As the history of General Robert E. Lee is front and center once more, I thought it worth posting this article that I read recently. I have to admit that I was significantly undereducated about the truth regarding Robert E Lee and I think most people are as well. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/06/the-myth-of-the-kindly-general-lee/529038/ More at the link...
A fascinating read. Lee wasn't the kindly owner of plantation slaves who wished to free them, but couldn't for one reason or another. That is patently false and illustrated by his own writings. The fantasy of Lee's feelings towards slaves and slave ownership that has been perpetuated since the Civil War is at odds with reality. What I have a problem with is the dismissive view of his ability as a general and military leader. It is a mistake, in my opinion. It detracts from the author's intent, to show Lee's real feelings about slavery, and how he treated Blacks (free or slaves) before, during, and after the war, and the impact he had on the post-war South, which was not a good one. However, Lee was a brilliant general beloved by the men he led, who came close to defeating the North militarily, despite the huge disparity between the North and South in industrial capacity and population. It is fine to describe the brutality Lee allowed or even encouraged towards Blacks during the war. Much of what is written here is little known among the general public, and should be known. Just as his views towards slavery were abhorrent and frequently ignored or glossed over by historians, the author is ignoring or glossing over Lee's ability as a tactician and military leader. That was a mistake by the author that shouldn't diminish most of what is written here in The Atlantic, in my opinion. Nice find, OP.
Fair point on the military thing. The author was clearly looking to discredit the full legend. In fairness to the author though, he didn't attack Lee as a tactician just that he made a fatal blunder engaging in a traditional open war with the North instead of I guess a guerilla war.
That's the part I didn't like. An attempted guerilla war would have been a disaster, and the author implies that he could have done something other than the kind of war that was waged. What, exactly, the author doesn't say. It's confusing. I viewed that part the same way you described, an attempt to destroy not only the " legend" (fantasy) regarding Lee and slavery, but to knock down his earned praise as a military leader during the war. While Lee certainly wasn't incapable of mistakes (he was) and had some brilliant generals under him who accomplished great things (he did - Jackson, for example), the fact remains that what he was able to do was remarkable and his opponents feared his abilities.
Thanks for posting that. For whatever reason I do not have a lot of knowledge about the Civil War. More knowledge of WWI, WWII, Vietnam and a few other historical wars.
This was the letter to his wife in 1856 that many historians (including OP's post) are referring to when they want to establish Lee's views on slavery. I'm not exactly the best person to ask about these "read between the lines" or interpretative statements. Lee does acknowledge that slavery is a "moral and political evil". On the other hand, he goes on and say that Blacks are better off here than in Africa and then goes that this is necessary in order to advance their race. Almost if not completely "White Supremacist" mantra there. His thought process was typical back in the 19th century. The "We should let God determine the fate of slavery and not leave it in the hands of people". I think Lee stuck by this principle. His post Civil War support for the Reconstruction and efforts of reuniting the country showed that. There was no evidence that he was still validating slavery and that it must remain in the system.
...so, in essence, what you propose is that Robert E. Lee was the Robert K. Bird of the 19th century...interesting... ...and also revealing about no matter how much things change, some things still remain the same....
I had the opportunity to visit his home at Arlington Cemetery not too long ago. Romanticizing slavery and the economic benefits that afforded it is beyond delusional. Lee's plantation had slave quarters and torcher dungeons just for the slaves. George Mason was another guy that is romanticized and revered as well and Gunston Hall showcased how he became wealthy and afforded his life style for the day. I don't know what is it is with the White Nationalist mindset that makes any of this okay or beautiful.
It was a brutal time of existence due to lack of knowledge of personal well being and hygiene. ~ deflecting at its best.
The Party of Lincoln and Robert E. Lee. Circumstances beyond the control of elected officials are pushing everyday conservatives to finally decide if "The Party of Lincoln" means anything more than a quick defense to charges of racism. The party that claims the mantle of Lincoln can't at the same time defend the righteous honor of Robert E. Lee, or by extension the Confederacy.
They believe that the white race is the superior race, ordained by God to rule over others. Robert E. Lee and the Confederacy believed the same. I don't think White Nationalists want to go back to that time and give up modern luxury, they just believe that the Confederates were the first heroes of the great cause of white supremacy. They fell in battle and should be honored, but the war continues.
I assume most of you grew up in Texas (which I did as well). I heard the Robert E Lee wasn't a bad guy, the civil war was about states rights and not slavery, etc.. all through my grade school years. Its shocking how well those stories are embedded in Southern history. From a broader perspective, I think this reminds us how badly Reconstruction failed. It was our version of the Treaty of Versailles, a systematic effort to punish Southern whites for the War that ultimately accomplished nothing. All of the civil rights gains post reconstruction were swiftly reversed once it ended and we ended up with Jim Crow, confederate monuments, confederate symbols on flags, etc.. Plus Southern Whites who were justifiabily humiliated and destroyed after the war, acted out of vengeance. The War not only destroyed their economy, but their pride and way of life. And Reconstruction was just extra salt in the wounds. Reconstruction didn't actually rebuild the Southern economy in any meaningful way and poverty in states like Mississippi and Alabama are a reminder that the wealth that was lost in the Civil War has been permanently lost. So lets dispel the silly myths about Confederate leaders but lets have an honest discussion of why Confederate revisionism is so prevalent. Terrible decisions in the aftermath of the Civil War by the Federal Government really paved the way for some terrible events in our history that we're still struggling to deal with.
Dracarys. I wonder how much of Lee's image has to do with him looking like Santa Claus. If he looked like Sherman there would be no romanticising the kindly General Lee.
Its pretty ridiculous to argue slavery was more comfortable for any founding father's slaves than for Lee or anyone Its slavery regard
