WP: Dispelling the myth of Robert E. Lee

[PokerPacker]

Lee fought for the confederacy because his home state seceded. He wanted Virginia to remain with the Union, but his sense of commitment to his state was too strong. If he was fighting for slavery, he would not have supported the efforts of his wife and mother to liberate slaves and send them off to Liberia. Or later efforts by his wife and daughter in setting up an illegal school for slaves. in his own words, in a letter to his wife:

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country."

[Predicto]

I probably missed it somewhere in this thread, but have you given your opinion on the reason that Lee fought for the Confederacy?

Because he identified more with his state than with his country, and could not imagine leading the Union Army because it would force him to have to invade Virginia.

Although his wife called it “the severest struggle of his life,” historians have long trivialized Lee’s decision. It was “the answer he was born to make,” biographer Douglas Southall Freeman put it. “A no-brainer,” said another. But daughter Mary’s letter, along with other previously unknown documents written by his close family and associates, belies such easy assessments. These newly found sources underscore just how complex and painful a choice it was to make.

The conventional wisdom holds, for example, that Lee disdained secession, but once his state took that step he was duty bound to follow. But these documents show that he was not actually opposed to disunion in principle. He simply wanted to exhaust all peaceful means of redress first, remarking in January 1861 that then “we can with a clear conscience separate.”

Nor was he against the pro-slavery policies of the secessionists, despite postwar portraits of the general as something of an abolitionist. He complained to a son in December 1860 about new territories being closed to slaveholders, and supported the Crittenden Compromise, which would have forbidden the abolition of slavery. “That deserves the support of every patriot,” he noted in a Jan. 29, 1861 letter to his daughter Agnes. Even at the moment he reportedly told Francis Blair that if “he owned all the negroes in the South, he would be willing to give them up…to save the Union,” he was actually fighting a court case to keep the slaves under his control in bondage “indefinitely,” though they had been promised freedom in his father-in-law’s will.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/the-general-in-his-study/#

I don't hold Lee up to any modern standard of morailty, but I do object to glorifying him for being "so honorable" that he just HAD to lead the Honorable Confederate Army.

Let me put it this way: to the extent that Robert E Lee fought for his "honor," he shared that with every single military man on both sides of the conflict. To give Lee and the Confederate Generals any special credit for being noble or honorable above any others is a disservice to the many who honored their West Point oaths to the United States of America and fought for the Union, many of whom died honoring that oath.

Lee was an excellent general and his actions after the war were excellent. That cannot be denied. But glorifying him and other Southern Leaders above other men for their incredible Honor and Gallantry is part of the ongoing Lost Cause effort to deny and rationalize away the ugly reality of the Confederacy. Nothing against Lee, but I don't play that game any longer.

---------- Post added April-27th-2011 at 04:17 PM ----------

Lee fought for the confederacy because his home state seceded. He wanted Virginia to remain with the Union, but his sense of commitment to his state was too strong. If he was fighting for slavery, he would not have supported the efforts of his wife and mother to liberate slaves and send them off to Liberia. Or later efforts by his wife and daughter in setting up an illegal school for slaves. in his own words, in a letter to his wife:

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country."

And yet: "Nor was he against the pro-slavery policies of the secessionists, despite postwar portraits of the general as something of an abolitionist. He complained to a son in December 1860 about new territories being closed to slaveholders, and supported the Crittenden Compromise, which would have forbidden the abolition of slavery. “That deserves the support of every patriot,” he noted in a Jan. 29, 1861 letter to his daughter Agnes. Even at the moment he reportedly told Francis Blair that if “he owned all the negroes in the South, he would be willing to give them up…to save the Union,” he was actually fighting a court case to keep the slaves under his control in bondage “indefinitely,” though they had been promised freedom in his father-in-law’s will."

[mardi gras skin]

in his own words, in a letter to his wife:

"In this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country."

The context of that quote is enlightening and helps us understand how he could both see slavery as evil and still see it is as necessary at the time:

n this enlightened age, there are few I believe, but what will acknowledge, that slavery as an institution, is a moral & political evil in any Country. It is useless to expatiate on its disadvantages. I think it however a greater evil to the white man than to the black race, & while my feelings are strongly enlisted in behalf of the latter, my sympathies are more strong for the former. The blacks are immeasurably better off here than in Africa, morally, socially & physically. 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.

—Robert E. Lee, letter to his wife on slavery (December 27, 1856)

The idea that Western culture was enlightened and that Africans, as a race, needed to catch up before they could fully participate in Western society wasn't uncommon even among those who despised slavery.

