WP: Dispelling the myth of Robert E. Lee

[bird_1972]

Is it really a newsflash that most people during eighteenth and nineteenth century America were racists? Even those that wanted to abolish slavery would probably be considered racist by today's standards... including Lincoln (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_lincoln_colonization). Lee was an important historical figure and great military leader from Virginia.

Most of our viewpoints will probably look silly and ignorant in 200+ years, too...

I agree with you, Sly. I don't think the article was trying to make the case that Lee was not an important historical figure, but instead dispell the near diefication (sp?) of him.

[Hokie28]

The diefication goes back to Jubal Early and the whole "lost cause" stuff that took place in the South after Lee's death in 1870.

[Henry]

Lee is to the South what Joe Gibbs is to Redskin fans. He is seen as a great man, both on and off the field of battle, on a team otherwise largely mired in shame and embarrassment. Of course it's going to be near impossible to successfully criticize him.

I will say to Lee critics what I say about Lincoln critics: Sitting here 200+ years away and picking out specific acts or statements made by him in order to prove that he is imperfect and therefore evil is not a worthy exercise. Lee was absolutely loved by his men and feared by his foes. That is a fact, and that is a mark of a true leader and a outstanding general. Lee used this considerable influence to end the war quickly after he surrendered at Appomatox. Without Lee, the North could have been fighting guerillas for another decade.

Did Lee make mistakes? Of course he did. Did he pick the wrong side? I think so. Does that change my opinion that he was a great general and a man of honor? Not at all.

---------- Post added April-27th-2011 at 09:53 AM ----------

Robert E Lee's blunders at Gettysburg were inexcusable.

He made blunders, but I think they were entirely excusable. For over a year he survived against an overwhelming foe through his audacity. Eventually it was going to catch up to him.

Vicksburg was falling. Lee had to shoot for the moon, because anything less than a rout of the Union army spelled ultimate doom for the Confederacy. He took his shot and failed. Them's the breaks.

[youngestson]

Richard Cohen is from New York and went to Columbia. Obvious agenda. No evidence whatsoever. It's yet another yankee hissy fit, and frankly the article is sad to read. He wants so badly to "dispel the myth" but he knows he can't.

Add to that Cohen is hardly a gifted writer or thinker.

His only persuasive tools were the repeated use of the pejorative "cult" and the offering of his always narcissistic views.

There is much to object to about both Lee and the Confederate apologists, as well as the thoroughly modern conceit that the Civil War was fought over something other than slavery, but Cohen is simply not equipped for the task.

[Spaceman Spiff]

Not quite sure why people love to bash on historical figures like this. Yes, Lee fought for the wrong side...yeah, he was for slavery. But it's not like everything he brought to the table was bad.

There are a lot of people deifying historical figures who weren't perfect angels. Just ask any hipster walking around in a Che Guevara shirt why he's wearing it.

[zoony]

He made blunders, but I think they were entirely excusable. For over a year he survived against an overwhelming foe through his audacity. Eventually it was going to catch up to him.

Lee became a different general for the Gettysburg campaign. He'd forgotten what worked.

The inexcusable part was Pickett's Charge. I'm not sure why Lee seems to consistently get a free pass for that. Ask the average American and they will rank Lee as one of the top Generals in American History... despite making one of the most bone-headed and borderline criminal decisions in US Military History.

Longstreet himself criticized Lee for it, and in turn, Longstreet is criticized by an adoring public for criticizing Lee. What the hell

But your point about him being feared and loved is a good one.

[Larry]

Lee is to the South what Joe Gibbs is to Redskin fans.

Joe Gibbs won.

And he wasn't coaching the Washington Slaves.

---------- Post added April-27th-2011 at 10:09 AM ----------

Lee was absolutely loved by his men and feared by his foes. That is a fact, and that is a mark of a true leader and a outstanding general.

So was Rommel. Does that mean we should ignore the fact that he was fighting for Hitler, and make the guy a hero?

---------- Post added April-27th-2011 at 10:11 AM ----------

Not quite sure why people love to bash on historical figures like this. Yes, Lee fought for the wrong side...yeah, he was for slavery. But it's not like everything he brought to the table was bad.

