6
6
0
MY COMMENT:
Reading Adam Serwer’s reprint of a 2017 article he wrote about how much he hates Robert E. Lee, but not as much as he hates the myth of Robert E. Lee, I was struck by the notion that one could possibly fairly judge or re-judge someone who died 150 years ago by today’s politically correct standards and “sensibilities.”
One cannot.
I come from a long line of Yankees. Many of my ancestors fought on the Union side in the Civil War, some notable by their literary life. My second great grandfather, Freeman Woodman fought with and was a flag bearer for Company A, 54th Volunteer Illinois Infantry Regiment, and was with General William Tecumseh Sherman through the burning of Atlanta and his March to the Sea, and wrote about it in the faithful diaries he kept for nearly 80 of his 97 years.
I have read some of these diaries, and from my own military experience (22 years and three deployments after 9/11 with the Army Reserves), and know first-hand that war is 99 percent boredom and 1 percent sheer terror.
My background is that I come from a mixed, blended family. Born in Illinois, moved with my family to Southern California at age 2 ½, parents divorced when I was 6 years old, leaving me with a brother three years older and a sister three years younger than I. My mother remarried a year or so after the divorce to an African American widowed retired Air Force Tech Sgt. and Korea War veteran with two older daughters and two older sons than I. My father re-married a first generation Mexican American with several children.
I was raised in families that cared more about the content of your character than about the color of your skin. Chores, games, discipline and fun were abundant during my childhood. Racism was not. It still doesn’t compute, and I find myself wondering what all the fuss is about. After all, aren’t we all just fellow human beings? Shouldn’t we all just treat each other the way we want to be treated? What’s hard about that?
Apparently, treating the memory of an American war general under the thumb of a racist hand is acceptable in certain literary circles. Apparently, dancing on the grave of the Confederate leader after his statue was removed in New Orleans in 2017 wasn’t enough; time to dig him up again in the wake of the tragedy of George Floyd to display his moral and personal shortcomings as a human sacrifice at the altar of the American liberal left. How topical.
I am no fan or lover of Robert E. Lee, nor of his South, and I would not call what I am doing now a pure defense of anything he thought, said or stood for.
What disturbs me is how easy it is for a left liberal writer to pound into the ground an American historical figure for the sake of political correctness and celebration of racism in America.
What is missing from Mr. Serwer’s piece is that fact that we should never judge others based on their personal record held to standards that simply did not exist during their lifetime. Revisionist history is an unforgiveable sin. It is like repainting the Mona Lisa to conform to modern artistic sensibilities.
I know Mr. Serwer feels he repainted Lee through a realist’s lens, but he still repainted. The original portrait of Lee may be impressionistic, filled with many small and flawed brushstrokes, but when one stands back 150 years the image is much more in line with what he meant to half the country at the time.
Sowing hatred and disgust in a man not present to defend himself is parts cowardice and criminal. No fear of credible retribution emboldens a fearless writer to take agenda-driven liberties with only one half of the truth.
It’s like describing only the back side of a movie set and ignoring the art and talent that gets shown in the movie. Truth? Certainly. The whole truth? Absolutely not.
A fan of historical biography, I appreciate that the victors write most of the history about an event or person. In this case, not only the man’s actions but his thoughts get raked over the coals of bigoted hatred.
I will leave us with some final food-for-thought.
On April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. After the formalities and the two men parted ways, Gen. Grant instructed his troops to “refrain from celebrations in the field,” and reminded them that the Rebels were “our countrymen again.”
“Our countrymen again.”
Let that sink in, both for the maligned old general Lee, and for our current social situation.
We have choices to make, and we can base them on the hatred and bigotry of a boisterous few, or we can make them based on the truth that we are all Americans, and that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
Reading Adam Serwer’s reprint of a 2017 article he wrote about how much he hates Robert E. Lee, but not as much as he hates the myth of Robert E. Lee, I was struck by the notion that one could possibly fairly judge or re-judge someone who died 150 years ago by today’s politically correct standards and “sensibilities.”
One cannot.
I come from a long line of Yankees. Many of my ancestors fought on the Union side in the Civil War, some notable by their literary life. My second great grandfather, Freeman Woodman fought with and was a flag bearer for Company A, 54th Volunteer Illinois Infantry Regiment, and was with General William Tecumseh Sherman through the burning of Atlanta and his March to the Sea, and wrote about it in the faithful diaries he kept for nearly 80 of his 97 years.