Because he identified more with his state than with his country, and could not imagine leading the Union Army because it would force him to have to invade Virginia.

Let me put it this way: to the extent that Robert E Lee fought for his "honor," he shared that with every single military man on both sides of the conflict.

I don't think every man on either side fought for honor. But it is certainly true that many men on both sides were motivated by honor. Lee was clearly one of those motivated by honor.

[Predicto]

I don't think every man on either side fought for honor. But it is certainly true that many men on both sides were motivated by honor. Lee was clearly one of those motivated by honor.

The Lost Cause mythology has it that the Northern leaders fought for money and control, and the Southern leaders fought for honor and principle. That is a falsehood. Deifying Robert E Lee and naming every other thing in the South after Lee and Stonewall Jackson plays into that myth.

Do they still have Lee-Jackson-King Day in Virginia?

[PokerPacker]

Do they still have Lee-Jackson-King Day in Virginia?

never heard of it.

[Larry]

never heard of it.

Used to be, Virginia had a state holiday celebrating Robert E Lee and Stonewall Jackson.

When they came under increasing pressure over the fact that they had a holiday honoring two Confederate generals, but no day honoring MLK, the state legislature renamed the day "Lee-Jackson-King Day".

[Predicto]

never heard of it.

Looks like they ended it in 2000.

Lee–Jackson–King Day was a holiday celebrated in the Commonwealth of Virginia from 1984 to 2000.

Robert E. Lee's birthday (January 19, 1807) has been celebrated as a Virginia holiday since 1889. In 1904, the legislature added the birthday of Thomas J. "Stonewall" Jackson (January 21, 1824) to the holiday, and Lee–Jackson Day was born.[1]

In 1983, the United States Congress declared January 15 to be a national holiday in honor of civil rights leader Martin Luther King, Jr. Since 1978, Virginia had celebrated King's birthday in conjunction with New Year's Day. To align with the federal holiday, the Virginia legislature simply combined King's celebration with the existing Lee–Jackson holiday.

In 2000, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore proposed splitting Lee–Jackson–King Day into two separate holidays after debate arose over whether the nature of the holiday which simultaneously celebrated the lives of Confederate generals and a civil rights icon was incongruous.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee%E2%80%93Jackson%E2%80%93King_Day

[Larry]

In 2000, Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore proposed splitting Lee–Jackson–King Day into two separate holidays after debate arose over whether the nature of the holiday which simultaneously celebrated the lives of Confederate generals and a civil rights icon was incongruous.

[mardi gras skin]

The Lost Cause mythology has it that the Northern leaders fought for money and control, and the Southern leaders fought for honor and principle. That is a falsehood. Deifying Robert E Lee and naming every other thing in the South after Lee and Stonewall Jackson plays into that myth.

Do they still have Lee-Jackson-King Day in Virginia?

No they don't celebrate Lee-Jackson-King Day anymore old man!

I think your angst is misdirected (and a generation too late). Honoring Lee and Jackson is a good thing. If they are actively vilifying Lincoln, that's a problem.

[Predicto]

Honoring Lee and Jackson is a good thing.

Why? Genuine question. What are we honoring, exactly?

[JMS]

:whoknows: Suicide bombers throw away their lives for an...unpopular...cause because they think its the honorable thing to do....they aren't glamorized like Lee is.

I know its an imperfect comparison, in many ways. But the phrasing you used could describe many people that aren't revered like Lee is.

The suicide bombers are tricked and or are delusional. They give up their lives not for any testiment to honor but rather solely to hurt their enemy. Their sacrifice is frankly slight compared with Lee's... Think about what Lee was and what he became.

Lee was the most respected man in the US military. He was the union commanding general (Winfield Scott's) and the commander in cheif's first choice lead the union forces in the civil war. Lee was the disendant of two signatories of the US constitution. He was a man who had given his life in the service of the country. He was also the owner of one of the most magnificent homes in virginia and one of the wealthiest and most respected families in the entire country. He was a guy who finished among the top in his class at west point and built his reputation putting himself at risk during the mexican american war. He was an engineer who rose to the highest rank in the union army.

After the war he lost his pension, his home, his citizenship, his country and his state.... He sacrificed it all not in the flash of an emotional fraction of a seconds thought but in a grinding months preceeding the war, for years during the war, and for years after the war.

There is no comparison between Lee and a suicide bomber.

[mardi gras skin]

Why? Genuine question. What are we honoring, exactly?