Funny. I haven't seen a single person say that every thing he did was bad.

I do, however, see him being officially honored, by multiple governments, to this day.

[LadySkinsFan]

620,000 dead and no telling how many maimed for life by that war. It killed a couple of generations of men on both sides. If Lee had done the right thing and not been a traitor to his country, the war would have ended quickly and with less loss of life. There would have been no Gettysburg and Lincoln likely would not have been elected to a second term. Lee might have been president. Instead, we are still fighting over "states rights" the latest prevaricator about that is Michelle Bachmann who isn't even a Southerner. The hard truth is that the South wanted to make money off the backs of human beings without paying them. I say that all wars are fought because somebody wanted something (resource, person whatever the reason) without paying for it. And that's called stealth by force. We put people in jail for that.

[Old Bay]

Lee made a similiar attack to Pickett's Charge at Malvern Hill and it worked out somewhat, at least strategically if not tactically. Grant did the same thing at Cold Harbor. Frontal assault was still the bread and butter of the time, as unfortunate as it is. Those two are just the most glorified and suicidal. The most ill conceived, not so sure considering some of the other stuff I've read that was on a smaller scale. If you could flank someone then that was definitely preferable and the main way of obtaining victory, but every general still held on to the Napoleonic tactic of hitting someone head on.

[sundown]

George Washington was once known as a "traitor" as well.......

[HailYeah]

Robert E. Lee stayed loyal to where he was raised. We can look back now and say that he was wrong, but can we question him for staying true to who he was, and fighting for his state? Obviously the easy choice would have been joining the Union but Lee was loyal to his upbringing, and I think no matter who you are, you have to respect that.

This is the way I always looked at it growing up, for better or worse. The fact that Lee was from my hometown just reinforced that.

If we are going to wipe Lee from the national consciousness for his perceived views on slavery, why not start with Jefferson?

I think there has got to be a way to recognize the evils of slavery, and yes, that a war was fought over it, while retaining some semblance of southern cultural identity (which, btw includes black people). I dont see why it has to be buried completely, the US is sterile and culturally monotone enough as it is.

[Henry]

Lee became a different general for the Gettysburg campaign. He'd forgotten what worked.

The inexcusable part was Pickett's Charge. I'm not sure why Lee seems to consistently get a free pass for that. Ask the average American and they will rank Lee as one of the top Generals in American History... despite making one of the most bone-headed and borderline criminal decisions in US Military History.

Longstreet himself criticized Lee for it, and in turn, Longstreet is criticized by an adoring public for criticizing Lee. What the hell

But your point about him being feared and loved is a good one.

Pounding a larger but weary Union army into submission had worked several times in the past. It worked during the Seven Days. It worked at second Manassas. It really worked at Chancellorville. Remember, Stuart was supposed to swing around and hit the Union army's rear. Had that happened, Pickett's charge might have actually worked, but Stuart was intercepted by Custer.

There are two things I don't think Lee accounted for, but both I think were understandable:

1) Union cavalry was FINALLY catching up to the Confederate cavalry in terms of effectiveness. For the first two years of the war southern cavalry was able to literally ride circles around northern armies with complete impunity. Because of this, southern generals, especially Lee, had much better information about the size and location of Union forces. On top of that Union armies were always having to deal with cavalry harassment while Confederate armies were relatively free to move as needed. At Gettysburg, Lee was at a disadvantage from a cavalry standpoint for the first time. Stuart went out of contact while the Army of Northern Va was marching north and Lee had no idea what he was facing until well into the battle.

2) Home Field Advantage. There's a reason the Federal troops fought more tenaciously at Anteitam and Gettysburg. A loss at either spot means a Confederate army marching into Washington. It's a lot tougher to push someone who's back is against the wall. This also goes hand-in-hand with the cavalry issue. On the Home Field, the northern armies weren't reliant on long supply lines that could be disrupted by cavalry. They could concentrate on the army in front of them. It was the Confederate Army that had to worry about supplies and maintaining their strength in enemy territory. Something that is easier said than done.