I have read some of these diaries, and from my own military experience (22 years and three deployments after 9/11 with the Army Reserves), and know first-hand that war is 99 percent boredom and 1 percent sheer terror.
My background is that I come from a mixed, blended family. Born in Illinois, moved with my family to Southern California at age 2 ½, parents divorced when I was 6 years old, leaving me with a brother three years older and a sister three years younger than I. My mother remarried a year or so after the divorce to an African American widowed retired Air Force Tech Sgt. and Korea War veteran with two older daughters and two older sons than I. My father re-married a first generation Mexican American with several children.
I was raised in families that cared more about the content of your character than about the color of your skin. Chores, games, discipline and fun were abundant during my childhood. Racism was not. It still doesn’t compute, and I find myself wondering what all the fuss is about. After all, aren’t we all just fellow human beings? Shouldn’t we all just treat each other the way we want to be treated? What’s hard about that?
Apparently, treating the memory of an American war general under the thumb of a racist hand is acceptable in certain literary circles. Apparently, dancing on the grave of the Confederate leader after his statue was removed in New Orleans in 2017 wasn’t enough; time to dig him up again in the wake of the tragedy of George Floyd to display his moral and personal shortcomings as a human sacrifice at the altar of the American liberal left. How topical.
I am no fan or lover of Robert E. Lee, nor of his South, and I would not call what I am doing now a pure defense of anything he thought, said or stood for.
What disturbs me is how easy it is for a left liberal writer to pound into the ground an American historical figure for the sake of political correctness and celebration of racism in America.
What is missing from Mr. Serwer’s piece is that fact that we should never judge others based on their personal record held to standards that simply did not exist during their lifetime. Revisionist history is an unforgiveable sin. It is like repainting the Mona Lisa to conform to modern artistic sensibilities.
I know Mr. Serwer feels he repainted Lee through a realist’s lens, but he still repainted. The original portrait of Lee may be impressionistic, filled with many small and flawed brushstrokes, but when one stands back 150 years the image is much more in line with what he meant to half the country at the time.
Sowing hatred and disgust in a man not present to defend himself is parts cowardice and criminal. No fear of credible retribution emboldens a fearless writer to take agenda-driven liberties with only one half of the truth.
It’s like describing only the back side of a movie set and ignoring the art and talent that gets shown in the movie. Truth? Certainly. The whole truth? Absolutely not.
A fan of historical biography, I appreciate that the victors write most of the history about an event or person. In this case, not only the man’s actions but his thoughts get raked over the coals of bigoted hatred.
I will leave us with some final food-for-thought.
On April 9, 1865, Robert E. Lee surrendered to Union General Ulysses S. Grant at Appomattox Court House, Virginia. After the formalities and the two men parted ways, Gen. Grant instructed his troops to “refrain from celebrations in the field,” and reminded them that the Rebels were “our countrymen again.”
“Our countrymen again.”
Let that sink in, both for the maligned old general Lee, and for our current social situation.
We have choices to make, and we can base them on the hatred and bigotry of a boisterous few, or we can make them based on the truth that we are all Americans, and that a house divided against itself cannot stand.
The Myth of the Kindly General Lee
Posted from getpocket.com
Civil War
Racism
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
3
3
0
Excellent share, not sure it's possible to compare the attitudes of military leaders back then to the times we live in.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
This subject is important, and I'll add my sincere thoughts. I am a Southerner... and my family has been here since before the Revolution. However, my Civil War ancestor fought and died in a Union uniform. Like many in Tennessee, he was too poor to have owned slaves, and owing to Scots-Irish Protestant beliefs... probably didn't hold much with it anyway. I doubt he'd have wanted his daughter to marry a black man however... and he probably wouldn't have wanted a black man to serve over him as an officer, let alone reside in the White House. My guess is that like many white persons, anywhere in the Victorian Western world.. my ancestor probably viewed them as "men and brothers" under God... but definitely of a distinctly "separate" lineage. His decision to fight against region and prevailing sentiment may have been more influenced by disgust of self-styled "aristocrats" who would've viewed a poor subsistence farmer with equal disdain... and a desire to preserve the Union... than any warm feelings towards the plight of slaves, or the rights of other races.
