding the Confederate general's horse in the background, to the West Point library three years after a congressionally mandated commission ordered it removed, officials said.
The 20-foot-tall painting, which hung at the United States Military Academy for 70 years, was taken down in response to a 2020 law that stripped the names of Confederate leaders from military bases.
That legislation also created a commission to come up with new base names. In 2022, the commission ordered West Point to take down all displays that "commemorate or memorialize the Confederacy." A few weeks later, the portrait of General Lee with his slave in the background was placed in storage.
It was not clear how West Point could return General Lee's portrait to the library without violating the law, which emerged from the protests that followed George Floyd's killing by Minneapolis police officers in 2020.
"At West Point, the United States Military Academy is prepared to restore historical names, artifacts, and assets to their original form and place," said Rebecca Hodson, the Army's communications director. "Under this administration, we honor our history and learn from it — we don't erase it."
Both President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have been outspoken in their desire to restore Confederate names and monuments that were removed over the last five years. Mr. Hegseth recently called for returning a memorial to the Confederacy that was removed from Arlington National Cemetery at the recommendation of Congress. In a social media post this month, Mr. Hegseth said the Arlington statue "never should have been taken down by woke lemmings."
Robert E Lee , letter to his wife
Lee owned slaves that had been inherited by his wife.
Clearly, obviously, neither Trump nor Pete Hegseth should be trusted to preserve , or more importantly, interpret American history.
Robert E Lee will always be a part of strategic & tactical studies at Military Academies worldwide. Without a doubt he was one of the greatest military leaders in history.
The controversy, (which goes back and forth) regarding his views of slavery is irrelevant.
Robert E Lee was a traitor. His military achievements are irrelevant.
Pick up the book
Ty Seidule was the head of the history department at West Point.
===========================================================
Irrelevant to what? If you want to study tactics, I agree. If we’re talking about whose picture we should hang on the wall, I’d say it’s very relevant.
exactly
It's not much different than hanging up a picture of Erich Von Manstein, one of the Nazi's most celebrated tacticians, but you won't hear the rightwing conservative confederate lovers admit it. They want to protect their connections to the confederacy; they want to conserve the confederate way of life and ideology of white Christian supremacy which is why they want to eliminate all traces of DEI in our government while reinstating all their racist rightwing white conservative Christian monuments and memorials. These fuck wads aren't Americans, they're confederates, and they've harbored that anti-American sentiment in their hearts from one generation of confederate to the next. It's why phrases like "The South will rise again!" and bullshit like that are still popular among white rightwing conservatives in the South.
It is what they fight for! Watch what they do and not what they say; because—lies!
Right wing propagandists and Confederacy apologists conveniently forget that Lee LOST THE WAR, but they somehow think he should be a model for the U.S. military he lost the war to.
Without a doubt Erwin Rommel was one of the greatest military leaders in history. Raise your right hand high over your head if you want Rommel's portrait hung at West Point.
The only reason a painting of Lee was ever hung at West Point in the first place was because of the 70 or 80 year long success of the Lost Cause myth.
Apparently, it stills echoes with some.
I remember years ago, it was either on here or on Newsvine, when some Lost Cause idiots were talking about the War of Northern Aggression. I answered them by referring to the War for Southern Liberation. They knew I was talking about a war to liberate the slaves and, man, did they hate that.
[✘]
Why doesn't it shock me that you would say that?
Yeah. . .WHY?! Tell me, more about this so-called, "color-blind" society you think you dwell.[✘]
So you'd be fine with them honoring Osama Bin Laden? He led a small terrorist group into world-wide fame and was instrumental in taking on his many times larger opponent, America and 9/11.
So based on your argument supporting America's greatest civil war enemy, you would also support Osama?
One of many points in response to the above:
Kinda pathetic that the party that founded the KKK, state sponsored segregation, and Jim Crow laws attempts to come across as morally superior by trying to erase history, rather than learning from it.
A painting of Robert E Lee has nothing to do with the teaching of history.
My post illustrated Trump's hypocritical attempts to rewrite history. He also tried to remove any mention of his impeachments.
Do you recognize what is happening right now, rather than blindly deflecting to 'the left' or to the Ds?
Here we go again. Another deflection that starts, “the party that did this thing 150 years ago, that they obviously don’t approve of anymore…” This is quite possibly the most dishonest of all possible deflections. Talk about “erasing history.”
Never saw a post from you that said reparations from whites today, that had nothing to do with slavery 150 years or more ago, is stupid.
They are also the party that still favors race based governmental discrimination.
