Hmm. I am putting this in Cafe Society because I am sharing a Letter to the Editor from the NY Times Book Review. Not sure this is a Great Debate, or IMHO.
So, a book was reviewed about the Civil War a couple of weeks ago. This week, in the Letters section, one Roger Cohen of Wilmington, N.C., writes:
Boo-yah.
Ironically, Lee was related to another great traitor, George Washington.
Moved to IMHO.
Cool - thanks, twicks!
In what way is that ironic?
Except one was fighting to free his people from repression and the other was fighting to keep another people under repression.
Little things like that just so happen to matter to some folks.
I just love it when people apply the values, practices, and ideals of the 21st century to people who lived in the 19th century and earlier.
Robert Lee, and all the others were men of their times, a product of the education and values of their times. To expect them to have lived their lives to the ideals of the 21st century is unreasonable.
Moral opposition to slavery and loyalty to the United States WERE 19th Century ideals.
Lee was a brilliant general but a traitorous fool.
I have to add obloquy to the long list of words I didn’t know existed.
That’s pure straw man. No one has said they expect them to have lived their lives according to 21st century ideals. That’s obviously stupid. But we, in the 21st century, don’t have to hold them up as heroes either.
Cute. Completely irrelevant to the topic at hand, but cute nonetheless.
A quick gander of the abolition of slavery timeline indicates that the idea of slavery was one whose time had already come and gone.
Lee and his compatriots were the equivalent of today’s Westboro Baptist Church, clinging desperately and hatefully to an outdated and clearly morally bankrupt idea.
The idea that Washington was fighting against repression is laughable. “His people” were rich, white men who owned land, and he was fighting so they would have to pay moderately fewer taxes. And in the process of doing so, he helped enshrine slavery in the highest law of the new nation, ensuring that slavery in the US would endure for decades longer than it would have had we remained part of the British Empire.
Also, while both men are famous for freeing their slaves, Lee did it while he was still alive. Washington did it in his will, making sure they were free only after he no longer had any use for them. Little things like that matter, too.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
Washington was a traitor to Britain. But he won the war and is lionized by America. That’s quite common in history.
Lee’s different. He lost but he’s lionized in the country that defeated his cause. That’s unusual.
Lee’s slaves were a legacy from his father-in-law, G.W.P. Custis. Custis died in 1857 and left his slaves to Lee with the provision that they be freed in five years. Lee challenged this provision but a court ruled it was binding. So Lee freed the Custis slaves in 1862.
Just because it’s not repression on the same level doesn’t mean it’s not repression. It’s not an all or nothing proposition.
How kind of him, especially since Gen McDowell had occupied his plantation the previous year and it was turned into Arlington National Cemetery in 1864, including the first burial of an African-American soldier. But let’s all turn lemons into lemonade! :rolleyes:
Well, yes and no. There was a lot of rabble-rousing that went on during the lead-up to the war, mostly by people of means who were trying to incite the people against England over tax laws and the like. Then the embargo of Boston Harbor happened and suddenly many of those who were trying to maintain profits realized that GB was serious about the colonies knocking off the bullshit. The town militias were largely self-motivated, however, and willing to fight to defend their notion of freedom, wealthy landowners aside. From writings of the time, it was somewhat of a shock when Britain decided that military force was necessary, and the inciters suddenly realized they were going to have to fight an actual WAR. To their credit, most of them stepped up, with a few notable exceptions, like Benjamin Church.
The declarations/articles of secession of each state that seceded really make it clear that the reason for secession was that they feared the US would abolish slavery. Which it did during a war over the whole matter. There was no other practical reason for the war. Lee fought the war to protect the institution of slavery. That makes him a venal man, despite the fact that he was a competent commander. He committed treason to try to ensure the continuation of enslavement of vast swaths of people. I really don’t see that as admirable in any respect. That he was polite and accepted surrender at the end gracefully doesn’t excuse his reasons for laying waste to 600,000 lives.
I wonder if Lee had slaves of his own, besides those left to him by his father, that he had no intention of freeing in 1862.
There were plenty of people in his time who thought he was utterly full of shit.