Lee probably felt time running short, especially with Vickburg about to fall (Lee had been asked to dispatch Longstreet to Mississippi but strongly resisted this as it would mean the loss of Virginia. In order to convince the southern leadership that his army should remain intact, Lee promised to drive into the North.) For both political and practical reasons, he simply couldn't wait any longer.

Yes, Pickett's charge smacked of desperation. But the desperation was entirely justified in my opinion.

[Larry]

George Washington was once known as a "traitor" as well.......

Not to America, he wasn't.

[Henry]

Joe Gibbs won.

So did Lee.

Until he lost.

Kinda like Gibbs.

And he wasn't coaching the Washington Slaves.

He worked for one of the most reviled owners in sports, and fully supported and enabled him. He most likely did this because he felt a strong sense of loyalty to the region and the fans.

Look, it's not a perfect analogy but I see a similar reverence applied to Gibbs, and a similar willingness to overlook his mistakes, or blame them on someone else. Hell, I do it.

So was Rommel. Does that mean we should ignore the fact that he was fighting for Hitler, and make the guy a hero?

Rommel was forced to commit suicide because of his opposition to Hitler.

Still, I wouldn't call him a hero. I wouldn't call Lee a hero either.

But I do understand why Rommel is given more respect than a common Nazi, and I understand why Lee is given more respect than the common Confederate. Do I think the reverence for Lee is overblown? Sure a little. But for some reason it doesn't bother me that much. Let the South have that one.

[Popeman38]

Richard Cohen wrote on op-ed piece to dispel the "myth" of Lee. About halfway through, he actually strengthens the myth, by linking to an article that actually examined his decision to leave the Union:

Lee’s decision to give up his 35-year Army career came after a week of cataclysmic events: the southern capture of Fort Sumter, Lincoln’s call for 75,000 troops to protect federal property and, on April 17, the secession of Virginia.

The days had been personally traumatic as well. Like many border-state families, the Lees and their friends were sharply divided on the issues. When Lee consulted his brothers, sister and local clergymen, he found that most leaned toward the Union. At a grim dinner with two close cousins, Lee was told that they also intended to uphold their military oaths. (Samuel Phillips Lee would become an important admiral in the Union navy; John Fitzgerald Lee retained his position as judge advocate of the Army.) Sister Anne Lee Marshall unhesitatingly chose the northern side, and her son outfitted himself in blue uniform. Robert’s favorite brother, Smith Lee, a naval officer, resisted leaving his much-loved berth, and Smith’s wife spurned her relatives to support the Union cause. At the same time, many of the clan’s young men, such as nephew Fitzhugh Lee, were anxious to make their mark for the South in the coming conflict, creating a distinct generational fault line.

See, Lee had to make a decision that put him at odds with his country (he knew), his family (he knew), and possibly history (he knew). Everyone wants to look back and say Lee was evil because he fought for the South. Well, America was originally inhabited by Native Americans. Then the British/French took control. Then America emerged. All of this happened by war. None of this was a peaceful transition. Should we all look back and minimize any positive qualities offered? Hell no, that's just stupid. But throw in the Civil War and the Northern/Southern dynamic, and all of a sudden anything southern is evil and treasonous. You can't simply dismiss an entire culture by yelling "SLAVERY" and pointing. That's ignorant. Everyone looks at Lincoln like he was anti-slavery. Guess what? He wasn't. He did not believe blacks were equal to whites. And the majority of northern folks felt whites were superior.The difference? The economy of the north was not dependent on slave labor.

The north was dependent on manufacturing and production and shipping. But they were dependent on the south to provide the materials they used for manufacturing and production. The south was a plantation economy. Tobacco and cotton being the biggest and baddest. But the North benefited immensely from the institution of slavery:

By the time of the 1790 census, 94 percent of the 698,000 U.S. slaves lived below the Mason-Dixon Line. They concentrated in the tobacco-growing region in the Chesapeake basin and in the rice-growing along the coast of Georgia and South Carolina. Having solved its slavery problem by a very gradual emancipation, and by aggressively proscribing the rights of its free black minority, the North was content. Its ships continued to carry slaves to Southern ports, and slave-grown cotton to Europe. The North reaped the profits of the Southern plantations, and the federal government collected the tariffs. Any further effort made in the North toward resolving the slavery issue generally went into the pipe-dream of colonization and to making sure Southern blacks stayed there, or at least did not come north.

