WP: Dispelling the myth of Robert E. Lee

[mardi gras skin]

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).

That's a good point. Did the Supreme Court ever make that determination before the flash point of the Civil War?

[Popeman38]

That's a good point. Did the Supreme Court ever make that determination before the flash point of the Civil War?

The Supreme Court ruled it illegal in 1868, 3 years after the Civil War concluded.

[TheGoodBits]

Just kind of thinking hypothetically here... what if Lincoln doesn't decide that keeping the southern states is worth a war and lets them go peacefully?

How long until slavery dies out in the South naturally? I'm thinking 1910s or 20s, but I'm not sure.

Do the states eventually reunite?

If not, what is the relationship between the two countries?

[addicted]

I graduated High School in 76. The Bicentennial. One of the things about that year was that some TV network started running a PSA every evening, sometime during their show, called "The Bicentennial Minute", where some celebrity would read some news story about what things were like, 200 years ago.

One morning, during our morning announcements, the student who read the announcements announced a Bicentennial Minute, and observed that "Remember: If it weren't for the American Revolution, we might all be speaking English, today."

Really? That's good to know hahaha

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Just kind of thinking hypothetically here... what if Lincoln doesn't decide that keeping the southern states is worth a war and lets them go peacefully?

How long until slavery dies out in the South naturally? I'm thinking 1910s or 20s, but I'm not sure.

Do the states eventually reunite?

If not, what is the relationship between the two countries?

I would have to assume that, eventually, the states would reunite. If not, I would think that the two nations would co-exist pretty peacefully as major allies (though having ideological conflicts as we do now).

[Rocky21]

This guy's opinion pieces are so out there and infamous that I don't have the energy to quote them all here.

Let's just go with the short and sweet This guy is the Hack of the Year.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/24/hack_list_1

[Predicto]

This guy's opinion pieces are so out there and infamous that I don't have the energy to quote them all here.

Let's just go with the short and sweet This guy is the Hack of the Year.

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/11/24/hack_list_1

Wow. That was some serious ownage.

And it's not like Salon is a partisan right wing attack site just going after the liberals. If anything, Salon is a thoughful, moderately liberal site, and it just eviscerated one of its own side.

(disclaimer - Salon is a San Francisco operation and I am good friends with its CEO)

[Rocky21]

Wow. That was some serious ownage.

And it's not like Salon is a partisan right wing attack site just going after the liberals. If anything, Salon is a thoughful, moderately liberal site, and it just eviscerated one of its own side.

(disclaimer - Salon is a San Francisco operation and I am good friends with its CEO)

Like I said I would quote ridiculous quote and unsupportable position one after another if I weren't so lazy. Do you think this guy's opinions are usually on point or are you just going for the laugh with your post here.

[Henry]

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?

That's quite the rosy picture you paint there, JMS. But I think you know there was lot more going on than a few harmless shots fired on Sumpter and then some northern invasion force.

There was the little business about 4 other states joining the secessionists. About efforts to get the remaining border states to follow. About violence in the territories and border states ... setting up governments in exile for these states in the Confederate Congress, obviously based on the assumption that those states would soon also leave the Union either through coersion or force. ... You don't consider the attempt to grab territory from a nation, by any means, a hostile act?

And no, Antietam was not the first attempt by the south to invade the north. Let's not forget Missouri and Kentucky were both state-sized battlefields long before Lee marched north. There was the Battle of Wilson's Creek in August of 1861. The Battle of Mill Springs in January of 1862. The Battle of Pea Ridge in March of 1862. The Battle of Richmond in August of 1862. The Battle of Munfordville in September of 1862. Those were just the battles with names, and all of those battle occurred on Union soil, and all occurred before Lee and Little Mac faced off in Maryland. I'm not even going to go into the cavalry raids. Confederates also marched west, attempting to rally people in the Arizona territories to their cause. Please don't paint this as the poor innocent southerners just wanting to be left alone. I know you know that's not the case, because that most certainly is part of a mythology of victimhood.

[Predicto]

Like I said I would quote ridiculous quote and unsupportable position one after another if I weren't so lazy. Do you think this guy's opinions are usually on point or are you just going for the laugh with your post here.

What? No, you misread me. I don't like Cohen. He is a hack. I totally agree with Salon - and you - on that. I was laughing at how badly he got owned in that column.

I still have problems glorifying Robert E Lee and the Confederate Leaders (because it serves as a proxy for legitimizing the Confederacy and its motives) - but I sure as hell don't feel that way because Richard Cohen said so.

[JMS]

You don't consider the attempt to grab territory from a nation, by any means, a hostile act?

It's not about what "I consider". I'm just pointing out that the American Civil war was not short on victems. I can't see anybody dismissing southern victemhood, just as I wouldn't dismiss the fact that the North was a victem.