Similarly, I believe Lee's decision to abandon the nation he served for decades, and refuse command of its armies probably had more to do with factors wholly removed from his views on slavery or race. Lee was fighting against his training and experience because the War was begun on the premise that it was an "illegal invasion" of states by their own federal government. He, Jackson, and others, clearly, and as borne out by the article's own evidence... carried views not congruent with many of their peers in the Confederate leadership. We certainly cannot call them "abolitionists"... but it is equally implausible these men of character took up arms and led the slaughter of those they once led in battle merely to ensure black people remained subjugated.
Though I believe there has been a "romanticized" whitewashing of the true motivations of the Rebellion... I also believe this includes an overly-critical and condemnatory view of men from an entirely different age. Would the firebrand of abolition, John Brown have agreed to women's suffrage? Would Harriet Tubman had been an outspoken advocate for the LGBT community? Likely not. These individuals lived with different notions of morality, honor, and duty than we can ever hope to understand. The way I see it; we should honor courage and skill where it was shown, confront and reject the evils that led to such slaughter, and keep our past where it belongs... in the past.
Similarly, I believe Lee's decision to abandon the nation he served for decades, and refuse command of its armies probably had more to do with factors wholly removed from his views on slavery or race. Lee was fighting against his training and experience because the War was begun on the premise that it was an "illegal invasion" of states by their own federal government. He, Jackson, and others, clearly, and as borne out by the article's own evidence... carried views not congruent with many of their peers in the Confederate leadership. We certainly cannot call them "abolitionists"... but it is equally implausible these men of character took up arms and led the slaughter of those they once led in battle merely to ensure black people remained subjugated.
Though I believe there has been a "romanticized" whitewashing of the true motivations of the Rebellion... I also believe this includes an overly-critical and condemnatory view of men from an entirely different age. Would the firebrand of abolition, John Brown have agreed to women's suffrage? Would Harriet Tubman had been an outspoken advocate for the LGBT community? Likely not. These individuals lived with different notions of morality, honor, and duty than we can ever hope to understand. The way I see it; we should honor courage and skill where it was shown, confront and reject the evils that led to such slaughter, and keep our past where it belongs... in the past.
(3)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - using historical facts as a guide, did the South consider their cause to be legal (states could leave the union as they saw fit), or did they view it as an act of rebellion/revolution?
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
SGT (Join to see) - Then as now, it's difficult to say what is "legal" once the propaganda machine gets spinning. To truly understand the issue of "states' rights", I think you have to go back to the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debate (incidentally, we're still very much engaged in it). In 1862, the Supreme Court ratified Lincoln's decision “to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.” They did so largely based on the same 1807 "Insurrection Act" we're talking about today (as well as early legislation from 1795). However, this flew in the face of some representatives who challenged the notion that the President could make such a proclamation prior to Congressional declarations of war (such as had occurred during the Mexican-American War some two decades prior). This argument hinged on the question of whether or not the CSA constituted a "rebellion" or "insurrection"... or was a sovereign nation; naturally, the CSA considered itself the latter. It is unfortunate the Civil War was fought over slavery (it was)... because it might just as easily been fought over opposition to these early "changes" to Anti-Federalist views coming out of the Revolution.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie - “ This argument hinged on the question of whether or not the CSA constituted a "rebellion" or "insurrection"... or was a sovereign nation; naturally, the CSA considered itself the latter.”
However, if the south didn’t consider themselves to be in a state of revolution, please explain the Cornerstone speech. Please explain the Mississippi or South Carolina declarations of secession.
Also, the Prize Cases make it clear that the Southern states were deemed to be states in rebellion.
As for the legality of secession, at the time, it was nearly unfathomable that States would try to leave the union. You should read some of Madison’s views on secession. At the time, secession wasn’t seen as legal. The South knew that any attempt to leave would lead to war. (Again, refer to and explain Mississippi declaration of secession).
Today, secession is certainly not legal.
However, if the south didn’t consider themselves to be in a state of revolution, please explain the Cornerstone speech. Please explain the Mississippi or South Carolina declarations of secession.