Revisionist history never works.

[The 12th Commandment]

George Washington was once known as a "traitor" as well.......

To the victor go the spoils. Also, Washington's motivation was a little purer, don't you think?

[Henry]

That's ignorant. Everyone looks at Lincoln like he was anti-slavery. Guess what? He wasn't. He did not believe blacks were equal to whites. And the majority of northern folks felt whites were superior.The difference? The economy of the north was not dependent on slave labor.

Please just stop. Lincoln was absolutely anti-slavery. You'd have to ignore mountains of documentation to think otherwise.

Lincoln was not an abolitionist. He may not have originally believed blacks and whites were equals. He did not originally wage the war specifically to free the slaves. Those are all arguments you can make. But he was anti-slavery, from the very beginning. Absolutely and positively.

And most of those other beliefs changed as the war went on.

The north was dependent on manufacturing and production and shipping. But they were dependent on the south to provide the materials they used for manufacturing and production. The south was a plantation economy. Tobacco and cotton being the biggest and baddest. But the North benefited immensely from the institution of slavery:

We are currently very dependent on oil in this country to keep our economy working. Does that mean everyone in this country supports the unfettered use of it?

No. There's a big debate going on right now. Some think we should make every effort to stop using so much of it. Some think we should drill for more. Some don't think there's a problem at all. A lot of people are somewhere in between. As time goes on, one side is going to 'win' this debate.

A similar debate was raging in the 1840s and 50s. The difference is that the debate then was almost entirely regional, and when it became clear that the anti-slavery side was going to win the debate, when the writing was on the wall that slavery was ultimately going to cease to exist in this country, the region that still used it chose to secede.

In case anyone wasn't sure the secessionists wrote this all down.

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

Revisionist history never works.

Indeed.

[zoony]

Pounding a larger but weary Union army into submission had worked several times in the past. It worked during the Seven Days. It worked at second Manassas. It really worked at Chancellorville. Remember, Stuart was supposed to swing around and hit the Union army's rear. Had that happened, Pickett's charge might have actually worked, but Stuart was intercepted by Custer.

There are two things I don't think Lee accounted for, but both I think were understandable:

1) Union cavalry was FINALLY catching up to the Confederate cavalry in terms of effectiveness.

2) Home Field Advantage. .

And the high ground?

Seems like the Lee from earlier in the war would have flanked the Union and attacked an unprotected Washington. That would have royally ****ed the Union. Isn't that what Longstreet pleaded with him to do?

[polywog999]

To the victor go the spoils. Also, Washington's motivation was a little purer, don't you think?

George Washington once wrote a letter to a friend offering the friend a trouble slave to be sent to the west Indies [to die a horrible death from hard labor] for cigars, bourbon and a bunch of other frivolous crap. I won't post it because that would be way off topic, but Washington had slaves too.

[Predicto]

The Lost Cause mythology can never be defeated by mere facts and logic. Cohen is wasting his time.

[Henry]

And the high ground?

Seems like the Lee from earlier in the war would have flanked the Union and attacked an unprotected Washington. That would have royally ****ed the Union. Isn't that what Longstreet pleaded with him to do?

The last time this subject came up this is what I wrote:

Lee certainly made a fatal error that day. However, he was correct in realizing that the Army of NOVA was in Pennslvania in order to take the fight to the Yankees and win a decisive victory. To disengage and hope to fight another day, further extending the war and therefore the economic stranglehold the Union held on the Confederacy was a risk as well, and not a guarantee of strategic success. Additionally, Lee had seen Yankee armies of superior numbers and positions melt upon Rebel advances before ... many many times, in fact. He was a risk-taker by nature, often performing maneuvers that defied all conventional military wisdom. The longer the war wore on, the greater the disparity in the strength of the two sides became, and the more likely one of his risks would fail. This one time, the ground was too good, the numbers too great, the opposing feild generals too ... not terrible.

