Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let me add that RE Lee's father jumped a ship to Barbados rather than be imprisoned for fraud and embezzlement leaving a very young Robert with his young mother destitute and shamed. She sold everything she could to pay back those whom his dad had defrauded.
This left the two of them penniless. And who took in this small family but the ones whom had been defrauded.
Robert lived on the charity and love of these people and even as a boy everything he did, whether it was his studies, fencing, riding a horse etc even as a child he strove to do his best and show honor to them. And 'negate' the shame that his father had brought.
To me what else could he do but stand with the people who had put clothes on his mother's back?
The boy made the man
Last edited by theoldnorthstate; 09-07-2016 at 03:28 PM..
Lee used Washington as the model for his character, but this doesn't mean that every political thought was identical. What Lee took from Washington was complete devotion to his cause, rigid self control of his emotions in public, courteous subordination to the civil government and the willingness to always do his duty regardless of the cost.
Lee was not at all in favor of Virginia leaving the union, but once it did he was forced to confront a conflict in loyalties, state and nation. He chose state, but served his state with all of the energy and ability which Washington brought to the cause of independence.
If you wish to argue that Lee chose the wrong cause, that would be a separate debate, but he did deport himself in the same manner as Washington while serving his cause.
I would also add that you seem to be overlooking the fact that both Washington and Lee, were leading rebellions against the prevailing authorities.
Long story short, I think Mr. Lee was conflicted. His relationship to George Washington & to his family made that conflict even more complicated. This book focuses on the conflict:
The Man Who Would Not Be Washington: Robert E. Lee's Civil War and His Decision That Changed American History by Jonathan Horne.
...The civil war split families, states and the nation; 74 years after the signing of the Constitution, the United States was torn in two. One of the more conflicted participants in the war was none other than Robert E. Lee, a son of a Revolutionary War hero who was a trusted aide to General George Washington. He married the daughter of Washington’s adopted son.
At the outbreak of the Civil War, Lee had served 25 years with the U.S. Army, but in April 1861, he turned down an offer to command the Union Army, resigned his commission, and accepted the command of the military and naval forces of Virginia. ...
I think you might be overlooking the differences in the legacies left by each man.
Not at all. I have been addressing Lee's character, which he did indeed model on George Washington. What is being compared is their response to what they saw as their duty, not the specific causes that they served. In terms of character, they left identical legacies of unselfish service to a cause. That you see one of those causes as good and the other not, makes no difference in terms of character.
And I again remind you, both men were revolutionaries, both rebelled against the existing government. What winds up defining treason isn't the cause, it is whether or not you win.
Not at all. I have been addressing Lee's character, which he did indeed model on George Washington. What is being compared is their response to what they saw as their duty, not the specific causes that they served. In terms of character, they left identical legacies of unselfish service to a cause. That you see one of those causes as good and the other not, makes no difference in terms of character.
And I again remind you, both men were revolutionaries, both rebelled against the existing government. What winds up defining treason isn't the cause, it is whether or not you win.
George Washington's legacy includes successfully uniting the States. He was not conflicted.
Robert Lee's legacy includes unsuccessfully dividing the States. He was conflicted.
Lee did not divide the states and he had no real conflict. That was political. And decisions were made by others in the political class.
He did have painful decisions to make, but that is not conflict
He knew from the beginning that the confederacy did not have the resources to defeat the Union forces nor did he like the whole idea of the war. But he unwaveringly fought to put the outmatched confederacy in the best position possible to make the best deal possible
Political goal was to do well until Lincoln lost the election. Then of course the confederate states would seek readmission to the union on favorable terms.
Starting a war you can't win is stupid but it wasn't Lee who devised that plan
Lee did not divide the states and he had no real conflict. That was political. And decisions were made by others in the political class.
He did have painful decisions to make, but that is not conflict
He knew from the beginning that the confederacy did not have the resources to defeat the Union forces nor did he like the whole idea of the war. But he unwaveringly fought to put the outmatched confederacy in the best position possible to make the best deal possible
Political goal was to do well until Lincoln lost the election. Then of course the confederate states would seek readmission to the union on favorable terms.
Starting a war you can't win is stupid but it wasn't Lee who devised that plan
You seem to be missing that under your scenario, he was a prime cause of 620,000 dead. And I say that as a person who has some admiration for Lee.
Lee did not divide the states and he had no real conflict. That was political. And decisions were made by others in the political class.
He did have painful decisions to make, but that is not conflict
He knew from the beginning that the confederacy did not have the resources to defeat the Union forces nor did he like the whole idea of the war. But he unwaveringly fought to put the outmatched confederacy in the best position possible to make the best deal possible
Political goal was to do well until Lincoln lost the election. Then of course the confederate states would seek readmission to the union on favorable terms.
Starting a war you can't win is stupid but it wasn't Lee who devised that plan
Right! Lee told his son "I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union." And he told Francis Blair that he personally would gladly give up all the slaves in the South for the Union, but ".... how can I draw my sword upon Virginia, my native state?" Many people today do not realize the sense of loyalty that people of that era felt towards their family, community, and state. Today it seems incomprehensible, but at that time it was normal.
As Shelby Foote said: "Before the war, it was said 'the United States are.' Grammatically, it was spoken that way and thought of as a collection of independent states. And after the war, it was always 'the United States is,' as we say today without being self-conscious at all. And that sums up what the war accomplished. It made us an 'is.' "
You seem to be missing that under your scenario, he was a prime cause of 620,000 dead. And I say that as a person who has some admiration for Lee.
This is as absurd as those who like to blame all the war dead on President Lincoln.
The Civil War was the outgrowth of a problem the Constitutional authors papered over because they feared addressing it head on would prevent ratification. This was followed by seven decades of compromises until finally reaching a point where compromise was no longer possible.
Of all the people involved, the slaveholders, the abolitionists, the Jayhawkers, the Bushwhackers, John Brown, Stephen Douglas, the southern firebrands, the compromisers...over the course of seventy years, you manage to zero in on Lee and proclaim him responsible for all the deaths? Lee? A man who opposed secession and only fought because he thought personal honor demanded that he defend his home? He is at fault for all of it?
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,678,989 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
This is as absurd as those who like to blame all the war dead on President Lincoln.
The Civil War was the outgrowth of a problem the Constitutional authors papered over because they feared addressing it head on would prevent ratification. This was followed by seven decades of compromises until finally reaching a point where compromise was no longer possible.
Of all the people involved, the slaveholders, the abolitionists, the Jayhawkers, the Bushwhackers, John Brown, Stephen Douglas, the southern firebrands, the compromisers...over the course of seventy years, you manage to zero in on Lee and proclaim him responsible for all the deaths? Lee? A man who opposed secession and only fought because he thought personal honor demanded that he defend his home? He is at fault for all of it?
The vast majority of my people fought for the Union. As I see it, Lincoln & Davis have some accountability in the final death toll. Winder & Grant, however hold a much larger responsibility for the deaths in the POW camps.
Lee, not so much. . .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
