Gov. of Tennessee signs proclamation honoring KKK leader.

[zitothebrave]

I'm always wanting to learn more about history. If I have a wrong impression I welcome new information.

For Lee's views on slavery, I'm going largely by his own writings. They came across as a guy who clearly knew what he was doing was wrong and enjoyed the idea that it would eventually end. He was on the progressive end for a slave owner in those views. Granted, that's not saying a whole lot. However, his personal prosperity depended on slaves and so he tried to justify its necessity and the harsh tactics he used.

Ultimately he seemed to choose the Thomas Jefferson path of hypocrisy on slavery. High minded in word but low in deed.

And as a battlefield strategist, Lee was truly exceptional. That's not the myth that's grown up around him, it's a reputation he earned at the time. There's a reason he could have been the head of the Union army had he chose to remain loyal to the Union.

Lee took a far smaller, far more poorly equipped force and actually scored victories. Chancellorsville was absolutely brilliant battlefield strategy. His biggest issue as a general is that he was a product of his training. The South had no chance of going toe to toe with the North long term but this is what Lee (and pretty much every other Southern general) did.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. If Lee was born and raised in Maryland instead of Virginia, how is he viewed today? An American hero that is vilified in the south? Quite possibly.

Comparing Lee's success to brilliant Generals is hardly anything great. McClellan had a penchant for not sending his army in unless he felt like he had the most 2 to 1 odds. He could have snuffed Lee's army out in the early goings of the wars but he was too chicken. There's a reason Grant taking over was the big turning point in the War. Grant was not afraid to send troops into a spotty battle. He knew long term his side had the numbers and the mechanical advantage. ANd that was after Lee had years to recruit and train. If Grant was in charge instead of McClellan that part of the campaign would have gone a lot faster. That being said, then the question of if Grant was running the Eastern Campaign, what happened out West, where Grant and Co. won countless victories over the Confederates.

As far as your last point, Lee had a choice, he could have fought for the Union. He opted not to. If Lee cared about the Union, he would have fought for it. But he cared about the right to own slaves more.

[striker42]

Comparing Lee's success to brilliant Generals is hardly anything great. McClellan had a penchant for not sending his army in unless he felt like he had the most 2 to 1 odds. He could have snuffed Lee's army out in the early goings of the wars but he was too chicken. There's a reason Grant taking over was the big turning point in the War. Grant was not afraid to send troops into a spotty battle. He knew long term his side had the numbers and the mechanical advantage. ANd that was after Lee had years to recruit and train. If Grant was in charge instead of McClellan that part of the campaign would have gone a lot faster. That being said, then the question of if Grant was running the Eastern Campaign, what happened out West, where Grant and Co. won countless victories over the Confederates.

As far as your last point, Lee had a choice, he could have fought for the Union. He opted not to. If Lee cared about the Union, he would have fought for it. But he cared about the right to own slaves more.

Every historian I've ever read attributes Lee joining the South as being due him feeling his first loyalty was owed to Virginia, not to a support of slavery. Loyalty to your state was fairly common at the time. Lee's writings from before Virginia seceded actually show he didn't support secession.

Am I wrong in this? If I am I'd love some links to more reading. I enjoy Civil War history and detest when popular myth overshadows fact.

[Runnin]

Every historian I've ever read attributes Lee joining the South as being due him feeling his first loyalty was owed to Virginia, not to a support of slavery. Loyalty to your state was fairly common at the time. Lee's writings from before Virginia seceded actually show he didn't support secession.

Am I wrong in this? If I am I'd love some links to more reading. I enjoy Civil War history and detest when popular myth overshadows fact.

I think that's right. He chose Loyalty over a different kind of moral integrity. Of course it's far too easy to criticize him from the reach of 150 years, but his decision to lead the South's army against the Union probably resulted in more American deaths than any other single decision in the country's history. If he felt strongly against secession he could've voiced his opposition by refusing to lead the army. There were options available to him other than marching the country into a bloodbath. He knew more than any that the South couldn't win a prolonged war and yet, he continued on the suicide's path, guiding tens, hundreds of thousands of young men to their deaths over a lost cause.

While I have come to feel this way over time, I know the actual circumstances behind a person's actions are often more complex. I also feel if Lee had joined the Union army he would not have lived as long as he did and been branded a traitor by his people.

[striker42]

I think that's right. He chose Loyalty over a different kind of moral integrity. Of course it's far too easy to criticize him from the reach of 150 years, but his decision to lead the South's army against the Union probably resulted in more American deaths than any other single decision in the country's history. If he felt strongly against secession he could've voiced his opposition by refusing to lead the army. There were options available to him other than marching the country into a bloodbath. He knew more than any that the South couldn't win a prolonged war and yet, he continued on the suicide's path, guiding tens, hundreds of thousands of young men to their deaths over a lost cause.

While I have come to feel this way over time, I know the actual circumstances behind a person's actions are often more complex. I also feel if Lee had joined the Union army he would not have lived as long as he did and been branded a traitor by his people.

I feel like this is a well reasoned take. I respect that.

Working hard to make an endeavor that you opposed succeed is often laudable. John Dickinson was a member of the Continental Congress who opposed independence. He believed reconciliation was the answer. When he lost and independence was declared, he threw himself into full support of the Revolution going so far as to march out of Philadelphia at the head of a troop of soldiers.