McClellan could have dealt Lee a decisive stroke any number of previous times by just not running away, but he was too in love with the army he had created (there was a line in Killer Angels when Lee says in order to lead an army, you have to be able to order the death of it ... or something like that). Meade, too raw, perhaps too unattached to his army and not adverse enough of casualties, simply didn't run away. For three years Lee lived by the sword, and at Gettysburg he died by it.

I'll still go with that.

[GhostofSparta]

And the high ground?

Seems like the Lee from earlier in the war would have flanked the Union and attacked an unprotected Washington. That would have royally ****ed the Union. Isn't that what Longstreet pleaded with him to do?

That's exactly what Longstreet wanted him to do, and that's why Longstreet never officially ordered the fatal charge. He knew it was suicide. Gettysburg was the perfect storm for Lee where his luck just finally ran out. His VA gentlemanly mannerisms failed to convey the urgency needed to Gen. Hood to take the high ground the 1st day ("if practicable"). His flanking maneuvers the 2nd day failed due to the brilliance and bravery of the Union officers he went against: Culp's hill held and Joshua Chamberlain (who is the tragically unsung hero of the entire battle) held Little Round Top against every charge and advance, and won the battle with a bayonet charge (downhill) after his men ran out of ammo. Then on the final day, Meade read Lee like a book and reinforced the center of his line while the artillery barrage sailed harmlessly over the heads of the men preparing for Lee's frontal assault. Still, the center did break momentarily once the Confederates finally reached the Peach Orchard, but the men were rallied and the Charge was slaughtered. Lee lost his big gamble, and 26,000 men, and was only able to play defense the rest of the war.

Lee had let his ego get too big. Instead of forcing the Union to react to his cards, Lee said "The enemy is there, and I will fight him" (rough paraphrase, I don't remember the exact quote).

[Henry]

That's exactly what Longstreet wanted him to do, and that's why Longstreet never officially ordered the fatal charge. He knew it was suicide. Gettysburg was the perfect storm for Lee where his luck just finally ran out. His VA gentlemanly mannerisms failed to convey the urgency needed to Gen. Hood to take the high ground the 1st day ("if practicable").

Actually, I believe it was Ewell who didn't take that hill. Ironically Ewell replaced Stonewall Jackson who, I'm guessing, would have taken it.

His flanking maneuvers the 2nd day failed due to the brilliance and bravery of the Union officers he went against: Culp's hill held and Joshua Chamberlain (who is the tragically unsung hero of the entire battle) held Little Round Top against every charge and advance, and won the battle with a bayonet charge (downhill) after his men ran out of ammo. Then on the final day, Meade read Lee like a book and reinforced the center of his line while the artillery barrage sailed harmlessly over the heads of the men preparing for Lee's frontal assault. Still, the center did break momentarily once the Confederates finally reached the Peach Orchard, but the men were rallied and the Charge was slaughtered. Lee lost his big gamble, and 26,000 men, and was only able to play defense the rest of the war.

I think Chamberlain got his due. He received the Medal of Honor for his actions that day, was promoted to Major General by the end of the war, and received the honor of presiding over the surrender of the Army of Northern Virginia after Appomatox. Plus, he gets to deliver one of my favorite movie speeches of all time:

[Larry]

But I do understand why Rommel is given more respect than a common Nazi, and I understand why Lee is given more respect than the common Confederate.

I don't see anybody saying that Lee shouldn't get more respect than the common Confederates.

OTOH, I suspect that there are very few schools, parks, highways, or similar structures named in honor of Rommel, either.

Just as I suspect that there are very few elementary schools in England named for George Washington.

[scruffylookin]

Best line and the most accurate one

"The myth of Southern victimhood"

That nails it.

No traitor is a hero to those of us who actually love the United States of America.

The Confederates were traitors. Period.