Commission calls for stripping Robert E. Lee of honors at West Point

[xocetaceans]

51. Yes, praising Robert E. Lee as a "Great American" is offensive.

An eventually (possibly) repentant traitor whose (possible) repentance is likely driven purely by the fact that he lost the conflict is a simply a traitor.

The matter of Congressional priorities is brought up, though, and that seems interesting. This is an excerpt from that same House floor debate (if interested, please see page 23947 bottom of the middle column of the below-linked Congressional Record):

...

Ms. ABZUG. Mr. Speaker, we are
spending congressional time deciding
whether to restore the right to hold office
to a man who has been dead for over
a century-Robert E. Lee--who led
armies against the United States. Now it
is proposed we restore to him full citizenship
rights. We do that today as we vote
for this bill.

What about the more than half a million
young Americans who have been deprived
of their full citizenship rights for
refusing to participate in the disastrous
war in Indochina? Most of these living
men were given bad discharges which
cripple them in their search for employment.
Thousands more suffer from criminal
records for their war resistance
activities, 20,000 or more young Americans
have been driven into exile for having
tried to show their country its error.

Should we not give amnesty and restore
full citizenship rights to these living
war resisters and restore them to useful
service in their communities before
we consider General Lee's right to hold
office? Better at least simultaneously
with this gesture to the memory of
Robert E. Lee.

These young men did not lead armies
against their country. Their only "crime"
was anticipating their countrymen's
realization of the injustice of the Vietnam
war. It is now proposed that we
honor General Lee for following his conscience.
Should we not do the same for
the thousands of living Americans who
followed their conscience, and whose actions
have been vindicated by events?

Two months ago, this House dealt
with the question of whether we should
spend $400 million to assist those persons
driven from their homeland by the war
in Southeast Asia. I tried to persuade
my colleagues at that time that we
should at least offer the same relief in
the form of amnesty to our own political
refugees that we were prepared to offer
to those Indochinese who had fled their
countries because of their fear of persecution
for their political beliefs.

Although my efforts were not successful
at that time, let us hope that it does
not take a century for Congress to exhibit
the same spirit of reconciliation
toward our legally disabled war resisters
that is now being advocated on behalf
of a long dead rebel general. Rather
than simply dwelling on the academic
exercise of deciding whether General Lee
is entitled to hold office today, let us
rather deal with the urgent issue of restoring
full citizenship rights and privileges
to hundreds of thousands of living
Americans.

Mr. BOWEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in
support of a matter which has needed....

...

As upthread, this is from July 22, 1975 but on page 23947
Congressional Record, which is found here:

Vol. 121, Part 19 - House pages 23935 - 24027 (PDF 36MB)

I have not had time to research deeply what happened with respect to the people who refused to serve in Vietnam, so I do not know the further history of that issue.

I am just bringing this up in case it is also of interest.