Revisionist Historians and Robert E. Lee (ethics, rating, government, state)

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by TMSRetired

I posted earlier my thoughts along with links.

Those links seemed to just argue that Lee was well thought of by his men, a point I'll gladly concede.

The poster I referred to sees history with today's context and emotions in mind.

That is a bad argument. Slavery was the hottest political issue of Lee's time, and he not only knew this, he wrote impassioned defenses for the practice. (It brought the blacks to Jesus, see?) The fact that he was - even by contemporary Southern standards - a harsh slave owner doesn't exactly add to his statute.

He knew the suffering brought on by slavery, he knew of the arguments against it, and he still rationalized it enough to throw in his lot with the slave states.

[Leo58]

Originally Posted by Tonyafd

Did you read the article?

The definition of smear is to "seek to damage a person's reputation by spreading false accusations". I didn't see anything in the article that sounded false. It may be that a mythology about Lee grew up after the Civil War, and now there is an attempt to set the record straight.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by whogo

The difference is the issue of slavery was in flux back then and even many abolitionists believed blacks were inferior.

Which is considerably different from believing blacks should be property.

Lee’s decision was based on loyalty to his state over his country.

And why did his state join the Confederacy? What was the cause they took up arms for? Let's look it up.

Originally Posted by Virginia's ordinance of secession

The people of Virginia, in their ratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, adopted by them in Convention, on the 25th day of June, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eight-eight, having declared that the powers granted them under the said Constitution were derived from the people of the United States, and might be resumed whensoever the same should be perverted to their injury and oppression, and the Federal Government having perverted said powers, not only to the injury of the people of Virginia, but to the oppression of the Southern slaveholding States.

Ah.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by whogo

The difference is the issue of slavery was in flux back then and even many abolitionists believed blacks were inferior.

Lee’s decision was based on loyalty to his state over his country.

And around and around we go.

Yes, it was (and is) quite possible to think blacks were inferior, and to also think that slavery was wrong, for both moral reasons, and practical. After all, many working Americans resented slavery because they believed it kept wages down. (Ring a bell?) Others feared the establishment of a hereditary ruling class. And, of course, some folks just plain didn't like black people, and wanted to stop those who would bring more black people into more states. Therefore, they helped fight a war that pretty much everyone on both sides agreed would decide whether chattel slavery had a future on the North American continent.

What a surprise - a slave-owner, presumably after a long and painful struggle with his conscience, decides to fight for the side that supports slavery.

There were southerners who fought for the union, too. Had the south won, they could have been liable to charges of treason.

[GotHereQuickAsICould]

If Lee's loyalty was to his state, he should have passed on West Point. He took an oath on his honor to protect the U.S. Constitution, not Virginia's.

150+ years trying to paint Robert E. Lee as some sort of tragic hero.

BS. He was a slave owner (and not a benevolent one either), who took up arms against the U.S. to ensure that slavery would continue.

[TMSRetired]

Originally Posted by GotHereQuickAsICould

If Lee's loyalty was to his state, he should have passed on West Point. He took an oath on his honor to protect the U.S. Constitution, not Virginia's.

150+ years trying to paint Robert E. Lee as some sort of tragic hero.

BS. He was a slave owner (and not a benevolent one either), who took up arms against the U.S. to ensure that slavery would continue.

So you're saying he should have seen 30 years in his future ?
He graduated West Point in 1829.

[TKO]

Originally Posted by TMSRetired

So you're saying he should have seen 30 years in his future ?
He graduated West Point in 1829.

And slavery was already an issue that the world was correcting. England outlawed it 4 years later.

[Dane_in_LA]

Originally Posted by TMSRetired

So you're saying he should have seen 30 years in his future ?
He graduated West Point in 1829.

Committing yourself to a specific future behavior is kinda the point of an oath, isn't it?

[TMSRetired]

Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA

Committing yourself to a specific future behavior is kinda the point of an oath, isn't it?

In 1829 I doubt many thought that the US would split in two.

[jacqueg]

Originally Posted by TMSRetired

In 1829 I doubt many thought that the US would split in two.

Oaths are to guide you when times get confusing, not to mention downright tough.

Anyone can keep an oath when times are not challenging.

That said, it isn't hard to see why Lee violated his oath, and he was hardly alone. I actually don't think this was a huge deal in the scheme of things. But I do think the idea that loyalty to your state trumps loyalty to your nation is a bit of a stretch, and again, many people at the time saw it as I do.