President Eisenhower was asked the same question. I appreciate his answer:

Respecting your August 1 inquiry calling attention to my often expressed admiration for General Robert E. Lee, I would say, first, that we need to understand that at the time of the War Between the States the issue of Secession had remained unresolved for more than 70 years. Men of probity, character, public standing and unquestioned loyalty, both North and South, had disagreed over this issue as a matter of principle from the day our Constitution was adopted.

General Robert E. Lee was, in my estimation, one of the supremely gifted men produced by our Nation. He believed unswervingly in the Constitutional validity of his cause which until 1865 was still an arguable question in America; he was thoughtful yet demanding of his officers and men, forbearing with captured enemies but ingenious, unrelenting and personally courageous in battle, and never disheartened by a reverse or obstacle. Through all his many trials, he remained selfless almost to a fault and unfailing in his belief in God. Taken altogether, he was noble as a leader and as a man, and unsullied as I read the pages of our history.

From deep conviction I simply say this: a nation of men of Lee’s caliber would be unconquerable in spirit and soul. Indeed, to the degree that present-day American youth will strive to emulate his rare qualities, including his devotion to this land as revealed in his painstaking efforts to help heal the nation’s wounds once the bitter struggle was over, we, in our own time of danger in a divided world, will be strengthened and our love of freedom sustained.

Lee was a supremely gifted and honorable man. Its just amazing to me that Lincoln and Davis both wanted him to take command of their armies. I understand your distain for his choice to side with Virginia over the Union, but I think its notable that he was respected both before, during, and after the war by both the North and the South.

[JMS]

And you would be 100%, completely, wrong.

I don't disagree with you often on this board... I do disagree with you here.

The southern legislators who voted to secede from the Union, the people who started the war, specified, in writing, the reasons why they were doing it. And that reason was slavery, and no other.

Yes they did. Some in Southern leadership as I already stated did give the rational for sucession as the preservation of slavery. The president of the south Jefferson Davis was a rampant pro slavery advocate. I also will grant you that many northerners fought the war in order to end slavery. However that does not change the fact that Lincoln did not fight the civil war to end slavery rather to perserve the union. Lincoln was perfectly willing to allow slavery to pursevere if it meant no war. What lincoln could not tollerate was sucession he was perfectly willing to tollerate slavery and stated as much many times during the war...

Likewise the average southerner did not own slaves and did not necessarily fight for slavery. As I have said 2 of the south's 4 top generals were outspoken opponents of slavery. Lee and Longstreet included. Yet one more Stonewall Jackson was infavor of curbing slavery. JEB Stuart was the only one of the top 4 southern general who was an outspoken proponent of slavery. Lee did not resign from the US Army when south carolina suceeded from the union December 20, 1860 on the slavery issue as you have called out, nor when six other states suceeded... Lee waited until April 17, 1861 four months later when Virginia suceeded...

Clearly Lee did not flight the civil war because he favored the contiuation of slavery. I challenge you to show me any such justification in any of Lee's many writings or journels. Lee fought the war because his state commited to the south and gave up union leadership for a relatively minor command in the southern army to do so... initially.

But those people didn't decide to start the war, either. The legislators who voted to secede did. And they put down their reasons, in writing.

Yeah so what... The Iraq war was clearly about oil. How many soldiers who fought that war did so because of oil? Seriously is their any doubt in anybodies mind that the US would have gone to Iraq if it was not in the most oil rich and thus strategic area's of the globe? I'll bet not 3% our troops who fought in Iraq did so for the nation's access for oil. They fought for glory, for US interests, for our security, and for duty.

Why is it so hard for you to believe southerners in Virginia in the 1860's were as equally out of line with the leader of texas rational than young soldiers in 2003 were with George Bush?

I have no doubt that if you surveyed every single American soldier, during WW2, about why they were in the military, that Hitler would not have been the only reason, either.

That doesn't mean that claiming that the war wasn't about Hitler isn't laughably untrue.

The US fought WWII because we got attacked by Japan, not Hitler. When we declaired war on Japan, germanies pact with Japan drew them into the conflict. We fought the war mostly against germany 90%-10% resources because we considered Germany the greater threat...

Hitler came to power in the early 30's.. He was in power for nearly a decade and at war with the rest of Europe for years before we got in.... We didn't fight WWII against Hitler.

It became about hitler; just as the civil war became about slavery more than half way into it for the northern leadership.

---------- Post added April-27th-2011 at 09:14 PM ----------

Uhhh? Contradiction?

No it's not.... Slavery was the underpinning reason for the civil war. It was why the southern leadership suceeded and it was why many in the north fought. It however was not the reason why Northern Leadership fought, nor was it why the average southerner fought...