My point isn't to suggest one (North) over the other or visa versa. My point is the oversimplified belief that their was nothing honorable about anybody in the south, or visa versa is wrong. The oversimplification that all justification falls with one side over the other is wrong. It's just not that simple...

As for Lee's "myth"... It's been 150 years since the American civil war and as far as I'm concerned his legacy not myth is as strong as ever. Not because all the folks who fought on his side were justifiable based upon modern ethics. Simple because he gave up as much or more than any man in history to do what he believed was the right thing to do, even though going along would have greately expanded his fame and his comfort and his prestege.

And no, Antietam was not the first attempt by the south to invade the north. Let's not forget Missouri and Kentucky were both state-sized battlefields long before Lee marched north.

? Missouri and Kentucky were both slave states which stayed with the North and did not sucede. How can you blaime the south for stealing northern territory and give Misouri and Kentucky as your justification? I've got another justification between fort sumpter and the battle of Fairfax Courthouse... West Virginia. Where the Union broke the state of Virginia in two June 1861.

Also let's not forget that during the interum between fort Sumpter and the Northern Invasion

There was the Battle of Wilson's Creek in August of 1861.

Are you claiming Wilson's Creek as an example of southern forces invading the north? It was fought in Missouri a slave state. I don't think it supports your case of the south invading the north. More like the north posting a large army in a pro south state so as to keep them from leaving the union like Maryland.

The Battle of Mill Springs in January of 1862.

Mill Spring was Kentucky... again fought in a slave state.

The Battle of Pea Ridge in March of 1862.

The Battle of Richmond in August of 1862.

The Battle of Munfordville in September of 1862.

Those were just the battles with names, and all of those battle occurred on Union soil, and all occurred before Lee and Little Mac faced off in Maryland.

Missouri, Kentucky, and Kentucky... Not one of those conflicts was fought on northern soil but all were fought on slave states kept in the union by force of arms.

Not very compelling evidence for the south invading the north.

I'm not even going to go into the cavalry raids. Confederates also marched west, attempting to rally people in the Arizona territories to their cause. Please don't paint this as the poor innocent southerners just wanting to be left alone. I know you know that's not the case, because that most certainly is part of a mythology of victimhood.

I don't see how anybody can claim there were no victems in teh south. I think if history has tought anybody anything about the civil war it's that their were no shortage of victems on either side of that conflict.

---------- Post added April-28th-2011 at 07:42 PM ----------

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.

That's interesting... I went to elementary school with Robby Lee the V.. Robert E. Lee's great great great grandson. He got to go to the whitehouse in 1976 when Jimmy Carter granted Robert E Lee's citizenship back. He was on the evening news taling about Robert E. Lee. Think they still live in Northern Virginia....

---------- Post added April-28th-2011 at 07:48 PM ----------

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).

Well that's the north's position.... There's just nothing to support that position in the constitution is my point...

As for the founding fathers their is no doubt that both north and southern founding fathers warned against breaking up the union. It was one of the main topics in the fedneralist papers. Which was one of Abraham Lincolns primary reason's for going to war to perserve the union rather than letting the South go without a fight. Lincoln didn't do it because he wanted to dominate the south or because the wanted to end slavery. He did it because he believed the founding fathers when they said sucession would be a disaster and lead to hundreds even thousands of years of war... Like Europe had experienced.

[Henry]

It's not about what "I consider". I'm just pointing out that the American Civil war was not short on victems. I can't see anybody dismissing southern victemhood, just as I wouldn't dismiss the fact that the North was a victem.

My point isn't to suggest one (North) over the other or visa versa. My point is the oversimplified belief that their was nothing honorable about anybody in the south, or visa versa is wrong. The oversimplification that all justification falls with one side over the other is wrong. It's just not that simple...

If your point is that things were bad for both sides, that's fine. But I think 'the mythology of southern victimhood' refers to the belief that the south were the primary victims and the north were the primary aggressors. If that's not what you think then we don't disagree.

As for Lee's "myth"... It's been 150 years since the American civil war and as far as I'm concerned his legacy not myth is as strong as ever. Not because all the folks who fought on his side were justifiable based upon modern ethics. Simple because he gave up as much or more than any man in history to do what he believed was the right thing to do, even though going along would have greately expanded his fame and his comfort and his prestege.

Read my posts about Lee earlier in this thread. I get all that. But let's not go overboard in our defense of the man by exaggerating the nobility of his cause.

? Missouri and Kentucky were both slave states which stayed with the North and did not sucede. How can you blaime the south for stealing northern territory and give Misouri and Kentucky as your justification? I've got another justification between fort sumpter and the battle of Fairfax Courthouse... West Virginia. Where the Union broke the state of Virginia in two June 1861.

Also let's not forget that during the interum between fort Sumpter and the Northern Invasion

Are you claiming Wilson's Creek as an example of southern forces invading the north? It was fought in Missouri a slave state. I don't think it supports your case of the south invading the north. More like the north posting a large army in a pro south state so as to keep them from leaving the union like Maryland.