White reparations? You imagine it is logical for blacks to pay for white slavery of their ancestors, Jim Crow, and lack of 'advancement' under the same laws that raised the standards for Whites??
Of course, you would not dignify equity. . . because it would mean less nepotism and favoritism for conservatives. (Sigh.) C'mon MAGA supporters scream already about "socialism" and communism—we're ready for it!
Kinda pathetic that the party that used to oppose the KKK, state sponsored segregation, and Jim Crow laws have now embraced them wholeheartedly.
Racial discrimination is racial discrimination whatever code word of the week you want to call it,
Socialism? Communism? MAGA supporters are not defenders of color-blindness. It's a ruse! The color y'all see is White all day long. Others have to 'subordinate' and 'know their place' in the hierarchy (conservative Whites establish).
Never should have been taken down
Robert E Lee believed that slavery would not end until God decided that the Africans had been disciplined enough.
Could you show us the link to that?
I posted his exact words.
From where because I've not found that link?
it is the first comment on the article
After reading your "link", I can see that there is a serious misunderstanding of what Lee is stating versus what you have interpreted it to mean.
Stop judging a man based on today's standards.
Robert E. Lee Wasn't a Hero, He Was a Traitor — History News Network
...Their rebel organization—the “Confederate States of America,” a cheap imitation of the United States government stripped of its language of equality, freedom, and justice—did not care much for states’ rights. States in the Confederacy forfeited both the right to secede from it and the right to limit or eliminate slavery . What really motivated the new CSA was not only obvious, but repeatedly declared. In their articles of secession , which explained their motivations for violent insurrection, rebel leaders in the South cited slavery. Georgia cited slavery. Mississippi cited slavery. South Carolina cited the “increasing hostility… to the institution of slavery.” Texas cited slavery. Virginia cited the “oppression of… Southern slaveholding.” Alexander Stephens, the second in command of the rebel cabal, declared in his Cornerstone Speech that they had launched the entire enterprise because the Founding Fathers had made a mistake in declaring that all people are made equal. “Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea,” he said. People of African descent were supposed to be enslaved.
Despite making a few cryptic comments about how he refused to fight his fellow Virginians, Lee would have understood exactly what the war was about and how it served wealthy white men like him. Lee was a slave-holding aristocrat with ties to George Washington. He was the face of Southern gentry, a kind of pseudo royalty in a land that had theoretically extinguished it. The triumph of the South would have meant the triumph not only of Lee, but everything he represented: that tiny, self-defined perfect portion at the top of a violently unequal pyramid.
Yet even if Lee disavowed slavery and fought only for some vague notion of states’ rights, would that have made a difference? War is a political tool that serves a political purpose. If the purpose of the rebellion was to create a powerful, endless slave empire (it was), then do the opinions of its soldiers and commanders really matter? Each victory of Lee’s, each rebel bullet that felled a United States soldier, advanced the political cause of the CSA. Had Lee somehow defeated the United States Army, marched to the capital, killed the President, and won independence for the South, the result would have been the preservation of slavery in North America. There would have been no Thirteenth Amendment . Lincoln would not have overseen the emancipation of four million people, the largest single emancipation event in human history. Lee’s successes were the successes of the Slave South, personal feelings be damned.
If you need more evidence of Lee’s personal feelings on enslavement, however, note that when his rebel forces marched into Pennsylvania, they kidnapped black people and sold them into bondage. Contemporaries referred to these kidnappings as “slave hunts.”
Was Robert E Lee a hero? Should he be honored for his service to this nation?
I am not in favor of hiding dark parts of our history. I favor keeping our history— both good and bad —public and teaching it to each generation.
However, there is a significant difference between keeping our history public and honoring key individuals from our darker past.
The American Civil War is one of the most discussed and written about eras in world history. There is no shortage of "teaching" and learning opportunities. Portraits of Lee are not hung for learning or teaching purposes, they are hung to glorify his memory.
Did you not see my ending sentence?
According to politico "The commission that was established to rename military bases that honor Confederate generals is expected to recommend that West Point remove the 20-foot portrait of Lee in his gray Confederate uniform, according to two people familiar with the group’s deliberations."
In other words taking down the picture had more to do with political woke ideology than anything else.
The reasons for renaming the military bases is essentially the same reason the portrait was taken down. The individuals involved were traitors.
Yes, political backlash to George Floyd
Seems to be argument for and against that. AI:
Yes, there was a movement to remove Confederate monuments long before the rise of Black Lives Matter in the 2010s. In fact, opposition to these statues dates back more than a century.
copilot
Obviously not a very big movement
In April 1861, after Fort Sumter was fired upon, Lee resigned his commission in the U.S. Army and chose to lead Confederate forces, despite being offered command of the Union Army.