Such a spirit is at the heart of democracy.

Unfortunately in this case it meant fighting for an abominable cause and costing countless lives.

[Julio3000]

I'm always wanting to learn more about history. If I have a wrong impression I welcome new information.

For Lee's views on slavery, I'm going largely by his own writings. They came across as a guy who clearly knew what he was doing was wrong and enjoyed the idea that it would eventually end. He was on the progressive end for a slave owner in those views. Granted, that's not saying a whole lot. However, his personal prosperity depended on slaves and so he tried to justify its necessity and the harsh tactics he used.

Ultimately he seemed to choose the Thomas Jefferson path of hypocrisy on slavery. High minded in word but low in deed.

And as a battlefield strategist, Lee was truly exceptional. That's not the myth that's grown up around him, it's a reputation he earned at the time. There's a reason he could have been the head of the Union army had he chose to remain loyal to the Union.

Lee took a far smaller, far more poorly equipped force and actually scored victories. Chancellorsville was absolutely brilliant battlefield strategy. His biggest issue as a general is that he was a product of his training. The South had no chance of going toe to toe with the North long term but this is what Lee (and pretty much every other Southern general) did.

Here's an interesting thought experiment. If Lee was born and raised in Maryland instead of Virginia, how is he viewed today? An American hero that is vilified in the south? Quite possibly.

There’s no question he was well-regarded by his peers, but that’s just it...he wasn’t peerless. I’m simply pointing out that he wasn’t some kind of transcendent martial genius. If he had been, he wouldn’t have kept getting in those stand-up fights against an opponent who could replace men and materiel more readily.

As for his choice...a lot of other officers from slave states were faced with the same choice, and chose to honor the oaths they swore to country and service. Several of them were from Tennessee (Admiral David Farragut, for one). It’s too bad their home states don’t honor them with holidays.

I think it’s possible to acknowledge and respect the difficulty and nuance of that choice, in its proper historical context, while still maintaining a sense of moral clarity about what the Confederacy was about. I’m mostly just advocating for the historical treatment of that era to acknowledge that yes, there was a choice, in the face of which many men in the same situation responded differently than did Lee. Accept that the choice was difficult, forgive him for making the wrong decision, fine, but acknowledge the choice. It’s easy to understand why he wouldn’t want to be disowned and ostracized in his native state. But other people made the decision differently, and it seems an injustice that we’re celebrating the birthdays of one and not the other.

[striker42]

There’s no question he was well-regarded by his peers, but that’s just it...he wasn’t peerless. I’m simply pointing out that he wasn’t some kind of transcendent martial genius. If he had been, he wouldn’t have kept getting in those stand-up fights against an opponent who could replace men and materiel more readily.

As for his choice...a lot of other officers from slave states were faced with the same choice, and chose to honor the oaths they swore to country and service. Several of them were from Tennessee (Admiral David Farragut, for one). It’s too bad their home states don’t honor them with holidays.

I think it’s possible to acknowledge and respect the difficulty and nuance of that choice, in its proper historical context, while still maintaining a sense of moral clarity about what the Confederacy was about. I’m mostly just advocating for the historical treatment of that era to acknowledge that yes, there was a choice, in the face of which many men in the same situation responded differently than did Lee. Accept that the choice was difficult, forgive him for making the wrong decision, fine, but acknowledge the choice. It’s easy to understand why he wouldn’t want to be disowned and ostracized in his native state. But other people made the decision differently, and it seems an injustice that we’re celebrating the birthdays of one and not the other.

It's a shame Farragut isn't better known. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

[Julio3000]

It's a shame Farragut isn't better known. "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!"

Yeah, it’s a great story. Dude was a bona fide legend with a memorable catch-phrase. Which is why people IMO rightfully ask if there’s, er, not some other force at work when states are celebrating Lee and Forrest instead of Admiral Farragut or George Thomas.

[striker42]

Yeah, it’s a great story. Dude was a bona fide legend with a memorable catch-phrase. Which is why people IMO rightfully ask if there’s, er, not some other force at work when states are celebrating Lee and Forrest instead of Admiral Farragut or George Thomas.

The catch phrase is quite possibly apocryphal, but if it is this is a situation I don't want to know it. The story is so good. I'd rather believe the story.

There's a lot at play as to why some people were venerated in the south while others were not. Racial issues played their part. Though the race issue actually flared up more during the 20th Century than it did immediately after the war. The Civil Rights movement saw a renaissance of Confederate sympathy.

Ordinary, human resentment had a big role as well. The Southern economy was devastated, hundreds of thousands were dead, Federal troops were still patrolling and enforcing their will, families were scattered never to be reunited. It was a brutal time. A deep seeded resentment took hold at that time. This led to people like Lee and Jackson being idolized and Union leaders vilified. That has stuck around.

If you want to see an interesting case, look at General Longstreet. The man was actually a brilliant general who Lee had tremendous respect for. His work at the second battle of Bull Run was masterful. However, he has often been portrayed as incompetent and even been blamed for the loss at Gettysburg. The reason? After the war Longstreet supported Reconstruction and the presidency of Grant. He also led black militiamen in Louisiana against white rioters.

It's really incredible how much coloring of Civil War history has been done over the past 150 years.