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union.

http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.htm

---------- Post added April-27th-2011 at 09:18 PM ----------

Why? (honor Lee) Genuine question. What are we honoring, exactly?

Profesionalism, Honor, Duty, Patriotism, Sacrifice, Courage, Loyalty, and Idealism. Just off the top of my head.

[Larry]

Yeah so what... The Iraq war was clearly about oil. How many soldiers who fought that war did so because of oil? Seriously is their any doubt in anybodies mind that the US would have gone to Iraq if it was not in the most oil rich and thus strategic area's of the globe? I'll bet not 3% our troops who fought in Iraq did so for the nation's access for oil. They fought for glory, for US interests, for our security, and for duty.

Does your foot hurt, from that bullet hole? Or is the shock still masking the pain?

You've been trying to claim that "the reason for the war" and "the reason Joe Soldier fought" are one and the same. And then you post this?

"The reason Lee joined the Confederacy" is completely irrelevant to the reason why the war happened. Lee didn't start the war. The Virginia Legislature did.

George Washington didn't start the Revolutionary War. The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence did. And they specified their reasons, in writing, at the time.

[JMS]

You've been trying to claim that "the reason for the war" and "the reason Joe Soldier fought" are one and the same. And then you post this?

I have been totally consistant. The civil war is a complex issue. I do believe the fundimental underpinning cause for the war was slavery.... I believe southern leadership which was made up of wealthy slaver holding families suceeded largely as they have stated on the grounds of slavery. I also believe northern abolitionists voted in favor of Lincoln and many pursued the war with the south on the grounds for ending slavery...

I do not think it's inconsistant however but factually accurate to note that Abraham Lincoln and northern leadership did not fight the US Civil war on the grounds to end slavery; nor did average southerns who did not own slaves fight the war on the grounds of slavery. The war was sold domestically as a states rights issue in the south. Clearly Lee felt it was a state's rights issue because he resigned his commission and declaired for the cause following his state... waiting months after the first state suceded.

I recently concluded reading John Mosby's autobiography. It's a great read by the way... Mosby was an abolitionist who declaired for the north in the case of sucession only weeks before Virginia suceeded. Then became one of the most famous soldiers in the war for the south. Mosby describes the palpable patriotism of the time, and declaires that the deciding factor in his and many virginian's taking up arms.

"The reason Lee joined the Confederacy" is completely irrelevant to the reason why the war happened. Lee didn't start the war. The Virginia Legislature did.

Not to Lee. Not to Lee's legacy. This is the crux of our disagreement. Your position is because the war would not have been fought except for slavery that means it should only be judged on the merits of slavery. My position is individual people fought the war for different reasons. Lee saw his patriotic duty to his state, rather than his country. The United States was a country made up of many states before the civil war people reffered to the United States in the pleual. The United States ARE... It was not until after the civil war when the term the United States IS began to be used.

People want to condemn Lee for his lack of patriotism to his country... but they overlook his total commitment, his primary commitment to his state. That's what Lee should be judged on.

George Washington didn't start the Revolutionary War. The people who wrote the Declaration of Independence did. And they specified their reasons, in writing, at the time.

Granted... But the people who wrote the declaration of independence would have been hanging from a tree if not for George Washington. And George Washington was key to winning them their independence. Again I don't dismiss the importance of the north in the revolutionary war. I just state the obvious that the south were equally important in that rebellion.

[Jumbo]

I'd say Henry summarized Lee's status fairly..

My favorite line from the article:

After the war, the South embraced a mythology of victimhood.

Originally posted by Chicken Fried: 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.

Highlighted phrase being at least a less damning indictment of worthlessness then "yet another display of southern conservative wingnut crippled and demented cognition.

[JMS]

I'd say Henry summarized Lee's status fairly..

My favorite line from the article:

After the war, the South embraced a mythology of victimhood.

Jumbo from a southern perspective they certainly were victems...

How many people died at Fort Sumpter? None due to enemy action that's how many. From the southern perpective they were well within their rights to secede. They entered the union freely and felt they had the right to leave freely. Clearly their is nothing in the constitution which would suggest otherwise. The fact that they did so April 12–13, 1861 without any loss of life due to their actions suggests careful planning and forsight. Then for nearly two months the south did nothing. They didn't threaten northern invasion, nor did they harrass northern shipping... The next hostal act came by the North invading the south and a battle at fairfax country courthouse in Northern Virginia June 1, 1861... That's where the first death due to enemy action occured... When the North invaded the south.... Hell the south didn't invade the north for another 15 months ( September 1862 ) and after a dozen or more battles on southern territory.