Also, the Prize Cases make it clear that the Southern states were deemed to be states in rebellion.
As for the legality of secession, at the time, it was nearly unfathomable that States would try to leave the union. You should read some of Madison’s views on secession. At the time, secession wasn’t seen as legal. The South knew that any attempt to leave would lead to war. (Again, refer to and explain Mississippi declaration of secession).
Today, secession is certainly not legal.
(0)
(0)
LCDR Joshua Gillespie
SGT (Join to see) - No disrespect intended, but I sense we're circling around and away from the point. It might be easier to continue if we simply agree that any "legality" of the CSA's secession really isn't debatable (it clearly wasn't-and I think we'd both agree to as much). To the best of my understanding, both the OP and my comments center on the personality and perceived motivations of Robert E. Lee. I think I've also clearly indicated that both are complex things to discuss requiring context of both the common beliefs and perceptions of the time. To my mind, the real question is whether he (and others) were motivated solely by a desire to preserve slavery as an institution... or if there were other, deeper factors at play. I believe there clearly were, and that this is important in judging their character. Please do remember; at the time... even many of the most fervent opponents to both slavery and secession were none the less opposed to universal suffrage and franchise. We may as well ask if Lincoln truly ordered up troops to "set men free", or if Sherman's tactics later in the War were driven unilaterally as "punishment" upon the South for fighting to uphold slavery.
That said, you raise some interesting questions, and I'll attempt to answer them as asked: As I read it, Stephens's speech attempted to frame the secession of southern states within the same context as the American colonies' "secession" from Great Britain. He focuses on the preservation of many of the key concepts of both the U.S. Constitution and the Magna Carta, and pays particular attention to the "common sense" notions of state vs. federal administration. In that sense, the U.S. did ultimately succeed in making their "illegal" rebellion against King George's government "legal"... but only in the sense that the latter formally surrendered their rights to the former only after fighting a prolonged armed conflict. I think we can take it for "granted" that the architects of the CSA's "illegal" rebellion ultimately hoped for a "revolution" ending in the US's formal acceptance of the CSA's status as a sovereign nation unto itself-perhaps without (or at least a minimal amount of) bloodshed if the threat of war was sufficient to obtain terms. If so, "selling" their revolt as a "second American Revolution" would've been crucial to success, and instrumental towards galvanizing the support of other states and governments... not to mention men such as Lee, Longstreet, and Jackson.
That was, after all the point.
As far as Madison (and Hamilton, if we want to be thorough) goes... as a confirmed Federalist, Madison saw the inherent risks and instability of not abandoning the "revolutionary" ideals of the Continental Congress, for a government more suited to holding the original thirteen colonies together as states. He never the less had august opposition to his ideas from no less than Jefferson and other key designers of the American Republic. Then, as now... if someone views the "law" as existing in usurpation of "natural law"... it is very easy to then make the ideological jump to presuming any "legal" acts of the usurper as being illegitimate.
In closing (and with apologies for the long-winded nature of my response)... I think the thesis of the original article was in "shattering" the traditional image of Robert E. Lee as an icon of 'morality and purist patriotism'. While this may be technically founded in fact; unfortunately, I believe the author overlooks critical personal and cultural details that leave their work no less "rhetorical" than the legends that have given us this "false" image of Lee.
That said, you raise some interesting questions, and I'll attempt to answer them as asked: As I read it, Stephens's speech attempted to frame the secession of southern states within the same context as the American colonies' "secession" from Great Britain. He focuses on the preservation of many of the key concepts of both the U.S. Constitution and the Magna Carta, and pays particular attention to the "common sense" notions of state vs. federal administration. In that sense, the U.S. did ultimately succeed in making their "illegal" rebellion against King George's government "legal"... but only in the sense that the latter formally surrendered their rights to the former only after fighting a prolonged armed conflict. I think we can take it for "granted" that the architects of the CSA's "illegal" rebellion ultimately hoped for a "revolution" ending in the US's formal acceptance of the CSA's status as a sovereign nation unto itself-perhaps without (or at least a minimal amount of) bloodshed if the threat of war was sufficient to obtain terms. If so, "selling" their revolt as a "second American Revolution" would've been crucial to success, and instrumental towards galvanizing the support of other states and governments... not to mention men such as Lee, Longstreet, and Jackson.