Mill Spring was Kentucky... again fought in a slave state.

Missouri, Kentucky, and Kentucky... Not one of those conflicts was fought on northern soil but all were fought on slave states kept in the union by force of arms.

Not very compelling evidence for the south invading the north.

Um ... Maryland was a slave state too, yet you claimed Anteitam was an invasion of the north. Washington DC was a slaveholding district. The border states were still part of the union. That they were in great jeopardy of being lost to the Confederacy only supports my point that the Union had good cause to feel threatened, and yes, invaded by the South.

I don't see how anybody can claim there were no victems in teh south. I think if history has tought anybody anything about the civil war it's that their were no shortage of victems on either side of that conflict..

Again, I don't think anyone is claiming that the war wasn't terrible for everyone concerned.

[JMS]

If your point is that things were bad for both sides, that's fine. But I think 'the mythology of southern victimhood' refers to the belief that the south were the primary victims and the north were the primary aggressors. If that's not what you think then we don't disagree.

I don't believe the South were the primary victems of the war. I do believe the south were victems and I believe most of the civil war was fought in the south with notable exceptions, and the south lost the greater percentage of it's young men. All of that is true.. I think the real question isn't whether the south was a victem they certainly were. The question is who made them a victem. Certainly it wasn't the North. I think 100 years before the American civil war slavery was legal in most of the world and had been for all of written human history. That all changed and changed pretty quickly in the century leading up to and away from the American civil war. That's what I think made the south a victem. Their own inability to understand, adapt, and change with changing times. The south was victems of changing times and being the slowest to recognize and change with those times... Least slower than the north...

It's a curse shared by all conservatives and conservative cultures when faced with dramatically chaniging times.. You know 100 years before the civil war the most admired men in the country were slaver holders... Only one of the signers of the declaration of independence had never owned a slave.. John Adams..... 100 years latter anybody who owned a slaver was seen as a blight on himan existance... that's quite a dramatic change.

Read my posts about Lee earlier in this thread. I get all that. But let's not go overboard in our defense of the man by exaggerating the nobility of his cause.

i'm not saying the cause was nobel... I am saying the man was nobel. I think it's hard to know anything about Lee without admireing him. Not because he cause was right.. but because he thought it was right and gave up everything to defend that cause. What do we hate about politicians to day... they say one thing and do another when it's politically expedient. Lee didn't agree with slavery, Lee knew the south didn't have a chance in the civil war. Not only did he not take the politically expedient actions... He jumpted clear off a cliff to do what he believed was right.. That is admireable..

Um ... Maryland was a slave state too, yet you claimed Anteitam was an invasion of the north. Washington DC was a slaveholding district. The border states were still part of the union. That they were in great jeopardy of being lost to the Confederacy only supports my point that the Union had good cause to feel threatened, and yes, invaded by the South.

Fair point...

Again, I don't think anyone is claiming that the war wasn't terrible for everyone concerned.

That's all I'm saying... there was no lack of victems on either side. It was a big bloody mess with a lot of good people dieing all around.

[PeterMP]

Well that's the north's position.... There's just nothing to support that position in the constitution is my point...

As for the founding fathers their is no doubt that both north and southern founding fathers warned against breaking up the union. It was one of the main topics in the fedneralist papers. Which was one of Abraham Lincolns primary reason's for going to war to perserve the union rather than letting the South go without a fight. Lincoln didn't do it because he wanted to dominate the south or because the wanted to end slavery. He did it because he believed the founding fathers when they said sucession would be a disaster and lead to hundreds even thousands of years of war... Like Europe had experienced.

Unfortunately, the Constitution doesn't give you or the southern states the authority to state whether there is something to support the position or not.

And the opinions of the likes of Daniel Webster, James Madison, and Andrew Jackson wasn't just that secession would be bad, but that it was unconstitutional.

[skinfan133]

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

implying that Cohen was using those in the first place and that his entire article wasn't just a character assassination aimed at pissing off a group of people he doesn't like.

So his article is titled: "dispelling the myth" One would assume he would A) establish what the myth is and clearly show why assumptions surrounding the myth are contrary to fact. Which he doesn't. Cohen does the equivalent of a "yo mama" joke: Poking at the periphery in broad strokes in order to appear to be striking at the center. You don't make fun of the kid directly, you call his mom fat. Cohen doesn't even go that far as he hasn't even really defined what the "myth" is, he's basically saying, "well R. E. Lee is a big fat poopoo head."

[Rocky21]

What? No, you misread me. I don't like Cohen. He is a hack. I totally agree with Salon - and you - on that. I was laughing at how badly he got owned in that column.

Mea culpa.

That Salon article made me laugh as well. I desperately wanted to see how Cohen propped up the the looming debt crisis is caused by kids today and their tattoos and hippety-hop music! argument but the link is dead. Darnit!