This decision was widely viewed as a betrayal of his oath, and many historians and legal scholars consider it an act of treason, though he was never tried for it.
Between 2015 and early 2020, 58 Confederate monuments were removed from public spaces across the United States.
These removals were largely sparked by the Charleston church shooting in 2015 and the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville in 2017.
summarize the book Robert E Lee And Me
ChatGPT said:
"Robert E. Lee and Me: A Southerner's Reckoning with the Myth of the Lost Cause" is a memoir and historical analysis by Ty Seidule, a retired U.S. Army brigadier general and former head of the history department at West Point. Published in 2021, the book explores how the author, who grew up in the American South, came to confront and ultimately reject the myths surrounding the Confederacy and its most iconic figure, Robert E. Lee.
Summary:
1. Personal Journey
Seidule grew up idolizing Robert E. Lee, attending schools, churches, and events that revered Confederate leaders. As a Southern white man raised in Virginia and Georgia, he was immersed in the Lost Cause narrative—a romanticized version of the Civil War that downplayed slavery and portrayed the Confederacy as noble.
2. The Myth of the Lost Cause
The core of the book dismantles the Lost Cause myth, which claims:
The Civil War was about states' rights, not slavery.
Robert E. Lee was a moral hero who reluctantly fought for the South.
Confederate monuments honor heritage, not hate.
Seidule refutes these ideas using historical evidence, showing that the Confederacy fought to preserve slavery, and that Lee was not the reluctant hero he is often portrayed to be.
3. Robert E. Lee’s Legacy
Seidule is especially critical of Lee:
He argues that Lee committed treason by fighting against the United States.
Lee owned slaves and fought to protect slavery.
His post-war image was deliberately sanitized to promote reconciliation between whites at the expense of Black Americans.
4. Role of Institutions
The book explores how schools, the military (especially West Point), and Southern culture perpetuated the Lost Cause. Seidule reflects on how he once accepted these narratives, and how he came to challenge them through historical study and personal reckoning.
5. Moral Reckoning and Change
Ultimately, the book is a call to confront uncomfortable truths. Seidule urges Americans—especially white Southerners—to stop honoring Confederate symbols and start acknowledging the full history of slavery, racism, and white supremacy.
Key Themes:
The danger of historical myths
The moral responsibility of historians
The importance of truth in reconciling with the past
Race, memory, and identity in America
Final Message:
"Robert E. Lee and Me" is not just a critique of a historical figure but a deeply personal narrative about confronting inherited lies. It's a powerful argument that history is not neutral and that facing the truth is essential for justice and progress.
What standard are you using, please share!
Standards when he actually lived.
What were those standards? Surely you must know because you assent to them (in the present). Please share what you assent to regarding the standards of Robert E. Lee!
[Deleted][✘]
Well, since you have nothing whatsoever of value to add. . . let the commenter address my comment, please!
There is a difference between knowing them and agreeing with them. I have faith you know what was acceptable at that time
Faith?! What?! You choose to not clarify your point on knowing. Okay.
At the time of the Civil War, loyalty to your state was more important than federal government
Uh, no. He said
The painful discipline they are undergoing, is necessary for their instruction as a race, & I hope will prepare & lead them to better things. How long their subjugation may be necessary is known & ordered by a wise Merciful Providence.
That means exactly what I said it means.
OK - that is your opinion - take down his picture 'cause he owned slaves. Gotcha.
How 'bout this one -
" Twelve U.S. presidents owned slaves at some point in their lives; of these, eight owned slaves while in office . Ten of the first twelve American presidents owned slaves, the only exceptions being John Adams and his son John Quincy Adams, neither of whom approved of slavery. George Washington, the first president, owned slaves, including while he was president. Andrew Jackson was an interregional slave trader until at least the War of 1812. Zachary Taylor was the last one who owned slaves during his presidency, and Ulysses S. Grant was the last president to have owned a slave at some point in his life. Of these presidents who owned slaves, Thomas Jefferson owned the most over his lifetime, with 600+ slaves, followed closely by Washington . Woodrow Wilson was the last president born into a household with slave labor, though the Civil War and abolition concluded during his early childhood.
So, it would be quite fair to say that all pictures/statues/etc. of the above U. S. PRESIDENTS should also be taken down, correct? They probably had a bit more influence than a poor pathetic General who graduated from West Point with highest honors - ya think?