That was, after all the point.
As far as Madison (and Hamilton, if we want to be thorough) goes... as a confirmed Federalist, Madison saw the inherent risks and instability of not abandoning the "revolutionary" ideals of the Continental Congress, for a government more suited to holding the original thirteen colonies together as states. He never the less had august opposition to his ideas from no less than Jefferson and other key designers of the American Republic. Then, as now... if someone views the "law" as existing in usurpation of "natural law"... it is very easy to then make the ideological jump to presuming any "legal" acts of the usurper as being illegitimate.
In closing (and with apologies for the long-winded nature of my response)... I think the thesis of the original article was in "shattering" the traditional image of Robert E. Lee as an icon of 'morality and purist patriotism'. While this may be technically founded in fact; unfortunately, I believe the author overlooks critical personal and cultural details that leave their work no less "rhetorical" than the legends that have given us this "false" image of Lee.
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
"Revisionist history is an unforgiveable sin." So says the author. Some Southerners have stuck to the revisionist historical view that the Civil War was about State's rights and preserving the Southern way of life, a romanticized view of the Antebellum South. This "Lost Cause" ideology was the basis for segregation in the South and the enactment of Jim Crow laws to separate the races and to limit and eliminate the African American vote. Here is a statement by Henry Benning, eventual Confederate General:
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded." He further adds in the same speech:
"By the time the North shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. [Laughter.]
COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen F. SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen SPC Woody Bullard CPL Dave Hoover CW5 Jack Cardwell Lt Col Charlie Brown Col Carl Whicker SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth SPC Margaret Higgins Maj Marty Hogan SGT Jim Arnold Maj William W. 'Bill' Price SP5 Mark Kuzinski SGT John " Mac " McConnell LTC Wayne Brandon PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SPC Douglas Bolton PVT Mark Zehner
http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm
"What was the reason that induced Georgia to take the step of secession? This reason may be summed up in one single proposition. It was a conviction, a deep conviction on the part of Georgia, that a separation from the North-was the only thing that could prevent the abolition of her slavery. This conviction, sir, was the main cause. It is true, sir, that the effect of this conviction was strengthened by a further conviction that such a separation would be the best remedy for the fugitive slave evil, and also the best, if not the only remedy, for the territorial evil. But, doubtless, if it had not been for the first conviction this step would never have been taken. It therefore becomes important to inquire whether this conviction was well founded." He further adds in the same speech:
"By the time the North shall have attained the power, the black race will be in a large majority, and then we will have black governors, black legislatures, black juries, black everything. [Laughter.]
COL Mikel J. Burroughs LTC Stephen F. SFC Joe S. Davis Jr., MSM, DSL Lt Col John (Jack) Christensen SPC Woody Bullard CPL Dave Hoover CW5 Jack Cardwell Lt Col Charlie Brown Col Carl Whicker SGT David A. 'Cowboy' Groth SPC Margaret Higgins Maj Marty Hogan SGT Jim Arnold Maj William W. 'Bill' Price SP5 Mark Kuzinski SGT John " Mac " McConnell LTC Wayne Brandon PO1 William "Chip" Nagel SPC Douglas Bolton PVT Mark Zehner
http://civilwarcauses.org/benningva.htm
Speech of Henry Benning to the Virginia Convention
Benning served as colonel of the 17th Georgia, eventually being promoted to brigadier general in command of a brigade of Georgia regiments in the Army of Northern Virginia. He fought at Second Manassas, Antietam, Gettysburg, Chickamauga, and a host of other battles, and was part of the army that surrendered at Appomattox Court House.
(3)
(0)
MAJ Montgomery Granger
Remember that only about 25 percent of all Southerners owned slaves. Others were hardscrabble farmers and merchants, who may not have had the same thing to say about slaves than the wealthy plantation owners and politicians who needed their financial support. The poor white southerner was not motivated by slavery one way or the other, but were whipped into a frenzy based on states rights slogans and a belief that the South had the right to self-determination. There is always much more to history than meets they eye.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MAJ Montgomery Granger - the poor white southerner was actually highly motivated by keeping slavery around. One of the big reasons was because slavery ensured that there would always be a social class/status of the population that was lower than the lowest class poor white farmer.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google