The North says the south brought it on by sucession... sucession which caused no lives to be lost. Yet those same Northerners can't point to any legal justification for Linoclons invasion of the south to stop the sucession because none exists.

How can you dismiss the souths claim of victemhood so lightly?

[Madison Redskin]

The North says the south brought it on by sucession... sucession which caused no lives to be lost. Yet those same Northerners can't point to any legal justification for Linoclons invasion of the south to stop the sucession because none exists.

How can you dismiss the souths claim of victemhood so lightly?

Perhaps because the Southern States seceded to preserve the right to own, beat, trade, kill, and rape slaves (even if CSA soldiers fought for different reasons). You can argue that the secession was about "states' rights," but states' rights were a means to an end (i.e., to preserve the institution of slavery), not an end in and of itself. That doesn't mean that the North fought to abolish the institution of slavery (it didn't), it just means that the South's pleas for sympathy should fall on deaf ears.

[JMS]

Perhaps because the Southern States seceded to preserve the right to own, beat, trade, kill, and rape slaves (even if CSA soldiers fought for different reasons). You can argue that the secession was about "states' rights," but states' rights were a means to an end (i.e., to preserve the institution of slavery), not an end in and of itself. That doesn't mean that the North fought to abolish the institution of slavery (it didn't), it just means that the South's pleas for sympathy should fall on deaf ears.

Well I certainly don't think the North pulled any punches or enveloped the south in sympathy during or after the civil war. So no problem there...

I don't think the south is looking for "sympathy" or reparations for the war. I think they are more about righous indignation wrapped in victemhood, those that do have victemhood now some 150 years after the beginning of the war. I'm just saying that victemhood from a historical perspective is not completely without merit... Least from their perspective.

The north did not have any right to invade. Nothing in the constitution gave them the authority to invade to stop sucession. The north didso because as the founding fathers had warned in the federalist papers sucessful sucession would have risked hundreds even thousands of years of war as Europe had experienced. The North did not feel they had any choice but to invade because to fail to invade would have been far worse. But the North still did the invadeing.

[Duckus]

My fiance's grandma claims her family are direct relatives of Robert E Lee's illegitimate slave child. No idea if it is true (or if Lee even had a child w/ slave) - but she is supposedly a genealogy buff, who knows.

[pointyfootball]

Not sure what myth you all need to dispel. General Lee is awesome!

[China]

Not sure what myth you all need to dispel. General Lee is awesome!

Picture

Mythbusters already busted the myth that you can drive away after one of those jumps.

WFEirq5u0bc

http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/6512-mythbusters-jumping-a-gorge-uncut-video.htm

[Larry]

Mythbusters already busted the myth that you can drive away after one of those jumps.

Yeah, and I bet that next you're going to tell me that KITT can't go from standing perfectly still to flying through the air, either.

Hell, you're probably one of those folks who claim that if you run from the cops in a small southern town, resulting in the destruction of 11 county patrol cars, but you get away from them, then an hour later, you show up in town at the diner, the cops will say "hi" to you and nothing else will happen.

[PeterMP]

Jumbo from a southern perspective they certainly were victems...

How many people died at Fort Sumpter? None due to enemy action that's how many. From the southern perpective they were well within their rights to secede. They entered the union freely and felt they had the right to leave freely. Clearly their is nothing in the constitution which would suggest otherwise. The fact that they did so April 12–13, 1861 without any loss of life due to their actions suggests careful planning and forsight. Then for nearly two months the south did nothing. They didn't threaten northern invasion, nor did they harrass northern shipping... The next hostal act came by the North invading the south and a battle at fairfax country courthouse in Northern Virginia June 1, 1861... That's where the first death due to enemy action occured... When the North invaded the south.... Hell the south didn't invade the north for another 15 months ( September 1862 ) and after a dozen or more battles on southern territory.

The North says the south brought it on by sucession... sucession which caused no lives to be lost. Yet those same Northerners can't point to any legal justification for Linoclons invasion of the south to stop the sucession because none exists.

How can you dismiss the souths claim of victemhood so lightly?

The idea that the Constitution did NOT allow for peaceful secession goes back to James Madison and was endorsed by multiple Presidents before the Civil War at various times.

Most importantly, the southern states didn't have the authority to determine if they had the Constitutional right to secede by any reading of the Constitution (only the Supreme Court does).

[pjfootballer]

I want to thank JMS for his civil war insights. You really know your stuff. Good read in here. I learned alot about things I didn't know. Sounds like you've done alot of reading and research on the subject.