I mean, here is Lee, one of the brightest generals the U.S. military, who supported his state's standing on succession and was chosen to lead the Southern military opposition - whose "wife" inherited slaves from her father and, in her father's will, the slaves were to be freed within five years of his death - which Lee supported - with hesitation - due to debt and money issues.
So, your issue with Lee is that he supported and directed the Confederate military in the battle for "equality of races", correct?
So I ask the question - why are you supportive of the 12 U.S.PRESIDENTS who owned slaves as opposed to Lee?
Now that this has been brought up, many on the left will argue that only the white presidents that owned slaves have their pictures taken down.
In all reality, though, that tidbit of education will stump them and they will not know how to answer.
Lee is not a traitor because he owned slaves, he is a traitor because he left the US Army to fight for an entity that was at war with the United States.
Mentioning his views on slavery just shows his sympathies were with the south, and not just because of loyalty to his home state of virginia.
Well, yeah - Obama was from a different mind-set and a couple years too late.
I am going to say this to you very clearly. Robert E Lee was the commanding general of a nation that was admittedly white supremacist. In the Constitution of the Confederate States of America it is stipulated that none of the member states could ever end slavery unless given approval by the others. The permanence of slavery was written into the founding of the country.
Robert E Lee was an officer in the Army of the United States. He resigned and joined the Confederacy, a white supremacist nation that was in rebellion against the United States. That is treason.
The portrait of a traitor who presided over the killing of 300,000 Americans should not be honored at the national military academy.
And, did you know that Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson and a few other U.S. Presidents KILLED over 1 million Native Americans? Hell, Jefferson SOLD 3.2 million acres of land that the tribes lived on in the SE WITH NO DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NATIVE AMERICANS. Jackson RELOCATED over 37 tribes/nations from the SE/NE (over 1 million members) so he could add 770K acres to his Heritage Plantation.
And you still have no complaints over them being on money, statues, pictures, history books as being great saviors of the U.S.
Where is the equality there? Where is the distain for racism? Why no outrage at those actions? Why are those traitors honored????
I have no use for Andrew Jackson. Your guy Trump does though, he is his favorite president.
I'm attempting to get you flagged for a "Personal Insult" - but no moderators are available.
You have been told way over 20 times I don't like Trump - I didn't vote for Trump.
You think it's cute to throw crap up - and get away with it.
So, flag me - but don't ever call Trump "my guy" again.
You have defended Donald Trump numerous times.
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
[✘]
SOME of his policies, but definitely not the man.
I suppose conservatives would vote for anyone, no matter how repulsive, if they support their conservative agenda. As long as a candidate is willing to push a conservative agenda, nominate conservative justices who will kill the voting rights act, hobble the civil rights act, ignore the establishment clause and allow abortion bans, conservatives would vote for anyone. Convicted felons, confirmed sexual predators, accused child rapists, there simply is no low they won't stoop to, no scum bag they won't forgive if they think it will make their bigoted ideological fantasies come true. I guess for most religious conservative bigots' "integrity" is not a thing they can afford if they want to bring about their hoped-for Armageddon where they believe their white Jesus will come and wipe out all of their ideological enemies.
I agree with what you say here, but to me this is an issue of fitness for office. There is no objective, honest way to say that Trump has ever been fit to hold any public office whatsoever, let alone the presidency.
In 2015 when he announced, he was already a known crook, moron, cheat , and bigot. There is no fitness for office in those descriptions. Also the birtherism and the absolute dishonest stupidity associated with that, and that made him unfit for office.
The lies that man told about birtherism (on Obama) ordinarily should have been a disqualifier in 2015 for political office, but the GOP was already desperate for a takeover of the federal system-viewing it as the only way they could control the 'tendencies' of the public to walk away from republicans if they could take control over the lives of everybody and compel us to accept their wishes for our lives!
Moreover, this is what Trump is up to. It appears Trump and MAGA supporters think that if Trump/them can put into position 'all' their ideological policies for this country, the public will be 'head over heels' with the results and forgiving of being abruptly and unceremoniously compelled (like a drug addict forced into a treatment center) to get 'clean' of liberalism.
Allegedly
They didn’t go to war against the United States for it.
I would imagine the clue would have been "U. S. PRESIDENTS" - maybe?
I don’t see that as relevant. A current, past, or future president can still make war on the United States. What’s more, none of those other men - regardless of their presidential status - went to war with anyone for the purpose of preserving slavery.
Robert E. Lee graduated from West Point without ever getting a single demerit.
He was also the Superintendent of West Point
Hmmmmm......